Resolution 1992-192
RESOW'l'IOlf 92-192
A RESOW'l'IOIf GRAJr1'IlfC THE APPEAL OP THE GROWl'H
PL\JfJIIIfG DIRECTOR'S lIc..lZolUU.NATIOlf ON THE
COKPATIBILIT'f ZXI,;t;rnOlf APPLICATION NUMBER
CEX-010-1QC POR PROf'Dn LOCATED AT THE APEX OP
U.S. 41 AND OLD U.S. 41 IN SECTIONS 15 AND 16,
TOIIJfSBIP 41 SOUTH, JWfGB 25 EAST, COLLIER
(.':()(Jnl: K, PLORIDA.
."~~ZA8, Article VIII, section 1 (f) of the Con.titution of
norida confera on counti.. broa4 ordinanc....Unq power wh.n not
inconsi.tent with q.neral or lIp8Cial law, and
."~~, Chapter 125.01, Florida St:at:ut:.., conf.ra on all
~1t1.. in norida qeneral powera of qov.rnJI8nt, inclucUnq the
~ power and the power to plan and requlate the us.
of land and vater, and
."~owJl.AB, Chapter 163, Part II Florida St:at:ut:.., requir..
local qoverrmente to adopt a CO~~eh.nsive plan and Chapt.r 9J-5,
Florida .....tniat:rat:iv. 1"""., utabli.h.. the criteria for adoptinq
a cc.prebensive plam and
.""''''IU, on January 10, 1989, Colli.r County adopted the
Colli.r County Growth Manaq_nt Plan a. it. CoIIpreh.nsive Plan
parauant to the requir~ts Chapter 163, Part II Plorida
sta~ta., also known as the Local COVerrment CoIIprehensive
Planninq and Land Dev.lopa-nt Regulation Act of 1985 and Chapt.r
907-5, Florida .....ini.t:rat:iv. Cod., also known a. the lIinillua
criteria for Review of Local Gov.rnJI8nt COmpreh.n.iv. Plan. and
Detaraination of CoIIpliance, and
WHEREAS, Policy 3.1.1t of the Futur. Land U.e El_nt of the
Growth Manaq~ Plan provid.. for a Zoninq Reevaluation Proqram
lnclucUnq provisions for Exnptions, COIIpatibllity Exc.ptions and
V..teeS Riqhts Deteninations, and
1rRRREAS, the COUnty adopted the Zoninq Reevaluation Ordinanc.
IftDIber 90-23 on March 21, 1990 to illpl...nt Policy 3.1.K of the
hture Land U.e El...nt of the Growth Manaq...nt Plan, and
WHEREAS, the Zoninq Reevaluation Ordinanc. provides for
applications to pr.serve the exi.tinq incon.istent zoninq in
certain .ituations pursuant to Section 2.4 (Exemptions),
-------
HARCH 30, .l.~~l
s.ct1on 10 (CoIIpat1bility Exception), and Section 11
(Detandnation of V..teeS Riqhts), and
wn-EAS, the ovn&ra of the herein described real property,
Ayera Partnerahip, have subIIitted an application for CoIIpatibility
~pt1on (CU-OI0-1QC) purauant to Section 10 of the Zoninq
Ru~.tuation Ordinance, and
wKulU, based upon the criteria for qrantinq CoIIpatibility
~pt1ons contained in Section 10.6.1 of the Zoninq Reevaluation
ordiDance, the Growth Planninq Director'. detanination wa. to
deny thet application, and
wn-d.S, the ovn&ra of the herein described real property
filed an appeal of the Director'. detaraination to the Board of
c:oa..t)' ~ t..ionera,.. providecS for in Section 10.5 of the
Ion1nq Reevaluation Ordinance, and
'K~KIA8, on March 30, 1992 the Board of County Coals.ioner.
considered the application for Appeal of the Growth Planninq
Director'. detanination on the CoIIpat1bllity Exception
application, the Growth Planning Director'. ~ndation, and
the I'eCOz4 _de before the Board of County Coai..ionere at .aid
bearing .
