The URL can be used to link to this page

CCPC Agenda 07/02/2015 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA JULY 2, 2015 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., THURSDAY,JULY 2, 2015, 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 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES— May 21,2015 and June 4, 2015 6. BCC REPORT-RECAPS 7. .CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. BD-PL20150000487: A Resolution of the Collier County Planning Commission relating to Petition Number BD-PL20150000487 for a 18-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 38 feet to accommodate a 27-slip multi-family docking facility for the benefit of a 20.5 +1-acre project to be known as Haldeman Creek Docks in Sections 11 and 14, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Fred Reischl,AICP,Principal Planner] 1 B. ST-PL20150000500: A Resolution approving a Special Treatment development permit to allow construction of boat dock and dock access improvements on 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 25 East, Collier County,Florida. (Sitting as both the Planning Commission and the Environmental Advisory Council) [Coordinator: Summer B. Araque, Principal Environmental Specialist] C. BD-PL20140002207: A Resolution of the Collier County Planning Commission relating to Petition Number BD-PL20140002207 for a 10-foot boat dock extension over the maximum 20 foot limit in Section 5.03.06 of the Collier County Land Development Code for a total protrusion of 30 feet to accommodate a 9-slip boat dock facility for the benefit of Dockside PUD, Ordinance No. 2014-16, located east of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) on Henderson Creek Drive in Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,Florida. [Coordinator: Fred Reischl,AICP,Principal Planner] 10. OLD BUSINESS 11. NEW BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT 13. ADJOURN CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows/jmp 2 AGENDA ITEM 9-A Co er County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: JULY 2,2015 SUBJECT: BDE-PL20150000487,HALDEMAN'S LANDING BOAT DOCKS [COMPANION TO ST-PL20150000500] 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, FL34104 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner requests an 18-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 38 feet into a waterway that varies in width and is approximately 134 feet wide at its narrowest point. The docks are proposed as an amenity to a Site Development Plan (SDP-PL20130000015), which has been approved 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 abutting Windstar PUD. The folio numbers are 61835520008, 00388360006, 00394880004, 00395320000& 61835840005. The project boundary of the proposed multifamily development is highlighted 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 an 18-foot boat dock extension beyond the maximum 20-foot limit for the subject multi-family residential development. The boat dock facility will contain 27 slips. The total overwater dock structure proposed is approximately 5,820 square feet and protrudes a total of 38 feet into a waterway that varies in width and is approximately 134 feet wide at its narrowest point. The total length of the dock is approximately 613 linear feet with a width of 6 feet. BDE-PL20150000487, Page 1 of 9 Haldeman's Landing Boat Dock Extension. July 2,2015 CCPC a C-4-GTMUD-MXD i ig I' --wir-- ...... 'i in , SS V Ilia -' . u.. 8 I � \ i�`. RMF-6 1 A� ^'., i samoc= r�siom I ' 'CI OFf ...�, MH J .K„ swnes� "”" mna u"o racer xwa u � a4x : i3,e��_.0 81TE� �° ::::.RMF-613I;,;;�;x;�:I tsr,;f� LOCATION PROJECT rs er". - "li""'""',LOCATION m` ii!� J/III�III III 'a..� AlimPRINEimem z_J e J.," , ..�' 1imig- v, u Lip-4 .2.6% s ° iYOv � 1 ,04 i ( e �a2M � o . ripini I: , ,� siiiineoYYYYi�Ii, a.PUD pir ij .. in:El 110.4m.,,,,, ,,,,7 Fal 1n a • E tkcc.\. . 1 -`- ss 000�bid 111EB Ilk ll IIcccocccncoccccconnniq ii '''4111111741111 illiffilitiii a 3. I . 0 LOCATION MAP ZONING MAP # PETITION BD-PL-2015-487 SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING: SUBJECT PARCEL: Vacant multi-family parcels, with a zoning designation of RMF-6 & RMF-6(3); there is a Special Treatment(ST)overlay over a portion of Haldeman Creek 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) 1-Y I s9 - + ' .+'jam ..,F 111:1;4 i, " 3♦ t'l�- , .,6. .tea!a. . ■ r '7YR< ,AA r.. e`" 0 i s t X4i i t; 0'4 ,04'1.-.- i -rte.- -y: -- -4 f{. + 4, WPf, i' _„„" s''':.-1.. - - ---, ,..--,- - ,-,, - , , ), ".4 ^ -, ;a al Dmxsa WAY � r^ 0%1 . 01,5 l'ik,14 P 's ty li ....i ' ,, 1,, ...,:. 4).' ' ‘ , 1 , • _ t +J`ai x Stt % ' Aerial—detail of parcel in the area of the proposed docks(Collier County Property Appraiser) BDE-PL20150000487, Page 3 of 9 Haldeman's Landing Boat Dock Extension. July 2,2015 CCPC At =;, - I. - p 16£ 'G"L ill`. l � .� =i . ' Aerial-detail of parcel in the area of the proposed docks(Google) 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 and is therefore consistent with the Manatee Protection Plan for 27 slips. 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: BDE-PL20150000487, Page 4 of 9 Haldeman's Landing Boat Dock Extension. July 2,2015 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 27 boat slips, which is appropriate in relation to the over 600 linear feet of water frontage of the subject multi-family lot along Haldeman Creek. 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.) Criterion met. According to the petitioner's application the water depth (approximately 3.3 feet) 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 in width and is approximately 134 feet wide at its narrowest point MEW 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. As indicated on Exhibit 4,no portion of the proposed dock protrudes more than 25 percent of the width of the waterway. 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.) BDE-PL20150000487, Page 5 of 9 Haldeman's Landing Boat Dock Extension. July 2,2015 CCPC 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 dedicated to the State which prohibits dock construction. Exhibit 5 indicates a permitted but not constructed dock facility on the north shore of the waterway (Sanctuary at Demere Landing). The two dock facilities will be separated by 97 feet of water. 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.) Criterion met. The subject shoreline 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(1) of the LDC must be demonstrated.) BDE-PL20150000487, Page 6 of 9 Haldeman's Landing Boat Dock Extension. July 2,2015 CCPC 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. 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. ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS: On June 19,2014,the CCPC heard a Boat Dock Extension petition for the subject property. After testimony by the Applicant, Staff and the public, and discussion among the Planning Commissioners, a motion was made for approval. The vote resulted in a 2 —2 tie, meaning that the motion failed. The current petition is new and not a resubmittal of the previous petition. It should be evaluated on its own merits. However, since the old and new petitions are on the same site, Staff has provided a comparison of some dimensions. DIMENSION 2014 2015 Maximum protrusion 52 feet 38 feet Number of slips 42 27 Over-water dock area 8,070 SF 5,820 SF 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 Department 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: This Staff Report was submitted to the Office of the County Attorney for review on June 12, 2015. BDE-PL20150000487, Page 7 of 9 Haldeman's Landing Boat Dock Extension. July 2,2015 CCPC STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the above findings, Staff recommends that the CCPC approve Petition BDE- PL20150000487, subject to the following conditions: 1. Construction of the docks shall not commence until the approval of an Amendment to 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. 4. Boat slips shall be owned and used by residents of the Haldeman's Landing multi- family development or its property owners association and shall not be sold, leased or rented to any other parties. Attachments: 1. Correspondence 2. Resolution 3. Application 4. State and Federal permits will be sent via email or will be printed at the Commissioner's request 1 a { 5 d BDE-PL20150000487, Page 8 of 9 Haldeman's Landing Boat Dock Extension. July 2,2015 CCPC 1 PREPARED BY: /,;) FRED"REISCHL, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: RAYM s 1, 7 BELLOW—,ZONING MANAGER DATE ZONIN Fp'VISION ir- MIKE BOSI,AICP,DIRECTOR DATE ZONING DIVISION APPROVED BY: — ,s- MES FRENCH,DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NICj ASALANID&DEPUTY COUNTY MANAGER DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT BDE-PL20150000487, Page 9 of 9 Haldeman's Landing Boat Dock Extension. July 2,2015 CCPC ReischlFred From: StrainMark Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 10:18 AM To: ReischlFred Subject: FW: Halderman Creek pier extension request Please forward as usual. Ma-t-ki 239.252.4446 Under FLorida Law, a-mail addresses are pubLic records. If you do not wont 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. From: John Flaherty[mailto:2jff533Cagmail.com] Sent: Wednesday,June 17, 2015 10:04 AM To: StrainMark Subject: Halderman Creek pier extension request Mr Strain I live on Haldeman Creek at 326 Pier E and overlook the project under construction. I think that the condo addition to the community is a good use of that land area. I am concerned about the dock-age and its encroachment into the waterway.The dock-age at the back of the airport for its marina seems to adequately work for the size boats that can navigate the Haldeman creek and they do not extend into the waterway as far as this request is asking. Please do not approve this request. Thank You John F Flaherty 326 Pier E Naples 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. 1 ReischlFred From: Strain Mark Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 10:18 AM To: ReischlFred Subject: FW: Haldeman Creek Dock Extensions Please forward as usual Mark. 239.252.4446 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. ___________ From: William Townsend fmaUto;bgtown111gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 10:00 AM To: HomiakKaren; Ebert Diane; Doyle Brian; Strain Mark; ChrzanowskiStan Subject: Kaldeman Creek Dock Extensions To the Collier County Pl ' Commission: I wish to inform you that I am agains granting dock extensions on Haldeman Creek. I oppose extensions for the following reasons: 1. The proposed plan causes problems and congestio in the Creek. The developer would need to erect about 200+pilings and associated walkways. This could serve to gather debris in a storm that might lead to flooding. 2. Haldeman Creek is a'drainage canal'. The area where dock extensions are proposed is an area that was created to i rove the flow of water to the Gu7[ These docks vvoo6domorovvthat area,thus reo�iotthe�uvn 3. 7he��oun�mcouown�fozbo�� ' and leaving the Lakeview area where they would need to make a 90 degree turn and then navigate around the docks. 