Resolution 1992-196
RESOLUTION 92-196
MARCH 30,' 1992
I
A RESOLUTION GRAJrrING THE APPEAL OF THE GROWTH
PLAJOfING DIRECTOR'S uJ\'l'U<lUNATION ON THE
COMPATIBILITY EXCEP1'ION APPLICATION NUMBER
CEX-OOl-UE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED 1/2 MILE WEST
OF INTERSTATE 75 AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
IMMOXALEE ROAD (C.R. 846) AND THE l'u'l'URE
LIVIMGSTON ROAD (l'uTIJRE C.R. 751) IN SECTION
19. TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH. RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER
cotlNTlr. FLORIDA.
WHEREAS, Article VIII, Section 1 (f) of the Constitution of
Florida confers on counties broad ordinance-aaking power when not
inconsistent with general or special lawJ and
WHEREAS. Chapter 125.01. Florida Statutes, confers on all
C<lU..Ue. in Florida general power. of gove1"Jllll8nt, including the
ordlnance-.akinq power and the power to plan and requlate the use
of land and waterJ and
WHEREAS. Chapter 163. Part II Florida Statutes, requires
local gove1"Jllll8nte to adopt a c:oaprehenaive plan and Chapter 9J-5,
Florida Ad.inistrative Code, establishe. the criteria for adopting
a c:oaprehensive planJ and
WHEREAS, on January 10, 1989. Collier County adopted the
Collier County Growth Manag...nt Plan a. ita COIIprahenaive Plan
pursuant to the requir...nte Chapter 163, Part II Florida
Statutes, also known a. the Local aove1"Jllll8nt COIIprehenaive
P1anninq and LaneS Davelopaent Requlation Act of 1985 and Chapter
9J-5. Florida Administrative Code. also known as the Minimum
Criteria for Review of Local aove1"Jllll8nt Comprehensive Plans and
Deterllination of C0IIp1ianceJ and
WHEREAS. Policy 3.1.1t of the Future Land Use Element of the
Growth Manag..ent Plan provides for a Zoning Reevaluation Proqram
includinq provisions for Exe.ptions, Compatibility Exceptions and
V_tad Right. Detenainations; and
WHEREAS. the County adopted the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance
Wuaber 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
application. to preserve the existing inconsistent zoning in
.--..
^
MARCH 30, 1992
certain .ituations pursuant to Section 2.4 (Exemptions), Section
10 (co.patibility Exception), and Section 11 (Detenaination of
Vested Rights), and
k"~~, the owner of the bersin de.cribed real property,
Jlarvin '1'. Levin, bas subaittad an application for Compatibility
Exception (CEX-001-UE) pursuant to Section 10 of the Zoning
Jleevaluation Ordinance, and
.~, based upon the criteria for granting Compatibility
Exceptions conteined in Section 10.6.1 of the Zoning Reevaluation
Ordinance, the Growth P1anninq Director's dete1"lllination va. to
deny that application, and
k~, the owners of the berein described real property
filad an apPeal of the Director'. detenaination to the Board of
County eo.ais.ioners, a. providad for in Section 10.5 of the
Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance, and
WHEREAS, on March 30. 1992 the Board of county comaissioners
considerad the application for Appeal of the Growth PlaMing
Director'. deteraination on the Compatibility Exception
application, the Growth PlaMinq Director'. reCOlllll8n4ation, and
the record made before the Board of County commis.ioners at said
bearing .
5OW, THEREl'ORB, the Board of County comai..ioners of Collier
County, Florida bereby make. the following Finding. of Fact and
.
Conclusion. of Law:
Pindina. o~ Pllct:
1. The unaproved real property wbich is the subject of
this appeal i. owned by Marvin T. Levin.
2. The subject property i. legally described a. .et forth
in Exhibit -A-, Legal Description, attached hereto and by
reference lllade a part hereof. The property contains approxilllately
7 acres.
Yt1Ley'-31- T3
MARCH 30, 1992
3. The subject property is located 1/2 aile vest of 1-75 at
. the northeast corner of I_kalee Road and the Future Livinqaton
Road. It is designated Urban Residential on the Future Land Use
Map. The maxillwl density peraitted on the subject property by the
Density Rating Syste. contained in the Future Land Use Element is
16 unite par acre. The site is vithin the Traffic Congestion Area
resulting in the subtraction of 1 unit per acre yielding a
consistent (base) density of 3 unite per acre. The property is
also vithin a Density BaneS.
