Resolution 1992-194
MARCH 3a, 1992
RESOLtl'l'IOH 92-194
A RESOLtl'l'IOH DElfYIJrG THE APPEAL OF THE GROWTH
PLARJfIJrG DIREC'l'OR'S D"u~K.iIIfATIOH ON THE
COMPATIBILITY EXCEPTIOH APPLICATION IfUMBER
CEX-054-1f1f FOR PROPl;Kn LOCATED ALONG THE
SOOTH SIDE OF THE LEE/COLLIER COUNTY LINE, :!:.
1/4 KILE WEST OF OlD U.S. 41 AND :!:. 1 MILE
NORTH OF THE APEX OF OlD U. S. 41 AND U. S. 41
IN SECTIOH 10, TOWNSHIP 48 SOOTH, RANGE 25
EAST, COLLIER COUHTY, FLORIDA.
WHEREAS, ArtiCle VIII, Section 1 (t) ot the Constitution ot
Florida conters on counties broad ordinance-aakinq power when not
inconsistent with qeneral or special lavl and
WHEREAS, Chapter 125.01, Florida statutes, conters on all
(X)Ylltles in Florida qeneral powers ot qovermaent, includinq the
Ord1nanee-.aklnq power and the power to plan and requlate the use
ot land and vater I and
WHEREAS, Chapter 163, Part II Florida Statutes, requires
local qovernaents to adopt a COIIprehensive plan and Chapter 9J-5,
Florida Ad.inistrative Code, establishes the criteria tor adoptinq
a COIIprehensive planl and
WHEREAS, on January 10, 1989, C?llier County adopted the
COllier County Growth Manaq...nt Plan as its COIIIprehensive Plan
pursuant to the requir...nts Chapter 163, Part II Florida
Statutes, also known as the Local Government COIIIprehensive
Planninq and Land o.velopaent Requlation Act ot 1985 and Chapter
9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, also known as the Minimum
criteria tor Review ot Local Government COIIIprehensive Plans and
Oatsraination ot COIIIpliancel and
WHEREAS, Policy 3.1.X. ot the Future Land Use El81118nt ot the
Growth Manaqaaent Plan provide. tor a Zoninq Reevaluation Proqram
includinq provisions tor Ex-.ptions, COIIIpatibility Exceptions and
Vested Riqht. OateBination., and I
WHEREAS, the County adopted the Zoninq Reevaluation Ordinance
90-23 on March 21, 1990 to implement Policy 3.I.K ot the Future
Land U.e Ele.ent ot the Growth Manaqement Plan; and
/)
"'....
Ll
WHEREAS, the Zoninq Reevaluation Ordinance provides tor
application. to preserve the eXistinq inconsistent zoninq in
certain situations pursuant to Section 2.4 (Exemptions), Section
10 (Coapatibility Exception), and Section 11 (Oeteraination ot
V..teeS Rights), and
..........AS, the owners ot the herein described real property, A.
L. Dougherty Coapany, Inc., have subaitted an application tor
eo.patibility EXception (CEX-054-NH), and
WHEREAS, based upon the criteria tor qrantinq COIIIpatibility
Exceptions contained in section 10.6.1 ot the Zoninq Reevaluation
Ordinance, the Growth Planninq Director's deteraination vas to
deny that application, and
,,~, the owners ot the herein described real property, A.
L. Dougherty Coapany, Inc., tiled an appeal ot the Director's
detsraination to the Board ot County eo.absioner., as provided
tor in Section 10.5 ot the Zoninq Reevaluation Ordinance, and
WHEREAS, on March 30, 1992 the Board ot County cOIIIIissioners
considered the application tor Appeal ot the Growth Planninq
D1rsctor'. deteraination on the Coapatibility Exception
application, the Growth Planninq Director'. recOllll8ndation, and
the record _de betore the Board ot county Comab.ioner. at .aid
beerinq.
1f0lf, THEREFORE, the Board ot County Comai.sioners ot Collier
COUnty, Florida hereby _k.. the tollowinq Findinqs ot Fact and
COnclusion. ot Law:
Pindinas of Pact
1. The unillprOVed real property Which is the subject ot
this appeal is owned by A. L. Oouqherty COIIIpany, Inc.
