Loading...
HEX Final Decision 2024-04 HEX NO. 2024-04 HEARING EXAMINER DECISION DATE OF HEARING. INSTR 6515527 OR 6335 PG 2977 RECORDED 3/5/2024 3:17 PM PAGES 13 December 14, 2023 CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT AND COMPTROLLER COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA PETITION. REC$112.00 Petition No.PDI-PL20230011202-Yarberry Lane and Arbour Walk Circle-Request for an insubstantial change to the Palisades Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD), Ordinance No. 22-20,to modify the cross sections in Exhibit C of the Master Plan, including the depiction of the as-built elevations of 12.5 feet for the wall that runs the length of the perimeter RPUD boundary; and to revise Deviation 1 to reflect the correct elevation of the wall. The subject property consists of 112.0 acres in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Yarberry Lane and Arbour Walk Circle in Section 2, Township 49 South, Range 25 East,Collier County,Florida. GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION. The petitioner requests an insubstantial change (PDI)to Ordinance No. 2022-20 for the Palisades Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) to modify the cross sections shown in Exhibit C of the Master Plan,including the depiction of the permitter wall as-built elevation of 12.5 feet.The Palisades RPUD was originally rezoned from RSF-1 by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC)on May 24,2022(Ord. 22-20)to allow the development of up to 36 detached single-family dwelling units and accessory structures. 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 NIM was advertised and held on Thursday,November 16,2023,at 5:05 p.m. One attendee came to the meeting, as well Collier County Staff. Page 1 of 6 5. 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. 6. The site has been platted and cleared; some infrastructure, such as sanitary sewer, has been installed.A perimeter berm and six-to eight-foot wall have also been constructed. In addition, the applicant has planted additional small trees along the wall. At the request of adjacent neighbors,the applicant also installed a chain link fence in the southwest corner of the property to close off an open area and join an existing chain link fence of an abutting PUD that the neighbors were concerned that people might use as a cut-through while walking. 7. The County's Land Development Code Sections 10.02.13.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.2.1 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 the request will not impact the existing RPUD boundary. 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 the proposed buildings'approved density, intensity, or height. 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 decrease preserve, conservation, recreation, or open space areas. 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? '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 RPUD 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 a substantial increase in the impact of the development. 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 this request will not generate a higher level of vehicular traffic. No change in land use activities or intensities is being requested. 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 increase stormwater retention requirements 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 modify any existing uses or intensities that would impact any surrounding land uses or that would be incompatible. 9. Are 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 request does not impact the project's compliance with the Growth Management Plan (GMP). 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 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. Page 3 of 6 The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the RPUD is not within a Development of Regional Impact. 11. Arc 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 to the RPUD and may be processed as a PDI pursuant to the LDC and Administrative Code. This petition seeks only to reflect as-built conditions and clean up an error in Deviation #1 of Ord. 22-20. LDC Sec. 10.02.13.E.2 Criterion: 1. 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 petition has not modified the original analysis of findings and criteria. The petition is changing the berm/wall elevations shown in the Master Plan of Ord. 22-20 to reflect as- built conditions and to correct an error in the language of Deviation #1 to bring it into agreement with the Master Plan. As such, it is an insubstantial change that successfully meets the LDC 10.02.13 E.1 criteria. The petitioner is not seeking any deviations but rather to correct an error in Deviation #1 of Ord. 22-20. Ord. 22-20 Deviation #1 currently reads: Deviation 1 from LDC Section 5.03.02.C.2, "Fences and Walls, " which permits a maximum fence/wall height of six feet in residential components of planned unit development districts, to allow for a maximum fence/wall/berm height of 8 feet along the PUD perimeter boundary. PDI-PL20230011202, Palisades RPUD Page 7 of 7, The proposed change is to change 8 feet to 12.5 feet, as shown below: Deviation 1 from LDC Section 5.03.02.C.2, "Fences and Walls," which permits a maximum fence/wall height of six feet in residential components of planned unit development districts, to allow for a maximum fence/wall/berm height of 12.5 feet along the PUD perimeter boundary. The intent of this deviation was to allow a wall of up to eight feet to be installed, as demonstrated by the deviation language and Master Plan for Ord. 22-20 (See Attachment 1). If the word "berm"was not included in the deviation request, the wording would have been consistent with LDC 5.03.02, would match the intent of the deviation request, and would agree with Master Plan of Ord. 22-20. 