HEX Final Decision 2024-51 HEX NO. 2024-51
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
DATE OF HEARING.
!NSTR 6607937 OR 6410 PG 2972
October 24, 2024 RECORDED 10/31/2024 4 09 PM PAGES 13
CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT AND COMPTROLLER
COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA
PETITION. REC$112.00
Petition No.PDI-PL20240004116—Naples Preserve Villas,LLC-Santa Barbara Boulevard,
approximately one-half mile north of Rattlesnake-Hammock Road - Requests an
insubstantial change to the Onyx RPUD,Ordinance 16-24 for(1),the modification to Exhibit
B Table 1 —Residential Development Standards to add internal development standards for
a platted townhouse development; and (2) a deviation from LDC 4.07.02.G.1, Open Space
Requirements, which requires Residential PUD districts to provide a minimum of 60%
useable open space to allow 40% useable open space. The subject 8.72 +/- acre parcel is
located on the east side of Santa Barbara Boulevard, approximately one-half mile north of
Rattlesnake-Hammock Road in Section 16, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier
County,Florida.
GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION.
The petitioner requests an insubstantial change(PDI)to the Onyx RPUD, Ordinance 16-24 for(1)
the modification to Exhibit B Table 1 —Residential Development Standards to add development
standards for platted townhouses and (2) a deviation from LDC 4.07.02.G.1, Open Space
Requirements, which requires Residential PUD districts to provide a minimum of 60% useable
open space to allow 40% useable open space.
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 Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) was advertised and held on September 10,
2024,at South Regional Library,located at 8065 Lely Cultural Pkwy,Naples,FL.The meeting
Page 1 of 7
commenced at approximately 5:31 p.m. and ended at 6:02 p.m. Margaret Emblidge,the agent,
conducted the meeting by introducing the consultant team and staff and giving a PowerPoint
presentation. The presentation consisted of an overview of the proposed PDI application.
Following the agent's presentation, the meeting was open to attendees to make comments and
ask the consultant team questions regarding the proposed development. The issues discussed
were public access, dry retention area, removal of exotics from the preserve, building height,
lighting,maintenance of the preserve,timeline of the project,bedrooms in each unit,unit price,
and detention area drainage. Margaret and the consultant team answered all concerns. The
agent also confirmed that there will be no additional new materials submitted between the NIM
and the September 26 HEX hearing.No commitments were made.
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 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, 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.
'The Hearing Examiner's findings are italicized.
Page 2of7
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 is no
proposed increase to the size of areas used for non-residential uses and no relocation of
non-residential areas.
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 there are 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 there are no
substantial impacts resulting from this amendment.
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 proposed
changes 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 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°om the public hearing reflects that no, Comprehensive
Planning staff determined the proposed changes to the PUD Document would be consistent
with the FLUE of the GMP. Both environmental and transportation planning staff have
reviewed this petition, and no changes to the PUD Document are proposed that would be
deemed inconsistent with the Conservation and Coastal Management Element(CCME) or
Page 3 of 7
the Transportation Element of the GMP. This petition does not propose any increase in
density or intensity of the permitted land uses.
LDC Sec. 10.02.13.E.2 Criterion:
Insubstantial change determination. An insubstantial change includes any change
that is not considered a substantial or minor change. An insubstantial change to an
approved PUD ordinance shall be based upon an evaluation of LDC subsection
10.02.13 E.1
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the proposed
change does not affect the original analysis and findings for the most recent zoning action
in Petition PUDZ-PL20140000890.
DEVIATION DISCUSSION.
The petitioner is seeking one deviation from the requirements of the LDC. The petitioner's
rationale and staff analysis/recommendation are outlined below.
Proposed Deviation#4 (Open space requirements)
"Deviation #4 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.07.02.G.1, Open space requirements, which
requires residential PUD districts to provide a minimum of 60%useable open space to allow 40%
useable open space."