2. The Subject property is leqally described as STRAP'
482510-018.000 turther described as lyinq in Section 10, Township
48 South, Ranqe 25 East, COllier County, Florida, the North 757.11
teet ot the Northwest 1/4 as recorded in Otticial Record Book 6l0,
Paqe 1174. The property contains approximately 47 acres.
.--..,
-2-
;':).
- ...
MAK(,;tl JlI, 1~~.I.
3. The subject property is located alonq the south side ot
the Lee-Collier COUnty Line, :!:. 1/4 aile west ot Old U.S. 41 and :!:.
one aile north ot the epex ot Old U.S. 41 and U.S. 41. It is
deaiqnat:ed Urban Residential on the Future Land Use Map. The
aax~ density peraitted on the Subject property by the Density
Ratinq Syst.. contained in the Future Land Use Element is 16 units
per acrs. The sits is within the Trattic COnqestion Area
resultinq in the subtraction ot 1 unit per acre yieldinq a
consistent (base) density ot 3 units per acre.
4. The subject property is zoned RMF-6, Residential
Multiple Family, Which peraits aulti-taaily development at a
aax~ density ot 6 units per acre, structures at a _ximum
height ot three (3) habitable stories, and with setbacks ot 35
teet tront yard, 15 teet side yard, and 30 teet rear yard.
5. The RMF-6 zoninq district is inconsistent vith the
Growth Kanaq...nt Plan becau_ it permits a density in excess ot
that peraitted by the Density Ratinq System.
6. The applicant subaitted to the County on November 27,
1990 an application tor COJIPatibility Exception (CEX-054-NH) as
provided tor in Section 10, COIIpatibility Exceptions, ot the
Zoninq Reevaluation Ordinance.
7. The Growth Planninq Director's deteraination tor said
application, issued on Oeeeaber 19, 1991 and ettective on
Oeeeaber 31, 1991, was tor denial based upon the criteria
established in Section 10.6.1 ot the Zoninq Reevaluation
Ordinance.
8. The applicant tiled vith the County on January 29, 1992
an Appeal ot the Growth Planninq Director's determination ot
denial tor the Compatibility Exception application as provided tor
in Section 10.5 ot the Zoninq Reevaluation Ordinance.
9. An Exemption application as provided tor in Section
2.4.5 ot the Zoninq Reevaluation Ordinance was not submitted and
such application would not have been eliqible tor approval as the
subject property exceeds the size limitation ot Section 2.4.5 ot
MARCH 30, 1992
the Zoninq Reevaluation Ordinance and the property does not aeet
the oritsria contained in Subsections 2.4.5.1 or 2.4.5.2. ot the
Zon!nq Reevaluation Ordinance.
10. Within 300 t.et to the north ot the subject property is
undeveloped land located in Lee County and desiqnated "Urban
c..........iti.." on the Le. COUnty Future Land U.e Map. This
desiqnation allows public, qua.i-public, comaercial, and liqht
industrial u.e., and re.idential development up to ten (10) units
per acrs.
11. Within 300 teet to th. .a.t ot the subject property i.
land zoned POD, Planned Unit Development (Gadaleta POD), which
received a sits Development Plan EX8IIption under the ZRO proqraa.
This POD permits aulti-taaUy development at a density ot 4.6
units per acre, and has an exi.tinq interim use drivinq ranqe.
Also to the east is undeveloped land zoned A, Rural Aqricultural
and another Planned Unit Dev.lopment (Arbor Lak. Club) approved
tor 11 units per qross acrs tor attordable housinq.
12. Within 300 teet to the south ot the .ubject property is
undeveloped land zoned POD, Planned Unit Development (cypress
Bead), with a pera1tted density ot 3.7 dweUinq units per qross
acre. This POD has been deemed consistent with the Future Land
U.. El.-nt by providinq acc... to adjacent developments and by
qaininq one unit per qross acr. tor providinq access to two or
acre arterial or collector roadways.
13. Within 300 teet to the west ot the .ubject property is
undev.loped land zoned roo, Planned Unit Development (cypress
Bead), and undeveloped land zoned RMF-6 also subject to the Zoninq
Reevaluation Proqraa. A COIIpatibility Exception application
(CEX-043-1fIf) was denied with a recommendation tor a zoninq chanqe
to the RSF-3, Re.idential Sinqle Faaily, zoninq district.
