Resolution 1992-193
MARCH 30, 1992
RESOLtlTIOJf 92-193
A R!SOLtlTIOIf DEIfYING THE APPEAL OF THE GROWTH
PLA1f1fING DIRECl'OR' S DI...~INATION ON THE
COMPATIBILITY EXCEP'l'IOJf APPLICATION NUMBER
CEX-043-NIf FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST
SIDE OF U. S. 41 AND THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE
LEE/COLLIER COUNTY LINE IN SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP
48 SOOTH, RAlfGZ 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA.
WHEREAS, Article VIII, Section 1 (f) of the Constitution of
Florida confers on counties broad ordinance-aakinq power when not
inconsistant vith qeneral or special lav1 and
WHEREAS, Chapter 125.01, Florida statutes, confers on all
counties in Florida qeneral powers of qoverJ1lllent, includinq the
ordinance-.akinq power and the power to plan and requlate the use
of land and vater, and
WHEREAS, Chapter 163, Part II Florida Statutes, requires
local qovertllllBnte to adopt a COIIprehensive plan and Chapter 9J-S,
Florida Adwinistrative Code, establishes the criteria for adoptinq
. <::"_L"ehenaive plan, and
WHEREAS, on January 10, 1989, Collier county adopted the
Collier County Growth Manaq...nt Plan as it. Comprehensive Plan
pursuant to the requir...nte Chapter 163, Part II Florida
Statutes, also known as the Local GoverJ1lll8nt comprehensive
Planninq and Land DevelOpllent Requlation Act of 1985 and Chapter
9J-5, Florida Adwinistrative Code, also known as the Minimum
Criteria for Revisv of Local GoverJ1lllent Comprehensive Plans and
Deteraination of Compliance, and
WHEREAS, Policy 3.1.X of the Future Land Use EI..ent of the
Growth Manaq_ent Plan provide. for a Zoninq Reevaluation Proqram
includinq provisions for Ex-.ptions, Compatibility Exceptions and
Vested Riqhts Deterainations, and
WHEREAS, the County adopted the Zoninq Reevaluation Ordinance
90-23 on March 21, 1990 to implement Policy 3.1.X of the Future
Land Use Element of the Growth Manaq_ent Plan1 and
WHEREAS, the Zoninq Reevaluation Ordinance provides for
application. to preserve the eXistinq inconsistent zoninq in
/J_
.., /. LJ
MARl..li JU, !~~i.
certain situationa pursuant to section 2.4 (Exemptions), section
10 (eo.petibility Exception), and section 11 (Deteraination of
Vested RiCJhte), and
,,~, the owners of the herein described real property, A.
L. Dougherty eo.pany, Inc., have subaitted an application for
CoIIpatibility Exception (CEX-OU-NIf), and
.......U, based upon the critaria for qrantinq compatibility
Exceptiona contained in section 10.6.1 of the Zoninq Reevaluation
ordinanca, the Growth Planninq Director's detenaination was to
deny that application, and
h"K~, the owners of the herein described real property
filed an appeal of the Director's deteraination to the Board of
County co.aissioners, as provided for in Section 10.5 of the
Zoninq Reevaluation Ordinance, and
,,~, on March 30, 1992 the Board of County Commissioners
considered the application for Appeal of the Growth Planninq
Director's deteraination on the Compatibility Exception
application, the Growth Plannlnq Director's reCOlllUlndation, and
the record _de before the Board of County eo.aissioners at said
lwarlnq.
HOW, '1.~rORB, the Board of County CoIIIIIissioners of Collier
County, Florida hereby _Ices the followinq Findinqs of Fact and
Conclusions of LaVI
Pindina. o~ Pact.
1. The unimproved real property which is the subject of
this appeal is owned by A. L. Douqherty Company, Inc.
2. The Subject property is leqally described as STRAP'
482509-002.001 further described as lyinq in Section 9, Township
48 South, Ranqe 25 East, the North 268 feet lyinq East of U.S. 41,
ae recorded in Official Record Book 610, Paqe 1174. The property
contains approxiaately 4.36 acres.
3. The subject property is located on the east side of u.s.
41 and the south side of the Lee-Collier County Line. It is
-?-
MARCH 30. 1992
desiqnated Urban Re.idential on the FUture Land U.e Map. The
aaxbaa density peraitted on the subject property by the Density
Ratinq Systell contained in the Future Land Use Element is 16 units
per acre. The site is vithin the Traffic Conqestion Area
resultinq in the subtraction of 1 unit per acre yieldinq a
consistent (bas.) density of 3 units per acre.
4. The subject property is zoned RMF-6, Residential
Multiple F.-ily, which peraits sinqle f.-ily, two-flllllily and
.uttiple f.-ily developaent at a ..ximum density of 6 units per
acr., structures at a ..ximum heiqht of three (3) habitable
stories, and vith setbaclce of 35 feet front yard, 15 feet side
yard, and 30 feet rear yard.
