Loading...
HEX Final Decision 2022-35 HEX NO. 2022-35 HEARING EXAMINER DECISION DATE OF HEARING. INSTR 6301627 OR 6167 P( 30R6 July 28, 2022 RECORDED 8/26/2022 3:17 PM PAGES 5 CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT AND COMPTROLLER COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA PETITION. REC$44.00 Petition No. PCUD-PL20220001813 - Request for a comparable use determination that a veterinary clinic and animal hospital (SIC Code 0742) is comparable, compatible, and consistent with the permitted uses in Section 3.2.2 of the Southwest Professional Health Park Planned Unit Development (PUD), Ord. No. 96-81, as amended. The subject parcel is approximately 1 acre and is located on the south side of Immokalee Road approximately a quarter-mile east of the intersection of Goodlette Frank Road and Immokalee Road in Section 26, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County,Florida. GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION. Petitioner requests a comparable use determination that a veterinary clinic and animal hospital is comparable in nature to other permitted uses in Section 3.2.2. of the Southwest(SW) Professional Health Park PUD adopted by Ordinance Number 96-81, as amended. 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. A newspaper advertisement is required for public hearing in accordance with F.S. § 125.66. The newspaper advertisement posted in the Naples Daily News on July 8, 2022. Per the LDC and Administrative Code, a Comparable Use Determination petition does not require a Page 1 of 5 Neighborhood Information Meeting, a mailing to surrounding property owners, or posting of a sign on the property. 6. 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. Naples Community Hospital (NCH) submitted a letter in support of the comparable use requested by the Petitioner. NCH does support this use as the veterinary clinic and believes it will greatly benefit and support NCH and its partners by providing comprehensive care to pets that are utilized in therapy sessions with patients at their facilities as well as care for support animals prescribed by many of their health care professionals. 7. The County's Land Development Code Section 10.02.06.K lists the criteria for a comparable use determination. The Hearing Examiner may approve a comparable use determination based on the following standards, as applicable.' 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. The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the applicant is proposing a 24-hour service for pet care that includes standard veterinary care and an emergency surgery center. 24-hour service is comparable to the proposed uses on-site that may offer 24 urgent care and medical treatment. ii. Traffic volume generated/attracted. The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the proposed veterinary clinic and animal hospital does not generate any more traffic than the already permitted uses allowed in the PUD. A Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared by Norm Trebilcock who compared the proposed veterinary clinic to two permitted uses of a medical clinic and child daycare. The veterinary clinic generated a similar trip to the medical clinic and generated fewer trips than the childcare center. iii. Type of vehicles associated with the use. The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that there will be no commercial vehicles. Employees and patrons will use their own personal vehicles to arrive to and from the clinic. Besides the occasional deliveries, no other types of vehicles besides personal vehicles will be associated with the proposed use. iv. Number and type of required parking spaces. 'The Hearing Examiner's findings are italicized. Page 2 of 5 The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that in LDC Section 4.05.4.G., Table 17 provides the parking space requirement for the proposed veterinarian clinic 1 per 200 square feet except for animal holding areas. 1 per 10 animal holding areas. The building is already existing and per SDP 99-195 and has 40 parking spaces. Before issuing the zoning certificate for the use or any corresponding building permit for the use the applicant must demonstrate that sufficient parking exists. v. Business practices and activities. The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the proposed veterinary clinic and 24 emergency services will provide care for the animals, like a medical office and emergency rooms provides care for human patients the veterinarian and animal hospital will provide care for animal patients. 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 record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the subject site is surrounded by assisting living facilities and commercially zoned areas. Noise in the animal hospital and veterinarian clinic will be kept the same minus any barking associated with dogs coming to and from the facility. Nothing is proposed that will create any additional glare from the site. No offensive odors will be created and that Petitioner will have strict policies that require the owners to clean up after their pets as well as having staff routinely monitor that any pet waste is disposed of properly. 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 record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the GMP does not prohibit this use but also does not list it in the allowable uses. This PUD originally was found to comply with the GMP was its proximity to the NCH Hospital. In the executive summary of the PUD, it states "It should be understood that the Collier County GMP specifically provides for such medical related facilities permitted in the PUD at this specific location. The medical related facilities permitted in this PUD function in a supporting role to the NCH and its facilities. "However, the applicant did provide a letter from NCH general counsel that if the opportunity arises, the hospital would love to partner with the veterinarian clinic to send assisted therapy dogs that are used and support animals. 4. The proposed use shall be compatible and consistent with the other permitted uses in the zoning district, overlay, or PUD. The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the proposed veterinary clinic use is compatible with the other uses in the PUD, staff is constrained in Page 3 of 5 that the original intent of the 1996 PUD rezone was to establish commercial uses that support and complement the nearby hospital. It should also be noted that medical uses in the PUD does not differentiate between humans and animals. 5. Any additional relevant information as may be required by County Manager or Designee. The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the applicant believes that they have made a significantly strong case for the compatibility of the veterinary clinic and animal hospital and has not provided any additional relevant information. 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 Section 10.02.06.K of the Land Development Code to approve this Petition. DECISION. The Hearing Examiner hereby APPROVES Petition Number PCUD-PL20220001813, filed by Joel A. Threlkeld, Esq. representing Florida International Solutions, LLC, with respect to the property as described in the Southwest(SW)Professional Health Park Planned Unit Development (PUD) adopted by Ordinance Number 96-81 as amended, for the following: • A request for a comparable use determination that a veterinary clinic and animal hospital (SIC Code 0742) is comparable, compatible, and consistent in nature to other permitted uses in Section 3.2.2. of the Southwest (SW) Professional Health Park Planned Unit Development(PUD). ATTACHMENTS. None. LEGAL DESCRIPTION. See Ordinance No. 97-46, as amended, located at 1713 SW Health Pkwy in Section 26, Township 48 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. All animals are to be kept and stored inside the building to minimize any odors and noise. Page 4 of 5 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. ,pe. .,..:1--.L.........---- August 25, 2022 Date Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP Hearing Examiner Page 5 of 5