4. There are other areas on the developers land where docks could be built. There is no reason to give the developer special consideration for a"dock extension't on Haldeman Creek. Again, I oppose granting dock extensions on Haldeman Creek William E Townsend 111 Pier Naples, FL 34112 Under Florida Law e-mail addresses are public records.If you do not want your e-mail address released in res onse 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: StrainMark Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 10:19 AM To: ReischlFred Subject: FW: Proposed Docks and Extension in Haldeman Creek Please forward as usual Ma-rrk� 239.252.4446 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. From: Geof123@aol.com [mailto:Geof123C@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 7:09 AM To: HomiakKaren; EbertDiane; DoyleBrian; StrainMark; ChrzanowskiStan Subject: Proposed Docks and Extension in Haldeman Creek Dear Sir/Madam P I wish to object in the strongest terms to the proposed docks in Haldeman Creek and even more so to any granting of an extension to a 20' extension. This land is an area of outstanding natural beauty and part of Naples incredible wilflife and heritage. Serious consideration must be given to the free fow of water in Haldeman Creek in the event of hurricanes and flooding. With any sort of structure jutting into the natural flow of the water serious consequences could ensue. A' I am firmly against the proposed docks in Haldeman Creek and to evn any consideration of an extension of any sort. Yours faithfully Geoffrey Newman 323 Pier E ReischlFred From: StrainMark Sent: , Wednesday, June 17, 2015 10:19 AM To: ReischlFred Subject: FW: Notification: Haldeman Landing Attachments: 20150616_085023.jpg; 20150616_084505.jpg Please forward as usual MaYk. 239.252.4446 Under FLorida Law, a-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your a-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. From: Roy Wilson lmaitto:roy.wilsonC@gmail.comj Sent: Tuesday,June 16, 2015 11:08 AM To: ReischlFred Cc: McKuenElly; StrainMark Subject: Fwd: Notification: Haldeman Landing Fred, After our request to you to ask the developer to place his "notification signs" on the part of his property that faces Haldeman Creek, I decided to ride my bike to the Lakeview Drive construction entrance of the development. Attached are two pictures, one from the end of Lakeview Drive where Lakeview makes a 90 degree turn to the right (to give perspective as to the readability of the notification sign). Without driving further down what is effectively a dead end street, it is as close to the sign as one can get. I did drive all the way to the construction entrance, so picture #2 is the sign itself. To bad so few will ever see it. Thanks for whatever effort you made to get them to place the sign in a reasonable location. Roy Wilson -- Roy Wilson @ Naples,FL 239-821-4995 1 4 • I \ - p r ..� / • • _. �• a p�y PUBLIC HEARING REQUE IP . •- . STING BOAT DOCK EXTENSION (BDE) APPROVAL TITION# eoE-PC 20150 000487, NaldemaMs Landing`,;sILtTIO OF THE COLLIER TO fTCOUNTY NTY PLANNING (YttiI SOA RE L 4 T P V( 1pNNUMBER BD-PL'O f 00048,FORA 18 FOOT BOAT DOCK EXTENSION OVER R THE?o Pp 7 LI1 IT.t 1LOWFU BY SECTION 5.03. 1E OF THE COLLIER couNry:LoPMENT CODE FOR.t TOTAL PROTRUSION UF.38� FEET TO ACCOMMODATE A 2 7 SLIP P 1-F Lll � DOCKING FACILITY FOR THE BENEFIT OF� 2Q. i +/-ACRE P RO3ECT KNOWN As i 1LDEt - (REEK DOCKS IN SECTIUN 11 AND 14. T0WN4H IP 30 SOUTH.- 2.5 EA. T COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA.aR COUNTY P1AN`I1C C4RMIStiIOC. 1i1r?, 90.15 at 9:00 A.M.ro)1knrr ( (q \Iti Cm111/SSLONERN �'�� L��lftii.it lR�UL /- �'H.tt1HCRS. 7HIRD�LtN)R Fred Reishel. AIC. Senior P .tiE.(':39) 2;-4211 Planner EMAIL: c redreischl� col . ergnt:net ff ReischlFred From: StrainMark Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 10:20 AM To: ReischlFred Subject: FW: Dock Extension Application- Haldeman Creek Docks Please forward as usual M a-rk. 239.252.4446 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. From: Roy Wilson [mailto:roy.wilson@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 1:31 PM To: HomiakKaren; EbertDiane; DoyleBrian; ChrzanowskiStan Cc: StrainMark Subject: Dock Extension Application - Haldeman Creek Docks Dear Planning Commission Members, The following is list of concerns/objections my erns/objections to approving the Dock Extension Application: General and overall: First, a dock extension application should only be considered AFTER it is determined that the developer "could" be allowed to place docks, of any type, in and over a waterway that was created through the owners having granted a legal easement. I would submit that any action on that area of Haldeman Creek created by the easement is 'off limits' to the building of docks. If any new docks are to be allowed; I do not think it is wise to grant this application as it will encumber Haldeman Creek with several hundred new "pilings' and decking onto the waterway whose main function is storm water drainage. This would be further exasperated if the plan allows dock owners to add boat lifts. It is inconceivable to think that these docks and their moored boats would not have any effect on water flow or debris capture. While their current application includes letters of 'subjective opinions' related to the proposed docks not impacting water flows these should not be acceptable evidence. Additionally, nobody knows for sure what will happen in a storm fr situation so why take the risk. Further, consider all the recent remarks by Federal, State, and County officials regarding global warming, rising water levels, and managing storm-water flow with weirs like the one feeding Haldeman Creek. There seems to be more unknown than known about how these issues will impact Haldeman Creek's performance. Items from the HEX report not fully answered in the current application: 1- The owners should produce a report on hydraulic impacts as studied using a 2-D tidal model so as to determine whether the proposed new docks and launches will impact the flows within the waterway (e.g. Haldeman Creek and it's connecting canals). 2- Produce expert testimony that studies the impact of sediment transport within the waterway and how that impacts/products erosion or sediment accumulation on other parts of the waterway. 3- Require specific language that formalizes that the docks will only be used, rented and/or owned by residents of Haldeman Landing/Regatta Landing. Items brought to mind from reading the various reports: 4-. The developer has never produced rationale to help all understand why they should be granted an extension rather that creating a "basin" or, creating docks on other parts of tt their `owned property' that would not impact the main Haldeman Creek. 5-If any dock extension is approved; require a specific plan that states the extent of mangrove trimming and reduction will take place as a result of building the docks/walkways. The purpose is to minimize the trimming. If approved, require a commitment to maintain the mangrove to the stated plan. Final Thoughts: 2 I have often wondered why the developer keeps asking for the maximum vs listening to the objections of the public and has only made modifications after the HEX wrote his report. For instance, why not place the docks elsewhere....or why not submit a plan with all parallel docks (and no lifts) therefore minimizing adding structure to the Creek that may impede water-flow.... ?? • Thank you for your consideration of the above, Roy Wilson Chairman, Haldeman Creek MSTU Roy Wilson @ Naples,FL 239-821-4995 Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public records,it 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. i 3 1 ReischlFred From: StrainMark 1 } Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 11:24 AM To: ReischlFred Subject: FW: Hadleman creek is Please forward as usual. Mark 239.252.4446 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. Original Message From: Jean McSherry [mailto:ieanmc2Ohotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 11:08 AM To: StrainMark Subject: Hadleman creek Please vote no on extension of docks on hadleman creek. Jean Mcsherry/john McSherry 9 grouper drive Naples fl 34112. Full time residents. Thank you Sent from my iPhone 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. • 1 ReischlFred From: StrainMark Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 1:50 PM To: ReischlFred Subject: FW: Haldeman Creek Docks-Against granting of boat dock entensions Please forward as usual. Mark/ 239.252.4446 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. From: Richard Jay [mailto:rdjayl4@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 1:46 PM Subject: Haldeman Creek Docks -Against granting of boat dock entensions As a resident of Naples Land Yacht Harbor and registered voter, I want to express my thoughts as to not granting an extension to boat docks being requested . I would highly recommend that you take a boat ride down Haldeman Creek to view the validity of my thoughts. 1 . Haldeman Creek is a drainage canal . It is narrow especially on the turns, and the turns are blind . I have met other boats while negotiating a turn, and it can be very exciting if both boat captains are not alert. With low tide making the creek more narrow, and more boat traffic being added, I can only see more accidents occurring . 2. More boat traffic will add to the undermining of sea walls. With many boats not observing the no wake signage already, I can only foresee damage occurring to our sea wall and other residents along Haldeman Creek. 3 Repairs are expensive to the current residents along the creek, and this expense to us needs to be considered . 3, There are other areas that can be used on the developers land for docks. Why does the developers need p Y p extensions for docks in the creek? 4. What is the developers compelling reason for granting the extension. The developers are just wanting the least expensive and easiest way to maximize their docks without any concern for the residents already on Haldeman Creek. 5. Why is the request coming during the summer months. I do believe that the developer is looking for the time when more concerned residents are not in Naples who will voice opposition to granting the extensions. } Richard D. Jay 102 Pier K 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. 2 June 17, 2015 I am a resident of Naples Land Yacht Harbor and I am a registered voter. I am not in favor of granting an extension to the extended boat docks that are being requested.uested. M Y reasons are: 1) Haldeman Creek is a drainage canal. It is narrow and hard to negotiate. Low tide makes the creek more narrow and I feel that more boat traffic will create even more accidents. 2) Boat traffic undermines our sea walls, especially when no wake signs are ignored. Repairs to sea walls are extremely expensive to all residents along the creek and this is a serious consideration. 3) Why do the developers need extensions for docks on Haldeman Y p Creek when there are other options that make more logical sense. 4) What is the main reason for granting the extension? Is it because it is 1 the least expensive and easiest way to add their docks without any consideration for all the residents on Haldeman Creek? 5) I believe that this request is being made during the summer months when concerned residents are not in residence to voice their opposition. This is not fair! Thank you for your consideration, Claire Link 29 Grouper Naples, FL 34112 ReischlFred From: William Townsend [bgtown111 @gmail.coml Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2015 8:06 AM To: ReischlFred Subject: Fwd: Haldeman Creek Dock Extensions Forwarded message From: William Townsend<bgtownl 11 @gmail.com> Date: Wed,Jun 17,2015 at 10:00 AM Subject: Haldeman Creek Dock Extensions To: KarenHomiak @colliergov.net,DianeEbert @colliergov.net, BrianDoyle @colliergov.net, markstrain @colliergov.net, StanChrzanowski @colliergov.net To the Collier County Planning Commission: I wish to inform you that I am against granting dock extensions on Haldeman Creek. I oppose extensions for the following reasons: 1. The proposed plan causes problems and congestion in the Creek. The developer would need to erect about 200+pilings and associated walkways. This could serve to gather debris in a storm that might lead to flooding. 2. Haldeman Creek is a'drainage canal'. The area where dock extensions are proposed is an area that was created to improve the flow of water to the Gulf. These docks would narrow that area,thus restrict the flow. 3. There are safety concerns for boaters entering and leaving the Lakeview area where they would need to make a 90 degree turn and then navigate around the docks. 