Resolution 1993-212C
MAY 25, 1993
RESOLUTION 93- 212C
A RESOLUTION DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE LONG
RANGE PLANNING DIRECTOR'S DETERMINATION ON THE
COMPATIBILITY EXCEPTION APPLICATION NUMBER
CEX-032-MI FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF BALD EAGLE DRIVE (CR-953)
AND WATERWAY DRIVE IN SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 52
SOUTH, RANGE 26 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
ot 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 of 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 tor a Zoning Reevaluation Program
including provisions for Exemptions, Compatibility Exceptions, and
Vested Rights Determinations; and
WHEREAS, the County adopted the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance
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
5m~.u.H
&OOK 000 ~i~ 50 - /7
MAY 25, 1993
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, John
Hooley, Trustee, has submitted an application for Compatibility
Exception (CEX-032-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 Long Range Planning Director's determination was to
deny that application; and
WHEREAS, the owner of the herein described real property filed
an appeal of the Director's determination to the Board ot County
COmlissioners, as provided tor in Section 10.5 of the Zoning
Reevaluation Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, on May 25, 1993 the Board of County Commissioners
considered the application tor Appeal of the Long Range Planning
Director's
determination
on the
Compatibility
Exception
application, the Long Range Planning Director's recommendation, and
the record made before the Board of County Commissioners at said
hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Board ot 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 subj ect of this
appeal is owned by John Hooley, Trustee.
2. The subject property is legally described as Lot 1, Block
799, Marco Beach Unit 6, Tract L Replat, according to the Plat
thereot, recorded in Plat Book 12, Pages 55-56 of the Public
Records of Collier County, Florida~
5m~J.AN
aOOK
OCOP~~ 50- If'
-2-
MAY 25, 1993
3. The subject property is located at the Northwest corner
at Bald Eagle Drive (CR- 953) and Waterway Drive. It is designated
Orban Coastal Fringe on the Future Land Use Map. The base 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 ot 1 unit per acre yielding a consistent (base) density
of 3 units per acre. The maximum density permitted on the subject
site is increased to 6 units per acre which may be achieved through
the utilization of the Conversion of Commercial Zoning Provision.
4. The existing zoning at the subject property is C-l,
COmlercial Protessional, which permits commercial professional uses
within structures at a maximum height of 35 feet. Setback
requirements are 25 teet for the front yard, 15 feet for the side
yard and 15 teet tor the rear yard.
5. The C-1 zoning district is inconsistent with the Growth
Management Plan because it permits commercial uses which do not
comply with the locational criteria contained in the Future Land
Use Element.
6. The applicant submitted to the County on November 27,
1990, an application for Compatibility Exception (CEX-032-MI) as
provided for in Section 10, Compatibility Exception, ot the Zoning
Reevaluation Ordinance.
7. The Long Range Planning Director's determination for said
application, issued on February 10, 1993, and effective on February
23, 1993, 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 March 24, 1993, an
Appeal of the Long Range 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
JI27~.u.H
BOOK OCOi:?- 50-/9
MAY 25, 1993
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, all
properties are vacant and zoned RSF-4. These lots are within an
improved subdivision which contains scattered single family
dwellings. All properties are designated Urban Coastal Fringe, the
same as the subject lot.
11. Within 300 feet to the east of the subject property,
across Bald Eagle Drive, is an improved SUbdivision zoned RSF-4
containing scattered single lamily dwellings. All properties are
designated Urban Coastal Fringe, the same as the subject lot.
12. Within 300 feet to the south of the subject property,
across Waterway Drive, are vacant properties zoned C-1 and are also
subject to the Zoning Reevaluation Program. All properties are
designated Urban Coastal Fringe, the same as the subject lot.
13. Within 300 feet to the west of the subject property is a
vacant lot zoned C-l and are also subject to the Zoning
Reevaluation Program. All properties are designated Urban Coastal
Fringe, the same as the subject lot.
14. The subject property is square in shape and contains
1.19~ acres. The parcel measures approximately 200 feet by 260
feet.
15. The property has no unusual topographic features.
16. There are no identified areas of environmental
sensitivity on the 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
(RMF-12 with a maximum density of 6 units per acre) would not
generate excessive noise, glare, odor or traffic impacts upon the
nearby surrounding area.
