Loading...
HEX Final Decision 2023-22Page 1 of 5 HEX NO. 2023-22 HEARING EXAMINER DECISION DATE OF HEARING. July 27, 2023 PETITION. Petition No. PCUD-PL20230002616 – Northbrooke Plaza – Request for a determination that the proposed use of an alternative learning and enrichment education facility is comparable in nature to other permitted uses in Section III, Tract A, of the Northbrooke Plaza Planned Unit Development (PUD) adopted by Ordinance Number 98-59. The subject property is located at 2659 Professional Circle, Naples, FL 34119 also known as Northbrooke West, a Commercial Condominium, Units 1107 and 1108, in Section 19, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION. The petitioner is seeking confirmation that the intended use of an alternative learning and enrichment education facility is comparable with the several uses permitted as a matter of right in the Northbrooke Plaza PUD in Section III, Tract A. 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 Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM), posting of a sign on the subject property, and a mailing to surrounding property owners are not required. A newspaper advertisement for the Page 2 of 5 Hearing Examiner public meeting is the only notice required (Administrative Code, Chapter 3L, and LDC §10.03.06. O) and was posted in the Naples Daily News on July 7, 2023. 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. 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 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: The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the official interpretation approved on June 30, 2009, for a different building in Tract A and determined that the office and classroom use on Tract A of the PUD associated with the main university campus on Tract B, is comparable and compatible with the uses allowed by right in the Tract A. Furthermore, the proposed use in the subject property will involve the operational characteristics of the school operator, such as: i. Operating hours. The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the operating house during the school year will be Monday through Friday from 2:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., and during the summer, Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. These operating hours are consistent with the proposed use and the educational enrichment programs being offered. These proposed hours are comparable and consistent with other uses allowed in Tract A. ii. Traffic volume generated/attracted. The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that minimal traffic volume will be generated. Students’ drop-off and pickup are staggered throughout drop- off/pickup hours, roughly an hour from 8-9 am for morning drop-off and 5-6 pm for pickup. Only 3-4 cars will ever congregate at a time due to the staggered drop-off/pickup windows, with a total of 20-25 vehicles moving through per day. The Transportation Review verified approval of the traffic volume for the proposed use and that it is consistent and comparable with other allowed uses in Tract A and won’t generate a substantial increase in traffic volume. iii. Type of vehicles associated with the use. The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that 2-3 staff cars and 2 vans will be parked during business hours. Customer/Parent drop off and pick up 1 The Hearing Examiner’s findings are italicized. Page 3 of 5 times will add 3-4 cars to this. The vehicles to be used in association with the proposed use have minimal impact on the existing transportation facilities located at the subject property. The Transportation Review found the vehicles for the proposed use are consistent and comparable with other allowable uses in Tract A. iv. Number and type of required parking spaces. The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that there will be no change to the existing required parking spaces. v. Business practices and activities. The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the business practices and activities will be After School Enrichment classes, Summer Camps, and Single Day Camps These are the educational programs that are consistent with the proposed educational uses for the subject property, this is consistent with other educational service uses allowed in Tract A and is sufficient. 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 here will be no negative impact regarding noise, glare, or odor effects on neighboring properties. The proposed use will be interior to the facility on the subject property. This is consistent with the proposed use on the subject property, since it will be interior to the existing facility with no proposed exterior changes, there will be no negative effects of noise, glare, or odor. 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 proposed use of a STEM based school is consistent with the GMP because it is located within an interchange activity center. Those centers allow a full array of commercial uses, residential uses, institutional uses, hotel/motel uses. The inclusion of a STEM based school within this PUD would be classified as an institutional use, thus it is consi stent with the FLUE. 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 use for office and classroom uses associated with the main college campus of the existing Hodges University, on Tract B, is comparable and compatible with the uses allowed by right in Page 4 of 5 Tract A”, was decided in the Official Interpretation, INTP-PL2009000083, for Northbrooke Plaza PUD. The provided zoning interpretation determined on June 30, 2009, that this use was consistent and compatible for another building on Tract A. Based on the allowable uses listed in Ordinance 98-059, the educational service use of a STEM based school is consistent and comparable to other uses allowed in Tract A. 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 students that will be served by the proposed use, will be between 5 and 36 students at a time. The ages of students that will be served are primarily elementary-age students 5 - 11 years old. There will be no Pre-K students and no High School students. The educational use is for a narrow demographic. 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-PL20230002616, filed by Francesca Passidomo, Esq. of Coleman Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., representing Northbrooke Professional Village, LLC with respect to the property as described in the Northbrooke Plaza Planned United Development (PUD) adopted by Ordinance Number 98-59, as amended, located at 2659 Professional Circle, Naples, FL 34119, also known as Northbrooke West, a Commercial Condominium, Units 1107 and 1108, in Section 19, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida for the following: • A request for a determination that the proposed use of an alternative learning and enrichment education facility is comparable in nature to other permitted uses in Section III, Tract A, of the Northbrooke Plaza Planned Unit Development (PUD) adopted by Ordinance Number 98-59. ATTACHMENTS. None. LEGAL DESCRIPTION. See Ordinance Number 98-59, as amended, located at 2659 Professional Circle, Naples, FL 34119, also known as Northbrooke West, a Commercial Condominium, Units 1107 and 1108, in Section 19, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida Page 5 of 5 CONDITIONS. 1. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development. 2. The ages of students that will be served are primarily elementary-age students 5 - 11 years old. There will be no Pre-K students and no High School students. 3. The operating hours will be as follows: During the school year, Monday through Friday from 2:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.; During the summer, Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. 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. ________________________ ____________________________________ Date Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP Hearing Examiner