DSAC-LDR Agenda 06/15/2022Co ,e-r County
Growth Management
Community Development Department
2022 Land Development Code Amendments
- Public Meeting -
Development Services Advisory Committee -
Land Development Review Subcommittee
Wednesday, June 15, 2022
3:00 p.m. — 5:00 p.m.
2800 N. Horseshoe Dr., Naples, FL
Growth Management Community Development Department Building
Conference Room 609/610
Agenda:
1. Call to Order
2. Approve Agenda
3. Old Business
a. Discussion of the Tree Removal Process for More than 10 Trees
b. Discussion of Automobile Parking for Single -Family Dwelling Units
4. New Business
5. Public Comments
6. 2022 DSAC-LDR Subcommittee schedule reminder
a. September 21, 2022
b. December 14, 2022
7. Adjourn
For more information please contact Eric Johnson at (239) 252-2931 or Eric.Johnson@colliercountyfl.gov
Item 3.a. Discussion Points -Tree Removal Process For More Than 10 Trees
Problem Statement:
When replacing more than 10 trees, the DSAC-LDR subcommittee members at their March 9t" meeting identified
a notable discrepancy in the time allotment for tree replacement and installation between the SDPI, ICP, and
Code Enforcement process.
Questions for Discussion and Consideration:
1. By what process does someone remove and replace more than 10 trees?
a. In general for commercial properties (shopping centers or landscape buffers), by SDPI if the
property has an SDP.
m
b. In general for residential properties (land scape buffers or ROWs) by ICP, if the property has a
PPL (predates the SDP process).
c. For 10 trees or less by a Cultivated Tree Removal Permit. Removal allowed by right to occur
within a 5-year period. Note: Per LDC section 10.02.03.1.3.b, "Single-family home sites are
exempt from obtaining a Cultivated Tree Removal Permit".
2. How long does the SDPI give an applicant to complete replacement and installation?
Per LDC section 10.02.03.H.2., the "approved site development plans, site
improvements plans, and amendments thereof shall remain in force for 3 years from the
date of approval, as determined by the date of the approval letter." This LDC section
specifically states "SDPI".
Staff found a prior 2008 memorandum, later updated in 2010, issued by Bill Lorenz, Director of
Engineering and Environmental Services, that a SDPI had a 2-year and later a 3-year time
period which commenced with the date of the SDPI's Approval Letter. See attachment.
3. How long does an ICP give an applicant time to replacement and installation?
Neither the LDC nor the Administrative Code identify a specific time period for which an ICP is
active. Therefore, there is no expiration date and it can be viewed as being open ended
4. How many SDPI's or ICP's were applied for in within the past 5 years for tree removals?
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Total 4
8
10
8
11
12
ICP 0
1
0
0
2
6
SDPI 4
7
10
8
9
6
• Staff's research on frequency of the terms: "trees", "tree removal", or "tree replacement".
S. Is the frequency of submittal increasing?
Per the chart above, the number of submittals within the last 5 years indicate a slight increase.
However, it is important to note that 6 out of 12 during 2022 are for a single development and
various phases for Verona Walk.
6. Code Enforcement Process
The flow charts below are graphic illustrations of the code enforcement process as described in
email from Cristina Perez, Code Enforcement on 6-06-22.
Flow Chart 1 illustrates, if someone were to remove more than 10 trees without an SDPI or ICP
and have a complaint filed on them through Code Enforcement.
Flow Chart 2 demonstrates the path a violation would follow if a compliant were filed after the
SDPI or ICP had expired.
