Loading...
HEX Agenda 03/10/2016 COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER HEARINGS AGENDA MARCH 10, 2016 AGENDA THE COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER WILL HOLD A HEARING AT 9:00 AM ON THURSDAY,MARCH 10,2016 IN CONFERENCE ROOM 610 AT THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT/PLANNING&REGULATION BUILDING,2800 N. HORSESHOE DRIVE,NAPLES,FLORIDA INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES UNLESS OTHERWISE WAIVED BY THE HEARING EXAMINER. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE HEARING REPORT PACKETS MUST HAVE THAT MATERIAL SUBMITTED TO COUNTY STAFF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING. ALL MATERIALS USED DURING PRESENTATION AT THE HEARING WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER 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. DECISIONS OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ARE FINAL UNLESS APPEALED TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. HEARING PROCEDURES WILL PROVIDE FOR PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT, PRESENTATION BY STAFF, PUBLIC COMMENT AND APPLICANT REBUTTAL. THE HEARING EXAMINER WILL RENDER A DECISION WITHIN 30 DAYS. PERSONS WISHING TO RECEIVE A COPY OF THE DECISION BY MAIL MAY SUPPLY COUNTY STAFF WITH THEIR NAME, ADDRESS, AND A STAMPED, SELF-ADDRESSED ENVELOPE FOR THAT PURPOSE. PERSONS WISHING TO RECEIVE AN ELECTRONIC COPY OF THE DECISION MAY SUPPLY THEIR EMAIL ADDRESS. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. REVIEW OF AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF PRIOR MEETING MINUTES: February 11,2016 4. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. PETITION NO. BDE-PL20150000039 — A. Douglas Brodman and Teresa A. Brodman request a 22.8 foot boat dock extension over the maximum 20 feet limit in Section 5.03.06 of the Land Development Code for a total protrusion of 42.8 feet to accommodate a boat dock facility with a boat lift for the benefit of Lot 6,Bayfront Gardens,also described as 232 Barefoot Beach Blvd. in Section 6, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Daniel J. Smith AICP, Principal Planner] B. PETITION NO. BD-PL20150001024 - Mike Scott requests a 42.7-foot boat dock extension over the maximum 20 feet allowed by Section 5.03.06 of the Land Development Code, for a total protrusion of approximately 62.7 feet, to accommodate the replacement of an existing boat dock facility with a new dock facility with one boat lift for the benefit of Lot 28, Southport on the Bay,Unit One,also described as 206 San Mateo Drive, in Section 6, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Rachel Beasley,Planner] 5. OTHER BUSINESS 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS 7. ADJOURN AGENDA ITEM 4-A c-derr County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER FROM: DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING ZONING DIVISION HEARING DATE: MARCH 10, 2016 SUBJECT: BDE-PL20150000039, 232 BAREFOOT BEACH BOULEVARD PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT: Owner: A. Douglas Brodman and Teresa A. Brodman 232 Barefoot Beach Boulevard Naples, FL 34134 Agent: David Turley ADK Permitting Solutions. LLC PO Box 111385 Naples. FL 34108 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner is requesting a boat dock extension under 5.03.06 H. of the Land Development Code to extend a boat dock 22.8 beyond the allowed 20 feet under Section 5.03.06 E.1. of the LDC for a protrusion of 42.8 feet in Little Hickory Bay. The petitioner would like to construct a 410 square foot boat dock to accommodate a 25 foot vessel with a lift. The waterway width is approximately 223 +/- foot wide. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject site is located at 232 Barefoot Beach Boulevard. and is further described as Lot 6, of the Bayfront Gardens Subdivision. The site is located in Section 6, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, Folio Number 23095000607. (See location map on the following page) BDE-PL20150000039. Page 1 of 11 232 Barefoot Beach Blvd. Dock Extension. HEX Hearing March 10.2016 14 , riii., „_____± gads ,....\ a. Lo oar �,�rt dj,�e� ��� . * 4kilipagilla s>1 di Vailinhap' OA .IN 1W.44171 ' § a ° °19aa�`�a�t 1 0 s " 4.411°1 4100\iii '11,1 orAti: A 1,1gft 4 gIVI a N . N nix.1..... ..0 m ��`��e�jj}�,,,��7JJJ -.-.jjii sial wnwaww.1 1]] 2 Iz 1 I _ 1 a I ani 114 9 WI 0 a 1 1 1 . al La --i . Bra,NaLigregwiwiration it 1 II I1 l�- ` ',- �� 1111 ` w :_ .. < iipo -Qau 1 11 11 s % I II 0111 o 11111 1 'Illtielikilliggi.6.1 ati.— 4.9 iii mkruirtr,t114, _..... . t,--_*•_ - - . 4,,,..... II-,,,k1 .10-4„..„.,, � J r&wj ar razor° gla 4111 BDE-P1,20I50000039, Page 2 of 11 232 Barefoot Beach Blvd. Dock Extension, HEX Hearing March 10,2016 PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The petitioner is proposing to construct a new boat dock and lift that protrudes 42.8 feet from the shoreline for a single 25-foot vessel with a 7,000 pound capacity. The property, with a zoning designation of a PUD (Lely Barefoot Beach), is .23 acres and has 104.1 feet of water frontage. The setbacks from the riparian lines, with an LDC requirement of 15 feet, will be 30.1 feet from the left/north riparian line and 40.8 feet from the right/south riparian line. (See boat dock plan page 5) Neighboring residential homes on the canal have boat docks. No dredging is proposed and there have been no objections from the public as of the date of this staff report. Aerial 'hot() - Collier Coun 'GIS Ma , .R.4 Existing Docks ` T, X22, 2l -0_,- l. ail L 'x;13 t.>,° ., Ilif Subject Parcel: 232 Barefoot Beach Boulevard "A 1^~..... Stas r *44>,' ' /1 — 0 ih° 7 sea 2Existing Docks . rnir,, 235 .4."k lit 216 240 ` if r l LosA 1 1',1 k . �. BDE-PL20150000039, Page 3 of 11 232 Barefoot Beach Blvd. Dock Extension. HEX Hearing March 10,2016 SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING: SUBJECT PARCEL: Single Family Residence with a zoning designation of Lely Barefoot Beach PUD SURROUNDING: North: Single Family Residences with a zoning designation of Lely Barefoot Beach PUD East: Little Hickory Bay, single-family residences across the bay with a zoning designation of Lely Barefoot Beach PUD South: Single Family Residences with a zoning designation of Lely Barefoot Beach PUD West: Barefoot Beach Boulevard, Single Family Residence with a zoning designation of Lely Barefoot Beach PUD ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION: Section 5.03.06 J.4 of the LDC requires the petitioner to demonstrate how the proposed location of the dock minimizes impacts to seagrass beds and other native shoreline vegetation. The mangroves along the shoreline, based on the proposed dock, would be impacted. The terminal platform portion of the dock could be extended further into the water so that only the access walkway impacts existing mangroves. This would reduce current and future mangrove impacts while keeping the total structure still within 25% of the width of the waterbody. The petitioner has not elected to further minimize impacts to native vegetation along the shoreline because that would require even a greater boat dock extension request. (See mangrove Trim Plan page 6) A submerged resources survey was conducted on July 3, 2014. No submerged resources were found in or near the project site. BDE-PL20150000039, Page 4 of 11 232 Barefoot Beach Blvd.Dock Extension. HEX Hearing March 10,2016 J ki 0 liri; VI ' ,L. N g IT1 "Ir' Lu X i T11 Li . il 12 w 0 5 * t;:;`16,-. ig 4t-k ! 1 I 111- 1 \ 'll ' Ai X 1: 8 ji 1 , fig Nit\ I P 007 V ,I 2 a Isdra.1 ill'glb i g / , \ "as ta . ItX 1 1 A vi -GO / C4 I' JA1V \ --..1 -4, ..- ...,4 ... i N \ . \ . — 16 i. , .,,,), • , I \ i f gi Pc 1 g i ii RA N i • is° it. 11 I ti r I 1 . . , 1 sr4 - Dock Concept Plan BDE-PL20150000039, Page 5 of 11 232 Barefoot Beach Blvd. Dock Extension. HEX Hearing March 10,2016 ii c if,° i w U . . . �` Wit_ ...,------Z---4=1 " tai i i j ' 11 til Si lj: c9' i 8. 11 \ 1 2E- 'itigil . Iii -* ..r vi \ a > ,rz . al .,,,,,,,___I di C>L" .9 el 8 \ c, w ih. J , s \><cs.- = 112 iT. g •4 'EgzgEl . 4..31 m ie lb . .„ .... \ . - .14' 3 .4 Icsiii PG ,.i. bi r. ig 'So :§0 -2 1.#44111, / \\ ,v15\.,.2. ..,_ ::. f t t. 5 -�� fir . 4,, *7/%7' ,kM \t .m q ./ 1, te ir-- 01, i .2ig , g. 4 dA k ` b- , fY }'� ` ".: 0'3 gl El iN �f,¢fin tf'l ' d/ P Y' q'L"xb Ry '.: l -,,,,- ;:cii4 I gto• —lig ,,,, 11 -i � 1/�7 ^r.].! : / \ g / / \\40,1) g tti Mannrove Trim Plan BDE-PL.20150000039, Page 6 of 11 232 Barefoot Beach Blvd.Dock Extension. HEX Hearing March 10,2016 STAFF COMMENTS: The Collier County Hearing Examiner (HEX) shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny, a dock facility extension request based on the following criteria. In order for the HEX to approve this request, it must be determined 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 H of the LDC and finds the following: 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. This is a single-family use and the applicant contends that one slip is being used, as depicted, according to the plan. 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 not met. According to the petitioner's application the water depth in this area of Little Hickory Bay is not shallow and does have adequate depth to accommodate the mooring of the proposed vessel within the LDC 20 foot protrusion limit. 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 dock facility will not adversely impact navigation on Little Hickory Bay and other docks in the neighboring area are for the most part comparable in length. BDE-PL20150000039, Page 7 of 11 232 Barefoot Beach Blvd.Dock Extension. HEX Hearing March 10,2016 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. The information provided in the application indicates that the proposed dock will protrude 42.8 feet into a waterway that is 223 feet in width (shoreline to shoreline). Therefore the dock facility will protrude approximately 5 percent of the waterway width which means that it meets this criterion. 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. As shown in the drawings submitted by the petitioner, the proposed dock, boat lift, and vessel will be located approximately 40 feet from the south riparian line and approximately 30 feet from the north riparian line. With a 25-foot vessel (proposed), the inside location of the proposed boat lift and dock will not interfere with neighboring docks or access. The dock closest to this proposal is approximately 60 feet to the south(see aerial map). 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 shoreline is natural and supports mangroves with a wide fringe allowed to be trimmed under F.S. 4039326 (1) (a). In an effort to preserve the mangroves,a boat dock extension is requested. 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 proposed dock allows for routine maintenance of the vessel and for limited recreation use such as kayak and canoed launching and site temporary storage. BDE-PL20150000039, Page 8 of 11 232 Barefoot Beach Blvd.Dock Extension. HEX Hearing March 10,2016 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.) Criterion met. The subject property contains a linear waterfront that is approximately 104 feet in length according to the application. The total length of the proposed vessel is 25 feet which is less than 50 percent of the waterfront footage. 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 existing mangrove fringe obscures the view of Little Hickory Bay from the first floor of neighboring residences and therefore the proposed dock does not have an impact of their view. 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. No seagrass beds were found within the immediate area. 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 proposed total dock facility consists of one boat lift/slip and is therefore not subject to the provisions of this section. Staff analysis indicates that the request meets four of the five primary criteria. With regard to the six secondary criteria, one of the criteria is found to be not applicable, and the request meets five of the remaining five secondary criteria. The applicant's primary reason for a boat dock extension is for existing mangroves present. BDE-PL20150000039, Page 9 of 11 232 Barefoot Beach Blvd.Dock Extension. HEX Hearing March 10,2016 APPEAL OF BOAT DOCK EXTENSION TO BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS: As to any boat dock extension petition upon which the Hearing Examiner takes action, any party may appeal such final action to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Such appeal shall be filed with the Growth Management Division Administrator within 30 days of the action by the Hearing Examiner. In the event that the petition has been approved by the Hearing Examiner, the applicant shall be advised that he/she proceeds with construction at his/her own risk during this 30-day period. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report for BDE-PL20150000039 on February 18, 2016. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the above findings, staff recommends that the Hearing Examiner approve Petition BDE-PL20150000039. I I I � I � BDE-PL20150000039, Page 10 of 11 232 Barefoot Beach Blvd.Dock Extension. HEX Hearing March 10,2016 PREPARED BY: DANIEL J. SMITH, P4INCIPA1 PLANNER DATE ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: RAYMOND V. BELLOWS,ZONING MANAGER DATE ZONING DIVISION .2-18- i4. MICHAEL BOSI, AICP. DIRECTOR DATE ZONING DIVISION BDE-PL20150000039, t ale 232 Barefoot Beach Blvd.Dock Extension. HEX Hearing March 10.2016 • Boat Dock Extension Petition BD-PL20150000039 Completed Application Applicant A. Douglas Brodman Location 232 Barefoot Beach Blvd. • Bayfront Gardens Lot 6 Proposed project is to construct a (410)sq. ft. private single family dock with a single boat slip with a 7,000 lb. capacity boat lift to accommodate a (25) pleasure craft. We are requesting a (22.8)foot extension beyond the maximum allowed of 20 feet for a total protrusion of (42.8) feet from the most restrictive point.The total over water structure is (410)sq.feet.The vessel has a beam of 8' 6" and a hull draft of(1.25)feet with the motor up and (2.5)feet down. Planning Coordinator at the time, was Michael Sawyer Current Principal Planner, Daniel J. Smith,AICP Agent for the Applicant: David Turley ADK Permitting Solutions, LLC • Co er County COWER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE . GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.coiliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 DOCK FACILITY EXTENSION OR BOATHOUSE ESTABLISHMENT PETITION APPLICATION AND SUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS LDC Section 5.03.06 Chapter 3 8.of the Administrative Code The following information is intended to guide the applicant through the application and public hearing process for a Dock Facility Extension or Boathouse Establishment Petition. Prior to submitting the Dock Facility Extension or Boathouse Establishment Petition application, the applicant shall attend a pre-application meeting to determine if a dock facility extension or boathouse establishment is available and to discuss the location, length/protrusion, and configuration of the proposed boat dock facility. The pre-application fee is $500.00 and will be credited toward application fee upon submittal. If the application is not submitted within 9 months of the pre-application meeting the pre-app fee will be forfeited and will not be credited toward the application fee. In order for the application to be processed,all accompanying materials(see attached submittal checklist) shall be completed and submitted with the application.The application fee for a Dock • Facility Extension or Boathouse Establishment is $1,500.00, plus $925.00 for required legal advertising. After submission of the completed application packet, accompanied with the required fees, the applicant will receive a response notifying that the petition is being processed. Accompanying that response will be a receipt for the payment and the tracking number (i.e., BDE- PL20120000000) assigned to the petition. This petition tracking number should be noted on all future correspondence regarding the petition. Pursuant to the LDC and the Administrative Code, several public notice requirements shall be completed within the required time frames. The Planning and Zoning Department will provide, at the cost of the applicant, legal notification to surrounding property owners within 500 feet of the subject property and newspaper advertisement (required 15 days prior to the advertised Hearing Examiner hearing date). The applicant will be notified by email of the hearing date and will receive a copy of the Staff Report. It is recommended, but not required, that the applicant or the agent attend the Hearing Examiner hearing. Please contact the Growth Management Division at 252-2400 for further assistance completing this application. • 6/3/2014 Page 1 of 7 Corner County COWER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 DOCK FACILITY EXTENSION OR BOATHOUSE ESTABLISHMENT PETITION LDC Section 5.03.06 Ch.3 B.of the Administrative Code THIS PETITION IS FOR(check one): Q DOCK EXTENSION ❑ BOATHOUSE PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME To be completed by staff DATE PROCESSED APPLICANT INFORMATION Applicant(s): A. Douglas Brodman Address: 232 Barefoot Bch Blvd city: Bonita Springs state: Florida ZIP: 34134 Telephone: (239) 910-1660 Cell: n/a Fax: n/a E-Mail Address: adbrodman@gmail.com Name of Agent: David Turley • Firm: ADK Permitting Solutions, LLC Address: PO Box 111385 city: Naples state: Florida ZIP: 34108 Telephone: (239) 273-9846 cell: n/a Fax: n/a E-Mail Address: d.turley07@gmail.com PROPERTY LOCATION Section/Township/Range: 06 /48 j25 Property I.D.Number: 23095000607 Subdivision: Bayfroont Gardens Unit: Lot: 06 Block: Address/General Location of Subject Property: 232 Barefoot Bch Blvd, / Lely Barefoot Beach Development Current Zoning and Land use of Subject Property: PUD I Single Family Residence BE AWARE THAT COLLIER COUNTY HAS LOBBYIST REGULATIONS.GUIDE YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY AND ENSURE THAT YOU ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THESE REGULATIONS. . 