Loading...
HEX Agenda 04/23/2015 COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER HEARINGS AGENDA APRIL 23, 2015 AGENDA THE COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER WILL HOLD A HEARING AT 9:00 AM ON THURSDAY,APRIL 23,2015 IN CONFERENCE ROOM 610 AT THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION 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: March 26,2015 4. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS: NOTE: Item 4A has been moved to the Collier County Planning Commission agenda: A. PETITION NO. BD-PL20140002207 — Real Estate Technology Corporation of Naples requests a 10-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 30 feet to accommodate a 9-slip boat dock for the benefit of Dockside Residential Planned Unit Development, Ordinance No. 14-16, located east of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) on Henderson Creek Drive in Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 6± acres. [Coordinator: Fred Reischl, AICP, Principal Planner] • B. PETITION NO. ZVL (CUD)—PL20150000328 — Livingston and Pine Ridge, LLC requests affirmation of a zoning verification letter issued by the Planning and Zoning Department pursuant to LDC Section 10.02.06, in which County staff determined that the proposed use of Chiropractic Clinic (SIC 8041) is comparable and compatible in nature to other permitted uses for Commercial Areas under Section 3.3.a. of the Baldridge PUD,Ordinance No. 02-55, as amended. The subject property is located on the northeast quadrant of Livingston Road and Pine Ridge Road, in Section 18, Township 49 South, Range 26 East,Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: John Kelly, Planner] 5. OTHER BUSINESS 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS 7. ADJOURN March 26,2015 HEX Meeting TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY REARING EXAMINER Naples,Florida March 26,2015 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: Heidi Ashton-Cicko,Managing Assistant County Attorney Ray Bellows,Zoning Manager Page 1 of 21 March 26, 2015 HEX Meeting EXHIBITS : Petition VA-PL20140002843 Turnbury Preserve A Staff Report Page 4 B Legal Advertisement 4 C Plan 4 Petition ZVL-PL20150000116,Creekside East,Inc. A....Staff Report 12 B....Legal Advertisement 12 Petition DRD-PL20130002395,Green Store#108 A....Staff Report 15 B....Legal Advertisement 15 Petition DR-PL20140001595,Legal Aid Service A...Staff Report 26 B...Legal Advertisement 26 C...List of Enhancements 26 Petition PDI-PL20140000859,RaceTrac Petroleum,Inc. A...Staff Report 48 B...Legal Advertisement 48 C...Revised Staff Report 48 PROCEEDINGS: HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Thank you. Welcome,everybody,to the Thursday,March 26th meeting of the Collier County Hearing Examiner's Office. And now that our court reporter has shown up, it's 9:05 and we're good to go. If everybody will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: We have some housekeeping announcements. Speakers will be limited to five minutes unless otherwise waived, all decisions are final unless appealed to the Board of County Commissioners,and all decisions are rendered within 30 days. Review of the agenda. There are five items on the agenda, starting with a D.R. Horton project on Turnbury. Creekside Commerce Park is second. The convenience store called the Green Store on U.S.41 East is third.Fourth will be the Legal Aid Services of Broward County for a building on the East Trail. And last will be RaceTrac Petroleum for the Sierra Meadows project. Approval of the minutes. The February 26th minutes have been received. They're good for recording. And with that,we'll move directly into our advertised public hearings. The first one is Petition VA-PL20140002843. It's the D.R.Horton lot on Turnbury Preserve, Lot 1, 305 Turnbury Way. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item,please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Are there any members of the public here for this particular case? (No response.) HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. With that,Exhibit A will be the staff report, Page 2 of 21 March 26, 2015 HEX Meeting Exhibit B will be the legal ad, and Exhibit C will be a new plan that was received--well, legal description is Lot 1, Turnbury Preserve. It references a change in the variance that's being asked for. Hold on just a second. (Exhibits A through C were marked for identification.) HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay, my disclosers. I've talked with staff; I've gone through the files and the records on the project; I have talked with the applicant a couple of times on the phone; and I talked with the representative of the applicant,Jill Meeks,who works at another site for D.R. Horton. And with that,Patrick, since there are no members of the public here and I have reviewed the project,there's no formal presentation needed,but I do want to go over a couple of things I'll have on the overhead. That house was in the original packet. This appears to be the house that we're discussing, right? MR. VANASSE: Right,yeah. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. And the original packet had contained this information. Had a 25-foot side yard setback required, 11.48 was provided,and you needed a variance of 13.52, which is throughout the staff report. MR. VANASSE: Right,yeah. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: When I had asked for backup information that was not in the staff report and received it,this is the plan that I got. It produced a different variance needed, because the provided setback was greater than what was originally thought. So I need confirmation from you as to what variance you're seeking today. MR. VANASSE: For the record, Patrick Vanasse-- HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: You have to pull the mic a little closer. Sony. MR. VANASSE: Patrick Vanasse with RWA,representing D.R. Horton on this after-the-fact variance. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify this. The initial survey that we had received and included in your packet was inaccurate. This one is the correct one. And the 8.05 variance is what's needed to remedy this problem. So this is the correct one. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. So the staff--I'm going to confirm with staff in just a minute that they'll have no problem going to actually a lesser variance than what was originally requested and what was originally advertised. Who submitted the survey and the building permit on behalf of your company? Was it the contractor? MR. VANASSE: It was the contractor. And we weren't the engineers on this. It was a different firm. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. In the application that you've supplied today for this meeting, you filled out a variance petition application. I'm sure you're familiar with it. MR. VANASSE: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: On the second page of the variance petition application it said: Minimum yard requirements for subject property, and it listed the side yard at 7.5. Isn't that what got us into this problem in the first place? The side yard should have been listed at 25 for the principal and I believe 10 for accessory. MR.VANASSE: The side yard is correct at 7.5. However,the setback from preserve is 25. In this case it just happens to be on the side rather than the typical backyard preserve. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: This house is 80 percent built, according to the staff report. It's probably further along now? Page 3 of 21 March 26, 2015 HEX Meeting MR. VANASSE: Yep. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. I don't have any other questions,Pat. And I appreciate the reduction and the request for the variance down to 8.05. That does help. Is there a staff report? MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning, Mr. Hearing Examiner. Staff supports the reduced setback of 8.05 feet. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Nancy,what is the setback required by accessory structures from preserves? MS. GUNDLACH: 10 feet. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: So the fact this is a principal structure is the only reason why the 25 was needed. If it was an accessory structure like a pool cage or a pool or any kind of structure that wasn't considered a principal structure, it could go back to 10 feet. So in essence with that we haven't really caused any damage to preserve if we could have gone to 10 feet for an accessory. MS. GUNDLACH: I can certainly answer that question,but we also have our environmental experts here who might like to answer the question. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Or they might not like to answer the question. I don't see anybody jumping up,Nancy, so it could be yours. Well, Summer is reluctantly moving forward. Summer,basically the closer we get to a preserve with any kind of development,we have the same impact,whether it's the wall of a principal structure or an active accessory structure like a pool deck or a pool cage. Why do we have the differences of concerns over 10 to 25 feet; do you know? I don't mean to put you on the spot,but in looking at this this morning it made the request for the variance even that less concerning in regards to why we're doing this in the first place. If the intention is to keep development a certain distance back from preserves,the only distance we've got as a red line, let's say, is the 10 feet. MS. ARAQUE: Well, in this case,this -- HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: You've got to pull the mic down. MS. ARAQUE: One,the situation is unique. But two,because it's the side of the house you're generally not going to have a screen enclosure that's along the entire side of the house. Where in the rear you would have a screen enclosure along the entire rear. So reducing that setback even further beyond the 10 feet becomes problematic because those are when we get complaints from the homeowner that settles into the home because the screen which most people have in the communities that are being built creates an issue with the trees that are in the preserve. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Well, if they wanted to extend the screen enclosure closer on the side lot line to the then 25 feet,they could do that,they could go down to 10; is that correct? MS. ARAQUE: Correct. Right. If they wanted to put a screen enclosure on the side of this home,they could go up to 10 feet. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And just so you know,as a result of the additional information received,the variance they're requesting is 8.05 off the 25 feet. So they're going to be retained at a 16.95 variance distance from that preserve. Okay,thank you, Summer. Appreciate it. MS. ARAQUE: Okay,thank you. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Is there any member of the public like to speak on this item? (No response.) Page 4 of 21 March 26, 2015 HEX Meeting HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay,hearing none,we will close the hearing, and a decision,Patrick,will be rendered within 30 days. Thank you. ***Next item up is Petition No.ZVL-PL20150000116. It's the Creekside East,Incorporated for the Creekside Commerce Park Commercial Planned Unit Development. This is a comparable compatible analysis. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item,please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Disclosures on my part is the --will be I talked to staff, there's been a series of files reviewed, I've talked to the applicant's rep. Exhibit A will be the staff report, Exhibit B will be the legal ad. (Exhibits A and B were marked for identification.) HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: By the way,I'll pass this on to you now. That's Exhibit C from the prior. Remember I said I had it? Well,that's it. I have read the entire staff report and there is nobody here from the public for this item, so I'm not inclined to need a formal presentation. Wayne, let me put on that overhead a couple of-- if I'm not mistaken, according to the information you supplied, Creekside has two sections: A business section and an industrial commercial section. IC, I think it's on the master plan. And B is on the master plan as well. The dots in blue are your business areas as are found here. Is that in agreement with you? Is that how you read it too? MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Strain, for the record,I'm Wayne Arnold. And yes, I agree with you,those are business district areas. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: You know, for you guys that are a little bit taller, I've tried to get a longer neck on that thing. These are brand new and they're not the easiest to use. MR. ARNOLD: I'll try to lean into it. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Sorry about that, Wayne. The only thing I wanted to point out, I know you're asking for a comparable compatible for group 54. The PUD also currently allows 5411. It also allows eating places which are similar to your donut shop. The analysis was that it is comparable and compatible. At the same time the writeup had originally asked for a donut shop with a pickup window. The pickup window is excluded from today's discussion and determination in regards to how the decision will be written because this is only for a comparable compatible analysis. MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir,Mr. Strain. We're looking only for the determination that the donut shop would be comparable to the other existing uses on the business district. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And I did send you some other information. I had found the Dunkin'Donuts is owned by a much larger corporation who has an SEC filing for all their, they call them, convenient stores. But they all qualify through the SEC, Security and Exchange Commission, as a group 5411 which coincides with the requested comparable compatible. I don't have anything else. Wayne, is there anything else you wanted to add to the record? MR. ARNOLD: No, sir. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Are there any comments from--is there a staff report? MR. REISCHL: Fred Reischl,Zoning Division. We support the recommendation of approval. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: I like it. Nice and short, Fred,thank you. Is there any members of the public wish to speak on this item? Page 5 of 21 March 26, 2015 HEX Meeting (No response.) HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay, with that,we'll close the public hearing and I'll have a decision to you within 30 days. Hopefully it will be a lot less. Thank you all for attending. ***Next item up is Petition No. DRD-PL20130002395. It's for the Green Store#108. This is on the East Trail. It's east of 951. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item,please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Disclosures on my part-- I'll have those in just a minute--I have talked with staff and I did attend the pre-app. I talked with a gentleman who's in the audience,who just stood up and was sworn in,just before the meeting started. And I've gone through the files and history on this project. Exhibit A will be the staff report, Exhibit B will be the legal advertisement. (Exhibits A and B were marked for identification.) HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: With that,because the members of the public are here, I'll walk through a short presentation and then ask the applicant if they have anything to add. And is the applicant represented today by themselves or they have an engineer, lawyer here? Is the applicant here today? MR. KHAN: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Could you mind rising and coming to the microphone? Could you state your name for the record,please? MR. KHAN: Sekandar Khan. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: You'll need to spell that for the court reporter. MR. KHAN: S-E-K-A-N-D-A-R. K-H-A-N. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Fred,this was your case? MR. REISCHL: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Does this gentleman represent the applicant? Yeah, I remember him from the pre-app. MR. REISCHL: I believe you're the GC? MR. KHAN: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Has he filed a request--has he filed an authorization? MR. REISCHL: Authorization,no. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Is the owner of the project here? Sir,we're going to need to have whoever represents you speak on your behalf. This gentleman hasn't filed any paperwork with us that signifies he represents you. I'll ask the County Attorney if a verbal would be okay on the record. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes,that's acceptable. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Would you mind coming to the microphone, stating your name and then acknowledging that this gentleman can speak on your behalf,if that's what you so desire? MR. LEFES: Steve Lefes. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: You'll need to spell that one too, if you don't mind. MR. LEFES: I can't hear you. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: You can't spell it? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: He can't hear you. MR. KHAN: He wants you to spell your name. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Last name. Page 6 of 21 March 26, 2015 HEX Meeting MR. LEFES: Spell my first name? HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Well, spell your whole name so she can get it correctly on-- MR. LEFES: S-T-E-V-E. L-E-F-E-S. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And you are the owner of the property? MR. LEFES: Yeah. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Do you have any objection, and do you consent for this gentleman to speak on your behalf at today's meeting? MR. LEFES: No, I don't have an objection. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Thank you very much, sir. Okay, I'm going to walk through what's going on on the property that you're involved with, and then I have some questions to ask you afterwards. And there may be some questions from the public as well. So let me walk through this to show the public what we're involved with. The area in question is the area in that yellow triangle. It's on the East Trail,about a mile and a half or two miles east of 951. The project all the way to the bottom is Fiddler's Creek and there's a couple of small projects in between before you get to 41. The area in question is the setback for the front canopy. This is a project that's been here a long time, from the record that's supplied. The canopy blew down in a hurricane quite a few years ago. They're trying to replace the canopy with the same setback that was originally approved when the project was originally permitted. These are the two differences in the setback. The original setback was at 30 feet. Today's code requires 50. But because of the redevelopment of the property it is allowed to request to remain at 30 feet,which is why we're here today. So with that,before we go to public speakers I'll see if I have anything else for the applicant. I'll try to keep it short. Most of these I--most of my questions will be of staff,not of the applicant, so I think you're safe. Thank you very much, sir, appreciate your coming by. Fred, is there a staff report? MR. REISCHL: Thank you, Mr. Strain. Fred Reischl,Zoning Division. Staff recommends approval because of the change in the code over time. When the canopy was originally permitted the-- simply stated, it's a little more complicated, but simply stated,the canopy could have had a 20-foot setback. Today requires a 50. They are requesting the original 30. So staffs recommending approval. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. The offset for the canopy will be an enhanced landscaping. The landscaping was included--there was a landscaping plan included in your staff report. That is the landscaping plan that will be utilized on this site? MR. REISCHL: Yes,that was taken from the SIP. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And that will be--the reason I'm asking is any part of any decision will include that as a reference. And I want to make sure we got--that the staff report plan was the one that we're talking about. MR. REISCHL: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. With that,we'll move to public speakers. Any member of the public wish to speak on this item? Sir,come on up and please identify yourself. MR. SCHOLZ: Good morning. My name is Richard Scholz. S-C-H-O-L-Z. I live in West Wind Estates,which lies north of the service station that we're talking about today. If you have that screen--do you need my address or anything? HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: No,that's fine. Page 7 of 21 March 26, 2015 HEX Meeting MR. SCHOLZ: Okay. You had a picture up there before of the whole area. I don't know if you have it again where-- West Wind lies north. But we have a pond that we own--that West Wind owns behind the service station. I'm not speaking for the entire West Wind association,but I was asked by the president of the association to appear. The concerns were not so much with whether it's 30 or 50 feet,the concern was with lighting, additional traffic and additional clientele. Our biggest problem with the service station is his clientele. We have --the pond is a dumping place for the beer cans and the beer bottles that come from that place. We have trespassers that we've called--in fact we've had some people fishing for the alligators. We have a couple of small alligators in the pond and they're fishing with hooks trying to catch the alligators. We've called the Sheriffs Department a number of times. But that is the most concern of West Wind Estates is the trespassing and the lighting. If the lighting changes immensely--I know that I talked to you before and you said that the lighting has to be shielded and so on and so forth. So I just wanted to go on record that that's a more concern is this clientele that's having a problem. We've had kinds (sic) of problems with people defecating on our property and so on and so forth. So I just wanted to bring that to your attention. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: I'm glad you have. And I hope that--and I know we did talk before the meeting. Those--the kinds of issues you're having with the trespass and the clientele are something that the Sheriffs Department and Code Enforcement ought to be made aware of The more you put that information on record,the more frequent it happens,the more bearing it will have when other items are needed by this project. So I'd suggest if the project owner doesn't want to address those issues,then I think your resource would be to the Code Enforcement Department to begin with. And trespass,probably the Collier County Sheriffs Office. As far as the lighting, I'll get confirmation from staff on what kind of lighting is required by code to be there and that way we'll know how it's going to affect or not affect your property. MR. SCHOLZ: Just for the record also, we do have a signed agreement with the Sheriff s Department about trespassing, so-- HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Thank you very much. MR. SCHOLZ: Thank you for your time. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Fred,would you respond to the concerns and questions about lighting? MR. REISCHL: Thank you. Yes, lighting,this is also being reviewed by the development review department through the Site Improvement Plan. And development review will make sure that any new lighting meets current code which would be--to be shielded from adjacent residential property. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And as far as the canopy lights that are going to be going in this canopy, would they be required to be recessed? MR. REISCHL: Recessed,yes. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: The gentleman who's the contractor speaking on behalf of the owner,could you come up for just a moment? Sir,could you verify the lighting that you're putting in the canopy will be shielded lighting and recessed lighting? MR. KHAN: Yes,there will be LED lights that's recessed into the deck of the canopy. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay,thank you very much. MR. KHAN: Okay. Page 8 of 21 March 26, 2015 HEX Meeting HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: I don't have anything else. Any other members of the public wish to speak? (No response.) HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay,with that, we'll close this public hearing and a decision will be rendered within 30 days. Thank you all for coming. ***The next item up is the Legal Aid Services of Broward County, Inc.,who's proposing changes to the building on the East Trail, formerly known as the Rex building, for those of us who have been in the county for a long time. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item,please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Are there any members of the public that intend to speak on this item? (Speaker was duly sworn.) HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay,the exhibits today will be: The staff report will be Exhibit A. Exhibit B will be the legal ad. Exhibit C will be a new exhibit that was supplied after the staff report was written. It's an enhancement list received from the applicant. (Exhibits A,B and C were marked for identification.) HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: My disclosures: I have talked with staff, gone through the files, I attended the pre-app on this. I have not had any direct communication with the applicant or their representations that I can recall other than the pre-app. And with that I'm going to walk through a review of the issues that are in the packet that were supplied to us, so --and I'll be asking some questions from those. And sir,you are? MR. CORBIN: I'm David Corbin,the architect for the project. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. And Mike,this is yours? MR. SAWYER: Yes. For the record,Mike Sawyer; I'm the project manager for the petitioner. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Do you recall Mr. Corbin respond--can he represent the owner of the property? MR. SAWYER: Yes,we've got him as the representing agent. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Thank you. This is the artist's conceptual rendering of the building that is being proposed. There are members of the public here concerned on this, at least one, so we'll walk through some of these preliminaries and then I'll ask the applicant to enhance anymore of the discussion,if they'd like. That's the location of the Rex building as, like I said, as those of us who have been here for a long time know it to be. It's been vacant for quite a few years. This is the existing site plan. We did receive one email with concerns over landscaping, visual aspects from the rear of the building and the sidewalk along Outer Drive. This particular plan shows where the parking lot and buildings are. The slashed area towards the middle bottom is for the dumpster enclosure and that dumpster,and I'll have staff verify,it will be enclosed. The circles you see,the dotted circles of different sizes,those are existing vegetation on the site,some of which meet parts of the buffer requirements. And then it's going to be enhanced as part of what's being requested today. This is the enhanced landscape plan that was submitted with the Site Improvement Plan on 3/20/2015. All these --the darker circles you see on there are added vegetation. A lot of it's up Page 9 of 21 March 26, 2015 HEX Meeting against the building, some of it on the east side,different locations on the property. They will be added to supplement the trees that are already there that are legally there. There is some exotics I understand that are being removed. This is a rendering received that was in the staff packet concerning elevations of the project from the existing building, so not a lot can be done,especially this particular building is on the zero lot line,that's sitting right on the north lot line, so there's not a lot they can do to that because it faces somebody else's property. And that northwest wall is the one that's on that lot line. The enhancement to the project. There's some enhancements to the neighborhood,just by the mere fact this project's being picked up,cleaned up and refurbished. This is language supplied by the applicant. Of most note is the enhancements on this page. A sidewalk will be added along Outer Drive. Now,that will be subject to the access management plan that we have at the county. There may be some issues on how or when that sidewalk will go in, but that will be something that will be worked out through the SIP process. But one way or the other they will address the sidewalk on Outer Drive either as a need now or a need in the future. The landscape buffers will be enhanced. Some of the trees that are there do allow the buffers to qualify for buffer material. There's going to be hedges provided. The existing mature oak trees will be shaped and trimmed. The notation towards the bottom by the dumpsters shows it will be screened. There's a few other things in between. Just general cleanup of the project. The visual character of the building: It's going to have wall and stucco details added to the facades. Covered entry in the front. Going to be some benches and a covered entry and seating area in the rear. If you were to take all the 14 deviations that they're asking for,this is how they lay out on the site. This is the sections of the site that they are applicable to. This is a listing of them all. I have some in green that I need some clarification on that I'd like to ask the applicant to explain. Deviation number two: You're seeking relief from vehicular area use minimum terminal islands. The way the green area reads, existing landscape islands interfere with fire emergency access and turning radii. Proposed landscaping satisfies tree requirement in adjacent locations as feasible. So if the existing islands interfere,what is it you're trying to seek relief from here?You're not going to correct that interference then, or what was your intention with your justification? MR. CORBIN: Well, if you go to the deviation site plan,I can show you. So right at the main entry where there's a number two at the lower right-hand side,the fire department has asked us to place a drive-over area there. So we're going to put in kind of the armored ground there so they can drive their trucks over that curb into the landscaping, so they wouldn't allow us to put a tree there. So that's -- HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: That's what you meant by your justification. MR. CORBIN: That's correct. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And by the way, for the record, I did make a site visit with Mike Sawyer. We walked this and we saw the issues at hand. Mike,when this is all done and you hear the verbal explanations of some of the questions I have,the justifications, if there's any changes from your perspective,make sure to let me know. MR. SAWYER: I'll do that. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: These two,the existing impervious area Page 10 of 21 March 26, 2015 HEX Meeting curves/required to maintain fire emergency access and turning radii. Proposed landscaping required is relocated adjacent to the building as feasible. This is the width of the building foundation planting area. That's generally up against the building. Is that what you were trying to explain in your justification? MR. CORBIN: Obviously this is a landscape one,and Jeff Carl wasn't able to join us today. And Mike Delate,if you can chime in on this,please feel welcomed. Mike Delate is the civil engineer on the project and he'd be closer to the site-- HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And you're the architect, so -- MR. CORBIN: -- issues. Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: --that separates the two out. MR. CORBIN: As you see,most of the deviations are architecturally related on this one, so -- HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And unfortunately I don't have a lot of questions with those, so -- MR. DELATE: For the record, Mike Delate with Grady Minor Engineers. I believe that deviation is for the building foundation planting area along the,I guess it would be the east side where the pavement runs against the building. So in lieu of having that, which the fire department requires and we're to have access,they've relocated the planting areas and other areas around the building. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. And then while you're there,then let's get to the last one. And that one, I read it a couple times and couldn't figure out what the--whoever wrote it was trying to say. Letting location site to accommodate existing mature trees and not conflict with anticipated growth. Proposed required landscape island tree located adjacent to the location, maintaining required 12.5 separation. What is that trying to say? MR. DeLONY: I believe it's trying to say that the light was not going to be exactly in the island location,because there's a mature tree there. And it's going to be relocated elsewhere,but try to maintain the minimum 12-and-a-half-foot separation,given that it's a mature tree. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: I don't have a problem being flexible with the conditions needed to get this building back on line because I think it's a good thing that you're doing it. I do want to make sure that these deviations are written as accurately as possible. And I think the general tone on some of these leaves too much to discretion. And as was pointed out to me by the County Attorney's Office in another discussion concerning the width of the buffers, and I'm not sure which one it was now,but you want a--I think it's deviation three you want a general landscape building foundation planting area from the minimum five foot wide,but it doesn't say to what. And I know you have a plan that was submitted. And I was utilizing that plan as what the"to what" was. Basically you want to keep it to what that plan allows or provides for currently. So I'm going to tie all these deviations to that plan. And I'll ask staff when they speak to confirm that's the way they had approached it as well. And if the County Attorney's Office feels more clarification's needed,then we'll be seeking that before we go too far in writing the decision. MR. DELATE: Are those that highlighted on that landscape plan Jeff had highlighted? HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Well,this is what--this is the plan that was supplied to show what deviations applied where. So I was able,when I walked the site,to understand what you were trying to do. Mostly what I'm concerned about is you have areas that you're asking for a general release Page 11 of 21 March 26, 2015 HEX Meeting from the width of buffers. But I don't know exactly what buffers where,just that it's the general buffers on the site. So I think we need to be more specific about some of that. The plan that-- MR. CORBIN: Which--I'm sorry,which deviation is that on the general buffers? HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: We'll move right back--this number one. MR. CORBIN: Okay. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And I know that you're producing the buffers in an as-built situation. MR. CORBIN: I think those--again,back to the site plan,I can explain where those buffers--I think this happens in--again,when the building's on a 45-degree angle to north-south,it's always confusion over what's north and what--but if we call the zero lot line side of the building the north side,then obviously we can't get a building buffer there, so that's one area. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: I understand. MR. CORBIN: On the south side where we have the existing two-way drive that goes along the building,there's obviously not enough room for separation of the asphalt from the building itself, and then there's not enough room from the edge of the drive to the property line to get the required buffer under today's rules in there also. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: That's the--you're just now getting to the point of clarification needed. So on the north side where the building exists you need a zero --you need to go from the required 15 feet to basically zero. And on the south side you need to go to whatever's left there. We don't know what's left there, so that would leave an opportunity in the future for someone to come in and claim zero throughout the site. You understand what I'm saying? I need something to tighten it up. And what exists is acceptable. I'm not saying it's not. I just need to make sure it's documented properly. And maybe staff has better drawings that they can provide to me or that--if they haven't,they certainly can probably get them from you. MR. CORBIN: Yes, obviously we do have that information. With surveys,we know exactly what the dimension is from the edge of that paving to the -- HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Property line? MR. CORBIN: --to the property line. And there is a dimensional deviation that's mentioned in there that handles that,the zero lot line on the north side. I think--I want to say that's the seventh or--the sixth or seventh deviation. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: That's your facades. MR. CORBIN: I think it's maybe six. There you go. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: There we go. Okay. The only thing I'd like to do at some point,Mike,if you have a better plan that actually shows some dimensioning on it for these buffers that are going to need some changes from the required 15? Just so there's no concern or question in the future. I'd hate to see the applicant have a problem with code enforcement or anybody a year or two from now because we didn't articulate it as best we could in the plan. MR. SAWYER: Again,for the record,Mike Sawyer. I believe we do have the actual landscape plan that's being proposed as part of the SIP. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Good. MR. SAWYER: So we could probably rely on that. I know the staff people reviewing that have been--we've been communicating quite a bit on this particular project. Page 12 of 21 March 26, 2015 HEX Meeting I'd also like to point out that the code does allow specifically four buffer areas. Where you've got existing developments that don't meet minimum standards the language is to the greatest extent possible. And so staff certainly did take that at least partially into consideration when we reviewed this particular petition. We didn't mention that. That's,you know,the--I should have provided that clarification with the staff report,and I apologize I didn't do that. But in a lot of cases where we've got older sites like this,we do--we basically have the ideal situation where if it is a green open space it gets planted. If there's a building or a pavement and that sort of thing, generally certainly with the building,we wouldn't expect the building to be removed, and in most cases asphalt,if it's adequately serving the site needs itself,we don't require that pavement to be removed. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And I'm not suggesting we do, so I don't disagree with you. I think to help clarify this for the benefit of your client,if you have a--do you have an as-built survey of the building? MR. CORBIN: Of course, yeah. We have an as-built and then, like Mike said,there's obviously much more information required in the SIP application than in the deviations, and all that information is there. And we would be very happy to transfer that information over for this and enhance that in any way we need to to clarify those questions. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Well, I think as an exhibit to the decision, it would be helpful to have an as-built survey and the landscape plan. And we'll just tie those to the deviations. That will lock it up tight,and that way you guys don't get into problems when someone challenges you down the road. MR. CORBIN: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And it will basically tie it back to that, so -- MR. CORBIN: Yeah,we'll be happy to do that. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay,thank you. And I don't have any other questions. Most everything I had has been addressed. Did you have anything else you wanted to add? MR. CORBIN: I know you did bring up one issue about the sidewalk. And that's one thing we kind of went back and forth on. At first we thought that it would be less expensive to have our contractor build the sidewalk along Outer Drive, we thought we could save money rather than doing the payment in lieu of. But during the process we were requested by county, since I think in the neighborhood back there they really want that sidewalk continuously along the east side of Outer Drive. And so we've agreed, since the county already has plans to put that sidewalk in,is to do the payment in lieu of. So that will put it-- so it will happen with the rest of the properties along there. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Well, I'm glad you clarified that,because when I write this up I'll make sure that option is noted. It is an option allowed by code and it does provide then that the county when they have the funds collected they can do the whole thing at one time and it will be consistent, so that's understandable. Thank you very much, sir. MR. CORBIN: You're welcome. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Is there a staff report? MR. SAWYER: Yes. Again,Mike Sawyer with the Zoning Division. You've got the staff report last updated 3/9/15. Staff is recommending approval of the petition. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Thank you,Mike. That's it, Mr. Corbin. Page 13 of 21 March 26, 2015 HEX Meeting Thank you very much. MR. CORBIN: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Appreciate it. Now,would the member of the public like to speak? Would you want to come up and state your name for the record. I believe you were the lady that sent us the email; is that correct? MS.NELL: Yes. My name is Kay Nell, and I live in the neighborhood directly behind. And yes,we're concerned about the buffer in the back,primarily making sure there's sufficient vegetation to cover the back side. Also,the concern was also with the sidewalk. We are trying to get a sidewalk installed along that back side of Outer Drive and would like assurances somehow that that will be taken care of. If they are going to pay for the county to install the sidewalk, is that an automatic grant of an easement that the county has automatically and installs? I just want confirmation that it will be part of the plan for down the road if they're just going to pave for now. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: John Podczerwinsky is here from transportation, so he can address that particular issue. As far as the landscaping goes,the landscaping that's on this particular plan is quite an enhancement over what's there right now. I hope that gives you a better level of comfort for what's going to happen, at least on the-- MS.NELL: Very happy to hear that, and very looking forward to getting that building in use. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: It's been vacant a long time. Thank you. John,would you mind addressing the concerns over how the sidewalk operates and how it goes together? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I'll be glad to. Can you rephrase the question? I didn't catch it. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Yes. There's a sidewalk required in the back which is on the left side of Outer Drive. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Okay. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Outer Drive has had a lot of pieces of sidewalk put along that area. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Right. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: But the applicant was going to put the sidewalk in, but because of the county's ability or need to put the whole thing in at one time,they're going to provide possibly the payment in lieu of instead of the actual sidewalk. The question is,how does that materialize from there? And is there enough right-of-way in the back or is there needed easements from this property owner to make sure the sidewalk can go in? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's a good question. I haven't looked at the property specifically to see if there's enough room for a sidewalk to go in within the Outer Drive right-of-way. I do know that our pathways reviewer,when she was still here,was working on this to have a cohesive plan. I think that's in our design department right now. I can check on that and find out. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: I would like you to and get back to me on it so I can get back to the lady. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Right. Typically when we collect payment in lieu,what that is meant to do is to cover right-of-way costs, drainage costs and the installation and design of the sidewalk. Also permitting. So it would cover all of those items altogether. That's why it's a set price. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Is there a time frame in which anybody knows in the Page 14 of 21 March 26, 2015 HEX Meeting county from a planning perspective, since they've been apparently--they may have been collecting money in this area for a while now. Does anybody know when they intend to put that sidewalk in? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: From my understanding is it's supposed to go in pretty soon. I know this was under Stacy Revay,when she was here, it was under her planning efforts at that time. And like I said, it's in our design department now,to my knowledge. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Well, if you could get back to me on that information, I could forward it on to Kay and we can figure out what the status of it is that way. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Absolutely. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: As far as needing additional property from this applicant, it's something that definitely should have been reviewed or thought of before today. So you tell me--you don't know who reviewed it or looked at it or-- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Not personally, no.My assumption would be that it would have been the pathways reviewer at the time, and she's not currently with the county, so -- HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. And even if they haven't provided it today,the payment in lieu of covers the cost of acquiring it. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's exactly what I mentioned,yes. If there's not sufficient right-of-way,we would be purchasing sufficient right-of-way to install that. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. And I don't need you to follow up for the decision as much as I need you to follow up to me so I can get accurate information back to Ms.Nell. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Absolutely. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Okay,thank you. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Thank you, John. Anything else? MS.NELL: (Shakes head negatively.) HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Anybody else like to speak on this item? (No response.) HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay,with that,we'll close the public hearing and a decision will be rendered within 30 days. Thank you all for attending today. ***Okay,the next and final petition up is Petition No. PDI-PL20140000859. It's the RaceTrac Petroleum, Inc. And it's insubstantial changes to the Sierra Meadows PUD. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item,please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Are there any members of the public here for this item? (No response.) HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Well,that's a surprise. Okay, I'm going to walk through a general background,because from that I'll ask some questions, Tom. And first of all, Exhibit A will be the staff report,the staff report that was originally sent out. Exhibit B will be the legal ad. And Exhibit C will be the revised staff report that Mike is supposed to have available copies for the court reporter today and a copy for the applicant as well. (Exhibits A, B and C were marked for identification.) HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: What that does is just clean up some of the document confusion that was in the first one. There were some documents there that shouldn't have been in and this makes it a little bit neater. The disclosures on my part,I have met with the applicant,I've talked with staff,gone through Page 15 of 21 March 26, 2015 HEX Meeting all the files, and I've talked with Commissioner Fiala. And with that, I'll roll through this discussion and probably ask some questions from it. Is there anything--you don't need to make a formal presentation,I have reviewed everything. But if you want to address anything--you might as well stay right there, because I'm going to have questions for you, Tom. You don't get away without anything. MR. HARDY: I never expected to, sir. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Let me walk through this and I'll show you--I'll hit my questions up as we go forward. Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: That's the site. It's on Rattlesnake Hammock and 951. Between 951 and the site is a 75-foot easement to Collier County that apparently will be used for possibly drainage for right-of-way or something or other. This is the way the RacTracs look. I had done a lot of this on the premise that some of the public who showed up for the neighborhood information meeting might have showed up here today. This is an example without the landscaping in place. This is a frontal view of the project. The project is going to have a nice amount of landscaping, similar to the Manatee Road project,which has turned out--and I've gotten several compliments on that particular RaceTrac. This is a layout of the lot they're primarily putting the building on. That's in addition to the access road behind. Apparently the applicant has purchased that lot as well and is moving with an access road onto that. These are the deviations. There are eight deviations being requested. Two are being contested by staff. One is the first one, which involves the sign out front,the monument sign. And then number five,which is the number of parking spaces before we need to have landscape islands. On the site plan,those two sections are indicated as such. The yellow/gold section is where the 14 spaces occur. And the lighter blue/green outline is on the front. And on the right-hand side is where the monument sign is proposed to go. And Tom, I'm going to walk through my concerns over some of these and then we'll ask you to address them after I'm done. Again,this is a sign location. Signs that are going on the canopy are similar to those that are on Manatee. In fact, in the NIM the applicant noted they are the same as Manatee, which was 51 square feet for the sign;that would be L-1 in this particular--facing 951. And the two insides would be 37-and-a-half square feet. The other signs are a window sign and some entrance signs that are typical to the RaceTrac projects. This is the larger monument sign out front. It was shown in the package at 118 feet. And that doesn't--and that includes the sign box. It doesn't include the stand that it sits on or the canopy that's above it, from my understanding. Is that correct,Tom? MR. HARDY: Yeah,it does not include the roof of the building and it doesn't include the monument base. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Sony, I think if you pull it down. No,no,not that,just take the whole box and pull it down. MR. HARDY: How about that? HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: There,now it works. For some reason, setting it higher on the box, it won't pick up. MR. HARDY: The 118 square feet does not include that almost three-foot base nor the architectural cap we have on it. That cap is required from the Sierra Meadows,the ARC? Page 16 of 21 March 26, 2015 HEX Meeting MS. JOHNSON: ARB. MR. HARDY: ARB. They have an architectural review board that matches the roofs on the two Sierra Meadows signs that are out there. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And because they're a PUD,they're expected to have basically a common architectural theme throughout the project. MR. HARDY: Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: That isn't unusual. In any discussion today we'll look at that as a separate add-on that will be architectural in nature,not so much relevant to the zoning aspects of the height. MR. HARDY: Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: This is the box that is 118 feet. In looking at this box and taking measurements from it, I went to the other RaceTrac sites, as well as numerous other sites in the county,both on 951 corridor and elsewhere,trying to understand just what this would look like. First of all,they're about--from the travel lane they're about 80 feet, maybe 83 feet to where their silt fence is up on the site. I went out to the site and I walked that site with a walk wheel to do a takeoff on the distance. Down on Manatee Road they have a sign that's 50 square feet. This is the same --this is the sign, it's just a smaller version of what we saw. Now, Manatee Road was the one that has actually gotten some compliments and it exists and under construction today. MR. HARDY: It's open. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Oh,you finally got it open. Good. MR. HARDY: It opened Tuesday. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Excellent. Well,this is a cut section from the Manatee Road site. That sign of 50 feet is 53 feet off the site. Now, if you think of the proportion between the 118 feet requested for 75 feet off the site, which is really about 80 from the travel lane,that is excessive.That's getting to a rather large size sign that I question whether the real justification there is to say you need it. Driving up and down the corridor, I did not find it unique that you have a setback from the travel lanes. On the other side of the street,for example,a full distance you have a canal that sets you back, Immokalee Road the same way. On the north side of Immokalee Road, especially as you get closer to the coast,there's a long portion of it that has the same conditions where you have even greater setbacks,they're over 100 to 120 feet,and the signs don't have the variances needed and requested by you here today. This is the sign that RaceTrac has out front of our offices here. It's 13 feet high,six feet wide. It's 37 feet off the travel lane. That is digital,and that is something I wanted to make a note of. Any conclusions here today in regards to that monument sign, if it's --if any variance is considered, it wouldn't be considered for an LED sign, it would be considered for a static sign like you're using. LED would have a whole different perspective to it. The RaceTrac sign up on Pine Ridge Road is 53 feet back,pursuant to the Google site,from the travel lane. And it's 10 feet high and seven feet wide. And that includes a two-foot base. I requested information as to why this was unique,and the response was to show me how much wider 951 was in that area than in other areas. It wasn't the width I was concerned about, it was the distance from the travel lane. And because of canals on one side and when you go north on I-75 you even have a Shell Station up there that is 80 feet back from the travel lane with a much smaller sign than what you're asking for. And I have all those measurements,but I don't need to go too far today. Page 17 of 21 March 26, 2015 HEX Meeting These are the canopy signs. And here you'll see elevations. These are the signs going on the building, and all these are being re-- some of these are being requested for deviation. That's most of what I had to talk about in regards to the signs. I did notice that there were two different standards in our sign code: Signs on nonresidential district,non on-premise signs,pole and ground signs. If it's long arterial roads it has different exceptions than if it's along non-arterial roads, collector roads. And you go up to 15 feet along arterial roads,but you've got to retain the 80-foot-- 80 feet is the maximum. On a collector road it's down to 12 feet and 60 square feet. The exception is automobile service stations. They're limited to eight feet high and 60 square feet in size. Now,that was--I tracked that back this morning to the old code that went back to 91-102. I didn't find it in 82-2 which is an Ordinance No.,but I did find it in Ordinance No. 91-102,this same language. That was at a time we didn't have convenience stores known to be gas stations like they are today. I know that if you were to build just a convenience store there you'd probably fall under the previous higher standards that allowed you more. So I'm suggesting, based on the distance and requirements of the Manatee station,that you could work with a much smaller sign than what you're asking for and still be in a ratio to what the distance supplies like it does on Manatee. And I don't know,I had asked you to take a look at it and suggest to me something you would come back with. So I'll ask you, Tom,have you looked at that at all? MR. HARDY: Yeah, I went back and looked at some our different arrangements that we could do with some of the scroll numbers. Unfortunately my art department internally is not as nimble as I would like them. But I think, looking at other signs, I can adjust the height of the word regular and plus and diesel there and get down to an 80 square foot sign. If we could work with an 80 square foot,you know,that would comply with other--the PUD and what's allowed in other retail uses. If we could live with--if you could consider an 80 square foot sign, I could go down to that. I'd respectfully request that, if we could do that. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: What kind of height would you need? MR. HARDY: I would like to do a similar size height on the base,almost a three-foot. So when I go to do that,that's about nine feet to the height of the cabinet. That does not include the roof, the architectural roof. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: So where the 11-foot-two is on the left side-- MR. HARDY: Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: --that would change to nine feet? MR. HARDY: Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And the 118 up on top would change to 80? MR. HARDY: Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And then the cap will be whatever is required for architectural criteria to get it done. MR. HARDY: Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Is that something that you can get corrected and sent to me fairly quickly? MR. HARDY: I'll do my best. If-- HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: I mean, if-- I'd certainly like to--I like what you're suggesting,but it would have to be included in a decision that would require this to be an exhibit to a decision. Page 18 of 21 March 26, 2015 HEX Meeting MR. HARDY: Yes, sir. The larger price,if I remember the conversation I had with the sign vendor last night,I believe that goes down to a 32-inch. Because I believe that's a 36-inch or even larger sign. And then I can take the other two down to 14 or 16 inches,the diesel and the plus sign, and make it work. So I'll get that drawn up as fast as I can and get it emailed to you. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. And that would be helpful in getting this resolved. I'll get staffs opinion on it in just a minute. I want to make sure I don't have any other issues. I know there's no public here to hear your comments,but did you have any formal discussion you wanted to have,presentation of any kind? MR. HARDY: No, sir. I believe our application speaks for itself As far as the other contested item being the number of spaces,you know, our business model is all about convenience. We hope customers are doing business with us at gas pumps and walking inside. So it's a high traffic area,high vehicular traffic area in front of the store. And we do have our--our employees do a very good job,and team members do a very good job keeping our grounds clean.But when we found that we put parking islands in that high traffic area,that becomes cigarettes and trash and all that, so-- and they become very--people step through shrubs and stuff like that while getting through. So when we can,when situations like this come up,we like to ask for variances,just to avoid that type of issue. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Is there a--well,before I go too far, in the--in one of the documents I found a reference to half foot candle power would be the maximum at the property line? MR. HARDY: Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. I was going to include that as a requirement. Did you have any problem with that? MR. HARDY: That's county code and I have no problem with that. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Well,the fact you restated,I think it was in the NIM--I usually pull everything that's said in the NIM that's relevant to conditions and I restate them to make sure the public knows what they were told-- MR. HARDY: Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: --they're affected by, so -- MR. HARDY: Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay, do we have a staff report? MR. SAWYER: Yes. For the record,Mike Sawyer,Project Manager for the petition. You've got the staff report dated 3/9/15. Staff is recommending approval of the petition, except for the deviations,the two deviations that we're recommending denial of We're here to answer any questions. I do have a revised application that I can hand out,if need be. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Well,I think the only people that will need it is after the meeting make sure the court reporter has a copy and the applicant has one, as a courtesy, Mike. I'm fine with it because I had it electronically, so we're good. Mike, I want to make sure, I don't know if I have anything else to ask of you. Oh,how do you feel about the new sign? Do you have as much concern over the new sign suggestions? MR. SAWYER: Staffs main goal with the proposed sign was to get something that was more in proportion. And we tried to point that out with the staff report. What is being proposed Page 19 of 21 March 26,2015 HEX Meeting now, an 80-foot sign, it would be our opinion that that would be much more in proportion, and we'd recommend approval of that. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. MR. SAWYER: I guess my question is also, given the provisions of the service station portion of the code,how are we to determine the height of that sign? Because basically I believe that portion of the code reads that it is from grade. And being that the code requires a three-foot berm, some clarification as far as proposed height of that sign, including the roof portion of it as well. I'm just saying just for clarification would be helpful to have that with the decision so that when the sign does come in for permitting that staff would have good clear direction on that. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Just for a suggestion,this would dictate the structure parts of it. So I think what we would see on this is where the 11-2 is, it would be nine feet. And that architectural piece on top would be established at whatever distance it comes out to show like it is right now. They also provided a plan with a-- a contour plan that shows the positioning of this monument sign on the site. So if I had--what I can do is take a copy of that contour plan and include it as part of an exhibit to show that the sign height is going to be established based on where they're placing it on that contour plan, and then this would sit on that. Would that work for staffs understanding of it? MR. SAWYER: That would be most helpful. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Tom, is that any problem for you? MR.HARDY: I just asked Kristina,we--I think we'll the finished floor elevation gets us up to the three-foot berm. And so if the sign is set up on-site,up on top of the plateau over on the Rac side within the--the nine feet would be measured from that distance,not from the edge of pavement. Which I believe we ran into. That was why the discussion came up is that was the issue at Manatee. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's make sure we understand it. So he's suggesting they're going to actually measure from some point,which is finished floor? MR. HARDY: No, it will be measured from the finished grade at the bottom of the sign right there. But that may be up on-- HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: The berm. MR. HARDY: --the berm. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. But the berm's not going to exceed three feet. MR. HARDY: No, sir. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Well, I think that would work. MR. SAWYER: That sounds fine to staff HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Is there anything else? I saw Ray,you were edging toward the microphone. Did you have something you want to add? MR. BELLOWS: That was the question I was going to ask. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay, good. Well,and that's the last question I had,statement--issue I had with this. Other than the fact, by the way, in my disclosers I want to make note, I did go down to the site and walk through it. It's got a lot of wet vegetation hanging around there. Not wet limbs,but--because I was there early in the morning, so it was pretty soggy out there. Does anybody else have anything they'd like to ask? If not-- THE COURT REPORTER: I do. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: You do? THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your names,please? MR. HARDY: Tom Hardy. H-A-R-D-Y. RacTrack Petroleum. Page 20 of 21 March 26,2015 HEX Meeting MS. JOHNSON: Kristina Johnson with Delisi Fitzgerald. THE COURT REPORTER: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: I thought Cherie'was going to offer testimony today. I was looking for someone to swear her in. I didn't know what to do. Are there any members of the public here that wish to speak on this item? (No response.) HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay,with that we'll close the public hearing and a decision will be rendered within 30 days. The faster I can get the documents from you that I need to finish this,the quicker the decision can be issued. MR. HARDY: Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Appreciate your time and thank you very much on your help today. MR. HARDY: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: That takes us to the last item, last couple of items. Other business,there is none. Public comments,there's no public left. So with that,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 10:10 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER MARK STRAIN,HEARING EXAMINER ATTEST: DWIGHT E.BROCK,CLERK These minutes approved by the Hearing Examiner on ,as presented or as corrected . TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE,INC. BY CHERIE' R.NOTTINGHAM,CSR,COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC Page 21 of 21 AGENDA ITEM 4-B Co[[ier County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER FROM: ZONING DIVISION—ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING: APRIL 23,2015 SUBJECT: ZVL(CUD)-PL20150000328,BALDRIDGE PUD PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT/AGENT: Owner: Livingston and Pine Ridge,LLC 1427 Clarkview Road, Suite 500 Baltimore,MD 21209 Applicant: Livingston and Pine Ridge,LLC 1427 Clarkview Road,Suite 500 Baltimore,MD 21209 Agent: John N. Brugger Forsyth&Brugger,P.A. 600 5a'Avenue South, Suite 207 Naples,Fl 34102 REOUESTED ACTION: The Applicant has specifically requested a determination from the Planning Manager and affirmation from the Collier County Hearing Examiner(HEX)that the use of a chiropractic clinic/office, SIC 8041, is comparable and compatible with permitted uses in the Baldridge Planned Unit Development(PUD). GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject site comprises ±17.16 acres, located within the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Pine Ridge Road and Livingston Road in Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Section 18 of unincorporated Collier County,Florida. Folio No.: 00287480003. ZVL(CUD)-PL20150000328 Page 1 of 5 Baldridge PUD PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The Applicant desires to lease +/-3,200 square feet, Building 600-B units 13 and 14, within an existing strip shopping plaza located within the commercial component of the Baldridge PUD for use as a chiropractic clinic/office. The applicant states: "the chiropractic clinic will be used for the primary purpose of chiropractic services, therapies, massage therapy, acupuncture, physical therapy and rehabilitation services common to a chiropractic practice." Said use is not amongst those specifically listed as permitted within Section 3.3 a., Permitted Uses,of the PUD document. The applicant requested a Zoning Verification Letter (ZVL) from the Planning Manager. This hearing is to seek affirmation of that opinion by the HEX. SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING: North: Pine Ridge Road ROW, across which are commercial buildings, Cambridge Square CPUD; South: Residential, Brynwood Preserve PUD; East: Fire station, zoned P and undeveloped Brynwood Center PUD; West: Livingston Road ROW, across which is a Stormwater pond then The Related Group PUD(St. Albans Apartments) . `- .1 mac. if M 'r Pn !, � CJs i. ti... "-'' -r ' .tom • "---! _�� • •. _-,ii t „ , ' , j 4.7"P . ' , :- . .., - ' . r . r- i � ' . • '.'l �rw �l,t a m ZVL(CUD)-PL20150000328 Page 2 of 5 Baldridge PUD PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The Applicant desires to lease+/-3,200 square feet, Building 600-B units 13 and 14, within an existing strip shopping plaza located within the commercial component of the Baldridge PUD for use as a chiropractic clinic/office. The applicant states: "the chiropractic clinic will be used for the primary purpose of chiropractic services, therapies, massage therapy, acupuncture, physical therapy and rehabilitation services common to a chiropractic practice." Said use is not amongst those specifically listed as permitted within Section 3.3 a.,Permitted Uses,of the PUD document. The applicant requested a Zoning Verification Letter (ZVL) from the Planning Manager. This hearing is to seek affirmation of that opinion by the HEX. ANALYSIS: Allowable uses within the commercial component of the subject PUD are contained within Section 3.3.a., Permitted Uses; listed use #33 states: "Any other general commercial use, which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses, including buildings for retail, service and office purposes consistent with the permitted uses and purpose and intent statement of this PUD as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals." Changes to the LDC, subsequent to approval of the PUD,allow for the current ZVL-CUD process. The applicant notes that the PUD does not contain a "purpose and intent statement," however, the within Section 3.3, Uses Permitted,does state: "The project will develop with uses that are consistent with C-1 through C-4 uses as contained in the Land Development Code in effect as of the date of adoption of this ordinance not to exceed 125,000 square feet." Additionally, the applicant argues that the PUD allows numerous uses within The Health Services Group of the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) manual; more specifically: 8051-8059 (nursing and personal care facilities), 8062-8069(hospitals), 8071- 8072 (medical and dental laboratories), and 8092-8099 (miscellaneous health and allied services, not elsewhere classified). The applicant further indicates that sufficient parking is in place to support the proposed use. Section 3.2 of the PUD, Development Emphasis, states, in part: "The subject property is permitted a full array of commercial uses as indicated in the Growth Management Plan..." As per the Future Land Use Map (FLUM), an element of the GMP, the subject property is located within the Livingston/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict (L/PRCIS). The GMP states that "general and medical office uses are limited to three stories with a 50 foot maximum height..." within the southeast quadrant of the L/PRCIS, thereby demonstrating that medical offices were contemplated by the GMP. Additionally, staff notes that Section 3.3 a., Permitted Uses, fails to list SICs 8011-8049 (Offices and Clinics of Doctors of Medicine) as allowable uses within the Health Services category. The LDC uses a hierarchical method and first recognizes all such offices and clinics as permitted uses within the C-1 zoning classification. Lastly, staff concurs that the Marquesa Plaza was developed ZVL(CUD)-PL20150000328 Page 3 of 5 Baldridge PUD in conjunction with an approved Site Development Plan(SDP-2003-AR-3791, as amended) which clearly demonstrates that the site was developed with substantial excess parking; however, such evaluations are typically performed at the time of Zoning Certificate application and issuance. Staff research reveals that the Board of Zoning Appeals has previously determined that a dental office/clinic (SIC 8021)was an allowable use within the Baldridge PUD by means of the previously recognized formal process; said determination was recorded as Resolution No. 2012-33,adopted on February 28,2012. The Planning Manager has reviewed and evaluated the subject request and found, by means of a ZVL (Attached), that a chiropractic office/clinic (SIC 8041) is comparable and compatible to the other permitted uses within the commercial component of the Baldridge PUD. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The Office of the County Attorney reviewed the Staff Report for Petition ZVL(CUD)- PL201500000328 on April 9,2015. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Hearing Examiner affirm the opinion of the Zoning Manager that the use of Offices and Clinics of Chiropractors (SIC 8041), is comparable and compatible to other permitted uses in Commercial Area of the Baldridge PUD. Attachments: A. Zoning Verification Letter. B. Baldridge PUD C. Resolution No.: 2012-33 D. Application ZVL(CUD)-PL20150000328 Page 4 of 5 Baldridge PUD PREPARED BY: (7''' 3'."-------(- al,V.-. '‘-Zes/S-- JOHN A. KELLY. PLANNER DATE ZONING SERVICES SECTION REVIEWED BY: r AA/3, — - RAYMt 'D V. BELLO S. PLANNING MANAGER DATE ZONIN SERVICES SECTION APPROVED BY: °j�,9 -.; q- P- MICHAEL BOSI, AICP,DIRECTOR DATE ZONING DIVISION ZVL(CUD)-PL20150000328 Page 5 of 5 Baldridge PUD Colti er Co-r.rprty Growth Management Division • Planning & Zoning Department Zoning Services February 19,2015 Forsyth&Brugger,P.A. _ _ - do: John N. Brugger 600 5th Avenue South,Suite 207 Naples,Florida 34102 Re: Zoning Verification Letter ZVL-PL20150000328; Zoning Verification Letter — Comparable Use Determination for Marquesa Plaza,Building 600-B, Units 13 & 14; located at 13020 Livingston Road in Section 18, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, of unincorporated Collier County, Florida. Property ID/Folio: 00287480003. Dear Mr.Brugger: This letter is in response to a Comparable Use Determination (CUD) Application dated February 10, 2015, that was submitted by you on the behalf of your client, Livingston and Pine Ridge, LLC. Said application was accompanied by a cover letter including justification for said request and three exhibits: Exhibit A — Copy of Ordinance 07-33, as amended; Exhibit B — Copy of SIC Groups 801 — 809 (classifications 8011-8099);Exhibit C—Marquesa Plaza site/concept plan; and Exhibit D—Current tenant • list with required parking tabulation You have specifically requested a determination from the Planning Manager and affirmation from the Office of the Hearing Examiner that the use of a chiropractic office, SIC 8041, is comparable and compatible with the permitted uses in the Baldridge Planned Unit Development(PUD). As per the Official Zoning Atlas, said property is located within the Baldridge PUD, as established by Ordinance No. 02-55,as amended. As per the PUD's Master Plan,the subject location is within an area dedicated "Shopping Center"which corresponds to Section III of the PUD, the Commercial Areas Plan; permitted uses are listed within Section 3.3.a. Staff has established that Offices and Clinics of Chiropractors (SIC 8041) has been excluded from the listing of permitted uses; however, listed use #33 states, in part: Any other general commercial use,which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses, including buildings for retail, service and office purposes consistent with the permitted uses and purpose and intent statement of this PUD..." As part of your justification for a CUD you explain that PUD Section 3.3, Uses Permitted, states, in part: "The project will develop with uses that are consistent with C-1 through C-4 uses as contained within the Land Development Code in effect as of the date of adoption of this Ordinance not to exceed 125,000 square feet." You also note that the PUD allows numerous uses within the Health Services Group of the SIC, including the following classifications: 8051-8059, 8062-8069, 8071, 8072, 8092-8099. You go on to explain that the subject request is being pursued to allow for a+/-3,200 square foot chiropractic clinic which will be used for the primary purpose of providing chiropractic services,therapies,massage therapy, acupuncture,physical therapy and rehabilitations services common to a chiropractic practice. -, • Planning&Zoning Department•2500 North Horseshoe Drive• Naples,FL 34104•239-252-2400•www colliergov net Zoning Verification Letter ZVL-PL20150000328 Pagel of 2 Zoning Services Staff notes that the LDC uses a hierarchical method and that a chiropractic clinic (SIC 8041) is first recognized as a permitted use in the Commercial Professional and General Office District • (C-1). Research reveals that the Board of Zoning Appeals has previously determined that a dental office (SIC 8021) was an allowable use within the Baldridge PUD by means of previously recognized formal process; said determination was recorded as Resolution No. 2012-33, adopted on February 28, 2012. During the review of that project, PL20110002649, it was established that the PUD does not contain a "purpose and intent statement", but Section 3.2, Development Emphasis, states that "the property is permitted a full array of commercial-uses as indicated-in the Growth ivlanagemeilt Plan:i As per the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) the subject property is located within the Livingston/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict (L/PRCIS). The GMP states that within the southeast quadrant of the L/PRCIS "general and medical office uses are limited to three stories with a 50 foot maximum height..." The Planning Manager has reviewed and evaluated your request,taking the above facts and circumstances into consideration, and finds that a chiropractic clinic (SIC 8041) is comparable and compatible to the other permitted uses within the Commercial Area of the PUD. Please note that this determination requires affirmation by the Hearing Examiner. You will be notified of the hearing date. Please be advised that the information presented in this verification letter is based on the Collier County LDC and/or Growth Management Plan in effect as of this date. It is possible that subsequent amendment(s) to either of these documents could affect the validity of this verification letter. It is also possible that development of the subject property could be affected by other issues not addressed in this letter, such as, but not limited to, concurrency related to the provision of adequate public facilities, environmental impact,and other requirements of the Collier County LDC or related ordinances. Should you require additional information or have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (239)252-5719 or e-mail: johnkelly @colliergov.net. • Researched and prepared by: Reviewed by: "-Z J. ' A.Kelly,Planner Ray d Bellows,Planning Manager Planning&Zoning Department Planning&Zoning Department Zoning Services Zoning Services Attachments cc: GMD—Front Desk Planner GMD—Addressing Department • e poi it I _ L uq.fi4TO.ICAO •10 0 co I i 4 , _� o i ,,,a il&a. o zri:i ,a KM g X30 . , . o r ®1 ■ SY.3 c R�.4B D _ NON_3- -/ a ° K©8c © - w s 1 V �©R� t II w 2 Z El a'#! c > y i' -i ' a --_ _ Q Q a y a n . <1 Iw A © c r a aana:aaazaaseaess I..e!a Is.in.q. S'-•.... ,-- L ..0 Fl roc) J.�l �. Ix - _ r �� :CS�VI-rMF�Off i w;` .:le ' a ss .W i1 �Pry ROAD �1�I� io w-Ott) a. II \\\ y a .2i...A vX v L M 1. :-1 1. •-..M..1M ,:1 ia : Sa;{ . ig nI n zo $ '- '4 -Fj-1 p 3 MIPPOOProt. ;AK M • _ O c s f 3 4 4 g9 4 i i 1 o i kg g1- is • ' lac a . f I 61:24'" \ II 1 . 4 7 N C Z 0 • rn 1Ot• ° 0 Co -. c OZZI • N D Coabier County • COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE G ROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239) 252-6358 Zoning Verification Letter - Comparable Use Determination LDC sections 2.03.00 A, 10.02.0E-1 &Code of Laws section 2-83-2-90 13020 Livingston Road PROJECT NUMBER ZVL CUD - PL20150000328 PROJECT NAME Date: 2-11-2015 DATE PROCESSED Due: 3-11-2015 PUD Zoning District — Straight Zoning District APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION Name of Applicant(s): Livingston and Pine Ridge, LLC, a Fl limited liability company Address: 1427 Clarkview Rd, #500 city: Baltimore State: MD ZIP: 21209 Telephone: 443-921-4347 Cell: Fax: 443-921-4447 • E-Mail Address: kokeefe @crcrealty.com Name of Agent: John N. Brugger Firm: Forsyth & Brugger, P. A. Address: 600 5th Ave. S., Ste. 207 city: Naples State: FL ZIP: 34102 Telephone: 239-263-6000 Cell: 239-572-1733 Fax: 239-263-6757 E-Mail Address: jbrugger @forsythbrugger.com PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address: 13020 Livingston Road Folio Number: 00287480003 Property Owners Name: Livingston and Pine Ridge, LLC DETERMINATION REQUEST The determination request and justification for the use must be done by a certified land use planner or a land use attorney. Provide the completed request on a separate attached sheet. Please be very specific and include the SIC Code, if known. The request should adhere to the following format: "I request a determination from the Planning Manager and approval from the Office of the Hearing Examiner, that the use of Chlropreclor Office SIC BO41 is comparable and compatible with the • permitted uses in the BaIdridge PUD or in the Straight Zoning District." 9/25/2014 Page 1 of 2 Collier County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE III GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239)252-6358 1 - _ _ SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS CHECKLIST _ See Chapter 3 G.6 of the Administrative Code for submittal requirements. The following items are to be submitted with the application packet. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted. REQUIREMENTS FOR REVIEW COPIES REQUIRED REQUIRED Completed Application (download current form from County © © ❑ website) — Determination request and the justification for the use n Ti PUD Ordinance and Development Commitment information [ © ❑ Electronic Copies of all documents *Please advise: The Office of the Hearing Examiner requires all 0 0 ❑ _materials to be submitted electronically in PDF format. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS: • Following the completion of the review process by County review staff,the applicant shall submit all materials electronically to the designated project manager. • Please contact the project manager to confirm the number of additional copies required. III FEE REQUIREMENTS: A Application: $1,000.00; Additional Fees of$100 per hour will be charged as needed upon completion of review and research. Payment of Additional Fees will be required prior to the release of the verification. 0 Estimated Legal Advertising Fee for the Office of the Hearing Examiner:$925.00 All checks payable to:Board of County Commissioners The completed application, all required submittal materials,and the permit fee shall be submitted to: Growth Management Division/Planning and Regulation q�jT N: usirr��ss Center 6 R �yi#i2QVES A t`{FUVA-4i 0�TV6rt of r eshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Appli nt Signature.__ Date ) L.L\ ::-- \ – ( ' 7 4."----- Printed Name Please be advised that the zoning letter is based upon the available records furnished by Collier County and what was visible and accessible at the time of inspection. This report is based on the Land Development Code that is in effect on the date the report was prepared. Code regulations could be subject to change. While every attempt has been made to ensure the accuracy or completeness, and each subscriber to or user of this report understands that this department • disclaims any liability for any damages in connection with its use. In addition, this department assumes no responsibility for the cost of correcting any unreported conditions. 