Agenda 12/11/2012 Item #16A2812/11/2012 Item 16.A.28.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendation to accept a schedule to review past staff clarifications of the Land
Development Code (LDC) and to accept specific Staff Clarifications attached to this
Executive Summary.
OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of County Commissioners (Board) accept a schedule to
review past Staff Clarifications of the Land Development Code (LDC) and to accept the Staff
Clarifications 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superseded by subsequent code amendments and will bring to the Board for review all current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. Attachment 1 provides a list of SCs associated with the LDC and a tentative schedule for
Board review. Staff will review the SCs for applicability and will place them on the Board's
consent agenda according to the tentative schedule. Staff will also report to the Board those
items that have been superseded by subsequent code amendments and. are no longer applicable.
In addition to the attached schedule, staff is requesting Board review and acceptance of the
following SCs:
• Window Signs, SC- 2011 -01
• Accessory Buildings and Structures, SC -04 -03
• Guest House or Cottage and Guest Quarters /Guest Suites, SC -04 -07
• RMF -6 Density Calculation, SC -06 -04
• Lot Line Adjustment, SC -03 -01
• Sign Size Standards, SC -02 -03
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.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) IMPACT: There is no GMP impact for this
item.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been reviewed by the County Attorney, is legally
sufficient, and requires majority vote for approval. -JAK
Revised: 11/14/12
Packet Page -2594-
12/11/2012 Item 16.A.28.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The
CCPC reviewed the attached schedule and Staff Clarifications during their November 1, 2012
meeting and by a vote of 8 to 0; they recommended that the Board of County Commissioners
(BCC) approve the schedule to hear future Staff Clarifications and the following SC
memorandums as presented.
• SC- 2011 -01, Window Signs
• SC- 2004 -03, Accessory Buildings and Structures
• SC- 2004 -07, Guest House or Cottage and Guest Quarters /Guest Suites
• SC- 2006 -04, RMF -6 Density Calculation
• SC- 2003 -01, Lot Line Adjustment
• SC- 2002 -03 Sign Size Standards
Because the CCPC approval recommendation was unanimous and no letters of objection have
been received, these staff clarifications have been placed on the Consent Agenda.
RECOMMENDATION: Recommendation for the Board to:
1. Approve the attached schedule for reviewing Staff Clarifications;
2. 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. Proposed Schedule for Review of Staff Clarifications and Official Interpretation;
2. SC- 2011 -01, Window Signs;
3. SC- 2004 -03, Accessory Buildings and Structures;
4. SC- 2004 -07, Guest House or Cottage and Guest Quarters /Guest Suites;
5. SC- 2006 -04, RMF -6 Density Calculation;
6. SC- 2003 -01, Lot Line Adjustment; and
7. SC- 2002 -03 Sign Size Standards
Revised: 11/14/12
Packet Page -2595-
12/11/2012 Item 16.A.28.
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Item Number: 16.A.28.
Item Summary: Recommendation to accept a schedule to review past staff clarifications
of the Land Development Code (LDC) and to accept specific Staff Clarifications attached to this
Executive Summary.
Meeting Date: 12/11/2012
Prepared By
Name: BellowsRay
Title: Manager - Planning, Comprehensive Planning
11/14/2012 3:09:03 PM
Approved By
Name: BosiMichael
Title: Manager - Planning,Comprehensive Planning
Date: 11/15/2012 10:58:08 AM
Name: PuigJudy
Title: Operations Analyst, GMD P &R
Date: 11/16/2012 2:03:37 PM
Name: MarcellaJeanne
Title: Executive Secretary,Transportation Planning
Date: 11/16/2012 3:18:52 PM
Name: AshtonHeidi
Title: Section Chief/Land Use- Transportation,County Attor
Date: 11/20/2012 4:53:56 PM
Name: KlatzkowJeff
Title: County Attorney
Date: 11/21/2012 2:21:49 PM
Name: FinnEd
Title: Senior Budget Analyst, OMB
Date: 11/27/2012 5:00:43 PM
Packet Page -2596-
12/11/2012 Item 16.A.28.
