Agenda 03/10/2009 Item # 7B
Agenda Item No. 78
March 10, 2009
Page 1 of 21
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte communication disclosure
be provided. ADA-2007-AR-12313, S. Melissa Ross Trust, represented by Clay Brooker of
Cheffy, Passidomo, Wilson & Johnson, LLP, requesting an appeal regarding the application
of SC-07-02 to the measurement of front setbacks for the approval of a building permit. The
applicant is appealing the decision pursuant to Section 250-58 of the Collier County Code of
Laws and Ordinances. The applicant suggests that the method of measurement for the front
setbacks was incorrect and that the approved front. setbacks are insufficient for a corner lot
for property located at 2949 Lone Pine Lane, Lot 28, Olde Cypress Subdivision Unit 3, in
Section 21, Township 48S, Range 26E, Collier County, Florida.
OBJECTIVE:
Pursuant to the County Codes of Laws and Ordinances, Sec. No. 250-58, the objective of the
appellant's request is to seek a reversal of the administrative staff clarification (SC-07-02) from
the Collier County Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) as it applies to the application of the Land
Development Code setback requirements for property located at 2949 Lone Pine Lane (lot 28
owned by Grider).
In this case, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) will be sitting as the BZA The appeal
process is focused specifically on the claims raised by the applicant as they relate to the content of
the Staff Clarification (SC) as authored by staff. The BZA is to review the record of action and to
determine if any part of the administrative decision regarding the application of SC-07-02 was
inconsistent with the existing Land Development Code (Ordinance No. 04-41,) and the Growth
Management Plan as it relates to Lot 28.
Should the BZA determine that the SC is contrary to the Land Development Code (LDC) or the
Growth Management Plan (GMP), the Board may overturn the administrative policy decision as
rendered in the sc. Should the BZA find none of the above, the BZA shall accept the Director(s)
approval ofthc Sc.
CONSIDERATIONS:
PLEASE CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING BEFORE READING FURTHER: The applicant
has provided limited in{ormation in his application as to his argument for appeal. Furthermore
the County Attorney's office has opined that the appeal is timely as to the staff clarification but is
not timely as to the issuance of the building permit (see below). There{ore, the intent of this
executive summary was not to provide a tutorial on the chord methodology of measurement,
rather it was to provide background information and facts related to the LDC requirements as
they relate to the subject property, including the chord methodology of measurement.
Engineering staf{will provide a tutorial at the hearing on how the chord methodology jimctions
as it relates to this properZv, ifit is the desire ,,{the Board o{County Commissioners at that time.
Agenda Item No. 78
March 10, 2009
Page 2 of 21
All parties referenced in the appeal application own platted lots in the aide Cypress PUO, as
indicated on the aide Cypress Unit 3 subdivision plat. The appellant is the owner of lot 29 (Ross)
which is west of and abuts Lot 28 owned by Grider. The staff claJification which is the subject of
this appeal was drafted on August 21, 2007 (see exhibits). The purpose of a staff clarification
memo is to provide guidance to staff where there is ambiguity in the LDC in order to promote
common understanding between department customers and stafT, and promote consistent
interpretation and application of the regulation or situation described by the clarification. In
applying the LDC definitions of yards (front, side, rear) to platted lots, especially for setback
purposes, the LDC provides the Director with latitude to determine lot lines (whether they are
front, side or rear) and the methodology to use for determining front yard requirements.
The subject property is Lot 28 (Grider). At the time of permitting, the lot, which is located on a
cul-de-sac, was considered to be a corner lot and required setbacks were applied accordingly.
After a building permit was issued and construction was substantially completed on the dwelling
unit, it was discovered that the lot did not meet the LDC specifications for a corner lot. The
property owner then elected to apply for a lot line adjustment which, when approved, had the
effect of changing the lot to a corner lot per the LDC definition of a corner lot. It is important to
note that the change to a corner lot did not alter the designation or location of the front or side
yards (which are at issue here). Per the LDC definition of a corner lot, comer lots have no rear
yards only front and side yards. In this case the northern (forn1erly rear) lot line became the
boundary line for a side yard instead of a rear yard. The lot line adjacent to the street is and
remained the iront of the lot and the east and west side yards stayed the same. Only the rear yard
requirement changed to a side yard requirement however the preserve setback requirement
overrides the side setback requirement (25 feet for preserves vs. 5 feet for non-preserve sides)
thus the change as a result of a comer lot designation, has no impact on this subject of this appeal
(correct measurement of the front yard requirement).
As previously noted, Lot 28 is located on a cul-de-sac. The LDC allows that "in the cases of
irregularly shaped lots, including cul-de-sacs, the depth (of a required front yard) mav be
measured at right angles to a straight line joining the foremost points of the side lot lines,
provided the depth at any point is never less than the minimum length of a standard parking
space..." (this is wnunonly known as the Chord Method of measurement). These provisions,
carried under the detinition of Front Yard in Ordinance No. 91-102 as amended, and were
inadvertently omitted from the recodified LOC, but are considered to be in effect in accordance
with the provisions of Section Five, Conflict and Sevcrability, of Ordinance No. 04-41 as
amended.