9/25/2014 Page 2 of 2 FORSYTH& BR UGGER, P.A. • Attorneys at Law John N.Bragger' 600 Fifth Avenue South;Suite 207 M aster of Laws in Taxation Naples,FL 34102 John N.!rugger 1111- Phone:(239)263-6000 M aster of Laws in Taxation Fax(239)263-6757 *Also Admitttd in Michigan tAlso Admitted in Kentucky John F Forsyth 1921-2000 February 10,2015 Collier County Government Growth Management Division 2 800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34104 Re: Zoning Application Letter-Comparable Use Determination for Baldridge PUD Operating as Marqueza Plaza Ladies and Gentlemen: Baldridge PUD,operating as Marqueza Plaza,is a 115,235 Square Foot Commercial Playa located at • the southeast corner of the intersection of Livingston Road and Pine Ridge Road in Collier County, Florida(the"Plaza"). The current owner,Livingston and Pine Ridge,LLC,acquired the Plaza subject to the Baldridge PUD adopted as Ordinance No. 02-55,as amended by Ordinance 07-33 (the"PUD"or"Ordinance"), copies attached as Exhibit A. Uses Permitted under the PUD state"The Project will develop with uses that are consistent with C-1 through C-4 uses as contained in the Land Development Code in effect as of the date of adoption of this Ordinance not to exceed 125,000 square feet. The Uses Permitted then proceeds to enumerate the designated Standard Industrial Classification ("SIC")codes which are permitted under the terms of the Ordinance. Under the terms of the Ordinance,Permitted Use#33 states: "Any other general commercial use, which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses, including buildings for retail, service and office purposes consistent with the permitted uses and purpose and intent statement of this PUD as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Submitted simultaneously herewith is an Zoning Verification Letter—Comparable Use Determination requesting a determination from the Planning Manager and approval from the Office of the Hearing Examiner that a Chiropractic Office with an SIC code of 8041,which is in the Health Services Group • of the SIC code, is comparable and compatible with the permitted uses in the Baldridge PUD. The PUD permits numerous uses within the Health Services Group of the SIC Code,including the following codes: (Groups 8051-8059,8062-8069, 8071,9072,8092-8099). Attached as Exhibit B,is a print out of the Health Services Group SIC codes which indicate that approved SIC Code 8062-8069 includes use as a General Medical and Surgical Hospital. • Further,the PUDspeeiffcally includes SIC code 0742,vetcrinary services. The current C-2 Zoning Classification specifically permits Health Services,offices and clinics(8011- 8049)meeting the requirements of Permit Use#33 in the PUD. The chiropractic clinic will be used for the primary purpose of chiropractic services,therapies, massage therapy, acupuncture,physical therapy and rehabilitations services common to a chiropractic practice. The premises which would be let to the chiropractic office is comprised of approximately 3,200 square feet requiring 16 parking spaces under the terms of the current Collier County Land Development Code.Exhibit C attached hereto shows the location of the proposed office within the Plaza Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a calculation of the current allocation of parking spaces in the Plaza as required by the Collier County Land Development Code.This calculation shows that the Plaza has 64 parking spaces that are not required to be allocated to any existing use.These 64 spaces are more than sufficient to meet the requirement of 16 parking spaces required for operation of a chiropractic clinic. • We respectfully request that SIC 8041 be approved as a comparable use approved within the Baldridge PUD. �mcerely, John N. gger • AFFIDAVIT OF AUTHORIZATION FOR PETITION NUMBERS(S) Z' L — L 2°t S O c 00 3 Z� Soh1� tU , (j J r) t Spcc, GC1 v 1CC" P3C.S (print name), as + (title, if applicable)of CRS Mc rciecsc_ f`\(1 ne-ldcr, L LC (company, If a licable), swear or affirm under oath, that I am the(choose one) owner applicant(' contract purchaser and that: I have full authority to secure the a Sues' y pproval(sj requested and to impose co4enanfs and-restrictions on the referenced property as a result of any action approved by the County in accordance with this application and the Land Development Code; 2. All answers to the questions in this application and any sketches, data or other supplementary matter attached hereto and made a part of this application are honest and true; 3. I have authorized the staff of Collier County to enter upon the property during normal working hours for the purpose of investigating and evaluating the request made through this application; and that 4. The property will be transferred, conveyed, sold or subdivided subject to the conditions and restrictions imposed by the approved action. 5. Well authorize S o H 13 1.3 r-I 9 to act as our/my representative in any matters regarding this petition including 1 through 2 above. *Notes: • If the applicant is a corporation, then it is usually executed by the corp.pres. or v. pres. • If the applicant is a Limited Liability Company(L.L.C.) or Limited Company(L.C.), then the documents should typically be signed by the Company's"Managing Member." • If the applicant is a partnership, then typically a partner can sign on behalf of the partnership. • If the applicant is a limited partnership, then the general partner must sign and be identified as the "general partner"of the named partnership. • If the applicant is a trust, then they must include the trustee's name and the words "as trustee". • • In each instance, first determine the applicant's status, e.g., individual, corporate, trust, partnership, and then use the appropriate format for that ownership. Under penalties • = • ry, I declare that I have read the foregoing Affidavit of Authorization and that the facts stat:• in it are t e. • S':nature Date STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing instrument was sworn to(or affirmed) and subscribed before me o t 5(date) by iroj N es.3 C'r me of person provid ng o h or affirmation), as o is personally known to me 9r who has produced (type of identification)as identificatioor rl STAMP/SEAL '° , Signature of Notary •'+lic fat•_ MARIA ROSE f�pg MY COMMISSION Y FF 012537 EXPIRES:July 18,2017 Bonded Thru Notary Pubic Underwriters • CP\08-COA-00115\155 REV 3/24/14 • RESOLUTION OF LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY The undersigned,Vice President of CRS MARQUESA MANAGER,LLC,a Florida limited liability com an (the".Company"),whose address is 1427 Clarkview_Road,_Suite 500, L.; Baltunore,lulu 21209 states that the�"ol.lowing resolution was adopted by the Company on February 2,2015. RESOLVED: That the following person(s): Name(Print of Type) Title John N. Brugger Special Vice President is hereby appointed as a Special Vice President of the Company(as Manager of Livingston and Pine Ridge,LLC,a Florida limited liability company)on behalf of and in the name of the Company to apply for and obtain a Zoning Verification Letter,Comparable Use Determination for Units 13 and 14 as identified on the drawing attached hereto as Exhibit A, for use as a chiropractic office. • Gene ..Park Jr. Vice President • 1 p011! it /0 001 ORDINANCE NO.07- 3 3 ao 111 �, c AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY °�, �A+ COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER \oe. �Z9zstilt' 02-55, THE BALDRIDGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, BY PROVIDING FOR AN AMENDMENT TO CORRECT A SCRIVENER'S ERROR AND BY PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE WHEREAS,the Collier County Board of Commissioners adopted Ordinance No. 02-55,on November 5,2002,and; WHEREAS, following said action adopting Ordinance No. 02-55P-_staff determined that the Baldridge PUD Document transmitted to the Department of Statesclic 'fl �..;.. i W— not contain a provision that was otherwise intended and made a part of the publicne :71 and therefore constitutes a scrivener's error. c�.. N 0 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF C5UNT1140 COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA,that: SECTION ONE:SCRIVENER'S ERROR AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE: Paragraph 3.3.a. entitled "Permitted Uses" of Ordinance Number 02-55, the • Baldridge PUD,is hereby amended to read as follows: a. Permitted Uses s r ♦ • 22. Non-depository credit institutions (groups 6111-6163) and depository institutions,limited to commercial banks.(group 6020. SECTION TWO:EFFECTIVE DATE This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Florida Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by a majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,Florida,this .21 day of`Lv_. ..,-4- -• ,2007. Cs:Ar , ATTE$V BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT F BROCK;.CLERK COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA BY: L'` t 1431 CJerk J S C�3CHAI MAN 1poaturApA ved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: This ordinance filed with the c or'of Store's Off ce the ?tl .t•1,W 7J.1AL!gc¢.u..� gQ.c.-� Sz „of tt-PY , Zct;� Mad*4 M.Student-Stirling and ocknowtedgemen,, that • Assistant County Attorney rec rvea this doy of r SE-2007-AR-II2S4/KD/sp o.•'r et�x Words are deleted;words imagediald are added. Page 1 of 1 • STATE OF FLORA.).__ COUNTY OF COLLIER) I, DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk of Courts in and for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, Collier County, Florida, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of : ORDINANCE 2007-33 Which was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on the 27th day of March, 2007, during Regular Session. • WITNESS my hand and the official seal of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this 28th day of February, 2007 . DWIGHT E. BROCK Clerk of Courts. arid.'.Llerk Ex-officio to Board of County Commissioners • 4(,_0(<1 =y: Teresa Polaski, Deputy Clerk • F71-. ._7 ORDNANCE NO.02- 5 5 -' AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 91-102 1-• � '"THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, 22 e FLORIDA BY AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS MAP yF*1 r� e dy NUMBERED 9618N BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL, ae R>it SZ� -P ROPERT'Y-TROM-'K•-AND-"A=ST"`Tip "PUD" PLANNED UNIT' °s- ` °°" - DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS THE BALDRIDGE PUD LOCATED IN SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 16.8 ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Timothy L. Hancock, AICP, of VanasseDaylor, Inc., and R. Bruce Anderson, of Young, vanAssenderp, Vamadoe and Anderson, PA, representing Baldridge Development Inc., petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described real property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,Florida,that: SECTION ONE: The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 18. Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from "A" Rural Agricultural • and "A-ST" Rural Agricultural, Special Treatment Overlay, to "PUD" Planned Unit Development in accordance with the PUD Document, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference herein. The Official Zoning Atlas Map numbered 9618N, as described in Ordinance Number 91-102,the Collier County Land Development Code,is hereby amended accordingly. SECTION TWO: This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida,this 5th day of November ,2002. , 9•BS.4/33'.• BOARD OF COUNTY OMMISSIONERS � COLLIER e•INTY 0 Ite A "c BY: /(D a JAMES N.COLETTA,CHAIRMAN *� WIGIAE.BR CLERK AtrOtt-ac to Chigr ,,' ro.�r�allm 1 A pro and Legal Sufficiency This ordinance filed with the Secretary of State's Office the 15:41_day of AAnber, 2�-- w„ and acknowledgement of that Marjorie Student filin received this 21st-.day • �- Assistant County Attorney of By ,. car • BALDRIDGE A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Regulations and supporting Master Plan governing the Baldridge PUD, a Planned Unit Development pursuant to provisions of the Collier County Land Development Code PREPARED FOR: Kenneth R. Baldridge C. Allen Kann PREPARED BY: Tim Hancock, AICP III VanasseDaylor 3001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 206 Naples, FL 34103 941.403.0223 R. Bruce Anderson, Esq. Young, van Assenderp, Varnadoe &Anderson, PA 801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 300 Naples, FL 34108 941.597.2814 May 20,2002 DATE REVIEWED BY CCPC: DATE APPROVED BY BCC: 11/05/02 ORDINANCE NUMBER: 2002-55 AMENDMENTS AND REPEAL: EXHIBIT "A" • 411 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Exhibits and Tables ,fit--_-=.-statetnenvof compliance&Short itie- _- _____ . .. .-. Section I Legal Description, Property Ownership And General Description 1 Section II Project Development 2 Section III Commercial Areas Plan 4 Section IV General Development Commitments 7 1111 1111 _ _ S LIST OF EXHIBITS AND TABLES EXHIBIT A: PUD Master Plan EXHIBIT B: Boundary Survey EXHIBIT C: Conceptual Water Management Plan EXHIBIT D: Typical Lake Cross Section and Typical Pavement Section i. . AIM . STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE AND SHORT TITLE The Baldridge Planned Unit Development (PUD) consists of t 16.8 acres of land situated at the Southeast corner of the intersection of Pine Ridge Road and Livingston Road in Collier County, Florida, and designated as the Livingston / Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict in the Collier County Growth . .Management Plan... . 1. The development of this Project will be in compliance with the planning goals and objectives of Collier County as set for the in the County's Growth Management Plan. 2. The Project includes retail and office uses consistent with the Livingston/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict of the Collier County Growth Management Plan and the Collier County Land Development Code. 3. The Project location, immediately Southeast of the intersection of Livingston Road and Pine Ridge Road, will allow access to Livingston Road and Pine Ridge Road, as well as, providing a connector road to improve emergency access to and from Livingston Road. In addition, the PUD Master Plan identifies a reservation of right-of-way for a future east/west road. 4. The Project will be served by and approved by the Collier County Utilities Division. 5. The Project, as proposed, is compatible with adjacent land uses and includes adequate buffering where dissimilar land uses are located adjacent to each other. 6. All final local development orders for this Project are subject to the Collier County Adequate Public • Facilities Ordinance. SHORT TITLE This Ordinance shall be known and cited as the'Baldridge Planned Unit Development Ordinance°. ii. • SECTION I • PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DESCRIPTION 1.1 PURPOSE y. __ .:c e. Pogt t!lis.Ae lion 4_1(1_44 forth the location qnd owner-09p_ft the R ye ands-ta.,.. ,._ ,.•.., describe the existing conditions of the property to be developed under the project name of the "Baldridge PUD." 1.2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION The subject property being t 16.8 acres, is described as: LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE WEST % OF THE NORTHWEST V4 OF THE NORTHWEST ' OF SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA less parcel 111 described in the Public Records of Collier County, Florida and recorded at O.R. Book 2667, Page 3063 and Parcel 811A described in the Public Records of Collier County, Florida and recorded at O.R. Book 2667, Page 3065 for road rights-of-way. 1.3 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP The subject property is currently under the ownership of: Pine Ridge Golf Center 3350 Pine Ridge Road Naples, Florida 34109 1.4 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AREA The Project site is located in Section 18, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, immediately south and east of the intersection of Pine Ridge Road and Livingston Road in Collier County, Florida. The zoning classification of the subject property prior to the date of this approved PUD Ordinance was"A"Rural Agricultural. 1.5 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION The proposed site consists of± 16.8 acres, and is proposed to utilize a dry detention swale for water quality storage and a combination of detention areas and on-site preserve areas for water quantity storage. The control elevation is proposed as 12.0 feet NGVD. The Project falls within the 1-75 Canal Basin with a restricted allowable discharge of 0.06 CFS per acre per Collier county Ordinance 90-10 requirements.The project is located outside of FEMA mapping limits. 1.6 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project will consist of+1-15 acres of commercial and/or professional office development. The site plan has been configured to take advantage of the location and to maintain market flexibility for future development. The plan allows for either a single use development or multiple uses on the property. 1 • _ _ SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT 2.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to delineate and generally describe the Project plan of development, relationships to applicabte-Coontpordinances, the respective-land`use `of`tlfie tracts included in the Project,as well as other Project relationships. 2.2 GENERAL a. Regulations for development of the Baldridge PUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this Document, PUD-Planned Unit Development District and other applicable sections and parts of the Collier County Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan in effect at the time of approval of a preliminary subdivision plat, site development plan, or building permit, as applicable. Where these regulations fail to provide developmental standards, then the provisions of the most similar district in the County Land Development Code shall apply. b. Unless otherwise noted, the definitions of all terms shall be the same as the definitions set forth in Collier County Land Development Code in effect at the time of building permit application. c. All conditions imposed and all graphic material presented depicting restrictions for the development of the Baldridge PUD shall become part of the regulations, which govern • the manner in which the PUD site may be developed. d. Unless modified, waived or excepted by this PUD,the provisions of other sections of the Land Development Code where applicable, remain in full force and effect with respect to the development of the land, which comprises this PUD. e. Development permitted by the approval of this Petition will be subject to a concurrency review under the provisions of Division 3.15,Adequate Public Facilities. f. The petitioner's property is located outside an area of historic/archaeological probability as designated on the official Collier County Probability Map. Therefore, no historic/archaeological survey and assessment is required. Pursuant to Section 2.2.25.8.1 of the Land Development Code, if during the course of site clearing, excavation or other construction activity, an historic or archaeological artifact is found, all development within the minimum area necessary to protect the discovery shall be immediately stopped and the Collier County Code Enforcement Department contacted. 