4. The existinq zoning of the subject property is POD,
Planne4 Unit o.velopaent (Carlton Lakas), which peraite commercial
developaent cOllpllrable to that pe1"lllitted in the C-3 zoning
district.
5. The Cv_rcia1 portion of Carlton Lakes POD is
inconsistent vith the Growth Management Plan because it does not
..at the locational or size criteria in the Future Land Use
81_t.
6. The applicant subaitted to the County on October 18,
1990 an application for Compatibility Exception (CEX-OOl-UE) as
providad for in Section 10, Compatibility Exceptions, of the
Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance.
7. The Growth Planninq Director's deteraination for said
application, issued on December 11, 1991 and effective on
~"~r 24, 1991, 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 January 22, 1992
an Appeal of the Growth Planning Director's determination of
~ial 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 would not bave been eligible for approval as the
subject property does not meet the criteria contained in
O~..3/-C
MARCH 30, 1992
SUbsections 2.4.5.1 or 2.4.5.2 of the Zoning Reevaluation
Ordinance.
10. Within 300 f..t to the north of the subject property is
undeveloped land vithin the Carlton Lak.s POD which is consistent
with the Growth Manag_nt Plan. The POD Master Plan designates
this prop.rty for recreation use and a health club.
11. Within 300 t.et to the east of the subject property is
undev.loped land that is a part of the Carlton Lakes POD which is
consi.tent vith the Growth Manag...nt Plan. The POD Master Plan
~iqnata. this prcparty for .ulti-family use. The residential
density peraitted by the Carlton Lakes POD document is 2.6 units
par acr..
12. Within 300 f..t to the south, acroes the 100 feet canal
.a.~t and 100 f..t of right-of-way for Immokal.e Road, is the
undev.lopacS April Circle POD and undeveloped property zoned A,
Rural Aqricu1tural. Th. April Circle POD is an affordable housing
project approvad under the Affordable Housing Density Bonus
Ordinance at a density of 13+ unit. per acre.
13. Within 300 f..t to the v.st of the subject property,
across the 200 f.at of riqht-of-vay for the future Livingston
Road, is undev.loped prcparty zoned RSF-3 which is consistent with
the Growth Manaq...nt Plan.
14. o.v.lopment consi.tent vith the Growth Management Plan
parllitted on the surrouncUnq Undeveloped (-unimproved.),
non...xampt properti.s includes low density residential
dev.lopment, ..sential services, recreational and open space uses,
and inatitutional use. ~cb as churches, child care centers and
group care facilities.
15. The subject property is square in shape and contains 7
acr...
16. The property has no unusual topoqraphic f.atures.
17. Ther. are no identified areas of environmental
sensitivity on .it..
18. The existing zoninq district boundary is loqically drawn
in relation to existing conditions on the subject property.
. .. .4' ....." .I "', ., ~ -
19. Develop.ent permitted under a consistent zoninq district
(POD at 4 units/acre) WOUld not generate excessive noise, glare,
odor 01' traffic iJlpacts upon the nearby surrounding area.
20. Develop.ent in the nearby surrounding area vill generate
_sslve noise, glare, odor or traffic impacte upon the
devel~....t perllltted on the subject property under a consiBtent
zoning district (POD at 4 units/acre).
21. Develop.ent perllitted under the existing zoning district
(POD - eo.aarcial) vould not generate exceselve noiee, glare, odor
or traffic apacte upon the nearby surrcunc1ing area.
22. o.velop.ent in the nearby surrounding area vill not
qenerate ex~sive noise, glare, odor or traffic impacts upon
developaent parllitted on the subject property under the existing
zoning district (POD - eo.aarcial).
23. Developaent of the subject site at a consistent density
of 4 units per acre vould yield a total of 28 dwellinq units.
Utilizing the IT!: TriD Generation Manual figure of approxilllately 6
tripe per day per .ulti-fami1y unit, a 28 unit .ulti-family
project vould generate 168 tripe per day.
24. Utilizinq an acceptable standard of 10,000 square feet
of ~rcial developaent (floor area) per acre, the subject site
could be developed under the existing (PUD-Commercial) zoning
district vith a 70,000 square feet structure. Utilizinq the ITE
TriD Generation Manual figure of approximately 168 tripe per day
per 1,000 square feet of floor area, a 70,000 square feet shopping
cantsr could generate 11,760 trips per day. A Shopping center is
representative of the uses permitted on thie commercial tract.
Soae permitted uees have a lower, and soma higher, trip generation
rate than a shopping center.
25. The Traffic Circulation Element of the Growth Management
Plan identifies I..okalee Road as a two-lane arterial roadway with
an adopted Level of Service (LOS) "D" and an operational LOS "8".
