The URL can be used to link to this page

CR 02/28/2017 CD m oz CD •`u co CD O co = _ ... O. co CD 2 0 0 z -p - m � m Ci ,....,R1 =.2-' CD JD r --1 O 7 _ < o o3 mcz 00 M � mz m O m `n O zm !� O z m M ((fp) --I p \1 t r mz O o � \. li,..$ --I c7°n m = 0 8o C z w rn zm m CW TI D 0 m -I > O -0 -1 zc.f) _-1m > rm O nD = oo - z .;, CO Z m� ZDzo mi o c m U) m- p ;; cD �' O. -1 o0 -nco > = , o ma D -1 >J oc0 <:' _(/? 0 m r cn ` \ cD (D n -< �-n -I 0 ip 0 33 zZm Ccoo CD 1v, -I cn0 = m -1 � .. m 00 nDmo 3 ,711 m � 7 '''' z °:3 > ... -n Mxippc 0 -0 -Z1 moo O oW Zooms n cn O m oo D ozm _c\-. --, 0 Z vD -< = * m DJ Cj r- -zi Dom O I mm = m -I V mm _TizcT N mm m o D Dco z r m o * D . o ▪ = 1e X) mCID m m Z mz V) 0 � r m m Z 10 > D opz r �� oo =7-1 m �) � m = = TO _. -G _ M m mDo \ \ cn C0 P m \1 v z = mz t0 D n t~ � o _ - mz \4 \' D C7 0 m 3 = CO O CD 51 cQ `V m a) ID = n D E OC 02 0) 0 r _I ._« '- CD M r D 5 < � G 3 o ( ti m cz my CD cn z 0 zv, rn �. Z �" O mz D zm N 0 O f� —ml mm 2 20 m O z 2 _ `'' ED D m m co w 0 nil O D z (DIS ,� m OW X0 -1 co 0 D ={ m � DOr- m O nD = aDR. z =n CO Z m Z o = o o CD —1 Dal CDoo D o. 17 = DC P17 = � � C. c m : m (J) m- 0 eD n r 11m 2 � rnD 3 m r (n z L,v CD ‘10 —I 00 -0 ® - m �. = O � 0 Ccco n —I cn 7p m -1 2 MOmO� 0Dm� o -2. Q mmo z0D M1� ...75 m M MDQ� ■ m DO C C.31 �0W ZO ° O (-FA) m O r m m N On (A coo > N W _ =' o D 0c c_ Q, . rn z Zrnz0 �1 w CI ® D (n z 2D k2m O mll - -mIz D = cn c ocn D nil- 0 (w 5 M -1 n = 0 O m = I— m m Z 7o D :3 (-- al 00 -I = m -< � m 2 = 0 ^n 1i m mm (75 C7 F- m �v z 2 m z Y. D n r 2 O —' 0 z = 0 m D C7 CD CD m 'a 3 = CO I- Or CD co CD r I- m CD v Q Wm c � n m Q n D 2 z `Q 0) \ - -I 0 m D -< CCD / — n J � r <=1 J O j1. 0 ojm g � o = \ 3 mm --I 1 � z � 0O mz ® z0 \ Z E ccn z0 —1 P z O • r mz ® o � -I m m 2 0 o (�• ...0 v zo m 33 cw D 00CA) W0 > C - r- CO 0 -/ D =im M > Em Z Z 1 Z ' = (to D -1 z o -I v m � m CL 0m = oO.(n m 0 eD mOo mWD D0 In n CI) 2 5 0JJ 103— Cl) m 70 m D 3 rF CD 0D OzZ8 , - B ® 33 C c o Cl) —I cnK 2m -126 x 000 0u) m6 12. Q cn r m0 O Z6D "7 m� z g 0 > z nri M Do0 —1 -0c m o0 No D oQW Z00v —I On 04' \ M O k Z m z m Z 3> -I O \ CI CD -‹ c ;> _ FZ Doom O I cc' u) 2m -1 St m -0 m z � = CDD r cD„ D 171 0 � -- D M mm ® 0 > Z r cn X D m r m o = v cn0 Co > mm m m --< Z < z U) 0v, M —I 0 _ � O m = r mm z MID lk./ D Q Z r- f it � 73 m mx m � cn C7 r0- m 33 0 D D xi 0 0 Z = m D C7 CD O m 3 = UM 1- O G CD to- CD '‹ 0 m ( v //=� r O a) n O Z 71 =O Pm 0 'p rF r- m � r" � O ...7.:D 70 < N O 3 ill c z co m74 74 m f, CD r ® ET) r77 z • O cn ® z z m m m m z ® o cp °� rail Ocri MC z 088 1 a v zm m c0.) e IA T Dr 0 m -I > o -0 -1 zcn �d! 33 O0 � co OD 0 -1 �n -im DCm t. �/� Z nD 0 - Z ' —ii C.0 m Z ~ n (tee ' o D -I 0 0 C --D -1 0 �.- D0. -2 ` Z Oc 177 -1 --I '- 0. a m m (n m 0 r jm xjDD DJ omz -� � B � -1 0 -0 0 - - m .1-* a ® � 0 C coo v, -I cn � = m --i � 1 i �ml m� n ° ma I' , 7- Q r cp O ® z D m Tz M xi JD [��■ nilM m D 8 \l `I ° mnoo ® OW ZOTv N -I 00 (hoc-' v Oz ,m Z 'a enc m v D D rz >0 --1-100m O C" CO r" -I = m op f 1 OD CDm -0 177 z --. m 71 r 0) D y O * m > mm r 0 Ill v ccr = v i) o -13 Th _ DOm rn U Ci) m 0 = 0 O m = r mm Z 7JD s" D0O z r- F o. pD -G mo, G -G m = H 11 GO - z; m 0 _ -1 0 O z z G) m 2 i1 D C7 CD 20 3 Et COD 1- O N CD CO CD C D Z c q 1 _ 6-N. mn _< CO = O n � � aCcorn m � - { r1 ■ CD O (DM (7 ® znrit 0 M cn 0 -1 c z 0 ■ -Mi mm 2 G) � ® Z rn cw -n Dc=1 m —ID O -p —I z cn t O o > Zc - o -n� —I Opp C -1oo D v ..D - 1 O. m 33 m Cn m O m 5' D Op -� 000 `` o �_ co z ODo — r m w 77 DD D ,. 3 /1� m � r- .� � Cnz ! w CD n _ 0 ,DD Do O Z Z N O � 0c, op m —I .+ o,T, 00 Cawmo r` 75. 0 Iris mOk z z >0 3 D �.0 r . D z 11 TI E 7J D7 C G^", 0.. —1 10 mO m Or -1 7C1 CON .—I MC 0n DS� ZO0rn z mM Z -0Dv DO � DFzdm O— o co co-Irpm m Ca. I-▪ > D ...i —1 D 71 O - -- 1 0 > D m 77 D zz r '''L' cn m r rn o � 0 u) o "t:' � ' O= zx 00 W ▪ D m m m -< Z < z (n O �n m -I . C) _ 0 O m = - mm Z m > D p z r — - m 2 m0 Do m m � U5 C) 1- m m z !bc3 D xD C13 -1 O Oz _ G) m DC7 CD SD cD r 0 B Et CCI O Cl) CD 4co CD -< o : (D CI co C co o m co E D 0 z cQ --1 C) m D _< N ti — Dm r. - I 0 7°00 m < 7;1 ® 3 Ilcz mz eD cn7) m z --e 1 Z m � ® zn Q 0 E t00- 1 Pz z ® ✓ m 0 , Ill ±; -1 '-1 z o M 0 z = L7 oW D z m m cc° cc3 -n D m --1 0 73 0 0 ? m o D r- co O � R: - =1m M D7_ m Z m z D m m M o -I 0O C -I 0p �'1 D O. -2 M I=TI 0 C m = O03 cl. � �'1 g CLC - I 00 � om°DJD CO 0 WO D = D3 ® Ooo U) o W Dom � pmD 3 ow ® z z m ® 0 C o to -1 cn CoMI m _, � mm0O� Dmcz) r (/) O ® z o° D --n - z M JJo � •)• 0 0 cc z 0 18 0 C� 0r O � _ 0n (job- D o z -0 � 0 M 0 D 0 55 (n 1-1= --1Z D z.� Om 0 I m cn m m _ ✓ cnD -� -ziu'cn D .k. -v D m m ® 0 D II, Z r � 0 c 0 m r Ill 0 � D OD 0 CO - Dm m m --< < z CJ) 0) C5 m - n =o O m = I -mm z 3° D D 0 z r �_P xj 0D --� o° I- � m 2 = 0 DJ m mD3 m (7) C7 � m 0 D x 0 D XI -1 0 oz m �' m D C7 CD O 2 a = CO 1- O N z CD um 0 W M O a c C OD C ) N CLO li� Pa n 0z co -a mo m `�°.. CD 1- rD m r —1O r_-. 70 < 70 O 0CZ -1 EZ CDliiiiiii ® mz 0 Zm 0 ---,-.) M gO -1 Pz -- 13 � -H 0 c N 7 r mz - iv J -4 c7°nm 2 oo ► �. z . , ITI O � � W �, ►� ® zm m cw TI r- 0 M -ID ® OO _ W Z0OD �'` M ECD `-..' O -I D -Im E DCm Zi _ 0 aH1 Cl n o CD v 2 Oc rn = -iCO Q a- rn 33, -fin (A m 0 eD 5' Q a oD, -n co Cl) o LU co = ® Doz •• 3 ap rrrrn DJ ") D B — -mi O u � � m �7 -0 0 z z ® 0 C co o v) --1 cn 27 m -1 h7 0071 0 n Dmf 0 rn mo zOD .�75 I— . 'JDZ —■ -n m M x) c' ''� C) 0 7003 ZOCo t - O r v -I On � S0� mzz 130. r -zip \ v ® D -< c C/) r i � � � � I m -vi M r-1 -i CD 1- DD _ -icn r cn l M m m O D v , Z r- • 0 Cn 0 rn r m p = 0 w DOm Ill m -WG mz CO O � 1 nG) == O m r m m z 3o > D 0 Z r 1- -G , m 2 = 0 D3 m mm c/i 0 I-- m G =Cm0 D D XJ O Oz z m 2 D C1 CD D) cD 3 = CQ r O N CD� CD '< 2i c ) ® = C z c co 0) .5 0 z — 711 = 0 m 0 -< 2- ur ;i----) CD D m 1" -1 O _« < = O n co E =.1 ,,c) = o. � m CD -I -1 CDD R Z 0 27) m z 1 O m ® zm � 0 M g0 P • �i rrl7 j I o z o 5 _l pz = 08 v zm m ma., S - -n Dr0 m -ID 33 00 Co.) o30 > C I- W 0 - v O 0D - = R- z . V -;, Z „ Zo �, o oCQ -1 0 D00 _1 0 o , Q 2 Z c = Oc m = -tom g D oii DD eN 0 eN000 w o _1 m ,n "G � cn 0 5 r _ -0 ® zzm s n ® 0 C coo C0 —I cn � = m -io - a 471 x -ri000 C) > mo 1 r- " o ® z W D �, -73 rn rZ MOS-72Z r O = co ZO0 -.9 o fi, a 0 r- -T1 -i On (n op - = O Doc = n 117 O � Z m -zlp 0 * m 0 > -< c m - r Z D � 0 m CD cn = m -a IT1 z -t N I- U D _1U y m � m O 0D > � c=n D Zr m 0 0 ? 0 DJ D � ..... m --<co 0� Z mz V) 0 � J1 r mm O : D 7D 0D _,--I 0° - m = z 0 r.. Do m mm cn C) r0- m _ 0 ]I) -A 0 0z _ � m XJ SD 2 a z o -a 3 C0 N 0 QD �. a) ^= I- z c cC2CO 73 G) - -o L 71 =0 m 0 CD ( CD r m K r _1 O r_.. 1 D � < o O C) co m E ---Rz m • m cn -zl -� cn _' ( I r 0 mz v zm �� Z E u o -1 Pzz _ ' . M Djz -1 zo 0 ( \ m oz = o8 ` . D Zm M c S-' " Z, r 0 m -I D '6 'S = CO E> r m a p 5 > 1z SCO Z z m C D m .6 D o CD -1 O DJ p p 0_ c m � -n m-CO00 N 5 -I 0 0 -'I WDJ cn o ra W --IDDO > p � 3 ..� fj n = o m > a T —� -u O z z m �1�1 =- cn v =fa 9) M -n --I nDmc�s, 77 o W m r-,11 E C:i > Z ‘A i, • -11__., T E m m G n - 73C m0po ti -n OW -iOm ' y / _I On coop m z � z -0z , DDD -< c - < z D -i O m � � � ," = I °m° -�v mz � = a) I- __I -1n> D c m 1;1m O 0 > w 0 mrr- m O = D op 00 XP m0 m mCO - < z V) 0cn - M -1 C) _ o O rn = r m m = 70 D z i1-D 0p > -< _ W C p -Im m - m = = O i3 m m m v) C) i- m zo D Jo Z D = O z z -1 O _ _ mz D C) CD 1y m �/� _0 3 iii -< O 2 Cl) CO,r- C) C -< 0 - D i i c) D c) z c- _ -D = o m o � CD r— m r _1 O mJ � 3 C 7 co z E z = rn c,� —1 —1 CI) z c z ® mz C7 zn 0 w 0 r z ç■ 'D -o=n m 0 C P p .. c = Lz7 0 2 ii N, •� z w ® Z m m °C°w TI Dr 0 m -I D :a0071 c o° OD ro° �'' O - D =1m g DEm Zm Zoo DD Z om m 0c rn = oCO ma �' a o. n o0 -r° 000 N o CO = _ ® Doz I- DJm mo 3 oft o rn mm � (nn (.i' �. 0 - ® zzm la 0 70 C CON8rn —1 cn K XI m —1 p N Er m � � C� Dmo .. 0 rn m z m c J v z � Co 7�CJw ..... Z0 _911) C TI O '— -1 70 —I On CO oo- m � Z � -zi0 zz 01-rl ® D -< C D -1Om 1C/ i- -H cm i cnn> m -I -1r cn rn m o OD D c' o D mi-- „j� O JJ r , v i rn \- _ O t`A 73 mO rn DJCoD m m -G Z < z C!) 0) in ro m w C7 2 G) O rn = V V r mm z DoD lJ D 0z r �- "< 7m<o I=Il = 00 m 33 00 -1m C7 0 r- m G)) 0:10 D D X -I O Oz _ � mz XI DC7 CDD D)0 3 C -< O CD cD c5 CD ' --< 0 m m = 0 m DO a 0 D 0 z to n =o p > < `CD \Ti r■■F r- m � r _IO CD 3 0 wm M = z = n ' rn c_n —I --1 m D C>4\- m 0 O ZZ cm„ z 0 zm C mcn0® Pzz r mz oN S M- pz = 00 1• 33 m en ® z mm 111 E S-4 3. -in 1- m -ID xj 00 CA) 000D � m m > ' m �J/1�/ Zm Z p = p 0 iii —1 o � -1 0 = o c 117 = 0 Q a. rn 7C] (f) m� . 0- W O- 0 JD co O m 0 cin ® > --7,..- '' 3 np3 eft ® ., C c0N -1 cn � 77 m —IQ �� 6' Ill mmp� C) Dmo -p, 0 r Oo Oz °JD m M - rm .z 0D � n■ —I -0 c m n 0 8 N v 0 mW ZO0 .o 1 -n —I O n ) 0 cn O _ -10 D0 c Do ® Oz 0> p * mDJ D rz n -ioOm 0 I ft,' go) P17 m -1 m ‘ /�, 13 Dm --1 —ziCnD •.z '1 I— cn D m --I m m m O O D z r m 0 * 0 ? 0 rn W c M D � m m - Z < z U) 005 - m --1 r mm O mD D � z r e rr- I o < -1 = m -r< n-I = = 0 m m mm c C7 1- m m 0 D D _ -I 0 0z m0 rnz CD D n CD Q) CD -< O cn to CD CD -0 -< WJD = v CL z c to 0) 9,) DM r_ _i0 , 77 < O 3 0 W m E = o = rncn -zi --I > (V Z z c) (7) X17 z n O mz ® 2 r 0 g 0_ 1 c0 1 rn -I 0 o y\ v CD = 8 0 z Vv® mmC WD Q r1 -ID O D ^ zcn MO OW0 DM =InDCm OnD _ = R" z `k--- -.MCI m Z W =l W O \D --1 0a) _1 .--1p Q 'v rn I CL __ m =co m oma I Q D op moon CO o W = OD � z 3 r_ mm = = = D rF rlI = r omz m W ® 0 7) O z z m O —j 0 0 CO rn 711 omo� n � mo A •-F3. C I— cn0 ® zWD IT_ OOz m • n m E _ ilcj 0 -1 � c m n ° o O =OW Z00v —1 00 01' 0) ) 1=TI O0 Z � zm W z ® D < O� ,--ni M D • F z D o ;° O `�� i -, .,..r _a > ,m _4 ----1 c7) > .. rn � m O -05D D. m z r- O M * p cnO _ m 0 m mOD mz U- ) 0 n 0O= m = 1.-- mm Z Jo D D o Z r r r - m = = 0 m m mm 0� m 0 MC m= 0 D D _ 0 O z _ D rn 2 a. D f7 CD Q) cD 3 a CQ O 03� n = Q. CO C < o i. ca c> - z to _ -1 r m m m -_-Ii o D 7 � r � o 3 0 W m m -, o rn � --I -1 mD Z 02 (7M z mz v zm N. 0 • toO -I cz ` n1111 N ■ r mz O oiv V1 �. --II wm = 0o \` ` z w v zm m = CTI ` (") T D0 m --ID - 00 W W o D =-Im m D _ m O b- m ZI/ = 1-1 MI -I 0 Q C -I o mp c re"l -2 \V �"I C = C = -i W Q m m Fri -I -4 a 5 > oaj moon IF Cl) o AaP 0o = ) > 0 - 3 r mm � 0m > a -I C) -o 0 - mm r, 3 in �o j3 O z z --I cn X7 m --I 4,CD I 5" D=TI -T1 -I O Dmo 9. 0 -I v c m 0 0 ' Rib O oW Zooms -I 0 CmoP h. _ = o D oca 7 ® oz � Z � � ociikk, iii vD Ti* m V—) i-- z Dmom 0 1 Fp., go)LTI mz = .„4,zi . r ccnnD 0 � D. -D-1 /' �_ m mm O oD DCO D mr �, M oz v � o " \ xi Dom m m ti m < z CO o v� rn --1 l 0 _ 0 O m = \:' r m m Z �7 D mD pz r * FL-xi 0 p = m- � m 2 m0 a• = m m =-1 m cn n P m v 0 D D 1 oz m mz 11 CD 2)CD m o a) m 2 CD cu c < o = `° CD Ez c co c n D Oz 71 r mK r -1O � < o O 1 { 3 m rn c z -4 m D a) \/1 t m "' z - Z cn v 0z 0 v -1 O co " \ 1 r mz 4N ^` -I m z = p o (\ �. v Z m cW \ ^ m I- 0 m -i > t A 7x0 oO C cao > r� --r-1m EoDrm 1- O ? m Zo _ o =A CO 20 D mg al -1 02 _1 -I0 � �` 2 = c -� m s 177 T f11 m 0 00 N -• Q op oy oD -1/2, ,- hu ^W = > D - " 3 r = m = � mD �'7 CD CD O = CcOo t '� c cno = 71 m -� c - m TOGO O Dmccb 0 m mo e-% 3> `-� mm E = = c n� C- moo O o � Zo � ~ EN - � ' rib. -I o , � o = � rnz7 OZm zO v KoD -‹ cn W -I 7mK � .r . m ITl z _ ,_ CD (� �/� rccn D term • " 111 D m 2 O O D Zr- ^ Dcp D mr- j m o � v DJ _ co _ > mm m m -00G (- Z < Z Cl) Ow m CD C7 = 0 O m = r m m = J7 D M oz r �� 1p I- o < —I-I = m I— - m = = o m m = m cn C7 P m z = m f;) D33 D r _ -1 O Oz mz z o 0 cmm -< r N CD Mt CD D 2z cam _"' D m� m =! 0 DD n co m = o m O z D zm 0 ccn0 n � M –4 Pz 11 -1 O c 0 r m zo k, -I ccn z = 0 w� _�� 0 zmm m cW -n r 0 m --' D O m � zcn D3 o 0 c oco > ''E =1m > r- m z m Z 0 = o 9,CQ -1 0Do C -1oo Q -0 �D m oK m = O � -t a. Q –1 00 - v> o ccn o hai coo = " O > 02 `�' - _ r j3 m o m D B .r 1. m T 0n 0 -° O z zrV' BO � 0COo \ i cn m -,- 'I m � � nDmcon r c„ 0 Ozo > =13 rn mz M D > z —. D' 0 cls 0 -I -° c muco O o W z o mo c '-� Z5 0 0 ! w.,_ —I 00 cn0� 1=71 00 )%e mzmm p z � DD - o ..." D � z OO ,xx _im � r cym --1 -z-IFD ' D op m mm O 0D z r M O � v � O - m 70 co = D m m m co Z < z U) 0Cn m O Cn Ei5 -1 Or t.) _ 0 O m = r m m Z 7o D D 0z 1– � r I-- c0 = m rrn _ = 00 DJ m mm u) n 1- m o m0 D D 73 0 0 z --I0 _ _ mz Xi Dc7 CD D 2 2 = -< Or G C=O CD r 03 O mCD 0® , QcC cD co p - E-5 D z c ea 2 --I-{ C7 D _< CD r•F� I1—' m r _nl O CD m c Di 5 0 cam - Fri- CD cn -I —I cn D ;z 0 z � m z \ z O mz 0 2 cn o w -I ® cO --41,. � z I- o m 2 o o f‘''' �. —I cn z 2 O � �. m r 0 M -I D 4\ MO O 00Z D S m r O m32. m M D E r m z 7s m Z o O o T z0C Dmo 9 = 0c -I --{ -1 m g c —1 OM Do 0 -n Woo cn n WO D = O 000 .. o _ W m m 2 Dj m D O � pDJ Cow c0oN -I cn 2 m -� v. 6 71 M mmO� Dmcc) O 1r- mo - zop7D -rj T ; : D3DO _. O ° m Z00 Or Oma -1 On tncn n cn O ® zz Z -v -ID ` O D C 111, JD o pp I m -v m z _ -I CD D cn D mm® OD z r cn m r m 0O * ® mrp _ 2 70 > mm m m � 4 (> Z < z V) Ow __ m 0 cn c75 -I kJ _ O o m = I- mm z 3:ID `�- - � m 2 = 0 m m mm cn 0 rn- m mz o n ma -Ai 0O oz m z 1, D C7 CD 0.) CCD ms 3 : CO -< 0 CD CD C.0CD r m a) M -D 0 co _ ° co E D2 c (1:20 a) xi o — _ 0 m n0 'D n CD Dm r —IO ;47 -, � � m ® a C) com m � g = C) cn —zi _,— z c�°, � p/� Z O m cn D z m C1 0 cn- nn0 —I Pz /\ i . -v —{ p C O l , r m cs z o tv •� --I ccnm 2 0o n' 171 O z cri ri ® z m m CO c('i -n r m -�a o -1 z Cr) 33 000 0m 0 D 03 -im ODI- m D Z 5 = CQ m Z ° o 2OC › oo4. D oa) —1 = Om = 0 -< Q. a- CP- M m 33—I O p W (() 0) n 03 ®� > cn -W = _ oz m cn "' ;° ; � � � z mCD - -0 O m �. ® m . C C 0z o �' v, 2 cn 33 m = c> G 17.1 mm p� % 0 D m cin `--� o I— � O ® zpJD o z Z® ooov ; "' co � p� ' + —I O _ = O0C = —cio Fz n -lOm 0 Q CO cn Fri if — v 1 4. D D _I -zl U) =D r cn - m m O O D > D zr- (AC gip r 177 O * D O _ D Om m m --G Z mz w O - 21: ...4\ C) _ G) O m = r mm Z = D M 0z r �r = I 7>1 m = M O ii m m m f� C7) C) r- m 21 oz � z m 2 O CD 3 Z 3 = CO CD CD CO CD -< 0m (r) = 0 m o = mom = 0 m 0 , c `�v CD D m r O .-�; � K o % 3 0 corn g -� — = m � � � D `�°, 5 Z M z O mz D 2 0 E g0 _1 Pz 'G O c Or ----,r mz div --I ccnnz 2 0xi o D z 0 m c - m 0 m --I > O -0 -I z E =jm > Em m D Z m Z 0 — 0 0 c m O � m = om a. a Q. oj mooD —i00 CA hai 0 O -j O zzr" - O 0 C c 0 cp a rn M mo c) Dmo - 0 W I- � z Mo ° z �. 1 ji 33 ID --I -° c Immo O DW ZO0 N —I 00 CO m0- z-_-- 2 —{ O D mz - r 5 r n '� m m _1 z � -1 CD 4‘ 'I M rnm oCD D 16. z r- cn upmvO O m 0 m m -0D< � m Z < z U) 0 ; m 0 cn c7 -1 �� o _ 0 O m = - r rnm Z MoD �� M pz �— =� D 0 D -< =1 co --S r DJ m mop v) C7 m � 0 2 = 0 D �n 2 --1 0 \N)O z -1 0 z _ mz 0 1211 Z O 0 2 w fD ca CD -< 3 � cp 0 = c c � o 5 m CL 5 D 0 z C.0-_I r m K m -1 O .�-�-1-: CD D 7° K - < a° o N 3 n co m m -1 o = rn � z upD (-4) Om -P'� Z zv Pzm 0 E 65 o z .-,_ . 1- � zMI DJ -i 2 O c0 r -I 2 .:::) F m N Z W E v - m m �w T D 0 m -I p -D -i ,, ZCD O ca xj OEco 0 -1K G -1m E DCm "7 O -5 D 7oKz 'Z n CO ? m Zo -io 0 c co rn = m (nmo O U ) c�D c� c4 „clo D oD m000 C_ . o CO = O D 0 z r iim — mi — rn 7/ 7 � KOD0 V. 0 -0 Om a zZm rn -TI --1 n m01 -a - D W -n 7i mDJ33o n o i303 TI Or —17pOV -I o cnm0� m O � Z mzm .� v z v D -< OC m (. V) Fz DD 0 55n -iOm O J I oo cn m v, 5 m � mz - = i' 1rD � � cl) D c O DrozD m D ro (1) vmr- (t)rn o * u° c _ >mm m m -0DG Nii Z < z V) Ocn m -i o _ 0 O m = 1— mm Z 70D I> 0z— I— -,r- 3 oo = m rl -< m = = 0 DJ m mm 7 )0 rm _ 0 xj o0 z --10 mz / XI CD SD m o � -`° cm CD -C1 -< OI33 C v cC coo - ( m Q. CO, D 2 c cQ m j< z C?..)r r O �; CD D _ n m m 1 o = mm Dcn Omz (.- - V z z D ,2 m IC vv 0� -I pQ c r W - g O► --. -I Cwn m = Lm) o 3 (� m 0, 0 zzm m cow D 0 O - - rn zu) O0 oo0D D f-% (75 > z DJRo ;,CQ m zo c › mo 0K rn =o - s rn n o0 m000 CO o 03)> = O >0 z a r DJm — 0mD 3M r- - -1 O -o Ozzm O 0 C coo m oo (') wrno"2 . 0 r 03 0 O > oo D m ;117 o z -I -° c rn m ° o 0■ -nO (DM r_ .Z-10 ' OV . -1 On C1) ° °0 -i n cn zm ✓ z , z -0 -I0, ' �n � z D -Iom O 1 o- cn xj co 5. Q rn -0 I11z -i CD m = -% rte" � � _1CD --1 D m O D D Zr co mi- m -< z < z co 0) cn - rn 0 Cn Eii -I C0Om7 = (/) I- m m Z DJ D M • pz r =F oD -< -+ W I- � o —I = m -< m = = O DJ M mm 1 C7 i- m 300 D D xi --I O 0 z z � mz CD CD 2 2 = CO te- O 0 cO CD r . CD -< OF O v M C------1:1)0 c�Di o5 -• Q. 04 XI -0c, \\ CD- � 10 mO m -IO) m oM rn � q oD O mz D zm 0 M cam» 0 -1 Pz ■ O c0 rn 3:j -1 2 2 0 , ..__ -I cp rT1 v om m cw (s `' -n 1- m -iD xj O 00 W oo0 > E =j m m OD r m O ( > zo o ;CQ m -I G) DJ C D--1 0 Q -2 c Aao - -1 D 0 Do y o 0OD0z 3 me — — co =r Djm — omZ 2 m - „ G _T - _ 0 -I 0v Ozzrn OC 0 c0o a - cn 33 m -� o CO c IT1 O mZr- o� 12• CO > W V" m f7 E 0 ° z �. -n ?, = = o C7 –I 73c mono O 0r- Z0O0 T � —I On Ci) DC7 n 0 O v z - � rn D D u)- r- -1 D O m O \� V � � 5. I CD ` m mz _ IIP Dm —j v) � -9 rr- cn cO m mO Drn D -G � pmr 1 mo = C° o , = Dmm I.1'I m - L , m < z V) Ocn_< �j) - rn -I J c7 = 0 O m = r- m m z 7D D 0? f D oz r *� W g D -` -I W - � m = zO - m mDzim cn n t- m (' 3 G = c0 , D 7D -1 G) li-n 0 Z _ mz- c cD CD 2 D CD c C 03n •Ii1!c ED zc cla. ;"-- CD�0 I Oma "CI = O m 0 CD r K m r -1 O .=r; '. . 33 _ 33 0 r0 co n m -m z ( 0 M z O m„cz 0 2 0 M u, 0 -I Pz . r mz O oO \ �_ m-ml ) m = � 8 J T W 0 zrn m cw 1 -1 r0 m -i > o v -i z cn xr 00 C.) 000 > O Dm D C m m Z D - D o O z 0 C x m m CD --1 0m _1 -1 Q c m CL T fmm00 c"D 0-• Q -1 00 .naon = co o w co _ O O D 00 In r, m m m D 2 — CD CD %IP -I o 'o Om \ .r. a O X70 Cc0o m ITl 71 X 00 C7 in y m con 1• 0 tlm0 zpD •-•73 ▪ -n 33 x 0 \ /� • 73c m moo O 00W � 00 � - O n D O .. cn 0� =10 ZM O ro z m iNib Z -< O lk DKD > c — r- m -' o m O z t m � m - = r cxnx -Icn m m O 0 x , D om 33 D z r mu)i a' D �° 0 = 0 033 rj , [,--, XI - W Dm m m -DG Z < z V) 0 �n - m 0 Cn a5 -I I-- mm O 73D Z D z r . I- E 0 - = m - � m 2 = m0 '� 33 m mDo m N Zi-5 0 I- m 0 33 0 - x 21 0 O z --I 0 _ _ mz D C7 CD a) 2 D zr N CD CM CO , co WDJ = v c co Co0 - 0. °r° D z c O ) 0) _1 0 = o z - o rn 0 -< T1 m � r_ -10 ..- CD D � K < O 3 n cam m m =12 Fiz = m U, z m cnz Z O mz v zm 0 E cci) O -I r z ' -I p c O zDJoS. - -Io z C-. 0 oz =m cw m Dr 0 m -I > o -0 -1 zcn XI O O W 0 O D r co -im E > rm EL o 5 > zo0 r , ;,CQ -� g CD -1 '0DD -Ci --I00 • 3:. c = c -I -I CO • m 0 � m = O - a. Q. n HH Co 0 CD-2gim m 020 0 � � � CD %10 3� � 0 Q z z rn _a V.. ® D033 = aOo a m a ,711 000 0cnmo U --g.D W cn m p z O5z U �. -n -.11 M = = c n -1 -oma m00o o IICOo1- -I00 � cn CD0--I o �_ z ° -1 ,- = A z 0 - FnmI> oz Cnm -1 = n 5 • rn o m zrn ( -. O M m o OD r.1 Do r Z c mm r m0 � v r op = v o -- Dm m m --G Z < z (f) O Cn - rn -I C7 = 0 O m = r mm = 7oD 0 o D < -i mo' I- co -, = -< m = = O --I m mm co C) r- m G _ JD0 D D = o0 z 0 _ _ mz D f7 CD 0) 2 O N -• cQ CD -<0 0 W m = v = CL - 0 W C--<cri O 9D 0) 5 D O Z co Dmm O � CD r + 1 3 0 z U, m Z O mz D zm 0 o_0 � -1 0 c p 1 • r mz ® oN -m pz 0o CI ZMI m CW �v O -0 -I ZCDn 5 :_. 0 0 ) m O D o Dm D C m Z m Zoo oO CD 20 Coo n -I = c -1 W Q ▪ O DD O 0eti n W o � ® � ozcn a r mm zaj3mD 3 rn mm CD CD 3 0 auii OzzN C -c-IOoo m MC7 m o .-S) -a n mgi_ 0 O D �53rn � Do �. -02 0 O 7 oo ZoO � r- Om v -i On U) op ' ✓=I7 O0 )12° mzm Z -0 -1 D 0 DD -‹ c§ m — ,Wr- - cnO N� - Z st ZLD> m --II 111 M � Co o � D cl � m D m � rn o * Dp? O ▪ m m m m � V ' Z < z O Cn r mm O M > D 0z r �� p D < =1 o, -r< m = = o 73 m m DO m C7) C7 m mz D D XI --I O O z IN2 z \ D C7 CD CD ,10 z 3 C m CMO CD -o -< co �C v O W= �« Q c) 0 ao C � o = 0) r Z c (Q -o D 0 Z n cz= �= - m M E -� z Z O mz2 (7 D 2 O E up0 -1 p O co r mz0i\ m ", --1 —1 -2 c) / —1 cn m = 0 0 z Ilik 0 Zm m cw 34 'i'f 0 m -I D O -p -1 z CP S --I m E D r m O Am Zoo 1.--6(12 20 D m m o mcn = oma sQ -1 o p m ED > m 4 y o mo D = x p o 0 0 -----, S' O 03 3 OM m m -rr� .- Kc0 > ' 9 -1 O -a 0Zzm O 0 Ccoo -I cn � = m -1c) '. m cn Q r 71 oo OzWD Q,m � z 0 5 z �■ O 0 c Zoo9 1 —1 On cnO) 0� a M 'd0 oK Z � 0v H � • t D � z — rDom O r- -I ,.... I FTI,3 = m � � � m -o m z � = r CDP -- A � - � m m O o D mm D z r- , (1) m r -•� m 0 0 ((i) 0 m o = JD 00 - Z < z co o Cn r. -H > -Cn -i cOn 1 a r m m O m D D -CI z r g > "< -1 co - � m = m0 m m mD3 m c C'7 r- m rl z = m z .. _: 33 > _ -I0 0 _ �' m z 16 cu —TiCD 0 W21 = v co oDD E D Z c CQ k o O Z rte- m 0 m O •_•; m z - � D mc -1 Zn m � \ O m 0 z n ' 0 CD Pz m iv -1 pz 2 08 7J ® z m m xi C.. -n D p m -i > 1 rm 0 - r D ={ m E Dcm O � „ zoo CQ - 20 Coo D o m o � m = o - a a: Q D O m0U0 U) - W = _ O D --- r- I— mm 70jjJ° > 0 3 ow —I O ,n -< - - m �. �l m-13 O Z Z ® � � C cOo CD —I cn � m --I � m mO0 C? Dmo �, Q m0 Oz0J > -"- 0 Z Q' Tt - -a C m n o o 0mco _1 p O _- 1 O 0 c ail D F- z � � om O �t kA I I m CD -I, m cc) (/1 (i`� VI m -0 m z _ -t cfl T m 'gym O OD - �•. cn o � D m I= b' O � ® u) 0% V TJ m0 m m -WG r. - < z V) 0) cn m -4 n = 0 O m = I-- m m z ii D D pz 1" * F F2D -100 -< � m = m0 c) n rm C. O > ml a 2/ o2 -1 Z _ � m 2 XI OD CD '. CO o y m • CO CD -< coCD 0 -0 co c � 0 = Ff. 0. 2 rO 04 0 D 0 Z T1 m� r -10 74 - N �D O com �55 = c1 - =ct, ' rn 2 � -_I m � z 7" ' & Z O mz z D zm s opo —1 p N. '0 � O c0 I\ ' — 1 I 0 z = G) 0 \. D Zm m ED � D - 1 " O 00 W coOD r co S =1m E � rm '^D 7C] Z ^ O � „ Z ° o(0 m o � m = o - s Q D opp ,-, 000 cn o CD = ODczi z = -1 0 -o Ozm OCzR» )pCOo —IcnXIm -1 _ « mO pC/D z-n --1 2• o z � 71 M m j O . n O O70 IT Z O o _ ,, k —I 0 0 Cr) � O.4' Im O0 z 0zm D Z D > < — � z DCe' �° omO I— cnITI m m O 0 D Z r cn 0 � 0 CD0 m Dm0 FTIm -0< Z < Z Cf) 0 CT) �`' M -1 C) _ 0 O m = r mm Z DiD D 0 z r 0D -< —, W 33 r77 m �' �� cn 0 rm m X/ --1 0 Oz \ro z m z �, fi D C7 CD 0 3 2D -.< O � CD CO CD Fri- N co � o xl � CD ) } TJ m m -1 O ..2........,..4: / CD 3 rn m m D g M "' z Z O mz 0 Zm 1 . o M cno --I Pz • -a O co . —mI cci� m = 0 � M o z x w r 1iiE p zm m cw C% -n Do m -ID O -0 -i ., z cn 33 00 CA.1 w0 > r o0 0 --I D m E D C m Z -n Z c � m o CO —1 0JJ _1 � 0 � 0_ 2 = m 0c m = o - CL 5 Q. n om m000 CO o �_ co D3 m XI 0 m D 3 — m m -c _ _ 0 CD MO --I 0 -o O z Z m O 0 CcOo -I cn � 3:1 m —i � 6 M Om 00 Oymco„ .• o I- U, O Ozo° D z ^—. -I -0m m 0ON ` + O pE � � m � -I 00 Cn o0s n cn O IM O � Z mzm pro 0 z � > -< Oc D Fz D -Iom O I FE m T -I a) P. D DJ mO OD D r Z (/) - m r m o * v c° o c D O m m - < z W 0 c) G m0 Cn rf) -I c) _ 0 O m = I- m m z m > I- E p -I = m -71 DJ rn m pp 0m cn 0 r- m G) _ � 0 D D 33 o0 z- --I _ � m 2 XJ CD az) 2 D "0 3 CQ • cl) La CD OCD m \` v c :71'.. . . cm 0. � C r D m n rio a) c> — % — -0 = o m 30 Do a r(,) — 7oK r Op Dom O ) 92 3 n Dom M KmDo = 1 m � � m � m0 •• .`- off Z O z c5 O ._.. o _ rn 0 zmo m 0zz 1 r 0 m ET) D m O o 0 ^ m zG- Z /(v 33 Or W r O s. =, m m * Wo Z-n Z= � $ COgs —. 0DD mow Q CD � = O � m DD CL O rn Cl) o c-. cn o -n D r 0 Di - m � A - W mm -imz n . 0. rn ;° -< O 0 o o —I 0 -0 O m20 , —I cn0 33 0c0 t _ m 00 C) > zo = " ' -- O r- m D O O ° zD r., m z M co �a 73 • �. O 1) W Z mzN O r O o - On V) O -4. 2 —Io D 6 : con m 0Z ,-, , -0 D * r, v zoo G - ,- -1 D � O oO -. mDCm mm0 ) CD rccn -- --I z J m , m O omm 0 D v m jj co cr) OC M o * v oDY '0 mo 70 6 _ �' > m m 0) m = 0 mz Cl) 0DOD C -1 0cn m O -I r m m Co p , rn z r Oom mo < Or � 55-< _ m —I 171 -� CT) C) -< z 2 G) D XI D C7 N 0) 2 z0 -a 3 '" ' r WmCD _= Jv O DO = c CO C = 1 << p CIL CO -< 0 a)- zcQ O 0 -1 v <- CD r- m � m -11- -1 E CD D 5O IN 3co m =, ,c, : m cf, -1 -1 "m t Z O m z m __u) z 0 -+ O c O u�. r mz o ;� r -I mm 2 08 p --C. z m2 y zm m 'W -n -0o m zD N Xj 00 C.A.) 03OD E ___I-- oo � 0 --I � D M m D r m z -n Z o R. o o CD -1 0Do C -1oo Q M � � m = oma ''Ir �. D r. 000D X7000 u) o o ) I— Djm 20mD 3 ... M m - � m0 -Iz -a 0 - - m O 33 ccOo CO = OO 2cmn = � c 1Immil '17 -n —{ , > 0, 2. 0 W m mz moo = �. � 71 m ] tj 0 � 2 m m0 N) o 0 , Z 0DJ 0 , li on W 0 my z zLB -10 � m CD G - z I rn -a mzK = 'a r c>nDrn � cn73 � tri rnD rnD) O 0D D Z r cm Cn r M o � v n0 = mD Om CO m m Z < Z W O (n - m -1 r mm O Mra 1--- Z D Oz • �� p D -< =f co I- Eo -I = m I- -< � m 2 = 0 M mm c 0 1- m z 0 a mma 2 -I O Oz -1 0 m DC7 D f cD o y m CO CD -u ' WDJ M A) r- z C co c5 O z -U - xi CD r m 0 mr. --1 O 74:. CD 0 Dom m � o = QJ m c z q m cn D cn O mz D zz 0 o 3 z m E 0) o —I P- z oQ . - � _ O cO f r mz oN `i •—' --II mm _ 0o v zm m cW9-3 -n r- 0 m77 —+ D 55 O 0-0 0 00 030 > co—rm M Orm �7 Z CO O 7 m Z D _ C O —1 0 D _.'1 SOcri 2- 0 C sZ c -1Q. 177 Di _ri U) m O 0O eD o• Q —I O O -n co > aAMD:, Cl)N coD = � %.,/ 3%, Cl) r pp m tj DJ m D B CD ow I77 mm -GKmn -1 O -n O m (.i--- . = o p vmi m ' o m -� _� nDmo - 0 r U' O Oz0D .�ri m Pz Mo > z 01- -1-1 � —. -n -„ I/ Doo <_ 0 O oou Zooms ��, 1=77 00 D mzOm t,,' > Z D � m p > -‹GA D * Dm0m O (I PR m IT! z _ cD (1 rcci '� � c-n � .. D mii D zOD cn - Uj mr - -es DO 7m 71 C....f z Z- < (!) O Cn —I m O Cl) cn —I ti's _ m 0 0 O = i, r m m Z 7o > / DO z I' Sc rr- -- Igtk c < m -r< r<n = z O 7-1 m 0m U) 0 r m fir. z 2 � z o C) D —i > i— �o o z -\-' -I 2 m 2 XJ DC7 CD 0)CS C D -G r CD •• CO CD r- r m N p =• v W C 0 0• co r- - z C eQ 2) c5 O z 13 = 0 m n � m ` - C) ODM M = o = 3 rn Cf) -zi -1 � a CD O me z M � z • V Z P O ( z0 -1 rz . I-- � z ® o � �r m (/) 1T1 2 0 o � � M O z 33 W CD DIN ! O -O -1 Z C) ap OW `CO ooOD m _1m � Drm Zm Z DO o� 20 D m m _ Dc -� H � m Q c -1 OO mWODJJ C n � mm OCD CD Do o m 3 m r cn z m up 71 71 - � n i\ =. -- 0 -0 0 - - m .. ® 0 C C G) oN N —1 (/) m -� 2 11 M OmO� C7 mocn .IiN . o I— up Ozp° Do 70 CD 0 ® 0r zopo I. v � O n � m p� � tl , = O D cC7o ® � � v D -< p D � Z > � nOmcp, O (IS .o yD � � � D r cn D m � ® OD V Z r oc D mr m o * v � r--' �( "17 r = co . XI D mm m m -- ' 0 Z mz V) 07 C) _ 0 0 m = 1ti r mm z JJr D0Z P" .< r- > il DD "� co - � m = 2O pp m mm U5 n rm X:. D XI O 0 z _ � m Z f / Ex parte Items - Commissioner Taylor COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA February 28, 2017 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Item 8 to be heard no sooner than 1:30 pm unless otherwise noted. 8.A. ***This item to be heard at 1:00 p.m.*** This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Recommendation to approve a Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida, for a Variance from Section 4.02.03.A, Table 4 of the Land Development Code to reduce the minimum rear yard accessory structure setback line from 20 feet to 6.55 feet for a swimming pool, spa, pool deck and stairs on a waterfront lot within the Residential Single- Family (RSF-3) zoning district on property located at 342 Trade Winds Avenue, in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida [VA-PL20160001181]. NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM X SEE FILE ®Meetings ❑Correspondence ®e-mails ❑Calls Met with Patrick Neale (Patrick Neale & Associates) and George Marks (Kramer Marks) on February 9th and have exchanged emails back and forth since February 1, 2017 ' f's 4 ft tti'lLtIA-e- SUMMARY AGENDA 17.E. *** This item is being continued to the March 14, 2017 BCC meeting.*** This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve Petition VAC-PL20160003293, to disclaim, renounce and vacate the County and the public interest in a portion of the 10-foot drainage easement and vacate a portion of the 10-foot utility easement located along the rear border of Lot 50, The Lodgings of Wyndemere, Section One, as recorded in Plat Book 13, Page 8 of the public records of Collier County, Florida, located in Section 19, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. X1 NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM SEE FILE Meetings ❑Correspondence Fie-mails jCalls GrecoSherry From: Judi Menard <khall©patrickneale.com> Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2017 12:54 PM To: GrecoSherry Cc: Karen Klukiewicz; Patrick Neale Subject: Variance 342 Tradewinds Avenue Attachments: 20170112 marks It reischl.pdf; 9A-VA-PL20160001181-342 Trade Winds Avenue -Staff Report.pdf Sherry- Karen is out of the office this afternoon. In her absence, attached please find a copy of the Staff Report and a copy of my letter of opposition with regard to the variance noted above. After Commissioner Taylor has reviewed the attached, please give Karen a call at this office, in the hopes of scheduling a meeting. Please let me know if you have any questions. Judi Menard Legal Assistant to Patrick H. Neale, Esq. ii()\* ` 9 Phone: 239-642-1485 Fax: 239-642-1487 Email: khall@patrickneale.com Email Service Address: email-service(apatrickneale.com Principal Office 5470 Bryson Court, Suite 103 Naples, FL 34109 Marco Island Office 950 North Collier Blvd. Marco Island, FL 34145 Mailing Address P. O. Box 9440 Naples, FL 34101-9440 This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s) or entity(s) named within the message. This e-mail might contain legally privileged and confidential information. If you properly received this e-mail as a client or retained expert, please hold it in confidence to protect the attorney-client or work product privileges. Should the intended recipient forward or disclose this message to another person or party, that action could constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited by the sender and to do so might constitute a violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. section 2510-2521. If this communication was received in error we apologize for the intrusion. Please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message without reading same. Nothing in this e-mail message shall, in and of itself, create an attorney-client relationship with the sender. Disclaimer under Circular 230: Any statements regarding tax matters made herein, including any attachments, are not formal tax opinions by this firm, cannot be relied upon or used by any person to avoid tax penalties, and are not intended to be used or referred to in any marketing or promotional materials. 1 AGENDA ITEM 9-A C o eY County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ZONING DIVISION-ZONING SERVICES SECTION HEARING DATE: JANUARY 19, 2017 SUBJECT: PETITION VA-PL20160001181, 342 TRADE WINDS AVENUE PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT: Owner: Roxanne Stone-Jeske Agent: Matthew L. Jones Nancy D. Koeper Law Offices of Marc L. Shapiro, PA 342 Trade Winds Avenue 720 Goodlette Road North,Suite 304 Naples, FL 34103 Naples,FL 34102 REQUESTED ACTION: To have the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an application for a Variance from Section 4.02.03.A, Table 4 of the Land Development Code (LDC) to reduce the minimum rear yard accessory structure setback line from 20 feet to 6.55 feet for a swimming pool, spa, pool deck, and stairs on a waterfront lot within the Residential Single-family(RSF-3)zoning district. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property is located on Lot 11, Block M, of the Conners Vanderbilt Beach Estates Unit 2 subdivision, on the south side of Trade Winds Avenue, approximately 1000 feet west of Vanderbilt Drive in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (See location map on the next page.) PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The purpose of the petition is to request a reduction from LDC Section 4.02.03.A.,Table 4,stating that the minimum swimming pool and/or screen enclosure accessory setback for waterfront lots is 20 feet when the swimming pool deck exceeds 4 feet in height above the top of the seawall.The seawall on this property is 3.31 feet with a pool deck that is 9.9 feet. Thus,the pool deck is 6.59 feet above the seawall,which is 2.59 feet greater than what is permitted by the LDC. The applicant states that the pool and deck plans submitted to Collier County contained the pool deck elevation of 9.67 feet. The County issued a pool permit, PRBD2016010076701, with a rear accessory setback of 10 feet versus the required 20 feet. The applicant built the swimming pool, spa, and pool deck utilizing the 10-foot accessory setback requirements erroneously provided on the building permit rather than the required 20-foot accessory setback requirement. The pool deck encroaches 9.85 feet into the 20- foot setback and the stairs encroach 3.45 feet. VA-PL20160001181,342 Trade Winds Variance Page 1 of 7 .1 ® ® ® ®Ii®CI ® ®DII ® ® ®31 ® ® ®HUI ® ® ®Liiimainasmou mum 3I11.r. .L ItlelitINV iilliMNIMMOMMMIMIMMM1 0. ®e - 0 =® 0 - =Om 0 tt® © = 0 0 - = 0 0- 0 " � 0 m . =0 0" „® 0" _ ® 0" = 0 =0 m 0 " 0 = - e = 0 0 " . 8 0 " ® Q = ® 9 . "� 0- e . 0 ' - 0 e • a0 0 • ,e8 0- =YO • ® ea . ®, MI0. • . 0 =ZD 0 ; . @ 0 " � 0 " , 0 . 0 - =0 ©- 0 pp MI lignia ® O I ° ® ® Ili ...VI Ifi II a LV ,,, - e- VALI I V 8 1 I VI r; e ivii n ® . 0 R z . ® ® y O F ® . © = A ® ® �C ®0 giss LL O iv H C F® ® = F© ®vini N W 0 N In% J e® ®_ ° 11 ,12 i a Irl,.fto iii II 117 u. D rei to wil .irck Igi ® Nil CO li 112 ' ill 10 ...----------- 0 x cc 0 111113 Ili' -'-‘511:Pii® 1;111 .ig2 J m L: co N °- .Q -2 Z - C o j •tco o Q) (.11 �a I�gaaPuen `) Cnco e I I I 1 , ! -�.. co -- 2 s+ I ,a ti . • 0 o cD ` N Q r i J wcr Shore 0 - (1)1 u ." a CCo co c E U O o TRADE WINDS AVE. r-- 760'/X) 760.07'(C 1 -i'--7o-- 4 — — A+---=— ?- 75.Of• fG.PKNAI. IN PY1KT. iI t°' CUT.MOM 0.06'11. 'tFD.NAO. Q tD6E OP PVMT, !N YVMT c'+ OLE G 0 N 4, = G5 M M � ......-.— ,1 p 1 122'•R.G.i _,WV ri 598`04'10"W 75.00'(R) r5.(31'( ) s.P IMI c•P4M.... 4 I. 1 aWM `� Fig 459.52'S.,5.2g'P. + P'fM 5762" f o A.03' . .07'W I 4"Pv 5Tu6. OUT N (n [ &- flC 7,65 24.0' m m14.0' 765' b 0 8.05'm �.5 N N to w in 9.0' w 342 TRADE WINDS 4VE. A LO CK M C.B.S. 140uSE (under cnnsL.) Flrl. FLOOR eL1EV, 4-10.4 N o ere krt w it w u, 2.116' _ 'IA.n2.05' S. m ti 'r 111!•.? 15.0' h 4.3 '6' - x0.8' 5 rri l►, 2 10- l c_ 3.45 ft 5E4WALL 59,7' 9.8 ft 4'ulSil 1.31 7ta' eTA1NING WALL , t.- ALUM.PENCE i. S s,N 11 . a.6.1,95'WIPE CONE. SEAWALL GAP -- T - 1.14' 11 i Sbb°04'10"W 75.00'(R) 75,01 (MT 9ET PKtLf.14o • 1..E Fa kA cp ECONC.V. + SEAWALL ti W A TER W AY Accessory setback required by LDC 20ft Accessory setback shown on Building Permit 10 ft Additional encroachment by stairway 3.45 ft VA-PL20160001181,342 Trade Winds Variance Page 3 of 7 55.7` 1 4'Wit "r4. g ' Fnder so ® ALUM, FENCE ng F WALL GAP 1.14' 1 75.001M) 75.01 CM) -;:i- m. ,ET vRIL1.t4OL.E 0 a )141VP Of CNC. SEAWALL RAVE? ELEV. + 03.32 According to the survey, the applicant built the stairs 3.45 feet into the erroneously provided 10-foot setback. Per LDC 4.02.01.D.7 stairways shall not protrude over 3 feet into a required front, side, or rear yard of a single-family dwelling; the stairs were approved at the 3.45-foot encroachment. Please note that the building permits, for both the home(PRBD20150617253)and the pool, were permitted with inclusion of the stairs—as depicted on the survey. Overall,the applicant requests to reduce the setback from 20 feet to 6.55 feet. This petition was originally scheduled to be heard by the Collier County Hearing Examiner on October 27, 2016. Because of increased public concern, in accordance with Section 2-87 of the Code of Laws and Ordinances,this matter is being heard by the CCPC for a recommendation to the Board. SURROUNDING LAND USE&ZONING: SUBJECT PARCEL: Lot with a home under construction,zoned RSF-3 North: Trade Winds Avenue ROW, across which is a single-family home,zoned RSF-3 East: Single-family home,zoned RSF-3 South: Canal off Vanderbilt Lagoon,across which is a single-family home, zoned RSF-3 West: Single-family home,zoned RSF-3 "`or, _ ' , ,-i •i pi*e. , „ii. ,.. , . a , ilklimk iivi, ill i e' +R.i a1 '(‘'' , 7.' F ''', I 'A" ,,,f111". 7 VA-PL20160001181,342 Trade Winds Variance Page 4 of 7 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN(GMP)CONSISTENCY: The subject property is located in the Urban Residential Subdistrict of the Urban Mixed Use District land use classification on the County's Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The purpose of this subdistrict is to provide for higher densities in an area with fewer natural resource constraints and where existing and planned facilities are concentrated. The GMP does not address individual variance requests;the Plan deals with the larger issue of the actual use. ANALYSIS: The decision to grant a variance is based on the criteria in LDC Section 9.04.03. Staff has analyzed this petition relative to these provisions and offers the following responses: a. Are there special conditions and circumstances existing,which are peculiar to the location,size and characteristics of the land,structure,or building involved? Yes. Per the applicant, the pool shell, retaining wall, and stairs are constructed. The applicant commenced construction under building permit, PRBD2015092870601, with an incorrectly permitted rear accessory pool setback of 10 feet versus the required 20 feet. The applicant used the incorrectly cited rear accessory 10-foot pool setback for the swimming pool,spa,and pool deck. The stairs off the pool deck do encroach 3.45 feet into the erroneously provided 10-foot setback;however, they were also permitted with the swimming pool, spa,and pool deck. b. Are there special conditions and circumstances, which do not result from the action of the applicant such as pre-existing conditions relative to the property,which are the subject of the Variance request? Yes. The applicant applied and received a pool permit from the County citing an incorrect rear accessory pool setback. The applicant utilized the erroneously approved setbacks unaware of any violations.Due to this error,the subject structure is currently encroaching 6.55 feet;more specifically, the pool, spa, and pool deck encroach 9.85 feet, resulting in a 10.15 rear yard setback, and the stairs encroach 13.45 feet, resulting in a 6.55-foot setback. c. Will a literal interpretation of the provisions of this zoning code work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant or create practical difficulties for the applicant? Yes. Per the applicant,the pool is already constructed and to abide by the required accessory 20-foot setback would require the applicant to remove the existing pool, redesign, and replace it at an estimated expense of$50,000. The applicant relied on the erroneously issued pool permit with a 10- foot rear accessory setback in constructing the existing pool structure and stairs. d. Will the Variance,if granted,be the minimum Variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure and which promote standards of health, safety, and welfare? No. A reasonable use of the land does not necessarily include a pool; however, the applicant relied upon the County-issued permit.Reconstruction of the pool to correct setbacks would create a severe economic hardship. e. Will granting the Variance confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by these zoning regulations to other lands,buildings,or structures in the same zoning district? VA-PL20160001181,342 Trade Winds Variance Page 5 of 7 Yes.The applicant will be able to retain a decreased accessory rear yard setback for a pool deck that exceeds 4 feet in height above the seawall. However, it should be noted that the applicant relied on the County-issued permit which cited, incorrectly, the accessory rear swimming pool and/or screen enclosure setback. f. Will granting the Variance be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Land Development Code, and not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare? Staff has received objections to the requested Variance (attached) which state that the reduced rear setback would impact neighboring views, and set a precedent for future variances, among other objections. However, because a reduction in pool deck height of 2.59 feet would permit the pool to legally comply with the 10-foot setback,and signatures of no objection from property owners within the most impacted area were received,and because the setback was the result of a County error,staff is of the opinion that the variance will be in harmony with the neighborhood to the greatest extent possible. g. Are there natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals and objectives of the regulation such as natural preserves,lakes,golf courses,etc.? Yes. The applicant states that variations in seawall height in this location do not create a uniform height for all houses and therefore create different pool deck height requirements over 4 feet of the seawall. h. Will granting the Variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan? Approval of this Variance will not affect or change the requirements of the Growth Management Plan. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report on December 30, 2016. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission recommend approval of Petition VA-PL- 20160001181,342 Trade Winds Avenue Variance,to the Board,with the following condition: • Upon demolition or destruction of 50 percent or more of the structure's assessed value, this Variance will be void and any new structure shall meet setback requirements at the time of issuance of a building permit. VA-PL20160001181,342 Trade Winds Variance Page 6 of 7 PREPARED BY: 41111i) /e� 'o2g-I6 FRED+ SCHL,AICP,PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: r? Ge I -cf RAYMO V. BELLOWS,ZONING MANAGER DATE ZONING, 'VISION MIKE BOSI,AICP,DIRECTOR DATE ZONING DIVISION APPROVED BY: JAMES FRENCH,DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT DAVID S. WILKISON,DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT Tentatively scheduled for the February 14,2017 BCC Meeting. VA-PL20160001181,342 Trade Winds Variance RESOLUTION 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, FOR A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 4.02.03.A, TABLE 4 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM REAR YARD ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SETBACK LINE FROM 20 FEET TO 6.55 FEET FOR A SWIMMING POOL, SPA, POOL DECK AND STAIRS ON A WATERFRONT LOT WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY (RSF-3) ZONING DISTRICT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 342 TRADE WINDS AVENUE, HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. [VA- PL201600011811 WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (LDC) (Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County,among which is the granting of variances; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Board of Zoning Appeals has held a public hearing after notice as in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of a variance from Section 4.02.03.A, Table 4 of the Land Development Code to reduce the minimum rear yard accessory structure setback line from 20 feet to 6.55 feet for a swimming pool, spa, pool deck and stairs on a waterfront lot, as shown on the attached Exhibit "A", in the Residential Single-Family (RSF-3) Zoning District for the property hereinafter described, and has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Section 9.04.00 of the Zoning Regulations of said Land Development Code for the unincorporated area of Collier County; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this Board in public meeting assembled, and the Board having considered all matters presented. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: Petition Number VA-PL20160001181, filed by Jason Jenks of Jenks Builders, Inc. on behalf of Roxanne Stone-Jeske and Nancy D. Koeper, with respect to the property hereinafter described as: (16-CPS-01573/1310611/1140 Rev. 1/10/17 Pelilion no. VA-PL2016000118/ /342 Tradewinds Ave. Lot 11, Block M, CONNERS VANDERBILT BEACH ESTATES, Unit 2, according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 17, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Folio No. 27585200007 be and the same hereby is approved for a variance from Section 4.02.03.A, Table 4 of the Land Development Code to reduce the minimum rear yard accessory structure setback line from 20 feet to 6.55 feet for a swimming pool, spa, pool deck and stairs on a waterfront lot, as shown on the attached Exhibit "A", in the zoning district wherein said property is located. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this Board. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote this day of , 2017. ATTEST: BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: By: , Deputy Clerk Penny Taylor, Chairman Approved as to form and legality: 'i+ :1/t-, Scott A. Stone Assistant County Attorney Attachment: Exhibit A—Conceptual Site Plan [16-CPS-01573/1310611/1],10 Rev. 1/10117 Petition no. VA-PL20160001181 /342 Tradewinds Ave. 2 Ova Exhibit A 1 BOUNDARY SURVEY OF LOT 11,BLOCK`M',UNIT No.2,CONNER'S VANDERBILT BEACH ESTATES,AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3,PAGE 17.OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA. SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS,RESTRICTIONS ANO RESERVATIONS OF RECORD. l I , Fo.BMd4WSL"FM 3661" I215'(R7 1215.12'(M) p O•V'w.,14/41/8ELEV.+.3Z,85 C1 m FD.NAP-10.1( ' PEW.Cll mom /'^ TRADE WINDS AVE, 760'(X) 760.07'(0) ILI I ' ' fp.FA NMI.INFVMT- tJ 90.0 I cur-N_LE,0.06'W. 't FAs4it.NWT � 806E OF PV IN rm.col.-C7IMIIMEIZOMIIIII a, 1f0LE d _ D I 12•'R.L.P _ _� WV G ID 388'04'10"W 75.00'(R) 75,01'(C) " ) FIR4FA qq 1.... 6ADWM F1R4150.91'S.,O.YtI'E. FIM �Q.07'W. 4"o 5(U6.851' N % 03a i ° r w m e 2 UJ V sV 1 4 o�4' 765' 24.0' m In 14.0' 7:65' i..)'-' �' 4 IA mp o tar In 65'`' ci N •ksz '�" 9. 47 o' 41, tn :642 TRAD•!r WIMPS bVE. 8 L 0 C K M 0.5.5. HOUSE (under consL.l • FIN. FLOOR ELEV +10.4 ' W in a co '^ in u. NOTE t 20.6' 3. J m YIn PER CONTRACTOR,POOL/PATIO 2.00' a `1• K 15.0' " STEMWALL. IS AT A ELEV -O9.3 4.35'6' -_ 5E1 DRILLHOLE x ' IN FOP OF MC.SEAWALL- 59.7 4'N161( NAVD ELEI(+a3.31 0.9,5.RETAINING WALL .,«s ALUM.FENCE 7.65''1 6.0.4.lrAI S�+'I 1 1 . N.D;1 eenst Iii„ 1 I T 1.35'WIDE CONS.SEAWALL CAP ' r 1 `_I.14' 589°04'10'W 75.00'(12} 76.011(M) o',,. me \SET PRILLNOLE in RCMP OF ML-SEAWALL u• KAVL7 ELEV. 1-O5.32 d W n TER W AY • SCALE:1"=20' 6.5 •15roi,0815 025 1;010.92 vacaNT/NAVD et.ev f►u:: "Q BEARINGS EASED ON:E T5Avt WJNP5 AVE.AS 515'04'101V,PER RE(dW MA OATS ORDER FIELD BOOK REVISIONS BASED ON:NAVA 1505((RIN.ON FL.DNA CoL 29 IOM OMM4 SW. ROC' LOCATED IN FLOOD ZONE:AE flu') / 6.19.16 0516015 COIa•52 FOUNDATION/ELM#650r yR.4 Ka w""" .s. PER F.6R.M. DATED:3.161012 12021 C 0188 N 1218000 CO10.52 5TSMW4 L4 ELEV NDTEC.A... CERTIFICATE 441.PoUND I Iwob4 6:411, tl,d Ilo _boa0 6116th - . )' •(7� ,0.5138) hest su 0 food mats blr me a soy y . o. *oot rp:Jdon 6M m06b her nom. Lard a( VALID standard. a 6d f:N by U. Iloold0 Board oI ONLY D RED ITb V011 FL ibndrd61MN,Cod.,M6wwM„b helm 4T X)27�MMddo OMNI SURVEYS, INC. Fur IM iitim�,p„ I d:.�6u,�6,do�6 „in°6mna°dy`r�1 � �',;,”: 6) ornb000d w iN.. y p WTRb.zoni1k�76ry�_or t...dem ol'ode6urnb oIs ne6i. SEAL LB 6E8668401D1 �pIFE 14ifte 1/daSEL, 239) 939- 85AIREY - WINFAX 39 839-• 81 Ctt' SbodrthsfIbb P6 4888 TILTON COURT FORT MYERS,FL 33007 4 :0 'T'I'C) Nq{Op R°ybtruNan No 0243 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 „ • Ii t R i ne r.za¢j tfit j,,.€, '�y d) )Y'1` j' � t{ � aY``t 38� +m's ` s�.. a . .1� ,..Y� � FYx �ridyH F”' rt: 1161: .{�, } ,...a t-XY „ ,k ,\ . -a a j #, `�k• t F ri a '?se _..-— �, --- t ''4dka�+� * 5) 'S 1;ci 11 'rM PROJECT NUMBER To be completed by staff PROJECT NAME DATE PROCESSED 3� irte` , c ^ a , i +' xxa' _ T z .wss'af Name of Applicant(s): Roxanne B1 Stone,jeske bancy Q.)(aspen as Joint Tenants with Full Riohts of Survivorship Address: 531 Turtle Hatch Lane _City: Naples State:Flnriria ZIP: 34103 Telephone: N/A Cell:239-450-1930(N. Koeper)Fax: N/A E-Mail Address: ryyc9lr114590aoi.com Name of Agent: Marc L. Shapiro,Esquire(See Attached Affidavit of Authorization) Firm: Marc L. Shapiro.P.A. Address: 720 Goodlette Road North, Suite 304CIty: Naples State: Florida ZIP: 34102 _ Telephone:a39-649-8050 Cell: Fax:N/A E-Mail Address: mionesOattornevshapirc.com BE AWARE THAT COLLIER COUNTY HAS LOBBYIST REGULATIONS. GUIDE YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY AND ENSURE THAT YOU ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THESE REGULATIONS. 6/4/2014 Page 1of6 •.Gw_ Co r County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 Provide a detailed legal description of the property covered bythe application: if space is � p p p Y pp { p inadequate,attach on separate page) Property I.D. Number: 275R52nnnn7 Section/Township/Range: 29 / 48 1 25 Subdivision: Connor's Vanderbilt Beach Estates Unit: 2 Lot: 11 Block: M Metes& Bounds Description:Lot 11, Dock M.Connors Vanderbilt Beach Total Acreage: 91 .pltes (ding to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 17, Public Records of eactasu +era r t location of Subject Property: 342 Trade Winds Avenue, Naples/Vanderbilt Beach Estates .� tea,` ` a .. h C 4 1 p {,.'ftp �;4; t 'S 1 ti .fig.m a "tips .R 1' .,awlik�F Zoning Land Use N RSF-3 ? Residential S RSF-3 Residential E RSF-3 Re, . W RSF-a Residential Minimum Yard Requirements for Subject Property: Front: 30' Corner Lot: Yes I No k Side: 7.5' Waterfront Lot: Yes KI No n Rear: 25' Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code requires that the applicant must remove their public hearing advertising sign(s) after final action is taken by the Board of County Commissioners. Based on the Board's final action on this Item, please remove all public hearing advertising k shp(s)Irr,ed!atel . 6/4/2014 Page 2 of 6 0%.la.INIA . aunty COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 ni+.' y, ' a 3 r�-7.3 3+ 4 M .F ti d,1. 'i4+ ..d: � He° 5.5, i' . { Compiete_the_following for allregistered Association(s) that could be affected by this-p-etitiori Provide additional sheets if necessary. Information can be found on the Board of County Commissioner's website at http://www.colliergov.net/Index.aspxjpage=774. Name of Homeowner Association: Not Applicable Mailing Address: City: State: ZIP: Name of Homeowner Association: Mailing Address: City: State: ZIP: Name of Homeowner Association: Mailing Address: City: State: ZIP: Name of Homeowner Association: Mailing Address: City: State: ZIP: Name of Homeowner Association: Mailing Address: City: State: ZIP: g ,',v °` . XXL 71,„ T 3 4' � On a separate sheet,attached to the application,please provide the following: 1. A detailed explanation of the request including what structures are existing and what is proposed; the amount of encroachment proposed using numbers, i.e.reduce front setback from 25 ft.to 18 ft.; when property owner purchased property; when existing principal structure was built (Include building permit number(s) if possible);why encroachment is necessary; how existing encroachment came to be;etc. 2. For projects authorized under LDC Section 9.04.02,provide a detailed description of site alterations, including any dredging and filling. 3. Pursuant to LDC section 9.04,00, staff shall be guided in their recommendation to the Hearing Examiner, and the Hearing Examiner shall be guided in the determination to approve or deny a variance petition by the criteria(a-h)listed below. Please address the following criteria: a) Are there special conditions and circumstances existing which are peculiar to the location, size and characteristics of the land,structure,or building involved. 6/4/2014 Page 3 of 6 • 4,00k901400•••••ftslintY COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colllergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 • b) Are there special conditions and circumstances which do not result from the action of the applicant such as pre-existing conditions relative to the property which is the subject of the variance request. c) Will a literal interpretation of the provisions of this zoning code work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant or create practical difficulties on the applicant. d) Will the variance, if granted, be the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land,building or structure and which promote standards of health,safety or welfare. • e) Will granting the variance requested confer on the petitioner any special privilege that is denied by these zoning regulations to other lands,buildings,or structures in the same zoning district. f) Will granting the variance be in harmony with the intent and purpose of this zoning code,and not be injurious to the neighborhood,or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. g) Are there natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals and objectives of the regulation such as natural preserves,lakes,golf course,etc. h) Will granting the variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan? 4. 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 itn No If yes,please provide copies. • 6/4/2014 Page 4 of 6 f 1 'r: County COWER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 ' r> ,ar ' 7 ` ‘,44-7,,,,:,47,,,,s. -�j>!)„,•'' Prof,t -tr1 ia: a j' ,,, $,,,,v fi+:,t i}j 1” .x ,N, �ie''t ti 4,4.',...---,,,1:-:!,,..' ,x' . s -3 ; • iN',,,,,4A-- . � �P` � YCf �� +� *1.# 1 tr�''. fp s'f�4 ki as.x.. 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. o ,t-, # � .. ,. *.47,..,, £'s Y 7-7 h QS + F 's" r- --'G -Ilk"-:...j 17,-.:--.-,...,..:A.,..._;,.....-,--,•,.,-,..0•• -4, • # � & . 0. ,,--.,-.;,.%-%-,.-:.'"','0. stI1as� ..."„,,„4.1,,,.. - a4 �t: `kt F .i,-+r' lm.�' -_,ld ur.,c;�,,! r-�` � I Completed Application(download current form from County website E( Pre-Application Meeting Notes 1 1111111111. Project Narrative U Completed Addressing Checklist 1 ■1111=11111■ Conceptual Site Plan 24"x 36"and one 8'4"x 11"copy Cl ■ t Survey of property showing the encroachment(measured in feet) 2 II of Authorization,signed and notarized 2 II • Deeds/Legal's 3 ` • Location ma. 1 U U Current aerial photographs(available from Property Appraiser)with project boundary and,if vegetated,FLUCFCS Codes with legend 5 LI 0 included on aerial Historical Survey or waiver request 1 Environmental Data Requirements or exemption justification 38 ' Once the first set of review comments are posted,provide the assigned Ei El planner the Property Owner Advisory Letter and Certification 1 Electronic copy of all documents and plans *Please advise:The Office of the Hearing Examiner requires all 1 0 0 materials 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. 6/4/2014 Page 5 of 6 ftrosArtivii„,wooftwaiii.C4° CaMitY COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.coliiergov.