The Chord methodology has been used as ihe accepted methodology in Collier County since at
least 1982. Although the LDC describes the required minimum dimensions of a lot and explains
the definition of lot lines, not every possible lot configuration or property line is easily identified
by a generic definition, therefore, rear and side lot lines are not always easily identified for
determining setback purposes. It is the responsibility of an engineer or surveyor to layout lots
that comply with the minimum dimensional requirements of the LDC which should theoretically
result in a buildable lot. Pre-detinedlot shapes are not specified in the LDC to ensure they are all
square, rectangular or buildable. In reality, depending on site conditions and LDC requirements,
the approved lot designs can result in odd shapes, especially if they involve curves. When an
2
Agenda Item No. 78
March 10, 2009
Page 3 of 21
architect attempts to design a structure in accordance with the setback requirements on a pre-
approved lot, depending on the layout of the lot and the code requirements, including setbacks, it
can be difficult to construct a functional or practical dwelling unit or structures on certain lots. It is
also important to consider that all front setback measurements taken on irregular lots may vary
from lot to lot depending on their configuration but regardless of this fact, the setback
measurements taken on the chord and straight line method are typical of the consistent
methodology employed by staff and as allowed by the LDC
As applied, the chord methodology may result in the granting of additional depth to the front yard
measurement itself (in front of the front property line) because it often incorporates a portion of
the right-of-way, thus resulting in a structure located closer to the street (front) then if the
measurement was taken from the back of the right-ofcway line (front property line). In this case,
and in accordance with the appropriate LOC provisions as explained by the staff clarification, the
front yard measurement was taken from the chord line at the arc of the cul-de-sac at the curve of
the lot and the remainder of the front yard setback was taken from the straight lot line (not around
the curve) from the property line.
Appellant's claims:
The appellant claims that the chord measurement used in determining the front yard setbacks for
the Grider lot was not used in accordance with the LDC The appellant claims that when the chord
measurement method is employed, the chord must be drawn by connecting the foremost points of
the side lot lines. In this case, the appellant claims that the foremost points of the side lot lines
were not connected. The appellant also claims that regardless of how the measurement was taken
the LDC does not allow the setbacks measured from the property line to be less than 18 feet and in
this case the setbacks measure less than 1 8 feet in two places.
Staff response:
The presence of the word "may" in the LOC, as previously noted, leaves an opportunity for
ambiguity and inconsistency in applying the regulations, thus the Building Department and
Zoning (Planning) Departments have historically taken the 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 cuI-de-sac, or, in cases of irregular or comer lots which are also cul-de-sac lots, a
line connecting the point where one side lot line intersects the arc of the cul-de-sac with the point
at which the cul-de-sac arc terminates. Merely connecting the side lot lines of a curved lot as
opposed to a square lot, could result in a significant decrease in the building envelope, in some
cases making it impossible to construct a structure of reasonable dimensions and functionality on
a property. Thus, the Staff Clarification simply memorialized the staffs historical application of
setback measurements using the chord method on irregular shaped, including cul-de-sac lots.
~,...-.
As noted above, in view of the discretion provided by the LOC, the staff clarification provides an
explanation that the use of the discretionary word "may" in the definition of Front Yard, allows
setback measurements which would provide the most reasonable building envelope on irregular
(including cul-de-sac) lots. The measurements taken on Lot 28 employed both the chord method
and the standard method. In this case, the property did not front entirely on the arc of the cul-de-
3
Agenda Item No. 78
March 10, 2009
Page 4 of 21
sac, consequently the front setbacks for the curved portion were taken on an arc and the front
setbacks for the straight portion were taken from the lot line. The staff clarification further
explained that the historical (chord) method of measurement for cul-de-sac lots employed by the
Building and Zoning Departments, as described above, was consistent with this definition. As
such, the single family dwelling unit and attached garage on Lot 28 meet the 25-foot front yard
setbacks and the permits were approved accordingly.
It is staff's position that the Code authorizes the use of administrative discretion when determining
how to measure setbacks on irregular lots, the purpose of which is to ensure the provision 0 f the
most reasonable building envelope on an irrcgularly shaped lot Even for those lots which do not
front entirely on the arc of the cul-de-sac this historical method of measurement for cul-de-sac lots
as described in the Staff Clarification is consistent with the setback decisions made relative to Lot
28. In summary, given the discretion provided in the code Staff considers the application of the
chord method to across the curve of the property to be consistent with its application of
measurements on irregular lots.
As to the appellant's concern regarding the 18-foot nummum setback requirement That
requirement applies to the mcasurement of the depth from the setback line established by the
chord methodology of measurement In this case, the setbacks from the chord line exceed 18 feet
(33.5 feet).
For the Board's information, in 2008, the same property owner applied for an Official
Interpretation regarding the structures on Lot 28 and their compliance with the setback
requirements for properties abutting preserve areas. The official interpretation (AR 12880)
determmed the property Imes on properties in the aIde Cypress PUD which abut preserve areas
are subject to the preserve setback requirements in the LDC. This Official Interpretation was
unsuccessfully appealed on September 12, 2008. In summary it was determined that the LDC
preserve setbacks were applicable to the aIde Cypress PUD. Therefore, the subject site's
principal structure is required to be setback from the preserve area to the north at least 25 feet and
the accessory structure is required to be setback from the preserve area at least 10 feet As a result
of the BZA's upholding of the Zoning Director's official interpretation, the applicant commenced
the process of applying for a dimensional Variance in order to legitimize the existing setbacks
from the north property boundary so the structures on site are compliant with the preserve setback
requirements of the LDC. The outcome of this appeal of the staff clarification will not change the
fact that Lot 28 (Grider) needs variance approval by the BZA to legitimize the location of the
structures on site.
In conclusion, the County's professional staff has reviewed the application of SC-07-02 as applied
to Lot 28 and has found that it meets the requirements of the LDC, the aIde Cypress PUD and is
consistent with the Growth Management Plan. The appellant has not provided any substantial
competent evidence to the contrary. Therefore it is staff's position that the setbacks utilizing the
chord methodology were properly approved in accordance with all applicable regulations.
4
Agenda Item No. 78
March 10, 2009
Page 5 of 21
FISCAL IMPACT:
As a matter of information the fee for this appeal is $1,000 plus advertising costs. Approximate
staff time devoted to the processing and analyzing of this appeal request to date has been
approximately 20 hours excluding the scheduled hearing.
