HEX Final Decision 2024-19HEX NO. 202449
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
DATE OF HEARING.
March 14, 2024
PETITION.
Petition No. SV-PL20230014898 —Request for sign variance from Land Development Code
Sections 5.06.04.F.2.a. and 5.06.04.F.4. to allow a third wall sign, not to exceed 60 square feet,
for a single -occupancy out -parcel with double frontage located within the Pine Air Lakes
Planned Unit Development. The subject property is located at 5795 Airport Road North,
within the Promenade at Naples Centre Development, and also described as Lot 4, Pine Air
Lakes Unit Five, in Section 11, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION.
This is a request for a Sign Variance to allow a third wall sign, not to exceed 60 square feet, for a
single -occupancy outparcel with double frontage located within the Pine Air Lakes Commercial
Planned Unit Development (CPUD). The pre-existing design does not allow for a single sign that
can be seen from the front of the building; rather, two signs are proposed. Additionally, the
property itself has a design that favors access from the North, as opposed to the East, where the
front of the building is located.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
Approval with conditions.
FINDINGS.
1. The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction over this Petitioner pursuant to Sec. 2-87(2) 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 public hearing was conducted in the following manner: 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.
Page 1 of 5
5. The County's Land Development Sections 5.06.08.13.1 lists the criteria for sign variances. The
Hearing Examiner having the same authority as the Board of Zoning Appeals may grant, deny
or modify any request for a variance from the regulations or restrictions of the Collier County
Land Development Code using the following standard:I
l . That special conons and circumstances exist that are peculiar to the land, structure, or
building involved and are not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same
district.
The recor°d evidence and testimony from the public hecrr•irzg reflects that the north side of
the subject out parcel faces an internal, public connector road that is positioned on the far
South end of Tract A of the Pine Air Lakes CPUD. Thus, some patrons i1011 access the
subject property from the North side despite the property having frontage on Airport Road
North to the East. Most buildings within Tract A have their front or rear oriented to the
direction ofaccess, The petitioner argues that a pre-existing architectural feature required
them to use two signs to adequately identify the business from the front of the building,
which faces Airport Road North. The outparcel of this CPUD is unique in that there is not
direct access from Airport Road even though the outparcel is oriented that direction.
2. That literal interpretation of the sign code's provisions would deprive the applicant of rights
commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district. It would cause
unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant.
The record evidence and testimony fi°om the public hearing r°effects that cr literal
interpretation of the LDC would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other
properties in the same zoning district, specifically in Tract A of the Pine Air Lakes CPUD,
and would present unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant. The applicant fi rther°
notes that there is no property similarly situated to the North -side access road.
3. That the special conditions and circumstances which are peculiar to the land, structure, or
building do not result from the actions of the applicant.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hecn°ing reflects that the special
conditions and circumstcrnces peculiar to the land, structur°e, or building do not result from
the applicant's actions. The applicant did not apply for the initial zoning or design the
layout of Tract A, nor did the applicant design the building.
4. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege
that is denied by this sign code to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same zoning
district.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that a Sign Variance,
by definition, confer°s some dimensional r•eliefji•om the zoning regulations specif c to a site.
LDC Section 5.06.08 allows others relief through the same Sign Variance process the
applicant has undertaken. Each Sign Variance project is reviewed individually based on
1 The Hearing Examiner's findings are italicized.
Page 2 of 5
its own merits. Counol expert planners contend that the applicant has justified their need
to engage in the Sign Variance process. The applicant further contends that there is no
property similarly situated to the North -side access road. The total square footage of tivall
signage for the building, if this variance is approved, will be 129.38 square feet (35.01 for
each front facing sign and 59.36 for the North facing sign). The maximum square footage
of signs on this parcel, i-vhich has double frontage, is 300 feet across two signs. This
consists of hvo 150 foot ivall signs. Even if there were no double frontage, as this is an out
parcel, this building ivould be entitled to 210 square feet of signage. This Sign Variance is
asking for less than half as much signage but distributed over three signs. This is significant
because, for• all other outparcels, more signage that is being appliedfor here is permitted.
All outparcels have an additional sign.
5. The variance granted is the minimum relief that will make the reasonable use of the land,
building, or structure possible.
The record evidence and testimony fi°om the public hearing reflects that the requested sign
variance is the minimum relief that i-vill make reasonable use of the land, structure, or
building possible. By allowing the one additional sign and a total signage tinder 50 percent
of what is otheri•vise entitled, the applicant will be provided the minimum relief to alloiv
r°easonable use of the subject proper of because otherwise, the substantial number of those
accessing the subject property ivill not be able to identify the business at this location,
depriving the subject property of reasonable use consistent with the other outparcels in
TractA of the CPUD.
6. That the granting of the variance will be consistent with the general intent and purpose of
the Collier County Sign Code and the Growth Management Plan and will not be injurious
to adjacent properties or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that this Sign I/ariance
is consistent with the general intent and purpose of the LDC and GMP.
Section 5.06.OLA. of the LDC states that the purpose and intent of the sign code is to
provide minimum control of signs necessary to promote the health, safety, and genercd
welfare of the citizens of Collier Couno, Florida, by:
1. Lessening hazards to pedestrians and vehicular trfc;
2. Preserving propert�� values;
3. Preventing unsightly and detrimental signs that detractf •orn the aesthetic appeal
of the county and lead to economic decline and blight;
4. Preventing signs f •om reaching such excessive size and numbers that they
obscure one another to the detriment of the count);
5. Assuring good and attractive design that 11vill strengthen the county's appearance
and economic base, and;
6. Preserving the right of free speech and expression in the display of signs.
Page 3 of 5
County planning experts stated that the subject Variance request satisfies established
criteria. This is in part because the total square footage ofsignage is no greater than would
otherwise be permitted, even if the building did not have a double frontage and even if the
building was not an outparcel.
