Resolution 1993-212G
..,
RESOLUTION 93- 212G
MAY 25, 1993
A RESOLUTION DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE LONG
RANGE PLANKING DIRECTOR'S DETERMINATION ON THE
COMPATIBILITY EXCEPTION APPLICATION NUMBER
CEX-036-MI FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON 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 ot Chapter 163, Part II Florida
Statutes, also known as the Local Government Comprehensive Planning
and Land Development Regulation Act ot 1985 and Chapter 9J-5,
Florida Administrative Code, also known as the Minimum criteria tor
Review ot Local Government Comprehensive Plans and Determination ot
Compliance; and
WHEREAS, Policy 3.1.K ot the Future Land Use Element ot 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 tor
applications to preserve the existing inconsistent zoning in
certain situations pursuant to Section 2.4 (Exemptions), Section 10
&o1IK OOOnr,r 50-.50
t
MAY 25, 1993
(Compatibility Exception), and Section 11 (Determination of Vested
Rights); and
WHEREAS, the owner ot the herein described real property,
sigwart MOhrle, Trustee, has submitted an application for
Compatibility Exception (CEX-036-KI) pursuant to Section lOot the
Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, based upon the criteria for granting Compatibility
Exceptions contained in Section 10.6.1 ot the Zoning Reevaluation
Ordinance, the Long Range Planning Director's determination was to
deny that application; and
WHEREAS, the owner ot the herein described real property tiled
an appeal of the Director's determination to the Board of County
CoJmissioners, 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 for 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 ot County Commissioners at said
hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of County Commissioners ot Collier
County, Florida hereby makes the following Findings of Fact and
Conclusions ot Law:
Findinas of Fact
1. The unimproved real property which is the subject at this
appeal is owned by Sigwart MOhrle, Trustee.
2. The subject property is legally described as Lot 5, Block
799, Marco Beach Unit 6, Tract L Replat, according to the Plat
thereat, recorded in Plat Book 12, Pages 55-56, at the Public
Records ot Collier County, Florida.
3. The subject property is located at Waterway Drive, soot
feet west of Bald Eagle Drive (CR-953). It is designated Urban
aOOK 000 Plr;l 50..:$" /
MAY 25, 1993
Coasbll Fringe on the Future Land Use Map. The base density
permitted on the subject property by the Density Rating System
contained in the Future Land Use Element is 4 units per acre. The
site is within the Tratfic Congestion Area resulting in the
subtraction ot 1 unit per acre yielding a consistent (base) density
ot 3 units per acre. The maximum density permitted on the subject
site is 6 units per acre which may be achieved through utilization
of the Conversion of Commercial Zoning provision.
4. The existing zoning ot the subject property is C-1,
CoJmercial Protessional, which permits commercial professional uses
within structures at a maximum height of 35 feet.
Setback
requirements are 25 feet for the front yard, 15 feet for the side
yard and 15 teet for the rear yard.
5. The C-1 zoning district is inconsistent with the Growth
Management Plan because it permits commercial uses which do not
comply with the locational criteria contained in the Future Land
Use Element.
6. The applicant submitted to the County on November 27,
1990, an application for Compatibility Exception (CEX-036-MI) as
provided tor in Section 10, Compatibility Exception, ot the Zoning
Reevaluation Ordinance.
7. The Long Range Planning Director's determination for said
application, issued on February 10, 1993, and effective on February
23, 1993, was for denial based upon the criteria established in
Section 10.6.1 of the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance.
8. The applicant filed with the County on March 24, 1993, an
Appeal of the Long Range Planning Director's determination of
denial for the Compatibility Exception application as provided tor
in Section 10.5 of the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance.
9. An Exemption application as provided for in Section 2.4.5
ot the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance was not submitted and such
application would not have been eligible for approval as the
subject property does not meet the criteria contained in
aDOK 000 PA<;t 50..$ ~
-3-
MAY 25, 1993
subsections 2.4.5.1 or 2.4.5.2 ot the Zoning Reevaluation
Ordinance .
10. Within 300 teet to the north of the subject property are
vacant lands which are 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.
11. Within 300 feet to the east of the subject property,
across Waterway Drive, all properties are vacant and zoned C-1and
are also subject to the Zoning Reevaluation Program. All properties
are designated Urban Coastal Fringe, the same as the subject lot.
12. Within 300 teet to the south ot the subject property, all
properties are vacant and 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 teet to the west of the subject property is
castaways Waterway.
14. The subject property is square in shape and contains :1:.92
acres. The parcel .easures approximately 200 teet by 200 teet.
