Resolution 1992-223
~~~,
Ill'
. ,
',,:.:';>.:.
~;.
'W':-
~;;,~:,
P.j:,
1'~1""~'"
- '::,
,~ '. .
;j.,':
~ ,.1.'-
~i\
I..'..
tj;':,
"
RESOLUTION 92-223
A RESOLUTION GRANTING THE APPEAL OF THE GROWTH
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S DETERMINATION ON THE
COMPATIBILITY EXCEPTION APPLICATION NUMBER
CEX-010-MI FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF C.R.
892 (S.R. 92-A) AND SUNSET DRIVE ON GOODLAND
IN SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 52 SOUTH, RANGE 27
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 water; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 163, Part II Florida Statutes, requires
local governments to adopt a comprehensive plan and Chapter 93-5,
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 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 a:nd
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 Pro';ram
including provisions for Exemptions, Compatibility Exceptions and
Vested Rights Determinations; and
WHEREAS, the County adopted the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance
Number 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
,/"") ,,/)
Al'lUL lJ, 1~1L
10 (Compatibility Exception), and Section 11 (Determination of
Vested Rights); and
WHEREAS, the owners of the herein described real property,
Goodland, Inc., have submitted an application for Compatibility
Exception (CEX-010-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 Growth Planning Director's determination was to
deny that application; and
WHEREAS, the owners of the herein described real propertlr
filed an appeal of the Director's determination to the Board of
County Commissioners, as provided for in Section 10.5 of the
Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, on April 13, 1992 the Board of County Commissioners
considered the application for Appeal of the Growth Planning
Director's determination on the Compatibility Exception
application, the Growth 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 Goodland, Inc.
2. The subject property is legally described as lying in
Section 18, Township 52 South, Range 27 East, Collier County,
Florida, Goodland Isles, First Addition, Block E, Lots 1 throuqh
10, according to the plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 8,
Page 2 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida.
3. The subject property is located on the southeast corner
of C.R. 892 and Sunset Drive. It is designated Urban Coastal
Fringe on the Future Land Use Map. The maximum density permi1:ted
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 Traffic Congestion Area resulting in the subtraction of
1 unit per acre yielding a consistent (base) density of 3 units
per acre.
4. The existing zoning of the subject property is C-4,
which permits a variety of commercial uses within structures at a
maximum height of 100 feet and with front yard setbacks of 25
feet, plus one (1) foot for each one foot (1) of building height
over fifty (50) feet, side yard setbacks of 15 feet and rear yard
setbacks of zero (0) feet or five (5) feet.
5. The C-4 zoning district is inconsistent with the Growth
Management Plan because it does not comply with the locational
criteria in the Future Land Use Element.
6. The applicant submitted to the County on September 4,
1990 an application for Compatibility Exception (CEX-010-MI) as
provided for in Section 10, Compatibility Exceptions, of the
Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance.
7. The Growth Planning Director's determination for said
application, issued on December 12, 1991 and effective on
December 24, 1991, was for denial based upon the criteria
established in Section 10.6.1 of the Zoning Reevaluation
Ordinance.
8. The applicant filed with the County on January 22, 1992
an Appeal of the Growth 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 was not submitted and
such application would 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.
/J_
/
I")
APRIL 13, 1992
10. within 300 feet to the north of the subject property is
County Road (C.R.) 892 which is the main road on the Island.
Further to the north and across C.R. 892 is mangrove vegetation
and Goodland Bay.
11. within 300 feet to the east of the subject property is
unimproved C-4 zoned property which is subject to the Zoning
Reevaluation Program. No application has been submitted for the
adjacent property and it will be subject to rezoning to a
consistent zoning district. To the northeast of the subject
property is improved C-4 zoned property which is developed with
restaurants and boutiques which serve the local and tourist
community.
l2. within 300 feet to the south of the subject property is
Sunset court, a cul-de-sac road which serves the SUbject property
and residential development to the south. Across Sunset Court is
improved Village Residential (VR) zoned property containing mobile
homes. The mobile home development is surrounded to the south by
Blue Hill Creek.
13. Within 300 feet to the west of the subject property h
Sunset Drive, which is a local road that provides access to the
residents to the south. Across Sunset Drive is improved
commercial property zoned C-4.
l4. The subject property is rectangular in shape and
contains .69 acres. The parcel width is 250 feet (frontage) and
the depth is 120 feet.
15. The property has no unusual topographic features.
l6. There are no identified areas of environmental
sensitivity on 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
(VR, Village Residential, at 3 units/acre) would not generate
excessive noise, glare, odor or traffic impacts upon the nearby
surrounding area.
---:--,
19. Development in the nearby surrounding area will generate
excessive noise, glare, odor or traffic impacts upon the
development permitted on the subject property under a consistent
zoning district (VR at 3 units/acre).
20. Development permitted under the existing zoning district
(C-4) 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-4).
22. Development of the subject site at a consistent density
of 3 units per acre would yield a total of 2 dwelling units.
However, because these are nonconforming lots of record, there is
the potential to develop these lots with five (5) dwelling units
(a minimum lot width of 50 feet:). Utilizing the ITE n:J.R
Generation Manual figure of approximately 10 trips per day per
single family unit would yield 50 trips per day.
