Loading...
DSAC Agenda 04/03/2013 2013 Development Services Advisory Committee Agenda April 3 , 2013 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA April 3, 2013 3:00 p.m. Conference Room 610 NOTICE: Persons wishing to speak on any Agenda item will receive up to three (3) minutes unless the Chairman adjusts the time. Speakers are required to fill out a "Speaker Request Form," list the topic they wish to address, and hand it to the Staff member seated at the table before the meeting begins. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman, and speak into a microphone. State your name and affiliation before commenting. During discussion, Committee Members may direct questions to the speaker. Please silence cell phones and digital devices. There may not be a break in this meeting. Please leave the room to conduct any personal business. All parties participating in the public meeting are to observe Roberts Rules of Order,and wait to be recognized by the Chairman. Please speak one at a time and into the microphone so the Hearing Reporter can record all statements being made. I. Call to Order-Chairman II. Approval of Agenda III. Approval of Minutes from March 6, 2013 IV. Public Speakers V. Staff Announcements/Updates A. Code Enforcement Department update—[Diane Flagg] B. Public Utilities Division update—[Nathan Beals or Tom Chmelik] C. Growth Management Division/Transportation Engineering and/or Planning—[Jay Ahmad and/or Reed Jarvi] D. Fire Review update—[Ed Riley] E. Growth Management Division/Planning &Regulation update—[Jamie French] VI. New Business A. Tindale Oliver presentation on Impact Fees and Multi modal fees [Amy Patterson,Tindale Oliver] B. Fee Schedule discussion [Dalas Disney] VII. Old Business A. Update on the Lot Coverage Ordinance [Caroline Cilek,Jack McKenna] B. LDC Amendment review—5.05.08 Architectural&Site Design Standards-secondary façade and PUD deviations [Caroline Cilek] VIII. Committee Member Comments IX. Adjourn Next Meeting Dates May 1, 2013 GMD Conference Room 610—3:00 pm June 5, 2013 GMD Conference Room 610—3:00 pm July 3, 2013 GMD Conference Room 610—3:00 pm August 7, 2013 GMD Conference Room 610—3:00 pm March 6, 2013 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, March 6, 2013 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Development Services Advisory Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:00 P.M. in REGULAR SESSION at the Collier County Growth Management Division Building, Conference Room #609/610, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Chairman: William J. Varian Vice Chairman: David Dunnavant James E. Boughton Clay Brooker Dalas Disney Blair Foley Chris Mitchell Robert Mulhere Mario Valle Stan Chrzanowski Eleanor Taft Norman Gentry Excused: Ron Waldrop Laura Spurgeon DeJohn Absent: Marco Espinar • ALSO PRESENT: Nick Casalanguida, Administrator, Growth Management Division Jamie French, Director, Operations & Regulatory Management Judy Puig, Operations Analyst, Staff Liaison Reed Jarvi, Manager, Transportation Planning Nathan Beals, Project Manager, Public Utilities Caroline Cilek, M.S., Senior Planner, LDC Coordinator Diane Flagg, Director, Code Enforcement Amy Patterson, Manager, Impact Fees & Economic Development Jack McKenna, County Engineer Bob Salvaggio, Deputy Fire Code Official 1 March 6, 2013 I. Call to Order- Chairman Chairman Varian called the meeting to order at 3:04pm II. Approval of Agenda Mr. Dunnavant moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Mr. Gentry. Carried unanimously 12- 0. III. Approval of Minutes from February 6, 2013 Meeting Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the minutes of the February 6, 2013 meeting subject to the following change: • Headsheet—Diane Flagg, Director, Code Enforcement and Marlene Serrano, Operations Manager were present. Second by Mr. Disney. Carried unanimously 12- 0. IV. Public Speakers None V. Staff Announcements/Updates A. Code Enforcement Department update— [Diane Flagg] Ms. Flagg submitted the "Collier County Code Enforcement Department Blight Prevention Program— Cumulative Code Enforcement Statistics" dated February 27, 2013. She noted in addition to those issues dealing with property maintenance, the Department does administer Citations issued