The URL can be used to link to this page

CCPC Agenda 06/19/2014 R COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIONMEETING AGENDA JUNE 19, 2014 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., THURSDAY, JUNE 19, 2014, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER,THIRD FLOOR,3299 TAMIAMI 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 ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN 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. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA Note: This item has been continued from the June 5, 2014 CCPC meeting, then continued further to the July 17,2014 CCPC meeting: A. PUDZ-PL20120001981: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a Rural Agricultural District(A)and Rural Agricultural District within a Special Treatment Overlay(A-ST)to a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development(MPUD)zoning district for the project known as RMC-Enclave MPUD to allow construction of a maximum of 114 single family or multi-family dwelling units or up to 350 group housing units for seniors on property located in Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County,Florida,consisting of 28.38±acres;and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Kay Deselem,Principal Planner] 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES— May 15,2014,May 19,2014(CCPC/LDC) 6. BCC REPORT-RECAPS 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT Page 1 of 2 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS A. PL20130002249/CPSS-2013-2: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 89-05, as amended, the Collier County Growth Management Plan for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, specifically amending the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series,by reconfiguring the boundary and increasing the size of the Northeast quadrant of Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7 by 9.24 acres (Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard, The Subject property is located on the east side of Collier Boulevard(C.R.951),approximately 1,005 feet north of Rattlesnake Hammock Road extension, in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 9.24 acres; and furthermore recommending transmittal of the adopted amendment to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity; providing for severability and providing for an effective date. (Companion to CU-PL20130002241 & RZ-PL0001652) [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner] B. RZ-PL20130001652: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from Commercial Intermediate(C-3)and Heavy Commercial (C-5)zoning districts to a General Commercial(C-4)zoning district, for property located on the east side of Collier Boulevard(C.R. 951) north of Rattlesnake-Hammock Road (C.R. 864) in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 18.95+/-acres; providing for repeal of Ordinances 99-84,00-75,02-26, 03-31 and 04-23; and by providing an effective date. (Companion to CU-PL20130002241 and PL20130002249/CPSS-2013-2, Collier Boulevard Commercial Properties) [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, A1CP,PLA,Principal Planner] C. CU-PL20130002241: A Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida providing for the establishment of a Conditional Use to allow motor freight transportation and warehousing (4225, air conditioned and mini-and self storage warehousing only)within a General Commercial (C-4)Zoning District pursuant to Section 2.03.03.D.1.c.21 of the Collier County Land Development Code for property located on the east side of Collier Boulevard (C.R.951)north of Rattlesnake-Hammock Road(C.R.864)in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Companion to RZ-PL20130001652 and PL20I30002249/CPSS-2013-2, Collier Boulevard Commercial Properties) [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, PLA,Principal Planner] 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. BDE-PL20130001765: Haldeman Landing, Standard Pacific of Florida GP, Inc. requests a 32-foot boat dock extension over the maximum 20 feet allowed by Section 5.03.06 of the Land Development Code for a total protrusion of 52 feet to accommodate a 42-slip multi-family docking facility for the benefit of 19.06 acres of land known as Haldeman's Landing in Sections 11 and 14, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County,Florida. [Companion to Petition ST-PL20140000896][Coordinator: Fred Reischl,Sr.Planner] B. ST-PL20140000896: A Resolution approving a Special Treatment Development Permit to allow construction of a 42-slip docking facility on submerged lands adjacent to property owned by Standard Pacific of Florida with a zoning designation of RMF-6(3) and a Special Treatment Overlay located in Sections 11 and 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. [Companion to Petition BDE-20130001765] [Coordinator: Summer Araque,Sr. Environmental Specialist] 10. OLD BUSINESS 11. NEW BUSINESS 12. ADJOURN CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows/jmp Page 2 of 2 Sent: 6/11/2014 9:31:44 AM From: Puig, Judy To: Blair Foley (FoIs000 @aol.com); BrownAraque, Summer; Cromer, Aaron; Jarvi, Reed; Minutes and Records; Podczerwinsky, John; rsinger @naplesqov.com; Vanlengen, Kris Subject: CCPC 6/19 meeting agenda and staff reports image001.gif(42Kb) t 6-19-2014 CCPC AGENDA.pdf(132Kb) t] Staff Report - BDE-PL20130001765 - Haldeman's Landing Boat Dock.pdf (1629Kb) min Resolution - BDE-PL20130001765 - Haldeman's Landing Boat Dock.pdf(114Kb) In Back up material - BDE-PL20130001765 - Haldeman's Landing Boat Dock.pdf(6261Kb) In Resolution - ST-PL20140000896 - Haldeman's Landing Special Treatment Permit.pdf (411Kb) In Site Plan - ST-PL20140000896 - Haldeman's Landing Special Treatment Permit.pdf (384Kb) in Staff Report - ST- PL20140000896 - Haldeman's Landing Special Treatment Permit.pdf(1016Kb) Good morning, Please see attached the following: 1. CCPC agenda 2. Staff report for the Boat Dock - Haldeman's Landing 3. Resolution for the Boat Dock - Haldeman's Landing 4. Back-up material for the Boat Dock - Haldeman's Landing 5. Staff report for the Special Treatment Permit - Haldeman's Landing 6. Resolution for the Special Treatment Permit - Haldeman's Landing 7. Site Plan for the Special Treatment Permit - Haldeman's Landing hAV.e A e eAT DA9! y Patt JudyPuig, Operations Analyst Growth Management Division/Planning& Regulation 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 (239) 252-2370 (239) 252-6348-Fax JudyPuig@colliergov.net AGENDA ITEM 9-A Co er County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING&ZONING DEPARTMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION HEARING DATE: JUNE 19, 2014 SUBJECT: BDE-PL20130001765,HALDEMAN'S LANDING BOAT DOCKS [COMPANION TO ST-PL20140000896] PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT: Owner: Standard Pacific of Florida, G.P.,Inc. Agent: Timothy Hall 405 North Reo Street Turrell, Hall and Associates Tampa,FL 33609 3584 Exchange Avenue Naples, Fl 34104 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner requests a 32-foot boat dock extension from the maximum permitted protrusion of 20 feet for waterways greater than 100 feet in width, which will allow construction of a boat docking facility protruding a total of 52 feet into a waterway that varies from approximately 97 to 120 feet wide. The docks are proposed as an amenity to a Site Development Plan (SDP-PL20130000015), which is currently under review,for 16 multi-family buildings,totaling 64 residential units. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject site is within Sections 11 and 14, Township 50 South, Range 25 East. The site is accessed via Lakeview Drive with a proposed access via Haldeman Creek Drive in the Windstar PUD. The folio numbers are 61835520008, 00388360006, 00394880004, 00395320000 & 61835840005. The project boundary of the proposed multifamily development is highlighted in grey on the location map on the following page. The dock is proposed along the south shore of Haldeman Creek. PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The purpose of the petition is to request a 32-foot boat dock extension beyond the maximum 20-foot limit for the subject multi-family residential development. The boat dock facility will contain 42 slips. The total overwater dock structure proposed is approximately 8,070 square feet and protrudes a total of 52 feet into a waterway that varies from approximately 97 feet to 120 feet from Mean High Water (MHW) line to MHW line. The total length of the dock is approximately 473 linear feet with a width of 6 feet. BDE-PL20130001765, Page 1 of 9 Haldeman's Landing Boat Dock Extension. June 19,2014 CCPC 1 D1r174 t grelialitaig6 1 II 1 ~ . 1 g ...: iki 6� i N, ,1 MS � I� I Ludt 111112%1 iniiiiiiiiiiiiinini -'1 CI OF e„,..0,;WE ■ if; —It-- ■G � Fi ►17i IiUi11 LFIr LA8 6ATION PROJECT Rr / `rogilaimo LAOATION� � 1. ,JI/� �oao:eeee "WO. °"°W 41ITI % 1 VI1IJ oi� 4 _- © aeaseeee•. .. If sw... I ! ttrt _ ! I ■-4 tk.Air-1., �t , vp . C.C .G :°C..C:.C . .i is 3' I 1 g . 0.::tia:::EEO0 ■ LOCATION MAP PETITION #BD-PL-2013.7765 ZONING MAP SURROUNDING LAND USE &ZONING: SUBJECT PARCEL: Vacant multi-family parcels, with a zoning designation of RMF-6 & RMF-6(3) SURROUNDING: North: Vacant land&single-family homes,zoned RMF-6-BMUD-R1 East: Single family homes, zoned RSF-4-BMUD-R4 &RMF-6-BMUD-R2 South: Single-family homes, zoned RMF-6-BMUD-R1 & golf course, zoned PUD (Windstar PUD) West: Golf course,zoned PUD (Windstar PUD) h ,r 14 A jritl , , fff tea• , yr ,,.mot•4 • V' .Y44.I# _ ,r�i-r: l .' $40..x:`'-"i' �,. � rib '*iii ry gYfi, -: t!' 4,:. .T.,Wpf 14 t r. f y -? } V�- t �� Air ',_ A „„ ,i s -4.7. I ��,_,+'/ r 16 p Y. ('z�f rya.fr5�� ♦t Y ♦!IC i , m Aerial—detail of parcel in the area of the proposed docks(Collier County Property Appraiser) BDE-PL20130001765, Page 3 of 9 Haldeman's Landing Boat Dock Extension. June 19,2014 CCPC ill visii,, - -i rum wa h s_ - 3 I L + +. -d ,a Y .. Google t. Aerial-detail of parcel in the area of the proposed docks(Google) �� . D, — ' - ID li' • r ? — `' "( t id..“ r f -4 . , :,.";; a S. I .. m • . , t Aerial-detail of parcel in the area of the proposed docks(Bing) BDE-PL20130001765, Page 4 of 9 Haldeman's Landing Boat Dock Extension. June 19,2014 CCPC ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION: Environmental Planning Staff has reviewed this petition and has no objection to the granting of this request, with the provision that a Special Treatment(ST) Permit is required prior to approval of an SDP which includes the boat docks. A portion of Haldeman Creek (including the subject portion)has an ST Zoning Overlay. The site qualifies as a moderate ranking under the Manatee Protection Plan, which translates to 10 slips per 100 feet of shoreline, or 93 slips. This request is for 42 slips and is therefore consistent with the Manatee Protection Plan. STAFF COMMENTS: In accordance with Section 2-87 of the Code of Laws and Ordinances, this matter will be heard by the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) instead of the Hearing Examiner. The CCPC shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny, a dock facility extension request based on certain criteria. In order for the CCPC to approve this request, it must find that at least four of the five primary criteria and four of the six secondary criteria have been met. Staff has reviewed this petition in accordance with Section 5.03.06 and recommends the following findings to the CCPC: Primary Criteria 1. Whether the number of dock facilities and/or boat slips proposed is appropriate in relation to the waterfront length, location, upland land use and zoning of the subject property. Consideration should be made of property on unbridged barrier islands, where vessels are the primary means of transportation to and from the property. (The number should be appropriate; typical single-family use should be no more than two slips; typical multi-family use should be one slip per dwelling unit; in the case of unbridged barrier island docks, additional slips may be appropriate.) Criterion met. The proposed dock facility consists of 42 boat slips, which is appropriate in relation to the over 938 linear feet of water frontage of the subject multi-family lot. 2. Whether the water depth at the proposed site is so shallow that a vessel of the general length, type and draft as that described in the petitioner's application is unable to launch or moor at mean low tide (MLT). (The petitioner's application and survey should establish that the water depth is too shallow to allow launching and mooring of the vessel(s)described without an extension.) BDE-PL20130001765, Page 5 of 9 Haldeman's Landing Boat Dock Extension. June 19,2014 CCPC Criterion met. According to the petitioner's application the water depth for the proposed dock facility is inadequate to gain safe access to water depths sufficient for the proposed vessels. In addition, the applicant has proposed maintenance dredging to minimize the proposed protrusion. 