4. There are other areas on the developers land where docks could be built. There is no reason to give the developer special consideration for a"dock extension" on Haldeman Creek. Again, I oppose granting dock extensions on Haldeman Creek William E Townsend 111 Pier H Naples, FL 34112 1 ReischlFred From: claire link[clairelink725 @hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2015 8:12 AM To: ReischlFred Subject: Haldeman Creek Extended Docks I am resident of Naples Land Yacht Harbor and a registered voter. I am against the extension of the docks on Haldeman Creek. The Creek is already too narrow and too shallow at low tide. It is dangerous with too many boats at times. Too much stress on the creek effects the sea walls of all residences. The builders have other options to build their docks so I am guessing that this option is the easiest and cheapest for them. The project should not be allowed on the narrow and shallow Haldeman Creek. Claire Link 29 Grouper a Naples, FL 34112 1 is Sent from my iPad ] [ ] f ReischlFred From: StrainMark Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2015 8:21 AM To: ReischlFred Subject: FW:AN INVITATION...ON HALDEMAN CREEK Please distribute as usual. Mark 239.252.4446 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your a-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. From: Janie Moore [mailto:zanyjanie(a>hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday,June 17, 2015 7:24 PM >' Cc: ROY&NANCY WILSON �I Subject: AN INVITATION...ON HALDEMAN CREEK I am inviting you to stop by any evening to watch the activity on Haldeman Creek. Nearly every evening you will find a few members of Naples Land Yacht Harbor, (we have 352 units), gather at 4:30 pm at the deck at the end of Pier A overlooking Haldeman Creek. We enjoy watching the birds, dolphins, manatees, and fish! Once you place docks on the creek, you will destroy the pristine nature of the creek. If you were to view the creek at low tide,you would realize that the dolphins and manatees would surely suffer injuries. Adding docks to Haldeman Creek is not the thing to do, no matter how many docks or what length. As of this date, no boat docks are actually on the creek below the commercial section at the Bayshore Drive Bridge. If boat docks are approved, it will bring in much more boat traffic to our pristine area. If approval "a must", why not in the basin around Haldeman Creek Drive? This is not an answer to the natural environment on a creek in possibly the only water way in Naples area with now pristine surroundings. Once the commissioners have approved the proposed docks, how can the commissioners then deny Windstar Country Club, Naples Land Yacht Harbor or the Sandpiper complex, possibly Sandpiper Street, the privilege to place docks on Haldeman Creek? PLEASE....no docks on Haldeman Creek! Chuck& Janie Moore 334 pier A, Naples, Fl. 34112 1 i k- k (located on Haldeman Creek) i i 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 1 electronic mail to this entity.Instead,contact this office by telephone or In writing. t 1 I 1 a 1 J i t t ti i 1 i 1 t i It f i r f i I 1 t 1 g1 C E 1p f i t: x}i 1 1 t 9 i t 2 1 ReischlFred From: StrainMark Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2015 8:22 AM To: ReischlFred Subject: FW: Proposed Halderman Creek dock extension 1 Please distribute as usual Nla HQ 239252.4446 Under FLorida Law, e-maiL addresses are public records. If you do not want your a-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. From:Jon alberghini [mailto:jhalberghini@ msn.comj Sent: Wednesday,June 17, 2015 10:05 PM To: HomiakKaren; EbertDiane; DoyleBrian; StrainMark; ChrzanowskiStan Subject: Proposed Halderman Creek dock extension Dear Collier County Planning Commissioners Homiak, Ebert, Doyle, Strain and Chrzanowski: I am writing you to state my opposition to the proposed dock extension request on Halderman Creek opposite Becca and the Naples Land Yacht Harbor community. We have been down this road before with the developer and the evidence presented at previous hearings and the findings of Mr. Strain clearly pointed out that were no compelling reasons to grant the previous requests. None of the facts heard at past hearings have changed; • Haldeman Creek is still a`drainage canal` • The area of the docks is still an area that was created to improve the flow of water to the Gulf. • The docks would narrow that area, thus restrict the flow. • The proposed extension will require 200+ pilings and associated walkways • This could serve to gather debris in a storm that possibly could lead to flooding. 1 • • The proposed plan will cause congestion in one of the narrowest sections of the Creek. Photographic evidence was presented at past hearings showing how narrow the creek is at the proposed dock extension location, especially at 1/2 and low tide. • There are safety concerns for boaters going to and leaving the Lakeview area as they would need to make a 90 degree turn and navigate around the proposed dock extension. The developer wants the Commission to grant them an additional 18' extension beyond the standard 20' allowance for docks. There is no compelling reason to grant this special treatment of a dock extension. Very truly yours: Jon Alberghini 220 Pier E Naples Land Yacht Harbor" 1 y�h z�.., _��..,.—...,.:......n,wumr._....._�_.U.._..,. -:�,—...s r......-•.,n-,.xn. ...,.....e-.am.v..+.+am�,._-...-.n:.....•au..,_,.____.ss.ea.amss,...,,rs._..-.r-.o y 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 mall to this entity.Instead,contact this office by telephone or in writing. $t: 2 f Page 1 of 1 From: mescatem @aol.com Sent: Monday, May 25, 2015 4:47 PM To: ReischlFred Subject: HALDEMAN'S LANDING DOCK Dear Mr. Reischl, It is my understanding that the developer's revised Petition will be heard soon by the Collier County Planning Commission. You recall last April, I objected to the Public Notice being mailed to only those property owners within 500 feet of the proposed docks. I brought this to your attention by my EMail of April 22, 2014, to which you responded, "The Code does not prohibit notification beyond that which is required. " Since the County staff did not expand its mailing of those notices beyond the 500 feet, The Friends of Haldeman Creek and the Haldeman Creek MSTU Advisory Committee did. A listing of property owners paying their yearly tax to the Haldeman Creek MSTU was obtained from the County. The hearing notice was then mailed to those approximately 350 property owners. The purpose of this communication is to request the County, this time, to notify all 350 property owners of the upcoming hearing. Also, last year, the required sign notification was posted only at the West end of Lakeview Drive. Would it not be more appropriate to post this sign at the location of the proposed docks, on the shoreline of Haldeman Creek, where boaters can see it? Would this request not be within the intent of our Florida Sunshine Law? Respectfully, Bob Messmer Sent from Windows Mail file://bcc.col liergov.net/data/GMD-LDS/CDES%20Pl arming%20 Services/C... 6/12/2015 ReischlFred From: Kate Riley[kjbnaples74 @gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 11:48 AM To: ReischlFred; HomiakKaren; DoyleBrian; ChrzanowskiStan; RomanCharlette; EbertDiane; StrainMark Subject: Haldeman Creek BDE Petition Attachments: boat lift.JPG Dear Mr. Reischl and Collier County Planning Commissioners, I live directly across the waterway where Standard Pacific is petitioning for the boat dock extension along Haldeman Creek. I do not support the petition and would like this letter with attached photo to be included in the official record to the Collier County Planning Commission. Having viewed the waterway every day for the last 12 years, these are my concerns: 1) The navigational issues will present a public safety hazard. When a 25 foot boat backs out of an angled slip (15-20 feet wide) toward the NW direction then takes a 180 degree turn heading toward the Gulf of Mexico, there is a large possibility of a collision. Boats do not have brakes. 2) While Haldeman Creek may appear to be 120 to 150 feet wide, the actual navigable waterway in the center is only 15-20 feet. 3) When Haldeman creek was extensively dredged in 2006, I had my boat lift area dredged as well. Within two years, the silt was back (as the dredgers told me it would be). Photo attached was taken January 2015. I have to plan my boating activities. My boat lift is not usable during mid to low tides. I am fortunate to have a small wooden dock near my lift with mooring whips that allow me to tie up in slightly deeper water until the tide returns and I have enough water to put my boat back on my lift. When the purchasers of the proposed docks discover the bows of their boats in the muck along the bank (even after dredging) they will more than likely tie their boats toward the rear of their docks. This will make a bad situation worse. 4) Sanctuary Docks across from Haldeman's Landing: The Hearing Officer indicated on page 17 of his report that 'The Sanctuary application was supplied and approved with numerous errors. The Planning Commission, in approving this application, relied on the applicant's statements and documentation.' Are you going to approve another BDE with inconsistent information provided by the applicant as it was with the Sanctuary docks? 1 This is a quote from the memorandum Commissioner Henning sent to the residents on October 26, 2014 after viewing this waterway by boat. 'On Saturday, I viewed Haldeman Creek from the water with Mark Strain and County Attorney Jeff Klaztkow. I gained a different perspective from the boat than the backup material before the Board at the upcoming meeting on Tuesday, October 28, 2014.' If anyone on the Planning Commission would be willing to experience the potential problem with this BDE on Haldeman Creek by water, I would be more than happy ppy to accommodate you on my boat at your convenience. Thank you for taking my concerns seriously, J ti Kathleen Riley 2889 Poplar Street Naples, FL 34112 239-774-4411 rt FKF 3 ffi 2 , - 4rbigkii. ., , i L F p r 4' �. T. • .. .. 41,, i i i p iiill 111:1111: II • • , . 1, .� 3 • . i.,,,,i i #1 3:4 • . ° i do . -, , : - „iiittN.,..i. _ iiit s 1 ' '.7,..,7: ' ,-,."'-',.--11....‘:%>7'''--4'--1--":4 fi- 0 • 4" i CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-PL20150000487 FOR AN 18-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 38 FEET TO ACCOMMODATE A 27-SLIP MULTI-FAMILY DOCKING FACILITY FOR THE BENEFIT OF A 15.61 +1- ACRE PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS HALDEMAN CREEK DOCKS 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 18-foot extension over the maximum 20-foot limit provided in LDC Section 5.03.06 to allow for a total protrusion of 38 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 BD-PL20150000487, filed on behalf of Standard Pacific of Florida, G.P., Inc. by Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc., with respect to the property described in the Attached Exhibit "A", be and the same is hereby approved for an 18-foot extension of a boat dock over the maximum 20-foot limit to allow for a total protrusion of 38 feet into the waterway for a 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". [15-CPS-01431/1180135/1] 5/15/15 Page 1 of2 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 , 2015. ATTEST: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA James French,Deputy Department Head Mark P. Strain, Chairman Growth Management Department Approved as to form and legality: Scott A. Stone Assistant County Attorney Attachments: Exhibit A—Legal Description Exhibit B—Proposed Site Plan Exhibit C—Conditions of Approval(if any) [15-CPS-01431/1180135/1] 5/15/15 Page 2 of 2 • v.