Loading...
Resolution 1993-212D MAY 25, 1993 RESOLUTION 93- 212D A RESOLUTION DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE LONG RANGE PLANNING DIRECTOR'S DETERMINATION ON THE COMPATIBILITY EXCEPTION APPLICATION NUMBER CEX-033-MI FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON WATERWAY DRIVE IN SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 52 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, Article VIII, section 1 (f) of the Constitution of Florida confers on counties broad ordinance-making power when not inconsistent with general or special law; and WHEREAS, Chapter 125.01, Florida Statutes, confers on all counties in Florida general powers of government, including the ordinance-making power and the power to plan and regulate the use ot land and water; and WHEREAS, Chapter 163, Part II Florida stl'!tutes, requires local governments to adopt a comprehensive plan and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative. Code, establishes the criteria for adopting a comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, on January 10, 1989, Collier County adopted the COllier County Growth Management Plan as its comprehensive Plan pursuant to the requirements ot Chapter 163, Part II Florida statutes, also known as the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act ot 1985 and Chapter 9J-S, Florida Administrative Code, also known as the Minimum Criteria for Review ot Local Government Comprehensive Plans and Determination ot COmpliance; and WHEREAS, Policy 3.1.K of the Future Land Use Element ot the Growth Management Plan provides tor a Zoning Reevaluation Program including provisions tor Exemptions, Compatibility Exceptions, and Vested Rights Determinations; and WHEREAS, the County adopted the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance 90-23 on March 21, 1990 to implement Policy 3.1.K ot the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance provides for applications to preserve the existing inconsistent zoning in certain situations pursuant to Section 2.4 (Exemptions), Section 10 sm~I.ao.1AH -1- BOOK fJOO~? 50- ~5 MAY 25, 1993 (Compatibility Exception), and Section 11 (Determination ot Vested Rights); and ffflEREAS, the owner ot the herein described real property, Martin L. Charles, president, and Ron King, Secretary, ot Charles - ot Marco, a Partnership, has submitted an application for COmpatibility Exception (CEX-033-MI) pursuant to Section 10 of the Zoning Reevaluation ordinance; and WHEREAS, based upon the criteria for granting Compatibility Exceptions contained in Section 10.6.1 ot the Zoning Reevaluation ordinance, the Long Range Planning Director's determination was to deny that application; and WHEREAS, the owner ot the herein described real property filed an appeal of the Director's determination to the Board ot County Comaissioners, as provided tor in Section 10.5 ot the Zoning Reevaluation ordinance; and WHEREAS, on May 25, 1993 the Board ot County commissioners considered the application for Appeal of the Long Range Planning Director's determination on the Compatibility Exception application, the Long Range Planning Director's recommendation, and the record made before the Board of County Commissioners at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, the Board ot County Commissioners ot Collier COUnty, Florida hereby makes the following Findings of Fact and COnclusions of Law: Findinas of Fact 1. The unimproved real property which is the subject of this appeal is owned by Martin L. Charles, President, and Ron King, Secretary, of Charles of Marco, a Partnership. 2. The subject property is legally described as Lot 2, Block 799, Marco Beach Unit 6, Tract L Replat, according to the Plat thereof, recorded in Plat Book 12, Pages 55-56 of the Public Records ot Collier County, Florida~ BOOK IJOO F1.';! 50 -O? b sm~I.ao.lAH -2- MAY 25, 1993 3. The subject property is located at Waterway Drive, 260t feet west of Bald Eagle Drive (CR 953). It is designated Urban COastal Fringe on the Future Land Use Map. The base density permitted on the subject property by the Density Rating system contained in the Future Land Use Element is 4 units per acre. The site is within the Traftic Congestion Area resulting in the subtraction ot 1 unit per acre yielding a consistent (base) density of 3 units per acre. The maximum density permitted on the subject site is to 6 units per acre which may be achieved through utilization ot the Conversion of Commercial Zoning provision. 4. The existing zoning of the sUbject property is C-1, Commercial Protessional, which permits commercial professional uses within structures at a maximum height of 35 feet. Setback requirements are 25 feet tor the front yard, 15 feet for the side yard and 15 feet for the rear yard. s. The C-1 zoning district is inconsistent with the Growth Management Plan because it permits commercial uses which do not comply with the locational criteria contained in the Future Land Use Element. 