26. The scale and character of development pe1"lllitted under a
consistent zoning district (PUD at 4 units/acre) ie a multl-family
project vith low-rise etructures.
MARCH 30, 1992
27. The scale and character of development existing and
perllittad vithin the nearby surrOUnding area includes single
faal1y dwel1inqs vithin structures at a maximua height of 35 feet,
8Ulti-faally dwellings in low-rise structures, and
recreation/bea1th club USes in low-rise structures.
28. The scale and character of development pe1"lllitted under
the existing zoninq district (PUD Commercial) is a retail, office
or institutional project vith structures at a maxillwl height of 50
,feat.
29. '!'bere is no particular need identified for additional
eo. .......rcia1 developaent in the surrOUnding neighborhood.
30. The average of the intansity or density of those uses in
the nearby surrounding area of the subject property is the
intensity of developaent perllitted by the Carlton Lakes POD
do~. -nt for this ~rcia1 tract (Ordinance Number 88-56,
section IV).
Canelu.ion. of LRv
Basad upon the above rindings of Fact, the Board of County
eo.a!ssioners makes the following Conclusions of Lav:
'!'be Growth Planning Director's determination of denial for
the eo.patibility Exception application number CEX-001-UE is not
su.-POrted by substantial competent evidence in that:
The appellant bas demonstrated by substantial competent
evidence that the multi-family residential land use of 4 dwelling
units/acre vould be incompatible with the land uses and potential
land uses identified in Findings of Fact 110-13 set forth above
~ into account the following:
1. The subject prcparty is not eligible for a Compatibility
Determination Exemption purauant 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.
MARCH 30, 1992
2. The laneS use patterns, densities and intensities allowed
, tinder zoning districts consistent vith the Growth Managuent Plan
(POD at 4 units/acre) on the subject property are not cOllpatible
vi1:h .bose existinq on property vithin the nearby surrounding area
of the subject property.
3. The laneS use patterns, densities and intensities allowed
under the existlnq zoning district (PUD-CoIIIIercial) on the subject
property are ~tible vith those existing on property vithin the
nearby surrounding 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 (POD at 4 units/acre) on
the subject property vill not adversely impact the nearby
surrounding area.
6. A consistent zoninq district (POD at 4 units/acre) on
the subject property v1l1 be adversely impacte4 by the nearby
sll..~OUnding area.
7. The existing zoning district (PUD-commercial) on the
subject property vi11 not adversely impact the nearby surrounding
area .
8. The existing zoning district (PUD-c~rcial) on the
subject property vill not be adversely impacted by the nearby
surroundinq area.
9. A consistent zoning district (POD at 4 units/acre) will
not create or excessively increase traffic congestion or otherwise
affect public safety.
10. The existing zoning district (PUD-COIIIIercial) will not
create or excessively increase traffic congestion or otherwise
".ARCH 30. 1992
13. A consistent zoninq district (POD at 4 units/acre) vill
be out of scale or out of character with the existing land uses
and nae4s of the n.arby surroundinq n.ighborhood.
14. '!'he .xisting zoning district (PUD-Commercial) viii not
be oat of scale or out of cbaracter vith the existing land uses
and needa of the nearby surroundinq neighborhood.
15. Th. POD zoninq district peraitting commercial uses does
not excee4 the intensity or density of those uses in the nearby
surrounding ar.a of the subject prcparty as identified in Finding
. 30.
Cran~ of C~a~ibili~v Exe.~ion Anneal
.OW, TIIERE1'ORB, BE 1'1' RESOLVED by the Board of County
I"......fssion.rs of COlli.r County, Florida, in public hearing, duly
constituted and ass8llblad on this, the 30th day of March, 1992;
thats
The ApPeal of the Growth Planning Director's deteraination of
denial for the COIIplltibility Exception application number
CEX-001-UE for the h.rein describe4 real property, subaitted by
Robert L. Duane of Hole, Montes and Associat.s, Inc., agent for
Marvin '1'. Levin, is granted subject to the fOllowing limitations
and conc1itions:
1. Th. zoninq of the subj.ct property shall remain POD
peraitting c_rcial uses.
2. If Piper Boulevard is extended through the subject
property, the property owner vill dedicate the necessary
right-of--vay for that road .xtension through the Carlton Lakes
POD. In the evant of this road extension, the POD commercial
Tract shall be allowed to be modified in shape to the extent
necessary to maintain its .xisting size - 7 acres.