2.3 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT PLAN AND PROPOSED LAND USES The Project Development Plan, including layout of streets and use of land for the various tracts, is illustrated graphically by Exhibit "A," PUD Master Plan. The PUD Master Plan also illustrates necessary water management lakes or detention areas and the general configuration of street rights-of-way. The Project will contain a maximum of 125,000 square feet of retail and/or office development. • 2 PRESERVE AREA ±1.8 acres • RIGHT-OF-WAY/COMMON AREAS ±2.3 acres COMMERCIAL AND RETAIL AREAS ±10.8 acres OPEN SPACE AND WATER MANAGEMENT AREAS ± 1.3 acres 60' RESERVATION OF ROW ±0.6 acres TOTAL: ±16.8 acres 2.4 RELATED PROJECT PLAN APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS a. Prior to the recording of a Record Plat, and/or Condominium Plat for all or part of the PUD, final plans of all required improvements shall receive approval by the appropriate Collier County governmental agency to ensure compliance with the PUD Master Plan,the Collier County Subdivision Code, and the platting laws of the State of Florida. b. Exhibit "A", PUD Master Plan, constitutes the required PUD Development Plan. Subsequent to or concurrent with PUD approval, a Preliminary Subdivision Plat, if applicable, shall be submitted for the entire area covered by the PUD Master Plan. Any division of property and the development of the land shall be in compliance with Division 3.2 of the Collier County Land Development Code, and the platting laws of the State of Florida. c. The provisions of Division 3.3 of the Collier County Land Development Code, when applicable, shall apply to the development of all platted tracts or parcels of land, as provided in said Division, prior to the issuance of a building permit or other development order. • d. Appropriate instruments will be provided at the time of infrastructure improvements regarding any dedications and methods for providing perpetual maintenance of common facilities. 2.5 CHANGES AND AMENDMENTS TO PUD DOCUMENT AND PUD MASTER PLAN Amendments may be made to the PUD and PUD Master Plan in accordance with Section 2.7.3.5 of the Collier County Land Development Code. 2.6 ASSOCIATION OF PROPERTY OWNERS FOR COMMON AREA MAINTENANCE Whenever the developer elects to create land area and/or recreation amenities whose ownership and maintenance responsibility is a common interest to all of the subsequent purchasers of property within said Development in which the common interest is located, that developer entity shall provide appropriate legal instruments for the establishment of a Property Owners' Association whose function shall include provisions for the perpetual care and maintenance of all common facilities and open spaces, subject further to the provisions of the Collier County Land Development Code, Section 2.2.20.3.8. 3 • _ _ _ _ _ • SECTION III COMMERCIAL AREAS PLAN 3.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to identify the type of commercial uses and development standards that will be applied-to.the_-areas-.so-designated as °C" Commercial on the-PUD-Master (Exhibit"A".) 3.2 DEVELOPMENT EMPHASIS The Project is bordered by Livingston Road on the west, and the northern property line borders Pine Ridge Road. The subject property is permitted a full array of commercial uses as indicated in the Growth Management Plan, and as such,this Document and the uses contained herein,are consistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan. 3.3 USES PERMITTED The Project will develop with uses that are consistent with C-1 through C-4 uses as contained in the Land Development Code in effect as of the date of adoption of this Ordinance not to exceed 125,000 square feet. More specifically, no building or structures or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or part,for other than the following: a. Permitted Uses 1. Amusements and recreation services, indoor (groups 7911-7929, 7991-7993,7997); group 7999 uses are not permitted except for golf professionals, gymnastics instruction, judo instruction, karate instruction, tennis professionals, and yoga • instruction). 2. Automotive dealers and gasoline service stations (groups 5531, 5541 with services and repairs as described in section 2.6,28). 3. Apparel and accessory stores (groups 5611-5699). 4. Auto and home supply stores(5531). 5. Automotive repair, services, parking(groups 7514, 7515,7521) 6. Building materials, hardware and garden supplies(groups 5231-5261). 7. Business services (groups 7311-7352, 7361-7397 except armored car, dog rental and labor pools, 7384, 7389 except auctioneering, bronzing, field warehousing, salvaging of damaged merchandise). 8. Commercial printing (2752,excluding daily newspapers). 9. Communications(groups 4812-4841)except communication towers. 10. Eating establishments(5812). 11. Engineering, accounting, research, management and related services (groups 8711- 8748). 12. Food stores(groups 5411-5499). 13. Fueling locations without convenience commercial uses, only when located with another permitted use. No diesel fuel sales. 14. General merchandise stores(groups 5311-5399). 15. Glass and glazing work(1793). 16. Group care facilities (category I and II, except for homeless shelters); care units, except for homeless shelters; nursing homes; assisted living facilities pursuant to state statute 400.402 F.S. and ch. 58A-5 F.A.C.; and continuing care retirement communities pursuant to state statute 651 F.S. and ch. 4-193 F.A.C.; all subject to Section 2.6.26 of the Land Development Code. 17. Health services (groups 8051-8059, 8062-8069, 8071, 8072,8092-8099). 4 _ _ 18. Home furniture,furnishing and equipment stores(groups 5712-5736). • 19. Hotels and motels(groups 7011,7021). 20. Miscellaneous repair services(groups 7629-7631). 21. Miscellaneous retail (groups 5912-5963, except pawn shops and second hand clothing stores;5992-5999). 22. Non-depository credit institutions(groups 6111-6163). 23. Paint,glass-and wallpaper 24. Personal services (groups 7212, 7215-7217, 7219, 7221-7251, 7261 except crematories,7291-7299 except tattoo parlors and escort services). 25, Public administration (groups 9111-9199, 9229, 9311, 9411-9451, 9511-9532, 9611- 9661). 26. Retail nurseries, lawn and garden supply stores(5261). 27. Real estate (group 6512). 28. Social services (groups 8322-8399, except for homeless shelters and soup kitchens). 29. Veterinary services(groups 0742, 0752 excluding outside kenneling). 30. Videotape rental(7841). 31. Vocational schools(groups 8243-8299). 32. United States Postal Service (4311 except major distribution centers). 33. Any other general commercial use, which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses, including buildings for retail, service and office purposes consistent with the permitted uses and purpose and intent statement of this PUD as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals. b. Accessory Uses 1. Uses and structures that are accessory and incidental to the uses permitted as of right in this District. • 2. Caretaker's residence,subject to Section 2.6.16 of the land Development Code. 3.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS a. Minimum Lot Area: 10,000 square feet. b. Minimum lot width: 100 feet. c. Minimum Yard Requirements: 1. Along Pine Ridge Road: 25 feet. 2. Along Livingston Road: 25 feet. 3. Along South property line: 50 feet. 4. Along Eastern property line: 25 feet. d. Minimum Yards(internal): 1. Front yard: 15 feet. 2. Side Yard: 10 feet 3. Rear Yard: 20 feet. 4. Waterfront: 25 feet. e. Maximum height: Building height is limited to one story with a 35-foot maximum for all retail and general commercial uses. General and medical office uses are limited to three stories with a 40-foot maximum height. f. Minimum floor area: 700 square feet gross floor area on ground floor. 5 11111 • g. Minimum off-street parking and off-street loading:As required in Division 2.3 of the Collier � ier County Land Development Code. The parking requirements shall be calculated over the entire site so that each free-standing use shall not be required to provide 100% of the Land Development Code's minimum parking on its site, provided the total parking for the Project meets or exceeds the minimum parking required for the combined land uses. h. Landscaping: As required in Division 2.4 of the Collier County Land Development Code. Lighting: Lighting shall be designed so as to prevent direct glare, light spillage and hazardous interference with automotive and pedestrian traffic on adjacent streets and all adjacent properties. Signs: 1. Out-parcels shall be permitted one pole or two ground signs in accordance with Section 2.5.5.2.1.1. of the Land Development Code provided each developable parcel has a minimum of 125 feet of frontage on Pine Ridge Road or Livingston Road. In no event shall more than three out-parcel signs be permitted along Pine Ridge Road. 2. All other project signage will comply with Division 2.5 of the Collier County Land Development Code. k. Architectural and site design standards. All buildings and projects shall be subject to the provisions of Division 2.8 of the Land Development Code. I. Off site removal of earthen material:The excavation and stockpiling of earthen material in preparation of water management facilities or to otherwise develop water bodies is • hereby permitted during construction of buildings or infrastructure. If a surplus of earthen material exists, then its off-site disposal is also hereby permitted, subject to the following conditions: 1. Excavation activities shall comply with the definition of a 'development excavation" pursuant to Division 3.5 of the Land Development Code, whereby off-site removal shall be limited to 10% of the total, up to a maximum of 20,000 cubic yards. 2. All other provisions of said Division 3.5 are applicable. 110 6 SECTION IV • DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 4.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the development commitments for the development of - the Project. 4.2 GENERAL All facilities shall be constructed in strict accordance with approved Site Development Plans, Final Subdivision Plans and all applicable State and local laws, codes, and regulations applicable to this PUD. Except where specifically noted or stated otherwise, the standards and specifications of Division 3.2 of the Land Development Code shall apply to this Project even if the land within the PUD is not to be platted. The Developer, his successor and assigns, shall be responsible for the commitments outlined in this Document. The Developer, his successor or assigns, shall follow the Master Plan and the regulations of the PUD, as adopted, and any other conditions or modifications as may be agreed to in the rezoning of the property. In addition, any successor or assignee in title to the Developer is bound by commitments within this Document. 4.3 PUD MASTER PLAN a. Exhibit "A", PUD Master Plan, illustrates the proposed development and is conceptual in nature. Proposed tract, lot or land-use boundaries or special land use boundaries shall not be construed to be final and may be varied at any subsequent approval phase, such • as final platting or site development plan application. Subject to the provisions of Section 2.7.3.5 of the Land Development Code amendments may be made from time to time. b. All necessary easements, dedications, or other instruments shall be granted to ensure the continued operation and maintenance of all service utilities and all common areas in the Project. 4.4 SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENT/MONITORING REPORT AND SUNSET PROVISION a. The Project is proposed to start construction of infrastructure in the Fall of 2002. Should the Project not develop in a single phase, the absorption of the entire Project is based upon a mix of office and retail uses and is estimated to take seven to ten years. b. This Project shall be subject to the Sunset Provisions of Section 2.7.3.4 of the Land Development Code. c. Common areas, including areas devoted to water management facilities will be dedicated to a common property owners' association, if applicable, for purposes of maintenance and care. d. An annual monitoring report shall be submitted pursuant to Section 2,7.3.6 of the Collier County Land Development Code. 4.5 SUBSTITUTION TO DESIGN STANDARDS FOR SUBDIVISION PRACTICE/REGULATIONS a. Section 3.2.8.4.16.5 of the Land Development Code Street right-of way: Roads within the Project will be designed and built as private roads with no maintenance responsibility by Collier County. These roads shall have a right-of- • way width of 50 feet. Pavement width shall be a minimum of 24 feet for two-way traffic. 7 1110 b. Section 3.5.7.1.2 of the Land Development Code Internal roads that run parallel to water management lakes or detention areas shall be located a minimum of 20 feet from the top of bank or control elevation, whichever is greater. c. Section 3.2.8.3.17 of the Land Development Code In the event of multiple lots within the development, sidewalks will be provided on one side of internal roadways in order to provide pedestrian,acggass to and from out-parcels. . 4.6 TRANSPORTATION a. All traffic control devices used must be in accordance with the Standards adopted by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), as required by Florida Statutes - Chapter 316 Uniform Traffic Control Law. b. Arterial level street lighting must be provided at all development points of ingress and egress. Said lighting must be in place prior to the issuance of the first permanent Certificate of Occupancy. c. External and internal improvements determined by Collier County staff to be essential to the safe ingress and egress to the development will not be considered for impact fee credits. Said improvements will be in place prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. d. Road Impact Fees shall be paid in accordance with Collier County Ordinance 01-13, as amended. e. All median openings and driveway locations must be in accordance with the Land Development Code (LDC), and Access Management Policy, as amended. Median access and control will remain under the County's authority. The County reserves the right to modify or close all median openings that have been determined by Collier County • Staff to have an adverse effect relevant to operational circulation, safety conditions, or concerns. f. Nothing in any development order will vest the right of access over and above a right in/ right out condition. Neither will the existence, or lack of a future median opening be the basis for any future cause of action for damages against the County by the Developer, its successor in title, or assigns. g. Interconnection(s) may be required by Collier County Staff, as a condition of site development plan approval. h. The Developer shall be responsible for the cost of a traffic signal system at any development entrance(s), if a traffic signal system is ever determined to be warranted and approved by the County. If warranted, upon the completion of the installation, inspection, bum-in period, and final approval/acceptance of said traffic signal it will be turned over (for ownership) to Collier County, and will then be operated and maintained by Collier County Transportation Operations Department. The development will be designed to promote the safe travel of all roadway users including bicyclists, and will provide for the safety of pedestrians crossing said roadways. Pedestrian travel ways will be separated from vehicular traffic in accordance with recognized standards and safe practices, as determined by Collier County Staff. f. When ingress and egress improvements are determined necessary, right-of-way and compensating right-of-way will be provided for and in conjunction with said improvements. k. All work within Collier County right-of-way will meet the requirements of Collier County- Ordinance No. 93-64. All internal access ways, drive aisles and roadways, not located within County right-of- way will be privately maintained by an entity created by the Developer, its successor in title,or assigns. 411 8 m. The points of ingress and/or egress via Pine Ridge Road will be limited to two locations • on the north side of the PUD. The westernmost location shall be limited to a single point of ingress only (a west approach protected right turn lane). The easternmost location is limited to a west-approach protected right-turn lane, an east-approach protected directional left-turn lane, and a south-approach right-turn-only lane from the site. Due to the limited frontage of the Project, no other access points will be permitted from and onto Pine Ridge Road. n Access onto Livingston Road hall be limited to a single point of Ingress and egress near the southwest'cornier of the property ((full median opening with a south-approach protected right-turn lane, north-approach protected left-turn lane, and east-approach left- turn and right-turn lanes from the site). Upon review and approval by the Transportation Services Administrator of a warrant-study prepared by the Developer for a traffic signal at the Livingston Road access, an additional Livingston Road point of egress shall be permitted near the northwest corner of the property (right-turn-only from the site). The Developer may submit a study, for the review and approval of the Transportation Services Director, demonstrating that the 860-foot protected right-turn lane onto Livingston Road is not needed and may be reconfigured into two protected right-turn lanes (one protected right-turn lane for Livingston Road at Pine Ridge Road and one protected right-turn lane near the northernmost egress point from the site). o. If at any time, the northernmost egress point onto Livingston Road is determined to be unsafe by the Transportation Services Director,the County shall require the Developer to close the point of access to ensure the public safety. Each annual PUD Monitoring Report shall include a detailed Crash Data Report for operational conditions for the northernmost access point on Livingston Road. P. The 60-foot east-west right-of-way depicted on the Master Plan shall be conveyed to Collier County without further compensation at a time determined by the Transportation Services Administrator. 