HEX Final Decision #2026-09 HEX NO. 2026-09
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
DATE OF HEARING.
INSTR 6795014 OR 6561 PG 2705
February 13, 2026 REERKCO : P 9
CL OFRDED THE CIRC3/10/2026UIT10 COURT40AM ANDAGES COMPTROLLER
COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA
PETITION. REC$78.00
Petition No. PDI-PL20250003144 - Intersection of Santa Barbara and Davis Boulevards- Request
for an insubstantial change to The Shoppes at Santa Barbara Mixed Planned Unit Development
(MPUD) approved by Ordinance 2021-34, as amended, by adding an access point along Santa
Barbara Boulevard for the outparcel identified as Lot 1 of Altis Santa Barbara. The subject site is
2.4± acres within the 18.1± acre MPUD located at the northeast quadrant of the intersection of
Santa Barbara and Davis Boulevards in Section 4, Township 50 South, Range 26 East.
GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION.
The petitioner requests an insubstantial change (PDI) to Ordinance No. 21-34 to allow for the
addition of a traffic access point along Santa Barbara Boulevard and to add transportation
commitments (text) for the outparcel identified as Lot 1 of Altis Santa Barbara.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
Approval with conditions.
FINDINGS_
1. The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction over this Petitioner pursuant to Sec. 2-87 of the Collier
County Code 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 December 1,2025,
at the South Regional Library located at 8065 Lely Cultural Parkway with an option for virtual
attendance. One person attended the NIM in person and asked questions regarding the
proposed change.
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 public speakers.
Page 1 of 5
6. The Hearing Examiner disclosed having reviewed the entire record and having no ex parte
communications.
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.)
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 boundary of
the PUD is not proposed to change.
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, the intensity of land use, or the 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 the request does
not impact the size of the non-residential areas nor propose to relocate such areas within
the MPUD 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?
1 The Hearing Examiner's findings are italicized.
Page 2 of 5
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that there is no
substantial increase in the impacts of development resulting from this change. The size of
the approved development will not change; this decision is for a traffic access point only.
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 proposed
change would not result in land use activities that generate higher levels of vehicular traffic
based upon the Trip Generation Manual published by the Institute of Transportation
Engineers, which were not anticipated when the principal uses were originally adopted.
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 the proposed
change will not cause 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 that the proposed
changes to the PUD Document and Master Plan are consistent with the Future Land Use
Element of the Growth Management Plan per Comprehensive Planning staff.
Transportation planning staff reviewed this request and have indicated that the proposed
changes would not be deemed inconsistent with the Transportation Element of the GMP.
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
Page 3 of 5
in Petition PUDA-PL20200002233 (Ordinance No. 2021-34 approved at the October 26,
2021, BCC hearing).
DEVIATION DISCUSSION.
The petitioner is not seeking any deviations.
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-PL20250003144, filed by Jeff
Westmoreland, PLA of BGE, Inc., representing the applicant SHSB Naples, LLC,with respect to
the subject property located at the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Santa Barbara and
Davis Boulevards in Section 4, Township 50 South, Range 26 East Collier County, Florida, for
the following:
• An insubstantial change (PDI) to Ordinance No. 21-34
Said changes are fully described in the Master Plan and Section V — Developer Commitments,
Section 5.3 attached as Exhibit"A" and are subject to the condition(s) set forth below.
ATTACHMENTS.
Exhibit A—Master Plan and Section V—Developer Commitments, Section 5.3
LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
Northeast quadrant of the intersection of Santa Barbara and Davis Boulevards in Section 4,
Township 50 South, Range 26 East.
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
Page 4 of 5
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.
March 5, 2026
Date Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP
Hearing Examiner
Page 5 of 5
EXHIBIT " A"
1Tr
A ' BEMBRIDGE EMS COMPLEX RPUD AND CFPUD
ACCESS EASEMENT,WATER MANAGEMENT AND KO
GNFRD STATION#75
60'CROSS EASEMENT
fi (OR 1483,PG 1619)
. t‘ti .
.... ...+.----'"--------- — 7.T.s.......,...A
I , t n
OOITIONAL ACCESS
r I EASEMENT AREA
.1 20'WIDE TYPED' (OR 6045,PG 957)
LANDSCAPE BUFFER POTENTIAL VEHICULAR AND;OR
D (SEE NOTE#2) PEDESTRIAN INTERCONNECTION
> (SEE PUD SECTION 5.3 ITEM I.)
NO BUFFER REQUIRED
ADJACENT TO NEW HOPE NEW HOPE MPUD
D . \ 1► MPUD PRESERVE _I PRESERVE
70
> 1 5 60'CROSS ACCESS
1 EASEMENT
co 1 (OR 1483,PG 1619)
i- , M I X E D USE (AMENDED OR 6045,PG 957)
1 (MU) 3
NEW HOPE MPUD
j 1 2 1 MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
Y.