by the Domestic Animal Services Office, including appeals of"Dangerous Dog" determinations. B. Public Utilities Division Update— [Nathan Beals] None C. Growth Management Division/Transportation Engineering— [Jay Ahmad] Reed Jarvi was present and reported: • Davis Boulevard/Collier Boulevard Improvement Project - continuing ahead of schedule. • Golden Gate Blvd. Bridge—completion anticipated for early fall. • Green Blvd—construction scheduled for the 1s1 portion of the next fiscal year. • US 41/951 —construction expected to begin by late summer. • US 41 East of 951 - final review for MPO approval scheduled for March 8, 2013. • Whippoorwill Ext—meeting with BCC in March for Board direction. • Impact Fee Study—underway by Staff and consultants, a"multi-modal" fee is under consideration for certain geographic areas whereby the fees may be used for improvements other than "lane construction/widening." Discussion occurred on: 1. The rationale for the "multi modal" fee concept, with Staff reporting certain geographic areas, lane widening opportunities may be maximized and it may be a more prudent use of funds to improve sidewalks, intersections and other transportation related elements. 2 March 6, 2013 2. The rationale for utilizing Parks and Recreation fees outside of the geographic area of collection of fees. 3. The status of any funds held beyond a 7 year period whereby a resident who paid fees may request a refund of any unspent funds. Staff recommended an item be placed on a future meeting agenda where Staff and the consultant may make a presentation to the Committee on the concepts proposed and answer any questions the members may have regarding impact fees. D. Fire Review Update— [Ed Riley] Bob Salvaggio, Deputy, Fire Code Official submitted the documents "Office of the Fire Code Official—Summary of Plan Review Activity—January- 13" and "Fire Plan Review— Time Frame Summary-January— 13" for information purposes. E. Growth Management Division/Planning & Regulation Update— [Jamie French] Jamie French submitted the "February 2013 Monthly Statistics" which outlined the building plan review activities. The following was noted during his report: • Staff continues to monitor activity to determine if any "job bank" employees need to be converted to Full Time Employees. • Staff presented a Slideshow to the Board of County Commissioners on the "Electronic Plan Submittal" system at BCC Workshop held on March 5, 2013. Mr. Disney reported it has come to his attention if a number of structures are incorporated in one application for building and zoning review, there is a separate fee for each structure's review, even though it is "one application and one set of plans." He sought an explanation on the rationale for the fee structure in these cases. Staff noted the Statute requires individual permits be issued for each structure under the building review process. They requested he provide information on the specific application to determine if the appropriate fees were charged for the zoning review. VI. New Business Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance Robert Wiley submitted 3 documents in relation to a"Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance" for the Committee to review and discuss at a future meeting: 1. "Draft 2010 FBC Compliant FDPO (3-5-13)"— State Model Ordinance incorporating Collier County references to be adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. 2. "Compilation Document for Ordinance 2011-07 thru 2012-24" —Compilation of current County Ordinances in relation to Flood Damage Prevention. 3. "Local Criteria Within the Current Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance" He reported the existing local Ordinance is anticipated to be repealed and the State Model Ordinance enacted and requested members to begin reviewing the documents and provide comments to him via email, should they so desire. 