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 Sheet ❑ Addressing:Annis Moxam ❑ Graphics:Mariam Ocheltree ❑ City of Naples:Robin Singer,Planning Director U 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 R❑ County Attorney's Office:Heidi Ashton-Cicko Transportation Pathways:Stacey cey o oro.Stacey nevay in❑ Emergency Management:Dan Summers;and/or r--1SchoolDistrict(Residential Components):Amy EMS:Artie Bay Heartlock Tr Engineering:Alison Bradford I - ❑ Transportation Planning:John Podaerwinsky I ❑ Other: ❑ Utilities Engineering:Kris VanLengen Y-� ` _ :.mow ^ #. r :' r x ,'_j}r I 1l'1 .s �rr ❑ Pre-Application Meeting:$500.00 ❑ Variance Petition: o Residential-$2,000.00 o Non-Residential-$5,000.00 o 5th and Subsequent Review-20%of original fee ❑ Estimated Legal Advertising Fee for the Office of the Hearing Examiner:$925.00 ❑ After The Fact Zoning/Land Use Petitions:2x the normal petition fee ❑ Listed Species Survey(if EIS is not required):$1,000.00 All checks payable to:Board of County Commissioners The completed application,all required submittal materials,and the permit fee shall be submitted to: Growth Management Division/Planning and Regulation ATTN: Business Center 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34104 /s/: Marc L.Shapiro December 16,2016 Applicant Signature Date Marc:I Shapiro Printed Name 6/4/2014 Page 6 of 6 4 4i • NATURE OF PETITION I. (BACKGROUND) As part ofthe construction of a single-family residence,the Applicants' general contractor, Jenks Builders, Inc., submitted plans, including various elevations, for a building permit and approval of a swimming pool and swimming pool deck located behind the property.' subJject The plans were approved and a swimming pool permit was issued. After completion of the work and after numerous inspections by County building officials, a neighbor contacted code enforcement and alleged that the height of the swimming pool deck above the adjacent seawall was violative of the LDC. Specifically,the current LDC mandates that a swimming pool deck be no more than 4' above an adjacent seawall. The seawall in question is at 3.31' NAVD. Four feet above this height would 7.31" NAVD. However, in its current configuration, the swimming pool deck is at 9.67' NAVD and thus, the swimming pool deck is 2.33' higher than allowed by code. LDC Section 4.02.03 A, Table 4 provides that in instances where the swimming pool deck is more than 4' above an adjacent seawall,the rear setback be a minimum of 20'.Thus,the Applicants are requesting a variance to decrease the rear setback form } 20'to 6.55'. u. (LDC Section 9.04.03,Subsections D,E,F and A Criteria for the Granting of Variances) • 9.04.03 D The variance if granted will be the absolute bear minimum required to effectuate the project. The variance will make possible the reasonable use of the land and structures located 'Given the property's side setback dimensions,the swimming pool deck stem wall and swimming pool shell had to be constructed and in place prior to the construction of the house foundation. Page 1 of 2 thereon. There will be no violation of standards regarding health, safety or welfare to any neighbors,adjacent properties and/or the public at large. �..� 9.04.03 E There will be no special privilege conferred upon to the Applicant should the variance be granted. An examination of the surrounding properties indicates other properties with similar • configurations. Additionally,the only alternative available to the Applicants is to remove and reconstruct the swimming pool deck and swimming pool stem wall. Given the interplay of the swimming pool stem wall,swimming pool deck and the foundation of the residence,this would be a very delicate project and would cost a minimum of $50,000.00. Such a situation would have a significant _. hardship on the Applicants and would constitute economic waste. Importantly, the situation the Applicants find themselves in is not of their making but rather, is the result of an innocent mistake made by county building officials. The swimming pool and swimming pool deck were repeatedly and properly permitted and approved as were all pilings and piling caps on which the swimming pool deck is built. 9.04.03 F If granted the variance will be in harmony with the intent and purpose of the LDC.No neighbors and/or their property will be injured. Although there has been a complaint by property owners across the canal and several house to the West,no harm will befall them. Their line-of- site is already obstructed by serval very large pool cages and any objections to the granting of the instant variance is simply not accurate and is disingenuous. Attached hereto is a letter duly signed by seven separate neighbors(on both sides of the canal) noting their respective non-objection to • the Applicants' variance petition. 9.04.03 H The granting of the variance will not be inconsistent with the County's Growth Management Plan. Page 2 of 2 • MARC L.SHAPIRO f 4' Mari, L� •NATALIE STARDSCHARt SEAN WHALEY The Law Offices ofPA. •720 Goonun-rs FRANK Raw NoRm,Suns 304•NAPLES,FLORIDA 34102 NAPLES:(239)649-8050•FORT MYEks:(239)4184010 FAx:(239)649-8057 W W W.ATIDRNEYSHAPIRO.Coh( December 16,2016 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO fiedreischl®cojiergov.net __ - x ._ .. - -Mr:Fred•Reisclil;AICD _ ... . Principal Planner Collier County Growth Management Department 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples,Florida 34014 Re: Variance Application PL20160001181 Connor's Vanderbilt Beach Estates Unit 2,Block M,Lot 11 342 Trade Winds Avenue Dear Mr. Reischl: The following information and/or comments arerovided in p response relative to Ms. Rachel Beasley's August 8, 2016 Insufficiency Letter (hereinafter referred to as the "Letter"). Pursuant to the directive set forth at the end of the Letter,the information herein is responsive to j the various Staff comments. The various responses and are set forth in the same order as denoted in the Letter.For your ease of use and reference,I have excerpted each departmental comment as set forth in the Letter. REJECTED REVIEW: GRAPHICS- GIS REVIEW REVIEWED BY: JESSICA HUCKEBA CORRECTION COMMENT 1: Incorrect parcel number,should be 27585200007. The Initial Variance Petition Application(hereinafter referred to as the "Initial Petition") contained an Parcel Identification Number in the Property Information section.This has been corrected in the First Amended Variance Petition Application(hereinafter referred to as the "Amended Petition")which has been provided herewith. CORRECTION COMMENT 2: This should be RSF-3 for N,S,E and W. The Initial Petition juxtaposed the Zoningand Land Use designations as set forth gna in the Page 1 of 1 r, 4414 A 1 1 jig r eC http://maps.collierappraiser. ,m/webmap/output2/Collier_2016_sde0312444c9406320.jpg 6/15/2016 Mr.Fred Reischl,AICP December 16,2016 Page 2 of 5 Adjacent Zoning and Land Use section. The juxtaposition has been corrected in the Amended Petition which has been provided herewith . CORRECTION COMMENT 3: _---This-is-the STRAP number,should be metes and bounds description. _.. The STRAP number has been deleted and the full legal description of the property is set forth in Property Information section of the Amended Petition. CORRRk C FION t"O T 4: Map should be legible; also the site location is too far East.Parcel boundary should be outlined. A revised site map taken from the Collier County Property Appraiser's website is provided herewith. The revised map sets forth the parcel boundaries. CORRECTION COMMENT S: Block sold be M. The Amended Petition has been corrected to provide the correct Block designation REJECTED REVIEW: ZONING REVIEW REVIEWED BY: RACHEL BEASLEY CORRECTION COMMENT 1: Correct minimum yard setbacks for subject property: non-waterfront side yard setback is 73 feet and rear is 25 feet.Please note 2 things: 1.front yard is correct and 2.the rear is not 20 feet—this is because the 20 applies,in this case, to accessory swimming pool decks that exceed 4 feet in height above top of seawall. The Amended Petition now sets forth the correct setbacks. CORRECTION COMMENT 2: Please be consistent in measurement,more specifically 10ths of a foot. For example,in the Narrative of the Petition,you switch from decimal measurement to feet and inches. All measurements in the Amended Petition and the Narrative has been corrected to reflect measurement in decimals. II Mr.Fred Reischl,AICP December 16,2016 Page 3 of 5 CORRECTION COMMENT 3: As noted in County Attorney notes,please note that this is a variance from the required rear Yard setback of 20 feet for accessory pool decks that exceed 4 feet in height above top of seawall. Thus,keep in the description the narrative describing the height difference between the permissible 4 feet above seawall which makes the setback 20 feet rather than thel0.fee4._Thus,you are requesting a rear yard setback from the 20 feet to a-feet. -• - A revised Narrative has been provided herewith to indicate that the variance requested is in fact for a reduction in the rear-yard setback as opposed to a height variance for the pool deck. CORRECTION COMMENT 4: What is the measurement for the pool deck stairs to the seawall?What is width of the stairs?If the stairs are wider than 3 feet than you must request the rear yard setback from the stain and not the deck itself. The measurement from the outboard wall of the pool deck stairs to the seawall is 6.55'The stirs are 3.5'in width and thus it is understood that the requested rear yard setback must necessarily commence at the outboard wall of the pool deck stairs. REJECTED REVIEW: COUNTY ATTORNEY REVIEW REVIEWED BY: SCOTT STONE CORRECTION COMMENT 1: The Property Appraiser lists the owners as"Roxanne B.Stone4eske and Nancy D.Koeper, as joint tenants,"so please update the"Applicant Contact Information"section of the application accordingly. The Applicant Contact Section of the Amended Petition now states that the owners are Roxanne B. Stone-Jeske and Nancy D.Koeper,as Joint Tenants with Full Rights of Survivorship. CORRECTION COMMENT 2: Please also provide an Affidavit of Authorization from owner Roxanne B.Stone-Jeske,or other signed written evidence that she agrees/consents to this petition. Affidavits of Authorization from both IV is. Stone-Jeske and Ms. Koeper are provided herewith. CORRECTION COMMENT 3: Your application indicates the minimum side yard setback is 7'.However,according to LDC Section 4.02.01 A,Table 2.1,the minimum side yard setback is 10'for waterfront lots in the RSF-3 zoning district.Please have staff correct me if I'm wrong.Otherwise,please revise your application with the correct minimum setback requirement. Staff has indicated that the correct side yard setback is in fact 7.5'. Mr. Fred Reischl,AICP 1 December 16, 2016 Page 4 of 5 CORRECTION COMMENT 4: In your Project Narrative,under#3 please provide more detailed responses to criteria (d),(e),(f),and(h). A more detailed Project Narrative regarding the criteria for the granting of variances as set forth in LDC 9.04.03, Subsections D,E, F and H is provided herewith. CORRECTION COMMENT 5: As discussed at your pre-app,you are seeking a variance from LDC Section 4.02.03 A, Table 4 to reduce the minimum rear yard accessory structure setback line from 20 feet to 10 feet for a pool that exceeds 4 feet in height above the top of the seawall. However,your project narrative incorrectly indicates that you are seeking a variance for the pool height. Please revise your narrative to correctly and clearly indicate that you are seeking a variance from the setback require NOT the height requirement. As noted in the Respose to Ms.Beasley's Correction Comrrient 3 above,a revised Narrative has been provided herewith to indicate that the variance requested is in fact for a reduction in the rear-yard setback as opposed to a height variance for the pool deck.; CORRECTION COMMENT 6: Please provide a cleaner,more legible site plan that clearly labels the seawall,and shows the exact measurement from the pool to the seawall. A more legible site plan with the seawall labeled and the exact measurement from the pool to the seawall will be provided under separate cover. CORRECTION COMMENT 7: Please confirm with staff whether the rear setback should be measured from the pool deck,or the stairs(as indicated on your site plan).Please also depict and label the 20- foot rear setback line to demonstrate where the pool would have to be located in order to meet the minimum setback. Staff has confirmed that the rear setback must be measured form the outboard wall of the pool deck stairs.A revised site plan to provided under separate cover,will depict where the pool would have to located in order to meet the minimum setback requirement. CORRECTION COMMENT 8: The Warranty Deed you provided is not the most recent deed for this property. Please provide a copy of the most recent deed that accurately shows the current owners of the property. A warranty deed dated December 10, 2015 reflecting that the owners of the property are Roxanne B. Stone-Jeske and Nancy D. Koeper, as Joint Tenants with Full Rights of Survivorship is provided herewith. The Warranty Deed was recorded on December 22,2015 as Instrument • Mr. Fred Reischl,AICP December 16,2016 Page 5 of 5 Number 5209385 at Official Records Book 5226, Page 989, et seq., of the Public Records of Collier County,Florida. . CORRECTION COMMENT 9: .........____Pkase.provide a copy of the building permit/permit number for the pool-- - _.- A true and correct photocopy of the building permit for the pool is provided herewith. CORRECTION COMMENT 10: Additional comments may follow receipt of next resubmittal. No additional response by the Applicants is required at this time. REJECTED REVIEW: ADDRESSING-GIS REVIEW REVIEWED BY: ANNIS MOXAM CORRECTION COMMENT 1: On Conceptual Site Plan-The legal description is incomplete.The Block is M and Subdivision is Conner's Vanderbilt Bch Estates Unit 2. • A revised sit plan is provided herewith.The site plan includes a full legal description CORRECTION COMMENT 2: On Application-Property Information-the Parcel ID number is incorrect(it has one zero too many).Metes and Bounds Description-What's provided,that's the Strap Number. The Amended petition includes the correct Parcel Identification Number and additionally,contains a full legal description of the property. I believe the foregoing adequately answers the various concerns of the Insufficiency Letter. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any other question or concerns you may have. Very truly yours, Matthew L. Jones • i s AFFIDAVIT OF AUTHORIZATION FOR PETiTION NUMBERS(S) 1 t-»Z+ [[ [L4il ----i 1, n ck ArN C-i KC/fp a (print name), as 0 ‘.1.0 r1 e C I (title,If applicable) of (company, If a f,•licable), swear or affirm l under oath,that 1 am the (choose o e)ownerrapplicantEDicontract purchaser and that: t 1. l have full authority to ecure the approval(s) requested and to impose covenants and restrictions on the referenced prope ., as a result of any action approved by the County in accordance with this ___application and the La d Development Code;— - .- -----.___ . . _ . ____- --_-_. ,.. 2. All answers to the qua tions in this application and any sketches, data or other supplementary matter attached hereto and m:de a part of this application are honest and true; 3. I have authorized the taff of Collier County to enter upon the property dining normal working hours for the purpose of inve igating and evaluating the request made through this application;and that 4. The property will be transferred, conveyed, sold or subdivided subje¢;t to the conditions and restrictions krnp ed b the approvectlon. i 5. Well authorize - ‘,..4,,...n c le_•,.. p ,re, L- ► act as our/my representative in any matters recta .Ig this petitio��r]]][[[Including 1 though 2 above. t 4 f t Y t . '-tom , *Notes: ( j .' -w t—L . cs-aQ' ' • If the applicant is a corporation, , en It is usually executed by the corp. pres. or v.pies, • If the applicant is a Limited Lie'lily Company (L.L.C.) or Limited Company (L.C.), then the documents should typically be signed by the Comp.ny's "Managing Member." • If the applicant Is a partnership, :n typically a partner can sign on behalf of the ppsrtrership. • If the applicant is a limited pa i ership, then the general partner must sign and bei identified as the 'general partner"of the named partnersh'.. • If the applicant is a trust, then th y must Include the trustee's name and the words "a.trustees. • In each Instance, first determin: the applicant's status, e.g., individual, corporate, tiust, partnership, end then use the appropriate format forth:I ownership. Under penalties of perjury, I de lare that I have read the foregoing Affidavit of Authorization and that the facts stated in It are true. c jelt.),A _ LP-1"-)9 J16 S .nature — ' 1 Date i 1 STATE OF FLORIDA t COUNTY OF COLLIER 1 Th;r'•regoing instru nt swim to( affirmed)and subscribed before me on F A� J'e°L`t 'l by ♦ ., 41 - - - ?-e (name of person provide* •,th or affirmation), as who Is personally known t.a or who has produCpd, AM (type of identification)as identific.,'on. ;rit 4 • ..t , STAMP/SEAL °nature of Notary Public 0 1� E ti ` �EDITs a CNs-COA-00115\155 ' REV 3124/14 3 i i AFFIDAVIT OF AUTHORIZATION FOR PETITION NUMBERS(S) ---D1-.2c91 6 00c)c) 3 .4)\e (print name), as b t.x.J,4-‘ Q. r (title,if applicable)of (company, If�as licable),swear or affirm under oath,that I am the(choose ,'ne)ownerippilcant[]coftract purchaser and that: 1. I have full authority to secure the approval(s) requested and to Impose covenants and restrictions on the referenced pro.:-i as a result of any action approved by the County in accordance with this _,_ _ application and the L , d Deveprnent Code; 2. All answers to the qu:stions in this application and any sketches, data or other supplementary matter attached hereto and -ads a part of this application are honest and true; ' 3. I have authorized the -taff of Collier County to enter upon the property dt)ring normal working hours for the purpose of inv:stigattng and evaluating the request made through this application;and that 4. The property will b= transferred, conveyed, sold or subdivided subj4ct to the conditions and restrictions impf¢��ed •j the approved .ction. t , 5. Well authortze'✓ I. . L. Jul _ t ,..;.. ,• act as our/my representative in any matters regale. g this petition including 1 • rough 2 above. `Notes: � flfl;t � ...)�,r. • if the applicant is a corption� I en it is usually executed by the corp.pros.or v,piss. • If the applicant is a Limited Lie lity Company (1.1.C.) or Limited Company (L.C.), her the documents should typically be signed by the Com..ny'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 pa nership, then the general partner must sign and ba identified as the `general partner"of the named partners ip. • If the applicant is a trust, then t ey must include the trustee's name and the words "as trustee°. • In each instance, first determi the applicant's status, e.g., individual, corporate, trust, partnership, and then use the appropriate format for teat ownership. Under penalties of perjury, I d:clare that I have read the foregoing Affidavit of i.uthorizagon and that the facts,,tated In It are t c. {f f' 117' 115Vt e-/9-4:24,0 F Signatu : Date F STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER /� , The f. !ping instrum; t ,- - to (or affirmed)and subscribed before me o . / 1 �D'�d ,eie)by 4, - , - - 1 AN / ' (namerson providi th or atlon), as who Is personaU known tp mea who has produced IINI (type of identitation)as identific;tion. 1 STAMP/SEAL. ff;,-ignature of Notary Public r i I 10314Qh�# 9 /f `1 ..-1.! PAY OF 1 664 t t� EXPIRES;Juty 9.201? .. # I 1 CP\oe-CoA-001151155 I j REV 3/24/14 ! i t( I i ANIMIllik1111111111111mon BOUNDARY SURVEY OF LOT 11,BLOCK'4 UNIT No.2,CONNER'S VANDERBILT BEACH ESTATES,AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3,PAGE 17.OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS,RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATIONS OF RECORD. ___________I 1, 1,1 TBM PD.PIE N 0.DISL'PSM 2467" 1215' (R ) (215.12'tM) D I O.IV W.,NAVP ELEV,+02.88 F4 Not w moo.ouroo. /' (TRADE WINDS AVE. A ,- 754'(K) T6AA7StLt _ . _,, W 79.01' _ dd.d' ? ME,,aaa.pi'Mei.. 1 NONArt owl - ,i.,.f a1 rata LW- gr M M44__ b WYNs imi 558'04.'10"W 75.00'(R) 75.01'(G) aru 0 Ir 403"" { a SAM i FIRa15d-92'S,o,29'E. 4"ww4laF ar J CC 9. I V W o CC "' m ret W O a d ''•6' ED 24.4' ',S,' Ism' T-65 0 o m o �o tar ^ '. nor 11) is .042 TRAP WIMPS AVE. n BLOCK 1M CBS. 470USE (urdf°r const..) "..i •FIN. FLOOR ELEV. 4-10.4 n w r o 0 in las' 1 NOTE PER GONTRAL'TOR,POOL/PATIO 2.05'.� v til S7'EMWALL IS AT 4401 ISa' a 4,31 ELEV. +69.9 ` ` SET vR1LLpeLE 12 . I 1 ' IN1W OF OE. 6fAVIALL 1611 AVD ELbi1+0531 246' t.AS.RNITAWIN6 WALL ;�'p ALUM,FENCE .4 H imam" ,Ias�Us/tf �- us YID!' SEAVALt.Ma 1I tit' s. 588•174'Io'W 75.E)0'(R) 7501 (1A) sET PR[LLI}OLE o_ ,"ip a LL IRAVD ELW IN TOr OF +03.32A� W A '1 E R W A Y • SCALE:1 2o' 4 6 t5 4515025 Ga14';t YdtdJYF/ht►v9 W „'a'N'-: �,PNr SASE1 Ott 411uWPWOWS JtlIEAs-aet'B4.10'1V,PER MORD DAT- ORDER D WOK ^r'- BA1FD ON:NAVD 1986(OR16,ON FL;WK.GCL i9 1894 65,114 - ,l '1«; LOOM Is F1.CM ZONE..AE(Ia') 5-19.16 05160(5 COO-52 ICKTIONAMifca[C :,* PER F,LRtL i'It.2DIZ 1*021G CISS4 •(21SC00 CO10.52 ITBM.WAr.1. 9LEV N • .c t` 'Li'; -y CEATIF1CAlt F +I.+r +N9b www ilera rrw .wwfa 4.,..i,-ilwa l4 siprireis•Wirt welt Mads w+r reit r. r w .arm VALLA �V Mminis a id fuw Is w flee4es lo►a ONLY Pfte�iw1 W Ii Chid-GSifO-Yd-FLAN[ AwiIM#�.f i rime*A ger,47Zar 1 MV_ 91e114s I Mrrw wrR Men fir i)r 1bF6n EMBOSSED OMNI SURVEYS, INC. .r sir 2 he OW SEAL La 6584 � "z / Ta.. (28a a39--3 � `IK s.>al .G 45 1RTW1 COURT rraar+M ow . 3 7 .aao+' £ 1 -.r . . J+nafeq festa. Al +na 0 —J ....1 LLI ,-..71+5441- 1-41.14-t‘.:1'AINVA-- - >- a. _, ,_.. _ __ —sr— —1 r 1 -- 1 . 7 1 n ciak 1 `[. - ri XI CC 1 I— —I hs,._____ 1 1.___ ...._i CS I IT' 1 1 --...... I r.--1 z, ›..., cs. . ,.._ __ ,_ re i . 01.1 i-- —i —1 [7:, _ , _ , 1 g.i j I.7 t.f2 I Z 1 tei I... V) t -sr-1 121 i 1 11 ir C C1J v 1 ,-, i il ,_ _I ,_ L___. (i.) 4-0 U I 'el 1J ni - -- , _____ -1:3 .— 0 I 1- - n 1 _ ,-1. I 0 ___ 0- z [ to 1 1_7_ C C'l L''' I J.) V) _ I- CU 1 i u) ' f>) 151 1 I 0 to — u co — 1 a.) O c >... 4-, 1 0 s... o - 03 "1 1:4M-1 CU cl >. - o t I 'I s-ji L L- szu -... 1 i a " 4. _ - 1 0,1 E o L... ,..,_ , o o.. r4— -I L —1 L. • §!III _1 obi L ____"4-] 4... E LU . __ 1:3 o D 1 g I ti_j Q.) 1.- --I L-----___I- r — > 4— CO -7 (.1 1 -I E — -C:3 ._--- ___ — CU >. I a U CU ...0 ..1-° - < 1----7-,01111! CD > .— 1.3 ___--- 1- IV a) Cft in WI \--76" , 0 Ft a> I - C U •1••1 rs Id O ai 0 03 .4.11 L.. C 1 tn I le) CU 0 -0 ...•. u, —, •—. ..s ,- 7 _----- I-- -J 0 03 LI Z tY o U E cu a w 0 a 0 7" < Z 0 4-- 4— o 0 0. • VI IA 4-+ 1.- 4-) C...) C]) 0.) 4-# 4.-+ •—.1 4-1 4-0 -0 Q) 01 —.1 --I (1) Collier County Growth Management l am writing to you about Petition NO. VA-PL20160001181. Codes and easements are in effect for a reason. 30 years ago Homes in Vanderbilt Beach were single story, Back walls of the Houses were 30' away from the Sea wall and at Ground Elevation. The area has progressed from Single story,to 2 stories, now 3 stories ( Max Height allowed)to rear set back to side set back. Home builders are building homes so big they are not allowing but 10' for a pool and deck.This is their choice to do so, now I see decks and pools trying to exceed the current set back. In this instance the pool and deck have already been constructed. I can understand if the deck exceded the set back by a little due to a miscalculation by the survey. But this is a gross error and not a minor setback violation 13.5'. But let's not overlook the height violation also. According to code the deck and pool cannot be over 4' above the seawall. This wall is 2'over the code, and with the water bowl pedestals over 3' above the code. I do not expect the home owner to know these codes and had trust in their Architect and General contractor's. There were at least 2 permits pulled to address this code. A permit was needed to build this house. The architect and General Contractor of record should have had the elevations on the signed and sealed plans submitted to the county. The architect and General contractor has the responsibility to know the building codes. A site plan, signed and sealed had to be submitted to the county with setbacks and elevations to the county. Whom ever did these plans has the responsibility to know the codes. A permit was needed to build the pool.The pool contractor had to submit signed and sealed plans to the county with elevations and setback dimensions. The pool contractor has the responsibility to know the building codes. I see many new homes going up in our area with every new home pushing the envelope to the max. I feel we cannot allow these violations to be approved. If so everyone will be attempting to seek a variance to do the same. Steve Emens Homeowner 331 Lagoon Ave Naples Florida 34108 ReischlFred From: BeasleyRachel Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 10:42 AM To: ReischlFred Cc: BellowsRay Subject: FW: 342 Tradewinds Variance FYI Original Message From: George Marks [mailto:GMarks@kramermarks.com] Sent:Wednesday,October 19, 2016 7:11 PM To: BeasleyRachel Cc:Steve Emens Subject: Re:342 Tradewinds Variance Rachel, Thank you for sending all of this information. I have spoken to a land use attorney concerning the "Precendent setting" issue of mine. As I feared, Florida law has allowed "precedence"as a basis of future variances. I will review the plans with you tomorrow at 3:30 in person just as a double check, but based on what I heard from the attorney we have no choice but to oppose the variance on the basis that one can not create their own hardship(by installing the pool improperly) as a basis of a variance.Additionally, since such a variance would be a basis for future variances, it regrettably does not give us an option if we wish to prevent future similar variances. See you tomorrow. Thank you, George E. Marks,AIA Kramer+Marks Architects 27 S. Main Street Ambler, PA 19002 215-654-7722 off 215-870/5543 cell >On Oct 19,2016,at 2:00 PM, BeasleyRachel <RachelBeasley@colliergov.net>wrote: >Good afternoon George, > > Per our conversation, I attach the Staff Report and the site plan. > Best, > Rachel Beasley > Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 1 ><STAFF REPORT 342 Tradewinds Ave.docx><Site Plan 342 TRADEWINDS >AVE_SITE_8-22-16.pdf> 2 Arthur "Buzz" Victor 312 Lagoon Avenue • Naples,FL 34108 buzz.victor@gmail.com October 23,2016 Ms.Rachel Beasley,Planner Zoning Division Collier County,Growth Management 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34108 RE: Zoning Petition No.VA-PL20160001181,342 Tradewinds Ave. Dear Ms.Beasley I am in receipt of the information sent to me as a nearby property owner regarding the above referenced zoning matter. Unfortunately,I am unable to personally attend the hearing,and therefore must register my opposition to the variance via this letter. It has been eleven years since I built my home on Lagoon Avenue,but I remember the process very well. There were any number of design features that I would have liked to construct,but I found myself constrained by the applicable codes and their restrictions. Those limitations were imposed for the good of the community as a whole. While,in the present circumstance,it is a shame that construction has proceeded to a point where it is costly to remove it,and that the infractions were missed by the controlling authority. This,however,is no reason to simply waive requirements with which the balance of the neighborhood has had to comply. I hope that the Board hearing the case will require compliance with the code. That is the proper decision. Sincerely, B v Arthur"Buzz"Victor i:b Letter of Petition in FAVOR of 342 Tradewinds Variance October 2016 Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners We, the undersigned neighbors of 342 Tradewinds within the "impacted area" respectfully submit that we have NO issue with the pool variance being requested by 342 Tradet',inrl i. jri" . The new home under construction will raise the home values in our area, which is what any homeowner would welcome, and we do not contest the pool variance being requested. We are NOT an agreement with Mr. Marks and Mr. Evens in their position regarding the view or the style of the home and therefore submit that you approve the requested variance from 342 Tradewinds by Ms Jeske and Ms Koeper Respectfully, Signature, A Address j ic? / fre. pcd6 w-'nom rvo, 411/4 6:5-044_1( KatAktfryv EizetAd-elid P:oe"g(k.s5-16 (/ 3( PvE bb-dc C4)4t1 s e rn oas A;)s-C. 9e11_ ucei)„, 36,7 1,nca6 , Scanned .by CamScanner Cris fin a R. Marks George E. Marks 319 Lagoon Ave. Naples, FL 34108 October 20, 2016 Ms. Rachel Beasley, Planner Zoning Division Collier County, Growth Management Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34108 RE:Zoning Petition No VA-PL20160001181, 342 Tradewinds Ave. Ms. Beasley, Thank you for taking the time on Thursday,October 20th to meet with me and review the Variance application for the petition noted above. After some thought and evaluation and conversations with other affected neighbors,we have no choice but to OPPOSE the request for variance for the sole purpose of defending the integrity of the existing"View corridor"which would be negatively impacted by the approval/granting of this variance by Collier County. We oppose this variance as it will impinge on the view corridor that currently exists and will encourage future violations by potentially creating an actual hardship for adjacent property owners. The violation of the required setbacks by 13.45 feet horizontally and 2.36 feet vertically is a GROSS violation of the zoning ordinance. The applicant has NO BASIS FOR A HARDSHIP and this violation does not qualify as a diminimus violation by definition of law. The required setbacks in the RSF-3 zoning district as per Collier County Land Development Code(LDC), Section 4.02.03.A Table 4 states that the minimum setback for an accessory use(swimming pool in this case) when the elevation of the pool deck exceeds 4'-0"above the seawall shall be 20'-0". The current placement of this pool encroaches on this allowable setback by 13.45 feet which places the pool deck within 6.55 feet from the seawall when 20'-0" is required. I have reviewed with you the Staff report and analysis in great detail and disagree with your assessment as noted below: a. Are there special conditions and circumstances existing,which are peculiar to the location, size and characteristics of the land,structure or building involved? The evaluation of any zoning or building application is predicated on the review of the site PRIOR to the construction of any permitted construction. No certificate of occupancy has been granted for this property,therefore the evaluation of this request for variance should be as if the building did not exist. Collier county failed to uphold the zoning code in their approval of the building permit and plans, however,every building application contains verbiage that puts the responsibility to comply with all building and zoning codes on the architects, engineers,contractors and property owners. A county created situation is not a basis for a variance. Mistakes happen all the time and the county should be upholding their responsibility to enforce the correction of the violation. It is clear that NO SPECIAL CONDITIONS exist as a basis for this variance. b. Are there special conditions and circumstances,which do not result from the action of the applicant such as pre-existing conditions relative to the property,which are the subject of the Variance request? The applicant, in this case the builder and/or their architect/engineer, built the structure in question in gross violation of the existing zoning code which they are required to follow regardless of the Collier County approval process. This is a self-created violation of the zoning code and the county should NOT be supporting this violation and request for variance. c. Will the literal interpretation of the provisions of this zoning code work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant or create practical difficulties for the applicant? This application does NOT meet the definition standard of"Hardship"as defined by Zoning law and Collier County is remiss in their duties and responsibilities in supporting such an application. As a matter of law, the cost of$50,000 is not an acceptable basis for a hardship and should not be considered as a basis for the granting of a zoning variance. The fact that the applicant relied on the erroneously issued pool permit is not a material basis for a hardship or the granting of this variance. d. Will the variance, if granted,be the minimum Variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure and which promote standards of health, safety and welfare? No comment e. Will granting the variance confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by these zoning regulations to.other lands,buildings or structures in the same zoning district? Yes-The granting of this variance will absolutely grant a special privilege on this applicant not currently available to other properties within this district. This GROSS violation of the zoning code will create a hardship for adjacent property owners whose visual corridor is diminished by both the horizontal impingement of 13.45 feet and vertical violation of 2.36 feet and may become a basis for future zoning variance applications. This pool could have been created in the same location of the same size, with a correction of the stair location and width within the zoning standards thereby eliminating the need for this variance. f. Will granting the Variance be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this Land Development Code and not be injurious to the neighborhood,or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare? This condition is NOT IN HARMONY with the intent of the zoning code and is a gross impingement on the vision corridor that the zoning code is intended to protect. Additionally, the granting of a zoning variance should NEVER be for the purpose of"legitimizing" a gross violation of the zoning code as stated in the Staff report. This is true of any avoidable error whether created by the owner,general contractor,architect,engineer or in this case Collier County. This pool is currently under construction and a certificate of occupancy has not been, issued for this property and now is the time to correct this violation. No certificate of occupancy should be issued by the county until this is corrected. g. Are there natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals and objectives of the regulation such as natural preserves,lakes,golf courses,etc.? There are NO natural or man-made conditions negatively affecting this applicant. The staff's consideration of the applicant's argument that the variance in seawall heights is a legitimate consideration is seriously flawed. The applicant's seawall height is the highest level allowed by FEMA and is a standard set by Collier county. The variance in seawall heights is not a consideration in this instance as the applicant is already relying on the highest wall allowable and is still in violation of the Zoning ordinance. The current condition already exceeds the maximum allowable seawall height by 2.36 feet and would only be worse if a lower seawall existed,which is not the case in this instance. h. Will granting of this Variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan? The staffs contention that the granting of this variance will not violate the Growth Management plan which is based on the zoning ordinance as a basis of the plan is negligent in the staffs assessment. Granting of this variance will be a GROSS violation of the zoning ordinance which is a key basis of the growth management plan. In summary,the granting of this variance should be denied on the following basis: 1. No legal hardship exists for this applicant to rely on as a basis of this variance and the variance must be denied on this legal basis. If the county makes the argument that they created a hardship for the applicant, which would be legally flawed,the county would be self-serving in thereby granting a variance to correct their error. 2. The pool design could have been constructed AND CAN STILL BE CONSTRUCTED in the current location with the exact same dimensions within the zoning ordinance by building the pool 2.36 feet lower and a variance would not be required. It would be negligent for the county to grant this variance when a viable solution was and is available to the applicant and the county without creating a hardship. 3. There were no existing special conditions or circumstances that would contribute to a hardship and thereby the variance should be denied. 4. The fact that the applicant states that it will cost$50,000 is not material to the consideration of this variance by law and the granting of this variance would confer permanent damage to the visual corridor of the neighborhood that the zoning ordinance exists to protect. 5. The granting of this variance will confer special privilege on this applicant not available to other property owners and would create/necessitate future hardships for adjacent property owners. A variance is not intended to provide special privilege on any property owner in violation of the zoning ordinance. Finally, should the county decide to act irresponsibly and approve this variance,we will file an appeal within the allowable appeal period and reserve our right to seek all legal options against Collier County for damages. Additionally, we will request that no further construction occur on the violating area of the property and we will seek an injunction to the issuing of a Certificate of Occupancy by the county until such appeal is heard and resolved. Please feel free to reach out to me or our attorney should you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter prior to the zoning hearing. Respectf Cy submitt-,', • Geotge E. Marks,AIA 215-870-5543 cell 215-654-7722 office ReischIF red From: Vincent Fantegrossi <vfantegrossi@aol.com> Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 11:40 AM To: 'George Marks'; vanderbiltbeach54@yahoo.com; ReischlFred; BellowsRay Cc: 'Steve Emens'; 'Buzz Victor'; 'Gail Fantegrossi'; gbraddon@rochester.rr.com; grv3751 @aol.com; jpwood99@aol.com Subject: RE: 342 Tradewinds Zoning Variance opposition assistance-Vanderbilt Beach Residents Assoc Good Morning Mr. Reischl and Mr. Bellows, I am writing to echo Mr. Marks' concerns about the possibility of a variance being issued in the Tradewinds matter. I am most concerned about precedents being set. The entire Vanderbilt Beach area is in transition. It is clear that older, smaller housing inventory will be steadily replaced in the coming years through tear-downs and new construction. We all have abided by our zoning rules and it is important that those rules and regulations are not weakened by allowing unwarranted variances. My limited experience with the county inspection and regulation process has always been positive and I have been impressed with the attention to detail the county gives to all projects. I am confident that when given full deliberation, everyone will agree that the rules in place were established with good reason and should not be taken lightly or disregarded. Thank you for your consideration, Vincent V. Fantegrossi 254 Lagoon Ave. Naples, FL 34108 Mobile: 617-680-1125 1 T 239.642.1485 PAT RIC IK Naples: F 239 642 1487 \SALE 5470 Bryson Court Suite 103 E info@patrickneale.com Naples,Florida 34109 www.patrickneale.com `:,:.ASSOCIATES Mailing: Patrick H. Neale Marco Island(by appointment): P.O.Box 9440 950 North Collier Blvd.Suite 400 Naples,Florida 34101-9440 Attorney at Law Marco Island,Florida 34145 January 10, 2017 Mr. Fred Reischl Senior Planner Collier County Growth Management Department Zoning Division 2800 Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL RE: Petition VA-PL20160001181 —342 Trade Winds Avenue Dear Fred: I represent Mr. and Mrs. George Marks, the owners of 319 Lagoon Avenue,Naples,Florida 34108, property owners who will be substantially and adversely impacted by the variance requested in the above petition should it be granted. I also represent several other property owners in the area who will also be adversely impacted by the proposed variance should it be granted. My clients strongly oppose the proposed variance and disagree with the staff recommendation for reasons which will be set out below. This letter is to provide additional legal basis for the denial of the Variance. It is requested that this letter be provided to each member of the Planning Board prior to the hearing set for January 19, 2017. As the County is aware, the controlling case law for variances is Indialantic v. Nance, 400 So. 2d 37 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 1981) as adopted by the Florida Supreme Court in Nance v. Indialantic, 1982 Fla. LEXIS 2530 (Fla. 1982). The standard set out in this case is that "[a] prerequisite to the granting of a hardship zoning variance is the presence of an exceptional and unique hardship to the individual landowner, unique to that parcel and not shared by other property owners in the area." There is nothing about the parcel or this landowner that is unique, other than the fact the County issued a building permit based upon plans that did not meet the standards set out in the Collier County Land Development Code. In the balance of this letter, I will comment upon the various criteria set out in LDC section 9.04.03 and incorporated into the staff report. a. Are there special conditions and circumstances existing, which are peculiar to the location, size and characteristics of the land, structure or building involved? Staff: Yes. Per the applicant, the pool shell,retaining wall and stairs are constructed. The applicant commenced construction under building permit,PRBD2015092870601,with an incorrectly cited rear accessory pool setback of 10 feet versus the required 20 feet. The applicant abided by the incorrectly cited rear accessory 10-foot pool setback for the swimming pool, spa, and pool deck. The stairs off the pool deck do encroach 3.5 feet into the erroneously provided 10-foot setback; however they were permitted with the swimming pool, spa, and pool deck. Opposing Position: The conditions and circumstances set out by the Staff are those caused by the actions of the petitioner. The failure of the petitioner to follow the Mr.Fred Reischl January 11. 2017 Page 2 of 4 requirements of the Building Code and Land Development Code does not constitute a special condition or circumstance that would give rise to grounds for a variance. b. Are there special conditions and circumstances, which do not result from the action of the applicant such as pre-existing conditions relative to the property, which are the subject of the Variance request? Staff: Yes. The applicant applied and received a pool permit from the County citing an incorrect rear accessory pool setback. The applicant proceeded, and followed, with provided setbacks unaware of any violations. Due to this error, the subject structure is currently encroaching 6.55; more specifically, the pool, spa, pool deck encroach 9.83 feet, resulting in a 10.17 rear yard setback, and the stairs encroach 13.45 feet, resulting in a 6.55-foot encroachment. Opposing Position: Any and all "special conditions and circumstance" result from the negligence of the applicant. The fact that a permit was issued does not excuse the applicant from compliance with the relevant laws. c Will a literal interpretation of the provisions of this zoning code work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant or create practical difficulties for the applicant? Yes. Per the applicant, the pool is already constructed and to abide by the required accessory 20-foot setback would require the applicant to remove the existing pool and replace it at an estimated expense of $50,000. The applicant relied on the erroneously issued pool permit with a 10-foot rear accessory setback in constructing the existing pool structure. Opposing Position: The hardship was caused by the negligence of the applicant and/or their contractor. While it may create practical difficulties, that is not within the purview of the Planning Board or Board of Zoning Appeals to relieve the applicant from a problem of their own making. d. Will the Variance, if granted, be the minimum Variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure and which promote standards of health, safety and welfare? Yes.The applicant is only seeking the minimum variance which will allow the pool deck, pool, spa, and stairs to remain. Opposing Position: The property is still completely usable without the granting of the variance. The applicant will only have to construct the pool deck, spa and stairs in a manner that complies with the provisions of the Land Development Code. e. Will granting the Variance confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by these zoning regulations to other lands,buildings,or structures in the same zoning district? Yes.The applicant will be able to retain a decreased accessory rear yard setback for a pool Mr.Fred Reischl January 11. 2017 Page 3 of 4 deck that exceed 4 feet in height above the seawall. However, it should be noted that the applicant relied on the County issued permit which cited incorrectly the accessory rear swimming pool and/or screen enclosure setback. Opposing Position: The basic principle of variance procedure as embodied in the LDC and the applicable case law is that a variance should NOT give the applicant any special privilege. This would provide the applicant with a special privilege and diminish the value of surrounding properties.The variance will impede the views of all surrounding properties and set a dangerous precedent which could allow other property owners to receive the same variance, thus making the LDC a sham. f. Will granting the Variance be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this Land Development Code, and not be injurious to the neighborhood,or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare? Yes. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed Variance would legitimize the existence of the pool and pool deck that are currently under construction. Opposing Position: The staff is arguing that this will legitimize the existence of a non- conforming structure that has not been issued a certificate of occupancy and is in violation of the LDC. That is not in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the LDC. Further, this is injurious to the neighborhood in that it impedes, impairs and interferes with the views of the adjacent lot owners. g. Are there natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals and objectives of the regulation such as natural preserves, lakes, golf courses, etc.? Yes. The applicant states that variations in seawall height in this location do not create a uniform height for all houses and therefore create different pool deck height requirements over 4 feet of the seawall. Opposing Position: The standard in the LDC is set so that there is uniformity in the elevation above the seawall. The height above the seawall is the standard. There are no conditions natural or physically induced which justify the granting of this variance. h. Will granting the Variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan? Approval of this Variance will not affect or change the requirements of the Growth Management Plan. Opposing Position: The approval of the Variance will not impact the GMP. Based upon the foregoing response to the Staff Report and Recommendation and testimony to be presented at the hearing on January 19, 2017, my clients respectfully request that the Planning Board deny this application for a variance. The variance as requested does not meet the legal criteria for the granting of a variance. Mr.Fred Reischl January 11. 2017 Page 4 of 4 I appreciate this opportunity to present my clients' position and look forward to appearing at the hearing on January 19, 2017 to present these arguments to the Planning Board, respond to their questions and get my clients' testimony on the record.Please contact me if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, 'atric H. eale Cc: Clients PHN/Ps GrecoSherry From: karen@patrickneale.com on behalf of Karen Klukiewicz <karen@patrickneale.com> Sent: Monday, February 06, 2017 4:18 PM To: GrecoSherry Cc: khall@patrickneale.com; pneale@patrickneale.com Subject: Registered: FW: Variance 342 Tradewinds Avenue Attachments: 20170112 marks Itr reischl.pdf; 9A-VA-PL20160001181-342 Trade Winds Avenue - Staff Report.pdf X This is a Registered Email® message from Karen Klukiewicz. Sherry— Can you please provide status on this? Mr. Neale would still appreciate the opportunity to meet with Commissioner Taylor this week. Best regards, Karen Klukiewicz Chief of Operations Assistant to Attorney Patrick H. Neale Patrick Neale&Associates Phone: 239-642-1485 Fax: 239-642-1487 Email: karen@patrickneale.com Email Servicing: email-service@patrickneale.com www.patrickneale.com Principal Office 5470 Bryson Court, Suite 103 Naples, FL 34109 Marco Island Office 950 North Collier Blvd. Marco Island, FL 34145 Mailing Address P. O. Box 9440 Naples, FL 34101-9440 This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s)or entity(s)named within the message.This e-mail might contain legally privileged and confidential information. If you properly received this e-mail as a client or retained expert, please hold it in confidence to protect the attorney-client or work product privileges.Should the intended recipient forward or disclose this message to another person or party,that action could constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any review,dissemination,distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited by the sender and to do so might constitute a violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C.section 2510-2521. If this communication was received in error we apologize for the intrusion. Please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message without reading same. Nothing in this e-mail message shall, in and of itself, create an attorney-client relationship with the sender. Disclaimer under Circular 230:Any statements regarding tax matters made herein, including any attachments,are not formal tax opinions by this firm, cannot be relied upon or used by any person to avoid tax penalties,and are not intended to be used or referred to in any marketing or promotional materials. 1 From:Judi Menard Sent:Thursday, February 02, 2017 12:54 PM To:SherryGreco@colliergov.net Cc: Karen Klukiewicz<karen@patrickneale.com>; Patrick Neale <pneale@patrickneale.com> Subject:Variance 342 Tradewinds Avenue Sherry- Karen is out of the office this afternoon. In her absence, attached please find a copy of the Staff Report and a copy of my letter of opposition with regard to the variance noted above. After Commissioner Taylor has reviewed the attached, please give Karen a call at this office, in the hopes of scheduling a meeting. Please let me know if you have any questions. Judi Menard Legal Assistant to Patrick H. Neale, Esq. Phone: 239-642-1485 Fax: 239-642-1487 Email: khall@patrickneale.com Email Service Address: email-service©patrickneale.com Principal Office 5470 Bryson Court, Suite 103 Naples, FL 34109 Marco Island Office 950 North Collier Blvd. Marco Island, FL 34145 Mailing Address P. O. Box 9440 Naples, FL 34101-9440 This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s) or entity(s) named within the message. This e-mail might contain legally privileged and confidential information. If you properly received this e-mail as a client or retained expert, please hold it in confidence to protect the attorney-client or work product privileges. Should the intended recipient forward or disclose this message to another person or party, that action could constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited by the sender and to do so might constitute a violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. section 2510-2521. If this communication was received in error we apologize for the intrusion. Please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message without reading same. Nothing in this e-mail message shall, in and of itself, create an attorney-client relationship with the sender. Disclaimer under Circular 230: Any statements regarding tax matters made herein, including any attachments, are not formal tax opinions by this firm, cannot be relied upon or used by any person to avoid tax penalties, and are not intended to be used or referred to in any marketing or promotional materials. Click here to send a Registered Email® message to anyone. E 2 T 239.642.1485 PATRICK Naples: F 239.642.1487 E info�patrickneale.com L\EALE 5470 Bryson Court Suite 103 wwwpatrickneale.com t Naples,Florida 34109 AssoCIATEs Mailing: Patrick H. Neale Marco Island(by appointment): P.O.Boa 9440 950 North Collier Blvd.Suite 400 Naples,Florida 34101-9440 Attorney at Law Marco Island,Florida 34145 January 10, 2017 Mr.Fred Reischl Senior Planner Collier County Growth Management Department Zoning Division 2800 Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL RE:Petition VA-PL20160001181 —342 Trade Winds Avenue Dear Fred: I represent Mr. and Mrs. George Marks,the owners of 319 Lagoon Avenue,Naples,Florida 34108, property owners who will be substantially and adversely impacted by the variance requested in the above petition should it be granted.I also represent several other property owners in the area who will also be adversely impacted by the proposed variance should it be granted. My clients strongly oppose the proposed variance and disagree with the staff recommendation for reasons which will be set out below. This letter is to provide additional legal basis for the denial of the Variance.It is requested that this letter be provided to each member of the Planning Board prior to the hearing set for January 19,2017. As the County is aware,the controlling case law for variances is Indialantic v. Nance, 400 So. 2d 37 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 1981) as adopted by the Florida Supreme Court in Nance v. Indialantic, 1982 Fla. LEXIS 2530(Fla. 1982). The standard set out in this case is that "[a] prerequisite to the granting of a hardship zoning variance is the presence of an exceptional and unique hardship to the individual landowner, unique to that parcel and not shared by other property owners in the area."There is nothing about the parcel or this landowner that is unique, other than the fact the County issued a building permit based upon plans that did not meet the standards set out in the Collier County Land Development Code. In the balance of this letter, I will comment upon the various criteria set out in LDC section 9.04.03 and incorporated into the staff report. a. Are there special conditions and circumstances existing, which are peculiar to the location,size and characteristics of the land,structure or building involved? Staff: Yes. Per the applicant, the pool shell,retaining wall and stairs are constructed. The applicant commenced construction under building permit,PRBD2015092870601,with an incorrectly cited rear accessory pool setback of 10 feet versus the required 20 feet. The applicant abided by the incorrectly cited rear accessory 10-foot pool setback for the swimming pool,spa, and pool deck. The stairs off the pool deck do encroach 3.5 feet into the erroneously provided 10-foot setback; however they were permitted with the swimming pool, spa, and pool deck. Opposing Position: The conditions and circumstances set out by the Staff are those caused by the actions of the petitioner. The failure of the petitioner to follow the Mr. Fred Reischl January 11. 