HEX Final Decision 2021-37 HEX NO. 2021-37
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
DATE OF HEARING.
August 26,2021
PETITION.
PETITION NO. PUD PI - PL20210000324, Grey Oaks PUD PDI - An Ordinance of the
Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance No. 07-
40, the Grey Oaks MPUD to modify the development standards for Cluster/Multi-
Family/Townhouse to allow the buildings located on two (2) specific parcels within the
Moorings Park at Grande Lake to be constructed at a maximum height of 103-feet zoned
and 118-feet actual. The subject MPUD is 1,601± acres located in Sections 24, 25, and 26,
Township 49 South,Range 25 East, Collier County,Florida.
GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION.
An insubstantial change to the Grey Oakes MPUD to allow the buildings located on two (2)
specific parcels within the Moorings Park at Grande Lake to be constructed at a maximum height
of 103-feet zoned and 118-feet actual.
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 Petitioner and/or Petitioner's representative executed the Hybrid Virtual Quasi-Judicial
Public Hearing Waiver related to conducting the public hearing electronically and in-person.
5. The Petitioner and/or Petitioner's representative presented the Petition, followed by County
staff and then public comment. There were no objections at the public hearing.
Page 1 of 5
6. The Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) was held on June 15, 2021, at New Hope
Ministries, 7675 Davis Boulevard,Naples, Florida. There were no attendees.
7. There is a concurrent application: PL2021, Site Development Plan Amendment for Moorings
Park at Grande Lake East Tract.
8. 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
having the authority of the Planning Commission may approve a request for an insubstantial
change to an approved PUD ordinance upon review and evaluation of the criteria in the Collier
County Land Development Code.'
Section 10.02.13.E.1 Criteria:
1. Is there a proposed change in the boundary of the Planned Unit Development(PUD)?
The record 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 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 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 from the public hearing reflects that the requests do not impact the size of non-
residential areas or proposed to relocate such areas within the PUD boundary.
1 The Hearing Examiner's findings are italicized.
Page 2 of 5
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 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 from the public hearing reflects that the proposed amendment 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.
7. Will the change result in a requirement for increased stormwater retention, or otherwise
increase stormwater discharge?
The record 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 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 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) and no changes to the PUD Document are proposed that would be deemed
inconsistent with 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.
Page 3 of 5
The record from the public hearing reflects that due to the limited nature of this request, a
determination and public hearing under F.S. 380.06(19) will not be required.
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 from the public hearing reflects that the proposed change is not deemed to be
substantial.
Section 10.02.13.E.2 Criteria:
1. Does this petition change the analysis of the findings and criteria used for the original
application?
The record from the public hearing reflects that the proposed changes do not affect the
original analysis and findings for the original application.
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 Petition.
DECISION.
The Hearing Examiner hereby APPROVES Petition Number PDI-PL20210000324, filed by
Lindsay F. Robin, AICP of Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. representing Lisa Van Dien of LB
Naples Grande, LLC, with respect to the property in the Grey Oaks MPUD Ordinance No. 07-40,
as amended,and described as Sections 24,25, and 26, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier
County,Florida, for the following:
• An insubstantial change to Ordinance Number 07-40,the Grey Oaks MPUD to modify the
development standards for Cluster/Multi-Family/Townhouse to allow the buildings located
on two (2) specific parcels within the Moorings Park at Grande Lake to be constructed at
a maximum height of 103-feet zoned and 118-feet actual.
Said changes are fully described in the Proposed Language to Ordinance 07-40, as amended,
Section III, Residential Land Use attached as Exhibit "A" and are subject to the condition(s) set
forth below.
Page 4 of 5
ATTACHMENTS.
Exhibit A — Proposed Language to Ordinance 07-40, as amended, Section III, Residential Land
Use
LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
See Ordinance No. 07-40, as amended, and described as Sections 24, 25, and 26, Township 49
South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida
CONDITIONS.
1. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the
development.
2. The Naples Municipal Airport is located less than one mile to the northeast of the
residential building, in close proximity to the community. Purchasers can expect and
should be put on notice that all the usual and common noises and disturbances created by,
and incident to,the operation of the Airport.
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.