Petitioner's Justification:
As stated, the Applicant is requesting a deviation from the 60% open space requirement to allow
40% open space to address the conflict created by the platting regulations and with the definition
of useable open space.
The LDC definition of useable open space:
Open space, usable: Active or passive recreation areas such as parks, playgrounds, tennis courts,
golf courses,beach frontage,waterways,lakes,lagoons,floodplains,nature trails,and other similar
open spaces. Usable open space areas shall also include those portions of areas set aside for the
preservation of native vegetation, required yards (setbacks), and landscaped areas that are
accessible to and usable by residents of an individual lot, the development, or the general public.
Open water area beyond the perimeter of the site, street rights-of-way, driveways, off-street
parking and loading areas, shall not be counted towards required Usable Open Space.
This last sentence is what creates the conflict.The platting of the project results in privately owned
street rights-of-way that coincides with the platted residential unit's lot lines. The sidewalks and
some of the greenspace/landscape areas are located within the platted rights of way. These
elements were included in the open space calculations on the SDP.This request is to simply allow
the same elements to be included in the useable open space calculations on the Townhouse Site
Page 4 of 7
Plan and Plat. The approved SDP PL20190002911 and the Draft Plat Plan have the same layout
with the similar amount of open space of 4,67 acres. The following open space table approved for
the SDP notes that the preserve,green space, sidewalk, &pool deck are included in the open space
table.
USABLE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT PER LDC 1.08.02 4W
MIX USE AC %
TOTAL REQUIRED (7,79 AC X 0.6) 4,67 60%
TOTAL PROVIDED* 4.67 60%
(PRESERVE+GREEN SPACE+SI DEWALK+DECK)/(7.79 AC)
Since the plat layout is essentially the same as the SDP,the open space required and provided will
be exactly the same 4.67 acres when the sidewalks and green space within the private platted
rights-of-way are included.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation:
Similar deviation requests have been approved with other zoning petitions; as such, staff sees no
detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. Zoning and Development Review staff
recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section
10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a
detrimental effect on the health, safety, and welfare of the community." LDC Section
10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public
purposes to a degree at least equivalent to 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-PL20240004 1 1 6, filed by Margaret
Emblidge,AICP of LJA Engineering,Inc.,representing the applicant Naples Preserve Villas,LLC,
with respect to the subject 8.72 +/- acre parcel that is located on the east side of Santa Barbara
Boulevard, approximately one-half mile north of Rattlesnake-Hammock Road in Section 16,
Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, for the following:
Page 5 of 7
• An insubstantial change to the Onyx RPUD, Ordinance 16-24 for (1) the modification to
Exhibit B Table 1 —Residential Development Standards to add development standards for
platted townhouses and(2)a deviation from LDC 4.07.02.G.1,Open Space Requirements,
which requires Residential PUD districts to provide a minimum of 60%useable open space
to allow 40%useable open space.
Said changes are fully described in the Revised PUD Exhibit B attached as Exhibit "A", the
Revised PUD Exhibit E Deviations attached as Exhibit `B", and the Zoning Map attached as
Exhibit"C", and are subject to the condition(s) set forth below.
ATTACHMENTS.
Exhibit A—Revised PUD Exhibit B
Exhibit B —Revised PUD Exhibit E Deviations
Exhibit C—Zoning Map
LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
The subject 7.79 +/- acre parcel is located on the east side of Santa Barbara Boulevard,
approximately one-half mile north of Rattlesnake-Hammock Road in Section 16, Township 50
South,Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
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.
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.