1fOIf, ..L...........OU, the Board of County Coai..ionera of Collier
Couutj', Florida hereby ..u. the follovinq Findinqs of Fact and
Conclusions Of Law,
"indlna. a~ "a~
1. 'l'be unillproved real property which i. the subject of
this appeal i. OWned by Ayere Partnerahip.
2. 'l'be subject property i. leqally de.cribed a. STRAP .
482515-002.000 further described a. lyinq in Section 15, Township
48 South, Ranqe 25 Ea.t, Collier County, Plorida, that portion of
the Northwe.t 1/4 of the Northwe.t 1/4, lyinq We.t: of U.S. 41,
1... and except that cert:ain property described in Official Record
KAK~h .lU, J.~'1"
Boot 1093, Paqe 2018, a. recorded in Official Record Book 1086,
hqe 1821.
AJfD
STRAP . 482515-010.001 tartber dascr1be4 as lyinq in Section 16,
'lovnahip 48 South, Ranqe 25 Ea.t, Collier County, Plorida, the
80rth 1/2 of the Northea.t 1/4 I... the North 268.54 faet, less
the portion west of U.S. 41, and le.. the U.S. 41 riqht-of-vay, as
~14e4 in Official Record Boot 1086, Paqe 1821. The two parcels
together contain appxoxbately 21 acres.
3. The subject pro~rty is located at the a~x of U.S. 41
and Old U.S. 41. It i. desiqnated Urban Residential on the Future
I.aDlS U.. Map. The _xI.m density ~nitted on the subject
pr~LJ' by the Density Ratinq Bystea contained in the Future Land
U.. E1~ i. 16 units ~r acre. 'l'be site is within the Traffic
Conqestion Area resulting in the subtraction of 1 unit ~r acre
r1e1ding a consistent (base) density of 3 units ~r acre.
4. The existing aoning of the subject property is C-4,
General Coaercial, which ~nita a variety of c~rcial use.
within .tructures at a ~t.ua beight of 100 feet and with front
Htbact.s of 25 feet plus one foot for each foot over 50 feet in
height, .ide setbacks of 15 feet and rear setbacks of 0 feet or 5
feet.
5. 'l'be C-4 aoning district is inconsistent with the Growth
lIaDaq~t Plan because it does not coaply with the locational
criteria in the Future Land Use El...nt.
6. 'l'be applicant subllitted to the County on October 26,
1990 an application for coapatibility Exception (CZX-OI0-NN) as
provide4 for in Section 10, CoIIpatibility Exceptions, of the
Zoninq Reevaluation Ordinance.
7. The Growth Planninq Director's deteraination for said
application, issued on De--aber 4, 1991 and effective on
~r 17, 1991, va. for denial based upon the criteria
..tablished in Section 10.6.1 of the Zoninq Reevaluation
Ordinance.
D/?
- .,
/P _ (1
8. The applicant: filed with the County on January 14, 1992
an Appeal of the Crowth Planninq Director's det:ermination of
denial for the c~tibility Exception application as provided for
in Section 10.5 of the Zoninq Reevaluation Ordinance.
9. An Exaapt:ion application as provided for in section
2.4.5 of the Zoninq Reevaluation Ordinance was not submitted and
such application would not have been eliqible for approval as t:he
subject property exceeds the size l1ait:aUon of Section 2.4.5 of
the Zoninq Reevaluat:ion Ordinance and the property does not meet:
the criteria cont:ained in Subsections 2.4.5.1 or 2.4.5.2 of the
Zoning Reevaluation Ordinanca.
10. Within 300 feet to the north of the subject property is
undeveloped land zoned POD, Planned Unit Development: (Meadow Brook
Est:ateS), penit:Unq developaent: at: 9 units per acre. This
denaity was achieved throuqh a rezone in 1991 ut:ilizinq the
eonveraion of Coaercial provision in the Future Land Use Element,
therefore beinq consistent with the Put:ure Land Use Element. Also
to the north within 300 feet i. undeveloped land zoned C-4,
General CoIaHrcial, subject to the Zoninq Reeva1uat:ion Proqram. A
CoIIpatibility Exception application has been approved, via an
appeal to the Board of county eo..issioners, and the property will
be rezoned to the C-3 zoninq district.