15. The property has no unusual topographic features.
16. There are no identified areas ot environmental
sensitivity on the site.
17. The existing zoning district boundary is logically drawn
in relation to exis~ing 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 exoessive noise, qlare, 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
zoning district (RMF-12 with a maximum density of 6 units per
acre).
lOOK 000 P&C,{ 50 -..5 .3
-4-
MAY 25, 1993
20. Development permitted under the existing zoning district
(C-1) would not generate excessive noise, glare, odor or traffic
lapacts 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 6 units per acre would yield a total ot 6 dwelling units.
UtiliZing the lTE TriD Generation Manual figure of approximately
5.8 trips per day per multi-tamily unit, a 6 unit multi-family
project would generate 35 trips per day.
23. 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 zoning district with a 9,200
square foot structure. Utilizing the ITE TriD Generation Manual
tigure of approximately 24 trips per day per 1,000 square feet of
floor area, a 9,200 square foot general office development could
generate 221 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 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 Standard and traftic counts are not available from the
Transportation Services Division. Bald Eagle Drive (CR-953), t500
feet to the east, 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 (CR-953).
25. The scale and character Of development permitted under a
consistent zoning district (RMF-12 with a maximum density ot 6
aOOK 000 P~~E 50 - .sf
-5-
. .
MAY 25, 1993
units per acre) is a multi-family project with structures at a
aaximum height of 50 feet.
26. The scale and character of development existing and
permitted within the nearby surrounding area includes vacant
COJIIIIlercially zoned property to the north, east and south. Further
south is the Marco Island Urgent Care Center which is located on
COJIIJDercially zoned property. Across Castaway Waterway to the west
are properties zoned and developed with single family uses.
27. The scale and character ot development permitted under
the existing zoninq district (C-1) is professional office and other
siailar uses permitted in the C-1 Zoning District with a maximum
height ot 35 teet.
28. There is no particular need identified for additional
COJIIJDercial development in the surrounding neighborhood.
Conclusions of Law
Based upon the above Findings ot Fact, the Board of County
Commissioners makes the tollowing ConClusions ot Law:
The Long Range Planning Director's determination ot denial for
the Compatibility Exception application number CEX-036-MI is
supported by substantial competent evidence and is not contrary to
the criteria established in Section 10.6 ot 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
identitied in Findinqs 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 riot eligible for a Compatibility
Determination Exemption pursuant to Section 2.4 of the Zoning
Reevaluation Ordinance as the property does not meet the criteria
a* OOOnr,r 50 ~
MAY 25, 1993
contained in subsections 2.4.5.1 or 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
(RKF-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 ot 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 ot 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-l) 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 ot 6 units per acre) will not create or excessively
increase traftic congestion or otherwise affect public safety.
10. The existing zoning district (C-1) will not create or
excessively increase traffic congestion or otherwise aftect 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 ot 6 units per acre) IDle OOOnr;. 50 -sC
-7-
MAY 25, 1993
12. The level of existing traftic would not have an adverse
iapact on the existing zoning district (C-l).
13. A consistent zoning district (RMF-12 with a maximum
density of 6 units per acre) 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-1) will not be out of
scale or out ot character with the existing land uses and needs of
the nearby surrounding neighborhood.
Denial of Comnatibilitv Exceotion Aooeal
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County
COmmissioners ot Collier County, Florida, in public hearing, duly
constituted and assembled on this, the 25th day of May, 1993, that:
The Appeal ot the Long Range Planning Director's determination
of denial tor the Compatibility Exception application number CEX-
036-MI tor the herein described real property, submitted by William
Burke, attorney, ot Hughes, HUbbard, and Reed, agent tor Sigwart
Mohrle, is denied. It is the intent of the Board to rezone the
subject property to the RMF-12 zoning district with a density cap
at six (6) units per acre, a district consistent with the Growth
Management Plan via utilization ot the Conversion of Commercial
Zoning provision contained in the Future Land Use Element.
.)., ~
. : '''i!,:'his Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote
.' ~'-
favor~g same.
~~fllj ilr
. ,"ATTEST: "': ... t~ '
..... '" ,: .' , .. ..~~:;::. '.
'.. ~'7
· . ~. ,.. 1/'1
~iB L'
::.
.,.; ... ght E;; ,. Clerk
J , :; -. . ;.,. ... :"..- :
..: . ~iPJ'ROVED.AS..a;(kFORM AND
'L~M.-' S.qF~IEKCY:
I Hpt. aOOl
Ma~ t;;-~ st~nt I1J I d.L,li:.
Assistant County Attorney
fmm.cllZZlUalA.... .
-8-