6/3/2014 Page 2 of 7 er County COWER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE • GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE Zoning Land Use N PUD/BD-03-AR-4392 Single Family Residence S PUD Single Family Residence Waterway/PUD Little Hickory Bay W Barefoot Bch Blvd/ROW/PUD Single Family Residence DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Narrative description of project(indicate extent of work,new dock,replacement,addition to existing facility,any other pertinent information): Request a 22.8 foot extension beyond the allowable 20 feet to construct a 410 sq.ft.private single family dock to accommodate a 25 foot vessel in a boat slip with a lift.A(4 x 36)foot walk extends perpendicular to the shore with 2-(25)foot finger piers perpendicular to the walkway. SITE INFORMATION • 1. Waterway Width: 223+/- ft. Measurement from❑plat ®survey ❑visual estimate ❑ other(specify) 2. Total Property Water Frontage: 104.1 ft, 3. Setbacks: Provided; 30.1 R ft. 40.8 L ft. Required: 15 ft. 4. Total Protrusion of Proposed Facility into Water: 42.8 ft. 5. Number and Length of Vessels to use Facility: 1. 25 ft. 2. ft. 3. ft. 6. List any additional dock facilities in close proximity to the subject property and indicate the total protrusion into the waterway of each: Docks in Bayfront Gardens: Lot 4 is 34', Lot 5 is 44',Lot 7 is 20'+, Lot 15 is 40';Docks across the bay that extend out from a rip-rap seawall are Lot 18 is 32'and Lot 19 is 29' 7. Signs are required to be posted for all petitions. On properties that are 1 acre or larger In size, the applicant shall be responsible for erecting the required sign. What is the size of the petitioned property? 0.23 Acres 8. Official Interpretations or Zoning Verifications: To your knowledge,has there been an official interpretation or zoning verification rendered on • this property within the last year? ❑Yes XQ No If yes,please provide copies. 6/3/2014 Page 3 of 7 Co er County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 • www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 PRIMARY CRITERIA The following criteria, pursuant to LDC section 5.03.06, shall be used as a guide by staff in determining its recommendation to the Office of the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner will utilize the following criteria as a guide in the decision to approve or deny a particular Dock Extension request. In order for the Hearing Examiner to approve the request, it must be determined that at least 4 of the 5 primary criteria, and at least 4 of the 6 secondary criteria, must be met. On separate sheets, please provide a narrative response to the listed criteria and/or questions. 1. Whether or not 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.) 2. Whether or not the water depth at the proposed site is so shallow that a vessel of the general length, type, and draft as that described in the petitioner's application is unable to launch or moor at mean low tide(MLT). (The petitioner's application and survey should show that the water depth is too shallow to allow launch and mooring of the vessel(s)described without an extension.) • 3. Whether or not 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.) 4. Whether or not the proposed dock facility protrudes no more than 25 percent of the width of the waterway, and whether or not a minimum of 50 percent of the waterway width between dock facilities on either side of the waterway is maintained for navigability. (The facility should maintain the required percentages.) 5. Whether or not the proposed location and design of the dock facility is such that the facility would not interfere with the use of neighboring docks. (The facility should not interfere with the use of legally permitted neighboring docks.) • 6/3/2014 Page 4 of 7 Co er County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE . GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 SECONDARY CRITERIA 1. Whether or not there are special conditions, not involving water depth, related to the subject property or waterway, which justify the proposed dimensions and location of the proposed dock facility. (There must be at least one special condition related to the property; these may include type of shoreline reinforcement,shoreline configuration, mangrove growth,or seagrass beds.) 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.) 3. For single-family dock facilities, whether or not the length of the vessel, or vessels in combination, described by the petitioner exceeds 50 percent of the subject property's linear waterfront footage. (The applicable maximum percentage should be maintained.) 4. Whether or not the proposed facility would have a major impact on the waterfront view of neighboring waterfront property owners. (The facility should not have a major impact on the view of either property owner.) 5. Whether or not seagrass beds are located within 200 feet of the proposed dock facility. (If seagrass beds are present,compliance with LDC subsection 5.03.06 I must be demonstrated.) • 6. Whether or not the proposed dock facility is subject to the manatee protection requirements of LDC subsection 5.03.06 E.11. (If applicable, compliance with subsection 5.03.06.E.11 must be demonstrated.) • 6/3/2014 Page 5 of 7 BDE-PL20150000039 • Brodman Boat Dock Extension Primary Criteria and Responses 1. Whether or not 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 case of unbridged barrier island docks,additional slips may be appropriate.) The proposed project is to construct a private single family dock to facilitate the mooring of 25-foot motor vessel with a boat lift in a single slip, which is appropriate in relation to the 104.1 linear feet of water frontage, which is typical for a single family residence and zoned PUD. 2. Whether or not the water depth at the proposed site is so shallow that a vessel of the general length, type, and draft as that described in the petitioner's application is unable • to launch or moor at mean low tide (MLT). (The petitioner's application and survey should show that the water depth is to shallow to allow launch and mooring of the vessel (s) described without an extension) The water depth at this location is not a factor (please refer to the attached drawings) hence this criteria would not be met. 3. Whether or not the proposed dock facility may have 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.) The dock facility will not adversely impact navigation due to the width of the existing waterway that does not have any marked navigable channels and has ample water depth is >7-feet at Mean Low Water. Page 1of2 • BDE-PL20150000039 • Primary Criteria and Responses: (continued) 4. Whether or not the proposed dock facility protrudes no more than 25%of the width of the waterway, and whether or not a minimum of 50% of the waterway width between dock facilities on either side of the waterway is maintained of navigability. (The facility should maintain the required percentages). The proposed dock protrudes a total of 42.8-feet (19.2 percent) into a waterway, from the most restrictive point, that is approximately 223+/- feet in width as provided on the survey. The dock on the opposite shoreline protrudes 31 feet (13.9 percent) therefore. 149.2-feet (66.9 percent)of navigable waterway will be maintained exceeding the minimum (50 percent) required. 5. Whether or not the proposed location and design of the dock facility is such that the facility • would not interfere with the use of neighboring docks. (The facility should not interfere with the use of legally permitted neighboring docks.) The proposed dock has a side setback of 30.1 feet(left)or 94.5-feet from the adjacent dock to the north and a 40.8 foot (right) setback or a distant of 66.8-feet from the dock to the south. The proposed dock will not interfere with the use of the neighboring docks.(Refer to page 1 of 5, `Boundary Map "for neighboring dock locations) Page 2 of 2 • BDE-PL20150000039 Secondary Criteria and Responses 1. Whether or not there are special conditions, not involving water depth, related to the subject property or waterway, which justify the proposed dimensions and location of the proposed dock facility. (There must be at least one special condition related to the property; these may include type of shoreline reinforcement, shoreline configuration, mangrove growth,or seagrass beds.) The shoreline is natural, not hardened, and supports mangroves with a wide fringe allowed to be trimmed under F.S. 403.9326(1)(a). The proposed dock is centrally located and angled out far enough as not to harm or interfere with the mangrove roots.(Please refer to the drawings and overlay exhibit) • 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.) The proposed dock design allows for routine maintenance of the vessel and for limited recreational use,such as kayak/canoe launching and retrieval and on site temporary storage. 3. For single-family dock facilities,whether or not the length of the vessel or vessels in combination,described by the petitioner exceeds 50%of the subject property's linear waterfront footage.The applicable maximum percentage should be maintained. The length of the vessel is 25-feet (24 percent) of the property's 104.1 linear feet of waterfront footage which is less than 50 percent of the property's shoreline. Page 1 of 2 11111 • BDE-PL20150000039 Secondary Criteria and Responses (continued) 4. Whether or not the proposed facility would have a major impact on the waterfront view of the neighboring waterfront property owners. (The facility should not have a major impact on the view of either property owner.) The existing mangrove fringe obscures the view of Little Hickory Bay from the first floor of the neighboring residences and would not have an impact of their view. (Please refer to attached photographs) 5. Whether or not seagrass beds are located within 200 feet of the proposed dock facility. (If • seagrass beds are present, compliance with LDC subsection 5.03.06 I of this code must be demonstrated.) No seagrass beds were noted within the immediate area. (Please refer to the Submerged Resource Survey provided by Turrell, Hall and Associates) 6. Whether or not the proposed dock facility is subject to the manatee protection requirements LDC subsection 5.03.06 E.11. (If applicable, compliance with the subsection 5.03.06.E.11 must be demonstrated.) This is a single family dock facility with one boat slip and is not subject to the requirements of the Manatee Protection Plan as stated in the above referenced code. 1111 Page 2 of 2 Coffer County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE . GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 Pre-Application Meeting and Final Submittal Requirement Checklist for: Dock Extension Boathouse Chapter 3 B.of the Administrative Code The following Submittal Requirement Checklist Is to be utilized during the Pre-Application Meeting, and at time of application submittal. At time of submittal,the checklist is to be completed and submitted with the application packet. Please provide the submittal items in the exact order listed below, with cover sheets attached to each section. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted. REQUIREMENTS FOR REVIEW COPIES REQUIRED REQU ED Completed Application(download current form from County website) 6 wi ip... ❑ Signed and Sealed Survey ® wi ❑ Chart of Site Waterway g , <►: ❑ Site Plan Illustration with the following: • Lot dimensions; • Required setbacks for the dock facility; • Cross section showing relation to MHW/MLW and shoreline (bank,seawall,or rip-rap revetment); • Configuration,location,and dimensions of existing and proposed 6 Fiir ❑ • facility; • Water depth where proposed dock facility is to be located; • Distance of navigable channel; • Illustration of the contour of the property;and • Illustration of dock facility from both an aerial and side view. Affidavit of Authorization,signed and notarized 1 Yli ❑ Completed Addressing Checklist 1 5! ❑ Electronic copy of all required documents *Please advise:The Office of the Hearing Examiner requires all materials I2 X ❑ to be submitted electronically in PDF format. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS: • Following the completion of the review process by County review staff, the applicant shall submit all materials electronically to the designated project manager. • Please contact the project manager to confirm the number of additional copies required. • 6/3/2014 Page 6 of 7 a) 'LI 76 E 0 c co c Q C -O 1n o W • °� o >. 4 a cu '4 \".1 c > w u co c cu U CD ee 1-44 111 QCI C U c y W `+ 2 O N w 4 C L U E CL ) Q C X (7 a) cu a) o v1 0 > rn a CO ro 1y Q m 0 oZ c " 3 �^ a °' � � � cY o � x2 $ O v �, u c C7 c C o _ C a) x dlb c 8 U N 2 g v, E a., m d . y a 7 ro L p N C co c c C) _t = .... a-• c^ NLiu m o '> 3 w o o C it 9- a1 z d y z v °C _� 1Y° C a) O m Tii 6.1N Z N O c myl u Y co O p 0 v1 M m i p OH ! -43 tv y a H cn x I D s '' �, r O a c •+,, W C6 ►� � ❑ ❑❑ ❑ ❑❑ 0) 4. co � (13� °- +�►03 m � o � O o $ cu c _ c tA c • 4 c p o $ c c a) y U z y1 f6 W E Q Y ` ri C L U co) Z o 000 a c E «+ a a FO > C Q ir„ t 0 Da �+ ^O `gyp- N O ca Z a) a) v c c N G) s+ o 0_ Z N1 rvi .1.2 .c, int c w oo c X o 05 C p m a a) tu p� W > F- m C . .L.: c O la' .0 C1 y al 4.4 +c+2 5 Q Z — F- c c N tL O v m 41) fo `�: _C .->, a'=•+ O > W E" CO, `p O a 1�ii N > m Q t%f 8 d to E el C It t1'� a) C y- a) c F- J C N to •p a) 0 0 �, U_ a) iri .> T O c /0 Q Z -Y 13 0 W -p U a) m L.- a) of C 1.. N a) ,- TO .t_' L7 c t7 O .• a oo C o m bo w O r :� d0 N -. COiy Q • Z N co v u, c z G a) C 2 p to ^p c E 4. = Z t � > z y m > Q aa) to r • c • t° to r o a Y a) C `o a C o —�„ CRI: CU VI O o OU = . W • i• >, E 1 c , v ,A 'oo t = CO W Q x 03 N •C i F- !' w z rt) cg � cgu° 1LW W a d .