3 March 6, 2013 Impact Fees Amy Patterson, Manager, Impact Fees & Economic Development responded to issues raised by the Committee under item V. C and reported the County does have the ability, through the County Clerk's Office to track an individuals impact fee contributions and, if and when the funds were spent. The Committee requested Staff to contact the consultant(Tindale-Oliver and Assoc.) conducting the Impact Fee study and arrange for a presentation at a future DSAC meeting. VII. Old Business Caroline Cilek reported on the Status of the request to the BCC to authorize an Out of Cycle Amendment request. She noted the Subcommittee has been meeting and a representative contacted Commissioner Hiller to discuss the issues with her. Mr. Chrzanowski reported he met with Commissioner Hiller and she was not receptive to any changes in the current code with respect to LDC Section 605.01 (f) - (Stormwater Management System Requirements). He recommended she be invited to attend a Subcommittee meeting so she may gain a better understanding of the rationale for any proposed changes. Ms. Cilek will provide updates as they become available. VIII. Committee Member Comments None IX. Adjourn Next Meeting Dates April 3, 2013 - GMD Conference Room 610—3:00 pm May 1,2013 - GMD Conference Room 610—3:00 pm June 5, 2013 - GMD Conference Room 610—3:00 pm July 3, 2013 - GMD Conference Room 610—3:00 pm August 7,2013 - GMD Conference Room 610—3:00pm There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chair at 4:45PM. COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Chairman,William Varian These Minutes were approved by the Board/Chairman on , as presented or as amended 4 Fire Plan Review-Time Frame Summary February-13 Number Number Average #of %of Percentages of of Time in Reviews Reviews Within Time Reviews Days Days Approved Approved Frames Architectural Reviews Total 466 2126 4.56 1st Review 333 1876 5.63 256 77% 95/10 Days 19 Day Max 2nd Review 99 155 1.57 82 83% 93/3 Days 3rd Review 27 72 2.67 25 93% 70/3 Days 4th Review 6 19 3.17 5 83% 83/3 Days 5th Review 1 4 4.00 0 0% 0/3 Days Total 2-5 Reviews 133 250 1.88 112 84% 87/3 Days 9 Day Max Fire Sprinkler Reviews Total 51 169 3.31 1st Review 34 143 4.21 24 71% 100/10 Days 9 Day Max 2nd Review 14 20 1.43 13 93% 100/3 Days 3rd Review 3 6 2.00 2 67% 67/3 Days Total 2-3 Reviews 17 26 1.53 15 88% 94/3 Days 4 Day Max Underground Reviews Total 17 50 2.94 1st Review 12 45 3.75 9 75% 100/10 Days 7 Day Max 2nd Review 5 5 1.00 4 80% 100/3 Days Total 2nd Review 5 5 1.00 4 80% 100/3 Days 2 Day Max Fuel&LP Gas Reviews Total 2 3 1.50 1st Review 1 3 3.00 1 100% 100/10 Days 3 Day Max 2nd Review 1 0 0.00 1 100% 100/3 Days Total 2nd Review 1 0 0.00 1 100% 100/3 Days 0 Day Max Hood&FSUP Reviews Total 16 51 3.19 1st Review 12 45 3.75 8 67% 100/10 Days 9 Day Max 2nd Review 3 4 1.33 3 100% 100/3 Days 3rd Review 1 2 2.00 1 100% 100/3 Days Total 2-3 Reviews 4 6 1.50 4 100% 100/3 Days 2 Day Max Flre Alarm Reviews Total 103 348 3.38 1st Review 79 326 4.13 53 67% 100/10 Days 8 Day Max 2nd Review 24 22 0.92 22 92% 100/3 Days Total 2nd Review 24 22 0.92 22 92% 100/3 Days 2 Day Max Summary 1st Review 471 2438 5.18 351 75% 97/10 Days 2nd Review 146 206 1.41 125 86% 3rd Review 31 80 2.58 28 90% 4th Review 6 19 3.17 5 83% 5th Review 1 4 4.00 0 0% Total 2-5 Reviews 184 309 1.68 158 86% 91/3 Days Overall Totals 655 2747 4.19 509 78% Office of the Foe Code Official 2700 N.Horseshoe Dr. Naples,FL 34104 Office of the Fire Code Official Summary of Plan Review Activity February-13 Architectural Reviews 466 Sprinkler Reviews 51 Underground Reviews 17 Fuel&LP Gas Reviews 2 Hoods&FSUP Reviews 16 Alarm Reviews 103 SDP Reviews 66 Total#of Plans Reviewed 721 Number of Work Days 19 Average#of Plans Reviewed per Day 38 ASAP Reviews per Building Department: 5 Architectural 32 AC Change Outs 15 Low Voltage 4 Tents Total#of ASAP Reviews*: 56 Total ASAP Reviews per Day 3 *Overtime Reviews are not included in this figure Total Overtime Hours for the Fire Code Office - 23 "Overtime Hours Reimbursed by Contractors - 28 13 Reviews Scheduled Meetings/Hours: Ed: 31.50 Hrs. Bob: 19.33 Hrs. Jackie: 2.50 Hrs. Ricco: 39.83 Hrs. Maggie: 2.53 Hrs. Classes and Seminars attended by FCO: Participant 2/11-2/15 ICC Seminar,Birmingham,AL Robert Salvaggio Classes Taught by FCO: Instructor #of Participants 2/19 Tanks A Lot(LP Tanks)1 hr Jackie de la Osa 24 Training Room Usage Summary Meetings: #of Hours #of Participants 02/12/13 County Commission 1 7 02/12/13 ENFD Board Meeting 2 30 02/13/13 ENFD Firefighters Pension Plan 4 12 02/14/13 FSPK Committee Meeting 2 6 02/19/13 FALR Committee