Name: IsacksonMark
Title: Director -Corp Financial and Mgmt Svs,CMO
Date: 11/28/2012 2:43:55 PM
Packet Page -2597-
STAFF REPORT
TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: ZONING SERVICES — PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION -- PLANNING & REGULATION
HEARING DATE: NOVEMBER 1, 2012
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF STAFF CLARIFICATIONS
REOUESTED ACTION:
To have the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) accept a schedule to review past
clarifications of the Land Development Code and to forward a recommendation to accept the selected
Clarifications to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC).
CONSIDERATIONS:
On September 25, 2012, the BCC directed the County Manager to bring to the CCPC all written staff
clarifications of the Land Development Code (LDC) for their review and comment. Staff Clarifications
(SC) are those memorandums that have been written by the Planning & Zoning Director to provide
guidance to staff when there are questions about the application of an LDC provision. These tSC
memorandums date back to 1997. The SCs have been displayed on Zoning's website for several years.
Pursuant to BCC direction, staff will evaluate past SCs to determine which ones have not been superseded
by subsequent code amendments and will present all current SCs to the CCPC and to the Board for review
and comment. The proposed schedule (Attachment 1) provides a list of all the SCs associated with ithe
LDC and a tentative schedule for the CCPC and BCC review. Staff will review the SCs for applicability
and will place them on the upcoming CCPC and BCC agendas according to the tentative schedule. Staff
will also report to the CCPC & the BCC those items that have been superseded by subsequent code
amendments and are no longer applicable.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY:
There is no GMP impact for this item.
COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW:
The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report for the CCPC review of Staff
memorandums on October 16, 2012.
Staff Clarification Memorandums
November 1, 2012 CCPC
Revised: 10/15/12
Packet Page -2598-
clarification
i
12/11/2012 Item 16.A.28.
RECOMMENDATION: Recommendation for the Collier County Planning Commission to forwar4 a
recommendation to the BCC to accept the following Staff Clarifications:
• SC- 2011 -01, Window Signs
• SC- 2004 -03, Accessory Buildings and Structures
• SC- 2004 -07, Guest House or Cottage and Guest Quarters /Guest Suites
• SC- 2006 -04, RMF -6 Density Calculation
• SC- 2003 -01, Lot Line Adjustment
• SC- 2002 -03 Sign Size Standards
PREPARED BY:
RAYM BELLOWS. ZONING MANAGER
DEPAR'64ENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING
REVIEWED BY:
MIKE BOSI, AICP, INTERIM DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING
APPROVED BY
A�- 4) � h t4l � � 1in )
NICK CASALANGUIDA, AD ISTR
^
�
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DI ION
la- PZ- 17-
DATE
!1) °lc, t 1
DATE
N'A\ ( \A \ � � )
DAT
Tentatively scheduled for the November 27, 2012 Board of County Commissioners .Meeting
Attachments:
1. Proposed Schedule for Review of Staff Clarifications
2. SC- 2011 -01, Window Signs;
3. SC- 2004 -03, Accessory Buildings and Structures;
4. SC- 2004 -07, Guest House or Cottage and Guest Quarters /Guest Suites;
5. SC- 2006 -04, RMF -6 Density Calculation;
6. SC- 2003 -01, Lot Line Adjustment;
7. SC- 2002 -03 Sign Size Standards
Staff Clarification Memorandums
November 1, 2012 CCPC
Revised: 10/10/12
2
Packet Page -2599-
12/11/2012 Item 16.A.28.