�c E UU lcc 7 g ElQ❑ ❑ DIA CI ❑❑ IL LL ii u c 1n V O • Co County COWER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.collieraov.net (239)252-2400 Pre-Application Meeting Notes �� ( Petition Type: f� h .C� •t•�n Date and Time: 1 .2-( • ► j ® 1d•-e: Assigned Planner: t Engineering Manager(for PPL's and FP's): Project Information Project Name: PL#: FL• ?l `j Property ID#: 1 51'�a :51"Current Zonin : Project Address: 2 T City: State:V... Zip: Applicant: A. L :11.RE 9915 • Agent Name: rD Phone: Agent/Firm Address: City: State: Zip: Property Owner: Please provide the following,if applicable: i. Total Acreage: ii. Proposed#of Residential Units: iii. Proposed Commercial Square Footage: iv. For Amendments,indicate the original petition number: v. If there is an Ordinance or Resolution associated with this project, please indicate the type and number: vi. If the project Is within a Plat, provide the name and AR#/PL#: • Co County COLUER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 Meeting Notes , • Ail / I / - At� t / ,s / I?11i ,e4 II / 0I • . / ° .1.1:41 / .��/ °' • ,/ /ll 1 I' i/ T t2 41 0 //, / W) 1 / ,, 6' / /' / 4/ AUAL 1 • "" / 401f OAvi.A � �,; • I, p/ , , I • 61riGE `( 1 4ticcuigliza County COWER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.collergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 Pre-Application Meeting and Final Submittal Requirement Checklist for: 4 Dock Extension Boathouse Chapter 3 B.of the Administrative Code The following Submittal Requirement Checklist is to be utilized during the Pre-Application Meeting, and at time of application submittal. At time of submittal,the checklist is to be completed and submitted with the application packet. Please provide the submittal items in the exact order listed below, with cover sheets attached to each section. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted. REQUIREMENTS FOR REVIEW OF REQUIRED NOT COPIES REQUIRED Completed Application(download current form from County website) 6 E ❑ Signed and Sealed Survey ® �� ❑ Chart of Site Waterway ❑ Site Plan Illustration with the following: • Lot dimensions; • Required setbacks for the dock facility; • Cross section showing relation to MHW/MLW and shoreline (bank,seawall,or rip-rap revetment); • Configuration,location,and dimensions of existing and proposed 6 [52( ❑ • facility; • Water depth where proposed dock facility is to be located; • Distance of navigable channel; • Illustration of the contour of the property;and • Illustration of dock facility from both an aerial and side view. Affidavit of Authorization,signed and notarized 1 'A 0 Completed Addressing Checklist 1 �( ❑ Electronic copy of all required documents •Please advise:The Office of the Hearing Examiner requires all materials it2 X ❑ to be submitted electronically in PDF format. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PUBUC HEARING PROCESS: • Following the completion of the review process by County review staff, the applicant shall submit all materials electronically to the designated project manager. • Please contact the project manager to confirm the number of additional copies required. • 6/3/2014 Page 6 of 7 • 9& Y COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 PLANNERS—INDICATE IF THE PETITION NEEDS TO BE ROUTED TO THE FOLLOWING REVIEWERS: ❑ Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment: Environmental Review:See Pre-Application Executive Director Meeting Sign-In Sheet cg, Addressing:Annis Moxam Graphics:Mariam Ocheltree ❑ city of Naples:Robin Singer,Planning Director Historical Review ❑ Comprehensive Planning:See Pre-Application Meeting Sign In Sheet ❑ Immokalee Water/Sewer District: ❑ Conservancy of SWFL:Nichole Ryan Parks and Recreation;Vicky Ahmad gCounty Attorney's Office:Heidi Ashton-Cicko Transportation Pathways:Stacey Revay ❑ Emergency Management:Dan Summers;and/or ❑ School District(Residential Components):Amy EMS:Artie Bay Heartlock ❑ Engineering:Alison Bradford _❑ Transportation Planning:John Podczerwinsky ❑ Other: ❑ Utilities Engineering:Kris VanLengen FEE REQUIREMENTS: Boat Dock Extension Petition:$1,500.00 Estimated Legal Advertising fee for the Office of the Hearing Examiner:$925.00 L� An additional fee for property owner notifications will be billed to the applicant prior to the / Hearing Examiner hearing date. • As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package.I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this petition. Signature of Petitioner or Agent Date • 6/3/2014 Page 7 of 7 • Pre-Application Meeting Sign-In Sheet. PL.#: —24c=11 , Collier County Contact Information: Name Review Discipline Phone Email ❑_, David Anthony Environmental Review 252-2497 davidanthony@colliergov.net q//Summer Araque Environmental Review 252-6290 summerbrownaraque@colliergov.net ❑ Alison Bradford,P.E. Engineering Services 252-6820 alisonbradford@colliergov.net ❑ Mark Burtchin ROW Permitting 252-5165 markburtchin@colliergov.net ❑ George Cascio Utility Billing 252-5543 georgecascio@colliergov.net O Heidi Ashton Cicko Managing Asst.County Attorney 252-8773 heidiashton@colliergov.net ❑ Kay Deselem,AICP Zoning Services 252-2931 kaydeselem@colliergov.net ❑ Paula Fleishman Impact Fee Administration 252-2924 paulafleishman@colliergov.net ❑ Michael Gibbons Structural/Residential Plan Review 252-2426 michaelgibbons@colliergov.net ❑ Nancy Gundlach,AICP,PLA Zoning Services , 252-2484 nancygundlach@colliergov.net ❑ John Houldsworth Engineering Services 252-5757 johnhouldsworth@colliergov.net ❑ Marcia Kendall Comprehensive Planning 252-2387 marciakendall@colliergov.net O Reed Jarvi,P.E. Transportation Planning 252-5849 reedjarvi@colliergov.net ❑ Stephen Lenberger Environmental Review 252-2915 stevelenberger@colliergov.net ❑ Paulo Martins Utilities 252-4285 paulomartins@colliergov.net • ❑ Jack McKenna,P.E. Engineering Services 252-2911 jackmckenna@colliergov.net ❑ Matt McLean,P.E. Principal Project Manager 252-8279 matthewmciean@colliergov.net O Gilbert Moncivaiz Utility Impact Fees 2524215 gilbertmoncivaiz@colliergov.net ❑ Michele Mosca,AICP Comprehensive Planning 252-2466 michelemosca@colliergov.net ❑ Annis Moxam Addressing 252-5519 annismoxam@colliergov.net ❑ Mariam Ocheltree Graphics 252-2315 mariamocheltree@colliergov.net ❑ Brandy Otero Transit 252-5859 brandyotero@colliergov.net ❑ John Podczerwinsky Transportation Planning 252-5890 johnpodczerwinsky@colliergov.net O Brandi Pollard Utility Impact fees 252-6237 brandipollard@colliergov.net ❑ Fred Reischl,AICP Zoning Services 252-4211 fredreischl@colliergov.net ❑ Stacy Revay Transportation Pathways 252-5677 stacyrevay@colliergov.net ❑ Brett Rosenblum,P.E. Utility Plan Review 252-2905 brettrosenblum@colliergov.net Michael Sawyer Zoning Services 252-2926 michaelsawyer@colliergov.net ❑ Corby Schmidt,AICP Comprehensive Planning 252-2944 corbyschmidt@colliergov.net ❑ Chris Scott Planning and Zoning 252-2460 chrisscott@colliergov.net ❑ Daniel Smith,AICP Landscape Review 252-4312 danielsmith@colliergov.net X Scott Stone Assistant County Attorney 252-8400 scottstone@colliergov.net Mark Strain Hearing Examiner/CCPC 252-4446 markstrain@colliergov.net Carolina Valera Comprehensive Planning 252-8498 carolinavalera@colliergov.net O Kris VanLengen Utility Planning 252-5366 krisvanlengen@colliergov.net ❑ Jon Walsh Building Review 252-2962 jonathonwalsh@colliergov.net • ❑ David Weeks,AICP Future Land Use Consistency 252-2306 davidweeks@colliergov.net O Kirsten Wilkie Planning and Zoning 252-5518 kirstenwilkie@colliergov.net Co er County ip COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 PLANNING AND REGULATION (239)252-2400 FAX (239)252-5724 WWW.COLLIERGOV_NET ADDRESSING CHECKLIST Please complete the following and fax to the Operations Department at 239-252-5724 or submit in person to the Addressing Department at the above address. Form must be signed by Addressing personnel prior to ore- application meeting, please allow 3 days for procession. Not all items will apply to every project Items in bold type are required. FOUO NUMBERS MUST BE PROVIDED. Forms older than 6 months will require additional review and approval by the Addressing Department. PETITION TYPE(indicate type below, complete a separate Addressing Checklist for each Petition type) ❑ BL(Blasting Permit) 0 SDP(Site Development Plan) II BD(Boat Dock Extension) ❑ SDPA(SDP Amendment) ❑ Camival/Circus Permit 0 SDPI(Insubstantial Change to SDP) ❑ CU (Conditional Use) ❑ SIP(Site Improvement Plan) ❑ EXP(Excavation Permit) 0 SIPI(Insubstantial Change to SIP) ❑ FP(Final Plat 0 SNR(Street Name Change) ❑ LLA(Lot Line Adjustment) ❑ SNC(Street Name Change—Unpiatted) ❑ PNC(Project Name Change) 0 TDR(Transfer of Development Rights) ❑ PPL(Plans&Plat Review) 0 VA(Variance) ❑ PSP(Preliminary Subdivision Plat) ❑ VRP(Vegetation Removal Permit) • ❑ PUD Rezone 0 VRSFP(Vegetation Removal&Site Fill Permit) ❑ RZ(Standard Rezone) 0 OTHER LEGAL DESCRIPTION of subject property or properties(copy of lengthy description may be attached) Bayfront Gardens Lot 6 Section 06, Township 48 S, Range 25 E FOUO(Property ID)NUMBER(s)of above(attach to,or associate with, legal description if more than one) 23095000607 STREET ADDRESS or ADDRESSES(as applicable, if already assigned) 232 Barefoot Beach Blvd. • LOCATION MAP must be attached showing exact location of project/site in relation to nearest public road right- of-way • SURVEY(copy -needed only for unplatted properties) PROPOSED PROJECT NAME(if applicable) PROPOSED STREET NAMES(if applicable) SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN NUMBER(for existing projects/sites only) • SDP - or AR or PL# Cofer County • . COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 PLANNING AND REGULATION (239)252-2400 FAX (239)252-5724 WWW.COLUERGOV.NET Project or development names proposed for,or already appearing in,condominium documents(if application; indicate whether proposed or existing) Please Check One: ❑ Checklist is to be Faxed back ® Personally Picked Up APPLICANT NAME: A. Douglas Brodman and Teresa A. Bradman PHONE (239) 910-1660 FAX email: adbrodman@gmail.com Signature on Addressing Checklist does not constitute Project and/or Street Name approval and is subject to further review by the Operations Department. • - I FOR STAFF USE ONLY FLN Number(Primary) 2305150/96‘07 Folio Number Folio Number Folio Number Approved by: w%.I _ 1_ .1 , L o .._ Date: / - 22-14 Updated by: Date: IF OLDER THAN 6 MONTHS, FORM MUST BE UPDATED OR NEW FORM SUBMITTED • 141 r- o •,y; . N 0 z IS, 'nitglial.,9 z $a X ..i ,.. ,,.. 1 . . 1 0 < . (t 1 2 . ; f ,.. ).- Pl::... irl:: ." rt"e -.4, — z ).- Z vv.._ .w% H ., O ,4 ,. , , ,,,,, .I' ''''''' Z -.0*•,;., 4 y.. -* . ;, ., -o :,.. `..?.. , i a . ...,. c., r. -11'n.n:1 0 > tritTet,l-ir. $.,-, .orie,,:tit N: 0 ,•'*'''' 4' .4er- 4 t4t, 0 0 • .,,, . . 1 , "),,N• 1 _....,..._ .... •....,cr 2 e5 _1 _ z ..: - ft, o II; C_ .,:r <0 -, 0 , z ry U.I uj I GO 11 c17) CL cre Z Z . • < LU . 02- ›- !-- cn t U.I D 0 Q. P. 0 C) ‘4Ik 0 2 izt i 0 •„.. u.. ?.. 1 >. t., zn ..._ ty .... , ..... c., 0 , 01111, Y Z 0 ' C < - —,..- ,---,t, 0 , re 0 0 * 0• -1 CD-J CC 0 IX)en LL 6 in 0 LL. 0 hi fsl 0 11 U.. r I. 0_ :oru-u iv c 0:‹ co z u) eV 65 0 li Z— 2 LL ,,p: -5. o in Zw (1) D =< z 0 ILI fD D ft I- • ..v) I- wo e i' •:4,:-.2::=. — c 4 cv a) riA V- z _ 0 i=w 2 ,...i z <0 7,”o- a LI , I' aia. mom • , .c.-4 r....) • ... a ' < / • PillIllE''' 111 4 4$1 tw-, w..... 0 g att-1.e ori s . :. - 7 ..- ..0 - --' = I.; 11 "3 -F -c g / 1 iik107:::, 0 =7 _. ILI lialkilf10441;rlikr' ,-; I—, A iilliAllt$0' e,' 0 0 r=, 4 I i 0 Y ... , m a 1111.1111111.. 'MIL An N-,,..., ,,.-to tory 7,1tirnt• W m ` C4,4 CU0 u. R. g II 11-- o a Z Z < < \ ri Wa p_� gyp; qq < o , U \ v Z Fm A Ts 27. o Y g ci, g a F i i ii 1 1 1liltWcz, ~prr tfi+ \ >- tiYo X70. .� �1 0 c1v w fa 1 CIn� ,s b '& R iii...141 it n $i H 14 2� . o� w • Pair- iv J gt ■'T.orn: \ •-r .0 \ n u or t ipiw • 1 J 8 oG't 0 m 4 sola 55 \ o \ ' a • W r U O �J J N \ n ,+� w 1144 $ :11.4.% ,a S' � ego ! inQ Amo `: /00 TI ter `� U .� $Ille q QaQrn Ci3lW/ .r,J ti. . .. IA RI rJJ !,p� S $i.wm/ .��'O! �/ /Ojij r-f Jp6�! �Q 1 1 .}FIA• L 2� i 0. 98 ..:8E i 5 a4 011%.)4S4 '`� • . it,......._ e CoC)0. W m ` C4,4 CU0 u. R. g II 11-- o a Z Z < < \ ri Wa p_� gyp; qq < o , U \ v Z Fm A Ts 27. o Y g ci, g a F i i ii 1 1 1liltWcz, ~prr tfi+ \ >- tiYo X70. .� �1 0 c1v w fa 1 CIn� ,s b '& R iii...141 it n $i H 14 2� . o� w • Pair- iv J gt ■'T.orn: \ •-r .0 \ n u or t ipiw • 1 J 8 oG't 0 m 4 sola 55 \ o \ ' a • W r U O �J J N \ n ,+� w 1144 $ :11.4.% ,a S' � ego ! inQ Amo `: /00 TI ter `� U .� $Ille q QaQrn Ci3lW/ .r,J ti. . .. IA RI rJJ !,p� S $i.wm/ .��'O! �/ /Ojij r-f Jp6�! �Q 1 1 .}FIA• L 2� i 0. 98 ..:8E i 5 a4 011%.)4S4 '`� • . it,......._ e CoC)0. ie 0 1 1.0.4.63 • 4 ocICA • - ... io„ o • • dye 7-17 4 b 5 0=', a -4-: �t i �vi 43 $ T tri I-. V $ il zo , u z M ••ii - !l 0 81 00 6 a w am w tuu ; 11311 i z Z Y¢ n g i7 q m a0 a RIv < r3 a ii221 M i' al A F . p 2 O . F W p,...7 w m 64 0 . + ten to AIJjLF of i ma R 0- o . En -1/ _JSE ti u al < o i tau 11 mama, z u m•,, �� O 4J A6.1 tau M 46 N ow A 4jOW 2 W NIII Ivs 0,,, z a _ vga5 as vi t a G X2N r n k'NR soaiN X 0 u 0 II ooh In <w F O W ffi 7 j T.5a aaa C _ apDN 2 4 d 01 N U w g ,M CNi V1“N v 0 z z U W �V NNW Z •i 0 r�� r7mZ y a 2 i a= �+�vfm 5 wstt-�3 ws ~ v i w zwo n v. ul O U (W� 3 Z 4 d �/1 F' m '�Ili .. mom aro S i Z 2 ~ M =yrjQ t w 7r7� aFH'' �n Kiw a n o A ��� w 6 4 am` 462 c"< F- 5 w N II 3 I.m Zz 1 WZ6 i °QUi c� ©3 o° z z ac=i z riz �= 0,; U (�w r W m U > ag , �/f f 6 W (� C7 O C w W 1 0 o m sWm3OdoC7.II 4 ^ a` t 04.5 `a,..ii / i Z < ( 01 0 a (r) ? A o»u o x by 1�� O f0 U �L, Z w OmW < °�� o A °its 4' is �\G a a 3 2 s�� I-, ltD.igig; wp.0 _ iiese Iii F J \ o UCF2 ( Q cti { H .J A D..3:3 nFa 0 ILL i4�� Q OW e m oa W a o m 'O � a Cr m to z �� ° g ,as 1 re xa r ue �e f. l i y N Q •S-,„`S' 0.v 1 -y v> OO g N i y6.y�j a 0 d d_ • :,fr. 4,4 •Ig `^� ^x ''ss,..,r.. --:':'.'-'" Ati8�� Rii0 � o\ fV x Z Z CC etx Q c� CO tn Z (;:?"411//: m o m a _' W LI- La- 7r W — Ya0 _z a � Q 612 Uu0 Y w _�y tdpo O -� o J a cn Z m O m m i- 0 z tJ x Z 1-,_ H \ fl?—: Q Z ~ Y p xm o 2 W a o 0 0 rt a- N &p w a w m o 1-2WJ H_ N `� J �Zyl i 5- Li J O LA,...t 7_-"J 1..1 7 cc .-- 0 iX En Q 1--- Z W OV) °aW �O Q 4 o ra p�� om cc Z LOI N 0 O a x' 52u.to wo • w - cc a cQ o mm w 1 0 o m sWm3OdoC7.II 4 ^ a` t 04.5 `a,..ii / i Z < ( 01 0 a (r) ? A o»u o x by 1�� O f0 U �L, Z w OmW < °�� o A °its 4' is �\G a a 3 2 s�� I-, ltD.igig; wp.0 _ iiese Iii F J \ o UCF2 ( Q cti { H .J A D..3:3 nFa 0 ILL i4�� Q OW e m oa W a o m 'O � a Cr m to z �� ° g ,as 1 re xa r ue �e f. l i y N Q •S-,„`S' 0.v 1 -y v> OO g N i y6.y�j a 0 d d_ • :,fr. 4,4 •Ig `^� ^x ''ss,..,r.. --:':'.'-'" Ati8�� Rii0 � o\ fV x Z Z CC etx Q c� CO tn Z (;:?"411//: m o m a _' W LI- La- 7r W — Ya0 _z a � Q 612 Uu0 Y w _�y tdpo O -� o J a cn Z m O m m i- 0 z tJ x Z 1-,_ H \ fl?—: Q Z ~ Y p xm o 2 W a o 0 0 rt a- N &p w a w m o 1-2WJ H_ N `� J �Zyl i 5- Li J O LA,...t 7_-"J 1..1 7 cc .-- 0 iX En Q 1--- Z W OV) °aW �O Q 4 o ra p�� om cc Z LOI N 0 O a x' 52u.to wo • w - cc a cQ o mm w 4—: +"i a"'z it CY � � ..� • k �' L _ '"-- ii 1 at z z`-�-< % A' =' u z 8 -- ev w ;o . - S 't.N; 2 Q 3 o azt"Qu r.Ls w Wr .f, �� 3 \ ```D Za E0. _ k�. O 0 �a 4u $ Z 4. [ `y r S a WO II 1 r. Q� t7u r va \ £ a ®„I ss starers, ,x N raNwsssw wsrrsrsss a. ��yyJj \ u OCB {oyff� \ M d '0s • C O ,tea 0 P `y ''''''''.\\‘' ' \ amu; \\ rte:-II, t .t` *°+" R .;/ • 10 • (I) O 0 4 z S LU k) 0 CC 0 Z ti. 0 0 U1 0 i CV -.1 co a. , ---- ); ....A., • a. < / e." 1... iipir ; ..-/ ; /I) a...... -.....-.-..... , V. e• .., 8 ti III i— LU Z T i , Aid / t 0 ._ .....14..4../ P.. .... , -.I , I Z I.- U.I U. I a O ce ,...., I cp: CL. 0 0 C i LU I 2 17- > CO (.0 1- I 0 O 0 CL IX CC CC I (J) LU 13 0 > •--m o 0 0 r- \II\ _ i I CD 0 u- _ I, V) 0 CO .2 a -I o i 1 LU i 1 0 41) (i) W CC Z + H L . t Z CD M 0) L LU -J 1 141 c Z i i ..,r- Z, 0 . ; 1 1 T- 00 N . - 0 0 w CO , 0 CNI `Li) CICO . 03 et) CD -J 8 1 cc N t: < , I— 0 `"-- 0 1 LU I I (i) oi I CL i v i 0 1 1 cr I CL 1 CO \I ,.-- , ... 1 ""'".......4m. 1 CA g gt. --- It N..,..,.. ' 01:3 ILI 1 1-- < to ea - _. 