• r.sr• I V irVJiL �I,��] IBIT ' LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF COLLIER, STATE OF FLORIDA.AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: "ARCEL I: A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 14,TOWNSHIP SO SOUTH,RANGE 25 EAST,AND A PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 11,TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST AND THE WEST 330.00 FEET OF LOT 4a NAPLES GROVES AND TRUCK CO.'S LITTLE FARMS NO. 2 AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 1, PAGE 27, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGIN AT THE NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 14;THENCE SOUTH 00°13'02" EAST, 1331.46 FEET ALONG THE WEST BOUNDARY OF GULF SHORES, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 4,PAGE 50 OF SAID NAPLES GROVES AND TRUCK CO.'S LITTLE FARMS NO.a THE SAME BEING THE NORTH-SOUTH QUARTER SECTION LINE OF SAID SECTION 14 TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF WINDSTAR, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 14, PAGES 11 THROUGH 15 OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE ALONG THE BOUNDARY OF SAID WINDSTAR THE FOLLOWING COURSES: SOUTH 89°35' 14" WEST, 330.45 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00° 13' 07" WEST, 46239 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89° 35' 11" EAST, 30.47 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00' 13'07° WEST, 1389.23 FEET THENCE SOUTH 89°34' 18" WEST, 31449 FEET;THENCE SOUTH 68°04'16"WEST,50.12 FEET;THENCE LEAVING THE BOUNDARY OF SAID WINDSTAR,NORTH 00° 17'06"WEST, I97 FEET,MORE OR LESS, ALONG THE*EST BOUNDARY OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF T113 SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 11 TO THE SOUTH BANK OF HALDEMAN CREEK;THENCE MEANDER EASTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTH BANK TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTH-SOUTH QUARTER SECTION LINE OF SAID SECTION 11 AND THE WEST BOUNDARY OF DEMERE LANDING AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 4, PAGE 14, OF SAID ' PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE SOUTH 00° 111' 15" EAST 164 FEET,MORE OR LESS, ALONG SAID QUARTER SECTION LINE AND WEST BOUNDARY OF SAID DEMERE LANDING TQ THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID DEMERE LANDING AND THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 42 OF SAID NAPLES GROVES AND TRUCK CO.'S LITTLE FARMS NO 2; Th NC E NORTH 89°30'34" EAST, 330.00 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF SAID DEMERE LANDING AND THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF SAID LOT 42;THENCE SOUTH 00° 18'15"EAST, 337.30 FEET, PARALLEL WITH THE WEST BOUNDARY OF SAID LOT 42, TO THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF SAID LOT 42 AND THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF SAID GULF SHORES; THENCE SOUTH 89°27'51" WEST, 330.00 FEET,ALONG THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF SAID LOT 42 AND THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF SAID GULF SHORES TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 42,THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID GULF SHORES AND THE NORTH-SOUTH QUARTER SECTION LINE OF SAID SECTION 11;THENCE SOUTH 00° 18'15" EAST,334:79 FEET ALONG SAID QUARTER SECTION LINE AND THE WEST BOUNDARY OF SAID GULF SHORES TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. Cbamlve Special Warranty pad..WSC MOW.LL 33443690 1 RLDOCS 13423 690 I 29259A00i 3 S AND EXCFk'Ts 1 COMMENCING AT THE NORTH 114 CORNER OF SECTION Id,TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH-SOUTH QUARTER SECTION LINE OF SAID SECTION 14,SOUTH 0093'07"EAST 1001.74 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PARCEL; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG THE NORTH-SOUTH QUARTER SECTION LINE, SOUTH 0093'07" EAST 329.53 FEET; THENCE I. SOUTH 89°35'14"WEST 330.47 FEET;THENCE NORTH 0093'07"WEST 329.53 FEET;THENCE NORTH 8915114"EAST 33047 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. ?ARCEL 2: A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 14,TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; COMMENCING AT THE NORTH 1/4 CORNER OF SECTION 14,TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH-SOUTH QUARTER SECTION LINE OF SAID SECTION 14,SOUTH 00° 13'02°EAST, 1001.74 FEET TO THE POINT' OF BEGINNING OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PARCEL;THENCE CONTINUING ALONG THE NORTT$OUTH QUARTER SECTION LINE, SOUTH 00" 13'02"EAST, 329.53 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89° 35' 14" WEST, 330A7 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00° 13' (17" WEST, 329.53 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89°35'14"EAST,330.47 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCF L THE WEST 140 FEET OF LOT 47 OF NAPLES GROVE AND TRUCK COMPANY'S LITILB FARMS NO.2, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK I,PAGE 27,OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; EXCEPTING 'DIE NORTH 30 FEET THEREOF AS CONVEYED JUNE 20, 1957 BY DEED IN BOOK I1,PAGE 120 FOR EASEMENT FOR RIGHT OF WAY AND ROAD PURPOSES. �pp Corrective Special worrarq per.WSC Naples,MC:13423690 IR1.t(X S 13423190129259-0004 �= Lyn® V9 zELIno . i 1 — , _ - - ,- off. ., ..,, . •.. , . -, . „„ .1. .P'''''*,';'' 4,-"'a, ' 1:' ''' -''', . * ' ,,:' '' 4*"l' V ; „t,,, „ ` ,•1„ ■• I 0#4'',i,, .4 'I : ; 50 m 00 o 2 44....4. iiiiito 7 ' it S4/411' -,,,,, ' "+ ■ 1 ' ' , - '. 4—'''',Iiiptt 441 *tlf '6,! , .10,4nPfly•}727 , 6.' .6r"- `e ,.; ,‘„11 "tiltIlt5 4'; ', ,,,,,,,,,' 4 '''' 4 te,,01+ -• , ; .Ai i'' ''4'1)'At,. _ ‘',.. ' 6',41c-•6041' , r'''''' .6, ^ret, 4146 ..,e, .,.. ' ,,,t .., : "4 ,41 .. '_;- ,.`, . ,•,.,, . , „, ..,„ .„: .. ,,,''',4' 4, ,i1,, ,f.,14," '..)14itTor!ittar 444* ,4 -I.F- ' islimmipikIPAL4 A ' i _, _ _,, ., - ,, ,,,,, pi _ tit ----.L---HAL,.. '''7 ----- ".`‘14 A''' ' -- 4-H .1 ., '-, 1 '• f' ' ,,,,,,,,.: ' ' ' ' .‘ ' ' , ■ 1, ,..,,%.,„,-..)% , ;:!..,., , '- .li..t'pttl. f;,:,.:' sweEr 15 ,' 4:, ''''t:': , " '.4'; ,!., • .. . , .;., ' ,, ‘ ''',6 q: • ,',' '-FOR DETAIL) '': — :' 'd,•4'' .?'- 4'-:4;-741„„„i„,16-.,-, „ Isie4 II Es NOS FOR PERRETTING PURPOSES k, ,-, .e.:4' 4 .7' .'''.1.1.?4r4:El 0 ARE I:TPEZNDED FOR CONSTR1741,,UrS. ,i', - ,,.: :,; .e:1k,' . _ TALL DATUM SHOWN HEREON IS REFERE_119._0,........_.-n • ''.•1°' '''`..4 5':4," 6,■' , *6'6" -PROPOSED OVERWATER STRUCTURE,...),71.-oNG'vl.l'r ' :' */**1'''':'' '.1 :* '''*.' '' .' -TIDAL DATUM.HIM*"NCIV11111/UNE APPROX 3I3 r CI;:i .66 A ,iii ';; ,*''441,1`'' ' -' „1. $"'4.1,-.'' ..DBORLaTU"S OPTIONAL„. 11T:Ufr‘VD-S. _ _ mom 4*".' ' ^ ',.' '' . %iv 46646,k'._„ ...TOTAL PROTRUSION FROLI IA sups CODE I- NGTII - 4' r' I; '7e: ''':'': . ' '-'. ' *'; .C.it)----ECOURTEiY OF STANTEC” :IIIM 20' NI* I I CBI 25' ----- -- TOTAL 13. 1111 'i,.; iiik''-'1'.'1' '-', ' 4 r ) vEY DATED:05.14.0i4 ____ 1,4 r SURVEY FOR NORTHERN SHOREUNE PROVIDEo Ell' ly Ell ' - ,,,,,,,Ilt 14,,t,.71.4,g: .''',7 ....„A i ,Y `‘:■i ' -•WilTSURVELItipr.SUOWNRVEYEDDSAHTF-DOR:U2-N2E4493.4.18 LF 4:6 'gr FA:1'7 1 4. ''. °TA .711 ,.. , .04. ,- , '' 0)t, ' • *. .1.' - ...,,-41/0: '' ,„ , 111r666111.111111Ar116 ... •'6 71taalks ,8.—.,, ■ ,,,`,,...:–.4.Tumartniec'n lH aE lrl tvi te&i r6o nAmsesnoaIt2X c 1 i2aC3 toen ss‘,u Illnincg. HA LE E MA N'S LANDING L.a.u.mwLcCIIM 111 11,1•1.111,1l11i 1.11■■....R.A.NG.E.1.-.L2A5! 1.1IN 5 Avek3 Nads FL 34143732 PROPOSED DOCK IM PROVEMENT S XE pb 39)643,016 F ( 4)64 3.6632 x : _ . • SECTION-1114 TOWNS 8P-501 0 N.t –,.....--............--........— — ................-- --...-------.....*. .....—.....—............................– Conditions of Approval 1. Construction of the docks shall not commence until the approval of an Amendment to 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. 4. Boat slips shall be owned and used by residents of the Haldeman's Landing multi-family development or its property owners association and shall not be sold, leased or rented to any other parties. 7S EXHIBIT C 3 AGENDA ITEM 9-B Co er County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ENGINEERING&NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION and ZONING DIVISION; GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: JULY 2, 2015 SUBJECT: PETITION ST-PL20150000500: HALDEMAN'S LANDING SPECIAL TREATMENT PERMIT [COMPANION TO PETITION BDE- PL20150000487 HALDEMAN'S LANDING BOAT DOCK EXTENSION] 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 27-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 docks are proposed as an amenity to a Site Development Plan (SDP-PL20130000015), which has been approved for 16 multi-family buildings, totaling 64 residential units. 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 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 on Haldeman's Landing ST permit ST-PL20150000500 June 11,2015 Page 1 of 6 the location map on the following page. The dock is proposed along the south shore of Haldeman Creek. PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The petitioner requests an ST Permit to allow construction of a 27-slip docking facility 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 , (G� , ii , , 2 HMI--b-l3M TRACT 3 18. 3 4 2 1 I 32 35 417 ------------ -- - r- 5 I BD 34 21 13 1315 36 33 28 t6 37 ,32 Q 29 RMF-6(3) 31 1 3( row r.• s '°. ST Overlay 10.20 s 9 s"` - 1 7 LOT 42 t cal I RM F-6(3) 160 F Cln l � � LT6 (.,, \;':iC'' 1 / 19 1(3- i l 16 �_ 16 TB i _-i TRACT Q� .6 9- 1 ''' _z GOLF COURSE 1 0 �,.� 6 15 7 I 16 r .ii.._ 2_ 14 NM 0 LAKE •� 1? i A detail from the Zoning Map Haldeman's Landing ST permit ST-PL20150000500 June 11,2015 Page 2 of 6 SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: SUBJECT PARCEL: Vacant (under construction) 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-RI & golf course, zoned PUD (Windstar PUD) West: Golf course,zoned PUD (Windstar PUB) . T ' d d ' �3. .- kill t ---4.., '. , d .+ y . , rot 1 ,,'. ' i. - „ f,,-,- -4- -_,' OK '_r 1� ~9* ? Aerial—detail of parcel in the area of the proposed docks(Collier County Property Appraiser,2015) Haldeman's Landing ST permit ST-PL20150000500 June 11,2015 Page 3 of 6 s - - .- , - r pi- - 0` ,,v w . y icti . 4 ,,,,. ( # : _. / ', Of i Vg*Ic 7 1° 1 Q Aerial-detail of parcel in the area of the proposed docks(Google) GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN(GMP)CONSISTENCY: Staff finds that the proposed development is consistent with the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the GMP. ANALYSIS: 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, Haldeman's Landing ST permit ST-PL20150000500 June 11,2015 Page 4 of 6 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." Impacts in the ST overlay include all improvements on the attached conceptual plan(Exhibit A) as approved by a BDE and as allowed by the LDC. Within the ST overlay district,the proposed impacts include the docks over the water and impacts to vegetation for dock access(see Exhibit A,Haldeman's Landing S.T. Impacts with Siteplan). The dock structure within the ST overlay is proposed to be 6,133 square feet. Approximately 384 square feet of the impacts are for vegetation removal associated with the dock access walkways. These impacts include four dock accesses through the wetlands, which include mangroves to access the proposed 27-slip docking facility. An ST Permit has already been approved for 1496 square feet related to the upland development(Resolution 2014-261) as shown on Exhibit A. Section 4.02.14.F of the LDC requires the Environmental Advisory Council to review this petition. In addition,recommendations from the Environmental Advisory Council,Planning Commission,and staff shall be forwarded to the BCC for final action. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: This Staff Report was provided to the Office of the County Attorney on June 11,2015. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the CCPC forward Petition ST-PL20150000500 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval with the following conditions: 1. The three easternmost boat dock access walkways shall be limited to a width of six feet. 2. The westernmost boat dock access walkway may be a maximum of eight feet in width. The access walkway shall be used for the kayak launch. 3. Mangrove trimming is permitted only in accordance with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection regulations. Haldeman's Landing ST permit ST-PL20150000500 June 11,2015 Page 5 of 6 PREPARED BY: Altliak. A. - i 6 -l1 l - 1 ER ARAQ ' / DATE PRINCIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST ENGINEERING&NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION REVIEWED BY: RAYMOND rf. BELLOWS,ZONING MANAGER DATE ZONING D ISION r, , r . 1 { LIAM D. L i REN Jr.,P.E. DATE DIRECTOR ENGINEERING&NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION j ./% G rz -( r MIKE BOSI,AICP,DIRECTOR DATE ZONING DIVISION APPROVED BY: ,,....•AO ,. Aw.-,.. --_-_,....-- /a.21/ (--- Orr S FRENCH, DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ' ,--, 7; -/( NICK CASALANGU A,DE PUT` COUNTY MANAGER DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT Tentatively scheduled for the September 8, 2015 Board of County Commissioners Meeting. Haldeman's Landing ST permit ST-PL20150000500 June 11,2015 Page 6 of 6 RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SPECIAL TREATMENT DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF BOAT DOCK AND DOCK ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS ON 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 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. [PETITION ST-PL20150000500] 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 boat dock and dock access improvements for the property shown on Exhibit A, attached hereto; 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-PL20150000500, filed by Standard Pacific of Florida, is hereby approved for a Special Treatment Development Permit to allow for the boat dock and dock access improvement 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, and subject to the Conditions of Approval shown on Exhibit B, attached hereto. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition ST- PL20150000500 be recorded in the minutes of this Board. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. [15-ENS-00539/1180439/1] Page 1 of 2 6/9/15 Done and Ordered this day of , 2015. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: By: Deputy CIerk Tim Nance Chairman Approved as to form and legality: Scott A. Stone Assistant County Attorney Attachments: Exhibit A—Map Depicting Area of ST Impact Exhibit B—Conditions of Approval [15-ENS-00539/1180439/1] Page 2 of 2 6/9/15 I w _ E 1ST IMPACTS: +h Ia 6133 SF DOCK STRUCTURE WTHIN ST OVERLAY AREA S - - l0 384 SF VEGETATION IMPACTS(REMOVAL)ASSOCIATED � _ _. ACCESS WALKWAY -6610'FUTURE MANGROVE TRIMMING TO MAINTAIN 0 50 f00 100 ` E ACCESS SCSL 12VTFEI • MHW LINE ST OVERLAY ., MLW LINE / — — — I Jam. 75% APPX.50%▪ WIDTHOF---- ST OVERLAY 50% - • WATERWAY 610 "l 25% m -4,.. X 1 • c' • ••• • • • • ♦ * .* *' c * A * 1 * c E c La a w..- ? = a.a..4,a .Ad,a♦4.a .4 4 •4E-A ■w 4* 44A A�A .Tla at ---: '---- ,;_'.'"; n 1 Nil,' 1 MLW LINE APPROXIMATE VEGETATIO I v MHW LINE IMPACTS ST OVERLAY TOB LINE ST OVERLAY AREA / OVERLAY:1496 SF _-, _ —I o NOTES: SHOWN HEREON IS REFERENCED TO MLW. 2014-261)WETLAND IMPACTS IN ST ONLY THESE ORE NOT INTENDED T ME FOR FOR CONSTRUCTION UCTI ONUS j PREVIOUSLY APPROVED(RESOLUTION STH AND ARE WING INTENFOR PER CONSTRUCTION ESE. I I o PROPOSED OVERVWTER STRUCTURE:APPX 5.8206 SF. CODE LENGTH WIDTH ®' - _-.—___._ ____ - — ;o TIDAL DATUM ML E NGVD,MHVF(y1.5'NGVD. j DOCK ACCESS IMPACTS IN ST I o W TOTAL PROTRUSION FROM 1AH LINE:APPROX.38 FT. - - �� 20' 13' I1111. OVERLAY:3843.E I ;o BOAT LIFTS OPTIONAL FOR ALL SLIPS 'v DREDGE AMOUNT:13113 CU.YDS. CI __ ..__. - — o SURVEY COURTESY OF'STANTEC -.. ___ SURVEY DATED:NORTHERN 4 26 13 ■SURVEY FOR NORTHERN SHORELINE PROVIDED BY _.._ .. .. - I WETLANDS © TOTAL NMIUER'SURVEY DATED 02-2408. TOTAL •TOTAL APPUCANT OWNED SHORELINE 3.888 LF OW WED 111- Turn ll Hall Associates,Inc. HALE E MAN'S LANDING m 'wTM �� - Marine&Environmental Consulting �;' 7 I 35g4 Exchange Am Suite B.NagctFL34104-3732 S.T. IMPACTS WITH SITEPLAN(BVU) *111. ^4a1:4 7 - - (051:II1.0 re11-,>1Ioc t1.. Floc(2391643-0166 11x:(39)6436632 .. .......... . . . ......... -.. .. SECTION-x1.i• TOWNSHIP-SO II RANGE-2EE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR ST-PL20150000500 I. The three easternmost boat dock access walkways shall be Iimited to a width of six feet. 2. The westernmost boat dock access walkway may be a maximum of eight feet in width. This access walkway shall be used for the kayak launch. 3. Mangrove trimming is permitted only in accordance with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection regulations EXHIBIT B [15-ENS-00539/1180623/1j 5/18/15 i 1 f I t AGENDA ITEM 9-C Co er County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING: JULY 2, 2015 SUBJECT: BD-PL20140002207,HENDERSON CREEK BOAT DOCK EXTENSION PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT: Owner: Real Estate Technology Corporation Agent: Kris W. Thoemke of Naples Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc 900 Broad Avenue South,Unit 2C 3106 South Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34102 Naples, FL 34104 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner requests a 10-foot boat dock extension over the maximum permitted protrusion of 20 feet to allow construction of a boat docking facility protruding a total of 30 feet into a waterway that is 90 feet wide. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject site is located at 952 Henderson Creek Drive on the south side of Henderson Creek Drive and on the north shore of Henderson Creek. The folio numbers are 00725080004 and 00725720005. (See attached Location Map.) PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The purpose of the project is a request for a 10-foot boat dock extension beyond the maximum 20 feet for the subject lot. The boat dock facility will contain nine slips. The total overwater dock structure proposed is approximately 1,865 square feet and will protrude a total of 30 feet into a waterway that is approximately 90 feet from Mean High Water(MHW)line to the opposite shore. There is no dredging proposed for this project and the total length of shoreline is approximately 319 linear feet. The upland site has been approved for a maximum of 44 dwelling units (Dockside RPUD). BD-PL20140002207 Page 1 of 8 Henderson Creek Boat Dock Extension. ks -,,,,iiiiiiiiiiiii kr„ •• ILiii" -- e..0 w.r..o L '_J.J BUD r ; 4..4/ + +•* ��Q 6\--- t 5.1 . 1 D f : '•�a •. c �a� a �o si,. I grArt 1mA MN SITE '0 LOCATION . . ..1111111irrN mr PROJECT ' LOCATION 11111 POW riTdard: Glip,,,, � GG, � 4_�`' e�©OQ OQOOOOiYG'1 o�� see a e �!11Ai I, , ...... a , 44.00 so ir ,f v u o � lis vov VaOtIM: oo °v I am °�' �'oammmo2 �mmmmmmmmmmmee eeeeeeee ill EN 1111 F A IN �Iii1mmmm1:�mmmmmmmmmmmoo �o©�000©. 1 m a a ' ® .._.lii___ - a a a O RMF-12 RMF-1618) tg LOCATION MAP ZONING MAP # PETITION BD-PL-2014-2207 SURROUNDING LAND USE& ZONING: SUBJECT PARCEL: Undeveloped parcel,zoned Dockside Residences RPUD SURROUNDING: North: Henderson Creek Drive ROW, across which are mobile home residences, zoned MII East: Mobile home residences,zoned MR South: Henderson Creek, across which are mobile home residences,zoned Mil West: Multifamily residences,zoned RMF-6 • 1 Aerial of subject shoreline(Google) ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION: Environmental Planning Staff has reviewed this petition and has no objection to the granting of this request. Section 5.03.06(E)(11), of the Land Development Code (LDC), Manatee Protection, is applicable to multi-slip docking facilities with ten(10) or more slips. The proposed facility consists of nine boat slips and is therefore not subject to the provisions of this section. STAFF ANALYSIS: Section 5.03.06.E.2 of the LDC, Standards for Dock Facilities, states that for lots on a canal or waterway that is less than 100 feet in width, dock facilities may occupy no more than 25 percent of the width of the waterway or protrude greater than 20 feet into the waterway, whichever is less. Twenty five percent of a 90-foot waterway is 22.5 feet, making 20 feet the lesser number; therefore,the request is for a 10-foot extension over the required 20 feet. BD-PL20140002207 Page 3 of 8 Henderson Creek Boat Dock Extension. The Collier County Planning Commission (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 9 boat slips, which is appropriate in relation to the 319 linear feet of water frontage of the subject lot. The proposed residential component of this project has been approved for a maximum of 44 units, so 9 slips is appropriate. 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.) According to the petitioner's application the water depth for the proposed dock facility will be 2.77 feet at MLW and the proposed draft of the boats is 2 feet. Input from the neighbors suggests that the water depth is greater than 2.77 feet. Staff does not have the expertise or instrumentation of a Professional Surveyor, so a site visit was made only to verify surface conditions,not water depth. No other Boat Dock Extensions have been granted on this segment of Henderson Creek. Because the depth measurements were taken by a Surveyor, Staff considers this criterion met. 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) BD-PL20140002207 Page 4 of 8 Henderson Creek Boat Dock Extension. Criterion met. According to the information submitted by the petitioner, there is no marked or charted navigable channel. 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 not met. Information provided in the application indicates that the proposed dock will protrude 30 feet(33.3 percent) into a waterway that is 90 feet in width. The docks on the opposite shoreline protrude 15 feet (16.7 percent). Assuming that a vessel with a 5-foot beam is moored at the 15-foot dock (staying within the 20-foot protrusion limit) would result in a protrusion of 22.2 percent of the waterway width. Therefore, the total protrusion from both sides of the waterway would be 55.5 percent (33.3 + 22.2) leaving a remainder of 44.5 percent of the waterway unobstructed. Since the open waterway at this point would be less than 50 percent,this criterion is not met. 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. Since neighboring docks are on the opposite shoreline, the proposed dock should not cause any interference. 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.) Criterion not met. The applicant states that the subject shoreline is stabilized with rip-rap. A site visit revealed that there may have been minimal rip-rap at one time, but there is not much remaining. The shoreline is vegetated with some mangroves, which would require a State permit to trim. 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. The dock is proposed at 6 feet in width,which is not excessive. 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 BD-PL20140002207 Page 5 of 8 Henderson Creek Boat Dock Extension. 3 property's linear waterfront footage. (The applicable maximum percentage should be maintained.) Criterion not applicable. The proposed dock would be in support of a multifamily development. 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. 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 information submitted by the applicant, no seagrass beds were found 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 not applicable. The petitioner's property is a nine slip facility and is not subject to the provisions of the Manatee Protection Plan. Staff analysis indicates that this request meets four of the five primary criteria (Criterion 2 is considered to be met because the depth was measured by a Professional Surveyor — neighboring property owners dispute the depth readings based on anecdotal experience). Regarding the six secondary criteria, criteria 3 and 6 are not applicable, and the request meets three of the remaining four secondary criteria. This segment of Henderson Creek is a Drainage Easement that was dedicated to Collier County in 1961. There is no evidence that the County accepted the dedication and the County has never maintained the segment (see attached email from Jerry Kurtz, P.E., Stormwater Planning). APPEAL OF BOAT DOCK EXTENSION TO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS: As to any boat dock extension petition upon which the CCPC takes action, an aggrieved petitioner, or adversely affected property owner, may appeal such fmal action to the Board of County Commissioners. Such appeal shall be filed with the Growth Management Department Administrator within 30 days of the CCPC action. 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. BD-PL20140002207 Page 6 of 8 Henderson Creek Boat Dock Extension. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: This Staff Report was submitted to the Office of the County Attorney for review on June 8, 2015. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the above findings, Staff recommends that the CCPC approve Petition BD- PL20140002207 subject to the following condition: 1. Construction of the docks shall not commence until the approval of a Site Development Plan 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. A Certificate of Occupancy(CO) shall not be issued for the docks until a CO has been issued for the upland housing development. 2. The applicant acknowledges maintenance responsibility of the segment of Henderson Creek adjacent to its property. Attachments: 1. Application with exhibits 2. Correspondence 3. Draft Resolution PREPARED BY: BD-PL20140002207 Page 7 of 8 Henderson Creek Boat Dock Extension. PREPARED BY: c 6- 8 -/S- F• D ' ISCHL, AICP,PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: G• 8 •�s RA �5 D V. BELLOWS,ZONING MA DATE ZON DIVISION 6 4- MIKE BOSI, AICP, DIRECTOR DATE ZONING DIVISION APPROVED BY: o/Aa/,(-- AMES FRENCH,DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT 1p NI-CI CASALAI4GUIDA-IE Y COUNTY MANAGER DATE, GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT BD-PL20140002207 Page 8 of 8 Henderson Creek Boat Dock Extension. Staff photos of surface conditions. r j , , L..t ,.ya.ei t e r l''',. .I yy,0. -►- .; }rty.,.