Resolution 1992-133
FEBRUARY 18, 1992
RESOWTION 92-133
A RESOLUTION GRANTING THE APPEAL OF THE GROWTH
PLAlCHING DIRECTOR' S DE-u~acftIRATIOR ON THE
COMPATIBILITY EXCEPTION APPLICATION HUMBER
CEX-004-Rl' FOR PROPERTY LOCATED OR THE SOUTH
SIDE OF MANATEE ROAD ARD :t. 1/4 MILE EAST OF
S.R. 951 IN SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
WHEREAS, Article VIII, Section 1 ef) of the Constitution of
Florida confers on counties broad ordinance-making power when not
inconsistent with qeneral or special law; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 125.01, Florida Statutes, confers on all
counties in Florida qeneral powers of government, including the
ordinance-aaking power and the power to plan and requlate the use
of land and vater; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 163, Part II Florida Statutes, requires
loeal qovernaents to adopt a coaprehensive plan and Chapter 9J-5,
Florida Administrative Code, establishes the criteria tor adopting
a ccmprehensive plan; and
WHEREAS, on January 10, 1989, Collier County adopted the
Collier County Growth Manaq...nt Plan as its Coaprehensive Plan
pursuant to the requir...nts Chapter 163, Part II Florida
statutes, also known as the Local eoveI'J1ll8nt Coaprehensive
Planning and Land DevelopJlent Requlation Act of 1985 and Chapter
9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, also known a. the Minimum
Criteria for Review of Local Government Comprehensive Plans and
Detendnation of C0IIp1iance; and
WHEREAS, Policy 3.1. K of the Future Land Use Element of the
Growth Kanaq...nt Plan provide. for a Zoning Reevaluation Proqram
including provi.ions for Ex.-ptions, Coapatibility Exceptions and
Ve.ted Riqhts Deter1linations I and
WHEREAS, the County adopted the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance
Huaber 90-23 on March 21, 1990 to implement Policy 3.1.K of the
Future Land Use El..ent ot the Growth Management Plan: and
'p~~9'-;4
FEBRUARY 18, 1q92
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 eCompatibility Exception), and Section 11 (Determination of
Vested Rights): and
WHEREAS, the owners of the herein described real property,
Manatee Road Land Trust, have submitted an application for
Compatibility Exception (CEX-004-RF) 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 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 February 18, 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 Manatee Road Land Trust.
bJ~/~~
FEBRUARY 18, 1992
2. The subject property is legally described as set forth
in Exhibit "A", LeCJal Description, attached hereto and by
reference aade a part bereof. The property contains approximately
69.1 acres.
3. The subject property is located on the soutb side of
Kart.tee Road approxiaately 1/4 aile east of S.R. 951. It is
deaiqnatec1 Urban COastal Fringe on the Future Land Use Map. The
aaxi8ua density per1litted on the .ubject property by the Density
Rating Systea contained in tbe Future Land Use Element is 4 units
per acre, except for Affordable Housing which requires additional
legislative authority. 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 .ubject property is RMF-l6,
Residential Multiple Faaily, which peraits .ultiple taaily
developMnt at a aaxillua density of 16 units per acre, structures
at a aaxilNa beiCJht of 75 feet and with setbacks of 35 feet plus
ODe foot for each foot over 50 feet in beiCJbt.
5. The RKJ'-16 zoning district is inconsistent witb the
Growth Hanaq...nt Plan because i~ peraits a density in excesa of
that per1litted by the Density Ratinq Syst...
6. The applicant subaitted to the County on October 18,
1990 an application for Coapatibility Exception eCEX-004-RF) as
provided for in Section 10, eo.patibility Exceptions, of the
Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance.
7. The Growth Planninq Director's deteraination tor said
application, issued on October :U, 1991 and effective on
.oveaber 1, 1991, was for denial based upon tbe criteria
establisbed in Section 10.6.1 of tbe Zoninq Reevaluation
Ordinance.
8. The applicant filed with the County on Roveaber 27, 1991
an Appeal of the Growth Planning Director' s deter1lination of
denial for the COIIpatibili~y Exception application as provided for
in Section 10.5 of tbe Zoning Reevalua~ion Ordinance.
B~ftf-e
FEBRUARY 18, 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 and
across Manatee Road are two mobile home subdivisions developed at
approximately seven (7) units per acre and zoned MH, Mobile Home
District.
11. Witbin 300 feet to the east of the subject property is
undeveloped land zoned A, Rural AgriCUltural (owned by Collier
County and whicb potentially will become a water utility site) and
a Collier County Water Re-pump Station on land zoned "A": and
undeveloped land zoned MH with an approved site Development Plan
Exemption wbich allows the site to be developed witb a mobile home
park at a density of 6.1 units per acre.
12. Witbin 300 feet to the soutb of tbe subject property is
undeveloped land zoned A, Rural AgriCUltural and E, Estates.