5. The RMF-6 zoninq district is inconsistent vith the
Crovth Manaq...nt Plan because it peraits a density in excess of
that peraitted by the Density Ratinq systea.
6. The applicant sw.itted to the County on Nov8lllber 27,
1990 an application for eo.patibility Exception (CEX-043-NIf) as
provided for in Section 10, Compatibility Exceptions, of the
Zonlnq Reevaluation Ordinance.
7. The Growth planninq Director'. determination for said
application issued on Dec81aber 19, 1991 and effective on December
31, 1991, vas for denial based upon the criteria established in
section 10.6.1 of the Zoninq Reevaluation Ordinance.
8. The applicant filed vith the county on January 29,
1992 an Appeal of the Growth Planninq Director's determination of
denial for the Cogpatibility Exception application as provided for
in Section 10.5 of the Zoninq Reevaluation Ordinance.
9. An Exeaption 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 the
subject property does not ..et the criteria contained in
Subsections 2.4.5.1 or 2.4.5.2. of the Zoninq Reevaluation
ordinance.
10. Within 300 feet to the north of the subject property is
undeveloped property vithin Lee County's jurisdiction zoned
co.aunity co.aercial whicb has been approved for a hospital.
11. Within 300 feet to the east of the subject property is
undeveloped land zoned RKF-6, also subject to the Zoninq
Reevaluation Proqrlllll. A Compatibility Exception application
(CEX-054-1fIf) vas denied for tbis property vith a recommended
zoninq chanqe to the RSF-3, Residential Sinqle Family, zoninq
district .
12. Within 300 feet to the south of the subject property is
undeveloped land zoned POD, Planned Unit DevelClplllent (Cypress
Read), which peraits aulti-f.-ily development at a density of 3.7
units per qross acre. This POD has been deemed consistent vith
the Future Land Use E1..ent by providinq access to adjacent
developments and by qaininq 1 unit per qross acre for providinq
access to two or ~re arterial or collector roadways.
13. Within 300 feet to the vest of the subject property,
across U.S. 41, is an iaproved Planned Unit Development (Audubon
Country Club) developinq at one dwellinq unit per acre.
14. The subject property is rectanqular in shape and
contains % 4.36 acres. The parcel vidth is 260 feet and the depth
is 730 feet.
15. The property has no unusual topoqraphic features.
16. There are no identified areas of environmental
sensitivity on site.
17. The existinq zoninq district boundary is loqically drawn
in relation to existinq conditions on the subject property.
18. Development permitted under a consistent zoninq district
(RMF-6 at the aini.ua base density) would not qenerate excessive
noi_, qlare, odor or traffic iapacts upon the nearby surroundinq
area.
19. Development in the nearby surroundinq area viII not
ganerate excessive noise, glare, odor or traffic impacts upon the
develClplllent peraitted on the subject property under a consistent
zoninq district (RMF-6 at the minimum base density).
-,-
MARCH 30; 1992
20. Developaent peraitted under the existinq zoninq district
(RKF-6) vould qenerate excessive noise, qlare, odor or traffic
blpacts upon the nearby surroundinq area.
21. Develop.ent in the nearby surroundinq area viII not
qenerate excessive noise, qlare, odor or traffic impacts upon
developaent peraitted on the subject property under the existinq
zoninq district (RMP-6).
22. Developaent of the subject site at a consistent density
of 3 units per acre vould yield a total of 13 dwellinq units.
Utilbinq the lTE Triu Generation Manual fiqure of approximately
10 trips per day per sinqle fa.ily dwellinq, 13 sinqle family
dwellinqs vould qenerate 130 trips per day.
23. Developaent of the site vith a multi-family project at a
density of 6 units per acre under the existinq (RMF-6) zoninq
district vould yield a total of 26 units. Utilizinq the Manual
fiqure of approxiaately 6 trips per day per unit, a 26 unit
.utti-f.-ily project would qenerate approximate 156 trips per day.
24. The Traffic Circulation Element of the Growth Hanaqement
Plan identifies u.s. 41 froa Lee County to Wiqqins Pass Road as a
four-lane divided arterial roadway vith an adopted Level of
Service (LOS) .C. and an operational LOS .A..
25. The scale and character of develOpllent penaitted under a
conaistent zoninq district (RMF-6 at the .inimum base density) is
a multi-family project vith structures at a maximum heiqht of
three habitable stories.
26. The scale and character of development existinq and
peraitted vithin the nearby surroundinq area includes sinqle and
multiple family dvellinqs, a qolf course and a variety of
coaaercial USGS.
27. The scale and character of development permitted under
the existinq zoninq district (RMF-6) is a multi-family project
vith structures at a maximum heiqht of three habitable stories.
28. There is no particular need identified for additional
mediua density multi-fa.ily dwellinqs in the surroundinq
neiqhborhood.
