Agenda 04/23/2013 Item #16A114/23/2013 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superseded by subsequent code amendments and will bring to the Board for review all current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 1 l , 2012, the Board approved the schedule for review of the selected Staff
Clarifications as well as the first set of clarifications. On March 21, 2013, the BCC accepted
four (4) more clarifications with one that was withdrawn. 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 Staff will also report to the Board those items that have been superseded by
subsequent code amendments and are no longer applicable.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 Staff Clarifications except for SC-
2000-03 that has been withdrawn.
• SC- 1999 -01, Golden Gate Estate Lot Line Adjustments
• SC- 2000 -01, Accessory Structure Setbacks
• SC- 2000 -02, Combining Lots
• SC- 2000 -03, Water Feature (Withdrawn as noted above)
• SC- 2000 -05, LNC Dock Repairs
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.
Packet Page -702-
4/23/2013 16.A.11.
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) RECOMMENDATION: The
CCPC reviewed the attached Staff Clarifications during their March 21, 2013 meeting and by a
vote of 8 -0; they recommended that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approve the SC
memorandums as presented with a note that SC- 2000 -03 (Attachment 4) and SC -01 -01
(Attachment 5) have been superseded by subsequent LDC amendments that are no longer
applicable. As a result, these two Staff Clarification memorandums have been withdrawn.
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- 1999 -01, Golden Gate Estate Lot Line Adjustments
2. SC- 2000 -01, Accessory Structure Setbacks
3. SC- 2000 -02, Combining Lots
4. SC- 2000 -03, Water Feature (Withdrawn as noted above)
5. SC- 2000 -05, LNC Dock Repairs
Packet Page -703-
4/23/2013 16.A.11.
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Item Number: 16.16.A.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: 4/23/2013
Prepared By
Name: BellowsRay
Title: Manager - Planning, Comprehensive Planning
3/27/2013 1:54:40 PM
Approved By
Name: PuigJudy
Title: Operations Analyst, GMD P &R
Date: 3/29/2013 11:37:21 AM
Name: BosiMichael
Title: Manager - Planning,Comprehensive Planning
Date: 4/4/2013 3:15:09 PM
Name: AshtonHeidi
Title: Section Chief/Land Use- Transportation,County Attor
Date: 4/10/2013 1:58:12 PM
Name: MarcellaJeanne
Title: Executive Secretary,Transportation Planning
Date: 4/10/2013 4:54:31 PM
Name: KlatzkowJeff
Title: County Attorney
Date: 4/11/2013 8:42:03 AM
Name: FirmEd
Title: Senior Budget Analyst, OMB
Date: 4/12/2013 3:00:11 PM
Packet Page -704-
Name: OchsLeo
Title: County Manager
Date: 4/12/2013 4:06:44 PM
Packet Page -705-
4/23/2013 16.A.11.
4/23/2013 16.A.11.
Co e-r County
STAFF REPORT
TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: ZONING SERVICES — PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION -- PLANNING & REGULATION
HEARING DATE: MARCH 21, 2013
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF STAFF CLARIFICATIONS
REOUESTED ACTION: To have the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) to review past
staff clarifications of the Land Development Code and to forward a recommendation to accept the
selected Staff Clarifications to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC).
CONSIDERATIONS: On September 25, 2012, the BCC directed the County Manager to bring to
the CCPC all written staff clarifications of the Land Development Code (LDC) for their review and
comment. Staff Clarifications (SC) are those memorandums that have been written by the Planning
& Zoning Director to provide guidance to staff when there are questions about the application of an
LDC provision. These SC memorandums date back to 1997. These SCs have also been displayed on
Zoning's website for several years.
Pursuant to BCC direction, staff will evaluate past SCs to detennine which ones have not been
superseded by subsequent code amendments and will present all current SCs to the CCPC and to the
Board for review and comment. On November 1, 2012, the CCPC recommended approval of the
schedule for the CCPC and BCC review all the SCs associated with the LDC. Staff has reviewed the
SCs for applicability according to the approved schedule.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: There is no GMP impact for this item.
COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff
report for the CCPC review of Staff clarification memorandums on February 25, 2012.
RECOMMENDATION: Recommendation for the Collier County Planning Commission to
forward a recommendation to the BCC to accept the following Staff Clarifications except for SC-
2000-03 that has been superseded by subsequent amendments to the LDC.
• SC- 1999 -01, Golden Gate Estate Lot Line Adjustments
• SC- 2000 -01, Accessory Structure Setbacks
• SC- 2000 -02, Combining Lots
• SC- 2000 -03, Water Feature (Withdrawn as noted above)
• SC- 2000 -05, LNC Dock Repairs
Staff Clarification Memos for the March 21, 201' ) CCPC — Revised 2 -27 -13
Packet Page -706-
4/23/2013 16.A.11.
