HEX Final Decision 2023-19INSTR 6426426 OR 6266 PG 2517
RECORDED 7/10/2023 2:04 PM PAGES 9
CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURTAND COMPTROLLER
COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA
HEX NO. 2023-19 REC $78.00
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
DATE OF HEARING.
May 25, 2023
PETITION.
Petition No. PDI-PL20220008309 - Creekside Commerce Park - Request for an insubstantial
change to Creekside Commerce Park Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) by
requesting a modification to a deviation to allow Tracts 2 and 3 to qualify for the alternative
architectural compliance process contained within section 5.05.08.G of the Land
Development Code (LDC). The subject tracts comprise 8.67 acres located south of
Immokalee Road and East of Arthrex Way at 1255 and 1265 Creekside Parkway and 1284
Innovation Drive in Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida
GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION.
HEX Decision No. 22-09 was approved by the County's Hearing Examiner to allow for the
alternative architectural compliance process to Tract 7, located within the FC area. The Petitioner
desires to allow for the alternative architectural compliance process to be used on the northern
portion of Tract 3 and Tract 2; both tracts are located within the B area. The alternative
architectural review process is preferred as the existing and proposed buildings within the Arthrex
campus do not identify with the specific building types that are subject to the typical County
architectural standards found in Section 5.05.08 of the LDC.
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.
Page 1 of 6
5. The NIM was advertised and held at 5:30 pm on April 4, 2023, at Arthrex, 1 Arthrex Way,
Naples, Florida. No members of the public showed up for the meeting and there was no remote
participation, therefore the NIM never commenced and was terminated at, or about, 5:45 pm.
Advertising information is contained within Attachment E, below.
6. There is one active land use application involving one of the three parcels; SDPA-
PL20220007640, for the Arthrex Child Development Center located at 1255 Creekside
Parkway, Folio No. 29331190686.
7. 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.
8. The County's Land Development Code Section l 0.02.13.E.1. and 10.02.13.E.2 lists the criteria
for an insubstantial change to an approved PUD ordinance. The Hearing Examiner acting in
the capacity of the Planning Commission shall make findings as to the original application
with the criteria in Land Development Code Sections 10.02.13.E.1 and 10.02.13.E.2.'
LDC Section 10.02.13.E.1 Criteria:
1. Is there a proposed change in the boundary of the Planned Unit Development (PUD)?
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that there is no
proposed change in the boundary of the PUD.
2. Is there a proposed increase in the total number of dwelling units or intensity of land use
or height of buildings within the development?
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the request will
not increase in the number of dwelling units or intensity of land use, or height of buildings
within the development.
3. Is there a proposed decrease in preservation, conservation, recreation, or open space areas
within the development in excess of five (5) percent of the total acreage previously
designated as such, or five (5) acres in area?
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the request will
not cause a decrease in preservation, conservation, recreation, or open space areas within
the development as designated on the approved Master Plan.
4. Is there a proposed increase in the size of areas used for non-residential uses, to include
institutional, commercial, and industrial land uses (excluding preservation, conservation,
or open space), or a proposed relocation of nonresidential land uses?
1 The Hearing Examiner's findings are italicized.
Page 2 of 6
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the request does
not impact the size of non-residential areas or propose to relocate such areas within the
PUD boundary.
5. Is there a substantial increase in the impacts of the development which may include, but
are not limited to increases in traffic generation; changes in traffic circulation; or impacts
on other public facilities?
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the request will
not result in no substantial impacts resulting from this amendment.
6. Will the change result in land use activities that generate a higher level of vehicular traffic
based upon the Trip Generation Manual published by the Institute of Transportation
Engineers?
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the request will
not result in land use activities that generate higher levels of vehicular traffic based upon
the Trip Generation Manual published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. A prior
trip cap has been established for the PUD.
7. Will the change result in a requirement for increased stormwater retention, or otherwise
increase stormwater discharge?
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the request will
not impact or increase stormwater retention or increase stormwater discharge.
8. Will the proposed change bring about a relationship to an abutting land use that would be
incompatible with an adjacent land use?
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the request will
not result in incompatible relationships with abutting land uses. The resulting amendment
will allow for the continuation of harmonious architecture throughout the Arthrex campus.