Attachment 1
Proposed Schedule for CCPC and BCC Review of LDC Staff Clarifications
*No longer applicable due to subsequent LDC amendments or superseded by subsequent clarifications
Revised 1115112
Packet Page -2600-
Type of
Interptet CCPC Review BCC Review
Title
- , Document Numb6 1 ation
- Date I: Date
*
'Nonconforming obile Home Parks
2011 -02
SC
N A
` /
N/A
Window Signs
2011 -01
SC
11/1/2012
12/11/2012
Accessory Buildings and Structures
200403
SC
11/1/2012
12/11/2012
Guesthouses /Cottages Guest Quarters /Guest Suites
200407
Sc
11/1/2012
12/11/2012'
RMF 6 Density
T -
2006 -04
SC
11/1/2012
12/11/2012
LLAs and Lot Width y vw -W
2003-01
sC
11/1/2012~
12/11/2012
Signs on Arterial-Col lector Roadways
2002-03
SC
�4
11/1/2012
12/11/2012
,.Kenneling within Estates Zoning *
2009-002
SC
N/A
N/A
LLAs and Corner Lots
2009 -001
SC
12/6/2012
1/22/2013'
Lot Reduction
2000 -04
SC
12/6/2012
1/22/2013
Transportation Review SDPI s
2006 -03
SC
12/6/2012
1/22/2013
Wedding Cake Setbacks
2006 -01
SC
12/6/2012
1/22/2013
Waterfront Setbacks
2004 02
SC
12/6/2012
1/22/2013
Setback measurements on cul -de -sacs
2007 02 M.
H SC
12/6/,.
2012
1/22/2013
Elevated Pad Mounted Air Conditioning Units
2007 -01
SC
1/17/2013
2/12/2013
Fuel Tanks in RSF E
2006 -05
SC
1/17/2013
2/12/2013
Golden Gate Estates Easements Setbacks
2006 -02
Sc
1/17/2013
2/12/2013
Clubhouse Parking
- 2005-02
SC
1/17/2013
2/12/2013
Legal Nonconforming Lot Splits*
2005 -01
SC
N/A
N/A
Street Name Change, NIM*
2004 06
SC
N/A
VIA
Building Height Limitations Exemptions from
2004-05
SC
1/17/2013
2/12/2013
Accessory - Structures, Maximum Lot Coverage _
2004 -04 .. -w.
_
_ ?c. -_.._.
_ 1/17/2013
2/12/2013
Drug Stores (C -3)
2004-01
SC
2/7/2013
3/27/2013
Setback side in MH
2003-01A
SC
2/7/20131
3/27/2013
LDC 1.5.5. and Excavations_
2003-003
SC
2/7/2013
3/27/2013
Storage Containers
2003 002
SC
2/7/2013
3/27/2013'
Setbacks, LNC (revised)*
2002-02
SC
N/A
N/A
Fences
2001-01
SC
2/7/2013
3/27/2013
LNC Dock Repair
2000 -05
SC
3/21/2013
4/23/2013
Water Feature
2000 -03
SC
3/21/2013
4/23/2013
Combine Lots
2000-02-1111,
SC
3/21/2013
4/23/2013'
Accessory Structure Setbacks
_...
2000 -01
SC
3/21/2013
4/23/2013
Golden Gate Estates Lot Line Adjustment
_
1999 -01
SC
3/21/2013
_
4/23/2013
Setback from Seawall
1998 -004
SC
4/4/2013
5/14/2013_
LNC Corner Lots*
1998 003
SC
N/A
N/A
End Canal Setback
1998 -002
SC
4/4/2013
5/14/2013
Estates Canals
1998 -001
Sc
4/4/2013
5/14/2013
Accessory Height
1997 -002
SC
4/4/2013
5/14/2013
Shoulder Lots __
_ 1-9-9.71-001
SC
4/4/2013
- 5/14/2__.
013
*No longer applicable due to subsequent LDC amendments or superseded by subsequent clarifications
Revised 1115112
Packet Page -2600-
12/11/2012 Item 16.A.28.
ATTACHMENT 2
Co er Count
y
Department of Land Development Services
Growth Management Division, Planning & Regulation
STAFF CLARIFICATION: SC- 2011 -1
DATE: April 20, 2011
LDC SECTIONS: 5.06.04.F.4.e.i
SUBJECT: A clarification on the method of measuring the window area for the purpose of
enforcing the above referenced LDC provision that limits non - illuminated signs that are located
in a window not to exceed 25 percent of each window area.