3. Whether the proposed dock facility may have an adverse impact on navigation within an adjacent marked or charted navigable channel, (The facility should not intrude into any marked or charted navigable channel thus impeding vessel traffic in the channel.) Criterion met. According to the information submitted by the petitioner, the proposed facility will not adversely impact navigation due to the width of the existing waterway (varying from approximately 97 feet to 120 feet MHW line to MHW line). The applicant notes that the facility has been designed so that it does not impede navigation. 4. Whether the proposed dock facility protrudes no more than 25 percent of the width of the waterway, and whether a minimum of 50 percent of the waterway width between dock facilities on either side is maintained for navigability. (The facility should maintain the required percentages.) Criterion met. Information provided in the application indicates that the proposed dock will protrude 52 feet into the waterway, as measured from MHW line. In this case, however,the MHW line extends into the mangrove fringe. The applicant states that, of the non-mangrove-impeded portion of Haldeman Creek, this dock facility will maintain a minimum of 50 percent of the waterway as open. 5. Whether the proposed location and design of the dock facility is such that the facility would not interfere with the use of neighboring docks. (The facility should not interfere with the use of legally permitted neighboring docks.) Criterion met. The applicant owns a major portion of the shoreline on the north side of Haldeman Creek and will place it under a Conservation Easement which prohibits dock construction. Secondary Criteria 1. Whether there are special conditions not involving water depth, related to the subject property or waterway, which justify the proposed dimensions and location of the proposed dock facility. (There must be at least one special condition related to the property; these may include type of shoreline reinforcement,shoreline configuration,mangrove growth, or seagrass beds.) BDE-PL20130001765, Page 6 of 9 Haldeman's Landing Boat Dock Extension. June 19,2014 CCPC Criterion met. The subject shoreline is natural, not hardened, and it supports a mangrove fringe. The MHW line—the baseline for this extension request—extends into the mangroves,requiring an extension to reach adequate water depth. 2. Whether the proposed dock facility would allow reasonable, safe access to the vessel for loading/unloading and routine maintenance, without the use of excessive deck area not directly related to these functions. (The facility should not use excessive deck area.) Criterion met. As shown on the drawing submitted by the petitioner, the dock area is not excessive,maintaining a 6-foot walkway. 3. For single-family dock facilities, whether the length of the vessel, or vessels in combination, described by the petitioner, exceeds 50 percent of the subject property's linear waterfront footage. (The applicable maximum percentage should be maintained.) Not applicable. This is a multi-family project. 4. Whether the proposed facility would have a major impact on the waterfront view of neighboring property owners. (The facility should not have a major impact on the view of a neighboring property owner.) Criterion met. According to the applicant, the dock facility is designed to have a minimal impact on the neighboring property owners. The view shed of neighboring properties will not be impacted. 5. Whether seagrass beds will be impacted by the proposed dock facility. (If seagrass beds are present, compliance with subsection 5.03.06(I) of the LDC must be demonstrated.) Criterion met. According to the Submerged Resource Survey submitted by the petitioner, no seagrass beds are known to be located within 200 feet of the proposed dock facility. Therefore,there will be no impact to seagrass beds. 6. Whether the proposed dock facility is subject to the manatee protection requirements of subsection 5.03.06(E)(11) of this Code. (If applicable, compliance with section 5.03.06(E)(11)must be demonstrated.) Criterion met. The petitioner states that the property qualifies as a moderate ranking under the Manatee Protection Plan and believes that the ranking will change to preferred, once maintenance dredging is complete. BDE-PL20130001765, Page 7 of 9 Haldeman's Landing Boat Dock Extension. June 19,2014 CCPC Staff analysis indicates that this request meets five of the five primary criteria. Regarding the six secondary criteria, criterion 3 is not applicable, and the request meets five of the remaining five secondary criteria. APPEAL OF BOAT DOCK EXTENSION TO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS: As to any boat dock extension petition upon which the CCPC takes final action, an aggrieved petitioner, applicant, or adversely affected property owner,may appeal such final action to the Board of County Commissioners. Such appeal shall be filed with the Growth Management Division Administrator within 30 days of the date of final action by the CCPC. In the event that the petition has been approved by the CCPC,the applicant shall be advised that he/she proceeds with construction at his/her own risk during this 30-day period. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The Office of the County Attorney reviewed the Staff Report for BDE-PL20130001765 on June 2, 2014. -SAS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the above findings, Staff recommends that the CCPC approve Petition BDE- PL20130001765, subject to the following conditions: 1. Construction of the docks shall not commence until the approval of SDP- PL20130000015 for the upland housing development and the subject docks, and the issuance of a building permit for the upland housing development, as well as the docks. 2. An ST Permit is required prior to approval of an SDP for the boat docks. 3. A Certificate of Occupancy (CO) shall not be issued for the docks until a CO has been issued for the upland housing development. BDE-PL20130001765, Page 8 of 9 Haldeman's Landing Boat Dock Extension. June 19,2014 CCPC PREPARED BY: F' : 41'4 ISCHL, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE PLANNING&ZONING DEPARTMENT REVIEWED BY: _ t RAYMOND V. BELLOWS,ZONING MANAGER DATE PLANNING&ZONING DEPARTMENT 3 /'1 MIKE BOSI,AICP,DIRECTOR DATE PLANNING& ZONING DEPARTMENT APPROVED BY: ( NNICK CA ANG IpA DATE ADMINISTRATOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION BDE-PL20130001765, Page 9 of 9 Haldeman's Landing Boat Dock Extension. June 19,2014 CCPC Detail by Entity Name Page 1 of 2 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE TIv°iSItot' (}i CoRPOR1' I0 S 1i1 t /43d1 Detail by Entity Name Foreign Profit Corporation STANDARD PACIFIC OF FLORIDA GP, INC. Filing Information Document Number F09000001377 FEI/EIN Number 204356126 Date Filed 04/06/2009 State DE Status ACTIVE Last Event AMENDMENT Event Date Filed 11/17/2009 Event Effective Date NONE Principal Address 405 N. REO ST., STE 330 TAMPA, FL 33609 Changed: 02/08/2010 Mailing Address 15360 BARRANCA PARKWAY IRVINE, CA 92618 Changed: 04/02/2012 Registered Agent Name&Address NRAI SERVICES, INC. 1200 South Pine Island Road Plantation, FL 33324 Address Changed: 02/11/2011 Officer/Director Detail Name&Address Title SR KEATING, GARY 405 N. REO ST., STE 330 TAMPA, FL 33609 Title President http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/SearchResultDetail/EntityName/forp-f... 4/10/2014 Detail by Entity Name Page 2 of 2 PELLETZ, DAVID 405 N. REO ST., STE 330 TAMPA, FL 33609 Title VP MUNGER, HARMONY M 405N. REO8T.. STE330 TAMPA, FL 33609 Annual Reports Report Year Filed Date 2012 04/02/2012 2013 02/06/2013 2014 03/08/2014 Document Images 03/06/2014--ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 02/06/2013—ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 12/18/2012--ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 04/02/2012--ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 03/O8/2U11 —ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 02/08/2010--ADDRESS CHANGE View image in PDF format 02/04/2010--ADDRESS CHANGE View image in PDF format 01/12/2010--ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 11/17/2009--Amendment View image in PDF format 04/06/2009-- Foreign Profit View image in PDF format mv,/oxt©and Privacy Poncie� State of Florida,Department of State http://search.sunbiz.orelnquiry/CorporationSearch/SearehResultDetail/EntityName/forp-f.. 4/10/2014 .&;� Cvtffeir County • COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 PLANNING AND REGULATION (239)252_2400 FAX (239)252-6358 ON* w�iww.colllergov.n�ett y.�i 1^f�{,sl c, � Gr t s a yL HM ' 9.+ •S'F ,l��1;�z i i :.r Jy^ro J` ?' !^ ti r i �'9t'.`r �iaPtla°�;�•!�-rnA.l,'n}� M!-,a ��.�.� '�i>t�f�>�_`.s � � i. The following information is intended to guide you through the process of a Dock Facility Extension or Boathouse Establishment Petition, from completing the application packet to the final determination by the Collier County Planning Commission. • Prior to submittal of the attached Dock Facility Extension or Boathouse Establishment Petition.. application, you must attend a pre-application meeting to determine if, pursuant to Land. f i Development Code Section 5.03.06, the option of a dock facility extension or boathouse establishment is available to you and to discuss the location,length/protrusion and configuration of- the proposed boat dock facility,The pre-application fee is$500.00(to be credited toward application fee upon submittal.) In order to process your request,all accompanying materials must be completed and submitted with the application (SEE ATTACHED CHECKLIST). The application fee for a Dock Facility Extension•or Boathouse Establishment is currently $1500.00 plus $925.00 for required legal advertising. - An additional amount for property owner notifications will be billed to the applicant prior to the hearing date, Within ten (10) days of the submission of,your application, you will receive notification that your petition is being processed. Accompanying that response will be a receipt for your check and the number assigned to your petition. This petition number should be noted on all future correspondence regarding your petition. The Department of Zoning and Land Development Review will provide for legal notification of surrounding property owners within 500 feat of the subject property and newspaper advertising (required fifteen(15) days prior to the Planning Commission Hearing date). You will be notified by mall of your hearing date and will receive a copy of the Staff Report, it Is recommended, but not • required,that you oryour agent attend the Planning Commission meeting. If you have any further questions or need assistance completing this application,contact the Growth Management Division/Planning and Regulation at 252-2400: • • icy C,4s�• C0 er County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION! NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 PLANNING AND REGULATION (239)252.2400 FAX (239)2824358 www.colliergov.net • is i.• �•rV:;��:: .. .�..... ...�IG.�i�'w�`'.