Agenda 03/26/2013 Item #16A 1n
3/26/2013 16.A.1.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendation to accept the specific past Staff Clarifications of the Land Development Code
(LDC) attached to this Executive Summary.
OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of County Commissioners (Board) accept the Staff
Clarifications of the Land Development Code (LDC) that have been reviewed by the Collier
County Planning Commission (CCPC).
CONSIDERATIONS: On October 25, 2011, the Board directed the County Manager to bring to
the Board written Staff Clarifications of the LDC. Staff Clarifications (SC) are those reports that
have been written to provide guidance to staff when there are questions about the application of
an LDC provision and date back to 1997. The SCs have been displayed on Zoning's website for
several years. During the September 25, 2012 BCC hearing of this item (Agenda Item 16A7),
the Board directed the County Manager to bring to the CCPC all written Staff Clarifications of
the LDC for their review and comment.
Pursuant to Board direction, staff will evaluate past SCs to determine which ones have not been
superseded by subsequent code amendments and will bring to the Board for review all current
SCs. On December 11, 2012, the BCC approved the schedule for Board to review the selected
Staff Clarifications as well as the first set of clarifications. On February 12, 2013, the BCC
accepted six (6) more clarifications. Staff will review the remaining SCs for applicability and
will place them on the Board's consent agenda according to the approved schedule. Staff will
also report to the Board those items that have been superseded by subsequent code amendments
and are no longer applicable.
Staff is requesting the Board review and accept the following SCs as amended:
• SC- 2004 -01, Drug Stores in C -3
• SC- 2003 -01, Side Setback in the ME Zoning District
• SC- 2003 -03, LDC Section 1.5.5 and Excavations
• SC- 2003 -02, Storage Containers
• SC- 2001 -01, Fences
FISCAL IMPACT: There is no Fiscal Impact associated with the recommendations of this
Executive Summary. Fees for the processing of Official Interpretations are specified by the
applicable Fee Resolution adopted by the Board and have already been collected. There are no
fees associated with Staff Clarifications.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been reviewed by the County Attorney, is legally
sufficient, and requires majority vote for approval. -HFAC
GROWTH MANAGEMENT HAPACT: There is no GNP impact for this item.
Packet Page -403-
3/26/2013 16.A.1.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMNUSSION (CCPC) RECOMNDATION: The
CCPC reviewed the attached Staff Clarifications during their February 7, 2013 meeting and by a
vote of 8 -0; they recommended that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approve the SC
memorandums as presented with a note that SC- 03 -OIA (Attachment 2) and SC -01 -01
(Attachment 5) have been superseded by subsequent LDC amendments are no longer applicable.
As a result, these two Staff Clarification memorandums and have been withdrawn.
Because the CCPC approval recommendation was unanimous and no lettsrs of objection have
been received, these Staff Clarifications have been placed on the Consent Agenda.
RECOMMENDATION: Recommendation for the Board to accept the attached Staff
Clarifications as recommended for approval by the CCPC.
Prepared By: Michael Bosi, AICP, Interim Director, Department of Planning & Zoning
Growth Management Division — Planning and Regulation
Attachments:
1. SC- 2004 -01, Drug Stores in C -3
2. SC- 2003 -01, Side Setback in the MH Zoning District
3. SC- 2003 -03, LDC Section 1.5.5 and Excavations
4. SC- 2003 -02,- Storage Containers
5. SC- 2001 -01, Fences
Packet Page -404-
3/26/2013 16.A.1.
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Item Number: 16.16.A.16.A.1.
Item Summary: Recommendation to accept the specific past staff clarifications of the
Land Development Code (LDC) attached to this Executive Summary.
