Agenda 02/12/2013 Item #16A16n
2/12/2013 16.A.16.
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superseded by subsequent code amendments and will bring to the Board for review all current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, the BCC approved the schedule for Board review of the selected
Staff Clarifications as well as the first set of clarifications. On January 22, 2013, the BCC
accepted six (6) more 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also report to the Board those items that have been superseded by subsequent code amendments
and are no longer applicable.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- 2007 -01, Elevated Pad-Mounted Air. Conditioning Units
• SC- 2006 -05, Fuel Tanks in RSF &`E Zoning Districts
• SC- 2006 -02, Golden Gate Estates Easements
• SC-2005-02,, Clubhouse Parking
• SC- 2004 -05, Building Height Limitations, Exceptions
• SC- 2004 -04, Accessory Structures, Maximum Lot Coverage
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) E%IPACT: There is no GNP impact for this
item.
Packet Page -1262-
2/12/2013 16.A.16.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been reviewed by the County Attorney, is legally
sufficient, and requires majority vote for approval. -HFAC
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMNDATION: The
CCPC reviewed the attached Staff Clarifications during their January 17, 2013 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- 2007 -01, Elevated Pad Mounted Air Conditioning Units
2. SC- 2006 -05, Fuel Tanks in RSF & E Zoning Districts
3. SC- 2006 -02, Golden Gate Estates Easements
4. SC- 2005 -02, Clubhouse Parking
5. SC- 2004 -05, Building Height Limitations, Exceptions
6. SC- 2004 -04, Accessory Structures, Maximum Lot Coverage
Packet Page -1263-
2/12/2013 16.A.16.
^ COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Item Number: 16.16.A.16.A.16.
Item Summary: Recommendation to accept the specific past Staff Clarifications of the
Land Development Code (LDC) attached to this Executive Summary.
Meeting Date: 2/12/2013
Prepared By
Name: BellowsRay
Title: Manager - Planning, Comprehensive Planning
1/17/2013 5:21:19 PM
Submitted by
Title: Manager - Planning, Comprehensive Planning
Name: BellowsRay
1/17/ 2013 5:21:21 PM
Approved By
Name: BosiMichael
Title: Manager - Planning,Comprehensive Planning
Date: 1/18/2013 10:37:57 AM
Name: PuigJudy
Title: Operations Analyst, GMD P &R
Date: 1/22/2013 3:37:06 PM
Name: MarcellaJeanne
Title: Executive Secretary,Transportation Planning
Date: 1/28/2013 3:36:10 PM
Name: AshtonHeidi
Title: Section Chief/Land Use- Transportation,County Attor
Date: 1/30/2013 4:54:17 PM
Name: FinnEd
Packet Page -1264-
Title: Senior Budget Analyst, OMB
Date: 1/31/2013 9:37:36 AM
Name: KlatzkowJeff
Title: County Attorney
Date: 1/31/2013 9:52:17 AM
Name: OchsLeo
Title: County Manager
Date: 1/31/2013 3:29:18 PM
Packet Page -1265-
2/12/2013 16.A.16.
1*0"N
11�
11-N
2/12/2013 16.A.16.
Cofty Count
STAFF REPORT
TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM; ZONING SERVICES—PLANNING & ZONING , DEPARTMENT
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION -- PLANNING & REGULATION
HEARING DATE: JANUARY 17, 2013
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF STAFF CLARIFICATIONS
REOUESTED ACTION: To have the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) to review past si
clarifications of the Land Development Code and to forward a recommendation to accept the selected S1
Clarifications to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC).
CONSIDERATIONS: On September 25, 2012, the BCC directed the County Manager to bring to
CCPC all written staff clarifications of the Land Development Code (LDC) for their review and conimc
Staff Clarifications (SC) are those memorandums that have been written by the Planning & Zon
Director to provide guidance to staff when there are questions about'Ahe application of an LDC provisi
These SC memorandums date back to 1997. These SCs have also been displayed on Zoning's website
several years.
