Exhibit Y Compatiblity Exception staff reportAGENDA ITEM # 3. F
I.IEMORANDUU
Collier County planning Cornmission
Comnunity Development Services Divis j-on
Grorrth Planning Department
DATE :YIay 26, ]-992
PETTTION R-92-4 t COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DMSION
REPRESENTING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
REQUESTTNG A COMPREHENSTVE REZONE OF RESIDENTIAL,
COMMERCTAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONED PROPERTIES TO VARIOUSRESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS,AS DETERMINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSTONERS TO Bi
APPROPRIATE AND TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE GROWTH
MANAGEMENT PLAN, PURSUANT TO THE ZONING REEVALUATION
ORDINANCE 90-23 AND POLICY 3.1.K OF THE FUTURE LAND USE
ELEMENT OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PI,AN.
SUBJECT:
1
A
MMENTS:
BACKGROUND
v
TO:
FROM:
a
ix*,tl1
On January l-0, 1989 the Board of County Comrnissioners (BCC)adopted the col-l-ier County crowth Management plan (cMpj. ifreFuture Land Use Element (FLUE) lrith accompanying Future LandUse Map (FLUM) is one of the key components ot ttre cMp whichprovides guidance for ne\", developrnent. All- new developmentmust be consistent with the cMp.
By including policy.3.1.K of the FLUE, Col,lier Countyrequired the establishment and implernentation of a piograrn tore-evaluate a1I undeveloped (ttuninprovedr) property- zoiedinconsistent with the cMp by Januaiy ro, isir lconirercial andindustrial zoned property) and January Lo, L99) (residentialzoned property). The re-evaluation piogram was to include amechanism by which to rezone the inconsistently zonedunimproved .properties to a zoning district coniistent withthe Growth Management pIan. The rationaLe for re-evaluatingexisting zoning is Listed in Section 1, Findings, of theZoning ReevaLuation Ordinance (ZRO). fhey incfria", "o.,"..,for hurricane evacuation capability; concern for the t idedisparity between the County's aUitity to provide publicservices and facilitj-es and the proje-ted demand fir servicesand facilities based upon the populition potential of currentzoning; a finding that a base density of iour units per acre
!r, r:,u,"', :, t
;')!,.-r,^
| 110\) . Lt' 7t^'^
'\in the Urban Designated Area, subject to the Density Ratinq\Systen provisions, is an appropriate density; concein over- ,
the development patterns resul-ting from the current locatj,onof commercial zoning (strip and/oi isolated) i and, concernover the amount of existing commercial zoning as compared to,the projected future needs.
On Uarch 2l , l99O the BCC adopted the Collier CountyReevaluation ordinance 9o-23 (zRO) as provided tor Ly3.1.K of the FLUE. The ZRo went into effect on uay -t
l;n*tlB
I Q^rb
q u"5
Zoning
Pol icy4, ]-990.
Step l-
Step 2
Step 3
The ZRO establishes the procedure by which to re-evaluateexisting zoning.within the County's 12 pLanning Comrnunities.This procedure is outlined below:
Notify property o$rners, by certified nai1, of aproposed rezoning to consistent zoning district(s).Property ov/ners are provided 12o days in which to'object to the proposed rezoning by subrnitting oneor more of the applications provided for in ihe
zRo .
.- 4 hrt' *at lHoId a workshop within each planning Community toexplain the process and the rationaie for theZoning Reevaluation progran, and to assist thepublic with appl icat j,ons .
HoId public hearings to rezone properties.Properties for which an applicalion is pending (orhas already been approved) are withdrawir fron-therezone process. ShouLd those pending applicationsbe denied, then the properties are a{.ain- subject tothe rezone process.
The ZRO provides 3 application procedures - Exemptions (basedupon existence of certain developrnent orders orcompatibility), Cornpatibility Ex-eption (based uponcompatibility), and vested Rights betermination lbased uponvested rights to develop an approved project) . ihere is: noapplication fee for Exemptioni or compatibility exceptions.However, a vested Rights Deternination and the appeal of thatdeternination, as well as an appeal of a CornpatiLifity.Exception determinationr does have an applicition fee-(ninimum of $75o.oo and rnaximum of 92,z-so.oo, S25o.oO and
$100. 00 respectively) .