INITIATED BY: Code Enforcement
BACKGROUND /CONSIDERATIONS: Due to the various types of window styles and because the
LDC doesn't define what constitutes the "window area ", the Code Enforcement staff has
experienced problems enforcing this provision for those unique or unusual window designs.
DETERMINATION (CLARIFICATION): Since the LDC doesn't provide a method to calculate the
window area, this calculation should be based upon the applicable standard procedures and
policies established by the Sign Permit and Plan Review staff within the Building Department.
For the purpose of determining compliance with LDC Section 5.06.04.F.4.e.i, the window area is
measured for each window pane of storefront glass. The window pane includes the glass area
between the vertical sash divider that outlines the window frame between each storefront
window. If the window contains a thin horizontal sash divider forming a small attached
window, that additional glass area is typically considered part of the same window area.
Therefore, when calculating the window area, the smaller window area is included in the
calculation as if the horizontal sash was not there. (See Photo #1) Conversely, if the horizontal
and vertical sash dividers are the same or similar size, each glass area is typically considered a
separate window for the purpose of calculating the window area. (See Photo #2) In a mullion
window, all the small panes of glass are measured as a whole window area unless divided by a
large vertical sash. (See Photo #3) In addition, any non - illuminated sign located in a window
shall not exceed 25 percent of each window area. No building permit required.
1
Packet Page -2601-
12/11/2012 Item 16.A.28.
ATTACHMENT 2
Signs located in windows shall not be illuminated in any manner with the following exception:
a) One sign per business establishment that is located in a window may have 2.25 square
feet of illuminated signage.
0000��` �11�
Photo #1
Photo #3
Photo #2
AUTHOR: Ray Bellows, Planning Manager, Department of Land Development
cc: Zoning Services Section Staff
Diane Flagg, Code Enforcement Director
William Lorenz, P.E., Land Development Services Director
Heidi Ashton - Cicko, Assistant County Attorney
Diana Compagnone, Building Review and Permitting
Zoning Clarification File
K
Packet Page -2602-
12/11/2012 Item 16.A.28.
ATTACHMENT 3
COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE STAFF CLARIFICATION
ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT STAFF CLARIFICATION SC 200403
DATE: July 21, 2004
LDC SECTION: 2.6.2. 4.02.03.A Tables 3 & 4 Accessory Buildings and Structures
SUB ECT: Measurement of Distance Between Structures
INITIATED BY: Zoning Department Staff
BACKGROUND /CONSIDERATIONS: An applicant has requested clarification of whether the
distance between two multi- family residential structures, each consisting of a high -rise tower
surrounded by an attached, one -story garage, is measured between the garages or the central
residential towers.
DETERMINATION (CLARIFICATION): It is my determination that, when principal structures
have attached accessory structures, the distance between principal structures will be measured
between the principal structures only, not including the attached accessory structures.
To determine distance between structures, the principal and accessory structures will be
addressed separately. When principal structures have attached accessory structures, the distance
between the principal structures will be measured between the principal structures only, not
including the attached accessory structures. Where a principal structure is adjacent to an
accessory structure, and the governing ordinance (LDC or PUD) does not directly address the
situation under development standards for the zoning district, the minimum separation required
is that dictated by LDC Section's 4.02.03.A Tables 3 & 4. Where language in the governing
ordinance does not discriminate between principal and accessory structures in addressing
distance between structures, the distance will be measured between the most restrictive points of
adjacent structures.
AUTHOR: Susan Murray, AICP, Director, Department of Zoning & Land Development Review)
VALIDATED: Ray Bellows, Planning Manager, Zoning Services Section
cc: Tom Kuck, Engineering Director
Alamar Smiley, Permitting Supervisor, Building Department
Packet Page -2603-
12/11/2012 Item 16.A.28.