Pursuant to BCC direction, staff will evaluate past SCs to determine which ones have not been superse(
by subsequent code amendments and will present all current SCs to the CCPC and to the Board for revi
and comment. On November 1, 2012, the CCPC recommended approval of the schedule for the CCPC z
BCC review all tie SCs associated with the LDC. Staff has reviewedthe SCs for applicability according
the approved schedule.
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 rep
for the CCPC review of Staff clarification memorandums on January 17, 2012.
RECOMMENDATION: Recommendation for the Collier County Planning Commission to forwarc
recommendation to the BCC to accept the following Staff Clarifications:
• SC-2007-01, Elevated Pad Mounted Air Conditioning Units
• SC-2006-05, Fuel Tanks in RSF & E Zoning Districts
• SC-2006-02, Golden Gate Estates Easements
• SC-2005-02, Clubhouse Parking
• SC-2004-05, Building Height Limitations, Exceptions
• SC-2004-04, Accessory Structures, Maximum Lot Coverage
January 17, 2013 CCPC - Revised: 12112112
Packet Page -1266-
to
a
PREPARED BY:
D6Lo
RAMYM D V. BELL S, ZONNTMNAGER
EPAR NT PLANNING AND ZONING
MIKE BOSI, AICP, INTERIM DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING
MANAGEMENT I)
7,
DATE
DATE
DATE
2/12/201316.A.16.
Tentatively scheduled for the February 12, 2013 Board of County Commissioners Meeting
Attachments:
1. SC-2007-01, Elevated Pad Mounted Air Conditioning Units
2. SC-2006-05, Fuel Tanks in RSF & E Zoning Districts
3. SC-2006-02, Golden Gate Estates Easements
4. SC-2005-02, Clubhouse Parking
5. SC-2004-05, Building Height Limitations, Exceptions
6. SC-2004-04, Accessory Structures, Maximum Lot Coverage
January 17, 2013 CCPC - Revised: 12112112
Packet Page -1267-
U
ATT.
COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT
ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT ST
DATE: 18 June 2007
LDC SECTION: 4.02.01.1)
SUBTECT: Elevated pad mounted Air Conditioning
INITIATED: BY: Staff
2/12/2013 16.A.16.
STAFF CLARIFICATION
CLARIFICATION: SC -07 -01
BACKGROUND /CONSIDERATIONS: LDC Section 4 02.01.D.6 states that wall- mounted A/C
units may protrude two feet into a required yard. Section 4.02.01.D.9 states that pad- mounted
A/C units are permitted in required yards. "Pad-mounted" has historically been interpreted by
the Zoning Department as meaning mounted on the ground.
DETERMINATION (CLARIFICATION): There has be
application of the aforementioned Land Development (
permits. It appears that the rule applying air conditions
applied to allow A/C units placed on elevated pads to
allowed by LDC Section 4.02.01.D.6. A/C units mounte
impact as a wall mounted A/C unit however because tl
which require the units to meet flood elevation, up to ai
appears as if the rule allowing unlimited encroachment
mounted A/C units. In order to resolve this discrepant
units as "pad- mounted" regardless of the type of suppc
extent of the encroachment to that which maintains the
structures. A Land Development Code amendment wil
provision. In the interim, units meeting this limitation
which don't violate the building separation requiremen
AUTHOR: Susan M. Istenes, Director, Department of
VALIDATED: Mike Sawyer, Project Manager and Ray
Planning & Zoning
cc: Joseph Schmitt, CDES Administrator
Bob Dunn, Acting Building Director
Packet Page -121
!n some confusion related to the
ode citation when issuing Building
r encroachments has apparently been
)rotrude well in excess of the two feet
I on elevated pads would have the same
e practice is common in coastal VE areas
least 14 feet (VE 14) in some areas, it
has also been applied to elevated pad
� it is my decision to treat these elevated
..ting structure however, I am limiting the
, equired separation distance between
be prepared to incorporate this
Till be allowed to exist and new units
s may be permitted.
& Land Development Review
Zoning Manager, Department of
2/12/2013 16.A.16.