�y.�1 4 7 L-Ill l', - _ 1 �i. . . ( fI _ t .-c ,4 ' -', 4_ -r -= _ - - - yam^._ f r. A „u,. �• r us." f n � i . r i ( ,---- ‘ , v a.: : 7� „ q /f^ } / r'' a I .. i 4\'I % 4 •^` i¢Y� 1R9!Q ._' __ " e ) ' - . , { . -. i r f� ° 'x „sir�.� ' • E 4�,• + ; 4 —j,',,`v^�,,,.• % ;' 4. -• -,f--.,-,,, 4., ,;f►:ice° ,• i .' ♦ I t'. , Ste ti .J+t ♦ r / ' r - , .. r e ; _t= f i ce:,, `{ � . - .. _ z J - _ - �- 1 t ` 'y 1 r 1•° '''',4 y,�t , fir '.' Ir. •l 7 � V4� •y a * *i ,``�� ..3 ✓ • +( mo w■ w_ p ' �4.^o .■_ T7' .. r ''', n�' A+v,, a fir' - ■ t .- ; T- .- _" a - -1 �, „ ' V • : r: Nit ■ 4 a ' •* .-- . -,-, '.,7-'', f l i ,. ,• . y a,� Or ir 7,• -,..t.:414 "Itti,6' 14.4.•-' ., . Ili .� f .y -f ��• , re r A > + zti 1P \'' •,-, ■. -;101. . .- .." ffS1 ' -• ' . - - ..-Tr‘ ' ... _ 44'-1•..• A_ /<q��y� •\ , ,.. _- . . r V 1. 1.• ■ir..8, -• -. ..... , ,„,, ._._ '''. ,./ ., . II i, 46.4 A 7 ' �• .. - Kit ......4 e. - - ; . , , ,,. .4„,..I ,7:', ,, ',4 .■. I_ . k'tij L - 00°°7 +: 1 I0` "r- � fir. Email Petition NO. BD-PL20140002207 From: davhuff @grantsburgtelcom.net Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 10:40 AM To: ReischlFred Subject: Petition No. BD-PL20140002207 K Mr. Reischl , I am contacting you in response to the notice of public hearing on the above reference case. Riverwood Estates Homeowners Association (Riverwood) , represents 282 property owners in Riverwood Estates with 28 properties owners on Henderson Creek. Riverwood also has a boat dock and launch on Henderson Creek so all Riverwood property owners certainly have an interest in this proposed extention. Before I address this on behalf of Riverwood i would like to know the following: what is the width of Henderson Creek at the proposed site? Is this measured at High or Low tide? HOW many docks exist across from the proposed site and what are their protrusion into Henderson Creek? I look forward to your response. Thank you. David L. Huff, President Riverwood Estates Home Owners Association, Inc. 715-338-5850 fi Page 1 3 Page 1 of 2 From: KurtzGerald Sent: Monday,April 06,2015 9:22 AM To: StrainMark Cc: KlatzkowJeff;Koehler,Lisa;StoneScott;CasalanguidaNick;BosiMichael;GossardTravls;ReischlFred;McLeanMatthew; BurtchinMark;HumphriesAlicia;PattersonAmy Subject: Henderson Creek Attachments: 13073.pdf Mark,we are aware of the boat dock construction request in the tidal portion of Henderson Creek just east of Collier Blvd.and that that portion of the creek is covered by a drainage easement granted to Collier County by the land owner at the time,1961,in connection with the state's construction of SR- 951. We are unaware of any Board of County Commissioner acceptance of the water body covered by the DE for maintenance. Collier County Stormwater and/or Road Maintenance Departments have never assumed maintenance jurisdiction of the subject tidal water body. The map below is from our website. ArcGIS- Collier County Stormwater Major Drainage System Map Iimoult 00 saaunae I p snap, F3.1.1 I Legend Ji r' . ,�:. a Ink. J 4� erlrtne: rte' . ,� t wl,.:ndn yT ° ruk_s e •ar `/ . A1r Sraunata-Malo.D.alnapu „, . Svatan,_nonNenrorl', .1tlea e ° rim,Sad�_•leatt Mahe i S •a.• - riya AM o:ul:r:t 1 S — sires,. - ... 1 S fa r : f - (CPS ? Vie. _ - - CaMar ,, . ! i� t 1 RIOT y 'n.r.r4 4o.uew m' — MS11.1 1 > . j — %Ivand t a? S C .___Y Mnl..P, ... t 9 — liemartalned - I....4.I aake{1 3'.,:, "n,n,.,a. .I. - take_0. chame1Net Crt entlor , v',^a na - -. r ' Champ!rlr1 Mb 00.0.nu I fir,. ra..,”, ~ Sto/rnwa!er EVAInAr 5' .' i " 3 .,rmi•t•wtia Cor.xvxrte e i fTM•TM•ra'• n v,,r' ® 11.eanr. _ hoot+r No 8 ! 7711 M. i 7,1,1 s Wok., n.•-.YMr w u'.c.PI rNtrh elnhe FM 2 ,al'5 are vrand 1 I re'`r JQ ti,.•,are e.. hal I.;1 On DAWN. ; y v wm a.r.r Jc°" T .+r lei War..a We recommend that,as part of the BDE approval process,the applicant acknowledge maintenance responsibility of the portion of the water body on their property covered by the drainage easement. Jerry Kurtz,P.E. c:tkla•.c.... Stormwater Planning Growth Management Division Office Phone 239-252-5860 Email:jerykurtz@colliergov.net From:StralnMark Sent:Wednesday,April 01,2015 12:28 PM To:KurtzGerald Cc:KlatzkowJeff;Koehler,Lisa;StoneScott;CasalanguidaNick;BosiMichael Subject: On April 9th there is a boat dock extension request(before the Hearing Examiner)that is asking to extend 10'beyond the allowed 20'In Henderson Creek (possibly a 30'total extension). The creek width in that area is estimated to be 90'. As you can see below,this area of the creek is very over grown,but is also subject to a drainage easement to Collier County. I have attached that OR Book for your review and ask that you provide a response to me as to the county's position on the impacts these docks may or may not have on the county's use of that easement. If you have any mapping for this easement that you could forward to me that would be very helpful. Also,if we were to maintain this by clearing or dredging,would we use the center line of the easement for the center line of the dredge? file://bcc.colliergov.net/data/GMD-LDS/CDES%20Planning%20Services/C... 6/11/2015 Page 2 of 2 Your earliest response would be appreciated. SNf 3 . I. ,. . t i #. �i.I • J } / r: _xi ,p, • t fy _ . • P ix �I .7 i «. N• O PROPOSE 411.1.-, 4 t ' x • ° •'r COUCAttONALsoN 1 A - - e• C ISTNO DOCK r w FROODEO D R - i a' - . ,+4' . �,-- II .^ J APPROX. R U- 4 111.,. C It 1B.'' 1t i ti 26 Vi I. .1" 't. 't NOTES: PROJECT INFO: • A +„ S • I N012*TATIED NTh HEREON SURVEY REFLECTS COMETIONSAR • DOCK AREA CKCOH:2fO VT .° THEY EXISTED ENTRE SURVEY OAT!snoNMANO EAR(741.2 • DOCK AREA CIICERWARD OF SECONSEERES INOIGINE OFCDMRITIONS AT THAT TIME. hum..1.000SF 2. AERIAL PP OOGRAPHV ODTNNFDFROMCOWER COUNTY. • sup DSIENsIONS:3•FT s 10 FT •.`• 4 • DATEDDECEMDER 2013. • TOTH.RUN.t Project location southeast of 951 and 41: Y•sui .N "..0; w�•a\ '' E �t \ PROJECT 1 \� LaaATIoN 1 Iteo/' f, ` 11CU \, 10 se rE u'-c: —4 .,I rARee...e. Thanks, Mark. 239.252.4446 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. Under Florida tear,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 mar to this entity.instead,contact this office by telephone or In writing. file://bcc.colliergov.net/data/GMD-LDS/CDES%20Planning%20Services/C... 6/11/2015 Enchanting Shores Co-op, Inc. A 55+Community 17 Turquoise Ave Naples, Florida 34114 April 22,2015 Mr. Fred Reischl, Principal Planner Collier County Growth Management Dept.!talent,Zoning Division 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34104 Reference: Petition No BD-PL20140002207 Dear Mr.Reischl, Enchanting Shores Cooperative,Inc.represents 365 property owners within Enchanting Shores Co-op, Inc (ESC),with 16 properties bordering on Henderson Creek. ESC also owns a private boat launch on Henderson Creek which provides all ESC residents with access to the creek as well as Rookery Bay and ultimately to the Gulf of Mexico. First I would like to say I believe your department did not provide adequate notice of this hearing of the above referenced petition. All ESC residents have an interest in any exception to current zoning affecting Henderson Creek and apparently no one at ESC received notice by your letter dated March 20, 2015.Fortunately ESC was notified of this hearing from our neighbors at Riverwood Estates.Many residents downstream from this new proposal have direct access to Henderson Creek through property ownership or private community boat launches. In my opinion they all should have received a direct mailing. Additionally,granting a continuance of two weeks for the hearing from April 9 to April 23,2015 certainly appears to be an effort to limit comments and attendance at the hearing. Two weeks later in April will see a large number of seasonal residents headed north,unable to attend the revised hearing date. Granting this extension was not in the interest of neighboring property owners and other users of Henderson Creek. When the owners of Dockside Residential PUD applied for a zoning change from Mobile Home,about two years ago,many Enchanting Shore residents were not opposed to the zoning upgrade. However,nearly all residents who have commented to me are opposed to this possible 10' extension. An additional 10' into Henderson Creek,in our estimation,will create a navigational hazard and should not be granted! I plan to attend the revised hearing on April 23,2015 and to speak against granting of this extension. Sincerely, Rick Maxfield,President Enchanting Shores,Co-op, Inc. 239-775-1221 nif marie nelson • Mon. Apr 27 12:11 PM o raybellows@coliiergov.net DOCKSIDE BOAT EXTENSION, HENDERSON CREEK THIS IS FROM ALLAN &MARIE NELSON,208 RIVERWOOD RD, DIRECTLY ACCROSS FROM THE PROPOSED"DOCKSIDE BOAT EXTENSION REQUEST" LOCATED ON HENDERSON CREEK. WE APPEAL TO THE COMMISSION TO RE-EXAMINE THE PERMIT BECAUSE OF INACCURACIES WE HAVE DETECTED, REQUIRED BY LAW A MINIMUM OF 50 PERCENT,OR 45 FEET, OF THE WATERWAY WIDTH BETWEEN DOCK FACILITIES ON EITHER SIDE MUST BE MAINTAINED FOR NAVIGABILITY. THE CANAL IS 90 FEET WIDE, DEDUCTING THE PROPOSED EXTENSION OF 30 FEET LEAVES 60 FEET. OUR DOCK ON OPPOSITE SHORELING IS 15 FEET WIDE, OUR BOAT IS 7 1/2 FEET WIDE, TOTALING 22 1/2 FEET. THAT LEAVES US WITH 37 1/2 FEET OF NAVIGATIONAL WATERWAY. WELL UNDER THE 50 PERCENT REQUIRED BY LAW. PONTOON BOATS WOULD REQUIRE MORE SPACE. THIS IS THE BASIS FOR OUR APPEAL TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO RE-ASSESS THIS PROJECT. Sent from Windows Mail 1 1 q, ritehM MEAN Pr6.N Q WAT iWF5 r i I r c .1 t -- 3 4—P1-4.K' X0 A 1 3 0 • a' 1 IA 3 1 tk' 1 ( w :. .. .7,,, 1 . _ 7 ; s o Jo A t Z ( �" 0 CIS 37 I _ }, ' I -t Al z I r E 1cz .- F I I r 1 .1 ' _� i 4 .4z I { h ,w l .-� 3 " _ '° Li I i ) t E cw,D 1 4 F 1 r _ ! ,i .3 - — — 371 - - — — - - _ _ . O F NAV 1 Gli-rjoNAL.wAT'is 1 I ;(7i e,01-÷, ()) ra It I 1 - ---- —' i --- I 1 I 1{ I 1 90 ' F,i/>/W Pillow 1.1i,14 Lii ilma i uee. •64, Page 1of1 li From: David Fleischer [fleischerd @att.net] Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 1:25 PM To: ReischlFred Subject: Dock extension on Henderson Creek We as owners of a mobile home in Holiday Manor would like to express our opposition to the dock extension on Henderson Creek requested by the condo people.We have a boat and dock on Henderson Creek at Holiday Manor and believe the creek is not wide enough for the larger docks and boats,also there are some areas that are very shallow and with our 17 ft. boat we have to be careful not to bottom out on the rocks. The Manatee use Henderson Creek and we believe the bigger docks and boats would put them at risk. Please consider our opposition to this dock extension. Thank you, David S. Fleischer and Arawana Sue Fleischer, 173 Willow Lane, Holiday Manor. it 14 PP Y file://bcc.colliergov.net/data/GMD-LDS/CDES%20Planning%20Services/Cu... 6/8/2015 W E 440 octi G (YEur cc pc,,, /49,/eA/e4 Sew(= 0,81 .)Yet Ave,- ecov /9Z- q,t) ,V eG 3 `?'-7 74.-(714/e 7 /t ‘ , ',Pe, t3 P-4;/f94. ,7 �`', , .� �, - �: 6 ,2 C f e bd.ne-C1C 02 64144 al # CO W1 :, vvN OLAN.LA a-�, 3 —S 3c)-• 3 5 te,4,14 e •cose7 rh-Orl?-5 r-1?)WEleA.11 afte0ex7i 1H,4:4-716'.iles 1) 274L $ fT 'r t.)eriodd 4( 4i 4., F2-- 3 "//fve 4et 1'q te/ce,/7 e7 144121, 0 G', Pe refit sod . PtnpriaQg0L, coy., • April 15,2015 Re: Petition No.BD-PL20140002207 Dear Mr. Reischl, These signatures represent the share owners of Holiday Manor Resort at 1185 Henderson Creek Drive Naples,FL 34114. We have 308 lots with approximately 300 owners. (Many of our people have left for the summer months but all are concerned.) We use Henderson Creek waterway to access Rookery Bay by boat/kayak and consider it a valuable asset. The following is our answer to the proposed extra 10 ft. dock extension into the creek for Dockside Residential Planned Unit Development The"Collier County Staff Report"is used for a guideline: 1. It is deep enough to moor boats without the 10 ft. extension in front of their property. (Primary Criteria, Item 2) 2. A boat will not be able to turn around in the 319 ft length along the proposed dock if needed. (Primary Criteria, Item 3) 3. The dock will cause a potential hazard when 2 boats meet and cannot pass safely. (or kayaks and a boat,etc.)