Resolution 1992-195
RZSOLUTIOlI 92- 195
A RZSOLUTIOlI CJtAII'1'IJfO TIm APPEAL OF TIm GJ<",nn
PLAJIJrIJIO DIRZC'1'OR'S u"~&NU_TIOII 011 THE
COMPATIBILITY ZX",..rdOll APPLICATIOJII JIIuMaER
CEX-012-g ro1l PROJ>D~ I LOCATED 011 THE WEST
SIDE OF OLD O.S. 41 AJrD :!: 1/4 MILE JIIORTH OF
TIm APEX OF OLD O.S. 41 AJrD O.S. 41 IJII SECTIOII
10, 'l'OlfIfSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAB'l', COLLIER
..........n, PLORIDA.
."~.IAS, Article VIII, section 1 ef) of the constitution of
nor14a confers on c:ow.Ue. Jnoe4 ordlnance-.altinq power when not
inc:oDlI~ with 9enersl or ~ial lawl and
.."".ru, Cbapter 125.01, Florida Statut.., confers on all
~U.. in Florida q~l powers of qov.rrment, inclu4inq the
~ power and the power to plan and requlate the u..
of land and vaterl and
""".tAS, Cbapter 1'3, Part II fiorida Statut.., requires
local 9OY........,te to adopt a .,.()...rllhensiv. plan and Cbapt.r 9J-5,
fiorida .....tni.tratlv. """., e.t:a!)li.bes the criteria for adoptinq
. cc:.prshensive plan, and
w""o<EAS, on January 10, 1989, COllier County adopte4 the
COllier County Growth Manaq.....t Plan a. its COIIpreheneiv. Plan
par.uant to the requir.-nts Cbapter U3, Part II Florida
Statutes, also known a. the Local OOV.rrment COIIprllheneiv.
Planninq and Land oev.lo....nt Requlation Act of 1985 and Chapter
tJ-5, Florida .....lnlstrativ. """., alao known a. the Miniaua
criteria for Revi_ of Local OOVerrment COIIpr.b.neive Plan. and
Det:endnation of COIIpliance, and
""".EAS, Policy 3.1.X of the Futurs Land 0.. El.....t of the
Growth Manaq.....t Plan provides for a Zoninq Reevaluation Proqram
incladinq provi.ions for Ex-.ptions, COIIpatibility Exceptions and
VestscS Riqbts Detersinations, and
..~, the County a4opt:ec1 the Zoninq Reevaluation Ordinance
Ihmber 90-23 on March 21, 1990 to bpl...nt Policy 3.1.1t of the
Future Land 0.. El...nt of the Growth Kanaq...nt Plan, and
IIHEREAB, the Zoninq hevaluation Ordinance provides tor
applications to preserve the existinq inconsistent zoninq in
certain situations pursuant to Section 2.4 (EX8lIIptions), Section
10 eCollpatibility Exception), and Section 11 (DeteI'lllination ot
Vested Rigbts), and
NM"~, the owner of the bersin described real property,
Francia D. HWI"y, Jr., bas subaitte4 an application tor
co.patibility Exception eCEX-012-JIIJII) pursuant to Section lOot the
zoninq hevaluation ordinance, and
,,~, based upon the criteria tor qrantinq COIIpatibility
Exceptions contained in Section 10.6.1 of the Zoninq hevaluation
Ordinance, the Growth Planninq Director's deteI'lllination vas to
deny that application, and
..~, the owners of the herein described real property
filed an appeal of the Director's detenaination to the Board ot
Couuty co..issionera, as provided for in Section 10.5 of the
. zoninq Reevaluation Ordinance, and
,,~, on March 30, 1992 the Board of County Commissioners
considered the application for Appeal ot the Growth Planninq
Director's deterslnation on the CoIIpatibility Exception
application, the Growth Planninq Director's reCOlllll8ndation, and
the record ..de before the Board ot County Commissioners at said
bearinq .
.OW, 'l'HEREFORE, the Board ot County Comaissioners ot Collier
County, Florida bereby llakes the follovinq Findinqs ot Fact and
COnclusions of Lavs
Pindlna. of PBct:.
1. The uniJlproved real property which is the subject ot
this appeal i. owned by Francis D. Hussey, Jr.
2. The subject property is legally described as set torth
in Exhibit RAR, Leqal Description, attached hereto and by
reterence ..de a part hereOf. The property contains approximately
4.86 acres.
