HEX Final Decision #2025-11HEX NO. 2025-11
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
DATE OF HEARING.
April 10, 2025
PETITION.
Petition No. VA-PL20240010021 — 1200 Michigan Ave -Request for a variance from Land
Development Code Section 4.02.01.A and Section 9.03.03.A.5 to decrease the required RMF-
6 zoned front yard setback for a legal nonconforming corner lot from the required 12.5 feet
to 3.5 feet on the west front property line for the development of the new principal residential
structure inclusive of attached exterior stairwells and the porch, pool, and pool screen
enclosure accessories on approximately 0.15 acres located at 1200 Michigan Ave, also known
as Lot 1, Block F of the Bad Axe subdivision in Section 22, Township 49 South, Range 25
East, Collier County, Florida.
GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION.
The petitioner is requesting a variance from the Land Development Code (LDC) to decrease the
required Residential Multi-Family-6 (RMF-6) zoned front yard setback for a legal nonconforming
corner lot from the required 12.5 feet to 3.5 feet on the west front property line for the development
of the new principal residential structure inclusive of attached exterior stairwells and the porch,
pool, and pool screen enclosure accessories.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
Approval with conditions.
FINDINGS.
1. The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction over this Petitioner pursuant to Sec. 2-87(2) of the
Collier County Code 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 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 for this item at the public hearing.
Page 1 of 5
5. The County's Land Development Section 9.04.03 lists the criteria for variances. The Hearing
Examiner having the same authority as the Board of Zoning Appeals may grant, deny, or
modify any request for a variance from the regulations or restrictions of the Collier County
Land Development Code.I
1. Are there special conditions and circumstances existing, which are peculiar to the location,
size and characteristics of the land, structure or building involved?
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that yes, there are
special conditions unique to this location, which are due to the lot being a legal non-
conforming corner lot, cis it is located adjacent to an abandoned right -of --way (ROW). The
abandoned ROW is planned for a significant joint Collier County and City of Naples Water,
Sewer, and Stormwater partnership project, and this may serve to assist the County in this
firtzrre capital project. The stibject property is condensed to a width of 50 feet, resulting in
a nonconforming corner lot. Since the subject pr•opero) is adjacent to developed residential
to the east and the abandoned ROW to the west, this results in a nonconforming lot width,
along with the ivestf °ont yard setback reduced by 50%, ivhich restdts in a smaller buildable
area of 30 feet in width for a single family residential dwelling comparable to what has
been developed on neighboring properties in the same zoning district.
2. Are there special conditions and circumstances, which do not result from the action of the
applicant such as pre-existing conditions relative to the property, which are the subject of
the Variance request?
The record evidence and testimony f °orrt the public hearing reflects that the cur°rent owner
of the property, Kimberly Wiukomm, acquired the property on May 27, 2021, thereby
receiving the conditions of the stibject property that existed before the acquisition. The
circumstances do not result from the actions of the owner. The condition of the subject
property being adjacent to an abandoned right-of4my (ROW), resulting in a
nonconforming lot, is not a result of the applicant or owner.
3. Will a literal interpretation of the provisions of this zoning code work umlecessaiy and
undue hardship on the applicant or create practical difficulties for the applicant?
The record evidence and testimony fr°orn the public hearing reflects that a literal
interpretation of the provisions of this zoning code hill cause um�ecessary and undue
hardship on the property owner and create practical diffctlties for the owner to develop
and construct a single family dwelling on the property.
4. Will the Variance, if granted, be the minimum Variance that will make possible the
reasonable use of the land, building or structure and which promote standards of health,
safety, and welfare?
1 The Hearing Examiner's findings are italicized.
Page 2 of 5
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that if granted, the
variance will be the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the
land to promote health, safety, and welfare. The variance request incorporates all that will
be required to develop the single family dwelling on the RMF-6 zoned property. This
includes the residential structure, the uncovered stairwell on the west side of the house that
will provide access, the porch, the pool, and the pool screen enclosure.
5. Will granting the Variance confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by
these zoning regulations to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning district?
The record evidence and testimony fr°orn the public hearing reflects that gr°anting the
variance will not confer any special privilege on the property owner compared to other
properties in the same RMF-6 zoning district, as the property owner is developing an
allowable residential use with accompanying accessories. For instance, the developed
residential property west of the abandoned ROW, 1160 Michigan Ave, was permitted under
permit number 85- 2268 with a side yard setback of 5 feet on both the east and west sides
of the property. Since this was permitted before the ROW taking, these setbacks are legally
nonconforming for the property west of the abandoned ROW. The request for the subject
pr•opero) is only 1.5 feet more than what the neighboring property allows with the
nonconforming setbacks if they were applied to the subject pr•opero)
6. Will granting the Variance be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this Land
Development Code, and not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to
the public welfare?
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that granting the
variance ivill be in harmony with the LDC's general intent, and there will be no nuisance
to neighbors, as the only setback that would be adjusted is adjacent to the abandoned right-
of-way (ROW) proper o) owned by Collier County. This adjustment would not immediately
impact any other neighboring property owners.
7. Are there natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals and
objectives of the regulation such as natural preserves, lakes, golf courses, etc.?
