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