LEGAL CONSIDERA nONS:
In accordance with Section No. 250-58 of the Code of Laws and Ordinances, the Board of County
Commissioners sitting as the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) is being asked to review the Staff
Clarification SC-07-02 dated August 21, 2007, which sets forth the policy of how to measure
setbacks on cul-de-sacs using a chord measurement A building permit was issued for Lot 28 in
October of 2006, but this appeal is not timely as to the review of the building permit issuance. The
BZA shall consider the application of the LDC, the Growth Management Plan and County
Ordinances by staff and shall hear testimony. The BZA shall either affirm the staff clarification or
overturn the staff clarification and provide direction on a change in policy. The BZA/BCC may
take such other action as it deems appropriate.
This item is quasi-judicial and as such, it requires ex parte disclosures. A majority vote of the
Board is necessary for Board action--HFAC
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT:
The staff clarification is consistcnt with the County's Growth Management Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Should the BZA determine that this appeal was submitted in a timely matter the staff recommends
that the BZA uphold the County staffs approval and consistency finding of the front yard setback
measurements for Lot 28 of the Olde Cypress Unit 3 subdivision plat, and therefore that this appeal
request be denied.
Prepared by: Susan M. lstenes, AICP, Zoning Director
5
Item Number:
Item Summary:
Meeting Date:
Page 10f2
Agenda Item No. 7B
March 10, 2009
Page 6 of 21
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
7B
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members_ ADA-2007-AR-12313, S. Melissa Ross Trust represented by Cheffy,
Passidomo, Wilson & Johnson, LLP, requesting an Administrative Appeal pursuant to the
issuance of the staff clarification number SC-07-02 pursuanllo Section No. 250-58 of the
Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. The applicant is requesting an Administrative
Appeal regarding the staff clarification regarding the measurement of a front yard setback
requirement on a cul-de-sac Lot for property located on Lot 28 in the Olde Cypress PUD,
3110120099:0000 AM
Prepared By
Susan Istenes, AICP
Community Development &
Environmental Services
Zoning & Land Development Director
Date
Zoning & Land Development Review
1f5/2009 3:21:07 PM
Approved By
Susan Istenes, AIC?
Community Development &
Environmental Services
Zoning & Land Development Director
Date
Approved By
Zoning & Land Development Review
1/5/20092:33 PM
Joseph K. Schmitt
Community Development &
Environmental Services
Community Development &
Environmental Services Adminstrator
Date
Community Development &
Environmental Services Admin.
2f24/2009 3:33 PM
Approved By
Judy Puig
Community Development &
Environmental Services
Operations Analyst
Community Development &
Environmental Services Admin.
Date
Approved By
2/24/2009 3:35 PM
Stan Chrzanowski
Community Development &
Environmental Services
Engineering Review Manager
Date
Engineering Services
2/24/20093:54 PM
Apprond By
William D. Lorenz, Jr., P.E.
Community Development &
Environmental Services
Environmental Services Director
Date
Approved By
Environmental Services
2/24/2009 4:01 PM
Heidi F. Ashton
County Attorney
Assistant County Attorney
Date
County Attorney Office
2/2512009 4:49 PM
Approved By
Jeff Klatzkow
County Attorney
Assistant County Attorney
Date
County Attorney Office
2/26/2009 4:47 PM
Approved By
file://C:\Agenda TestIExportI125-March%20 10, %202009107, %20BOARD%200F%20Z0N I..,
3/4/2009
Page 20f2
Agenda Item No. 78
March 10.2009
Page 7 of 21
OMS Coordinator
OMB Coordinator
Date
County Manager's Office
Office of Management & Budget
2f27/2009 9:08 AM
Approved By
Mark Isackson
Budget Analyst
Date
County Manager's Office
Office of Management & Budget
3/2/20098:47 AM
Approved By
James V. Mudd
County Manager
Date
Board of County
Commissioners
County Manager's Office
3/312009 5 :53 PM
file://C:IAgendaTestIExportl 125-March%20 1 0, %202009107. %20BOARD%200F%20Z0NI ... 3/4/2009
EDWARD K. CHEFFY
BOARD CERTIFIED CIVIL TRIAL ATrORNEY
BOARD CEATlF1EO BUSINESS LITIGATION ATIORNEY
JOHN M. PASSIDOMO
BOARD CERTIFIED REAL ESTATE ATTORNEY
GEORGE A. WILSON
80ARD CERTIFIED WilLS, TRUS1S &. ESTATES ATTORNEY
F. EDWARD JOHNSON
BOARD CERTIFIED WILLS. TRUSTS &. ESTATES ATTORNEY
JOHN D. KEHOE
BOARD CERTIFIED CIVIL TRIAL ATTORNEY
LOUIS D. D'AGOSTINO
BOARD CERTIFIED APPELLATE PRACTICE ATTORNEY
JEFF M. NOVATT
DAVID A. ZULlAN
KEVIN A. DENll
CHEFFY PASSIDOMO
WILSON & JOHNSON
ATTORNEYS AT LJ<W, UP
621 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 201
NAPLES, FLORIDA 34102
TELEPHONE: (239) 261.9300
FAX: (239) 261.9762
E-MAIL: CPWJ@napleslaw.com
Agenda Item No. 78
March 10, 2009
Page 8 of 21
JEFFREY S. HOFFMAN
BOARD CERTIFIED WILLS, TAU81'S &. ESTATES ATTORNEY
lOUIS W. CHEFFY
BOARD CERTIFIED REAL ESTATE ATTORNEY
LISA H. BARNETT
BOARD CERTIFIED REAL ESTATE ATTORNEV
CLAY C. BROOKER
ANDREW H. REISS
WilLIAM J. DEMPSEY
BOARD CERTIFIED REAL ESTATE ATTORNEY
STANLEY A. BUNNER, JR.
