Resolution 1992-225
RESOLUTION 92-225
A RESOLUTION GRANTING THE APPEAL OF THE GROWTH
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S DETERMINATION ON THE
COMPATIBILITY EXCEPTION APPLICATION NUMBER
CEX-029-MI FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF VALLEY DRIVE AND SOUTH
COLLIER BOULEVARD (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 water1 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 plan1 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 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 Determinations1 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
/l
, ...,
/)
,",.,__._.~~M__'.__V~_",,'~'~__~^_"_h~'~'_"""_
WHEREAS, the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance provides for
applications to preserve the existing inconsistent zoning in
certain situations pursuant to section 2.4 (Exemptions), section
10 (Compatibility Exception), and section 11 (Determination of
Vested Rights); and
WHEREAS, the owner of the herein described real property,
Raimundo Estrada, has submitted an application for compatibility
Exception (CEX-029-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.l 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 propert~r
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 Raimundo Estrada.
2. The subject property is legally described as Lot 1,
Block 348, Marco Beach, Unit 10, according to the plat thereof,
recorded in Plat Book 6, Pages 74-79 of the Public Records of
Collier County, Florida.
3. The subject property is located on the northeast corner
of Valley Drive and South Collier Boulevard on Marco Island. 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 on the subject property is C-3,
commercial Intermediate, which permits a variety of commercial
uses within structures at a maximum height of 50 feet, and with
setbacks of 25 feet for front yard, 15 feet side yard, and 15 feet
rear yard.
5. The C-3 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 13,
1990 an application for Compatibility Exception (CEX-029-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 5, 1991 and effective on
December 17, 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 14, 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 submitted and
~ .- """
.t\L J.\.J,..l..l J...J, ....1.1...
denied (EXM-048-MI) as it did not meet the criteria contained in
Subsections 2.4.5.1 and 2.4.5.2 of the Zoning Reevaluation
Ordinance.
10. within 300 feet to the north of the subject property is
land zoned C-3. The abutting lot (Lot 2) is vacant and has an
approved Compatibility Determination Exemption to retain the C-3
zoning. Lot 3 is developed with the Moose Lodge and Lots 4 and 5
are consistently zoned via the Commercial Under Criteria
provision in the Growth Management Plan.
11. within 300 feet to the east of the subject property,
across a 30 foot alley, the surrounding property is zoned RSF-4,
Residential Single Family, and is developed with scattered single
family dwellings.
12. Within 300 feet to the south of the subject property,
across Valley Avenue, the surrounding property is zoned RT,
Residential Tourist, and RSF-4, Residential Single Family. The RT
property is developed with a 4-story condominium and the RSF-4
property contains scattered single family dwellings.
13. Within 300 feet to the west of the subject property,
across South Collier BOUlevard, the property is zoned RT,
Residential Tourist, and is developed with condominiums that range
in height from 9 to 12 stories.
14. The Subject property is rectangular in shape and
contains .39 acres. The parcel width is 100 feet and the depth is
170 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 drawn
in relation to existing conditions on the subject property.
18. Development permitted under a consistent zoning district
(RSF-3) would not generate excessive noise, glare, odor or traffic
impacts upon the nearby surrounding area.
/,
7J
,..,
19. Development in the nearby surrounding area will generate
exceosive noise, glare, odor or traffic impacts upon the
development permitted on the subject property under a consistent
zoning district (RSF-3).
20. Development permitted under the existing zoning district
(C-3) 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-3).
22. Development permitted under the C-1/T zoning district
would not generate excessive noise, glare, odor or traffic impacts
upon the nearby surrounding area.
23. 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 the C-1/T
zoning district.
24. Development of the subject site at a consistent density
of 3 units per acre would yield a total of 1 dwelling unit.
utilizing the ITE Trio Generation Manual figure of approximately
10 trips per day per single family dwelling unit, a 1 single
family unit would generate 10 trips per day.
25. Utilizing an acceptable standard of 10,000 square feet
of commercial development (floor area) per acre, the subject site
could be developed with a 3,000 square feet structure. utilizing
the ITE Trio Generation Manual figure of approximately 70 trips
per day per 1,000 square feet of floor area, a 3,000 square feet
of retail store could generate 210 trips per day. A general
retail use is a representative of the uses permitted in the C-3
district. Some permitted uses have a lower, and some higher, trip
generation rate than a general retail use.
26. utilizing an acceptable standard of 10,000 square feet
of commercial development (floor area) per acre, the subject site
/J
,--
lUJ.\.L..L.. ....lJ, ..1.';I';Ii..
could be developed under the proposed C-l/T zoning district with a
3,000 square feet structure. utilizing the ITE TriD Generatioll
Manual figure of approximately 25 trips per day per 1,000 squar.e
feet of floor area, a 3,000 square feet general office use could
generate 75 trips per day. A general office use is representative
of the uses permitted in the C-1/T district.
27. Valley Avenue is a two-lane, paved, undivided local
roadway. South Collier Boulevard, south of County Road 92 (san
Marco Drive), is a four-lane, divided, local collector roadway
with an adopted Level of Service "0". There are no traffic counts
for Valley Avenue or this portion of South Collier Boulevard.