13. Within 300 feet to the west of the subject property is a
two-story apartment complex zoned RMF-16 and developed at 12 units
per acre: a three-story residential condominium zoned RMF-12 and
developed at 12 units per acre: and undeveloped property zoned C-4
with an approved Site Development Plan Exemption which allows the
site to be developed witb retail commercial uses.
14. Development consistent with the Growth Management Plan
permitted on tbe surrounding undeveloped ("unimproved"),
non-exempt properties includes low density residential
development, essential services, recreational and open space uses,
and institutional uses such as churcbes, child care centers and
qroup care facilities.
Q~.f<?-7J
FEBRUARY 18~ 1992
15. The subject property is "L" shaped and contains ~ 69
acres. The parcel width varies from:t. 1,100 feet (frontage) to ~
700 feet and the depth is ~ 2,000 feet.
16. The property has no unusual topographic features.
17. There are no identified areas of environmental
sensitivity on site.
18. The existing zoning district boundary is loqically drawn
in relation to existing conditions on the subject property.
19. Development permitted under a consistent zoning district
eRMF-6 at 3 units/acre) would not generate excessive noise, glare,
odor or traffic impacts upon the nearby surrounding area.
20. Development in the nearby surrounding area will generate
excessive noise, glare, odor or traffic impacts upon the
development permitted on the subject property under a consistent
zoning district (RMF-6 at 3 units/acre).
21. Development permitted under the existing zoning district
(RMF-16) would generate excessive noise, glare, odor or traffic
impacts upon the nearby surrounding area.
22. Development in the nearby surrounding area will not
generate excessive noise, glare, odor or traffic impacts upon
development permitted on tbe subject property under the existing
zoning district eRMF-16).
23. Development permitted under a Multiple Family zoning
district, with a density cap of 6, 7 or 8 units per acre, would
not qenerate excessive noise, qlare, odor or traffic impacts upon
the nearby surrounding area.
24. 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 Multiple
Family zoning district with a density cap of 6, 7 or 8 units per
acre.
25. Development of the subject site at a consistent density
ot 3 units per acre would yield a total of 209 dwelling units.
Utilizing the ITE Trio Generation Manual figure of approximately 6
9~4tf- E
FEBRUARY 18, 1992
trips per day per .ulti-faaily unit, a 209 unit multi-family
pro1ect would qenerate 1254 trips per day. Utilizing the Manual
fiqure of approxiaately lO trips per day per single family
dwelling, 209 single faaily dwellings would generate 2090 trips
per day.
26. o.velopaent of tbe site with a .ulti-faJlily project at a
density of 16 units per acre vould yield a total of approximately
1117 unit.. Utllizinq the Manual figure of approxiaately 6 trips
per day per unit, an lll7 unit aulti-faally project would
generate approxiaately 6702 trips per day.
27. o.velopaent of the site with a .ulti-faJlily project at a
density of 6, 7 or 8 units per acre would yield a total of
approxiaately 419, 489 or 558 units respectively. utilizing the
Kanu.al figure of approxiaately 6 trips per day per unit, a 419,
489 or 558 unit .ulti-faaily PrOject would generate approximately
2514, 2934 or 3348 trips per day, respectively.
28. Tbe Traffic Circulation Zleaent of the Growth Management
Plan identifies future extension of Manatee Road to U.S. 41 East
resulting in Manatee Road functioning as a collector road.
29. state Road 951 has an adopted Level of Service eLOS)
-E". It is currently operatinq at IDS "F" but the IDS is expected
to increase to "A- once the 4-laning currently underway is
coapletecS .
30. The scale and character of developaent per1litted under a
consistent zoning district eRKF-6 at 3 units/acre) is a
aulti-faaily project with structures at a aaxi.ua heiqht of tbree
habitable stories.
31. The scale and character of developaent existing and
peraittecS vithin the nearby surrounding area include. two
aulti-faaily projects with 3-story .tructures, several 1-.tory
co..ercial uses (convenience store with gas puaps, retail sbopping
center, radio station), aobile boae subdivisions/parks, and vacant
laneS which aay be the site of a future Collier County Water
Utility Facility.
P~I-R-F
FEBRUARY 18, 1992
32. The scale and character ot developaent permitted under
the existing zoning district (RKF-16) is a .ulti-fa.ily project
with structures at a aaxilluJa beiCJht of 75 feet.
33. The scale and character of developaent peraitted under a
MUltiple Faaily zoning district, with a density cap of 6, 7 or 8
units per acre, is a .ulti-faaily project with structures at a
~1au:a beigbt of 50 teet or 75 feet, depending upon whicb zoning
district (RKF-12 or RMF-16).
34. There is no particular need identified for additional
lle4iua density wlti-taaily dwelling. in the surrouncUng
neigbborbood .