6. The applicant submitted to the County on November 27, 1990, an application for Compatibility Exception (CEX-033-MI) as provided tor in Section 10, Compatibility Exception, of the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance. 7. The Long Range Planning Director's determination for said application, iSSUed on February 10, 1993, and effective on February 23, 1993, was for denial based upon the criteria established in Section 10.6.1 ot the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance. 8. The applicant tiled with the County on March 24, 1993, an Appeal of the Long Range Planning Director's determination of denial for the Compatibility Exception application as provided for in Section 10.5 of the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance. 9. An Exemption application as provided for in Section 2.4.5 ot the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance was not submitted and such application would not have been. eligible for approval as the subject property does not meet the criteria contained in sm~I.ao.lAH -3- 1m OOOnr!. 5O-~7 MAY 25, 1993 Subsections 2.4.5.1 or 2.4.5.2 of the Zoning Reevaluation ordinance. 10. Within 300 teet to the north of the subject property are vacant properties zoned RSF-4. The RSF-4 properties are within an improved subdivision containing scattered single family dwellings. All properties are designated Urban Coastal Fringe, the same as the subject lot. 11. Within 300 feet to the east of the subject property, across Waterway Drive, all properties are vacant and zoned C-l and are also subject to the Zoning Reevaluation Program. All properties are designated Urban Coastal Fringe, the same as the subject lot. 12. Within 300 teet to the south ot the subject property are properties zoned C-l and also subject to the Zoning Reevaluation Program. All properties are designated Urban Coastal Fringe, the same as the subject lot. 13. Within 300 teet to the west ot the subject property is Castaways Waterway. Across the waterway are scattered single family dwellings within an improved subdivision zoned RSF-4. All properties are designated Urban Coastal Fringe, the same as the subject lot. 14. The subject property is square in shape and contains t1.4 acres. The parcel measures approximately 210 feet by 290 teet. 15. The property has no unusual topographic features. 16. There are no identified areas of environmental sensitivity on the site. 17. The existing zoning district boundary is logically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the subject property. 18. Development permitted under a consistent zoning district (RMF-12 with a maximum density ot 6 units per acre) would not generate excessive noise, glare, odor or traffic impacts upon the nearby surrounding area. 19. Development in the nearby surrounding area will not generate excessive noise, glare,. odor or traftic impacts upon development permitted on the subject property under a consistent sm~I.ao.1AH BOOK 0004p~t 50 - a ~ MAY 25, 1993 zoning district (RMF-12 with a maximum density of 6 units per acre). 20. Development permitted under the existing zoning district (C-1) would not generate excessive noise, glare, odor or traffic impacts upon the nearby surrounding area. 21. Development in the nearby surrounding area will not generate excessive noise, glare, odor or traffic impacts upon development permitted on the subject property under the existing zoning district (C-1). 22. Development ot the subject site at a consistent density ot 6 units per acre would yield a total ot 8 dwelling units. Utilizing the lTE TriD Generation Manual figure of approximately 5.8 trips per day per multi-tamily unit, an 8-unit multi-family project would generate 46 trips per day. 23. utilizing an acceptable standard ot 10,000 square feet of commercial development (floor area) per acre, the subject site could be developed under the existing zoning district with a 14,000 square teet structure. UtiliZing the ITE TriD Generation Manual figure ot approximately 24 trips per day per 1,000 square feet ot tloor area, a 14,000 square feet general office development could generate 336 trips per day. A general office building is a representative use ot the commercial uses permitted in the C-l district. Some permitted commercial uses have a lower, and some higher, trip generation rate than a general office building. 24. The subject property is bounded to the south by Waterway Drive. Waterway Drive is a tWo-lane undivided local road with a 100' right-of-way. As a local road it has no adopted Level ot Service (LOS) standard and traftic counts are not available from the Transportation Services Division. Bald Eagle Drive, t260 teet to the east, is a two-lane undivided collector road with a 100' right-of-way. Its adopted LOS is "D" and its operating LOS is "D". The Traffic circulation Element of the Growth Management Plan does not identify future improvements to Bald Eagle Drive. 