19. Development in the nearby surrounding area will not
generate excessive noise, glare, odor or traffic impacts upon
development permitted on the subject property under a consistent
JI27~.u.H
ODD p~(,r 50 - ~ tJ
-4-
BOOK
MAY 25, 1993
zoning district (RMF-12 with a maximum density of 6 units per
acre).
20. Development permitted under the existing zoning district
(C-1) 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-1).
22. Development of the subject site at a consistent density
ot 6 units per acre would yield a total of 7 dwelling units.
utilizing the ITE TriD Generation Manual figure of approximately
5.8 trips per day per multi-family unit, a 7 unit multi-family
project would generate 41 trips per day.
23. utilizing an acceptable standard of ~O, 000 square feet of
commercial development (floor area) per acre, the subject site
could be developed under the existing zoning district with a 11,900
square foot structure. Utilizing the ITE TriD Generation Manual
figure of approximately 24 trips per day per 1,000 square feet of
floor area, a 11,900 square foot general office development could
generate 286 trips per day.
A general office building is a
representative use of the commercial uses permitted in the C-1
district. Some permitted commercial uses have a lower, and some
higher, trip generation rate than a general office building.
24. The subject property is bounded to the east by Bald Eagle
Drive and to the south by Waterway Drive. Waterway Drive is a two-
lane undivided local road with a 100' right-of-way. As a local
road it has no adopted Level of Service (LOS) standard and traffic
counts are not available from the Transportation Services Division.
Bald Eagle Drive, is a two-lane undivided collector road with a
100' right-of-way. Its adopted LOS is "D" and its operating LOS is
-D-. The Traffic Circulation Element of the Growth Management Plan
does not identify future improvements to Bald Eagle Drive.
25. The scale and character of development permitted under a
consistent zoning
district (RMF-12 with a maximum
aOOK OCO~..! 5O-~ /
-5-
density of 6
JI27~.u.H
MAY 25, 1993
units per acre) is a mUlti-family project with structures at a
maximum height of 50 feet.
26. The scale and character of development existing and
permitted within the nearby surrounding area includes vacant
commercially zoned property to the west and south. Properties to
the north and east are zoned and developed with single family uses.
27. The scale and character of development permitted under
the existing zoning district (C-1) is professional office and
similar uses as permitted in the C-1 zoning district with
structures at a maximum height of 35 feet.
28. There is no particular need identified for additional
comaercial 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 Long Range Planning Director's determination of denial for
the Compatibility Exception application number CEX-032-MI is
supported by substantial competent evidence and is not contrary to
the criteria established in Section 10.6 of the Zoning Reevaluation
Ordinance in that:
The appellant has not demonstrated by substantial competent
evidence that the residential land use of 6 dwelling units/acre
would be incompatible with the land uses and potential land uses
identified in Findings of Fact #10-13 set forth above and has not
demonstrated that the Director's determination is contrary to the
criteria established in Section 10.6 of the Zoning Reevaluation
Ordinance 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 or 2.4.5.2 of the Zoning
Reevaluation Ordinance.
JI27~.u.H
BOOK
BOO PAr,! 50- & a
-6-
MAY 25, 1993
2. The land use patterns, densities and intensities allowed
under zoning districts consistent with the Growth Management Plan
(RMF-12 with a maximum density of 6 units per acre) on the subject
prOPerty are 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-1) 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 (RMF-12 with a maximum
density of 6 units per acre) on the subject property will not
adversely impact the nearby surrounding area.
6. A consistent zoning district (RMF-12 with a maximum
density of 6 units per acre) 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 not adversely impact the nearby surrounding area.
8. The existing zoning district (C-1) on the subject
property will not be adversely impacted by the nearby surrounding
area.
9. A consistent zoning district (RMF-12 with a maximum
density of 6 units per acre) will not create or excessively
increase traffic congestion or otherwise affect public safety.
10. The existing zoning district (C-l) will not 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 (RMF-12 with a maximum
density of 6 units per acre).
12. The level of existing traffic would not have an adverse
impact on the existing zoning district (C-1).
13. A consistent zoning dbtrict (RMF-12 with a maximum
density of 6 units per acre) will not be out of scale or out of
JI27~.u.H
allDK OCQ !1-r,! 50 - ~ 3