-?-
MARCH 30,1992
3. The subject property is located on the vest side of Old
O.S. 41 and :!: 1/4 .ile north of the apex ot U.s. 41 and Old U.s.
41. It i. de.iqnated Urban Residential on the Future Land Use
Map. The uxu.u. density penaitted on the subject property by the
Density Ratinq Syst_ contained in the Future Land Use El...nt is
16 units per acre. The site is vithln the Tratfic Conqe.tion
Area ruultinq in the subtraction ot 1 unit per acre yieldinq a
consistent eba.e) density of 3 units per acre.
4. The existinq zoninq ot the subject property is C-4,
General eo..ercial, which penits a variety of commercial uses
vithin structures at a _xillUll heiqht ot 100 teet and vith
setbacks ot 25 teet plWl one toot tor each toot over 50 teet in
belqbt for tront yard, 15 feet side yard, zero teet or 5 teet rear
yard.
5. The C-4 zoninq district on the subj ect property is
inconsistent vith the Growth Kanaq...nt Plan because it does not
COIIply with the locational criteria contained in the Future Land
0.. El~t.
6. The applicant lIUbIIitted to the County on Kov8llber 19,
1990 an application for CoIIpatibility Exception (CEX-012-JIIJII) as
provided for in Section 10, COIIpatibility Exceptiona, ot the
Zoninq J<eevaluation Ordinance.
7. The Growth Planninq Director'. detenination tor said
application, issued on Dec8llber 4, 1991 and ettective on
Dec~r 17, 1991, vas tor denial based upon the criteria
established in Section 10.6.1 ot the Zoninq hevaluation
Ordinance.
8. The applicant tiled vith the County on January 15, 1992
an Appeal ot the Growth Planninq Director's detenaination ot
deni~l tor the Caapatibility Exception application as provided tor
in Section 10.5 ot the Zoninq Reevaluation Ordinance.
9. An Exeaption application as provided tor in Section
2.4.5 ot the Zoninq Reevaluation Ordinance vas not submitted and
such application vould not have been eliqible tor approval as the
MARCH 30, 1992
subject property does not .eet the criteria contained in
SUbsections 2.4.5.1 or 2.4.5.2 ot the Zonin9 Reevaluation
Ordinance .
10. Within 300 feet to the north of the subject property is
undeveloped land zoned Pl1D, Planned Unit Developll.nt eMeacSow Brook
Estates) which penits cSevelOpllent at 9 units per acre. This
density vas achieved througb a rezone in 1991 utilizinq the
COnv.rsion ot eo-rcial provi.ion in the Futur. Land Use El.ment,
thersfor. beinq consistent vith the Future Land U.e El...nt.
11. Within 300 teet to the east of the Subject property is a
150 foot right-ot-way, C.R. 45 eOld U.S. 41). Within 300 teet ot
the subject property, acro.. the street, i. uniJlproved industrial
zoninq. '1'0 the north of the afor...ntioned indu.trial property is
bproved indu.trially zoned land. Both adjacent parcels are
desiqnate4 indWltrlal on the Future Land U.. Map which peI'lllits
indWItrial develClpll8nt and ....ntial services consistent vith the
Land Dev.lOpllent Cod..
12. Within 300 fe.t to the south ot the subj.ct property is
a part of the Meadow Brook Estates Pl1D that bas been re.erved as
part of th. future C.R. 860 right-Of-way eaPProxiaately 150 feet).
Within 300 feet ot the subject property, across the riqbt-of-vay,
is a C-4 tract ot land that baa be.n qranted a COIIpatibility
Exception, via appeal to the Board of County Comai..ioners, to
..intain ita .xistinq zoninq di.trict.
13. Within 300 teet to the v..t ot the subj.ct prop.rty is
the Meadow Brook E.tates Pl1D.
14. Th. subject property ia .ore or less rectanqular in
shape and contains 4.86 acr... The parcel vidth is :t 400 feet
efrontaq.) and the d.pth is 530 teet.
15. Th. property has no unusual topoqraphic teatur.s.
16. Ther. are no identitied ar.as ot environmental
..nsitivity on site.
17. Th. exiatinq zoninq district boundary is loqically drawn
in relation to exi.tinq conditions on the subject property.