1, --.. + 0 iH..: ' 0 r...,..t 0 St(1.,,,, to i a) a, • r% • ; ' cLF o 10 -§ c w32 413 E0 2 a- , -0 V Hy I_ o x cY y g as tmi R i St t IA kn IU 1 u) _ a d a. Hj y 7 CV p E U} i!? .. ' :46,4) N Cn ^G S 2 D ie.* To ' G ' C ' n S3 y rn `Q� N tir Q1 +p LL �U1 .YCI. LI -IL .-----___ 'a 6 0 I k u ' L _ .a_Ai 1 i Cowl • 1t :: • " I t ti., a . co Q a E 01 v 14 7 1.0 r ts * .::, a E v • l -."e47°- r t ,t 1, .c- - 0 • BRODMAN DOCK 232 BAREFOOT BEACH BLVD NAPLES, FL 34134 SUBMERGED RESOURCE SURVEY JULY 7,2014 • PREPARED BY: TURRELL,HALL&ASSOCIATES,INC 3584 EXCHANGE AVENUE,STE B NAPLES,FL 34104 • lFig,.AMI IN.. -- -.... I il 11 / b !8 1 I --51 I 64 . On ; il 5 . .1 (I) (t >- () CLij ZW • C) X I D < El) ....- .... 1,...-• , .... .7.,., ••••••••00., 0 Ci ,„,,,,,.. .. _ • 6.4 N - a. ,, / „ F g. ,k, 4 - 3 -•Al g ci, .,. . 4" I • ca r°3 ". 6..c .. i. 11 II . . . .. PI I . 11. 4i , 46. .,, . , 411FAIEL' V *0.* ' ' .11 IP- — , . - 4 /\ A ............ , „....................„. ,..,..,„..... r i 1 BRODMAN RESIDENCE SUBMERGED RESOURCE SURVEY • JULY 7,2014 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Bradman residence and associated proposed docking facility is located at 232 Barefoot Beach Blvd, identified by Parcel Number 23095000607. The property is located off Barefoot Beach Blvd just south of Bonita Beach Road, bound to the west by Barefoot Beach Blvd,bound to the east by a Little Hickory Bay, and bound to the south and north by a single-family residence. The property is located in Section 06,Township 48 South, and Range 25 East. The upland portion of the property is a single-family residence. Turrell, Hall & Associates was contracted to provide environmental permitting services and one aspect is the associated Submerged Resource Survey (SRS). This survey will provide planning and review assistance to both owners and agency reviewers in regards to proposed project. The proposed project consists of constructing a single-family dock within Little Hickory Bay. The SRS survey was conducted on July 3, 2014. Light southeast winds and mostly clear skies resulted in visible access to the entire project area. Surface water conditions on this day were calm which also helped to provide fair environmental conditions for the survey. The water temperature was 83°F. High tide occurred at 6:09 A.M (1.9') and low tide • occurred at 12:07 P.M(0.9')on the date of the survey. 2.0 OBJECTIVE The objective of the submerged resource survey was to identify and locate any existing submerged resources within the limits of the proposed project. The survey provided onsite environmental information to help determine if the proposed project would impact any existing submerged resources and if so would assist in reconfiguring the proposed dock in order to minimize any impacts. The general scope of work performed at the site is summarized below. • Turrell,Hall &Associates personnel conducted a site visit and I snorkeled these transects within the proposed project basin and verified the location of any submerged resources. • Turrell, Hall & Associates personnel identified submerged resources at the site, estimated the % of coverage, and delineated the approximate limits of any submerged resources observed. • Turrell, Hall & Associates personnel delineated limits via a handheld GPS (Garmin Model 76csx). • Page 1 of 3 BRODMAN RESIDENCE SUBMERGED RESOURCE SURVEY JULY 7,2014 3.0 METHODOLOGY Turrell, Hall & Associates biologists intentionally designed the methodology of the SRS to cover the entire property shoreline for the proposed dock installation. The components for this survey included: • Review of aerial photography of survey area • Establish survey transects lines overlaid onto aerials • Physically swim transects, GPS locate limits of submerged resources, and determine approximate percent of coverage •Document and photograph all findings The surveyed area was evaluated systematically by following the established transects spaced approximately 10-feet apart as shown on the attached exhibit. The neighboring properties have existing docks which provided easily identifiable reference markers,such as dock piles which assisted in locating transects and keeping them consistent throughout most of the survey area. One biologist walked/swam these transects using snorkel equipment where needed within the surveyed area. The other individual assisted with compiling notes and documenting findings on aerials. Located submerged resources were photographed, the approximate percent of coverage was quantified,and the location was delineated on an aerial photo as well as confirmed via handheld GPS (Garmin Model 72H). The biologists used a half meter square quadrant further broken into sections by cordage to make coverage estimates easier. 4.0 RESULTS The substrate found within the surveyed area included two distinct classifications; silt sand with shell debris and just silt/muck material scattered throughout. These substrates were found scattered throughout the surveyed area. There was also scattered shell debris mostly observed along the property shoreline which consisted of red mangroves and scattered rip-rap both of which provide habitat for numerous fish, crabs, and barnacles, growing on and around the mangrove roots. The majority of the survey area exhibited a silt/muck bottom that was devoid of any aquatic vegetation growth or any types of submerged resources. The lack of any submerged resources is most likely due to the overall water quality within Little Hickory Bay as well as the water clarity not allowing much sunlight penetration. This was most evident in the deeper water depths. Page 2 of 3 • BRODMAN RESIDENCE SUBMERGED RESOURCE SURVEY • Jun,7,2014 Various filamentous algae and macro algae were observed and documented growing along the bottom sediments throughout the survey area. Also observed were numerous fish species during the survey and a list of these species has been prepared and is provided below as Table 1. Table 1 —Observed Fish Species Common Name Scientific Name mangrove snapper Lutjanus griseus sheepshead Archosargus probatocephalus striped mullet Mugil cephalus snook Centrompus undecimalis jack crevalle Caranx hippos 5.0 CONCLUSIONS The submerged resource survey at the site yielded few findings. Barnacles were observed growing on the mangrove roots and existing dock piles. The subject property shoreline consists of mangroves which provide natural cover. This mangrove area was • where all the observed fish species were located including: Gray Snapper (Lutjanus griseus), Sheepshead (Archosargus probatocephalus), Stripped Mullet (Mugil cephalus), and a few Common Snooks(Centropomus undecimalis). Negative impacts to submerged resources are not expected with the proposed docking facility installation. 11111 Page 3 of 3 • Subject Property Mangrove Shoreline • { r� Oh'erAed bottom sediment Frith oyster and shell debris S • N. E 41111keif ' 41{. , , 7'r pical shell and uy'ster debris within sediment • r � ' _ --. , -, - t... Alta. _ r iti,' Oy ster sheIUdebris • • AFFIDAVIT OF AUTHORIZATION FOR PETITION NUMBERS(S) ��� O i5'0DC,D 3.1 I, A )D✓bl-& 3.Zol'f774n' (print name),as (tom,if applicable)of (company,H e),swear or affirm under oath,that I am the(choose one)owrierpplicantElooritract purchase and that 1. f have full authority to secure the approvals)requested and to impose covenants and restrictions on the referenced property as a result of any action approved by the County in accordance with this application and the Land Development Code; 2. Ail answers to the questions in this application and any sketches,data or other supplementary matter attached hereto and made a part of this application are honest and true; i 3_ I have authorized the staff of Collier County to enter upon the property during normal working hours for the purpose of investigating and evaluating the request made through this application;and that 4. The property will be transferred, conveyed, sold or subdivided subject to the conditions and • restrictions unposed by the approved action, 5. Well authorize Davjj1 Turley,AUK Permitting Solutions LLC to act as our/my representative ' in any matters regarding this petition including I through 2 above. *Rioter • If the applicant is a corporation,then it is usually executed by the corp.pros.or v.pros. • If the applicant is a Limited Liability Company(L.L.C.)or Limited Company(L.C.), then the documents should typically be signed by the Company's`Managing Member." • If the applicant is a partnership,then typically a partner can sign on behalf of the partnership. • if the applicant is a limited partnership, then the general partner must sign and be identified as the general partner'of the named partnership. • if the applicant is a trust; then they must include the trustee's name and the words'as trustee'. • In each instance, first determine the applicant's status, ag., individual, corporate, trust, partnership, and then • • use the appropriate format for that ownership. Under penalties of perjury,t declare that I have read the foregoing Affidavit of Authorization and that the ,- :� in it are true. ' At - Ocr 6t' IcY9 Signature Date STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER /The ojfl instrument was sworn to(or affirmed)and subscribed before me on $ (date) tiar.4s),j Q('#O6Msn (name of person providing oath or affirmation),as cg-7-S-persoriallx-ito me or who has produced (type of identification)as identification. STAMP/SEAL. Sigel of otaiy Public SHAWN BURNS '. s.: Commission#EE 874982 r�:. = Expires April 5,2017 . „ ''" landed Tku Try ren WORM wa67ob CP11*-COAd10]131!55 • $1iV 3/24/14 i Co er aunty • COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 PLANNING AND REGULATION (239)252-2400 FAX (239)252-5724 WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET Please complete the following and fax to the Operations Department at 239-252-5724 or submit in person to the Addressing Department at the above address. Form must be signed by Addressing personnel prior to ore- application meeting, please allow 3 days for processing. Not all items will apply to every project. Items in bold type are required. FOLIO NUMBERS MUST BE PROVIDED. Forms older than 6 months will require additional review and approval by the Addressing Department. PETITION TYPE (Indicate type below, complete a separate Addressing Checklist for each Petition type) Q BL(Blasting Permit) 0 SOP(Site Development Plan) 0 BD(Boat Dock Extension) 0 SOPA(SDP Amendment) Q Carnival/Circus Permit 0 SDP! (Insubstantial Change to SDP) ❑ CU (Conditional Use) ❑ SIP(Site Improvement Plan) ❑ EXP(Excavation Permit) 0 SIP!(Insubstantial Change to SIP) Q FP(Final Plat ❑ SNR(Street Name Change) ❑ LLA(Lot Line Adjustment) ❑ SNC(Street Name Change—Unplatted) ❑ PNC (Project Name Change) 0 TDR(Transfer of Development Rights) Q PPL(Plans& Plat Review) ❑ VA(Variance) • ❑ PSP(Preliminary Subdivision Plat) ❑ VRP(Vegetation Removal Permit) Q PUD Rezone Q VRSFP(Vegetation Removal&Site Fill Permit) I"I RZ (Standard Rezone) ❑ OTHER LEGAL DESCRIPTION of subject property or properties(copy of lengthy description may be attached) Bayfront Gardens Lot 6 Section 06, Township 48 S, Range 25 E FOLIO(Property ID) NUMBER(s)of above(attach to, or associate with. legal description if more than one) 23095000607 STREET ADDRESS or ADDRESSES(as applicable, if already assigned) 232 Barefoot Beach Blvd. • LOCATION MAP must be attached showing exact location of project/site in relation to nearest public road right- of-way • SURVEY(copy - needed only for unplatted properties) PROPOSED PROJECT NAME(if applicable) PROPOSED STREET NAMES (if applicable) SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN NUMBER (for existing projects/sites only) • SDP - or AR or PL# +so er County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE . GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 PLANNING AND REGULATION (239)252-2400 FAX (239)252-5724 WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET Project or development names proposed for, or already appearing in, condominium documents(if application; indicate whether proposed or existing) Please Check One: 0 Checklist is to be Faxed back NI Personally Picked Up APPLICANT NAME. A. Douglas Brodman and Teresa A. Brodman PHONE (239) 910-1660 FAX email: adbrodman@gmaii.com Signature on Addressing Checklist does not constitute Project and/or Street Name approval and is subject to further review by the Operations Department. • FOR STAFF USE ONLY c� fr� FLN Number(Primary) 230 5O 1O#0 f Folio Number Folio Number Folio Number Approved by: � F Jr .. Date: / $ 72-t41 r 2"'t Updated by: , O ! e Date: ' ( —lei IF OLDER THAN 6 MONTHS. FORM MUST SE JPOATFP _ NEW FORM SUBMITTED III N v-, 0 0 N 1 00 a © v 13 a II Z › en 0 I- qo N` (� k G� ? Oce �, 52 g bx so NAA 03 o cl 72 R5N <0 r0 « � z u°_ L.D� g Q1-- v as 0 00 Or g I, rel�lv/ t ' 'I! J,s lis E At 4.49 I m as To' a W a G. y -OA ` 2 V .!44. WI": -.' filliall6" Ain o, Ci o o a li 0.3 U Q 03 ' a� ' '" c,— c x r a A£ x .#I A -€ cl /cam 414 ' t "5 4. U c3 E xi ter.} j � r fl4 ` ' 'te p '4*',,, �s� ,.' ren S? . as #% c.. o n GL o amu_ .. t,... el: a# . . - t 2.. g� �.r .L: . COLLIER COUNTY Growth Management Department October 08, 2015 A DOUGLAS BRODMAN AND TERESA A BRODMAN REV TRUST 232 BAREFOOT BEACH BLVD BONITA SPRINGS. FL 34135 David Turley, ADK Permitting Solutions. LLC PO Box I 11385 Naples. FL 34108 EMAIL—d.turley07Cgmail.com RE: Dock Extension P1.20150000039 232 Barefoot Beach Blvd Dear Applicant: The following comments are provided to you regarding the above referenced project. If you have questions. please contact the appropriate staff member who conducted the review. The project will retain 411 a"HOLD" status until all comments are satisfied. The following comments need to be addressed as noted: Rejected Review: Zoning Review Reviewed By: Daniel Smith Email: daniielsmith(a7colliergov.net Phone#: (239)252-4312 Correction Comment 1: Miscellaneous Corrections: Measurement of dock protrusion and extension is from bulkhead line,shoreline,seawall. rip-rap line, control elevation contour,or mean high water table line. Please show clearly this measurement. Not clearly shown. Correction Comment 2: Miscellaneous Corrections: Measurement of distance should be 90 degrees from edge of property line. Please make corrections or clearlyshow this the case. Correction Comment 3: Miscellaneous Corrections: • i • Please define the control line on the survey. Staff is not sure what the control line represents on the survey and the plat. Correction Comment 4: Miscellaneous Corrections: Please add a note as to the boat having either and inboard or outboard motor. Rejected Review: County Attorney Review Reviewed By: Scott Stone Email: scottstone@colliergov.net Phone#: (239)252-5740 Correction Comment 1: Miscellaneous Corrections: Provide an Affidavit of Authorization(or letter of consent)from Teresa A.Brodman as well,since she is also listed on the deed. Correction Comment 2: Miscellaneous Corrections: The"top of the bank"is not one of the appropriate measurement lines under Section 5.03.06 Cd.Please indicate the measurement of the boat dock protrusion as made from the most restrictive of the following: property line,bulkhead line,shoreline,seawall,rip-rap line,control elevation contour,or mean high water line.Revise your application materials,and update the Site Plan to label the correct measurement • line and distance.