2
Flow Chart 1: Code Enforcement Process for Vegetation Removal Type Cases
"A compliance date not to exceed
30 days {F5. § 125.69 (4.C))"
Valid Notice of 30 days for CE may extend the Approved SDPI c I ICP Case
Compliant Violation Violation compliance timeframe within timeframe Closed
�� "respondent does not comply
"ifwoo the respondent within a reasonable timeframe"
is working towards
compliance"
Goes to Code
Enforcement
Board [CEB)
Valid
Violation
"Historically, CEB has granted a
timeframe of 6-12 months in
the compliance order"
"dependent upon any specific
mitigating circumstances or
\ time of the yeartoallow
replacement plants will benefit
from rainy season"
Flow Chart 2: Code Enforcement Process for Reoccurring Violation Vegetation Removal Type Cases
Approved SDPI or ICP Case After 3years Valid Notice of Complies Case
within timeframe Compliant within
Violation Violation Closed
30 days
4
I
No Trees planted ' FNObligation for Code
"SDPI expires Considered aafter 3 years, ICP "reoccurring violation"rant extension of
does not with a reoccurring
violation
Goes to Code
Enforcement
Board (CEB)
Valid
Violation
3
7. Actions for Consideration:
a. Re -introduce and implement prior 20008 or 2010 memorandum practice of 2 or 3 years to complete
installation. Fee: TBD
b. Add new check box to ICP application form as follows: Insubstantial Change to Landscape
Construction Plan. Fee: TBD
This allows County staff and applicant to determine the completion date, dependent upon on the
availability of trees, type of tree replacement, and best practice to ensure survivability.
c. Provide a standard textual stipulation on a SDPI addressing the time period. Fee: TBD
d. Any Others: TBD
4
MEMORANDUM
Community Development & Environmental Services Division
Department of Zoning & Land Development Review
To: Zoning and Environmental/Engineering Staff
From: Bill Lorenz, P.E., Director, Engineering & Environmental Services
Thru: Susan M. Istenes, AICP, Zoning Director
Date: August 6, 2008
Subj: SDP Insubstantial Change (SDPI) Lifespan After Approval
LDC Section 10.02.03.B.4.b states that SDPs only remain valid and in force for two
years from the date of the SDP approval letter unless actual construction is commenced.
It has already been determined that SDP Amendments are subject to this two-year period,
but the lifespan of an SDP Insubstantial Change has never been directly addressed. This
memo is intended to confirm that the two-year period applies to SDPIs as well as SDPAs
and SDPs, and that the period begins with the date of the SDPI Approval Letter. The
determination is consistent with the provisions of the LDC inasmuch as the revision to an
approved SDP by an SDP Amendment or an Insubstantial Change becomes the final plan
of record.
cc: Jim Seabasty, Permitting Supervisor
Bob Dunn, Building Director
Peggy Jarrell, Addressing
Correspondence File
i .f
Collier County Government
Growth Management Division/Development Review
Standard Operating Procedures
Process Name:
INSUBSTANTIAL CHANGE TO
SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (SDPI)
SITE IMPROVEMENT PLAN (SIPI)
Responsible Section: Development Review
Process Manager: Matt McLean
Last Reviewed/Revised: November 2014
Prepared by: Connie Thomas, Planning Technician
Process: Insubstantial Change to SDP (SDPI) and SIP (SIPI)
Last Revised: November 2014
1. OVERVIEW OF PROCESS AND PURPOSE
Chapter 4 I.5 of the Administrative Code
Submittal of an insubstantial change to a site plan may be reviewed under the insubstantial site
development plan (SDPI) or insubstantial site improvement plan (SIPI) review process if the
development meeting all the conditions in Chapter 4 I.5 of the Administrative Code.
2. Determination of Application Process (SDPI/SIPI or PRE -APPLICATION MEETING)
• The client will send an email to Client Services, the Planner, or the Engineer, with a detailed
request of what they are proposing (if it is sent to Client Services, then it is forwarded to either
the Planner (for SDPI, SIPI).
• The Planner, will send a response email to the client with thee• determination. The Planner, will
copy the Client Services team, so that the team is aware of the determination.
• If it is determined to be a SDPI or SIPI, the client will bring a copy of the determination email
they received, and submit that with their submittal package.
• If the detenmination is made that apre-application meeting is required, the Client Services group
will send the client the link to the on-line request portal.
