Loading...
HEX Final Decision 2024-09 INSTR 6515482 OR 6335 PG 2787 RECORDED 3/5/2024 2:17 PM PAGES 12 CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT AND COMPTROLLER COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA REC$103.50 HEX NO. 2024-09 HEARING EXAMINER DECISION DATE OF HEARING. January 11,2024 PETITION. Petition No.PDI-PL20230013897-8927 Founders Square DR.-Request for an insubstantial change to Ordinance No. 19-11, as amended, the Baumgarten Mixed Use Planned Unit Development(MPUD),Exhibit B,Section I,Mixed-Use Development Standards,by reducing the minimum floor area for principal structures from 1,000 square feet to 700 square feet. The subject PUD is located southeast of the intersection of Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard in Section 26, Township 48 South,Range 26 East, Collier County,Florida. GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION. The petitioner requests an insubstantial change (PDI) to Ordinance No. 19-11, as amended, the Baumgarten Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD), Exhibit B, Section I, Mixed-Use Development Standards, by reducing the minimum floor area for principal structures from 1,000 square feet to 700 square feet. 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 Tuesday, November 7, 2023, at 5:30pm at the Collier County Library Headquarters Branch,Sugden Theater, located at 2385 Orange Blossom Road, Naples, Florida. No members of the public attended. Page 1 of 5 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 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. 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 there is no proposed 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 there is no proposed 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? The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that there would be no increase to the size of areas used for non-residential uses and no relocation of non- residential uses proposed. 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? i The Hearing Examiner's findings are italicized. Page 2 of 5 The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that there are no substantial impacts resulting from this amendment pertaining to trgfJic generation, traffic circulation, or impacts on other public facilities. 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 does not change land use activities and does not generate a higher level of vehicular traffic. 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 does not result in a requirement for increased stormwater retention or increased 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 there will be no incompatible relationships with abutting land uses. 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 the proposed changes to the PUD Document are consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Both environmental and Transportation Planning staff reviewed this petition, and no changes to the PUD Document are proposed that would be deemed inconsistent with the CCME or the Transportation Element of the GMP. This petition does not propose 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 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 the MPUD is not within a Development of Regional Impact (DRI). Page 3 of 5 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 based upon the analysis provide above, the proposed change is not deemed to be substantial. 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 changes do not affect the original analysis and findings for the original application. The proposed deviation will not alter the findings of the original MPUD petition. No change to the permitted land uses, intensities or design standards are being requested as part of the petition. 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 10.02.13.E.1 and 10.02.13.E.2 of the Land Development Code to approve the Petition. DECISION. The Hearing Examiner hereby APPROVES Petition No. PDI-PL20230013897, filed by Chris Scott, AICP, Planning Manager of Peninsula Engineering, representing BCHD Partners II, LLC, with respect to the property located in the Baumgarten MPUD located southeast of the intersection of Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard in Section 26, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida for the following: • An insubstantial change (PDI) to Ordinance No. 19-11, as amended, the Baumgarten Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD), Exhibit B, Section