11. Within 300 feet to the east: of the subject property and
across Old U.S. 41 i. a developed aobile home park zoned MH,
Mobile Home, land zoned C-5, Heavy COIIIIDercia1, which is developed
as part of the adjacent aobile hoae park. The property owner is
in the process of rezoninq the C-5 property to MH, Mobile Home,
via corrective ordinance.
12. Within 300 feet to the sout:h of the subject property is
a part of the 150 foot riqht-of-vay for C.R. 45. Within 300 feet
of the .ubject property, across C.R. 45, i. a C-4 t:ract of land
with a retail plaza.
13. Within 300 feet to the west: of the subject property and
directly adjacent to the subject property is a small undeveloped
C-4 zoned parcel that is subject to the ZRO proqram. A
~
-4-
.,...,
. "
MARCH 30, 1992
CoIIpatibilit:y Exception application has been denied with a
reco.aencSed rezone ~o RKF-6. Further to t:he west ot the subject
property is a 200 foot road right-of-way tor u.s. 41. Within 300
teet of the subject property, across U.S. 41, is unilllproved RHP-6
zoned land which is subject to the ZRO proqram. A COIIIpatibility
Exception application was denied and the property is recOllllllended
for a zoninq chanqe to the RSP-4 district.
14. The subject property is trianqular in shape and contains
:t 21 acres. The parcel width averages 730 teet and the depth
everaq.. 1,330 feet.
15. The PIO...rty has no unusual t:opoqraphic teat:ures.
16. Approxiaately 5.1 acres of the sit:e is identified as an
area of environaent:al senaitivity.
17. 'l'be existinq zoninq district boundary is loqically drawn
in relation to exist:inq conditions on t:he subject property.
18. Developaent perait:ted under a consistent: zoninq district
(RKF-6) would not generate excessive noise, glare, odor or trattic
iapacts upon the nearby aurrouncSinq area.
19. Developaent in the nearby surroundinq area will qenerate
excessive noise, glare, odor or traffic impacts upon the
developaent peraitted on the subject property under a consistent
zoninq district (RKF-6).
20. Development peraitted under the exist:inq zoninq district
(C-4) would not generate excessive noise, glare, odor or tratfic
iapacts upon the nearby aurroundinq area.
21. Development: in the nearby surrounding area will not:
qenerate excessive noise, glare, odor or t:rattic impacts upon
development peraitted on the subject property under the existing
zoninq district (C-4).
22. Development ot the Subject site at: a consistent density
of 6 uni~. per acre would yield a ~otal ot 126 dwelling unit:s.
Utilizinq the ITE TriD Generation Manual tiqure ot approximately 6
trips par day per multi-faaily unit, a 126 unit: multi-family
project would qenerat:e 756 t:rips per day.
---.. --
MARCH 30, 1992
23. Utilizing an acceptable st:andard of 10,000 square feet:
of ~_rcial developaent (floor area) per acre, t:he subject site
could be developed under the existinq (C-4) zoninq district with a
:t 210,000 square feet st:ructure. utilizinq t:he ITE 1X.1R
c.merat:ion Manual figure of approxiaat:ely 168 t:rips per day per
1,000 square feet: of floor area, a 210,000 square feet shoppinq
center could qenerate 35,280 tripe per day. A shoppinq center is
a repr...nt:ative use of the C-4 dist:rict. SOllIe penaitt:ed uses
have a lower, and soae hiqher, t:rip qenerat:ion rate t:han a
shoppinq center.
24. The subject property is currently bounded to the west by
U.S. 41, and to the south and east by Old u.s.n. The seqlllent of
U.S. 41 froa the Lee County line to Wiqqins Pass Road is a four
(4) laned divided roadway with an adopt:ed Level of Service (LOS)
.C" and is currently operatinq at LOS .A". U.S. 41 froa County
Road 887 to Iaaokalee Road is an identified project on the State's
Hiqhvay Work Proqraa. Funds have been allot:ted for preliminary
desiqn for the six laninq of this 1.8 .ile seqment:. The
construction phase of the project has not: yet: been funded or
scheduled. Old U.S. 41 is a two (2) laned undivided roadway t:hat
bas an adopted LOS "D. and is operaUnq at it's adopted LOS "D".
