HEX Final Decision 2024-33ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS CHECKLIST &ROUTING SLIP
TO ACCOMPANY ALL ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS SENT TO
CLERK OF COURT'S OFFICE
COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
Route to Addressee(s)
Office
Initials
Date
(List in routing order)
Minutes and Records
CL
minutesandrecordsna collierclerk.com
Clerk of Court's Office
7/12/24
PRIMARY CONTACT INFORMATION
NoI•mally the primary contact is the person who created/prepared the Document. Primary contact information is
needed in the event there is a need for additional or missing information,
Name of Primary
Andrew Dickman, Esq.
Phone Number
Itelnate Phone Number
Contact
Catherine Lesniewski, Legal Assistant
239434-0840
239-9634628
Hearing Examiner
6/13/24
Hearing Petition ID(s)
PDI.PL20240000770
Meeting Date
Type of Document
Agenda
i ✓ Decision
Number of Original
1
Attached
; Back-up Documents
I I Transcript
Documents Attached
PO number or
account number if
131438350-649030
document is to be
recorded
INSTRUCTIONS &CHECKLIST
Use the Check Box in the Yes column or mark "N/A" in the Not
Applicable column, whichever is appropriate.
yes
N/A
1
Does the decision amend an Ordinance? If yes, Ordinance Number Amended
is Ordinance 07-30
✓
2
Other than the Hearing Examiner, documents are to be emailed to:
Diane.L nch colliercoun fl. ov• Patricia.Milipcolliercountyfl.gov
Has the date for the Hearing Examiner's signature line been entered as the
3 •
Final Decision date?
Original document has been signed/initialed for legal sufficiency?
I ✓
n
4.
The final decision is dated 7/12/24
I:\GMD1Zoning�IIEXIHEX Meeting Packets
HEX NO. 2024-33
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
DATE OF HEARING.
June 139 2024
PETITION.
Petition No. PDI PL20240000770 —Hammock Parlc Development, LLC -Collier Boulevard
and Rattlesnake Hammock Road - requests an insubstantial change to the Hammock Park
MPUD, Ordinance 07-30, as amended, for one deviation from the required parking for a
multi -tenant commercial building, pursuant to Land Development Code (LDC) Section
4.05.04.G, Table 17, not meeting the LDC shopping center threshold, to be calculated based
on the square footage of each use, to allow instead the parking for a multi -tenant commercial
building containing a minimum of seven (7) tenants/units and a minimum floor area of at
least 15,000 square feet to be calculated as a shopping center (e.g., at one (1) space per 250
square feet), pursuant and subject to LDC Section 4.05.04.G, Table 17, Shopping Center.
The subject 2.75 +/- acre parcel is part of the 19.13 +/- acre MPUD and is located at the
northeast corner of Collier Boulevard and Rattlesnake Hammock Road in Section 14,
Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION.
The petitioner asks for a minor change to the Hammock Parlc MPUD, Ordinance 07-30, as
amended, for one exception from the parking requirement for a multitenant commercial building,
which is based on the square footage of each use, and instead allow the parking for a multitenant
commercial building with at least seven (7) tenants/units and a floor area of 15,000 square feet or
more to be computed as a shopping center (e.g. at one (1) space per 250 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.
Page 1 of 6
4. The NIM was advertised and held on Monday, May 20, 2024, at 5:30 pm at the Shepherd of
Glades Church at 6020 Rattlesnake Hammock Rd, Naples, FL 34122. Four (4) members of the
public were present. Josephine Medina and Alexis Crespo of RVI Planning + Landscape
Architecture gave an overview of the petition and opened the meeting to the public.
5. 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.
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.2.1
LDC Section 10.02.13.E.1 Criteria:
1. Is there a proposed change in the boundary of the Planned Unit Development (PUD)?
The r°ecor•d evidence and testimony from the public hearing �°eflects that then°e 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 di -selling units, land use, or height of buildings.
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 fi°om the public hearing reflects that there is no
proposed decrease in these 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 record evidence and testimony fi°oni the public hearing reflects that there is no
pr°oposed increase in size of non-r•esider�tial use areas and no relocation of nor -residential
areas.
1 The Hearing Examiner's findings are italicized.
Page 2 of 6
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 r°eflects that there are no
substantival impacts resulting from this amendment.
6. Wili 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 cmd testimony fr°om the public hearing reflects that there are no
substantial impacts resulting from this amendment.
7. Wili the change result in a requirement for increased stormwater retention, or otherwise
increase stormwater discharge?