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that t1Ie owner's
hardship is significant, not only becazrse of the mcjor°financial investment brit also because
the lot, with a reduced footprint, is neither buildable nor feasible for her intended purpose
of developing a residence. The applicant contacted County Zoning Staff before the owner
purchased the lot to affirm that the allowable footprint ivould be large enough for the home
the owner wanted to build. Clearly, the owner would never have bought the lot if it could
not accommodate the home she requested to develop on the property.
8. Will granting the Variance be consistent with the GMP?
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that granting the
variance ���ill be consistent 1-��ith the GMP since a single family residential development,
Page 3 of 5
along ivith its accessories, is an ahmiwbie use for the subject property in the Future Land
Use Element and the GMP.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY.
The subject property is located in the Residential Multi-FamilyZoning District and the
Urban Residential Subdistrict designated area, as identified in the Future Land Use Map (FLUM)
Athe GMP. The GMP does not address individual variance requests but deals with the larger issue
of the actual use. As previously stated, the subject petition seeks a variance for a single-family
residential dwelling, including attached exterior stairwells and the porch, pool, and pool screen
enclosure accessories, which are authorized for use in this land use designation. This land use
category is designed to accommodate residential uses, including single-family. The single-family
residential use and accessory is consistent with the Future Land Use Map of the GMP.
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 9.04.03 of
the Land Development Code to approve the Petition.
DECISION.
The Hearing Examiner hereby APPROVES Petition No. VA-PL20240010021, filed by the
applicant Mary Willkomm of W&W Limited, Inc. and the owner Kimberly Willkomm, with
respect to the property legally described as a 0.15± acres legal nonconforming lot located at 1200
Michigan Ave, also known as Lot 1, Block F of the Bad Axe subdivision in Section 22, Township
49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, for the following:
• A variance from Land Development Code Section 4.02.O1.A and Section 9.03.03.A.5 to
decrease the required Residential Multi-Family-6 (RMF-6) zoned front yard setback for a
legal nonconforming corner lot from the required 12.5 feet to 3.5 feet on the west front
property line for the development of the new principal residential structure inclusive of
attached exterior stairwells and the porch, pool, and pool screen enclosure accessories.
Said changes are fully described in the Zoning Map attached as Exhibit "A" and the Conceptual
Site Pian attached as Exhibit "B", and are subject to the conditions) set forth below.
ATTACHMENTS.
Exhibit A —Zoning Map
Exhibit B —Conceptual Site Plan
Page 4 of 5
LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
The subject property is a 0.15:t acres legal nonconforming lot located at 1200 Michigan Ave, also
known as Lot 1, Block F of the Bad Axe subdivision in Section 22, 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.
DISCLAIMER.
Pursuant to Section 125.022(5) F.S., issuance of a development permit by a county does not in any
may 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,
May 8, 2025
Date
Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP
Hearing Examiner
Page 5 of 5
«A»
$ e LU r (l
5 U lJ W Q v
Q
C, W
n
\�I W
G W -
m
LU
13
lop 9 n
F i
(� G
N 1 Mus HM
DO! 8 IMP
W
Iwo
Ld
Mal
0
Oe
�I N S q bt
v o
ar I 0i A
ro lip
v 1 CC' C -' L C a
aD `I o.
7 ''c
N IS NZl C e NLips iZI s =
lam
Oj
faill
*lpNdl�?�42)
F" —�_ �—
f x
[� . S 4JOI N IS glut of
j�- 1�I ` a
G
MM
WOO'IIVWJ@S3ldVN1033b3d N
L9E0"69Z-UZ N
sINOAll9m# Onl3 N`d1d AIIS GASOdO Id } N Q
WWO1IIIIM'S 1.2iVW > m a_ z z
ONI`a311WI1M8M wwO)MIM A�z138W1>1 z o ui 0 z w
w
213alln8 o U oLLI U)
w
o Z oM
I- N -=1 (n -� Y
O w ^ F N
J O Y = Z w¢
w�u u LU 2 w C7�
4, Z a m ._I w a w w
rn r CY¢ F. m (n o x N
v ~' uu x U) a w a
U p • w
��// ---- D
SDI----------------- O
v (n
U C I LU
,i j
1 u
z
r Q�l 1 W
✓ N I i I ILU
Y
0 9.0 • u
I I In
I 5.0 7.5 I
I
1
(n O O
O
'OOi • 1 Q LL a
N • I (~n Z W O
I z
I x 0 1 O¢2¢
"&4 N r�-1 a • I of w m: rx
.-r
Ln
Y
e, zu¢¢
O u ¢ w m
COO cj1 w I
v
ci a
_ C7
� � I u z
C.j 1 a I z
u I g
r^ m O ,
Y N
a W N z a
LL F � w
Z ~ Z LL
J 0 N
Z w
Z z O m
Z io)� w N
w
0
o
N
N
p
J
LU
Y
11,
U
Z¢
m
lo�
F-
O
N
7.5
r x --
Z U I
� o ILL a
35.0
H
z
0
4.0 3.5I
a
a
w
(n
Z
w
¢
2
w
p
O
p
w
w
U
z
u
rNr
¢
o
¢
�
w
z
0
z
g
Y
pr
U
Z_
m
W
�
[n
LL
z
Z
O
O
�
u
LL
z
o
�
Z
N
rri