18. nevelop.ant peraittec1 under a consistent zoninq district
eRKP-6) would not qenerate excessive noise, qlare, odor or trattic
bpacts upon the nearby aurrouncSinq area.
19. oevelop.ant in the nearby SUrroundinq area viII qenerate
excessive noise, qlare, odor or tratfic impacts upon the
develope...lt peraitte4 on the subject property under a consistent
zoninq district eRMF-6).
20. oevelop.ant peraitted under the existinq zoninq district
eC-4) would not qenerate excessive noise, qlare, odor or trattic
iJlpacts upon the nearby surrouncSinq area.
21. nevelop.ant in the nearby aurrouncSinq area vill not
q_rate excessive noi.., glare, odor or trattic ilIIpacts upon
develop.ant peraitted on the subject property under the existinq
zoninq district eC-4).
22. oevelop.ant peraitte4 under the C-3 zoninq district
would not generate excessive noise, glare, odor or traftic ilIIpacts
upon the nearby aurrouncSinq ana.
23. nevalop.ant in the nearby surroundinq area vUl not
qenerate excessive noise, qlare, odor or tratfic impact. upon the
develop.ant peraitte4 on the subject property under the C-3 zoninq
diatrict.
24. oevelop.ant ot the subject site at a consistent density
of 3 units per acre would yield a total of 30 dvellinq unit..
Utilizinq the In TriD Generation M.!lnual tiqure of approximately 6
trips per day per IlUlti-f..ily unit, a 30 unit IIUlti-tamily
project vould qenerate 180 trips per day.
25. Utilizinq an acceptable standard ot 10,000 square teet
of co.aercial developaent (tloor area) per acre, the subject site
could be developed under the existinq eC-4) zoninq district or
UDder the C-3 zoninq district with a 50,000 square feet structure.
Otilizinq the In TriD Generation Manual tiqure of approximately
168 trips per day per 1,000 .quare feet of tloor area, a 50,000
square teet shoppinq center could qenerate 8400 trips per day. A
shoppinq center i. a repre.entative use ot the C-4 and C-3
MARCH 30, 1992
districte. Scme penitted u..s have a lover, and sOlIe hiqher,
trip qeneration rate than a sboppinq center.
26. The subject property tronts Old U.S. 41 Which is a tvo
lane undivided roadway that is operatinq at its adopted LOS "0".
The tuture C.R. 860 is planned to be located alonq the southern
boundary of the subject property. C.R. 860 vill initially be a
two (2) lane facility vith the potential for expansion to a tour
(4) lane facility SOll8 ti.. in the tuture. CUrrently the seqment
of C.R. 860 f~ Old U.8. 41 to U.S. 41 is not included in the
County'. 5 Year Capital IlIprov...nt Plan eCIP). The C.R. 860
extanaion f~ Old U.S. 41 to U.S. 41 is planned tor sOll8tille
c1urinq 1996 and the year 2000.
27. The scale and character ot developll8nt peraitte4 under a
consistent zoninq district eRMF-6) is a .ulti-tamily project with
structures at a uxJ.Jnm beight ot three habitable storles.
28. The scale and character of developll8nt existinq and
peraitte4 vithin the nearby aurroundinq area includes a preserve
area, a aulti-faaily project vithin low-rise structures,
1ndua1:rial developMnt vithin Structures at a uxilnm heiqht ot 50
feet, and comaeroial developMnt vithin structures at a uxilllUJl
beigbt of 40 feet.
29. The scale and character of development peraitted under
the existinq zoninq district (C-4) is an ottice, retail and
institutional project vith structures at a aaxiaua heiqht of 100
feet.
30. The scale and character of developlllent peI'lllitted under
the C-3 zoninq district is an oftice, retail and institutional
4evelopaent vith structures at a uxiaua height ot 50 feet.
31. There is no partiCUlar need identitied tor additional
comaercial develop.-nt in the surrounding neiqhborhooc1.
32. The averaqe ot the intensity or density ot those uses in
the nearby surroundinq area of the Subject property is the
intensity ot development penitted in the C-3 zoninq district.