� ��:. ��1t��,�1,:# +� :N,. ::C�,�Iit�.T�Q{��'�°-.:�..' i • PROJECT NUMBER ' ! PROJECT NAME DATE PROCESSED 7o be completed by staff f f • • ;:�� ":z•wi��ri' .:i'; 'i t::; - -- - NAME OF APPLICANT(S) STANDARD PACIFIC OF FLORIDA ADDRESS 405 NORTH REO STREET CITY Tampa STATE Florida Zip 33609 TELEPHONE# CELL It FAX# E-MAIL MDEBOCK@STANPAC.COM t � NAME OF AGENT Timothy Hall FIRM Turret!,Hall&Associates ADDRESS 3584 Exchange Ave CITY Naples STATE FL Zip 34104 TELEPHONE# 239-643-0166 CELL# 239-253-9137 FAx# 239.643-6632 E-MAIL'THALLc TURRELL-ASSOCIATES.COM • BE AWARE THAT COLLIER COUNTY HAS LOBBYIST REGULATIONS.GUIDE YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY AND ENSURE THAT YOU ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THESE REGULATIONS. �'—f"yam•• ,5, f I I I Vt t Co er County i COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 PLANNING AND REGULATION (239)252-2400 FAX (239)252-6358 1 www.00lllergay.net .C,'• ..ry yu. Yr- • #'•i:::%?.7`:!D ,iyt.y.,,..:,' =(`:> :Y+ 3•N .. . . .. .%a3�-.-. f ,`�,t�ys �`..:. .. ',+tG_�.� �:�tf3i '.•;'tr�:• I '�4' s:+.5.fi:.•'. .. i'.Y .t. ,'•,i"`" '- ' J•:'!!"'CYj] �Q'�t . .!' .,t.n' 41 . • Address of Subject Property Lakeview Drive • t1 5 f4 50 S 25,E 81835520008,00388360006 SeotionITownship/Rainge / / Property I.D.# 00394880004,00395320000,&61835040005 - ' I Subdivision Haldeman's LandingVillage Unit Lot(s) Block(s)( ) . Current Zoning and Land use of Subject Property RMi=-6(3)&RMF-6 ; I ':•i I'i':¢ fi:*• LdP '-`ni.iff. yy. - * °` 'r ::, s r.., . jJ •fi` •".�•M• �,.ns .-•..,...y•r :.•gi'4 =y- ,V 6,i'°. .r.' :Fzf.:,"7^% yTi. A S.�,�r J 3 � 4i •;r'-t,.rir:...4gip-•sn! %tiix.. F Zoning Land Use N RMF-6-BMUD-R1 &RSF-4-BMLID-R4 Haldeman Creek/Single Family Residential I S • PUD,RSF-4-BMUD-R4,RMF-6-BMUD-R1 Golf Course&Single-Family Residential E RMF.e-BMUD.R1.RSF-4-BMUb-R4•RMF4-BjdU0-R2 Canal borders Entire East 9ldew/Singls Family Residential W PUD&MH Wlndstar Subdivision •j :V..,!' :?•i.Y^;Y ..7:. q.V, t` 77.0 t i w.,:r..,6' r•'in.•!: ,.r. :+,..:-!; Narrative description of project(indicate extent of work,new dock,replacement,addition to existing facility,any other pertinent information): The following must be accompanying this appllcation: : 1) A signed, seated survey depicting mean high water (MHW) and mean low water (MLW), and relevant water depths measured at no leas'than 5-foot increments - 2)A charts drawn to scale,of the waterway at the site,depicting the waterway width,the proximity of the proposed facility to any adjacent navigable channel, the proximity of the proposed facility to 'docks, if any, on the adjacent lots;and the unobstructed waterway between the proposed facility and the opposite bank or any dock facility on the'opposite bank r ((3ji • C �O BYE` COLLIER cowry GOVERNMENT • GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ NAP NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE PLANNING AND REGULATION (239)252-2400 FLORIDA 3410 (239)252 2400 FAX (239)252-6358 www.coiliergov,net - 3]A site plan to scale showing dimensions and location of existing and proposed dock structures,as • well as a cross section showing the facility in relation to MHW/MLW and shoreline(bank, seawall or rip-rap revetment). • '�vii�,i,�4iYPi ng¢. .Yd N-^�•: �'t. - - _ %rr•',:.>;` .;fit.. _-'.�: '4'�:' !� 13?.?Y:F.':i 1`'=Y,'ii....•': V'ricltiaM' i '.74 'r:'s•..' '� ... .a'iE: r .. -. ,-.'F+ � ®. 1 r�. f•.•nx`,...;...t t�'�'�`'-`f {:.. l Tc.•T ;J!'!•`° e 1 j':�Y:•' :^i t.i}�' 'J�•'•'`~C. • Width of waterway: x'84 ft.; Measurement from plat ❑survey Aerial y ❑visual estimate® other(specify) Total property water frontage: " ft. • • Setbacks: provided 36 ft.required 15 ft. Total protrusion of proposed facility into water: 52' ft. Number and length of vessels to use facility: 1. 2e425 ft.,2. 22"30 ft.,3. ft, • List any additional dock facilities in close proximity to the subject j property and indicate the • total protrusion into the waterway of each: See attached Sheet For all petitions, in the case of signs located on properties 1 acres or more in size, the applicant shall be responsible for erecting the required sign(s). what is the size of the property? 20.51 Are • Official Interpretations or Zoning Verifications: To your knowledge,has there been an official Interpretation or zoning verification rendered on this property within the last year? ❑Yes I No If so,please provide copies. The following criteria,(pursuant to Section 5.03.06 of the Land Development Code)shall be used as a guide by staff in determining its recommendation to the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC),and by the CCPC in Its decision to approve or deny a particular Dock Extension request. In order for the CCPC to approve the request, it must be determined that at least 4 of the 6 primary criteria,and at least 4 of the 8 secondary criteria,must be met. Please provide a narrative response to the listed criteria and/or questions, Attach additional pages If necessary. • • • • Co sr County .• COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE • GROWTH MANAGEMENT D1VISIONI • NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 PLANNING AND REGULATION (239)252-2400 FAX (239)252,8358 www.colliergov.net • i . . . 110- .T • ;!-• . ;,.-,... • 1. Whether or not the number of dock facilities andfor boat slips proposed is appropriate in relation • to the waterfront length, location, •upland land use and zoning of the subject property; • consideration should be made of property on unbrIdged barrier islands, where vessels are the primary means of transportation to and from the property. ((The number should be appropriate; typical,single-family use should be no more than two slips;typical multi-family use should be one slip per dwelling unit; In the case of urtbridged barrier Island docks, additional slips may be appropriate)) See attached sheet • 2. Whether or not the water depth at the proposed site is so shallow that a vessel of the general length,type,and draft as that described in the petitioner's application is unable to launch or moor at mean low tide (MU). ((The petitioner's application and survey should show that the water depth is too shallow to allow launch and mooring of the vessel (s) described without an . extension)) See attached sheet 3. Whether or not the proposed dock fedi*may have an adverse impact on navigation within an •adjacent marked or charted navigable channel_ ((The facility should not Intrude Into any marked or charted navigable channel thus impeding vessel traffid in the channel)) See attached sheet • • • 4. Whether or not the proposed dock faCility protrudes no more than 25 percent of the width of the Waterway. and whether or not a minimum of 50 percent of the waterway width between dock facilities on either side of the waterway is maintained for navigability.((The facility should maintain the required percentages)). See attached sheet 5. Whether.or not the proposed location and design of the dock facility is such that the facility would not interfere with the use of neighboring docks. ((The facility should not Interfere with the use of legally permitted neighboring docks)) See,attached sheet • • • Co elr County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ • NAPES, ES 104 DRIVE NAPLES,FLORIDA FLQREDA 34'TOA PLANNING AND REGULATION (239)252-2400 FAX (239)252-6358 www.coiliergov,n t • , ./. .:r.�'� .!�e. S.w:A �y. •.: •;L.5`.r'..l::t'' •i..n::.F l:.�.5. ��- '$ �4 i" K ..tiy _- - `j!w � ry(./i, .. r R '`_ ...T.a:..�•+yR cA'`-:'.A N .if 1y'r�t�•� -�3:I�•l;'�M' �� } ,..i, �r�ttp�.:. ';��y�� :.Y/.'. • 1. Whether or not there are special conditions, not Involving water depth, related to the subject property or waterway, which justify the proposed dimensions and location of the proposed dock facility. ((There must be at least one special condition related to the property;these may Include • type of-shoreline reinforcement,shoreline configuration,mangrove growth,or seagrass beds)) See attached sheet 2, Whether the proposed dock facility would allow reasonable, safe, access to the vessel for loading/unloading and routine maintenance, without the use of excessive deck area not directly related to these functions.((The facility should not use excessive deck area)) • See attached sheet 3. For single-family dock facilities,whether or not the length of the vessel,or vessels in combination, described by the petitioner exceeds 50 percent of the subject property's linear waterfront footage. ((The applicable maximum percentage should be maintained)) • See attached sheet 4. Whether or not,the proposed facility would have a major impact on the waterfront view of neighboring waterfront property owners. ((The facility should not have a major impact on the view of either property owner,)) • See attached sheet - I 8. Whether or not seagrass beds are located within 200 feet of the proposed dock facility, ((If seagrass beds are present, compliance with subsection 5.03.06,1 of this code must be demonstrated)) See attached sheet. • • 6: Whether or not the proposed dock facility is subject to the manatee protection requirements of - subsection 5.03.08.E.11 of this code. ((If applicable,compliance with Section 5.03.06.E.ii must be demonstrated)) See attached sheet • • • <:r , : : Cln er CountY COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 PLANNING AND REGULATION (239)252-2400 FAX (239)252-6358 www.coiliergov.net � 1 I HEREBY ATTEST.THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS APPLICATION IS TRUE AND ACCURATE TO THE SEST;OF MY KNOWLEDGE. I UNDERSTAND THAT,IN ADDITION TO APPROVAL OF THIS DOCK EXTENSION,A BUILDING, PERMIT IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION. I UNDERSTAND THAT IF THIS DOCK EXTENSION PETITION IS APPROVED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, AN AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNER MAY FILE AN APPEAL WITHIN 14 DAYS.OF THE HEARING. IF I PROCEED WITH CONSTRUCTION DURING THIS TIME,I DO SO AT MY OWN RISK. Signature of Petitioner or Agent • ' i a i I t t . Co er County 1 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE 1 : I GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 PLANNING AND REGULATION (239)252-2400 FAX (238)252-6358 i , www.coIliergonet t v. �ti. t7' b:..� n{�` R'N,•. (]�� jc�. 10■�,1T '�Yi .!.•e:.i .'�R'.{1.•. i.ff .1., • p). 'x TA.. �:T �E.�iT``:'-,!'n•n.wWw'J .. 1 _ wi;,;:f•7... . . :•$=: •F'.. u-S Rr} ,P,,•'�1:01,1�fR 147!.?.'''!'L:..d7af .0#,:.. .. ,. ."�ri.t, i THIS COMPLETED CHECKLIST IS TO BE SUBMITTED WITH APPLICATION PACKET IN THE 1 EXACT ORDER LISTED BELOW W/COVER SHEETS ATTACHED TO EACH SECTION,' NOTE:INCOMPLETE SUMBITTALS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. REQUIREMENTS #OF ' SUBMITTED NOT • COPIES REQUIRED Completed Application 6 0 OwnedAgent Affidavits,signed&notarized 1 0 0 1 Addressing Checklist 1 ❑ ❑ Conceptual Site Plan illustrating the following; 6 l 0 D a. The lot end dimensions where proposed docking facility is to be • f located. b. All yard setbacks ; c. Required setbacks for the dock facility d. The total number and configuration of the proposed facilities,eto. (Include all dimensions to scale). e. The water depth where the proposed dock facility is to be located and J the distance to the navigate channel. it (Water depth at mean low tide should be shown at approximately every five(5)feet of length for the total length of the proposed facility. i f. Illustrate the land contour of the property on which the dock facility is • proposed; • g. The dock facility should•be illustrated from an aerial view,as well as side view_ Electronic copy of documents and plans on CDROM 2 0 0 _ Application and Review fees:$1500 Review Fee;$925 Legal Advertising Fee(estimated). Check payable to Board of Courtly Commissioners ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS; At the completion of the review process, the applicant shall submit 16 additional copies of the application and 16 additional copies of the Conceptual Site Plan for the CCPC agenda packets. Co eCounty COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 PLANNING AND REGULATION (239)25202400 FAX (239)252-8358 • W IN W.C011terOov,ne t. As the authorized agentfappffcant for this Wilton, t attest that all of the Information Indicated on this checklist Is Included In this submittal package. I understand that failure to Include all necessary submittal Information may result in the delay of procaseIn9 this petition. AFFIDAVIT ! I Well,/4uJif,�f(- OCI' being first duly sworn,depose and say that well am/are the owners of the properly described herein and which Is the subject matter of the proposed hearing;that all the } j answers to the questions in this application, including the disclosure of Interest information, ell i sketches, date,and other supplementary matter attached to and made a pert of this application,are honest and true to the best of our knowledge and belief. Well understand that the Information requested on this application must be complete and accurate and that the content of this form, whether computer generated or County printed shall not be altered. Public hearings will not be advertised until this application Is deemed complete,and all required Information has been submitted As property owner Well further authorize :ard� 61; sp ua fifo act as our/my representative in any matters regarding this Petition, Signature of Property Owner Signature of Property Owner • M1t.