Meeting 2 7 02/20/13 CBIA Joint Meeting 1 17 02/20/13 Fire Investigation Task Force 2 10 02/26/13 ENFD Board Meeting 1.5 29 In addition to the above-mentioned tasks,The Fire Code Official's Office fields numerous phone calls,walk-ins,field inspections and impromptu meetings. Office of the Fire Code Official 2700 N.Horseshoe Dr. Naples,FL 34104 Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term LDC Amendment Request ORIGIN: Board of County Commissioners AUTHOR: Carolina Valera, Principal Planner, Growth Management Division DEPARTMENT: Growth Management Division AMENDMENT CYCLE: Out of Cycle LDC Amendment LDC SECTION(S): 5.05.08 Architectural and Site Design Standards CHANGES: To amend subsection 5.05.08 C.9 to allow freestanding buildings and buildings located on outparcels within a Planned Unit Development (PUD) or a common ownership development to have one secondary façade, i.e. the "back" of the building. This would replace the current requirement that all façades meet primary façade standards. Further, to amend subsection 5.05.08 F, which outlines the Deviations and Alternate Compliance process, to include buildings within a PUD. The process is currently limited to buildings that are located in other zoning districts. REASON: Currently, freestanding buildings and buildings located on outparcels within a PUD or common ownership development are required to meet primary façade requirements for each building face. This includes detailing such as windows, covered entryways, covered walkways, and trellises. The proposed amendment to subsection 5.05.08 C.9 is designed to create a secondary façade provision, i.e. allow for a"back"to a building, which will provide a more functional use of space for certain building types, such as a restaurant. The secondary façade will face the interior of the development and will continue to meet the standards required for all façades, identified in LDC section 5.05.08 C.5.c. This section provides a list of building design treatments. The secondary façade will be required to have at least four treatments. For instance, an architect may choose the following four design features for a secondary façade: place emphasis on the building base, include expressed or exposed structural elements, incorporate ornamental and structural details, and utilize cornices in the design. A secondary façade may also be used as a service area. In addition to the option of utilizing primary façade elements, a service area is required to meet the design requirements of LDC section 5.05.08 E.3. This section provides specific design features to diminish the visual and acoustic impacts of a service area, such as providing screening from the area and enclosures for trash receptacles. The combination of the proposed secondary facade requirements and the service area standards will allow for a practical approach to the "back"of a building. The proposed amendment to subsection 5.05.08 F will allow all buildings to utilize the County's Deviations and Alternate Compliance administrative process. Currently, buildings constructed within a PUD do not have a means to seek an architectural deviation from the LDC. The 1 I:\Admin Code 2012\Out of Cycle Amendments\Architectural Deviations and Alternate Compliance\CCPC Review\5 05 08 Architectural and Site Design Standards_facade and deviations 032713.docx3/27/2013 9:03 AM Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term Alternate Compliance process provides a method for a unique architectural design while still meeting the intent of the LDC. FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: The amendments will provide fiscal benefits to developers and architects. The secondary facade may cost less than the current requirements. The amendment to the Architectural Deviations and Alternate Compliance process in the LDC will provide a greater number of buildings the opportunity to apply for an alternative design. The change will impact projects that have specific architectural requirements or design treatments for operational or functional purposes. County Staff does not anticipate any fiscal or operational impacts to the County. RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: None. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: None. OTHER NOTES/VERSION DATE: This amendment was reviewed and unanimously approved by the 2013 Architectural Review Committee on Friday, March 1, 2013. The Committee consists of local architects who assisted with the conception of the current architectural standards identified in LDC section 5.05.08 in 2004. The Committee reconvened following direction from the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners during the 2012 LDC Amendment Cycle to review LDC section 5.05.08 in its entirety. Future LDC amendments to this section will be brought forward at a later date. Prepared by Caroline Cilek, Senior Planner on March 6, 2013, March 15, 2013, Mach 26, 2013, March 27, 2013. Amend the LDC as follows: 1 5.05.08 Architectural and Site Design Standards 2 3 C. Building design standards. 4 5 9. Outparcels and freestanding buildings within a PUD and common ownership 6 developments. 7 a. Purpose and intent. To provide unified architectural design and site 8 planning for all on-site structures, and to provide for safe and convenient 9 vehicular and pedestrian access and movement within the site. 10 b. Facades standards. All facades must meet the requirements of 5.05.08 11 C.5. Project standards. 12 i. Primary facades. All exterior facades of freestanding structures, 13 including structures located on outparcels, are considered primary 14 facades;and must meet the requirements of this Ssection with 15 respect to the architectural design treatment for primary façades- 16 Ssection 5.05.08 C.2. °^mart'faQade6 etandardt , except for 17 those facades considered secondary facades. 18 ii. Secondary facades. One facade of a freestanding structure, 19 including structures located on outparcels, that is internal to the 2 1:1Admin Code 20121Out of Cycle Amendments\Architectural Deviations and Alternate Compliance\CCPC Review\5 05 08 Architectural and Site Design Standards_facade and deviations 032713.docx3/27/2013 9:03 AM Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term 1 site and that does not abut or face public or private streets 2 adjacent to the development. Outparcels and freestanding 3 buildings are allowed one secondary facade. 4 c. Design standards. The design for freestanding buildings must employ 5 architectural, site and landscaping design elements integrated with, and 6 common to those used on the primary structure and its site. These 7 common design elements must include colors, building materials, and 8 landscaping associated with the main structure. All freestanding 9 buildings must provide for vehicular and pedestrian inter-connection 10 between adjacent outparcels or freestanding sites and the primary 11 structure. 12 d. Primary facade standards. The following design features are in addition 13 to the list of requirement options to meet Ssection 5.05.08 C.2. Primary 14 façade standards: 15 i. Walls expanding the design features of the building, not less than 16 7 feet high, creating a courtyard not less than 12 feet from the 17 building and length of no less than 60% percent of the length of 18 the associated façade. The courtyard may be gated and able to 19 be secured from exterior public access. Grilled openings are 20 allowed if courtyard is landscaped. Opening depths or wall 21 terminations must be a minimum of 12 inches deep. If the 22 courtyard contains service or utility equipment, the height and 23 design must prevent view from the exterior. Courtyard walls are 24 not to be considered fences. 25 ii. Trellis or latticework used as a support for climbing plants may 26 count as window area equal to the plant coverage area. 27 28 F. Deviations and Alternate Compliance. The following alternative compliance process is 29 established to allow deviations from the requirements of this Ssection as approved by 30 the County Manager or his designee. 31 1. Review and approval procedure. Upon request by the applicant, the County 32 Manager or his designee may administratively approve a Site and Development 33 Plan application that includes an alternative architectural design and site 34 development plan that may be substituted in whole or in part for a plan meeting 35 the standards of Ssection 5.05.08. Approved deviations are allowed only as to 36 the specific design and plan reviewed. Any modification to an approved design 37 shall necessitate re-review and approval by the County Manager or his designee. 