2017 Page 2 of 4 requirements of the Building Code and Land Development Code does not constitute a special condition or circumstance that would give rise to grounds for a variance. b. Are there special conditions and circumstances, which do not result from the action of the applicant such as pre-existing conditions relative to the property, which are the subject of the Variance request? Staff: Yes. The applicant applied and received a pool permit from the County citing an incorrect rear accessory pool setback. The applicant proceeded, and followed, with provided setbacks unaware of any violations. Due to this error, the subject structure is currently encroaching 6.55; more specifically, the pool, spa, pool deck encroach 9.83 feet, resulting in a 10.17 rear yard setback, and the stairs encroach 13.45 feet, resulting in a 6.55-foot encroachment. Opposing Position: Any and all "special conditions and circumstance" result from the negligence of the applicant. The fact that a permit was issued does not excuse the applicant from compliance with the relevant laws. c. Will a literal interpretation of the provisions of this zoning code work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant or create practical difficulties for the applicant? Yes. Per the applicant, the pool is already constructed and to abide by the required accessory 20-foot setback would require the applicant to remove the existing pool and replace it at an estimated expense of $50,000. The applicant relied on the erroneously issued pool permit with a 10-foot rear accessory setback in constructing the existing pool structure. Opposing Position: The hardship was caused by the negligence of the applicant and/or their contractor. While it may create practical difficulties, that is not within the purview of the Planning Board or Board of Zoning Appeals to relieve the applicant from a problem of their own making. d. Will the Variance, if granted, be the minimum Variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure and which promote standards of health, safety and welfare? Yes. The applicant is only seeking the minimum variance which will allow the pool deck, pool, spa, and stairs to remain. Opposing Position: The property is still completely usable without the granting of the variance. The applicant will only have to construct the pool deck, spa and stairs in a manner that complies with the provisions of the Land Development Code. e. Will granting the Variance confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by these zoning regulations to other lands,buildings,or structures in the same zoning district? Yes. The applicant will be able to retain a decreased accessory rear yard setback for a pool Mr.Fred Reischl January 11. 2017 Page 3 of 4 deck that exceed 4 feet in height above the seawall. However, it should be noted that the applicant relied on the County issued permit which cited incorrectly the accessory rear swimming pool and/or screen enclosure setback. Opposing Position: The basic principle of variance procedure as embodied in the LDC and the applicable case law is that a variance should NOT give the applicant any special privilege. This would provide the applicant with a special privilege and diminish the value of surrounding properties.The variance will impede the views of all surrounding properties and set a dangerous precedent which could allow other property owners to receive the same variance,thus making the LDC a sham. £ Will granting the Variance be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this Land Development Code, and not be injurious to the neighborhood,or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare? Yes. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed Variance would legitimize the existence of the pool and pool deck that are currently under construction. Opposing Position: The staff is arguing that this will legitimize the existence of a non- conforming structure that has not been issued a certificate of occupancy and is in violation of the LDC. That is not in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the LDC. Further, this is injurious to the neighborhood in that it impedes, impairs and interferes with the views of the adjacent lot owners. g Are there natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals and objectives of the regulation such as natural preserves, lakes, golf courses, etc.? Yes. The applicant states that variations in seawall height in this location do not create a uniform height for all houses and therefore create different pool deck height requirements over 4 feet of the seawall. Opposing Position: The standard in the LDC is set so that there is uniformity in the elevation above the seawall. The height above the seawall is the standard. There are no conditions natural or physically induced which justify the granting of this variance. h. Will granting the Variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan? Approval of this Variance will not affect or change the requirements of the Growth Management Plan. Opposing Position: The approval of the Variance will not impact the GMP. Based upon the foregoing response to the Staff Report and Recommendation and testimony to be presented at the hearing on January 19, 2017, my clients respectfully request that the Planning Board deny this application for a variance. The variance as requested does not meet the legal criteria for the granting of a variance. Mr.Fred Reischl January 11. 2017 Page 4 of 4 I appreciate this opportunity to present my clients' position and look forward to appearing at the hearing on January 19, 2017 to present these arguments to the Planning Board,respond to their questions and get my clients' testimony on the record. Please contact me if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, atric H. eale Cc: Clients PHN/Ps AGENDA ITEM 9-A Co eY County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ZONING DIVISION-ZONING SERVICES SECTION HEARING DATE: JANUARY 19,2017 SUBJECT: PETITION VA-PL20160001181, 342 TRADE WINDS AVENUE PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT: Owner: Roxanne Stone-Jeske Agent: Matthew L. Jones Nancy D. Koeper Law Offices of Marc L. Shapiro, PA 342 Trade Winds Avenue 720 Goodlette Road North,Suite 304 Naples,FL 34103 Naples, FL 34102 REQUESTED ACTION: To have the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an application for a Variance from Section 4.02.03.A, Table 4 of the Land Development Code (LDC) to reduce the minimum rear yard accessory structure setback line from 20 feet to 6.55 feet for a swimming pool, spa, pool deck, and stairs on a waterfront lot within the Residential Single-family(RSF-3)zoning district. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property is located on Lot 11, Block M, of the Conners Vanderbilt Beach Estates Unit 2 subdivision, on the south side of Trade Winds Avenue, approximately 1000 feet west of Vanderbilt Drive in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (See location map on the next page.) PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The purpose of the petition is to request a reduction from LDC Section 4.02.03.A.,Table 4, stating that the minimum swimming pool and/or screen enclosure accessory setback for waterfront lots is 20 feet when the swimming pool deck exceeds 4 feet in height above the top of the seawall. The seawall on this property is 3.31 feet with a pool deck that is 9.9 feet. Thus,the pool deck is 6.59 feet above the seawall,which is 2.59 feet greater than what is permitted by the LDC. The applicant states that the pool and deck plans submitted to Collier County contained the pool deck elevation of 9.67 feet. The County issued a pool permit, PRBD2016010076701, with a rear accessory setback of 10 feet versus the required 20 feet. The applicant built the swimming pool, spa, and pool deck utilizing the 10-foot accessory setback requirements erroneously provided on the building permit rather than the required 20-foot accessory setback requirement. The pool deck encroaches 9.85 feet into the 20- foot setback and the stairs encroach 3.45 feet. VA-PL20160001181,342 Trade Winds Variance Page 1 of 7 ►11! ® ® ® ®II®per11® ® ® @CO ® ® ® G ® ® © ® 9 irrimimillnismR ®m © ® 0 = ® 0 = � p O O � m 0- ®R = ° 1 ® gyp . _® 0 • © 0 - R ® p . . @ p R p ' © R " © .„ 6 ID en O • A ® 0 • R ® 0- 1 YO ® 0 0' ik)e e- ®, •0 In R O p - R ® I Q �> s© �. [/�' e °- ®L Q h ® O A Mr in�t�+( In® ' rg 1:1 P RI "1 riti _ids . F A ® ®, R Q Y Z A ® ® R C �C W LA O 0 = ® 0 1 R ,/� ,a R 1 ° N Rm� N V m ® - ® ® W O wr inmcn © I tY O ,IM J ® c Pe till tiri % ,.., wi to 0 W- Irl Rif .@ IN l-- CO A mA 0ami lig sis,,,,,,,frii � x 0 R ® Li IL N ii ro ID L I ! z o0 fo co ( + o CV EL � , I U 0_ o I I N' � 1:1C1 1.1 ga�apuan a) o m I I I C13 co 1 I _� 5, i L IQ) C to \ 1 +a til Ca N i U Jcn SireGOA OR of � Z I W H 2 ", a oec v d O. J c oE 0 O 0 TRADE WINDS AVE. —41—_ } _ r-- 750_d tt l 760.07"(C) —� 75.0 f' i i ftr.PK NAI. IN OVMT. 10. I CUT•HOLE,0,06'W, k CD.ICAO. ED&E OP PIMA T. _ MI ?VMT a e o N to = NDLE 14.5 .....—.=-_---_ __---....==—• _' I2 R,G- 1Ip Wv .a 565`04:10"W 75.00'(R) 75.41'(G) b S.P 1:iRA9"PSM.... SWM RRA 5 0.52'5.,0.29'E . 4 PSM 5762" 0 0,081.1,,0.07'W. I I 4"Puf 9u8- OuT C" in C7 6 I 7,65' f� 24.0' 14.0' 765' pm 0 b is o 6.0V 5 o N 6 to to ` v, 9.0' to ti to 342 TRADE WIMPS 4VE. V ; LOCK M C.B.S. f1OUSE (under cnn5L.) FN. FLOOR ELEV 4-10.4 w 0 m L, to w u, at 0 20.6' thv.'2.05"4{� 5' ta an * 15.0' 14] 4.35'67tr, - 40.e' A.8' r 3.45ft 5EAWAL. 5g7' 9.8 ft 4'ufbil � 1 z . RETdiNINb wait ALUM.PENCE 42. � ii tr..wf.�snii k 1\ .._.3_ . WIDE COW. 4EAWALL GAP T I.I4' 11 56e°04'10^W 75.00'CR) 75.01 (M) ;`% m 9ET PICL'L40LE st ►NTGP OE GONG.SEAWALL L` HAW ELEV. +03.32 .6 W ATER W A ? Accessory setback required by LDC 20ft Accessory setback shown on Building Permit 10 ft Additional encroachment by stairway 3.45 ft VA-PL20160001181,342 Trade Winds Variance Page 3 of 7 ti K) 59.7` 4'ut6u - ALUM, FENCE -73,747-iti-Ars n....._ , trader'oor:5f WALL LAP l 1.14' f 75.00'fRl 75.01 CM) 'ET uTttt.t.t+D1,E 0 Q m To) Of ONC. 5EAWALL NAVV ELEV. + 03.3Z According to the survey, the applicant built the stairs 3.45 feet into the erroneously provided 10-foot setback. Per LDC 4.02.01.D.7 stairways shall not protrude over 3 feet into a required front, side, or rear yard of a single-family dwelling;the stairs were approved at the 3.45-foot encroachment. Please note that the building permits, for both the home(PRBD20150617253) and the pool, were permitted with inclusion of the stairs—as depicted on the survey. Overall,the applicant requests to reduce the setback from 20 feet to 6.55 feet. This petition was originally scheduled to be heard by the Collier County Hearing Examiner on October 27, 2016. Because of increased public concern, in accordance with Section 2-87 of the Code of Laws and Ordinances,this matter is being heard by the CCPC for a recommendation to the Board. SURROUNDING LAND USE&ZONING: SUBJECT PARCEL: Lot with a home under construction,zoned RSF-3 North: Trade Winds Avenue ROW, across which is a single-family home, zoned RSF-3 East: Single-family home,zoned RSF-3 South: Canal off Vanderbilt Lagoon, across which is a single-family home,zoned RSF-3 West: Single-family home,zoned RSF-3 L ..se- . , *lilt ,.., loll ti i 1 a 1101 46,44 ' , , ir J ~ may "!t'�`r• _ I . ,•• V •41 VA-PL20160001181,342 Trade Winds Variance Page 4 of 7 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN(GMP)CONSISTENCY: The subject property is located in the Urban Residential Subdistrict of the Urban Mixed Use District land use classification on the County's Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The purpose of this subdistrict is to provide for higher densities in an area with fewer natural resource constraints and where existing and planned facilities are concentrated.The GMP does not address individual variance requests;the Plan deals with the larger issue of the actual use. ANALYSIS: The decision to grant a variance is based on the criteria in LDC Section 9.04.03. Staff has analyzed this petition relative to these provisions and offers the following responses: a. Are there special conditions and circumstances existing,which are peculiar to the location,size and characteristics of the land,structure,or building involved? Yes. Per the applicant, the pool shell, retaining wall, and stairs are constructed. The applicant commenced construction under building permit, PRBD2015092870601, with an incorrectly permitted rear accessory pool setback of 10 feet versus the required 20 feet. The applicant used the incorrectly cited rear accessory 10-foot pool setback for the swimming pool,spa,and pool deck. The stairs off the pool deck do encroach 3.45 feet into the erroneously provided 10-foot setback;however, they were also permitted with the swimming pool, spa,and pool deck. b. Are there special conditions and circumstances, which do not result from the action of the applicant such as pre-existing conditions relative to the property,which are the subject of the Variance request? Yes. The applicant applied and received a pool permit from the County citing an incorrect rear accessory pool setback. The applicant utilized the erroneously approved setbacks unaware of any violations.Due to this error,the subject structure is currently encroaching 6.55 feet;more specifically, the pool, spa, and pool deck encroach 9.85 feet,resulting in a 10.15 rear yard setback,and the stairs encroach 13.45 feet, resulting in a 6.55-foot setback. c. Will a literal interpretation of the provisions of this zoning code work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant or create practical difficulties for the applicant? Yes. Per the applicant,the pool is already constructed and to abide by the required accessory 20-foot setback would require the applicant to remove the existing pool, redesign, and replace it at an estimated expense of$50,000. The applicant relied on the erroneously issued pool permit with a 10- foot rear accessory setback in constructing the existing pool structure and stairs. d. Will the Variance,if granted,be the minimum Variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure and which promote standards of health, safety, and welfare? No. A reasonable use of the land does not necessarily include a pool; however, the applicant relied upon the County-issued permit. Reconstruction of the pool to correct setbacks would create a severe economic hardship. e. Will granting the Variance confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by these zoning regulations to other lands,buildings,or structures in the same zoning district? VA-PL20160001181, 342 Trade Winds Variance Page 5 of 7 Yes.The applicant will be able to retain a decreased accessory rear yard setback for a pool deck that exceeds 4 feet in height above the seawall. However, it should be noted that the applicant relied on the County-issued permit which cited, incorrectly, the accessory rear swimming pool and/or screen enclosure setback. f. Will granting the Variance be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Land Development Code, and not be injurious to the neighborhood,or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare? Staff has received objections to the requested Variance(attached) which state that the reduced rear setback would impact neighboring views, and set a precedent for future variances, among other objections. However, because a reduction in pool deck height of 2.59 feet would permit the pool to legally comply with the 10-foot setback,and signatures of no objection from property owners within the most impacted area were received, and because the setback was the result of a County error,staff is of the opinion that the variance will be in harmony with the neighborhood to the greatest extent possible. g. Are there natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals and objectives of the regulation such as natural preserves,lakes,golf courses,etc.? Yes. The applicant states that variations in seawall height in this location do not create a uniform height for all houses and therefore create different pool deck height requirements over 4 feet of the seawall. h. Will granting the Variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan? Approval of this Variance will not affect or change the requirements of the Growth Management Plan. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report on December 30,2016. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission recommend approval of Petition VA-PL- 20160001181,342 Trade Winds Avenue Variance,to the Board,with the following condition: Upon demolition or destruction of 50 percent or more of the structure's assessed value, this Variance will be void and any new structure shall meet setback requirements at the time of issuance of a building permit. VA-PL20160001181,342 Trade Winds Variance Page 6 of 7 PREPARED BY: moii4p hog -o/9-I6 FRED4 SCHL,AICP,PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: RAYMO V. BELLOWS,ZONING MANAGER DATE ZONING IVISION 1 MIKE BOSI,AICP,DIRECTOR DATE ZONING DIVISION APPROVED BY: / .- "y!_/ 7 JAMES FRENCH,DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT DAVID S. WILKISON,DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT Tentatively scheduled for the February 14,2017 BCC Meeting. VA-PL20160001181,342 Trade Winds Variance RESOLUTION 17 - A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, FOR A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 4.02.03.A, TABLE. 4 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM REAR YARD ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SETBACK LINE FROM 20 FEET TO 6.55 FEET FOR A SWIMMING POOL, SPA, POOL DECK AND STAIRS ON A WATERFRONT LOT WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY (RSF-3) ZONING DISTRICT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 342 TRADE WINDS AVENUE, HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. IVA- PL20160001181] WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (LDC) (Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the granting of variances; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Board of Zoning Appeals has held a public hearing after notice as in said regulations made and provided,and has considered the advisability of a variance from Section 4.02.03.A, Table 4 of the Land Development Code to reduce the minimum rear yard accessory structure setback line from 20 feet to 6.55 feet for a swimming pool, spa, pool deck and stairs on a waterfront lot, as shown on the attached Exhibit "A", in the Residential Single-Family (RSF-3) Zoning District for the property hereinafter described, and has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Section 9.04.00 of the Zoning Regulations of said Land Development Code for the unincorporated area of Collier County; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this Board in public meeting assembled, and the Board having considered all matters presented. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: Petition Number VA-PL20160001181, filed by Jason Jenks of Jenks Builders, Inc. on behalf of Roxanne Stone-Jeske and Nancy D. Koeper, with respect to the property hereinafter described as: [16-CPS-01.57311310611/1140 Rev. U10/17 Petition no. VA-PL20/60001/81 /342 Tradewinds Ave. 1m, Lot 11, Block M, CONNERS VANDERBILT BEACH ESTATES, Unit 2, according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 17, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Folio No. 27585200007 be and the same hereby is approved for a variance from Section 4.02.03.A, Table 4 of the Land Development Code to reduce the minimum rear yard accessory structure setback line from 20 feet to 6.55 feet for a swimming pool, spa, pool deck and stairs on a waterfront lot, as shown on the attached Exhibit "A", in the zoning district wherein said property is located. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this Board. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote this day of ,2017. ATTEST: BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: By: , Deputy Clerk Penny Taylor, Chairman Approved as to form and legality: / 7, Scott A. Stone Assistant County Attorney Attachment: Exhibit A—Conceptual Site Plan [16-CPS-01573/1310611/1140 Rev. 1/10/17 Petition no. VA-PL20160001181 /341 Tradewinds Ave. 2 Exhibit A 1 • BOUNDARY SURVEY OF LOT 11,BLOCK`M',UNIT No.2,CONNER'S VANDERBILT BEACH ESTATES,AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3,PAGE 17,OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA. SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS,RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATIONS OF RECORD. I (1141 TBM Fa.ro N A DISC"PHA 3467" 1215' CR) 1215.12'CAA) d 1 P.tl'Iv,NAVP ELV..,-42.88 d En FD,NAIL tN /- MAT.LUrNALE (TRADE WINDS AVE. ^A _ 760'!X) 760,07'CC) 1y I FD.en NAIL IN PVM'T. I i i cut-NOLE,M.OQ'W p N41L slur SDS OF PV IN PVMT.6UT- qe o rn a. oItOI. '(,� ON rnI T [S 1 12^R,4,P.-.." a'is wv m 4 58W 04'IO"W 75.00'M) 75.0I'CC)4�PN �_. . 4 FR145"PEM.... DWM OA FIAy54.9i'S-,0.29'E, r PAM 72" a.43a. at'W. 4"PFt STUB a4T N a Ci 0 to (71 W 4 2 w V ac Q '1.::,C.{. 7.65' • m m 14.0' 765' p > 24.0 N D �`0 B.Ofi in 65 ler2A N v X42 TRADE WINDS AVS. BLOCK M C.B.S. NOUSE funder coo9L.1 w . FIN. FLOOR eLEV 4-10.4 •r. b m in to LA NOTE, 4/2 2ac' PER CONTRACTOR,POOL/PATIO Z'05� E. - ISO'. STEMWALL IS A7 ELEV +09,5 4.35'w - to 12 IO SET DRILLHOLE N ' IN FOP OF CONC.SEAWALL- 597' 4'01614 NAM ELEV. +0331 7.65'.1 L. 0,S.RETAINING WALL ALUM.PENCE 11 (undereogsl N 0 1.35'WIDE CONG.9E4WALL CAP IS . 1.14' .6- 569°04'10"W 75.00'(R) 75.01 (M) :r . 0',`1 me SET PRILLROLE "In INTO,OF GANG.SEAWALL Lo NAVD ELEV. +03.32 Vi W ATER W AY • SCALE:1"=20' 9 5 •15 0815025 7010 52 V4caN7/NAVD eLEv9 jrl u : =Am mkt BEARINGS BASED ON:EMADC (lo}AVE ASa611'04'10-W,PER RE�ORDPIA) DATE ORDER HELD BOOK REVISIONS � LOCATELEYKED IN BASED ONI E:A 13011(OAIli.eNiL DADA.CML 29,OM 8iA4 ,SIR.94 80V PEG TED IN FLOOD ZONE;al (14'1 5.19.16 0516015 CO(0.52 F4DN04TION/Fi6/GEQf sap a 9�� PER F,LR,M. DATED:S•18.20J2 1202IG 310814 1216000 C010.62 9TeAAWALL ElEV N81Ele,y,. M�t CERTIFICATE IP. N I Arlrbr rer5ly !Ad du aAN" aorta, mnotAN I) ♦(T.n D.t f.pannb o lend curry, mads 1y mo or who ow VALID ,And ...tin ma m«b ITT mbtmum ba,rylrol R D obn0ada a od faD, Cr Va sew of ONLY AFM Pndrwlonai 14d&minus In 21‘9J•17 VEFJ-17.0428. mewls' atllkarl,atluo OeM, b tadM♦ Mi Re.ldr WlfH OMNI SURVEYS, INC.C........) I° ,:.,w; ' . ,.�;b i „+a, �+ Ir r. 1^.'1,v wrt ro!TDa,z ahq erMhwdem el�inW111=1 SEAL LB 6bB4 RCP f'L�' per) Ow. _,w, ''-„ YInAL ME TEL. ZJ9) 439-3666 NF. 4lr� FAX 39) D39-7181 Ts•!AIG% . 9 NrnhNls,pp 4888 4LFON COURT FORT FL 33507?:'01, DA 'P' 1 NM&Ro/ahulla4 No, 4026 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.collIergov.net .1t11(2:::):12:12‘ 239)252-27:-74.: 2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 I ",L 7:' r & a �,' t . t 7 -Yx ,".�' v� x , i.,,F r 'i.° 3, f.-s`, 7. a{ "t.r.,',.'4::?. ,',n'1,04:1 ._ ___. * i .j 4. S T+I�+ � c,,� 4 / '',-t rn,h;� a C'r}T t xf t ,..,,,4%;:y. � ';S' *-4' del °O F-r a a h �' s .& ,ins i • ...k...—,' it ��i I:',":";','.-z`--),.;-' 1.-''''4. t ''''ie-, s .% j t PROJECT NUMBER To be completed by staff PROJECT NAME I DATE PROCESSED Name of Applicant(s): ivR.srt orship j ske ncY Q,}6r. oene es Joint Tenants w{th Ful1 f fights of Sury Address: 531 Turtle Hatch Lane City: Naples State:Flnri{ia ZIP: 34103 Telephone: N/ACell:239-450-1930(N. Koeper)Fax: N/A E-Mail Address: nyc9ir11�59 gC�aol.com `f Name of Agent: Marc L.Shapiro,Esquire See Attached Affidavit of Authonzatiorr) Firm: Marc 4, Shapira.P,A. Address: 720 Goodlette Road North, Suite 304CIty; Naples State: Florida ZIP: 34102 Telephone:239-649-8050 Cell: Fax:N/A E-Mail Address: miones@attomevshaoiro.com BE AWARE THAT COLLIER COUNTY HAS LOBBYIST REGULATIONS. GUIDE YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY AND ENSURE THAT YOU ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THESE REGULATIONS. 6/4/2014 Page 1 of 6 M.Gu. Co r County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 Provide a detailed legal description of the property covered by the application: (If space is inadequate,attach on separate page) Property 1.0. Number: 9751152nOnn7 Section/'Township/Range: ?g / 4A f 25 Subdivision: Connor's Vanderbilt Beach Estates Unit: 2 Lot: 11 Block: M _ Metes&Bounds Description:Lot 11,Block M.Connor's Vanderbilt Beach Total Acreage: 91 tes ,Receding to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 17, Public Records of illerressf av era r oration of Subject Property: 342 Trade Winds Avenue, NapiesNanderbiit Beach Estates * Zoning Land Use N RSF- 5 RSF-3 Residential EN RSF-3 •sidentiajI. RSF-3 Residential Minimum Yard Requirements for Subject Property: Front: 30' Corner Lot: Yes n No bj Side: 7.5' Waterfront Lot: Yes ® No n Rear: 25' Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code requires that the applicant must remove their public hearing advertising sign(s) after final action is taken by the Board of County Commissioners. Based on the Board's final action on this item, please remove all public hearing advertising :b..t+f 04 11f ediat&y. 6/4/2014 Page 2 of 6 County Im.814 .14.1.1111111.".wift" COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colllereov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 4‘,e+�arb� Completewthe_following for all-registered-Association(s) that could be affected by this-petitiali _."__ Provide additional sheets if necessary. Information can be found on the Board of County I Commissioner's website at http://www.colliergov.net/lndex.aspxppage=774. 1 Name of Homeowner Association:14a ikuplicalle 1 Mailing Address: City: State: ZIP: 1 ) Name of Homeowner Association: Mailing Address: City: State: ZIP: Name of Homeowner Association: i Mailing Address: City: State: ZIP: Name of Homeowner Association: Mailing Address: City: State: ZIP: Name of Homeowner Association: Mailing Address: City: State: ZIP: rtgre:c w ^ e7V, "4`:,7:;717;-".7)7:7 e il g i Y . ... #e,.s. .`scist.. 4v �. "b -sa` 'L� .. .a;,'..-$` :� s•„ ,.-:;..'f'` ua On a separate sheet,attached to the application,please provide the following: 1. A detailed explanation of the request including what structures are existing and what is proposed; the amount of encroachment proposed using numbers, i.e.reduce front setback from 25 ft.to 18 ft.; when property owner purchased property; when existing principal structure was built (include building permit number(s)if possible);why encroachment is necessary; how existing encroachment came to be;etc. 2. For projects authorized under LDC Section 9.04.02,provide a detailed description of site alterations, including any dredging and filling. 3. Pursuant to LDC section 9.04.00, staff shall be guided in their recommendation to the Hearing Examiner, and the Hearing Examiner shall be guided in the determination to approve or deny a variance petition by the criteria(a-h)listed below. Please address the following criteria: a) Are there special conditions and circumstances existing which are peculiar to the location, size and characteristics of the land,structure,or building involved. 6/4/2014 Page 3 of 6 4004gr �in� COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 b) Are there special conditions and circumstances which do not result from the action of the applicant such as pre-existing conditions relative to the property which is the subject of the variance request. c) Will a literal interpretation of the provisions of this zoning code work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant or create practical difficulties on the applicant. d) Will the variance, If granted, be the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land,building or structure and which promote standards of health,safety or welfare. e) Will granting the variance requested confer on the petitioner any special privilege that is denied by these zoning regulations to other lands,buildings,or structures in the same zoning district. f) Will granting the variance be in harmony with the intent and purpose of this zoning code,and not be injurious to the neighborhood,or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. g) Are there natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals and objectives of the regulation such as natural preserves,lakes,golf course,etc. h) Will granting the variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan? 4. 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 g]No If yes,please provide copies, • 6/4/2014 Page 4 of 6 C� Ir unty COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.collie�ov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 -� K ,..,, �4 ,,,, E 'J�A.�3w3�� M..?'.f4„.„_,,,,,,,,,„_�i � 4iliit t3t� . ',r, a ar 4 ;. 17 4" :: r '; ,yy �-+J a. w t t� `�' x.33 v g},yx ?+ t � #'x �` , K. .4r 1 *,... 5 ,- it i,4' Y 1 '.."2° .,e*.ir°.,:r.„'...... .,.' vy ,'e; j * _�__. _ _.,mss - _. ..�.,.ta+x_st'-¢c_ ,t._ .,. + .."-1.-1_,—,- ,....�... . .4,,w._,. ;„.s€i✓,i ..._,a 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. Completed Application(download current form from County website) a Pre-Application Meeting Notes III • Project Narrative II mi ■ Completed Addressing Checklist • Conceptual Site Plan 24"x 36"and one 8 34"x 11"copy 11U U Survey of property showing the encroachment(measured in feet) 2 r I in Affidavit of Authorization,signed and notarized 2 ii I Deeds/Legal's 3 Location ma. 1 f II' Current aerial photographs(available from Property Appraiser)with .�, project boundary and,if vegetated,FLUCFCS Codes with legend 5 LI LI included on aerial Historical Survey or waiver request 1 Environmental Data Requirements or exemption justification 3 Once the first set of review comments are posted,provide the assignee1 ❑ ❑ planner the Property Owner Advisory Letter and Certification _ Electronic copy of all documents and plans "Please advise:The Office of the Hearing Examiner requires all I ❑ 0 materials 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. 6/4/2014 Page 5 of 6 Coomegol'ir County 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: ri Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment: ❑ Environmental Review:See Pre-Application__ ______. _- --1 - -Executive Director Si Meeting Si n-in Sheet -❑- Addressing:Annis Moxam Graphics:Mariam Ocheltree ❑ City of Naples:Robin Singer,Planning Director ❑ Historical Review ❑ Comprehensive Planning:See Pre-Application Meeting Sign-In Sheet 11lmmokalee Water/Sewer District: R Conservancy of SWFL:Nichoie Ryan Parks and Recreation:Vicky Ahmad County Attorney's Office:Heidi Ashton-Cicko Transportation oathways:c. Emergency Management:Dan Summers;and/or ❑ School District(Residential Components):Amy _" EMS:Artie Bay Heartlock Tr— Li Engineering:Alison Bradford Transportation Planning:John Podczerwinskv -❑ Other: El Utilities Engineering:Kris VanLengen , '`�Z may-_ .:tea Valli, a ❑ Pre-Application Meeting:$500.00 ❑ Variance Petition: o Residential-$2,000.00 _ o Non-Residential-$5,000.00 • o 5th and Subsequent Review-20%of original fee 0 Estimated Legal Advertising Fee for the Office of the Hearing Examiner:$925.00 0 After The Fact Zoning/Land Use Petitions:2x the normal petition fee ❑ Listed Species Survey(if EIS is not required):$1,000.00 All checks payable to:Board of County Commissioners The completed application,all required submittal materials,and the permit fee shall be submitted to: Growth Management Division/Planning and Regulation ATTN: Business Center 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34104 Is/: Marc L.Shapiro December 16,2016 Applicant Signature Date Mar--- cJ--Sha Printed Name 6/4/2014 Page 6 of 6 • NATURE OF FEMION I. (BACKGROUND) As part of the construction of a single-family residence,the Applicants' general contractor, Jenks Builders, Inc., submitted plans, including various elevations, for a building permit and approval of a swimming pool and swimming pool deck located behind the subject property) The plans were approved and a swimming pool permit was issued. After completion of the work and after numerous inspections by County building officials, a neighbor contacted code enforcement and alleged that the height of the swimming pool deck above the adjacent seawall was violative of the LDC. Specifically,the current LDC mandates that a swimming pool deck be no more than 4' above an adjacent seawall. The seawall in question is at 3.31' NAVD. Four feet above this height would 7.31" NAVD. However, in its current • configuration, the swimming pool deck is at 9.67' NAVD and thus, the swimming pool deck is 2.33' higher than allowed by code. LDC Section 4.02.03 A, Table 4 provides that in instances where the swimming pool deck is more than 4' above an adjacent seawall, the rear setback be a minimum of 20'.Thus,the Applicants are requesting a variance to decrease the rear setback form • 20'to 6.55'. Ys+jj II. (LDC Section 9.04.03,Subsections D,E,F and A Criteria for the Granting of Variances) 9.04.03 D The variance if granted will be the absolute bear minimum required to effectuate the project. The variance will make possible the reasonable use of the land and structures located 'Given the property's side setback dimensions,the swimming pool deck stem wall and swimming pool shell had to be constructed and in place prior to the construction of the house foundation. �`"` Page 1 of 2 thereon. There will be no violation of standards regarding health, safety or welfare to any neighbors,adjacent properties and/or the public at large. 9.04.03 E There will be no special privilege conferred upon to the Applicant should the variance be granted. An examination of the surrounding properties indicates other properties with similar . configurations. Additionally, the only alternative available to the Applicants is to remove and reconstruct the swimming pool deck and swimming pool stem wall. Given the interplay of the swinuning pool stem wall,swimming pool deck and the foundation of the residence,this would be a very delicate project and would cost a minimum of$50,000.00. Such a situation would have a significant hardship on the Applicants and would constitute economic waste. Importantly, the situation the Applicants find themselves in is not of their making but rather,is the result of an innocent mistake made by county building officials. The swimming pool and swimming pool deck were repeatedly and properly permitted and approved as were all pilings and piling caps on which the swimming pool deck is built. 9 F If granted the variance will be in harmony with the intent and purpose of the LDC.No neighbors and/or their property will be injured. Although there has been a complaint by property owners across the canal and several house to the West,no harm will befall them. Their line-of- site is already obstructed by serval very large pool cages and any objections to the granting of the instant variance is simply not accurate and is disingenuous. Attached hereto is a letter duly signed by seven separate neighbors (on both sides of the canal) noting their respective non-objection to • the Applicants' variance petition. • 9.14.03 H The granting of the variance will not be inconsistent with the County's Growth Management Plan. Page 2 of 2 The Law Offices of • MARC L.SHAPIRO MW'C L. Shapiro, NATALIE STAROSCHAK SEAN WHALEY . 720 Goma-Erna FRANK ROAD Norm,Suns 304•NAPLES,FLORIDA 34102 NAPLES:(239)649-8050-Fon MYElts:(239)418-0010 FAX:(239)649-8057 W W W.ATIDRNEYSHAPIRO.COM December 16,2016 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO fredreischlOcolliergov.net _ _ Mr.Fred Reischl,AICP Principal Planner Collier County Growth Management Department 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples,Florida 34014 Re: Variance Application PL20160001181 Connor's Vanderbilt Beach Estates Unit 2,Block M,Lot 11 342 Trade Winds Avenue Dear Mr. Reischl: The following information and/or comments are provided in response relative to Ms. Rachel Beasley's August 8, 2016 Insufficiency Letter (hereinafter referred to as the "Letter"). Pursuant to the directive set forth at the end of the Letter,the information herein is responsive to the various Staff comments.The various responses and are set forth in the same order as denoted in the Letter.For your ease of use and reference,I have excerpted each departmental comment as set forth in the Letter. REJECTED REVIEW: GRAPHICS- GLS REVIEW REVIEWED BY: JESSICA HUCKEBA CORRECTION COMMENT 1: Incorrect parcel number,should be 27585200007. The Initial Variance Petition Application(hereinafter referred to as the "Initial Petition") contained an incorrect Parcel Identification Number in the Property Information section.This has been corrected in the First Amended Variance Petition Application(hereinafter referred to as the "Amended Petition")which has been provided herewith. CORRECTION COMMENT 2: This should be RSF-3 for N,S,E and W. The Initial Petition juxtaposed the Zoning and Land Use designations as set forth in the Page 1of1 elt l .b triTttoIft • { Ft � r http://maps.collierappraiser.c)m/webmap/output21Collier 2016_sde031244499406320.jpg 6/15/2016 Mr.Fred Reischl,AICP December 16,2016 Page 2 of 5 Adjacent Zoning and Land Use section. The juxtaposition has been corrected in the Amended Petition which has been provided herewith. • CORRECTION COMMENT 3: _-—T-his-is-the STRAP number,should be metes and bounds description. _, --- The STRAP number has been deleted and the full legal description of the property is set forth in Property Information section of the Amended Petition. CORRECTION COMMPT 4: Map should be legible; also the like location is too far East.Parcel boundary should be outlined. A revised site map taken from the Collier County Property Appraiser's website is provided herewith. The revised map sets forth the parcel boundaries. CORRECTION COMMENT 5: Block sold be M. The Amended Petition has been corrected to provide the correct Block designation REJECTED REVIEW: ZONING REVIEW REVIEWED BY: RACHEL BEASLEY CORRECTION COMMENT 1: Correct minimum yard setbacks for subject property: non-waterfront side yard setback is 7.5 feet and rear is 25 feet.Please note 2 things: 1.front yard is correct and 2.the rear is not 20 feet—this is because the 20 applies,in this case,to accessory swimming pool decks that exceed 4 feet in height above top of seawall. The Amended Petition now sets forth the correct setbacks. CORRECTION COMMENT 2: Please be consistent in measurement,more specifically 10ths of a foot. For example,in the Narrative of the Petition,you switch from decimal measurement to feet and inches. All measurements in the Amended Petition and the Narrative has been corrected to reflect measurement in decimals. Mr.Fred Reischl,AICP December 16,2016 Page 3 of 5 CORRECTION COMMENT 3: As noted in County Attorney notes,please note that this is a variance from the required rear Yard setback of 20 feet for accessory pool decks that exceed 4 feet in height above top of seawall. Thus,keep in the description the narrative describing the height difference between the permissible 4 feet above seawall which makes the setback 20 feet rather than thelOfeet..Thus,you are requesting a rear yard setback from the 20 feet to a-feet. ---- -- -- A revised Narrative has been provided herewith to indicate that the variance requested is in fact for a reduction in the rear-yard setback as opposed to a height variance for the pool deck. CORRECTION COMMENT 4: What is the measurement for the pool deck stairs to the seawall?What is width of the stain?If the stairs are wider than 3 feet than you must request the rear yard setback from the stairs and not the deck itself. The measurement from the outboard wall of the pool deck stairs to the seawall is 6.55'The stirs are 3.5'in width and thus it is understood that the requested rear yard setback must necessarily commence at the outboard wall of the pool dock stairs. REJECTED REVIEW: COUNTY ATTORNEY REVIEW REVIEWED BY: SCOTT STONE CORRECTION COMMENT 1: The Property Appraiser lists the owners as"Roxanne B.Stoae,Teske and Nancy D.Koeper, as joint tenants,"so please update the"Applicant Contact Information"section of the application accordingly. The Applicant Contact Section of the Amended Petition now states that the owners are Roxanne B. Stone-Jeske and Nancy D.Koeper,as Joint Tenants with Full Rights of Survivorship. CORRECTION COMMENT 2: Please also provide an Affidavit of Authorization from owner Roxanne B.Stone-Jeske,or other signed written evidence that she agrees/consents to this petition. Affidavits of Authorization from both Ms. Stone-Jeske and Ms. Koeper are provided herewith. CORRECTION COMMENT 3: Your application indicates the minimum side yard setback is 7'.However,according to LDC Section 4.02.01 A,Table 2.1,the minimum side yard setback is 10'for waterfront lots in the RSF-3 zoning district.Please have staff correct me if I'm wrong.Otherwise,please revise your application with the correct minimum setback requirement. Staff has indicated that the correct side yard setback is in fact 7.5'. -Mr.Fred Reischl,AICP December 16,2016 Page 4 of 5 CORRECTION COMMENT 4: In your Project Narrative,under#3 please provide more detailed responses to criteria (d),(e),(I),and(h). A more detailed Project Narrative regarding the criteria for the granting of variances as set _forth.in.IDC.9.04.03,Subsections D,E,F and H is provided herewith. CORRECTION COMMENT 5: As discussed at your pro-app,you are seeking a variance from LDC Section 4.02.03 A, Table 4 to reduce the miaivausn rear yard accessory structure setback line from 20 feet to 10 feet for a pool that exceeds 4 feet in height above the top of the seawall.However,your project nsmttive incorrectly indicates that you are seeking a variance for the pool height. Please revise your narrative to correctly and clearly indicate that you are seeking a variance from the setback require NOT the height requirement. As noted in the Respose to Ms.Beasley's Correction Comment 3 above,a revised Narrative has been provided herewith to indicate that the variance requested is in fact for a reduction in the rear-yard setback as opposed to a height variance for the pool deck.: CORRECTION C s 14 6: Please provide a cleaner,more legible site . that clearly labels the seawall,and shows the exact measurement I the pool to the seawall. A more legible site plan with the seawall labeled and the exact measurement from the pool to the seawall will be provided under separate cover. CORRECTION COMMENT 7: Please confirm with staff whether the rear setback should be measured from the pool deck,or the stain(as indicated on your site plan).Please also depict and label the 20- foot rear setback line to demonstrate where the pool would have to be located in order to meet the minimum setback. Staff has confirmed that the rear setback must be measured form the outboard wall of the pool deck stairs:A revised site plan to provided under separate cover,will depict where the pool would have to located in order to meet the minimum setback requirement. CORRECTION COMMENT 8: The Warranty Deed you provided is not the most recent deed for this property.Please provide a copy of the most recent deed that accurately shows the current owners of the property. A warranty deed dated December 10, 2015 reflecting that the owners of the property are Roxanne B. Stone-Jeske and Nancy D.Koeper,as Joint Tenants with Full Rights of Survivorship is provided herewith.The Warranty Deed was recorded on December 22,2015 as Instrument Mr. Fred Reischi,AICP December 16,2016 Page 5 of 5 Number 5209385 at Official Records Book 5226, Page 989, et seq., of the Public Records of Collier County,Florida. • CORRECTION COMMENT 9: ._ Please.provide a copy of the building permit/permit number for the pool _._._ A true and correct photocopy of the building permit for the pool is provided herewith. CORRECTION COMMENT 10: Additional comments may follow receipt of next resubmittal. No additional response by the Applicants is required at this time. REJECTED REVIEW: ADDRESSING-GIS REVIEW REVIEWED BY: ANNIS MOXAM CORRECTION COMMENT 1: On Conceptual Site Plan-The legal description is incomplete.The Block is M and Subdivision is Conner's Vanderbilt Bch Estates Unit 2. u' A revised sit plan is provided herewith. The site plan includes a full legal description CORRECTION COMMENT 2: On Application-Property Information-the Parcel ID number is incorrect(it has one zero too many).Metes and Bounds Description-What's provided,that's the Strap Number. The Amended petition includes the correct Parcel Identification Number and additionally,contains a full legal description of the property. I believe the foregoing adequately answers the various concerns of the Insufficiency Letter. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any other question or concerns you may have. Very truly yours, Matthew L. Jones •t AFFHAVIT OF AUTHORIZATION FOR PETITION NUMBERS(S) L2oRDAO(L li ""1 1, 1 1 ex 4c+4` ' )(Aar�pe i _ (print name), as 11 • c , s swearif affirm applicable)of " (company, if - ' • ) under oath,that 1 am the(choose • -)owner1applbant tract ., • .I i that 1. I have full authority to re the approval(s) requested and to Impose •. ' and restrictions on the referenced . .. : as a result of any action approved by the Cou in accordance with this application-andihe-la i DevelopmentCode:— _____—_—__._._._.._- , ___---- .,� --_ _---.,2. All answers to the q - in this application and any sketches, data ori supplementary matter attached hereto and •, a part of this application are honest and true; normal workinghours 3. I have authorized the �+ of Collier County to enter upon the property : g for the purpose of In Ing and evaluating the request made through application;and that 4. The property will be transferred, conveyed, sold or subdivided I. r to the conditions and restrictions . • i the 5. Well authorize r`` Y p 1,... 6,ges . as ourlmy representative hers • this petltlo including 1 2 abo in any ma t , t. . '� t,,ra *Notes: `'it)l -w L . .i o.''Q"' • if the applicant is a corporation, it is usually executed by the corp.pies.or v.p ' the documents should • It the applicant is a Limited i Company(L.L.C.) or Limited Company (L.C.), + typically be signed by the • • y's"Managing Member." • if the applicant is a partnership, typically a partner can sign on behalf of the 0 , • if the applicant is a limited i ,, ip, then the general partner must sign and identified as the "general partner"of the named parte- , • If the applicant is a trust,then , must Include the trustee's name and the words : . trustee" • In each instance, first the applicant's status, e.g., individual, corporate, partnership, end then use the appropriate format for , ownership. 1 Under penalties of perjury, I d that I have read the foregoing Affidavit of and that the facts stated in it are true. ‘.1.)12/fpree.*Iabri 494)9 ''''/6 Dab STATE OF FLORIDA ' COUNTY OF COLLIER Thbibrnoning /� and subscribed before me on ,'. 1942by DV �M�.� arevm to( �a (name of person . '. , or affirmation), as .-tet or who has . • who is personally known ,syy, (type of identification)as Identification. r ... , _ Amor ' STAMP/SEAL i, , . of Notary ;1 t . Vt. 0311111101 ars _ dill I 11,, , imiteravaturimi I ‘,......„ 11 7�Y�1 ; RT 317,4114 I AFFIDAVIT OF AUTHORIZATION FOR PETITION NUMBERS(S) L Z cel i, Wt.Clan"11900Z-Se ke. (print name),as ► W,i-N ' r (title,if applicable)of (company, If • r • -),swear or affirm under oath,that I am the(choose one)owner r• J plicant[ontract pu nand that 1. I have full authority to secure the approval(s)requested and to Impose •' and restrictions on the referenced papally as a result of any action approved by the . In accordance with thls ape ti tl and thel NYIAPPITIettt..0*..._... _ 2. All answers to the questions in this application and any sketches,data or qpner supplementary matter attached hereto and made a part of this application are honest and this: 3. I have authorized the staff of Collier County to enter upon the property normal working hours for the purpose of investigating and evaluating the request made through application;and that 4. Theeproperty will bE transferred, conveyed, sold or subdivided to the conditions and restrictions -.i 1 �r approved ,.: . 5. Weil : ; ,.,(" as our/my representative in any matters . this petition Indiang 1 2 above. ® . L L . 5$1-.4 •ro • if the applicant is a corptdon, �': Is usually execd by the corp.pres.or v. • if the applicant is a Limited Liability Company(LL.C.) or Limited Company(LC.), the documents should typically be signed by the Company's`Alanagktg Member.* • if the applicant is a partnership, then typlcalfy a partner can spry on behalf of the • If the applicant is a limited parfnerirh p, then the general partner must sign and identified as the 'general partner of the named parbtorai . • If the applicant is a trust then tf.ymust include the trustee's name and the words trustee'. • in each instance, first de osot rig the applicants status, e.g., individual, corporate, partnership, end than use the appropriate format lbr t*et ownership. Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing Affidavit of Authorization and that the facts . . In hare ' i2' - S'0197/(p filpudurso Dat. • STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The to(or affirmed)and subscribed before me • I i'. 9I2� h)by i/1IE WOW" (. , .. • r`. .. • or --fir. ), as who Is know who has produced (type of Identification)as Identification. STAMP/SEAL . . of Notary Ptk4q pp 41111, I '► ows w • • t1'W-CoA•W11s 155 RIM 31W14 a..,—. No BOUNDARY SURVEY OF LOT 11,BLOCK'PoP,UNIT Na.2,CONNER'S VANDERBILT BEACH ESTATES,AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3,PAGE 17.OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA. SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS,RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATIONS OF RECORD 1 T pB{1N M S<DISL'PSM 3667" 1215' (R ) 1215.12•C ) C3 0.11'w.,NAVY ELEV,*02.88 C,i M la,tam til tam cur-WM (TRADE WINDS AVE. , ( 750'(x) Korr(L) I Lu 1 7- -- —_--Y-- _ 7'101' �_, -___#.................4........4—__D_ sex MS,43.36'W, ' !ORM.cRiet ,i OP:-x .i N f*Mt Ulf- 14 Zi, ., IAB.E d o m Si o M j_. I -` O 558'04.'10"W 75.00'(R) 75.O!'(L) FW i = 'S.N ♦ �„) I FIRS;^1� } iawm FIRr50.92'S,0.29'E. ,,I pSwyhTIA 4' $uF or m . i IIS rn W G 6-2 AT w I 1 Q p :LilyyjI4.6' 240' 7,65 0o Id"0 6 Dy' ta 50 il r .p42 TRAPp WIMPS AVE. BLOCK WI ass. U10u5E (under cansL.) w - FIR. FLOOR ELEV. +10.4 r- o V in 246' NOTE; . .t. w PER CONTRACTOR,POOL/PATIO 105+ STEMWALL IS AT 0 : ELEV. +04.9fair 12 .� 10 SET [71L0L.L11OLE. V s MVP OF LONG. SEAWALL3 7' 4'U169 NAVD EMI/+03.31 ' W.RQA6111t.wau t ALUM,FENLE 11 ..R.l 1 T Lac am AMC.58.41141.1. MP--N. z _i_ - ' 5 8B•OQ'10'W 75 OO'(1t) 75.01'(1 t Qo „o'. 5 DFSILLi}OLE WTOP Gag,L ,SEAWALL ..4. In IAVD ELEV. +0332 WATER W AY , SCALE:1` 20' "4.5-IS'OSIfD25 COR VAcAMT/KA 4EV► qui.. m+t 1". EV °14IR4PID%I (AgE A5686'04'Ia'W,PER REmRD LATE ORAER Wm = xirmA+rF ElEar1171D�L5 EASSD Dhk NAVB 1989{pplg,pN FL DNR CAL 29 IBB4 8r 1 11<: LDCATEO IN F1.LOO ZONE_As(IO') 5-19,t6 0516015 ASI-52 8 NOATIONALJYCAJtT .* `+ :It.' PER f RRAL DMA;4 16 2D12 20214 G1fig N 12160013 CCr10.52 Y eSAAVAI.1. E.... M 1 - ' fEITln4Tr ........ a. 1 � '� 1iM1 Mt X111:jou. a�j '` ., r n�Y a Iwi �e'7 Erik iI� +wdr 1�1yy VALID - art N Mat IreYt N..0' M t kr**im e M D.S1-C,Lgtie R Yd ONLY Wrilt *awn M k OY it�w i�rl� FS+BOS ED OMNI SURVEYS, INC. t-+ rtr."' ' ._.,ti ' SEAL w 1. a taallvi w arnaIMrar LB 6584 TEL TEL (96x) 436-3486 ' FAX (aI4 939-i1e1aeon Al 4550 11.71294CQURT FORT win.FL 33607 - , `' -•! ) _Uter 14 ri llaraa.Vi .Nat e. o .....,. 5. 0 --1 -..i 1.1.1 -.-100460- 4-61-.-1_GYM- ›- 0 1___. ____ r__. ___ __T ___..7__ , 1_ __a____ ___ ____ r ! . "- tr, c' ' t_ _ 1 _fa iz .. –—1 — ,_71. 1 ' I [. — H I_ __.4 I - I I t2 IL: r—1 73 >. I cs, _) — „.. . a) _0 -—- I- .) -,-,----__I r 7:1 121, en —I [——I ii _ I— 1 li 1/ .1 ‘, 1------ I ;' _I - L _____ f" i ., I I %.3 'a I 0 — —I 1—.r71 I- 73 1 di n ...1 ;,2 I 1 Z I:- C---\'-i(6-. Lict2'' r. H r L._ i ,71, irr • N ---_ , —I 1 0 ..I 1 SN I— °' I 10 1713 00 1'Da L 9 '".* '- 0) CL >,•• ail iv 111 E o L_ 4 N O a — HL .±."-1] z 0 1 a ..... • ' -4- 73 0 D ""....\\ 1 ,,,_,J cs1 I 1 _ I 1) (1) L.- --J - _ > 4- CO , .- - .---- CU >. 0 I a U CU SI .t. ___ _rl is' ? 1 CU > s_ CU CU al 03 • I I '''- c 01 Illt'I C U +.0 cs O (1.) L... 0 74—,0 C (..) C CD 1 I I") fa) 0 ."0 •...., ...... >. I-- 0 Cl.) +.1 L.. LO 'b ii.3 z o :6 z 0 LI- 4- S.- -..... O 0 a . v) v) 4-P L- L.- 0 In CU CD -I▪-0 .0 —0 CD CI) = --I --i (1) Collier County Growth Management I am writing to you about Petition NO. VA-P120160001181. Codes and easements are in effect for a reason. 30 years ago Homes in Vanderbilt Beach were single story, Back walls of the Houses were 30' away from the Sea wall and at Ground Elevation. The area has progressed from Single story,to 2 stories, now 3 stories ( Max Height allowed)to rear set back to side set back. Home builders are building homes so big they are not allowing but 10' for a pool and deck.This is their choice to do so, now I see decks and pools trying to exceed the current set back. In this instance the pool and deck have already been constructed. I can understand if the deck exceded the set back by a little due to a miscalculation by the survey. But this is a gross error and not a minor setback violation 13.5'. But let's not overlook the height violation also.According to code the deck and pool cannot be over 4' above the seawall. This wall is 2' over the code, and with the water bowl pedestals over 3' above the code. I do not expect the home owner to know these codes and had trust in their Architect and General contractor's. There were at least 2 permits pulled to address this code. A permit was needed to build this house. The architect and General Contractor of record should have had the elevations on the signed and sealed plans submitted to the county.The architect and General contractor has the responsibility to know the building codes. A site plan, signed and sealed had to be submitted to the county with setbacks and elevations to the county. Whom ever did these plans has the responsibility to know the codes. A permit was needed to build the pool.The pool contractor had to submit signed and sealed plans to the county with elevations and setback dimensions.The pool contractor has the responsibility to know the building codes. I see many new homes going up in our area with every new home pushing the envelope to the max. I feel we cannot allow these violations to be approved. If so everyone will be attempting to seek a variance to do the same. Steve Emens Homeowner 331 Lagoon Ave Naples Florida 34108 ReischlFred From: BeasleyRachel Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 10:42 AM To: ReischlFred Cc: BellowsRay Subject: FW: 342 Tradewinds Variance FYI -----Original Message From: George Marks [mailto:GMarks@kramermarks.