Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />• <br />MEMORANDUM <br />`g GOU,YTLV., <br />20~ 2e <br />1 <br />CAROB <br />yr <br />I RrEFED <br />TO: Lee County Board of Commissioners <br />John Crompton, County Manager FROM: Marshall Downey, Assistant Director of Community Development 04-- <br />DATE: December 27, 2007 <br />REF: Recommendation for the City Planning Board regarding possible amendments <br />to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) <br />The County Planning Board met on the evening of October 15, 2007 and on December 3, <br />2007 and recommended (unanimously) the following seven (7) amendments for consideration <br />of adoption. Previous to that, the Joint Planning Commission (JPC) met on September 13, <br />2007 of this year and also recommended (unanimously) the same amendments. <br />Amendment 1 - Table 4.7-1 add language to clarify that handicap ramps or other similar <br />structure built in order to meet ADA compliance are exempt from setbacks. The purpose of <br />this amendment is straightforward as it would allow planning staff to waive the setbacks for <br />any ramps or similar structures that are constructed for the express purpose of compliance <br />with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as enforced through our Building Inspections <br />office. <br />Amendment 2 - Sec. 5.L3 - add language that clarifies that any accessory structure (deck, <br />etc.) located with eighteen (18) inches of a principal structure shalt be required to meet the <br />principal structure setbacks. This amendment is intended to eliminate situations wherein an <br />owner or contractor attempts to obtain a permit for a deck based on the premise that the deck <br />should be permitted as an accessory use with minimal setbacks (5 loot side and rear yard). <br />Staff suggests that the intent of the UDO is to require that all parts of a principal structure, <br />including an adjoining or adjacent deck/porch should meet the more stringent principal <br />structure setbacks. A minimum spacing (18 inches recommended) as a rule for defining <br />"accessory" structures, will assist in eliminating confusion over what setbacks should be <br />applied. <br />Amendment 3 - Sec. 5.33 - add new third party consultant language for new cell tower SUP <br />applications. This amendment will require that special use permit application for new <br />telecommunications tower will be reviewed by an expert third-party consultant that would be <br />retained by our local governments for this express purpose. The expert consultant would <br />review the special use permit application to ensure that the proposed tower specifications and <br />