(According to your survey,it appears that the most restrictive line may be the property line) i Correction Comment 3: Miscellaneous Corrections: See attached notes. Rejected Review: Environmental Review Reviewed By:David Anthony Email: davidanthony@colliergov.net Phone#: (239)252-2497 Correction Comment 1: Per Section 5.03.06 J.4 of the LDC,please demonstrate how the proposed location of the dock minimizes impacts to the mangroves when the terminal platform portion of the dock could be extended further into the water so that only the access walkway impacts mangroves while the total structure remains within 25%of the width of the water body. Correction Comment 2: On the proposed site plan,add the following note: • "Mangrove trimming is per Section 3.05.02 E of the LDC and Section 403.9326(1)(a)F.S." • The following comments are informational and/or may include stipulations: When addressing review comments,please provide a cover letter,outlining your response to each comment. Include a response to completed reviews with stipulations. If you have any questions,please contact me at(239)252-4312. Sincerely, Daniel James Smith,AICP Principal Planner,Zoning Division Growth Management Department cc.adbrodman@gmail.com davidanthony@colliergov.net scottstone@colliergov.net I i • P - • L20150000039 BDE 232 Barefoot Beach Blvd. Review Comments and Responses Rejected Review:Zoning Review Reviewed By: Daniel Smith Correction Comment 1: Measurement of dock protrusion and extension is from bulkhead line, shoreline,seawall, rip-rap line, control elevation contour,or mean high water line. Please show clearly this measurement. Response 1: Changed Top of Bank to read Shoreline on drawings(Please see attached drawings) Correction Comment 2: • Measurement of distance should be 90 degrees from edge property line. Response 2: Distance is shown as 90 degrees from edge of dock to the most restrictive point,shoreline.(Please refer to attached drawings) Correction Comment 3: Please define control line on the survey. Response 3: The control line is a reference line in which extends from control point/hub to hub that survey and plats can be calculated from to determine land boundaries,in this case, plated MHWL as described on the original legal description of the development. Page 1 of 3 PL20150000039-BDE Review Comments and Responses (continued) • Correction Comment 4: Please add a note as to the boat having either an inboard or outboard motor. Response 4: At the time of submittal it was not determined whether or not the vessel was going to be an inboard with an outdrive or an outboard. It was taken after advice that it would advantageous to have the later due to the depth of the surrounding inland waterways. Rejected Review:County Attorney Review Review By: Scott Stone Correction Comment 1: Provide an Affidavit of Authorization (or letter of consent)from Teresa A. Brodman as well,since she is also listed on the deed. Response 1: • Provided is the hard copy and a duplicates for records. Correction Comment 2: The"top of the bank" is not one of the appropriate measure lines under section 5.03.06 C.1. Please indicate the measurement of the boat dock protrusion as made from the most restrictive. Response 2: Please the see revised drawings for the change from"top of bank"to"shoreline". Page2of3 • • PL20150000039-BDE Review Comments and Responses (continued) Rejected Review: Environmental Review Reviewed By: David Anthony Correction Comment 1: Per Section 5.03.061.4 of the LDC,please demonstrate how the proposed location of the dock minimizes impacts to the mangroves when the terminal platform portion of the dock could be extended further into the water so that only the access walkway impacts mangroves while the total structure remains within 25%of the width of the water body. Response 1: The purpose of this code is to protect seagrass beds and native shoreline vegetation.The portion of the mangroves to be trimmed are the outer most fringe branches that are approximately 14 feet from the shoreline and the root system extends no more than 7 feet from the shoreline as depicted on the (attached photo exhibits)therefore there would low impact to the main tree itself and possibly • encourage fuller growth towards the shoreline as demonstrated in the Mangrove Trimming and Preservation Act of 1996. Correction Comment 2: On the proposed site plan,add the following note: "Mangrove trimming is per Section 3.05.02 E or the LDC and Section 403.9326(1)(a) F.S." Response 2: Please refer to attached drawings for additional notes. Page 3 of 3 • .---------- \ \ la 4 W VI , \ t, t% S si 4 \ • c4 110 il 0. 'it t‘liZ t3.1t o t-, 0 ttba , \ / v tai?4'1 at t.1 A . .,..„. Cr P Ai "J\ Z 9. ‘3 .. . / cij 0 • .0 1 it sX' IL.,_. ‘ 461- VI ''Z's t .1 -‘t••\ :::frali' CI n t- •••••11,1 woo, ,c,./ .-.7.1 ,.. • • is t \ '''—----/' \ ,,, / •r- 3 W.,., 0 la 0 1, -41.•"P4 it ....4..-k . \ Iii"\\ 3 0 I ea l0 .• '16 / 0. V .4- \ o ,.. i"*".(- 1 j / . -keo,oe :10 \ 11 , 4ci,db \ 4gt • . , it, it trif plivit. .6.02. ... \- -4C-:!?\ ) ..,.. ....411 • 41;• ---,77 4 . i • % 0 CC •n r tis 31 s• -s. •/ Vi - .,.... vittr • '...It til 0 1,- cC. N. tos 0 a N•. 2. '0 Z -.C. 0 cc. us 0.z. elf I* ***0 yelp.. a. trs , '•ti .1 '8, s.° % u.,.2, 15 1%, '' .4 t° 0,-- r;‘ • (.4 r._ **.t. '' • r. .4. in.... '6% ..t. I. `,... .,..,..4 ..7.1 re, ii C'' II/*.ke3 0 Cii us co ...., cL 0 -1. u- 0 us --- - -- Vt .2 ...I .fzF., tr., ."› - .1, j ,'1 - .0 x - ,.... .„, e . E ,01 .-, _, :.44, 0.0 -u ti 1 F-. .., i.... t-:(/) k•-• ..='•—"--------Z---.4 ( eli Lt.u. CT1 ?, 8_ w c.) .)./ (.4, 2 .. . ... - 0 :1 ::):1'...'.-: 4'. - '.4: !.:1... Cl) EN-4-5- La CNI (NI \ -k <el Z0 w cr) z • q)l'` ce er, Ln \ OC 0 Ne LU -) \ i IZ .,.57,-:° C g i z, u ..... \5C :.:1 o Go O(f) 2 < i.., .. .. ,, 15 CE 174 '.7.'• ‘, .11.4. L Ca ..,..-.1 < 1.... . 173 L, < . , < Z 6 a 0 X CO • \ r) cr In 14 6 g I:4, ""-,--., '.liI.nP' 4*4 \ i1t \ ...------ • ,...,y x \ _„....--- "71 .41 \ / 258 1O.8 \--- a. \ V, /I \\\ ..,.- • , -- Aig.e6..wil. 7 •`;',Ly. ,.."` "Ilr's:...' \ ----- , / 0 i t/ z ce 0 z z < 1— 2 . 4 x Li g IA 0.c = — ,,, = -4 • ' <z m 0 a \ ; ,„,-. / 'a 5 d !.)--• o o 0 CI Cr 2 IZ I C•s Z 0 C., w 4 W ei 0 W Z IX < tn z in L.,.._-•••"""W 2..„ La z ..... crc,ihs_v. R..1..c.,..La tor, .3...,_••••1 rt 0 er ta 1 \\, \\\ 25 o- t., i se a. (...c.) g • o ta c)(2La / / w — titl< Lcifj‘4 <al a) • I \ <") a. -- Mangrove Shoreline Conditions 'e-q 5t :` < .,:..,....,. .,3.....\; } -t�.,$ xf, as h � y 4,' ",Y� n' 'f ''.'4's,` '4,:-.,. rr r , f` •r+v 4�� a ...74 pis' N ',...f17:s.Zft,,:i.:'70 ,::"'!7., '.t.U% -i ;':1;t::4V,` . ,4 :._,,. w e¢ I ro i t p�►"',s 4 fir' `+1 f y �' �i`3 ,^A ,� !. '� ° .. '. w ` mea J' t�'" g x ,� w , r 1' '� ✓1 -- 7.',. .....;:,:::.;',f0,::,": + ,1. L y •Sp` :.v~ "�, � 7 ^,aR' ash ,-4 Ac-. '' >�`;',.f-y -a. +�g S,y .,• i. -4,,T,,,.. :-,, ,s` c ` _.+w .,;;,..44,1,-,- „ r iS.., .f` 7'-'4i5� i1`. .-i,- --�.`�'"�"'' ,�. tiVof T t ati '' " e 4.4 1 't F hE i4,7 %^ Th y'<y1 y�`yam., if. i'!9. '1.4*!,- . y.4 i�4 'y� F ., ,' � 4 ` ' t�,a'�4S'.�J . 1 _ry x11`_r ��' `� , \} '.` am \'#fl b y1, ,r, ,,. 1f .r _ .1:41.14.1;.:Z Sz•�f �. �w � k ri tt < ..‘..17,-,,-k :-45:tjt,:r:1-; ,, - i -. A. :. J.' \ _ itiie .. .,2 .,..._ tl ! ` t4t ilk, ii� ;�' "'y s _y RL\ �Y `�', 1/1 4x /yam-. .,..,„0„...... • BDE-PL20150000039 232 Barefoot Beach Blvd. 0 Walkway Location • -„ � iiv,!.. . : ,,' �. - ♦„}. Era ' aft „fil: �' Air s f 't.,s , # 4.. ate. . . ,,....-4-... .... _ ..,-: ,..- "� k" ij . - -. ,,-.44, A,..-7.-gi -.„ „.„ ,.4it n• ri ` da 4 ' yF',��:. ! r. 411. ''^'" .'if • ' 4.11k� !.. `� 9 .'g . - � . � b ' Ar4r 1 ..4- f BDE-PL20150000039 232 Barefoot Beach Blvd • Dock Location 0 Side View r r • ., 410 4 t y. T ♦ •.-. raw-. ..,.-., IF' : « om * t , Ai .� F 1 I '*� ,may. _w �•,� ._ j :-jam. I �pi R • $moi„ • - . r e 3 rgi iv. x BDE-PL20150000039 232 Barefoot Beach Blvd. 0 • D vi S l � _1 � .o r: c,4.4 r. U � ; E WP otl ._� . W caiii 6 . al � v 1 ii .� 6P� _o _o a 72 $ gr . 4 U C ,�\ o 0) W I-a 1111��Lw11 J.\. 11 Z a \ $moii!!cp ca iI !i �� LAJ O ... . " Sc r�i .y a \ -c tr il a N Oin En �' �+ O 'l\ zo pligi *may # Yd C :.. cr' z .. •fic,% .1111,-_. r 0 0 4 , „, $o X.8mauJ / /\\i fnr_ • \ a , . A i•0 pe.r,/ \t -ems \ ` ,400 O `.. Z ' ' '''''fij >k(/ ce Wz I ff. W \ . z in „,.,3, w Z N w E E5 \� " o w Wa U o a V 20 p o ` } v (n' Nt N~ 0 / F , -1 y �m Q w re::: RcrIA Q!- ySr 7 a aN W �m • Ld a 6d .a.1 w q \1./ 1!!p�pw Vl W ma J AGENDA ITEM 4-B Co er County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER FROM: ZONING DIVISION-ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING: MARCH 10. 2016 SUBJECT: BD-PL20150001024, 206 SAN MATEO DRIVE BOAT DOCK EXTENSION PROPERTY APPLICANT/AGENT: Owner/ Katherine A Scott, Agent: Greg Orick II Applicant: Revocable Self Declaration of Trust Greg Orick II Marine Construction Mike Scott 27171 Driftwood Drive 206 San Mateo. FL 34134 Bonita Springs, FL 34135 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner requests a 42.7-foot boat dock extension over the maximum 20 feet allowed by Section 5.03.06 of the Land Development Code (LDC), for a total protrusion of approximately 62.7 feet, to accommodate the replacement of an existing boat dock facility with a new dock facility with one boat lift. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject site is located at Lot 28, Southport on the Bay, Unit One, also described as 206 San Mateo Drive. The folio number is 7443 5003 1 03. (See attached Location Map.) PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The purpose of the project is a request for a 42.7-foot boat dock extension beyond the maximum 20 feet for the subject lot. The boat dock facility will contain one boat slip and one kayak/personal watercraft lift. The total overwater dock structure proposed is approximately 668 square feet and will protrude a total of 62.7 feet into a waterway that is approximately 860 feet from Mean High Water(MHW) line to the MHW. There is no dredging proposed for this project and the total length shoreline is approximately 97.58 linear feet. A single-family house exists on the site. BD-PL20150001024 Page 1 of 8 206 San Mateo Drive Boat Dock Extension ' ti '''"airs 1 I �.� 1S3M 133515 OWN! I (' d ' d2 t ,101 i 4 I = ex< S � �► 93 s 13 $TO I I nsn W x0,51 CL 2 r cc W Q 1n\ 2 ria\11 VI IV C9 101/A4440P-App. irClo'„A.-043600,- ,11:1) li Z )010 Vii © O �IR i 4' s . Ti2 t— It:101111:' '41104P N . N IN d a 0. ,A ars iv ) "?4,, +,,,,, ilif.7t -44‘ id )...1 lirralWatirid\ /41#ACi• AfAt.„ 6tr,t,ti ILA il..... = a—a7,, \ Arhbv„,,,nomati ,Tiiiffr-Adit...? '''. e 3T23 Ol 1011 I Q m �yCyy E@ 0 ryii l Y ill 4 �-_ j w U WeL 11 - /( ill I r 4 al 4 — y ` * r `� i��Hell .-__`_" �y 0� � J �4-$ - VNVN.3,010000 8 7 \ 1 ile I k ' la gab„, 6 i . 1. I,# ,i, - g H R f , a. , . ,, 11 ,, li ;` I ' - — 31 fi 4,,,c] ,„.„, TM IW.,W1 L, �. & i . 11 i /i R 111• z U • Z III • W __ _ I ' 3 1b1 i if ,, O o J uw �I d 0 !I 6 s .:- 1 II. . _.\ i`wra 1,01,0 1 I I''• I 1 s 07 " al 1 j 9 ysxrco OF - Oil 4111 SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING: SUBJECT PARCEL: Single-family house, zoned Lely Barefoot Beach PUD SURROUNDING: North: Single-family house with a boat dock. zoned PUD East: Little Hickory Bay, across which are single-family houses, zoned PUD South: Single-family house with a boat dock, zoned PUD West: San Mateo Drive. across which are single-family houses, zoned PUD f t ray j S 1 IIi z iritot A ya;:fA�� 1. f 4 it 333 O r . » w...-..... vman. . . _ 0-1Tft Aerial of subject property(Collier County Appraiser) ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION: Environmental Planning Staff has reviewed this petition and has no objection to the granting of this request. Section 5.03.06(E)(1 I), 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 one boat slip and is therefore not subject to the provisions of this section. No submerged resources were found within the proposed dock area. A Restoration Plan has been created and approved for the restoration of the Conservation Easement area that was established under the Lely Estates. Inc. Settlement Agreement. STAFF COMMENTS: The Collier County Hearing Examiner (HEX) shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny. a dock facility extension request based on certain criteria in LDC Section 5.03.03 H. In order for the HEX 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. BD-PL20150001024 Page 3 of 8 206 San Mateo Drive Boat Dock Extension Staff has reviewed this petition in accordance with Section 5.03.06 H and recommends the following findings to the HEX: 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 one boat slip, which is appropriate in relation to the 97.58 linear feet of water frontage of the subject lot. 2. Whether the water depth at the proposed site is so shallow that a vessel of the general length, type and draft as that described in the petitioner's application is unable to launch or moor at mean low tide (MLT). (The petitioner's application and survey should establish that the water depth is too shallow to allow launching and mooring of the vessel(s) described without an extension.) Criterion met. According to the petitioner's application the water depth within this area of Little Hickory Bay is extremely shallow and the existing water depths are insufficient to moor a motorized vessel. Water depth measured approximately 30 feet from the property line is 1.69 feet NAVD below Mean Low Water Line (MLWL). Please note that the conversion from NAVD to NGVD in this area is approximately 1.22; to convert from NAVD to NGVD one must add 1.22 to 1.69, so this is 2.91 feet NGVD. 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 which is 860 feet. 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.) BD-PL20150001024 Page 4 of 8 206 San Mateo Drive Boat Dock Extension r Criterion met. Information provided in the application indicates that the proposed dock will protrude 62.7 feet into a waterway that is 860 feet in width. The measurement 62.7 feet is 7.3 percent into a waterway that is 860 feet in width. 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. According to the drawings submitted and noted by the petitioner,the proposed facility has been designed to fall within the subject riparian lines (with a required side-yard of 15 feet) and does not interfere with adjacent neighboring docks or access. The applicant has supplied letters of no objection from 2 adjacent neighbors. 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 contains mangroves and a Restoration Plan has been created for the restoration of the Conservation Easement area in the rear of this property. 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, permitting the docking of one vessel, permitting launching of a kayak/personal water crafts (PWCs), and permitting lifts, a nautical function, for kayaks/PWCs. 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.) Criterion met. As indicated on thea application,the length of the vessel is 25 feet d pp gt ee an is less than 50%of the property's linear waterfront footage of 97.58 feet. BD-PL20150001024 Page 5 of 8 206 San Mateo Drive Boat Dock Extension 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 existing mangrove fringe obstructs the view of Little Hickory Bay from the first floor of residences. The view shed of neighboring properties will not be impacted. The proposed dock facility will be consistent with existing docks along the shoreline. 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 petitioner's consultant (Turrell, Hall & Associates), the submerged resource survey did not find any 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 single-family lot with one slip and is not subject to the provisions of the Manatee Protection Plan. Staff analysis indicates that this request meets five of the five primary criteria. Regarding the six secondary criteria, criterion 6 is not applicable, and the request meets five of the remaining five secondary criteria. APPEAL OF BOAT DOCK EXTENSION TO BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISIONERS: As to any boat dock extension petition upon which the HEX takes action, an aggrieved petitioner, 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 Decision by the HEX. In the event that the petition has been approved by the HEX, the applicant shall be advised that he/she proceeds with construction at his/her own risk during this 30-day period. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW The Office of the County Attorney reviewed this Staff Report on 2/16/16. BD-PL20150001024 Page 6 of 8 206 San Mateo Drive Boat Dock Extension STAFF RECOMMENDATION_ Based on the above findings, Staff recommends that the Hearing Examiner approve Petition BD-PL20150001024. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1: Application BD-PL20150001024 Page 7 of 8 206 San Mateo Drive Boat Dock Extension PREPARED BY: 2- - IL I RACHEL BEASLE , PLANNER DATE ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: RAYMOND V. BELLOWS,ZONING MANAGER DATE ZONING DIVISION APPROVED BY: 2.1t- It, MIKE BOSI, AICP, DIRECTOR DATE ZONING DIVISION BD-PL20150001024 Page 8 of 8 206 San Mateo Drive Boat Dock Extension County PL20150001024 REV 1'ATI ,: *.'1\ gni• -. AitlfwtPetd)un.� � �, 014; A •:tt 4 S _;s�'••�' i=s � - •wy yag .*"'.`7' ' 'Tr#' R Assigned Planner: i'''t(( - Engineering Manager(for PPL's and FP's): Project Name: ccs t V- Pb9 . 1024 Property ID it: -1,44155,11310 Current Zoning: ?T) "LU. 50*Serr 13/04- Project Address: am440 MAP) op k ity: ► ic::. State: Tip:�� Applicant: � • Agent Name: Phone: .�'��cr�.2sv Agent/Firm Address: City: State: Tip: Property Owner: trithe <.3I1J� Please provide the following,if applicable: 1. Total Acreage: ii. Proposed It of Residential Units: iii. Proposed Commercial Square Footage: iv. For Amendments,indicate the original petition number: i v. If there is an Ordinanceor Resolution associated with this project,please indicate the type and number: L -d 'i Y-fi -gr RAD vi. If the project is within a Plat,provide the name and AR#/PL#: • RSV 411/15 Attachment 1 ....A.0%..........,r Cou ' Ag-Last,— - — . 4-3.1%., • tO4. P124:111"9" ii "' , 5-14.1 t. r ' sem:. zuf.60.44/T LpC � �� `lam/ I1 V IO a"4eeliPte, AT A '5. f .3—,_ fian cry_ p ils �► L r4:14--)4e: bItt-C4r6 11- 06a8n 16.4. I iv 0 I Rev wiria 0 Coker County PL 2015 0 0 010 2 4 REV 1 COWER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE • NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 Pre-Application Meeting and Final Submittal Requirement Checklist for: DADock Extension f Boathouse Chapter 3 B.of the Administrative Code The following Submittal Requirement Checklist is to be utilized during the Pre-Application Meeting, and at time of application submittal. At time of submittal,the checklist is to be completed and submitted with the application packet. Please provide the submittal items in the exact order listed below, with cover sheets attached to each section. incomplete submittals will not be accepted. NOT REQUIREMENTS FOR REVIEW COPIES REQUIRED REQUIRED _ Completed Application(download current form from County website) 6 ❑ Signed and Sealed Survey ® ❑ _^Chart of Site Waterway ® 0 Site Plan Illustration with the following: • Lot dimensions; • Required setbacks for the dock facility; • Cross section showing relation to MHW/MLW and shoreline • (bank,seawall,or rip-rap revetment); • Configuration,location,and dimensions of existing and proposed 6 ❑ facility; • Water depth where proposed dock facility is to be located; • Distance of navigable channel; • Illustration of the contour of the property;and • Illustration of dock facility from both an aerial and side view. Affidavit of Authorization,signed and notarized �2 ❑ Completed Addressing Checklist 1 C Electronic copy of all required documents *Please advise:The Office of the Hearing Examiner requires all materials f2 [ ❑ to be submitted electronically in PDF format. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PUBUC HEARING PROCESS: • Following the completion of the review process by County review staff, the applicant shall • submit all materials electronically to the designated project manager. • Please contact the project manager to confirm the number of additional copies required. • 6/3/2014 Page 6 of 7 S &9y COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE • GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.coltiergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 PLANNERS—INDICATE IF THE PETITION NEEDS TO BE ROUTED TO THE FOLLOWING REVIEWERS: ❑ Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment: go Environmental Review:See Pre-Application Executive Director f Meeting Sign-In Sheet _ 16. Addressing:Annis Moxam Graphics:Mariam Ocheltree City of Naples:Robin Singer,Planning Director f Historical Review Comprehensive Planning:See Pre-Application L—IMeeting Sign-In Sheet 0 Immokalee Water/Sewer District Conservancy of SWFL:Nichole Ryan ❑ Parks and Recreation:Vicky Ahmad County Attorney's Office:Heidi Ashton-Cicko ❑ Transportation Pathways:Stacey Revay ❑ Emergency Management Dan Summers;and/or School District(Residential Components):Amy EMS:Artie Bay Heartlock _ 0 Engineering:Alison Bradford ❑ Transportation Planning:John Podczerwinsky ❑ Other: ❑ Utilities Engineering:Kris VanLengen FEE REQUIREMENTS: Boat Dock Extension Petition:$1,500.00 Estimated Legal Advertising fee for the Office of the Hearing Examiner:$925.00 An additional fee for property owner notifications will be billed to the applicant prior to the Hearing Examiner hearing date. • As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist' 'ncluded in this submittal package.I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal informati, may re t in the f processing this petition. '1 /3- S" Signature of Pet i.ner or Agent Date III 6/3/2014 Page 7 of 7 Co r County . 4110 Pre-Application Meeting Sign-In Sheet PL#: Z. :t . Collier County Contact Information: Name Review Discipline Phone Email ❑ Richard Anderson Environmental Review 252-2483 _richardanderson@colliergov.net ❑ David Anthony Environmental Review 252-2497 davidanthony@colliergov.net ❑ Summer Araque Environmental Review 252-6290 summerbrownaraque@colliergov.net ❑ Steve Baluch Transportation Planning 252-2361 StephenBaluch@colliergov.net ❑ Madelin Bunster Architectural Review 252-8523 madelinbunster@colliergov.net ❑ Mark Burtchin ROW Permitting 252-5165 markburtchin@colliergov.net ❑ George Cascio Utility Billing 252-5543 georgecascio@colliergov.net ❑ Heidi Ashton Cicko Managing Asst.County Attorney 252-8773 heidiashton@colliergov.net ❑ Sue Faulkner Comprehensive Planning 252-5715 suefaulkner@colliergov.net ❑ Eric Fey,P.E. Utility Plan Review 252-2434 ericfey@colliergov.net III ❑ Paula Fleishman Impact Fee Administration 252-2924 paulafleishman@colliergov.net ❑ Michael Gibbons Structural/Residential Plan Review 252-2426 michaelgibbons@colliergov.net ❑ Nancy Gundlach,AICP,PLA Zoning Services 252-2484 nancygundlach@colliergov.net ❑ Sher Hingson East Naples Fire District 687-5650 shingson@ccfco.org ❑ John Houldsworth Engineering Services 252-5757 johnhouldsworth@colliergov.net ❑ Jodi Hughes Transportation Pathways 252-5744 jodihughes@colliergov.net ❑ Alicia Humphries Right-Of-Way Permitting 252-2326 aliciahumphries@colliergov.net ❑ Marcia Kendall Comprehensive Planning 252-2387 marciakendall@colliergov.net ❑ Reed Jarvi,P.E. Transportation Planning 252-5849 reedjarvi@colliergov.net O Stephen Lenberger Environmental Review 252-2915 stevelenberger@colliergov.net ❑ Paulo Martins Utilities 2524285 paulomartins@colliergov.net O Thomas Mastroberto Fire Safety 252-7348 Thomasmastroberto@colliergov.net O Jack McKenna,P.E. Engineering Services 252-2911 jackmckenna@colliergov.net ❑ Matt McLean, P.E. Principal Project Manager 252-8279 matthewmdean@colliergov.net ❑ Gilbert Moncivaiz Utility Impact Fees 252-4215 gilbertmoncivalz@colliergov.net ❑ Michele Mosca,AICP Impact Fee Administration 252-2466 michelemosca@colliergov.net ❑ Annis Moxam Addressing 252-5519 annismoxam@colliergov.net ❑ Mariam Ocheltree Graphics 252-2315 mariamocheltree@colliergov.net ❑ Brandy Otero Transit 252-5859 brandyotero@colliergov.net O Bill Pancake North Naples Fire District 252-2310 billpancake@colliergov.net III 0 John Podczerwinsky Transportation Planning 252-5890 johnpodczerwinsky@colliergov.net Rev 4/1/15 Gott, o r co xxty 0 O Brandi Pollard Utility Impact fees 252-6237 brandipollard@colliergov.net ❑ Fred Reischl,AICP Zoning Services 252-4211 fredreischl@colliergov.net 0ttt Brett Rosenblum,P.E. Stormwater Plan Review 252-2905 brettrosenblum@colliergov.net . Michael Sawyer Zoning Services 252-2926 michaelsawyer@colliergov.net LI Corby Schmidt,AICP Comprehensive Planning 252-2944 corbyschmidt@colliergov.net ❑ Chris Scott,AICP Planning and Zoning 252-2460 chrisscott@colliergov.net O Daniel Smith,AICP Landscape Review 252-4312 danielsmith@colliergov.net ❑ Scott Stone Assistant County Attorney 252-8400 scottstone@colliergov.net ❑ Mark Strain Hearing Examiner/CCPC 252-4446 markstrain@colliergov.net ❑ Carolina Valera Comprehensive Planning 252-8498 carolinavalera@colliergov.net ❑ KrisVanLengen Utility Planning 252-5366 krisvanlengen@colliergov.net ❑ Jon Walsh Building Review 252-2962 jonathanwalsh@colliergov.net O David Weeks,AICP Future Land Use Consistency 252-2306 davidweeks@colliergov.net ❑ Kirsten Wilkie Environmental Review 252-5518 kirstenwilkie@colliergov.net ❑ Christine Willoughby Planning and Zoning 252-5748 ChristineWilloughby@colliergov.net Additional Attendee Contact Information: III Name Representing Phone Email G 0t .c.4c F GIN O1.ci. 3J . Mal:nob Cr,n, q ' it)-Co Q bt:eI.cr,ernC.COM }-1 Li vvSsl GPeo or'i 9c44.mss' a . .. sal !U t h 4 t- 0 i- ck /Il��,c�r& ciyk SSKQ h rJb DAl SCI?IJ z- ! _ tcar5cti- e CoI:i*0414yt.k Veosk1 Zo,n NW) ✓sen C044 III Rev 4/1/15 ___ Cor County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 • www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 DOCK FACILITY EXTENSION OR BOATHOUSE ESTABLISHMENT PETITION APPLICATION AND SUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS LDC Section 5.03.06 • Chapter 3 B. of the Administrative Code The following information is intended to guide the applicant through the application and public hearing process for a Dock Facility Extension or Boathouse Establishment Petition. Prior to submitting the Dock Facility Extension or Boathouse Establishment Petition application, the applicant shall attend a pre-application meeting to determine if a dock facility extension or boathouse establishment is available and to discuss the location, length/protrusion, and configuration of the proposed boat dock facility.The pre-application fee is$500.00 and will be credited toward application fee upon submittal. If the application is not submitted within 9 months of the pre-application meeting the pre-app fee will be forfeited and will not be credited toward the application fee. In order for the application to be processed,all accompanying materials(see attached submittal checklist)shall be completed and submitted with the application.The application fee for a Dock Facility Extension or Boathouse Establishment is $1,500.00, plus $925.00 for required legal . advertising. After submission of the completed application packet,accompanied with the required fees,the applicant will receive a response notifying that the petition is being processed. Accompanying that response will be a receipt for the payment and the tracking number (i.e., BDE- P120120000000) assigned to the petition. This petition tracking number should be noted on all future correspondence regarding the petition. Pursuant to the LDC and the Administrative Code, several public notice requirements shall be completed within the required time frames. The Planning and Zoning Department will provide, at the cost of the applicant,legal notification to surrounding property owners within 500 feet of the subject property and newspaper advertisement (required 15 days prior to the advertised Hearing Examiner hearing date). The applicant will be notified by email of the hearing date and will receive a copy of the Staff Report. It is recommended, but not required,that the applicant or the agent attend the Hearing Examiner hearing. Please contact the Growth Management Division at 252-2400 for further assistance completing this application. • Pagelof7 6/3/2014 Collier County • COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 DOCK FACILITY EXTENSION OR BOATHOUSE ESTABLISHMENT PETITION LDC Section 5.03.06 Ch. 3 B. of the Administrative Code 1 THIS PETITION IS FOR(check one): 0 DOCK EXTENSION ❑ BOATHOUSE PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME To be completed by staff 1 DATE PROCESSED PL 2015 0 0 010 2 4 REV APPLICANT INFORMATION Applicant(s): Mike Scott I Address: 206 San Mateo Drive Bonita Springs State: FL ZIP: 34134 Telephone: 708-473-6650 Cell: N/A Fax: N/A • E-Mail Address: mike@scottgc.com Name of Agent: Greg Orick II Firm: Greg Orick II Marine Construction Inc. Address: 27171 Driftwood Drive a ' Bonita Springs State: FL ZIP: 34135 Telephone: 239-949-5588Cell: Fax: 239-301-2238 E-Mail Address: info@orickmarine.com IPROPERTY LOCATION I Section/Township/Range:� 6 48 /25 Property I.D.Number: 74435003103 • Subdivision: Southport on the Bay Unit: 1 Lot: 28 Block: Address/General Location of Subject Property: • 206 San Mateo Drive Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Current Zoning and Land use of Subject Property: PUD-Single Family Residental BE AWARE THAT COWER COUNTY HAS LOBBYIST REGULATIONS.GUIDE YOURSELF • ACCORDINGLY AND ENSURE THAT YOU ARE IN COMPUANCE WITH THESE REGULATIONS. Page2of7 6/3/2014 Co er County COWER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 • www,colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE Zoning Land Use N PUD/BD-04-AR-5239 04-03 Single Family Residence 5 PUD Single Family Residence E Waterway/PUD Little Hickory Bay W San Mateo DR/ROW/PUD Single Family Residence DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Narrative description of project(indicate extent of work,new dock,replacement,addition to existing facility,any other pertinent information): Rama erg(204)SQFT.dodo(80 )end request a 42 bot swanalon beyond the maximum 20 feel to W able b s,mnmodee 1 boat oR for 26'vessel and 1 IM for PWC/Peddle crafts.Tota/over water structure Is(668)SOFT.Dock to be in wane location. (See Drawings). SITE INFORMATION 1. Waterway Width: 860 ft. Measurement from❑plat ®survey ❑visual estimate ❑ other(specify) 2. Total Property Water Frontage: 97.58 ft. 3. Setbacks: Provided: TM ft. • Required: 15 ft. 4. Total Protrusion of Proposed Facility into Water: 62.7 ft. 5. Number and Length of Vessels to use Facility: 1. 25 ft. 2. ft. 3. ft. 6. List any additional dock faculties in close proximity to the subject property and indicate the total protrusion into the waterway of each: Docks at SOUTHPORT on the BAY:Lot 241s 68.92'.Lot 25 I8 63.13',Lot 26 Is 62',Lot 27 is 50',Lot 29/a 90'and Lot 30 is 84' 7. Signs are required to be posted for all petitions. On properties that are 1 acre or larger in size,the applicant shall be responsible for erecting the required sign. What is the size of the petitioned property? 0.24 Acres 8. Official Interpretations or Zoning Verifications: To your knowledge,has there been an official interpretation or zoning verification rendered on this property within the last year? ❑Yes®No If yes,please provide copies. 6/3/2014 Page 3 of 7 • Collier County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 • www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 PRIMARY CRITERIA The following criteria, pursuant to LDC section 5.03.06, shall be used as a guide by staff in determining its recommendation to the Office of the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner will utilize the following criteria as a guide in the decision to approve or deny a particular Dock Extension request. In order for the Hearing Examiner to approve the request, It must be determined that at least 4 of the 5 primary criteria, and at least 4 of the 6 secondary criteria, must be met. On separate sheets, please provide a narrative response to the listed criteria and/or questions. 1. Whether or not 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.) 2. Whether or not the water depth at the proposed site is so shallow that a vessel of the general length,type, and draft as that described in the petitioner's application is unable to launch or moor at mean low tide(MLT). (The petitioner's application and survey should show that the water depth is too shallow to allow launch and mooring of the vessel(s)described without an extension.) • 3. Whether or not 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.) 