3. Process Requirements
A. Process Application -Intake Staff:
• Applicant may require an appointment for a sufficiency review
• Review application package for completeness referring to Application checklist and checklist
on pre -application meeting notes
• Enter project into Cityview — (Refer to Cityview Project Start procedures (Attachment "Cl ')
• Attach route sheet (Attachment "D')
• Forward submittal to Distribution Staff
B. Distribution -Distribution Staff:
Assemble �evie�t� packages — Refefto Cityview Dist�ibution pocedu�•es (Attachment "C2 ")
• Prepare/review packages
• Label Packages
• Make copies of Route Sheet
• Distribute to the following to reviewers on route sheet
Page 2 of 10
s
Process: Insubstantial Change to SDP (SDPI) and SIP (SIPI)
Last Revised: November 2014
C. Review: Review time is 5 Business days
• Reviewers will review and enter any deficiencies within Cityview Reviews sheet under
Corrections - RefeJA to Cityview Completing a Review procedures (Attachment "C3 ")
• Review Developer Commitments
o Sign on to the Collier County Intranet Home page
o Click on "Visit CTS Site"
o Click on "Status Report by Project"
o Check "Show all Projects" and choose from dropdown, or type in PUD name
• Review packages will be returned to Distribution Team
D. If Review Outcome is Rejected -Distribution Staff:
• Create a re -submittal letter showing rejection comments
• Email insufficiency letter to applicant
• Maintain active file
E. Re -submittal -Intake Staff:
• Applicant may require an appointment for re -submittal sufficiency review
• Applicant and Intake Staff will review package for sufficiency and to ensure that all review
comments are addressed
• If sufficient, Intake Staff will enter re -submittal in Cityview - Refer to Cityview Re -Submittal
Processing procedures (Attachment "C4')
• Package will be forward to Distribution Staff for distribution
F. Final Approval Distribution Staff:
After all reviews are completed staffs
• pulls complete file
• Cull file
• Forward Landscape Plans and Architectural Plans to the respective reviewers to stamp and
approve drawings
• Upon approval of Landscape and Architectural Plans and submittal of COA Certificate,
forward entire file Development Review Planning Technician
G. Final Approval Development Review Planning Technician:
• Draft final approval letter
• Sign Final Approval letter
• Stamp drawings
• Distribute appropriate copies
• Notify applicant to pick up
• Forward duplicate file to Site Inspection Supervisor
o File contains:
■ Plans
■ Survey, if applicable
■ Copy of approval letter
■ Application
Page 3 of 10
Process: Insubstantial Change to SDP (SDPI) and SIP (SIPI)
Last Revised: November 2014
• Forward original file to Records Room for filing
o File contains:
■ Plans
■ Survey, if applicable
■ Copy of approval letter
■ Application
■ Correspondence emails, etc.
■ Review Sheets
■ Receipts
H. Inspections:
• If required, the applicant will call the Site Inspection Supervisor to schedule an
inspection
4. Document Management
A. Original file is retained in the Growth Management Division/Operations &
Regulatory Management- Records Room
B. A duplicate file is retained by the Site Inspections Supervisor
Page4of10
c
v M
u
— � c
n LU
-
vsn3 •._ ro
� v. ems• e
LU
I
f
Y
E
Y \
CLim
c 7
ui J
E
o�
xc�m
Cy
W ffJ Ll5 tT
Z
�
7
G yY
C E ;E
LU Z
N
Q
AA
At
Er
ILI
r^
CL
yl
Q
rn
r�
l
L -
CL
y
G v)^•
qs _Q
ati�y.