PREPARED BY:
RAYMOND V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING
REVIEWED BY:
MIKE BOSI, AICP, INTERIM DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING
APPROVED BY:
DATE
DATE
NICK CASALANGUIDA, ADMINISTRATOR DATE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION
Tentatively scheduled for the April 23, 2013 Board of County Commissioners Meeting
Attachments:
1. SC- 1999 -01, Golden Gate Estate Lot Line Adjustments
2. SC- 2000 -01, Accessory Structure Setbacks
3. SC- 2000 -02, Combining Lots
4. SC- 2000 -03, Water Feature
5. SC- 2000 -05, LNC Dock Repairs
Staff Clarification Memos for the March 21, 2013 CCPC — Revised 2 -27 -13
Packet Page -707-
4/23/2013 16.A.11.
COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE STAFF CLARIFICATION
CURRENT PLANNING STAFF CLARIFICATION SC 99 -01
ATTACHMENT 1
DATE: 16 April 1999
LDC SECTION: 2.2.3. Estates district (E) [Now Section 2.03.01.B]
INITIATED BY: Staff
BACKGROUND/ CONSIDERATIONS: When legal, conforming Golden Gate Estates tracts are
split so as to maintain legal area (2.25 acres minimum) and street frontage (150 feet minimum),
imaginative lot line adjustments are sometimes made to accommodate setback requirements for
existing dwellings. A surveying firm has requested clarification of the minimum depth of the
150 -foot street frontage so created.
DETERMINATION (CLARIFICATION): The 150 -foot street frontage must continue to a depth at
least equalling the required minimum front yard, which, in the case of a conforming Estates
interior lot, is 75 feet.
AUTHOR: Ross Gochenaur (for Robert J. Mulhere, AICP, Director, Planning Services
Department)
THROUGH: Ronald F. Nino, AICP, Manager, Current Planning Section)
cc: John Houldsworth
VALIDATED BY: Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager, Department of Planning & Zoning on
2/15/13
Packet Page -708-
4/23/2013 16.A.11.
ATTACHMENT 2
COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE STAFF CLARIFICATION
CURRENT PLANNING STAFF CLARIFICATION SC 00 -01
DATE: 1 March 2000
LDC SECTION: ^ A 2 4.02.03
INITIATED BY: Staff
BACKGROUND/ CONSIDERATIONS: 1. Building Department customer service agents have
requested clarification of the status of roofed, screened porches with regard to setback
requirements. 2. They have also expressed concern that the LDC does not require a separation
between screened enclosures and other structures, and that this could result in a conflict with Fire
Code requirements.
DETERMINATION (CLARIFICATION): 1. Roofed, screened porches attached to a principal
structure are accessory structures, and are not part of the principal structure. They are therefore
not required to meet principal structure setbacks. Should the owner wish to enclose such
structures to create living/ air conditioned space, the resulting area would then become part of
the principal structure, and would then have to meet principal structure setbacks. 2. The
assumption made by the LDC is that a screened enclosure will virtually always be attached to a
principal structure, and a screened enclosure will not normally be attached to another accessory
structure, such as a utility building. In any case, for any unattached structures, a minimum
separation of ten feet between these structures would be required. It would, however, still be
possible to attach a screened enclosure to another accessory structure if desired. All scenarios
would meet current Fire Code requirements. Where there is a question as to whether structures
are "attached," the Building Department would make the decision according to Building Code
structural standards or Building Department policy.
AUTHOR: Ross Gochenaur (for Robert J. Mulhere, AICP, Director, Planning Services
Department)
THROUGH: Ronald F. Nino, AICP, Manager, Current Planning Section)
VALIDATED BY: Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager, Department of Planning & Zoning
cc: Johnnie Gebhardt, Customer Service Supervisor
Bob Salvaggio, Assistant Fire Code Official
Planning Staff
Revised: 2 /25/13
Packet Page -709-
4/23/2013 16.A.11.
ATTACHMENT 3
COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE STAFF CLARIFICATION
CURRENT PLANNING STAFF CLARIFICATION SC 2000 -02
DATE: 7 April 2000
LDC SECTION: 2.2 4.02.03 Accessory building and structures; Division 6- 31.08.00 Definitions
(definition: Accessory use or structure)
INITIATED BY: Staff, at direction of Planning Services Director
BACKGROUND /CONSIDERATIONS: Building Department Customer Service Agents have
expressed a desire for written clarification of the requirements for placing an accessory structure
on a residential lot adjacent to another residential lot on which a principal structure is located
when both lots are under common ownership.