ATTACHMENT 4
COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE STAFF CLARIFICATION
ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT STAFF CLARIFICATION SC 2004 -07
DATE: 15 December 2004
LDC SECTIONS: 5.03.03 and 1.08.02, Definitions of "Guest house or cottage" and "Guest
Quarters/ guest suites"
SUBJECT: Review guidelines for plan reviewers pertaining to Guesthouses/ cottages and guest
quarters/ guest suites
INITIATED BY: Staff
BACKGROUND /CONSIDERATIONS: Guesthouses/ cottages and guest quarters /guest suites
are permissible as uses accessory to permissible principal single - family residences. "Guest house
or cottage" is defined in LDC Section 1.08.02 as "An accessory dwelling structure which is
attached to or detached from, a principal dwelling located on the same residential parcel and
which an accessory dwelling serves as an ancillary use providing living quarters for the
occupants of the principal dwelling, their temporary guests or their domestic employees and
which may contain kitchen facilities. " In addition, "Guest quarters /guest suites" are defined in
LDC Section 1.08.02 as "An attached or detached room or suite, which could be used as a
temporary sleeping accommodation, which is integrated as part of the principal use of the
property and may contain running water as long as is not configured or of a size that may
accommodate a kitchen." This Staff Clarification is intended to establish guidelines to assist
building plan reviewers to determine if a structure or building addition meets the LDC definition
of any of these accessory uses.
DETERMINATION (CLARIFICATION): There are three different fact situations requiring
application of the LDC definitions of "guesthouse or cottage" and "guest quarters /guest suites."
Guidelines for application of the LDC are identified for each of these situations.
Please note: determinations of the status of the accessory use made in accordance with this Staff
Clarification for building permit plan reviews are not required to be consistent with the application of the
definition of a "dwelling unit" or any provisions applied by the Financial Administration and Housing
Department to assess impact fees under the Code of Laws, Chapter 74. Accordingly, the Impact Fee
Manager may apply criteria under the regulations applicable to assessing impact fees in a manner
recognizing the future use of proposed structures as well as any existing use. In the case of an unresolved
conflict between the guidelines presented in this Staff Clarification and those applied by the Impact Fee
Manager under the applicable regulations, policies and procedures, the latter provisions for assessing
impact fees are presumed to control..
A. Guesthouse or cottage - detached: any habitable structure detached from the principal
residence will be considered a guesthouse under the LDC zoning and property development
regulations if it contains:
1. a separate electrical meter for the structure, or if there is no separate meter
there is:
2. an area designated on the plans submitted with the building permit
application as a kitchen or food preparation area, or if there is no separately
designated kitchen or food preparation area, there is:
3. an apparent food preparation area (regardless of designation), having:
1
Revised: 8 -23 -12
Packet Page -2604-
12/11/2012 Item 16.A.28.
ATTACHMENT 4
a. a range, or
b. a sink and countertop which are not identified for a use other than food
preparation, and which area is not within a bathroom or washroom, or if
there is no apparent food preparation area, there is:
4. an unexplained 220 -volt electrical outlet in the structure that could be used
for a major kitchen appliance such as a range.
B. Guesthouse or cottage - attached: any addition to a principal residence will be considered an
attached guesthouse under the LDC zoning and property development regulations if:
1. it is structurally attached, as may be determined by the Building Official under
the provisions of the Florida Building Code, to the principal residence but is
not connected to the principal residence by living (air - conditioned) space, and
2. it contains a separate electrical meter for the addition, or if there is no
separate meter, there is:
3. a designated or depicted kitchen or food preparation area, or if there is on
separately designated kitchen of food preparation area, there is:
4. an apparent food preparation area (regardless of designation), having:
a. a range, or
b. a sink and countertop which are not identified for a use other than
food preparation, and which area is not within a bathroom or washroom,
or if there is no apparent food preparation area, there is:
5. an unexplained 220 -volt electrical outlet in the structure that could be used for
a major kitchen appliance such as a range.