14. The Subject property is rectanqular in shape and
contains:!:. 47 acre.. The parcel width is 757 teet and the depth
is :!:. 2,700 teet.
15. The property has no unusual topoqraphic teatures.
MARCH 30, 1992
1'. The identitied areas ot environmental sensitivity on
.ite co.prise :!:. 2.5 acres.
17. The existinq zoninq district boundary is loqically drawn
in relation to existinq conditions on the subject property.
18. Development peraitted under a consistent zoninq district
(RXF-6 at the ainilnm base density) would not qenerate excessive
noise, qlare, odor or tratt!c illpacts upon the nearby surroundinq
area .
19. Developaent in the nearby surroundinq area will not
qenerate exce.sive noise, qlare, odor or trattic impacts upon the
development permitted on the subject property under a consistent
zoninq district (RKF-6 at the ainimum base density).
20. Developaent permitted under the eXistinq zoninq district
(RXF-6) would qenerate excessive noise, qlare, odor or trattic
iJlpacts upon the nearby surroundinq area.
21. Developaent in the nearby surroundinq area will not
qenerats excessive noise, qlare, odor or trattic impacts upon
development permitted on the subject property under the existinq
zoninq district (RKF-6).
22. Development ot the subject site at a consistent density
ot 3 unit. per acre would yield a total ot 141 dwellinq units.
utilizinq the ITE Trio Generation Manual tiqure ot approximately
10 trips per day per sinqle taaily dwellinq, 141 sinqle tamily
dvellinqs would qenerate 1,410 trips per day.
23. Developaent ot the site with a multi-tamily project at a
density ot 6 units per acre under the existinq (RMF-6) zoninq
district would yield a total ot approximately 282 units.
Utilizinq the Manual tiqure ot approximately 6 trips per day per
au1ti-tamily unit, an 282 unit multi-tamily project would qenerate
approximately 1,692 trips per day.
24. The .ubject property does not have any roadways directly
adjacent to it. The subject property would have to qain access
troa the adjacent property (same ownership) to the vest which is
bounded on the vest .ide by U.S. 41. The segment ot U.S. 41 trom
the Lee County line to Wiqqins Pass Road is a tour (4) lane
divided roadway with an adopted Level ot Service (LOS) "C" and is
'i" <;4.,..611tly operatinq at LOS "A".
25. The .cale and charactsr ot develClplD.nt permitted under a
consi.tent zoninq dietrict (RMP-6 at the aini.ua ba.e den.ity) is
a .utti-taaily project with .tructur.s at a maximum heiqht ot
three habitable .tori...
26. The .cale and charact.r ot develClplD8nt existinq and
peraitted within the nearby surroundinq area includ.. a qolt
drivinq ranqe, multiple taaily dw.llinqs, .inql. tamily dwellinqs,
a qolt course and a variety ot coaaercial u....
27. The .cale and cbaractsr ot develClplD8nt peraitted und.r
the exbtinq zoninq district (RMF-6) is a multi-taai1y project
with structure. at a aaxi_ heiqht ot three habitable .tories.
28. There i. no particular need identitied tor additional
l18diua density multi-taaily dwellinq. in the .urroundinq
neiqhborhooc1.
Conclu.ion. or Law
Ba.ed upon the above Pindinq. ot Fact, the Board ot County
~~i..ioners make. the tOllovinq conclu.ions ot Law:
The Growth Planninq Director'. det.rmination ot d.nial tor
the COIIpatibility Exc.ption application numb.r CEX-054-1f1f is
eUt'l"'rted by sub.tantial COIIp8tsnt evid.nc. in that:
The appellant has not daaon.trated by eub.tantial cOlllpet.nt
evidence that the multi-taai1y residential land u.e at the minimum
ba_ density permitted by the Density Rat1nq system would b.
iftCOllpatible with th. land use. and potential land us.s identiti.d
in Pindinqs ot Fact '10-13 set torth above takinq into account the
tOllowinq:
1. The .ubject property i. not eliqibl. tor a Compatibility
Oetsraination Exemption pursuant to s.ction 2.4 ot the Zoninq
Reevaluation Ordinanc. a. the prop.rty exceeds the size limitation
ot Section 2.4.5 ot the Zoninq R.evaluation Ordinance and the
property does not ...t the crit.ria contained in Subsections
-6-
MARCH 30, 1992
2.4.5.1 and 2.4.5.2 ot the Zoninq Reevaluation Ordinance.