MARCH 30. 1992
Conelu.f..on. ot LAw
Based upon the above Findinqs of Fact, the Board ot County
co..issionera aakes the tollowinq COnclusions ot Law:
The Growth Planninq Director's deterainatlon of denial for
the CoIIpatibility Exception application muaber CEX-012-HJf is not
.t...l"'1.tAc1 by substantial co.petent evidence in that:
The appellant ba. d-.onstrate4 by substantial cOllp8tent
evi4enca that the aulti-taaily residential land use ot 3 dvellinq
units/acre vould be inco.patible vith the land uses and potential
land uses identified in Findinqs of Fact '10-13 set forth above
taJdnq into account the tollowinq:
1. The aubject property is not eliqible tor a Coapatibility
Deteraination ExeIIption pursuant to Section 2.4 of the Zoninq
Reevaluation Ordinance as the property does not .eet the criteria
contained in Subsections 2.4.5.1 and 2.4.5.2 of the Zonlnq
Jleeva1uation ordinance.
2. The land use patterns, densitie. and intensities allowed
under zoninq districte consistent vith the Growth Manaq8llent Plan
eRKF-6) on the subject property are not COIIpatible vith those
exiatinq on property vithin the nearby surrounc:Unq area ot the
aubj ect property.
3. The land W1e patterns, densities and intensities allowed
under the existinq zoninq district eC-4) on the subject property
are not COIIpatible vith those existinq on property vithin the
nearby surroundinq area ot the subject property.
4. The land W1e patterns, densities and intensities allowed
under the C-3 zoninq district on the Subject property are
co.patible with those existinq on property within the nearby
aurrouncUnq area of the subject property.
5. The existinq zoninq district boundaries are loqically
drawn in relation to existinq conditions on the subject property.
6. A consistent zoninq district (RMF-6) on the subject
property viII not adversely iapact the nearby surroundinq area.
7. A consistent zoninq district (RMF-6) on the subject
Plop.rty will be advers.ly iapacted by the nearby .urroundinq
ana.
8. The exi.tinq zoninq di.trict (C-4) on the subject
P10v-rty viII adversely i~ct the nearby surrOUnding area.
9. The exi.tinq zoninq di.trict (C-4) on the subject
P1OS-rty vUl not be adversely iapacte4 by the nearby surrounding
ana.
10. Th. C-3 zonlnq district on the subject property vill not
adveruly i~ct the nearby .urroundinq area.
11. The C-3 zoninq district on the subject property vill not
be adversely iapactec1 by the nearby aurroundinq area.
12. A consi.tent zoninq district (RMF-6) vUl not create or
exce..ively incr.... traffic conqe.tion or otherwise affect public
safety.
13. The exi.tinq loninq di.trict (C-4) viII not create or
.xoe..ively increa.. traffic conqe.tion or otherwi.e affect public
safety.
14. The C-3 zoninq di.trict vill not create or exce..ively
increa.e traffic conqe.tion or otherwise affect public safety.
15. The level of exi.tinq traffic vould bave an adverse
iapact on a consistent zoninq district (RMF-6).
16. The level of exi.tinq trsffic vould not have an adverse
iapact on the exi.tinq zoninq district (C-4).
17. The level of exi.tinq traffic vould not have an adverse
iapact on the C-3 zoninq di.trict.
18. A consi.tent zoninq di.trict eRMF-6) viII be out of
scale or out of cbaracter vith the existing land uses and needs of
the nearby surroundinq neighborhood.
19. The existinq zoninq district (C-4) will be out of scale
or out of character vith the existinq land uses and needs of the
nearby &Urroundinq neighborhood.
20. The C-3 zoninq di.trict vill not be out of scale or out
of character vith the exiatinq land uses and needs of the nearby
aurroundinq neiqhborhood.
-11_
MARCH 30, 1992
21. The C-3 zoninq district does not exceed the averaqe of
the intensity or density of those uses in the nearby surroundinq
area of the subject property as identified in Findinq '32.
Cra~ af COBDa~iblli~v EYe.otten Anneal
JIIOW, TRBREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County
co.ais.ioners of Collier COunty, Florida, in public hearlnq, duly
constituted and asllellbled on thi., the 30th day of March, 1992,
thats
The Appeal of the Growth Planninq Director'. deteraination of
denial for the CoIIpatibllity Exception application nUllber
CEX-012-n for the herein described real property, aubaitted by
Robert L. Duane of Hole, Montes and Associates, Inc., aqent for
Franci. D. HWlsey, Jr., is qranted subject to the followinq
liaitations and conditionss
1. The subject property sball be rezoned to the C-3 zoninq
district.
2. The followinq W18. are probibiteds Gasoline Service
Station I Drive-In J<eataurant, and Fast Food hstaurant.