4. Whether or not the proposed dock facility protrudes no more than 25 percent of the width of the waterway, and whether or not a minimum of 50 percent of the waterway width between dock facilities on either side of the waterway is maintained for navigability. (The facility should maintain the required percentages.) 5. Whether or not the proposed location and design of the dock facility is such that the facility would not interfere with the use of neighboring docks. (The facility should not interfere with the use of legally permitted neighboring docks.) • Page 4 of 7 6/3/2014 • Mike Scott's Dock Facility Extension Primary Criteria 1. The upland property is a single-family residential zoned lot that per the LDC is allowed two boat slips. Proposed dock consists of 1 boat slip and 1 decked lift for kayak/canoe which is appropriate for single-family dwelling.We are requesting a 42.7-foot extension from the allowed 20-foot protrusion. 2. This area of Little Hickory Bay is extremely shallow and the existing water depths are insufficient to moor a motorized vessel within their riparian rights without protruding greater than the allowed 20-feet into the waterway.Water depth too shallow for mooring at mean low tide as shown in cross-sectional dock drawing,the average water depth at mean high tide is 6 feet. 3. Proposed dock facility does not intrude into any marked or charted navigable channel, thus no adverse impact on navigation is expected.The width of the waterway, measured from MHW to MHW, is approximately 860-feet and the proposed dock and lifts will protrude 62.7-feet from the property line and 53.1-feet from the MHW line. The proposed dock and lifts have been designed not to impede navigation and is • congruent with the other existing docks along this shoreline. 4. Proposed dock facility protrudes a total of 62.7 from shoreline,the overall protrusion is approximately 7.5%of 860'width of waterway,therefore doesn't protrude more than 25%as shown on site plan survey. Dock facility maintains more than 50%of the navigable waterway open. 5. Proposed dock facility location nor design interferes with neighboring docks as shown in county appraiser's aerial view and in fact proposed dock will be consistent with existing docks along the shoreline. Signed letters from the neighbors on each side of the proposed dock area have been included for review. 11111 CAT County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 • SECONDARY CRITERIA 1. Whether or not there are special conditions, not involving water depth, related to the subject property or waterway, which justify the proposed dimensions and location of the proposed dock facility. (There must be at least one special condition related to the property; these may include type of shoreline reinforcement,shoreline configuration,mangrove growth,or seagrass beds.) 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.) 3. For single-family dock facilities, whether or not the length of the vessel, or vessels in combination, described by the petitioner exceeds 50 percent of the subject property's linear waterfront footage. (The applicable maximum percentage should be maintained.) 4. Whether or not the proposed facility would have a major impact on the waterfront view of neighboring waterfront property owners. (The facility should not have a major impact on the view of either property owner.) 5. Whether or not seagrass beds are located within 200 feet of the proposed dock facility. (If seagrass beds are present,compliance with LDC subsection 5.03.06 I must be demonstrated.) 6. Whether or not the proposed dock facility is subject to the manatee protection requirements of • LDC subsection 5.03.06 E.11. (If applicable, compliance with subsection 5.03.06.E.11 must be demonstrated.) • 6/3/2014 Page 5 of 7 Secondary Criteria 1. The proposed dock facility has no existing seawall, mangrove growth along shoreline, plus shallow water depths justifies proposed extension of dock into deeper water. 2. Proposed dock facility allows reasonable and safe access to vessels without excessive deck area not directly related to maintenance functions,storage of kayaks/canoes and accessories as shown in site plan survey. If storage area and lift were reversed kayaks/canoes would create insufficient area to board vessel safely. 3. Length of vessel is 25'and is less than 50%of property's linear waterfront footage of 97.58' as shown in site plan survey. 4. Proposed dock facility will not have a major impact on waterfront view of neighboring property owners and will be consistent with existing docks along shoreline as shown in county appraiser's aerial view. 5. To our knowledge no sea grass beds are located near proposed dock facility as shown in results of submerged resource survey conducted by Turrell, Hall&Associates and • provided for review. 6. Proposed dock facility consists of 1 boat slip and 1 decked lift for kayak/canoe,thus does not require Manatee Protection Plan as stated in LDC subsection 5.03.06 E.11 or N/A. • Aug 0315 02:39p Greg Orick Marine 2393012238 p.1 • Coltr Cpitnty PL 2015 0 0 010 2 4 REV 1 • COWER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX (239)252-5724 ADDRESSING CHECKLIST Please complete the following and email to GMDjlddressing@coliiergov.net or fax to the Operations Department at 239-252-6724 or submit in person to the Addressing Department at the above address.Form mus( •c rrLrl• lb! !i::.i`i l: • •r .• •re-a•.Iicetbr W:ni •I :I • • 1•( !l�^_` Not aft items will apply to every project. Items in bold type are required. FOLIO NUMBERS MUST BE PROVIDED. Forms older than 6 months will require additional review and approval by the Addressing Department PETITION TYPE(indicate type below,complete a separate Addressing Checidlst for each Petition type) ❑ BL(Blasting Permit) 0 SDP(Site Development Plan) 0 BD(Boat Dock Extension) 0 SDPA(SDP Amendment) ❑ CamivaliCIrcus Permit ❑ SDPI(Insubstantial Change to SDP) ❑ CU(Conditional Use) ❑ SIP(Site improvement Plan) ❑ EXP(Excavation Permit) (] SIPI(Insubstantial Change to SIP) ❑ FP(Final Plat ❑ SNR(Street Name Change) ❑ LLA(Lot Line Adjustment) g SNC(Street Name Change—Unplatted) ❑ PNC(Project Name Change) u TDR(Transfer of Development Rights) ❑ PPL(Plans&Plat Review) VA(Variance) 4111• PSP(Preliminary Subdivision Plat) VRP(Vegetation Removal Permrl) PUD Rezone VRSFP(Vegetation Removal&Site FLU Permit) ❑ RZ(Standard Rezone) OTHER LEGAL DESCRIPTION of subject property or properties(copy of lengthy description may be attached) SOUTHPORT ON THE BAY UNIT ONE LOT 28 S06,T 48S, R 25E FOLIO(Property ID)NUMBER(s)of above(attach to,or associate with,legal description tf more then one) 74435003103 STREET ADDRESS or ADDRESSES(as applicable,if already assigned) 206 SAN MATEO DRIVE BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134 • LOCATION MAP must be attached showing exact location of projactlsite in relation to nearest public road right- of-way ightofway • SURVEY(copy -needed only for unplatted properties) PROPOSED PROJECT NAME(d applicable) PROPOSED STREET NAMES(if applicable) SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN NUMBER(for existing pmjects/sites only) SDP or AR or PL* Aug 031502:40p Greg Orick Marine 2393012238 p.2 • Cottr' County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.coiiiergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX (239)252-5724 Project or development names proposed for,or already appearing in,condominium documents(if application; indicate whether proposed or existing) Please Return Approved Checklist By: •[ Email 0 Fax 0 Personally picked up Applicant Name: Mike Scott Phone: 239-949-5588 Email/Fax: info@orickmarine.com Signature on Addressing Checklist does not constitute Project and/or Street Name • approval and is subject to further review by the Operations Department. FOR STAFF USE ONLY Folio Number 70/3500 3/63 Folio Number Folio Number Folio Number Folio Number Folio Number Approved by: , ..--,/ Date: iF/* ' /` Updated by: Date: iF OLDER THAN 6 MONTHS, FORM MUST B'^ UPDATED OR NEW FORM SUBMITTED . 41) October 2,2015 • rte, To Whom It May Concern, I,Katherine A.Scott,beneficiary of the Katherine A.Scott Trust,and owner of the property located at 206 San Mateo Dr.,Bonita Springs, FL,hereby acknowledges and Michael Scott has permission to do all permits and licenses required to facilitate the building of a new dock also located on San Mateo. ,,,,45,5( of 4110 • AFFIDAVIT OF AUTHORIZATION FOR PETITION NUMBERS(S) PL a,o�-,(I-y.)1(1. .Q.0 • I, !"" .it e 'c'' (print name),as applicable)of (title,r under oath,that I am the(choose one)owners applicantr'�cantract purchaser[andthaswear or affirm 1. I have full authority to secure the approval(s)requested and to impose covenants and restrictions on the referenced property as a result of any action approved by the County in accordance with this application and the Land Development Code; 2. All answers to the questions in this application and any sketches,data or other supplementary matter attached hereto and made a part of this application are honest and true; 3. I have authorized the staff of Collier County to enter upon the property during normal working hours for the purpose of investigating and evaluating the request made through this application;and that 4. The property will be transferred, conveyed, sold or subdivided subject to the conditions and restrjctions Imposed by the approved actjon. -. 5. .,Watauthorize(,'ict4/1,...e71 A4r.ar e 114-..rl'rn 'n.- to act as our/my representative in any matters regatding this petition Including 1 through 2 above. ,_ Notes: • If the applicant is a corporation,then it is usually executed by the corp.pros.or v.pies. • • If the applicant is a Limited Liability Company(LLC.)or Limited Company(LC), then the documents should typically be signed by the Company's'Managing Member.' • If the applicant is a partnership,then typically a partner can sign on behalf of the partnership. • If the applicant Is a limited partnership, then the general partner must sign and be identified as the 'general partner'of the named partnership. • If the applicant is a trust,then they must include the trustee's name and the words'as trustee'. • In each instance, first determine the applicant's status, e.g., individual,corporate, trust partnership, and then use the appropriate format for that ownership. Under penalties of perjury,I declare that I have read the foregoing Affidavit of Authorization and that I the facts stated In it are true. , -'lipnaturs Date III • STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing instrument was sworn to(or affirmed)and subscribed before me on 7421/i5 (date)by /l'r if`<:ci:/m (name of person providing oath or affirmation),as Saar o is personally known to me or who has produced • (type of identification)as identification. �! , A.' , ,, --,--e C STAMP/SEAL Signature of Notary Public t 1 ;,i'r, nowOLY �'O Mi UWMO Mahn Prate• Aril.$ sNn1M 4.Lr.F cowman I @ INNS Winn*MailNary Oat cr48-COA-0115\155 _ REV 3/24/14 1 http://www.collierappraiser.com/Main Search/RecordDetail.html7Fol... Collier County Property Appraiser Property Summary pi. 2015 0 0 010 2 4 REV i Parcel No. 74435003103 Site Adr. 206 SAN MATEO DR • Name/Address KATHERINE A SCOTT REV TRUST 10836 CRYSTAL RIDGE CT City ORLAND PARK State IL Zip 60467 Map No. Strap No. Section Township Range Acres *Estimated 3A06 636400 283A06 6 48 25 0.24 Legal SOUTHPORT ON THE BAY UNIT ONE LOT 28 Miliege Area 0 3 Millage Rates 0 *Calculations Sub./Condo 636400-SOUTHPORT ON THE BAY UNIT ONE School Other Total Use Code O 1 - SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 5.58 5.6697 11.2497 Latest Sales History 2014 Certified Tax Roll (Not all Sales are listed due to Confidentiality) (Subject to Change) . Date Book-Page Amount Land Value $885,464 03/06/15 5127-1094 $2,400,000 (+) Improved Value $631,753 08/21/98 2453-546 $ 317,000 Market Value $ 1,517,217 01/01/91 1588-1477 $ 245,000 09/01/89 1469-556 $2,714,200 (-) Save our Home $72,087 (_) Assessed Value $ 1,445,130 (-) Homestead $25,000 (_) School Taxable Value $ 1,420,130 (-) Additional Homestead $25,000 (a) Taxable Value $ 1,395,130 If all Values shown above equal 0 this parcel was created after the Final Tax Roll • 4/40/201s 7.Cd AM etails http://www.collierappraiser.com/Main Search/RecordDetail.html?Fol... p , ( Print New Search Tax Bills Change of Address óroperty Summary 11 Property Detail 1 Aerial f Sketches 11 Trim Notices 1 Parcel No. 74435003103 Site Adr. 206 SAN MATEO DR . ,- * 'IN .4, '. Ate' i, I.- , , eIII -'� �--' r x � .....— • --.. . ... ....... ,. .._ .3 ° CollierrCounty Propert Ap•raiser. -Year:-2015 Land arcel: 74435003103 Open a GI Window with More Features. • If 1 4/30/2015 7.55 AM 0 Collier County Property Appraiser �. FEEDEBACK HELP .0,,E, t. t!J7ROD1ICTt0`. i _, '"-y,,"".�... ' '--%•-• 4i r2 - _ iE 8m a�lnac'i 47.:.y,'ri�i.' ..-1, — 'i �- M1 EL i 7 21:4e, t �. ' .5.1 1'. ' —"'-.' .. - • ''. ... .e:it'i 4V.:''' 4, - ).-i'_;.:4;6417...?":.... �� a .;t56.-• ei � amr p45' i- . .. -k r� tpi i- ? r vt'K' 4_ ; y , � .`• • . fy r � '" ;I G • • _r a '. r • �;`cc-�`.' - i�gni'✓ L� -- +9►•`'_,Ca, • • i ,...-4/ err . "[ 1 • v � .. 43} ., - -" .ty ) 9' ,,I r WW1,'Cos., v Na cpYyRineso Nm aes.FL. :. Full Courtly Zoom In Zoom Out identity Pan Measure View Previous Zoom To Clear Map O1erview • j View Selected Graphics Aerial Year: Sales Year III X X X X • Wednesday,August 12,2015 To the Owners of 204 San Mateo Dr.: We,the Owners of 206 San Mateo Dr.,would lace to seek your consent to allow a dock and boat lifts to be constructed beyond the 20 foot county limitation line.The proposed dock and boat lift will not Infringe upon of the 15'side yard setback adjacent to your property. Attached to this letter is a proposed drawing,based off of a recent survey that shows the approximate placement of the dock and boat lifts in question. Yours faithfully, Michael&Katherine Scott Owners of 206 San Mateo Rd. We,the Owners of 204 Sen Mateo Dr.,have no objection whatsoever to the proposed drawing referenced and consent to the placement of the dock and boat Ilft. Yours faithfully, Date: Fie4dht -t1-c Bryan Owner of 204 San Mateo Dr. p1A ��� v"'— _ Date: Sally Putt y • Owner of 204 San Mateo Dr. Page 1 of 2 IP • P/L[--1.4° �— natamry P/L Curtain "---la3'-- ~ liIj' o4! 2E: )000, I. I 1 ' I east Uft I ' ,'4 I 18. E -� I g: 1 min �N -�;'." I 4 .r .r. I Turbidly ti".�"-4'3" rk• CLOT^ I Proposed 67 T P `---o—za'3"�—__.4: 7,000* 5'8', .� 62.12. pad�ed IJf! 411 Rae,g -39.7. , I is I zs I 1 . ii • Prowl:, LinaNopert 1 page 2of2 Po* GREG ORICK MARINE Names tt Sco " Address: 206 Sae Mateo Dr CONSTRUCTION, INC. Bonita B FL 34134 " ;`e (239)949-5588 Date: S/3BA15� s.. 110 Monday,August 3,2015 To the Owners of 208 San Mateo Dr.; • We,the Owners of 206 San Mateo Dr.,would like to seek your consent to allow a dock and boat lifts to be constructed beyond the 20 foot county limitation line.The proposed dock and boat lift will not infringe upon of the 15'side yard setback adjacent to your property. Attached to this letter Is a proposed drawing,based off of a recent survey that shows the approximate placement of the dock and boat lifts in question. Yours faithfully, Michael&Katherine Scott Owners of 206 San Mateo Rd. We,the Owners of 208 San Mateo Dr.,have no objection whatsoever to the proposed drawing referenced and consent to the placement of the dock and boat eft. Yours faithfully, `•�� // ` � Date: fP Az- J es A Fountain Owner of 208 San Mateo Dr. �n Fountain Date: �i j/+-�'/5^ Gwen A Fountain Owner of 208 San Mateo Dr. it ,1I • Page 1of2 • • ..._J =-.. ty '`...• §' &a) , E .,.. 1110 • • —„., .7''.'..t ft, IF•%',..*• t21 3 ' --, "•.-'',a-;,i-ir-7.,..:1:.. ..$1, ; 3 - - •:::::',0,•;"; -:.:..,,;-,..... nr .-.'17 ,it, .-',-,-..';.1.ft —.." 5 ,'-'i "'-...4"j, 4.-,:, 40... • .-...!,-7...c.. X '7.‘ .' 41:-.-.. - - -- - -— --.. ;- ' ' ' ' ' 4 - •- .' •-.: i d f -7- ,:: ,-.ert-:''' '17f3tAttk-t4`, x__. _ _ it 6 . I .• } ---,,e '''', „..,--',:;'-k4r-_, ii.....i _ _1_ 4)...., .s. iii;..-,:.e..i:1:;:i.fiim,:!.: *,..„„,..,--1,-...--1., ......,,--- 0 . 7 :•' ' ! :si V,1 •-,4-0,9K-' Z...