35. The averaqe of the intenaity or density ot tbose uses in
the nearby surrounding are. of the 8Ubjec:t property is between 6
and I units per acre.
Conclu.ion. of Law
BasecS upon the above FincUngs of Fact, the Board of County
eo.aissioners aakes the following Conclusions of Law:
The Growth Planning Director's deteraination of denial for
the COIIpatibility Exception application mmber CEX-004-Rl' is not
StlpP'>rtecS by substantial COIIpetent evidence in that:
The appellant has deaonstrated by substantial COIIpetent
evidence that the .ulti-taaily residential land use of 3 dwelling
units/acre would be inco.patible vith the land us.. and potential
land uses identitiecS in Findings of Fact '10-13 _t forth above
taking into account the following:
1. The 8Ubject property i. not eliCJible tor a Compatibility
Deteraination ~ion pursuant to Section 2.4 of the Zoning
Reevaluation Ordinance as the property exceeds the size limitation
of Section 2.4.5 of tbe Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance and the
property does not ...t the criteria contained in Subsections
2.4.5.1 and 2.4.5.2 of the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance.
Y~~f'-"tf
.,
FEBRUARY 18, 1992
2. The land use patterns, densities and intensities allowed
under zoniftCJ districts consistent with the Growth Management Plan
(RKr-6 at 3 unita/acre) on the subject property are not
co.patible with those existiftCJ 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 eRMF-16) on the subject
property are not co.patible vith those existing on property within
the nearby surrounding area of the subject property.
4. The land use patterns, densities and intensities allowed
under a Multiple Faaily zoning district on the subject property,
vith a density cap of 6, 7 or 8 units per acre, are compatible
with those existing on property within the nearby surrounding area
of the subj act property.
5. The existing zoning district boundaries are loqically
drawn in relation to existing conditions on the subject property.
6. A consistent zoning district eRMF-6 at 3 units/acre) on
the .ubject property will not adversely iapact the nearby
surrounding area.
7. A consistent zoning district eRKF-6 at 3 units/acre) on
the subject property will be adversely iapacted by the nearby
surrounding area.
8. The existing zoning district eRMF-16) on the subject
property viII adversely blpact the nearby surrounding area.
9. The existing zoning district eRKF-16) on the subject
property will not be adversely iapacted by the nearby surrounding
area.
10. A Multiple Faaily zoning district on the .ubject
property, with a density cap of 6, 7 or 8 units per acre, will not
adversely iapact the Marby surrounding area.
11. A Multiple Faaily zoning district on the subject
property, with a density cap of 6, 7 or 8 units per acre, will not
be adversely iapacted by the nearby surrounding area.
~~ ~,y-II
8
FEBRUARY 18, 1992
12. A consistent zoning district eRMF-6 at 3 units/acre)
viiI not create or exc.ssively increase traffic conqestion or
otherwise affect public safety.
13. The existing zoning district eRMF-16) will create or
excessively increase traffic congestion or otberwise affect public
safety.
14. A Multiple Faaily zoning district, witb a density cap of
6, 7 or 8 units per acr., will not create or excessively increase
traffic congestion or otherwise affect public safety.
15. The level of existing traffic would not bave an adverse
bpact on a consistent zoning district eRKF-6 at 3 units/acre).
16. The level of existing traffic would not have an adverse
bpact on the existing zoning district eRJa-16).
17. Tb. level of existing traffic vould not have an adverse
bpact on a Multiple Faaily zoning district with a density cap of
6, 7 or 8 units per acre.
18. A consistent zoning district eRlD'-6 at 3 units/acre)
will be out of scale or out of character with the existing land
uses and needs of th. nearby nrrounding neiCJhborbood.
19. Tbe existing zoning district (RID'-16) viII be out of
~le or out of character with the existing land us.s and needs of
the nearby surrounding neiCJhborbood.
20. A Multiple Fa.ily zoning district, witb a density cap of
6, 7 or 8 units per acre, will not be out of scal. or out of
character with th. existing laneS uses and needs of th. nearby
.urrouncSing neighborhood.
21. A Multiple Faaily zoning district liaited to a maximum
density of 6, 7 or 8 dwelling units per acre does not exceed the
average of the intensity or density of thos. uses in the nearby
surrounding area of th. .ubject property as identified in Finding
. 35.
.G?~~~_J
9
FEBRUARY 18, 1992
Grant 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 18th day of February, 1992,
that:
The Appeal of the Growth Planning Director's determination of
denial for the Compatibility Exception application number
CEX-004-RF for the herein described real property, submitted by
Robert L. Duane of Hole, Montes and Associates, Inc., agent for
Manatee Road Land Trust, is granted subject to the following
limitations and conditions:
1. The zoning of the subject property shall be a Multiple
Family zoning district but the density shall be limited to a
maximum of 6, 7 or 8 dwelling units per gross acre, the exact
zoning district and density cap to be determined at the rezone
Public bearing.