25. The scale and character Qf development permitted under a consistent zoning district (RMF-12 with a maximum density of 6 sm~I.ao.lAH BOOK oOlf~~ 50 -01 9 MAY 25, 1993 units per acre) is a mUlti-family project with structures at a aaximua height ot 50 feet. 26. The scale and character ot development existing and permitted within the nearby surrounding area includes vacant commercially-zoned property to the east, west and south. Properties to the north are zoned and developed with single-family uses. 27. The scale and character ot development permitted under the existing zoning district (C-l) is protessional office and st.ilar uses as permitted in the C-1 zoninq district with structures at a maximum heiqht of 35 feet. 28. There is no particular need identified for additional commercial development in the surrounding neighborhood. Conclusions of Law Based upon the above Findings of Fact, the Board of County Commissioners makes the following Conclusions ot Law: The Long Range Planning Director's determination ot denial for the Compatibility Exception application number CEX-033-MI is SUpported by substantial competent evidence and is not contrary to the criteria established in Section 10.6 ot the Zoning Reevaluation ordinance in that: The appellant has not demonstrated by substantial competent evidence that the residential land use ot 6 dwelling units/acre would be incompatible with the land uses and potential land uses identitied in Findings of Fact #10-13 set forth above and has not demonstrated that the Director's determination is contrary to the criteria establish~d in Section 10.6 of the Zoninq Reevaluation Ordinance taking into account the following: 1. The subject property is not eligible for a Compatibility Determination Exemption pursuant to Section 2.4 of the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance as the property does not meet the criteria contained in SUbsections 2.4.5.1 or 2.4.5.2 ot the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance. OCO 50" ~~ &O~ ~? -..:JV smm.cmoazl.aoJAH -6- MAY 25, 1993 2. The land use patterns, densities and intensities allowed under zoning districts consistent with the Growth Management Plan (RMF-12 with a maximum density ot 6 units per acre) on the subject property are compatible with those existing on property within the nearby surrounding area of the subject property. 3. The land use patterns, densities and intensities allowed under the existing zoning district (C-1) on the subject property are compatible with those existing on property within the nearby surrounding area ot the subject property. ... The existing zoning district boundaries are logically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the subject property. S. A consistent zoning district (RMF-12 with a maximum density of 6 units per acre) on the subject property will not adversely impact the nearby surrounding area. 6. A consistent zoning district (RMF-12 with a maximum density ot 6 units per acre) on the subject property will not be adversely impacted by the nearby surrounding area. 7. The existing zoning district (C-1) on the subject property will not adversely impact the nearby surrounding area. . 8. The existing zoning district (C-l) on the subject property will not be adversely impacted by the nearby surrounding area. 9. A consistent zoning district (RMF-12 with a maximum density of 6 units per acre) will not create or excessively increase traffic congestion or otherwise affect public safety. 10. The existing zoning district (C-1) will not create or excessively increase trattic congestion or otherwise attect public safety. 11. The level ot existing traffic would not have an adverse impact on a consistent zoning district (RMF-12 with a maximum density ot 6 units per acre). 12. The level ot existing traffic would not have an adverse impact on the existing zoning district (C-1). 13. A consistent zoning district (RMF-12 with a maximum density of 6 units per acre) will not be out of scale or out ot sm~I.ao.lAH aOOK OOO~~A: 50 -.3 / MAY 25, 1993 character with the eXisting land uses and needs of the nearby surrounding neighborhood. 14. The existing zoning district (C-1) will not be out of scale or out of character with the existing land uses and needs of the nearby surrounding neighborhood. Denial ot Comoatibilitv Exceotion ~ooeal NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County eomaissioners ot Collier County, Florida, in pUblic hearing, duly constituted and assembled on this, the 25th day of May, 1993, that: The Appeal of the Long Range Planning Director's determination ot denial tor the compatibility Exception application number CEX- 033-MI tor the herein described real property, submitted by William Todd ot Prudential Florida Realty, Agent for Martin L. Charles, President, and Ron King, Secretary, of Charles of Marco, a PartnerShip, is denied. It is the intent of the Board to rezone the subject property to the RMF-12 zoning district with a density cap at six (6) units per acre, a district consistent with the Growth Management Plan via utilization of the Conversion of Commercial Zoning provision contained in the Future Land Use Element. This Resolution adopted after motion, . .... , . ' , tavoriM: .~allle. . ~\I~liJ 0 .."""........' ,,/.. A~--A.-&.Q"'-:. ." #., '~~ .......~ ~ . ~. .- second and majority vote :;~~.:'''' :: ;.\ :..syi :" /: ',ight , lerk /j '0. . .",'" . . ~O\1~. AS. ito FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: . , ~t..Ih. /Jtu.ALuf: Mar 0 e M. Student, Assistant County Attorney BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER UNTY, FLORIDA %#~ By: Burt L. Sa~ers, Chairman ..p~ aOOK OQUPArl 50 -3~ smm.G:l2:lOO2l.aoJAH -s-