3. The property shall be developed as a Unified Plan of
o.velopaant. This Plan shall be subject to review and approval by
the Board of County eo..issioners. For purposes of this
condition, a Unitied Plan of nevelopaant .eans a Preliminary
SUbdivision Plat (PSP) or, if the property is not subdivided, a
Preliainary Site o.velopaant Plan ePSDP). The Unitied Plan of
oevelopaant sball be consistent with the provisions of the Land
nevelopll8nt Code and, whether a PSP per Division 3.2 or a PSDP per
D~vision 3.3, shall include I the location of all proposed access
points and road riqhts-of-vay, the proposed COIIIIIOn architectural
t-b-- and controls, and the proposed landscape th8llle.
4. All buildinqs are limited to a maximum heiqht of 35
feet.
HARCH 30, 1992
5. A landscape butter shall be provided alonq the frontaqe
of Airport-Pullinq Road in accordance vith Section 2.4.7 ot the
Land Develop.ent Code, Alternative D, except that the vidth shall
be tnrlt.y (20) teet.
6. This hsolution, whicb conatitutes an approval ot the
co.patibility Exception application mDlber CEX-020-Elf, Subject to
the liaitationa and conditions contained herein, shall apply to
the land and is there tore transterable troa owner to owner ot the
land subject to this Appeal.
7. Anythinq in the Zoninq hevaluation Ordinance to the
contrary notvithatandinq, the approval ot this Appeal ..y be
revoked upon a showinq by the County of peril to the public
bealth, safety or qeneral vel tare of the re.idents ot Collier
County unknown at the ti_ ot approval.
Tbi. J<esolution ac1optec1 atter action, second and ..jority
vote favorinq .....
: .~.; . ana ;,
.~......,__A I :!'.
.... .). .... ~
'~"':./t' '-;.' ;' ~
:i'" .""...~ -' . ,.,.
~:.-..:,: ,. :'"
:qly'i
.,. ..,.
,. ":, .
'-.'" .., : '..
+'" "'.... .....:'- ,.';~
.....to ~.If " .. :I
.f,. f ....... ~\'
.. .. '1~1 ~,-)
~. AP-rJQ,lY AS TO FORM AJIID
LECAL 6u1'nCIElfCYs
1. .~
...:1ii
.;~~\~ )ni1!,Hhp~
; ~cii'i.H. student
;'Aalstant: County Attorney
~"l~"i;
"US/CBX-020-EIf/A
:;,)"rt
,.~..
,......,
t1_
- ~
9~R.,.K
EXHIBIT -A-, LEGAL DESCRIPTION
,~-
, .
:A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN SOUTHWEsT 1/4 OF SEcnON 10, TOWNSHIP 48
- SOUTH. RANGE 25 EAST, COWER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTlCULARL Y
" DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
,~ .
'.', COMMENCE AT THE SOUTHwEsT CORNER OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH,
,. RANGE 25 EAST, COWER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN S. 89052'47" E. ALONG.
. THE SOUTH UNE OF THE SOUTHwEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 10 FOR A DISTANCE OF
552.04 FEET TO THE POINT OF PEGINNlNG OF THE PARCEL OF LAND. HEREIN
DESCRIBED; THENCE CONTiNuE S. 89052'4'" E. ALONG THE SOUTH UNE OF THE
SOUTHWEsT 1/4 OF SAID SEcnON 10. FOR A DISTANCE OF 326.21 FEET TO A POINT
ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY UNE OF STATE ROAD NO. 'oS ec.R. 887,
FORMERLY U.s.41, TAMIAMITRAlL.A 150.00 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY); THENCE RUN N.
31022'30" E.ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY UNE FORA DISTANCE OF 626.97
FEET; THENCE RUN S. 900ooroo- W. FOR A DISTANCE OF 620.39 FEET; THENCE' RUN
S. 11018'37" E. FOR A DISTANCE OF STTJJ2 FEET; THENCE RUN S. 02023'48" E. FOR A
DISTANCE OF 134.53 FEET; THENCE RUNS.2O"01'14-W.FOR A DISTANCE OF 138.74
FEET; THENCE RUN S.03008'37'' W. FOR A DISTANCE OF 174.18 FEET TO THE POINT
OF BEGINNING LESS THE SOUTHERLY .130 FEET FOR ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY
, .
>