9. Arc there any modifications to the PUD Master Plan or PUD document or amendment to a
PUD ordinance which is inconsistent with the Future Land Use Element or other elements
of the Growth Management Plan or which modification would increase the density of
intensity of the permitted land uses?
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the proposed
changes to the PUD Document would be consistent within the FLUE of the GMP and no
changes to the PUD Document are proposed that would be deemed inconsistent with the
Transportation Element of the GMP. This petition does notpropose any increase in density
or intensity of the permitted land uses.
10. The proposed change is to a PUD District designated as a Development of Regional Impact
(DRI) and approved pursuant to Chapter 380.06, Florida Statues, where such change
Page 3 of 6
requires a determination and public hearing by Collier County pursuant to Sec. 380.06 (19),
F.S. Any change that meets the criterion of Sec. 380.06 (19)(e)2., F.S., and any changes to
a DRI/PUD Master Plan that clearly do not create a substantial deviation shall be reviewed
and approved by Collier County under Section 10.02.13 of the LDC.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that due to the limited
nature of this request, a determination and public hearing under F.S. 380.06(19) will not
be required.
11. Are there any modifications to the PUD Master Plan or PUD document or amendment to a
PUD ordinance which impact(s) any consideration deemed to be a substantial modification
as described under Section(s) 10.02.13 E.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the request is not
a substantial modification.
The request complies with the thresholds for insubstantial changes to PUDs as outlined in LDC
Sec. 10.02.13.E.2 as follows:
Does this petition change the analysis of findings and criteria used for the original
application?
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the proposed
changes do not affect the original analysis and findings from the latest PUDA; PUDA-
PL20190002850.
DEVIATION:
The petitioner is seeking one revised deviation. The deviation is found in PUD Section 4.5
"Development Deviations." The deviation locations are depicted on the Master Plan.
Deviation #3: (Revised Deviation in Section 4.5. 3. applies only to the B District; see the
strikethrough and underlined text below for changes to the existing deviation.)
Deviation #3 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.05.08.G, Deviations and alternate
compliance, which authorizes the County Manager or designee to administratively
approve deviations from compliance with Section 5.05.08F of the LDC fer-speEi€e
types .. f buildings, to allow general or�f'reemi'ld mediesa l office, hotel, .,.,..7 ..L,ysie4
fitness f lifi s that a be , nst...,etea en the s ,.them ....,.-tie Tracts 2 and 3
of the Master Plan to be eligible for this deviation process.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the petitioner has
demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety,
and welfare of the community" and the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is `justified
as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to the literal application of such
regulations.
Page 4 of 6
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 Section
10.02.13.E.1 of the Land Development Code to approve Petition.
DECISION.
The Hearing Examiner hereby APPROVES Petition Number PDI-PL20220008309, fled by RES
Florida 1370 Holdings LLC representing RES Florida 1255 Holdings LLC, RES Florida 1265
Holdings LLC and RE, S Florida 1284 Holdings LLC, with respect to the property as described in
the Creekside Commerce Park Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD), Ordinance No.
06-50, as amended, for the following:
• An insubstantial change to the Creekside Commerce Park Commercial Planned Unit
Development (CPUD), Ordinance Number 2006-50, as amended, by requesting a
modification to a deviation to allow Tracts 2 and 3 to qualify for the alternative
architectural compliance process contained within section 5.05.08.G of the Collier County
Land Development Code (LDC).
Said changes are fully described in the proposed PUD Revisions attached as Exhibit "A" and the
Proposed PUD Master Plan Revision attached as Exhibit `B" and are subject to the conditions
below.
ATTACHMENTS.
Exhibit A — Proposed PUD Revisions
Exhibit B — Proposed PUD Master Plan Revision
LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
See Ordinance No. 06-50, as amended.
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
Page 5 of 6
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.
June 22 .
Date
Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP
Hearing Examiner
Page 6 of 6
EXHIBIT "A"
SECTION IV
BUSINESS DISTRICT
*** *** *** *** *** Text break *** *** *** *** ***
4.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
*** *** *** *** *** Text break *** *** *** *** ***
E. Commercial design guidelines for facilities in the Business District shall be subject to the
provisions of B+v+sien 2.8LDC Section 5.05.08. Architectural and Site Design Standards and
Site Design Standards for commercial buildings and projects, except buildings located on
Tracts 2 and 3. Buildings located iA the seWtheFA peFti9A efon
Tracts 2 and 3 as labeled on the Master Plan shall be subject to the deviation process in
Section 5.05.08 of the LDC (see Section 4.5.3, Development Deviations, of this PUD
Ordinance).