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 7:11 PM To: BeasleyRachel Cc:Steve Emens Subject: Re: 342 Tradewinds Variance Rachel, Thank you for sending all of this information. I have spoken to a land use attorney concerning the "Precendent setting" issue of mine. As I feared, Florida law has allowed "precedence"as a basis of future variances. I will review the plans with you tomorrow at 3:30 in person just as a double check, but based on what I heard from the attorney we have no choice but to oppose the variance on the basis that one can not create their own hardship (by installing the pool improperly) as a basis of a variance.Additionally, since such a variance would be a basis for future variances, it regrettably does not give us an option if we wish to prevent future similar variances. See you tomorrow. Thank you, George E. Marks, AIA Kramer+Marks Architects 27 S. Main Street Ambler, PA 19002 215-654-7722 off 215-870/5543 cell >On Oct 19,2016,at 2:00 PM, BeasleyRachel <RachelBeasley@colliergov.net>wrote: >Good afternoon George, > Per our conversation, I attach the Staff Report and the site plan. > Best, > Rachel Beasley >Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 1 ><STAFF REPORT 342 Tradewinds Ave.docx><Site Plan 342 TRADEWINDS >AVE_SITE_8-22-16.pdf> 2 Arthur "Buzz" Victor 312 Lagoon Avenue Naples,FL 34108 buzz.victor@gmail.com October 23,2016 Ms.Rachel Beasley,Planner Zoning Division Collier County,Growth Management 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34108 RE: Zoning Petition No.VA-PL20160001181,342 Tradewinds Ave. Dear Ms.Beasley I am in receipt of the information sent to me as a nearby property owner regarding the above referenced zoning matter. Unfortunately,I am unable to personally attend the hearing,and therefore must register my opposition to the variance via this letter. It has been eleven years since I built my home on Lagoon Avenue,but I remember the process very well. There were any number of design features that I would have liked to construct,but I found myself constrained by the applicable codes and their restrictions. Those limitations were imposed for the good of the community as a whole. While,in the present circumstance,it is a shame that construction has proceeded to a point where it is costly to remove it,and that the infractions were missed by the controlling authority. This,however,is no reason to simply waive requirements with which the balance of the neighborhood has had to comply. I hope that the Board hearing the case will require compliance with the code. That is the proper decision. Sincerely, B v Arthur"Buzz"Victor Letter of Petition in FAVOR of 342 Tradewinds Variance October 2016 Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners We, the undersigned neighbors of 342 Tradewinds within the "impacted area" respectfully submit that we have NO issue with the pool variance being requested by ' 4 Tr d „ n ; hr.)!i(4; . The new home under construction will raise the home values in our area, which is what any homeowner would welcome, and we do not contest the pool variance being requested. We are NOT an agreement with Mr. Marks and Mr. Evens in their position regarding the view or the style of the home and therefore submit that you approve the requested variance from 342 Tradewinds by Ms Jeske and Ms Koeper Respectfully, Signature, Address ji p /� ) 7CLhcc1Id5 /? , Ems/64444 -' &eaciad a, ate, //tit, P:of cis.3"/ Z fAvEit b C �v &W S 1 nr ew ry1 911_ a 'ce,e,j)„,-. 36,7 k 6 ja-v ------- _ Scanned by CamScanner Cris tin a R. Marks George E. Marks 319 Lagoon Ave. Naples, FL 34108 October 20, 2016 Ms. Rachel Beasley, Planner Zoning Division Collier County, Growth Management Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34108 RE:Zoning Petition No VA-PL20160001181,342 Tradewinds Ave. Ms. Beasley, Thank you for taking the time on Thursday,October 20th to meet with me and review the Variance application for the petition noted above. After some thought and evaluation and conversations with other affected neighbors,we have no choice but to OPPOSE the request for variance for the sole purpose of defending the integrity of the existing"View corridor"which would be negatively impacted by the approval/granting of this variance by Collier County. We oppose this variance as it will impinge on the view corridor that currently exists and will encourage future violations by potentially creating an actual hardship for adjacent property owners. The violation of the required setbacks by 13.45 feet horizontally and 2.36 feet vertically is a GROSS violation of the zoning ordinance. The applicant has NO BASIS FOR A HARDSHIP and this violation does not qualify as a diminimus violation by definition of law. The required setbacks in the RSF-3 zoning district as per Collier County Land Development Code(LDC), Section 4.02.03.A Table 4 states that the minimum setback for an accessory use(swimming pool in this case) when the elevation of the pool deck exceeds 4'-0" above the seawall shall be 20'-0". The current placement of this pool encroaches on this allowable setback by 13.45 feet which places the pool deck within 6.55 feet from the seawall when 20`-0" is required. I have reviewed with you the Staff report and analysis in great detail and disagree with your assessment as noted below: a. Are there special conditions and circumstances existing,which are peculiar to the location, size and characteristics of the land,structure or building involved? The evaluation of any zoning or building application is predicated on the review of the site PRIOR to the construction of any permitted construction. No certificate of occupancy has been granted for this property,therefore the evaluation of this request for variance should be as if the building did not exist. Collier county failed to uphold the zoning code in their approval of the building permit and plans, however, every building application contains verbiage that puts the responsibility to comply with all building and zoning codes on the architects,engineers, contractors and property owners. A county created situation is not a basis for a variance. Mistakes happen all the time and the county should be upholding their responsibility to enforce the correction of the violation. It is clear that NO SPECIAL CONDITIONS exist as a basis for this variance. b. Are there special conditions and circumstances,which do not result from the action of the applicant such as pre-existing conditions relative to the property,which are the subject of the Variance request? The applicant, in this case the builder and/or their architect/engineer, built the structure in question in gross violation of the existing zoning code which they are required to follow regardless of the Collier County approval process. This is a self-created violation of the zoning code and the county should NOT be supporting this violation and request for variance. c. Will the literal interpretation of the provisions of this zoning code work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant or create practical difficulties for the applicant? This application does NOT meet the definition standard of"Hardship"as defined by Zoning law and Collier County is remiss in their duties and responsibilities in supporting such an application. As a matter of law, the cost of$50,000 is not an acceptable basis for a hardship and should not be considered as a basis for the granting of a zoning variance. The fact that the applicant relied on the erroneously issued pool permit is not a material basis for a hardship or the granting of this variance. d. Will the variance, if granted,be the minimum Variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land,building or structure and which promote standards of health,safety and welfare? No comment e. Will granting the variance confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by these zoning regulations to.other lands,buildings or structures in the same zoning district? Yes-The granting of this variance will absolutely grant a special privilege on this applicant not currently available to other properties within this district. This GROSS violation of the zoning code will create a hardship for adjacent property owners whose visual corridor is diminished by both the horizontal impingement of 13.45 feet and vertical violation of 2.36 feet and may become a basis for future zoning variance applications. This pool could have been created in the same location of the same size,with a correction of the stair location and width within the zoning standards thereby eliminating the need for this variance. f. Will granting the Variance be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this Land Development Code and not be injurious to the neighborhood,or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare? This condition is NOT IN HARMONY with the intent of the zoning code and is a gross impingement on the vision corridor that the zoning code is intended to protect. Additionally, the granting of a zoning variance should NEVER be for the purpose of"legitimizing" a gross violation of the zoning code as stated in the Staff report. This is true of any avoidable error whether created by the owner,general contractor, architect,engineer or in this case Collier County. This pool is currently under construction and a certificate of occupancy has not been issued for this property and now is the time to correct this violation. No certificate of occupancy should be issued by the county until this is corrected. g. Are there natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals and objectives of the regulation such as natural preserves, lakes,golf courses,etc.? There are NO natural or man-made conditions negatively affecting this applicant. The staff's consideration of the applicant's argument that the variance in seawall heights is a legitimate consideration is seriously flawed. The applicant's seawall height is the highest level allowed by FEMA and is a standard set by Collier county. The variance in seawall heights is not a consideration in this instance as the applicant is already relying on the highest wall allowable and is still in violation of the Zoning ordinance. The current condition already exceeds the maximum allowable seawall height by 2.36 feet and would only be worse if a lower seawall existed,which is not the case in this instance. h. Will granting of this Variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan? The staff's contention that the granting of this variance will not violate the Growth Management plan which is based on the zoning ordinance as a basis of the plan is negligent in the staff's assessment. Granting of this variance will be a GROSS violation of the zoning ordinance which is a key basis of the growth management plan. In summary,the granting of this variance should be denied on the following basis: 1. No legal hardship exists for this applicant to rely on as a basis of this variance and the variance must be denied on this legal basis. If the county makes the argument that they created a hardship for the applicant,which would be legally flawed,the county would be self-serving in thereby granting a variance to correct their error. 2. The pool design could have been constructed AND CAN STILL BE CONSTRUCTED in the current location with the exact same dimensions within the zoning ordinance by building the pool 2.36 feet lower and a variance would not be required. It would be negligent for the county to grant this variance when a viable solution was and is available to the applicant and the county without creating a hardship. 3. There were no existing special conditions or circumstances that would contribute to a hardship and thereby the variance should be denied. 4. The fact that the applicant states that it will cost$50,000 is not material to the consideration of this variance by law and the granting of this variance would confer permanent damage to the visual corridor of the neighborhood that the zoning ordinance exists to protect. 5. The granting of this variance will confer special privilege on this applicant not available to other property owners and would create/necessitate future hardships for adjacent property owners. A variance is not intended to provide special privilege on any property owner in violation of the zoning ordinance. Finally, should the county decide to act irresponsibly and approve this variance,we will file an appeal within the allowable appeal period and reserve our right to seek all legal options against Collier County for damages. Additionally, we will request that no further construction occur on the violating area of the property and we will seek an injunction to the issuing of a Certificate of Occupancy by the county until such appeal is heard and resolved. Please feel free to reach out to me or our attorney should you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter prior to the zoning hearing. RespectfuDty submitted, J George E. Marks,AIA 215-870-5543 cell 215-654-7722 office Re isc h IF red From: Vincent Fantegrossi <vfantegrossi@aol.com> Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 11:40 AM To: 'George Marks'; vanderbiltbeach54@yahoo.com; ReischlFred; BellowsRay Cc: 'Steve Emens'; 'Buzz Victor'; 'Gail Fantegrossi'; gbraddon@rochester.rr.com; grv3751 @aol.com; jpwood99@aol.com Subject: RE: 342 Tradewinds Zoning Variance opposition assistance-Vanderbilt Beach Residents Assoc Good Morning Mr. Reischl and Mr. Bellows, I am writing to echo Mr. Marks' concerns about the possibility of a variance being issued in the Tradewinds matter. I am most concerned about precedents being set. The entire Vanderbilt Beach area is in transition. It is clear that older, smaller housing inventory will be steadily replaced in the coming years through tear-downs and new construction. We all have abided by our zoning rules and it is important that those rules and regulations are not weakened by allowing unwarranted variances. My limited experience with the county inspection and regulation process has always been positive and I have been impressed with the attention to detail the county gives to all projects. I am confident that when given full deliberation, everyone will agree that the rules in place were established with good reason and should not be taken lightly or disregarded. Thank you for your consideration, Vincent V. Fantegrossi 254 Lagoon Ave. Naples, FL 34108 Mobile: 617-680-1125 1 GrecoSherry From: George Marks <GMarks©kramermarks.com> Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2017 3:00 PM To: TaylorPenny Subject: Thank you Commissioner Taylor, I had meant to send you a handwritten note to thank you for your time to meet with myself and Patrick Neale concerning our opposition to the 342 Tradewinds variance to be heard on February 28th. However, it has been a very busy week and I am remiss in offering my appreciation. For that I can only apologize as no excuse would be a good one. We have garnered the support of the Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association as you suggested and they are in support of denying the variance for all of the reasons we spoke about when we met. I look forward to seeing you on the 28th 00P-ie t APb kramer marks v.215-654-7722 f.215-654-5353 c.215-870-5543 www.kramermarks.com 1 GrecoSherry From: karen@patrickneale.com on behalf of Karen Klukiewicz <karen@patrickneale.com> Sent: Monday, February 06, 2017 4:18 PM To: GrecoSherry Cc: khall@patrickneale.com; pneale@patrickneale.com Subject: Registered: FW: Variance 342 Tradewinds Avenue Attachments: 20170112 marks It reischl.pdf; 9A-VA-PL20160001181-342 Trade Winds Avenue - Staff Report.pdf 0 it This is a Registered Email® message from Karen Klukiewicz. Sherry— Can you please provide status on this? Mr. Neale would still appreciate the opportunity to meet with Commissioner Taylor this week. Best regards, Karen Klukiewicz Chief of Operations Assistant to Attorney Patrick H. Neale Patrick Neale&Associates Phone:239-642-1485 Fax: 239-642-1487 Email: karenpatrickneale.com Email Servicing: email-serviceCa�patrickneale.com www.patrickneale.com Principal Office 5470 Bryson Court, Suite 103 Naples, FL 34109 Marco Island Office 950 North Collier Blvd. Marco Island, FL 34145 Mailing Address P. O. Box 9440 Naples, FL 34101-9440 This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s)or entity(s)named within the message.This e-mail might contain legally privileged and confidential information. If you properly received this e-mail as a client or retained expert, please hold it in confidence to protect the attorney-client or work product privileges. Should the intended recipient forward or disclose this message to another person or party,that action could constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any review,dissemination,distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited by the sender and to do so might constitute a violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. section 2510-2521. If this communication was received in error we apologize for the intrusion. Please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message without reading same. Nothing in this e-mail message shall, in and of itself, create an attorney-client relationship with the sender. Disclaimer under Circular 230:Any statements regarding tax matters made herein, including any attachments,are not formal tax opinions by this firm, cannot be relied upon or used by any person to avoid tax penalties, and are not intended to be used or referred to in any marketing or promotional materials. 1 From:Judi Menard Sent:Thursday, February 02, 2017 12:54 PM To: SherryGreco@colliergov.net Cc: Karen Klukiewicz<karen@patrickneale.com>; Patrick Neale<pneale@patrickneale.com> Subject:Variance 342 Tradewinds Avenue Sherry- Karen is out of the office this afternoon. In her absence, attached please find a copy of the Staff Report and a copy of my letter of opposition with regard to the variance noted above. After Commissioner Taylor has reviewed the attached, please give Karen a call at this office, in the hopes of scheduling a meeting. Please let me know if you have any questions. Judi Menard Legal Assistant to Patrick H. Neale, Esq. Phone: 239-642-1485 Fax: 239-642-1487 Email: khall@patrickneale.com Email Service Address: email-service@patrickneale.com Principal Office 5470 Bryson Court, Suite 103 Naples, FL 34109 Marco Island Office 950 North Collier Blvd. Marco Island, FL 34145 Mailing Address P. O. Box 9440 Naples, FL 34101-9440 This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s) or entity(s) named within the message. This e-mail might contain legally privileged and confidential information. If you properly received this e-mail as a client or retained expert, please hold it in confidence to protect the attorney-client or work product privileges. Should the intended recipient forward or disclose this message to another person or party, that action could constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited by the sender and to do so might constitute a violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. section 2510-2521. If this communication was received in error we apologize for the intrusion. Please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message without reading same. Nothing in this e-mail message shall, in and of itself, create an attorney-client relationship with the sender. Disclaimer under Circular 230: Any statements regarding tax matters made herein, including any attachments, are not formal tax opinions by this firm, cannot be relied upon or used by any person to avoid tax penalties, and are not intended to be used or referred to in any marketing or promotional materials. Click here to send a Registered Email® message to anyone. Icor 2 GrecoSherry From: karen@patrickneale.com on behalf of Karen Klukiewicz <karen@patrickneale.com> Sent: Monday, February 06, 2017 4:18 PM To: GrecoSherry Cc: khall@patrickneale.com; pneale@patrickneale.com Subject: Registered: FW: Variance 342 Tradewinds Avenue Attachments: 20170112 marks It reischl.pdf; 9A-VA-PL20160001181-342 Trade Winds Avenue - Staff Report.pdf X This is a Registered Email® message from Karen Klukiewicz. Sherry— Can you please provide status on this? Mr. Neale would still appreciate the opportunity to meet with Commissioner Taylor this week. Best regards, Karen Klukiewicz Chief of Operations Assistant to Attorney Patrick H. Neale Patrick Neale&Associates Phone: 239-642-1485 Fax: 239-642-1487 Email: karenpatrickneale.com Email Servicing: email-service(c,patrickneale.com www.patrickneale.com Principal Office 5470 Bryson Court, Suite 103 Naples, FL 34109 Marco Island Office 950 North Collier Blvd. Marco Island, FL 34145 Mailing Address P. O. Box 9440 Naples, FL 34101-9440 This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s)or entity(s)named within the message.This e-mail might contain legally privileged and confidential information. If you properly received this e-mail as a client or retained expert, please hold it in confidence to protect the attorney-client or work product privileges.Should the intended recipient forward or disclose this message to another person or party,that action could constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any review,dissemination,distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited by the sender and to do so might constitute a violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C.section 2510-2521. If this communication was received in error we apologize for the intrusion. Please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message without reading same. Nothing in this e-mail message shall, in and of itself, create an attorney-client relationship with the sender. Disclaimer under Circular 230:Any statements regarding tax matters made herein, including any attachments, are not formal tax opinions by this firm, cannot be relied upon or used by any person to avoid tax penalties,and are not intended to be used or referred to in any marketing or promotional materials. 1 From:Judi Menard Sent:Thursday, February 02, 2017 12:54 PM To:SherryGreco@colliergov.net Cc: Karen Klukiewicz<karen@patrickneale.com>; Patrick Neale <pneale@patrickneale.com> Subject:Variance 342 Tradewinds Avenue Sherry- Karen is out of the office this afternoon. In her absence, attached please find a copy of the Staff Report and a copy of my letter of opposition with regard to the variance noted above. After Commissioner Taylor has reviewed the attached, please give Karen a call at this office, in the hopes of scheduling a meeting. Please let me know if you have any questions. Judi Menard Legal Assistant to Patrick H. Neale, Esq. Phone: 239-642-1485 Fax: 239-642-1487 Email: khalMpatrickneale.com Email Service Address: email-servicepatrickneale.com Principal Office 5470 Bryson Court, Suite 103 Naples, FL 34109 Marco Island Office 950 North Collier Blvd. Marco Island, FL 34145 Mailing Address P. O. Box 9440 Naples, FL 34101-9440 This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s) or entity(s) named within the message. This e-mail might contain legally privileged and confidential information. If you properly received this e-mail as a client or retained expert, please hold it in confidence to protect the attorney-client or work product privileges. Should the intended recipient forward or disclose this message to another person or party, that action could constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited by the sender and to do so might constitute a violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. section 2510-2521. If this communication was received in error we apologize for the intrusion. Please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message without reading same. Nothing in this e-mail message shall, in and of itself, create an attorney-client relationship with the sender. Disclaimer under Circular 230: Any statements regarding tax matters made herein, including any attachments, are not formal tax opinions by this firm, cannot be relied upon or used by any person to avoid tax penalties, and are not intended to be used or referred to in any marketing or promotional materials. Click here to send a Registered Email® message to anyone. E 2 GrecoSherry Subject: Trade Winds Avenue - Patrick Neale (Patrick Neale &Associates) Location: your office Start: Thu 2/9/2017 1:30 PM End: Thu 2/9/2017 2:00 PM Recurrence: (none) Organizer: TaylorPenny Karen 239-624-1483 U Registered: FW: Variance 342... 1 GrecoSherry From: Karen Klukiewicz <karen@patrickneale.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2017 11:35 AM To: GrecoSherry Subject: Meeting with Commissioner Taylor Hello, Sherry— Mr. Patrick Neale would like to meet with Commissioner Taylor to discuss Variance Petition VA-PL20160001181—342 Trade Winds Avenue, which will be scheduled in front of the Commission soon. Might she has some time available next week? Best regards, Karen Klukiewicz Chief of Operations Assistant to Attorney Patrick H. Neale Patrick Neale&Associates Phone: 239-642-1485 Fax: 239-642-1487 Email: karen(&patrickneale.com Email Servicing: email-service@patrickneale.com www.patrickneale.com Principal Office 5470 Bryson Court, Suite 103 Naples, FL 34109 Marco Island Office 950 North Collier Blvd. Marco Island, FL 34145 Mailing Address P. O. Box 9440 Naples, FL 34101-9440 This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s)or entity(s)named within the message.This e-mail might contain legally privileged and confidential information. If you properly received this e-mail as a client or retained expert, please hold it in confidence to protect the attorney-client or work product privileges.Should the intended recipient forward or disclose this message to another person or party,that action could constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any review,dissemination,distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited by the sender and to do so might constitute a violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C.section 2510-2521. If this communication was received in error we apologize for the intrusion. Please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message without reading same. Nothing in this e-mail message shall, in and of itself, create an attorney-client relationship with the sender. Disclaimer under Circular 230:Any statements regarding tax matters made herein, including any attachments, are not formal tax opinions by this firm, cannot be relied upon or used by any person to avoid tax penalties,and are not intended to be used or referred to in any marketing or promotional materials. 1 4 GrecoSherry From: Patrick Neale <pneale@patrickneale.com> Sent: Friday, February 24, 2017 3:37 PM To: GrecoSherry Cc: George Marks; Karen Klukiewicz; Alexander Zurawsky Subject: RE: Variance 342 Tradewinds Avenue Sherry Just want to make clear that this is from the Pool permit file, not the house permit file. Thanks, Pat Patrick H. Neale Patrick Neale &Associates Attorney at Law Primary Office: 5470 Bryson Court, Suite 103 Naples, FL 34109 Marco Island Office: (By Appointment Only) 950 North Collier Blvd. Suite 400 Marco Island, FL 34145 Phone: 239 642-1485 Fax: 239 642-1487 Mobile: 239 404-7930 Primary Email: pneale(a patrickneale.com Secondary Email address for service: email-serviceapatrickneale.com Please visit our website: www.patrickneale.com This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s) or entity(s) named within the message. This e-mail might contain legally privileged and confidential information. If you properly received this e-mail as a client or retained expert, please hold it in confidence to protect the attorney-client or work product privileges. Should the intended recipient forward or disclose this message to another person or party, that action could constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited by the sender and to do so might constitute a violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. section 2510-2521. If this communication was received in error we apologize for the intrusion. Please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message without reading same. Nothing in this e-mail message shall, in and of itself, create an attorney-client relationship with the sender. We are a federally designated Debt Relief Agency under the United States Bankruptcy Laws. We assist people with finding solutions to their debt problems, including assisting them with the filing of petitions for relief under the United States Bankruptcy Code. Representation: No representation by our Firm, or by any member of our Firm, shall be deemed to commence by any correspondence other than a mutually signed engagement and representation letter. Evidentiary Privilege: To the extent that this message is being sent to settle a claim or dispute, all evidentiary limitations on its use and admissibility are hereby expressly made applicable to the message and its contents. Disclaimer under Circular 230: Any statements regarding tax matters made herein, including any attachments, are not formal tax opinions by this firm, cannot be relied upon or used by any person to avoid tax penalties, and are not intended to be used or referred to in any marketing or promotional materials. From: Patrick Neale Sent: Friday, February 24,2017 3:30 PM To: 'GrecoSherry'<SherryGreco@colliergov.net> 1 1 , Cc: 'George Marks' <gemarks@comcast.net>; Karen Klukiewicz<karen@patrickneale.com>; Kerri Hall <khall@patrickneale.com> Subject: RE:Variance 342 Tradewinds Avenue Sherry Hope you are having a great Friday.Attached is a document regarding the variance that I think Commissioner Taylor would be interested in.The Pool Contractor agrees in writing to correct any non-conformity. Let me know if the Commissioner has any questions. Regards, Pat Patrick H. Neale Patrick Neale &Associates Attorney at Law Primary Office: 5470 Bryson Court, Suite 103 Naples, FL 34109 Marco Island Office: (By Appointment Only) 950 North Collier Blvd. Suite 400 Marco Island, FL 34145 Phone: 239 642-1485 Fax: 239 642-1487 Mobile: 239 404-7930 Primary Email: pnealena patrickneale.com Secondary Email address for service: email-service(a�patrickneale.com Please visit our website: www.patrickneale.com This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s) or entity(s) named within the message. This e-mail might contain legally privileged and confidential information. If you properly received this e-mail as a client or retained expert, please hold it in confidence to protect the attorney-client or work product privileges. Should the intended recipient forward or disclose this message to another person or party, that action could constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited by the sender and to do so might constitute a violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. section 2510-2521. If this communication was received in error we apologize for the intrusion. Please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message without reading same. Nothing in this e-mail message shall, in and of itself, create an attorney-client relationship with the sender. We are a federally designated Debt Relief Agency under the United States Bankruptcy Laws. We assist people with finding solutions to their debt problems, including assisting them with the filing of petitions for relief under the United States Bankruptcy Code. Representation: No representation by our Firm, or by any member of our Firm, shall be deemed to commence by any correspondence other than a mutually signed engagement and representation letter. Evidentiary Privilege: To the extent that this message is being sent to settle a claim or dispute, all evidentiary limitations on its use and admissibility are hereby expressly made applicable to the message and its contents. Disclaimer under Circular 230: Any statements regarding tax matters made herein, including any attachments, are not formal tax opinions by this firm, cannot be relied upon or used by any person to avoid tax penalties, and are not intended to be used or referred to in any marketing or promotional materials. From:GrecoSherry [mailto:SherryGreco@colliergov.net] Sent:Thursday, February 23, 2017 3:23 PM To: Patrick Neale<pneale@patrickneale.com> Subject: RE:Variance 342 Tradewinds Avenue 2 Pat, I will look out for it. S6erry 4reco Sherry Greco Executive Coordinator to Commissioner Penny Taylor, District 4 239-252-8604 SherryGreco@colliergov.net COI County From: Patrick Neale [mailto:pneale@patrickneale.com] Sent:Thursday, February 23, 2017 2:31 PM To: GrecoSherry<SherrvGreco@colliergov.net>; Alexander Zurawsky<alexz@patrickneale.com> Cc:TaylorPenny<PennyTaylor@colliergov.net>; Karen Klukiewicz<karen@patrickneale.com>; Alexander Zurawsky <alexz@patrickneale.com> Subject: RE:Variance 342 Tradewinds Avenue Sherry Thank you very much for the information. I will be sending Commissioner Taylor some additional information about this matter either tomorrow or Monday morning. All the best, Pat Patrick H. Neale Patrick Neale &Associates Attorney at Law Primary Office: 5470 Bryson Court, Suite 103 Naples, FL 34109 Marco Island Office: (By Appointment Only) 950 North Collier Blvd. Suite 400 Marco Island, FL 34145 Phone: 239 642-1485 Fax: 239 642-1487 Mobile: 239 404-7930 Primary Email: pnealena patrickneale.com Secondary Email address for service: email-service(a,patrickneale.com Please visit our website: www.Datrickneale.com This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s) or entity(s) named within the message. This e-mail might contain legally privileged and confidential information. If you properly received this e-mail as a client or retained expert, please hold it in confidence to protect the attorney-client or work product privileges. Should the intended recipient forward or disclose this message to another person or party, that action could constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited by the sender and to do so might constitute a violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. section 2510-2521. If this communication was received in error we apologize for the intrusion. Please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message without reading same. Nothing in this e-mail message shall, in and of itself, create an attorney-client 3 relationship with the sender. We are a federally designated Debt Relief Agency under the United States Bankruptcy Laws. We assist people with finding solutions to their debt problems, including assisting them with the filing of petitions for relief under the United States Bankruptcy Code. Representation: No representation by our Firm, or by any member of our Firm, shall be deemed to commence by any correspondence other than a mutually signed engagement and representation letter. Evidentiary Privilege: To the extent that this message is being sent to settle a claim or dispute, all evidentiary limitations on its use and admissibility are hereby expressly made applicable to the message and its contents. Disclaimer under Circular 230: Any statements regarding tax matters made herein, including any attachments, are not formal tax opinions by this firm, cannot be relied upon or used by any person to avoid tax penalties, and are not intended to be used or referred to in any marketing or promotional materials. From: GrecoSherry [mailto:SherryGreco@colliergov.net] Sent:Thursday, February 23, 2017 2:25 PM To:Alexander Zurawsky<alexz@patrickneale.com>; Patrick Neale<pneale@patrickneale.com> Cc:TaylorPenny<PennyTaylor@colliergov.net> Subject:Variance 342 Tradewinds Avenue Hi Mr. Neale, Commissioner Taylor has asked me to inform you that the above agenda item will be presented after lunch at about 1 PM. F you would like to access the agenda for the February 28, 2017 BCC regular meeting it is available through Colliergov.net or by clicking on the link below: http://colliercountyfl.igm2.com/Citizens/default.aspx sherry 4reco Sherry Greco Executive Coordinator to Commissioner Penny Taylor, District 4 239-252-8604 SherryGreco@colliergov.net • County Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 4 GrecoSherry From: Patrick Neale <pneale@patrickneale.com> Sent: Friday, February 24, 2017 3:30 PM To: GrecoSherry Cc: George Marks; Karen Klukiewicz; Alexander Zurawsky Subject: RE: Variance 342 Tradewinds Avenue Attachments: Affidavit In Lieu of Certified Site Plan Remediations.pdf Sherry Hope you are having a great Friday.Attached is a document regarding the variance that I think Commissioner Taylor would be interested in.The Pool Contractor agrees in writing to correct any non-conformity. Let me know if the Commissioner has any questions. Regards, Pat Patrick H. Neale Patrick Neale &Associates Attorney at Law Primary Office: 5470 Bryson Court, Suite 103 Naples, FL 34109 Marco Island Office: (By Appointment Only) 950 North Collier Blvd. Suite 400 Marco Island, FL 34145 Phone: 239 642-1485 Fax: 239 642-1487 Mobile: 239 404-7930 Primary Email: pnealepatrickneale.com Secondary Email address for service: email-service(c patrickneale.com Please visit our website: www.patrickneale.com This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s) or entity(s) named within the message. This e-mail might contain legally privileged and confidential information. If you properly received this e-mail as a client or retained expert, please hold it in confidence to protect the attorney-client or work product privileges. Should the intended recipient forward or disclose this message to another person or party, that action could constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited by the sender and to do so might constitute a violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. section 2510-2521. If this communication was received in error we apologize for the intrusion. Please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message without reading same. Nothing in this e-mail message shall, in and of itself, create an attorney-client relationship with the sender. We are a federally designated Debt Relief Agency under the United States Bankruptcy Laws. We assist people with finding solutions to their debt problems, including assisting them with the filing of petitions for relief under the United States Bankruptcy Code. Representation: No representation by our Firm, or by any member of our Firm, shall be deemed to commence by any correspondence other than a mutually signed engagement and representation letter. Evidentiary Privilege: To the extent that this message is being sent to settle a claim or dispute, all evidentiary limitations on its use and admissibility are hereby expressly made applicable to the message and its contents. Disclaimer under Circular 230: Any statements regarding tax matters made herein, including any attachments, are not formal tax opinions by this firm, cannot be relied upon or used by any person to avoid tax penalties, and are not intended to be used or referred to in any marketing or promotional materials. 1 From:GrecoSherry [mailto:SherryGreco@colliergov.net] Sent:Thursday, February 23, 2017 3:23 PM To: Patrick Neale <pneale@patrickneale.com> Subject: RE:Variance 342 Tradewinds Avenue Pat, I will look out for it. sem Sherry Greco Executive Coordinator to Commissioner Penny Taylor, District 4 239-252-8604 SherryGreco@colliergov.net CoHrrty From: Patrick Neale [mailto:pneale@patrickneale.com] Sent:Thursday, February 23, 2017 2:31 PM To: GrecoSherry<SherryGreco@colliergov.net>;Alexander Zurawsky<alexz@patrickneale.com> Cc:TaylorPenny<PennyTaylor@colliergov.net>; Karen Klukiewicz<karen@patrickneale.com>;Alexander Zurawsky <alexz@patrickneale.com> Subject: RE:Variance 342 Tradewinds Avenue Sherry Thank you very much for the information. I will be sending Commissioner Taylor some additional information about this matter either tomorrow or Monday morning. All the best, Pat Patrick H. Neale Patrick Neale&Associates Attorney at Law Primary Office: 5470 Bryson Court, Suite 103 Naples, FL 34109 Marco Island Office: (By Appointment Only) 950 North Collier Blvd. Suite 400 Marco Island, FL 34145 Phone: 239 642-1485 Fax: 239 642-1487 Mobile: 239 404-7930 Primary Email: pneale@patrickneale.com Secondary Email address for service: email-service(cr�patrickneale.com Please visit our website: www.patrickneale.com This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s) or entity(s) named within the message. This e-mail might contain legally privileged and confidential information. If you properly received this e-mail as a client or retained expert, please hold it in confidence to protect the attorney-client or work product privileges. Should the intended recipient forward or disclose this 2 message to another person or party, that action could constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited by the sender and to do so might constitute a violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. section 2510-2521. If this communication was received in error we apologize for the intrusion. Please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message without reading same. Nothing in this e-mail message shall, in and of itself, create an attorney-client relationship with the sender. We are a federally designated Debt Relief Agency under the United States Bankruptcy Laws. We assist people with finding solutions to their debt problems, including assisting them with the filing of petitions for relief under the United States Bankruptcy Code. Representation: No representation by our Firm, or by any member of our Firm, shall be deemed to commence by any correspondence other than a mutually signed engagement and representation letter. Evidentiary Privilege: To the extent that this message is being sent to settle a claim or dispute, all evidentiary limitations on its use and admissibility are hereby expressly made applicable to the message and its contents. Disclaimer under Circular 230: Any statements regarding tax matters made herein, including any attachments, are not formal tax opinions by this firm, cannot be relied upon or used by any person to avoid tax penalties, and are not intended to be used or referred to in any marketing or promotional materials. From: GrecoSherry [mailto:SherryGreco@colliergov.nen Sent:Thursday, February 23, 2017 2:25 PM To:Alexander Zurawsky<alexz@patrickneale.com>; Patrick Neale<pneale@patrickneale.com> Cc:TaylorPenny<PennyTaylor@colliergov.net> Subject:Variance 342 Tradewinds Avenue Hi Mr. Neale, Commissioner Taylor has asked me to inform you that the above agenda item will be presented after lunch at about 1 PM. F you would like to access the agenda for the February 28, 2017 BCC regular meeting it is available through Colliergov.net or by clicking on the link below: http://colliercountyfl.igm2.com/Citizens/default.aspx Skerry Cjreco Sherry Greco Executive Coordinator to Commissioner Penny Taylor, District 4 239-252-8604 SherryGreco@colliergov.net COStllty 3 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 4 Affidavit in lieu of Certified Site Plan To be filed with Permit Application State of Florida County of Collier • I /� ,,,,, m0,,,,1, , do hereby affirm that the work performed under Permit Number )timed/Da -7(0does not constitute any modification to the original permitted footprint of structure that existed prior to the issuance of this permit. I further affirm that, to the best of my knowledge, the footprint of the structure shall conform to the applicable setback(s) and easement requirement(s) established by Collier County and/or any other applicable agency. I hereby agree that should any work performed under this permit result in a nonconformity with any setback(s) or easement requirement(s) established by Collier County or any other applicable agency, I will have no sustainable rebuttal against Collier County Government and will immediately remediate the nonconformity at no expense oilier County Government. Signe.: �•°_ 1W- • Printed Name: 14144. Melt (Check one) Owner/Builder [ 1 Contractor [ IT Design Professional [ 1 AFFIRMED AND SUBSCRIBED beffoo e me, the undersigned authority, on /Z- 24/(a, 2010, byL tLGcf� r (check one)who is personally known to me [ 1 or who provided -'fit as identification 1 1. 411` (Seal) NOTARY PUBLIC - State of i!',,:°kr CAROL RtUTHSTACHURA printed Name: k * MY COMMISSION i FF 033307 EXPIRES:February 16,2018 '*40,forearrearlau wary services My commission expires: 7/15/2013 A-128 s + GrecoSherry From: Patrick Neale <pneale@patrickneale.com> Sent: Friday, February 24, 2017 3:57 PM To: GrecoSherry Cc: George Marks; Karen Klukiewicz; Alexander Zurawsky Subject: RE: Variance 342 Tradewinds Avenue Attachments: Qualifiers Page Highlighted.pdf Here is a document from the house permit file. I have highlighted to show that the builder agrees that approval of the permit does not exempt him from complying with the LDC. Pat Patrick H. Neale Patrick Neale&Associates Attorney at Law Primary Office: 5470 Bryson Court, Suite 103 Naples, FL 34109 Marco Island Office: (By Appointment Only) 950 North Collier Blvd. Suite 400 Marco Island, FL 34145 Phone: 239 642-1485 Fax: 239 642-1487 Mobile: 239 404-7930 Primary Email: pnealena.patrickneale.com Secondary Email address for service: email-service©patrickneale.com Please visit our website: www.patrickneale.com This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s) or entity(s) named within the message. This e-mail might contain legally privileged and confidential information. If you properly received this e-mail as a client or retained expert, please hold it in confidence to protect the attorney-client or work product privileges. Should the intended recipient forward or disclose this message to another person or party, that action could constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited by the sender and to do so might constitute a violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. section 2510-2521. If this communication was received in error we apologize for the intrusion. Please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message without reading same. Nothing in this e-mail message shall, in and of itself, create an attorney-client relationship with the sender. We are a federally designated Debt Relief Agency under the United States Bankruptcy Laws. We assist people with finding solutions to their debt problems, including assisting them with the filing of petitions for relief under the United States Bankruptcy Code. Representation: No representation by our Firm, or by any member of our Firm, shall be deemed to commence by any correspondence other than a mutually signed engagement and representation letter. Evidentiary Privilege: To the extent that this message is being sent to settle a claim or dispute, all evidentiary limitations on its use and admissibility are hereby expressly made applicable to the message and its contents. Disclaimer under Circular 230: Any statements regarding tax matters made herein, including any attachments, are not formal tax opinions by this firm, cannot be relied upon or used by any person to avoid tax penalties, and are not intended to be used or referred to in any marketing or promotional materials. From: Patrick Neale Sent: Friday, February 24,2017 3:37 PM To: 'GrecoSherry' <SherryGreco@colliergov.net> Cc: 'George Marks'<gemarks@comcast.net>; Karen Klukiewicz<karen@patrickneale.com>; Kerni Hall <khall@patrickneale.com> Subject: RE:Variance 342 Tradewinds Avenue Sherry Just want to make clear that this is from the Pool permit file, not the house permit file. Thanks, Pat Patrick H. Neale Patrick Neale&Associates Attorney at Law Primary Office: 5470 Bryson Court, Suite 103 Naples, FL 34109 Marco Island Office: (By Appointment Only) 950 North Collier Blvd. Suite 400 Marco Island, FL 34145 Phone: 239 642-1485 Fax: 239 642-1487 Mobile: 239 404-7930 Primary Email: pneale(a�patrickneale.com Secondary Email address for service: email-service(a.patrickneale.com Please visit our website: www.patrickneale.com This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s) or entity(s) named within the message. This e-mail might contain legally privileged and confidential information. If you properly received this e-mail as a client or retained expert, please hold it in confidence to protect the attorney-client or work product privileges. Should the intended recipient forward or disclose this message to another person or party, that action could constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited by the sender and to do so might constitute a violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. section 2510-2521. If this communication was received in error we apologize for the intrusion. Please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message without reading same. Nothing in this e-mail message shall, in and of itself, create an attorney-client relationship with the sender. We are a federally designated Debt Relief Agency under the United States Bankruptcy Laws. We assist people with finding solutions to their debt problems, including assisting them with the filing of petitions for relief under the United States Bankruptcy Code. Representation: No representation by our Firm, or by any member of our Firm, shall be deemed to commence by any correspondence other than a mutually signed engagement and representation letter. Evidentiary Privilege: To the extent that this message is being sent to settle a claim or dispute, all evidentiary limitations on its use and admissibility are hereby expressly made applicable to the message and its contents. Disclaimer under Circular 230: Any statements regarding tax matters made herein, including any attachments, are not formal tax opinions by this firm, cannot be relied upon or used by any person to avoid tax penalties, and are not intended to be used or referred to in any marketing or promotional materials. From: Patrick Neale Sent: Friday, February 24, 2017 3:30 PM To: 'GrecoSherry'<SherryGreco@colliergov.net> Cc: 'George Marks' <gemarks@comcast.net>; Karen Klukiewicz<karen@patrickneale.com>; Kerri Hall <khall@patrickneale.com> Subject: RE:Variance 342 Tradewinds Avenue Sherry 2 > I Hope you are having a great Friday. Attached is a document regarding the variance that I think Commissioner Taylor would be interested in.The Pool Contractor agrees in writing to correct any non-conformity. Let me know if the Commissioner has any questions. Regards, Pat Patrick H. Neale Patrick Neale &Associates Attorney at Law Primary Office: 5470 Bryson Court, Suite 103 Naples, FL 34109 Marco Island Office: (By Appointment Only) 950 North Collier Blvd. Suite 400 Marco Island, FL 34145 Phone: 239 642-1485 Fax: 239 642-1487 Mobile: 239 404-7930 Primary Email: pneale(cr�patrickneale.com Secondary Email address for service: email-service(a�patrickneale.com Please visit our website: www.patrickneale.com This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s) or entity(s) named within the message. This e-mail might contain legally privileged and confidential information. If you properly received this e-mail as a client or retained expert, please hold it in confidence to protect the attorney-client or work product privileges. Should the intended recipient forward or disclose this message to another person or party, that action could constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited by the sender and to do so might constitute a violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. section 2510-2521. If this communication was received in error we apologize for the intrusion. Please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message without reading same. Nothing in this e-mail message shall, in and of itself, create an attorney-client relationship with the sender. We are a federally designated Debt Relief Agency under the United States Bankruptcy Laws. We assist people with finding solutions to their debt problems, including assisting them with the filing of petitions for relief under the United States Bankruptcy Code. Representation: No representation by our Firm, or by any member of our Firm, shall be deemed to commence by any correspondence other than a mutually signed engagement and representation letter. Evidentiary Privilege: To the extent that this message is being sent to settle a claim or dispute, all evidentiary limitations on its use and admissibility are hereby expressly made applicable to the message and its contents. Disclaimer under Circular 230: Any statements regarding tax matters made herein, including any attachments, are not formal tax opinions by this firm, cannot be relied upon or used by any person to avoid tax penalties, and are not intended to be used or referred to in any marketing or promotional materials. From: GrecoSherry [mailto:SherrvGreco@colliergov.net] Sent:Thursday, February 23, 2017 3:23 PM To: Patrick Neale<pneale@patrickneale.com> Subject: RE:Variance 342 Tradewinds Avenue Pat, I will look out for it. 3 s4ierr, ( reco Sherry Greco Executive Coordinator to Commissioner Penny Taylor, District 4 239-252-8604 SherryGreco @colliergov.net County From: Patrick Neale [mailto:pneale@patrickneale.com] Sent:Thursday, February 23, 2017 2:31 PM To: GrecoSherry<SherryGreco@colliergov.net>; Alexander Zurawsky<alexz@patrickneale.com> Cc:TaylorPenny<PennyTaylor@colliergov.net>; Karen Klukiewicz<karen@patrickneale.com>; Alexander Zurawsky <alexz@patrickneale.com> Subject: RE:Variance 342 Tradewinds Avenue Sherry Thank you very much for the information. I will be sending Commissioner Taylor some additional information about this matter either tomorrow or Monday morning. All the best, Pat Patrick H. Neale Patrick Neale &Associates Attorney at Law Primary Office: 5470 Bryson Court, Suite 103 Naples, FL 34109 Marco Island Office: (By Appointment Only) 950 North Collier Blvd. Suite 400 Marco Island, FL 34145 Phone: 239 642-1485 Fax: 239 642-1487 Mobile: 239 404-7930 Primary Email: pnealepatrickneale.com Secondary Email address for service: email-servicena.patrickneale.com Please visit our website: www.patrickneale.com This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s) or entity(s) named within the message. This e-mail might contain legally privileged and confidential information. If you properly received this e-mail as a client or retained expert, please hold it in confidence to protect the attorney-client or work product privileges. Should the intended recipient forward or disclose this message to another person or party, that action could constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited by the sender and to do so might constitute a violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. section 2510-2521. If this communication was received in error we apologize for the intrusion. Please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message without reading same. Nothing in this e-mail message shall, in and of itself, create an attorney-client relationship with the sender. We are a federally designated Debt Relief Agency under the United States Bankruptcy Laws. We assist people with finding solutions to their debt problems, including assisting them with the filing of petitions for relief under the United States Bankruptcy Code. 4 L i Representation: No representation by our Firm, or by any member of our Firm, shall be deemed to commence by any correspondence other than a mutually signed engagement and representation letter. Evidentiary Privilege: To the extent that this message is being sent to settle a claim or dispute, all evidentiary limitations on its use and admissibility are hereby expressly made applicable to the message and its contents. Disclaimer under Circular 230: Any statements regarding tax matters made herein, including any attachments, are not formal tax opinions by this firm, cannot be relied upon or used by any person to avoid tax penalties, and are not intended to be used or referred to in any marketing or promotional materials. From:GrecoSherry [mailto:SherryGreco@colliergov.net] Sent:Thursday, February 23, 2017 2:25 PM To:Alexander Zurawsky<alexz@patrickneale.com>; Patrick Neale<pneale@patrickneale.com> Cc:TaylorPenny<PennyTaylor@colliergov.net> Subject:Variance 342 Tradewinds Avenue Hi Mr. Neale, Commissioner Taylor has asked me to inform you that the above agenda item will be presented after lunch at about 1 PM. F you would like to access the agenda for the February 28, 2017 BCC regular meeting it is available through Colliergov.net or by clicking on the link below: http://colliercountyfl.igm2.com/Citizens/default.aspx SIierrj e reco Sherry Greco Executive Coordinator to Commissioner Penny Taylor, District 4 239-252-8604 SherryGreco@colliergov.net County Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 5 GrecoSherry From: Alexander Zurawsky <alexz©patrickneale.com> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 12:34 PM To: TaylorPenny Cc: Karen Klukiewicz; Patrick Neale Subject: PETITION VA-PL20160001181, 342 TRADE WINDS AVENUE— Item 8.A, BCC Meeting February 28, 2017 Attachments: 20170227 PHN Letter to County Manager.pdf Dear Commissioner Taylor: Attached please find an e-mail copy of a letter regarding the above,which was sent to County Manager Ochs. Your office will also receive a hard copy of the attached and referenced letter. Should you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact our office. Thank you and have a nice day! Alexander Zurawsky, J.D. Paralegal Phone: 239-642-1485 Fax: 239-642-1487 Email: alexz(apatrickneale.com Email Service Address: email-service@ atrickneale.com Principal Office 5470 Bryson Court, Suite 103 Naples, FL 34109 Marco Island Office 950 North Collier Blvd. Marco Island, FL 34145 Mailing Address P. O. Box 9440 Naples, FL 34101-9440 This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s) or entity(s) named within the message. This e-mail might contain legally privileged and confidential information. If you properly received this e-mail as a client or retained expert, please hold it in confidence to protect the attorney-client or work product privileges. Should the intended recipient forward or disclose this message to another person or party, that action could constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited by the sender and to do so might constitute a violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. section 2510-2521. If this communication was received in error we apologize for the intrusion. Please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message without reading same. Nothing in this e-mail message shall, in and of itself, create an attorney-client relationship with the sender. Disclaimer under Circular 230: Any statements regarding tax matters made herein, including any attachments, are not formal tax opinions by this firm, cannot be relied upon or used by any person to avoid tax penalties, and are not intended to be used or referred to in any marketing or promotional materials. 