Resolution 1993-212E
MAY 25, 1993
RESOLUTION 93-212E
A RESOLUTION DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE LONG
RANGE PLANNING DIRECTOR'S DETERMINATION ON THE
COMPATIBILITY EXCEPTION APPLICATION NUMBER
CEX-034-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
of land and vater; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 163, Part II Florida Statutes, 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 of Chapter 163, . Part II Florida
statutes, also known as the Local Government Comprehensive Planning
and Land Development Regulation Act of 1985 and Chapter 9J-5,
Florida Administrative Code, also known as the Minimum Criteria for
Review of Local Government Comprehensive Plans and Determination of
Compliance; and
WHEREAS, Policy 3.1.K of the Future Land Use Element of the
Growth Management Plan provides for a Zoning Reevaluation Program
including provisions for 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 of 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
(Compatibility Exception), and Section 11 (Determination of Vested
Rights); and aOOK OOO~1'i! 50 - .33
MAY 25, 1993
WHEREAS, the owner of the herein described real property,
Isaac Karchakian, Trustee, has submitted an application for
Compatibility Exception (CEX-034-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 of the Zoning Reevaluation
Ordinance, the Long Range Planning Director's determination vas to
deny that application; and
WHEREAS, the owner of the herein described real property filed
an appeal of the Director's determination to the Board of County
ColaIIissioners, as provided for in Section 10.5 of the Zoning
Reevaluation Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, on May 25, 1993 the Board of 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 of County commissioners of 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 Isaac Karchakian, Trustee.
2. The subject property is legally described as Lot 3, 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 of Collier County Florida.
3. The subject property is located at Waterway Drive, 450t
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
aoGK
-2- d.
OCOn?. 50 -3 I
MAY 25, 1993
site is vithin the Traffic Congestion Area resulting in the
subtraction of 1 unit per acre yielding a consistent (base) density
of 3 units per acre. The maximum density permitted on the subject
site is 6 units per acre vhich may achieved through utilization of
the COnversion of Commercial Zoning provision.
4. The existing zoning of the subject property is C-l,
Commercial PrOfessional, vhich permits commercial professional uses
vithin structures at a maximum height of 35 feet.
Setback
requirements are 25 feet for the front yard, l5 feet for the side
yard and 15 feet for the rear yard.
5. The C-l zoning district is inconsistent with the Growth
Management Plan because it permits commercial uses which do not
comply vith 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-034-MI) as
provided for 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, vas for denial based upon the criteria established in
Section 10.6.1 of the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance.
8. The applicant filed vith 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
of the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance vas not submitted and such
application vould not have been eligible for approval as the
subject property does not meet the criteria contained in
subsections 2.4.5.1 or 2.4.5.2 of the Zoning Reevaluation
Ordinance.
10. Within 300 feet to the north of the subject property the
properties are vacant and zoned C-l and also subject to the Zoning
lOOK 000 H.?. 50 - .35'
-3-
MAY 25, 1993
Reevaluation Program. All properties are designated Urban Coastal
Fringe, the same as the subject lot.
11. Within 300 feet to the east of the subject property and
across Waterway Drive, all properties are vacant and zoned C-1 and
also subject to the Zoning Reevaluation Program. All properties
are designated Urban Coastal Fringe, the same as the subject lot.
12. Within 300 feet to the south of the subject property all
properties are vacant and 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 feet to the vest of the subject property is
Castavays Waterway.
Across the vaterway are scattered single
taaily dvellings vithin an improved subdivision zoned RSF-4. All
properties are designated Urban Coastal Fringe, the same as the
subject lot.
14. The subject property is irregular in shape and contains
tl.2 acres. The parcel measures approximately 210 feet by 250
feet.
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 vith a maximum density of 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 traffic impacts upon
development permitted on the subject property under a consistent
zoning district (RMF-12 vith a maximum density of 6 units per
acre).
20. Development permitted under the existing zoning district
(C-1) vould not generate excessiv~ noise, glare, odor or traffic
impacts upon the
nearby surrounding area.
aOOK fJOO Pl~ 50. 3~
-4-
MAY 25, 1993
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 of the subject site at a consistent density
of 6 units per acre vould yield a total of 7 dwellinq units.