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 Page 4 of 6 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 10.02.13.E.1 and 10.02.13.E.2 of the Land Development Code to approve the Petition. DECISION. The Hearing Examiner hereby APPROVES Petition Number PDI-PL20230011202, filed by Jem Frantz of RVI Planning and Landscape Architecture,representing Yarberry Partners, LLC., with respect to the property as described as the ±12-acre planned unit development property in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Yarberry Lane and Arbour Walk Circle, approximately 1,200 feet south of the intersection of Orange Blossom Road and Yarberry Lane, Yarberry Lane is approximately 2,000 feet to the west of and runs parallel to Airport Road, the property is in Section 2 Township 49 South, Range 25 East, in unincorporated Collier County, as amended, for the following: • An insubstantial change (PDI) to Ordinance No. 2022-20 for the Palisades Residential Planned Unit Development(RPUD)to modify the cross sections shown in Exhibit C of the Master Plan,including the depiction of the permitter wall as-built elevation of 12.5 feet. Said changes are fully described in the Master Plan attached as Exhibit "A" and Ordinance No. 22-20 attached as Exhibit`B"are subject to the conditions below. ATTACHMENTS. Exhibit A—Master Plan Exhibit B—Ordinance No. 22-20 LEGAL DESCRIPTION. See Ordinance No. 22-20, 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 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. Page 5 of 6 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. January 12, 2024 Date Andrew Dickman,Esq., AICP Hearing Examiner Page 6 of 6 EXHIBIT "A" ..F.Fragr"'":::>/ v g NVid IIHISVW and ;I; dOili ildM Ufld?I S1UVSflYci ;;," ;.=T 1 dUl101tfM T IL J Q,• � t IL Z � ` (� 191 J Z Z %w ai P /U = ace W O C (aVOU 1Voo1 3NVl z) m CO _� ,, 3NV1 AZIM3S VA M. -- - -- ; - - -=_'1 Coa, wF,),Ei ri i'MWMW0s >k > ,- 2 u °E,„,„1 w Ti,, :<\:1 TH A 6 i a, re.2-6 50 co I � }; {? i$��}•<< g I wa. w a CO N ?A 'g cwi I c~i �1 W "� _ 1 p 1 0 0 Uz❑ W I (n IOw I v C I VC ® 1 m ii—L. 0 j �J1\ W U Z N9 wa 7 I Qom al a� 0 pJ O a z6� Ili 0 J w ' amo �� ® \ / tV1 N21SVw Of ; , 9mU33 mBN31 [\ | ! dO�O]1/M \\ OGdISIOVSI Vd ' ; � ; | ;! ;! § § IP i- . ` 2 \ 10. III' 7 2| § # �1 . . . . m 2 al k .9 ~ 2 § % kf �i ( Rw / § ] N §§ § R¥ K _ ; , ®K �| §� �) , ! $ $ \ £ } q �k `\ \ 2 . ., } o . z Z 2 f \ ) / \ ( © �� 2 ` § i § § ° , ei't ` K| / ] `2 i � a �2 �) | % ,¢ K§ § ®® K " % \§ \ . [ - t. - || | 0 k d �a 2 ` 0 1 , ; e7 • Iii i| n • • • • q = _ q» _m | - | | | 5 a , Nyld IdISVw On Bm�l mNVI ' , OGa� SROySI¥d /� %! | li ! | 0 u 4 W(.0 f 0 0 0° ; : sQ § wu U. \ ® - K01 4 [ LL O m go R / » D- § \ 9 §a \ k _ p 9 0 a f D § {R k 2 LEVIm§ ( m &i \ « ce ! )] ° 2 E/ ) § § § m § §) k2 % § 0 § §§ 2 [ §/ � � 0 § § D R 0 § a J CD N )( 2 %) /§ Cq N 2ir o m E /2 mE § X-0 u 2 > r Z 2) /\ 7t \ - \d § ce O ° § °ce m] ® « §$_ & o C /1 \ o k Z§§ § j m W §2 »2 w 0 0 o@ o ® E c 2 �§ 9 c 0 a p§( / § 6. �2 §2 kk �§ ( k°q $ 0 n2 0 ' L /@ 0 $o §d. � /M �w \\ zO / § /\ �/2 «2 P( �1 §z 0 R cc,,,-$ ILo° Cuo §/ r- eo o wo 20/ §� �(j 0� a ko 2§ §$ §§ b kEa m §�� wo �\ '\/ g2eg§)}§§ (o22 °° °° °L1� �0 80xm ow<§ §\§ §, i ¢m= wzuacoomw o ao m o °E2 k � §o§m( §� w: 0� /^/ � ��^27�E� ■E 0Re .Ti§ �§ nq w§§ ,_§��z_�\ m §z2 a o oo§ mzood2§o �I4 Pow ®, Aw \�& wq%`§w� 5W oa61 2$ 2§ O 0 )f1—N0o> a.[ktd EXHIBIT " B " ORDINANCE NO.2022- 20 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY-1 (RSF-1) ZONING DISTRICT WITHIN SPECIAL., TREATMENT WELLFIELD ZONES W-3 AND W-4 TO A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) ZONING DISTRICT WITHIN SPECIAL TREATMENT WELLFIELD ZONES W-3 AND W-4 FOR A PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS PALISADES RPUD TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF UP TO 36 DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS, ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF YARBERRY LANE, SOUTH OF ORANGE BLOSSOM DRIVE AND WEST OF AIRPORT PULLING ROAD IN SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 12+/- ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. IPL20210000979) WHEREAS, John Cowart, of Waldrop Engineering representing Yarberry Partners, LLC, 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 2, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from a Residential Single-Family-1 (RSF-1) Zoning District within Special Treatment Wellfield Zones W-3 and W-4 to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Zoning District within Special pi-CPS-02 1 26/1 7 1 191 1/I J 103 Palisades/PL20210000979 Page 1 of 2 4/11/22 Treatment Wellfield Zones W-3 and W-4 for the 12+/- acre project to be known as Palisades RPUD in accordance with Exhibits A-F attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly. SECTION TWO: This Ordinance shall become effective upon tiling with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida,this cx 4.h day of Al a , 2022. ATTEST:. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CRYSTAL IC JaNZEL, CLERK COLLIER COU , RIDA • C1 ' Oc .' • By: •uty Clerk' Wi tam L. McDaniel, Jr., Chairman `:.$4<pattlre on .�'� •Approved a` �'to' fdt'tii'and legality: V 2 / Heidi A hton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachments: Exhibit A: List of Permitted Uses Exhibit B: Development and Design Standards This ordinance flied with Nye Exhibit C: Master Concept Plan r of t 's tit Exhibit D: Legal Description °f Exhibit E: Deviations and ocknowledgem t' at Exhibit F: Development Commitments fili ed i doy of Y douty pi-CPS-02126/17I 191 1/I]103 Palisades/PL20210000979 Page 2 of 2 4/I1/22