SANTA BARBARA BLVD.ROW
I'"
r,(OR BOOK1483 PAGE 1606) PROPOSED ACCESS&
RIGHT TURN LANE
PROJECT BOUNDARY
20'WIDE TYPE'D' 1
LANDSCAPE BUFFER
(SEE NOTE#2) _ 40'DRAINAGE EASEMENT
(OR 6045,PG 957)
t
J
- DAVIS BLVD.ROW
POTENTIAL FUTURE ' -.\ ' (OR BOOK 14$3 PAGE 1606)
INTERCONNECTION E
(VEHICULAR&PEDESTRIAN)
SEE COMMITMENT 5.3.J f
{t
- DAVIS BOULEVARD
O T
: -7 110 7-
2
1 LEGEND:
(Mu) MIXED USE -COMMERCIAL AND/OR RESIDENTIAL
1 (C) COMMERCIAL
# DEVIATION (SEE NOTE SHEET)
s PL20250003144 PG 1 OF 2
btr Ts 4 E lr tro
`A" " EXHIBIT A DATE 0/22/2025
Q Vill
2 '"�'`-`'f'�•..``�' THE SHOPPES AT SANTA BARBARA MPUD - MASTER PLAN t -:_ -�
"..t 100' 200'
REVISED: 09/22/2025 SCALE: 1"=200•
THIS DOCUMENT,TOGETHER WIT-I THE '.)NCF"'S.AND DESIGNS PRESENTED HEREIN,AS AN IWSTRUVFNT OF SFRVICF,S NI-ENDED:NLY FOR T'F APE. =I. . '!ND'.I IF t.'FOR 71--IC-IT WAS TTW'ATFI) FIL',,.
LT AND IMPROPER RELIANCE ON THIS DOCUMENT WITHOUT WRITTEN AVTHORIZATION AND ADAPTATION BY BGE INC.SHALL BE WITHOUT LIABILITY TO
SITE SUMMARY
TOTAL SITE AREA; 18.1±ACRE
COUNTY ROW 2.0±ACRES
COMMERCIAL (C) 1.0±ACRES
MIXED USE (MU) 15.1±ACRES
COMMERCIAL: MAXIMUM 150,000 S.F.
RESIDENTIAL: MAXIMUM 242 DWELLING UNITS
OPEN SPACE:
REQUIRED: 30%
PROVIDED: 30%
PRESERVE:
REQUIRED: 0±ACRES
PROVIDED: 0±ACRES
DEVIATIONS
1. RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 4.05.04.G, "SPACES REQUIRED. TABLE 17. PARKING SPACE
REQUIREMENTS."
2. RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 4.06.02, "TABLE 2.4 TABLE OF BUFFER REQUIREMENTS BY LAND
USE CLASSIFICATIONS"
RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 4.06.02 C., "TABLE 2.4 TABLE OF BUFFER REQUIREMENTS BY
LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS"
4 RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 4.06.05 J., "SLOPE TABLE 4.06.05 J. AND SLOPE CROSS
SECTION 4.06.05 J."
5 RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 6.05.01.K"OUTFALL DITCHES AND OPEN CHANNELS"
6. RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 4.06.02 C., "TABLE 2.4 TABLE OF BUFFER REQUIREMENTS BY
LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS"
NOTES
1. THIS PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND IS SUBJECT TO MINOR MODIFICATION DUE TO
AGENCY PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS.
2. IF A FACILITY WITH FUEL PUMPS IS PROPOSED, LANDSCAPE BUFFERS ADJACENT TO SANTA
BARBARA BOULEVARD AND DAVIS BOULEVARD WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH LDC SECTION 5.05.05
s
PL20250003144 PG 2 OF 2
CAS,,.:
eo,l,srSTREErsu lrEao EXHIBIT A
- 2 'WNWO'EINC. ON THE SHOPPES AT SANTA BARBARA MPUD - MASTER PLAN NOTES
VIREO'.l71.:36..16.fG
C:01.5 REVISED: 09/22/2025
THIS DOCUMENT,TOGETHER WITH THE CONCEPTS AND DESIG'IS PRFSE VP:::HEREIN.AS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE,.i NTEN;?= '.'?FOR TnE SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND CLIENT FOR WHICH IT WAS PREPARED, RFUFi=
OF AND IMPROPER RELIANCE ON THIS DOCUMENT WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION AND ADAPTATION BY ODE INC.SHALL BE'AI I • II;ABILITY TO ODE INC.
SECTION V
DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS
.3 TRANSPORTATION
J. Owner of the MU outparcel identified as Lot 1 of AltisSanta Barbara Subdivision.at its sole cost
and expense. shall construct a driveway with vehicular and pedestrian interconnection to the
commercial parcel as shown on the PUD Master Plan prior to the issuance of the first certificate
of occupancy. Owner of the MU outparcel identified as Lot 1 of Attis Santa Barbara Subdivision
will be responsible for maintenance up to the property line. If the owner of the commercial tract
elects to connect to the driveway with vehicular and pedestrian interconnection, the owner of the
commercial tract will be responsiblz for maintenance on its side of the property line.
K. The PUD Master Plw identifies a proposed access and right turn lane on Santa Barbara Boulevard.
The taper for the right turn lane into the \11: outparcel identified as Lot 1 of Atlis Santa Barbara
Subdivision as shown on the PUD Master Plan will commence twenty(20)feet north of the access
point to the commercial parcel on Santa Barbara Boulevard.
Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added.
The Shoppes at Santa Barbara PDl(PL20250003144) September 22, 2025 Page 2 of 2