Loading...
Resolution 1993-212H c. , RESOLUTION 93- 212H MAY 25, 1993 A RESOLUTION DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE LONG RANGE PLANNING DIRECTOR'S DETERMINATION ON THE COMPATIBILITY EXCEPTION APPLICATION NUMBER CEX-OJ7-MI FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON WATERWAY DRIVE IN SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 52 SOOTH, 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 tor adopting a COIlprehensive 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 of 1985 and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, also known as the Minimum Criteria for Review ot 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 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 10 (Compatibility Exception), and Section 11 (Determination of Vested Rights); and lOOK OOOf'ar,r 50 -s?'" ~ MAY 25, 1993 WHEREAS, the owner of the herein described real property, Raro, Ltd., has submitted an application for Compatibility Exception (CEX-OJ7-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 of County Co1IIIlissioners, as provided for 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 ot 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. HOW, THEREFORE, the Board ot County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida hereby makes the fOllowing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: Findinos of Fact 1. The unimproved real property which is the subj ect ot this appeal is owned by Rero, Ltd. 2. The subject property is legally described as Lot 7, 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 ot Collier County, Florida. 3. The subject property is located at Waterway Drive, 280t feet west of Bald Eagle Drive (CR-953). It is designated Urban 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 ;;; OOOW~ 50 -5 '1 -2- .-. MAY 25, 1993 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. The maximum density permitted on the subject site is 6 units per acre which may be achieved through utilization ot the Conversion of Commercial Zoning provision. 4. The existing zoning of the subject property is C-1, CoIIJIIercial Professional, which permits commercial. professional uses within structures at a maximum height of 35 teet. 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-037-MI) as provided tor in Section 10, Compatibility Exception, of the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance. 7. The Long Range PlaMing Director's determination for said application, issued on February 10, 1993, and effective on February 23, 1993, was tor 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 ot 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 .eet the criteria contained in Subsections 2.4.5.1 or 2.4.5.2 ot the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance. 10. Within 300 feet to the north of the subject property all properties are vacant and zoned C-1 and also subject to the Zoning arm OOOnt,! 5O-bO -3- ;.. MAY 25, 1993 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 is a l-story office building (north 1/2 of Lot 8) and a vacant parcel granted an exemption to retain its existing zoning (south 1/2 of Lot 8), both zoned C-1. All properties are designated Urban Coastal Fringe, the same as the subject lot. 12. Within 300 feet to the south of the subject property is the l-story Marco Island Urgent Care Center on a 10-acre parcel zoned C-1. All properties are designated Urban Coastal Fringe, the same as the subj ect lot. 13. Within 300 teet to the west of the subject property are vacant properties zone C-l, and also subject to the Zoning Reevaluation Program and the castaways Waterway. Across the waterway are scattered single family dwellings within an improved subdivision zoned RSF-4. All properties are designated Urban Coastal Fringe, the same as the subject lot. 14. The subject property is irregular in shape and contains 2.2 acres. The parcel .easures approximately 300 feet by 320 feet. 15. The property has no unusual topographic teatures. 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 aaximum density of 6 units per acre) would not generate excessive noise, glare, odor or traffio impacts upon the nearby surrounding area. 19. Development in the nearby surrounding area will not qen.rate 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). aDaK 000 P~r.t 50 -b / -4- MAY 25, 1993 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-l). 22. Development of the subject site at a consistent density of 6 units per acre would yield a total of l3 dwelling units. Utilizing the ITE Trio Generation Manual figure of approximately 5.8 trips per day per multi-family unit, a 13 unit multi-family project would generate 75 trips per day. 23. Utilizing an acceptable standard of 10,000 square teet of commercial development (floor area) per acre, the subject site could be developed under the existing zoning district with a 22,000 square foot structure. Utilizing the ITE Trio Generation Manual tiqure of approximately 24 trips per day per 1,000 square toot of tloor area, a 22,000 square foot general oftice development could generate 528 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 north 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 (CR-953), 280% feet to the east, is a tWO-lane undivided collector road with a 100' right-ot-way. Its adopted LOS is "D" and its operating LOS is "D". The Traffic CirCUlation Element of the Growth Management Plan does not identity tuture improvements to Bald Eagle Drive (CR- 953). 25. The scale and character ot development permitted under a consistent zoning district (RHF-12 with a maximum density of 6 BOOK IJOO PAr.! 50 - &, O? -5- MAY 25, 1993 units per acre) is a multi-family project with structures at a aaxiaua height of 50 feet. ;!6. The scale and character Of development existing and penaitted within the nearby surrounding area includes vacant commercially-zoned property to the west and north. The properties to the east and south are zoned and developed with an office building and the Marco Island Urgent Care Center. 27. The scale and character of development permitted under the existing zoning district (C-1) is professional office and siailar uses as permitted in the C-1 zoning district with structures at a aaximua of 35 teet. 28. 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 Long Range PlaMing Director's determination of denial for the compatibility Exception application number CEX-037-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 identified in Findings ot Fact #lO-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. BOOK 000 I'l',t 50 - t 3 -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-l) 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 unit 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 traftic congestion or otherwise affect pUblic safety. 10. The existing zoning district (C-1) 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 district (RMF-12 with a maximum density of 6 units per acre) will not be out of scale or out of eooc oon~rl. 50 - t jL