1 T23;.642.1483 PATRICK Naples F 239642 x487 EALE 5470 Bryson Court Suite 103 E info@patrickneale.com T Naples,Florida 34109 wwwpatridrneale.com ;`ASSOCIATES Mallmg` Patrick H. Neale Marco Island(by appointment): P.O.Box 9440 950 North Collier Blvd.Suite 400 Naples,Florida 34101-9440 Attorney at Law Marco Island,Florida 34145 February 27,2017 Mr. Leo Ochs County Manager Collier County Government 3299 Tamiami Trail East,Suite 202 Naples,FL 34112-5746 RE: PETITION VA-PL20160001181,342 TRADE WINDS AVENUE—Item 8.A, BCC Meeting February 28,2017 Dear Leo: I represent Mr.George Marks who owns the property across the canal from the subject property and who is opposed to the variance petition. I will be sending under separate cover all the Commissioners a copy of my client's presentation regarding his opposition to this petition and the many reasons for which this petition should be denied. My client and I are requesting additional time at the BCC hearing on February 28,2017 to present both the attached document and our legal arguments in this matter.As you can appreciate, the extensive documentation and legal issues cannot be presented in the three(3) minutes normally allowed for public comment.The County Attorney is well aware that procedural due process must be afforded to all parties in a quasi-judicial proceeding. Wolk v. Bd of County Comm'rs, 117 So. 3d 1219 (Fla. Dist. Ct.App.5th Dist. 2013);Haines City Cmty. Dev. v.Heggs, 658 So.2d 523 (Fla. 1995) To permit the petitioners to put evidence and argument on the record for consideration without allowing the opponents of the variance to do the same would be a denial of my client's due process rights.Therefore, my client and I are requesting thirty minutes each for our presentations before the Board of County Commissioners. I have copied Chair Penny Taylor and County Attorney Jeff Klatzkow on this letter so that they may consider this request. I appreciate your attention to this matter. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Patrick H. Neale Cc: Penny Taylor Jeff Klatzkow GrecoSherry From: Patrick Neale <pneale@patrickneale.com> Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2017 2:31 PM To: GrecoSherry; Alexander Zurawsky Cc: TaylorPenny; Karen Klukiewicz; Alexander Zurawsky Subject: RE: Variance 342 Tradewinds Avenue Sherry Thank you very much for the information. I will be sending Commissioner Taylor some additional information about this matter either tomorrow or Monday morning. All the best, Pat Patrick H. Neale Patrick Neale &Associates Attorney at Law Primary Office: 5470 Bryson Court, Suite 103 Naples, FL 34109 Marco Island Office: (By Appointment Only) 950 North Collier Blvd. Suite 400 Marco Island, FL 34145 Phone: 239 642-1485 Fax: 239 642-1487 Mobile: 239 404-7930 Primary Email: pneale(�patrickneale.com Secondary Email address for service: email-serviceCa,patrickneale.com Please visit our website: www.patrickneale.com This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s) or entity(s) named within the message. This e-mail might contain legally privileged and confidential information. If you properly received this e-mail as a client or retained expert, please hold it in confidence to protect the attorney-client or work product privileges. Should the intended recipient forward or disclose this message to another person or party, that action could constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited by the sender and to do so might constitute a violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. section 2510-2521. If this communication was received in error we apologize for the intrusion. Please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message without reading same. Nothing in this e-mail message shall, in and of itself, create an attorney-client relationship with the sender. We are a federally designated Debt Relief Agency under the United States Bankruptcy Laws. We assist people with finding solutions to their debt problems, including assisting them with the filing of petitions for relief under the United States Bankruptcy Code. Representation: No representation by our Firm, or by any member of our Firm, shall be deemed to commence by any correspondence other than a mutually signed engagement and representation letter. Evidentiary Privilege: To the extent that this message is being sent to settle a claim or dispute, all evidentiary limitations on its use and admissibility are hereby expressly made applicable to the message and its contents. Disclaimer under Circular 230: Any statements regarding tax matters made herein, including any attachments, are not formal tax opinions by this firm, cannot be relied upon or used by any person to avoid tax penalties, and are not intended to be used or referred to in any marketing or promotional materials. From: GrecoSherry [mailto:SherryGreco@colliergov.net] Sent:Thursday, February 23, 2017 2:25 PM 1 To:Alexander Zurawsky<alexz@patrickneale.com>; Patrick Neale <pneale@patrickneale.com> Cc:TaylorPenny<PennyTaylor@colliergov.net> Subject:Variance 342 Tradewinds Avenue Hi Mr. Neale, Commissioner Taylor has asked me to inform you that the above agenda item will be presented after lunch at about 1 PM. F you would like to access the agenda for the February 28, 2017 BCC regular meeting it is available through Colliergov.net or by clicking on the link below: http://colliercountyfl.igm2.com/Citizens/default.aspx SSierry Cyreco Sherry Greco Executive Coordinator to Commissioner Penny Taylor, District 4 239-252-8604 SherryGreco@colliergov.net COI'. Comity Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 2 Ex parte Items - Commissioner Fiala COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA 02/28/2017 ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS (no items require Ex Parte) BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS 8.A. ***This item to be heard at 1:00 p.m.*** This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Recommendation to approve a Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida, for a Variance from Section 4.02.03.A, Table 4 of the Land Development Code to reduce the minimum rear yard accessory structure setback line from 20 feet to 6.55 feet for a swimming pool,spa, pool deck and stairs on a waterfront lot within the Residential Single-Family (RSF-3)zoning district on property located at 342 Trade Winds Avenue, in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida [VA-PL20160001181]. NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM SEE FILE ®Meetings ❑Correspondence ®e-mails ❑Calls Met w/ Patrick Neale & Mr. George Marks, Staff Report CONSENT AGENDA (no items require Ex Parte) SUMMARY AGENDA 17.E. *** This item is being continued to the March 14, 2017 BCC meeting.*** This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve Petition VAC- PL20160003293, to disclaim, renounce and vacate the County and the public interest in a portion of the 10-foot drainage easement and vacate a portion of the 10-foot utility easement located along the rear border of Lot 50,The Lodgings of Wyndemere, Section One, as recorded in Plat Book 13, Page 8 of the public records of Collier County, Florida, located in Section 19, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. 171 NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM SEE FILE ❑Meetings ['Correspondence De-mails ❑Calls BrownleeMichael Subject: Meet w/ Patrick Neale & Mr. George Marks re: Variance Petition VA-PL20160001181 —342 Trade Winds Avenue Location: DF Office Start: Wed 2/8/2017 1:30 PM End: Wed 2/8/2017 2:00 PM Recurrence: (none) Organizer: FialaDonna Karen K/ukiewicz Chief of Operations Assistant to Attorney Patrick H. Neale Patrick Neale&Associates Phone: 239-642-1485 Fax: 239-642-1487 Email: karen@patrickneale.com Email Servicing: email-service@patrickneale.com www.patrickneale.com EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Recommendation to approve a Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida, for a Variance from Section 4.02.03.A, Table 4 of the Land Development Code to reduce the minimum rear yard accessory structure setback line from 20 feet to 6.55 feet for a swimming pool, spa, pool deck and stairs on a waterfront lot within the Residential Single-Family (RSF-3) zoning district on property located at 342 Trade Winds Avenue,in Section 29,Township 48 South,Range 25 East,Collier County,Florida [VA-PL20160001181]. OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of Zoning Appeals (Board) review staffs fmdings and recommendations along with the recommendations of the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) regarding the above referenced petition and render a decision regarding this Variance petition; and ensure the project is in harmony with all the applicable codes and regulations in order to ensure that the community's interests are maintained. CONSIDERATIONS: The purpose of this petition is to request a reduction from LDC Section 4.02.03.A., Table 4, which requires that the minimum swimming pool and/or screen enclosure accessory setback for single-family waterfront lots is 20 feet when the swimming pool deck exceeds 4 feet in height above the top of the seawall. The seawall on this property is 3.31 feet high with a pool deck that is 9.9 feet high. Thus,the pool deck is 6.59 feet above the seawall, which is 2.59 feet greater than what is permitted by the LDC in order to have a 10-foot setback. The applicant states that the pool and deck plans submitted to Collier County contained the pool deck elevation of 9.67 feet. The County erroneously issued a pool permit with a rear accessory setback of 10 feet versus the required 20 feet. The applicant built the swimming pool, spa, and pool deck utilizing the 10-foot accessory setback requirements erroneously provided on the building permit rather than the required 20-foot accessory setback requirement. The pool deck encroaches 9.85 feet into the 20-foot setback and the stairs encroach 13.45 feet. According to the survey, the applicant built the stairs 3.45 feet into the erroneously provided 10-foot setback. Per LDC 4.02.01.D.7 stairways shall not protrude over 3 feet into a required front, side, or rear yard of a single-family dwelling;the stairs were approved at the 3.45-foot encroachment and thus they are also included in this Variance request. Please note that the building permits, for both the home and the pool, were permitted with inclusion of the stairs - as depicted on the survey. Overall, the applicant requests to reduce the setback from 20 feet to 6.55 feet for the swimming pool, spa, pool 1 • deck, and stairs. FISCAL IMPACT: The County collects impact fees prior to the issuance of building permits to help offset the impacts of each new development on public facilities. These impact fees are used to fund projects identified in the Capital Improvement Element of the Growth Management Plan as needed to maintain adopted Level of Service (LOS) for public facilities. Additionally, in order to meet the requirements of concurrency management, the developer of every local development order approved by Collier County is required to pay a portion of the estimated Transportation Impact Fees associated with the project in accordance with Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. Other fees collected prior to issuance of a building permit include building permit review fees. Finally, additional revenue is generated by application of ad valorem tax rates, and that revenue is directly related to the value of the improvements. Please note that impact fees and taxes collected were not included in the criteria used by staff and the Planning Commission to analyze this petition. it 2 • GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) IMPACT: The subject property is located in the Urban Residential Subdistrict of the Urban Mixed Use District land use classification on the County's Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The purpose of this subdistrict is to provide for higher densities in an area with fewer natural resource constraints and where existing and planned facilities are concentrated. The GMP does not address individual Variance requests; the Plan deals with the larger issue of the actual use. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: This petition was originally scheduled to be heard by the Collier County Hearing Examiner on October 27, 2016. Because of increased public concern, in accordance with Section 2-87 of the Code of Laws and Ordinances, this matter was heard by the CCPC on January 19, 2017 for a recommendation to the Board. The CCPC heard testimony from the Applicant's agent, neighbors, a neighbor's attorney, and County staff. In addition to staff stipulations, the CCPC added a condition to soften exposed stem wall with decorative cladding of landscaping. A motion was made by Commissioner Schmitt and seconded by Commissioner Chrzanowski to recommend approval. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: Petitioner is requesting a Variance from Section 4.02.03 A, Table 4 of the LDC to reduce the minimum rear yard accessory structure setback line from 20 feet to 6.55 feet for a swimming pool, spa, pool deck and stairs on a waterfront lot within the Residential Single-Family (RSF-3) Zoning District. The granting of such a Variance is permitted under LDC §9.04.02. The attached staff report and recommendations of the Planning Commission are advisory only and are not binding on you. All testimony given must be under oath. The Petitioner has the burden to prove that the proposed Variance is consistent with all the criteria set forth below, and you may question Petitioner, or staff,to satisfy yourself that the necessary criteria have been satisfied. LDC Section 10.09.00 F. states that "Upon consideration of the Planning Commission's report, findings and recommendations, and upon consideration of the standards and guidelines set forth [below], the Board of Zoning Appeals shall approve, by resolution, or deny a petition for a Variance." Should you consider denying the Variance, to assure that that your decision is not later found to be arbitrary, discriminatory or unreasonable, the denial must be based upon competent, substantial evidence that the proposal does not meet one or more of the listed criteria below. In granting any Variance,the Board of Zoning Appeals may prescribe the following: 1. Appropriate conditions and safeguards in conformity with the zoning code or other applicable County Ordinances. Violation of such conditions and safeguards, when made a part of the terms under which the Variance is granted, shall be deemed a violation of the zoning code. 2. A reasonable time limit within which the action for which the Variance required shall be begun or completed or both. Criteria for Variances 1. There are special conditions and circumstances existing which are peculiar to the location, size, and characteristics of the land, structure, or building involved. 2. There are special conditions and circumstances which do not result from the action of the applicant, such as pre-existing conditions relative to the property which is the subject of the Variance request. 3. A literal interpretation of the provisions of the LDC work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant or create practical difficulties on the applicant. 4. The Variance, if granted, will be the minimum Variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building,or structure and which promote standards of health, safety, or welfare. 5. Granting the Variance requested will not confer on the petitioner any special privilege that is denied by these zoning regulations to other lands,buildings, or structures in the same zoning district. 6. Granting the Variance will be in harmony with the intent and purpose of the LDC, and not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. 7. There are natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals and objectives of the regulation, such as natural preserves, lakes, golf course, etc. 8. Granting the Variance will be consistent with the GMP. 3 This item has been approved as to form and legality, and requires a majority vote for Board approval.- SAS RECOMMENDATION: Staff concurs with the recommendations of the CCPC and further recommends that the Board of Zoning Appeals approves VA-PL20160001181, subject to the following conditions: 1. All other state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development. 2. Pursuant to Section 125.022(5) F.S., issuance of a development permit by a County does not in any way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the County for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. 3. Upon demolition or destruction of 50 percent or more of the actual replacement value of the swimming pool, spa, pool deck, and stairs, this Variance will be void and any reconstruction shall meet setback requirements at the time of a building permit. 4. The owner shall apply decorative cladding or install a berm or landscaping or combination thereof, to shield the view of the portion of exposed stem/concrete retaining wall so that there is only a minimum of four feet of stem/concrete retaining wall exposure. Prepared by: Fred Reischl,AICP,Principal Planner,Zoning Division, Growth Management Department 4 BrownleeMichael From: Patrick Neale [pneale@patrickneale.com] Sent: Friday, February 24, 2017 4:02 PM To: FialaDonna Cc: George Marks; Karen Klukiewicz; Alexander Zurawsky Subject: Variance Petition 342 Trade Winds Attachments: Affidavit In Lieu of Certified Site Plan Remediations.pdf; Qualifiers Page Highlighted.pdf Categories: ATTENTION, PRINTED Donna Attached are two documents from the county permit files on this property.The first is an affidavit signed by the pool contractor that states that the contractor will remediate any non-conformities.The second is the qualifiers page from the house permit file where the contractor agrees that the issuance of the permit does not exempt them from complying with County Codes and Ordinances. Let me know if you have any questions. Have a great weekend. Pat Patrick H. Neale Patrick Neale &Associates Attorney at Law Primary Office: 5470 Bryson Court, Suite 103 Naples, FL 34109 Marco Island Office: (By Appointment Only) 950 North Collier Blvd. Suite 400 Marco Island, FL 34145 Phone: 239 642-1485 Fax: 239 642-1487 Mobile: 239 404-7930 Primary Email: pneale@patrickneale.com Secondary Email address for service: email-service@patrickneale.com Please visit our website: www.patrickneale.com This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s) or entity(s) named within the message.This e-mail might contain legally privileged and confidential information. If you properly received this e-mail as a client or retained expert, please hold it in confidence to protect the attorney-client or work product privileges. Should the intended recipient forward or disclose this message to another person or party, that action could constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited by the sender and to do so might constitute a violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. section 2510-2521. If this communication was received in error we apologize for the intrusion. Please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message without reading same. Nothing in this e-mail message shall, in and of itself, create an attorney-client relationship with the sender. We are a federally designated Debt Relief Agency under the United States Bankruptcy Laws.We assist people with finding solutions to their debt problems, including assisting them with the filing of petitions for relief under the United States Bankruptcy Code. Representation: No representation by our Firm, or by any member of our Firm, shall be deemed to commence by any correspondence other than a mutually signed engagement and representation letter. 1 Evidentiary Privilege:To the extent that this message is being sent to settle a claim or dispute,all evidentiary limitations on its use and admissibility are hereby expressly made applicable to the message and its contents. Disclaimer under Circular 230:Any statements regarding tax matters made herein, including any attachments, are not formal tax opinions by this firm, cannot be relied upon or used by any person to avoid tax penalties, and are not intended to be used or referred to in any marketing or promotional materials. II 2 Affidavit in lieu of Certified Site Plan To be filed with Permit Application State of Florida County of Collier I. /(=vn,-, /no fp' , do hereby affirm that the work performed under Permit Number ,A212, CIV 07c2 -7(c7 does not constitute any modification to the original permitted footprint of the structure that existed prior to the issuance of this permit. I further affirm that. to the best of my knowledge, the footprint of the structure shall conform to the applicable setback(s) and easement requirement(s) established by Collier County and/or any other applicable agency. I hereby agree that should any work performed under this permit result in a nonconformity with any setback(s) or easement requirement(s) established by Collier County or any other applicable agency, I will have no sustainable rebuttal against Collier County Government and will immediately remediate the nonconformity at no expense to oilier County Government. • Signe•: .7A11116* Printed Name /47%602 l'l21re-'f (Check one) Owner/Builder [ ] Contractor [ f Design Professional [ AFFIRMED AND SUBSCRIBED befo e me, the undersigned authority. on /142l' / j 26„, 2010, by _ '. L(.,61." ~ (check one) who is personally known to me ( 1 or who provided — - as identification [ ]. (Seal) NOTARY PUBLIC — State of ~' ,c''":••S. CAROL RUTH STACHURA AIYCOIA ISSION•FFC92307 Printed Name: ft EXPIRES:February 16,2016 +rte Rom 7lrv9WpMNotary Sere lets My commission expires: 7/15/2013 A-128 QUALIFIERS PAGE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COLLIER COUNTY REGULATIONS Application is hereby made to obtain a permit to do the work and installations as indicated. I certify that no work or installation has commenced prior to the issuance of a permit and that all work will be performed to meet the standards of all laws regulating construction in this jurisdiction. The permit or application fee may have additional fees imposed for failing to obtain permits prior to commencement of construction. The approved permit and/or permit application expires if not commenced within 180 days from the date of issuance. The perrnittee further understands that only licensed contractors may be employed and that the structure will not be used or occupied until a certificate of occupancy is issued. By signing this permit application, I agree that I have been retained by the owner/permittee to provide contracting services for the trade for which I am listed. Furthermore, it is my responsibility to notify the Building Review and Permitting De partment should I no longer be the contractor responsible for providing said contracting services. I further agree that I understand that the review and issuing of this permit does not exempt me from complying with all County Codes and Ordinances. It is further understood that the property owner/permittee is the owner of the permit. Note: If change of contractor, please provide the following: Permit Number: E-mail Address: Tel: COMPANY NAME: c �G�E�-y' ../7C STATE LICENSE NO: 1&0 J ✓�— QUALIFIER'S NAME(PRINT . '- -14 L--/- QUALIFIER'S ./-QUALIFIER'S SIGNATUR•_• (A/D STATE OF: COUNTY OF: „./ee SWORN TO(OR AFFIRMED)AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME THIS / / G / WHO IS PERSONALLY KNOWN: IX OR AS PRODUCED ID: :'�., iH0NDAAJENKS ,•, • MY2OMMISSION#FF034956 TYPE OF ID: ( A.��a XPIRES:July 9,2017 j RF.111 t Bonded Thru Notary Public underwriters NOTARY PUBLIC SIGNATURE: L ;�(.j6 -L- k �— (SEAL) _ NOTICE IN ADDITION TO THE REQUIREMEN OF THIS PERMIT, THE MA BE ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS APPLICABLE TO THIS PROPERTY THAT MAY BE FOUND IN THS PUBLIC CORDS OF THIS COU AND ERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL PERMITS REQUIRED FROM OTHER GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES SUCH ASW R MANAGEMENT DI TRICT,ST TE AGENCIES,OR FEDERAL AGENCIES. WARNING OF POSSIBLE DEED RESTRICTIONS THE LAND SUBJECT TO THIS PERMIT MAY BE SUBJECT TO DEED, AND OTHER RESTRICTIONS THAT MAY LIMIT OR IMPAIR THE LANDOW NER'S RIGHTS. COLLIER COUNTY IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THESE RESTRICTIONS, NOR ARE COLLIER COUNTY EMPLOYEES AUTHORIZED TO PROVIDE LEGAL OR BUSINESS ADVICE TO THE PUBLIC RELATIVE TO THESE RESTRICTIONS. THE LANDOWNER OR ANY APPLICANT ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE LANDOWNER IS CAUTIONED TO SEE K PROFESSIONAL ADVICE, WARNING ON WORK IN COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAYS THIS PERMIT DOES NOT AUTHORIZE CONSTRUCTION OR INSTALL ATION OF ANY STRUCTURE OR UTILITY, ABOVE OR BELOW GROUND, WITHIN ANY RIGHT-OF-W AY OR EASEMENT RESERVED FOR ACCESS, DRAINAGE OR UTILITY PURPOSES. THIS RESTRICTION SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITS FENCING, SPRINKLER SYSTEMS, LANDSCAPING OTHER TH AN SOD, SIGNS, W ATER, SEWER, CABLE AND DRAINAGE WORK THEREIN. IF SUCH IMPROVEMENTS ARE NECESSARY, A SEPAR ATE PERMIT FOR THAT+PURPOSE MUST BE OBTAINED FROM TRANSPORTATION/ROW PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS(239)252-8192. • WARNING TO OWNER: YOUR FAILURE TO RECORD A NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT MAY RESULT IN YOUR PAYING TWICE FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO YOUR PROPERTY. IF YOU INTEND TO OBTAIN FINANCING, CONSULT WITH YOUR LENDER OR AN ATTORNEY BEFORE RECORDING YOUR NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT. Per Florida Statutes 713.135 a Notice of Commencement(N OC)is required for construction of improvements totaling more than$2,500,with certain exceptions. For A/C Repairs or Replacements a notice of commencement is required for improvements more than$7,500. The applicant shall file with the issuing authority prior to the first inspection either a certified copy of the recorded NOC or a notarized statement that the NOC has been filed for recording,along with a copy thereof.In order to comply with the state requirement,permits will be placed in inspection hold until proof of the NOC is filed with the building permitting and inspection department.The issuing authority shall not perform or approve subsequent inspections until the applicant files by mail,facsimile,hand delivery,email or any other means such certified copy with the issuing authority. BrownleeMichael From: George Marks [gemarks@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 4:29 PM To: 'Patrick Neale'; FialaDonna Cc: karen@patrickneale.com; khall@patrickneale.com Subject: RE: Registered: Variance on 342 Tradewinds Avenue Thank you Patrick. What about the things McDaniel requested and anything else from the other Commissioners that I was not there for. George Marks 215-654-7722 office 215-870-5543 cell • From:pneale@patrickneale.com [mailto:pneale@patrickneale.com] Sent:Tuesday, February 21, 2017 4:19 PM To: DonnaFiala@colliergov.net Cc: karen@patrickneale.com; khall@patrickneale.com;gemarks@comcast.net Subject: Registered:Variance on 342 Tradewinds Avenue REGISTERED EMAIL mail CERTIFIED DELIVERY, CONTENT& TIME This is a Registered Email®message from Patrick Neale. Donna Pursuant to our discussion the other day regarding my client's opposition to this variance request, I have attached a copy of the permit issued for the pool. I have highlighted the language which states that all work must comply with laws, codes and ordinances.Therefore, the owner and builder were both on notice that they had to build it correctly. Please let me know if you have any questions. Regards, Pat Patrick H. Neale Patrick Neale &Associates Attorney at Law Primary Office: 5470 Bryson Court, Suite 103 Naples, FL 34109 Marco Island Office: (By Appointment Only) 950 North Collier Blvd. Suite 400 Marco Island, FL 34145 Phone: 239 642-1485 Fax: 239 642-1487 Mobile: 239 404-7930 Primary Email: pneale@patrickneale.com Secondary Email address for service: email-service@patrickneale.com Please visit our website: www.patrickneale.com 1 This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s) or entity(s) named within the message. This e-mail might contain legally privileged and confidential information. If you properly received this e-mail as a client or retained expert, please hold it in confidence to protect the attorney-client or work product privileges. Should the intended recipient forward or disclose this message to another person or party, that action could constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited by the sender and to do so might constitute a violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. section 2510-2521. If this communication was received in error we apologize for the intrusion. Please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message without reading same. Nothing in this e-mail message shall, in and of itself, create an attorney-client relationship with the sender. We are a federally designated Debt Relief Agency under the United States Bankruptcy Laws. We assist people with finding solutions to their debt problems, including assisting them with the filing of petitions for relief under the United States Bankruptcy Code. Representation: No representation by our Firm, or by any member of our Firm, shall be deemed to commence by any correspondence other than a mutually signed engagement and representation letter. Evidentiary Privilege:To the extent that this message is being sent to settle a claim or dispute, all evidentiary limitations on its use and admissibility are hereby expressly made applicable to the message and its contents. Disclaimer under Circular 230: Any statements regarding tax matters made herein, including any attachments, are not formal tax opinions by this firm, cannot be relied upon or used by any person to avoid tax penalties, and are not intended to be used or referred to in any marketing or promotional materials. Click here to send a Registered Email®message to anyone. Po;,ered +y� RPostT 2 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PERMIT PERMIT#: PRBD2016010076701 PERMIT TYPE: PL ISSUED: BY: APPLIED DATE: 01-12-16 APPROVAL DATE:01-27-16 MASTER#: COA: JOB ADDRESS: 342 Trade Winds AVE JOB DESCRIPTION: CONSTRUCTION OF 387 SQ FT IN-GROUND POOL& JOB PHONE: 5'8"X 5'8"ZERO EDGE SPA,3 HP VS PUMP- ALARMS(PRBD20150928706) 342 TRADEWINDS AVE LOT 11 SUBDIVISION#: BLOCK: LOT: FLOOD MAP: ZONE: ELEVATION: FOLIO#: 27585200007 SECTION-TOWNSHIP-RANGE:29-48-25 OWNER INFORMATION: CONTRACTOR INFORMATION: STONE-JESKE TR,ROXANNE B ROXANNE B MORRISON ALUMINUM CONSTRUCTION INC STONE-JESKE TRUST UTD 8/10/05 (DBA)MAC CUSTOM POOLS-ALUMINUM 531 TURTLE HATCH LN 1020 SE 12TH AVE NAPLES ,FL 34103- CAPE CORAL,FL 33990-- CERTIFICATE#::03218 PHONE: FCC CODE: CONSTRUCTION CODE: 0218 JOB VALUE: $74,000.00 TOTAL RES SOFT: 0 TOTAL COMM SQFT: 0 SETBACKS FRONT: 30' REAR: 10'Accessory LEFT: 7.5' RIGHT: 7.5' SEWER: WATER: CONTACT NAME: CONTACT PHONE: Per Collier County Ordinance No.2002-01.as it may be amended,all work must comply with all applicable laws,codes,ordinances,and any additional stipulations or conditions of this permit.This permit expires if work authorized by the permit is not commenced within six(6)months from the date of issuance of the permit.Additional fees for failing to obtain permits prior to the commencement of construction may be imposed.Permittee(s)further understands that any contractor that may be employed must be a licensed contractor and that the structure must not be used or occupied until a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. NOTICE: PRIOR TO THE REMOVAL OF ASBESTOS PRODUCTS OR THE DEMOLITION OF A STRUCTURE,FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS REQUIRE THE PERMITTEE(EITHER THE OWNER OR CONTRACTOR)TO SUBMIT A NOTICE OF THE INTENDED WORK TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION(DEP).FOR MORE INFORMATION,CONTACT DEP AT(239)344-5600. In addition to the conditions of this permit,there may be additional restrictions applicable to this property that may be found in the public records of this county,and there may be additional permits required from other governmental entities such as water management districts,state agencies,or federal agencies. WARNING TO OWNER: YOUR FAILURE TO RECORD A NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT MAY RESULT IN YOUR PAYING TWICE FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO YOUR PROPERTY. IF YOU INTEND TO OBTAIN FINANCING, CONSULT WITH YOUR LENDER OR AN ATTORNEY BEFORE RECORDING YOUR NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT. CAT County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ZONING DIVISION-ZONING SERVICES SECTION HEARING DATE: JANUARY 19,2017 SUBJECT: PETITION VA-PL20160001181, 342 TRADE WINDS AVENUE PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT: Owner: Roxanne Stone-Jeske Agent: Matthew L.Jones,Esquire Nancy D. Koeper Law Offices of Marc L. Shapiro,PA 342 Trade Winds Avenue 720 Goodlette Road North,Suite 304 Naples,FL 34103 Naples,FL 34102 REQUESTED ACTION: To have the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an application for a Variance from Section 4.02.03.A, Table 4 of the Land Development Code (LDC) to reduce the minimum rear yard accessory structure setback line from 20 feet to 6.55 feet for a swimming pool, spa, pool deck, and stairs on a waterfront lot within the Residential Single-family(RSF-3)zoning district. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property is located on Lot 11, Block M, of the Conners Vanderbilt Beach Estates Unit 2 subdivision, on the south side of Trade Winds Avenue, approximately 1000 feet west of Vanderbilt Drive in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (See location map on the next page.) PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The purpose of the petition is to request a reduction from LDC Section 4.02.03.A.,Table 4,stating that the minimum swimming pool and/or screen enclosure accessory setback for waterfront lots is 20 feet when the swimming pool deck exceeds 4 feet in height above the top of the seawall.The seawall on this property is 3.31 feet with a pool deck that is 9.9 feet. Thus,the pool deck is 6.59 feet above the seawall,which is 2.59 feet greater than what is permitted by the LDC. The applicant states that the pool and deck plans submitted to Collier County contained the pool deck elevation of 9.67 feet. The County issued a pool permit, PRBD2016010076701, with a rear accessory setback of 10 feet versus the required 20 feet. The applicant built the swimming pool, spa, and pool deck utilizing the 10-foot accessory setback requirements erroneously provided on the building permit rather than the required 20-foot accessory setback requirement. The pool deck encroaches 9.85 feet into the 20- foot setback and the stairs encroach 3.45 feet. VA-PL20160001181,342 Trade Winds Variance Page 1 of 7 t , t �� oo� O a �p 1 MN 8Pir MN ME , IIT C o `� ,r _. _..... ._.._ O __ � �� RSF-3 a, ' p �d o o , o o 0 0 CI0o \ ,—____ 21 1 2 gA� s m o Or--_- ? IS SITE o 000®o000 -++ LOCATION a� O n . �• , l000 a 1�1T1!17171ffiIM®-° coloolollk ® F II . , . I' L V V l'1;1.."1`,;1;1.-- 1;.1!1!1*,- 1 1®1o1o1®11o1�1� _ o O � ' i - - - pec ..PROJECT ® 1®1®1K©1®1010 LOCATION0 10 l o o l o l o I M RSF-3IST • ,o v. I K I Van ®1®l ® o1© nderbilt Beach o _ RD T-VSRTo of of®l'1 c l of L Location Map Zoning Map Petition Number: PL-2016-1181 Document Path:M:\GIS_Requests\2016107-July17-13-2016 PL20160001181\workspace\site-location.mxd TRADE WINDS AVE. -- 760'(X) 760.07'(C) ``a. —4s— p —75.01' FQ �KNAIL IN PVM?. ' 'O. 1 + CQT•NOLE,0.%'W. FA NAIL eD&e Qc PVART. IN PVAAT a NOLE 0 M re, p 1 �_ 12••K.C.p_. Wy n 1 588'04'10'V 75.00'CR) 75.01'CC) ar POLA51%14.... 1 I. 4 aWM A FIR*,0.'f2'S.,0.29'E. M 117097.717%W. 'fM TiZ"' ( Ol a.os ,o.arw. I 4-Pv0 4T* Our N In •1 i l i 765 24.0' >nw X1765` o i+, j 14.0' O a' O p 805' g5 N O `5 w Its 9,0' 40 542 TRADE WINDS AVE. A t LOCK NI C.D.S. NOOSE (under cnns6.' w FIN. FLOOR ELEV.V. +.10.4 r o In u, ip �o u� Ln 20.6' _ N it 2.05' :5' .a., u, y 15.0' v 4,30. 06' .6E' .65' L 01. 0 3.45 ft '4AWALL 159.7' 19:85 ft 4'u16i1 1.31 7.6 ' MINIX&WALL ALUM.FENCE .W 6.0.'1'. TAI c 0 1.95'WIVE CONC. feAWALL LAP T la 1.14' 6.ir 588.04'10"W75.007R) 75.01 CM) -„ MT v1LILL14oLE 4AW o kAUD EV +L03632 ALL 4 W ATER W AY Accessory setback required by LDC 20ft Accessory setback shown on Building Permit fort Additional encroachment by stairway 3.45 ft VA-PL20160001181,342 Trade Winds Variance Page 3 of 7 I 0 4593' 4'41611 ALUM. FENCE "d c.e i nrs+ S 1(;) WALL GAP '-\ t.i4' S 75.00'0?) T5.01 CM) M. SET PRI LL14OLE prrcp OF OW. SEAWALL NAN ELEV. + 03.32 According to the survey, the applicant built the stairs 3.45 feet into the erroneously provided 10-foot setback. Per LDC 4.02.01.D.7 stairways shall not protrude over 3 feet into a required front, side, or rear yard of a single-family dwelling; the stairs were approved at the 3.45-foot encroachment. Please note that the building permits, for both the home(PRBD20150617253)and the pool,were permitted with inclusion of the stairs—as depicted on the survey. Overall,the applicant requests to reduce the setback from 20 feet to 6.55 feet. This petition was originally scheduled to be heard by the Collier County Hearing Examiner on October 27, 2016. Because of increased public concern, in accordance with Section 2-87 of the Code of Laws and Ordinances,this matter is being heard by the CCPC for a recommendation to the Board. SURROUNDING LAND USE &ZONING: SUBJECT PARCEL: Lot with a home under construction,zoned RSF-3 North: Trade Winds Avenue ROW,across which is a single-family home,zoned RSF-3 East: Single-family home,zoned RSF-3 South: Canal off Vanderbilt Lagoon,across which is a single-family home,zoned RSF-3 West: Single-family home,zoned RSF-3 §.. i. :ter` " Air foo e. M 1 .1" ....,‘1 4''ri l'. . s.1s . r . 4111 $4 1111 rt a 1►.. V `tr , -. A VA-PL20160001181,342 Trade Winds Variance Page 4 of 7 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN(GMP)CONSISTENCY: The subject property is located in the Urban Residential Subdistrict of the Urban Mixed Use District land use classification on the County's Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The purpose of this subdistrict is to provide for higher densities in an area with fewer natural resource constraints and where existing and planned facilities are concentrated. The GMP does not address individual variance requests;the Plan deals with the larger issue of the actual use. ANALYSIS: The decision to grant a variance is based on the criteria in LDC Section 9.04.03. Staff has analyzed this petition relative to these provisions and offers the following responses: a. Are there special conditions and circumstances existing,which are peculiar to the location,size and characteristics of the land,structure,or building involved? Yes. Per the applicant, the pool shell, retaining wall, and stairs are constructed. The applicant commenced construction under building permit, PRBD2015092870601, with an incorrectly permitted rear accessory pool setback of 10 feet versus the required 20 feet. The applicant used the incorrectly cited rear accessory 10-foot pool setback for the swimming pool,spa,and pool deck. The stairs off the pool deck do encroach 3.45 feet into the erroneously provided 10-foot setback;however, they were also permitted with the swimming pool, spa,and pool deck. b. Are there special conditions and circumstances, which do not result from the action of the applicant such as pre-existing conditions relative to the property,which are the subject of the Variance request? Yes. The applicant applied and received a pool permit from the County citing an incorrect rear accessory pool setback. The applicant utilized the erroneously approved setbacks unaware of any violations.Due to this error,the subject structure is currently encroaching 6.55 feet;more specifically, the pool, spa, and pool deck encroach 9.85 feet, resulting in a 10.15 rear yard setback,and the stairs encroach 13.45 feet, resulting in a 6.55-foot setback. c. Will a literal interpretation of the provisions of this zoning code work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant or create practical difficulties for the applicant? Yes. Per the applicant,the pool is already constructed and to abide by the required accessory 20-foot setback would require the applicant to remove the existing pool, redesign, and replace it at an estimated expense of$50,000. The applicant relied on the erroneously issued pool permit with a 10- foot rear accessory setback in constructing the existing pool structure and stairs. d. Will the Variance,if granted, be the minimum Variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure and which promote standards of health, safety, and welfare? No. A reasonable use of the land does not necessarily include a pool; however, the applicant relied upon the County-issued permit. Reconstruction of the pool to correct setbacks would create a severe economic hardship. e. Will granting the Variance confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by these zoning regulations to other lands, buildings,or structures in the same zoning district? VA-PL20160001181,342 Trade Winds Variance Page 5 of 7 Yes.The applicant will be able to retain a decreased accessory rear yard setback for a pool deck that exceeds 4 feet in height above the seawall.However, it should be noted that the applicant relied on the County-issued permit which cited, incorrectly,the accessory rear swimming pool and/or screen enclosure setback. f. Will granting the Variance be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Land Development Code,and not be injurious to the neighborhood,or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare? Staff has received objections to the requested Variance(attached)which state that the reduced rear setback would impact neighboring views, and set a precedent for future variances, among other objections. However,because a reduction in pool deck height of 2.59 feet would permit the pool to legally comply with the 10-foot setback,and signatures of no objection from property owners within the most impacted area were received,and because the setback was the result of a County error,staff is of the opinion that the variance will be in harmony with the neighborhood to the greatest extent possible. g. Are there natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals and objectives of the regulation such as natural preserves,lakes,golf courses,etc.? Yes. The applicant states that variations in seawall height in this location do not create a uniform height for all houses and therefore create different pool deck height requirements over 4 feet of the seawall. h. Will granting the Variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan? Approval of this Variance will not affect or change the requirements of the Growth Management Plan. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report on December 30,2016. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission recommend approval of Petition VA-PL- 20160001181,342 Trade Winds Avenue Variance,to the Board,with the following condition: Upon demolition or destruction of 50 percent or more of the structure's assessed value, this Variance will be void and any new structure shall meet setback requirements at the time of issuance of a building permit. VA-PL20160001181,342 Trade Winds Varna Pape 6 of 7 PREPARED BY: r , �� -a9-/,� FRED4bSCHL,AICP,PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: RAYMO ji V.BELLOWS,ZONING MANAGER DATE ZONING •'VISION - 3 -Ii MIKE BOSI,AICP,DIRECTOR DATE ZONING DIVISION APPROVED BY: '" JAMES FRENCH,DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ildPIW„AY *144N. DAVID S. WILKISON,DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT Tentatively scheduled for the February 14,2017 BCC Meeting. VA-PL20160001181,342 Trade Winds Variance RESOLUTION 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER VA-PL20160001181, FOR A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 4.02.03.A, TABLE 4 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM REAR YARD ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SETBACK LINE FROM 20 FEET TO 6.55 FEET FOR A SWIMMING POOL, SPA, POOL DECK AND STAIRS ON A WATERFRONT LOT WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY (RSF-3) ZONING DISTRICT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 342 TRADE WINDS AVENUE, HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (LDC) (Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the granting of variances; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Board of Zoning Appeals has held a public hearing after notice as in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of a variance from Section 4.02.03.A, Table 4 of the Land Development Code to reduce the minimum rear yard accessory structure setback line from 20 feet to 6.55 feet for a swimming pool, spa, pool deck and stairs on a waterfront lot, as shown on the attached Exhibit "A", in the Residential Single-Family (RSF-3) Zoning District for the property hereinafter described, and has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Section 9.04.00 of the Zoning Regulations of said Land Development Code for the unincorporated area of Collier County; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this Board in public meeting assembled, and the Board having considered all matters presented. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: [16-CPS-01573/1298624/1140 Rev. 12/20/16 Petition no. VA-PL20160001/81 /342 Tradewinds Ave. ®6J Petition Number VA-PL20160001181, filed by Jason Jenks of Jenks Builders, Inc. on behalf of Roxanne Stone-Jeske and Nancy D. Koeper, with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Lot 11, Block M, CONNERS VANDERBILT BEACH ESTATES, Unit 2, according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 17, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Folio No. 27585200007 be and the same hereby is approved for a variance from Section 4.02.03.A, Table 4 of the Land Development Code to reduce the minimum rear yard accessory structure setback line from 20 feet to 6.55 feet for a swimming pool, spa, pool deck and stairs on a waterfront lot, as shown on the attached Exhibit "A", in the zoning district wherein said property is located. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this Board. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote this day of 2017. ATTEST: BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: By: , Deputy Clerk , Chairman Approved as to form and legality: Scott A. Stone 1.A4.01/ Assistant County Attorney Attachment: Exhibit A—Conceptual Site Plan 176-CPS-01573/1298624/1.140 Rev. 12/20/16 Petition no. VA-PL20160001181 /342 Tradewinds Ave. 2 BOUNDARY SURVEY OF LOT 11,BLOCK•M',UNIT No.2,CONNER'S VANDERBILT BEACH ESTATES,AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3 PAGE 17,OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA. SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS,RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATIONS OF RECORD 41:8J T BM PR..PM N Aa D1 SG"MIA 3661'• 1215' (R) 1219.12'0.4) c2 0,1i'W.,NAV0 GLEV.+02,88 0 m FD.NAIL IN ,,1' CI:IAT.Gur.Rati 1/ TRADE WINDS AVE. • j/ f-- 760_(X) 760,07'(C) --,‘: W N. . • I - '75.01 L I rD.PK NAu IN PVMT ...Mr 1 3 0 .0 GUT HOLE,&o 'W. -'1 PD.NAIL SRAYT 106E OF PVM IN PVMT.GUT- G o 6c o w o G 0e4 Z. a, HOLE Q ` a9 h Irr, . ci fra 586'04'10'1V 75.00'CR) T5.01'(C) bFR 5.P. I— FiL MI r�5"PPAA.... OWM u FIR�90.5T'5.,0.29'E it ,� 4.pv Oro. l' Nin CCI CC el m RI. W r z W z� '' < O 0.in v' 24.0' m i 14.0' 765• b o $.0S'......i.... S•v o • N rn w ,,, 9 0' in No 4- ;042 TRAD,g WINDS 4VE. BLOCK M C.B.S. HOUSE (under consE.) W FIN, FLOOR ELE1U +10.4 N p m LA a iT NOTE 206' S. in PER CONTRACTOR,POOL/PATO 2.00 y 5 c v 15.o' STEMWALL. IS AT 435,6. ELEV +09.5 D9 45' N G • SET DRILL HOLE o IN FOP OF 60NG.SEAWALL - 55 7' 4'141441 NAUD ELEV.+05.31 765' 1 :8.0 RBT4+RIUG wail, T— ALUM FENCE c a4 gTAr S II 14 1i :unct,.Rans1 ^TT liT, o 135'WIDE CONC. SEAWALL CAP I 414' ,,,1 568.04'10'W 75.00'(R) 75.01 (M) v S o `9E7 CRILLHOLE in IN TOP OF CONC.SEAWALL 1' NAVD ELEV. +09.32 mi W A •r E (i W A wr SCALE:1"a.20' 9 5 i5 08(5025 5010 52 V ACANT fNavD EI EY+ a�nPi:- ' BEARINGS BASEDI ON:4 TRADE WINOS AVE.A6 091414'10-W,PEA BELOW PLAT DATE ORDER FIELD 8OOI� REVISIONS t11 R... ELEVATIONS BASED ON:E:A l888(aR16 aN PL PMR COL 29 1984 55A4} sw.��_�ren' LOCATED IN FLOOD ZONE:AE s'10'1 < 6-19.I6 05460(5 CO(C 52 FOUMo.AT ION/GF.at CLT',... =/F"'"1.v w PER F.LR.M. DATED:5-16 2012 i202IG 0189m t2i6CoB C4t052 9TEMWA LA. E>.EW Natl y. jVor CERTIFICATE Fe.,F0(fUL NO4 KG 1 hen*, t11.4 U,. thaw. *Ash acme* N4t( .MIL A cr nNA.tzW I.w+nlno a wse a.n y motto y m. ,Ma. YAl1D WARD Drofmnikeral M ttWVt so m..l. N.aO.fdo •...ennicei ONLY y Uet ?I 0' aware F in TLD Qkp+aei U U Cod*.1rs Mt,1* ,,,,,472DV FU,_'FL WITH OMNI SURVEYS, INC. a: u a mi °' EMBOSSED ,yr W w�T ambo..ti nal ar Na vMlrtga d 4 wl SEAL otoo n- Wit s.rUaa»lYin a""t'yo"M/ZanN,,a.,n.dom M Iv LB 6584 , .S�O""yL I �t7� �/ TEL •239) 939-3688 l�. . j''''"RY'[ ` FAX (289 839-7181 caa•ttta M5ri ti ) ,,I1 •POiF te—'+ lq) Seo i .im,F'Sr4 4088 T'JON COURT FORT NYERS,FL 33907 j 'Flor4ga RS91tt•tttly, Na, 4910 Qa�.1 V Letters of No Objection received from property owners denoted by YELLOW. Letters of Objection received from property owners depicted by RED. Subject property denoted by BLUE. VIEW Ayt..,.