August 24, 2021ifre
Date Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP
Hearing Examiner
Page 5 of 5
EXHIBIT "A"
SECTION III
RESIDENTIAL LAND USE
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
"R" Residential Areas
TABLE III
PATIO,
ZLL, OR
SINGLE SINGLE TWO FAMILY CLUSTER
FAMILY FAMILY ATTACHED/ MULTI-FAMILY
DETACHED DETACHED OR DUPLEX TOWN HOUSE VILLAS
CATEGORY 1 *4 2 *4 3*4 4 *4 5 *4 *5
MINIMUM SITE 9000 5000 35000 1 AC 2500
AREA SF/Lot SF/Lot SF/Lot SF/Lot
SITE WIDTH 75' 50' 35' 150' 16'
M I N.AVG.
SITE DEPTH 120' 100' 100' 150' N/A
MIN.AVG.
FRONT YARD 25' 20' 20'*1 20'P 0'
SETBACK
SIDE YARD 7.5' 5' 0 or a *6 20' P
SETBACK minimum 0' GC 0'
of 5'
REAR YARD 20' P 15' P 15' P 20' P 10' P
SETBK PRINCIPAL 10' GC 10' GC 10' GC 0' GC 0' GC
REAR YARD 10'P 10' P 10' P 10' P 10' P
SETBACK ACSRY. 0' GC 0' GC 0' GC 0' GC 0' GC
MAX. BUILDING
HEIGHT STORIES
ABOVE PARKING 2 2 2 6 *2*7 2
DIST.BETWEEN
PRINCIPAL STR. 15' 10' 0' or 5' *6 15' *3 -1 story 7'
25' *3-2-3 story
30' *3-4 stories&
higher
FLOOR AREA
MINIMUM (S.F.) 1200 1000 900 750 900
SITE DEPTH AVERAGE: Determined by dividing the site area by the site width.
SITE WIDTH: The average distance between straight lines connecting front and rear parcel lines at each
side of the site, measured as straight lines between the foremost points of the side parcel lines in the front
(at the point of the intersection with the front parcel line) and the rearmost point of the parcel lines at the
rear(point of intersection with the rear parcel line). May be reduced on cul-de-sac lots.
EXHIBIT "A"
Words added are underlined/Words Removed are Struck Through
Last Modified: May 26, 2021
P. Perimeter of Internal Sites
GC = Golf Course, or Lake Front Sites
*1 This setback may be reduced to 10'for side entry garage
*2 Three story maximum within the City of Naples for less than 8 units per acre. Four story maximum
within the City of Naples for 8 units per acre or greater.
*3 or'A the sum of the adjacent buildings, whichever is greater. The following sentence applies to the
Southeast Quadrant only. Where adjacent multi-family buildings are clustered about a common
access to garage parking or courtyards, and share a common architectural theme and are a
minimum of 2 stories in height, the minimum distance between the buildings shall be 40% of the
sum to the heights of the two multi-family buildings.
*4 During the County approval process, tracts shall be designated and approved as a specific
category. The approved specific category shall not be changed unless the entire tract is consistent
with the new category. Any change from an approved category to another shall be accomplished
per the LDC.
*5 In the context here used "villas" means development that occurs on a platted lot where the lots tend
to form a clustered home siting scheme accessed by an irregularly shaped private roadway system.
*6 For patio homes with less than a 5' side yard setback, the opposite side setback shall be sufficient
so that the combined setbacks equal 10'. Once the first building, on the side of a street utilizing this
product type is permitted, all subsequent buildings must follow the pattern established by the first
unit. For example, a 3' setback on one lot must be followed by a 7' setback on the next lot or vice
versa.
*7 The following shall apply only to development located on areas identified on Exhibit H-2 Southeast
Quadrant: development shall not exceed a zoned height of 103 feet or an actual height of 118 feet
(in lieu of a restriction of 6 floors over parking).
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Words added are underlinedfWords Removed are Struck Through
Last Modified: May 26, 2021
MOS NOLSONWI
a
NI -I
�L =
O
m
W O W
0182a2 a
ON a
N Z�
O
�dWce
W
cLace5 Z `'
ujtn
oxZ1- oo a.
J
11
i1�ill!j
� �!
1111
a In
9
8
I!
CI
0vod JNmnd-idoddly
� ff
i