*** *** *** *** *** Text break *** *** *** *** ***
4.5 DEVELOPMENT DEVIATIONS
1. Deviation from LDC Section 5.05.04 D.1 which establishes a .45 floor area ratio (FAR) for
group housing uses, to permit an FAR of .6 for group housing uses, including the
intermediate care facility.
2. Deviation from LDC Section 5.06.04.F.3 Directory signs, which authorizes one (1)
directory sign to be located at the project entrance, to permit installation of the
directory sign on Immokalee Road east of Goodlette-Frank Road, not at the project
entry, but rather at a location between the project entry and Goodlette-Frank Road.
3. Deviation from LDC Section 5.05.08.G, Deviations and alternate compliance, which
authorizes the County Manager or designee to administratively approve deviations from
compliance with Section 5.05.08 of the LDC fGF specific types of buildings, to all
geneFal effirce and medical efflce, hotel and .,hysieal fitRe facilities thatGaR
L,.
GGRStFWGt the sewthem racts 2 and 3 of the Master Plan to be eligible
for this deviation process.
4. Deviation from LDC Section 4.06.02.C.2, "Table 2.4 Table of Buffer Requirements by
Land Use Classifications", which requires Residential (RMF-6, RMF-12, RMF-16)
multifamily district/use adjacent to Commercial 3 (C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5); Business Park
(BP) district/use to provide a 15' wide type 'B' landscape buffer, to allow no buffer
between the proposed residential use and the existing commercial use located to the
north and a shared 15 foot wide type 'B' buffer with the institutional use located to the
south.
Words ,.tru k throulgh are deleted; words underlined are added.
PL20220008309 Creekside Commerce Park PUD (PDI) March 3, 2023
EXHIBIT "A"
EXHIBIT "B"
....,.
NVl a31SVn 1Vnw3allo3u •.'"". "'^� •""'°"°" m. £ZOZ/£/£ 03SIA3H
a 118
1
N%3
MIYd saympro) far"7390
O
z F
a O W C
u aw U
V W F < o m .uf u Q uWi w
u W N W y Q Q u U U U U W Cr m
�c Q«Q< '7Ir
0Ln 01 0 0 V- W
QQ W �`-j ILUw� Y e N rl Q3 r-I �O Y V N
m woowa�wu yza r r. IT N ON N cV V- M U �a
ga Fw II II II II II II II Q II W�
N
z2� u d3�
OOO�W; jLLQ nQ ba RW 5m OOW +I
W UQ1 li Wm
WMz fl.� N Zz
QLnoo Q �i
F�lg,o ( u m � cWYG
Q Yor:q^ �o c0 V1 N�� i za � Q m
,� m
<9 C to O< W K
1 V m W V) 'n C a� N y o Q W �z z w
� _ 7 .L N VI N oo Z < w W
we VI C 7 f0 +_+ X R 2 Q N W O
< a V D rOr l a ce --j o_ O� H u
F= a I I I ® v_Q Wo
Z V ?>> W � a
IC CREEKSIDE BLVD E g H m J d a-
t7 H a
Rio
wo
of u m O r <S WmW s.N
xa LL a CO Na � r <, V I ioYMFu -n
E
of "a y"F.
z y _ 8 E
mNm`� O�
u Z f O d M1 -
<J
w $ is c ° m I13 0 f/1 yOy_jWaYtlIX
311�'_XIGbD
I -
77
-- M o00 I\
104
mo V
a �LLm UmmmM.. �9� aN a mi ` $ m 7
IL
o¢ Im< aHNd a
fill
LA
' LA
VATION Do
wail \ d
zW
C ❑
aSl �d
W
2z 3-
wo o ¢z
<?ma z
/
B
L
w
_
¢
U
C
mm
w
°
Oz
c
am
•�H
m
E
ma�
's
Q
o�
60
°u
Y)
o
1!
UUyd9
�III�L
f
;
�O-W
QNa
m=
d
I �
LLDLL
9 1• B
mwm
�IiE.
Z�aS
b4am
\\
i
w OOu
fill
Q
W�Wu
O
W
2
W