Meeting Date: 3/26/2013
Prepared By
Name: BellowsRay
Title: Manager - Planning, Comprehensive Planning
2/8/2013 12:31:34 PM
Submitted by
Title: Manager - Planning, Comprehensive Planning
Name: BellowsRay
2/8/2013 12:31:36 PM
Approved By
Name: PuigJudy
Title: Operations Analyst, GMD P &R
Date: 2/20/2013 4:13:20 PM
Name: BosiMichael
Title: Manager - Planning,Comprehensive Planning
Date: 2/22/2013 1:44:03 PM
Name: MarcellaJeanne
Title: Executive Secretary,Transportation Planning
Date: 2/26/2013 1:38:00 PM
Name: AshtonHeidi
Title: Section Chief/Land Use- Transportation,County Attor
Date: 3/15/2013 5:03:20 PM
Name: KlatzkowJeff
Packet Page -405-
Title: County Attorney
Date: 3/18/2013 8:11:43 AM
Name: FinnEd
Title: Senior Budget Analyst, OMB
Date: 3/18/2013 9:51:16 AM
Name: OchsLeo
Title: County Manager
Date: 3/18/2013 11:45:16 AM
Packet Page -406-
3/26/2013 16.A.1.
3/26/2013 16.A.1.
ATTACHMENT 1
/'*, COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE STAFF
CLARIFICATION CURRENT PLANNING STAFF CLARIFICATION SC # 2004 -01
DATE: April 15, 2004
LDC SECTION: 2.2.' 4.2.' .' 6 & 2.114.9. ! 2.03.03.C. La (80) & 2.03.03.C. Lc (17)
INITIATED BY: Michele R. Mosca, AICP
BACKGROUND /CONSIDERATIONS :
Section 2.2.14.2.1.16. 2.03.03.C.1.a (80) permits various retail uses by right subject to a
cap of 5,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area (GFA) except drug stores. This section goes on to
identify various SIC group numbers with certain specific uses excepted.
Section 2.2.m ' 4.3.1;- 2.03.03.C.1.c (17) permits various retail uses by conditional use to
exceed the 5,000 sq. ft. GFA cap imposed by section 2.2.14.2.1.16 except for drug stores.
DETERMINATION (CLARIFICATION):
The intent of the language in section 2.2.14.2.1.16- 2.03.03.C.1.c (17) is meant to exclude
drug stores from being subject to the 5,000 sq. ft. cap and is not meant to exclude drug
stores from a use permitted in the zoning district. The miscellaneous retail uses intended
to be excluded from this zoning district are those specifically excepted in the
n parenthetical listing of the SIC groups. The SIC code for drug stores (5912) is
specifically listed as a permitted use in the parenthetical list of SIC groups and the
specific use name is not excepted.
The intent of the language in section 2.2.14.3.11 2.03.03.C.1.c (17) is meant to clarify
that drug stores in excess of 5,000 sq. ft. of GFA are not subject to Conditional Use
approval. This is because a drug store is a permitted use by right and is not subject to a
5,000 sq. ft. GFA limitation.
AUTHOR: Michele R. Mosca for Susan Murray, AICP, Director, Department of Zoning
and Land Development Review
VALIDATED BY: Kay Deselem, Principal Planner and Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager,
Department of Planning & Zoning
cc: Ivette Monroig, for Staff Clarification file
Staff
Revised 1/30/13
Packet Page -407-
3/26/2013 16.A.1.
ATTACHMENT 2
,,..*.1
COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE STAFF CLARIFICATION
CURRENT PLANNING STAFF CLARIFICATION SC 03 -OIA
DATE: May 9, 2003
LDC SECTION: 2.2.10.4.3.2.
INITIATED BY: Kay Deselem, AICP
BACKGROUND /CONSIDERATIONS: This section of the LDC sets fo r side
setback requirement in the MH zoning district, establishing one requiremen d tw xceptions. The
first exception seems to be in conflict with the definition of "Lot, frontage2 frontage ' as c taine Division 6.3.