{ et_ Typed or Printed Name of Owner Typed or Printed Name of Owner The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this_ I{ day of Alva E61151 20 f S by I`11 t. ` produced • as identification. "! State of Florida (Signature of Notary Public-State of Plante) County of Collier 4 ..i (Print, Type,or Stamp Commissioned Name ofNotary Pablle) 414N,, MVMESHA BENNIE s MY COMM183ION 6 EEe41658 EXPIRCe October 08•2010 1.407;36-01s1- FlorldaRtnLq$envke eon CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 14- A RESOLUTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BDE- PL20130001765 FOR A 32-FOOT BOAT DOCK EXTENSION OVER THE MAXIMUM 20-FOOT LIMIT ALLOWED BY SECTION 5.03.06 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR A TOTAL PROTRUSION OF 52 FEET TO ACCOMMODATE A 42 SLIP MULTI- FAMILY DOCKING FACILITY FOR THE BENEFIT OF A 19.06 +/- ACRE PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS HALDEMAN'S LANDING IN SECTIONS 11 AND 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, 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(LDC) (Ordinance 04-41, as amended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County,among which are provisions for granting extensions for boat docks;and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), being duly appointed, has held a properly noticed public hearing and has considered the advisability of a 32-foot extension over the maximum 20-foot limit provided in LDC Section 5.03.06 to allow for a total protrusion of 52 feet into the waterway for a boat dock facility in a Residential Multi-Family (RMF-6(3))zoning district for the property hereinafter described;and WHEREAS, the CCPC has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by LDC Section 5.03,06;and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given the opportunity to be heard by this Commission at a public hearing,and the Commission has considered all matters presented. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA,that: Petition Number BDE-PL20130001765, filed on behalf of Standard Pacific of Florida, G.P., Inc. by Timothy Hall of Turrell, Hall & Associates, with respect to the property described in the Attached Exhibit "A", be and the same is hereby approved for a 32-foot extension of a boat dock over the maximum 20-foot limit to allow for a 52-foot boat dock facility,as shown on the Proposed Site Plan attached as Exhibit "B", in the Residential Multi-Family (RMF-6(3)) zoning district wherein said property is located, subject to the Conditions of Approval attached as Exhibit"C". Haldeman's Landing fka Fishermen's Village BDE-PL20130001765—4/22/14 Page 1 of 2 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution 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 day of ,2014. ATTEST: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA Nick Casalanguida,Administrator Mark P.Strain,Chairman Growth Management Division Approved as to form and legality: 4/..1%1)14 Scott A. Stone Assistant County Attorney Attachments: Exhibit A—Legal Description Exhibit B—Proposed Site Plan Exhibit C—Conditions of Approval(if any) I3-CPS-01277/18 Haldeman's Landing fka Fishermen's Village 8DE-PL20130001765—4/22/14 Page 2 of 2 L / , 4.gotZ_ i _6 TICA: j--1,411 ---•-----( y --• _ __ _ -;-A 01\ / L C17 CL.'-•zttiJ d, trifx-,4- --_ L 44c- lir...,.1( ,-,.4- ;,C7....,. • 'I.. .(' c,'4 11 --11:--( --1,1,•-j. emo.' . _ _ -_1-7 kit'le ..5/t-V4). ' ..i t:',.tk-- / ; I' r'frk; '-,' ! ,/-,/,:e1 :Ai ,1 ,r74,....,,, fr.4.1, gi II/ '.../- ...., - - ,,,--- - . _ —4- 1 14.11-2.,P)t-: -",mi.■ (__ _ . _ ... A ---- _ /4-ilt, I- r.r.,.> /) I.11. Pee ja — - -)...,t 1 . ,I 1.,:,.. 02/.7tie t . _.... -. - _ 1 .. .di,Q....le_ ; -.; .1 -.,,,,....i.i, I.e.),1 0.. t -I I) .11,,:: - ----- / ' — —— • I Iss .s _J ' el-fP 74 1 l*t"1.__ ---,,,-,i-s;....-. 4 cq,==‘!.,( iLr. c....4:; () it:J.... _ . .. J ii I) L L (A.A.: ../A.j 1,.... _ il V).3' 1 t-•--1 ,e4 .#41..")6 410. .:, (-, ,z1.....e k' , ç . v , .. _77ft _ A illaiii..r.l. • 7%-' 1+1 , 1111 S. .f.31,.,,,cc--fl ri.,-( --,z_.5 • .... I _ i 1\ . , , \ _ - - +tie...., t.it .4;%1 t:-- '1."1::,,9(. 1 '4.,-,q.i.,0,1 - _ . . Page 1 of 1 ih From: ReischlFred Sent: Monday,April 07,2014 11:54 AM To: 'bowein @usa.net' Subject: Haldeman's Landing Attachments: Exhibits-Revised 2-25-14.pdf Mr.Bowein- Attached are the exhibits provided by the applicant. Please let me know if you have any other questions. -Fred Fred Reischt, A1CP Senior Planner Planning &Zoning Department Phone: 239-252-4211 Pax. 239-252-2834 i file://bcc.colliergov.net/data/GMD-LDS/CDES%20Planning%20Services/Current/Reischl/... 6/2/2014 Page 1 of 1 From: ReischlFred Sent: Monday,April 07, 2014 2:12 PM To: 'Francisco Figueiredo' Subject: RE: haldeman landing Attachments: Exhibits-Revised 2-25-14.pdf I have attached the plans submitted by the applicant.The docks will be for a multifamily development on the parcel. Please let me know if you have any other questions. Fred Reischl, AICP Senior Planner Planning&Zoning Department Phone: 239-252-4211 Fax: 239-252-2834 E From: Francisco Figueiredo [mailto:ftf1220@hil.com] Sent: Monday,April 07, 2014 2:00 PM To: ReischlFred Subject: haldeman landing dear Fred Reischl I received a letter from Collier county planning zoning about HALDEMAN LANDING-PETITION NO.BDE- P120130001765, I have question,do this project will be only slip docking or multifamily and slip docking? thank you, file://bcc.colliergov.net/data/GMD-LDS/CDES%20Planning%20Services/Current/Reischl/... 6/2/2014 Page 1 of 1 I From: ReischlFred Sent: Tuesday,April 08,2014 9:43 AM To: 'ash37 @comcast.net' i Subject: Haldeman's Landing Attachments: Exhibits-Revised 2-25-14.pdf Attached are the plans you requested.Please let me know if you have any questions. -Fred 1 Fred Reischl, AICP Senior Planner Planning &Zoning Department Phone:239-252-4211 Fax: 239-252-2834 8 file://bcc.co lliergov.net/data/GMD-LDS/CDES%20P fanning%20Services/Current/Reischl/... 6/2/2014 Page 1 of 2 From: ReischlFred Sent: Wednesday,April 09,2014 2:00 PM To: CasertaAshley Cc: JourdanJean Subject: RE: Haldeman's Landing Attachments: app.pdf Here you go. From: CasertaAshley Sent: Wednesday,April 09, 2014 11:22 AM To: ReischlFred Cc:JourdanJean Subject: FW: Haldeman's Landing Hi Fret..: Can you please send me a copy of the application that I ur reil filled out for the BDE?Thanks. Ashley Caserta Bayshore Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Agency Bayshore Beautification MSTU and Haldeman Creek MSTU Phone:239.643.1115 From: JourdanJean Sent: Wednesday,April 09, 2014 11:19 AM To: CasertaAshley Subject: FW: Haldeman's Landing From: ReischlFred Sent:Tuesday, April 08, 2014 3:32 PM To:JourdanJean Subject: RE: Haldeman's Landing Jean- Here's the letter.I believe I sent you the exhibits. If you didn't get them,please let me know and I will re-send! -Fred From: JourdanJean Sent:Tuesday,April 08, 2014 9:56 AM To: ReischlFred Subject: RE: Haldeman's Landing Hi Fred: I'm still receiving numerous questions regarding this project that I'm unable to answer. I have asked they contact you, but some of my Advisory Board members has requested I obtain the information and forward to them. file://bcc.colliergov.net/data/GMD-LDS/CDES%20Planning%20Services/Current/Reischl/... 6/2/2014 Page 2 of 2 The major concern is the letter refers to 52 foot extension and they waterway is very narrow. I don't have a copy of the letter that was mailed out,so If you can forward it to me it would be greatly appreciated.According to the exhibits the boat slips will range from 25 feet to 30 feet,but the residents are interpreting the letter to state the boat slips and boats will be up to 52 feet. Would you be so kind as to clarify and address these concerns? Thank you. Cordially, Jean Jourdan,AICP, Interim Director Bayshore/Gateway Triangle CRA Bayshore Beautification MSTU Haldeman Creek MSTU 3570 Bayshore Drive Unit#102 Naples, Fl 34112 239-643-1115 Website;BGTCRA.com From: ReischlFred Sent: Monday, April 07, 2014 11:55 AM To:Jourdaniean Subject: Haldeman's Landing Jean- Here are the exhibits provided by the applicant. -Fred Fred Reischl,AICP Senior Planner Planning &Zoning Department Phone: 239-252-4211 Fax: 239-252-2834 iF I R Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public records.If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity.Instead,contact this office by telephone or in writing, file://bcc.colliergov.net/data/GMD-LDS/CDES%20Planning%20Services/Current/Reischl/... 6/2/2014 Page 1 of 2 From: ReischlFred Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2014 1:39 PM To: 'Mescatem @aol.com' Cc: StrainMark Subject: RE: HALDEMAN LANDING PETITION Mr. Messmer- Thanks for your input. I have copied Mark Strain,the Chief Hearing Examiner,so your input will be provided to him. My responses are below. -Fred From: Mescatem @aol.eom[mailto:Mescatem @aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, AprIl 09, 2014 1:20 PM To: ReischlFred Subject: HALDEMAN LANDING PETITION Dear Mr. Reischl, Thank you for our phone conversation and the 14 page EXHIBITS. In order for me to determine if to support or object to the subject PETITION, your response to the following questions would help. I do wish that this and all future communications, including your responses become a part of the record and be included in the CCPC agenda packets. 1. Has the petitioner submitted any information regarding the entire project, i.e. dwellings, planed for the property ? Nothing has been submitted yet. The proposed conditions state that a building permit for the docks cannot be issued until the Site Development Plan and Special Treatment permit are approved. And that a building permit for a residence is issued. 2. In 2007, the previous owner of the subject property proposed building docks for 26 boats at this approximate location. Was a variance requested for that proposal, and if so,was it heard by the CCPC ?What decision if any was made ? The zoning map does not indicate approval oi�a Boat Dock Extension at this location, so if an application was submitted, it was never heard and therefore was not approved. 4. The rectangular property, its North boundary being Becca, its South boundary Haldeman Creek, and East boundary the canal West of Poplar St. Is my understanding correct, that this property is already " permitted "for 6 dwellings, and docks located along the Creek ? If this is correct, it would be helpful to view drawings of those docks in relationship to the petitioner's including the MEAN HIGH and LOW WATER LINES, and the width of the remaining waterway with of course boats occupying those slips. The applicant states that a Conservation Easement was placed on this property and no docks may be constructed. file://bcc.colliergov.net/data/GMD-LDS/CDES%20P1anning%20Services/Current/Reischl/... 6/2/2014 Page 2 of 2 5. Given the fact that this proposal will narrow the navigable waterway, will the riparian rights of the owners " up stream ", especially the 2 marinas be compromised ? The Code requires that 50% of the navigable waterway remain unobstructed. The applicant's exhibits, and the fact that no docks will be constructed along the north shoreline, support this requirement. Thanking you in advance, Robert F. Messmer 2978 Orange St. Naples, Fl. 34112 239-775-3493 file://bcc.colliergov.net/data/GMD-LDS/CDES%20Planning%20Services/Current/Reischl/... 