(Primary Criteria,Item 3) 4. The waterway measures 90 ft as stated however there are large mangroves growing on each side of the creek; the largest extends 22 ft into the creek on the opposite side. The docks on this side protrude 15 ft.without a boat moored there. With a boat moored (6—8 ft wide),the total is between 21 —23 ft, (Primary Criteria, Item 4) 5, The rip rap used•to stabilize the shoreline only extends 4— 5 ft into the creek. Why not build the proposed 6 ft dock along the land covering the rip rap(or 4 ft out bringing the total dock to 10ft). Then with boats moored,they are within the 20 ft limit. (Secondary Criteria, Item 1) 6. There are quite a few large mangroves growing on Dockside's side of the creek extending 25 ft into the creek. The understanding is that they may not be trimmed or removed. (Secondary Criteria, Item 1) 7. The proposed dock is 319 ft regardless of the number of slips. This is 319 ft where a manatee will have no where to go when a boat/or boats are in the creek. We get several manatee in Henderson Creek during the year and this dock will pose a hazard to a large, slow moving manatee. (Secondary Criteria, Item 6) 8. If allowed to extend into the creek the extra 10 ft., hundreds of people farther up the creek will be inconvenienced for the benefit of 9. Thank you for you time in reviewing our petition and our arguments against this dock extension. We appreciate your time and consideration of this matter. Sincerely, Douglas Hiser (representative for Holiday Manor Resort shareholders) 86 Tangelo Lane,Naples FL 616-799-2585 - 1 CI A PETITION TO STOP THE 10 FT BOAT DOCK EXTENSION OVER THE 20 FT LIMIT ON HENDERSON CREEK AS REQUESTED BY REAL ESTATE TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION OF NAPLES. TO: COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT This proposed boat dock would protrude into Henderson Creek a total of 30 ft. We (the owners of shares in Unit Holiday Manor Resort)use this creek to access Rookery Bay with our boats. There are approximately 300 owners in our park alone who would be inconvenienced by 9 from Dockside Residential Planned Development. The creek is a narrow waterway with mangroves growing on both sides which are protected and may not be trimmed making the waterway more narrow every year. We feel this proposed extension would be a detriment to all who use the creek as well as to the environment. Name Address Yj ed t)il c:oX 532 Pram O(r vim. u fey L 3 / .. r a 4.,,,,, AN bof , Lit. Alai CC'S FL 3iflf 4 9 f .- 3C,i-,,cA41-- ' :ill J.- - s: - _ -,t J . . r Gam. .04, - ; (r .. (/(/ I. pi .C2„....- 1 Y / t, It . .4 ' 1 I. , c E WV4 _ 1, , , ---i i 1:41111n1r/ . •.4A. 4 , P I A /. ! ' L • ..z,-..,.--,4, :- - ,_ f'Y Lf 492_1e lk M P4 , r-z-.. _ j H-r/< --fo►-ft 0. 6.,i M.0.00 i 2.s 2 0 0-412 _k `` . �(!1 y 12j471 ---- _S . �a1 ... a(( Cid c c L r -19 0 Y________ '013/ ^ 4 c• //C3 - i (-f Gmay• i l a I5 C N/1O0 v2Q ( . Petwi 02092 -3 4 ( 1 c-I_. .-Eop, ? _- Le c:-( ,r t 3 6 ("c,,-,s'SG-. L.c,t--,e_. Kk:,.v 31-t 14-- Page 2 PETITION TO STOP THE 10 FT BOAT DOCK EXTENSION OVER THE 20 FT MAXIMUM LIMIT ON HENDERSON CREEK Name Address A'6,- /1 /l 3' yi.:,LtfilLIZ / .-1-4 ' / 4 .7 ( it2>X74.1 -- 7 __----- \--//id.*-er7e..- -7■...--- -7----/4.'ley. -ed.;' ill'. /67-2Z11646-tt:__ 9 Lt b- --,t- iLi\I IVII----P. • i...7 1 ' ).....,. e._ , ...„ " V . , . T r - _ v .,08 P ' '8." VIIPLIVAV- \\A'Acti ‘ 'S 4314 t k 4 Page 3 PETITION TO STOP'ME 10 FT BOAT DOCK EXTENSION OVER THE 20 FT MAXIMUM LIMIT ON HENDERSON CREEK Name Addr C. e.ve 6, � 01 C. 4D (4), c,-10y, (a .c-- \--ikryiti -1. Crr_A3 A-- 7'1 H y �, -- f r� �j kc L xi . LL11 L1 . h,*0r, "" 173 miff 34(14_ A ( cr-f- v / /0 tr -‹,c-64- LA -,,:5 t///5 r zi - .. `: /`, Di, ,Lice 4 ki k . 3 '1 (1 y 1 , ' k. PIA ( /0 A2LAR.0',.14(9 [4/ :5f/II ',.`. L_, ' a 1, 1 i a4. D wwc . C-A-1 3 r Ze-d---Lo -3 4/igio,.. . // 6 y _y ��_R,0 / 1 - I 0- 4 , //6 lb" , cn IP __ 3 174 / /. � � a.--4--0--eel / ' 3- -Dct 41 cat-, Lc4.41 e 3iz-// ,...l.fiv II. , _.,,,,,,i; : /Aaez' .i /1 np: PETITION TO STOP THE 10 FT BOAT DOCK EXTENSION OVER THE 20 FT MAXIMUM LIMIT ON HENDERSON CREEK AS REQUESTED BY REAL ESTATE TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION OF NAPLES. TO: COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT This proposed boat dock would protrude into Henderson Creek a total of 30 ft. We(the owners of shares in Holiday Manor Resort)use this creek to access Rookery Bay with our boats. There are approximately 300 owners in our park alone who would be inconvenienced by 9 from Dockside Residential Planned Unit' Development. The creek is a narrow waterway with mangroves growing on both sides which are protected and may not be trimmed making the waterway more narrow every year. We feel this proposed extension would be a detriment to all who use the creek as well as to the environment. Name Address ...itAid Ayr, , -5 87 PAK" -> ,,,e-2,,' ,- ' I, , 4?-1,(" :, :Z, i , : -6 _ ' i ?C, 2(2. 4. Z' C-_, 21 4,_y 7,1(e_s, r-z_. / q,_.,„,,, ,,.2 .14-,L-i2-c' T5-5--- rkq,,,,,,,,,,,, id Eletii,..._,_ t , ,,__.., .J r ,,,_,/P. , / �� ./:` rf ` : „ r2_, ,.., 0 1I I / 0 2 °tot/ C'A Ai tai. ,tA/)if1 ft_ Qvi--4-' ' / d 2 G� ti, C„'�i+;ti,,! L.� ,4//e'/1J` 1�L� `-gym. • ' '' J jpi.--7,..t.,„ xi) , Vi-zyip,—) 1,2 ,,,-- ttizi,e,/,r,.42 -:er a,,,-/-ei /qi41-6/' 1-' ?, 7-„.1,1,zA.. 6A • a Apc, r rli (7). A.:4)” j ' ,C 9 . e't7, -., ids 4 /474"-. SI f7Y" i tv a 7 uat ■N MAC 12 s , f A1alt - Y...�r: au • 1C�T ) /P5 / =L�. ,.- ��/fie/ /�/j /�//y/ /�/�J 12,, !�-r .J+, /r / '73 '. !!►'4I /V. f p -or ,s/ ,�%�,/�,- /.. ,/l6? . _,,,._j : 4 ', _ i \'1 4,,D Wzalm ( ' C G.r u .` ,1,..q. tio,$)k. Page 2 PETITION TO STOP THE 10 FT BOAT DOCK EXTENSION OVER THE 20 FT MAXIMUM LIMIT ON HENDERSON CREEK Name Address `Joiviu 1.4i-' --) /6-rei i;: //ii, 2J6-,- i- A.--exit ." 1 (-Sa'6e,--.k. ,) ' '-----) - /-,1 .4- ‘.. I, - G--iit 2 76/ /-116,n_. ., .. //4,.ay,‘,..... I- 3- 3-- .1 •=i-e.. ,,, _ ., .._ / /y e-ii 1 -,;..,.:,F.) 4., i.2.5 L..),4/A 2).u'c' l/Al (3 i &i /Li 3 ii4Ajf. a 1146-e-i-- )...- cy 7 L'("66-4- '2-- 7 ,-., , ,. , 21 :7k17 ,e'tcx-it ( e,.._ . T-c. 741 I 7 4/ 9-0.— • . - - 4( . ,:,) II it/Li o._ 'Cfit-g--N /-", ‘-f ..„:10%._s ra---.N._.(._ L IP`.......,4,........ ., .•,#4.' .4, ..,./.44"' it .. • e—t--‘4"--"\- _c- C.: C R4L IA,.41-}(1,. .-1 ni 0 ri ell e 2 ;-,,,,I / (-/- Pr, ,,,, ,. cr S /CV 4) ,c3. E.2 ,4 4/, 1 Page 3 PETITION TO STOP THE 10 FT BOAT DOCK EXTENSION OVER THE 20 FT MAXIMUM LIMIT ON HENDERSON CREEK Name Address iTim-1t,/-0. F39/24.0ciAt /fl'zi 7 C4-112-1 . 'SA . xl , -v......, /.2$ l.,:' .i.avo eil- ,,- .• . , , A1, A iv 10 L.:.:-''...1,.. ...; 11, S i 0--"e7 I, , 14' c-v.1171 1-1 eplic / $/ Wet Al el i eic o A., (::R,ez_r-A (' .):4 d',,,-4.4 /lizz,;,;(--ey• / 3(2 cl , :41,' -Su I/itil t` , , /9 11' :) ill 411 Pi 11.(i.c:- / 1/ • 1) 1 I 3 , , i Z ., p lo v <lAl i - 7 4c _ .__ /1 .......-- ,•- / ,„. g---- (--11b7-7-.2.4..0"-ar• -L-k--/1 -`---- It' ' -46.... ) ' ..A 1 ? 1 --; ......f , /53 I.C/4/K2e,s4- Li /9 NE ..h., 0 /07 , 471 /4:f3 1101,1.,,,t 14. . ...... ,D16:7\ 2/OZZL--. /"; .3 (..."4,4_z /ef 7 CA-i?/ _c sA 41-,..A..,,,.: t' 7.--/7 f1- 6 visZ.-. 1 .A Z-- iYin (iit.g.' I 2-Y L.p la, Ltdc..., 3 C PETITION TO STOP THE 10 FT BOAT DOCK EXTENSION OVER THE 20 FT MAXIMUM LIMIT ON HENDERSON CREEK AS REQUESTED BY REAL ESTATE TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION OF NAPLES. TO: COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT This proposed boat dock would protrude into Henderson Creek a total of 30 ft. We(the owners of shares in Holiday Manor Resort)use this creek to access Rookery Bay with our boats. There are approximately 300 owners in.our park alone who would be inconvenienced by 9 from Dockside Residential Planned Unit Development. The creek is a narrow waterway with mangroves growing on both sides which are protected and may not be trimmed making the waterway more narrow every year. We feel this proposed extension would be a detriment to all who use the creek as well as to the environment. Name Address GZ --�L frrrva e . (164 5 .._ AT? , 4-4,Si 7....140-7.-- ‘'"?.t2 41 ietkvt-019A-.) a _937 /voig„... All P 1 .• A,a AM. y. .V 1Ppl`,iDR. 9jFcJ , OR 9 2.,_7 "i ce /09 2 ocall Lii . ' dik, li. 1 Z t 4 2 oe2AD 1 (ri /yQ, A,, otolit- ,cf-,,,, ,...42, 9e7 4,04/ _,,44 :ti---:: ,, i j..,-- ....-•s f / 4 �1//��\\ {�/j �I k f_,,:4 - . f' . , f> , , 761/X. 0 l''il.) Ai<3 .71:...."21121-X.' (*(.1--.11 hid'. , /1" 3 N1, '4- L ht r dt/ez . a Page 2 PETITION TO STOP THE 10 FT BOAT DOCK EXTENSION OVER THE 20 FT MAXIMUM LIMIT ON HENDERSON CREEK Name Address 4 6-11;m7d)-7c4;4_, pcf±c-t _e_e> //77 r 473 AR c5-5- A zA 4e.. ri ,, wo ReSSA e, -A-46 613 /.4R e5-57, ((Ica/ .5� ?4 /41 At./41 { PETITION TO STOP THE 10 FT BOAT DOCK EXTENSION OVER THE 20 FT MAXIMUM LIMIT ON HENDERSON CREEK AS REQUESTED BY REAL ESTATE TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION OF NAPLES. TO: COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT This proposed boat dock would protrude into Henderson Creek a total of 30 ft. We(the owners of shares in Holiday Manor Resort)use this creek to access Rookery Bay with our boats. There are approximately 300 owners in our park alone who would be inconvenienced by 9 from Dockside Residential Planned Unit Development. The creek is a narrow waterway with mangroves growing on both sides which are protected and may not be trimmed making the waterway more narrow every year. We feel this proposed extension would be a detriment to all who use the creek as well as to the environment. Name Address (i'A rI >/// /4 .r .S c J\/ / 3 q r C b w 4,07 L.A uimr / ie is3 /6ciw od ,CJ, 34//q /aeL4-vi' 11,4) gi4Le,170_11_ 4dri /Vie- I S .3 IILI u1 LA C,� h� �>• _ /o. Its, �xac�� %. ..t. // ; 4.-1 7/fie iC/ // 3 4le t f.S - I it 7,1)A-Lie6e 7-7-14-z.111, /24 . (L. t LA) iet.t:// / , .• fC Z�r1/c am/ Zit "<" /,i,� � / 3 LU/tLom 4A! .9 , Page 2 PETI'1'ION TO STOP THE 10 FT BOAT DOCK EXTENSION OVER THE 20 FT MAXIMUM LIMIT ON HENDERSON CREEK o- Name Address '` f-.e..iv--,,,--„.- 4,1--- "©71'� ,4 A, i 3 4/1/, G�, /0y /AJ,//o .,v atp/es -7y/1 g-‘ /i4, --_-.-, ,_.) ,VAN ,54?/// I 4 6 2 - 6),.,,,„ / ,,.. � ,_. ri-4/ //. _. 3 44 r/4_.5 Ynel ,1 +1-'''7,1.., 1 Y . ` r _, i i 6 al p ..3.."N'^hc\S- .. -. c \4 ` W. i , 1. 3 S PETITION TO STOP THE 10 FT BOAT DOCK EXTENSION OVER THE 20 FT MAXIMUM LIMIT ON HENDERSON CREEK AS REQUESTED BY REAL ESTATE f TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION OF NAPLES. , TO: COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT This proposed boat dock would protrude into Henderson Creek a total of 30 ft. We(the owners of shares in Holiday Manor Resort)use this creek to access Rookery Bay with our boats. There are approximately 300 owners in our park alone who would be inconvenienced by 9 from Dockside Residential Planned Unit Development. The creek is a narrow waterway with mangroves growing on both sides which are protected and I may not be trimmed making the waterway more narrow every year. We feel this proposed extension would be a detriment to all who use the creek as well as to the environment. Na L4...1-, :IL ,L! r ,:,,,'. .'• ddress tr"!- drii i �7" s- C;709..... i F t f r0.,. .x i r 4 _ 3 i {� + ! z .1!:) . S1, a r i .,--. ZT7._ "-' ',. _•.f^! a 4.- � l yy 1.1(..r'. r` Tri ' 1. ,.- 1 _ f +/,: /}v..:4,0 ,f',..fr..�t,•..,A„r, 1 t„,'t".'4',} r i ;.,i 1, t fi J A i ... ,�e( .g ,t _? d F fa c h r. �' .. `;:v A r }t1/' --:r'n - C4/4:.',..4: 41L.... (. • r”.' ': %.1 : S ' h s a p r� ' I I E. Y•f lit' e. Jt 4 F• ' ,,T. f i"' l'd P'�► F A,f yl` F;�'/ S r .s, J..,.v ��+f iC.a y,.s '..L "'' 1 4� . �'x,' �, .1s11)_,X.-- t__)01..., ,i-.,7,4) C � ti f' 0.41a<,s I.- _�.�� r: F ' � 5 �: I C •.45e4.. G r'te, fe . y,tt.14'•r.J;. i,r fi)1- 11:2‹ .<---. p -3 0.,,,,,, „G„.„..... 1 i If-tt....46,Lk,*.4...Lia....-e-,d'iv-, 7.-1'''''/ 3 "„ • I.4 .44 h.,S a I Mr/ � • • Page 2 PETITION TO STOP THE 10 ET BOAT DOCK EXTENSION OVER THE 20 FI' MAXIMUM LIMIT ON HENDERSON CREEK Name Address r;: lG, l -r/, �• /7. /fit t L.ti:. r` ' ./C ,1. .4. ' ft; . , r tf'' .--V,14,1 - t . 11 7---1) 1) --7*C- /---1) 'Op ,L ) I —6 w . ( i, ' 21.1Q4 I1'(. . ( ((x�'-�c Ili J ,')-? A ' ..,. ) . 1,_ + { 'r` .I i �, \i`' - ---(! i (. . J ) / �' '• ' F . \ {�' 1'"Z ' ' F L I . j 1 z `' ter_! , ;I t•�, 11 ,. amV. r�-1 (- ;l /� 1. J∎ ` Ilt..1 ,J1.... .--) 1.10-t _4: /-- g PLI:•Ii t..44. - .r'1=L-J it ) 1�. / v .--.,;- //::. .--...-2. , te.. /lig: ,,f;:,.(__ -•;,:-6.,, L_. -.-/;c7. /' --:>1--/ -1. /.' ( l /, : . -1,.-t , , 1,/il .'Vt./ /F-..51' Leet∎(1 1A' s. , • ( /.1".`? ti - ' , tit 1 ' 1 / 9i v . ...-. ....., ....4.