The first requirement states that a general side yard requirement is 7.5 f ro es for ceptions as
quoted below:
Side yard. Seven and one -half feet, except when ad'acent to r ds k ernal to the
boundaries of the project. 50 feet or when it is a waterfront yard, 10 fee . ' erlining added for
emphasis]
This requirement seems to contradict the definition of "Lot, fro ted below: that indicates that all
sides of a lot abutting streets are NOT considered side lot lin a lines are to be treated as
frontage.
Lot frontage: The front of an interior lot is con ed t e the p ' n nearest the street. For the
purpose of determining yard requirements on an rough lots, all sides of a lot
ad'acent to streets are to be consideregjMta n shall be as set out in this Land
Development Code. [underlining adde r e sis
Where would the 50 -foot
for Margaret Wuerstle, AICP, Planning Services Department
, AICP, Manager, Current Planning Section
cc: Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director
Ivette Monroig, for Staff Clarification file
C: \Program Files\ Neevia.Com\ Document Converter \temp \2354330.docx
Packet Page -408-
nam
3/26/2013 16.A.1.
ATTACHMENT 3
COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE STAFF CLARIFICATION
ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT STAFF CLARIFICATION SC 03-003
DATE: 27 October 2003
LDC SECTION: 1.5.5. Regulating Noise from Construction Activity as provided in the Collier
Count: Noise Ordinance
SUBJECT: Applicability to Commercial Excavation Activity
INITIATED BY: Staff
BACKGROUND/ CONSIDERATIONS: Code Enforcement has requested clarification of whether
the ah -e-ve T-P- G seetie Noise Ordinance, which limits hours of operation for "Any construction
activities and site preparation activities including but not limited to land clearing and grading,
excavation and vegetation removal, authorized or permitted pursuant to the provisions of this
code..." applies to commercial excavation activity. The reason for this limitation is the noise
generated by the activity and its impact on the surrounding neighbors.
DETERMINATION (CLARIFICATION): It is my opinion that the provisions of this section are
intended to limit the hours of operation of commercial excavations unless the operation is
otherwise exempted by the Conditional Use or permit which allows such activities. While such
excavations are to a large extent an end in themselves, the excavation is accomplished in such a
way as to allow further development of the property once the excavation has been completed.
"Development" is defined by the LDC through reference to Florida Statute 380.04(1), which
defines development as "...the carrying out of any building activity or mining
operation... [and] ... the making of any material change in the use or appearance of any structure
or land..." Furthermore, the noise generated by excavation activity has the same, if not greater,
impact on surrounding improved properties, and should be subject to the same hours of
operation as other development activity.
AUTHOR: Ross Gochenaur (for Susan Murray, AICP, Director, Zoning & Land Development
Department)
VALIDATED BY: Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager, Department of Planning & Zoning
cc: Zoning Department staff
Tom Kuck, Engineering Services Director
Kris VanLengen, Investigator, Code Enforcement Department
Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney
Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney
Revised 1/30/13
Packet Page -409-
3/26/2013 16.A.1.
ATTACHMENT 4
COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE STAFF CLARIFICATION
CURRENT PLANNING STAFF CLARIFICATION SC 2003 -002
DATE: 7 October 2003
LDC SECTION: 2.6.33.6 5.04.05.A.1 Temporary Use Permits, and Div A A Section 1.08.02 Definitions (def.
"structure ")
SUBJECT: Industrial Storage Containers
INITIATED BY: Staff
BACKGROUND /CONSIDERATIONS: ISO (International Standards Organization) shipping containers, more
commonly called industrial storage containers, are being used for storage in a variety of locations, some legally,
some not. Since these containers are not structures as such, and do not require building permits, there are
technically no circumstances under which they can be permitted on a permanent basis; however, their use for an
extended period will be allowed under certain circumstances, as described below.