38 2. Review criteria. In approving an alternative plan, the County Manager or his 39 designee must find that the proposed alternative plan accomplishes the purpose 40 and intent of this Ssection in the same manner as the provisions would. If the 41 plan is approved through this provision, the Site Development Plan approval 42 letter shall specifically note the deviations and the basis for their approval. 43 3. Submittal requirements. In addition to the base submittal requirements, 44 applicants must provide the following: 45 a. Architectural design plan and/or site development plan clearly labeled as 46 an "Alternative Architectural Design Standards Plan". This plan must 47 identify the section numbers from this Section from which the deviation 48 is being requested. 49 b. A narrative statement that specifically identifies all standards of Ssection 50 5.05.08 from which the deviations are requested, and the justification for 51 the request. This statement must include a description of how the 3 I:1Admin Code 2012\Out of Cycle Amendments\Architectural Deviations and Alternate Compliance\CCPC Review\5 05 08 Architectural and Site Design Standards_facade and deviations 032713.docx3/27/2013 9:03 AM Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term 1 alternative plan accomplishes the purpose and intent of this Ssection, 2 without specifically complying with those standards identified. 3 4. Applicability. 4 a. The following types of buildings and uses qualify for an administrative 5 determination of deviations from Ssection 5.05.08- development 6 standards: 7 i. Assembly, 8 ii. Educational, 9 iii. Institutional, 10 iv. Mixed use buildings(such as commercial/residential/office), and 11 v. Any other non-commercial building, or use, that is not listed under 12 Ssection 5.05.08 D. Design standards for specific building types 13 of this Ssection, and due to its function, has specific requirements 14 making meeting Ssection 5.05.08-standards unfeasible. 15 vi. Buildings located on property with a commercial zoning 16 designation when submitted for Site Development Plan review on 17 or after November 10, 2001, except for the following: 18 a) Buildings located on outparccls, frcostanding (non 19 - -- - - - - - - - -20 property with a PUD zoning dceignation, or multiplo 21 -- - - - - - , -- -- - - - - •_. 22 - - -- -- - - - - - - - -- 23 alb) Buildings with a gross building area of 10,000 square feet 24 or more on the ground floor. 25 DIG} Multi-story buildings with a total gross building area of 26 20,000 square feet or more. 27 cid} Project sites with more than one building where the 28 aggregate gross building area is 20,000 square feet or 29 more. Individual buildings within a project site that have 30 been previously granted deviations where additional 31 development causes an aggregation of building area 32 20,000 square feet or greater, must bring existing 33 buildings up to the requirements of 5.05.08. 34 b. The deviation process is also applicable to the specific requirements 35 listed under the following sections: 36 i. Section 5.05.08 B.3. Renovations and redevelopment. 37 ii. Section 5.05.08 B.4. Abandonment or discontinuance of use. 38 iii. Sections 5.05.08 D.2.d. for Self-storage buildings. 39 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 4 I:\Admin Code 2012\Out of Cycle Amendments\Architectural Deviations and Alternate Compliance\CCPC Review\5 05 08 Architectural and Site Design Standards_facade and deviations 032713.docx3/27/2013 9:03 AM March 27, 2013 DSAC—LDR Lot Coverage Subcommittee: Stan has prepared the following information for your review and discussion on Wednesday,April 3`d Please find the following materials included in this packet: Packet: • 2009 Golden Gate Estate Percent Built out map PDF(to be viewed with 2009 GGE Percent Built out-excel file) • Areas of Golden Gate Estates lots for different widths and 660 ft depth PDF • Proposed 40%to 11,000 sf and 10%in excess of 11,000 sf PDF • Proposed 40%to 11,000 sf and 15%in excess of 11,000 sf PDF • Proposed 40%to 11,000 sf and 25%in excess of 11,000 sf PDF • Other Graphs-PDF Other Attachments: • 2009 GGE Percent Built out-excel file,to be viewed with 2009 GGE Percent Built out map • Graph of Lot Coverage by Lot Area—excel file f �.. �, �•° 1 I, M l i°79" � � � . d O ° I ° q `'' N OA1 SaCINIS>3A3 I o > o ° ° tt� o r r , t�0 t C1 .., (I A ; 4 R '1. tl' in �'� ° d, m to 1 Lam. to }/ io N 1.... u9 4 f er LI T UD Oa 331v)IOwwI ,zV o l I a. } if) t0 1 to CO .