Loading...
Resolution 1992-224 r......~... . . !,. ;: \j/j -i,w; r~ ~; RESOLUTION 92- 224 A RESOLUTION DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE GROWTH PLANNING DIRECTOR'S DETERMINATION ON THE COMPATIBILITY EXCEPTION APPLICATION NUMBER CEX-015-MI FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF LANDMARK STREET AND 150 FEET NORTH OF WINTERBERRY DRIVE (MARCO ISLAND) 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 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 Chapter 163, Part II Florida Statutes, also known as the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land DeveldPment 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 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 ~ r. 1\ .h.t'K.i.L .J.j, ..J..';J';Ji. 10 (Compatibility Exception), and Section 11 (Determination of Vested Rights); and WHEREAS, the owner of the herein described real property, Salvatore J. Cangiano, has submitted an application for Compatibility Exception (CEX-015-MI) pursuant to Section 10 of the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance; anj WHEREAS, basad 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 property 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 Salvatore J. Cangiano. 2. The subject property is legally described as Tract C, Marco Beach, Unit 7, according to the plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 6, Pages 55-62 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, less and except: a 20 X 323 foot strip of land lying along the South boundary of said Tract "C" and abutting the North boundary of Tract "F" as shown on said plat of Marco Beach Unit Sevenl said strip of land being more particularly described in Official Record Book 918, Page 51, et seq., and Official Record Book 1042, Page 1708, et seq., as recorded in the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. 3. The subject property is located on the east side of Landmark Street and 150 feet north of Winterberry Drive. It is designated Urban Coastal Fringe on the Future Land Use Map. The maximum density permitted 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-l, Commercial Professional which permits a variety of professional commercial uses within structures at a maximum height of 35 feet, and with setbacks of 25 feet for front yard, 15 feet side yard, and 15 feet rear yard. 5. The C-l zoning district on the SUbject property is inconsistent with the Growth Management Plan because it does not comply with the locational criteria contained in the Future Land Use Element. 6. The applicant submitted to the County on November 19, 1990 an application for Compatibility Exception (CEX-015-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 September 12, 1991 and effective on September 25, 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 October 24, 1991 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. APRIL 13': 1992 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 exceeds the size limitation of section 2.4.5 of the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance and the 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 is an improved single family subdivision zoned RSF-4 containing scattered single family dwellings. Also, to the north is Fieldstone Drive, a local roadway. 11. Within 300 feet to the east of the subject property in an improved single family subdivision zoned RSF-4 containing scattered single family dwellings. Also, to the east is Fieldstone Drive. 12. within 300 feet to the south of the subject property are Offices, an art gallery, and vacant parcels, all zoned C-l. Further to the south, across Winterberry Drive, are two vacant lots zoned C-3, and a synagogue and scattered single family dwellings on land zoned RSF-4. 13. Within 300 feet to the west of the subject property, across Landmark Street, are scattered single family dwellings within an improved subdivision zoned RSF-4 and a two-story retail center zoned C-3. 14. The subject property is more or less square in shape and contains 12.52 acres. The parcel width averages 770 feet (frontage) and the depth averages 720 feet. 15. The property has no unusual topographic features. 16. There are no identified areas of environmental sensitivity on site. 17. The existing zoning district boundary is logically draNn in relation to existing conditions on the subject property. 18. Development permitted under a consistent zoning district (RSF-4) would not generate excessive noise, glare, odor or traffic impacts upon the nearby surrounding area. APRIL 13. 1992 19. Development in the nearby surrounding area will not generate excessive noise, glare, odor or traffic impacts upon the development permitted on the subject property under a consistent zoning district (RSF-4). 20. Development permitted under the existing zoning district (C-1) would 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-1). 