Loading...
CCPC Minutes 09/07/2000 RSeptember 7, 2000 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, September 7, 2000 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: ACTING CHAIRMAN: Michael Pedone Ken Abernathy Michael Bruet Russell A. Priddy Joyceanna J. Rautio Sam Saadeh Gary Wrage NOT PRESENT: Russell Budd ALSO PRESENT: Ronald Nino, Current Planning Manager Marjorie M. Student, Assistant County Attorney Page AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 2000 IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAM1AMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOYt ED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRI'I-I iaN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 3 WEEKS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRI'I-IIaN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. ROLL CALL BYCLERK 2. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. BCC REPORT 6. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 7. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. BD-2000-18, Miles L. Scofield, of Scofield Marine Consulting, representing Ken Rutter, requesting a 25 foot extension for a boat dock facility protruding 45 feet into the waterway for property located at 266 3~ Street West, further described as Lot 9, Block H, Little Hickory Shores Replat, Unit 3, in Section 5, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. (Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur) B. V-2000-15, James Houser, of Quail Mark Homes, Inc., representing Earl and Ada Englemann, requesting a 3 foot after-tbe-fact variance from the required 20 foot rear yard setback for accessory structures to 17 feet for the property located at 4377 Pomafine Court, further described as Lot 65, Block K, Longshore Lake Unit 5D, in Section 20, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Fred Reischl) V-2000-18, Stephen J. Trudnak, P.A., representing David and Diane Bautsch requesting a 4.6 foot variance to the required l0 foot rear yard setback for accessory structures for property located at 297 3ra Street West further described as Lot 9, Block F, Unit 3, Little Hickory Shores. (Coordinator: Don Murray) R-2000-04, William L. Hoover, AICP, of Hoover Planning & Development, Inc., representing John Paulich, Jr., requesting a fezone from "C-4" to "C-5" for property located on the western side of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951), approximately 1500 feet north of Golden Gate Parkway (C.R. 886), in Section 22, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 5.79± acres. (Coordinator: Don Murray) CU-2000-07, William L. Hoover, of Hoover Planning & Development, Inc., representing Pastor Jaime Espinoza of the Iglesia Herederos De Dios requesting conditional uses 7, 10 and l I of the A-MHO district for a church, private school and church run child care facility for property located on the south side of Lake Trafford Road, approximately 2.5 miles west of S.R. 29 in Section 36, Township 46 South, Range 28 East, consisting of 19.15 acres. (Coordinator: Don Murray) 8. OLD BUSINESS 9. NEW BUSINESS 10. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 11. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 12. ADJOURN 9/7/00 CCPC AGENDA/RN/ira 2 September 7, 2000 ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: We'll open up the Collier County Planning Commission meeting for October -- September 7th. Start with a roll call, starting on my right. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Here. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Russell Priddy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Here. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Ken Abernathy is here. Russell Budd is excused. Mike Pedone, here. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Here. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Gary Wrage is here. Mike Bruet is here, Sam Saadeh is here. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Any addenda to the agenda? MR. NINO: No others. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Do we have any minutes? No; so nothing to approve. Any planned Planning Commission meeting absences? COMMISSIONER BRUET: No. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: None. I will be absent on the meeting of October the 5th. BCC report. MR. NINO: There is no report. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Chairman's report. The Chairman being absent, there is no report. Advertised public hearings. BD-2000-18, Miles Scofield. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Due to my personal relationship and business relationship with the Petitioner, I will excuse myself from this one. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Okay. Will anyone wishing to speak on this please rise and be sworn? (Speakers were sworn.) MR. GOCHENAUR: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record my name is Ross Gochenaur. The Petitioner is requesting a 25-foot extension to create a boat dock facility protruding a total of 45 feet into the waterway. The property is located at 266 3rd Street West in Little Hickory Shores, and one of the so-called boat dock lots which have a conditional use allowing added structures. A variance was also approved from Block H eliminating side setbacks for these docks. The project consists of a narrow walkway accessing the Page 2 September 7, 2000 dock. Because of the shallow bottom and mangrove growth along the shore lines, several exceptions have been approved, including two at 45 and 53 feet respectively on nearby residential lots. No objections have been received and staff recommends approval. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Mr. Scofield, do you have anything to say? MR. SCOFIELD: No, sir. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Close the public hearing. I'll hear a motion on BD-2000-18. MR. NINO: Subject to staff stipulation. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Do I have a second? Being none, call for the vote. All in favor say aye. Oppose? None. Motion carried. V-2000-15~ Quail Mark Homes. All those wishing to speak on this matter, please stand and be sworn. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: I'd like to make a minor disclosure here. I live in this neighborhood; I have no relationship with Petitioner. But I have had two or three conversations with people that live in Longshore. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Okay. MR. REISCHL: Fred Reischl, Planning Services. For 3 foot variance for a pool in Longshore Lakes. Here the location here is Immokalee Road you see the main road in red for Longshore Lakes and in blue is the subject property. It's adjacent to a stormwater management district. The house is in yellow and the pool and the encroachment there is a 20 foot rear setback for accessory structures from the PUD. The Land Development Code usually specifies 10 foot. This has a 20 foot rear yard accessory setback and the pool encroaches three feet into that. The Petitioner can go into this in more detail, but apparently the encroachment is as a result of a miscommunication between the builder and the architect. As I sald~ it's adjacent to as you see on here EOW, edge of water, so there is a fairly good distance between the edge of the water and the encroachment that somewhat ameliorates the encroachment. Page 3 September 7, 2000 However, there was no land-related hardship and due to an error. I did reGeive one letter of objeGtion, whiGh was inGluded in your paGket, from a property owner aGross the water and I gave you this morning a letter that Mr. Houser gave me rebutting that letter of objeGtJon. If you have any questions on this, I'll be happy to answer them for you. COMMIS$1ON£R ABERNATHY: Fred, what enGroaGhes? The pool and apron or the Gage? MR. REISGHL: I believe it's both. MR. HOUSER: 3ust the Gage itself. COMMISSIOHER ABERNATHY: The deGk around the pool wouldn't Gonstitute. ACTIHG CHAIRMAN PEDOHE: The deGk wouldn't Gross the struGture? MR. REISCHL: Would not MR. NINO: It would only be the wall of the sGreen. MR. REISCHL: If it's no problem with the enGIosure. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: if you look at the survey, it's very GIOSe, but the pool does not enGroaGh. But it's very GIose. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Let the reGord show that Commissioner Rautio is here. That's it? MR. HOUSER: Yes. ACTIHG CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Would you Gome up to the podlure and identify yourself? MR. HOUSER: My name is 3ira Houser. I'm a general GontraGtor for Quail Mark Homes, InG. We're a Gompany that's been in business for over eight years, built in Longshore Lake for five, built over G0 homes there, and we've had no varianGes exGept for one administrative varianGe of about an JnGh. We Gertairily don't intend to let this set any preGedent if this motion is granted. I'd like to kind of narrate the reason why this happened. It was a mistake on our part; we aGGept the responsibility for it. During the time that this house was being developed, we had a Gonsulting arGhJteGt who was using someone in another state to produGe the site plans, and he produGed the plan, sent it out to have his assoGiate do the site plan. Page 4 September 7, 2000 When the associate realized that the house would not fit with the standard size screen cage, all he did was just change it on the site plan without communicating back through our office that it wouldn't fit, and therefore, the floor plan did not get changed. So we proceeded to go along and the field supervisor built it according to the plans as he's used to doing. That's how it happened. A further problem during the time this was happening, myself, who usually reviews all plans, was recovering from major surgery last summer and I was out for three months. And unfortunately, a few things happened while I was gone, although my staff did do a good job on keeping 15 projects going. One thing, I have looked at this from all points of view and I really can't see how this affects anyone. The rear yard, there is still approximately 30 some feet of rear yard there, a long sloping lake bank, and the other yards in the neighborhood there are not encroaching that have much shorter yards, because of a sharper lake plain. That's all I have to say. Does anyone have any questions? ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Any questions? Does anyone else wish to speak on this? There being no further questions, we'll close the public hearing. Do I have a motion? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I'll move that we forward petition V-2000-t5 with a recommendation of approval. What tilts me on this is the fact that we are within the guidelines that we use in the county, the Land Development Code. This is an encroachment for the variance for the PUD itself, but there is still quite a bit of room there and I don't have a problem with that. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'll second. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: I have a motion and second. Any discussion? There being none, I'll call for the vote. All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Motion carries. V-2000-18 Stephen Trudnak representing David and Diane Bautsch. MR. MURRAY: Don Murray, Principal Planner, Planning Services. Page 5 September 7, 2000 ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Will all those wishing to speak please stand? (Speakers were sworn.} ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Don Murray, for the record. MR. MURRAY: This request is for a variance located in Little Hickory Shores, 297 3rd Street West. And the request is for a 4.6 feet variance to the required 10 foot rear yard setback, which is required for accessory uses such as pools and pool enclosures. Staff has looked at this site, looked at the facts and has determined that there will be little or no impact to surrounding properties. The property is located at the end of a cul-de-sac surrounded mostly by water and mangroves. We have received no opposition to this as of today's date. Are there any questions? COMMISSIONER BRUET: Almost consider it an improvement over what was there, apparently? MR. MURRAY: Yes. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Would the Petitioner like to say anything? Please identify yourself. MRS. RAND: My name is Mary Ellen Rand, Landscape Architect, representing David and Diane Bautsch in this request for a variance, and I want to keep my presentation simple and brief. Our client's requesting the rear setback for an accessory structure be reduced from 10 feet to 5 feet 2 inches in order to renovate his pool. There are two constraints that make this renovation difficult and I'd like to show you a couple of exhibits. This is a plan of the existing house. The property line -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: There's a mike right next to you on the wall. MS. RAND: Okay, thank you. There are two constraints that make the renovation of this pool different. One is the shape of his lot. As you can see, the pie-shaped lot places a lot of constraints from the setbacks all the way around. There are two setbacks in this area; one is a porch accessory, another is a height restriction that limits any structures in the area to a 4 foot height within a 20 foot setback. The current pool is not in compliance with the current code. The deck is six and a half feet high above the seawall and intrudes into the existing setback. There is also a railroad tie retaining wall in this location which is not stable and needs to be Page 6 September 7, 2000 replaced. The client -- this is only my first time presenting this type of petition, so excuse me. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: No problem. MS. RAND: What the client wishes to do is remove the railroad tie retaining wall and replace it with a concrete reinforced retaining wall. He wishes to lower the deck elevation of his pool to the 4 foot limitation back to the line that you see highlighted, which pulls that intrusion well out of the limit, the 20 foot. In order to make the transition from his house, from his upper deck level down to the required 4 foot elevation, we're going to have to build a series of steps and landings to do that. That uses a lot of his useable deck area and we are wishing to add additional area into the 10 foot setback in order to provide adequate deck area for enlarged in the sections. Here you can see the relationship between the existing conditions and the deck that we're going to be lowering to 4 feet. So the hatched area is the area of the noncompliance for the existing deck, which will be removed as we lower it in this. As Mr. Murray pointed out, this lot has an unusual location. As you can see, this is a 180 degree panoramic photograph from his lot looking out in all directions. Pretty nice lot. You can see that he really has no neighbors out there. This expansion of his deck would not be visible to any homes, virtually. There are a few homes over on this street. We did hear back from one person who expressed the fact that he had no opposition to the variance, but did request that we not place glaring lights out there that would produce a glare on his property. If you'll bear with me, I've got one more. I just wanted to show you by this aerial to what extent there are no other neighbors in the direction of his variance. There is an expanse of water and open mangrove to a very extended distance. The rear setback requirement intent, as I understand it, is to assure that there be adequate separation between buildings. In this case, since there are no buildings in that direction, we are requesting that you grant this variance. Thank you. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Any other speakers? There Page 7 September 7, 2000 being none, I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Recommend this board send its recommendation for approval to the Board of Zoning Appeals for Petition V-2000-15. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Do I have a second? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Second. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: I have a second. Any further discussion? There being none, call for the vote. All in favor signify by saying "aye." Opposed? Motion carries. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: I'd also like to comment on the brochure and the presentation of the package. It's really excellent. Thank you. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE-' If you need these back, we'll put them right here for you. Next, R-2000-04, William Hoover representing John Paulich. Anyone wishing the speak on this matter, please stand. It's withdrawn? Should have told this at the beginning of the meeting. It doesn't say that here. Next one is CU-2000-07. William L. Hoover of Hoover Planning 8, Development, representing Pastor Jaime Espinoza. All those wishing to speak on this matter, please stand. (Speakers were sworn.) MR. MURRAY: Morning, again. Once again for the record I'm Don Murray, Principal Planner with Planning Services. This petition is for a conditional use for a church on property located approximately 2 and a half miles west of State Road 29 on the south side of Lake Trafford Road. The approximately 19.15 acre property that will be developed is proposed to be developed in two phases. The first phase would create a church that would accommodate 140, 150 members and a 140-child day care facility. Then as the church would grow, it would expand and also add a school which would accommodate 360 students or up to, and possibly expand the church facility to accommodate up to 500 members. The property does preserve above the normal amount of wetlands and native vegetation. It was reviewed by EAC and Page 8 September 7, 2000 they recommended approval unanimously of this project. Staff has reviewed it for impacts, traffic and support has found there would be negligible impact to the surrounding properties. It's surrounded mostly by mobile home residential and some residential single family conventionally constructed homes in the west. I have received no objections to this request to date. I have had some inquiries but everybody was in favor of it. Are there any questions at this time? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Disclosure. I did drive by the property and trust me, this will be an improvement. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Any questions? We'll hear from the Petitioner. MR. HOOVER: Briefly. Good morning. William Hoover representing the Petitioners. Personally. I think it's a no brainer. I think -- I can't imagine something like this not being unanimously approved. The church is currently meeting down on State Route 29 at the Commercial Center and amazingly, they can get t40 people at that kind of location, so I think they'll probably double as soon as they get the new facility. Don had mentioned one neighbor didn't object as long as we put a fence along the south side, and I previously told him we would go ahead and accommodate that. Otherwise, I think we're fine. So wherever that petitioner's home is -- or the neighbor's home, we'll go ahead and put a six foot fence there. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Any questions? Anyone else wish to speak? There being none, I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I move we approve recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Second ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: We have a motion and a couple of seconds. Any further discussion? There being none, I'll call for the vote. All in favor signify by saying "aye." Oppose? None. Motion carried. And that ends the public hearings for the day. Do we have any old business, Mr. Nino? Page 9 September 7, 2000 MR, NINO.' You know, I think it's worth commenting on the petition before, you know, there's a perception that everything is approved and the petition before you happens infrequently but nevertheless it does happen. There are petitions that just don't cut the mustard and they know they are going to get a staff rejection, and this one got a staff rejection, and rather than complete the process, Petitioners withdraw their application. I just wanted to emphasize that we're not a rubber stamp; that there are petitions that don't make it through the process. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY.' We had to help one this morning that you recommended denial of. MR. NINO.' No other old business. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY.' I'm through with my coffee~ so I think we should go. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Any new business, any public comments out there? MR. NINO.' May I announce while I've got your attention, on September 14th at the St. John Evangelist Catholic Church on Immokalee Road there's going to be a public informational section sponsored by the developer of The Dunes and the proposed Cocohatchee Bay PUD just north of Wiggins Bay Marina. And of course, it would be nice if some of the members of the Planning Commission could attend at 7 o'clock, next Thursday. Commissioner Carter made a major effort to put that together. A lot of people in the Second District are intrigued what that is going to involve. Unfortunately, I can't attend because I'm going to be on a plane for Georgia. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I'll be in South Carolina. Thank you, Ron. MR. NINO: Thank you. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE-' If there's nothing further, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Just do it. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: We're adjourned. Page 10 September 7, 2000 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 9:00 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MICHAEL PEDONE, ACTING CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY KAYE GRAY, RPR, NOTARY PUBLIC Page COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION September 28, 2000 PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FL 34104 Mr. Miles L. Scofield Scofield Marine Consulting 3584-B Exchange Ave Naples, FL 34104 REFERENCE: BD-2000-18, Little Hickory Shores Dear Mr. Scofield On Thursday, September 7, 2000, the Collier County Planning Commission heard and approved Petition No. BD-2000-18. A copy of CCPC Resolution No. 2000-25 is enclosed approving this use. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. v Ross Gochenaur Planner II G:/admin/BD-00-18/RG/cw Enclosure Ken Rutter 740 Tarpon Cove Drive, Apt. 203 Naples, FL 34110 Land Dept. Property Appraiser M. Ocheltree, Graphics Minutes & Records (BD, PSP & PDI) File PHONE (941) 403-2400 FAX (941) 643-6968 www. co.collier. fi.us CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- 25 RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2000-18 FOR AN EXTENSION OF A BOAT DOCK ON PROPERTY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (Ordinance 91-102) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the granting of variances; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission, being the duly elected and constituted Planning Commission for the area hereby affected, has held a public hearing after notice as in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of a 25-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 45-foot boat dock facility in an