` 38 39 \40‘ 41 `• /"tibWI. i ? !AVENt 1 3s 804 r a10 UE V ' _ 37 MY _1..t; 8D 4 LLET ..;!.1/4• i_4 loll 34 . 2 1 B1 7 5 4 13 12 1 20 21 22 23 24 25 125 1 27' I I 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 378D2 1 i I ' I ! 1 I l ; = TRADE WINDS AVENUE 1 3 17 116 115;14 I13.,,,12 i10 9 t 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 ( 1 11 RSF-3 ,�, 'ANDERBILT LAGOON 19 20 1 21 22lir lB. ''2T 2B 129j 1 1 30 31 32 33 34 35 I I 1 .18 LAGOON AVENUE , tt 1 17 .151 141 12111110 915171215 1413 ( 2 C 10 11 I 12 13 1 1 15 1 16.1 17 X10 Jr 14 i 9 BAYSIDE AVENUE r_l8 7 1 e I 5 1 4 I 3 I .2 1 1 Collier County Growth Management I am writing to you about Petition NO. VA-PL20160001181. Codes and easements are in effect for a reason. 30 years ago Homes in Vanderbilt Beach were single story, Back walls of the Houses were 30' away from the Sea wall and at Ground Elevation. The area has progressed from Single story,to 2 stories, now 3 stories ( Max Height allowed)to rear set back to side set back. Home builders are building homes so big they are not allowing but 10'for a pool and deck. This is their choice to do so, now I see decks and pools trying to exceed the current set back. In this instance the pool and deck have already been constructed. I can understand if the deck exceded the set back by a little due to a miscalculation by the survey. But this is a gross error and not a minor setback violation 13.5'. But let's not overlook the height violation also. According to code the deck and pool cannot be over 4' above the seawall. This wall is 2' over the code , and with the water bowl pedestals over 3' above the code. I do not expect the home owner to know these codes and had trust in their Architect and General contractor's. There were at least 2 permits pulled to address this code. A permit was needed to build this house. The architect and General Contractor of record should have had the elevations on the signed and sealed plans submitted to the county.The architect and General contractor has the responsibility to know the building codes. A site plan, signed and sealed had to be submitted to the county with setbacks and elevations to the county. Whom ever did these plans has the responsibility to know the codes. A permit was needed to build the pool.The pool contractor had to submit signed and sealed plans to the county with elevations and setback dimensions. The pool contractor has the responsibility to know the building codes. I see many new homes going up in our area with every new home pushing the envelope to the max. I feel we cannot allow these violations to be approved. If so everyone will be attempting to seek a variance to do the same. Steve Emens Homeowner 331 Lagoon Ave Naples Florida 34108 ReischIFred From: BeasleyRachel Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 10:42 AM To: ReischlFred Cc: BellowsRay Subject: FW: 342 Tradewinds Variance FYI ----Original Message--- From:George Marks[mailto:GMarks@kramermarks.com] Sent:Wednesday,October 19,2016 7:11 PM To: BeasleyRachel Cc:Steve Emens Subject: Re:342 Tradewinds Variance Rachel, Thank you for sending all of this information. I have spoken to a land use attorney concerning the"Precendent setting" issue of mine. As I feared,Florida law has allowed"precedence"as a basis of future variances. I wilt review the plans with you tomorrow at 3:30 in person just as a double check,but based on what I heard from the attorney we have no choice but to oppose the variance on the basis that one can not create their own hardship(by Installing the pool improperly)as a basis of a variance.Additionally,since such a variance would be a basis for future variances,It regrettably does not give us an option if we wish to prevent future similar variances. See you tomorrow. Thank you, George E.Marks,AIA Kramer+Marks Architects 27 S.Main Street Ambler, PA 19002 215-654-7722 off 215-870/5543 cell >On Oct 19,2016,at 2:00 PM,BeasleyRachel<RachetBeasley@colllergov.net>wrote: >Good afternoon George, >Per our conversation,I attach the Staff Report and the site plan. >Best, >Rachel Beasley >Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public records.If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity.Instead,contact this office by telephone or in writing. 1 ><STAFF REPORT 342 Tradewinds Ave.docx><Site Plan 342 TRADEWINDS >AVE_SITE_8-22-16.pdf> 2 Arthur "Buzz" Victor 312 Lagoon Avenue Naples,FL 34108 buzz.victor®gmail.com October 23,2016 Ms.Rachel Beasley,Planner Zoning Division Collier County,Growth Management 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34108 RE: Zoning Petition No.VA-PL20160001181,342 Tradewinds Ave. Dear Ms.Beasley I am in receipt of the information sent to me as a nearby property owner regarding the above referenced zoning matter. Unfortunately,I am unable to personally attend the hearing,and therefore must register my opposition to the variance via this letter. It has been eleven years since I built my home on Lagoon Avenue,but I remember the process very well. There were any number of design features that I would have liked to construct,but I found myself constrained by the applicable codes and their restrictions. Those limitations were imposed for the good of the community as a whole. While,in the present circumstance,it is a shame that construction has proceeded to a point where it is costly to remove it,and that the infractions were missed by the controlling authority. This,however,is no reason to simply waive requirements with which the balance of the neighborhood has had to comply. I hope that the Board hearing the case will require compliance with the code. That is the proper decision. Sincerely, Arthur"Buzz"Victor Letter of Petition in FAVOR of 342 Tradewinds Variance October 2016 Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners We,the undersigned neighbors of 342 Tradewinds within the "impacted area" respectfully submit that we have NO issue with the pool variance being requested by Avenue Naffs j . The new home under construction will raise the home values in our area, which is what any homeowner would welcome, and we do not contest the pool variance being requested. We are NOT an agreement with Mr. Marks and Mr. Evens in their position regarding the view or the style of the home and therefore submit that you approve the requested variance from 342 Tradewinds by Ms Jeske and Ms Koeper Respectfully, Signature, 4 Address it fre II fah' 4G-5 Mio, 1.1,ceri coa/Y,i UC' 44.4( .4P';esel°LiA eza,: 3 ` ae ten, /20,SYZr bb;c C� 2s)y q ► r� ewM __ _ Scannedby y CamScanner Cristina R. Marks George E. Marks 319 Lagoon Ave. Naples, FL 34108 October 20,2016 Ms. Rachel Beasley, Planner Zoning Division Collier County,Growth Management Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34108 RE: Zoning Petition No VA-PL20160001181,342 Tradewinds Ave. Ms. Beasley, Thank you for taking the time on Thursday,October 20'to meet with me and review the Variance application for the petition noted above. After some thought and evaluation and conversations with other affected neighbors,we have no choice but to OPPOSE the request for variance for the sole purpose of defending the integrity of the existing"View corridor"which would be negatively impacted by the approval/granting of this variance by Collier County. We oppose this variance as it will impinge on the view corridor that currently exists and will encourage future violations by potentially creating an actual hardship for adjacent property owners. The violation of the required setbacks by 13.45 feet horizontally and 2.36 feet vertically is a GROSS violation of the zoning ordinance. The applicant has NO BASIS FOR A HARDSHIP and this violation does not qualify as a diminimus violation by definition of law. The required setbacks in the RSF-3 zoning district as per Collier County Land Development Code(LDC), Section 4.02.03.A Table 4 states that the minimum setback for an accessory use (swimming pool in this case)when the elevation of the pool deck exceeds 4'-O"above the seawall shall be 20'-0". The current placement of this pool encroaches on this allowable setback by 13.45 feet which places the pool deck within 6.55 feet from the seawall when 20'-0" is required. I have reviewed with you the Staff report and analysis in great detail and disagree with your assessment as noted below: a. Are there special conditions and circumstances existing,which are peculiar to the location, size and characteristics of the land, structure or building involved? The evaluation of any zoning or building application is predicated on the review of the site PRIOR to the construction of any permitted construction. No certificate of occupancy has been granted for this property,therefore the evaluation of this request for variance should be as if the building did not exist. Collier county failed to uphold the zoning code in their approval of the building permit and plans, however, every building application contains verbiage that puts the responsibility to comply with all building and zoning codes on the architects,engineers, contractors and property owners. A county created situation is not a basis for a variance. Mistakes happen all the time and the county should be upholding their responsibility to enforce the correction of the violation. It is clear that NO SPECIAL CONDITIONS exist as a basis for this variance. b. Are there special conditions and circumstances,which do not result from the action of the applicant such as pre-existing conditions relative to the property,which are the subject of the Variance request? The applicant, in this case the builder and/or their architect/engineer, built the structure in question in gross violation of the existing zoning code which they are required to follow regardless of the Collier County approval process. This is a self-created violation of the zoning code and the county should NOT be supporting this violation and request for variance. c. Will the literal interpretation of the provisions of this zoning code work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant or create practical difficulties for the applicant? This application does NOT meet the definition standard of"Hardship"as defined by Zoning law and Collier County is remiss in their duties and responsibilities in supporting such an application. As a matter of law,the cost of$50,000 is not an acceptable basis for a hardship and should not be considered as a basis for the granting of a zoning variance. The fact that the applicant relied on the erroneously issued pool permit is not a material basis for a hardship or the granting of this variance. d. Will the variance, if granted, be the minimum Variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land,building or structure and which promote standards of health,safety and welfare? No comment e. Will granting the variance confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by these zoning regulations to other lands, buildings or structures in the same zoning district? Yes-The granting of this variance will absolutely grant a special privilege on this applicant not currently available to other properties within this district. This GROSS violation of the zoning code will create a hardship for adjacent property owners whose visual corridor is diminished by both the horizontal impingement of 13.45 feet and vertical violation of 2.36 feet and may become a basis for future zoning variance applications. This pool could have been created in the same location of the same size, with a correction of the stair location and width within the zoning standards thereby eliminating the need for this variance. f. Will granting the Variance be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this Land Development Code and not be injurious to the neighborhood,or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare? This condition is NOT IN HARMONY with the intent of the zoning code and is a gross impingement on the vision corridor that the zoning code is intended to protect. Additionally, the granting of a zoning variance should NEVER be for the purpose of"legitimizing" a gross violation of the zoning code as stated in the Staff report. This is true of any avoidable error whether created by the owner,general contractor,architect, engineer or in this case Collier County. This pool is currently under construction and a certificate of occupancy has not been issued for this property and now is the time to correct this violation. No certificate of occupancy should be issued by the county until this is corrected. g. Are there natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals and objectives of the regulation such as natural preserves,lakes,golf courses,etc.? There are NO natural or man-made conditions negatively affecting this applicant. The staff's consideration of the applicant's argument that the variance in seawall heights is a legitimate consideration is seriously flawed. The applicant's seawall height is the highest level allowed by FEMA and is a standard set by Collier county. The variance in seawall heights is not a consideration in this instance as the applicant is already relying on the highest wall allowable and is still in violation of the Zoning ordinance. The current condition already exceeds the maximum allowable seawall height by 2.36 feet and would only be worse if a lower seawall existed,which is not the case in this instance. h. Will granting of this Variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan? The staff's contention that the granting of this variance will not violate the Growth Management plan which is based on the zoning ordinance as a basis of the plan is negligent in the staff's assessment. Granting of this variance will be a GROSS violation of the zoning ordinance which is a key basis of the growth management plan. In summary,the granting of this variance should be denied on the following basis: 1. No legal hardship exists for this applicant to rely on as a basis of this variance and the variance must be denied on this legal basis. If the county makes the argument that they created a hardship for the applicant, which would be legally flawed, the county would be self-serving in thereby granting a variance to correct their error. 2. The pool design could have been constructed AND CAN STILL BE CONSTRUCTED in the current location with the exact same dimensions within the zoning ordinance by building the pool 2.36 feet lower and a variance would not be required. It would be negligent for the county to grant this variance when a viable solution was and is available to the applicant and the county without creating a hardship. 3. There were no existing special conditions or circumstances that would contribute to a hardship and thereby the variance should be denied. 4. The fact that the applicant states that it will cost$50,000 is not material to the consideration of this variance by law and the granting of this variance would confer permanent damage to the visual corridor of the neighborhood that the zoning ordinance exists to protect. 5. The granting of this variance will confer special privilege on this applicant not available to other property owners and would create/necessitate future hardships for adjacent property owners. A variance is not intended to provide special privilege on any property owner in violation of the zoning ordinance. Finally,should the county decide to act irresponsibly and approve this variance,we will file an appeal within the allowable appeal period and reserve our right to seek all legal options against Collier County for damages. Additionally,we will request that no further construction occur on the violating area of the property and we will seek an injunction to the issuing of a Certificate of Occupancy by the county until such appeal is heard and resolved. Please feel free to reach out to me or our attorney should you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter prior to the zoning hearing. Respectf y submitt , George E. Marks,AIA 215-870-5543 cell 215-654-7722 office ReischlFred From: Vincent Fantegrossi <vfantegrossi@aol.com> Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 11:40 AM To: 'George Marks'; vanderbiltbeach54@yahoo.com; ReischlFred; BellowsRay Cc: 'Steve Emens'; 'Buzz Victor'; 'Gail Fantegrossi'; gbraddon@rochester.rr.com; grv3751 @aol.com;jpwood99@aol.com Subject: RE: 342 Tradewinds Zoning Variance opposition assistance-Vanderbilt Beach Residents Assoc Good Morning Mr. Reischl and Mr. Bellows, I am writing to echo Mr. Marks' concerns about the possibility of a variance being issued in the Tradewinds matter. I am most concerned about precedents being set. The entire Vanderbilt Beach area is in transition. It is clear that older, smaller housing inventory will be steadily replaced in the coming years through tear-downs and new construction. We all have abided by our zoning rules and it is important that those rules and regulations are not weakened by allowing unwarranted variances. My limited experience with the county inspection and regulation process has always been positive and I have been impressed with the attention to detail the county gives to all projects. I am confident that when given full deliberation, everyone will agree that the rules in place were established with good reason and should not be taken lightly or disregarded. Thank you for your consideration, Vincent V. Fantegrossi 254 Lagoon Ave. Naples, FL 34108 Mobile: 617-680-1125 1 BrownleeMichael From: pneale@patrickneale.com on behalf of Patrick Neale [pneale@patrickneale.com] Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 2:06 PM To: TaylorPenny; McDanielBill; SaundersBurt; SolisAndrew; FialaDonna Cc: OchsLeo; KlatzkowJeff; karen@patrickneale.com; khall@patrickneale.com Subject: Registered: Variance Petition VA-PL20160001181 Attachments: 20170112 marks Itr reischl.pdf; Collier County Commissioners Zoning Hearing Presentation - 2-26-2017 --FINAL (1).pdf Categories: ATTENTION, PRINTED REGISTERED EMAIL Mail CERTIFIED DELIVERY, CONTENT& TIME This is a Registered Email® message from Patrick Neale. There are two documents attached to this email.The first is a letter from me to Fred Reischl dated January 10, 2017 that does not appear to have been included in the BCC packet. I am sure that it was an oversight, but I request that this be made part of the record. There is also attached a presentation that my client, Mr. George Marks,will be making at tomorrow's hearing and which should also be made part of the record of this case. Best regards, Patrick H. Neale Patrick Neale &Associates Attorney at Law Primary Office: 5470 Bryson Court, Suite 103 Naples, FL 34109 Marco Island Office: (By Appointment Only) 950 North Collier Blvd. Suite 400 Marco Island, FL 34145 Phone: 239 642-1485 Fax: 239 642-1487 Mobile: 239 404-7930 Primary Email: pnealepatrickneale.com Secondary Email address for service: email-servicepatrickneale.com Please visit our website: www.patrickneale.com This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s) or entity(s) named within the message. This e-mail might contain legally privileged and confidential information. If you properly received this e-mail as a client or retained expert, please hold it in confidence to protect the attorney-client or work product privileges. Should the intended recipient forward or disclose this message to another person or party, that action could constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited by the sender and to do so might constitute a violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. section 2510-2521. If this communication was received in error we apologize for the intrusion. Please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message without reading same. Nothing in this e-mail message shall, in and of itself, create an attorney-client relationship with the sender. We are a federally designated Debt Relief Agency under the United States Bankruptcy Laws. We assist people with finding solutions to their debt problems, including assisting them with the filing of petitions for relief under the United States Bankruptcy Code. Representation: No representation by our Firm, or by any member of our Firm, shall be deemed to commence by any correspondence other than a mutually signed engagement and representation letter. 1 Evidentiary Privilege: To the extent that this message is being sent to settle a claim or dispute, all evidentiary limitations on its use and admissibility are hereby expressly made applicable to the message and its contents. Disclaimer under Circular 230: Any statements regarding tax matters made herein, including any attachments, are not formal tax opinions by this firm, cannot be relied upon or used by any person to avoid tax penalties, and are not intended to be used or referred to in any marketing or promotional materials. Click here to send a Registered Email'message to anyone. OP§: 2 S y Eli. Vi O N p C. A p W O a' O AZ CD .tita O. O Orn :,-15` -. n C cn .! - � - u' W O vl : J N p C A• A O• O .r p cra o m m O 3 - , m 3I- ' 5. m F, 01 C.' o g c n < m n m m 2, F N 0 O m a. 3 12 ° < a N 8. o ° "C m o 0 3 m < m a p O. 3 cg- EL S O .o' c •'* c N. n o £ $ p oxer ge m w c c s - rD % n „ o<' c a m m N = 3 • .s Z a , 0 K La m , 0. 5- ; * o ro < O a .. " _. x . O ' p ? 3 .ai ' ,- 'w 00 N O Co' y C O in S . m a _io S< C. N 3 N . O a a 0 7 •=m m O N a w N C O S 0�0 '6 y O 2. N t. N w H 0' ON m K 5. O ON R N `G .7f. O .. O m , a a Go N I-, n. tsco 3:-..E. O . O ,o, ,,,T . m3 + 0 r° w' N. m Nnc i4 ,Q 4" = o00� 01 '' P. d , O 0zD ' ^ 3 0 o vm m o, o m 8 2 w a -o a oa OO7O o w i ,TOO m n 9 O a n s c cc1 < m N N 'r N = n N° w 8- O VO 0S a.'< ad d 1a W ap c^ (< O3. J m < 2O - i. iK t m N 2 a Olmm v �. m WHa 3 a 0 or c2 Sy • z., s 3 w' w m . a M 1 0 rn o A O <• .< = 3 m O ro N Cl 3 ff 7 tlq 8- 0 ' m 00 0 3,- .3' ,.. .,xc ? 9,, g •.a C.o a N 5E,—a c o4 v m2 ro I E• E O a m a a' rb U .c O ? m c0 C g w . C. K a 3 N a d 5 N m ° irt . o ~ -A'c o s ° m ro '' m a n �. K < Jac i ° O+ C m , a 2 0 3 ,,-. N N 3 > ....9... ,6. co �. m 'm C 3 a = 3 0 a o ,, a O C o w < 1 'r 3 O w ° 0 0 d r 3 m m u g w < w `zc� '?7 = 3 '' a d fD T w m m '- Z 7 E50 ^ 3 • o N .a3. N O O1 ° - a d -. m 3 m o0 y 0- 0 -, m m 3 3 , o o a rt ro a s 3 y s s ti R ..< 4:,., n a n N O a ° a s -0 3 .. 70 N 0 2 m v ° `n 3 O0 •S N 0 • d n d 0,, ., o .3. ,,, S A - F.< O 2 T - e 3 - 0-00 a -a j'% 3 u' O a s O .Ci O T = N r FT a ° N C w O p N� ct S C 7 a G N .fie N 'Z 3 o E. m$� q ' ao .w N E0. c n oow '▪ m smw, ' 3 m o g." ? v o 8 °, n oapNry ' m S =Nl 0aO n3 a aO3 N2 °o- d o 31 m =°° ° n s o _ To � N a S M . xRd ° 18 W � A O 0N S vcaw 0 N . a0Q9 a J a SnN waO = az00 ,, A O a a m8. a °�.=m^ O = 0 ,9iS O R3 K ms -. W O D • O S 0) E ", m m N Tu- St a S m o w coC o ktv.vvv. ,-'..Le '' ''''''' 1 2M .....2 1. 03 0 _ N S N• - . a v x WWir — IV n o E▪. O < o 4 S N • N C a 4 #. d N rt -C 'lS/P 6F 1 m 8 °o `, +4 i �' w s. w -i ,6 • ;, '‘r ' 5_ 8 1:711 I is C N CO ii S E i 1` N, G �&„ [ F ? M Y43 N U,� a 3. o w S o t _. , A Ng ` I 0 0 3 I> 1+. o0- CP 1 < O a ro m m a O G1 H L — 5. -1 — pf, » A N 3 G -aN Dy cm A m a !' E a 2, on d 2 W N F+ A Q N S < N 3 N N Tf Z z' ' w fD mm m m m a a. 0, m mn m of o a, 2 m m O M c 74 n n m O< m 2 2- Q Q Q F p � oa z a * p a N x a A , v g o ' '.•,' a m m o m w o H a w N Ma, K2 2 N n� <n 3 c m • g',, 3am w a 3 s » g' P. ',n. = ."• . El 0o K ,3 = ,i N Np 2- = _ o3 ; O N s H <' KNs : 0GwOdSw 3 WN E Z :;'apNry9c: E 71;S it'," 3 ON p 2 = 8 mm o a m - 3. a D a o 3. C a o_ .°* a 3 3 tD m 9. 0 3, F 3< m a g. w m 3 m_ w m 'm m a 3 m GS o c 3 o v o O F m m OH ,al , O 3' 0 . 3 OO w SE p N > F0) R lb S -' 3 a N a O W a y a N�' an N = S d w N N ,, CL J = y F 3, 3 S N G f0 C H y CT > N a m < N _ ° ^ s n �, p w m „ 5 O n + CI 3 4 z- m s < --4 m m " . a w ma a c G m £ 3• of a4 m l s s a n 0- o m `1,7 S O .� N 1Rit of _ ., W A b Al* O .i'k �7 i.. o C 0 ' O -k ill d � ' ' b r 0m x 3 o c .i> liAW 7) L yO r. L 111 IN og o3 41►/ IL -s?,- rw...p4 v 1p 2 s P C6^ of f 6., E n �C �c\ S J p. ° o mmm , I Fl . - I Y F 3 < M S 03 m °- m m _ 1 o U n S S t=D D O 'N^ S Q T I-. i S t ede O 1 O'OO Y d °; m •0 T j n S < me T No 3 0 ° i 3 ° D o a m „, , m3 p w a " m m -72 N 0,-,= . a 9 3 p 5 d d m 0 3 c F - O a c '° Ei 0 3 3 o a ° z C 0 C g m S O. I m .c. s -, n Q y m > 0 n • m " rho a m 0 m 3 a m z 'b D • m 0 9. » m c �. B. Vnd 3 A a n m t C - d ,r6 O D G O n 1 :Z C N N v ' - n' o K � r Q n frj 3 , j C R n n C N 'i a N ?9. d A `4, C N - • 0 `J d 3 > >' d -i ,4,.. =9. t, 3 T 2- R. m o 4 '� rot... m 4,, «. n o 0 3 m s .dam. m o ' ' u ? ^ - Uro v 5. m » -0 ro 0 Ti S 2 < a Q 0 m ,,, 0 Cr R DA's 0 Q m j c a n = Oo a n a O ,1 0 2 20 d D_ Q m n m ,-. W , FD m . R N 0w N• G. 0 d 0 N n m Q O Mt. n cr aT ^ -o a . tea a • 3 ,i-,.9 a $:£:. p a^ rt ° e N c o •a m a •w 1 O ° 0 d y 3 O `5 ^4'. 9'W g '1',. o. Q o• y n 3 n0 - _ o g- 2 oma i -0 o nn;;:. n , '°c c c d m .§--A w m m t m _'a a p 0 � a mm m ,. ..:t w � NQON k ^`" ,c a, 4i j. m 5 cZ E2 d ,Ta -, mro , 0 rRn ` ao d ? o2 ° ' a 3oa d ° » 0 ° N ' a ,-. o r ,, j C o o c oaoo bn C d m d d < .' o N, N S • 3 :",- 7,,l. 0. b 3 .. s m 3 o ^ E `° •aa n c ' a' 2 m a .. j z E n m i a °l. 3 ' a = O 7, o. m J. ` __0 'J,:y d C m rn O m N i O. o- A d °^ O n .. ,ti, O m F 3 n, 0 „ n o ^ s yam :' r ,"m s e • xc m e 'o = m 3 o 2 -, . ':,O 0 a 0 2 n . ' m r. n .',,�, • b' a o o. o o a ' 2 o o. 6 M1 . = m N O9. A - ti, ry T N c m, .,' :7' '„'� ,�, _ v O. , a I- m N =. 2. �. 3 .;1 .' -i 0 0 w 2 m a * * * S m n c 3 c o 3 ° a 3. o p x n 1 3 Rata D o 0 3 S c £ ' ' < °' 0a Ea > m3 '''' .1. om nSE0m p ao 3 N < < V+ 3x ' aCD 45ma ' N w W D, S 3 O OI, Cw yn AT3d 1S , _Io a CDd a ti m m A ' • ic . `n 9 OR 2 S O •D. G D o _ m s m a o rr a . rt:. =. 5. 'D an ry u °xa ro mQ * n . o oNro Dm = g T r 3 - n ' Ci"i eD ' OC? dN N y � ;. n Or1 R ' R S m^ N �= Ny Sm m a .N ' " m N mv o m ° N ' m.. D B »4. m ° a ' a . < ° m< °v+ oEos 0 ^ n ° omm3 ax w n » z + 0 Nv_ % N .wy y N 3 O rD E ,. m Q. N nn 3 m C n P a = 9 < - 3 S. Q. - n 3 O rD N .na ' S 3 C 7D7_7,7 c O C i N ti in ^, n O m m E A ro H a 0 N O D a 3 3 a . o c m D N O "1 It m : i N s•O y w 3 m m = o n o m a '. m o c x n d 3r a: al° c o n X = » d E '°o 9 B o rF Sa ' S O O T m M n ry hOo aD .L O z ' N ro ' 0 z a, o = m ° a s ,--• ro vp ro CDo F 3 5 " ' a, ( a,o x N w 3 a, ,T, m o a C w m a < a t m ro D' a a a m • -I F n D N 8228 ; H Tom p N ., O m "CI - n �'gra m6 m O N 13 A n ro m O N O@ W?"3 X G _ O it a a. \ o m 9/ I 3o52rn '305'3 a ��f m ti 33 m Dai Ise? ° . _ � � 5 5_ay m Ny ° S/m '.d g - LPJ nzs,z °m .7 O s 0 � ro C O-0 ro n'_ Cf ° 3mmF Fm ° mm5-09, mm 3 arra ?c 0 — x m-< 3 3 O D o O E ('� m rD •v m CD n rsg. Z ( m m ' ..,0 co a. -.00 ...D 3 3 mz < I ° � 1 j _ ° a m a' 3 to m w 3 C m m 3 s.n . a r]. m °: w5 P O. ��' r3Dmru� cram o c 5.2:2 v mmo n �< o � co n a m m, 7aa3S mm0 E.NJ' . % a = e- a n r m ° N3{,- m 5. 3° o m . o smi' R m c 'p '< cm..v ar .0 a» a m o ° ` -m 3 a m ° l 1 m g m = m m d ^-� w !!!' =? ; mm m .�..m O+3- s.. -1 o F m p a m o 0 D m D p d r N a T n,� m C m p 3 n '� w ` = '' m ' m j E °' m, 2 0 LI m 3 c 3 0 c m w 0 m 3 Q. c m n 'o c a .3. £ 9, o O' 9, ti, < s : m 3 D m ^ _ , x D F m N m ' Z n.� pC .d. ;? m •: F omi < o S - 5 _ m m 3 ,, e5 d c F D 0 f, s 2 ,n 2 030 m< »,+. m C n C A _vmi ' o 5 , N a T VI o C 3 N Ft o < C < C o C » m < 'a c a % 3 e n 20. a o » j 'R m o s1- 9 x a r N O 4 N ^ m $ s a F m m F. - 3 3 a ? ,'» n < p m o f 3 m , o- o• z D a a C ' n S C " 2. • m r; g g m s m , 2g.--m' ; 2 m c O 3 a s m 7, C. '-'. F5° o a 2 c N F E a m s c o 3m a m 7o j `a C P -0 3a 2 ‹ E m w S K mm 3i C m o a O o .00 m a m C C F. ' o a. 3 3 0 C - F, a x 0E13 . "'CCD o o a o Z a m 3 0 3 0 0i3 c o c C » 0 3 O 3 O m m m N, 0 5C £_ 5R .C. N r o =. m = ,7 " .5. 2 < ,..." R .4-- ,9. 7, 3 c ,3o, m O. » C m .3i C m c M N 030 S 0- A O S o m C 0 C - s o, = g1 _ m s• F m O 3 C C C 3 3 O ' C O S o- b M C m C Q - m O O O ' Ci ;CD on CCC- . 2.a N a n o Pin" ' e; w m m o- ° x 2 ° ' 3•< d 9, .'..- 3 » ' a o P. ,, zoo r m C m C a .. 3 g o. 3 N -09' pCo Z o c 0, m 3 9. , = . '^ . N m a O m o---m ; a f w ? ' o. cN , (DE c m m.„ 22. . .p s — ,1' ,". 5- 6 2 3 m' a o m C 3 m 3 ' °o. az . - , .. .., 2,Lt...3 co "_ „ g -. D ^ .-.3z ..zo a 3 a 3 w 1s •m D ^ , m o �, C, ° nm ;; D . 01 E o n n C m C a C o' C 3 0 o x m J n m m ' F m oa •:.0 i N o m - O d• .3c FIT .mi » M1 3 3 u c o 5 N 'O" fD 3 e, =.,-. 6. C- 3 a z m .3, O_ m ,, o .30. C O j > C o C 3 . an ✓ o » a m a a s 0 . m N ' C d m a Z 2 v T c "''. o z o d va, ° F == m ' m ,,, TO $ m m a _ m a m q ; a o " o< a m c D < .--..- 0 n n n m C » n 3 ^ N ' o < re 1Z o m » m m m r a 2 < ' 3 a v d < p o <' m =-. �9 3 m .7m P3 . 3 3 '0 3 o 0 0 o a o m a 3 rr y n a ;1 `g . £ 9._ '-,1' u' a ' w m o o C oaf n o 4E N N < a d 3 j W = 3- N 3 g- 2 E2 m ry O _y 031 = N a O' F m 2 0 N. O P V a S < ems. m o S ; c C, 3 m 2 m O. 3 3 a L.n0. O», � . m N 3 < w, m 3 ' m N a • o 5 p ^ m £ 5 _.- m m � c s m s 5 `� 3 f.� v C N G 3i m C n m N , Q C ' y ' O'tm D O ' m a $ C ., c.C S S a S 0 F a n < C , . 3 _ C 3 N o 9. ---- " a ? m = o o is z< F r. '" m 3 m c c m a r » » C a m * * s ro c 51 > ' m .dr m 2 Q 3 m 2 < - 3 2 » o 00 :4E 0 9 m 3 a 0 33 ° < O' o p; c vi 5 ° a c.) , m 00 w < D a n C " m ro E >D 3 a a D r. o 01 < C a m a ,- w • < W. 3 -. C :0 O m C x rip 7 o c • om o -a ' n F v o • CM 3 - < C O m m m S— ' ID O O' O C ,' n =- 0 F7 Cm ' kiC H P1H dPi L ih1 • aHE OrC mm On �OOtntpn _pp o00 Wit H cd�roCa ig eso gm ° ;zO naE“ HHmm «° NOb a< nnynmcp� Cgn= = o az� zrxz J �' IvQO z°n gI° 6 '..-3":-1 , cd Cbz 3in � Oi2aI _ z y OA dQ014 = H' on192 xa'36.g z zp . 9 aa 00nf-oI = odObz .,1;,b, ; 114! N.7. o oE�pp<apn N. gg pz0`-J `, z ^ GC " nO --F,7_4.,-g,,, Oy ` CO � "Qo A 2 gJg• , ° ; , brxHo 0 7 „ amyc�<O w z. i& 0 1 . e, '6, 1-i-3.6- m m ..9ql 0r3 o. as iv my0V) 77 !Le yroHryo mm' AHro <4An bo' 3 ,, (..) ll �Or cr -173 • xi q . Cptima o10 :jj 31nT o-v OOtrJC � 3 ,� o m 3z o R. 9 sa ;,, ..F .2 -.1' mor�iyQzt. SoN � '�OOsC AO nNy� e ozPV m mo y .O tip mAc3 °z o� O o9 ynt� iy r �zxrzz Npky � : zo Dgg a z zn x Cn ro� zn ° 3nO on _ O H oz rA aRfyZ mce a °n � oE:° z39 �zO 0..000..00 ›- 0`,:i›- g � m O 77 LI 41 -3 nOG) � m Om ooo^ Ipa-i OnH . ss ,.., o r3i ; n2 ° . 02 ..11Nzo � '''''''-3 5.3' JOvOg OHyS-A p AabcH3S C ° =Fr 4z.,,,,,yo Om _ �vryFC H 2. x � �r . - O S jj n d `h 4 4 _ v axe - 0 9 M T 'to- Ai _ d w 9 } * It , 44 ',,,..‘' -1 R N umN w m .,,,jilallilik7: ' ,„ 6 O • Trwr„. lk 4111° 4b b °3 o T A a. r � f d D D z, gTT0. ti fig. ,- 3. .. a. o. a i _- ,. - ' 9. /moi P. mikatows ., C m O. O O .15I D 071 m b.. IT i11711 Lbs o m m 3_ D fD C c 0DE, c 3 5 ` - i ° » fs ? 3oF I'sono v 3 ma ,°-, ° m D. ; a x am rri ,O d Lt. 0 S O 0 tr_D O F 2- E0- 1 00 C ID M w 0 S �O in - N r rr -D c Z g o T O a rl m -� T � C O. .O a j 3 n - N 0 C Co 0 05.Z 73 73 0 - ° a a 3 m ° N ■ o w o N '^ E Z < N o o-. " o. 2 n m , ° m � a° = S 4, 2 y % # .-. - F , o o 5 o U..r - ,.' oN " AS . m - O_F < x , x o nm ;7', io3 c m m ° w5tj i , ,-,---Mirk, 4.: . 8 ' ' ( ' ' 7, ' f . o �, = m G' v c II,} IL . ! 5. x o o s s N X .2 0, S rD ^ N G N X O \�J M 0 N Q � vA r-0 O J�/L1 a z P 4 d n N S F D z 5 3 3 N v — m v z 3 , C E n 7 y S a .dr m . o y = r ° 3 D .. Qa. o O I N �c m m Z 3 m T m. Z d 3 1D m 2 m• d 7 n _ 5 if .0 n d S W N F+ A. z 3 3 3 m• '° '= c m 01 0. 3 m N I � 3 < A d -is -40 -- Z ,'. n d fD m 6 s a s 3 ° o .- o F' - 0, •3 r° a m d rn 3 ers I 0 3 m o a° w e F S F c ° rri 3 ^ a 3 P i o E ? 0 o g d E 3 m s. F o S s a a g '" m 3 o 0 m a o m °1 - 0 3 O_ (/1LT W N•O I =- O. G W W . °Ea ata R 3 n Q ' n 3 °' 3 0 d H s e m z g 3r2 25 c m c o 2 ' m 3 m H c 0 2 i 0 s+ F 0.• o e o N d. r° a St a ° w K v' 3 E. c w d 3 = £. 3 D 0 O 8 c 3 m •pO ° P. m N n Fg _ N < o Vf o NS y ; c - - s. • Qi a t N �'-. 0 O D .d.. a 3 .� °ai o F a 3 a 3 m .°a, °e :�°„ aE- 4 z £ o<i s 3 m D (1. < 4' ° O N N •p n n H v 5 p ry =. r° 3 7 2. e m '' F ti $ rdi y 3 0 °c = o a.a co n � 3 ° 2 3 a• c x v m 3 a c c .< c R m mm a d E. z N n v ° N m ° ,,,=- S p y_ N ,G d O N t j R e O o n £ > > W O R .Oi C O 3 7 r'� a ° S N < 7 ° • 7. m d p ' S o m Z O 3•a F W O N Ti C N T < E. o �°• N m 0 F 0 c p m w .0 3 3 » • d d G i S V n d ry 3 _ O O 3 O ry •N W m 7 •X6 S F p W .Z 3 °- y £ „Or O1 3 A m a — d 3 0 `m a m o a m ,.^. ° 3 c rap d m 3 N a °. S 0 E. N m a 00 = n m O l0 • 0 f° t = O < O O S a O m N aiC w S rp z p ry O T . 0 G1 wd F z m O C ., N d O a d C 0 ° 8 N a 0 d 0 ' •6 d r° m m m d m �- s 'g d 3 ,, K r° Q c a n o;c C)^ A H vi,4 m i a n 5 o' n `i ==,' x d hij O a w o .o Ym A Oc o L " Cg S.y m y a a y m m , i .N. a * a A�S A m <°' cs. s 0 F.A•o o " `° a A b m'_ 3 � Z -Tcfiy.oti �O Z o• hm 1'W .m. 91 bZ yA �Z a Z ° m r a W y a•o •.i II1 uP gy Iil p 3c m f d .e'.a3 ti m a m m'A p,,a �., s d a .. m m o A » 3 , - b 7- •ms.e 0 0 9 °p '37 m h B ;V-a ro m a m g;e. L'.. g o c `z 2 . , T 3'm o d 5g '' 'R° ro�ooa co cme 3 "4 E0 as Y eo y �g o F a 5 'a m a m ° 9 m C a' a o Q e.3 5. a £ s c ^ ° m "' o e '°�2 a4 3 w d a,a• ao 't _e :^ ,,,re : 3-s. HJIVI a .qzA oso , c - • a & o7so• 3 33 .i 5n •'� it ^ mm m 3cm 3 0'° 0 m0oa ? cE W, a° Aq ma e` r 3 m2 ,� n • o `a' ' •Zs5 A ,� , y,Sp a m e, m r `2 ' m $ o A A c, 3 a m _ ym 5 m e 3"e ° c v° Ei e a a s M °• .s.• m b °E..< o> o y ,1 °y o Q • °o_ 3 roa $ r m n. � p'' W Z g S < 3 R p S g `C O W Z-..,',' s^'i °° m e m rp a s Q, ° r, A '' T 8 o V• , �.� PAz2s: 2'' AE a e A 8- :I N a aoo -s „ AS am L ° o x w $ dao a m� ° m a. 3 a e E m,+ b y.c. a y n c g.i ii y.. . 1 o g e, °o 0 o°° 03n,"p� a�� ' O• 3 a. w .. S. .mom. a..�a' sP S • • e• `� 3 �s °' zzm" m ^on'm °pv, ° e A R a E a. D °.. t0 10 F.&i, r C .m.a bm e a a m a ,, O g. c�oa^. • y.am Am o`ba` , '° o A 2 W'. A -0- a c' a y- y T p S = O [1:' p m 3 m s^' A m 'y rt 4 S - 0 °0 a° ;O, mm o �zy 'eAa° m5 ma asy' hi aa . 2"�0oe ' ygio oe 3m? A gA a< m� isA a ;< i dH r (Ti6z my mmOm ° csm A•+ : I s3 li�A •p O y g ? Rij ts ALi", vit O m O $ Z OQ p ^^f i o S U. 3ey ,5 o MA eyi.m AaE yy e Eo < ewm „• 3 0� E' a saa li m a I a m-al ``4 6 4A S o b 3 � e» a � O aooe Aa^ $ @m e e A . O° g 2 <a y a o e3o o a 3om• m 3 a� a„-3 :�5 eo y -c 3a • 7 a 'r a a 3 m g •,,t1' , , 1'7 T p 3 3 a a 3 • o . t P aw F0-, az 3 Sam m^ m a ' ¢ m mm g 24a `° ,sem tea'= nA J"� ? o o z a s moo, 1`� °' re o 2_ , 1 o^°. P ° df/ o S 11 o 0 !'l v m h m_ 3 h:. a �.eg Oa em^o e fD a A.g''.-q $"� o s ue z` ay 3 ^ y " :' ob m '°°_° aS 'em » o Cm iaa S0 '� m m 4 0 .e 'o°. aoo o? •T O 7 7 ° C e n QO 1410 1 pp m A =- 5.° `, m 7 A y ° a. O '`t`�S O ei 1..p C , T• a O e m e m ag o a a m O ^ a.fl m .i n Q^ .-.. m 00 G A S T o m m y A m A g' C o m m rt m`4 t`� = 4 EiLq 8 ao1. o ° A a Fo a, O e a F.as a $ ° fin ill a m� m3on on n r� g4YY oma•n El°Vz " n g ° n n o ro o p = l m o 7 M o 0 3 y R; RI 41 `R.i z Y ,`°.3.m t S A <`.1 o' y 3 a�'; z °A iei F ' .-.: ALC«' " 'l .77; . 2g m s m g g y o ° 2,2- ..3 y c" y a „m F a r a m m a- m m m 'm. O e 'o co I m n 3 ° 0 3 s a o � 'a o R A a '`..n o.c 3 '' c.—, c., g2 fD O:•1 Rst,2 °3•e Fa. ;-; m w �'� •e 3: ,I a s 4' ° :? ° a E o i R m'.3 o. . 5A-9,° 'a "0°0 e y a q- o y .1 A o a y 3 ° 7 fi O d ,e' `G 'g S = C i R^ .11 � aaS- 3 2 �j a0m F,0, a � � e3o ;� � H^- ° SG'� ocnio s� aL. " � � - e m 4 -`e °. 1 R ..4 b z Z y o L. K a p, z°,o Z o a ,c� Z h o G Z �'z$ .2 ..„2,1-.0'& a�., g o K F n''m ai o y 5g ay, yo ;Iv. a.Z y1 n 3 g ° g; a9 y .f i < a m 4 a a c e° ' m � a= 3 o e n 4 p n 4. m g K ° a R 1, E ' g 0 ,, `° .mf `'.-° :2 ,1/ 0 ':s7 A 8. - o 3.o m 5 a C7 n a 9 3 .o' Hi' A -a � . 3r UIHIIU . Viflu1IPI ° a Q a o mew o Y> . m •T mam aA ''•°m A m Qwc r 3:_. . . R f °•3AIIeO g.;,, /,'..'NI m °ss mv0 a n a 3Qv t m a ° :4. g a r o m a o ff � [fi e om R �e � o f _ � A � i, Zsma A1CC a5 m ; F'� a- a- i RsS°. o ° a< � 3' A i ao me `;'i4 > >C 5� m " o C'`� ° c o U- '31.:1- a `� fD `�°� e a y ° o m,b. `g i°, 1 a ° Q� ..i'8 ` , "a. o A a m ° e a z' o s i m 4 g.:;,-,.. .. o'Y a eB a m9 �.' oti ° .T.fDe g VA-R. 2I. z 4 `� " `0 %i E m o a ° H m w m eo s� m I. o vi o 0 mol,o` .0 ' m^ ax aoa1, t,. 5 eo mmnw � � o •mso on c k ' n g.3 ° o o : wa' 5 gA a a.l q . E r _2 x'. eai0 1 2" a s m x am a o $ �, 'S .e A 00 o t';-`1?-2 m 0 0 8_ m ? m z a A s s A . a em og^.o o e'm` n a'w k o 'r ''0e m .°2, R o o c Egkit am aam P o SO aa`` g 3 Te m'o s4 `°a-.s ,-q ^l r. a 9 2-`E...°, r7..'S A a c a°q,? ° ^ . o m a sa 2 a 2 t e. a 3 •e s 'r $ Y C m m z m e 2 's' ro o 4 my. 0 m o o y O. A - G y ymko - oWIt, lluItH! Will 101111 E.a to A f m^ • ; O -;--t—k, OQ p 3 y < a S ° 4148"t O ry 1 P °•. T ° 'O m v, o N - `^ 2 •mi R' 3 •o ``' S m ,. n`� =•.Oi. Ll. .. m S m b �S' A m • ,.. 0.'m•`R °y° ,- 3a°0 3 ti@ 3 o m °s .. m a f9 = ma 2 y `<a EA a a°0 ,, mA n m 3y. .. "a S a o g" i e E• e A s• m 2 A a o ? o m r.- a r"0o.R i s ai4 III: m o` a o c e a ^ y y A m I C a A ^.00 2 a il m m 9 ° ' ° o N d Z 3, > O F > m mm S a c s a y a w N r 3 3 m N• 2 O N fn O• o ms 3<< y .di 7 F 3 O a a. < -7 n Q N 1 -, a C o- o N d 0 d 0 3 3 o p fD 0 R w 2 p n X Wts, F3 O 3 a < F -13 1 S 3 F ° 0 3, m m DD >Z o 3 a S m N a s > > x a a f 21-4 " » f ... so m Dt •c s 23 N y w K 5N w o 2 O - N O O x.• ? NN S ^ b 2 W G c', 4T5 o dMNm > > < om, i ^3m > a > a < oom a , fD a .L Fir tv S co N o o < S o a O O N O• N 3 c0 N d O 3 C CD 0 > C < j a a fD m ° kl= 3 fro V r F o O 0 O. n 3, p C c "s- g' n S a e, 2• o o o E 2 m n 9 O o 3 c 3 s ' T s o a c c N m 3 n v N „ 5 ° , c ?; °c m d 3 fu N y r 01 .< N• o a a o o N o Q1 3 w f'o w' x of m .0 > > < 'aot o Ua 3 S S , F w -iv = » G1 N ». ° a .3 d CD 3 0. F = _ ~a .1.w 70 'o a m , . 3 o ° 0 a -p m Z ii:a o Q t°,. 0 0 ° 3 ;D n 0' o o a ;; N M 2 c ° m o _ 0 3, '»� a o - e C o m m' a C G W r+07 N N 3 _ c -° 3 F .. m w g a 3 m ° a z `° x >• ' S O d A S N N m °' 3 fD o x a 5 m < y re 'c ° < CD = . a f'1 m o 0 _ O. w .s 0 o f c °' o. o 0a o °0 3 c c LI m › s T• n o O C =f G 0' • w o sio .0 C O 3 o M ° O fD 0 O On 0. 3 o fD o d > >Z ma , N n. v. s, m azw a � ' m 7 N a o ,? c c o 3 I O 2 C N of N DC 2- Fm=, E m o m fD d a. W Di 5 0 D R n r m C O C 3 : " o �' .a C A S•O N C D P-...7 f7; m K m • C p n me o a 3° a °m 0 m o II'\'\ 'm3mO3m D S 'O• mo m O O 3 tY V S O» D o 3 fD Do rD 0 fD < fD n fD 0 O fD 0 0 O 0 m cn D m m XI m 0 X -I I m x s 0' D w a-a n A H "Cf < 'H A Kam g H Orn b CA ".1 O yPO 0 000 „ � Omn., b a . O or' w8.0 N ; 0..- _. 1z,,,:.' -'2'''`' ... _:a .n. cn xJ A o w g w V - 6..c' IU .i n - •oDtl'-'T. c ° tdrJ < �.o x w �� AA C .1:3w NZo d q ...."„, ,605.,/), w n o.0 n .0 g o° Y H 2 x O '-n o' .n A 5•a `° C" o ° �'S• A `< �' t1 a. A ti "d A w w >o O t" x c 'C O N C) A HSSw.o oso 00� n " n Z 'to',9a Y N A O� O a ° 0oa O 00R !„),.-4„1 ,-3, pa2s n H ZO r d�°,� :.1° "Ol'J Hy o Z o XAw R rn ':3 OZ dx n m now rn ?c 7roJ �r, E,g -,cg n Y � -� O � P °a.0 0 y- COey� ?.o ° E 7'm v N Az y a-94 5' :� �`°..td 0N.)a 5' o N x 'rJ tD m ,on, o n o M ro 0 p O tri h7 J ?i„. „,,,,,, 0 E7,- 5' ' �.. �. M O Z Z ril Fp m n 11:1 g �°.4 ym y° C wn ° A mm A °kAa fj ' r 0H v w o°�a y I p w p 0 .� v [ !c°,-;,;-,9 r ? `° ao o y cv a E ��t�2 n G 11 :4a . 'a'a ° a° o ? oaf owo N Co aq ww o s^ s y C woE.a w0000iuyo� �. 0 9 $ 0 " .� , '< ,tom,•' p R.o a§ 4 :-.91,-. 1.1H.:2—...;; fo . I �$> r a a,A v), < z 1, ,9718- f9 0° iu ° a p, '� ' w 0 0• ps i F ° ?: y -�; ^�•. �` aro °oq oo w d ,��7 c n• 1� c_p 3 'x r .a , 0 w N L', G R ,, T' p,O m y �.O�° g w 2 N of e '44.;.: 4: g2,.. " g. P. Ro Ro 0B 7 N E f-!'(97 a:o i s o , t' � y g a 5 NO 5'g ay a o,0 cg ❑ 3 ., O• Z p,9-5..O N p (C a 0 O p al y o 0. R-01°':,°: G T a. H w N S O ry > 5 y'w sT w' 5 n�A '024 ° aw j� F.2 a rn� .. 0 aq o a x' CD acs V irk "`'_ 5`.'!222. <�° 't<ao c;7,"10,: ;o aq`< w w a w�-n p+ 3. F S. ml • ° 2 ° 0, 1st ,,,,,„. ,,,,,t,, o ao� a o 's 0 v �' 0.2-0."1- , �o_a s 3 p '0 0 Two m s ° o 0 0 ,, " ti, 3 o 8 7c1 7zi s) T� a 3 o �°.w oar ° i w T 4'4' n, 5.4>‘<,--, p 0 C� O ° y. s .,y ' ',7,''',` .?'- 2.,5 ,a,(-'5' ,` oa� _,o0yW w » NN »0 OO -0- ONOw v° 2, m 0 w, w ?-» x " < a Q m 6. ,j, Y 7? Nd� Ga s A 0 �i '� w o 7 0 "G o Y w o w ^C o Y cNo [r" a-c m C a c OC .DI m � 0 ?0 � 0 p w p cw, � �'� f 0 �.v 0R y ° � a' K ? ^'c C y 0. 0 o m ce w 5 w co 1 °ms & ° 0o d o °' 000 ,11 ,7 » me:o 3g3w » ^ q �A 0 � o,, – .0 Ea ^ A C °o i. m I 3 a° o w ..:....°:.°° o°a ,do g- 0 w m i o 0 0.» 00 y •e ,, = m ,�.,,- m= ,-- .D444 08',P,5"1 A m. o g o a a 0 0 p rmo'o ..q.e = g— i13- m m' o p w -s " w4 <.0.0 -7-< :c,„0,-.00 3 E n o io 0 0, p,o � ...y o.a 0.o w �!'0v T m ,wr a_ i?w wO.O� 0i � ' m T� E3 " o� c. °„,g4w 'm'° o w o w7- a�. er0 °=.< !';'.1';'"E 3 pw o R 4 0 . F.4 ,9-1 o eg ''' '94, "'-0o s o ' w ° r R °e 5 w. a:3 w Z < n m,, w a. .m•. �'7 4 w 0. =', ' E o ' ..,',"2_,.. .-.,95. a n.'a .- , » a 0 co .� 0 0s Pr(9 ...P> 0 o S 0 b 'Jc0 7:,• <6;. 0 °o �= o'x a e 7 w ° o n o ° ,Til, c7o N. .<.==—. 5,= 8,3 t" 0. y s o m C'i g 0- w 0 o p »R .. io "§7-7,- -- p Q O p,O :vs; p °m^,0',.,j lro .j 5.2 lOo O N a R O'p o w 'O W g a g 'E z o 5 o o o 0 9, H 5,,-"8 — g'.0,F, " (9.-” 0 3f:ta 0-0o0- c i °o � . .: C1 3 0 00S< m e a " o $ gots �r�.y o a7• oto, a R a N 0 a c3 - ,ss . o ww c. Ry o° cwaoc c ' ° 0B'° 0 w g' w g y c.o ° m ;t g. 9,4g .91..= 14 N w g : (45' T o o a. .7 T.v N = !7:3,9:5.?" G °O.° R n �O ° M w 0 ^ (4r, 0 o m y d n 0.`0 a 0w n,a An 0. ° cJ �o4 ca 0 °C7 g1 ; 44 w " .� ° 3 ° ;.,-"1/q �a� < o� w E as . . 0•w•. °..§ ° 0 O 'O 7 ^ q a o cpo d- G W ,41"--3 n't" -y = w - 82 °S 8, o a 0 o' 0 0 '7,' '='- 3 5 p 0 O O O R .0O 0.O .`I ^' 0 ° O N O C z o o S° 's y A (5DJf"'T`< S T. w ° V 7. O .'n w .8;$,. <A 0 A FIRF 0 ,° Oq .. 'SS 0 n w O .x. 0 tl'q S w 7 : 8 ,.A-76.14 "T, a!'w O O N E' • qq O ,,, S O0q0.0.. a ° E- m 3. -0o. G T "RJ O 0 p 0 0 w .y'f• S y O n O 0 •< a.o. •J•c as n. ft = 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 .y.•. 0 .»,io Nv -3 A F s ., Ao mOg :— y li 5 A X g K wo c =° »;y 2 A y ee m = =.1•8 H �`a $ y ;,3 wo .4 ag w *- oFR @0.a� gw � -3 3. a1 rn Z w8 2 u 0FL R 8Tp aA w oCp AK m .aee = we y as d p 2.4 ° ILyS x' o 'a ,,,g--a VI N z 2 00 ..,t. `O 't3 w• O 01 O o E.°,3 O 7 p,'O < ^ yo m -oa .°o 5-7 0 5. Qom. `° .". °'= ick . • ° Y io n ° Aw S° eD ° ° S w o E.Er a pa A y m ee s D o oao EZ ° a < ° wm • F -o 0 - 0 �. w C 0 - ° n 7 o eD,p ° ° E.w O S rn T 5' c :: a 2`e c g °. a a 0 E. Oo 8 p 5• -°D iD ? °i G. C7. Er 7 V' o R w w - o < ems. ' R E1 w 0. 2- A p a g m ° C y < E 0 ¢•o• Et ff 2 m r0. ° . 5 w R mow. Det i oae ° � mow_ ts-. s p m 2- .00 A Ao 70 . � w ,n _ *H a 't".i .ii 0 0, c3D y '•°' e c w b i g.a c r4 m Ii S 0o ^6 s c' wA g"a3 r> o m_ N � e w< c K o m k 0'° c t-,- e ee -, . w aY D m ° a. t* T ,7,- w r °, i° " 8Dc8D ° aoo. ?r Eo dd do, d to 0 00 I S O-~ Z� :•5 to Zr '.. zy , e, g° 0° ob tt H MMI z tt 0 <0 < wk c cn cn H o $ zz z° a a a 8%,TA W ° °� = ,R5 o " wa I. R mg. o„4-nN o Dag nnno nn4gn(, a°� Da:d o Ennnnnnnnn4nnn44nny °n4 • w 5-po ° O R Ozp: 0. 0 x �,g, gm 0000000 OOOro:+ O an 7i a a o ..o co v. 0 cox. o K a a a a a o w �n v�v�v�crn a c w w,-3 a a �O v�cnv�v�v�v,cn ,www,-3 v, � �.a n 8<o° H'T zQzE OZ 5-Cm Z`° `"w 6`' rn g Z0000000 000z rOz0`� �znn y m' 0g-1- I't- d -7`' cx, 5•C .-n'o .Ho H H Ha yz j yrg �' q o Er` iIIt y ;.Q:- a' 7 Iii c'm' °: O a; IJ m a ax' .ga '< a Sx0 5 ,g " oa oa ` a g' ab m a 5. 0 'v 0 AVR ° as 0 ' mC aw a -ag' g ''S-5'' 2 ,9- . o oD 8 Er 6< _ _ §1 R To, co a a ry w N 0 m y °` " o- "'e ' "' m a-2 ic rr 0 C7 4 ''O m o 0 00 0 a - 5, 2..e-..,; r . . . 5 —,< g o a R" $ c a'. 0 5.rn ia O o oo 5" p • oah 'OO " an N 0.8 ° . p oww ❑ BEIP:' o a a ri es w "X tl • � 00 Oag I yes � y yoaN ....9 , :0w � 5. 11Rtq0 o ON' oOn a arn7w1 a pgm mca ' D 5 'amT mas � y 5- • a c 0 < rn b 5' 'O 0a0 5, N OT 0 ,-. ,:JI Po N •- R O+ N C '�" O a rn as a N V8 4 0 0 k R O w a g g py 0. S O a 7 �... R4. w rn . °. � � % b �oxx04=n4n4obn4nnnnnnnnog. • ognnnnnnn4 n›. ;annno 4n _ c =0 OO50` a coO oo a =w . O. ao 0 121 ' -. "D'. Dn n, „4-.'..8% .> n .›, clgm ,,. q z0zAzOZOzpzp wo °zOz OzOz zgOo0zp'a--z S z O cno°`cn0n0 cAZ�Z..ZcAZ .2avzvZco c cnaPavZ v, mcn ” a " 0yHr,lamHmHm a .- � mH "zHcvQimg^1 w7 4 Ot ,5, vzp di >8Oab7,'< ,9- 6 rn B lZz ' . inz _ 8 =4rnz YZnZ0o .g .aozcz= aZ�? ry mSm H ° 7c rn 5•.�* .-„n og2K ,• . ,7good � wgry. d▪ rn . ' , ,1 < zc ' ° = o D5 4 ..gm P4-c , . . c. om0 ' 00 - 5•d N ac00c ago aZ . _-a , , s� 7s< a c 4 ala. '. awooe o,. 0 d 0 = " ' $' F. '" a'a 00 a v V. `- " , o f. 'nn �'` �,e, ", > „ 5 a C m ; a X� 9 rnO. P .0 oc a a`s� 5 w _,� p = 2'0.. 0 0 o y� I ' m < 0 ,a obac0 go Ox v 04' 2 m,c g 5w{ UqI x' o m 2, 2 ,-1, 045. 8 T0m o 0Fm m . o0 v a,r, ao § ° g. w00w 'G 0rnm 0. ^'n O a . ORO a • w C i ^ o Na arn rn 0 wnooC < o . O O S? - - m , -. Xy omNT = 0n00 F O N n G ' a m - 3 w O' 22, t1-2 ET 0 ,...a. 52 . ' •° m 02 a . � a 5 b ,5 8 m = g, aa o an ai da . < v r O , o 8 a 84 rnm < `o" 0 7m c' a a a 0. 0s0 , 000 g8 _ p y b rn w g r5b 0.O o.. w 1 o' . a e o a c 8, 00 2 5 OT = 2. a w O i--i 7 wN a '' a 6 -Ono — a a _ m o c vs a• n o a v w �n -.o n 'g w •w^ a- 0 •y ....- o w < c g tl w 5'S• F 2n m w a 5' < o '-u' v a w 5'< ,a, 00a'c 'o w mow, 0 mcrneFTrn 8-55°.1 P-54 g a't-° yovb, �. - Eng -a"8w 07aj. 3d'Oo I a n R?T'ao 1 m8 ° c= < w:r aoy, 2g0a F g•a 'c ^o'er - -,"'-8'wy ?' 00 .o .0, 0 .^-cZ 0 m D 0 cnn 9 rn . K y gp "71-m ag o a c. w 24'.4, Nn n o am g R , = o T O _0 ,41 crg" a w y5 S p•ov "„c o ^'< O O w 'n 7 O O O n (�D � y TrE O rrryyyyyy T .rSw`G p, a'... O C R ° Sa ^ntib o, n O.p,u �^R �• s as tY.Y[Ya v N 7 F a ? -0 1 0 N° w t° g O ..`f t° a a"g �n g .°.'^.- -' a' y <P T Oma, ' r a O V:N a S a w -- N N p . 1_ a O ^ O 0:(E , S r.F O ,Ni+ y r'C .'C .0 ..o 'a 5;0.0 � r-n � n � �S�xa 0 v ^,o Q ?�p,.. r,,.g T^° sr' zz ^ 'g O w 1 c ,, c s y s a F w " ^t° 0 5•E 0 a T O 4 O�' 4 O w ti c'T. 0 c E n a o ,-. �, v w w o tp n S a O w n n y < 5,y 5� m c F ° �°c•v g,n a a' o < ° g m � R e �; 'o a00 � n H yH R I t° w 'r g.�, w m t� F ? g _ ^i o rn 2 a w'e Roe 2 V c°� g8g F R-%9-6 ?;��'m v o 8 � ': "° � °a .,t. � G'�"•"'' 2< a�� cr�� ,v a•w w w00.,„°riody,- .:Xo d -cn-.o? .apsca �aa �' 10'°,<oaa`R"ot° 42a�'ayHNm� - o g T °c °° ° u Y o w °. � v 5 - < c o ^,B'< w a w t 0 a• < n 4 0�c y y 5-o§ x^ �, @ v a-" x -o o a g ', o g g �'8 aa'�<g kT° -'`S•�1•O a t°w m o �g $,.^'''.T - 0 o T c a< � a,<� n 5; °a m � �vg iqo Sv x' w 2 1 0 8 ` �w a 0 � � a o rn d ' 5-. 2-"° d."'0' Fa _4'4 8 Ue m w m �+ �as ^c O°a°'� .moi nn Qm _ a•N r <00 a w 7 0 O'0 g gy .''R =446" L? G n O o _ - • ^ -a .I. o '" a ° ° g G g w L? ^ _. ^R ' a n a w n 0 o'c ' .w, m , T� F 8'< ,n n c ccc ;'= 2 -8, ,,1 Oc�•O,.' 09 g °' y,z 4.�°° m .ew n y rn o�.< f.g a g'" `, w `ag -- x•a ° g a 8g ° yan'S.o,9- d , °8 3-a I 0 a.Fo �.. 5.5.M885.` a"F y's° ,T- ° v ° a c ,' t° L Gt 0 3.t`d t° A . m'g w «g-,0< a , E -<<, w a „ 8 - 2-, a 5; ^v . 1 c:v m w 8 w a F rn F o z a°: a ,t 85-5 . .- 1 .4, -,., = =.w c°° ..m a w _ °a F..c ° �'c o n,T a O,n£ S io `L:', 5•? - v w a c a F a g g w d,a-° a `< c E a' y g w ^.<' �$.n 5 0 w n w a C 5 ,78 -" ,' g c,- V, 0 ,D . 7 c c =: C S m�5w8O°9i°'. .yrroO o `° o ° < m" a - o' a g 2 _ -0. ° °< c°a ° a°aa a O°a 0 �'i o d'+y 8 ,__; , 09 .±L,2,.S. ac, a a a S m 10.D V2, 'y a = 5• ° e < o n. 'R "' ac fD5 n m a o � c'e. n n ;.5 c S-: t° °. o � �, t� .4 ,<'g ,t, 55, �xyg ELL, o am < x moYd vo >a ,09,2 .%' '';-5. x° 5 d b---° ' '8g .554-g.� 85U .- E' 9 g 1 2-. v < w g o•rn d ?'ao 0 a O'a >• c 0°° O X G m a R F E.-., :T �1`<O 0 •-.`< ° ,di. .,5:-. °`,1`< :',; .P a .P .°, g a as. ,, m 2-C :'w F a ,-, 5 ° n ° o o, or r T o'g . 2 o rn ° c g' y tr;s. R$ rn a '°�. ?: ? 0.v w e 0 w F s T a < 0O .. ° rn o x O c N ^ gR ? awFoE TatF° o`<* �ao3 � � d � d � a ac °=g am, vH g t° o a r� Tm a^.a"w F.< w .a. a .-st a d 4,g.. c . a < ?'' a r5-8-=-5 s. 5,-, v °< Y .. p 5 -. p v O- g.rn g p 0< p<z 5 .0 °S ,r w 5'o g n a 3 w5 T b t° ,< 0 a• 2,88_ ._N. a'rn g w- -.o�w <°m o ? -T n d`4 M, ' 1--1,,% 5K58 ° - =, , F0-1P-- a . tn° B 8. ' v o- ani I c 1 g v n ''o T`0 2, . .°a ,w^;.w0. .-8 $' -' , . s.a o 2 °,'5 g . - ,,,, ,-3 ,...§.° 5 :., .6.@- ° , rn a cn . ' F ro 00 ro a n a• g .° B .. 5a n.N m c° ..tog e w a g > c 0 i° ?' o' g a•5 d °' R;: a o a '0 0 a ;; a 5 rn v o w a s < w _ ...R a 5 0 87,15'4 S_.0. a F m 5.02- 8-5a< ^ d g." b e . o o m rn' S'aT' .° M 3 n g - .� 5' 'n d tD �. n K' ..� -1.=- ma. O a g,- .2 1 ", m N m w a 1;a 55-6 < g ? o -o co ° rn 5a .,-,15 ,.< ^ a0 ry N O 0 .-" : �B C O aa. .< O N a ^ 4-- a O iT= ?i ai T� F oc5. oca0 a an, m 5_ sw o S,m a snTv '9 T ^° f6 °:c a.b �,'t° 7._..w a^'r o.a < t° �� ? �. n ^r,Y'a f6 o n � o a 0 To - g 'o g �• -ooo T R'T 2 °g ..a<, 0 0 ° `< a5' .00. s g 0+ rn yW n <a- a .kq..iy ry ^' `G Ec a g O ^.O g g .-.. S Lp, N O Ory 1D g, o• ; �' a i° i- 0 g 6� m.(D rn y 'v,-n a`� a g.5 4°k'a y 0 'K m x °° cn cn rn c0+ .rr.=2 •c. vi F 2 .4 •< (•y g, <. M C v0;t° d o m'_'% ° 0.0a' _.S`< R n n m,•o d Ele, ° ,. tom°O rn 5;m w y go p,R,,,...t.-P08 x.. `:as cg° F .a°• o T F m ,0„ c R.5-, = ;7 ,7 ,15..a .- . 4, ,9,s,- .,g a '' .2 0 5' °' ^'o c=' n w 5`a° �' a•° 0 ter��x'T q. rn'm e 8° a y g ti °-r m 5 c'.r c oaa,^ g E 0 ; m T. -1 5 a a s R< w ro 2, z rn •F •p 5. o c S .0, ° "e c m v, ,w, n F 0 <° .0. '< i° 5'^, _T w S.5,0 z O �' k d O ,wi. °.: N '' N �,•`<�N ry -C„ Q 2 Q O N O w .... k � -' �., p O � h .a< n 8 5•a+ m,- 0000 < g g ^0'0 1 a R'a 6.,v0 8 O c ^ < a.tea,'< m x v w a ro m ° t<° 'v 5 7 a.n ..o °p e 5 d.<c o 5' _0 a't° 0 .x.1,4 3 g aF, rn ,l'E a ';,. -, .S-g .•- '' ° '< ,'5 .9-7s2 . R 2 `Z n ^ ° n 'o 9'S;Q 0 •-o�w ? ;.' 2 h. R mg 'g U o,a c 8. oc c 5,m d a a o'< a°^,'''- --241--,8 0 ° 0 g,9'''' P-,'"R qd , m a. p. ~Z r g' a n v T t'° "n` 2 F o 5• d t0i '".- tea, �T...0 g 5 0 „a, a � 5 qo.n �� '•�`< `".e 5'c� � � m w �' ;° '� ..2 ..-n S° $ 5 5.r. "m O a' a w F .5 o f °v 5 n a T m - . 5 • rn a a a wn,da 0.< 8 g,=. w,0 0 0 c rn 0 n+ ° T"Oa^ ,I$a° $ R 5;0 'm_ 0vg �� o c ^ a8° 2a c S: o^ aa; y .,00, Es < F ',12 , 85-,z69: y' F a-.--t<° a 2 - 0° oc°tga .. o c a40 < ^°m 5'aw arig ° w t. c m t, �r 5 0.a w w R,o 86 =.4g5 '. 5• „e l d a d m'... °a'"' a m 2..g' °a o°w 's 0 ti a < 5 ryry {v � � p?�ri,< 0 K � 0.,m •b --N c g.-^^I E g N ry - G ° R'.,S 8- '� - N a°9 a S 3 O N N w F.D..y'.LTf yam'• ,aj 7 y a g 0 . d'� ga-s5" a 5. -< g=-7L, 0 " c . - ate I 'g 5 < So n0 g -'op VI N o w y 0 4 ^< 0 S .1 d ^d a'8 L- N^ °: N.. `<G. 5'O° ' ,< 08 . 0, 8- 8"8 ,1 . S'•' p-°3 w .N R N N E',' 0 0 o T m o o °e 0 F a ,k, ° -0 w -a^''L rn 5,c n i '.`•° Y yv t° a°a ,0,-a"F 'o 'a v 5 5°=.T m g;g 4 ' P" 6 ; '2 x: '''' ; � '1-3yc. 4 ', as(O- o_ er a a rn g o y a E.5"x`° °^a'' ER a° y d'g -8 ,,,, ;4,,6,E11 ,50 - w F 5 cm� g :,7=,o t° c E•O ry^ay 8°d T O.T O c•• ry° N C a C -Oi GV.`G O o Q`'^'` R^0., d n N O •n' _ca'' ry O 0 ^e'4' (5�°O< , S 3O _.. 'w g',y n e tai a..O G O l° o N �p y R' 1 t8 < ^ �. t° _y a'a O 'ITS -'a O'y .0. a'O .�.' a tno = ° .S. .n.,° O t.a.' 0 w 2 va, 0.�,t' S°'O O t^ g tUc O 6,J.<a p C B i t°0-,° O g w 4 a'0 a '6 5 c M a;, ti n n c a.O a a o" =,r . . �.w y g n 7 ' n a 0 g. °c a' d t^a° ° ° _ 0. a•8 a ° m U w a .. c D ,'p a ^ _'a „ 5'" , rn n o m r°a y$ g' w y o rn 5 °P a ti^'.. 2 .-. 8 -8, P 'c EA o'O '8,- wry : 7E-E = 2, 2 m °c .5 a g E g c E m^ a o'c2 m " 5 g E 8: ,T v m a E B P-a m t�-a•'m 85q E� a ais ?'. a d, s° a 5 ° 2 "'S. .' g- =a-o °m ^'o'°oow , Sa• mco S '•Yc9,80 =nwn U Ea•� a. Q' w ^+'g n -n g r s � c�' n 5�' c 0 rr c^.w g. ^,T gTP o ^ ont° 0 D'ao ^.i° ^t° 0 02 0 o "'o ,-(5k0.5 .g rn `� ° r ?G o o d'a ° 1 °.m rn°'o' 'n. R a 5". aa rn y ,, as a...?. . �s y m °Og c`<.`° &.o a,< P `"'-48-ca• a v < �g 2 T g,2g F a-5.5 s gowBc.°9 �' t0' a^ Rftna0FAV'�x'0Td < 5. 6 d, o m a F c S F n .-. ^a.y 9,,i' h m d Inc' o'F, T o it . .t f6 ' m ..o .�•o F•° rn m EAR. 0 2: P. ' 5 C m o ,Oc,•;a 7o '82 4'r°a. .':'•Z5,.1 - - .-co a 58 -0 rnN m. `7 w 58 ^. . w a F a c_. m'^'° ,0< ar y w`< y7. rn 2 _0 _ i to g5 ° g °a m c'S ^°a " i° rn F 5'f° r, Q'-'a o' y n n •�e B a 0 g❑ d „pLt,„ °a m o n < < R ? a o rn $ a T ° ' t° m a c t° M n J qa a. E R: 5 w o D N 5;9 a' g 2,5'5 = °p 5 5ca Q ..6' §' = W o<so 'a',1- ,oR ma ° 1, c o 'Ba: 4 7g0. m ' o § a a < -a w . + 2.. m Y6•a w O0 a 5• c. o' L S I wo a h'w o 0se a "'acc a. a c R - a• . o ] omn45mn4cn 4 ° rmn n44n4awxaaa ,. = 5 0.» vit§ yrn ° °o 'ti + ; IEn ° DvDvn °'',90..P '04 xouoa _ m .oas a ' 'i "1 . b -Q'g , a ' o7, o ..q2 wa .53 ygz.0 ; �cccZ a . 2z ayo °.Z ° Zagza4o < d7 ,5E4O4 P.5.70,',1 OmS Ca' " O vO°an0gS; v0 1 ,1E,.4: - 4:15, ` 'RoD02' 1s� oy .i<..,; R-- R0089i :< °'• omarn .72, aa'n' c-? ?T _.YaR . 2%e mo ° °'Z ° w. ❑ ao. ;-•-g •• `<° a•^a� .a � .j'o '_ a,, ��rn=.= D D.m e rww m� _ a _" �w `A-a, m$ � � aoomg ° � < c �<.<$ a � o.oR 0 . wa ooo a. 8. • d. y . g.y '2 g-1. ooW.. cI ° RI . c c c ° b aa y ao rno' = aTada' . g2awa ° o= e o a z0y'g -8< a <m' g§ o'R yd o o - _. 3 .maw ' 'g ,Z; ' ? a' , ryv oo aoEr a ,m . ^ !no _cm ma5'° a a .° o,0. .Q^ mTas •°,R- a n-g T a• o ' w ,, w =`z r • o2 • rn s7p,Pt. Iw �.w eo y. wag' c R 09 a ma , 3' x 7ya < r°° a 4w" aaa Nofg :o� •2.-c . b av yom W. o,vnyw v aa.2 •9 6 R. a `2.2.,< f a°--,„: ::: ». ' 2 a:y r o STO x g - ,, a 9 gr 5" w G._ ,C 6 ;' � a tea+ � O2V.� O pa �w4 . OA q0a• J';,, S < " d vco ^. o ^ 4 7oo :'-' g'4 aw <o '°?a a8 64vorn .0g --.. o d rna9 0 ° an 5 K m. k. ..Mn ana0.^° s ..9 3y `<dv nad aa' .q.: 0. ° w0o0e b g..-.g . 90 :R 5ro0. , 2R 8-0 .=. ° .1 a' c 1. g'CE t. _ ,O :1,:r,.,. . m 1c. 6 a• a El 04c PT: aw •» ca ° oa v ?8a f8.0'. % 7. 5'v o 0 o d 0 ,„.% b x rn° m m 5=9 m a. m 7 5.a s 2 q mi iu a m 0. °i a_ a' a;S y.== °8- < m m ° " .oma a n ao a' '4,.:'.- o o a. c.°o w a a• 0 1 w o 17i w -. Srs o E.a-a - °CO a, -:x.° o a. a - c 'O . ' 8 ' e o g. 0. a w. a-m T .3 x m < a ^ c a ,, - a:aa. o ' .< o °,9°, " 'T ^9, a s p,2. I c Ea.cn o c o'T O s sz m a . w '''.,v, '� °ao 3.d '6•-•=;2 °c A o m m o ,.< 80 - a.� a o.° 4 '8 °=y a °'p o ? C,'D ?M 2 a ° 8. 8 5 8 'a.<1 a w a ^a O »'p ...�< 8 C a 9 a -N ° a'da �3 N ...g< , 2'‹ N v, 8h5. .° 0C O w aD a a 3 O - 5 18 g 'd^ a aarnm R3 a• in g.'4.-z. 9 'a'O- a 0. a a-a. a. 8 a 1° 0- aO a am wa Sm 8-82'z a a' C- ° a. °F .F. 2 ..-:pm ura o B'» TN s aO Oy C -< O7 J» TO - ow rn oo 2 v aa o y o� wo m oeg o " v ooh Da'm § rn ao om sJ,a' ' c e ° cN 0.-o 3 mg ❑ c-• ' a c°o a w _ d5a a• a < T °. ° roo ag., oan `n nDwv5 - Tnnan40 •=.4< n.nn =-9.„ nnPn.. 2d ° aO O�a � _'?° 0pOo.vp,e a 0, ae,, mA0s. .E . 11 o '''< m •• 2: 4 a. '- 46 c444mc8- z ° 0. ,, ".oc y° og o ,6' c•' N,8wa " 3 ° 3 a L74 55 • Z;o Wi�y ° O7�O ° o OO2 0d O5' 5..'..=.'n o O° Z O `4a5 ' vm' g. Iv a'o zn0 °' O za .o 4OrQ . H H ° S4M-i'' a t ''�i'°rn °� HAHxpa cad> �v.D• o,Oo ac ,Y1 nn o ' a `G d o a c ti Q. o w a a o o O 'o S ,., a +. �'y:°.°. , 5 7 H w. -3 <w H a .:a '",a s P,', .H off, c m p z a a.,� o 1 0.: 'n% o a a H c a 1 '' o w.�-':7.. '0 0. a a• a s .-].< w w r-... �' '� °a w c a c o d.o a' K„», m Q O c 0 0 �< c, ' rn c w .0 o . o . - . 'C 's D a•a o-c' 2. 1 a s c ..D •'< A 0.(4 (4 w° a.w c°, w g o°e v m g w.. !, L.-a? °c T a, p•o r E a 5 ,. 2 5 <� o n ,n n g 7 2 5• ir,-a n o°o a o on 0. ' -7' 2o-^1 8' - y o.o '"a . °mom.. .. 2'8 2 �cc77R. : ,>o x a ° 0. a, Et ' gm � m, a :w ( s.o d . vo ? Hca 12 a 0,E° wo0 g '-S" J w < m te_ O aGa < 056. c P 0 a°8°2 g•`2, 2" 1 :2- . a• ' _^ S 2ma ., a' f .9 oRc » .` Fam `. m° o <. cc 1 "06-Ug '-,,° •t 1 w-1 a-:I 5an0. 