3. This ReSOlution, which constitutes an approval of the
COIIplltibility Exception application number CEX-OOl-UE, subject to
th. liaitations and conditions contained herein, shall apply to
MARCH 30" 1992
,
the land and is therefore transferable froa owner to owner of the
1anc1 subject to this ApPeal.
4. Anything in the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance to the
contrary notwithstanding, the approval of this Appeal IllaY be
revoked upon a showinq by the County of peril to the public
health, safety or general vel fare of the residents of Collier
County unknown at the tt.e of approval.
This Resolution adopted atter JIOtion, second and majority
vote favoring s....
Michael J t LOl , Chairan
~~,4~
'r~:~~ j"" : .t
"r:' ... '. , :.::n,: &.~
, .~i. M. Student
.'( ..'. Assistant County Attorney
..) .'-.
ItES/CEX-001-UE/A
:
.. . - ..
- '.
That portioD of the followins de.cribed property de.isnated
a. c-rc1al on the Carlton Lak., PUD Ka.ter Plan.
All th.t p.rt of the va.t 1/2 of '.etion 1', ~ovn.bip 4.
'outh, asn,. 2. E..t. Colli.r COUntr. 'lorid. b'in, ..r.
P.rtical.rlr d..eribed .. follow., .
IEGtXWt.c. .t th. .outhw..t eorn.r of ..id '.etion 19,
tb.ne. .10n,' the v..t lin. of ..id "Ction 19, Wortb
1 -07'-14" W..t 100.00 f..t to tb. nortb iin. of .n
......nt for dr. in.,. purpo... .. d..crib.d in De.d Book
44 .t p.,. 7', Colli.r COUntr Public .ecord., Colli.r
CountY,.'lorid. ..id point .1.0 bein, the .OUtbv..t corn.r
of tb.t p.rc.l.. de.crib.d in O. a. Book 7.7. p.,.. 1501
.nd '150' .nd 0... look 7", p.,.. 121 .nd '29 Coll1.r
County Public a.eord., Colli.r COUntr, 'lorid., th.ne.
.10n, the bound.ry of tb.t 1.nd .. d..erib.d in ..id 0...
look 7'7, p.,.. 1501 .nd 1509 .nd o.a. Book 7'1, p.,.. 821
.nd 12', COlliar' Count7 'ublic ..eord., Collior Countr,
'lorid. tb. followin, d..erib.d nino
191 ,
II Kortb .&0_0"_41" E..t 50.00 f..t,
21 Wortb 1 -07'-14" ...t 54'.50 f..t,
11 Wortb 180-52'_2'" E..t 10.00 f..t
41 Worth 10-07'-14" W..t 2017.43 f..t,
51 Worth 0 -51'-41" W..t 582.54 f..t,
'1 Worth .&0-01'_12" E..t 1'0.00 f..t,
. ,",won" !..-51'-4'" w.n 100.00 fut,
'1 'outh 190_01'_12" w..t 400.00 f..t,
91 Worth 00_51'_41" w..t 1210.00 f..t to . point on th.
nosth lin. of I.id '.ction 1', vbicb l1e. Worth
19 -20'-01' E..t 40.00 f..t fro. tb. nortbw..t corn.r of
..ld I.ctlon 19,
thanc. .10n, tb. north 11n. of ..id '.etlon 19. Worth
19 -20'-01' ".t 2.592.2' f..t to tb. north 1/4 corn.r of
..ld 'ection 19,
th.nee .10n, th. nO&th .nd .outh 1/4 ..ctlon 11n. of ..1d
'.ctlon 1', 'outh 1 -01'-21" ".t 1,~1..05 f..t,
thenc. ~'.Yin, ..id 11n.. 'OUth I' -09'-41" W..t 750.00
fut" .
th.nc. 'outh 10_0"_21" E..t 3.'05.71 f..t to th. .outb
11n. of ..id '.ctlon 19 .nd tb. .OUtb 11n. of tb.t
draina,. ......nt d.lccib.d In laid De.d Soot 44, pat.
7', . 0
tb.ne. .10n, ..ld lin.. 'outb .9 -09'-48" ...t 1,1'0.21
tilt to the louthv..c Corner of laid S'Ction 19 and the
'oint of ..,innln, of tb. p.re.l b.r.in d..erib.d,
b.in, p.rt of th. v..t 1/2 of ..etion 1', ~ovn.blp 41
'OUtb, asn,. 2' ".t. Coll1.r County. 'lorid..
Containln, 245.77 .er.....r. or 1....
-12~31-g.
o.
;
,
,t
"