c
rf
jC
3
it
z
p
c
S? CAI
c
m �
;uawa6euew
and;ea;stum�up�{
a
,�auuo;sn.o
SMOIAON
ali j aluoipala
pue suoijendo
pun juawnoOG
0. 0� �j
ATTACHMENT B
Application
(Application attached)
Process: Insubstantial Change to SDP (SDPI) and SIP (SIPI)
Last Revised: November 2014
ATTACHMENT C
Intake Checklists
Page 7 of 10
Process: Insubstantial Change to SDP (SDPI) and SIP (SIPI)
Last Revised: November 2014
ATTACHMENT D
Route Sheet - SDPI
Site Ie-lopuent P'l.n Insustautil Chn�eSDI
Route Sheet
DPIPL REVm I
RE'4'IE-�ER�it"�Ti�E�I?fiIl �hil�►L�7+�F TI�tiE �PE_�'I �?�+ ��IE�': h��urs
OLD If �e l i3i L= ,FPL e USFMa M Peat -Enpns�f s Rgxr _x y I.Jupirnionafiol
�a_�ri��=rr�.�-� P]:as ❑ 5•it� Plan
Ei"�'GI`\"EERIN(`"II�iAINSPOh'TATION,E ADA:TONII,.iiSHEIII
__. `C�=it_Plan� 17I� �I�tr�tLi�c�Fs.aPl�
�E�� GI"+-EERI"4 G LTILITIES: BRETT` R£l�E'�^BLL�i
u ;i�i �3C •+sa�,..�1p�,�.3,. P3aZ't^ �� s3Fi P�SfL'S3 � P-1S'iu� = 'x • �'E� l•P_el�i.'e•+?�'vi3 � c ai � �: err =' s'i.7i �' , L =2I
L_!.�n3IF.��a' '�'`=s�'�'t {ltTfi+n,` ❑F1�19d'c �i�c� i4't�etl=Gf��T� � .a7h"s?ri�'fiCIZ! 3��tEiIlf�'--= ❑ _� t_Pl n
QP<3U11n i *at& `s�ifRno rt 0SY"i dDka i1 ❑FinaMow11q-zn 0 Fi:r2Fly ran?0 Lvni c2p� Plan
®,FIRE DISTRICT:
_. E1 Fir= Fhw R.jar. 10 Fir_ E%�i Li_2hiin_Plan OLanlzap,. Plan O: fc.Jii-L=:rErA Pig O Sit_ Plm
' Z1DTN G PLAN.N : IrHRI SCOTT
I LT s ?r�sS =._ Lr L7�?.'ctirT�3l' ❑T`Ilifiall Sim Plan ElLato.fA- TMIU n ❑ II"S Q EY_`:
�.�.7�•/-..:�:.xt.,�.�,•��•tR�„v�/.�c.o�''.n..,,.,�.�.:;�1,!•=.ctt1:•�•�'�:ti�.�.,�;•A� CI r`tdc PI =s�
E_N IRONIN ENTAL*01JRS TUN WILME
El CO SERATATIO EASEMETNT
_�
LS i3 L vl Per Aeris3_ r4if ;mom ='40 _s' L& _gaFl
ESk_Plan ❑ sLI 0UTh ipmehn;t�aqALL)
ADDRESSINGmANIN
❑ iiaPi ❑3s asinai3ii?
LANDSCAPE* D TNIEL S10TH
❑%imtinsPlan O'. smils tjL:nd�snp_Plan CI'F,r_MtrrafAP1= ❑tSit_Plan
0 ARCHITECTURAL* MADELINN BLS: STER
OLi&tin?Plan OAeri_ls L7 Lmd3:=p=Ply ❑Af��ut��MnlPlr; ❑Si#_Pl.n
(] L TILITI BILLI� G: C£t}RGE IJ ASCIO
..........
0. D'Qltlp3ifF ]` ri{lQ3IIit5
�PELIC +' 3IAY SE,R1710ES (On -if 1oczted in
�JTIiER:_T�;
Page 8 of 10
Process: Insubstantial Change to SDP (SDPI) and SIP (SIPI)
Last Revised: November 2014
SIF1-FL
Ci.�TE
CiUE.
ATTACHMENT F
Route Sheet ® SIPI
Site Impro���n�n# P�l�n I�suhst�t�tial Ch�n�e (;SI���
Rout+>` Sheet
h�nrs
❑Ltiii�. �z�si��fli� Le��a _�ist„FFL _�:,} L7;=�:'�SID P�mi< ❑Fn�n� � P_p�t��g3r CI�Jpirci��af�'��
MO.W,Tto_
❑�L•=iii�_��1PI;� Q_si_PI�n
EYE GIlNEERIi4G,TRkX SPORT:�TI£►_!
