Agenda 01/22/2013 Item #16A11 1/22/2013 Item 16.A.11.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendation to accept the specific past Staff Clarifications of the Land Development
Code(LDC)attached to this Executive Summary.
OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of County Commissioners (Board) accept the Staff
Clarifications of the Land Development Code (LDC) that have been reviewed by the Collier
County Planning Commission(CCPC).
CONSIDERATIONS: On October 25, 2011, the Board directed the County Manager to bring
to the Board written Staff Clarifications of the LDC. Staff Clarifications (SC) are those reports
that have been written to provide guidance to staff when there are questions about the application
of an LDC provision and date back to 1997. The SCs have been displayed on Zoning's website
for several years. During the September 25, 2012 BCC hearing of this item (Agenda Item
16A7), the Board directed the County Manager to bring to the CCPC all written Staff
Clarifications of the LDC for their review and comment.
Pursuant to Board direction, staff will evaluate past SCs to determine which ones have not been
superseded by subsequent code amendments and will bring to the Board for review all current
SCs. On December 11, 2012, (Agenda Item 16A28) the Board approved the schedule for review
of the selected Staff Clarifications as well as the first set of clarifications. Staff will review the
remaining SCs for applicability and will place them on the Board's consent agenda according to
the approved schedule. Staff will also report to the Board those items that have been superseded
by subsequent code amendments and are no longer applicable.
Staff is requesting the Board review and accept the following SCs:
• SC-2009-01,Lot Line Adjustment& Corner Lots
• SC-2000-04,Lot Reduction
• SC-2006-03,Transportation Review of SDPI Amendments
• SC-2006-01,Wedding Cake Setbacks
• SC-2004-02,Waterfront Setbacks
• SC-2007-02, Setback measurement on cul-de-sacs
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:12/12/12
Packet Page-824-
1/22/2013 Item 16.A.11.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The
CCPC reviewed the attached Staff Clarifications during their December 6, 2012 meeting and by
a vote of 8-0; they recommended that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approve the
SC memorandums as presented.
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 accept the attached Staff
Clarifications as recommended for approval by the CCPC.
PREPARED BY: Michael Bosi,AICP,Interim Director,Department of Planning&Zoning
Growth Management Division—Planning and Regulation
Attachments:
• 1. SC-2009-01, Lot Line Adjustment&Corner Lots
2. SC-2000-04,Lot Reduction
3. SC-2006-03, Transportation Review of SDPI Amendments
4. SC-2006-01, Wedding Cake Setbacks
5. SC-2004-02, Waterfront Setbacks
6. SC-2007-02, Setback measurement on cul-de-sacs
Revised:12/12/12
Packet Page-825-
1/22/2013 Item 16.A.11.
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Item Number: 16.A.11.
Item Summary: Recommendation to accept the specific past staff clarifications of the
Land Development Code (LDC) attached to this Executive Summary.
Meeting Date: 1/22/2013
Prepared By
Name: BellowsRay
Title: Manager-Planning,Comprehensive Planning
12/27/2012 2:50:58 PM
Approved By
Name: BosiMichael
Title: Manager-Planning,Comprehensive Planning
Date: 12/27/2012 3:33:07 PM
Name: PuigJudy
Title: Operations Analyst, GMD P&R
Date: 12/31/2012 1:59:42 PM
Name: MarcellaJeanne
Title:Executive Secretary,Transportation Planning
Date: 1/9/2013 7:24:34 AM
Name: AshtonHeidi
Title: Section Chief/Land Use-Transportation,County Attor
Date: 1/11/2013 2:53:43 PM
Name: KlatzkowJeff
Title: County Attorney
Date: 1/11/2013 3:25:01 PM
Name: FinnEd
Title: Senior Budget Analyst,OMB
Date: 1/11/2013 4:22:21 PM
Packet Page-826-
1/22/2013 Item 16.A.11 .
Name: OchsLeo ^,
Title: County Manager
Date: 1/11/2013 5:10:57 PM
Packet Page-827-
1/22/2013 Item 16.A.11 .