Note that a guesthouse, as defined, may be directly interconnected to the main residence if the
applicant so desires, provided that it also meets all the requirements of LDC Section 5.03.03.
C. Guest quarters /guest suite: This accessory use is defined in the LDC and may be attached to
the main residence or detached; however, it is not identified as a permissible accessory use in any
base residential zoning district. Thus, "Guest quarters /guest suites" are identified, by name, as
permissible accessory uses only in certain PUDs. Where specifically identified in a PUD
document, the guest quarters or guest suites must meet all applicable requirements of the
individual PUD. In any PUD not specifically identifying "guest quarters" or "guest suites" by
name, the guidelines above for an attached or detached guesthouse will be considered to apply.
If the living area in question is not identified as an attached or detached guest house according to the
above guidelines and regardless of what the living area is called, this living area will be considered an
addition to the main residence when structurally attached to the main residence, whether it is
inter- accessible to the main residence or not. If it is detached, it will be considered a separate,
detached, accessory structure.
AUTHOR: Ross Gochenaur
VALIDATED: Ray Bellows, Planning Manager, Zoning Services Section
cc: Zoning Department staff
Bill Hammond, Building Director
Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director
Patrick G. White, Assistant County Attorney
Zoning Clarification File
2
Revised: 8 -23 -12
Packet Page -2605-
12/11/2012 Item 16.A.28.
ATTACHMENT 5
COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE STAFF CLARIFICATION
ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT STAFF CLARIFICATION SC- 06-04
DATE:1 December 2006
LDC SECTION: 2.03.01.D (RMF -6 Zoning District) & 4.02.0l.A, Table 1 (Permitted Uses)
SUBJECT: Calculation of Density in RMF -6 Zoning
INITIATED BY: Staff
BACKGROUND /CONSIDERATIONS: Density in RMF -6 zoning is a maximum of 6 units per
acre, as the designator suggests; however the LDC (4.02.01.A, Table 1) states that the minimum
lot area for a single - family home is 6,500 sq. ft.; for a duplex, 12,000 sq. ft.; and for three or more
units, 5,500 per unit. One -sixth of an acre (43,560 sq ft) is 7,260 sq. ft.
The old LDC (Ord. 91 -102) identified the lesser lot areas (6,500 & 5,500) to be used for calculating
density for Legal Nonconforming Lots of Record (LNC), but also indicated that these lesser lot
areas constitute the minimum respective lot areas (single - family, duplex /two family, multi-
family) for the zoning district. In the old LDC, the lesser lot areas therefore applied to both legal
and LNC lots, and using these lesser lot areas could result in a density greater than 6 units per
acre. The language indicating the application of the lesser lot areas to LNC lots was apparently
omitted from the new LDC, although these lesser lot areas appear in Section 4.02.01.A, Table 1.
Section 2.0B 2.03.02.B (RMF -6) states that "The maximum density permissible in the RMF -6
district and the Urban Mixed Use Land Designation shall be guided, in part, by the density rating
system as contained in the FLUE of the GMP. The maximum density permissible or permitted in
the RMF -6 district shall not exceed the density permissible under the density rating system,
except as permitted by policies contained in the FLUE."
DETERMINATION (CLARIFICATION): In view of these contradictions, when calculating the
density for existing single conforming lots of record, or existing combined conforming lots of
record, or existing combined legal nonconforming lots of record, the total lot area should be
divided by 7,260 sq. ft. When calculating density for an existing single legal nonconforming lot
of record capable of supporting more than one dwelling unit, the lot area should be divided by
6,500 sq. ft.; however the density of 6 units per acre may never be exceeded. When the resultant
number includes a fraction of .5 or greater, it may be rounded off to the next whole number,
never to exceed 6 units per acre. The LDC will be amended in the upcoming cycle to incorporate
this clarification. The minimum lot area needed for the creation of new RMF -6 lots will remain as
indicated in Section 4.02.0l.A, Table 1, so long as the density does not exceed the density of 6
units per acre permissible under the density rating system.