23. The uses permitted by the existing zoning district may
generate traffic ranging from 51 to 632 trips per day per 1,000
square feet per establishment. utilizing an acceptable standard
of 10,000 square feet of commercial development (floor area) per
acre, the subject site could be developed under the existing (C-4)
zoning district with a 6,900 square feet structure. The existing
commercial zoning district would be required to provide access
from C.R. 892 which may increase traffic congestion because
traffic will be forced to slow down for those cars entering or
leaving potential commercial development on the subject lots.
Access off Sunset Court would not be appropriate for commercial
development because of the impacts it will have on the adjacent
residential to the south.
24. The scale and character of development permitted under a
consistent zoning district (VR at 3 units/acre) is a
single-family, mobile home, or multi-family project with
structures at a Maximum height of 35 feet.
/"1
-
,
APRIL 13, 1992
25. The scale and character of development existing and
permitted within the nearby surrounding area includes a mobile
home park and several one and two story commercial structures
(restaurants, boutique, miscellaneous retail).
26. The scale and character of development permitted under
the existing zoning district (C-4) is an Office, retail and
institutional development with structures at a maximum height of
100 feet.
27. There is no particular need identified for additional
commercial development in the surrounding neighborhood.
,28. The average of the intensity or density of those uses in
the nearby surrounding area of the subject property is the
intensity of development permitted in the existing (C-4) zoning
district.
Conclusions of Law
Based upon the above Findings of Fact, the Board of County
Commissioners makes the following Conclusions of Law:
The Growth Planning Director's determination of denial for
the Compatibility Exception application number CEX-004-RF is no'c
supported by substantial competent evidence in that:
The appellant has demonstrated by substantial competent
evidence that the residential land use of 3 dwelling units/acre
would be incompatible with the land uses and potential land uses
identified in Findings of Fact #10-13 set forth above 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 allo\ied
under zoning districts consistent with the Growth Management Plan
(VR with a maximum density of 4 units per acre) on the subject
APRiL LJ. H~L
property are not 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-4) on the subject property
are compatible with those existing on property within 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 (VR with a maximum density
of four (4) units per acre) on the subject property will not
adversely impact the nearby surrounding area.
6. A consistent zoning district (VR with a maximum density
of four (4) units per acre) on the subject property will be
adversely impacted by the nearby surrounding area.
. 7. The existing zoning district (C-4) on the subject
property will not adversely impact the nearby surrounding area.
8. The existing zoning district (C-4) on the subject
property will not be adversely impacted by the nearby surrounding
area.
9. A consistent zoning district (VR with a maximum density
of four (4) units per acre) will not create or excessively
increase traffic congestion or otherwise affect public safety.
10. The existing zoning district (C-4) will not create or
excessively increase traffic congestion or otherwise affect public
safety.
11. The level of existing traffic would have an adverse
impact on a consistent zoning district (VR with a maxiMum density
of four (4) units per acre).
12. The level of existing traffic would not have an adverse
impact on the existing zoning district (C-4).
13. A consistent zoning district (VR with a maximum density
of four (4) units per acre) will be out of scale or out of
character with the existing land uses and needs of the nearby
surrounding neighborhood.
/"1
t-I
/
APRIL 13, 1992
14. The existing zoning district (C-4) will not be out of
scale or out of character with the existing land uses and need.s of
the nearby surrounding neighborhood.
15. The C-4 zoning district does not exceed the average of
the intensity or density of those uses in the nearby surrounding
area of the subject property as identified in Finding' 28.
Grant of Comoatibilitv Exceotion Aooeal
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of county
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, in pUblic hearing, duly
constituted and assembled on this day, the 13th day of April,
1992, that:
The Appeal of the Growth Planning Director's determination of
denial for the Compatibility Exception application number
CEX-010-MI for the herein described real property, submitted by
John K. Aurell of Aurell, Radey, Hinkle & Thomas, agent for
Goodland, Inc., is granted subject to the following liMitations
and conditions:
1. The zoning of the subject property shall remain C-4.
2. This Resolution, which constitutes an approval of the
Compatibility Exception application number CEX-010-MI, SUbject to
the limitations and conditions contained herein, shall apply to
the land and is therefore transferable from owner to owner of the
land subject to this Appeal.
3. Anything in the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance to the
contrary notwithstanding, the approval of this Appeal may be
revoked upon a Showing by the County of peril to the public
health, safety or general welfare of the residents of Collier
County unknown at the time of approval.
--
-
.
APRIL 13 1992
,
This Reeolution adopted after motion, second and majority
vote favoring same.
ATTEST:, ! n
.... 'I. -'I"
, ,/'0,
.:... ':",
~~'~l -Z:;:~~~!~k~'
-. ,
'" ,
/'.'
1'6 "~. ,'" ".,
iPP.ROvE.D'.~'TO FORM AND
LEGAL '~FFICIENCY:
COMMISSIONERS
FLORIDA
1Y\IiA~iJt~.l-td
Marjor M. Student
Assistant County Attorney
RES/CEX-010-MI/A