6/2/2014 Page 1of2 Subj: RE:HALDEMAN LANDING PETITION Date: 4/9/2014 1:39:08 P.M.Eastern Daylight Time From: To: Mescatemiaoi.com CC: MarkStraindicollieroov.net Mr. Messmer- Thanks for your input. I have copied Mark Strain, the Chief Hearing Examiner, so your input will be provided to him. My responses Pre below. -Fred From: Mescatem@aol.com [mallto:Mescatern@aol.com] Sent:Wednesday,April 09, 2014 1:20 PM To:ReischlFred Subject: HALDEMAN LANDING PETITION Dear Mr. Reischl, Thank you for our phone conversation and the 14 page EXHIBITS. In order for me to determine if to support or object to the subject PETITION, your response to the following questions would help. I do wish that this and all future communications, including your responses become a part of the record and be included in the CCPC agenda packets. 1. Has the petitioner submitted any information regarding the entire project, i.e. dwellings, planed for the property ? 2. In 2007, the previous owner of the subject property proposed building docks for 26 boats at this approximate location. Was a variance requested for that proposal, and if so,was it heard by the CCPC?What decision if any was made? 4.The rectangular property, its North boundary being Becca, its South boundary Haldeman Creek, and East boundary the canal West of Poplar St. Is my understanding correct, that this property is already"permitted "for 6 dwellings, and docks located along the Creek ? If this is correct, it would be helpful to view drawings of those docks in relationship to the petitioner's including the MEAN HIGH and LOW WATER LINES, and the width of the remaining waterway with of course boats occupying those slips, r _ •l• •. ttt I.%h ( rt... T- 5. Given the fact that this proposal will narrow the navigable waterway, will the riparian rights of the owners"up stream",especially the 2 marinas be compromised ? Thursday,April 17,2014 AOL:Mescatem Page 2 of 2 Thanking you in advance, Robert F. Messmer 2978 Orange St. Naples, Fl. 34112 239-775-3493 hhi t 1-I,,..an L:-IC`• ;101 kithlrotistR,rite coil-Alum( If ynti tin IPA t.w.,t i your n-iit 41 ilthho a celoir tfN ft Itt.Itnir,- lo public .t:i'gtie i.tit,not:rind 10,1,44IIt1Ii1N44 h.1111 i-iilfh!.IIL•IL.11,t+416,[i fill';.t.iiCe by i,el^IBVtnt-ni hi April 17,2014 AOL:Mescatem Page 1 of 1 From: ReischlFred Sent: Thursday,April 10, 2014 10:00 AM To: 'Mescatem @aol.com' Cc: StrainMark Subject: RE: HALDEMAN LANDING PETITION Thanks again for your input. Section 5.03.06.E of the Land Development Code states that the criterion for the measurement of the extension includes"...the total protrusion of the dock facility plus the total protrusion of the moored vessel."Therefore, the vessel may not protrude farther than the outermost edge of the piling(as Indicated on the cross-sections of the exhibits previously sent). I hope this helps. -Fred From: Mescatem@aoLcorr1[(nailto:MescatemaoLcom] Sent: Wednesday,April 09, 2014 6:02 PM To: ReischlFred Subject: HALDEMAN LANDING Pt I I I ION Dear Mr. Reischl, Thank you for your very prompt responses to my 5 questions. I have an additional question and concern, and most likely will have a couple more prior to the " cut off date" of April 14. Referencing the EXHIBITS, it is shown that docks are 25 ft. in length to accommodate"A" boats, no longer than 25 ft., and docks 30 ft. in length, to accommodate " B " boats no longer than 30 ft. in length. Based on the detailed drawings and measurements on pages 4 and 5, I interpret these boat lengths to include bow sprits, bow anchor carrying platforms, swim platforms, swim steps, engines and any other stern protrusions. It should be noted, that a 30 ft. long catamaran or trimaran will have a beam of 25 ft. or more. The 3 spaces at the East end, and the 9 spaces at the West end are the only slips which could accommodate those vessels. If one or more of those vessels were to be berthed at or near the location indicated by"section B-B " on page 3, what would be the width of the navigable waterway at low, mean and high tides ? I fear it will be too narrow to safely accommodate the large barges and other work boats often serviced by the new Naples Boat Yard. Respectfully submitted, Robert F. Messmer file://bcc.colliergov.net/data/GMD-LDS/CDES%20Planning%20Services/Current/Reischl/... 6/2/2014 Page l of 1 From: Mescatem @aol.com Sent: Friday,April 11, 2014 12:17 PM To: ReischlFred Cc: FialaDonna; HillerGeorgia;TomHenning @coliergov.net; CoyleFred; NanceTim Subject: HALDAMEN'S LANDING PETITION Mr. Fred Reischl AICP Senior Planner Subject : HALDEMEN'S LANDING PETITION No. BDE - PL 20130001765 Your notice dated April 4, 2014 regarding the subject states, "This is to advise you that you may have interest in the proceedings or you own property located within 500 ft. of the following property to consider." It is my understanding that only those property owners within 500 ft. of the proposed project received your notice. It is also my understanding that owners of properties fronting on waterways, " up stream " on Haldeman Creek and some of the properties along Bayview Dr., Shoreview Dr., Gulfview Dr., Riverview Dr.,and Lakeview Dr., that are beyond 500 ft. of the proposed project did not receive your notice. All of these properties are effected by this project since they front on waterways, up stream ", most notably the new Naples Boat Yard, Gulf Shore Marina and the Three 60 Market, commercial properties that are directly and economically impacted by this project. I am requesting that you postpone the April 24, 2014 HEARING until after you are able to notify all owners of the above described properties. I understand that the wording in your notice, may have interest, could be construed as not requiring those owners to be notified. However, I hope you agree, they all should have been. The reason I am copying the County Commissioners is because they may feel a change in the wording in the Code governing this issue is needed. Thank you for your continued attention to this mater. Robert F. Messmer 2978 Orange St. Naples, Fl. 34112 239-775-3493 file://bcc.colliergov.net/data/GMD-LDS/CDES%20Planning%20Services/Current/Reischl/... 6/2/2014 TURRELL, HALL & ASSOCIATES, INC. . MARINE&ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING 3584 Exchange Avenue,Suite B o Naples,Florida 34104-3732•(239)643-0166•Fax(239)643-6632 February 12,2014 BDE-PL20130001765 REV:2 Fred Reiachl,AiCP FISHERMAN'S VILLAGE DATE Principal Planner DUE: 3/5//5/14 4 Collier County Government Department of Zoning&Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34104 RE: BD-PL20130001765 FICA:Fisherman's Village now Haldeman's Landing BDE Fred, Per the request of county staff please see attached copy of our response to all questions and concerns in regards to the above subject BDE application's first review process. First off please notice the name change for the proposed project from Fisherman's Village to Haldeman's Landing. I have attached the updated BDE application with all requested changes, with the updated exhibits, and a Unanimous Written Consent of the Board of Directors of Standard Pacific of Florida. Upon your review of these revisions please let me know if there is anything else that you mayneed for your review. If you have anymore questions or concerns please feel free to contact meat the above letterhead phone number or email Tim®Turrell-Assoclates.com or Jefl Tugell-Associates.com et H14 Regards, #4A-- rteAse Sot k1,1Y ��, ► + In ,eq Jeff Rogers Project Manager 'Futrell,Hall&Associates,Inc. rry e.5s/In rz otiom ALL peecriution of Protect Haideman's Landing is proposing to construct a new docking facility that win protrude approximately 52 feet from the MHW line. Including approximately 8.070 aware feet of over water structure and consists of 42 slips.for the residents of the proceed subdivision. In the area of the proposed docks.the applicant owns the shoreline on both sides of the creek and the bottomlands of Haldeman Creek. The layout will consist of a 473-ft-long by 0-footawide shore-parallel dock that Includes twelve 30-ft-long marginal slips and 22-ft-lona.2741-lone.and 30-ft long by 4-ft-wide Sneer piers allowing perpendicular moorino for 30 of the 41 proposed mooring slips. The docks are located within a mart-altered channel which connects Haldeman Creek to Naples Bay Ip rther out to Gordon's Pass. List any additional dock facilities in close pro:umlty to the mbject property sad league the total protrudes into the waterway of each. cc,n �r,��Dici-00y 'Tb � EI ✓$ 4 C.'5 Directly across the creek at the propost dam "fad Sanct�y 2`1 €‘'71`) D , : 1 n. , - 1 a •ranted k. • • • «_o ,• y._ • u th MHW4. At Royal Yacht Services,a commercial marina east of Halt.man's .1 iL.' - . d• a el -...1et • ,e i . , prirjiry Criteria 1) The proposed multi-family dock facilitates the mooring of 42 vessel.. The property has 938 Ilitwir feet of shoreline along the southern potion of Haldeman Creek;which is the location of the proposed docking facility. The remainder of the shtrraihp will not have docks built omit. The nroleit site qualifies as a moderate ranking under-the MPP. This sauet s to 10 silos per-100 feet of shoreline or total of 93 slips. The 42 silos proposed is well under whet is allowed_by the MPP and Is also welionder the one silo �r unit duldellnea ColIler County staff has determined that the oronneed docking facility is consistent with tree Colli .._ts._ ••�•s- Plan. The number of aims proposed Is gporonriats for the proposed facility In relation to length of shoreline location,and the number of dwellnal units proposed on the upland. The lengths of the vessels are also congruent with neighboring prooertles and aooronrlate for the size of the waterway. 2) The attached survey Indicates titer depths are not adegu_ate to moor the vessels in the proposed slip$. Dredging will be performed In order to moor the vessels:closer to the shoreline and keen the protrusion into the navigable waterway to a minimum...Mk • Na '" IaLi l A 141A,�wye.iA AicE� C'A E D CIL Uo u i.-® �E 1,0 'Tt-i ,c A't7C K �of ri-t b cizet i' Ai elz- 4644, T-*u' LDC•47I Ceti or /f1 iro tMAL1}` oOoE ifflS • e Lst 'cS4t... t3' � A tC44 '7thc So-urk waterway has been dredged hi the oast so thin will be a maintenance dredge and not new dredging. An extension is still reautred due to the width of the waterway in relation to the meandering MHWL. 3) The proposed dockina facility will not impede navigation of the • waterway. it does not protrude into the designated channel.as shown on tho attached exhibits. The width of the waterway along the proposed docks will vary from aonroximatsly 97 feet to over 120 feet in width after the construction of the proposed docile. Therefore 90%of the width of the water will remain open and no adverb impacts to navigation are anticipated, 4) There are portions of the proposed docking facility that exceed tho 25%width of the waterway when measured from the MHWL to MHWL.but this does not represent the width of the navigable waterway. The MHWL extends-upland into the mangroves.far beyond the nayiaa i.boundaries of tha waterway whin rrrwss r.d from the navigable width of tt e�waterwev.there Is more than 00%of the width maintained for nelastioa. The acdlicant owns the creek • bottom lands.and the land.op the opposite sills of Haldeman Creep across from the Proposed'docking facility. Mgt shoreline hap been - placed Into a Conservation_Easement which does not allow docks to be built on It. 5) The proposed docking facility will not interfere with the use of any neighboring docks. Theye is only one sot of proposed docks near ( a,5 /14 L the applicant's Pronosed fadlk�and in this area.50%,pf the h rei. ,(:4*e i waterway width is maintained. The shoreline of Haldeman Creek +2_4i i VT r ,'_ ,► ti directly across from the proposed facility is owned by the amuc�,t Pt..n, Era' t and was placed into a Conservation Easement.meaning no docks can ever be built on this portion of the creek. This makes the navigable width as large or larger than any other devioned area of Haldeman Creeks pecondery Criteria 1) The proposed decking facility would be constructed on a shoreline with mangrove vegetation and very shallowetweter�T a MHWL Is located a substantial distance from the navigable channel.creating a greater distance for the BDE. Also the apolicant owns the submerged bottomlands of the creek and the opposite shoreline in . the Brea of the proposed Drolect. 