❑ axe Flas� O TI' ❑ �r,-� Li grin?Pits
E_� ITIh°EERI'4 G !U IILITIE S : BF.ETT ROkSENBL,LAli
p� .Ty3 r,� �� ���` P`a'-'ti<stP��'� ❑T�a#%IiI..�; _�= �- .»�,< �;'- �- ,y � r
. �:: .�t� ... .. �, s . __ - - •ice a��. ❑ .ter �€ ���� z=�1. L-z
❑Eneiae=e'sRazo t( ;+ L]� �3�t;`a r,: L=b O_�,1s t:��,isn �£�a ❑`=it_PI
❑P.2 r:cle' aTaif =Y R_par ❑ F� Pe-s�ii ❑Eir_F1a. pari ❑ Ei eh�d. t ❑ L _zpePl�
p = DISTRICT:
_ QFi:=F1arYF=_par ❑Fit_I-i*:'d.;�s �Li�..is�=_Ply ❑L�� ��P1:n �,is.hi�_-�-�Pl� ❑_ii�plan
6I LUNINGPLAINI`►7ERO CHUS SCOTT
❑tlsiliadipPlm OLiV-:TofAl:�rL7z#ian EITH ❑!EIS
0��,,,,.��� {-�� n.... .���g}-,, ._.. n �7•�y� may., ...._.
.{'a,'��'•if�•z hst+i�=.{f.:iak••��..!.:i7.iea•F�`hr.•*::.:'iT3•n••nn•b+.`.•RrRh�r'.5k:.'.i•3.,' ❑'<:i'f_PIm
E,N�c'IRI�'��t.IE=4-T. AI.: IURSTEN 'tULIi-tE
b U= ❑ 21W. M Pit ❑USACOE Pam? ❑Aefia (if 3 v,:) O _=sy 0 L dio7 ePlim
❑_i =Ply ' na�zsia�F s;rra aLL' ❑ail Cip cias ALL)
.- ADDRESSINQ ANINzS IIOXAM
❑ ?itePI ❑�i�=�i;
0 LAND S CAPE D NIEL SMITH
DZ-i_�tin_Pl� ��ieri:� ❑ L��a=p=Pl.=ss Q:�r�hi:•rus-�PI� ❑i��eF7.�
CHH£CTLT\�ki.: '.NLADELI.N7E BUNSTE
QLi&xin=Pl= E,keriai3 ❑ LudsapePIA. 1r rci iTa:: lPI;Tr ❑ _ite Phn
® OTHER. '
�FELIC��'`► B�I' SERVICES DI�'SIC
Page9of10
Process: Insubstantial Change to SDP (SDPI) and SIP (SIPI)
Last Revised: November 2014
ATTACHMENT F
Additional Staff Guidance Resources
Latj d Develop in en Set-a7'r-e.s
I'ca; Land I�e�•elopment �er��iceu staff
11��14
From: 117illiYam T�t, Lorrrn� Tr, PE.,niaect�r,
Land Development Senicera
I��tfa T�ne 1.:MA
Snb,�e�t w1IPIn:suh.rt�tntial+Change���i?PI�I.i�e,pan �ter:�pgi•e��-a
I.1�� section I�-t��.��-�.�.�� Mates that �I`tPs o�4r re�tn valid rrnd in force for three ���
�Tear� fro�u the date of the �IJF �tpprrc, . aI letter unless 4 ctu� cvanstruction is con�noenced. It
has alreadyg bey determined that SIP Amendments are subject to thin. theme -,,-ear p�rioci
but the li%- +an fan l tantial Chace. has never been directly addressed This
menro is intended to confirm that the thiee-yfx:u period applies to SDPL as well as SDPIks
arltl SDPs, and that the period begins with the date of the SDPI Approval Letter. The
deterniimltion i, consLgentiNith the pro.asMna of the LDC inasmuch as the revision to an
approved SDP by an SDP Amendment or an In;uhstmtial Change becomes the final playa
of record,
Fe?�a4' Tarrell, �.ddressin�
�`orr€--pondearcp File
Page 10 of 10
Item 3.b. Discussion of Automobile Parking for Single -Family Dwelling Units
Problem Statement:
According to LDC section 4.05.03, for single-family residential units located within the Mixed Use Urban
Residential designated lands on the FLUE map, parking or automobile storage shall occur on a stabilized
subsurface base and the designated parking area which is currently limited to 40% of any required front yard.