25. The scale and character of development: penaitted under a
consistent zoninq dist:rict (RKF-6) is a mult:i-family project: with
st:ructures at: a aaxiaua heiqht: of three habitable stories.
26. The scale and character of development existinq and
peraitted within the nearby surrouncSinq area includes multi-family
projects in low-rise structures, commercial uses within structures
at a aaximua heiqht of 35 feet, a one-story ret:ail plaza, a mobile
boas park, and indust:rial development within structures at a
aaxiaua heiqht: of 50 feet:.
27. The scale and character of development: penaitted under
the existinq zoninq district (C-4) is an office, retail and
institutional project with structures at a maximUII heiqht of 100
feet:.
O~/cf-r
MARCH 30, 1992
28. There is no particular need ident:itied for addit:ional
c u:clal developaent in the su.rrounl1inq neiqhborhood.
29. The averaqe of the intensity or density of those uses in
the nearby surroundinq area of the subject property is the
intensity of developaent paraitted in the C-4 zoninq dist:rict.
Conclu.ion. o~ Law
Based upon the above Pindinqs of Pact, the Board of Count:y
eo.aissioners aakes the follovinq Conclusions of Law:
The Growth Planninq Director's deterainat:ion of denial tor
the eo.pat:ibilit:y Exception applicat:ion nuaber CEX-010-NH is not:
.~~rted by aubat:antial coapet:ent: evidence in that::
The appellant bas dllllOnatrated by subst:antial ccnapetent
evidence that the aulti-faaily residential land use of 3 dwellinq
unita/acre would be incOIIpatible with the land uses and potential
land uses identified in Findinqs of Pact 110-13 set: forth above
t:aJdnq int:o account: t:he tollovinq:
1. The subject property is not eliqible tor a eompat:ibility
Dateraination Exeaption pursuant to Section 2.4 ot the Zoninq
Reevaluation Ordinance as the property exceeds the size
liaitation ot Section 2.4.5 of the Zoninq Reevaluation Ordinance
and the property does not ..et the crit:eria contained in
SUbsections 2.4.5.1 and 2.4.5.2 of the Zoninq Reevaluat:ion
Ordinance.
2. The land use patt:erns, densit:ies and intensit:ie. allowed
under zoninq dist:ricts consistent with t:he Growth Kanaqement Plan
(RMF-6) on the subject property are not compatible with those
existinq on property within the nearby surroundinq area ot the
subject property.
3. The land use pat:t:erns, densit:ies and int:ensit:ies allowed
under the exist:inq zoninq dist:rict (C-4) on the subject: property
are compatible with those exist:inq on property within t:he nearby
surroundinq area
of the subject property.
g~/f'-..,g
MARCH 30, 1992
4. The exist:inq zoninq dist:rict boundaries are loqical1y
drevn in relation t:o existinq condit:ions on t:he subject property.
5. A consistent zoninq district (RMP-6) on the subject
property will not adversely iapact the nearby surroundinq area.
6. A consistent zoninq district (RMP-6) on the subject
property will be adversely iapacted by the nearby surrouncSinq
area.
7. 'l'be existinq zoninq district (C-4) on the subj ect
Ploperty will not adversely iapact the nearby surroundinq area.
8. The exist:inq zoninq dist:rict (C-4) on the subject
Pl:~rty will not: be adversely iapacted by t:he nearby surrounding
area.
9. A consistent zoninq district (RMP-6) will not create or
excessively increase traffic conqestion or otherwise affect public
safety .
10. The existinq zoninq district (C-4) will not create or
~...ively incrsase trsffic conqestion or otherwise affect public
safety.
11. The level of existinq traffic would have an adverse
iapact on a conaistent zoninq district (RMP-6).
12. The level of existinq traffic would not: have an adverse
iapact on the exist:inq zoninq dist:rict (C-4).
13. A consistent: zoninq district (RMP-6) will be out of
scale or out of character with the existinq land uses and needs of
the nearby surrounding neiqhborhood.
14. The exi.tinq zoninq district (C-4) will not be out of
scale or out of character with the existing land use. and needs of
the naarby surrouncSinq neiqhborhood.