'fro A C1 2) The Proposed dock would constructed with a six foot wide main access parallel dock and four foot wide finger piers. These are minimum dimensions for wife mooring and pedestrian travel on dock desipned for vessel$in the 25 to 30 ft range, This allows forproner safe access for loading.unloading,and routine maintenance,while inirlirtizinfr overwater decking area. 3) This criterion is not applicable as this is a multi-family project. 4) The proposed docking facility will not interfere with any neighboring property owners'views of the waterway. The applicant owns the opposite shoreline, most pf which has been placed Into ai Conservation easement which does not allow docks to be constructed on, There are only a couple of residences across the creek to the east that would have a view of the proposed docking facility. 5) To our knowledge,there are no known sewage beds within 200-feet of the proposed docking facility. A cony of the SRS is attached for review. 6) According to the Collier County Manatee Protection Plan;the applicant believes that the proposed project qualifies as a moderate ranking but woVid Qualify as a preferred ranking once the maintenance dredging is complete. Proposed water depths are 4 feet Mean Low Water(MLW). No impacts to any native marine habitat is being proposed.. Additionally,the manatee mortality rate is less than 20%within a 5-mile radius of the proposed protect site. With this ranking and the overall owned shoreline the proposed dock design meets the necessary criteria for approval. Page 1 of I From: Kate Riley(kjbnaples74 @gmall.comj Sent: Sunday,April 13,2014 9:33 PM To: ReischlFred Subject: Haldeman Creek,objection to dock extension. Dear Mr. Reischl: In response to your letter dated April 4,2014 on behalf of Standard Pacific of Florida GP,Inc.,I do not support the petition for extensions over the maximum 20 feet allowed. I live directly across from the subject property and have for 11 years. Having viewed the waterway every day,these are my concerns: 1) Boats will not be able to navigate safely down this waterway with docks extended beyond the 20 feet allowed. 2) The noise coming from the docks being further than 20 feet will be extremely obtrusive. 3) There currently is a 49 foot BDE(boat dock extension)granted to the bank on the north shore of Haldeman Creek(project location: Section 11,Township 50 South,and Range 25 East). This information was provided to me by the Department of Army which I would be happy to make available to you. 4) While Haldeman Creek may appear to be 120 to 150 feet wide, it is very shallow.It is so shallow that it required extensive dredging about six years ago.But since the dredging took the depth to 4 feet for only the center 15-20 feet of the creek,the actual navigable waterway is very narrow.Extending dockage beyond the 20 feet allowed by an additional 32 feet(that's 160%over the current allowable) will further strangle the waterway. 5) It is my understanding that the canal is so narrow and shallow at low tide that large boats heading to retail establishments closer to Bayshore Drive will often delay their entry for a higher tide. 6) The addition of so many new boat slips that extend so far into Haldeman Creek will also seriously compromise my view of the canal,one of the main features for which I purchased my home. 7) If it is petitioner's intent to become part of Windstar,I believe they have other options including enlarging the current Windstar dock facilities closer to the Naples Bay or locate additional slips in the pond south and east of the property. Finally,I believe that both marinas in the area along with the 360 Market/Cafd have NOT received this notice and their businesses will/could be greatly impacted. While they may not be within 500 feet of the subject property I think they should be entitled to have input given the hundreds of thousands of dollars they have invested in their businesses so close to this property. Thank you for taking time to read my concerns. Kate Riley Agape Island Services,Inc. 2998 Poplar Street Naples,FL 34112 239-774-4411 file://bcc.colliergov.net/data/GMD-LDS/CDES%20Planning%20Services/Current/Reischl/... 6/2/2014 Page 1 of 2 From: Kate Riley[kjbnaples74 @gmall.com] Sent: Sunday,April 13, 2014 9:31 PM To: ReischlFred Subject: Haldeman Creek,objection to dock extension. From: Robert Buelow[mailto:rdbuelo c-n .iinkwnet] Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2014 9:12 PM To 'Kate Riley' Subject: RE: Haldeman Creek, objection to dock extension. Kate, I'm not sure your last paragraph makes sense.I've made a few suggestions.My letter and pix from Gary will go out tomorrow a.m. Bob Dear Mr.Reischl: In response to your letter dated April 4,2014 on behalf of Standard Pacific of Florida GP,Inc.,I do not support the petition for extensions over the maximum 20 feet allowed. I live directly across from the subject property and have for 11 years. Having viewed the waterway every day,these are my concerns: 1) Boats will not be able to navigate safely down this waterway with docks extended beyond the 20 feet allowed. 2) The noise coming from the docks being further than 20 feet will be extremely obtrusive. 3) There currently is a 49 foot BDE(boat dock extension)granted to the bank on the north shore of Haldeman Creek(project location: Section 11,Township 50 South,and Range 25 East). This information was provided to me by the Department of Army which I would be happy to make available to you. 4) While Haldeman Creek may appear to be 120 to 150 feet wide, it is very shallow.It is so shallow that it required extensive dredging about six years ago.But since the dredging took the depth to 4 feet for only the center 15-20 feet of the creek,the actual navigable waterway is very narrow. Extending dockage beyond the 20 feet allowed by an additional 32 feet(that's 160%over the current allowable)will further strangle the waterway. 5) It is my understanding that the canal is so narrow and shallow at low tide that large boats heading to retail establishments closer to Bayshore Drive will often delay their entry for a higher tide. 6) The addition of so many new boat slips that extend so far into Haldeman Creek will also seriously compromise my view of the canal,one of the main features for which I purchased my home. 7) If it is petitioner's intent to become part of Windstar,I believe they have other options including enlarging the current Windstar dock facilities closer to the Naples Bay or locate additional slips in the pond south and east of the property. file://bec.colliergov.net/data/GMD-LDS/CDES%20Planning°%20 Services/Current/Reischl/... 6/2/2014 Page 2 of 2 Finally,I believe that both marinas in the area along with the 360 Market/Cafe have NOT received this notice and their businesses will/could be greatly impacted. While they may not be within 500 feet of the subject property I think they should be entitled to have input given the hundreds of thousands of dollars they have invested in their businesses so close to this property. I Thank you for taking time to read my concerns. Kate Riley Agape Island Services,Inc. 2998 Poplar Street Naples,FL 34112 239-774-4411 file://bcc.colliergov.net/data/GMD-LDS/CDES%20Planning%20Services/Current/Reischl/... 6/2/2014 April 13,2014 Mr. Fred Reischl Collier County Government Dear Mr. Reischl: My name is Robert Buelow and I live on Poplar Street on the east side of Naples. Our home is located on Haldeman Creek and we are directly across from the canal finger that meanders into the pond and finger canals going down Bayshore Drive. My wife and I are both opposed to the dock extension request being made by Standard-Pacific, Inc.There are a number of reasons. First and most important is that the canal simply isn't wide enough or deep enough to accommodate that level of intrusion into the main canal. I have attached several photographs taken in 2012 or 2013 showing how a low storm tide drastically limits the width of the navigable waterway. The canal is so shallow that it required a massive dredging project about six or seven years ago, The end product of that dredging accomplished a minimum depth of only four feet at mean tide but only for the center 15 to 20 feet of the waterway.Anytime opposing boat traffic forces another boat to steer toward the bank,that boat is in jeopardy of having to clear areas that are too shallow to pass.This forces boats to pass each other way too closely. Secondly,the addition of more than 40 slips will invariably create additional noise throughout the days and evenings that are frequently above acceptable levels already. Partying boaters seldom have a full appreciation for how easily noise travels on water. Also, I have heard that a property owner on the north side of the proposed development has previously requested permits for six docks to extend up to 42 feet(or 22 feet beyond the current code restriction.) At a mean tide, I measure about 140 feet from bank to bank. If one developer is allowed a 32-foot extension totaling 52 feet(20 plus 32)and the other docks are built to 42 feet,the total intrusion into what will become a massive bottle neck would be 94 of just 140 total feet.This is not adequate for a busy waterway that feeds so many homes and businesses upstream. As it is,the boat works down the canal from us has daily traffic including huge cabin cruisers in excess of 40 or 50 feet in length. My understanding is that these boats have to wait for a higher tide to get to their destination even after the dredging of several years ago. Yet another reason for our objection to the petition is that it will seriously change the view that we have from our property of a mangrove-lined waterway. And since the property is adjacent to if not part of the Windstar development, it seems that the developers have an alternative option to construct docks out closer to Naples Bay where the current Windstar docks are located. If not there, there are more limited but still usable dock possibilities around the "pond' located south and east of the proposed additions. Finally, I have serious concerns about two operational elements of the petition. 1. The timeline to react and research the petition is way too short and too late in the "winter season"for many affected people to respond raising questions about the petitioner's intention to rush the process through without adequate community input. 2. Including only those within 500 feet of the proposed project excludes many other homeowners and businesses that will definitely be affected by the final decision on the project. I certainty hope you will carry our concerns forward to the appropriate individuals. Thank you for taking the time to read my letter and look at our photographs. Robert D. Buelow Suzanne R.Buelow 2997 Poplar Street Naples FL 34112 239-774 7462 NOTE: I believe all of these photographs are taken from 2998 Poplar Street which is located due north of the proposed docks. V1 _ e �i V eyJ x r � .4. ,' _µ ■ ,! ��^ �1,� ` I � f ( 1 1, . ja ` r ,1 f•1� i`• it A f f �. /fp _ ii mil! •, /� //j R a• IV + J _ �a�yv I ,�. ! f f i i1/ `1W '•I t i> r.. ash ( I' I I 1 t . .ar. -` y 4111Z0194,111 14111111r,ekj .- .•- .:::". ' : - . C wy ..fix` !( - + �.�. - 2-. iy moils �+• _ � .. .. it ei r 11---- . . %,,,,,,,. _ _ .. ..„ , • —y , / , / .....--111?— 1 r 4t2'' L4' 1 a s • r.- --' __ y-: r ,„ • \Athol WI • tve . • • �J r 'rT... a C: tf 7 .'t •r �If .� j,1 • i 1 . - 1 fr„. .ga. r s is - ft Page 1 of 2 From: ReischlFred Sent: Tuesday,April 15, 2014 11:06 AM To: 'george atkinson' Cc: StrainMark Subject: RE: Haldeman Landing George- You are correct.The state permit requires that a conservation easement—no docks permitted—will be placed along the north shore,once docks are permitted along the south shore. -Fred Fred Reischl, AICP Senior Planner Planning &Zoning Department Phone: 239-252-4211 Fax: 239-252-2834 1 From: george atkinson [mailto:gbatkinson @icloud.com] Sent:Tuesday, April 15, 2014 11:00 AM To: ReischlFred Subject: Re: Haldeman Landing Hi Fred, I have been told,although I find it hard to believe,that the property on the North side of Hardeman Creek(across from the subject docks)has been permitted for docks. This would be the parcel of land at the southerly end of Pine Street,which I understand is proposed for development. However,in looking at the plans that you have provided to me, it appears that the creek frontage is owned by the subject applicant? So,I am assuming there are no other plans for docks on the north side of the creek...correct? Would approval of the subject dock plan be contingent on there being NO docks on the north side of the creek directly across from the subject docks? My concern is that the creek not be pinched down to a point where my customers cannot comfortably get large(60 foot)vessels up and down the creek. Sincerely, George Atkinson, Owner Naples Boat Yard On Apr 11,2014,at 11:08 AM,ReischlFred<FredReischl(g eolliergov.net>wrote: George- file://bcc.colliergov.net/data/GMD-LDS/CDES%20Planning%20Services/Current/Reischl/... 