„6,",1 A I, e4 , - ig --3qti it „ / 2 C) -„Lae,41-c, ---'-fi° /1 'a , 4.-••-"e,,-1..... ,-,...--e-. 1 ::7-•'1 oHila• i J13_-,Ir-2-19' X. CA. 4, 4/1/A i **5---<1/ (1.._14rl 212 1.9-0 / ,. ; ' '"4) /V.," " 1,72-1" .!...,:i"(,..`4:20-:' i 4,i k.f)f L. L /.054-1.1,,,ti 1" A. e SY e 44, :v: ...5-Aire94,6.. zAtvoze Ari '7?,44 li 4' ,... 051 ":"1( -,---A, ---Fe.. ,--A,,,* LC; .,ikk ; ...i.),-, 1/41 , 7 iliu 04 Ce,0 114 ' vy ., f1,063,A.1-Aetio.. 4 anAA,s-A, '--w. i:1 9 1. , "_ ± 74 1 6 fr oe ipbx,bi )a i , __77-)...,,,,j,., ,1:A., (--- -7 pi 14 1.--El ?;r1 1 li -, -1 t.P „.0: ,.__c . .12/'.,-1,.,1,) I,i d 1 I 4,-::' f k • ( -- '.---L--079 i i I S4 ;;,: 1 N.-..,' '- 1.,........ — ,■,,, L-A,,-.4.7 !,.,. ,k''r:- i'.. , -1,i-"•--1-"'t.--- g 1<.. , ,, i e■4, if_ 1 ) (V 44/-4A,i) , (r:•••••,_ ; e::,..-:',, .1. c.f.) k.-- ilvt t,,,t......a.i.c, ? ( ..... _ 4 ...... if A I P' • kiit.:-S-4:41 7'g ,.i.,,;•-ot,Lla-45-`74.--) / q LI ,... 1 c:) ( 11... q ....i.„ I , t . , 7'91").kitrt tz„,,.. * . • ' "- ...- ,i -1 f1)1 .,, .,-,64ritIV--` ti\ v--. --` - c-,-,1 , , , • i i • , , • i ( 1 ' • • • . i • i - i -•,-.. I I i 1 Page 1 of '.uifiWr '.uuniy rruprrLy HWWrdIbrr Property Summary Parcel No. 00725080004 Site Adr. 946 HENDERSON CREEK DR Name/Address • REAL ESTATE TECHNOLOGY CORP OF NAPLES 1 900 BROAD AVE S #2C 1 City NAPLES State FL Zip 34102 Map No. Strap No. Section Township Range Acres *Estimated 6B03 000100 023 6603 3 51 26 3.23 1 i 3 51 26 FROM INTERSECTION OF E LL SR S-951 WITH LINE LYING 501.493FT S OF N U. Legal OF 51/2 OF S1/2, E 499.02FT TO POB, CONT E 150FT, S 915FT TO C/L OF DRAINAGE EASEM, SWLY 159FT ALONG SAID C/L N967 FT TO POB % I i Millage Area O 144 Millage Rates• *Calculations Sub./Condo 100 -ACREAGE HEADER School Other Total Use Code 0 0 -VACANT RESIDENTIAL 5.58 6.4197 11.9997 1 1 Latest Sales History 2014 Certified Tax Roll • 1 (Not all Sales are listed due to Confidentiality) (Subject to Change) Date Book-Page Amount Land Value $ 117,21S 06/14/13 4935-282 $0 (+) Improved Value $0 05/30/13 4930-351 $ 200,000 1 09/10/09 4493-3253 $ 100 (..) Market Value $ 117,215 07/21/05 3849-3766 $ 735,000 (_) Assessed Value $ 117,215 t 05/22/68 274-578 $ 0 (=) School Taxable Value $ 117,215 l (=) Taxable Value $ 117,215 If all Values shown above equal 0 this parcel was created after the Final Tax Roll 3 s i I • hp://www.collierappraiser.com/main search/Recorddetail.html?Map=No&FolioNum=00... 3/26/201 Detail by Entity Name Page 1 of 2 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE X1411 1411- DIVISION Or Cc�l;Polt�� rlc�Ns ' � Detail by Entity Name .im Florida Profit Corporation REAL ESTATE TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION OF NAPLES Filing Information Document Number L16590 FEI/EIN Number 650148916 Date Filed 09/18/1989 State FL Status ACTIVE Principal Address 900 BROAD AVE S UNIT 2C NAPLES, FL 34102 Changed: 04/04/1997 Mailing Address 900 BROAD AVE S UNIT 2C NAPLES, FL 34102 Changed: 04/04/1997 Registered Agent Name& Address KUEHNER, CARL J 900 BROAD AVE S UNFIT 2C NAPLES, FL 34102 Name Changed: 04/04/1997 Address Changed: 04/04/1997 Officer/Director Detail Name&Address Title DP • KUEHNER, CARL J. 900 BROAD AVE S UNIT 2C NAPLES, FL http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/S earchResultDetail?inq... 3/26/2015 i 1 Detail by Entity Name Page 2 of 2 i R r Title DS • 3 KUEHNER,JOANNE M. 900 BROAD AVE S UNIT 2C a NAPLES, FL 1 I I Annual,Reports Report Year Filed Date 1 2012 02/29/2012 1 a 2013 04/03/2013 2014 03/05/2014 1 i Document Images :6 03/05/2014—ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format > 04/03/2013--ANNUAL REPORT View image In PDF format l 02/29/2012--ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 01/05/2011 --ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 01/05/2010--ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 03/24/2009--ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format t 02/12/2008—ANNUAL REPORT, View image in PDF format 01/10/2007--ANNUAL REPORT I View image in PDF format I 03/02/2006--ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format, } 04/06/2005--ANNUAL REPORT( View image in PDF format I 03/03/2004--ANNUAL REPORT' View image in PDF format 05/02/2003--ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format t 05/02/2002--ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 01/18/2001 -ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format • 1 04/12/2000--ANNUAL REPORT I View image in PDF format 01/21/1999--ANNUAL REPORT[ View image in PDF format I 01/28/1998--ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 04/04/1997--ANNUAL REPORT[ View image in PDF format 01/23/1996--ANNUAL REPORT[ View image in PDF format I 07/10/1995 -ANNUAL REPORT I View image in PDF format f •Co l�and p�[vacv Policies a State of Florida,Department of State i http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/SearchResultDetail?inq... 3/26/2015 I 1 1 CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 15- 1 A RESOLUTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-PL20150002207 FOR A 10-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 30 FEET TO ACCOMMODATE A 9-SLIP BOAT DOCK FACILITY FOR THE BENEFIT OF DOCKSIDE RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, ORDINANCE NO. 14-16, LOCATED EAST OF COLLIER BOULEVARD ON HENDERSON CREEK DRIVE IN SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,CONSISTING OF 6±ACRES. 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 10-foot extension over the maximum 20-foot limit provided in LDC Section 5.03.06 to allow for a total protrusion of 30 feet into the waterway to accommodate a boat dock facility for the benefit of Dockside Residential Planned Unit Development, Ordinance No. 14-16, on 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 i 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 BD-PL20150002207, filed on behalf of Real Estate Technology Corporation of Naples, by Kris W. Thoemke, Ph.D, CEP, with respect to the property described in the attached Exhibit"A",be and the same is hereby approved for a 10-foot extension over the maximum 20-foot limit provided in LDC Section 5.03.06 to allow for a total protrusion of 30 x; feet into the waterway for a boat dock facility, as shown on the Proposed Site Plan attached as [14-CPS-01390/1186038/1)40 Dockside RPUDBD-PL20140002207 Rev.6/10/15 Page 1 of 2 Exhibit `B", in the Dockside Residential Planned Unit Development, Ordinance No. 14-16, wherein said property is located,subject to the Conditions of Approval attached as Exhibit"C". 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 , 2015. ATTEST: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA James French, Deputy Department Head Mark P. Strain,Chairman Growth Management Department Approved as to form and legality: Scott A. Stone / A5 Assistant County Attorney Attachments: Exhibit A—Legal Description Exhibit B—Proposed Site Plan Exhibit C—Conditions of Approval [14-CPS-01390/1186038/1140 Dockside RPUD/BD-PL20140002207 Rev.6/10/15 Page 2 of 2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL 1: LOT 4, HENDERSON CREEK ESTATES, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS,FROM THE INTERSECTION OF THE EAST LINE OF STATE ROAD S-951 WITH A LINE LYING 501.493 FEET SOUTH OF THE ESTABLISHED NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH Y,OF THE SOUTH Y,OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, RUN SOUTH 89 DEGREES 23' 55" EAST 498.02 FEET PARALLEL WITH THE SAID ESTABLISHED NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH Y, OF THE SOUTH Y, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. FROM SAW POINT OF BEGINNING CONTINUE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 23' 55" EAST 150.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 38' 35" WEST 915 FEET, MORE OR LESS TO THE CENTERLINE OF A COUNTY DRAINAGE EASEMENT ACCORDING TO AN INSTRUMENT IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 76, PAGE 127, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA;THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY 159 FEET MORE OR LESS,ALONG SAID CENTERLINE TO A LINE BEARING SOUTH 00 DEGREES 36' 05" WEST AND PASSING THROUGH THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 36' 05" EAST 957 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. AND PARCEL 2:FROM THE INTERSECTION OF THE EAST LINE OF STATE ROAD 8- 951 WITH A LINE LYING 501.493 FEET SOUTH OF THE ESTABLISHED NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH Y, OF THE SOUTH Y, OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, RUN SOUTH 89 DEGREES 23' 55" EAST 649.02 FEET,PARALLEL WITH THE SAID NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH Y, OF THE SOUTH Y, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING CONTINUE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 23' 55" EAST 150.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 38' 05" WEST 864 FEET MORE OR LESS, TO THE CENTER LINE OF A COUNTY DRAINAGE EASEMENT, ACCORDING TO AN INSTRUMENT RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 67,PAGE 351 AND OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 76,PAGE 127,PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY 159 FEET MORE OR LESS ALONG SAID CENTER LINE TO A LINE BEARING SOUTH OODEGREES 36' 05" WEST PASSING THROUG THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 36' OS" EAST 915 FEET,MORE OR LESS TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SUBJECT TO A ROAD RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT OVER AND ACROSS THE NORTH 30 FEET THEREOF AND 15 FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT ABUPITING AND LYING SOUTH OF THE AFOREMENTIONED RIGHT OF WAY . EXHIBIT A [14-CP5-01390/1186488/1) { 1 s o •a 'mil* y.• 1 1 �.j < TURBIDITY CONTROLS AND MONITORING SHALL BE - ' r_. - a= �'� - IMPLEMENTED DURING ALL CONSTRUCTION AGTMTIES '* /+ 't IN ACCORDANCE W TH THE PERMITTED TURBIDITY PLAN • "" 1TS� s. • t` s y� s J t " STS ^." ' ' J7• + ,, �} , 07r I .i► - :t a {. 100'WOE DRAINAGE % �� k 3P, , ri � °._� EASEMENT .9 'yrj. ' 4, (O.R.BOOK 78,PAGES 127-{129) ♦ y '1 TURBIDITY SAMPLING r ... y yp g. .. >if .0 W '"_. .y STATION 200'FROM DOCK ., lw • ' vi , ' PROPOSED MANATEE , r • • _ • EDUCATIONAL SIGN - rP`a �. * A+ DUSTING DOCK X t. •r '•, • t • ..�' PROPOSED DOCK '; .I �% U '�� 4T • !� FOOTPRINT ' O i ' 9� ` f o . 1# 'OW—‘1.... . . liiSx-. - / "."/ - '' ------' ( , MHW LINE • ./W' i/��/jje�yP b • • 1 i S � G r, s X , ' • ,�.. hT 14.11 - TANTS,INC.•. -' - F . SINES „,..e :1- TION NO.LB 2464 SAMPLING „ tg _ ;♦ ° MARK A KIN AL E PE � - • i 100'WIDE DRAINAGE L,PROFESSIONAL ENGI fry STTATION 2 _ 1--- EASEMENT FLORIDA LICENSE Na -4 a9..<.(0.R.BOOK 76 PAGES 127-129)'t:- •, I e- I4- • NOTES: j* • PROJECT INFO: 1. BATHYMETRIC SURVEY COMPLETED BY COASTAL • SHORELINE LENGTH:319 FT ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS,INC.,ON JULY 24,2013. e 2. CONTOURS SHOWN HEREON ARE IN FEET BELOW THE .l��t • DOCK AREA CREEKWARD OF NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988(NAND 1956). 3. INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON REFLECTS CONDITIONS AS MHW:1,855 SF ?, THEY EXISTED ON THE SURVEY DATE SHOWN AND CAN ONLY SLIP DIMENSIONS:30 FT x 10 FT ' BE CONSIDERED INDICATIVE OF CONDITIONS AT THAT TIME • - 4. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY OBTAINED FROM COLLIER COUNTY, TOTAL SLIPS:9 s DATED JANUARY 2012. I',+' _- COASTAL CMLENGINEERING cup„ SURVEY 6 MAPPNC ENGINEERING COASTAL ENGINEERING REAL ESTATE TECH.CORP.OF NAPLES om,:, c. CONSULTANTS ENVIRONMENTAL T.. �-111=111■ �INC. PLANNING SERVICES HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTY ��©m�mi .°""°`•'°'a"""" 'NE'9"3-2324 PROPOSED DOCK PLAN VIEW === i,•' 3106 SOUTH HORSESHOE DRIVE wrAccoa141NG •t13916'R19 co. NAPLES FLORIDA 341061 E-Mal:•l0ace911 con 'NO 19.706 NO DATE AT REASON OeaaevieN CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR BD-PL20140002207 i I i 1. Construction of the boat dock improvements shall not commence until the approval of a i Site Development Plan and issuance of building permits for the upland housing developments and the subject boat dock improvements. E 1 1 2. A Certificate of Occupancy (CO) shall not be issued for the boat dock improvements until a CO has been issued for the upland housing development. i 1 4 i i 1 ti 1 i 1 1 i it 1 1 3 EXHIBIT C 4 [14-CPS-01 3 90/1 1 8 603 711]39 a Dockside RPUD/BD-PL20140002207 i. Rev.6/10/15 1 i l