DETERMINATION (CLARIFICATION):
One (1) storage container may be used on a non - residential site in conjunction with a Temporary Use Permit for a
sales event, for a maximum of 28 days each year. The location of the container will be such that it does not
interfere with required parking, landscaping, site circulation or fire apparatus access, subject to the current
procedures used to review temporary use permits. Otherwise, containers used for temporary storage on
commercial or industrial sites must be located within a building or within an approved, enclosed outdoor storage
area, so long as the property is located in a zoning district where such use is permitted (C -4, C -5, Industrial, and
commercial /industrial tracts of certain PUDs). An appropriate site plan showing the location of the containers
must be provided. The nature of the site plan (SDP, SIP, conceptual plan) will be determined at a pre - application
meeting, and will be based on various factors including the zoning and number of containers involved.
Containers used on a construction site in conjunction with an approved building permit and /or development order
may be located on the site until a certificate of occupancy /completion for the work has been issued, or the building
permit has expired. The container must be removed within 14 days of the relevant date.
Containers used in conjunction with a bona fide agricultural use in the A (Agricultural) zoning district may be
located on property consisting of at least 5 acres, so long as these containers meet the required setbacks for
permanent structures and do not encroach into any road right -of -way or easement. Containers may not be placed on
property in any residential district, as described in LDC Sec.. 2:_ 2.02.02, or in the E (Estates) district unless
they are to be used on a construction site as described above, since placement of industrial storage containers does
not constitute a use "accessory and incidental" to permitted uses in these districts.
AUTHOR: Ross Gochenaur (for Susan Murray, AICP, Manager, Current Planning Section)
VALIDATED BY: Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner and Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager, Department
of Planning & Zoning
cc: Joseph Schmitt, Division Administrator
Michelle Arnold, Director, Code Enforcement r1
Ed Perico, Director, Building and Permitting
Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney
Revised.• 1 -30 -13
Packet Page -410-
3/26/2013 16.A.1.
ATTACHMENT 5
COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE STAFF CLARIFICATION
CURRENT PLANNING SECTION — SC- 2001 -01
DATE: 8 January 2001
LDC SECTION: 2.6.11.5 (Amendment by Ordinance 2000 -92)
INITIATED BY: Staff
BACKGROUND /CONSIDERATIONS: This amendment was drafted by di f tflWoard, in
order to restrict the use of chainlink fences, primarily in multi - family deve e ). Use
of chainlink in C (Commercial) and I (Industrial) zoning districts, & ' e co en P lready
restricted by Section 2.8.4.2.3.1. The subject amendment, as drafted, tes t the strictions
apply to all zoning districts in the "urban coastal area," without ing A (A icultural), E
(Estates), or CON (Conservation) zoning. This omission brings th n nt nflict with Section
2.6.11.3. In addition, no exception is made for individual - family le x/ o- family
homeowners, or for unimproved property in all zoning dist
DETERMINATION (CLARIFICATION): I s n e int the 'ect amendment to curtail use
of chainlink by single - family & duplex/two -fame om ners, ardless of zoning district, or its use in
A, E, or CON zoning. Neither was it th ' n o eto prevent owners of unimproved
property from erecting chainlink fenc prote p c fro afety hazards on the property and
protect the property owner from fi Tin trespass such time as the current language in the
subject section is changed, the polic tha le -fa y and duplex/two- family homeowners, A, E, and
CON zoning districts, and al impro To be exempt from the restrictions of the subject
section; all other applic es i tion 11 (fence height, materials, etc.) would still apply.
For unimproved pro " zonin tricts s ct to the provisions of Section 2.8.4.2.3.1 (Architectural
Guidelines, Fenc' tand , buil - ermits for chainlink fences will be approved subject to a
stipulation (n d e prop addres cord) that no building permit for a principal structure shall be
issued until the stin nce is r ved or brought into compliance with the Code.
AUTHO w enau , �r Robert J. Mulhere, Director, Planning Services Department)
Manager, Current Planning Section
VALIDATEDFAULRaymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager, Department of Planning & Zoning
Revised: 1130113
Packet Page -411-