6/2/2014 Page 2 of 2 Attached are the exhibits provided by the applicant.Please let me know if you have any questions. -Fred Fred Reischl,AICP Senior Planner Planning&Zoning Department Phone: 239-252-4211 Fax:239-252-2834 -----Original Message From: george atkinson[mailto:,gbatkinsonfaicloud.com] Sent: Friday,April 11,2014 11:01 AM To: ReischlFred Subject: Haldeman Landing Hello Fred, My name is George Atkinson and I am the owner of Naples Boat Yard,just east of the subject project.Until now,I was unaware of the project and i am in hopes that you can provide me with the plans and any concerns that any neighbors have put forth? Sincerely, George Sent from my iPhone George B.Atkinson 239.572.0189 Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public records.If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity.Instead,contact this office by telephone or in writing. file://bcc.colliergov.net/data/GMD-LDS/CDES%20Planning%20Services/Current/Reischl/... 6/2/2014 Page 1of1 From: Roy Wilson [roy.wilson @gmail,com] Sent: Sunday,April 20, 2014 11:53 AM To: ReischlFred Cc: CasertaAshley Subject: Fwd: Public Notice Attachments: 20140419_162003.j pg I took this picture Saturday what happens if people go to the posted meeting?? Do they get turned away ?? Roy Wilson Forwarded message From:Roy Wilson<roy.wilson_% ;rraail.corn> Date: Sun,Apr 20,2014 at 8:52 AM Subject: Public Notice To: Roy Wilson<<oy.wilsop{i grnail»cgm> Roy Wilson @NLYH in Naples,FL file://bcc.colliergov.net/data/GMD-LDS/CDES%20Planning%20Services/Current/Reischl/... 6/2/2014 From: KlatzkowJeff Sent: Wednesday,April 23,2014 9:10 AM To: RelschlFred Cc: BosiMichael; BellowsRay;StrainMark;AshtonHeidi;CasertaAshley;IsacksonMark Subject: Haldeman's Landing Fred: You have advised us that"Last night the Haldeman Creek MSTU Advisory Board voted to pay for mail notification to the property owners within the MSTU." Such payment is outside the scope of their powers. The BCC is the governing body of this(and all)MSTU. In order to implement this advisory board request,my recommendation would be to take a budget amendment to the Board for approval, noting the Advisory Board vote,and setting forth a brief background of the issue in the Considerations section of the Executive Summary. You can get it on the next BCC meeting(Consent should be fine). I am copying Mark lsackson on this as a head's up. Jeffrey A.Klatzkow County Attorney (239)252-2614 From: AshtonHeidi Sent: Wednesday,April 23, 2014 8:21 AM To: KlatzkowJeff Cc:TeachScott Subject: FW: Haldeman's Landing iYI Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney 3299 Tamiami Trail East,Suite 800 Naples,FL 34112 (239)252-8400 From: ReischlFred Sent: Wednesday,April 23, 2014 7:25 AM To: BosiMichael; BellowsRay; StrainMark; AshtonHeidi; BonhamGall Subject: Haldeman's Landing Last night the Haldeman Creek MSTU Advisory Board voted to pay for mail notification to the property owners within the MSTU. Fred Rejects!,/MCP Senior Planner Planning &Zoning Department f"ile://bee.colliergov.net/data/GMD-LDS/CDES%20Planning%20Services/Current/Reischl/... 6/2/2014 ReischlFred To: nfarmilo @comcast.net Subject: RE: Doc extension to 52 feet No.The entrance to the property is at the end of Lakeview.The property extends north to Haldeman Creek.The docks are proposed for the south side of Haldeman Creek,next to Windstar. From: nfarmllo©comcast.net[mailto:nfarmilot comcast.net1 Sent:Tuesday,June 03, 2014 8:26 AM To: ReischlFred Subject: Re: Doc extension to 52 feet I received them in the mail but can't be sure where the location is. Tipsy Seagull was right by Bayshore on the Haldeman River next to the boat yard. Is that where it is? Norma From: "ReischlFred" <FredReischl as colliergov.net> To: "Farmilo, Norma" <nfarmiloacomcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2014 8:22:35 AM Subject: RE: Doc extension to 52 feet I have attached the exhibits provided by the applicant to show the location. From:nfarmlio comcastnet[mallto:nfarmIk tcomcast.net] Sent:Tuesday,June 03, 2014 8:20 AM To: ReischlFred Subject: Doc extension to 52 feet Exactly where is this? Is this where the old Tipsy Seagull was? Norma Farmilo nfarmilodcomcast.net 239-300-7718 Under Florida Law,a-mall addresses are public records.If you do not want your a-mall address released In response to a public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity.Instead,contact this office by telephone or In writing. 1 ReischlFred From: ReischlFred Sent: Tuesday, June 03,2014 12:53 PM To: CasalanguidaNick;Vicki Tracy;AnnMarieS @Naples.com Cc: OchsLeo; annmarie.shimer @sothebysrealty.com; ChesneyBarbara; ScottChris; DeaneConnie; BellowsRay; BosiMichael; JourdanJean; CasertaAshley; RevayStacy Subject: RE:WE NEED YOUR HELP-Haldeman's Landing-Lakeview Drive Vickie & Ann Marie- Thanks for your input. As Nick stated, there will be a Bayshore CRA meeting tonight, at which the applicant will discuss the proposed docks for Haldeman's Landing. The docks will also be heard by the Planning Commission on June 19th. From reading your email, it sounds like your concern is the lack of sidewalks along Lakeview causing a safety issue during construction and after construction by the new residents using Lakeview. The residential portion of Haldeman's Landing is a Site Development Plan (SDP) being reviewed by Chris Scott (I copied Chris on this email). The land is currently zoned to allow for residences - no public hearing is required. I have also copied our Pathways reviewer, Stacy Revay. She may have some ideas to help you with your concerns. Stacy - the project is SDP-PL20130000015. Please don't think I am "passing the buck" - but it sounds like your concerns are with the residences and not my project (the docks). The residences can be built without the docks, but the docks cannot be built without the residences. Best of luck! -Fred Fred Reischl, AICP Principal Planner Planning & Zoning Department Phone: 239-252-4211 Fax: 239-252-2834 Original Message From: CasalanguidaNick Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2014 12:11 PM To: HillerGeorgia; Vicki Tracy; AnnMarieS @Naples.com Cc: OchsLeo; annmarie.shimer®sothebysrealty.com; ReischlFred; ChesneyBarbara Subject: RE: WE NEED YOUR HELP - Haldeman's Landing - Lakeview Drive Importance: High Hello Vicki and AnnMarie, Let me coordinate a discussion with the planner running the project and the CRA representative so that we make sure all of your questions are answered and that you have a clear and understandable path identified. This will allow you to make comments and track the application. There is a meeting tonight with the CRA and our planner will be there. This is also scheduled for the Planning Commission on the 19th. The entitlement and traffic issue is a little complicated because they have an already entitled right to the density that does not require approval. If you have any concerns after you review this with Mr. Reischl, do not hesitate to reach out to me or back to him. Fred, Please work with Vicki and AnnMarie to let them know where the petition stands and their opportunity to participate and be heard. Thank-you, Nick Original Message From: HillerGeorgia Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2014 11:32 AM To: Vicki Tracy; CasalanguidaNick Cc: OchsLeo Subject: Re: WE NEED YOUR HELP - Haldeman's Landing - Lakeview Drive Nick, Can you please help Vicky with her questions. With thanks, Commissioner Georgia Hiller > On Jun 2, 2014, at 10:17 PM, "Vicki Tracy" <missvickit @earthlink.net> wrote: > Georgia - I'm forwarding this to you because I don't think our commissioner (Fred) is listening to us - at all. Ann Marie (below - and 95% of the street Lakeview Drive) are INVOLVED community people. Ann Marie is the wife of the Olympic medalist Brian Shimer. > We are very concerned - and once again - as you and I spoke of - things are getting done WITHOUT the voice of the people that live on this street! ! ! Its making us crazy! ! > PLEASE HELP! ! ALL WE ARE CONTINUING TO ASK IS THAT SOMEONE LISTEN - who do you suggest that is? > Vicki Tracy > 1 > 1 > From: Ann Marie Shimer [mailto:annmarie.shimer @sothebysrealty.com] > Sent: Monday, June 02, 2014 9:34 PM > To: Fred Coyle; Donna Fiala > Cc: kevin and penny; Vicki Tracy; David and Lucy Woodworth; John and Julie Simoldoni; Elmerss @comcast.net Wheeler; sito herrera > Subject: WE NEED YOUR HELP - Haldeman's Landing - Lakeview Drive > 3 2 3 > Dear Commissioners, > I am a residence of Lakeview Drive and I'm desperately seeking answers to questions about how the project of Haldeman's Landing additional traffic that will impact Lakeview Drive is going to be handled. > My Concern is the children who live on this street, the families that walk their dogs and our property values. > Currently the road is not wide enough for our current traffic, we have no sidewalks to escape to when vehicles are driving down the road at if there is two regular size vehicles passing each other, one stops to let the other go by.. > I > The new community is going to increase traffic by 64 residences, that will be large residences around 3000 square feet of living area which typically would accommodate a minimum of 3 residence in each house hold and two or more cars. > I've attended the CRA meetings, MSTU meetings, spoke to the developer and currently there are no plans in place to do any improvements. The owners on Lakeview Drive are not happy with this and feel our neighborhood is going to become a very unsafe place for our children to play, ride bikes, walk the dogs or simply go for an evening stroll. > Lakeview Drive is in the shape of an "L" the entrance off of Bayshore Drive well label as side "A" and the side that turns and ends with col-de-sac well call side "B". > Side "A" specifically is interested in sidewalks for safety . We are in the process of gathering 51% of the owners on Side "A" asking for sidewalk, we also feel it imperative to have lights for safety and would like to consider "speed reducing effects" on the road to slow the traffic down. > We feel this matter is urgent as construction on the new projects is said to begin the the fall and because of the overside construction vehicles that will be going up and down the road we are asking everyone to consider putting the sidewalks in BEFORE construction begins. This will insure as much safety for the residences as possible. > Now do we get something like this accomplished? > Just a couple of streets down from us, BM/VIEW is a street that recently had their street improved with curbs and sidewalks which is a HUGE improvement. Their street is 1/3 the size (just guessing) and is NOT faced with adding an additional 64 units and over 120 vehicles on the road. We want our street to be next! We have more of an urgent need than any other street, we don't know how our street was overlooked and want to make sure it doesn't happen again. > The MSTU/CRA said the developer may have plans to do something, in speaking with the developer who was willing to share information, they said they do NOT have plans, but is willing to listen, discuss and possibly participate in making this happen. > The MSTU/CRA also said if we get 51% of the owners to vote they could put it on the list of things to do but funds won't be available for several years. .. > The MSTU/CRA has several million dollars planned to use on the a beautification project on Thomasson Drive, is there anyway we can have some of those funds used in this URGENT situation. > s 3 > As residence of Lakeview Drive, we need some direction on how to secure our streets. How can we get sidewalks BEFORE construction? Can any funds