Further, all parked automobiles shall utilize only the designated parking areas of the lot. Architectural Land
Design, Inc., through CBIA's builder round table, has requested a re-evaluation of the parking designated area
within front yards for lots that are pie -shaped, cul-de-sac lots and homes designed with a garage on each side of
a home with companion driveways. Table below created from ALD, Inc.'s Lot Coverage Plans.
Location
40% Front Yard Parking Area
40% Vehicular Use Area
Shown -Proposed
715 Teal - Russell
2,056
822
693
713 Teal - Nall
2.059
823
819
261 Oak Ave.-Linekin
2,184
873
832
354 Seabee Ave.
2,784
1,094
1,072
Questions for Discussion and Consideration:
1. How long and when did the design standard become effective?
Staff researched LDC records and found the text was initially implemented by Ordinance 02-2003 under
LDC Section 2.3.5. Automobile Parking in Conjunction with Residential Structures, and subsequently
reaffirmed in Ordinance 04-41 under LDC Section 4.05.03 Specific Parking Requirements for Residential
Uses in Mixed Use Urban Residential Land Uses. It was established to regulate the amount of space and
locations which can be used for automobile parking and specifically corner lots having more street
coverage (per BCC direction on 5/29/02). See below: 2002 archival sketch of Golden Gate corner lot (90'
x 120') parking coverage depicting 11 parking spaces comprised of 4 driveway parking spaces within a
25' required front yard setback.
f I' so
Mr
ib' t 12Z
= .4
1
2. How often does the problem occur?
Speaking with Development Review staff, the issue appears to be associated with the design of a specific
home size and a split garage design on smaller lots. In particular, it is a common issue for pie shaped
/cul-de-sac lots.
3. Does any deviation to the 40% impervious rule have an impact on stormwater management
plan criteria per LDC section 6.05.03 C.2 and DA ?
It depends upon the Type 1 or 2 stormwater plan, the lot's physical characteristics, and impervious area
covering the lot. Two current examples, submitted by CBIA of Type 2 stormwater plans are the
following:
i. 713 Teal Ct. (Pelican Bay PUD)-PRBD 20200937560
ii. 715 Teal Ct. (Pelican Bay PUD)-PRBD 20210102300
Background History. During a one-year period from June 2015 to June 2016, staff analyzed data on lot
coverage and impervious area for varying lot sizes (233 lots). The "analysis of current thresholds
confirmed that the maximum lot coverage and maximum impervious area percentages do not apply
consistently as lot sizes increase." The study had found, " For small lots, the maximum lot coverage
begins at 25 percent and the maximum allowed impervious area begins at 40 percent. However, larger
lots are limited to a maximum lot coverage and impervious area of less than 5 percent." Over the course
of six DSAC-LDR subcommittee meetings in 2016, it resulted in the adoption of an LDCA that established
" a requirement for one of two types of stormwater plans for all lots, based only on impervious area
thresholds specific to each zoning district." The characteristics of each stormwater plan are codified in
LDC section 6.05.03 Stormwater Plans for Single -Family Dwelling Units, Two -Family Dwelling Units and
Duplexes, Table 1 below.
Table 1 (LDC section 6.05.03 C):
Required stormwater Plan
Zoning District or Lot Location
Type I Stormwater Plan
Type II Stormwater Plan
RSF-1
30%or less impervious area
Greaterthan 30% impervious area
Rural Agricultural (A) within
Immokalee Urban Area or
Coastal Urban Area on FLUM
Estates (E)