ATTACHMENT 1
COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE STAFF CLARIFICATION
CURRENT PLANNING STAFF CLARIFICATION SC 09-001
DATE:March 16,2009
LDC SECTION:10.02.02.B.B.Ord.No.04-41 (formerly 3.2.4.8.,Ord.No.91-102)Lot line
adjustment/reconfiguration
SUBJECT:Lot line adjustments,changing non-corner lots to corner lots and reduction of setbacks
INITIATED BY:Zoning Director as a result of BZA policy direction February 24,2009
BACKGROUND/CONSIDERATIONS:Section 3.2.4.8 allows adjustment of lot lines between
contiguous lots or parcels to correct engineering or surveying error,or to allow an"insubstantial
boundary change." There are situations where a lot line adjustment is requested for which the
approval results in a lot status change from a non-corner lot to a corner lot or vice versa. This
results in a rearrangement of setbacks(rear yards become side yards,etc). Other situations may
result in the enlargement of the buildable area of the lot,thus potentially increasing the density or
intensity or size of the permitted structure.
DETERMINATION(CLARIFICATION):When a lot line adjustment is requested,the resultant
change shall not have the effect of changing a non-corner lot to a corner lot or vice versa and shall
not result in any situation which causes an increase in the buildable area of a lot or otherwise
would allow for a larger structure,additional structures or encroachments into the required
yards in the before condition.
AUTHOR Susan M.Istenes,Zoning Director
VALIDATED:Ray Bellows,Zoning Manager,Department of Planning&Zoning on 11/8/12
Cc:William L.Lorenz,PE,Director,Engineering and Environmental Services
John Houldsworth,Senior Site Plan Reviewer
Zoning Staff
Zoning Interpretation File
11-8-12
Packet Page-828-
ATTACHh1EN T 2
1/22/2013 Item 16.A.11.
COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE STAFF CLARIFICATION
CURRENT PLANNING STAFF CLARIFICATION SC 2000-04
DATE:31 May 2000
LDC SEC HON:2.1.13(Now 9.03.07)Reduction of lot area prohibited
INITIATED BY:Staff
BACKGROUND/CONSIDERATIONS:The section in question states that lot area cannot be
legally reduced unless the reduction is for'public use in any manner,including dedication,
condemnation,purchased,and the like." There have been cases where part of a lot has been sold
outright to the owner of a neighboring property,rather than dedicated as an easement or right-
of-way easement,to provide private access to the neighboring property. In some cases,this sale
has reduced the original lot area below the minimum allowed for the zoning district. The
question is whether the lot which has been reduced in area is legally nonconforming.
DETERMINATION(CLARIFICATION):Since the part of the lot which was sold outright was
used to create a private,rather than public,access to the neighboring property,the lot which was
reduced in area below the minimum required by Code is an illegal nonconforming lot,and no
building permits should be issued for this propel ty.
AUTHOR:Susan Istenes
VALIDATED:Ray Bellows,Zoning Manager on 11/8/12
(for Robert J.Muihere,AICP,Director, Planning Services Department)
THROUGH:Ronald F.Nino,AICP,Manager,Current Planning Section)
cc:Building Department
Code Enforcement Department
Staff Clarification File
• 11/8/12
Packet Page-829-
1/22/2013 Item 16.A.11.
ATTACHMENT 3
COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE STAFF CLARIFICATION
ZONING&LAND DEVELOPMENT STAFF CLARIFICATION SC 06-03
DATE:4 October 2006
LDC SECTION: 10.02.03.B.3
SUBJECT:SDP Insubstantial Changes,Transportation Review
INITIATED BY:Staff
BACKGROUND/CONSIDERATIONS:LDC Section 10.02.03.B.3 identifies criteria for
Insubstantial Changes to Site Development Plans(SDPI),including the following(g.):The
proposed change is Insubstantial if"The change does not include the addition of any accessory
structure that generates additional traffic as determined by the Transportation Planning Director
Manager..."This language gives the Transportation Planning Dircctor Manager the ability to
require that the proposed work be reviewed as an SDP Amendment should he or she determine
that the accessory structure generates additional traffic.