�+ � i NamsNOSl1rA N CIII+-� -. o W -E t v rs re - 8 va —,-. m ° �5 - r -',1 cp N lir"hoc �. i C1 i--... rtl. 0) CO O 4 0 o 1 0) 1 „ O l t N, w m CD only a31„o0 0 ! m'. d 92 m - m J , 76> c ° 5r..',51..- ..- AL,` 0.rrrrr��...��� OAI• -"A. •,K1NVSi , nhL. t oEo ,, � ., �" ... O C v1-,o `o ,,-1' .SG a cmTiiI,R4 i' v O o.c' 2 ,yp" t�8 i 6 V 0 ON NOISONIA" p o c 2 y J 0 N N p?N N'h Q e,.d U m NON ONnlnd laodNIV w a 8 `o v_ €Y kY Zr- 8 2 2 RI o 0 c x ,7, "20 - F�' `2 No 53 2 2 n S3 w re . U' a 1n 3 ;.i 1: a.. N ON)1NVad•3J L3.1000O 9TH ST N N 1x11LS tri Vl Page 1 of 1 Areas of Golden Gate Estates lots for different widths and 660 ft depth 330 ft 165 ft 75ft 90 ft 150 ft 180 ft 75ft 75ft 75ft 105 1t Golden Gate Estate lot widths Width Area S.F. Area (acres) 75 ft 49,500 1.136 90 ft 59,400 1.364 105 ft 69,300 1.591 150 ft 99,000 2.273 165 ft 108,900 2.500 180 ft 118,800 2.727 330 ft 217,800 5.000 660 ft 435,600 10.000 I II ' II file:'/C:\Users\CarolineCi!ek\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Ternporary Internet File... 3/27/2013 Page 1 of 1 % of impervio c„, coverage for different sized lots 1/4 acre lots 1/2 acre lots 40 /% 22 `/° 78 60 % 1 acre lots 2.5 acre lots 14 % 7 % 86 % ,.. 5 acre lots 10 acre lots 4 1/2 ° 95 1/2 % 96 1/4 % i Page 1 of 1 Proposed 40% to 11,000 sf and 10% in excess of 11,000 sf 1/4 acre lots 1/2 acre lots 40 % 28 % w,. 1 acre lots 2.5 acre lots 19 % 14 % 81 % 86 % 5 acre lots 10 acre lots ° 11 % 88 % !, Page 1 of 1 Proposed 40%to 11,000 sf and 15% in excess of 11,000 sf 1/4 acre lots '/z acre lots 40% 32% 60% 68% 1 acre lots 2.5 acre lots 24 18% 76% 820k 5 acre lots 10 acre lots 17% 16% 83% 84% Pa ge 1 of} Proposed 40%to 11,000 sf and 25% in excess of 11,000 s w acre los &acre los 40 s \` 4/ m % ms 1acre lots 2.5 acre lots \ 3 e w 2 2y . ... qo4e, \ « < t'\« : d \.%\ 67 ^ 2 ° 5 acre lots 10 acre lots 27 2 » » ©«:»« 0 0 o o o o o 0 0 0 --' ,..‹,.......:,..............:,... I ' 1---- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .P. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -.1 1 i i Ul - 11 0 \\ CO 1 \ li \ \ , 1 1 1 tt (115) r`f ■ 1j1 0-1 . I _o. \ i co' 1 o', I co o, t p. CD 2 , ....1. o ! , 0 6 , . .....1. P, 0 II , CO 1 i "s1 9: 1 r-st .....1. f..1 ■ c, 1 r2, , , ...1. 1 ("1 L ., g : I ..................___ ...... . _ -it 1 t 0 e 0 5,4 cp 1 (/) ....1 Lot Covers{.(%) 400 400 1000 40.00% eo0 e0o 2000 40.00% Lot Coverage by LotArea .._ 1200 1200 3000 40.00% 45% ---- ... - 8 �' - .--•-, 1600 1600 4000 40.00% 2000 2000 5000 40.00% 2400 2400 6000 40.00% 2800 2800 7000 40.00{ 40% -_.-- 3200 3200 8000 40.00% 3600 3600 9000 40.00% 4000 4000 10000 40.00% � k 4400 4400 11000 40.00% 35% 4450 4490 12000 37.08% T 4500 4580 13000 34.62% 4550 4670 14000 32.50% 4600 4760 15000 30.67% 35% 4650 4850 16000 29.06% 4700 4940 17000 27.65% 4750 5030 18000 26.39% 4800 5120 19000 25.26% 25% ---._ 4850 5210 20000 24.25% P4 \��+ 4900 5300 21000 23.33% 4950 5390 22000 22.50% 5000 5480 23000 21.74% 20% 5050 5570 24000 21.04% 5100 5660 25000 20.40% 5150 5750 26000 19.81% y�yyg4 5200 5840 27000 1956% 5/ 5250 6000 28000 18.75% 5300 6020 29000 18.28% 5350 6040 30000 07.83% 5400 6060 31000 17.42% 5450 6080 32000 17.03% 5500 6100 33000 16.67% 3 c' s`/°:,?•✓ f ��/ �' 5 3 5550 6120 34000 16.32% 5600 6140 35000 16.00% h �?-yk 5650 6160 36000 15.69% 5 � j„%l g'? 