2. All structures shall be limited to a maximum beight of
two stories except as provided for in Subsection 2.6.3.1 only of
the Land Development Code.
3. A one hundred feet e100') wide qreen belt shall be
provided along the entire east and soutb property lines. The
qreen belt sball contain veCJetation and/or other plant materials
e.g. mulcb, rocks, etc. The green belt sball be landscaped in
accordance with the requirements of Section 2.4.7, Alternative B,
of the Land Development Code. Buildings, parking facilities, etc.
are not permitted within the qreen belt. Water management
facilities are permitted within the green belt.
4. This ReSOlution, which constitutes an approval of the
Compatibility Exception application number CEX-004-RF, subject to
the limitations and conditions contained herein, shall apply to
the land and is therefore transferable from owner to owner of the
land subj ect to this Appeal.
.9 t? '/... ~ - Cf
10
. .-
, ~. . Jr
4'A:I.-.u.~T: '. C~
... . ,'. ~
~. .... .,~. ~
',; ;, f.' . .' '.:;; ~
. _:: , ~ (;];1
, ,CI ,~8y1 ---.-... ~ ..
.::....~ \'-'i ~ ~~;p11.., eri
:;;~#'-.'.' ....~
#._'1:1. -..; - ,,,
" . :.t, '\..,.",
',:i ,,~:- h...'"
A.P~IW AS TO I'OJOI AIm
I.ZGAL SUFPICIDCY I
FEBRUARY 18, 1992
5. Anytbing in tbe Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance to the
contrary notwithstanding, the approval of this Appeal may be
revoked upon a sbowing by the County of peril to tbe Public
bealth, safety or qeneral welfare of the residents of Collier
County unJtnown at the ti.. of approval.
'l'his Resolution ad0pte4 after lIOtion, second and aajority
vote favoring .....
BOARD 01' comrrr COMMISSIONERS
m.l~'7DA
II1cbael J 1 VO!~r Chairman
r>>v,z-
~ 'th.Ah1~l~
~JI. Studem
AulataM County AtUn'ney
D8/CZX-004-RP/A
.J:) ~ ~?-/<
11
'.'''''
'"if
I~"
.'
....... ..~........'.~..'
.iIl"}
,: .'''
,r
;~',
'.;:
"'~n
FEBRUARY 18, 1992
EXHIBIT "A"
Legal Description: STRAP' 512610-102.000 further described
as all that part of Section 10, Townsbip 51 South, Range 26
East, Collier County, Florida and being .ore particularly
described as follows: Co.aencing at tbe intersection of the
present Easterly riqbt-of-vay line of S.R. 951 with the
Wortherly line of the Southeast 1/4 of the Nortbwest 1/4 of
Section 10, Townsbip 51 South, Ranqe 26 East, Collier County,
Florida, tbence along said Easterly riqbt-of-way line South
0.-24'-33" W.st 30.01 feet to the Soutb rigbt-of-way line of
C.R. 31, tbence along said South right-of-way line and 30
teet Soutb of and parallel witb the Northerly line of the
Southeast 1/4 of the Rortbvest 1/4 of said Section 10, North
88.-42'-20" East 500.00 feet to tbe Nortbwest corner of Gulf
Winds East Unit 1, a cOnd01liniua as recorded in Cond01linium
Plat Book 4, Paqes 153 and 154, Collier County Public
Records, Collier County, Florida, thence along tbe West line
of said Gulf Winds East, South 0.-24'-33" West, 706.32 feet
to the Soutbwest corner of said Gulf Winds East, thence along
the South line of said Culf Winds East Rorth 88.-42'-20" East
849.37 feet; thence alonq tbe East line of said Gulf Winds
East North 1.-17'-40" West 706.05 feet to the South
riqbt-of-vay line of said C.R. 31, tbence run Rorth
88.-40'-46" East 170.93 feet to the POINT OF BEGIRNING:
continue Easterly 109l.84 feet, thence run Soutb 0.-05'-07"
East 1339.16 feet; thence along the East line of the North
1/2 of the Wortbvest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of said Section
10, South 0.-03'-33" East 684.81 feet: thence along the Soutb
line of the Worth 1/2 of the Wortbvest l/4 of tbe Soutbeast
1/4 of said Section 10, South 88.-45'-40" West 1369.l6 feet:
thence along the South line of the Worth l/2 of the Borth 1/2
of the Southwest 1/4 of sai4 Section 10, 80uth ".-45'-54"
West 739.18 feet: thence run Korth 684.81 feet, thence run
Easterly 1039.52 feet, thence run Worth 1350.l8 feet to the
POINT OF BEGIDIKC of the parcel berein described, as
recorded in Official Record Book 1606, Paqe 2300.
LD/8.1492
p~4-ff..O<