Loading...
HEX Final Decision 2021-30Page 1 of 4 HEX NO. 2021-30 HEARING EXAMINER DECISION DATE OF HEARING. July 22, 2021 PETITION. PETITION NO. PDI-PL20200000746. Fifth Third Bank for an insubstantial change to the Collier Tract 22 Planned Unit Development (PUD) by designating an ingress -egress access to the master plan. The subject PUD is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Immokalee Road and Health Park Boulevard consisting of 506± acres in Section 22, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION. The purpose of the project is to amend the Collier Tract 22 Master Plan and record an ingress- egress access for Tract A on to Health Park Boulevard STAFF RECOMMENDATION. Approval with conditions. FINDINGS. 1. The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction over this Petitioner pursuant to Sec. 2-87 of the Collier County of Ordinances, Sec. 8.10.00 of the Land Development Code, and Chapter 9 of the County Administrative Code. 2. The public hearing for this Petition was properly noticed and conducted in accordance with all County and state requirements. 3. The public hearing was conducted electronically and in-person in accordance with Emergency/Executive Order 2020-04. 4. The Petitioner and/or Petitioner’s representative executed the Hybrid Virtual Quasi-Judicial Public Hearing Waiver related to conducting the public hearing electronically and in-person. 5. The applicant requested a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) Waiver on December 21, 2020. The Hearing Examiner granted a NIM Waiver on January 5, 2021, pursuant to Section 10.03.06(H)(2)(a) of the Collier County Land Development Code. The Hearing Examiner reserved the right to continue the public hearing and to require a NIM to be scheduled. Page 2 of 4 6. This project does not require Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) review, as this project did not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Section 2- 1193 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances. 7. The Petitioner and/or Petitioner’s representative presented the Petition, followed by County staff and then public comment. There were no objections at the public hearing. 8. The County’s Land Development Code Section 10.02.08 lists the criteria for amending a PUD Master Plan. The Hearing Examiner acting in the capacity of the Planning Commission shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan’s compliance with the criteria and findings in Land Development Code Sections 10.02.08 and 10.02.13.B.5.1 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. Based on the record at the subject public hearing, including expert testimony and evidence the proposed amendment does not affect the uses or the property development regulations. The site will remain compatible with the development approved in the area. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contracts, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Based on the record at the subject public hearing, including expert testimony and evidence the documents submitted with the application were reviewed by the County Attorney’s Office and demonstrate that there is adequate evidence of unified control. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Based on the record at the subject public hearing, including expert testimony and evidence the petition is consistent with the GMP. 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on the location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. Based on the record at the subject public hearing, including expert testimony and evidence the proposed changes to the PUD Master Plan document do not affect the landscaping standards of the originally approved PUD. Additionally, the county Development Review Division has reviewed the proposed amendment and finds that the buffers labeled on the Master Plan are consistent with the LDC provisions. 1 The Hearing Examiner’s findings are italicized. Page 3 of 4 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. Based on the record at the subject public hearing, including expert testimony and evidence the change to the Master Plan does not affect open space areas. Compliance with approved standards would be demonstrated at the time of site development plan SDP. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of ensuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. Based on the record at the subject public hearing, including expert testimony and evidence compliance with all other applicable concurrency management regulations is required, including but not limited to, plat plans or site development plans. County Transportation Planning staff finds the roadway infrastructure is sufficient to serve the proposed project, as noted in the Transportation Element consistency review. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. Based on the record at the subject public hearing, including expert testimony and evidence the area has adequate supporting infrastructure, including City water and County wastewater mains, to accommodate this project. 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on a determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to the literal application of such regulations. Based on the record at the subject public hearing, including expert testimony and evidence any proposed future development for the Collier Tract 22 PUD is required to comply with the LDC and any other applicable codes. The proposed amendment for this application is a change to the Master Plan document. ANALYSIS. Based on a review of the record including the Petition, application, exhibits, the County’s staff report, and hearing comments and testimony from the Petitioner and/or the Petitioner’s representative(s), County staff and any given by the public, the Hearing Examiner finds that there is enough competent, substantial evidence as applied to the criteria set forth in Sections 10.02.08 and 10.02.13.B.5 of the Land Development Code to approve Petition. DECISION. The Hearing Examiner hereby APPROVES Petition Number PDI-PL20200000746, filed by Patricia Ortiz, AICP of Ortiz Planning Solutions representing Collier Health Park Condominium Association, Inc. and Fifth Third Bank with respect to the property as described in the Collier County Tract 22 Planned Unit Development (PUD), Ordinance No. 1991-12, for the following: Page 4 of 4 x To consider an application to amend Ordinance Number 1991-21, the Collier Tract 22 Planned Unit Development (PUD) to update the current PUD Master Plan document to show an ingress-egress point for Tract A of the PUD. No other changes are proposed. Said changes are fully described in the Proposed Master Plan attached as Exhibit "A" and are subject to the condition(s) set forth below. ATTACHMENTS. Exhibit A – Proposed Master Plan LEGAL DESCRIPTION. See Ordinance No. 1991-21 CONDITIONS. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development. DISCLAIMER. Pursuant to Section 125.022(5) F.S., issuance of a development permit by a county does not in any way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. APPEALS. This decision becomes effective on the date it is rendered. An appeal of this decision shall be done in accordance with applicable ordinances, codes and law. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AND EXHIBITS: SEE CLERK OF COURT, MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. DECISIONS OF THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR VARIANCES, CONDITIONAL USES, AND BOAT DOCK EXTENSIONS SHALL BE NOTED ON THE ZONING MAP FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES. ________________________ ____________________________________ Date Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP Hearing Examiner August 18, 2021 EXHIBIT “A” Legend PROPOSED