ATTACHMENT 2
COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE STAFF CLARIFICATION
ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT STAFF CLARIFICATION: SC -06 -05
DATE: 3 January 2007
LDC SECTION: 1.08.02 (Definitions}, 2.04.00 2.03.00 (Permissible, Conditional
and Accessory Uses in Zoning Districts), 5.02.00 (Home Occupations)
SUBTECT: High- capacity Fuel Tanks in Residential, Single - family and Estates
Zoning Districts
INITIATED BY: Staff, based on request for clarification by Code Enforcement
Investigator
BACKGROUND /CONSIDERATIONS: Code Enforcement has reported a
number of complaints regarding high- capacity (500 - plus gallon) gasoline and
diesel fuel tanks being used in Estates zoning to support certain commercial
businesses, such as hauling, lawn maintenance, excavation, and landscaping,
being operated legally or illegally on the property.
While home occupations are permitted by Section 5.02.00, this section also says
that the home occupation shall be clearly incidental to the use of the home for
dwelling purposes and shall not change the character of the dwelling.
Additionally, Subsection H states that "no on- premise use or storage of any
hazardous material shall be kept in such an amount as to be potentially
dangerous to persons or property outside the confines of the home occupation."
This section would apply to towed fuel tanks or fuel tank trucks having a fuel
capacity of greater than 250 gallons. Such commercial vehicles would be
prohibited regardless of whether the owner possessed a valid home occupational
license since the use would not be typically associated with a single - family home.
Section 1.08.02 defines an accessory use or structure as a use or structure located
on the same lot or parcel and incidental or subordinate to the principal use or
structure.
In discussing the situation with the Building Director, the Engineering Review
Manager, and representatives of the Fire Department, Environmental Services
Department and Pollution Control Department, it is the consensus that high -
capacity fuel tanks, both above and below ground, constitute an unacceptable
and unnecessary hazard within Single - family and Estates zoning districts, in
particular in Golden Gate Estates, where storage of large amounts of combustible
liquid could pose a additional threat to an area already highly vulnerable to
brush fires. High - capacity fuel tanks must be emptied regularly to avoid
Packet Page -1269-
2/12/2013 16.A.16.
ATTACHMENT" 2
n contamination by rust particles, dirt, and water and can become varnished or
gummy, clogging fuel lines and pumps, and there is no need for regular
consumption of a high volume of fuel in connection with day -to -day activity
associated with a single- family home..
For the purposes of this Staff Clarification, "high- capacity tank" is defined as any
tank or container holding in excess of 250 gallons of fuel. This amount should be
sufficient to power lawn tractors, lawn mowers, chainsaws, or other small
motors typically used in a single - family home
Fuel tanks providing heating oil to homes, gasoline or diesel fuel to emergency
generators, and propane tanks are exempt from the provisions of this Staff Clarification;
although all state and local permitting requirements will apply.
DETERMINATION (CLARIFICATION):
determination that a high- capacity above g.
not a typical accessory use or structure incid
use of a single - family home. Furthermore,
occupations employing heavy vehicles and e
diesel fuel does not justify the storage of lar
home occupation. Such stockpiling would
home and would be in violation of Subsectic
hazardous materials.
AUTHOR: Susan M. Istenes, Director,
Development Review
VALIDATED BY: Kay Deselem, Principal
Manager, Department of Planning & Zoning
cc: Bill Hammond, Building Director
Bill Lorenz, Environmental Services Direci
Ray Smith, Pollution Control Director
Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Direc
Stan Chrznowski, Engineering Review Ma
Ed Riley, Fire Code Official
Susan O'Farrell, Environmental Investigat
Zoning Department staff
Building and Permitting Department Staff
Packet Page -
It is the Zoning Director's
and or below - ground fuel tank is
ital or subordinate to the principal
e fact that the Code allows home
.iipment powered by gasoline and
amounts. of fuel in support of the
Dt be incidental. to the use of the
H, which addresses the storage of
t of Zoning & Land
Planner & Ray Bellows, Zoning
2/12/2013 16.A.16.