ERIN K. DEGNAN
ERIC T COFFMAN
TRACY M. COFFMAN
JASON O. LOWE
RECEIVED
SEP 1 2 2Ga7
ZONING
September 12, 2007
OF COUNSEL:
GEORGE L. VARNADOE
Department of Zoning and Land Development Review
Attn: Intake Planner
2800 North Horseshoe Drive
Naples, Florida 34104
RE: Appeals pursuant to See, 250-58, Code of Ordinances
LLA-2007 -AR-12140
SC 07-02 (as applied to Lot 28 of Olde Cypress Unit Three)
To Whom It May Concern:
Please find enclosed the paperwork for two separate appeals of administrative
decisions, pursuant to section 250-58 of the County's Code of Ordinances. Two checks
for $1000 each have also been enclosed,
Backup information in support of these appeals includes, without limitation, all
relevant documentation in the County's possession (Le., plats, surveys, photographs, PUD
Documents, the LDC, the GMP, the subject LLA, the history of LLAs in Collier County,
etc.). The appellant also reserves the rightto use additional demonstrative evidence at the
BZA hearing.
cc: Client
Sincerely,
C4~
Clay C. Brooker
For the Firm
ADA-2007-AR-12312/,3
OLDE CYPRESS - Lch 28
PROJECT 2007080015
DATE: 9/24/07 DUE: 10/8/07
~-~
,411I
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
WWW.COLLlERGOV.NET
(i)
Agenda Item No. 7B
2800 NORTH HORSESHO~;I[l<tl,1.0, 2009
"f'\!\1e90121
NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104
(239) 403-2400 FAX (239) 643-6968
..
"' ;;;Z;i~:--.'
APPEAL OF ADMI~15iRATiVl!Dl!CISION '. '.
Section 250:.58
PETITION NO (AR)
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT NUMBER
DATE PROCESSED
ASSIGNED PLANNER
ADA-2007-AR-12312 I j3
aLOE CYPRESS - La~ 28
PROJECT: 2007080015
DATE 9/24/07 DUE: 10/8/07
I
'-;.:,,"
. APfLlCANllNft)R'MA:J;:ION
':.:':..,'-
i
NAME OF OWNER S MELISSA ROSS TRUST (C/O MELISSA SHOWALTER. TRUSTEE)
ADDRESS 2945 LONE PINE LANE CITY NAPLES STATE FL ZIP 34119
TELEPHONE # CELL # FAX #
E-MAIL ADDRESS
NAME OF AGENT/APPLICANT CLAY C BROOKER. ESQ.
FIRM CHEFFY PASSIDOMO WILSON & JOHNSON. LLP
ADDRESS 821 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH, STE. 201 CITY NAPLES
TELEPHONE # (239) 261-9300 CELL #
E-MAIL ADDRESSCCBROOKER@NAPLESLAW.COM
STATE FL
ZIP 341 02
FAX # (239) 643-3558
I
....,~... '.::; ^'
" ~,.." --. .
,-".-, ~
",-:;:,t
".?REQ4~st DET~l~ ...
'I:;:
.' ..~"
Appeal of Applicotion No. AR. 12140
(Please reference the application number that is being appealed)
Allach a statement for the basis of the appeal including any pertinent information, exhibits and other
backup information in support of the appeal.
See attachment.
Submit required application fee in the amount of $1000.00 mode poyable to the Board 01 County
Commissioners.
G:\Current\Appllcation Fomu\Appeal of Administrative Decision.doc
Agenda Item No, 7B
March 10, 2009
Page 10 of 21
Appeal of SC 07-02
Basis of Appeal
The applicant/appellant is the owner of Lot 29 (2945 Lone Pine Lane),
situated immediately west of, and abutting, Lot 28 (2949 Lone Pine Lane), Craig
and Amber Grider are the owners of Lot 28.
County staff approved a lot line adjustment (LLA-2007-AR-12140) in order
to convert the Grider lot from a non-corner lot to a corner lot A corner lot, by
definition, has two front yards and two side yards (Le" no rear yard). Therefore,
the Grider lot's rear yard (with a 20-foot setback) is instantly changed to a side
yard (with a 5-foot setback).
Since the Grider lot is now a corner lot (due to approval of the LLA), two
front yard setbacks are required. The 25-foot front yard setback (per the Olde
.,," Cypress, PU D)shouldtherefo[e_be.tIteasuredf[Q[lltb~J\'VQ front ~Cl.r<:l,Qro!,er!L"_,,
lines. However, according to a spot survey submitted by the Griders, the front
yard setback in many places is not 25 feet In at least a couple places, the
setback from the property line is 16.7 and 17.4 feet, respectively.
Through application of SC 07-02, County staff explains that a chord
measurement method can be employed on the cul-de-sac portion of the lot.
However, the LDC requires that, when the chord measurement method is
employed, the chord must be drawn by connecting the foremost points of the
side lot lines. In this case, the foremost points of the side lot lines were not
connected. County staff has attempted to create a hybrid method of calculating
front yard setbacks, which method is not expressly permitted by the LDC
(especially when the lot enjoys the elimination of a rear yard setback by
conversion into a corner lot by a lot line adjustment),
Finally, even if this hybrid method of calculating front yard setbacks is
ultimately approved, the LDC does not permit the chord measurement method to
result in an actual setback (measured from the property line) less than 18 feet.
As mentioned above, the actual setback is less than 18 feet in at least two
places.
ADA-2007-AR-12313
OLDE CYPRESS - LOT 28
PROJECT:2007080015
DATE: 9/24/07 DUE: 10/8/07
Agenda Item No. 78
March 10,2009
Page 11 0121
COLLmR COUNI'Y LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE STAFF CLARIFICATION
ZONING & LAND DEVEWPMENT STAFF CLARlFICATION SC 07-02
DATE: 21 August 2007
LDC SECTION: Div. 6.3 Definitions (Ord 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..."