RSF-4 zone for the property hereinafter described, and has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Section 2.6.21. of the Collier County Land Development Code; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given the opportunity to be heard by this Commission in public meeting assembled, and the Commission having considered all matters presented; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the Collier County Planning Commission of Collier County, Florida, that: The petition filed by Miles L. Scofield of Scofield Marine Consulting, representing Ken Rutter, with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Lot 9, Block H, Little Hickory Shores, Unit 3 Replat, in Section 5, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, as described in Plat Book 6, Page 2, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. be and the same is hereby approved for a 25-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 45-foot boat docking facility in the RSF-4 zoning district wherein said property is located, subject to the following conditions: 1. All docks, or mooring pilings, whichever protrudes the greater into the water, regardless of length shall have reflectors and house numbers four (4) inches minimum size installed at the outermost end on both sides. 2. In order to address the protection of manatees, at least one (1) "Manatee Area" sign shall be posted during construction. o Permits or letters of exemption from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection shall be presented prior to issuance of a building permit. All exotic vegetation as defined in Section 3.9.6.4.1 of the Land Development Code shall be removed from the site and the property shall be maintained exotic-free in perpetuity. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number BD-00-18 be recorded in the minutes of this Commission and filed with the County Clerk's Office. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. Done this 7th day of September ,2000. ATTEST: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA RUSSELL A. BUDD, CHAIRMAN VINCENT A. CAUTERO, AICP Executive Secretary Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: Marjo~'ie M StudenlI Assistant County Attorney g:/admin/BD-00-18/RG/im -2- COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION September 28, 2000 PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FL 34104 Mr. Jerry Neal 270 Robin Hood Circle Naples, FL 34104 REFERENCE: BD-2000-17, Pamela Wright Dear Mr. Neah On Thursday, September 12, 2000, the Collier County Planning Commission heard and approved Petition No BD-2000-17. A copy of CCPC Resolution No. 2000-26 is enclosed approving this use. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very t~our Ross Gochenaur Planner II G:/admin/BD-2000-17/RG/cw Enclosure co: Pamela Wright 74 Dolphin Circle Naples, FL 34113 Land Dept. Property Appraiser M. Ocheltree, Graphics Minutes & Records (BD, PSP & PDI) File PHONE (941) 403-2400 FAX (941) 643-6968 www. co.collier. fl.us CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- 26 RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-00-17 FOR AN EXTENSION OF A BOAT DOCK ON PROPERTY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (Ordinance 91-102) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the granting of variances; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission, being the duly elected and constituted Planning Commission for the area hereby affected, has held a public hearing after notice as in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of a 53-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 73-foot boat dock facility in an RSF-4 zone for the property hereinafter described, and has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Section 2.6.21. of the Collier County Land Development Code; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given the opportunity to be heard by this Commission in public meeting assembled, and the Commission having considered all matters presented; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the Collier County Planning Commission of Collier County, Florida, that: The petition filed by Jerry Neal, representing Pamela Wright, with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Lot 89, Isles of Capri, Unit 1, as described in Plat Book 3, Page 41, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. be and the same is hereby approved for a 53-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 73-foot boat docking facility in the RSF-4 zoning district wherein said property is located, subject to the following conditions: All docks, or mooring pilings, whichever protrudes the greater into the water, regardless of length shall have reflectors and house numbers four (4) inches minimum size installed at the outermost end on both sides. In order to address the protection of manatees, at least one (1) "Manatee Area" sign shall be posted during construction. o Permits or letters of exemption from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection shall be presented prior to issuance of a building permit. All exotic vegetation as defined in Section 3.9.6.4.1 of the Land Development Code shall be removed from the site and the property shall be maintained exotic-free in perpetuity. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number BD-00-17 be recorded in the minutes of this Commission and filed with the County Clerk's Office. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. Done this 21st day of September ,2000. ATTEST: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA RUSSELL A. BUDD, CHAIRMAN VINCENT A. CAUTERO, AICP Executive Secretary Community Development 'and Environmental Services Administrator Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: Marjc(~[e M. Student' Assistant County Attorney g:/admin/BD-2000-17/RG/im 2