be allocated? Can any and all parties participate in making this happen? > The MSTU and CRA and taking the month of July and August off of public meetings.. . If we wait any longer there will be no one in the local agency to talk and construction will begin and our children will be in danger with the heavy, overside construction vehicles traveling on the road. > Please note this is not to stop progress of the development but to keep our streets safe (almost unsafe as it is currently) and stop the depreciation of our property due to the increase traffic and vehicles on our road. > > There MUST be a way. > I am not sure of how all the agencies intermingle with each other so I am asking for everyone's support in making it happen, so far, I have NOT had any success on finding out how to make this happen and this is why I am writing your for your support, consideration and HELP. > > Please let us know what we can do. . . > I• 'm not sure if you have received photos of how tight our street currently is but I would like to encourage a visit on Monday mornings or Sunday evenings. . . it's quite a busy tight street. > Should I send the over 51% of side A owners signatures to you stating this is what we want? > Thanks. > P.S. Attached is the site map for Haldeman's Landing > Ann Marie Shimer > Broker Associate > Premier Sotheby's International Realty > 4300 Gulf Shore Blvd. N Suite #100 > Naples FL 34103 > AnnMarieS@ Naples.com<mailto:AnnMarieS @Naples.com> > 239-430-5179 direct fax > 239.825.9020 direct phone > > www.WeKnowNaples.com<http://www.WeKnowNaples.com> > > <PL20130000015 - Site plan.pdf> Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 4 AGENDA ITEM 9-B Co er County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT and PLANNING&ZONING DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: JUNE 19,2014 SUBJECT: PETITION ST-PL20140000896: HALDEMAN'S LANDING SPECIAL TREATMENT PERMIT [COMPANION TO PETITION BDE- PL20130001765 HALDEMAN'S LANDING DOCK EVTENSION] PROPERTY OWNER& APPLICANT/AGENT: Owner: Agent: Standard Pacific of Florida, G.P., Inc. Timothy Hall 405 North Reo Street Turrell, Hall and Associates Tampa,FL 33609 3584 Exchange Avenue Naples, Fl 34104 REQUESTED ACTION: The request is to build a 42-slip docking facility within the Special Treatment(ST) Overlay area. The applicant owns property on the north and south sides of Haldeman Creek, including the submerged lands under the creek. The applicant is proposing a residential development on the upland portion of the property on the south side of the creek. As an amenity to the residential development, the applicant is proposing a 42-slip dock along the southern shore of Haldeman Creek. There is a 24.22 acre Special Treatment (ST) Overlay over Haldeman Creek. A portion of that overlay extends onto the applicant's submerged lands and uplands; therefore, an ST Permit is required. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject site is accessed via Lakeview Drive in Sections 11 and 14, Township 50 South, Range 25 East. The folio numbers are 61835520008, 00388360006, 00394880004, 00395320000 & 61835840005. Haldeman's Landing ST Page 1 of 6 June 19,2014 CCPC PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The petitioner requests an ST Permit to allow construction of a 42-slip dock as an accessory use to a residential development. The property is zoned RMF-6 and RMF-6(3) and the submerged lands(and a small portion of uplands) have an ST overlay. The Land Development Code (LDC) requires an ST permit for development within an ST overlay. ZONING MAP I ��,� , 2 KMr-b-tJM TRACT 3 t?,..17 6 5 4 s 2 1 I 32 35 L___ - --- 5 I BD 34 21D — <,13 15 36 3 B - 28 16 37 32 � 29 RMF-6(3) — 31 �-c s --' ST Overlay 1020 6 1 9� r ) ,,,„ ;'-25O e"� 15 LOT 4 2 I of- - - - _ RMF-(3) 16G F 1 °) c\-.) 176 7 e�`�, r f y 1 t3 14' 16 ___16 I T B F c `? TRACT B --- Z 4 6 9,y 7 I 1 -1- GOLF COURSE 1 �7 �G 6 15 2 I 1 Ei 14 LAKE 3'3 13 A detail from the Zoning Map Haldeman's Landing ST Page 2 of 6 June 19,2014 CCPC SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: SUBJECT PARCEL: Vacant multi-family parcels, with a zoning designation of RMF-6 & RMF-6(3) SURROUNDING: North: Vacant land&single-family homes,zoned RMF-6-BMUD-R1 East: Single family homes, zoned RSF-4-BMUD-R4 &RMF-6-BMUD-R2 South: Single-family homes, zoned RMF-6-BMUD-R1 & golf course, zoned PUD (Windstar PUD) West: Golf course, zoned PUD (Windstar PUD) w s s -4 ,-0 - - in V ,/ l . . RAY_ � ;y -.,,, a}^'..alli) Itrt-' '.. - e �{,4 %i t r y } � .,, , ; •-• , :1. - 4 dr a } 1 1 rkit„. .0. 1 • A t i i i i jc. ,loopp. NI st`r.` 4::. :.4. V :+� ''\'' . `or4 � /1. Aerial Photo(CCPA) Haldeman's Landing ST Page 3 of 6 June 19,2014 CCPC GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN(GMP) CONSISTENCY: Staff finds that the proposed development is consistent with the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the GMP. ANALYSIS: Stormwater and Environmental Planning Staff completed an evaluation of this proposal in regards to the impacts within the ST Overlay Area in accordance with the criteria set forth in Section 2.03.07.D. of the LDC. Environmental Review Environmental Planning Staff has reviewed the petition to address any environmental concerns. Special Treatment(ST)Zoning Overlay As stated in section 2.03.07.D. of the LDC,the ST overlay district classification will be used for those lands of environmental sensitivity and historical and archaeological significance where the essential ecological or cultural value of the land is not adequately protected under the basic zoning district regulations established by Code or by ordinance. All land within the ST overlay district shall be designated as environmentally sensitive. Section 2.03.07.D. of the LDC states the purpose and intent of the ST overlay district, and reads as follows: "Within the County there are certain areas, which because of their unique assemblages of flora and/or fauna, their aesthetic appeal, historical or archaeological significance, rarity in the County, or their contribution to their own and adjacent ecosystems, make them worthy of special regulations. Such regulations are directed toward the conservation, protection, and preservation of ecological and recreational values for the greatest benefit to the people of the County. Such areas include, but are not necessarily limited to, mangrove and freshwater swamps, barrier islands, hardwood hammocks, xeric scrubs, coastal beaches, estuaries, cypress domes, natural drainage ways, aquifer recharge areas, and lands and structures of historical and archaeological significance. The purpose of the "ST" district is to assure the preservation and maintenance of these environmental and cultural resources and to encourage the preservation of the intricate ecological relationships within the systems, and at the same time, permit those types of development which will hold changes to levels determined acceptable by the BCC after public hearing." Within the ST overlay district, the proposed impacts include the docks over the water and 2,140 square feet of impacts to vegetation for dock access (see Exhibit A, Haldeman's Creek Mangrove Impacts). The 2,140 square feet of impacts include: 1392 square feet of wetland impacts; and 748 square feet of mangrove impacts. These impacts include five dock accesses through the wetlands, which include mangroves to access the proposed 42-slip docking facility. After discussions with the applicant, staff has determined that the project would still be viable with three accesses. Staff has added a condition requesting the boat dock access points be reduced from five to three accesses. Haldeman's Landing ST Page 4 of 6 June 19,2014 CCPC Section 4.02.14.F of the LDC requires the Environmental Advisory Council to review this I petition. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: This Staff Report was reviewed by the Office of the County Attorney on May 30,2014. HFAC I RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the CCPC forward Petition ST-PL20140000896 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval with the following condition: 1. The boat dock access points be reduced from five to three accesses. I 3 ( Haldeman's Landing ST Page 5 of 6 June 19,2014 CCPC PREP RED BY: 14.4A___,,,- 5- .30-1q A ER ARA. DATE ' PRINCIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT ,i 00 f- 3o - / F' ISCHL, AICP DATE PM IPAL PLANNER PLANNING&ZONING DEPARTMENT REVIEWED BY: RAYI ND V. BELLOWS,ZONING MANAGER DATE PLANNING&ZONING DEPARTMENT u% :.. 06-a3 - 2.0/4, LAM D. L RENZ, r 1 P.E. DATE DIRECTOR NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT - (,- 3. 1'/ MIKE BOSI,AICP,DIRECTOR DATE PLANNING&ZONING DEPARTMENT APPROVED BY: 7 1 ICK CAS - GUI P/SAD I.' i STRATOR DATE ROWITI MANAGEMENT DIVISION Tentatively scheduled for the July 8,2014 Board of County Commissioners Meeting. Haldeman's Landing ST Page 6 of 6 June 19,2014 CCPC • Y. N \ ` _ .. 1 - ei W-.."E). ,,,,,,,_.. _,-,-.---- , - g ..e- , ti 0 50 100 200 i `' ; m SCALE mrFEET s MHW LIN Si-OVERLAY oMLW LINE _- - I\____-_____------' \__------- 75% € APPX.50% y WIDTH OF -__ '"'-- " -- - 50% WATERWAY 2 ©® <33- -5-qg @OS866653600900a0980005369993 ®�25% fN N1iLIJSTRLAY AREA IA okit, • ,. . WETLAND IMPACTS IN ST NOTES: OVERLAY.1392 SF <>THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE. - >ALL DATUM SHOWN HEREON IS REFERENCED TO MLW. DOCK ACCESS MANGROVE >PROPOSED OVERWATER STRUCTURE:APPX.8,070:SF. CODE LENGTH 1 WIDTH SLIPS o TIDAL DATUM:MLW-(-)0.5'NGVD,MHW=(+31.5 NGVD. _. tI IMPACTS IN ST OVERLAY 748 S.F >TOTAL PROTRUSION FROM MHW LINE APPROX.49 FT. � -- - <>BOAT LIFTS OPTIONAL FOR ALL SLIPS A 25' 14' 22 ----- ------- DREDGE AREA:8101 CU.YDS. _ o SURVEY COURTESY OF"STANTEC" B 30' 15' 20 [WETLANDS - SURVEY DATED:05-14-014 .. _ <>SURVEY FOR NORTHERN SHOREUNE PROVIDED BY - -. "WILSONMILLER"SURVEY DATED 02-24-09. TOTAL 42 o TOTAL APPLICANT OWNED SHORELINE:3432 L F Tl Ioi� A L D E M A N S LANDING D I N G ° woe Y Environmental Consulting '- 3584 Exchange Ave. u¢eB.N FL .. _ - SITEPLAN •�•b- '- - - - = � � MANGROVE IMPACTS WITH SI f�: e0 PNme`:(239)643-0166 Fa,-(239)643-0632 SECTION-14.23 TOWNSHIP-50E RANGE-25E M FA) KESOLUTION NO. 14- A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SPECIAL TREATMENT DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A 42-SLIP DOCKING FACILITY ON SUBMERGED LANDS ADJACENT TO PROPERTY OWNED BY STANDARD PACIFIC OF FLORIDA WITH A ZONING DESIGNATION OF RMF-6(3) AND A SPECIAL TREATMENT OVERLAY LOCATED IN SECTIONS 11 AND 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. [PETITION ST- PL20140000896I WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on Collier County, the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted Ordinance 04-55, as amended, which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, being the duly elected constituted board of the area hereby affected, has held a hearing in regular session as in said regulations made and provided and has considered the advisability of issuing a Special Treatment Development Permit allowing construction of a 42-slip docking facility; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this Board in public meeting assembled and the Board having considered all matters presented. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: Petition ST-PL20140000896, filed by Standard Pacific of Florida, is hereby approved for a Special Treatment Development Permit to allow for the impacts, as shown on Exhibit A, in the Residential Multi-Family Zoning District with a maximum density of 3 units per acre RMF-6(3) with a Special Treatment Overlay wherein said property is located, subject to the Conditions on Exhibit B. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition ST- PL20140000896 be recorded in the minutes of this Board. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. Done and Ordered this day of 2014. Haldeman's Creek ST/ST-PL20140000896 Page I of 2 4/24/14 MR 7 ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA By: By: Deputy Clerk TOM HENNING,Chairman Approved as to form and legality: Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachments: Exhibit A—Map Depicting Area of Impact Exhibit B—Conditions of Approval CP\14-CPS-0132 I\6 Haldeman's Creek ST/ST-PL20140000896 Page 2 of 2 4/24/14