Irregular lots exist which meet the definition of comer lots, cul-de-sac lots, and irregular lots, or
any combination of these. The LDC language states that" ...the depth mav be measured at right
angles ... n In cases where a combination of the lot types described above exist measurement
based on a line connecting the side lot 1ines 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
comer lots which are also cul-de-sac lots, a line connecting the point where one site lot line
intersects the arc of the cul-de-sac with the point at which the cul-de-sac arc terminates.
(Drawing B)
DETERMlNA TION (CLARlFICATION): It is my decision that use of the discretionary "may" in
the above definition a110ws 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.
AUTIiOR: Ross Gochenaur (for Susan Istenes, AICP, Director, Department of Zoning & Land
Development Review)
cc: Joseph Schmitt Division Administrator
A. Roland Holt, Building Director
Tom Kuck, Engineering Director
Bob Dunn, Inspections and Plans Review Manager
Alamar Finnegan, Permitting Supervisor
Glenda Smith, Operations Analyst
Staff Clarification File
ICll"'~
,,-ON
,0_
_f"'\IO
eN
(j).c (j)
:::226'
rnroCL
-g:2'
(j)
0>
<{
/-
,
,
~\-
~,
~\
~
~\
'"
.
J,
\
,
-,
Agenda Item No. 78
March 10. 2009 .
Page 13 of 21
i
1
1/
IJ-
/.~
/:...Q;] ~
hY-t ~
/. -~ "
(
I
'3
en
"-
.,A,
!!!
co
"
c:
(j)
en
<(
51 <
o-'g
a::Na::
~8!9
rT1111 - \I.
~a::ti .
~UlIII>-
~ <Ul'"
~ .z!5
~1II-0
c....... ZOU
r-' 0 III
E-- ...... a::
_<III
ZU:J
~ :JO..J
Z o..JO
Ul U
"Ill;...=
~a::"Ul
~1l.:J <
"'''>-011I
'J.iUa::1D
rJ'j III :c N
rT1 0'" III
~..J_"
~OUlZ
~l!slll~
~ 1Il~:t
Utini5
<mo
a:::,tUl
~ "'OlD
1""'\ \I. 0.,
~OlDll.
~...~%
O<..JUl
..JIl.Z
Ibz~
a::_o
< ...
l
~r 1-
a .
V~5">
',l;~9"
.
.
.
"
o
'1- iilie~~1
~,,, ~ ~ 2'"
.,1.........
~~'?: HI" ~
\):a.. ".....
o ..
~':1<]og~"l~:s
-
.0
~: ...
,
" .
~:1~
G ~~ ~ ~
iD~ a",... I
00.0 ~~~g~
~~ oIiIl~!~;
< . ~i~~;i
:t~ ..... :i..
"'''' Zl~~;;!
0... . O",llj
0. 'Ie,!
h~~.~~.l"
a.. ;:j; z .,
~~ . i
~:,; ~..
~::il.!
in '" ! .
z<
-::::I; "..
~~..~ i
~~.... ~
66/60/LO
a:lQ)~
,,-ON
0_
ON 0
Z .LD
O~
E~
(j)~(j)
~2 g
CllCll"-
E::;;
(j)
OJ
<{
#;'"
,~/I
~~~'
~!
< Jt!
;<. .~"..g l'
~ ~ '~i~~!~~'
o ~. t~<,'
· ~~ 2~~:.',:~, ."
S .~ ,,'h~~H "_
" .. '~'~~'5~~ - - _('!.O~ (') '''"0(', (d)
~ il I,~;i:~~! ~ - - - - -'.."'E.<'_...,S',,,,,,,, s
! 2l ~~~~a~~l! ~
t! \lI8 ~1lI~ ..~~~i~ ~
~ "'85 3~l:~~" ~..
,~ ~S ~'!~l~;=~; ~
Z.o ", 'h.-.". ~ .
g~, ~. G'h';I~;;~, . _
"'2~ ~~ ~lil"~":~" ~ ;
~~ i~ ~ii~EiW~~:!
eS ~il b~ ~.'":c;iii!~o g 9
~ I' ~~~,' :~;,~~,~ i ~
~~ o',!ij '".~iJi". u
III 151;:...... ~~ba ..~c: ~
rl ,do... Ill"; ...; .... :rfi' .
"l -s< rnt~~."'< . ~
!~ mi '1~5,.~iI~.i :; ~
!:!!l! .....~ ~. <'"8i:"8 '"
t' ; ~:iI '2"'~lh* ~ I
,,'t> 8 j!:~,.. ~l;~""! ,,"eb~~ e
~li I ~~'I'~~ ;,,""~! , ~
is "'...,a ~"8."'~lfo" ill '"
:! · ~~. !.I!~E~EE'! ~ .
9~ ~ iia.
i"! I"
g I~S ! ,,~~ "~~12
! !~, ~~i~,!!~ ~!
l~iilil!~I~i:i~!I~~
..... I I I ~
h~~l ! ! ~i ~~~ II
I " I
i '" M~ll ~~ I
Il Ile~"I!! :~!'
· , '.!~'l !"OS
~im!~i .!~!. !~i!~
,,,....,.~ I 9"
~$8C~~~!:~~~~~i ~~
~~ . .
c" ~~i !~i~z'
I" ~~~! U ia,_
. ~ c ~ ~ .~ Q~
., 'l<~ !~j~
!~i m i ( i "!~Ui:
gU :1" !I~ l I!i~ ~!!
i~i ~I~ ~B~ ~ ;I~i 2~! . ~
.'i~~ i I ~~~ ! .!~! 'i~ ~Il
i~;h ~,i ~~:ihlil i.;, ~~
~!~~~hl'h~lmli~1 ~U! t
"u~~.;'I~I~~~i~ri~~ ;~J ~~
l'~~!~'- f~~o~.i.ij !..~h
t;l~a~ ,Hi: : o! "'~:: ~5~8
lilI_...ool ........
m
'"
""-i::::
~m
.