ANALYSIS.
Based on a review of the record including the Peon, application, exts, 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 5.06.08.13.1
of the Land Development Code to approve the sign variance Petition.
DECISION.
The Hearing Examiner hereby APPROVES Petition No. SV-PL20230014898, filed by Zachary
W. Lombardo of Woodward, Pires & Lombardo, representing the applicant Apple Signs, Inc and
the owner GLL Selection II Florida LP, with respect to the property described as 1.08-acre parcel
located at 5795 Airport Road North, within the Promenade at Naples Centre Development, also
described as Lot 4, Pine Air Lakes Unit Five, in Section 11, Township 49 South, Range 25 East,
Collier County, Florida, for the following:
• A sign variance from Land Development Code Sections 5.06.04.F.2.a. and 5.06.04.F.4. to
allow a third wall sign, not to exceed 60 square feet, for a single -occupancy outparcel with
double frontage located within the Pine Air Lakes Commercial Planned Unit Development
(CPUD).
Said changes are fully described in the Zoning Map attached as Exhibit "A", the Site Map attached
as Exhibit 13 and the Sign Plan attached as Exhibit an are subject to the conditions) set
forth below.
ATTACHMENTS.
Exhibit A —Zoning Map
Exhibit B —Site Map
Exhibit C — Sign Plan
LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
The subject 1.08-acre parcel is located at 5795 Airport Road North, within the Promenade at
Naples Centre Development, and is also described as Lot 4, Pine Air Lakes Unit Five, in Section
11, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
CONDITIONS.
All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the
development.
Page 4 of 5
DISCLAIMER.
Pursuant to Section 125.022p) 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.
Apri19, 2024
Date
Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP
Hearing Examiner
Page 5 of 5
Alm
blima
WAXMYRTLE WAY
O
Q
��
Q'
0 0
0 G 0 O 1 0
z
=uz=
�
eHie n
O
Y
a
v0
Y z W
_U
-
Z
D�
O
a D
W
a
N
u
V
O
adoa
laodUIV
n a
U
U
a
UQ
O
K
o$d V4
' U
Goi 4
a Nrlau nod A "Ssala)pur. .
A ° s.
4c�o At
0 1101 r9msatdf�
yid aN.>< wxwM
a N a '!d -
A
c w
A FZlmd
x b
a A C v a
m U °1
U •o d �
R, y Y�y
QA'Ifl sa! ui�i
J
w°
r
zuf5ls=a5f`
11 eg
�aa�& �0
i L 3 424
� o
a � N
CL
_ .
WEI o a
o am
>d
1 as
um
i
p
LLx
>
N
N3
<
Nm
a
m
S
ow
�G(CLL�
W
aNN
�i
0
0
a
uai
a
�
a
z
¢
coi
a
■
N
N
_O
N
O
C
O(0
I�
N
co
M
W
II
X
X
^^
X
f�
co�O
Q
=
a
J
IX
Q ;V.
u
r
it
z
a
m
o
z�
O
2
is
Q
m
(J
o
N
p
�
v
0
z
o
N
U
O
�
K
a
o
I
F
z
a`
¢
a
0
w
m
m
D
o
u
Q
ut
in
z
a
0
c
yt
m
as
U
�
p
�a-6w
z
oa�o
SwF
a�z
waWNm
�Qo
y
§)
k
\�§\
\/\}
))
(
!k
m
!\k)\\\
)(kk
\§k)
§)§k
\)\)
§§e|
;§ma
@(K;
2
§;
�
a
o
o
�
o
W
3
¢
¢
o
0
]ON
oo
w
o
a
o
w
z
W
Z
K
N
Z
a
�
coi
in
E�
G
P�1
4
Ea �55s
§aF� "a e�asm
i58e Boa ��c�
�S�N �gF �a85
• 9B �S� EyyaS 35��5
g y.y 9e6n
ssw2 �$g X�c>l
egg s€8 $ 3 g'n e ROE5=
9
5€ a aila!�
W
a
FS O ZZU
`J`
Z O� ZUm.�ZU 2`OOU
Y JaQ 3�W < jI
noww ¢ �td
�wiOUwUwX iZUiO
00 �v~,�o in=.W l gwl-3�
oy oy �zzW0 mo
zzz
3m w3mm toLL
OZ
wO
�
W
aw
a
0
W
OD
0
m
F
11`u-
J
m
n7
U
I
2
K
>
Z
Z
y
N
U
�
N
U
O
W
w
i
a
m
C'I
m
O
0
2O
C7
!il
W_
K
¢
m
�
C
U
o
❑
d
a
m
0
�
m
�
o
m
d`
❑
u.
a
Z
o
o
a
0
mugo
Q
Y
N_
U
ONI
Q
U
f
N
d
Q
N
Z
rz
¢ash
jE
m
I0u5�
O
u
N
c
C
N
a
�
m -c
n
=
ry
N
Z
i
�
C
r
�I`
Z
O
nm
>
�a
c
0
<`d
V
3
w
Z
N
a
m
�
m
0
0
c7
w
�
0
0
a
m
o
�
p
y
i
m
0
N
a`
O
IL
U
z o
o m
N
O �
7
a
0
F o z m
Q d � MOM
N Q D- N d O'nf Q
Qo
saa=
F ONO
�aoWTw
i mad
`1in
�s9No MO ;
m
e
b
am
a
y
n
Z
c
�
G
r
Z
n
r
O
am
N
CG
c
0
da