3' ;;y •` 5700 6180 37000 15.41% 5750 6200 38000 15.13% 5800 6220 39000 14.87% oh .ksR'rV'r VA"'` •a tea t ;`!t , 5850 6240 40000 14.38% 1 10 19 28 37 46 55 82 100 109 118 127 136 145 5900 6260 41000 14.39% 5950 6280 42000 14.17% Lot 64 A4ee(Ft1 73 x 1,000)91 6000 6300 43000 13.95% 6050 6320 49000 13.75% 6100 6340 45000 13.56% 6150 6360 46" 13.37% 6200 6380 47000 13.19% 6250 6400 48000 13.02% 6300 6420 49000 12.86% 6350 6440 50000 12.70% 6400 6460 51000 12.55% 6450 6480 52000 12.904 6500 6500 53000 12.26% 6520 6520 54000 12.07% 6540 6540 55000 11.89% 6560 6560 56000 00.71% 6580 6580 57000 11.54% 6600 6600 58000 11.38% 6620 6620 59000 11.22% 6640 6640 60000 11.07% 6660 6660 61000 10.92% 6680 6680 62000 10.77% 6700 6700 63000 10.63% 6720 6720 64000 10.50% 6740 6740 65000 10.37% 6760 6760 66000 10.24% 6780 6780 67000 10.12% 6800 6800 68000 10.00% 6820 6820 69000 9.88% 6840 6840 70000 9.77% 6860 6860 71000 9.66% 6880 6880 72000 9.56% 6900 6900 73000 9.45% 6920 6920 74000 9.35% 6940 6940 75000 9.25% 6960 6960 76000 9.16% 6980 6980 77000 9.06% 7000 7000 78000 8.97% 7020 7020 79000 8.89% 7040 7040 80000 8.80% 7060 7060 81000 8.72% 7080 7080 82000 8.63% 7100 7100 83000 8.55% 7120 7120 84000 8.48% 7140 7140 85000 8.40% 7160 7160 86000 8.33% 7180 7180 87000 8.25% 7200 7200 88000 8.18% 7220 7220 89000 8.11% 7240 7240 90000 8.04% 7260 7260 91000 7.98% 7280 7280 92000 7.91% 7300 7300 93000 7.85% 7320 7320 94000 7.79% 7340 7340 95000 7.73% 7360 7360 96000 7.67% 7380 7380 97000 7.61% 7400 7400 98000 7.55% 7420 7420 99000 7.49% 7440 7440 100000 7.44% 7460 7460 101000 7.39% 7480 7480 102000 7.33% 7500 7500 103000 7.28% 7520 7520 104000 7.23% 7540 7540 105000 7.08% 7560 7560 106000 7.13% 7580 7580 107000 7.08% 7600 7600 108000 7.04% 7620 7620 109000 6.99% 7640 7640 110000 6.95% 7660 7660 111000 6.90% 7680 7680 112000 6.86% 7700 7700 113000 6.81% 7720 7720 114000 6.7794 7740 7740 115000 6.73% 7760 7760 116000 6.59% 7780 7780 117000 6.65% 7800 7800 118000 6.61% 7820 7820 119000 6.57% 7840 7840 120000 6.53% 7860 7860 121000 6.50% 7880 7880 122000 6.46% 7900 7900 123000 6.42% 7920 7920 124000 6.39% 7940 7940 125000 6.35% 7960 7960 126000 6.32% 7980 7980 127000 6.28% 8000 8000 128000 6.25% 8020 8020 129000 6.22% 8040 8040 130000 6.18% 8060 8060 131000 6.15% 8080 8080 132000 6.12% 8100 8100 133000 6.09% 8120 8120 134000 6.06% 8140 8140 135000 6.03% 8160 8160 136000 6.00% 8180 8180 137000 5.97% 8200 8200 138000 5.99% 8220 8220 139000 5.91% 8240 8240 140000 5.89% 8260 8260 141000 5.86% 8280 8280 142000 5.83% 8300 8300 143000 5.80% 8320 8320 144000 5.78% 8340 8340 145000 5.75% 8360 8360 146000 5.73% 8380 8380 197000 5.70% 8400 8400 148000 5.68% 8420 8420 149000 5.65% 8440 8440 150000 5.63% Lot count Total Lots % Built Units built By Unit 2009 Unit 1 249 0.83 207 Unit 2 219 0.80 175 Unit 3 231 0.88 203 Unit 4 221 0.70 155 Unit 5 255 0.77 196 Unit 6 243 0.78 190 Unit 7 246 0.73 180 Unit 8 250 0.73 183 Unit 9 264 0.69 182 Unit 10 249 0.71 177 Unit 11 267 0.65 174 Unit 12 281 0.76 214 Unit 13 315 0.65 205 Unit 14 293 0.62 182 Unit 15 245 0.82 201 Unit 16 207 0.45 93 Unit 17 257 0.44 113 Unit 18 253 0.60 152 Unit 19 260 0.63 164 Unit 20 267 0.57 152 Unit 21 185 0.50 93 Unit 22 243 0.53 129 Unit 23 296 0.56 166 Unit 24 306 0.56 171 Unit 25 283 0.56 158 Unit 26 280 0.79 221 Unit 27 453 0.85 385 Unit 28 422 0.87 367 Unit 29 280 0.78 218 Unit 30 273 0.72 197 Unit 31 247 0.85 210 Unit 32 205 0.88 180 Unit 33 322 0.81 261 Unit 34 252 0.82 207 Unit 35 205 0.79 162 Unit 36 258 0.31 80 Unit 37 259 0.16 41 Unit 38 293 0.12 35 Unit 39 316 0.31 98 Unit 40 266 0.22 59 Unit 41 285 0.25 71 Unit 42 278 0.14 39 Unit 43 378 0.21 79 Unit 44 352 0.27 95 Unit 45 306 0.24 73 Unit 46 394 0.19 75 Unit 47 292 0.16 47 Unit 48 292 0.69 201 Unit 49 357 0.64 228 Unit 50 302 0.47 142 Unit 51 426 0.63 268 Unit 52 110 0.09 10 Unit 53 99 0.00 0 Unit 54 0 Unit 55 0 Unit 56 0 Unit 57 0 Unit 58 0 Unit 59 327 0.51 167 Unit 60 314 0.58 182 Unit 61 265 0.28 74 Unit 62 407 0.43 175 Unit 63 353 0.42 148 Unit 64 309 0.45 139 Unit 65 370 0.23 85 Unit 65a 32 0.23 7 Unit 66 0 Unit 67 380 0.37 141 Unit 67a 15 0.37 6 Unit 68 408 0.45 184 Unit 69 359 0.49 176 Unit 70 358 0.41 147 Unit 71 411 0.51 210 Unit 72 251 0.36 90 Unit 73 249 0.32 80 Unit 74 269 0.43 116 Unit 75 266 0.41 109 Unit 76 301 0.51 154 Unit 77 300 0.50 150 Unit 78 327 0.40 131 Unit 79 311 0.35 109 Unit 80 335 0.57 191 Unit 81 382 0.60 229 Unit 82 310 0.55 171 Unit 83 272 0.46 125 Unit 84 293 0.30 88 Unit 85 298 0.24 72 Unit 86 274 0.32 88 Unit 87 273 0.40 109 Unit 88 259 0.25 65 Unit 89 259 0.17 44 Unit 90 283 0.12 34 Unit 91 272 0.03 8 Unit 91a 28 0.03 1 Unit 92 238 0.11 26 Unit 92a 51 0.11 6 Unit 93 269 0.17 46 Unit 93a 25 0.17 4 Unit 94 0 Unit 95 316 0.82 259 Unit 96 206 0.85 175 Unit 97 309 0.80 247 Unit 98 0 Unit 99 0 Unit 100 0 Unit 193 341 0.81 276 Unit 194 328 0.80 262 Unit 195 309 0.74 229 Total Lots 27099 13795