The record evidence and testimony fi°om the public hearing reflects that t1�e request does
not result in ca requirement for increased storInivater retention or increased storms -hater
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 (GMP) or which modification would increase the density
of intensity of the permitted land uses?
The documents and statements from the public hearing show that CountJ� Comprehensive
Planning Stcafffortnd the suggested changes to the PUD Document to match the FLUE of
the GMP. This petition has been examined by both environmental and transportation
planning staff, and it does not propose any changes to the PUD Document that would go
against the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) or the
Transportation Element of the GMP. This petition does not askfor any more density or
intensity of the allowed land itses.
LDC Sec. 10.02.13.E.2 Criterion:
1. Does this petition change the analysis of findings and criteria used for the original
application?
Page 3 of 6
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the proposed
change does not affect the original analysis and f ndings for the most recent zoning action
in Petition PUDA-PL20180002813.
DEVIATION DISCUSSION.
The petitioner is seeking one deviation from the requirements of the LDC. The petitioner's
rationale and County staff analysis/recommendation are outlined below.
Proposed Deviation #8 (Parking)
Deviation #8 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.05.04.G, Table 17, which requires parking for a
multitenant commercial building, not meeting the LDC shopping center threshold, to be calculated
based on the square footage of each use, to allow instead the parking for a multi -tenant commercial
building a minimum of seven (7) tenants/units and a minimum floor area of at least 15,000 square
feet to be calculated as a Shopping center (e.g., at least one (1) space per 250 square feet), pursuant
and subject to LDC Section 4.05.04.G, Table 17, Shopping centers.
Petitioner's Justification: The change will remove the unnecessary administrative burden of having
to apply for a Site Development Plan Insubstantial Changes (SDPI) to recalculate parking every
time a tenant changes for a commercial building that serves as a shopping center with various retail
and service establishments within the same building. A shopping center is described by LDC
Section 4.02.34.A. consisting of eight (8) or more retail business or service establishments
containing a minimum total of 20,000 square feet of floor area. The commerce center in this MPUD
is one (1) establishment and 5,000 square feet of floor area less than the definition/threshold of a
shopping center. As identified in the deviation limitations for shopping centers as identified in
LDC Section 4.05.04, Table 17 would still apply. Uses such as restaurants which tend to create a
greater need for parking are limited to 20% of the floor area of the development per LDC Section
1,05,04, parking for additional square footage over 20% of the development would still need to be
provided. Additionally, the mixed -use nature of the project will encourage multi -modal access to
the retail uses by the residents of the on -site multifamily units, which further supports the proposal
for consolidated parking calculations that accommodate the "park once" operations of a shopping
center.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: LDC Section 4.02.34.A. states, "A shopping center must
consist of eight (8) or more retail business or service establishments containing a minimum total
of 20,000 square feet of floor area." The existing commercial center within the Hammock Park
MPUD consists of seven (7) retail businesses or service establishments and contains a total of
15,000 square feet of floor area. Therefore, the request is one establishment and 5,000 square feet
of floor area below the LDC shopping center category threshold. The mixed -use nature of the
project will encourage multimodal access to the retail uses by residents of the on -site multi -family
units, and the site will provide five (5) bicycle spaces as required by LDC Section 4.05.08, both of
which further support the proposal. Moreover, the deviation will remove the unnecessary
administrative burden of having to apply for a SDPI to recalculate parking every time a tenant
changes. As such, staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved.
County Zoning staff recommended approval of this deviation, finding that the deviation is in
compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, "the element may be waived without a detrimental
effect on the health, safety, and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.13.51,
"justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to the literal application of
such regulations."
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-PL20240000770, filed by Jem
Frantz, AICP of RVI Planning + Landscape Architecture, representing Hammock Park
Development, LLC, with respect to the property located at the northeast corner of Collier
Boulevard and Rattlesnake Hammock Road in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East,
Collier County, Florida, for the following:
• An insubstantial change to the Hammock Park MPUD, Ordinance 07-30, as amended, for
one deviation from the required parking for a multitenant commercial building, pursuant
to Land Development Code (LDC) Section 4.05.04.G, Table 17, not meeting the LDC
shopping center threshold, to be calculated based on the square footage of each use, to
allow instead the parking for a multitenant commercial building containing a minimum of
seven (7) tenants/units and a minimum floor area of at least 15,000 square feet to be
calculated as a shopping center (e.g. at one (1) space per 250 square feet), pursuant and
subject to LDC Section 4.05.04.G, Table 17, Shopping Center.