The Transportation Planning beater Manager has indicated that,in certain circumstances,
review of the proposed work as an SDP Amendment would not be necessary even though
additional traffic is generated,should the applicant comply with site-specific Transportation
Department requirements,including,but not limited to,provision of sidewalks(or payment in
lieu),provision of ADA-accessible walkways,provision of turn lanes and submittal of Traffic
Impact Statements.
Further,the Transportation Administrator has indicated that his department would not approve
any SDPI if a situation existed anywhere on the property that resulted in a pedestrian or
vehicular life safety hazard,although this issue is not addressed in paragraph g.
DETERMINATION(CLARIFICATION):It is my determination that the Transportation
Planning Director Manager is acting in accordance with the intent of the Code in using his or her
discretion by applying Transportation requirements in the context of an SDPI when an accessory
structure generates additional traffic.
Furthermore,it is my determination that the Transportation requirement to address life safety
hazards anywhere on the property is compatible with LDC Section 10.02.03.4(Site Development
and Site Improvement Plan Standards),which says(b.)that that SDPs and SDPIs shall be
reviewed in accordance with standards including"vehicular and pedestrian safety."
AUTHOR:Susan Murray,Director,Department of Zoning&Land Development Review
VALIDATED:Ray Bellows,Zoning Manager,Department of Planning&Zoning
cc:Joe Schmitt,CDES Administrator
Tom Kuck,Engineering Services Director
Norm Feder,AICP,Transportation Administrator
Don Scott,Transportation Planning Director
Revised:11/8/2012
Packet Page-830-
1/22/2013 Item 16.A.11.
ATTACHMENT 4
COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE STAFF CLARIFICATION
ZONING&LAND DEVELOPMENT STAFF CLARIFICATION SC-06-01
DATE:February 3,2006
SUBJECT:"Wedding cake"setbacks and single-family residential structures
INITIATED BY:Staff
BACKGROUND/CONSIDERATIONS: The Zoning Director has determined that setbacks for
any structure must be measured from the property line to the outermost wall of the structure at
grade level, unless otherwise allowed by a specific PUD document. In situations where the
setback is determined either by building height or by the number of stories, previous Planning
Directors have allowed the setback to be measured to varying levels of the building at varying
heights: the so-called "wedding cake" method. The previous policy is no longer in effect for all
structures,including single-family homes,unless otherwise permitted in a PUD.
There has been some confusion with regard to the measurement of setbacks for single-family
homes in PUD zoning districts requiring different setbacks for one- and two-story homes. The
intent is to clarify the application of this policy to that situation.
DETERMINATION (CLARIFICATION): When setbacks are determined according to the
number of stories of a single family home, the two-story setback will apply, on both sides of the
property, regardless of whether part or all of the home consists of two stories,and the addition of a full
or partial second story to an existing home built according to single-story setbacks cannot be
approved without a Variance.
AUTHOR:Susan Murray,Director,Department of Zoning&Land Development Review
VALIDATED BY:Ray Bellows,Zoning.Manager,Department of Planning&Zoning on 11/8/12
cc: Bill Hammond,Building Director
Correspondence file
Revised:4-11-12
Packet Page-831-
1/22/2013 Item 16.A.11 .
ATTACHMENT 5
COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE STAFF CLARIFICATION
CURRENT PLANNING STAFF CLARIFICATION SC-2004-02
DATE:May 24,2004 •
LDC SECTION:2.6.2.2.4.02.03
INITIATED BY: Susan Murray
BACKGROUND/CONSIDERATIONS: This section of the LDC sets forth the standards for accessory
structures on Waterfront and Golf Course lots. This clarification deals-with concerns superscript 3 relating
that relates to the setback requirements where swimming pool decks exceed 4 feet in height above the top
of the seawall or bank for one and two family dwelling units.
Clarification is needed regarding the requirement for additional setback distance where the swimming pool
deck exceeds 4 feet in height above the top of the seawall or top of bank. It is not apparent from the code
provisions as to whether or not this is intended to apply to only the swimming pool deck or to other
structures such as a spa or waterfall or other structure integrated into the pool deck.