25%or less impervious area
Greaterthan 25% impervious area
Lots discharging to a waterbody
downstream of the last control
All lots
N/A
structure
Lots discharging to a waterbody
upstream of the last control
N/A
All lots
structure
Rural Agricultural (A) outside
Immokalee Urban Area or
Coastal Urban Area on FLUM
Exempt
Lots with a surface water
management or environmental
resource permitfrom SFWMD
All other lots
40% or less impervious area I Greaterthan 40% impervious area
4. Is there a primary zoning district, subdivision or community where the problem occurs?
Connor's Vanderbilt Beach Estates and Pelican Bay
5. Is the house design causing the problem?
Yes, it appears the issue is for smaller lots with larger homes (the example is 4,500 sq. ft house with
separate attached garages) and/or a two driveway design. See examples of approved houses with two
garages and driveways and the proposed home at 261 Oak Ave. zoned RSF-3 (30' front yard setback)
which the original house has been demolished evident by PRBD 20190416447 permit. Garage designs
vary in their orientation to street frontage: parallel vs. perpendicular. See other photographic aerial
examples.
6. Is there a minimum lot width or size for cul-de-sac lots that should warrant relief from the 40%
rule?
Note: LDC section 4.02.04 Standards for cluster residential design require minimum. 20 lot width for cul-
de-sac lots.
7. What is driving the need to warrant a design change from current standard?
8. If a design alternative is allowed, how does vacation rental homes effect parking?
1•I .
L'
MAP LEGEND
Malay goad,
straat Na.-�
EJ Parcels
,Aerials 2022 Urban €6INI
ANIA19 20Z2 R W 81 IZFT]
■ Cclller Cauntq
2004_ Col€ier County Property Appraiser_ While the Collier County Property Appraiser is committed to providing the most accurate and up-to-date informatwn, no warranties expressed or implied are provided
forthe data herein; its use, or its interpretation.
Vanderbilt Beach Estates -342 Seabee Ave. built in 1997 - 2 separate interconnected garages on first
floor, 1,657 total s.f.
Adjacent Wilson Residence at 354 Seabee Ave., to the east, is under construction. Area within ROW
and front yard setback is 2,741 s.f., 40 % of font yard vehicular use area is 1,096 s.f., Lot Coverage Plan
shows 1,079 s.f. pavement and 1,628 s.f. driveway (ashlar pattern) within ROW.
4
56 6
36 1Gl&si68-4 ��7 iB.9 of
5. %9 23.
3.3
qR 2O
.7 y.
:_C ' 5 ''1
+lur7C
5 [b-2726. G aP 79G 0.2 sf 6
y 5
a a 9-
U IC.
SE[4ND FLAdR
WE b
i297.4 it
e �
¢ Y5�5 34.3
3-7 TILE
� L593_i al
ROO L-•
6.7
1.2 5 7 7
i.
17.9
2a 3T"" M
�6++13ii1 cfJ 1657.1 s} 13
74 �.
y li 4
12B B12fi
___ 6A4uN0 Fwdn
342 Seabee Ave. Floor Plan Sketch. Source: Collier County Property Appraiser Record
IVAAP LEGEND
Malar Raeds
Slr{� Nerne9
Parcels
A—ds 2022 rlrnss tNAI
Ad�au ZM Rorer [ZFT
®
Gooier County
2C94. WN., County Properly Appraises While the Collier County PropertyAppraiser is committed to providing the most accurate and up-to-dat. information, uo wamartties expressed or implied are provided
Vanderbilt Beach Estates - 340 Pine Ave., built in 2006, interconnected garage total of 2,862 s.f.