DETERMINATION (CLARIFICATION): An accessory structure, by definition, requires a
principal structure on the same lot, to which it is an accessory use. Section 2.6.2. states that
accessory structures must be constructed after, or simultaneously with, the construction of the
principal structure. Division 6.3 states under the definition of "Accessory use or structure" that
an accessory structure must be "on the same premises" as the principal use, then continues to say
that: "On the same premises.. shall be construed to mean on the same lot or on a contiguous lot
in the same ownership and zoning district." In all zoning districts, therefore, an accessory
structure may be constructed on a lot adjacent to the lot on which the principal structure is
located when the lots are under common ownership. This requires the submittal of a signed
affidavit stating that the accessory structure will be removed if the lots are ever separated and /or
sold individually. This affidavit must be recorded in the Public Records, and a copy of the
affidavit must be submitted along with the application for the building permit for the accessory
structure.
AUTHOR: Ross Gochenaur, Planner II /Cheryl Soter, Planner I (for Robert J. Mulhere, AICP,
Director, Planning Services Department)
THROUGH: Ronald F. Nino, AICP, Manager, Current Planning Section)
VALIDATED BY: Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager, Department of Planning & Zoning
cc: Vincent A. Cautero, Community Development & Environmental Services Director
Johnnie Gebhardt, Customer Service Agent Supervisor
Tom Kuck, Manager, Engineering Review Services
Revised: 2125113
Packet Page -710-
4/23/2013 16.A.11.
ATTACHMENT 4
COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE STAFF CLARIFICATION
CURRENT PLANNING SECTION — SC- 2000 -03
DATE: 16 May 2000
LDC SECTION: 2.6.2. Accessory Buildings & Structures*
INITIATED BY: Staff
BACKGROUND /CONSIDERATIONS: Building Department customer se nts `" e requested
clarification of setback requirements for architectural water features over ch "I entially
zoned front yards. Section 2.6.4. states that every part of every requi d yar all en
unobstructed from 30 inches above ground level; however, Section 2. s that ing in the
LDC shall prohibit landscaping as long as the intersection visi tria .e r d in tion 2.6.1 is
maintained.
DETERMINATION (CLARIFICATION: Architectural over 3 s high, whether or not
they include statuary and /or electrically operated pump are uire o meet setbacks, but
must comply with the provisions of Section 2.6 1 escri e in "ection visibility triangle.
Since these architectural features usually have in on .4h landscaping than with a typical
principal or accessory structure, they sh ea i and exempt from setback
requirements as long as the visibility rigle is tai
AUTHOR: Ross Gochenaur (for ert . " There, ector, Planning Services Department)
THROUGH: Ronald F. ana rren ing Section
VALIDATED BY: nd V. ows, Zo g Manager, Department of Planning & Zoning
* Superceeded y equant J, amen ents
CC: Staff
Revised.• 2127113
Packet Page -711-
4/23/2013 16.A.11.
COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE STAFF CLARIFICATION
CURRENT PLANNING STAFF CLARIFICATION SC 2000 -05
ATTACHMENT 5
DATE: 24 August 2000
LDC SECTION: 1.8.10 [Now 9.03.03.B] Nonconforming structures
INITIATED BY: Staff
BACKGROUND/ CONSIDERATIONS: Customer service agents have requested guidance
regarding the repair of existing boat docks for which no record of a building permit can be found;
specifically, what critera are used to determine the legal nonconforming status of the dock, and to
what extent the dock can be repaired before the work is considered "replacement."
DETERMINATION (CLARIFICATION): Computerized recordkeeping of building permits in
Development Services [Growth Management Division] was initiated in late 1989, therefore any
dock appearing on the Property Appraiser's records (property card) prior to 1990, at the same
location and having the same dimensions as currently exist, will be considered legally
nonconforming. Section 1.8.10 [9.03.03.B.2] states that the destruction of a nonconforming
structure by any means to an extent of more than 50 percent of its actual replacement cost at the
time of destruction must be rebuilt in conformity with the Code. Work on a legal nonconforming
dock to the extent of 50 percent or less of the replacement cost may therefore be performed,
providing that the original location and dimensions are maintained, and that the improvements
to the facility do not increase the nonconformity. In addition, any improvements which reduce
the nonconformity of a legal nonconforming dock may also be permitted.
VALIDATED BY: Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager, Department of Planning & Zoning
AUTHOR: Ross Gochenaur (for Robert J. Mulhere, AICP, Director, Planning Services
Department)
THROUGH: Ronald F. Nino, AICP, Manager, Current Planning Section)
cc: Building Department, Ed Perico
Code Enforcement Department
file
Packet Page -712-