HEX Final Decision 2022-32 INSTR 62963Q9(lR g1F3 PG 2803
RECORDED 8/15/2022 1:50 PM PAGES 5
CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT AND COMPTROLLER
COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA
HEX NO. 2022-32 REC$44.00
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
DATE OF HEARING.
July 14,2022
PETITION.
Petition No. CU PL20220003185 - Artesa Pointe (PCUD) - Request for a comparable use
determination that Tobacco and Vape Retail Store is comparable,compatible,and consistent
with the list of permitted uses in section 4.4.A of the Artesa Pointe Planned Unit Development
(PUD) adopted by Ordinance Number 03-46, as amended. The subject parcel is
approximately +1.73 acres, located on the east side of Collier Boulevard, approximately a
third of a mile south of the intersection of Collier Boulevard and US 41, in Section 3,
Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION.
The Petitioner requests a determination that the proposed use of a Tobacco and Vape Retail Store
(SIC Code 5993) is comparable in nature to other permitted uses in Section 4.4.A of the Artesa
Pointe Planned Unit Development (PUD) adopted by Ordinance Number 03-46, as amended.
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. Per LDC Section 10.03.06.0. and the Administrative Code, a newspaper advertisement is
required for public hearing in accordance with F.S. § 125.66. The newspaper advertisement
posted in the Naples Daily News on June 24, 2022 Per the LDC and Administrative Code, a
Page 1of5
Comparable Use Determination petition does not require a Neighborhood Information
Meeting, a mailing to surrounding property owners, or posting of a sign on the property.
6. The County Staff presented the Petition followed by the Petitioner and/or Petitioner's
representative, public comment and then rebuttal by the Petitioner and/or Petitioner's
representative. There were no objections at the public hearing.
7. The County's Land Development Code Section 10.02.06.K lists the criteria for a comparable
use determination. The Hearing Examiner may approve a comparable use determination based
on the following standards, as applicable.'
1. The proposed use possesses similar characteristics to the other permitted uses in the zoning
district, overlay, or PUD, including but not limited to the following:
i. Operating hours.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that operating
hours are proposed to be 9 AM to 10 PM for Monday through Saturday and 9
AM to 9 PM which is less than the operating hours of the gas station (5:30 AM
to 10:30 PM) and less than Walmart(6 AM to 11 PM).
ii. Traffic volume generated/attracted.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the ITE
does not have a separate category for just tobacco and vape shops as they are
typically located in a plaza with multiple users. The proposed shops will not
attract more volume than any other type of shop located in a traditional strip
retail plaza.
iii. Type of vehicles associated with the use.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the type
of vehicles associated with this use is similar to any other retail use that would
be proposed in a shopping plaza, with customers coming in with their personal
vehicle and drop-off and deliveries coming in a delivery commercial vehicle.
iv. Number and type of required parking spaces.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the type
of vehicles associated with this use is similar to any other retail use that would
be proposed in a shopping plaza. The number of parking spaces that would be
required would be 1 per 250 square feet. The retail shopping plaza is already
built per PL20150000193 and required 1 space per 250 so the plaza should be
able to accommodate the number of required spaces for the proposed retail shop.
1 The Hearing Examiner's findings are italicized.
Page 2 of 5
v. Business practices and activities.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the
proposed retail shop does not propose a smoking lounge and will sell tobacco
products that are already being sold at Walmart and at the gas station which is
located within the same PUD.
2. The effect the proposed use would have on neighboring properties in relation to the noise,
glare, or odor effects shall be no greater than that of other permitted uses in the zoning
district, overlay, or PUD.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the
subject site is surrounded by commercially designated parcels of the Artesa
Pointe PUD and surrounded by two major roads. The proposed vape and tobacco
shop will not add any additional impacts to the noise, glare, or odor on
neighboring properties.
3. The proposed use is consistent with the GMP, meaning the applicable future land use
designation does not specifically prohibit the proposed use, and, where the future land use
designation contains a specific list of allowable uses,the proposed use is not omitted.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that
Henderson Creek Mixed Use Subdistrict states that the maximum intensity of
commercial uses allowed in the subdistrict shall be C-4. The proposed use of
tobacco sales is permitted in the C-3 and C-4 zoning districts; therefore, the use
is consistent with the GMP.
4. The proposed use shall be compatible and consistent with the other permitted uses in the
zoning district, overlay, or PUD.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that many of
the uses permitted in the non-regional section of this PUD are allowed in the C3
and C-4 zoning districts as is the proposed tobacco and vape retail. To the north
of the Artesa Pointe PUD, there is also the Tamiami Crossing PUD which also
allows similar C-3 and C-4 permitted uses.
5. Any additional relevant information as may be required by County Manager or Designee.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that is not
required.
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
Page 3 of 5
is enough competent, substantial evidence as applied to the criteria set forth in Section 10.02.06.K
of the Land Development Code to approve this Petition.
DECISION.
The Hearing Examiner hereby APPROVES Petition Number PCUD-PL20220003185, filed by
Chris Mitchell, P.E. of JR Evan Engineering, P.A. representing Emilia Akridge and Rook at
Naples, LLC, with respect to the property as described in the Artesa Pointe Planned United
Development(PUD),adopted by Ordinance 03-46,as amended, located at 6654 Collier Boulevard
in Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, for the following:
• A Request for a determination that the proposed use of a Tobacco and Vape Retail Store
(SIC Code 5993) is comparable in nature to other permitted uses in Section 4.4.A of the
Artesa Pointe Planned Unit Development(PUD) adopted by Ordinance Number 03-46, as
amended.
ATTACHMENTS.
None.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
Artesa Pointe Planned United Development (PUD), adopted by Ordinance 03-46, as amended,
located at 6654 Collier Boulevard in Section 3,Township 51 South,Range 26 East,Collier County,
Florida
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.
Page 4 of 5
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.
,pe. ....,,it,„....----
August 11, 2022
Date Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP
Hearing Examiner
Page 5 of 5