15. The C-4 zoninq district does not: exceed the average of
the int:ensity or densit:y of those uses in the nearby surrounding
area of the subject property as ident:ified in Findinq . 29.
0" _, IP'- /I
Gran~ of eo.na~ibilitv Excention Anneal
.OW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County
eo..issioners of Collier County, Florida, in public hearing, duly
constituted and ass81lbled on this, the 30th day of March, 1992,
.tbat,
'1'be Appeal of the Growth Planninq Director's deteraination of
denial for the Coapatibility Exception application number
CEX-OI0-NM for the herein described real property, submitted by
Georqe L. Varnadoe of Younq, van Assenderp, Varnadoe and Benton,
P.A., aqent tor Aysrs Partnership, is qrant:ad subject t:o the
fOl1ovinq liaitations and conditions:
1. The zoninq of the subject property shall remain C-4.
2. The follovinq uses are prohibited: Gasoline Service
station, Drive-In Rest:aurant, and Past Pood Rest:aurant.
3. The property shall be developed as a Unified Plan of
Development. This Plan shall be subject t:o review and approval by
the Board of County CoIaaissioners. For purposes of this
condition, a Unified Plan of Development: .eans a Preliainary
SUbdivision Plat (PSP) or, if the property is not subc1ivided, a
Preliainary Site Development Plan (PSDP). The Unified Plan of
DevelClpllent shall be consistent with the provisions of the Land
Development Code and, whether a PSP per Division 3.2 or a PSDP per
Division 3.3, shall include: the location of all proposed access
points and road riqhts-of-vaYI the proposed common architectural
th_ and controls, and the proposed landscape th8lle.
4. The subject property shall not: be subdivided to
create .ore t:han two out:parcels.
5. All buildinqs are liait:ed t:o a Illaxbl\UIl height: of 40
feet.
6. Buildinq setbacks from adjacent road riqhts-of-way shall
be 75 feet for the southern 300 teet: ot the site.
7. Buildinq setbacks troa adjacent: road riqhts-ot-vay shall
be 100 feet tor the remainder ot t:he site.
~ -9-
,(7
n
MARCH 30, 1992
8. A landscape buffer shall be provided adjacent to all
road riqbt:s-of-vay as required by Section 2.4.7.4, Alt:ernat:ive 0,
of the Land Develop.ent: Code, except that t:he buffer area shall be
30 feet: wide.
9. The subject property shall be liaited in developlllent to
a ..yi..~ of 150,000 square feet of qross leasable area.
10. This ReSOlution, which constit:ut:es an approval of the
CoIIpat1bilit:y Exception application number CEX-010-NH, subject to
the liait:ations and conditions cont:ained herein, shall apply t:o
the land and is therefore transferable fro. owner to owner of the
land subject to this Appeal.
11. Anything in the Zoning Reevaluat:ion Ordinance to t:he
cont:rary notvithat:andinq, the approval of this Appeal may be
revoked upon a shovinq by the County of peril to the public
health, safet:y or qeneral welfare of the residents of Collier
County unknown at the t1ae of approval.
'l'bis Resolution adopted after aotion, second and majority
.vote favorinq .....
.,
;. . A~P.:J ;j; .
....., ,. ..0. , .... r
I ';~ ..(f..' .. .(~
:- ."'": ...,..' .;"...,. (~
i1"'~'r:,',.,, t' -:s
~, OJ:.. ' . ,...
n. . ."., ..
.; :: ;,"By.'. .
~ ..:.....01 s c.; E'il
.". .' ....~ .. ....
'\i..~ .... "i. ....<-....'1>
it'..'~1 .......:.:. ~..-'
:''''D~~.D'\~.:'l'O PORM AHD
,r'IZCUrSl.JuICIEKCY,
... " ",'
". ....
(I .' ~.:~
BOARD OP cotJllTlC COMMISSIONERS
1\:0.. COUNn, FLORIDA
..J.:t~~ Cba"-n
~~~Z-
]&. j!A";.)'JJ ~
Mar1Jrie M. Student
~~tant County Attorney
RES/CEX-OI0-NN/A
,.
./1
d7 n.