5
SD 10 so 10
361 361
6 1 2 16
1
24 24
19 19 0
15 15
15 « 10 15 -1UP70
25 8 6gti 9 19 2193
6 16 7
SECOND FLOOR
9 22 9 OP 20
198
OP 30 OP 30
7p8
TLE
25 7A POOLD
1294 25
21
—25— 58 —25—
OP 30
]P 30 2 2 301
509 9 22
10 1
6 6
25 25
16 i6 0
.e .a 28E2
OP?a GROUND FLOOR
%IRS7 L'JDR !92
340 Pine. Ave. Floor Plan Sketch. Source: Collier County Property Appraiser Office.
L
F 285 Lagoon Ave Naples, Florida
„1
u
r vjo
' nB Lxpxxnaw X
�maw•x.ox-
- 2535'x, 8t.e2'w
lli
Q - 2t14°t
OP 20 17 OP 20 17
136 8 136 8
1 30
TO 30 1
4 22 BEN 22 6
BELOW
3 10
2 34
5 13 8 13
+i1 ,j�9
2754754 c 4 I o 1
SP 40
450
SD 10 SECOND FLOOR STOR 50
TILE
SPA
SD 10
191304
POOL-4
19
0 0 56
IIX5
STOR 50
56
1 17 a
SP 40 6 17 1
OP 30
1
y0
36 5
6 3
1 6
OP 30
384
3i6
7
7
5
7
107
3 34
8
S 8
i
56
28
2
5
3
316
1
6
18
18
24 24 6
6
y
24
STOR 50
STOR 50
18 114
34
`
114
1' g 13 CP 70
10
18
10
GAR 50
11 7
9
702
1
B90
4
��
10
•-
10
9 11
G4R5C
24
14
24
+1DN70
3 12
OP 30
12 3
890
:
4
1
` v1 :
472
33
Be 3
13
26
3
15
2 ,5
15 2
'I E
2
15
STOR 50 259
solo SD 10
153
24 24
GROUND FLOOR
218 Lagoon Ave. Floor Plan Sketch. Source: Collier County Property Appraiser Office
E•�
HenderlongRichard
From: Kathy curatolo <kathy@cbia.net>
Sent: Wednesday, February 2, 2022 10:15 PM
To: Henderlong Richard
Cc: Amelia Vasquez; GiblinCormac; BosiMichael; BellowsRay; RosenblumBrett;
HumphriesAlicia; GewirtzStorm; WilloughbyChristine; JenkinsAnita; CookJaime
Subject: Request Concerning 40% Front Yard Rule
Attachments: Linekin 19-035- O.Od 2020-09-17.pdf; Nall Teal Hardscape 19-123-Of1 2020-11-13.pdf;
Russell Hardscape 20-160-O.Oi 2021-04-12.pdf
EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when
opening attachments or clicking links.
Dear Richard,
As a result of Cormac sharing your email to him, I wanted to reach out and provide the
specifics and impetus for this request. In November, CBIA met with Jamie Cook and
staff to discuss a few matters of concern by our members. One of these concerns was
the 40% front yard -vehicular use area on a residential lot in Collier
County... particularly the problem of this ordinance in pie -shaped cul-de-sac lots. As a
result, clients are having homes designed with a garage on each side of the house and
companion driveways. This design presents a safety issue as cars are backing out of
driveways rather than pulling out forward which would be the case with a horseshoe
driveway. Three examples were provided at this meeting when this was discussed
with Cormac (see attached.). Please see additional comment based upon your
questions below:
• How often is it occurring and what are the number of permits being
rejected? Our members have been following the 40% rule so I doubt
you will find numerous rejections.
• Is this problem solely related to the front yard driveway without an
additional impact on stormwater plans? In checking with civil engineer
members, I have been told there is no additional impact on stormwater
plans.
Of the permits being rejected, how many are related to RSF-1 (greater
than 30% impervious), Rural Agriculture (A -greater than 30%
impervious area) , Estates (E — Greater than 25% impervious area), and
other lots ( greater than 40% impervious area) as Type 2 Stormwater
1
Plans? I can request input from our members but the examples shared
were all in the Pine Ridge Estates.
What subdivisions and/or communities are the driveway permits being
rejected in? See attached examples which were provided at our
meeting w/Cormac, Jamie Cook and her staff.
• Is there a relationship to a specific lot size or several (varying) lot sizes
where the permits are being rejected? The concern was shared re: pie —
shaped cul-de-sac lots in the Pine Ridge Estates.
Please let me know if there is a potential to address our concern and how CBIA can
assist moving forward. Thank you in advance for your input.
Sincerely,
Kathy Curatolo
Kathy Curatolo
Consulting Legislative Liaison
Collier Building Industry Association
3200 Bailey Ln, Suite 110
Naples FL 34105
239.436.6100
www.cbia.net
ra