Page 6 of 7
October 31, 2024
Date Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP
Hearing Examiner
Page 7 of 7
EXHIBIT "A"
yb mt
ry
(O < < < / Lri
7 \ / 0 2 2 2 % , R q /
< U -)
2 % a)
¢ 'a 0
0
.7) ¢ Q '$
• op C ZIII I- O < < aj <
•§ 7 b 2 2 Cz R q
U 2 2 &
a)
§ £
q ® m -I ƒ /
eii / q
® \ \ / 4 /
o .o a ? CC _ - 2 o
< 2 ƒ - O 7 % / 0 i- R q
/ § $ W 0 Q 0 0
E o
1— 13 0 a c L Enh U
n
0
o Cl) h ƒ $ E 44 '
2 % Cl)
W 4- > > R § \ % J 04 &
0 12 2 -0 0 ƒ ® ) q c r- 0 0
■ c c D® o 0
2 k % 0 R N- J
m co 2 k a z
1 c 0 c c
x ± § 0 .2 /
E k .\ ct
a TZ ® b i /
o p = £ —
> o _ U) -J
» 9
-0 $ £ o w
Crx C 0
-0 o
r a) m
c _
t m e
/ I- O O ® 3 2 O 0
• a) w ƒ 0 § _J .<
£ > I- ® O > - — m
0 c C a. q q _? m / m 3 2
2z1E � 2 225 2 � 2 § 2 � 03 2k
a) � �
R R o / 0) COQ
cc) co a) CO
CO \ t - - _- - W 22 W 2 � W 2 > � W -
wn2 -0 2 220 2@� � m �2m�c2m�
rYW L- cod
p ❑ O 4.
0 a) ° O
(nU +. E(n O E O 9-- 4 9 N N
U Wi
n- 0 0 j40- a 0 Lt N v-
U U) �- m O C m �' M v d
Q (I) -)
-°
0
U >
'' co— 4 ! CUI _ (0 N N
Z 0 9- 0 4- O E O O E O 05405°5 .«-•
W W Q O O `- 'L 0 0 L' 0 0
2 Z -- o %-I 101 r-I p 0 `� O O 4' O
QW Z - c� o O � WcO Em fn cn
C.) �j N-
w
c 0 m
-I Z +, O 0
Q Z H 15.24) a ° ° N a M
tL Jp � �o o � � o� 04
w-J p o o -c o 0 0 ai
C7
Z ❑ w 0 a 0 0
U) N `a) _ N in
CO N ) N N
4-
LO
W N
(I) + iii
(I) N 0 0 +-• N 0 ` (I L 06 06
5
`�- O ) 4- 4- . 0 0 NI 0
=1 O O N 6 O O 0 O `� � O 'C v- 'i
N N � O I- CL CCI 0 m O O
O N
I-- N N
a)
W N
�
al ❑• U _l
Zi Z _
U �) Ll_ft •
iY
❑ Q
Q ❑ ' fX p ❑ ro pp W ❑
F- <Y � O w I- Z I-
co
� HQ I- W _ 1-1-10
. 0z u_ W NNQ_ CUn n d- I- W
Z
2 w LU 2Y -p 'a YQW > 2 2
W �Q 2m } } } Qu) 2 W � 2 � 2
_ 00 ❑ W u)
Z Z 1- o -°o co• I- Z U) W C7 0
2 m 2u) u 'Co cK a) gw a � _ � _
.• v) co d-
II OO O N
O
1 'O CO N
• 1 CO CC0 a) LO
.1 ' N • � (0�
`� N 0- T
1 O o C
1 E =_ =
1177
1 1 , O a)
_E C— L ^`
C Cl)
CU
• • ^`
1 1 1 E 0.1 : 1 O
4 41 0 .4--• ••
'
4 11 a) .1 .F�+ O
iJ.F./ C 70
11 1 _
ij
1/ C= 1 ai
.1 E . -1--, C
0 -1--,
1 1 0 4 Cl) O Eri-
s To C .�.
1 • (1) /1 nn��� a) a)
i 1 0) •�• W C
• ' Ca LL (
1/ (C7
a) _C o - �
_ L
11 t- 0 1 1 O (i) a) C L
■1 - O a) C 0 Q
1 • Ca E • a) U)
1 O y-
a) -- i
., .