22. Development of the subject site at a consistent density of 3 units per acre would yield a total of 38 dwelling units. utilizing the ITE Trio Generation Manual figure of approximately 10 trips per day per single family dwelling unit, 38 single family dwelling units would generate 380 trips per day. 23. Development of the subject site at a consistent density of 4 units per acre would yield a total of 50 dwelling units. utilizing the ITE Trio Generation Manual figure of approximately 10 trips per day per single family dwelling unit, 50 single family dwelling units would generate 500 trips per day. 24. utilizing an acceptable standard of 10,000 square feet of commercial development (floor area) per acre, the SUbject site could be developed with a 125,000 square feet structure. utilizing the ITE Trio Generation Manual figure of approximately 24 trips per day per 1,000 square feet of floor area, a 125,000 square feet professional office development could generate 3,000 trips per day. A professional office use is representative of the uses permitted in the C-1 district. Some permitted uses have a lower, and some higher, trip generation rate than a prOfessional office use. 25. Landmark street and Fieldstone Drive are both two-lane, paved, undivided local roadways. winterberry Drive is a two-lane, undivided, local collector roadway. APRIL 13, 1992 26. The scale and character of development permitted under a consistent zoning district (RSF-4) is a single family project with structures at a maximum height of 35 feet. 27. The scale and character of development existing and permitted within the nearby surrounding area includes one-story single family dwellings, a two-story Shopping center, several one-story office and institutional uses and a restaurant. 28. The scale and character of development permitted under the existing zoning district (C-l) is an office and institutional project with structures at a maximum height of 35 feet. 29. There is no particular need identified for additional commercial development in the surrounding neighborhood. 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-015-MI is supported by substantial competent evidence in that: The appellant has not demonstrated by substantial competent evidence that the single-family residential land use of 3 or 4 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 exceeds the size limitation of Section 2.4.5 of the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance and 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 with the Growth Management Plan (RSF-4) on the subject property are compatible with those A.t'.tU..L J..J, l.';1.;JL 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-l) on the subject property are not 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 (RSF-4) on the subject property will not adversely impact the nearby surrounding area. 6. A consistent zoning district (RSF-4) on the subject property will not be adversely impacted by the nearby surrounding area. 7. The existing zoning district (C-1) on the subject property will adversely impact the nearby surrounding area. 8. The existing zoning district (C-l) on the subject property will not be adversely impacted by the nearby surrounding area. 9. A consistent zoning district (RSF-4) will not create or excessively increase traffic congestion or otherwise affect public safety. 10. The existing zoning district (C-l) will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or otherwise affect public safety. 11. The level of existing traffic would not have an adverse impact on a consistent zoning district (RSF-4). 12. The level of existing traffic would not have an adverse impact on the existing zoning district (C-l). 13. A consistent zoning district (RSF-4) will not be out of scale or out of character with the existing land uses and needs of the nearby surrounding neighborhood. 14. The existing zoning district (C-l) will be out of scale and out of character with the existing land uses and needs of the nearby surrounding neighborhood. ~.J APRIL 13, 1992 Denial 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, 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-015-MI for the herein described real property, submitted by Salvatore C. Scuderi of Scuderi and Childs, agent for Salvatore J. Cangiano, is denied. It is the intent of the Board to rezone the subject property to the RSF-4 zoning district, a district consistent with the Growth Management Plan via utilization of the Conversion of commercial provision contained in the Future Land Use Element. However, it is acknowledged that a Vested Rights Determination application is pending for the subject property. It is further acknowledged that the property owner has the right to initiate his own rezoning of the property to a zoning district other than RSF-4. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority . vp~e.~a'v.arWg .same. . ~. . /' ,':.::' ,.' . ...':_ .l.~; ;;;'TTEST:. '" .'1-, r; ; ::, ,.~. . ' ~'..., ... /",.~:' <=>1 'B'f.:. ~~._"c.~-..:-' ~ -;;0... l ".;; Ji,mes .c;;.;~Wile lerk' " :.JI .."~'\\l\i '. ~ J.. ~ '.. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CO rR f~UNTY, FLORIDA l ,-~-,-l .,Q, Michael J olpe, Chairman ..y "I::JA ~ APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: .~ . .... '4,J"" ',>. '~';/':'I>'1n. Allw... rn Ilh ~ ..u~Lt :h:i.~:.: Marj otlie.M. Student 'ii<~i'Assistant County Attorney RES/CEX-015-MI/A \1