28. The scale and character of development permitted under a
consistent zoning district (RSF-3) is a single family dwelling at
a maximum height of 35 feet.
29. The scale and character of development existing and
permitted within the nearby surrounding area includes several
multi-family projects in mUlti-story structures, several 1-stolY
and 2 story commercial uses (convenience store with gas pumps,
retail plaza, fraternal organization), and several I-story single
family dwellings.
30. The scale and character of development permitted under
the existing zoning district (C-3) is an office, retail or
institutional use in a structure at a maximum height of 50 feet.
31. The scale and character of development permitted under
the C-1/T zoning district is a professional office or
institutional use in a structure at a maximum height of 35 feet.
32. There is no particular need identified for additional
office, retail or institutional uses in the surrounding
neighborhood.
33. 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 under the existing (C-3) 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-029-MI is not
supported by substantial competent evidence in that:
The appellant has demonstrated by substantial competent
evidence that a professional office or institutional 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 eligib1~ 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 allowed
under zoning districts consistent with the Growth Management Plan
(RSF-3) on the subject 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 districts (C-3) on the SUbject property
are compatible with those existing on property within the nearby
surrounding area of the subject property.
4. The land use patterns, densities and intensities allowed
under the C-1/T zoning district on the subject property are not
compatible with those existing on property within the nearby
surrounding area of the subject property.
5. The existing zoning district boundaries are logically
drawn in relation to existing conditions on the subject property.
6. A consistent zoning district (RSF-3) on the subject
property will not adversely impact the
nearby surrounding
J{
area.
1"""1_
I?
7. A oonsistent zoning district (RSF-3) on the subject
property will be adversely impacted by the nearby surrounding
area.
8. The existing zoning district (C-3) on the subject
property will not adversely impact the nearby surrounding area.
9. The existing zoning district (C-3) on the subject
property will not be adversely impacted by the nearby surrounding
area.
10. The C-1/T zoning district on the subject property
will not adversely impact the nearby surrounding area.
11. The C-l/T zoning district on the subject property
.
will be adversely impacted by the nearby surrounding area.
12. A consistent zoning district (RSF-3) will not create or
excessively increase traffic congestion or otherwise affect pUblic
safety.
13. The existing zoning district (C-3) will not create or
excessively increase traffic congestion or otherwise affect public
safety.
14. The C-l/T zoning district will not create or excessively
increase traffic congestion or otherwise affect pUblic safety.
15. The level of existing traffic would have an adverse
impact on a consistent zoning district (RSF-3).
16. The level of existing traffic would not have an adverse
impact on the existing zoning district (C-3).
17. The level of existing traffic would not have an adverse
impact on the C-l/T zoning district.
18. A consistent zoning district (RSF-3) will be out of
scale or out of character with the existing land uses and needs of
the nearby surrounding neighborhood.
19. The existing zoning district (C-3) will not be out of
scale or out of character with the existing land uses and needs of
the nearby surrounding neighborhOOd.
20. The C-l/T zoning district will be out of scale or out of
character with the existing land uses and needs of the nearby
surrounding neighborhood.
Al'lUL l.J. B~.i.
21. The C-3 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' 33.
Grant of ComDatibilitv ExceDtion ADDea1
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 Grolith Planning Director's determination of
denial for the Compatibility Exception application number
CEX-029-MI for the herein described real property, submitted by
Arthur L. Berger, agent for Raimundo Estrada, is granted Subject
to the following limitations and conditions:
1. The zoning of the subject property shall remain C-3
subject to the following conditions:
a. The following permitted (principal uses) listed in
the Land Development Code (Ordinance '91-102) are
prohibited:
(1) Gasoline Service stations
(2) Veterinary services
(3) Drive-In Restaurants
(4) Fast Food Restaurants
(5) Convenience Food stores - 24 Hour
(6) Auto and Home Supply Stores
b. The following accessory use listed in the Land
Development Code is prohibited:
(1) Caretakor's Residence
c. The following conditional uses listed in the Land
Development Code are prohibited:
(1) Hospitals
(2) Amusements and Recroation Services- except
that dance studios, aerobic dance and exercise
......, ......-.............. _'--.._.~ ,........, r~..............._..... .................................. ..H"\~l"'fl...~
APRIL 13, 1992
lifting and martial arts training are
permissible.
2. This ReSOlution, which constitutes an approval of the
compatibility Exception application number CEX-029-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.
This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority
vote favoring
. "
, 1.111"
" J. lJ
/:' :.i"trJ:ST:'
"<' " . I
...-:.
same.
'/J"
Ie.
(."''"
,/ ~.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
~I R COUNTY, FLORIDA
Michael Vo pe, Chairman
Y#J"".2-..
if' .. ,.~. '~J m ,/#JuI.utk
,,4;:~_;', Marj 1e M. Student
~1:;. ~.iiltant county Attorney
~~.., .
.'?,';.:', RES/CEX-029-MI/A
,\'1', .
.-~';::' :.
,l~kr .
; :-:.~
;A~i;
~-;r..:~
~t;.,;;
~~i~-':; .
~ '...
l,~\.'~ :.
r~'-',\
'::{4~
~_,~:;;i
l~;~{
<.Hi
t. i;'~~
-',,'
"lit
,if