' 0 Q] X 0 C')
•
L U)
•
1 �O
O
Y 'p N a) C
1 11 () � Va .C 'o
11
4* u 41 a) u) O _O
• , P.
1 ti•- (a (0
41 s1 0 MI a) ++ V)
41 /1 0a) (0 CO `�' .
(6 Cl) L a`- U
. . 'O u)• ^ (6
1 1 11•
C as - 4(13 O CO x a)
41 4
1 1 o c 2 +O+ C •() u)
-a , o O 0) (o O 2 O g
O 4
11 11 V 1- _a a) O (6 Q
C 41 1 co•
O N E 'S 1
u 1 .SD To Tt5
I > a)
Ca .1 11 i > L C
>>1 1 -O i) co .0 co m
•
O. 1 O ,1 (I_. •C > y--1
a. >, L W. a) > +�
co 70 — co
N 4 o . C y r J Cl) (n 'C a)
d I u t E
1 41 LL Q— 0 J C <
C
'~O N a) V Cl) co
0
LL
EXHIBIT " B "
EXHIBIT E
DEVIATIONS:
Nothing in this PUD Document shall approve a deviation to the LDC unless it is listed in this
Exhibit E.
1. A deviation from LDC Section 6.06.02. A.2 which requires that a 5-foot wide sidewalk be
provided on both sides of public and private rights-of-way or easements which are internal to
the site, to instead provide a 5-foot wide sidewalk on one side of the private right-of-way as
depicted in the master plan (Exhibit C). The sidewalk may only be omitted on one side of a
street which is immediately adjacent to the rear of the structures and where no driveway
accesses are provided. When residential units front on or have driveway access to both
sides of a street, sidewalks shall be provided on both sides of the right of way. Where the
sidewalk is omitted, the owner shall install Type D landscape material in its place. A
landscape buffer easement is not required for these plantings.
2. A deviation from LDC Section 2.03.07 D.4.g which requires, upon the issuance of approval
of a site development plan or subdivision plat that is part of a PUD or DRI, TDR credits and
TDR Bonus credits shall be redeemed at a rate proportional to percentage of the PUD or
DRI's approved gross density that is derived through TOR credits and TOR Bonus credits, to
instead permit the developer to construct all units from base density (35 units) before
requiring application of TDR credits.
3. A deviation from LDC Section 6.06.01.N which establishes the minimum right-of-way width
of 60 feet be utilized, to instead establish that all internal roadways, if platted, may be
reduced to a 50 foot right-of-way configuration in accordance with the right- of-way cross
section attached to the Master Plan Exhibit C.
4. A deviation from LDC Section 4.07.02.G.1, Open space requirements, which requires Residential
PUD districts to provide a minimum of 60% useable open space to allow 40% useable open
space.
Onyx RPUD Ordinance No. 16-24-Insubstantial Change to a PUD(PDI) PL20240004 1 1 6
Last Revised June 5,2024
Words underlined are added.
EXHIBIT " C"
9 Z — .
Q 3 13 8 Fa
zi
a Q
z v_.
o . . M H
re rs
Q xc Q
}V / \V
_c 11t_
Cl 5 2T1.)"110�
EL ° C
Q ;. 211.)T�f) 0
r El NI
'r
- �aoow
T
�
TRACT P CrA 11 ..'n"y""a 5�"Sr m _ .r
G-4c-0J p
_ — TRACTN 0 _ O • _ TRACTN O ® ® 6 V.
CA
z.
_-...1 z Q.
a)
E
I I- 1 o¢ z
o
W p N i
J
L
....-..._.- 1 -- .1 1 CO
A �A'1110%unS w
I. -( I 1 i I I M'i AAI C
y r-
7 y*'
C alma, N.l 0
".4 Trim '4.7.
UNiQ n.mq mfi was 0
.33
,(V 11 y�11'11. a
lit Jri_U
V�
PDI-PL20240004116, Onyx Last revised: 9/12/24 Page 2 of 9
Hearing Examiner(HEX)Date: 9/26/24