MARCH 30, 1992
Conclusions of Law
Based upon the above Findinqs of Fact, the Board of county
co.aissionera _Ices the followinq Conclusions of Lewl
The Growth Planninq Director'S deteraination of denial for
the eo.patibility Exception application number CEX-043-NH is
..........rtec1 by substantial COIIp8tent evidence in thatl
The appellant has not d8llOnstrated by substantial competent
evidence that the .ulti-fami1y residential land use at the minimum
base density peraitted by the Density Ratinq Syst81l vould be
ihww__tible vith the land uses and potential land uses identified
in Findinqs of Fact '10-13 set forth above takinq into account the
tOllOWinql
1. The subject property is not eliqible for a Compatibility
DeterJdnation Ex8llption pursuant to Section 2.4 of the Zoninq
Reevaluation Ordinance as the property does not meet the criteria
contained in Subsections 2.4.5.1 and 2.4.5.2 of the zoninq
Reevaluation Ordinance.
2. The land use patterna, densities and intensities allowed
under zoninq districts consistent vith the Growth Manaq8llent Plan
(RMF-15 at the ainimum base density) on the subject property are
eo.patible vith those existinq on property vithin the nearby
.urroundinq area of the subject property.
3. The land use patterna, densities and intensities allowed
under the existinq zoninq district (RMF-6) on the subject property
are not compatible vith those existinq on property vithin the
nearby surroundinq area of the subject property.
4. The existinq zoninq district boundaries are loqically
drawn in relation to existinq conditions on the subject property.
5. A consistent zoninq district (RMF-6 at the minimum base
density) on the subject property will not adversely impact the
nearby surroundinq area.
6. A consistent zoninq district (RMF-6 at the minimum base
density) on the subject property vill not be adversely impacted by
the nearby surroundinq area.
r
7. The existinq zoninq district (RMF-6) on the subject
~ viii advers.ly iapact the nearby surrounding area.
8. Th. existinq zoninq di.trict (RMF-6) on the subject
. pro....rty vill not be adver.ely iIIpacted by the nearby .urroundinq
area.
9. A conai.tent zoninq di.trict (RMF-6 at the aini.ua base
density) viII not create or exce.sively increase traffic
conqestion or otherwi.. affect public safety.
10. Th. .xi.tinq zoninq di.trict (RMF-6) viII not create or
exc...iv.ly incr.... traffic conqe.tion or otherwi.e affect public
Afety .
11. The lev.l of exi.tinq traffic vould not have an adverse
iJlpact on a consistent zoninq district (RMF-6 at the ainimum base
denaity) .
12. The level of .xi.tinq traffic vou1d not have an adver.e
iJlpact on the exi.tinq zoninq district (RMF-6).
13. A conai.tent zoninq district (RMF-6 at the ainimum base
density) vill not be out of scale or out of character vith the
ex1.tinq land u.e. and needs of the nearby surroundinq
neiC)hborhood.
14. Th. exi.tinq zoninq di.trict (RMF-6) will be out of
scale or out of character vith the existinq land use. and needs of
the n..rby .urroundinq n.iqhborhood.
Denial of Comoatibilitv Exceotion Aooeal
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County
Coaais.ioner. of Collier County, Florida, in public hearinq, duly
constituted and a.sBlllbled on this, the 30th day of March, 1992,
thatr
The Appeal of the Growth Planninq Director'. determination of
denial for the Compatibility Exception application number
CEX-043-NH for the herein de.cribed real property, submitted by
John K. pas.idomo of Fro.t and Jacobs, aqent for A. L. Douqherty
eo.pany, Inc., is denied. The subject property will be rezoned to
-7-
MARCH 30, 1992
the RKF-6 zoninq district vitb the density limited to the minimum
base density peraitted in the Density Ratinq syste1ll of the Future
Land Use EI...nt.
This Resolution adopted after IIOtion, second and aajority
vote favorinq .....
..'\~:J'l ,1,
,_,,: !' . ';' '. t'Q
.::: " b-&r.bT:. f ~
~}-~~~..... . H /. -::;.
'.~' . .-
,..<t'M: ..
1:~. ',J. or
,~ 'Z;. . : !
,~. ,. By'
'';..' ..",
)"Y:/:... -
.~. 'A .... . "'1
. ." .. ""
..d .'., JII 1 .,.~... .
r.:~..~. ~ '1
.~.~.....~.~".,. , . .' . ' .
. 'FUrit1JvAU AS TO FORK AIfI)
.~~~ abt,lCIElCY.
_'ffvV .-,0:
t:' ~ /11,,~~'I: 73l !t:r;LA"Lk
, Mazjo~ie M. Student
l:' Aeslstant County Attorney
I.. '
r .
;.;, RZS/CZX-OU-1f1f/A
<~. ,
BOARD OF COUNrlC COMMISSIONERS
CQ~ERnY~ i 7.01.
......, J. ~i_
~.pI'z-