DETERMINATION (CLARIFICATION): The intent of the regulation is to require additional setback
distances where the vertical wall supporting the horizontal deck the pool deck itself exceeds 4 feet in height
above the top of the seawall or top of bank(or in the case of Manse d-and Isles of Capri per the LDC).
The measurement should be taken from grade to the highest point of the deck supporting the pool or spa,
or both, ignoring swimming pool/spa appurtenances such as waterfalls, spa walls, ladders, and the like
unless these appurtenances have the effect of heightening the vertical wall supporting the deck.
AUTHOR: Susan Murray,AICP,Director,Zoning Department
VALIDATED BY:Ray Bellows,Zoning Section Manager,Department of Planning&Zoning
cc: Ray Bellows,Zoning Manager
Ross Gochenaur,Senior Planner
Cheryl Soter,Senior Planner
Alamar Smiley,Permitting Supervisor
C:\Program Files\Neevia.Com\Document Converter\temp\23 26598.docx
Packet Page-832-
1/22/2013 Item 16.A.11 .
ATTACHMENT 6
COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE STAFF CLARIFICATION
ZONING&LAND DEVELOPMENT STAFF CLARIFICATION SC-07-02
DATE:21 August 2007;Updated March 16,2009
LDC SECTION:Div.6.3 Definitions(Ordinance Number:91-102,definition inadvertently
omitted from LDC Ord.04-41)
SUBJECT:Front yard setback measurement on cul-de-sac lots
INITIATED BY:Building Department,Zoning Staff
BACKGROUND/CONSIDERATIONS:The definition of"yard,front"contains the following
language:"In the cases of irregularly shaped lots,including cul-de-sac,the depth may be
measured at right angles to a straight line joining the foremost points of the side lot line,
provided the depth at any point is never less than the minimum length of a standard parking
space..."
There are irregular shaped lots that exist which meet the definition of corner lots,cul-de-sac lots,
and irregular lots,or any combination of these lots. The LDC language states that"...the depth of
the required front yard may be measured at right angles..." In cases where a combination of the
lot types described above exist,measurement based on a line connecting the side lot lines could
result in a significant decrease in the building envelope,in some cases making it impossible to
construct a structure of reasonable size on the property.The Building Department and Zoning
(Planning)Departments have historically taken all measurement of front yard setbacks for cul-
de-sac
lots based on a chord;that is,a line connecting the two side lot lines intersecting the arc of
the cul-de-sac(Drawing A),or,in cases of irregular or corner lots which are also cul-de-sac lots,a
line connecting the point where one site side lot line intersects the arc of the cul-de-sac with the
point at which the cul-de-sac arc terminates. (Drawing B)
DETERMINATION(CLARIFICATION):It is my decision that use of the discretionary"may"in
the above definition allows the Zoning Director or designee to allow measurement which would
provide the most reasonable building envelope on the property for those lots which do not front
entirely on the arc of the cul-de-sac and that the historical method of measurement for cul-de-sac
lots employed by the Building and Zoning Departments,as described above,is consistent with
this decision. This clarification Updated as a result of BZA direction: When the chord
methodology is used,the areas of the lot subject to the chord measurement shall not result in a
setback of less than 18 feet from the property line.All other frontage on the lot not subject to the
chord measurement shall comply with the minimum setback of the zoning district.
AUTHOR:Susan Istenes,Director,Department of Zoning&Land Development Review
VALIDATED BY:Ray Bellows,Zoning Manager,Department of Planning&Zoning
cc:Joseph Schmitt,Division Administrator
A.Roland Holt,Building Director
Tom Kuck,Engineering Director
Bob Dunn,Inspections and Plans Review Manager
Glenda Smith,Operations Analyst
Staff Clarification File
11/8/12
Packet Page-833-
1/22/2013 Item 16.A.11.
ATTACHMENT 6
0 A
•
.,
N
N
___.„ .
,.. .
- . , .., 6
., ,,,.. r
0 Q
•
ID
DRAWING A
11/8/12
Packet Page-834-
1/22/2013 Item 16.A.11 .
ATTACHMENT 6
■
•
(3)
f
• ¢
c."; .4.47;?4,
pv /
f
i
•
DRAWING B
11/8/12
Packet Page-835-