-:‘, '''• i . •5'N'h:r*'•':':' ''''•.;‘• + ” .-.14":1:±':f-':: ‘•.,.-.:^3..i4' 1 i • '' •1'.*, •'`, 'Atli's -••)1'' It . 1 ;., ".5 4 : ; ',''.:2-i;;,„*. ,i;(•,:'''';',.-- ct ....-co A .•,"-:- ri,,,...,,,,, I g'' ,.,ij:;-iNajr,ez,.•.. ' kttc.:'''':, 5t4.1'W•r4. ..`• ' 0' W A ----- ---— Z m Z c0 ri.•-ffi",,4%-` --7--- ..- ,, - 00,--•,..• 1 P4 aa CO ro,:*-1,!,. ; f-k- 4 i LO -7- - --—-- __ _ _ i t i- ii. 4.w..z'-...,t• v ' li.... u Lt 0 • ,..., S.d VT '''' 1.1"..fr••'g'P:A.V•a ' - •4 w Z At 0 g;2! :'''.. ..7-";•;,...:1-.;,?.41.•?-,;4- 1 ,?'' 2 a: -,,.' ...- .2.---L__--_...____._----------- I • I I I11-1111— i�� 4 111 �I—iI-II- U fillills iIL,-ilii ,`-� III _SII -N ?•-glit-HP�, Ili —IIII_ g „i y 1— III- 1 =1111= -� � III= I .� ra 1 11 III---w1 -II lid M 1� � _ = III- M III II ii •i �1=III —II iuem��=IIII_ flu Ase ,-,11 1111111-:=– —11111- NaaN 1 IIII=1111=II „ ��.� ��� ,." 11. 1111::--111R z � Q lit 1 ::=-i�II-1111-11 _ N {j q O l ~?' 1. 1111-1111– --f-=-11 -0..i t2 - — 1 "; �_ =1111- • z z - : . I,IIII-illl-ll a 08 in - ._ . ,.,1, .a mill -i l l=-I I I I-1111-11 o 19 . � � ►-=—=IIII__ x 0) �. **s- .• , IIII-11 a a� , • � p ,11� X 1111=IIII=IIII= o M — —IIII—IIII—II f 111;111}I-IIII-IIII- W u' N 4. • `'— =1111-11 a o -,': 1:2-7-- 1l—':1 -_=1111= c� 3 4 1111,- 111 1111—IIII—II 21 ---I I I R 1110111=IIII= S9 ilii--77 --ilii--ilii----i i S Ai = a- j — - 44 I. yr. N I • ;_ 1 1 erM o ciiioo M o L 0 °' tkID CII •P" 11 ciD 14CCAca Cf. iNs it, LC ...1Nv0 R N • Ivin 0 iii k •` - Q Q W, 41111tZ7 1..-q-1-.../1;iiii.0 0 Il Uc. i oc ..... ao itC as iii o in in , II � a � 0 1- o 0. . iii ON • (.9 U t J I 2 a. ISM • I is %till , ,„ ,, N ii m . � a � 11 ,i1 . ills 1 = � ct it . t .. -- „,-,..0 { 1 % J 0 0 7�$�Q� ,3 '1 ii 1 h- h N$ $A V d 80 :1 'm I 1 a IX � m V. `a yi _ 1• A 14 1 N ' t u la , , � 3D , Y * , + e ., ,.. ,, , ., A A i V 0x 1 Not vt I ' mipi .i arm.i"— z Zz IA-1',. b W 0 0 Q11 �n • wa � z W J" N W cA Z - oW FJ Ck g o* WJ v * 7 in NO C 'a Ooo1. U � Zg 1 co � tt Cla j7 g W U N t; m 0 m p n g cn u .- 1 i U 0 J N a3 f5Z.iVII 0 y� N yt10i 2 = a Z� r 5. a 0 a La LO Ca V: 124 5.o Z K > • „,..n„ "1"m�N�9.1,&33 1 incl- -`6„, ,, oi "M.O. 09 3M1d0 031VW NVS 0 4_ \ 0 . \ k § § iI §§4K® !�0 ! \§7 §—v„ ig 2 gl § ■ k�) Wr . i • § a J 41 g% a § f O p » | § z k§ _ � 4 § r.' ji II ) - .Wi ! bk §J& !Q 5P 22» 27 bo . g ` ®Laii-R 2( 1SP g Am il q M rn| ! • • E§ 2tx |ƒ § 6. \\ /�} §fig 2 \ `§ ! § § \ 2 § |K §�k 2 d zs\k ,z I §� ■} B§ k . _ Pc i | $ f W§7 2) ! ] §� § § ■& ` 2 i \)(§ ) § i ' 2 p . k $' 2 2 § }f. . f 3( i2c. § ; k f 1 j 4 k Q q 2$ 3 A■`© A » ` § | ee %■ O| & i § E' !� j | §E - '` § ® § ƒ | 3 �3 .� | cog . R§N k Kd 2 - 2 6 @ q # ` 22P I of -k § ' E ; I@. 2 & § m 2 2 § 2!. 2 § I. g m f ■§Kt § ■ w w 4 wi . 0 • SCOTT DOCK 206 SAN MATEO DRIVE NAPLES, FL 34134 SUBMERGED RESOURCE SURVEY APRIL 14,2015 • PREPARED BY: -r-'9� TURRELL,HALL&ASSOCIATES,INC 3584 EXCHANGE AVENUE,STE B NAPLES,FL 34104 • SCOTT DOCK SUBMERGED RESOURCE SURVEY APRIL 14,2015 • 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Scott Dock and residence is located at 206 San Mateo Drive, identified by Parcel Number 74435003103. The property is located along the west side of Little Hickory Bay, which is also bound to the north and south by a single-family residence, and bound to the west by San Mateo Drive. The property is located in Section 06, Township 48 South, and Range 25 East. The upland portion of the property is a single-family residence. Turrell, Hall & Associates was contracted to provide environmental permitting services and one aspect is the associated Submerged Resource Survey (SRS). This survey will provide planning and review assistance to both owners and agency reviewers in regards to proposed project. The proposed project consists of constructing a single-family dock within Little Hickory Bay. The SRS survey was conducted on April 6, 2015. Light southeast winds, mostly clear skies, and an outgoing tide resulted in visible access to the entire project area. Surface water conditions on this day were calm which also helped to provide fair environmental conditions for the survey. The water temperature was 76°F. Low tide occurred at 7:37 A.M(0.2')and high tide occurred at 1:16 P.M(2.1')on the date of the survey. 2.0 OBJECTIVE • The objective of the submerged resource survey was to identify and locate any existing submerged resources within the limits of the proposed project. The survey provided onsite environmental information to help determine if the proposed project would impact any existing submerged resources and if so would assist in reconfiguring the proposed dock in order to minimize any impacts. The general scope of work performed at the site is summarized below. • Turrell,Hall&Associates personnel conducted a site visit and I snorkeled these transects within the proposed project basin and verified the location of any submerged resources. • Turrell, Hall &Associates personnel identified submerged resources at the site, estimated the % of coverage, and delineated the approximate limits of any submerged resources observed. • Turrell, Hall & Associates personnel delineated limits via a handheld GPS (Garmin Model 76cax). •Page 1 of 3 SCOTT DOCK • 3.0 METHODOLOGY SUBMERGED RESOURCE SURVEY APRIL 14,2015 Turrell,Hall &Associates biologists intentionally designed the methodology of the SRS to cover the entire property shoreline for the proposed dock installation. The components for this survey included: • • Review of aerial photography of survey area •Establish survey transects lines overlaid onto aerials • Physically swim transects, GPS locate limits of submerged resources, and determine approximate percent of coverage •Document and photograph all findings The surveyed area was evaluated systematically by following the established transects spaced approximately 10-feet apart as shown on the attached exhibit. The neighboring properties have existing docks which provided easily identifiable reference markers,such as dock piles which assisted in locating transects and keeping them consistent throughout most of the survey area. One biologist walked/swam these transects using snorkel equipment where needed within • the surveyed area. The other individual assisted with compiling notes and documenting findings on aerials. Located submerged resources were photographed, the approximate percent of coverage was quantified,and the location was delineated on an aerial photo as well as confirmed via handheld GPS (Gamin Model 72H). The biologists used a half meter square quadrant further broken into sections by cordage to make coverage estimates easier. 4.0 RESULTS The substrate found within the surveyed area included two distinct classifications; silt sand with shell debris and just silt/muck material. These substrates were found scattered throughout the surveyed area. There was also scattered small oyster clusters and shell debris along the property shoreline. The shoreline consisted of red mangroves with scattered rip-rap both of which provide habitat for numerous fish, crabs, and barnacles, growing on and around the mangrove roots. The majority of the survey area exhibited a silt/sand bottom that was devoid of any aquatic vegetation growth or any types of submerged resources. The lack of any submerged resources is most lady due to the overall water quality within Little Hickory Bay as well as the water clarity not allowing much sunlight penetration. This was most evident in the deeper water depths. • Page 2 of 3 SCOTT DOCK SUBMERGED RESOURCE SURVEY APRIL.14,2015 Various filamentous algae and macro algae were observed and documented growing • along the bottom sediments throughout the survey area. Also observed were numerous fish species during the survey and a list of these species has been prepared and is provided below as Table 1. Table 1 —Observed Fish Species Common Name Scientific Name mangrove snapper List].anus griseus sheepshead Archosargus probatocephalus striped mullet Mugil cephalus snook Centrorrapus undecirnalis jack crevalle Caranx hippos 5.0 CONCLUSIONS The submerged resource survey at the site yielded few findings. Barnacles were observed growing on the mangrove roots and existing dock piles. The subject property shoreline consists of mangroves which provide natural cover. This mangrove area was where all the observed fish species were located including. Gray Snapper (Lutjanus • griseus), Sheepshead (Archosargus probatocephalus), Stripped Mullet (Mugil cephalus), and a few Common Snooks(Centropomus undecimalis). Negative impacts to submerged resources are not expected with the proposed docking facility installation. • Page 3 of 3 1 ell r -JC!'-' .. 4.,,,,, 14. iin }w `, a 'ie #"3 _ "n It �\ 03• t 1 `1 • Iy"s' e�J �L7 Z f1Y}-• • W Z • t t a4Ha 17 - ."_ 4 Il 1110:1; . u'i. il ill4 ._ 5 • an .; jj � .• ;',. . '41 0 1.1 4` § ,yam --.-.4'} ,� kt ...• L ii — )- 0 11 al 111 0 ilIZ • re Eg � 1 / :"Lt" " i C p a. �' 1.111 / 6 • i ..ow �F 0 LL p e�.- 4- Z ' V 2 alt~ aim 0,2 a (1) t� z w r- DO N 1.- i a, C Z 0 . Y .1Mg '. )4.: zlig X }- _ W a41 IN a1 i) Al P0309318aa1tBR8{C�pI�EE){pg�{-IOATOASNI8LBRECAI199 LOCATION 4,1012016 _ ._. • •a o ,..� E II o . F : � � �,; o .i_:xy.:,r • i 1 V n3 .Li xl" R•.i'•t: 4�� r •.�G1.k:iyFF. i - € i,'• `..Fw Asa 9 -40aA ` Li Cf. t- h .. Jt� •L . . - ' 1 • . . ..-..• ', . : 0 i t` c' $ 1 } � r �+ 4iys t �. 4 - . r1 _ 114. a ,-v : �: • a ,,,,ii! �le a •I it i G06 - �rt ais S- 1i t Illi: 1 Vi 7777 bf ' 17. -E l t r: , 0 i • .1'... i-3 P. • gip'. r''' .. :. : _. . ' f` yP� a . P,o i `v r ! y s • 7 '.. � •• 3-;G i ' roc • 9`"i. - • y '�x•..� • ' 4Fi ary.ow 3.7-••I'''' f• , yy.�t /,',r''—'.'"...\ ; 1�` _._ - ..- ' ---3•-•:• '1 `'• • i 11 • ......... fir. 5,�., .�....�_..y..�__.y_�r_. �:: ":-,.T�- --- 1�1►7iLF Jt.1iVlt EJ i. 206 San Mateo Drive Folio ID#74435003103 • S 06/T 48S/R 25,Collier County,FL L INTRODUCTION Collier County Environmental staff are currently reviewing an application for a docking facility located at 206 San Mateo Drive,submitted by Orick Marine. The County's review determined that the existing 20-foot Conservation Easement area along the property shoreline has been impacted with fill and non-native landscape plantings. This work within the easement area was not authorized therefore Collier County staff are requiring that the Conservation Easement area be restored to natural conditions by removing fill and planting the area with native shrubs and groundcover. The property is identified on the property appraiser's website as 74435003103, which is approximately 024 acre lot situated within Section 06,Township 48 South,and Range 25 East,Collier County,Florida. This document outlines the restoration plan for the onsite Conservation Easement area. IL EXISTING CONDITIONS:HABITAT&SOIL DESCRIPTIONS 11111 The subject site consists of 0.24 acre dedicated to a single-family residential dwelling with a 20-foot wide (0.05 acre) conservation easement area along the shoreline. The conservation easement area was impacted with the placement of fill material and landscaped plantings. The existing plantings within the easement area consist of a ficus hedge (Ficus benjamina), cordgrass (Spartina spp), and scaevola (Scaevola plumieri). The groundcover within this area consists of St. Augustine grass (Stenotaphrum secundatum). The conservation easement area will be restored as required by Collier County Environmental Staff Existing soil is fill placed on the property at the time the residence was constructed. Much of this fill will be removed from the easement area as part of this restoration plan. • IlL PROPOSED PLANTINGS/RESTORATION The owner is proposing to restore the conservation easement area(0.05 acres)by removing the fill that was placed there during the construction of the house and creating a consistent slope being approximately 8:1,from the remaining upland fill area to the existing natural shoreline elevation. This will allow for a very • gradual slope and once the fill is removed the proposed plantings outlined below will be installed throughout the easement area. 1 The proposed plantings shall include a minimum of 11 midstory trees on 20' • centers consisting of red mangroves and buttonwood trees,which will be placed higher up on the slope to ensure their survival. The groundcover will consist of 128 plants on 3'centers including leather fern,sea oxeye,and bay cedar which will be located higher up on the slope to help ensure their survival. All species listed should be utilized in even amounts if possible,but exact species numbers could be based on supply availability. Planting specifics are outlined below. Midstary plants: Number of Trees a 11 Red Mangrove(Rhyzophora mangle) 6 Buttonwood (Conocarpus erectus) 5 All midstory plantings will be installed on 20ft.centers with a minimum 1-3 gallon pot containers. Groundcover plants: Number of Plants 128 Sea Oxeye(Borrichla frutescens) 78 Bay Cedar(Suriana maritime) 25 Leather Fern(Acrastichum aureum) 25 • All groundcover plantings will be installed on 3fi.centers with a minimum 1 gallon pot containers. Please see attached exhibits for approximate layout of the proposed planting area. Irrigation maybe required for the top half of the easement area due to the distance from the ground water table to help ensure the plantings survival. For the lower half of the easement no irrigation is proposed due to the final elevations of this portion of the conservation easement being connected to the tidal water table which will keep the plantings hydrated naturally. IV. CREDENTIALS Jeff Rogers Project Manager for Turrell,Hall&Associates since 2005 B.S.Degree in Environmental Science,Rollins College Sustainable Development Course-Galapagos Islands,Equador Completed Southwest Florida Association of Environmental Professionals Wetland Delineation Training Course-2006 Florida Department of Environmental Protection Environmental Resource Permit Course-2006 Completed a FAEP Plant ID Class with Dr.Hall from the University of Florida- . 2006 Primary career focus:Permit Compliance Mitigation and Monitoring 2 m a N ii \ . .,. . . A00011 , 4 Ci. rt..1 liAt ii \ \ • . . ji . a , IE M '1,.,„•k: ' , 4 ;10111 t Irgl.f- !: _! r C 4 ' 4:0:"1:11,: : , 1 . itt' . -..me '74.G AI 1.. "M . _ Itt,- , , fir•} . 14:00:1•i.,,,...,:::4::.N.1.'.1 111... '. .4C:1'4:1 't' `. Y r loir te a0 Ict,;:;:::It' l'en *" ,.`!fir , J G0-\ �01 a� w Q o we O • 20 is U • v> 1 O, u r V oi0 to r OC`L �p i, o 0 \Du. � �oil z ..Woto a gQ � �1 lilli • \ \ 5" to a to \ a cv • .11- ill LL1 :-..1 11111 ai Lki ,•(.. !I'M to 'VP a % d.. 1 11111111 .IIP a 6 IVAN§ i- 1 -.............., , al it > cr.% ti I 1111 it 0 A 'T I's •=.t. .!. ca --; ....- „.r. •-r. 0 __- Co) Lij CO LLI E. 1.11 11:644d., it i---:- , . \ 2 ' _I.: • 'it . -, ,••.„.1‘••1..`; C--•,--, l ...'"-"I'-- • 0 l'i W' •,,, •,,, /0. ",..,.: /pi,.'•-• / <7.-.)'*\I.)'`)••••. -•••• ,/ , '.I p,.), , . . ..., w ,k,14.,- ..,) A • .., , /. / ,-: ;./... ..., .,:, .•16.'Ir.' ' ./ .4 II: . i s.4'.!••• '4 '''` '''' Y .? ''' '," ', .: '''• . fr ". • / .X.,, Xs. 1' ''', , '`• '''. ,' s ' CI) b ›...".....- :,,.. ..,.- „.....--_...,. . - . .4 '...i',..4f's,/'if ''' -.• '.• .4, '''. . UI C4 . lik I .,..., .,.. , Ilma .... R --I i A 1 u . . .. 1 A d5 V ? . •404 R..- I z \ \ , .., .. .. . 2 '. 1 . •-- g-a liti• , , ci3 1 ; 5 • ••1*, $ / ' 741 12‘'I 4 le 1 4 \ - .41111# : -- . , . ,-- . cc : \ir i - \ , *4",!,. •-4,''.,, a: . . Aff 4 •., ;',.."‘ ., 1.'• c._ 4 :,.,„..,;.: ,.. v.-- 0 I .:-.'tli#i, . - • • -.I*. ., '.nlite.IT - . ...1. - .4 • A . , 1111 4'. ad. -:--S-,-.15 • 40 • . •` - ---------- tl r :.ito I ti. ASSI o„ o t 111011 \ o VI $t egiSpv, 1!1- 1, 1 % t 1 •\ 3) 4.\° V2. a. -I / — 0 Csi til 10 ii ot , , ' _ 1 _--- ,, �, CC .° **44 MO -,' iii ir , it ,/ 1,. . 'A 10 e4t414 . i \ 0 • ---- '. 0 AAtt ., a z 2 . ,ire:t.cttvi d > eG *I\ Z cL 1 \ 6 A o e N 1N3UGSV3 _ 1,, _T NOI1V/1b3SNO ;4�i I 01 th -..g t irA II :11 m'4'• i .f�i m r is,. toodri.1 12 -__ °` 111; % cc CI I Z0 : ; Z � 1 Q V) Cl)0_ . ., it's` O k 1. ,, C __ Al' Y U Y /, 0 - LL _ 1N3W3SV3 NOLLVA I3SNO3 1r — oar N p Ce IAI 6 Ill 1 II •