AUTHOR: Ross Gochenaur and Joyce Ernst)
VALIDATED: Ray Bellows, Planning Manager, Zoning Services Section
cc: Zoning Department Staff
Building Department Staff
Correspondence File
Revised: 5 -23 -12
Packet Page -2606-
12/11/2012 Item 16.A.28.
ATTACHMENT 6
COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE STAFF CLARIFICATION
CURRENT PLANNING STAFF CLARIFICATION SC 03 -001
DATE: 27 August 2003
LDC SECTION: 3.2.4.8. 4.03.04 Lot line adjustment/ reconfiguration
SUBTECT: Lot line adjustments, irregular lot configuration, and minimum lot width
INITIATED BY: Staff
BACKGROUND /CONSIDERATIONS: Section 9.2.48 4.03.04 allows adjustment of lot lines
between contiguous lots or parcels to correct an engineering or surveying error, or to allow an
"insubstantial boundary change." There are situations where a lot line adjustment is requested
for lots under common ownership which have improvements on one or more of the lots. In some
of these situations, substantial boundary changes are proposed in order to accommodate the
improvements while avoiding encroachments into the required setbacks. These adjusted lot
lines, if approved, would result in highly irregular lots, making it difficult to determine what
setback applies to which yard. This clarification is intended to address those situations.
DETERMINATION (CLARIFICATION): When a lot line adjustment is requested, the minimum
required lot width must be provided to a depth equal to the required front yard. This width
must be provided along a linear street frontage. In the case of a corner lot (as defined inter
"Section 1.08.04 the minimum width must be provided on one street frontage or the other
and may not "wrap around" the corner. In all cases, the lot configuration created must be one to
which the required setbacks for front, side and rear yards can be readily applied.
AUTHOR: Susan Murray, AICP, Current Planning Manager
VALIDATED: Ray Bellows, Planning Manager, Zoning Services Section
Cc: Tom Kuck, Director, Engineering Services
John Houldsworth, Senior Engineer
Current Planning Staff
Current Planning Interpretation File
Packet Page -2607-
12/11/2012 Item 16.A.28.
ATTACHMENT 7
COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE STAFF CLARIFICATION
CURRENT PLANNING STAFF CLARIFICATION SC # 2002 -03
DATE: 11 -20 -02
LDC SECTION: 2.5.5.2.2.3.5.06.02.13
INITIATED INITIATED BY: Kay Deselem
BACKGROUND /CONSIDERATIONS: This section of the LDC sets forth the standards for sign square
footage based upon roadway classification, allowing larger signs for arterial and collector roadway and
smaller signs for all other roadways.
Two issues are apparent. One, past practice has used the site address to determine the sign location,
irrespective of the actual location (placement) of the sign. Two, the LDC is not clear from whence the
roadway classification is to be determined.
DETERMINATION (CLARIFICATION): The LDC clearly states that sign placement, i.e., sign
location should be the determining factor, not the site address. If the sign is to be placed upon arterial or
collector roadway frontage that is owned or otherwise controlled by the sign permittee that is the subject of
the use to be advertised, the larger sized sign would be allowed. (Off -site signs are not permitted except in
compliance with other regulations in the LDC to address same.)
Roadway Classification will be determined using the GMP Roadway Classification Map, entitled "Map
TR -5BW, Facility Type — Year 2000," as it may be amended or any other document officially adopted for
to assign roadway classifications.
AUTHOR: Kay Deselem for Margaret Wuerstle, Director, Planning Services Department
THROUGH: Susan Murray, Manager, Current Planning Section
VALIDATED: Ray Bellows, Planning Manager, Zoning Services Section
cc: Ross Gochenaur, Planner
Michael Vignari, Sign Review Specialist
Diana Compagnone, Sign Review Specialist
Ivette Monroig, for Staff Clarification file
C:\Program Files\Neevia.Com\Document Converter \temp\2306285.docx
Validated on : 8 -10 -12
Packet Page -2608-