.
:>
U>
0.
~~~
e~~
~i~
i~~
~i~
~~I
iu
!~~~
...,
..~"'..
.~",t;;
~"'~.c
I~U
iZI p;~
'" ;g!~
u ~~~...
~ ~~~~
'" "~..
u:33li
U>
w
8
0:
'"
.
fJ .~ ~
.... II i
...~"""8
~:;~ ~
.g ~ (,l
>-
13
o
'"
Z >-
0: '"'
0>
~ '"
::0
'"
~ ~ ~
"" .
::::: ~ ~.,..
- u VlZ
"" z.
I ~ ~~
en ::: ~u
< 0 z;;!
~ ~'"
w
ei 5~
..0 WI)
Q;): .oc
u~~~
Olll~<
~a8t;i
g~g~
"
U):;t-.
'" m
Q~.a::I
0,,<>
ih,!'l
..~..
l3'"
~fJ)~
,,~'"
~,....u
'" ~
"
CD
~-;~"Dt-_ ~
~~g
.. .
!'olD-I!:! .
l-lollolGj
9~5a
~~~
. ,
m ~
N
I
Iff
I
18-
1 ~~I~
, :.~/~
) ~!:! ~
1'I[j'~
:;:;/~
. k I
.2~/~
.~.
~~I
~~I
I
I
", i
"'~'f.-j
-~~~
II!
Il.j;
Ialli
v
~
6& 101
i
I ~
-
I
I
:
I
I
I
-:
gIg
~:"
~!:
I.
~I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
L._--.O'iZ~__J
--J- ~
:;!
u
~
~
... -
=
cog
"'-,
:~;;;
:=3"'"
,,<~
0000
Q:l;~
S!~-
!;! .0
u>"
~:=l~
h'T
o;;q;~
~ '"
~ ..
"
e
>
~
"
o
"
>
"
<
o
ii
m
u
z
'"
"
B
8
Z.
<0
""
""
~"
(f\~
~8
00
.~
I I
~6
~~
"-
~5
LIJc- .Dc:i'I.Jlno...l (Ji' "YAP-V, fr<.orlT"
Agenda Item No. 76
March 10, 2009
Page 16 of 21
DEFINITIONS
Div. 6.3
shortest street frontage. In all zoning districts, except the E (estates)
zoning district, the setback requirement for the remaining front yard(s)
shall not be reduced by more than 50 percent of the full front yard setback
requirement for that district, exclusive of any road right-of-way or road
right-of-way easement. Additionally, in the E (estates) zoning district
only, the setback requirement for the remaining front yard(s): (i) shall not
be reduced to less than 15 feet, and (ii) shall not include any road
right-of-way or road right-of way easement within the reduced front yard.
In the case of shoulder lots which conform to the minimum lot width and area requirements
of the zoning district, the required front yard adjacent to the longest street may be reduced by
five feet providing that in no case may this yard be less than 25 feet.
In the case of through lots, unless' the prevailing front yard pattern on the adjoining lots
indicates otherwise, a full depth front yard shall be provided on all frontages. Where one of the
front yards that would normally be required on a through lot is not in keeping with the
prevailing yard pattern, the development services director may waive the requirement for the
n onnal front yard and substitute therefo re a special yard requirement which shall noti?xceed ,
the average of the yards provided on adjacent lots. .. '1 ~
I~ YV"'-t Y
De th of a required front yard shall be measured so that the ard establishe s a strip the
n:UmmuiD:Width required by the district regulations with its inner edge el to the front lot
line. In the cases of irregularly shaped lots, including culs-de-sac, th depth ay be measured
at right ang es to a s rog e JOlling e oremos pom so. e 81 e 0 Ina, proVl t. e
aepth at any pOInt is never less than the mUUIDum length of a standard parkmg space l:iS-
established within section 2.3.4. of this Code.
~
However, in the Golden Gate Estates Subdivision, unimproved perimeter and bisecting access
easements, or improved access easements serving three or fewer lots of record, shall not
constitute a front yard for the purpose of establishing building setback lines.
Where lots in residential districts comprising 40 percent or more ofthe frontage on one side of
a street between intersecting streets are developed with structures having an average front
yard with a variation of not more than six feet, no building thereafter erected shall project
beyond the average line so established. This provision applies in all residential zoning districts
and to all residentially designated areas.
Yard, rear: The required open space extending across the entire width of the rear yard between
the inside lines of the side yards and except in corner lots is generally that lot line most
opposite the right-of-way line.
When dealing with irregularly shaped lots where a typical rear lot line cannot readily be
defined the site development review director will determine the rear lot line for the purposes
of establishing yard requirements.
-
Supp. No. 17
LDC6:67
DEFINITIONS
TYpe of Establishment
8torea (without food service):
(a) Private toilets, for employees only (per employee)
(b) Public toiIeto (per equare fuot oflleorepace)
Theatel'&;
(a) Indoor, auditoriums (per seat)
(b) Outdoor, drive-ine (per epace)
Trailerlmobile home park. (per trailer apace)
Travel trailer/recreational vehicle park.:
(a) Travel trailer (overnight). without water and sewer hookup (per
trailer space)
(b) Travel trailer (ovemight), with water and sewer hookups (per
trailer space)
Swimming and bathing facilities, public (per person)
Churches (per seat)
Hospitals (per bed)
Nursing, rest homes (per person)
Parks, public picnic:
(a) With toilets only (per person)
(b) With bathhouse, showers and toilets (per person)
Public institutions other than schools and hospite.ls (per person)
Schools (per student):
(a) Day type
(b) Add for showers
ee) Add for cafeteria
Cd) Add for day school workers
(e) Boarding type
Work/constrnction camps:
Semipermanent (per worker)
Residences:
(a) Single~family (per bedroom)
(b) Apartment (per bedroom)
(e) Mobile home not in a trailer park (per bedroom)
(d) Other (per occupant)
(See division 3.15.)