4.7 WATER MANAGEMENT • a. In accordance with the Rules of the South Florida Water Management District(SFWMD), Chapters 40E-4 and 40E-40, this Project shall be designed for a storm event of 3-day duration and 25-year return frequency and shall be reviewed and permitted by the SFWMD unless dedicated to Collier County by SFWMD. 4.8 UTILITIES a. County water service is available via a 12" water main located along Pine Ridge Road. The Developer is responsible to tap the main to provide both potable water and fire fighting capability to the site. b. County sewer service is available via an 8" force main located along Pine Ridge Road. The Developer is responsible for providing the necessary connections to supply the site with County sewer service. All facilities extended to the site and which lie in platted rights-of-way shall be owned and maintained by the Collier County Water/Sewer District. The facilities, whether owned by the District or privately owned, shall be reviewed and installed in accordance with the requirements of Collier County Ordinance No. 97-17 and all federal, state and other existing rules and regulations. 4.9 ENGINEERING a. If the property is subdivided into three or more parcels,a plat shall be required. b. Work within the Collier County right-of-way shall meet the requirements of Collier County • Right-Of-Way Ordinance No.93-64, as amended. 9 4.10 ENVIRONMENTAL a. An appropriate portion of the native vegetation shall be retained on site as required in Section 3.9.5.5.4. of the Collier County Land Development Code. For this site a minimum of 15 percent of the pre-development native vegetation shall be retained onsite or revegetated in accordance with said Section 3.9.5.5.4,totaling 1.85 acres. b. An'exofic'tiegefe'ti�n mornfonng,-and mairifenance(exotic-free) plan for the site,-wild emphasis on areas of retained native vegetation, shall be submitted to Current Planning Section Staff for review and approval prior to final site plan/construction plan approval. 4.11 LANDSCAPING FOR OFF-STREET AREAS All landscaping for off-street parking areas shall be in accordance with the Division 2.4 of the Collier County Land Development Code in effect at the time of building permit application. • 10 ■ 1A z a 0 O o o ,= 0 a• 0 - N II `,- `•a in 0' CI*, W 0 3 i b ks i i II II '41At i 1 II ll i tl •46. _________j- I tiai I 1 J b 441$ ggg4 V el ^ Pt : n03 I1 H 4 I1 II m i 1 I II Aw 3 232 8'n I II 1 L'A i I a is 2 4 lq ! i= b - 1 \ 11 7 1pp I1 It g _ II ( II o� Z I. E R ' , I I I m 5,tiz, it I II C! r CI ♦ i I I I I I ? t 0. �N d I I I I .�"' i� ;,t I I l S ...¢e za III II I ' ` _314s_______ ______ Il 1 _11 \ H __ _ _ _ - —_ — — — L i— .., * ed >4% - \ r./\'q = C CI at Q I / . 12 II i EXHIBIT "A" 1° I R 1 3590 ZOOULOV L'UP'I1V14s3 OSLOYlOS1.0011 OVlspeicuensem1Venies seperyll c w.a.o.raw.o+SPE.u..o,,my 4)0470-.s,n-u.03,,.24):o7,N 74 w • ; II:------WFllifr"-"-r-Jlr'"•■ 0 41- . If , ! ! I I 1!. -1 cie ftlio MK , � a wg � 47 1 1— 10 rri, Fil I--- ,:34-- _. i 0 1 / , -i • Il 1:.1 \II \ x 1.. ` I q 11 1 _ am— I v.■-iM 1 ii �r i d u MI I .,.i,... _ • j U L _ __ _ _ - - - - -PINE moor ROAD- - - - _ - - - - _��� V. c Q a I I e. � I I 14(7.---. ' 1)29- II 11 � ni 2 fI 'Il _ p 1 II II 2 [ al X, g I 1 I I 9 �I v Q 1 tl II ,f,I, a r O II 11 ° '� 1 ~� ` OOi• I I I I I 1/4.-/J 114 'i� �L lA r�1 a1i� / CP II 11 HT II II I i - I 1 Si ° I r`I I i r I11III I gn I I - i ' � 1 I I 11 i \ / 1 / I i 0 I j r .. I ., I f , # II ID i A ro II E n a qA II - z II R m A 14 I I f!!iii!ti 1 r A�1 1 1 I I f '�cs II II II V '�' w..� DRY DCTENflON \�) •.% J �� - - -N -pp- .._,i o _ z -1)1,1, lit e � � ^ II III lS — * H I III d *I$~ , Q Q :0 gg II III II III • r ""Z .�•- water- orxzowr,a, •,r =-:: , -, if DaYlor..�� ,-'•d :,.out.a uu. —. atommumar A p Jaw.a a.s+n[raw ..r-- .. EXHIBIT Ne" EXHIBIT D SR/W IYIE ` R/)lt LINE 2. [VALL�E' CUTTER V Y ALLE CUTTER L ]5' R/W 10' P.u.E. H500 15-..I 1.7. PANE0AI? I I2' p410E1.4ENT' 3.5 1n' P UE 1 SOO SLOPE .04'/FT. I-■/2" TYPE 5-6 ASPHALTIC CONCRETE 5 PLACE° IN Two NC SLOPE .04'/FL • UFTSJ NG NC --.. ROPE .02'/FT: SLOPEy i. AOPE .04./FT, 4: 4.� J $00 %I/�'I/ /// Apt.f 5. UMEROCK 12' STABUJZEO SUBCRADE BASE (IAN (MIN. LBR . 40) LBR - too) 111 TYPICAL ROAD SECTION- 35 ' R/W N.T.S. 15' L.E.E. EL. 0.5 7.5' PLANTING--+4.• 16 r„ CONTROL ELEV. STRIP L.Y.E. (.44.0 (MAXIMUM SLOPES SHOWN) / I It MAX) LITTORAL PLANTING L 2 1 TYPICAL LAKE SECTION N.T.S 1,--- • - .A• r:• •.. 0 -18-01 ROWS Rik Mar OM A r 1!130 Nov uJw■7. suit. 500 D DETAIL SHAT .o. 1 Myers.. It 73407 MISS IINLI f 40150-SP A.WA UtSt Er � rheas:(N 44 l) 43T- 01 amot -- Ac (MI) 437-4•0 Ms WAS 11-11•11: .4nH.e..na. ..e.. .•rs 2r-IS-0I Sheet No. 1 of 1 • STATE OF FLORIDA) COUNTY OF COLLIER) I, DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk of Courts in and for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, Collier County, Florida, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of: ORDINANCE NO. 2002-55 Which was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on the 5th day of November, 2002, during Regular Session. • WITNESS my hand and the official seal of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this 13th day of November, 2002 . DWIGHT E. BROCK .����' . ...C Clerk of Courts and;,t grO - . Ex-officio to Boar •� , - County Commissione-Vs By: Ellie Hoffman, Deputy Clerk 4110 • Industry Group 801:Offices And Clinics Of Doctors Of Medicine 8011 Offices and Clinics of Doctors of Medicine tk jl • Industry Group 802: Offices And Clinics Of Dentists • 8021 Offices and Clinics of Dentists Industry Group 803: Offices And Clinics Of Doctors Of Osteopathy - 8031 Offices and Ciiriic8 of Ductors-of Osteopath, - - Industry Group 804: Offices And Clinics Of Other Health Practitioners • 8041 Offices and Clinics of Chiropractors • 8042 Offices and Clinics of Optometrists • 8043 Offices and Clinics of Podiatrists • 8049 Offices and Clinics of Health Practitioners, Not Elsewhere Classified Industry Group 805: Nursing And Personal Care Facilities 8051 Skilled Nursing Care Facilities • 8052 Intermediate Care Facilities 8059 Nursing and Personal Care Facilities, Not Elsewhere Classified Industry Group 806: Hospitals • 8062 General Medical and Surgical Hospitals 8063 Psychiatric Hospitals • • 8069 Specialty Hospitals, Except Psychiatric Industry Group 807: Medical And Dental Laboratories • 8071 Medical Laboratories • 8072 Dental Laboratories Industry Group 808: Home Health Care Services • 8082 Home Health Care Services Industry Group 809: Miscellaneous Health And Allied Services,Not • 8092 Kidney Dialysis Centers • 8093 Specialty Outpatient Facilities, Not Elsewhere Classified • 8099 Health and Allied Services, Not Elsewhere Classified • q_ )( \f) -k \D 1 -\-- 1 ‘ C 1 .w PINE RIDGE ROAD - 2.-- 0 / -'.s:,s \\. [ 0 Vifil-17—C H o o L t' o IIIL o ' - UrrllIIlU I r..... Z a l` U ' s v i rrn 0 r iii� �) =1 \ i O mot. . + • _7=:- i - - 1 ,!' ''' __3 .La --------L.a,- -\ il i I ,=-,„ —i : , .J Ti 1L < . IID-, 'yyll �rEC :. 1. I_ I_J '}}Y1 - 0 Pill •v rrlw`r»C'o /y� ;».'I r=s»=W�e kj,.ri e � '� . I w I ft xt :y xfgll i li ,_14 i, f iiiIii1t'I9ii 0 ii qh i 111! i IHM5gEtiiiip iii /iltilitiatIVItt4i i iii i i i4 \K V\ .\-- \-- A-PROJECT: Marquesa Plaza Prepared by:RWA,Inc Collier County,FL Date:S/20/13 • Area Designation Suite Tenant Name Gross SF Type of Use Shopping Center Required Number Parking Rate Per LDC Parking Spaces 1 3370-1 Starbucks 1,800 Restaurant :per 25D SF 7 3370-2 Zoom Tan 1,520 Retail` :pc,250 SF 6 3370-3 Metro PCS 1 476 Retail 1 per 250 SF 6 A6C - -.-n Bank 1- 61,50. _ J.z,':D SF 44 rr • - __ . _ - _ _ - 13040-1 Senor Tequila 5,567 Restaurant 1 Per 250Sf 22 13040-2 Collier County Democrats 2,030 Office 1 per 250 SF B 13040-3 Suncoast Dental 4,500 Office 1 per 250 SF 18 13040-4 For Footed Friends 1,500 Retail 1 per 250 SF 6 13040-5 Sport Clios 1,500 Salon 1 per 250 5F 6 13040-6 Naples Vet 1.693 Vet Office 1 per 250 SF 7 13040-7 IEuropean Nails&Spa 1,693 Salon 1 per 250 SF 7 13040-8 Barrier Reef 1,693 retail 1 per 250 SF 7 13040-9 Reflections Salon 1,693 Salon 1 per 250 SF 7 13040-10 Moravela's Pizza 1,693 Restaurant 1 per 250 SF 7 13040-11 Martin Pierre Restaurant 1.600 Restaurant 1 per 250 SF 6 13040-12 Comast 1,600 Office 1 per 250 SF 6 13040-:3 Comast 1.600 Office 1 per 250 SF 6 13040-1d Cecil's Copy Express 1,600 Retail 1 per 250 SF 6 13040-15 Matsumoto Framing 1,600 Retail 1 per 250 SF 6 13040.16 Lolllipops Kids Spa 1,693 Retail 1 per 250 SF 7 13040-17-18 Anytime Fitness 3,386 Fitness :per 250 SF 14 13040-19 Naples Aiki Jujitsu 1,693 Fitness 1 per 250 SF 7 13030-1 First Watch 4,543 Restaurant 1 per 250 SF 18 13030-2 Medical Department Store 2,100 Retail 1 per 250 SF 8 13030-354 ER Quickcare 2,800 Medical I per 250 SF 11 13020-1-3 Hope Adult Daycare 8,656 Adult Daycare 1 per 250 5F 35 13020-4&5 Vacant 6.000 Retail 1 per 250 SF 24 13020-6 Camel Ice Cream 1,000 Restaurant 1 per 250 SF 4 13020-7 Paw Paw Patch 1,000 Pet grooming 1 per 250 SF 4 • 13020-8 Fla Care Pharmacy 3.030 Pharmacy 1 per 2S0 SF 12 _13020-9 Excel Physical Therapy 2,438 Mcdical :pei 250 SF 10 13020-10 VIP Dry Cleaner 2,438 Retail ^1 per 260 SF 10 13020-11 Vacant 2,500 Retail 1 per 250 SF 10 13020-12 Uniforms Unlimited 2,375 Retail 1 per 250 SF 10 13020.13 Goodwill 2,375 Retail 1 per 250 SF 10 13020-14 Vacant 2A75 Retail 1 per 250 SF 10 13020-15 Five Guys 2.840 Restaurant 1 per 250 SF 11 13020.16 All State 1.912 Office 1 per 250 SF 8 13020-17 My Gym Naples 2.253 Kids Gym 1 per 250 SF 9 13020-18 Tire Choice 5,000 Auto 1 per 250 SF 20 Total SF 115.235 461 Actual Number of Parking Spaces at Marquess 525 Surplus 64 Per Collier County Section 4.05.04 Parking Requirements: "1 space per 250 square feet for centers with a gross floor area less than 400,000 square feet and not having significant cinemas/theaters (none or those with a total cinema/theater seating capacity of less than 5 seats per 1,000 square feet of the shopping center's gross floor area). No more than 20 percent of a shopping center's floor area can be composed of restaurants without providing additional parking for the area over 20 percent." "No more than 20 percent of a shopping center's floor area can be composed of resuarants without providing additional parking for the area over 20 percent" Existing Number of Parking Spaces Per Alta Survey: 525 Current Total SF: 115,235 Existing Restaurant SF: 19,043 • Current%of Restaurant Space 17% 125 Maximum Allowed SF: 125,000 20%of Max Allowed SF: 25,000 • RESOLUTION NO.2012- 3 3 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA APPROVING A DENTAL OFFICE AS A PERMITTED USE IN THE BALDRIDGE PUD. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH,RANGE26 EAST,COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. -=4y WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public;and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (LDC) (Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the rezoning of land to Planned Unit Development(PUD);and WHEREAS,on November 5,2002,by Ordinance 2002-55,the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County approved a Planned Unit Development(PUD)known as the Baldridge PUD(Exhibit A)for the subject property;and WHEREAS, the Baldridge PUD does not currently expressly contain the Standard Industrial • Classification(SIC)code for dental offices;and WHEREAS, Section 3.3.a of the Baldridge PUD provides for certain permitted uses, including Subsection 3.3.a.33, "Any other general commercial use, which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses, including buildings for retail, service and office purposes consistent with the permitted uses and purpose and intent statement of this PUD as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals";and WHEREAS,the Petitioner requests a determination by the Board of Zoning Appeals that a dental office is a permitted use in the Baldridge PUD according to Section 3.3.a.33 of the PUD;and WHEREAS, the Board has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by the Land Development Code; and WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Appeals has held a public hearing with due notice made, and all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this Board in public meeting assembled, and the Board having considered granting the request by Livingston and Pine Ridge, LLC,for the permitted use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA,that • Baldridge PUD/PL2011-2649 Rev. 2/08/12 1 of 2 (1) A dental office is a permitted use in the Baldtidge PUD,according to Section 33.a33 of the PUD. • BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this Board. DD This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote, this 23e day -of- - -V, NU. i` ATTEST: r' BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS D (I0 •41t,QC'c.CLERIC COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA 1313 •� X):C B (AL`; 4. r>Deputy Clerk FRED W. COYLE, Chairm } �lpprot d as to form and Iegesuffrciency: Steven T. Williams 411, Assistant County Attorney Attachment: Exhibit A—Baldridge PUD CP\11-CPS-01135\16 Baldridge PUD/PL2011-2649 • Rev. 2/08/12 2 of 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PL-2011-2649 Recommendation that the Board of Zoning Appeals approve a proposed land use for a dental office as a permitted use in the Baldridge PUD (Ordinance Number: 02-557. OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) determine that a dental office is a permitted use in the Baldridge Planned Unit Development (PUD) pursuant to Section 3.3.a.33 of the PUD, which allows for a determination of consistency and compatibility for a commercial use that is comparable in nature with the uses allowed in the PUD. CONSIDERATIONS: The Baldridge PUD was approved on November 5, 2002. The subject PUD allows for a mix of commercial land uses. It is located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Pine Ridge Road and Livingston Road. The Marquesa Plaza shopping center has been constructed within the Baldridge PUD. The petitioner submitted a request for a Zoning Verification Letter (ZLTR-PL-2011-2526) to • determine if a dental office is a permitted use in the Baldridge PUD. The Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code for a dental office is 8021. That SIC Code is not listed in the permitted uses of the Baldridge PUD; therefore, in the ZLTR, the Zoning Manager determined that a dental office is not permitted in the PUD. The Zoning Manager also noted that Section 3.3.a.33 of the PUD permits "any other general commercial use, which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses, including buildings for retail, service and office purposes consistent with the permitted uses and purpose and intent statement of this PUD as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals" (italics added). Research by Zoning Services determined the following: • A dental office is a permitted use in the General Commercial (C-4) zoning district, and may therefore be considered a"general commercial use"; • Veterinary services (SIC Code 0742), which specifically includes dentistry for animals, is a permitted use in the PUD; therefore, dental offices may be considered "comparable in nature with the foregoing uses"; • The PUD does not contain a "purpose and intent statement", but Section 3.2, Development Emphasis, states that "the property is permitted a full array of commercial uses as indicated in the Growth Management Plan"(GMP); • The GMP states that within the southeast quadrant of the Livingston/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict (in which the Baldridge PUD lies) "general and medical office uses are limited to three stories with a 50-foot maximum height"; therefore, medical offices are clearly allowed by the GMP. Baldridge PUD 2-28-12 FISCAL IMPACT: • The proposed land use for a dental office by and of itself will have no fiscal impact on Collier County. There is also no guarantee that a dental office will be established on the subject site. In addition, if the use is approved, it will be located in an existing shopping center; therefore, the existing land will not have-to be developed(beyond an interior remodel)which-will not result-in------ =- an impact on Collier County public facilities. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no Growth Management impact associated with this determination. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This matter has been reviewed by the County Attorney's Office and has been found legally sufficient. An affirmative vote of four commissioners is required for approval. (STW) RECOMMENDATION: That the BZA determine that a dental office(SIC Code 8021)is a permitted use in the Baldridge PUD. PREPARED BY: • Fred Reischl,AICP, Senior Planner Department of Land Development Services Attachments: Exhibit"A"-Application and back-up material Exhibit`B"-Resolution • Baldridge PUD 2 2-28-12