Loading...
Agenda 02/26/2008 Item #10A Agenda Item No. 10A February 26, 2008 Page 1 of 5 ..,--- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY To initiate a discussion with the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) to review the history of the application of the rear yard setback requirements for accessory structures in the Estates (E) Zoning District and to discuss the potential means to resolve a long-standing conflict between a historical policy application for a reduced setback and the minimum setbacks as set forth in the Land Development Code. OBJECTIVE: To advise the Board of County Commissioners of an error in the application of the Estates Zoning District setback standards when approving building permits for accessory structures. The purpose of this executive summary is to provide an opportunity for the staff to discuss with the BCC its findings on the issue to date. The objective is to evaluate options to resolve the conflict and then to obtain BCC direction to correct the conflict. CONSIDERATIONS: The Land Development Code requires accessory structures within the Estates Zoning District to be set back from the rear property line a minimum distance of 75 feet. Since the early 1980's apparently there has been an unwritten "policy" to apply a 10-foot rear setback in the Estates Zoning District, instead of a 75-foot rear setback for any type of accessory structure. This "policy" appears to have been in place and consistently applied by staff for over 20 years, according to long time employees who are responsible for reviewing building permit applications for compliance with setback requirements. Further staff research has not revealed -. any written policy rnemorandum or explanation or directive given by previous management to apply a lO-foot rear yard setback which is contrary to the written 75-foot code required setback. Accessory structures in the Estates are compriscd of those typically found in other zoning districts that also allow single family dwelling units such as pools and small sheds, but may also include large storage type outbuildings and barns of a size that are not typically found in more urban type platted subdivisions which are typically comprised of smaller lots (less than one acre). One logical explanation as to why the policy was created may be the fact that the organizational structure of the previous Land Development Code (Ordinance No. 91-102) is somewhat misleading in that it appears to set forth two versions of setback regulations which would lead one to question as to which setback dimension applies in the Estates Zoning District, 75 feet or 10 feet. It appears that this question may have been asked a long time ago and the resulting answer of 10 feet has been the historical application of the setback for accessory structures for over 20 years. It was not until a recent complaint was filed by an adjoining property owner regarding the ncw construction of a 5,000 square foot metal outbuilding located approximately 32 feet from a rear property line that the issue was brought to current staff's attention. Until this incident, no complaints about rear yard setbacks in the Estates were received. Furthermore, the Land Development Code has never been amended to reflect this apparent policy decision for a reduced setback to 10 feet and still reads as a 75- foot requirement. The rule for applying contradicting development standards is typically "the most restrictive standard shall apply." In this case, the most restrictive standard is 75 feet. Should the Board decide to make a policy decision to enforce the 75-foot setback requirement, this could cause existing accessory structures to become non-confonning. Staff scts forth the following as alternatives for the Board's consideration in order to resolve the discrepancy between the written code requirement ,-'- of 75 feet and the long-standing application of a reduced setback of 10 feet. The Board will also >ce" Agenda Item No. 10A February 26, 2008 Page 2 of 5 have to address the situations where pennits have been issued for structures at less than 75 feet, which are currently under construction, but have not yet received a certificate of occupancy. County records indicate there have been approximately 180 pennits issued for accessory structures since 1999 in Golden Gate Estates. It will be almost impossible to get an exact nwnber of accessory structures that may have been lawfully permitted and constructed at less than 75 feet over a 20+ year time frame. Staff will be prepared to verbally explain in detail as to why this is so. When the issue was discovered by staff, a staff memo was then issued directing that future permits be issued in accordance with the 75-foot requirement until further notice. OPTIONS: 1. Direct a Land Developrnent Code amendment to change the current setback requirement from 75 feet to 10 feet for Accessory Structures, consistent with the historical policy application. Pros: 1. Legitimizes existing accessory structures permitted and built at less than 75 feet. 2. Does not create non-conforming structures. Cons: 1. It is staffs opinion that a lO-foot rear yard setback is contrary to the intent of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan (see Growth Management Plan impact explanation below). 2. Staff has received complaints about the construction of large accessory structures with rear setbacks that have bcen pemlitted at less than 75 fcet. 3. The typical larger size of an "Estate" lot is conducive to the construction of large, atypical accessory buildings which could be perceived as "obtrusive" by neighboring property owners as such a significantly reduced setback. 