Agenda Item No. 76
March 10, 2009
Page 17 of 21
Div. 6.3
Gallons per Day
(gpd)
20
0.1
5
10
200
50
100
10
3
200
100
5
10
100
15
5
5
15
75
50
150
150
150
75
LOS for capital solid waste facilities: Requires sufficient capital solid waste facilities to dispose
of 1.55 tons of solid waste per capita per year. In addition, the LOS requires two years of
landfill lined cell disposal capacity at present fill rates and ten years of landfill raw land
capacity at present fill rates. (See division 3.15.)
Lot: See Lot of record.
Lot, comer: A lot located at the intersection of two or more streets. A lot abutting a curved
street or streets shall be considered a comer lot if straight lines drawn from the foremost
points of the side lot lines to the foremost point of the lot meet at an interior angle ofless than
135 degrees.
Supp. No. 13
LDC6:37
Agenda Item No. 78
March 10, 2009
Page 18 of 21
Div.6.3
COLLJER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
~
In the case of through lots and corner lots, there will be no rear yards, but only front and side
yards. Depth of a required rear yard shall be measured so that the yard established is a strip
of the minimum width required by zoning district regulations with its inner edge parallel to
the rear lot line.
Yard, side: The required open space extending along each side lot line between the rear lines
of the required front yard and the rear lot line, or in the absence of any clearly defmed rear lot
line, to the point on the lot farthest from the rear line of the front yard.
In the case of through lots, side yards shall extend from the rear lines of required front yards.
-+ In the case of comer lots, yards remaining after front yards have been established on both
frontages shall be considered side yards.
Yard, special: A yard other than one adjacent to a public right-of-way performing the same
functions as a side or rear yard, but so placed or oriented that neither the term t'side yard" nor
the term "rear yard" clearly applies. (See Front yard, Side yard, Rear yard, or section 2.6.4).
The site review development director, or his designee, shall determine which lot li"e is front,
side or rear for purposes of determining yard requirements.
Yard, waterfront: The required open space extending along the entire waterfront property with
depth measured from property line, bulkhead, shoreline, seawall, mean high water mark,
access easement, whichever is the most restrictive. Waterfront property is hereby defmed as
property abutting on the Gulf of Mexico, bays, bayous, navigable streams, and on man-created
canals, lakes, or impounded reservoirs. For the purpose _ of this ordinance, the minimum
setback for any principal or accessory structure adjacent to the water shall be the same as the
setback specified for the side or rear yard, as the case may be, in the particular zoning district. .
However, these setbacks shall never be less than 10 feet for any structure unless specifically
provided for in section 2.6.2.2 of the Land Development Code.
Zero lot fille hal/sing: A single-family detached dwelling structure on individually platted lots
which proYides a side yard or patio on one side of the dwelling and no yard on the other. (See
section 2.6-.27.1
1996 In terl ocal.4greemen t: The lnterlocal Agreement between the Collier County School Board
and Collier County as recorded in Official Record Book 2207, Pages 1729 et seq., which bears
an effectiye date of .June 25, 1996.
2D0.31nterlocal Agreemellt: The Interlocal Agreement between the Collier County School Board
and Collier County as recorded in Official Record Book 3228, Page 2989 et seq., which bears
an efIecti\.e date of February 28, 2003.
'Ord. :\0. 91-103, art. 12; Ord. :\0. 92-73, ~ 2; Ord. No. 93-37, ~ 3; Ord. No. 93-89, ~ 3; Ord. No.
94-27, * :): Ord. :\0. 95-31, * 3; Ord. No. 95-58, ~ 3; Ord. No. 96-21, ~ 3; Ord. No. 96-35, ~ 5; Ord.
:\0.96.66, * 3.P.; Ord. No. 97-26, * 3.J.; Ord. No. 97-83, ~ 3.G.; Ord. No. 98-63, ~ 3.H.; Ord. No.
99-6, S 3.L.; Ord. No. 99-46, * 3.K; Ord. No. 00-8, S 3.J.; Ord. No. 00-43, ~ 3.K; Ord. No. 01-34,
* 3.L.; Ord. No. 02-3, * 3.L.; Ord. No. 03-01, ~ 3.N.; Ord. No. 03-27, S 3.0.; Ord. No. 03-55,
~ 3.KJ
Supp. No. 17
LDC6:68
.j
....\-....,.,,
i
..'+." L
.'}-
.:-~i..--'---L_::.:.~-+=-_~.... ~-~~:~_. ~----~..r
'1""'-; ..,:" "~
~H~ :. ....J,'~.,:~.}~4. '.~"r :--ts:..
..,.., "'/"i
::~_:---'~~r~L~~!- ; ,._~
.-.-."...;.4. "_"'::":-'~f ._, ~
",71 -::':~' :;:~.. t\.
:. f ".., i ; _J..&.,..~_"
+:...~.'... 'r'.! .'~.l\.ll:,
.~ j.. @', 6l.i,..... .~:v-
~l ,.' ' + ~'L.~1.. ~ .~~:J .
f ~I -', ----.' tJ. -,-,-., I ' . '
..---.- . ~ '
T. ..:~~, ~ 1 / ..._. ,un__,.
:'..... ;. ..~.}. "-
,', '4.'"
F !tyyi
j] ':.~".:'i'.I!/. :.. i..
....,>;~'--: V""
1:;).,., -:C'l-
~.. htlli . . I!" ,,':c:--.::;::::.:>
-_.+.~!;. . . 'Vi.:. j I J 3 ~_.:---- -'-"""'~-=.-:.'-::-':';:..l
"'< 1,,~~.__. ~";.'.'."'., . '. ',11 . ..~ ......h. .... _,.-
'N.-&).:: i.:'0;'151 _~'>." ---i~;t.&r
:""':.'.1) 1 '. i/Z.....,~-:-.-:,;_..~_. .