Utilizing the ITE TriD Generation Manual figure of approximately
5.8 trips per day per multi-family unit, a 7 unit mUlti-family
project vould generate 41 trips per day.
23. Utilizing an acceptable standard of 10,000 square feet of
commercial development (floor area) per acre, the SUbject site
could developed under the existing zoning district with a 12,000
square foot structure.
Utilizing the ITE TriD General Manual
figure of approximately 24 trips per day per 1,000 square feet of
floor area, a 12,000 square feet qeneral office development could
qenerate 288 trips per day.
A general office building isa
representative use of the commercial uses permitted in the C-1
Zoning District. Some permitted commercial uses have a lover, and
some higher, trip generation rate than a general office building.
24. The subject property is bounded to the east by Waterway
Drive. Waterway Drive is a tvo-lane undivided road vith a 100'
riqht-of-vay. As a local road, it has no adopted Level of Service
(LOS) standard and traffic counts are not available from the
Transportation Services Division.
Bald Eagle Drive (CR-953),
located t450 feet to the east, is a two-lane undivided collector
road vith a 100' right-Of-way. Its adopted LOS is "D" and its
operating LOS is "D".
The Traffic circulation Element of the
Growth Manaqement Plan does not identify future improvements to
Bald Eagle Drive (CR-953).
25. The scale and character of development permitted under a
consistent zoning district (RMF-12 vith a maximum density of 6
units per acre) is a mUlti-family project with structures at a
maximum height of 50 feet.
26. The scale and character of development existing and
permitted vithin the nearby surrounding area includes vacant
aDM
-5-
OOO~ 50 - j?
MAY 25, 1993
co.mercially zoned property to the north, east and south.
Properties to the west, across Castavay Waterway, are zoned and
developed vith single family uses.
27. The scale and character of development permitted under
the existing zoning district (C-1) is professional office and
siailar uses as permitted in the C-l Zoning District vith
structures at a maximum height of 35 feet.
28. There is no particular need identified for additional
commercial development in the surrounding neighborhood.
Conclusions of Lav
Based upon the above Findings of Fact, the Board of County
Commissioners makes the following Conclusions of Law:
The Long Range Planning Director's determination of denial for
the Compatibility Exception application number CEX-034-MI is
supported by substantial competent evidence and is not contrary to
the criteria established in Section 10.6 of the Zoning Reevaluation
Ordinance in that:
The appellant has not demonstrated by substantial competent
evidence that the residential land use of 6 dwelling units/acre
vould be incompatible with the land uses and potential land uses
identified in Findings of Fact 110-13 set forth above and has not
demonstrated that the Director's determination is contrary to the
criteria established in Section 10.6 of the Zoning 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 and 2.4.5.2 of the Zoning
Reevaluation Ordinance.
2. The land use patterns, densities and intensities allowed
under zoning districts consistent vith the Growth Management Plan
(RMF-12 with a maximum density of 6 units per acre) on the subject
aDOK om~?. 50 - 3 f'
-6-
MAY 25, 1993
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 vith those existing on property within the nearby
aurrounding area of the subject property.
4. The existing zoning district boundaries are logically
drawn in relation to existing conditions on the subject property.
5. 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 vith a maximum
density of 6 units per acre) on the subject property viII not be
adversely impacted by the nearby surrounding area.
7. The existing zoning district (C-l) on the subject
property viII not adversely impact the nearby surrounding area.
8. The existing zoning district (C-1) on the subject
property viII not be adversely impacted by the nearby surrounding
area.
9. A consistent zoning district (RMF-12 vith a maximum
density of 6 units per acre) viII not create or excessively
increase traffic congestion or otherwise affect public safety.
10. The existing zoning district (C-1) viII not create or
excessively increase traffic congestion or otherwise affect public
safety.
11. The level of existing traffic vould not have an adverse
impact on a consistent zoning district (RMF-12 with a maximum
density of 6 units per acre).
12. The level of existing traffic vould 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) vill not be out of scale or out of
character vi th the existing land uses and needs of the nearby
surrounding neighborhood.
&DDK fJOO~ 50 - 3?
-7-