On or about July 30, 1990, The Gro\"rth planning Departmentsent 1 l-400 certified nail notices throughout CoIIier County(a11 12 Planning Conmunities) to owners of uninproved,
2
B. PROCESS
inconsistently zoned property -industrial and residential. Thesubmit ZRO applications was in NApproximately 650 total applicatDeterminations have been rnade on
,,r Remaining applications are on hoproperty owners/agents or pendin
including comrnercial,last (12oth) day in which toovember or December of 1990.ions were received-all but a handful of these.Id at the request of theg the outcome of a lawsuit.r=€
On May L9, 1992, the Growth planning Department sent + 140letters, by regular rnai1, to owners of affected propeitiesadvising of both the planning Cornrnission and Boa-rd irearing.
C. REZONE DTS CUSS I ON
The Density Rating System contained in the FLUE (copyattached) contains provisions whereby density nay b!-
Iincreased or decreased from the base density of -4 units per ,
acre in the Urban Area. Staff previously discussed with theBCc the . appropriateness of granting additj,ona] density forproperties within density bands around Activity Centeis. TheBcc determined it was appropriate to consider Lhis whenevaluating properties under the zRO. Staff is not applyingany.other provisions of the Density Rating System sinie-additional information may be required, i.ncfuaing specificproject design. A1so, staff has reviewed each piopLrty iorthe appropriateness of the j-nterconnection provlsiln o? tleDensity Rating Systen, based upon what is known about thesubject properties and the suriounding properties. staif'srecomnendations are included on the Zonlng-Atlas Uaps.
rt is generally staffrs recomrnendation to rezone the affecteatproperties in the Urban Area to the highest base densityprovided for in the FLUE (3 or 4 units per acre, dependingupon location) and to rezone properties- in theAgriculturat/Rura1 Area to the A; Rura1 Agricultural ZoningDistrict. The Agricul-tural/Rurait designaf.ion as well .= if,"rrArr zoning District al1ows one dwelling unit per s i-res is-weII as a variety of agricultural uses] However, there areexceptions to this as noted in the attached Zoning atias llipset .
1hfr
L
3
T$/o additional options beyond the staffts rezoningreconnendations are avaitable. One is to deterrnin6 tnatrezoning a property to a consistent zoning district wi1lresult in a zoning district that is incornlatible withsurrounding properties. The other is to determine thatrezoning a property to a cons j.stent zoning aistrict wiif
::"ylt in no Ininimum beneficiaf use for tf,e property _ i"taking,' of that property. In both instances, upon makinothe detemination ( s ) , the County can eithe, f 6""^. - tt "----"'property at its existing inconsistent zoning districi, orrezone the property to another incons istent - zoning ailtii.tperrnitting a lower density/ intens ity of use, so as to allo!,
l
compatible uses and/or a minimum beneficial use of theproperty. As noted on the zRo map set, staff has recosome parcel-s maintain their existing, inconsistent zonas to be compatible with surrounding properties.
mmendeding so
t ri'l
A significant number of pr operties (+ 45) are recommended toretain their existing zoni ng subject to conditions imposedthrough the approval of a Compatibility Exception applicationor the successful a ppeal of staff's deniaL of a Compatj.bi lityExcept j-on applicati on.These propertj-es are so noted on thezoning atlas map set.
E.BACK-UP MATERTALS
2 . RECO!.OTENDATTON !
That the collier County planning Comrnission forward petition
R-92-4 to the Board of County Commissioners with arecommendation to rezone the subject properties to districts(and with the conditions) identified in Exhibit rAr to theattached rezone ordinance and as identified on the attached
Zon j.ng Atlas Maps.
Attached for your reference are maps identifying theboundaries of the affected planning Communities; the rezoneordinance $/ith Exhibit trA'r which describes each parcel ,provides staffrs recomnendation incfuding conditions, andidentifies the Zoning At1as Map Number; i Zoning Atlas Mapset identifying the subject parcels with staffrsrecommendation; and the Density Rating System as contained inthe FLUE.
4
Inr*f
c
D. CO},IPATTBILTTY EXCEPTIONS
t t"7.r,f
D
PREPARED BY:
D,JI C
DATEDAVTD C. WEEKS
SENIOR PLANNER
REVIEWED BY:
ROBERT . BLANCHARD
GROWTH PI,ANNING DIRECTOR
.r,/> z /qt
DATE
tt z--rz'"t r/z*/rr-
FRANK W. BRUTT, AICP
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES ADMTNISTRATOR
COLLIER COUNTY PI,ANNING COWISSION:
Fred Thomas, CHAfRMAN
Dw/5.22e2/ccPc
DATE
PETITTON NUMBER: R-92-4Staff Report for June 4, lgg2 ccpc neeting.
NoTE: This petition is scheduLed for June 22, Lg92 before theBoard of County Cornmissioners.
5
sh, /c 7
R ^.rl