ATTACHMENT 3
COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE STAFF CLARIFICATION
ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT STAFF CLARIFICATION: SC -06 -02
DATE: July 21, 2006
LDC SECTION: Division 6.3 Definitions (LDC Ord. 91 -102)
SUBJECT: Partial revision of definition of Yard, Front, relating to setbacks from access
easements in Golden Gate Estates; the original language addressing this issue was
inadvertently omitted from Ordinance 04 -41
INITIATED BY: Staff
BACKGROUND /CONSIDERATIONS: The language in LDC Ord. 91 -102 was
confusing in stating that access easements serving three or less lots of record "shall not
constitute a front yard for the purposes of establishing building setback lines." This
statement defeats the purpose of establishing access easements creating street frontage for
one or two of the lots involved, which is to create a front yard for setback purposes. The
original intent of the language was to prevent the establishment of new front yards on
adjacent lots abutting the newly- created easement. In addition, the original language
referred to bisecting and perimeter easements which have since been vacated. The
proposed revised language clarifies the situation and eliminates the reference to bisecting 1-111N
and perimeter easements.
DETERMINATION (CLARIFICATION): The LDC will be amended to revise the
language as follows: "In the Golden Gate Estates Subdivision, access easements which
are created to provide street frontage for three or fewer reconfigured or replatted lots, will
constitute a front yard for the purposes of establishing building setback lines only for
those lots on which the easement lies and not for any other lots abutting the easement."
AUTHOR: Susan Murray, AICP, Director, Department of Zoning & Land Development
Review
VALIDATED BY: Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner and Ray Bellows, Zoning
Manager, Department of Planning & Zoning
cc: Tom Kuck, Director, Engineering Services
John Houldsworth, Senior Engineer
David Weeks, Manager, Growth Management
Bill Hammond, Building Director
Packet Page -1271-
2/12/2013 1.6.A.16.
ATTACHMENT 4
COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE STAFF CLARIFICATION
ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT STAFF CLARIFICATION: SC- 2005 -02
DATE: 26 April 2005
LDC SECTION: 2.05.04
SUBTECT: Calculation of parking for clubhouses
INITIATED BY: Staff
4.05.04 - Table 17 (Parking Space Requirements) addre
required for a clubhouse that is associated with a golf c
neighborhood clubhouse associated with a multi-famil
within a multifamily development for recreational facia
associated with these facilities. This language is confu:
shows that it has been subject to varying interpretation
of the Code. In determining the number of parking spi
uses typically associated with a golf course which may
separate structure; however, these uses are merely exai
and not exclusive for consideration of required parkin€
1. Undergo lf course, the code states that the park
for office /lobby /pro shop /health club /clubho
room areas" and than goes on to address exteri
2. Under multi family dwellings, the code states 1
facilities are accessory to a single - family or mu]
residents of this project, exclusive of golf course
may be computed at 50 percent of normal requ:
dwelling units are not within 300 feet of the rec
normal requirements where the majority of the
recreation facilities."
DETERMINATION (CLARIFICATION): Effective this
clubhouses associated with a golf course, which typical]
meeting room areas and lounge or dining room, the par
square footage within the exterior walls. For clubhouse
developments, the parking should be calculated separat
specified in the Code, and separately for the clubhouse 1
clubhouses.
AUTHOR: Joyce Ernst, Department of Zoning & Land
VALIDATED BY: John Kelly, Planner and Ray
Planning & Zoning
cc: Staff Clarification file
TD /CONSIDERATIONS: Section
ses the number of parking spaces
urse but does not address parking for a
development; it addresses parking
ies, but not for the clubhouse often
zg and review of approved site plans
resulting in an inconsistent application
es required, the Code lists a variety of
e located within the clubhouse or a
ples of uses associated with a golf course
g requirement is "1 per 200 square feet
;e /lounge /snack bar /dining /meeting
recreation.
at "where small-scale recreation
- family project and intended only for the
/clubhouses, the recreation facilities
�ment where the majority of the
!ation facilities and at 25 percent of
welling units are within 300 feet of the
date, it is my determination that, for
7 contain an office, lobby, pro shop,
,ing should be calculated utilizing all the
s associated with multifamily
>ly for the recreational facilities as
ising the same method as for golf course
Review
Zoning Manager, Department of
Packet Page -1272-
2/12/2013 16.A.16.
