HEX Final Decision 2021-24HEX NO. 2021-24
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
DATE OF HEARING.
June 10, 2021
PETITION.
PETITION No. PL20210000192 - Request for approval of a Comparable Use Determination
whether the proposed use of hospital administration and allied service, limited to business
offices, management, accounting, records retention, and blood banking, is comparable in
nature with the permitted uses in Section 3.3.A, Naples Daily News Business Park Planned
Unit Development (BPPUD), Ordinance No. 06-49, as amended, within Parcel A, BPPUD,
located at 1100 Immokalee Road in Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier
County, Florida.
GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION.
The petitioner desires to reconfigure the existing building for use as a hospital administration
facility with accessory records retention and blood banking; however, the BPPUD does not
expressly permit commercial, professional, or general office uses.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
Approval with conditions.
FINDINGS.
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. Per LDC Section 10.03.06.0 and the Administrative Code the following notice procedures are
required for: Newspaper Advertisement prior to the advertised public hearing in accordance
with F.S. § 125.66. This requirement was satisfied by county staff on or about May 21, 2021.
Page 1 of 5
A Comparable Use Determination petition does not require an Agent Letter, Property Owner
Notification Letter, Neighborhood Information Meeting, or the posting of a sign on the
property.
6. The County representative introduced the Petition and staff recommendations, followed by
Petitioner and/or Petitioner's representative, and then public comment. There were no
objections to the Petition at the public hearing.
7. In accordance with the County's Land Development Code Section 10.02.06.K., a comparable
use determination is to be used to determine whether a specified use is comparable in nature
with the list of permitted uses and the purpose and intent statement of the specified zoning
district, overlay or PUD. The Hearing Examiner may approve any request for a comparable
use determination based on the standards in the Collier County Land Development Code.I
1. The proposed use possesses similar characteristics to the other permitted uses in the zoning
district, overlay, or PUD, including but not limited to the following:
i. Operating hours;
ii. Traffic volume generated/attracted;
iii. Type of vehicles associated with the use;
iv. Number and type of required parking spaces; and
V. Business practices and activities
The testimony and evidence in the record demonstrate that the proposed uses have similar
operating hours, will generate a lower volume of traffic as demonstrated by a Traffic
Impact Analysis, will involve similar types of vehicles, has similar parking requirements
(see below), and will have similar business practices and activities as those of other
permitted uses within Tract A of the BPPUD.
2. The effect the proposed use would have on neighboring properties in relation to the noise,
glare, or odor effects shall be no greater than that of other permitted uses in the zoning
district, overlay, or PUD.
The testimony and evidence in the record demonstrate that noise and odor would be
reduced as no printing press will be in operation; glare, if any, will not be increased from
that which may presently exist.
3. The proposed use is consistent with the GMP, meaning the applicable future land use
designation does not specifically prohibit the proposed use, and, where the future land use
designation contains a specific list of allowable uses, the proposed use is not omitted.
The testimony and evidence in the record demonstrate that the subject property is within
the Urban Mixed -Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict as identified on the Future
'The Hearing Examiner's findings are italicized.
Page 2 of 5
Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE). The purpose of the
Urban Mixed -Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict is to provide for a variety of
residential and non-residential developments such as PUDs. The proposed uses are among
those allowable uses listed in the Business Park Subdistrict.
4. The proposed use shall be compatible and consistent with the other permitted uses in the
zoning district, overlay, or PUD.
The testimony and evidence in the record demonstrate that the following uses are listed as
being allowable within Parcel A of the Business Park element of the BPPUD:
i. Communications (Specifically SIC 4822);
ii. Motion picture production (specifically SIC 7819);
iii. Information management and software; and
iv. Printing and business support services.
Given the analysis provided, these uses have similar operational characteristics.
Additionally, the Traffic Impact Analysis finds that the proposed development scenario is
less intense when compared to existing development conditions. The proposed use of
hospital administration and allied services — limited to business offices, management,
accounting, records retention, and blood banking is therefore deemed to be compatible
and consistent.
5. Any additional relevant information as may be required by County Manager or Designee.
It should be noted that, regarding off-street parking, the LDC Section 4.05.04.F.4 allows
the County Manager or designee to determine the minimum parking requirements for a use
which is not specifically referenced within the LDC or for which an applicant has provided
evidence that a specific use is of such a unique nature that the applicable minimum parking
ratio listed within the LDC should not be applied; the mechanism to obtain such approval
is an Administrative Parking Reduction (APR). The existing use at this location was
approved in conjunction with an approved APR, APR-2007-AR-11611, which served to
reduce the quantity of required parking spaces on the subject property from the LDC
requirement of 469 to 346. The subject APR will be voided upon any change of use which
requires the applicant for this CUD to seek a similar APR. The applicant has submitted an
APR application, PL20210000638, to reflect parking requirements for office and storage
space. Said APR has been approved to reduce the required parking from the required 367
to 350 spaces which already exist as per the SDP.
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
Page 3 of 5
is enough competent, substantial evidence as applied to the standards set forth in Section
10.02.06.K. of the Land Development Code to approve Petition.
DECISION.
The Hearing Examiner hereby APPROVES Petition Number PL20210000192, fled by Paula N.C.
McMichael, AICP of Hole Montes, Inc. representing NCH Healthcare System, Inc., with respect
to the property as described in the Naples Daily News Business Park Planned Unit Development
(BPPUD), Ordinance No. 06-49, for the following:
• A determination that the proposed use of hospital administration and allied services —
limited to business offices, management, accounting, records retention, and blood banking
is comparable in nature with the permitted uses in Section 3.3.A, Naples Daily News
Business Park Planned Unit Development (BPPUD), Ordinance No. 06-49, as amended,
within Parcel A.
ATTACHMENTS.
None
LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
See Ordinance No. 06-49, as amended.
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.
Page 4 of 5
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.
June 22, 2021
Date
Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP
Hearing Examiner
Page 5 of 5