2. The land use patterns, densities and intensities allowed
under zoninq districts consistent with the Growth Kanaq..ent Plan
(RKF-6 at the miniaua base density) on the subject property are
co.patib1e with those existinq on property within the nearby
surroundinq area ot the subject property.
3. The land use patterns, densities and intensities allowed
under the existinq zoninq district (RMF-6) on the Subject property
are not COIIpatible with those existinq on property vithin the
nearby SU=oundinq area ot the subject property.
4. The existinq zoninq district boundaries are loqically
drawn in relation to existinq conditions on the subject property.
5. A consistent zoninq district (RMF-6 at the minimum base
density) on the subject property will not adversely impact the
-.rby surroundinq area.
6. A consistent zoninq district (RKF-6 at the ainimum base
density) on the subject property will not be adversely impacted by
the nearby surroundinq area.
7. The existinq zoninq district (RMF-6) on the subject
property will adversely illpact the nearby SU=oundinq area.
8. The existinq zoninq district (RMF-6) on the subject
property will not be adversely blpacted by the nearby su=oundinq
area.
9. A consistent zoninq district (RMF-6 at the minimum base
density) will not create or excessively increase trattic
conqestion or otherwise attect public satety.
10. The existinq zoninq district (RMF-6) will not create or
excessively increase trattic conqestion or otherwise attect public
satety.
11. The level ot existinq trattic would not have an adverse
illpact on a consistent zoninq district (RMF-6 at the minimum base
density).
12. The level ot existinq trattic would not have an adverse
illpact on the existinq zoninq district (RMF-6).
The Appeal ot the Growth Planninq Director'. determination ot
denial tor the COapatibility Exception application number
CEX-054-1f1f tor the herein described real property, subaitted by
John M. pa.sidoao ot Pro.t and Jacob., aqent tor A. L. Oouqherty
eo.pany, Inc., is denied. The subject property will be r.zoned to
the RMF-6 zoninq di.trict with the density limited to the minimum
~ density permitted in the Density Ratinq System ot the Future
LaneS U.e Element.
This Resolution adopted atter motion, .econd and _jority
: ~ tavorinq .....
f'" .
.'., ..'".,.~~ .'J/~-;;,,:
f" ~.:",' ..' . V
,#," :\:'.- ,. ' '/ ~
"-~~;: {~ . '. ~.. . ~
. By.
'':-'.~." " . .
1"',;':~' . '"
.~, ~';,...; " ,c,:
'4 ". ~\" I
-f',,;t_~'1 .': ~ .,.;~
. ..' APPROVED AS TO FORH AIfO
c. I.ZCAL aUh'.LCIEJfCY,
.
MARCH 30; 19.92
13. A consi.tent zoninq di.trict (RMF-6 at the ainimum base
dcwity) will not be out ot scale or out ot character with the
ex1ninq land uses and neede ot the nearby surroundinq
neiqbborbood.
14. The existinq zoninq district (RMF-6) will be out ot
scale or out ot character with the .xistinq land uses and needs ot
the nearby surroundinq neighborhood.
Denial of Comna~ihili~ Rxe~ion Annasl
1f0lf, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board ot county
eo.ais.ioners ot Collier COunty, Florida, in public hearinq, duly
constituted and a.-.bled on thi., the 30th day ot Karch, 1992,
that,
BOARD OF COUN'.t'lt COKKISSIOIfERS
O?IfIElf COUN1:k', FLORIDA
1 h: ~~~\
Michael J Ol~~ Chairman
J7Jn2..--
" ~A;tl1l Af,I-utd
Ka 0 e M. student
. :<'.Assstant COUnty Attorney
"1\, ,,~~'<t' ,_"
). --,_. .
"'.J.mS/CEX-0!54-IfIf/A