2. Direct the County Manager, or his designee to enforce the 75-foot rear year requirement for acccssory structures as writtcn. Pros: 1. In staffs opinion a 75-foot rear yard setback for accessory structures meets the intent of the Golden Gate Arca Master Plan. Agenda Item NO.1 OA February 26, 2008 Page 3 oi 5 Cons: 1. Will create non-confoffiling structures which are undesirable but curable over time. The non-conforming structures could remain in place until, per the current Land Developrnent Code requirements that once a legal non-conforming structure is destroyed by any means to an extent of more than 50 percent of its actual replacement cost at the time of destruction, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the applicable provisions of the Land Development Code. 2. May cause a hardship if individual property owners have to reeonstruct non- conforming structures at a greater setback if infrastructure (water, electric, building pads) have to be relocated. 3. May cause a hardship to individual property owners who relied on a 10-foot rear yard setback for accessory structures as part of the "development plan" for their property, and situated other structures on site in accordance with the setbaeks at the time of building permit application. 3. Direct a Land Development Code amendment which legitimizes those accessory structures that were lawfully permitted and issued certificates of occupancy at less than 75 feet and set forth an effective date to revert back to the requirement for 75 feet for future structures. Pros: 1. Legitimizes existing accessory structures permitted and built at less than 75 feet. 2. Does not create non-conforming structures. Cons: 1. It is staffs opinion that a IO-foot rear yard setback is contrary to the intent of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan (see explanation below). 2. Staff has received complaints about the construction of large accessory structures with reduced rear yard setbacks. 3. The typical size of an "Estatc" lot lends itself to the construction of large accessory buildings which could be perceived as "obtrusive" by neighboring property owners at such a reduced setback. FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact will depend upon the action takcn. To enforce the 75- toot rear setback requirement for existing structures will create legal non-conforming structures which will pose no immediate fiscal impact. A significant fiscal impact would occur to those property owners who werc issued a building permit but have not yet completed construction of ..- the accessory structure by then requiring the property owner to relocate their structures in Agenda Item No. 10A February 26, 2008 Page 4 of 5 accordance with the 75-foot setback. The fiscal impact of this decision would vary significantly with the type of structure under construction and the amount of work and materials necessary to relocate it to the appropriate setback. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: It is staffs opinion that a reduced setback to 10 feet from 75 feet for accessory structures is not in keeping with the intent of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. Furthermore, staff believes a 10- foot rear yard setback for the Estates is not warranted due to the large lot sizes present in most of the Estates and the intent of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan which is to establish a semi-rural type of development pattern. The allowance of a 10-foot setback for accessory structures actually promotes the further clearing of Estates lots beyond what may not transpire if it weren't for the ) 0- foot setback exception for accessory structures which again goes against promoting tile semi-rural development pattern tor the Estates. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This request is legally sufficient for the Board of County Commissioners' consideration. RECOMMENDA nON: That the Collier County Board of County Commissioners direct the County Manager, or his designee to direct staff to proceed with enforcing the 75-foot rear yard setback (option 2) requirement for accessory structures in the Estates Zoning District and to . cease applying the historical policy to allow rear setbacks to be reduced to a minimum of 10 feet. Furthermore, staff recommends that for any structure currently under active construction and for which a property owner has been lawfully issued a building pernlit, be allowed to continue construction until the building is complete and a certificate of occupancy is issued. Once completed, these structures will be considered legally non-conforming. PREPARED BY: Susan M.lstenes, AJCP, Director, Zoning and Land Development Review Page 1 of 1 Agenda Item NO.1 OA February 26, 2008 Page 5 of 5 .- COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number: 10A Item Summary: Discussion on the history and application of the Land Development Code regulations concerning the rear yard setback requirements for accessory structures in the Golden Gate Estates Zoning District (Susan M. Istenes, A1CP, Director, Zoning & Land Development. CDES) Meeting Date: 2/26/2008 9:00:00 AM Prepared By Susan Murray, Ale? Zoning & Land Development Director Date Community Development & Zoning & Land Development Review 2/11/200810:53:01 AM Environmental Services Approved By Jeff Klatzkow Assistant County Attorney Date County Attorney County Attorney Office 2111/200811:50 AM Approved By Judy Puig Operations Analyst Date Community Development & Community Development & Environmental Services Environmental Services Admin. 21111200812:40 PM Approved By Community Development & Joseph K. Schmitt Environmental Services Adminstrator Date Community Development & Community Development & Environmental Services Environmental Services Admin. 21121200811:51 AM Approved By OMS Coordinator Applications Analyst Date Administrative Services Information Technology 2113120089:56 AM Approved By Mark Isackson Budget Ana!yst Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 211312008 3:36 PM Approved By James V. Mudd County Manager Date Board of County Commissioners County Manager's Office 21161200810:19AM file:l/C:\AgendaTest\Export\1 0 I-February%2026, %202008\1 0.%20COUNTY%20MANAG ... 2/20/2008 .._--,."..~ --,^~,-"""",.""".,- ._.__.d '_"W'._'""_'"