ATTACHMENT 5
COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE STAFF CLARIFICATION `0—N,
ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT STAFF CLARIFICATION SC 2004 -05
DATE: November 10, 2004
LDC SECTION: 1.09.02 (Definitions: Building, zoned height of)
SUBJECT: Exemptions from Building Height Limitations
INITIATED BY: Zoning Department Staff
BACKGROUND/ CONSIDERATIONS: The following language is contained within the definition
of zoned building height referred to above: "Rooftop recreational space and accessory facilities
are also exempted from the limitations established for measuring the height of buildings." The
Code does not further define "recreational space and accessory facilities," and a request for
clarification of this language, with regard to the intent of the Code, has been received.
DETERMINATION (CLARIFICATION): It is my determination that the language in question was
intended to allow accessory uses which would not have the visual effect of increased building
height, and refers to unenclosed, unroofed, and unairconditioned space for recreational use. This
would include such uses as tennis courts, sun decks, running tracks, gym and exercise
equipment, and swimming pools or spas which are not raised above rooftop level. The reference
to accessory facilities would consist of those exceptions to height limitation identified in LDC
Section 4.02.01.D.1 as infrastructure in support of the building, including structures which do not
consist of air- conditioned, habitable space, such as those used to house equipment (pumps,
condensers, generators, elevators, etc.).
AUTHOR: Ross Gochenaur (for Susan Murray, AICP, Director, Department of Zoning & Land
Development Review)
VALIDATED BY: Fred Reischl, Senior Planner and Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager, Department
of Planning & Zoning
cc: Project planners
Michael R. Fernandez, AICP, President, PDI
Packet Page -1273-
ATT
COLLIER COUNTY LAND
ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT ST.
DATE: July 26, 2004
LDC SECTION: Division 2.6 (Accessory Structures) an(
SUBJECT: Applicability of Maximum Lot Coverage for
INITIATED BY: Staff
2/12/2013 16.A.16.
CODE STAFF CLARIFICATION
CLARIFICATION # SC 2004 -04
Division 6.3 (Definitions)
Structures
BACKGROUND/ CONSIDERATIONS: During review of a Site Development Plan for a multi-
family project, staff was asked to clarify whether th2 limitations regarding size of accessory
buildings - a maximum lot area in square feet that could be occupied by accessory buildings -
would apply to an attached one -story structure providing parking for the residents of a multi-
family high -rise tower.
DETERMINATION (CLARIFICATION):
It is my determination that a one - story parking structure attached to a multi- family tower would
be considered part of the principal structure, and that the area occupied by the parking structure
would not be used in the calculation of lot coverage by accessory structures.
In Division 6.3, the definition of "Accessory Use or Structure" states that "Where a building is
attached to a principal building, it shall be conside d a part thereof, and not an accessory
building, except as provided in Division 2.6..."
Section 2.0.2.1. (Location of Accessory Buildings and Structures) states that '...in order to
determine yard requirements, the term "accessory structure" shall include detached and attached
accessory use structures of buildings notwithstanding the attachment of such structure or
building containing the accessory use to the principal use structure or building.'
Section 2.6.2.3. (Limitations as to Size of Accessory buildings and Structures) states that
"Accessory buildings shall not occupy an area greater than five percent of the total lot area in all
residential zoning districts, or occupy an area greater than 40 percent of any building
envelope... whichever is the lesser..."
It is my opinion that there is no exception in the 1 guage of Division 2.6 to indicate that a
parking structure attached to a multi- family high -rise wer would not be considered part of the
principal structure and therefore be exempt from accessory structure lot coverage requirements.
AUTHOR: Susan Murray, AICP, Director, Department Of Zoning & Land Development Review)
VALIDATED BY: Mike Sawyer, Project Manager and
Department of Planning & Zoning
cc: Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney
Staff Clarification file
Bellows, Zoning Manager,
Packet Page -1274-