1.-''':''-'":;.'(,': 1 _/ ~....~ ,'j .~~~ ,_ ..
~':~4---~..'::F: '.!.-,,~-:':"":~:;.~'-::-r .. ----
'i
~+~"
~~m:' -,
m A-i. ..
~F. -- i_..... .
, ~ l I '
~1:1: \
~ -".i'..-~"I
......t ' k ;~
.:.:~;._..;. .,..-
1
t;
--f:-
3"
--'r--~-
I ~.." -- ':-:-r' -.-
\. .1
"r'--~ ;,;,-
T'
,
1.
,j
:J
.,
!
,.
~.;"",--
."
.' ~li '.
--U-,~L..
, ;., 'I'"
, I
'j:"_."t'
._~~."--..".
! .
.;j:".
I
!
,l1J~...
.:t. ~
':<:; 'V'"
. r:ki~~..
. r-(J \n '
"""''-.-;,.-'--
.~.' ....
: ' ~ .! j
, ':::<;1.lJf.':;
[.-~;.~".'..lV}. :
, '"::'::'.~,~,
: .'",i
-:'.~ ,
l~hi"Z ill
. . i~~j-~N '
'.~ ..;,
Q.~.
; '\9.'>t[ ...
.;:[r~:"_.;.;~~~.~~_..."_._._:.
--~....._.."..,.._~
(- ~
,
.j'~'
!
~:m
ID -'~;)'
.r'<. .iC>;.
,.""", .;::--.....-
m.t:J'
1\.':...
---->.~.__._.."'-_.
i '
i
.._.~-.:-.~_..~
L"
-~~-E~q"~
. '\1J !
~. ,...-'
I
r-'"
,
'.:.\ f'"
1
J.
..:..;..;..,..::------.-,-....
,;
.,_~_~_~ l,
.-.j........
i
'..'.!
"
I
.~ ..",.
!
.._.....-"-
,
....:....:..1...
,
I,.
. r'_;L
'T~""'."
:,~::';
'-'0""':':.".
.........."
TABLE II
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL AREAS
I~~~ SIN'GLE..,,'" . ZERO. LOT TWO SINGLE~ MULTI -
FAMILY'.;,'. LINE '-~:',\:>." FAMILY &, FAMILY c, FAMILY
D~~ACHED; . ~'..'I',y" , IiU~LEX' 'e ' . ATI'ACHED ",H" DWELLING
'-':~"";.~"
.' ~ , ANi:> '." . '.','; " ,
. TOWNHOUSE.' ,'.
., ,e.,:c' .,,'.. '.. " ..
: /"-7t:,~t:?::::::': .:.,,:,'t,:/i,i,.':: . "
Minimum Lot 6 , 000 5 , 000 3 , 500 3 , 000' S F 1 AC
Areas S. F. S .F S.F. (1) per du.
Minimum Lot 60 45 35 30 150
Width ,,,
Front Yard 25 " 20'" 20'" 20 25
Setback
Side Yard'" 5 ,., 0 or 0 or 5 0 or 5 BH 0 or 5
Setback 10 BH
Rear Yard 20 10 20 20 25
Setback
Principal .
Rear Yard 10 5 10 10 10
Accessorv'"
Maximum 35 35 35 35 45'"
Building
Heiqht
Distance N.A. N.A. N.A. 10 . 5 BH
Between
Structures
Floor Area 1200 1200 1200 1000 750
Min. (SF)
o F.D Nc2000 -:)"1
o \d e Cy pfessl'u}/
Agenda Item No, 7B
March 10. 2009
Page 20 of 21
FlH - Fl1lilrliT1g Hl"illht
1. Each half of a duplex unit requires a lot area
allocation of thirty-five hundred (3,500) square feet
for a total minimum of seven thousand (7,000) square
feet.
2. Minimum lot width may be reduced by twenty (20) percent
for cul-de-sac lots or lots located on curvilinear
streets provided the minimum lot area is still
maintained.
3. Accessory uses such as pool enclosures may be attached
to principal Uses.
4. Where the zero (0) foot yard option is utilized, the
opposite side of the structure shall have a ten (10)
foot side yard. Zero (0) foot yards may be used on
either side of a structure provided that the opposite
ten (10) foot side yard is provided.
-
SECTION VII PAGE 4
Agenda Item No. 78
March 10, 2009
Page 21 of 21
5. Singly family dwellings which provide for two (2)
parking spaces within an enclosed side-entry garage and
provide for guest parking other than private driveways
may reduce front yard requirements to ten (10) feet for
the garage and twenty (20) feet for the remaining
structures.
6. Building height shall be the vertical distance from the
first finished floor to the highest point of the roof
surface of a flat or Bermuda roof, to the deck line or
a Mansard roof and to the mean height level between the
eaves and the ridge of gable, hip and gambrel roofs.
Accessory buildings shall be limited to twenty (20)
feet above grade, with the exception of the entry
monument depicted in Exhibit D, which may be developed
in accordance with the elevations provided.
7. Four habitable floors above parking. A maximum of
seven habitable floors above parking may be approved to
enhance view corridors and to permit interface with
preserve areas so long as not incompatible with
adjoining properties upon approval of the Development
Services Director through a conceptual or Final Site
Development Plan. Buildings adjacent to the project
boundary property line on the west shall be limited to
three habitable floors above parking, and the 28.68
acres located along the eastern edge of the project in
Section 22 and the subject of the 1999 Notice of Change
to the DRI is permitted a maximum height of three (3)
stories or thirty-five (35) feet.
8. The project entrance signage, which includes
architectural enhancements, shall be permitted along
the near eastern extremity of OLDE CYPRESS as depicted
on Exhibit D on lands under common ownership by the
developer.
SECTION VII PAGE 5