I, Mixed-Use Development Standards, by reducing the minimum floor area for principal structures from 1,000 square feet to 700 square feet. Said changes are fully described in the Zoning Map attached as Exhibit "A" and Baumgarten MPUD Current Master Concept Plan attached as Exhibit "B", and Ordinance No. 19-11 attached as Exhibit"C"are subject to the conditions below. Page 4of5 ATTACHMENTS. Exhibit A—Zoning Map Exhibit B—Baumgarten MPUD Current Master Concept Plan Exhibit C—Ordinance No. 19-11 LEGAL DESCRIPTION. See Ordinance No. 19-11, 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. APPEALS. Phis 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 31,2024 Date Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP Hearing Examiner Page 5 of 5 EXHIBIT "A" t I t lllUlls 0 '•,. A1, 44. Np O w _ -. , CM mg i as C. i Z M 1 I Y. u la Nums me i — l; •a if:ice..%. m Ell , CO No 4;i i WypaG Q r,._I a Sc - - V N o IIJ • Jr..- iir ' : 4 114 OPIRMIRS. - ! r— i. N ��edna��a� ��nnn��9��� M — NIIe,N YD 4 �+ O ,u.na Nwia a o 1,----, a a coN2 LL © a_ s _ I, n'1Tr ,E, - : -r. . O Nr J w.. z N L CD N N ''.. 0 1Y a A 11 51 E ua. ? �Q .4 cc., VI Z ikJ-Aril 00 N. _rot'__ rl I: 4 Ld o it ` _ �a;se�,C� a o N A r A ii L�``•� ; Sk ry A Ju • I r ' c dO « L V sy� d i '- i' I- Z collier BL' R.' - Jco cL V as pG co co m K If E a., e n I om me 5 U 'i fl it ld sa �� x( 4—`'�'i�l co ,-- EXHIBIT " B " CO N O CI + N a. 1gn aI N hkit WtE11VM0110SH0IHA YY 4` I 0 H1IM 11 AM;3dV0SOH-1 i W 1'y• 1§' S}r k A 3dA1301M S 1 K Sy w 2 U 3; g. 2 '''re 1_ w 0 0 j N= 4. i 8— P le 1 I ii fri ' '`' • - \ . . x t i ` I N. m . .., 1 i i. 1 ram. zz Ci g cc ILI i •g). -4 ' • , 4 g I a. gi t i 441' i$. ! 1 ill iil ti 3 X , ' \. ' ' ii cet 8. :' . ' F i 1 0 mi t v ti ihUll! ; es 4 1.(4Z *\ ''s I V I 1 IL .; :. I- .'4 :11 J CC ;0 ma.....)............_._. ....-1.;•.ilb ism olie In all a lifla ei...ow r.. oc I Z M 0 0 g r. W COLLIER BLVD 1/y1 Al $K,- o Zts Q V oM V O it I' ' C N ea o) E 7 as EXHIBIT " C" ORDINANCE NO. 19- 11 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 RURAL AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT TO A MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (MPUD) ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS THE BAUMGARTEN MPUD, TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A MAXIMUM OF 400 MULTIFAMILY AND/OR TOWNHOUSE RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS AND UP TO 270,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL LAND USES AT THE SOUTHEAST QUADRANT OF IMMOKALEE ROAD AND COLLIER BOULEVARD, IN SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 48, RANGE 26, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 55.66 +/- ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. IPL20170000768] WHEREAS, Wayne Arnold, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq. of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., representing BCHD Partners II, 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 26, Township 48, Range 26, Collier County, Florida, is changed from a Rural Agricultural (A) Zoning District to a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) Zoning District for the 55.66+/- acre project to be known as the Baumgarten MPUD, to allow construction of a maximum of 400 residential dwelling units and up to 270,00 square feet of commercial land uses [17-CPS-01708/1481218/l]212 Pelican Nursery/I'L20170000768 Page 1 of 2 6/12/I9 in accordance with the Baumgarten MPUD Document, in accordance with Exhibits A through F attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. 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 filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote of the Board of County �l Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this ( 'day of , , 2019. ATTEST: BOARD OF C• TY COMMISSIONERS CRYSTAL.l;{.,KINZEL, CLERK COLLIER C e 'RIDA • • By: ,6—Wit • 1 I ,e. • By: uty Clerk "illiam L. McDaniel,Jr., Chairman Attest as to,to .,ad is signature only. Approved as to form and legality: I-eidi Ashton-Cicko 15/ Managing Assistant County Attorney Exhibit A: Pennitted Uses Exhibit B: Development Standards Exhibit C: Master Plan Exhibit D: Legal Description Exhibit E: Requested Deviations from LDC Exhibit El: Deviation#1 Cross Section This ordinance fil_,a h tha Exhibit F: Developer Commitments }S y(oaryy ,o SLiutc 0,i ,a� '�^ and ackno,..ledgementA ti,^.i filing received this �tr^'1 clay of1 � 6y Dqu� Clar f17-CPS-01708/1481218/11212 Pelican Nursery/PL20170000768 Page 2 of 2 6/12/19