Said changes are fully described in the PUD Document with Proposed Deviation attached as
Exhibit and the Zoning Map attached as Exhibit "B" and are subject to the conditions) set
forth below.
ATTACHMENTS.
Exhibit A —PUD Document with Proposed Deviation
Exhibit B —Zoning Map
LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
The subject 2.75 +/- acre parcel is part of the 19.13 +/- acre MPUD and is located at the northeast
corner of Collier Boulevard and Rattlesnake Hammock Road in Section 14, Township 50 South,
Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
Page 5 of 6
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
may 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,
July 12, 2024
Date
Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP
Hearing Examiner
Page 6 of 6
EXHIBIT "A"
SECTION VII, z & 3 , 4 & 5
REQUESTED DEVIATIONS FROM THE LDC i, 24M �3, 4 & 5
6*I DEVIATIONSr
A. Deviation #1 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.04.G,2,a to allow the off -premises
directional sign for the Hacienda Lakes PUD/DRI depicted on Exhibit A-1 to have a
maximum of 38 square feet in sign area (total square footage of all sign copy areas,
including the name of the project and insignias or mottos), rather than 12 square feet as
limited in the LDC. 1
B. Deviation #2 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.04.G.2.b to allow the off -premises
directional sign for the Hacienda Lakes PUD/DRI depicted on Exhibit A4 to have a
maximum height of 13 feet above the lowest center grade of the roadway adjacent to the
sign location, rather than 8 feet as limited in the LDC. 1
C. Deviation #3 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.02.03.A, which requires accessory structures
to be constructed simultaneously with or following the construction of the principal structure,
to instead allow accessory structures to be constructed prior to construction of the principal
structure. This deviation shall apply only to the two (2) accessory tower structures at the
location depicted on Exhibit C-1, "Tower Locations," and further shown on Exhibit C-2,
"Tower Renderings." 2
D. Deviation #4 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.04.G.2.a, which allows for a maximum
sign area of 12 square feet for off -premises directional signs, to allow for a maximum sign
area of 64 square feet for the proposed temporary off -premises directional sign as depicted
in Exhibit D-1 and referenced by Section 2.6.0 of the MPUD document.'
E. Deviation #5 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.04.G.2.b, which allows for a maximum
sign height of 8 feet for off -premises signs, to allow for a maximum sign height of 10 feet
for the proposed off -premises sign as depicted in Exhibit D4 and referenced by Section
2.6.0 of the MPUD document. 3
F. Deviation #6 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.04.G.2.e, which requires off -premises
directional signs to be located no more than 1,000 feet from the use for which the sign is
displayed, to allow the proposed temporary off -premises directional sign to be located no
more than 1,320+/- feet from the use for which the sign is displayed as depicted in Exhibit
D-1 and referenced by Section 2.6.0 of the MPUD document.3
G. Deviation #7 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.03.02.C, which allows for a maximum fence
and wall height of 6 feet for residential zoning dist•icts, to allow for a maximum fence and
wall height of 8 feet around the multi -family residential portion on the C/MU (1) tract shown
on the Hammock Park PUD master plan subject to approval from FPL and Collier County
Public Utilities Department, where applicable.'
H. Deviation #8 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.05.04.G, Table 17, which requires parking for
a multi -tenant commercial building, not meeting the LDC shopping center threshold, to be
calculated based on the square footage of each use, to instead allow the parking for a
Hammock Park MPUD — PDI-PL20240000770
Last Revised: April 17, 2024
Wo1ds underlined are added; words S.•.,,.' HZ; are deleted
multi -tenant commercial building a minimum of 7 tenants/units and a minimum floor area
of at least 15,000 square feet to be calculated as a Shopping center (e.g., at least 1 space
per 250 square feet), pursuant and subject to LDC Section 4.05.04.G, Table 17,
Shopping centers.s
1. Approved in HEX decision 2014-28.
2. App=eved in HEX d€eisien 2016�12.
3. Pending approval per PL20200001952
4. Approved in HEX decision 2021-46
5. Pending approval per PL20240000770
Approved in HEX decision 2021-36.
Hammock Park MPUD — PDI-PL20240000770
Last Revised: April 17, 2024
Words underlined are added; words r*�•��^'� are deleted
« B 11
uN0 - V1
O
�I
II-
i
�►f'i'Ya 4
m adoENT
0 otc R o
U
l'l.l'Ot�iw•�/ I�i
z,