0. Sow O cx - 3123.0' N ,95. o E: c. wa• o o gr ." x o ,° g Q g a < 7 a °a ° v w 7 g pw g ra a < Fp a .0. Luigi. 0 , C°a 7 a aoa"ag. 8g1 ° '° -o, o o'n. rnc � R-.!7.-' ° a o_ " � ^e oTo S a$on : mas.„ aa E. R5pao < gm. .. • O ° wa mac °C ° 0.o Pa s °mf rnam o^ w00100 • ' C' Ic0. " T ^ ^-. Sr . Nm ° 00 a c O ° a a O a�sl� O " a ^O6Y'o a a 2. 80 yr N . o www o 0. S a 2' ., '`g ,c • ii aa ° ° S =12 ° R .2 ° w o a ^ 83 <0 e ow ° Eam ax 20.5❑ gamwa n a Ti c a R. m`me _ Po-g o o .. 'R 'G a y o- m T ,T 3 g w aN <^ 4 Zt 0. 7 N a' C N T r,°° Pe,-,7a 'd c, 8 ° o ° Tw aw m 5'071 ?'aw °o°o w a w `` g- o °o 0.w - - o a 0. a ° og. a ' - w „o '$ oo "' . 5'm '< ,e,' a 'I.a.T •. °aa - ,aa - w a a 5 '02 o orn° oS ,-y 5xa daX.°° ^ 5 w 6°•w�v&. Cs Y &r,F Ca)' T 8 as c < ao < , 9'0.11 ; 6' o K ° r - oa t" a y ° .1_ ° i5mRon n4 ° n -CCn ° n4- KEKwaan og .. " 'C,Q aCg49, S2I ° ,room Oro O � om5. Osg7oo° ' oonm �5tp29yo . ,„4„,. xF Y� 3`a0a ma . < ° $ nr:-5.4',24vfl ^ e4 65nya -maO - ° 8 " JCR / D a C/ -y < 78E nw = °a.9o `� C z° pz� ay ' z259,cZp Z ,ZpaZ 05F8On8'. 0T9o ^ tyco H"OcHcron „ stm mr-3 �n 7o n ^ 'A '; w'&; % ;;tro .. °: m @ rn° � cn° cvD cnDs ��w c��rc`< g,00^ Drn°e o.y Q, 7�0 Dp�.� ��D 0 w r°i c 27 a' 2 z2 0 `< 2 z r Z 2,',g c.�&I 9:,'' a-o .~z. a ao `02'ro '~z' n G'< g 9So Z n Z E o d. a 2 G. a TS D J rt K0-E5'' °^ .Tan d-G a a F aa°n - __ a m • v Irl_5•Z g.5 're o a L9, 1 p, Q5, ^aa'7^v-7 g ft - F .'' ' m . o g J5 B O._g 5 a 8 w , ro 'e5 -S.°- q c o ..c 0 g' C . 49-N;.< ..m w r°' cat a•Fm o am rw'' w '.9- 8,' a E o �a 8 °e o :7°c_ I g a°C agio of/ w io _ a rn. f :< m ,.. 8-3,8 r c o 3'Coc ° '< oas ° 0 .- � O ,.---.8-' ‘;'c2 ‘4,,O 8'6'2. p C m c m C ° v G ErO> °Fd 8 I O.<O > >C N 7. rt w 6,^' a0 ' h g• v N G❑ m O ``0'' a s w C rNo w.R a 'T'C a O ,9-22 y !4§'p• 5" _ 5 a• mm y .r o u' x .. a a. I ao ' c ,a 1 '2-' 2 � y a•a o O y w m C 'q.� ° 'a ,T, ';' ° °m o ro 0 9- C Ci -36'7: 2' ^ 5 c'W an _ c c F rn C z o C 5 y ' o p' .+, ro ro oa c =an ro fc 5= . a. 8. 8 a 0 - RO 5. r� 0 0 0 a ,",P5 a c 2_P-2= ro g u . 22-=, a^. o o P.R c.,--a�.g< _ a a C 2 n aG ror� w C J F mg- .8 $ - a a g m 0 u m c rs ,-,...g a g ,, a5-9;° 'r -.."8W- a rn a 5 ❑ o' 5.,° f N -. N N�< 7 R N G S. c : =y 5 ;;-' 13,R N X N °`< '� �y '"c amw m F4. a 0.- =-2 �'M8 c•° £'y o w. .w°. '_'m c m q ap a fB a' $'� .< N 2' 9L-O" a , a ,R2 ^ 00 "" q aC S 5 rd, o m = N a .-. a ., '0 a o r'v v o c 3.z oa w.. c 2 . ro 0 5 ',?,(1W �'m o'w .`.68E rn y F " �, -n o io�. w �ao rn '< a' � ro q .< g ° 58d a : - p �o", .°�, a 8 .. g a. loom' „ ^ 8 " o ,%, 1 ,8 wax . _ r 5 ,8 :P. }0 0 -, :,,, � c F 5-5 ..,o°o I d v a- a ° `' 2 .C., O^8" w Ct m y � a N = -, O w n nr' 5a - 0n - ° r2 a 9 w ,°.. w ;< ^ a'N 0 c. r4?9 ,j'8 5 C R°a N 7. 5' r/] o `tom 8 ;EP Tg. o E1 .. ',:,. .E29, = 4 g� 0 'cOFwt p,<w ,1 rn ry 0' o v' j O F0 o n8 '- n -4-- a a ir '$ Xag °e 0 a, 5' av .o r g v c E 8 5 o a ° c. a e "o y nC, ^ S rt - r� - v, d ,fin-. 9 ,'2.0 ' m_ `" 5 4-1' + w 5.13 65 °�5 a a w F ^' a; ^� w r°' °Ft. r° 2 x ? a w c ro w n n 0 S w rc rn J 0 F w rn o 3 a m M ''' S--6-a n F0-• a 9 °^ o g T a° g,' a c 7 ,w, o 'S.-e m 8 a n ^o5`' a '< c o ❑ a s B 8 O rn 0 n° n v n w ° n a-< • R o a s� ° n n n R rn rn n ° < a€ 8 g n 4 in m x 4x 4w•°p nem°ei n RO m RR�ao o.D F 3 m `�c o O's 4 F '6•8 w S.rW, D a P �y o xy�^ 0M05 ;:,,xy�0 . R71.�y�a b D 5 ... ?j y v, �° � av' T v a.a rn crn rn rn rorxn r� = rnot`� m•, y .y 5 a x a 2 m P w 9 rn^ wC o M a.S +^w a w c s° s rho ro vrni w � " >a 'Dd °•' P-a ° D c :D"Dd ro>N a ro rft °' 7 z o r'.9- - R ^ a 9' w aE w n o e 2. R -°i � zzzZLL - 'o o ZG y � w a"O :� r�Z„ 5-ro n z< 0 ZrC Z0'Z f 0c O^ 5,o p,Z'Co �-n5_ o (A ° OS'.`Yroc.:5wOyO , To -rtO'.1.°yOrnty" ffOcg "-=42 .0- ."42,1 .°F_ ' rR �,40< ° 4° w �� rT ro aa^ n4 ?r O _D.. ^ 'SC O w “D_,j.0•D��y �y R y O ' >ft rn O = �yO'a �• � w`< o'w= ^9'N ri x'^g`P C Z o O ° . r= F 5 Z w.rr°' Z W G G vi w Z y o rrt O '' ° Z �^rn Od aFas r0;< ;20 08 c .r, ❑.< 0 O^ g.°i t - '< a ro a`< 0a o 5 O- m 2N oP -9 5 oroa 'ms oa- F � n.�'rn o = a. gt.,. Www °ec<msoa as °c5 `0 --`� -Oo:° ru r� F ro 7.R,n: a< z a. ` `,5,e c 0 ..,rn't o= '' y 0 5.gx8-5.0 °,Cg a.s _ a <-n a ,-,,afr< ,<,R n .- m x c 5• , a °a _ 8 �aa.'9 g °c'< a-._ ° o aao cq 5 w .-. m KG's 0 a a ss-6-2. 2. 6r0-h-2'a'a-f - c 5 E, ar,0 5 <. may crn gw'a- �c. m rn R c.., m K'f o w a ro' m 5 _, m w 5• a w < n ° io 'ti F ao O 0 o ro "3' o m ?: s a- y 8 ° ^ie g, a a a ro 8 w o °m o-S.-o�.n'y'�' .c a om' 9 , o-s Ty c3 F a'a.5x:m w. c '-o x" a' F. 'off ,-8 �°m =b ' 8 '' P - 5.. -0 a,,.wF nro . 6EF4emc d 8 '2, m 3 C7 $oanv .gem F. E ro �F g ,9-6.0 — 7-a�o o a n y a °;-8 c 9k ao 'aaa�°a, B 'Fn V Co a N < Lo w < a a.ro 5• .°.. 0°ro ^m, a 3 5, o n w KS 0'< o m R.-0P, . ,< a 5. - E =t-,t4 a 0'=0 ry m'rn c'^' c a.. s,-,' a c 0 a S , 8 f 9- 5.-8°e 8 r ro rn 8°° ;, 2 I a o•° R 'O y a. 'n' 8 0.a rat ai " 2.5'42, a. rn F C Cr E °^S o ft c ft 8 �_=m'8 ft._ `a '- c 'R w ,T8 °w ; „R2.-0, rfo 8 g m -no a. ' H2a• - FaFw y e o ^ wo ac, ao a.K 'a-' r0 v- F a; rn ,w7, 75,�e 8 e �� 6 c� 2'^ o.o o a o _5'a 3'S. G. 2.'. . S p _ ft =' a N a' 5 r<5 9-9 O O ri .5. N ^ m,7�, Zoll ° S ° O a r`Q n ro nag N rn & m 5 x ° , a ro 8. 1= w C 35t o �t y�J G• .<�< a 5' a 1'a m w F F s.m am rr fD'< od. r° o w ro (9. rw., e ft 8 F 2 a w r g ° m °n a c'^ 00 0 8 m• c a ° '^' ° ' a. �J < N C a•OO•Oo' , �• i v.Y , N 5 ro a.w < O' '50 C ='< T 5- a v ghe'- O. S< < a.a rDt '&17 5'rFo < n^ - C y c . 8 0-0 .: p y = °d v a R y I .9-0'1 a m ro rr, FT' m a. 9 9' k.5.; a. 8 T k'C m y rt .a pP< a- rt =, R.< C w o `2 a ° ( N ',<g o 6.m'= m N y " R w w `r0<- C ra a.a a° a. Va >• a a h - ..a m c .rD^as a. rn w .8 o Dd aa m a'. o J _ a•w '< a ',58'W w K o 'o “e Ogg y o d o e _ °o^ £'. 8,' ,',1•8 0 w o . • c o n m".. a o mo..E e°,15. s - 'd a ' '' ° c g c o o y o g, " 5.. og ag`g a `° d T a ° .r d a Ev' o E a' ° w o _ o cso °: o O o a ° a g, ''._aaao 5• .y w H.-1 8.07,;0�°'o a O b o w a w c(So a o O 4 n -�'o n d m'o n 4 n X o F 8 m °.nn^ 4 5 d S, o .'q J C I5.O 77 w o r Q a a I �•�-n 0'<o ' o (`< �74bl• aWo o�a aQ 9, a.3 cn w e ? X ,._:51 ri o 8To 5' .I a ca� o may'' c N qo.. a x-, �a'�..' Z E. ° 2-- "8' t27:,'g ''5-;>/ .o c w_ .�o o N C� G o �o n ,8 2, v�o r-; `v°.s�W ro� a m , y n m F3a ' 90 s N,m 5 a g. a'D0 o'er 2 a m o O 5�,,o, 7�,0 -W^ O £ o'a.2' `'o :z 'z m�'.'^o'5,z'v ,_.§,s4 . 2._ eza.6 . 0 - 0,00 -- -ra z' oz .� aow.. o v,Ov,O tl02 °cm ?;�°&O ^ a, 5.rz d-. w -rn- °y < E 2 -F a ^ a:rn y m ''��H'�111 5.8 o• E °a.H E c, , 11 ,2 a`< c� .w.P . w ;c4 4 ° ^ N'(4 i ', ✓) a, ,50->=-i S.w. o p O , y m F g. -< O a n E O a,, p^any o'R a i f,N c W c<i n 7:-- '' . . _2W 2 O G'.'~-•'n O a'5 7 , O ^a •y.+, rj' O •x - E o R ` a Es (D a . 2 'ioa cc a3 ng ao -_0(°^�o e £nocg °am ^o „oa ea. p.Q.r° '8P3'082 -9' y,a c n a, . n, . ,,..5., -] m y (C 8p,.. ..; ,m950-PE g.0 7 -'a'o, a.E-g'o f-E o 5..;"-q-, a4`a'a ° aSo < 2 TED ��'o Dov wave ag,t < 5'- wEg, o =. .o w ° o a'' ,8 o o w a w o m _.(^moo c ° amp a o °a c 41.,2c.-. R N 2 r`.' 0,p, 8 ,17,5_ g.5_:-°. . N o +'`,, C m.`'Y'.c m'O n S..o . 20- ^ G.d y g o : o G' . "o r- w v a• "4 �, w o a 's m ° ° o F, R w < o r7, >•K•a.c o c. I w S °' a a c D a Fry o ] a o `m o a •'"y o .:,•a C w wrn P.� a o o- ° N N - w. ' S... a- 3°82--... d a,0 a 'o .g' e o n G , o ..7, G a g a o 0 0 '41.' " E 8- ' o o' e m - y=. o' x' -'S. -o ,¢, o a = m _.o ,w<' £8, B o co v 3 d o g c d y ' Qa OJ a' w o S-. -Sa °'X.w.'C- w �' w.N° w 'G 0. M O T 5.2'2.y - a d EO m RE ' ' S m C .a.. .5. `a< ? a o ° ' g @ -'ca, ! ;; a s o ca', cr o Fa o co ^.o'o . 0 o g-o °m 3 '",c rn c R. a` o< . n..0 o a o•rn 0 F m B c m 5 5 °-; (g °. ? fD o m- a g. Ern m a ^ a o c'p v,cs o ':'—'171, c d a' w°,� o l- m m c�_ 'o c`' c'a < E d 7 a• o-m 5,a o an yy_ O o 7 w N - < N(U O v, .- N .,"_' 0--i 'C. ', a lC•O 6 a,a N o 6, G° 2 a ry a ip'"N c. ;P:8 ''''''2 n,a 6.6 ' 0 '< U 7,.P =^ 'ate a E R. o ao' , (1, a 0 a O P 0.a O w p Q G°7' y vN. 0 .6 '" 'O . O .c 5.O C S^, o C •^ . a - T°'z ? o a ,c d ma a rn `<°o , 4 ' m'' '^n oac o o o o ' `4 a oy- •<oc, o , 2 , cm . aR o .5 af w. W m ma av a °ao gs ' oo•a E.a a• a• 'o . owC r- 0Tn 00aomm a E. w n ° 0 n,o 06 . ama oaa a o 2-02o27rn mm^ o cXoy ' R; a ° 7,T w o0w ^o ( aa' mama 6-0-aa. E- ' aaao _ �.- ¢ ° X' rn oti - . 8 r ° c x.° m a aowO, ( af sr . o r^ w0- - am' 5- w .° o wa c? 0Tonm 7,'= -ec.8a 0 cg.0• a.oE . Eng o� ' ,DR a :,, a. w � ° rnsa 8m Roo a5 ba 68 '6. < ^ oOo2 c o8W ' m a:an o50O eT ^ •'' gC= a'. aaa .n5, q ,6 y Dg RI, g... o ? :; o 2:H `-° a• ozao dma " ^ gaf a a< ;o 5 a T ., AmLd 7.ao, wT a an yo o. . r - Ro o. O J oo-tEN Ga0 2, t 2'5.. c.rn°E an . k anaa .a C O a 0.oora° ••^� bOvx ylN' x7 O O `O C mCoom°n l'R F. a d .a J ° oo tiarn am� nonp,mndn2J- Tnnnwn nnnn n��na� nnnno? onin9 6.5.w ,5y ^x < z 7,zO000 o6 oo .14 a p§• aD. oy SoB44 ` 3- ao ___a ow a m^ 70m ,Imzm 'x m s x . m.4_9_,___. o m E -" °EVAzD - yv,zn0�, vvcn'. v,yv,a n�,".• dvr)v6,y -'< ❑ azaxz.. z a . 5zp. O? OOzzz-60azpzp9° xm Owocaov,o — v, o ,, w *,,y ovz3z1z44- vvaO4E v,zyz z ;4gO9,R TAPyasy 'v0S '< mmo -ma ¢' loo pGo9 rnD cD-- 2,0c/4 > . 7n9n4 rn . ~ 4, 2mmF mm2.2a? nm2n2nnSN . yNa2R - .. . ao0n , ' ,, n ow = . o . .,0° 5c;9. 88P m . g '' ?: ag, -y'. W ' 5 ; Aoa $:9A ° poa O oO' ,c5.a' aaH4H6 zoO (o Eao ' v1 a' °-'q .az z� d ° yao cy.ho'O °o' a❑ �cweo o 3c ^ r .. o aB ° c • ^ v .l ' @ a- 50 0 3 dj' 2` '' 007as a cmo'., Fn' 7.° a° oE wn 'P ' ,C -0 c - y -,0<- - o ooow 5-- 3< y e N I' 5' o ' ( c ° Po o o . wO ow w ( 'o oN' ca' K C a' ` CJc0-sa .5a tiOo 8` ° agSco cac cN � v a v e _ ceoao `< c .° co e 2 hOo gF c 54a m w. o5' wn 2..4.. 8,r yai4 .nN Q F. -6-2 24F o G ' OqT a.a `58.a. rn@ V y cC , ti - N o a T a' yT o eC om ooc o ma mti ^oc • r'0v n5E ' a' wQ x? mo 3m a Coao a- r7=' � �' p o ° aa 80 o..° m F ' ° (7 ' E wO m `< a9 ° co ° m ° FR --tat, o m na ooo oo 5 a am a am ' + < oT °o ga ' 6 E < c5a. ao ov aEL aR� y ( ° o Ec T a ,7, a ac o•TE aa a @: m ° oac m VT a o. y ^ rA m° ° ca o •'.' 1. qv rnm co - o m 9 a a o °'a w , ° woa eas ' Soa ° 3 � x m a xa Or> ° .� O 7t' c 0. 5 o o X Zi 5 .5 w a 2,m m '83.'83.a' °, o 1 ° oma1 gg < m '' w 0.m ` Ca . 5m ',-.. ,3 Cno pa. C nnn ° m n42..n4 n�'mo �3o•a Pc 2 m g g non n4 m n 3 n 30.0 5 8 o c ° K o v 2- C = a ° ° 5, m 'o co E n • 0n�' �.�. ,'.'Co7� �a +ti.,^m m �+,rro�"'7�t�D,'F ��' 'Fa'n io ^ o �o m �° m o Hi : 00. .. c[natn •'7y m g x r II,sdtn 0z c m m my. .-m �ti'o-aorn',7 '�T' �DT.^.DT -Dx r� .,, r`D � � ✓` m ? -+,° .. y9 .,,zv' zV'° 'zi! ''%, = ''''V, ''' cnS rn ''' v'zy' g) zIF5•a n a'c$c, a o a v, m cn � v:- < v'.-�. ° � ]'v� v' m o `° ° a°° °'+,e m ° ,o c H H�o H0. d H :aa a c m ;H;vac ''•.�-7]�Haa S E sy o a aS m y mb x 2 p m 04: �.- m g10.R 3.b Dc 9.>c YEY io n a 2• w k5,`•a :E,' ° fid g32-g. 'a- '...W: 2 a�- .a ,8 -^. ?m z^ Z o 2 s g.,ag, p,rg, rn a� E E m - rn rn rn d m .m, a'o- o L°m d a y a O'' m O E °°• c E i�b ° O°, g o O. OX 2 .Z R c2 c a a m .20. w,. ?...m S^�^ a r �'.a8 m o f*' m £ -,u, �m,< rn ',me .---, ,,,3a.,, E . o m a ° s., m m m .,_ a c°: o" c ° FT• 'd% w S d °c W y E',E7,'E ... c< m. a " c°, .'" y Re c^ s Ps.' " 1 , o 5 R'638 o E E 5.5• . m p S,E,y ? d 24 a m ma c,A m gy m ° 0.'a. o y g g,a 5 ;;°-' =1,5-E i ro ^ =.SEP 5,6 �..,c r F� = _ a`°ada• a 2 'g.-8 a co rn ° m c w o .. g 0 . s° . O a o F 3 c. 0.o v o o g° A-'O'°''S5, rn y`2.. Z .°o L v'o o a' .a'. m z E g. ^ 5, g o a g.., n.a o ^ pTp ° m ° 0. .0 , -g, m 5 v ,. 0 rn =C C .m `< °,-c0.-p, . .m R Q`G m x -. ,RR-a . a o w '$o a - a i''S ^ �, n c�o rn n 5'° m ^. o IIIi :u i `�3mm_y • " - ? ot. °r yaP mo0on, 8' = ^ c W aw' y 78 �,as w2m °0 m ,., " a' O 5''a ° Na'' -' 8-=.8- W - °A s 2- . a 0.2 o c `° ^ w T ° cc a,5',1 5, o - ' S o ° via ''-'-'6 ,12 m °` 5,; ?- ' 5 F5., m,. o y §. E F .•• 4 0• ° • V o a of C ° °c n °:_ ,a- a'm o o . ' <o ='-'52 ° .o B.a m " m =a c n qa°•n ?' '5 a. ? rn°.Q r".n '", n. m ' m^ E n 00 a 55. o, om'° yg ?. .q.°8 G•.a.:y y a 0.a'w O ` O 5' ° = 51 N ,5' ' a 5 - 2. 0 m•� .a°o 0- am c^srn h,,�� o q o F0- 0 ^ � .,0 co g B ° < n po a . E a - a 5 m g' § ›. .a8.2 E w w a'°' °•y ^ ai'o °' cr 0.a m a, N a T a 0.a ti �° is,,,,y a N `aG �_ < m m 6"4 8 R ° m ad ° m° 0n. < o � 3 � n 7� y .8 F7 6 °o 0. m8 XsX .� n^ 'a•7��m �to xtrz."n°Re.rote'°•nrz. xrrno c7ny°28 m vFn ^ I a°: - �' S X a a Wean 'n _ nnn.n5. annffmaann nngnia . .y'z7C n `•E ° sF ; oP�?0gg?vh:140oya. ?° ,_44, K44ro4 � . , q ^ c0. aWpAERW2EtE, 0ro E2 vvm vonacrn ' t. ncncn v' � fD z O =0 � Oz0??O 'o 58 ��`z Oo�O OyO Oo 'O ' R;5w,O`yv47,7 : m- 84dm z ,T. 4zwEaoy z4W 4zza•ga y oo ' 4 o $ v m °° prox , , mgoy 0mroaPn y a cvrC v0. aaU . noaN °. da 0.^ "7 , mC' O^ L o ECo m ,,aGn nPC, no° b7o.' Lg0.pWmn , ^ ,. ° ° Oco c 2zr,zrarorrIaOhtrS 0 mU X °-- .7i '0 � aooo am ° :o.,O O m - m -` c - a, o.aH ff H 7'2,.17' :-.1 .,,:-.' . %< E, m°�yE�� g..'8 aG`XCG flfm 4 ^Y°Xa o °vpp,• E�'6t" ° vo or '� r� m ^ S p„,- , y' c mffoMo.. -N ° 6,1^ "Orya §' N Cm . 0 . -„.., .;.„1..n . oao, i 0 0s' `.emsc.4. o- . c omg mag' Z a 0v0 •a,9O�� mma x, v° ^ _s mo c. • y a ? o . ° mo0 _ _ R ° y P 5cS m0 ` 8a' a , SG° Wn o R7 a• _ ^ ? Eo 0 5c7 ` ran�C° o �BSmncmoo v *w og.w ^ a'am ^ n . `.`G'a, ° ."G RG,Q3 N • "'Sm 0-o°, °°°�' , 0. ° o VG a c y '$ ,-,- a.c cfe. n m R L. 0 - •a G 880 C0o = o - . R . an Po --5."° 85, 0 a o „ • D-' . _. aayc o ° o ° n o0d on ! r 3 d.o no- s .. ,S om° � _`n mm ' T 02Scx o,-- ^5, as ^. � o -E. 0 o°. , . � ,aa? m '5'o1 '. T? - p':1 ,-,,, s cH = o E4 ,7 o 6 < . ° mm Tmo a , T ' nm 0 So ; § °a fa. rn ' < mmmm. n '' - C8- am0. y ma n � aC < r a'mW ❑,O6s2 S S .a g. m i w a ° Y ° o 8 pa5• rn 0 . xk.° m III E m'v Il 111 5eAd m =R -m 5 rn oo ` y < m mKa m ^ m N p=.8 „ S rn ° '0.1 .o N a y ' Qp N 0NN ro aX O3�. ti °C . o . 9. J qkt Eli s s s a s 0000 '0° 412 I nng nnnng E n4� F = n5nngnnnqx . ear tgPni O OOvX O T¢ >,>`:- r >D4 TP'=< >X5' y�o Y_3 Gb°' 4 4s<9 a 0 ,`c oP — c 7a �3zK;z m m ° ° _ ° a a• V1 VJV ,,,*7,0 n ssv,3..�cFav;3v3o a3 ts. m 0c c7n- R03ma�+"'° `< ga v, .v,n v' I ,,%< v,y,, ry v,y v y o n Yn...15• v 3 4 4,_ a,m ° _ •n°c ro O 00�'Ta.O S° OZ'S 0. 0202= z6 21 _.� 202.0 020 2' 8 av,m 'NT 'K•20-�" 7ov,22r 2° r° 0E2c,7 2,Zvc r co * a.d a;v,2v,a 2v,2 w o" m'a �* O ymm r c = m-3 a'cm..-3m-7^ coH" ,i? a_a ``:v < o _ ° m m"'1 m H y H v,Yv,m° = m s ""gym Rm9m �, ,5 ,t“.' n Rn Yv, 'WX -.0, 8 = 43_.co F 0 m0 n2n W m W e & W 2 ?c z='2 o 2,__- w ,�2, 1,CZ, "> ,`2, n ,~2, a.. -35,2P."^ 2 . Z ',2,'m3 3m0 ' x m... m m f = po o o 13 ° a .S� 4, ' F E s ..0 ` - „ te,, rn r- -a to y , .n ra.o<< F, ..7 c y � C1 ° O= ^�--y K' O O m ° o a . rsa H m �= g " �, a''�e o', ,,:-. .E o H i 3 v a 0 d -,2'' z r H aXi ° 7 R m m F o a'rn a -3 y -i uc .. v - .,s._<< �<.<.< 5 = y '< '-7 �e E .° a 3 x p IHIbIPI 5.a , om ii li, a0 N a °�m�.o o 3 ° ry a° ca as ° ,..�• ,� rn a s 50 -0a ,' m o v v° a El O O m C y N ° _ ry= 5 . _ 8 -. ., a..-,=; ° 0 =0.;, ° 2'° 02' 33. ,Oa N a g . ,- ,-*, a°o^ a , ° 8 a-- . o-E ,a 0 2 o ° 00 io a d•4 p a 3 '< am yv 0,-- a5 a „m E ,I w _. - z,.. �. rn ,G.- a , P..y 23° . N 20.. r7 ao ,2, 6' 0 2 m a a• <d03 a m m ° ° - 2n8 c ' R ^ g41.- oa co �. aa a? - i y a 0,1 .mc. on -• 5.0a G 0•• ? c< " H � Q$ ar 7io y` a << � 5 j Bio = o- 0 a• m. v 3 I g 3 •< !01.-' ; giddy £ r 6 0 a C - °e o_' o � r'�'=_ri ao 0 c :.--tg ==. 0 c -c ? R r a 5,5r ° a ..” a•o a a m 3x c g 5-,'40- 661 o a y a ° Po `°e c P ,'7' 3 m ° 2r o - ° a b - 965 = n•.. 5a CM) F. 5 a vN J 0 0 3. 0 ,, o Ko e R0 ° o o ° Y opm d=.y E cf 3 o w < ° ° a = �. rr a .o < y ° io v F: a w ° 3' 0 ° E a 33?,0 0 p, .o m 0 o a° a+ v .'7. 3n7°O° n03N5.6 v,° mn3 ,n35 ^ 2-3 nv,wa, do Wan n nn,°<,g q ^.a nng., 'P'O C�'°O c •."'`O o 2 O;n`D O x 2 4 E ,,' 0, m°.a :8 �y O O O g 0.8-o� r g 13 o g•r 3 ao7r 3 3 °03 ° a � � _5 � x � • e � �°+rn arnm o m m y _ g ,m. �.,,o 0 0 3,,� R z... 3,Z 3 d A L:r2 t" " , 'A ..S.a rn g�•� trl 5,� 'v . . , ,, ao v in m� a v,a c° v,v,v,v,rn o ,= o 0 a -nR v a cn v,fri f0 � I v,c � cn� v,�� v, N.� v, o '< a �ny v,v, a � a �o o n 3 •m O 8O 'Os ° o0 O O Oco05Oa2 Ot�OOay-,°r5-a^o :,g—(:) N8b 2200 Ha'rnw , 2n 20'-2 -. - za= D p^ v' 2 as ° ," m o m o 0 0-c < Q„m o m o Zn, m 99," m • m 0 "3 m w ° y ° 'o ,an o - Cn 0 C)) K y a 0 o ng n n a() •, io 7'570,-,:< a.< � P°W P b 5 ,1 5 0 �a� S::T ° g v ^' _ n a;3 ^ = S a2 2 m m° f y 8-2 n y x p$ o E g g' , 3 ° n^o ° a o' - . 5-2 R a .9a w^ N 5 R, E N 04m6 < . dvcr< 53Narb3rd p g.p kg0-g.0.0 p ap �,. o ,Do o T°� Oo 007w ° o. c o.,H, aE Hwy an a ,i, rn w 3 .. '5 7," T, . 0 . T 5 a s a,D°°. ,.m 7C`!� 0 °`<w.y°w f0 rn ^ ❑.y 0•r 0 ro o 9-.< ��s E m = o ,o 7m 3 aw o 0 = = i43.3 '°° . m 3 <°°.- 0 ,92 -.0 ,126 a'• T a^ g _ ,� q�' 3 b a o '0 av,a w m �E, ,1 3 3 7 3 �S, O N y 6 _ _c c. c' o < 0 5'm p w E 3. _ 5 w a• y m v a = c 'a T o a a . 5'5 . 2a a M `G a a G ° ,9 w `< ag S S i N H N � ' a ? N° ,, O '5`. 'G y < a c'a °a` g a g E _� e a `O o M E.^ o c o S4.° .m ECC 2-n �'2Z0 aw� CC ° o m o, q F. 0 4° m 5 -- ° o O'`'5 5 1 ',', 05, ,9,° a m, ° r 0m' 0 a ,7, -05 'v.,y - *a. c < 3° ° ro v +Oroy `aa-Mn`< mm a 3oGN ^ am ay 0 d f p 3 ° m . .0 CCO 0 ' - d a Sil ▪ c.8 3 o 3 _ �T X .9.-2 ;-8 25' aa ,=.5'.9%8 '.6. - 4 ▪ m`<. .0 m £ Z = a_ °= a i'x E rn 5g -M4 •o v 0 0BDB r l i `< 5•d -8 ,1, 51 2;1 5' o c z ' J 7^ a 5 5 m o a 2. a z o.t<o d P. ° m < m a o a:5 E a0 o0 a- 00000. '°< wd ? gy 8as io Rar7. a c w a. o ° ° ° f ° 5. o y 3 m y 5 w O 0 Sr v 5 y 0• ! g0° ° d o EB 3:rn.'� = 0W <0 v $ a $' rn 0 -. 3 ° = Z 3• 3 a a o a ° = 2 g.n 0 3:o a o - 2- 5 °c d '' w a. B e N n. ° ° o ,< J it c 52 3�mZx�3aa mZZ�mZr 3 G ' Y FD 4'5 Om 0 as ° a a c " Nw Q 4nnngc n3�3� n 3n dgonn4noe ^W0 5 ^ an4n4kn3n0' n 4zoxaz� xxs7.- za zo Fa zy 0 �� HD > �o'a �a�a ° ��-�� g � � � ��m � Eym ;3aao � � � w' y- - �nD79� ctiativ =$ cl,".�y °a ° xP, yK pF O�ZD TaZYa▪ a "H Zz Z=Zzz, Z.'Dsv v ZZa Yo��Z. Z; •,1c . g...'; t,0... ',. .w Y�"°'•'YcA=q v'z 0 pH HH a H H-H n-- H ^g, H 4 Ha ', d a,Flo H H � 4'o H Z DDxl = y v ”� rn.o ° a ayoo' v_ > iwn ▪ -z i', n- ZaL`"ziPZ5Zaz'vn2 ° g , ' asa 2g pe ocz ° E. - =ry � a . 0m0' ° oo � ; ? N- Z' ?739 OYo?fi 7wa °.$ �" O =. x ab war -- a , = a� _o c _ P. cP`<`m<o . - z n00 _ yxa v n - a '' ^ D .a ao m li o 0 l'' dR. Soo- w 5 E, w h° 7 < aJ rn ` . A oam° 2 = F,' c1N cg . �O ' f° `< > ? a .7 °SC2.R. c ^ 4- • .-3 a g' aF . m .n <8i pO mR-aFo01 O w n ' -`4aH 5 a c." -.-'8.5 " on o : 7ab ° oo°, a e a ° g• a R :vac= a oa. 5. g'n' -; 8 a C • P 0g Mto ° „ a0o r'cmuo-a ^o'° o = a aa s m -n orn°2Sr ' n - <on, o- 08oc T oo , _ vT w < 9rn 6 -e. y' 'v w c -ma ' o ! o = o. a s m o o s w ? a. XmZ. a aa %a •o 5 -g =..ea c 5= F a 37 P ao pKa m as -- wa c ° a wargy Ea- dcrnd rn ; a arn sa a das W 5 w 6 oa Oa gQ c.',',-.'Sr ff Z • 00 y a Z as 09 a � � _ .n 'o ad 0..2, oa oa m o aa 5 =c o '...16-E; 7 ry o 8 ~ O R O 2 .s. G ^ -g6 o it <°. w m a'a w., 1 �o a•" k:1 .a .J� ER: T>:i° NI �' g in,m .�99'+t rn T. c-oa, i°7 7 G-�, J• i° y�' S'E l aE a `< o I `o' y U o m g o.z n o=-on 2 g o g a c a >9 a a a o o z m e 5'o, o , _. a o o a$ C1 Cx] 8- E acro" =40' - :.m o•a o. 3 .wa..a r F a 3§ a c 8 v o F oo a m o g z�i o -' D mmF2 a aa.5' 8om5 7F,..o0▪ 5....•a `aa�''y •..a,', , ^-..'•aow:.,..vcv''?a:z.w<aa.a;�,'.aT A.'c• .N��..'r'oarna o o 0 cl6 "' c , c'' s T ` a o rn.R ? x-.ao Fyrn"rn^a o•`e r`r• opH,•v as by .A y11aaaooo0 aa2, 6 "mcc < o a e0-a-5as : e2az z 9 'as avoaarn < - m c9ga' -82 a ° $a 'E , 0 y4 aFoaadcn7Wa- cnoc ; ca=ogc:5aioo 5, S ao.< ? gogaaaro 5.wW o•n -' 2 .. aa ° � w c:' .66 Lt. o myceao 'e, r'' ac• °''.:2 6, 5r 5°',."mRo gg sccacay S ^ Ii � o� � ova5'�� a ToayTn ° a ao -5rnc ^ ao• 2as Fas "ag 6rrnsa2o9i Era ° 7. m .1i° R . 5 •59as 5 5' 2< am rn aa. 20 <2arn < m518<avvov ` o0ty0g-w '6-5."61 aaFQ2 wama rg o c 4 ^5-3 ° o.,==. ia _ 2a ? Sc' ag E. ! 2ESi' o c `. V55a - ^ =2 a a-a - m i- 0a 6-m aj aS' w g �9 .o0a6. 5.N' •, c' m < a.° . vw .. `;',-,0 w< aa. g aa _ � L ° " ov ,,, s "< , - _5, � o omw a 5 as .. a 0 aD5 ? oa . o ^ a ooAa o• ,„ ,.. 8 . 0 .-,m0 N , c =aa^ n :va, 2o a moagm. ,, o . cawFaa rm, ya ^ mn ^ 'xo a ampOo5 ' =.6.5E1• 5.-.5.5g no y$ c- aa00 2oaa" vi <•oB , ?, y aR <03yo7x m ., '4a w og. rn s - o 5, a ° =a 9 m: a00 ' ,8 8.= '-< P „ - cawp ic, ,a �a ° mr a o00 = dE' ao do a .' - -- " .ea oo <7s0 . ! . a rs .p,.2 . - 2,. . 06.,9 ,0 aw- o, a -ms R'Hio w <uoy ym aaP ' e, ma' aw " rn9 a " o mWaa ' 0 = - P arn ' soo' aaax f,, Fs,. ! ° a- rate - R s ` s (0 '< '-65oc. `°�a 5 ' rn • 7aa R ,, 7 cc 0, o ,V o ., a -", orewwy m a -, s 27,-r, 73-E- r, amq �, yom a6 ',� 0 ,T,- m Daw _ Eng ' 5yal as a ?rNx5aa ,a ' 3 5wzoo0 , Rar ,..2„ 0 ,,.7 wo 0a _ , 50aa _. 30aaaaa - •o aa °oo ' 5' a'N es . ap adrna. ' aP ,9s ,< 7., g am- _ a,1as 5d yT< ao ,a 2oaoas ao8Fg mooo4' F aoFa aoz, ° a5 ; NaNowoaa8a < 0-2a a atia ' ra 5F ' a .,. Sw (dO5pv`. a ^ � wa' Na a &$ 5'0 eRao5ayb 2".152,,,q s-5a; wy TF5 °n aaa 3 V-rna° aoa- Iggoc xTa ,3c o-'<� P° Z a o ^o S 0 ca • •Fa5z a o,moo. y. 8a5a. dsn1m - , c T =1 5-'2 aopwrn 5.'0° via. oo m ' ,13016° rnmrn 280 a oaa ^ • d N j p, °'o Fvm myo5waa ^,wa' a < F m .m 2y, 8 ,w onvoRoan ° aa• 4N'< Nq^5? aFawO m N, A ,O ( ? y• •< rA ., �� w y o a o . a J 1 °: 88:8: o a• m n...w a'a:^ .71 8.8 n G m rn m q o GA mS9 iaa w a O n N ,OS �ort, rail 8. a Si a a: 9 a -'SGS N zr1 sJ F m L g '_O 4 - C w � 0 d ° b O a0 �o ;maD D'.i y y❑ m tg m.p, m ❑ y ❑ t' D� y t"as �t"a,a ry „ O'� h7 r, c 2 ;:z m z f.w OS z h7 a.0 }p- n a a .‹ - E 14-1.�.0 ,Ao w 2 o-t✓2 �n-1kp a < ,iv,sa H -i°nc cn;e . 3 n.x' a 24C-'7278g Dm o a m 3 -455g162.n g � @ CZ a 5' �.�z c 2'r Zo ga0-n£ w J3 0 w a 5 cao 5 0."� i K cao ='`< rt r S c: O a.. .. .. E'.. .,17,1 K. ;; a•� cr w�e.' '3 O a :y:-t y£ ;,C g':�..°:O `D�c a - < t°% am- 3 ,a -a= a m' ,< a o < ` Q, am a £ £ ao Y a aa, mF.,-2 ,. am e a ›-r:'' ...a < `-R .=, ;. ' - ap ° ,oa ?� 508: ° m 2n 'o a mg 0'4- 7 , 00 ro'=n,o,'•0a0o- £ r t.V;- .3a � y P;-' 5. o;a a' m . 5•m ss :� m a 0 = T Eo 552 g £ <15. �° $ t.7-.' a o om £ - " a s c 5 n p1, i6 °i r;� _ 8 0 a: a 5 a s o. a. 0-a a g sJa rrrn Gd aa '3.0X s w _.,D c-g J.•-_a �.... c e, a. _.5 0 0-a CD ^ N 9t 7; w ‘gto 3 T G aw..n f'C G C 2 ,v, o R r 6 a ,a1 M y 45 °.'. 0- 5 a a.= o r o . ^ m mai 0.= ^a s m a zo cne,< 5 a O' Tm h a0. . "a m _o- Tog < ' n pd 4. = ,1 =‘,/ .0. e. rn d . wy�� 5. rn`a v a a B a P, 74-F �, z r r°_�' o 5 a d a 5: a a $ ! om`< o.__8c w•'B '' S £ «a w� v £ �r owo .9 68- Fl & a g 2 0.m' -g ry 'n.a w C -C.(D m N a' 0. tp ti wi.a a �, C 0.>• < .�' a m Z = g r: _ D£ T�p e� w w p O T w a O' a 0.,•y £ as �°- 4g. c c'n . - -. 0 -` ^ c _ `-nc 0 ,.. < .acv =,m yG toJ m _a� ? y�. m ^'�< " .�`. ra C <' ._ a D N .-.a,. a 0.p.5 m a• ,a,,o :o M s., a <a ' o w z _ y ., F N`a 5 8 rn m '---5-244. ' g r 8 c s a.',a � ao, El ..-. j <`< a R O O p ..y �•w ^`G (^^-J�o 0._O� o 0 , „ , e ,p, g`wG -. '..4 R O •O.� §0 :9'g 0 a s "' o �o a g a ., w`< c E5 o o p• N a < a ,< a 7 N T N ,' r a ,wn V< 7.s' a s N. go a V G 0.w ala O P O F-S ._.0 S ,,• N `VC ,I , 8 n`G .a7. 0 g' B'v rn rn s rn. y a2 n' °£m' s £ -_, "6'0 E 5 m a.d <° x o o � � a 'Stag ar. 8c ma nn a , o a 5 `G ti p aaai (a^+° g 5-I' "^•o n, u'O o '88 '' 0-6 p S 11,7W S< 5 N o n. ° w0. rn0 Ba o `a° v_pN'oy 5C va, dm a7 ape , a0 ba' Ia Q ao d .y o a § n;v 5. m y e aa a o.m 5^ ,V.; °�° o= = o a g 7' vrn a rn OT3 Oa ` £ O 8.';'; Ha a Y' , a �.,y :,, (�v° n n7 v � �� sic �c c, $ a.o £ a o c �^ ,root a'°:a d p`< �`e o ��0 x0 o R i° a.o g. w a m R s a o i w a m c i 5• oo £ o o xy: a £ ry nry a a.g a R O ryry Cpp C m O pS w. 6 N 7 7 f0 pJ�' O S O �' �'a a O a `< RJf'' C o a l a. tlu.= a ?.(Fj.N 'g..,§ g m w a'� p �^ S-m � p,a . O z `m z cf o < s� o aoo wc .. rn " ' a 8a`co8 ,�_ rn rnzVVii z; 8' 0 o y w'° 8 .% W-a (� o c P r or g d a �n a a' 0 5'o`<b wa•, R..= 5'a moi° 0cad-0 `6' 'a aa'= oao I11I'b 52o:rn a `< �g;B p.2. 5'v aoo mc w K°: yS'^a+ 5,a ra ra ae£ o ''�+ c _ ^ a`< £w < ° '1m m "'= oa ''' 2'w a u.°o m e :.' 1=" 8 m ' 2 a w °c m 5 2 gL`<,? d a ° < a a. 5'o o 5 m N a = '=°"8 8 .5 t a i aa s 0 c o.cb 0 o w o 2 6.-E s y 5 5•v -`D " a 0 y.r o'.a � 2 ,9-..< 0= P TV:5<c 0 m 0 ail- 2 " i 5.awwo t9 '" m° <^...w. ao090 ,e-. R.. w woQ° °< a `< a. ,1 a, F`°f 8 ,aa £ .o i. 55.,- mo^ .:s n W n "a oa a n 5' o. 'J 5' q g 4 a .°c : g "'m a w a'00 a °`o a o a N a:a s 5 a o c °5 O 'a a• m w_-v F° o c.m 8 r m gi o a ma, Li.. 4 w �S F 8 o ,g2-2-BE.a a'8 w a rn 'o 8 5 S vg m `P °'0-rn -4. 71',3. a. oac ? -, 2.7 5. m vo . 0 °'8- .4E.a -° ,°c o Q, `° m o a'. '£° omo d^ p aa- _mo 4oa'`° a °--?o �`< a 55m `2mo `Do =8 F.LW a2 o 7 W5:5 gas 'r:5 0 0 rj z fii o _ '' P §G . 5 i E m c °c� a s ."-g a a o iS �°i c o- �e a ^,5 0. `� 2, .°'. ."4T sl-§3---q E - 5'00.0< 5.5 0 5-r P. 5 m 3 5 a `<s- �c H 51 o a w s- w i 0 Egg c a o n a`< I 9' v F 9 m a 5 0 £ ,D v rn-o wR. oa w R 7 c 2ia UiIt . . Hi :, ;.: , ox . .".-£ aQj. m C o w a II1 Ro .a.o -- o G �N y.7 5 ,a,� a,q8. G 5 O r�i. a Rg- 'o w . »,.. = W a • o ,. n�, a v°� r. o . 5' o .- w 'gag csa aoR' a ;r8a^ 7A-17g 7 :TMao no a. < m o-oo s ° asrnp o ,, ar° o- D., 5.a - 5c e5'd s.a .a<'c. a mr" $ S-=s 0Qi 3 .,T-gc . Eoht a5dac `'< cy 8 a-' o.. .07r sr m'`< -,b . 0 a50a § -o -a W, II a ay m 0 a rn a m 0 o w::ba m c.,aa i ' w 7w .a.N t0 w y w `O'r4m - T G. O m ac y w'v w .. a. x;o a d a m 5 0 -.7';' 0,- , g s Kg o a rn,<;y `?o n o w y'd w a a' 'ao. � , a°e 5-' ,. 8 'S 8' m 5- 5 a a ,2 £ 4� a•., a w O 8 a M =?R �•N �.3 -a VG g'a g n (' a Er 2 a d N 5' ew' �o m m- 5 = io�-� M o w 'o X a �� o . c < v c g m G a rn y' W c °5. ° 6"2 ,1' ? 0 3 h m po ',44y Tomwa.n<O?OS�Om ?Op,O �'AO ? . i9, -. 4;-' s 9, -a 4; ' ';.��a".--"1- Rp73AD0 54,4- ro0 v-�8 y°_: o-n›- ,-✓: A.in�v m,-. v� 's v..., B ' a v� v, ° CO v� vOi^ gaa `DTO.00zO ,,,'(50s,=0 �,,,i)- 0 = F.- -'''PL--z O o•OvizO ° zy • 2. s2g'z zw.. zz.. zo v.. z '< ° .�zv z.. z v 3 rn >0 0�0° CC 0 cn <rn rn -- t1 -o - '- to r e 7r-3a $ rfi - m ar m o a o-g �o l ,'a u z ; 7 z z 7y 7y 9 'z E 2-2 -,7y 7y� 71 o ."d a 2= Svc$ R ° v v�a•n -n a r;F m n @; n o < o va o f.. n xo ° �ro�Tv 5,. c 10 ., ,' n�.nz� = S,F ZSa S ,T282-. = S =-'o=.0 a y Z'. YavY " '�7'<°m.n o T/5'6'':4 5 n a N ° T N c .-N a N ?a Q M° o E.gam': a m 0 :i -7° o z z zYz"°^a z Keg z t > gd a v o 74 $ z z �z `5 �'gy les.:,s , �� O 7'0 OS.m0 0 .gO s O rna °aseO O O O w o•to 7 rn ci C: ' `c 0 a. $e 6 m m rn• g vi w Ecam..w 0 m oo'p° a 5 0 0^ g pcp .''A ='T. 'c *. o'a.° T` o' .�.` oD `?a• ,r y T< 'T�' T n ❑ 7 6.< �p a w N .' s' '''75.e ' _C, �' . -.4T—>. a v ."' R-- C =. N C..- r' .' .' as o o° o; °c E,;109.9 w g.� -',' g, O-m�O, a c c - 0 fB o. a 61� o ; a N X C 8 2`�< 2- 2- 22-00 ,T!C<, - ,B ,9-B,, 'S= S ie a w -?, L0 ,-._._p ° ' - 2 o a R4-2 .-., 8 w• a ° a o '‘, K; .< ,T O ry=p R _• .a ?N N N v 'S' O m� T ° 8 vwi '� ^N 2 . a °'1 C a•C 0.s .G '“: ,-,7 ga < - <?. . 0, C O9 p 2 s 2 = T` ?Ai *.1.68g..,9-- S O C 8 N 0n -.N T� a CN. r. j. a 0 ,;°_,,.,2-. 0 N o- y o 5.16Wmrneg,= oamp' a a• otin E^ ^ oc`< ; V.: F ° $ oa.ma E 5 c g g'g o .a rn m c a'o w No ° io'o 4Tm as w c = �' �. m rn _ m c<n m E g N C = ° a' .w.. a tl0 m S , w L m 8 - �.w a p = rn 6 .6=2_^ 0 o.m w rn LT c rn g O '. ,".'2% � a sr'' F. ad • 5 = ?'oF8 . $ w �°0 a g.'. W ? • a mg a rn <o .2,;-'>0 w p-rn a'. * a °g. w a•• a- 74E M� w a 0 0 °e m` w rn _ " ,°4 a a as a_ io' °� '' d .°., mF. a ti 5' 0 �o °' '0 b0 : ty g w C T f ry C w O N G w rn m w H § 5 w y J awocv•,<a-<g:te.'<. =a5- �v°��gw�w' n'�a: ^ yya °6c E z'�D ,�L', rvo YryrNyQ0 v c z H wd 5 emO ° o vs ," y an g - m rn .T. ca0v 5, 5. o:5.00cc. nm" C')o n, m4n4n Z= nK00Kn44ni ' �ma nnnon 98o � oaA ¢ 6. D aw .. 4, wyyyn . 40D7'' o i' O . _ o _Bo < 9 HtHhHPUil xr -dZ'35rp ^ z1Izv + �� Is6 , < cy4i- 4'v4-yr -q4o JP rn ❑F'�'vv ,i, a� Gou Q .... ro , Elg v97s v. gci ,j ` at 2. D° Y� a = >5 -8 ,� m 2n�f' .aDg•5' = o Emoyv. 2 fDoo2� ~`e g5b -a-gc5- C 5`c = a aZ o Sm Oa 5'o o S Ov CCa + o6'w ^ 'Arc' xOv o,° =', ! OS° Y a.3 ° d ^ a- i ~• oay0 'o . C �. gas ga< w o . Oo.c. _ ' ay wo :oa gcm vrnE bg a 2- .° •.aw25 , ._r, aCC0 a= grngC2a ^ goaoR aa3a: e magp'ryC` raBoMrnca'0. C a ❑ oarn a wG oa'O ^2w . ' p 7 3N ° 10 g' m .,5 ° 8 0i 06 ;F Ro .'6 ?0c aa8 o8:5x oa '5' 5. 1 2gE ° ' p o- s g. < _ ` Nw p8 Coo 5 m 2^ 5 - SpD a 2 '0 ' 0-C " H 0° ?g•a " - awMOm ° ° oON ^d" - m ^'0aFw yoaS 3 �' c a ..0eo • RO 7,02 a � 'O0aj0 we .RSJwwEawbo y ?a . _. wrS < O w ww ` 0 a o 5 m c a' g° Sv ` am a-^ • a0 a o •,,,r6. "`6° 0 0 a .< " 7 0 a N o' 11 rn ^Tw `° o rn�° T m w•a ga. ; 5= R9 p c o. 5 h y'o '. o. 8 a m a• w a m g-0. rn ° 5 .� rn �§" ! y wads- d°$ o'a ' a s ' oO a “ -p',1 o ` y ,,, ,:p.-'awR. o n ,, I C'< S 1.a N ,� a v' o �C (' 2- c y. 5 g., . .- c r 5 E •= 2, '0 8 ' m 5 0 R Evoc° a ' Ill 5 a F o rn 2 w rn'^ o^ � o y s o ° a `< J 5 °w_ w 3 Val zgR .-''t ao s25 ' pm° aa� 5 0 f. <° y 0-0,—, � �()w2m ° omO $ am° o Dx'oa:' e oom 5D n n4 awn oNza4$. aa'S w _ Y ° aa^ <am w e C2 ��y ° w D°ee' -,. rn qiUF-P ;14glgi ;°- o .. n a ° $ ` E R.F a -m 8� s w a s °:" r 2,g-PO 2 z 5 z Vin,pg ;y4 z o�g-m rn 3 - e o-° rn E °2- : a 5 m c� ,f 2 cn-vz�7i'`n".e y' o a,'`n o.w T M rzn ° -, -3. =.. : 221' g y'W o g m W,.... ,g-From O w O d : ' - I o ,g ›..7,1 ° ^aC>z 9' 5 > "2. " ''' g-an H o °'5 H B �F°° o•mi § `;'''.6,':a m c t1)" lama a: (:ED ' E'LIO .>4 r ! a ° wo: t.'-''.;. a § cn wo'--7cwi 8 'f'0, 6. ?m m c '' 't m ' a h m a 5wi ze h -" o 6 aF ., o «v- o `° w m aooEwac r,-° g'9 '9 a.O '` ` oat m ° °e rn . Tw c .6g -5' m �' a g o W K o c rn o F �--1' �c a a•' Co.s o O a i 2 is '' ° ° oa�o-Rooaa� ° �h �` mw � � � aTrr� w-°� E �� @ao'ram -n°o rn ow �oaao �� N 05 °o ? � � � Eco rno aw8 < g ` ;- n — m . 0-11 ° 68 . 80 ,16, 'oc5° r a a x E v a r' v E-E,m - 2 0 5.rn o N .'D¢•^o� `° oay �d� c s`°.�-� , ... TQ o Yw ° 0= ,8• °3 °, Ra4mcWA og'=w. ti m ' ?' 9 =9 v9O0`< W. aow8w �;mrney & aw c<n m ay 8 .. m '- „, -6-. ,'o rn'o a: .5 c T _ °D rsaa E 5 a y a 51 i;1 s.$' O c° Ot w ° ca O � F G o � _ g .-'.quo•y a 5' a ao. n'<'< -"< `D �_`° �� a �, a'`<��=2 �y y 'gyT m o-a f y m-G 7 m a s rn a a o O 'O-7 ,, s x n R o c X m 7 a _ :.acaaworn5 ^; ._.2 510,- 2Bc , aw a ° g5 ° 8ao0. a� v w° ° o`D 0 8 a° ° R. ^c y c (-)'-' ,g - d o 3..._ c'o ,0 s .m s• m o m a a a' d ^ a a''�'O . N N aN p, w .�'.9 -o 2w O- 0' �' ? N N a ,10.1-"=:-.. ,44i-{J. ppy ° 1.; 0. y 5 a w w 'O a.F, vReia '� O b a <ga. :=,',-, 28" „,,F= . 2F2 ; w a.O' m - -.ia w . = w2° 0.F88 a a' - ^ tl0 I go N ° N y O y rb o c .._ 21. 5 g .-pg w an"aSv0' E 5-2 - vyx gaA < °�` `�° •<cno8 ao P �. E aw fD �'_ 55 H ° a:g.w O B I ',5a.. o aE wt.n.oro 2,g w g rn k< E5-2 - rn B a a ' ,9 5 8 m a B 5 a<° w` 0 o a . 3p7a .ep o w O< a a 5' To m o'd ° - so a am m 'O R-. :,.. . . -' ;',r4.2 -o `� ° -, a , Q. =n g o --,..: oc e a ' 'T' 8 9r>•a e y m o o• n y 9.4 5' c -, u a-a' ,p ° b m rn"' F9 'Cg.o `a'p.a .< o.2 w aa R. 5 ° ° a t, m, y 5-g. , ,'' m a a,' o w T ac ° w 6.- lel : g° y �0. c 9Ea crnaT g a- O. o ' ° F°3,a w ;.? a ° o ° :rl E b c Y❑.2 I c a a.a a i 5. y.,a-oao'a a.0 .y o a a-ao ',<n' ° Y 5@55 g.5 a aaao 5a?o� 8 aac'O o ° � wc�^ �" � o �1 �= < 0 °v° E � d .'- 4''' ''' ''' ,o r" w a '_'c 8 ''y oa ° a s p:s-.=-00w "'ro va we a°° . o O<P'. w 0 2. '' E o a55- c< a S;m e° a o o° a, a• a C w c.i f] E" 4o R.y w 3 m g-O E o^ 7H ; `o o o °moo a g:130 za o :g'°-2 (4„,a �a y ° '°", " a; m ^� o� y'' ° �R �; �a <<° a a � � m •�p a.�° ;Hu 6,'-'2'“-q p gc"Rma 3vcE7d`�.oN5.cvo -•. -.° ag.°2,.oc °cpnrnm8 mZrnY 4 °ogDim `. -o w = - a - 8 0 8 -n5 o 5.c 2 -Z 8 5 Z 8 oyoko Eo8 <.T,72 ;t4 oS' a-;, . T. dy ° p ° qw � c v''8 ,1g o� a ° ° E o b o : r e e?w �:c" 5 'o 0° a w .7. o r o rn c < by .''-,g=8 �< � ',< o w,.`o'. ? c c w `<pp rn a o- <?I„ «y 5 '. N 7 C ° a•O'" ° y y a ro G a s c 'S'C) c% '`< 5 g .g,<° g< :,'`='. n O'' " _ ::"`j°' ?. a ° c m c m" rn ov' ° •E' -c,m °i $ ° o°+ °i ° a' ° m m a`< 5 w , <o a a a� »rn joc '°-° fHco' -'au-�'' ' a-"$ &' °rs�ry �00 Es4 ",8c OP' o $= aarn " QzE 5' o . o•a o a ❑'a E a c a'" . o ,8 R -na o w ro cc' 0,. F e �_ ' o o, g.rn c 4 0^m $'.-c W m-2 m=2 < m a s^c., a p '.`'°' m'3 ' S .;..,9,'; w 8 `° ° a ^' -° ao'`< a80,-„,a_ °aOn ooaa<° `D0 ° yrn°- oa w 8moa m E:<a.o a! `; E o O rn <° O c c a w F rn rn B $ m L: m � - c c rn� o d� � a•�,'oa ,ao.� ; a.Sy�m a rn O a a 5 w - c`° a tlj'O $,E ..-c v a-°°n m 2 q ° m-2 r=` `o' - 'a a<<y R f y r a,o.,<y o e o a E a s o w A a 8 d a., y . v rn a w 'a ° a 5, a.< w a a 5' 7 cr,<cX, a.y.a y m - 52 8 g 8 ° v-.`<:w a .6-P. 0 o' '" E. P° . 7<'..,.8'w a N C '< - N a OG w a rrr, co rig . 80'. � 8.c 0 A g.5 ,�':° 5- a a °. a 3-m �°' =-a--•� ?: -— g' 6'' ^ m 'a ▪ o _i° +`_ <as m c a ' m 6° a rn.,, : 5 0 °' w �' _ 'n s o w '-'" Ff2 ia '+ 'aa 056. loam -.26 gFiTa 5,10 2 T o . g .. -pToc- ° 55- a- = ° o � c = sn „ ter baa _a I'S e m?,g r^x :11g1 1 a a ”m 5"O N`G ,<'To d m* N o`< 5' w 'S a' a•. 5 5. 8. C P Emw > � 7 ° a8 °: oa'rn8 °o m ° 2aeoyE °c_� a° a. - a a- aea .4--ER - as 5" ao a0,9c .-P-z rfw M aa a a ao a w ° . - v 9 a, _ w 3'm y y I sEa• `D rn - a° a < q- ° "' ° - 8. 0- - g.54 oa - sc-'w,< o = W o w g'< f*m_ 52 =“6. 2-20 ,9, 5 - 4.^a a w`<° a ;., . .g . cn,. o °° gE as o^0808 oa,°= o7rgaRvooc ° ,1 " �e ° c oFoc m ter°tla 0° nn R X °' a a x; �-. g a.5.^.. , oo - a s w '-' d w a- o °-g e �. (n.`< ° 'O < S 8 OT w 5 8 0o O.. 7- ..a �'y' o C a < 0 2 a Nw a .- C ay.o- K•,o - 4 w8nFo �w4 , .-. 8aa -q oa a ,°a oa a 8 F a '-rn a• B a.a ara oy5a o cc o - S'- - ° "' o 0 `o n`< m v'N,00 o O.v 5 o _ 2 x d a y E on a- a °, 5 a o as a , - e 4 a a <' ° `< N m a, Go `° N an a , ,S 0 5R'a -a. a Oy co C O e gmm o £c '2' .9.4 va9oa N o • °= ,9-0, 679; gwo c-- -5 gca . O' . mg < v < N n' • a pTa rmOw O , 8.w 2gy.N , am ° m G 5- . ° p m ^gtro ? cwEaG 'a... .7 z,‹,0 -. 73"0 - 44'< f)49gng 3 cw1 ,, F T°g o L° ..a• °°c a-ti Zo-.•°� c ° "o'o-` o ? 7yc ocg = cs_°'$, •. < 1 . a � . o 2-88-Ea -g-••8"--4 • 885.p= t°7 r? Ow g ' rnn g gmmeoa. yoP' ' g% Oa r,—, g - -. 5.a $ anpg i0no w0sR. g < poma ° vg• 9° ..'gg-o '- .amd ° g ° - ' o ° wapwZno zo° B ';° arn< oy-� o ' aoa° c9mn < OC g � _ ° " = g 3,_ g.cRE � O grO 3oimryp ° c aZH59goEvyoaX0y 2� 9 "= - zo _ � g g•Eoo B° d ,va9g. ° off < < -¢•m5g ,d81= ° oE�ome 5 °1 0 w200go5aR ° cgROw wcg - g0 3 °- < ' ^ ggaN = gaf c‘ g.';'7 . = 5 *gl- ':°' c.rvgdgxv_ 6.22 ° mP' z o6g ^ T � U -^x °s ,_ odo 1E _ ogc" °nL m- c5aaa$ og . g.r -o gp o-o " n n °:m .1-° oy °om ro 'Fam ^ . g „,:< Tg g=-T ,1 ° , .; o "' a. = 8---01„..25,=- o < aao 4B rn v ° ° co � ' g n ' 70..9- rn g � ag ° wa goa .. -.. a. m = v r •a ° . :.° gc . 5ow °g PIWR-g-8y ° mcg = z= ao ga yo5gma =rn wrn R8 ,5 °°tl ' m.8,"3° o 7c = -0'‹ wE ° cw ;iio ay ° AN a' e ^ om rn c a7, ° =, < o ° g•m =- oF < 0 , _ fR03 8,Oayom aHI 0 R ' y ° , ' g' ° c. a 3. .. aIamgm =dw g • 1 < Jm <m o g - : -p• wa ^ oeg7mo �mb _g " ° gwggPr = = 8" P.,-6.. .' . O £ g- � ° 5, aar5° 28 a =g dacngvR'v 9 < .2- 8- 22- 9 . g 8- °-. dc'< a e S' a o ad ° ° ° � ga • -3 srno d ca0° ° vno o ; .g s ° - vpc . . °vd a ° o ...a R ,R, arna a6 ° 5 ' X . ''.g = w wog: : ❑° w `pD v Ti =' c';b ° a va rn '4-c:- m w `°.a ” o111.2- x c. r.„- ,m,w < rn g O a a F O (D �. E. y vwS. _.O N �, w_ '� w ('nC �_ ,w+ ? Q' mg- i '04''' _ ,a.. F a� a' Gr .". 9-t" io '- '�' w <o ° w ani c? o- a. g:1 o.5 , c.5. ,5:' "sr'W 7 e . fit y'a m o a a,?'m a < “ g c c m E- g m In urn m e a To n:2 R° •'a _. " u'.-." O d =' g 2 T oc e a ti = o E R m ,g., 8.8 O 1 ' m `" 'a o O .'3H'O `< 41: , .w. a E. a'P• n & E7 '-g a ,T c ,1 a 'qi w c ‘,5 .-. '0 ":.°m w.,3 c m .ro< " =.m vo ° a _.,gym 'v o E .< a w rn ,0 ;%, ;% ry• w ..n, _' w .,- '82 ° ;.R .1' 6. 2t .g -l ` O B- N 7'ao rr ma N 0-8 5 0• C 6 %' ,7, 2E- O N o d . ''''ER ° 12' " oc m o n m ° 0m ri - rng a . ' ? 00 c P. KF y 5 Ec E o n 5. m o- av,,> a Y`ro�ro.ayrnnnRn4 - no4n7-n-nnnnn4n n 2,n4nno4wan4nn4o c x - � yO % a r y ?$ mnga . , M- 7m0pm -N moo - Drceo g ; 4 ..KZ > zCZ ..sD � a7 aZ> Zg ' � <YZ Zcza g4Z-, ZZ 'wW ' 'Z•rnma, -z✓ zr ZzzoZ -Z✓,,z'az-dZrZ CJ -Z nZ • Z., 0T^as5' 44z 4z _ 4-<ay4Atoy <- z47'44 -<, 4 zzo- - , ii`.23:-,.;4y yRgg ry mo Za.Brroow7^a ma a °; -..70 2�'S9 ay�:°-❑, x(0.= =< v y d °^c5F o = " Y . . B- ' Zg Z9'122° mHm >7 Z. o wp2 ' g'g oo Wccmdm; m50_ Ocom a1*a e °-o7 aa: n0, t cg ' z ^ 1ca.gmarn ' " zz, m' <9.--.a -< o ' rnZcao� ` 8 ? ° ^ozorto .'° oao -= v" amo ° g � yvs - 6 y `g ? o_gocnng v, ,T. T 5-812 E 2 _ 44< " o . m =< ° - o'co m � g ,gnw a ' cO smsE 2 .T°° wx-4 .asm ° n o n w r. o c _ . y .. = . . - ' 5 == EOo° f. mE 0 3 m 2 ma -3mc wc " ° abc,sE- ; g B dg m° • 8"....8 ' . ' yoa -8 ° = E -]w _g ' a °. $. ° °' ° ;yr„ o , 0 N _ c 24 .aO y s� ° O • o = $ '-G. w^ C a • ^g 6c " 8E- - a GG-=- ° =.-T° TNNo.< d' ' g' ' S6g O < S' y S > ° a' pcz G x' -n O sta . o' ` m " 9 ° m CaO O 0 p• -" < a'(° H. o - x C < v ° ° ° ' %. m Ow Nga 1` G: apoGSNmvO v _' '' c S EY" c". w g. e g " 6 g o o " ... x' a o o °° a �w �° : I: v g w rn c 5 0 0 m 5 o m c: o ° 0 — ' " _ E N' 'E, ry h < -. 8, O G.go C G0wS m'N 0N E. . r" R d O"^ u '< g � G oq< o j 'a + c a m " m C ' 2, C a fm g ywn g a" C FT al 0 5 5 o o''S a' >• a oo S4 ,0'; o p• m r 3' N N a m O G 0 .w.R a N m d F 5 5 O^ n p No, m a a: aa' x s a. ago �- $ aa, a m a ▪ . o aG a O'C."'' •^ 0_c£<o'p:'..'mry� 0�'• .7� x E m aa• a .= " £`'�R < a a z- s moCaE 4 ,'n= -o a a -. n m ; A >5-2:9:8 ; go $ a' .o ` .£RO7•' ..a' ° s? �ro 7Y ,Gabrn4 nmarna j'', .•£rn - r° d0mw7 x , , . a D z z'< £vgc0xzGo - Wnz m ; ornm nzzZ0. Z '-z ". ^Za7Faaxa < o , a = g-o cn' ro0v, v° f °0 _ c mONg0 . cm aa` aHcENxOEr, wT5Q-"< 52p,^ KgH° z of 3- n2 ° a ==n HY - s8 , a3o roa ., m,, c gVia 58tm4a8 = o m ° affoay a• aa2 _ _ n >c'o - Z ^ z . d Z z o2°o' `° ad • o = -= corn o1a= Qo s m ,gx aSa R aZoK ▪ y9 : g `ga°n 288-E -2 2- so ° aw " • rog < a-= a-•. § o n ° mE 20 — aa "' oroIR-ET = pea= o . , ax 8mg - £ c. fl;:g.1..' 5 ° A $ ° Eoaw, ; '? $ ' .' " ,1 £7Xc a ' ° 7 a . 0c m ° . ar OcQo `7 'g , _ 5i,fTh' aa � ha° � 0 rn GGy � eoo a g � ma-n "- c ° �° 3 V ' N2S -. gl ° y yy9. a. Gm° ° v- N -' * ' 7° G =R °, rC y n U Y _ = raE8O e ° . 0ryd ° _ :f - N : a $ rn2. y � < ° G aa Paan p bO ";--2 ,--..a%< O\ gy Io = S 5-5 ., SSSN O P: o 6 y -RZSCoSka ' • 5Ta 5 Crc CaOO - - 0" a ',Y4 rn = 62c ,9 o a 1.017, eo 00 2 "' . r CS "° ` a o Fe aaomvoy m cB ; .9ma ,- B ^ rn 6ff o oT Ta.m� aams eg. 8@0.. 5 om' G o• w< R, g 0 T p, .5 ..: ,- ac.8aa .8 a ° cF; r. 9.9.6.ga o y N BE ^ N 5 ",9 6 7-.a. E..,, E. _ G N92 a M ^d d � y � (ryO � 7so ay— N cy + m a ' • e is c m £ 2 o a m w 2- M o rn °: 52,,g0::6° a o >•m C a m a 2-5 3 .- •'8 S ..°'-} O . m m gog '3,m �•is co a a m G m - sc aam a _ a e m 3 ah 2.2y a 9 g °ems -S < "-80- 0 m a a rn m 'y ° c' a• ° '< ° No o .Ft. o a °c a ' rn°•O rn R 4 ,1 o Z rn Q' '1 ,i o- ^o s ao ao O w P n O N ^ O N �< (D N ,°7 00 'O O R °1 ;P'R S o d. : £ rn o 0 �D ;< a o0 I m i 'yyfr"�g�<.4a'n ^ o ° �' .']° �� OmoV.)40° xVlD, Qm liii 9 t'aSO gl� 7 ;=9R, a � ay54xcm'NN O 2e` rnw^S y' 'z z 2Z6d° 5mz. ,z. =° maos,1c : z - . zZQ $ .6vsz a.m5 gZz � a?� 7v' rn + < oc ° ' . £ (4C- y, vhtc44r4 ° a rH _. Gao °° Haf]m<wo '0 - a OZ ,VyOHTi0aaS sti › i,000R- 2 < oeZ,£o' . a•ga aG6c " n -£ OT V2,L" 9 O .a<• ^ F.'.4 £ •. £. �aao-m a8 aaG 22c g mR < _ 5 ay � mo aey'8a.O0 R.2- Vert mas Ta c -< y5 c‹oc'7' g< PNo on r; a °.aaoa re-o ^ a -a oct^ ?O om'o O° Bgx. . O NGOt00. C Nvy p ° o0 0 G Ot� GQ< 0 mfg £ gi°'rn8 ', tomwwao. ° d* o� y ° rn< ,,2 ,0 0 0 5'a • 5 nN'- wX< Nm a' N N° 0-E.-. a m ?• am° N'OoNv0Hd- G 110 O ` o9Og-R- acOmz. "'a0ddoo ° oa' g-a s 029 5110m £ mag , F.°-- ooo R moio £ ° x 3 ooSm w az 0 " 0 - =4 - � 7m * ooh I g0. ..3.- . .8. ,..g.'< & 5 _ o x 40 � 5cd & a . ao 2,rg °? ommola yE a m : - o, 4 G s c1coa rnGP _ g 55mg1 6 ma aao m o awoa g 6'4 2. g t- x .94 � GK 9-Q02 ° w 7OG ° ..E8 a Ng.aON 5 N G N N K0 . `< ° Ne< G. a - vs. .. O < g O m S a v: O O GN °a ° ' ° Z 6' N = - a° -v_ C °• T = a� � E a a ornb o0 ° 5 rt a' a aN o 5 ` c0 . r° n5ONOS G "- 0 °01 gO 1 o < 4-CdDa o Sm ` y ,$mO o ' ` 2 w <a'a- Fr '5.' ' 70=2-4-° r a8 , R-, ^ Np n ° ° S o - -< a2- o ( afoT m3 G a . a ? , m c 6 g g ° a t y v° 9 `oo a 7, 3 £ w w. ?r H a 53,-, a y a G, m'R a. rn = '7 " -o'£ l''',9 m 9• 9 t- �i rn c. - , apc o- g y g R oo a . m g {$pfd- ,., �`-Jy "8,, a '^r m < ^ C s O E. °N L• w w 2, mm ,,°a > 0 a 1 ,>7'°'O ar _,b O O S N ,1 _ g aNN oO, d j ,, o O N J W % d R 0 w° a G o a' N D O (�I F d 3 w T E R C o a. :-a° w - o.. a p;a c g0 ;18 Fr, c a s ,c<o`< 3= w m m n 3 c o N'°o `��-1 c a Y a .4 a n,ao °o n n n n n y a O n o a ° £ m m w y,rg g Cos 'T 4 n x o y n c° a n 2 2-cg-cmcoo , o ° O , 'S.00 OI Q,Fa•� c vo R" $.00p ME• 00 ^wa.a ° -.5a� e ° C a 544 1 0- 4d ^ 3et: p.ypiR.E. v' o S 7•c r'g d.. - a- = 5.N LA g 4 4 D v, R•g y d .° w o 8-S•-o ,oP,, a•o o " ro o o, 4 -e 5, < F7rn'° o a:w`� , aG'oO 0, ZOOzO -na Z"..Ra,o o moa ° 0 11.-, ❑ Zgv p w w o m .q , oz o: cnzZ,Az �5. o-c-c a.m•�j E -c rn Ovyro o v. . Z " m c,e_ c 2 rn a rn o m -°c o m °-�m mm�m. £ m-3. ,9, 0 .„n. 0 n �0_. ,,,,9_2, • � a , aw 7� ° .9 a a 0< c a w a P o- Y❑ a•m Wn °a.? goo aag '' nog5v, v,n-c,' m a•00o ama as a. c� 5 T- 0.< c c eL T < c � . x = = Z t' ° ' o g'c n =a < a ct.:I ' ' ' n".ne, a P'a, 5 3 o .- C E o q 1g:O D g= m e .°.", o-d £ A .g fprg 'w' c6° `° _ < o d ° O a p. a a.a m � '6 � .P'. a � :.`+� z,� '' 1 O � ?�'m w N'O �+ G w 7� `� C �p r� G' z -9- °rs?ai ao o . 5-' -'0‘.,-H § a R-' < rn a� f c a o'o y › Ng' g' gg -c.o E °'T ';'E- £ - a ,-,9-.. -a- .tea c£° Oc 3,' .Gs.'.G''B o S'5'g'c -ac°nw'8 ° o E c m S '=•“8. w -s--. 2-oaZ 'Tcoa p � L4.5 w'$ co'o a.�, £te °-n❑�- g;",',15. 1° a°.,< 7cC° 'T�•' "tl m a. .a..`c w a H a',��. ,a .=:. -57r . p y - v an d e,m w d '� w N1„o X' o w G gg. 1 .,1-- y " o,, 5. _'= m ,,s £ 0 , v v' ry,, T 'o 3 F a rn o'•o n-^ rn c n a A--'a'c'°_. N o w 3 ° m c. c c - _ .0 : g a a ° w f 3 g 3 a p -f .. 7,° R, w m oo a.2, g . am o °,_'°- °-o_ ° o Q5 . a -.?4.' o c a. ° 5 k-o ° F 5 Z°C- a ER ym < aig v arnKE of0 5 n c ,9aQ,.5 - wocC R- acm am m m ,�oa 9, ,e ba, n 6g0-§ w . a'p1.. o c p.a.�:;II _.o J-R o R'R s o G 8 °v m m c3° 2 y;.o'F m a c� c �' "F!, o.'g rn o o'er- R t R- cam° 2-n 0,:g‘.,5._-_;:g .7.1, w. w 3 o a d a a'7, o w o ,;. °o. °n a g•.,;,.a'd a r. R, rteR rJ ^ ca° c:w a R•.m •<T 6,„8 c o °o ,1am d v ?F,a 0 5. = g5 C .,,t4°. r:c3 0-° 'o w°' o a. m c-° w a. o"• a ti B ° £ w .d e- a'aN0-- w � � < �' a asa < cF R ^o a � a y a 'o w < rn �• Fi ° .i. u' ° w < �' -_- '•° -•* ?' o i° £ a ao a e m..P. a s`P° ,c°° o 00g �e p rn 5 d9.E o. c° m c9 o w 5 5'0 =- 5:53. 9-5" P a m • °a.'Z m oc'n a =„,a 5 4 v E ° a 3 -a m v 0 2 5.^ a.w-a'3 08 h rn g.5 5�zm ra 8-0 B ° c o �a v ca= o7 w °-o wm57 Nw. 3g. dmg.aa � gRrn R .atarn a, co o ° <.m (D p, wm `-" i° ''a40' o. N ° a, n 0 a a a R y'T'T G S b ?c �D p c<° . w i . .y N p= y g = w w G £ S° O a w w y w N .-na 0 p. .. «.-Q w "°v < (o VG F a rn .a. 66 O a - .-. - 03 Fs 5o° " ya �? - -3a ° r 7 J 0a <v,•04n,2nnnn" a .. a s Z `. 5 oc a- >• = : •w a R a p g rn P-5- w° ° s - a _v+ n Sw .a ; o cn cn ° a a o a•a S cE`% 1 a a Z°v - ° r - ? c°£. w o c°° '-z R z O zz Z O z, = cwi OD .w c s i.F ✓ a W a r, o 'o F .a 0- cn a t a F ;Rig g- : a ^ a,Zx' ^ a n _Ep-c w , �' Yn.°qr a� �y n;r' 2 ?_o w p 0 G -' _ X n Z ' ,2. a c: C. 022 g9 a p Z G 1Z • 5' '5 n.4 O ° N - ,1,,=, O-•a _. C a p•a.. < - _ 5 -,. G - -- ° S <- b w p . E 5 E rt`- ° -5c � a a n =t7aa93m a0ame 53E ` ar ° = F v r << c r % s' mv ,,1,_,.< :ox3 3 o -` sam _rarar ' _ - ca - a -573' o ry �c v7ac A6a '. � O _ Tf 12 �; a g 10 ,9 p i pN? NJ - - , r RatOn = a0 rya cj " . _ N s 5.5 Roocc = co 19 " g7_,--:.= ad ?_c. nz° g.3 c 3" 3w • rn $ • a =c.`.c Y c p aS ° -C c. a 4-gyt yRRv T _ _ F- 5 ,1 - cr ON y ., v - aN Nec5 0 o-, . J _r _ J - - 0 a p 3 0ap C p`Gg 3 C r _ Sa < t r nO0d0 O m o-=°- fYc c ' '33 =OO a- `> - . Q rnB3a ',4-a p _ - 8 Lc. P., VG .9 og 4 (° 3 3 :C J^, 5=, c., a .e °-r• coa S=F,--' .-- v O- 3 . pq 52: - . ,- 'i' 0 a - p 5 C 5 g-.0 N - C N _-G 2 5.C _= a r. _ C t _. 0: < T - E . C r C <' "^�O g-5 5 _ a a<? p ' ..4� r-� �' V'�' o n w2- di `" d a 7 g R o h e F £ _.=- Ng-F rn'�i R 7. 5'N' po �ctt 5=.02a' a' ^K 1 ! - �' d A C ° y N a c° n -w J .ip o 8 io ° E S G+' c pap d �� w M yam„ FBA T'r . � G' y„rPHD ., � ..`9 'A .7 '7�-° PHHfl '' zvi cnaVO aIy MiU* til°HNpIh 0 n- O000?OO( 55. zflzENz(86mg 4 ' ' n p,0,o 4 m Zm m m 4 mzo Z 2,o•xzHzo�v"mZ4mHyHdnaH mmHmma'do .w . Ax7zcn.o ': :hm , a 7y :cl7ro7yptio' g ^E nz ndaO 2-n ff2 2 O y z 2 m n F-, t a v,V"n v,9 n v� a�:� s .. .. .1=0.. P1.. o d ��. n n 9�._ 0 �]� §- gmss=. o ��4 ,yqa yop4,-12, yy o m g °•m �'OHcnzl.z°c p. HOSzy z.5•a. g.Oy o a• ,a.a.o Fp Naz.1 o a 3 ° marv�g2, ,ic. ,,,, o.80 Ova 8., D O- c - c .. O.. 0.. 0 a -,0„ - 0 . ,.,-.. .q -o 0. aa .. "a "o-T� fig ° .< D � ,0 m °•v, Q-,cn-� 0 o 0.5.0 = c' S mv0 o `< g .o a• a•s. b'(nc w g g < g. m f.,^, ., -m . U w 'T x .,o. •, .�m • n y 7 .< ., o �,< m f gr—)0—.6 / mgD°oa_� Scm _ A4. a 7, P Sao .. K •••`ag••••• m m Eoc 0 0 o d ., r. 0 ,, ', - m.0 ?: TI o d o m g rn o u. 0 a:R c c`< .. ,‹ Sa a. f ” �c7 o.• ^ ^. c c, yO aarr:IIuI F a °i o 5.m a.; `< o cf.o '' S g:a w ^- 5' °g3E a- . m ,-,- rn oy ° o o;. m $,g s l 0 e o a �� td S y ° � ° x ry ° - 6 a O y 000- ,-= oam c. m 4 w m g rn a , c .. ° a, a rn rn gR N am m o3 a °.°-. —a i ?.-an ' rn' O`G . a O0 .. w waao aj p9 a c. oc ,5 > o .0pPT . drna' PA E o a m I.=- c °o_ e c a X °a °-tlo d N OQ R .. 7 - f O y T S N G ^ ° oo J m I- ii m 2 VI rD n .+ 0 7 0 m• -, O 0- m m (D 33 n XI O O . . , X 3 O = a c W °7 .0+ = 0 cn LA r (0 DJ 0 o- 3 0_ -• v 0 m c 0 0 a • 0 3 rD 0 n 0 Cl. CD ro 0 .+ CD 0_ 7- z3 ra v m - a a ° n d g m m d n 3 v d a v c n Q? ti a ' R d ^o c o p a x v o m J S gg o o o "7 ,< m %2. 6a. v 'm � a4 `^'•n 7 3 o Qg.m ',;o" ao am� Q 3. N 7 J 7 p7a 1D 0.a^^, m ° a 7 j d K !, Z 9 c OC 00 O •A ° (SD O_ O` a C ° 7 O C O_d < d d 3 . 0 ? J h 7 % .. md n, ca�n0 J °:.�oov7 aa '' ` d33 mo n�, N< 7 ! =HIJDHHii i ! ! o a %< 0 3,n 3 -• mm 5 o w Q 3 c o o m n R m t o' s g < a d m - IIHVHi-a o 73 mas '-^ 3.4 J d ° fD E. •� p d ovx =�, w o� J � 0A o 51 ° ?° ? 7 0 0 0 3 m m _ O-°w.0 7 0 a j m m. O.N O d'^ rD :,^. N a m p g d rrp 0 rD ' ,mp N m 7 0. f N =- r<D 7 0 17 O u p c m z l x 3..° v 3 3 J �. 3 x ?°n as o m d m ni o m'< m m O a ° 3 ^ c = g N m C o m ,71" m .di,s m d it g -O 7 V,. Fat 0 ,..7; „, _, ,,,-9_, 0c,O 7- S d 0 ` m ° 7 eT O m n �.oo O N d 0 a p A Oia N a p d`� 7 d a D �. O vOi m a m m n N m c "''p ^ 3 0 0 T o a ° ..- o °,- » , m o o m a m d ,�. n P a, r7o 7 N U 7"O ° 0 7, p,i D'On S O 013 C �• N c. R E O ar o ,D a 0 m 7 c o d a SI °- ?00 C C. N = 0 f. O.m C N S �' n d a'p C o 1 ,, U 7 N m fD O. O ail d w n a_o dp a g O t o o; a de 7 �' .5 2-p c a m^.c r3D o0 c .C a °, 3. o, m A c 9, o. a e ° iD o-A ^ 3 G A m d1111 g.E.0 c n= v n N o c 7 0 0, ,1 o<i J o d ? c o n �•m 7 . a m - ° d m 7 moa, o d ^ 0_m,Rc - 3-2 =-a v 3 "^ " a'c oda _ s a° g ° c ° o a m -' 0 7 a -• J c, 3 7 'O 7 3 °-° 7 (p 3 0 93 to a, a) O rD j, x m3 a n, n n a -° rariWV <. d A N.m 0.= -mc 4, S i� O J O.C ii C C Q 7 y g j C a m J m C D_d m ?d M 7 d K 7 a O d d 3 0 '50- O. m O`< a O_t� p C_ d `� p 7 N 0 a S a d 7 O' m _j.d m m fl!n 6.O 7 m 7 d O m �< a p C °,,< n O.% p C' a rag; 6 :J < °"S N -O �' po x. J a og �.„ !o o_'m d -.00moi° 0='o .° `- o A m ^ _rt a a, ° m m s J 3 N 04 ' VN N 7 Da fi -9-r n ^ n a = - n > O Q d 6 Q m =8 0 0 , q N ,3 7 0 m 7 d m m.m0 m w�< n m a g o 7 --�i 5- 3-0.5, 70 a7, m a n d a r-O a ii • L. c tT 'O x v, O° " d N m 1 V oa S m . 7!W d d eT a N ?F d E 7 4 : o_ �: m -° < ar , n oo Q C d < m C' m'O 0. °-O 0. d L771'4 "4 =. � ...E, 2 � n R.3 a 6< rPD G a a p ° 0. g 'n,<v, a m ^� m o Z d and o o- a ^ D m m °-r 7 m W c °/a' s o ' o n o s 6 g' a o x ; r ,l ra ° O to 0, m 4 -C U S'0 ml Q N 0-' T S U- i j ° 3 J y V a? a - y a <'Q 0, N '"A7 -97 ,° C 0 7 'm%, N - S 7 Q 0 7 3m Q d a c d o r a °.o , n n v, -7 moo; p c m p, m e., m m .'D O' 7 . v: 2 r m .° n ° m m oa d M d d 3 g 7 g '^ n 3 r1 O E.n K m Y' d 7 S 3 c 7 p 7 a p 3 m m 7 'D c O c O n-°0 .• r, m T ,,, h °, $ - " m - m-,< 3 m a 7 a m ,T 7 m : m c 3 m ° 0 0 0,°, a. ,.n n 5 R 0_,I -. 0. O.d -dp`< U W,, 2, n Dar S d K . 3' 7-q., m O.0'7 p^. Q c K515, 0 S ° N m <. m T m ! Iii !.* h 000pc oar ymd o 5_ 5,0 00., ;;_ O 7 3 N m Q O J 3 N O O a m N n'O nX � , - � � ° 3 0oQ7� 3. ; 7" vN� Ss°" G' n° od o _m '^ c • _ -° < 5.,-, = 00t c ar Q f v , °i 7 ry d •O = n 0 . 7. = 5 ° a m c, d m 0 0 0 i m 3 CD o m a" St Go v o o 3.5o m rna ` m on' ' ''' '-',a o 0 �,; '^-p '^ 7 o m c < S a Z IT n N o 0-ra 'C 6; d °'A d 0- O O° m.• N m m OT _ - n O p Q o G n - 3 as W ' 0- . 0 g d m 'o< m o n 9 O p a m a m p 3 m n m m d °a 3 m 2.7» o`0 7 ° o a N 7 eT O f` - m 7 0 d d 7 n -0 'dC O al O o - 2, 3 3,< S�. p °T. ` o _ m °' N m 0Ja n i l N l S n 3 ,< E N C J 7 C ,0 3 7 ro ro 7• W ^ m o c A' m m gym^ +;..m c d° g 9: , i o c - o �',, nz37d-p nn ' -. m7 < ' o , S' ' S§_ 7 2 ° - Q° .J. h N 7 .'4' .Z c h d v, a 0- < 3 S 7i'. w r ., 3 -" c.,< .?4,3 o m 3 . :oo `1 m 3 7 ° . . -,., 9, 03 ° O . 2 .- 7 S ° ri N N m �< m -62- m 0 - S O D 7 N d Z' ,7 .9, ,< 0 O d O c 6 m O ° -+, J O�O_7 Q ;454g O. 9111, 3 R 7 m ° ,_0„,N < 0, 940- ^ • • X V1 • m n fD r'. < 0 OJ 0 -' 0 I r•' -. O -n m r O m O• 0 2 3. W WD - cd a r N 0 U( z a G1 a On 3 ,-,• 0 rt) m C 1 IHL.D Hit �o o 5x oi s 1IU.P ^°nmm< D TQ 5”a3win mo7o w ygmac QD ji N T.Q A CO .°° UN'C-0 N <. 0,2pNym o W U7 Qcod m °_4(00 m . 0 « oa s°, . m(7 -nNmm 07 0o 3 * -9. =-0 3 0SOmm mNN mo NG 33 m d G N $ m d= 3m anom� 0mciacc < 3ome $ g2 . aS mN. Tc xaiom " 3 ma o -...o m m-so 6Ny9i omoo = = _ m .� mm - 3 mSmmgQ'aam 50.o > dNv m < o g5. m °m3o= X ° '� u: o imS -cm o .1aO > mN 3m mmm mg := 3 • 0 ?g°medN•-No `pa -3 am (p OaON a �(0 '0Nma o..coi cos mpmo 3c 0-m o aamgom 0 moo503 N3N p J 3 .N m + * t0 G.m J ni d d 'O 3 (n 811338 0 82 ;1 a < d NO5Caa m m0 m d? d m N_ a mn a a; N d m d(0 O is, d < ama �C j S ^ AWmN N N ° d . O. N N O' m A 3• m a ;3 c ' yl dg Qm2 og yf`m OmAC m = a m � od3m Fr,i. 5. imO ?y V7T N m ^O G N N dN,3 m 0'O Om ` n• m a mm a' Ox _2O`.(O nm N mW ti- m m 0 = 8 nT� j d• QQ m3 m m.< N C(0 a iE a N � ddp :9;4- Aa m • 'z (og O mo Qm m aO pm CO N g.o, A G m ° G = .-.3F6 e P 0 _ON 11 ao> - am mdOpr p mN �M-0<7 d- m co2 *acga da ay ( € .a md OQON� g Ao a3¢ � n > E >ei, CD co5. p: do3mmo Amoy o'm x m m y f NC a0 9m QS 5 C c 43 S 0 Q O? co O 3(0 m n d m a Nm 3 0m W.m. O <o p 9 O N mc gm d o•N s-Z<o m 5-o E . a _oNa O tw y d • = SUn mNTm _.G 0.N = Q co , N5 d x N > jm G G mS m N d m(N.o o m g ON' dm 1 O m 2.E.g IPm m NJ S m 'Om m n m oQ °3 F y m m-mmoa ay o m p .z o d _3. (T. mm x Oy {n (0 O N A i . , ` I \\ \ 22® » [ DC)k }) \}\ \• ® \ \\\\\ \ \{i/ \Erie CgsgwE D 5 \}�}\ =• ,47{ \\/\\ \° 8 c9, R m 0 \ 8 3 \ ( k \ crm § co n 2 m m f ro ƒ § & _ V/ 0 k 0 i F x 1 ° '41' A 4 ** S bnh y b ,..3 GL R n p $ C n c N $ a h c N y c o- � � goytf 4. � 0. A, b7 c o a b .4'.F11,4 4 A A• y. b y A w 0t • 0-`< 14 Z A. A o• ft f A. T n 7O 9 G , o 4 `•• p `�q: b 't ,' b R. 4.v a. cmc = b ft O L n. C• Z A. 0. A wt % noo QC= 6 nt fD 0 ti ^. c° w Q7 �' ' A A h y 'A c o .. v, r-n O E n ph w n, �. y h < K ~ b a aft i W : cft b 0 � M A4 n`''tb. a -. a a � � = 0o A`yN o. aft c Y o p C a, esCJ. OL m CD 2 co A ft A: A n Z. a O A o" C b � � o a o m � �. P y `) n R b t0 *t} C I• x a. n :.-_- Y. A. . .,. o ny � w v� A A 1 c i u 3 v � * O °+ % nC M yh4A ; — n + H -g -15. a- m C 0., A 0 y 5 § Qf y c '„t', i .t ». n a r an 0 o. is 0 0 a w ' h• n• m A A' o 2 C H. A w p' 0 W p' " T 239.642.1485 PATRICK Naples: F 239.642.1487EALE 5470 Bryson Court Suite 103 E info@ (patrickneale.com Naples,Florida 34109 wwwpatricknale.com (``,,, :,.ASSOCIATES Malting Patrick H. Neale Marco Island(by appointment): P.O.Bout 9440 950 North Collier Blvd.Suite 400 Naples,Florida 34101-9440 Attorney at Law Muco Island,Florida 34145 January 10,2017 Mr.Fred Reischl Senior Planner Collier County Growth Management Department Zoning Division 2800 Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL RE:Petition VA-PL20160001181 —342 Trade Winds Avenue Dear Fred: I represent Mr.and Mrs.George Marks,the owners of 319 Lagoon Avenue,Naples,Florida 34108, property owners who will be substantially and adversely impacted by the variance requested in the above petition should it be granted.I also represent several other property owners in the area who will also be adversely impacted by the proposed variance should it be granted.My clients strongly oppose the proposed variance and disagree with the staff recommendation for reasons which will be set out below. This letter is to provide additional legal basis for the denial of the Variance.It is requested that this letter be provided to each member of the Planning Board prior to the hearing set for January 19,2017. As the County is aware,the controlling case law for variances is Indialantic v. Nance,400 So. 2d 37 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 1981)as adopted by the Florida Supreme Court in Nance v. Indialantic, 1982 Fla. LEXIS 2530(Fla. 1982).The standard set out in this case is that "[a] prerequisite to the granting of a hardship zoning variance is the presence of an exceptional and unique hardship to the individual landowner,unique to that parcel and not shared by other property owners in the area."There is nothing about the parcel or this landowner that is unique, other than the fact the County issued a building permit based upon plans that did not meet the standards set out in the Collier County Land Development Code. In the balance of this letter, I will comment upon the various criteria set out in LDC section 9.04.03 and incorporated into the staff report. a. Are there special conditions and circumstances existing, which are peculiar to the location,size and characteristics of the land,structure or building involved? Staff:Yes.Per the applicant,the pool shell,retaining wall and stairs are constructed. The applicant commenced construction under building permit,PRBD2015092870601,with an incorrectly cited rear accessory pool setback of 10 feet versus the required 20 feet. The applicant abided by the incorrectly cited rear accessory 10-foot pool setback for the swimming pool,spa, and pool deck.The stairs off the pool deck do encroach 3.5 feet into the erroneously provided 10-foot setback; however they were permitted with the swimming pool,spa, and pool deck. Opposing Position: The conditions and circumstances set out by the Staff are those caused by the actions of the petitioner. The failure of the petitioner to follow the Mr.Fred Reischl January 11.2017 Page 2 of 4 requirements of the Building Code and Land Development Code does not constitute a special condition or circumstance that would give rise to grounds for a variance. b. Are there special conditions and circumstances, which do not result from the action of the applicant such as pre-existing conditions relative to the property, which are the subject of the Variance request? Staff: Yes. The applicant applied and received a pool permit from the County citing an incorrect rear accessory pool setback. The applicant proceeded, and followed, with provided setbacks unaware of any violations. Due to this error, the subject structure is currently encroaching 6.55; more specifically,the pool, spa,pool deck encroach 9.83 feet, resulting in a 10.17 rear yard setback, and the stairs encroach 13.45 feet, resulting in a 6.55-foot encroachment. Opposing Position: Any and all "special conditions and circumstance" result from the negligence of the applicant. The fact that a permit was issued does not excuse the applicant from compliance with the relevant laws. c Will a literal interpretation of the provisions of this zoning code work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant or create practical difficulties for the applicant? Yes. Per the applicant, the pool is already constructed and to abide by the required accessory 20-foot setback would require the applicant to remove the existing pool and replace it at an estimated expense of $50,000. The applicant relied on the erroneously issued pool permit with a 10-foot rear accessory setback in constructing the existing pool structure. Opposing Position: The hardship was caused by the negligence of the applicant and/or their contractor. While it may create practical difficulties, that is not within the purview of the Planning Board or Board of Zoning Appeals to relieve the applicant from a problem of their own making. d. Will the Variance,if granted, be the minimum Variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure and which promote standards of health,safety and welfare? Yes.The applicant is only seeking the minimum variance which will allow the pool deck, pool, spa,and stairs to remain. Opposing Position: The property is still completely usable without the granting of the variance. The applicant will only have to construct the pool deck,spa and stairs in a manner that complies with the provisions of the Land Development Code. e. Will granting the Variance confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by these zoning regulations to other lands,buildings,or structures in the same zoning district? Yes.The applicant will be able to retain a decreased accessory rear yard setback for a pool Mr.Fred Reischl January 11.2017 Page 3 of 4 deck that exceed 4 feet in height above the seawall. However, it should be noted that the applicant relied on the County issued permit which cited incorrectly the accessory rear swimming pool and/or screen enclosure setback. Opposing Position: The basic principle of variance procedure as embodied in the LDC and the applicable case law is that a variance should NOT give the applicant any special privilege. This would provide the applicant with a special privilege and diminish the value of surrounding properties.The variance will impede the views of all surrounding properties and set a dangerous precedent which could allow other property owners to receive the same variance,thus making the LDC a sham. £ Will granting the Variance be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this Land Development Code,and not be injurious to the neighborhood,or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare? Yes. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed Variance would legitimize the existence of the pool and pool deck that are currently under construction. Opposing Position:The staff is arguing that this will legitimize the existence of a non- conforming structure that has not been issued a certificate of occupancy and is in violation of the LDC. That is not in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the LDC. Further, this is injurious to the neighborhood in that it impedes, impairs and interferes with the views of the adjacent lot owners. g. Are there natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals and objectives of the regulation such as natural preserves, lakes, golf courses, etc.? Yes. The applicant states that variations in seawall height in this location do not create a uniform height for all houses and therefore create different pool deck height requirements over 4 feet of the seawall. Opposing Position: The standard in the LDC is set so that there is uniformity in the elevation above the seawall. The height above the seawall is the standard. There are no conditions natural or physically induced which justify the granting of this variance. h. Will granting the Variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan? Approval of this Variance will not affect or change the requirements of the Growth Management Plan. Opposing Position: The approval of the Variance will not impact the GMP. Based upon the foregoing response to the Staff Report and Recommendation and testimony to be presented at the hearing on January 19, 2017, my clients respectfully request that the Planning Board deny this application for a variance. The variance as requested does not meet the legal criteria for the granting of a variance. Mr.Fred Reischl January 11. 2017 Page 4 of 4 I appreciate this opportunity to present my clients' position and look forward to appearing at the hearing on January 19, 2017 to present these arguments to the Planning Board, respond to their questions and get my clients' testimony on the record.Please contact me if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, 7 atric H. eale Cc: Clients PHN/Ps Ex parte Items - Commissioner William L. McDaniel, Jr. COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA February 28, 2017 ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS 8. A. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Recommendation to approve a Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida, for a Variance from Section 4.02.03.A, Table 4 of the Land Development Code to reduce the minimum rear yard accessory structure setback line from 20 feet to 6.55 feet for a swimming pool,spa,pool deck and stairs on a waterfront lot within the Residential Single-Family(RSF-3)zoning district on property located at 342 Trade Winds Avenue, in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida [VA-PL20160001181]. NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM SEE FILE ®Meetings ®Correspondence ®e-mails (Calls Meetings: Met with Patrick Neale and George Marks (Kramer-Marks Architects) 2/9/17 Correspondence: Qualifiers Page Correspondence: Affidavit in lieu of Certified Site Plan Correspondence: 1/10/17 letter to Fred Reischl from Patrick Neale Correspondence: BCC Zoning Hearing Presentation. Emails: from Patrick Neale's secretary requesting meeting CONSENT AGENDA — NO ITEMS SUMMARY AGENDA 17. E. ***This item is being continued to the March 14, 2017 BCC meeting.*** This item requires that.ex pa-r-te disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on tisite�r, ar a participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve Petitio i -' 20160003293,to disclaim, renounce and vacate the County and the public i - 'n a portion of the 10-foot drainage easement and vacate a portion of the 10-foot uti •• •. •ment located along the rear border of Lot 50, The Lodgings of Wyndemere, Sect'• •,as recorded in Plat Book 13,Page 8 of the public records of Collier County, F ocated in Section 19,Township 49 South,Range 26 East, Collier County,Florida. NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM SEE FILE ❑Meetings Correspondence De-mails Calls FilsonSue From: Patrick Neale <pneale@patrickneale.com> Sent: Friday, February 24, 2017 4:05 PM To: McDanielBill Cc: George Marks; Karen Klukiewicz;Alexander Zurawsky Subject: Variance Petition 342 Trade Winds Attachments: Qualifiers Page Highlighted.pdf; Affidavit In Lieu of Certified Site Plan Remediations.pdf Bill Attached are two documents from the county permit files on this property.The first is an affidavit signed by the pool contractor that states that the contractor will remediate any non-conformities.The second is the qualifiers page from the house permit file where the contractor agrees that the issuance of the permit does not exempt them from complying with County Codes and Ordinances. Let me know if you have any questions. Have a great weekend. Pat Patrick H. Neale Patrick Neale &Associates Attorney at Law Primary Office: 5470 Bryson Court, Suite 103 Naples, FL 34109 Marco Island Office: (By Appointment Only) 950 North Collier Blvd. Suite 400 Marco Island, FL 34145 Phone: 239 642-1485 Fax: 239 642-1487 Mobile: 239 404-7930 Primary Email: pneale@patrickneale.com Secondary Email address for service: email-servicepatrickneale.com Please visit our website: www.patrickneale.com This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s) or entity(s) named within the message. This e-mail might contain legally privileged and confidential information. If you properly received this e-mail as a client or retained expert, please hold it in confidence to protect the attorney-client or work product privileges. Should the intended recipient forward or disclose this message to another person or party, that action could constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited by the sender and to do so might constitute a violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. section 2510-2521. If this communication was received in error we apologize for the intrusion. Please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message without reading same. Nothing in this e-mail message shall, in and of itself, create an attorney-client relationship with the sender. We are a federally designated Debt Relief Agency under the United States Bankruptcy Laws. We assist people with finding solutions to their debt problems, including assisting them with the filing of petitions for relief under the United States Bankruptcy Code. Representation: No representation by our Firm, or by any member of our Firm, shall be deemed to commence by any correspondence other than a mutually signed engagement and representation letter. Evidentiary Privilege: To the extent that this message is being sent to settle a claim or dispute, all evidentiary limitations on its use and admissibility are hereby expressly made applicable to the message and its contents. Disclaimer under Circular 230: Any statements regarding tax matters made herein, including any attachments, are not 1 formal tax opinions by this firm, cannot be relied upon or used by any person to avoid tax penalties, and are not intended to be used or referred to in any marketing or promotional materials. 2 Affidavit in lieu of Certified Site Plan To be filed with Permit Application State of Florida County of Collier I. fsn,., /Y)afy , do hereby affirm that the work performed under Permit Number > &W7oo -2G2-2 does not constitute any modification to the original permitted footprint of the structure that existed prior to the issuance of this permit. I further affirm that. to the best of my knowledge, the footprint of the structure shall conform to the applicable setback(s) and easement requirement(s) established by Collier County and/or any other applicable agency. I hereby agree that should any work performed under this permit result in a nonconformity with any setback(s) or easement requirement(s) established by Collier County or any other applicable agency. I will have no sustainable rebuttal against Collier County Government and will immediately remediate the nonconformity at no expense to oilier County Government. 0/41111111bh` Signe. �, Printed Name: r4C-v» (Check one) Owner/Builder [ ] Contractor [ Design Professional [ ] AFFIRMED AND SUBSCRIBED befo e me, the undersigned authority. on G/ /2— 141 , 2010, by /1/(AC.G� (check one) who is personally known to me [ ] or who provided as identification [ J. 41110 (Seal) NOTARY PUBLIC — State of CAROL RUTH STACHURA t * MYCOMMISSION 4FF093307 Printed Name: EXPIRES:February 16,2018 ,,Eo,Or eabe$Truauoga4NW/Seiv'cn My commission expires: 7/15/2013 A-128 QUALIFIERS PAGE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COLLIER COUNTY REGULATIONS Application is hereby made to obtain a permit to do the work and installations as indicated. I certify that no work or installation has commenced prior to the issuance of a permit and that all work will be performed to meet the standards of all laws regulating construction in this jurisdiction. The permit or application fee may have additional fees imposed for failing to obtain permits prior to commencement of construction. The approved permit and/or permit application expires if not commenced within 180 days from the date of issuance. The pennittee further understands that only licensed contractors may be employed and that the structure will not be used or occupied until a certificate of occupancy is issued. By signing this permit application, I agree that I have been retained by the owner/permittee to provide contracting services for the trade for which I am listed. Furthermore, it is my responsibility to notify the Building Review and Permitting De partment should I no longer be the contractor responsible for providing said contracting services. I further agree that I understand that the review and issuing of this permit does not exempt me from complying with all County Codes and Ordinances. It is further understood that the property owner/permittee is the owner of the permit. Note: If change of contractor, please provide the following: Permit Number: E-mail Address: Tel: COMPANY NAME: L.-'4,-9* 'c ��E/= % , STATE LICENSE NO:I?Ot O✓� ✓�� QUALIFIER'S NAME(PRINT, • lL �/� QUALIFIER'S SIGNATUR'.• �i/> STATE OF: COUNTY OF: ,�C SWORN TO(OR AFFIRMED)AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME THIS f / / WHO IS PERSONALLY KNOWN: OR AS PRODUCED ID: zo.'r--.,. 6H014DAAJENKS `': p. +: MYYQOMMISSION ii FF 034956 XPIRES:Jul 9,2017 TYPE OF ID: s' '.;;�� Y '. '';q,54%''' Bonded Thio Notary Pubs Underwriters NOTARY PUBLIC SIGNATURE: -C;v.,C �_ J(?`6 -- (SEAL) NOTICE IN ADDITION TO THE REQUIRE- MEN OF THIS PERMIT, THE MA BE ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS APPLICABLE TO THIS PROPERTY THAT MAY BE FOUND IN THE PUBLIC R CORDS OF THIS COU AND ERE MAY BE ADDITIONN PERMITS REQUIRED FROM OTHER GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES SUCH ASW R MANAGEMENT DI TRICT,ST TE AGENCIES,OR FEDERAL AGENCIES. WARNING OF POSSIBLE DEED RESTRICTIONS THE LAND SUBJECT TO THIS PERMIT MAY BE SUBJECT TO DEED, AND OTHER RESTRICTIONS THAT MAY LIMIT OR IMPAIR THE LPNDOW NER'S RIGHTS. COLLIER COUNTY IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THESE RESTRICTIONS, NOR PRE COLLIER COUNTY EMPLOYEES AUTHORIZED TO PROVIDE LEGAL OR BUSINESS ADVICE TO THE PUBLIC RELATIVE TO THESE RESTRICTIONS. THE LANDOWNER OR ANY APPLICANT ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE LANDOWNER IS CAUTIONED TO SEE K PROFESSIONAL ADVICE. WARNING ON WORK IN COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAYS THIS PERMIT DOES NOT AUTHORIZE CONSTRUCTION OR INSTALL ATION OF ANY STRUCTURE OR UTILITY, ABOVE OR BELOW GROUND, WITHIN ANY RIGHT-OF-W AY OR EASEMENT RESERVED FOR ACCESS, DRAINAGE OR UTILITY PURPOSES. THIS RESTRICTION SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITS FENCING, SPRINKLER SYSTEMS, LANDSCAPING OTHER TH AN SOD, SIGNS, W ATER, SEWER, CABLE AND DRAINAGE WORK THEREIN. IF SUCH IMPROVEMENTS ARE NECESSARY, A SEPAR ATE PERMIT FOR THAT PURPOSE MUST BE OBTAINED FROM TRANSPORTATION/ROW PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS(239)252-8192. WARNING TO OWNER: YOUR FAILURE TO RECORD A NOTICE 0 ' t COMMENCEMENT MAY RESULT IN YOUR PAYING TWICE FO IMPROVEMENTS TO YOUR PROPERTY. IF YOU INTEND TO OBTAI FINANCING, CONSULT WITH YOUR LENDER OR AN ATTORNE BEFORE RECORDING YOUR NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT. Per Florida Statutes 713.135 a Notice of Commencement(NOC)is required for construction of improvements totaling more than$2,500,)44th certain exceptions.For A/C Repairs or Replacements a notice of commencement is required for improvements more than$7,500. The applicant shall file with the issuing authority prior to the first inspection eithera certified copy of the recorded NOC ora notarized statement that the NOC has been filed for recording,along with a copy thereof.In order to complywith the state requirement,permits will be placed in inspection hold until proof of the NOC is filed with the building permitting and inspection department.The issuing authority shall not perform or approve subsequent inspections until the applicant files by mail,facsimile,hand delivery,email or any other means such certified copy with the issuing authority. 4 I J Collier County Commissioners Meeting `` February 28, 2017 @ 1:00 401 Zoning Variance Hearing 342 Tradewinds Ave. , j v F Presentation of George Marks in opposition to the granting of a zoning variance for 342 Tradewinds Ave. Collier County Commissioners Zoning Hearing Presentation George Marks— 319 Lagoon Ave, Vanderbilt Beach, Naples, FL February 28, 2017 @ 1:00 PM (Time certain) I would like to thank the Commissioners for the opportunity to Present our concerns I am here in opposition to the request for a Zoning Variance from the Collier County Land Development Code. Originally, I was in opposition to the variance because I did not understand why FIRST the County Staff,then Second,the Planning Commission would recommend granting this variance without the conditions of a legal hardship being met. As you know, a hardship is a legal standard that an applicant is required to meet in order to be granted a variance. I have worked closely with Mr Neale and he will present in more detail why the conditions of a legal hardship have not been met. I am going to focus on WHY the PC Hearing transcribed Testimony as well as the Planning and Building Staff Recommendations REPORT that are a basis of your consideration are inaccurate and misinformed. At the PC, Mr. Strain asked the County Attorney if the granting of this variance would set a precedent and the County Attorney answered "NO". That is a standard Attorney answer on the basis that no two properties are ever exactly the same. I offer a portion of the transcript as Exhibit "B" (to avoid boring you with the entire transcript) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have a question, a couple questions. First is the County Attorney's Office in regards to the--now, this setting a precedent. Could one of the county attorneys opine on whether this does or not? MR.KLATZKOW: Does it set a precedent? No. However, Mr. Shapiro just spent 20 minutes showing you pictures of an existing pool (That existed PRIOR to the current zoning and is an EXCELLENT example of why the zoning was changed) so while the County Solicitor will say that a variance will not be set, I think we saw today that in practicality,that is not always true as it was the ONLY basis for Mr. Shapiro's argument. The photo below is a picture of the pool that Mr. Shapiro used as a basis of his argument for the granting of the variance. This pool is+/- 6'-0"" above the seawall and+/- 12'-0"from the edge of the seawall. The variance is asking for a variance to 6.36 feet (2.36 ft above the seawall) and 10.17 feet from the Seawall when 20'-0" is required. This is a 59%variance in height and 49%variance in depth from the seawall. This is NOT a diminimus variance. I present this photo looking WEST(down the canal)for your consideration. This photo is of the pool that Mr. Shapiro used as a basis of his argument. This photo was taken+/- 15'-0"from the edge of the seawall from the easterly property line and you can clearly see how the view is diminished or blocked. It would be total blocked at 20'0". rOi 4. r.. '' � , F r \ , '44'''''''+-•:1' ' ' '' °: r ,td� ,mss ..,„ ' j t N. I present the following photo looking EAST of the same pool. This photo was taken +/-20-0" from the edge of the seawall from the westerly property line and you can clearly see how the view is diminished or blocked. 20'-0" is the distance from the seawall required by the Zoning code for a pool deck exceeding 4' 0" above the seawall. I am standing on the adjacent patio, in compliance with the LDC. e 4,14. x • - • ► , CLEARLY—the County planners had a strong reason for creating the zoning ordinance that they did which limited the height of a pool relative to the seawall and the distance from it. The REASON was to PRESERVE the view corridor for ALL property owners and the granting of this variance be in direct opposition to the County's Zoning laws and detrimental to the overall neighborhood. I have prepared a few diagrams illustrating the following: 1. The setbacks and dimensions that are required by the zoning code 2. The setbacks that are in place for the pool that Mr.Shapiro is using as a basis for his request 3. The setbacks that exist for the pool at 342 Tradewinds on which is the basis of this hearing Please see the attached sketch illustrating the dimensions of the matter at hand today. As you can see, not enforcing zoning laws can create disturbing results if not administered firmly and fairly. Granting this variance would significantly violate the intent of the zoning code and have a NEGATIVE impact on adjacent property values. Collier County LDC requirements • The current Pool height is 6.36feet above the seawall. ��'.0 This is what is allowed if the pool is 4'-0"above the seawall 11- 1 r_ is k A ' 4f-0�� /I1 , 7 Y� V X GL a -t-'P,trt_ Qeikt)e/ C.443 Std' ou — A 4t-0't Weis- FD'-- t€Ck- I 104 If a POOL is less than 20'-0'from the Seawall it must be less than 4'-0'above the top of the seawall. This is what currently exists Gvn i fit, t-sE16.1 " 1S #.7- (o,3(` ApskrE -n-e- �C A111+4411 4„t,--I I 1 '. 1r40,► - .iINC.et Se184c.4 ios44d Wow, DJczt.6' ' 4 -D SIN\Q.._- P* S1,-04 'NAL` Pet40.-) c.45,1-3 Ndr- & ovat--- `tom S , a► 311 epsr1 rJc•.\ Poet_ -Pat/2— it)(-c, The STAFF report Let me now focus on the STAFF report and its recommendations and why they are seriously flawed. I will do my best to be brief, but thorough. --I have included the Staff report as Exhibit "A" I will discuss the Items one by one, since each one is a legal argument for a variance. a. Are there special conditions and circumstances existing which are peculiar to the location, size and characteristics of the land structure or building involved. STAFF answer—"Yes, per the applicant the pool shell, retaining wall and stairs are constructed" The proper answer is adamantly NO—no special circumstances existed PRIOR to the construction of the pool and the applicant cannot create THE REASON for a variance then be granted a variance. If that were the case,then why have a zoning code or building code. I will address the STAFF's and PC reason for their respective recommendations later as part of the PC transcript. b. Are there special conditions and circumstances, which do not result from the action of the applicant such as pre-existing conditions relative to the property, which are the subject of the Variance request? STAFF Answer—"Yes—The applicant applied and received a pool permit from the County citing an incorrect rear accessory pool setback. Let me present to you a section of the Florida Building Code 2014 which is Section 105.4.1 "A permit issued shall be construed to be a license to proceed with the work and not as authority to violate, cancel, alter or set aside any of the provisions of the technical codes, nor shall issuance of a permit prevent the building official from thereafter requiring a correction of errors in plans." Let me present to you a section of the Collier County Land Development code which is CHAPTER 10.02.06- Requirements in Permits—Section 1.c states" Statements made by the applicant on the building or land alteration permit application shall be deemed official statements. Approval of the application by t * ounty Manager or his designee shall, in no way, exempt the applicant from strict observance of applicable provisions of this Land Development Code and all other applicable regulations, ordinances, codes, and laws. A building or land alteration permit issued in error shall not confer any rights or privileges to the applicant to proceed to or continue with construction, and the county shall have the power to revoke such permit until said error is corrected. c. Will a literal interpretation of the provisions for this zoning code work create unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant or create practical difficulties for the applicant? STAFF answer—YES—Per the applicant,the pool is already constructed at an estimated expense of$50,000. NO—How many times can the staff say,it already exists? This error could have been caught and corrected BEFORE the house was built if a Certified Site Plan had been completed,thereby minimizing the repair costs. The estimated total value of the house is$2.5-3.0 million dollars. The total cost to make the repair of$50,000 while significant, is small relative to the overall value of the property and more importantly the adjacent properties. Had the correction been performed when the owner and contractor were notified in April 2016,the cost to correct would be significantly lower. However,the contractor elected to instead provide the County an Affadavit as a COST SAVING measure and took on any risk. How can the Applicant then claim a financial hardship and worse, how can the County grant such a variance based on financial hardship? ***The AFFADAVIT signed by the contractor is attached on the next page Affidavit in lieu of Certified Site Plan To be filed with Permit Application State of Florida County of Collier • /4-0 r.) More ,..) do hereby affirm that the work performed under Permit Number 21 XX'17Da does not constitute any modification to the original permitted footprint of the structure that existed prior to the issuance of this permit. I further affirm that, to the best of my knowledge, the footprint of the structure shall conform to the applicable setback(s) and easement requirement(s) established by Collier County and/or any other applicable agency. I hereby agree that should any work performed under this permit result in a nonconformity with any setback(s) or easement requirement(s) established by Collier County or any other applicable agency. I will have no sustainable rebuttal against Collier County Government and will immediately remediate the nonconformity at no expense to_ oilier County Government. Signe•: --,,f,r1011111111111111wii/ • • Printed Name: W-V)07 ! , (Check one) Owner/Builder [ ] Contractor[ f Design Professional [ ] AFFIRMED AND SUBSCRIBED befo e me, the undersigned authority, on /qty /2-1 7.4J Co, 2010. by (check one)one) who is personally known to me [ 1 or who provided '�L as identification [ ]. (Seal) NOTARY PUBLIC — State of ,`,:•::kt, CAROL RUTH STACHURA Printed Name: * MY COMMISSION f FF 097 EXPIRES:FebNary 16,2018 4?",0- Boded TM"PAIdget NotaryServices My commission expires: 7/15/2013 A-128 The county received from the contractor a signed Affadavit in Lieu of Certified Site Plan,which means the contractor did not wish to submit a Certified Site Plan. I'm not sure why,except to save money as it would be good building practice or I offer maybe the contractor and Owner knew it was wrong and hoped no one would notice? The AFFADAVIT certifies that the Contractor will"IMMEDIATELY remediate the nonconformity at no expense to Collier County Government". If the contractor was notified of the error in APRIL 2016,why wasn't the error corrected then? How then does the contractor continuing to work constitute a financial hardship worthy of a variance that is detremental to the neighborhood and potentially sets up the community for future infractions of the Zoning Code. Since the pool is far in excess of the allowed setbacks,why wouldn't the county then just ENFORCE the Affadavit which grants the County NO FINANCIAL EXPOSURE OR LIABILITY and have the pool design corrected to be within the Zoning Code? So I am confused again Why then doesn't the County then just enforce the Zoning Code and/or enforce the AFFADAVIT instead of us spending THOUSANDS of dollars to defend our neighborhood? Why wait SIX(6)months until October 2016 to actually apply for the variance? d. Will the variance, if granted be the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure and which promote standards of health safety and welfare? STAFF answer—YES—The applicant is only seeking the minimum variance which will allow the pool deck, pool,spa and stairs to remain. We agree that it is the minimum,but the staff answer does not address the standards of health,safety and welfare e. Will granting the variance confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by these zoning regulations to other lands, buildings or structures in the same zoning? STAFF Answer—Yes,The applicant will be able to retain a decreased accessory rear yard setback for a pool However, it should be noted that the applicant relied on the county issued permit which cited incorrectly the accessory rear swimming pool and/or screen enclosure setback? The applicant will CERTAINLY be granted a privilege not available to other property owners. The fact that the county approved an erroneous site plan is a NON-FACTOR for FOUR(4) reasons 1) Because the Contractor elected to not perform a Certified Site Plan in April 2016(time of shell completion),which would have identified the PROPER SETBACKS and alerted the contractor of the error at a time when the correction was easily performed. 2) The County Land Development Code CLEARLY states that the County is not responsible for errors made by the contractor(See Item b.above) 3) The building permit issued on Jan 27,2016 states"Per Collier County Ordinance No.2001-01,as it may be amended,all work must comply with all Applicable laws,codes,ordinances and any additional stipulations or conditions of this permit." A copy of the Pool building permit is attached below. 4) The contractor provided an AFFADAVIT in Lieu of a Certified Site Plan (Exhibit P-x)which states that they will IMMEDIATLEY remediate any non-conformity at no expense to Collier County Government. ***The Building Permit is attached on the next page COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PERMIT PERMIT#: PRBD2016010076701 PERMIT TYPE: PL ISSUED: BY: APPLIED DATE: 01-12-16 APPROVAL DATE:01-27-16 MASTER#: COA: JOB ADDRESS: 342 Trade Winds AVE JOB DESCRIPTION: CONSTRUCTION OF 387 SQ FT IN-GROUND POOL& JOB PHONE: 5'8"X 5'8"ZERO EDGE SPA,3 HP VS PUMP- ALARMS(PRBD20150928706) 342 TRADEWINDS AVE LOT 11 SUBDIVISION#: BLOCK: LOT: FLOOD MAP: ZONE: ELEVATION: FOLIO#: 27585200007 SECTION-TOWNSHIP-RANGE:29-48-25 OWNER INFORMATION: CONTRACTOR INFORMATION: STONE-JESKE TR,ROXANNE B ROXANNE B MORRISON ALUMINUM CONSTRUCTION INC STONE-JESKE TRUST UTD 8/10/05 (DBA)MAC CUSTOM POOLS-ALUMINUM 531 TURTLE HATCH LN 1020 SE 12TH AVE NAPLES ,FL 34103- CAPE CORAL,FL 33990-- CERTIFICATE#::C33218 PHONE: FCC CODE: CONSTRUCTION CODE: 0218 JOB VALUE: $74,000.00 TOTAL RES SQFT: 0 TOTAL COMM SOFT: 0 SETBACKS FRONT: 30' REAR: 10'Accessory LEFT: 7.5' RIGHT: 7.5' SEWER: WATER: CONTACT NAME: CONTACT PHONE: Per Collier County Ordinance No.2002-01,as it may be amended,all work must comply with all applicable laws,codes,ordinances,and any additional stipulations or conditions of this permit.This permit expires if work authorized by the permit is not commenced within six(6)months from the date of issuance of the permit.Additional fees for failing to obtain permits prior to the commencement of construction may be imposed.Permittee(s)further understands that any contractor that may be employed must be a licensed contractor and that the structure must not be used or occupied until a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. NOTICE:PRIOR TO THE REMOVAL OF ASBESTOS PRODUCTS OR THE DEMOLITION OF A STRUCTURE,FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS REQUIRE THE PERMITTEE(EITHER THE OWNER OR CONTRACTOR)TO SUBMIT A NOTICE OF THE INTENDED WORK TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION(DEP).FOR MORE INFORMATION,CONTACT DEP AT(239)344-5600. In addition to the conditions of this permit,there may be additional restrictions applicable to this property that may be found in the public records of this county,and there may be additional permits required from other governmental entities such as water management districts,state agencies,or federal agencies. WARNING TO OWNER: YOUR FAILURE TO RECORD A NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT MAY RESULT IN YOUR PAYING TWICE FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO YOUR PROPERTY. IF YOU INTEND TO OBTAIN FINANCING, CONSULT WITH YOUR LENDER OR AN ATTORNEY BEFORE RECORDING YOUR NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT. I have attached photos of a few pools currently being constructed or recently completed that ALL appear to comply with the proper zoning. roHill „ to 0-1 ill: , Hill -'DQ °P. ° `�l_ i " r ' `17)P OF At-c_. =Y liftf '/vie ' - ""`ti . : idas .1w g _ ; -t o? DF - 1-) 44" 'TOP ofvt - x . gill -- 1 1 all 11.17 - . - ' ' 1 0- , . , ; „` ' TP I have also provided photos of the pool in question so you may see the significant differences. I I I £ _ t -. w • 1 •I cam. 4Ste. .PNI.. —.1 1 , : t, 1. t ,,�.. iiii "f1Gt�fc t f. Will granting the variance be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this Land Use Code and not be injurious to the Neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. STAFF Answer- YES—The staff is of the opinion that the proposed variance would legitimize the existence of the pool and pool deck that are currently under construction? I am confused -How does"LEGITIMIZING the existence of the pool" make it in harmony with the general intent of the Land Development Code when it totally ignores the LDC? g. Are there natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals and objectives of the regulation such as natural preserves, lakes golf course, etc.? STAFF answer—Yes. The applicant states that variations in seawall height in this location do not create a uniform height for all house and therefore create different pool deck heights. The current Seawall height is approximately 1'-O" higher than the neighbors on either side. Had they have been using a lower seawall this pool would be actually MORE of a violation of the zoning code. See photos. i. Will Granting the variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan? yak.. `� ;mow littil f t liito ff 1.4W qgkqUit'VLd Lk) G2OSSirt0 ") t S ALGZ- Nicagar STAFF answer—Approval of this variance will not affect or change the requirements of the Growth Management Plan? No comment. PLANNING COMMISSION TRANSCRIPT Let's review comments based on the Planning Commission Transcript. First a few facts. 1. The County Staff erroneously approved the site plan. However,we have proven that should not be a factor in the decision to grant this variance 2. The county staff provided a report that we have shown is in error and does not support a hardship. 3. The County Planning Commission, CHAIRED by the County Staff recommended the same be approved based on a flawed Staff report that does not legally support a hardship. I offer the PC transcript as Exhibit B,which is attached for your review(Anything in italics, represents a phase taken verbatim from the PC hearing transcript) 1. Commissioner Ebert—Fred,you said this is a financial hardship Well, I mean we always use money, you know in this stuff. Like I say I don't feel it should be up to the owner to have to pay...." Mr. Resichl—That our standard answer that, yes,you can proceed at your own risk pending the outcome of the in this case was the HEX and not the Board of Commissioners. If the owners and contractor jointly"Proceeded at their own risk",how can they NOW complain that it is a financial hardship because the house is in place. Additionally,The owner has recourse against their design professionals the architect,site engineer,etc. which all should have Errors and Omissions Insurance that should cover this expense,so this is NOT a financial hardship case. 2. In response to how much of the work was in place... "Mr.Jenks----We continued with the house at our own risk" It has since been determined that the Pool contractor,who was a sub to Mr.Jenks,did not wish to provide a Certified Site Plan and instead provided the Affadavit. If they continued at their own risk, how can that then be the basis of a financial hardship when they have made no effort to mitigate their damages for a situation they created. They waited SIX(6) months to even apply for a variance. II 3. Mark Strain (County Staff and PC Chairman Summary and suggested motion)—After 40 minutes of presentation, Mr. Strain gave the following summary) Mr. Strain's quotes are shown in italics and highlighted "CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have one item I'd like to discuss. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike or Fred, would you put what I just handed you on the overhead. You need to back off a little bit. Keep going. Keep going. Right there. So we can read the whole thing. Mr.STRAIN came prepared to put this section of the code on the overhead and Mr.Reischl read the section aloud. CHAIRMAN STRAIN.: Section 9.04.03 is our criteria for variances. You've heard today that there are eight criteria;there are. And we've had legal counsel advise us from the opposition side to address their position on those eight criteria. Mr Neale,a respected Land Use attorney in Collier County advised the County that based on their own criteria that there was NO LEGAL BASIS for the granting of a variance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Also, a case was referred to us, an old case from a 1982 activity. But we here--as that attorney, even the o position attorney and as staff has opined today, =frela,adherelolhe Land The Land Development Code requires a 20'-0"setback when the pool deck is more than 4'-0"above the seawall. The LDC is VERY clear on this matter. This is what was on the piece presented by the Mr.Strain paper— The Land Development Code says this in the beginning of the criteria for variances: "Findings: Before any variance shall be recommended for approval to the Board of the Zoning Appeals, the Planning Commission the following standards in making a determination." Mr Strain manipulated those words to say that he could do whatever he wanted and that the LDC was a "SUGGESTION". Do the Commissioners want to allow every real estate developer to treat the LDC code as a loose"Suggestion"? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: i.>4. " o' z s�hardship, '7 ;,:; o, but at the same time we shall consider those and be guided by them. That means it's not mandatory. I'm Confused again.... So Mr.Strain admitted that there is NO HARDSHIP AS A BASIS FOR GRANTING A VARIANCE,yet he recommends one anyway based on the fact that the LDC is just a suggestion? A Hardship is the legal standard for the granting of a variance. It is the ONLY standard for which a Variance should be granted. We must be speaking about driving on the Al Interstate in Italy where the speed limit is `just a suggestion" I doubt the Commissioners want the county run in this manner. As a resident of Vanderbilt Beach,we REALLY need to be diligence on EVERY building permit in our community....and that is why I am here today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Mike, if you read this differently as Zoning Director,please let me know. But it's my understanding that it means what it says, that we're not bound by those eight items, but they are for consideration. MR.BOSI: My understanding would be--the interpretation that you've adopted would be my understanding; that these are the guidelines and with that emphasis upon the guidelines. So Mr Bosi,who works closely with Mr.Strain is directed(asked)to verify Mr.Strain's outrageous comment? That does not seem proper to me in a public forum. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And with that in mind,I have--I've listened to everything, and I've certainly tried to do all the research I can to understand how this happened. I can't see the benefit to force someone to tear down a home such as this. There's been no shown malicious intent in this. I have no idea how Mr.Strain could have come to that conclusion. The Property owners did not say one word during the hearing. After the hearing,I offered the owners the opportunity to speak with me and discuss a compromise and they decided to do that in the hallway after the hearing. However,the conversation was very short. I was immediately told"If you are not willing to discuss leaving the pool exactly where it is,there is nothing to discuss.My response was"Oh so you really don't care about complying with the zoning,you just want what you want?" Since April 2016,the owners have made NO attempt to correct the situation when they could have easy done s before the house was built. I disagree with Mr.Strain's statement. Additionally,after NOT working on the pool for TEN(10)months they started working on the pool again on Saturday,February 25th? Why 3 days PRIOR to the hearing? Did they have information that lead them to believe that this variance would be granted? One of the PC discussion comments was that they would NEVER beable to get a piece of construction equipment behind the pool to remove it--as another reason for their hardship. I offer the following picture that disputes that comment and shows the neighbors contractors currently working on the pool. This picture was taken on Saturday,February 25th. immuieur ... i'T `.• ''''''''.' --. :- Ntti,-.---1":":, ''...'- 6 .,. , 1 r - .1* 0 g49-.-1 OE TO c x' Lit.tde0 Please note the piece of equipment,but also how HIGH and imposing that wall is relative to an adult person and it is only 6.67 feet from the sea wall at the stair location CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was an--it was a human error. It was a mistake made by multiple parties. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To take them to task for this for the cost that it would require for an item that does not set a precedent I don't think is necessary. Note that Mr.Strain specifically asked the County Solicitor to state that this would not set a precedent,but we have already discussed this issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, if we can show they purposely had misled the county, this was done intentionally,I'd say then whatever they deserve they deserve in regards to correcting it. Here,I am confused again and I cannot prove anything. However,since when is"intent"an issue in a Zoning hearing? So if you kill someone with your car on RT 41,you will likely go to jail for Manslaughter whether you"intended to do so or not". CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I have looked at all the records. I have looked at them probably more thoroughly than anybody in this room, andl can assure you nothing like that came out of any of those records. And they're records that this panel doesn't even have access to. They're in the county records department. I've pulled all the folders. Again,I am confused—Mr Strain points out that he has reviewed EVERY folder,so I am sure he saw the AFFADAVIT signed by the contractor. Why does Mr.Strain then recommend approving the variance when as a COUNTY STAFF member,he should have acted on the AFFADAVIT or recommended that someone else do so and have the pool corrected to the LDC standard? We have already shown that"every other"property owner in Vanderbilt Beach is complying with the LDC?I did not measure every pool currently under construction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's nothing there that shows malicious intent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In fact, if anything, they were trying to continually keep up with things they needed to do to make sure their approvals were consistent and reviewed by the county. Confused— If they were TRULY trying to keep up with everything,they would have directed their contractor to correct the pool in April 2016. Instead,they did not even apply for the variance until SIX(6) months later and were actively working on continuing to build the pool this past weekend PRIOR to this hearing. I'm confused. Also,if the applicants we working CLOSELY WITH THE COUNTY STAFF at each step,why then are we here at this zoning hearing? They should have been directed to make the change immediately So I certainly think that the variance is warranted in this case, whether the variance is 24--two-and-a-halffeet--yeah, two-and-a-halffeet or 18 inches. So we wasted MANY MANY hours and THOUSANDS of legal dollars and Mr.Strain states,"it really doesn't matter?" He just ignored the legal standing,ignored the Affadavit in place,ignored the LDC and decided to recommend to grant the variance anyway? The only thing I would suggest is that a stipulation be added to do make sure that the intent of where these are allowed at this height, which is everywhere else, basically, but Vanderbilt Beach, that the decorative cladding or landscaping and a berm or a combination thereof of some nature is there, is put in front or applied to this wall to soften it, as the other jurisdictions would have--where they had done so in other parts of the county. And with that, that's all I've got to say.And if there's nobody else here, we'll close the public hearing and we'll entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER SCHMIII:• I make a motion to approve. Additional Support: We have worked with and received a resolution from the Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association in opposition to this variance being granted. A copy is attached as Exhibit"E" We have also submitted to the County letters of opposition from other Vanderbilt Residents that are part of the official record. Numerous residents presented at the Planning Commission in Opposition to the granting of this variance and many more are here today including David Galloway, President of the VBRA. Summary of why this variance should NOT BE GRANTED 1. Mr. Strain admits in his testimony at the PC hearing that there may not be a "hardship"as a basis for granting this variance. NO hardship exists and the variance should be denied just on this fact alone. 2. The excessive variance required would have significant impact on the community and canal view corridor as it exists and as new homes are built and the neighborhood continues to develop and attorneys come forth now using THIS pool as their example 3. The County may also rely on Three (3) documents which protect the County financially— i. Affadavit signed by contractor ii. The error language in the LDC iii. The error language in the Florida Bldg Code 2014 4. The granting of this variance (if Mr Strain is allowed to interpret the LDC as just a "guide")will essentially empower the county staff to not just enforce the laws and codes of Collier County, but to make them up as they go along. I doubt the Commissioners who are elected by the residents of Collier County wish to allow that to happen or to open the door for every developer to do the same. 5. There is no legal basis for a variance and the Commissioners would be wrong to grant a variance without the legal basis for one. Such a decision would likely be overturned in an appeal and does the Commission really want to send the message to every developer knocking at the county door that their LDC is just a "suggestion"? Thank you for granting me the necessary time to make this presentation. Respectful "Submitted, i - / Ai . l Irorge E. Marks STAFF REPORT — Exhibit A Collier County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ZONING DIVISION-ZONING SERVICES SECTION HEARING DATE: OCTOBER 27, 2016 SUBJECT: PETITION VA-PL20160001181, 342 TRADE WINDS AVENUE PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT: Owner: Roxanne Stone-Jeske Agent: Jason Jenks Nancy D. Koeper Jenks Builders, Inc. 342 Tradewinds Avenue 7600 Alico Road 12-2 Naples, FL 34103 Fort Myers, FL 33912 REQUESTED ACTION: To have the Collier County Hearing Examiner (HEX) consider an application for a Variance from Section 4.02.03.A, Table 4 of the Land Development Code to reduce the minimum rear yard accessory structure setback line from 20 feet to 6.55 feet for a swimming pool, spa, pool deck and stairs on a waterfront lot within the Residential Single-Family (RSF-3) zoning district. See location map on page 2. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property is located on Lot 11, Block M of the Conners Vanderbilt Beach Estates Unit 2 subdivision, on the south side of Trade Winds Avenue, approximately 1000 feet west of Vanderbilt Drive in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County,Florida. PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The purpose of the petition is to request a reduction from the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC), Section 4.02.03.A.Table 4 stating that the minimum swimming pool and/or screen enclosure accessory setback for waterfront lots is 20 feet when the swimming pool deck exceeds 4 feet in height above the top of seawall. The seawall on this property is 3.31 feet with a pool deck that is 9.67 feet. Thus, the pool deck is 6.36 feet above the seawall, which is 2.36 feet above what is permitted by the LDC. VA-PL20160001181,342 Trade Winds Variance Page 1 of 7 The applicant states that the pool and deck plans submitted to Collier County ("County") contained the pool deck elevation of 9.67 feet. The County issued a pool permit, PRBD2016010076701, with a rear accessorysetback of 10 feet versus the required 20 feet. The applicant built the swimming pool, spa, and pool deck utilizing the 10-foot accessory setback requirements erroneously provided on the building permit rather than the required 20 feet accessory setback requirement. The pool deck encroaches 9.83 feet into the 20-foot setback. According to the permit building plans, the applicant built the stairs 3.5 feet into the erroneously provided 10-foot setback, Per LDC 4.02.01.D.7 stairways shall not protrude over 3 feet into a required front, side or rear yard of a single family dwelling; the stairs were approved at the 3.5- foot encroachment. Please note that the building permits, for both home (PRBD20150617253) and the pool, were permitted with inclusion of the stairs—as depicted on the survey on the proceeding page. The permitted pool and deck are located in the Residential Single-family District (RSF-3); the rear yard swimming pool and/or screen enclosure (one- and two-family) accessory setback for waterfront lots is 10 feet unless the swimming pool deck exceeds 4 feet in height above the top of the seawall; creating a required setback of 20 feet. SURROUNDING LAND USE &ZONING: SUBJECT PARCEL: Vacant Lot with building permit for new home, zoned RSF-3 North: Single-family residential development,zoned RSF-3 East: Single-family residential development,zoned RSF-3 South: Canal and then single-family residential development, zoned RSF-3 West: Single-family residential development, zoned RSF-3 • Wes IBA " 610: 1 `T.wwra�x - tags Aerial photo taken from Collier County Property Appraiser website VA-PL20160001181,342 Trade Winds Variance Page 4 of 7 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: The subject property is located in the Urban Residential Subdistrict of the Urban Mixed Use District land use classification on the County's Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The purpose of this subdistrict is to provide for higher densities in an area with fewer natural resource constraints and where existing and planned facilities are concentrated. The Growth Management Plan (GMP) does not address individual variance requests; the Plan deals with the larger issue of the actual use. ANALYSIS: The decision to grant a variance is based on the criteria in LDC Section 9.04.03. Staff has analyzed this petition relative to these provisions and offers the following responses: a. Are there special conditions and circumstances existing, which are peculiar to the location, size and characteristics of the land, structure or building involved? Yes. Per the applicant, the pool shell, retaining wall and stairs are constructed. The applicant commenced construction under building permit, PRBD2015092870601, with an incorrectly cited rear accessory pool setback of 10 feet versus the required 20 feet. The applicant abided by the incorrectly cited rear accessory 10-foot pool setback for the swimming pool, spa, and pool deck. The stairs off the pool deck do encroach 3.5 feet into the erroneously provided 10-foot setback; however they were permitted with the swimming pool, spa, and pool deck. b. Are there special conditions and circumstances, which do not result from the action of the applicant such as pre-existing conditions relative to the property, which are the subject of the Variance request? Yes. The applicant applied and received a pool permit from the County citing an incorrect rear accessory pool setback. The applicant proceeded, and followed, with provided setbacks unaware of any violations. Due to this error, the subject structure is currently encroaching 6.55; more specifically, the pool, spa, pool deck encroach 9.83 feet, resulting in a 10.17 rear yard setback, and the stairs encroach 13.45 feet, resulting in a 6.55-foot encroachment. c. Will a literal interpretation of the provisions of this zoning code work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant or create practical difficulties for the applicant? Yes. Per the applicant, the pool is already constructed and to abide by the required accessory 20-foot setback would require the applicant to remove the existing pool and replace it at an estimated expense of $50,000. The applicant relied on the erroneously issued pool permit with a 10-foot rear accessory setback in constructing the existing pool structure. d. Will the Variance, if granted, be the minimum Variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure and which promote standards of health, safety and welfare? VA-PL20160001181,342 Trade Winds Variance Page 5 of 7 Yes. The applicant is only seeking the minimum variance which will allow the pool deck, pool, spa, and stairs to remain. e. Will granting the Variance confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by these zoning regulations to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning district? Yes. The applicant will be able to retain a decreased accessory rear yard setback for a pool deck that exceed 4 feet in height above the seawall. However, it should be noted that the applicant relied on the County issued permit which cited incorrectly the accessory rear swimming pool and/or screen enclosure setback. f. Will granting the Variance be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this Land Development Code, and not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare? Yes. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed Variance would legitimize the existence of the pool and pool deck that are currently under construction. g. Are there natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals and objectives of the regulation such as natural preserves, lakes, golf courses, etc.? Yes. The applicant states that variations in seawall height in this location do not create a uniform height for all houses and therefore create different pool deck height requirements over 4 feet of the seawall. h. Will granting the Variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan? Approval of this Variance will not affect or change the requirements of the Growth Management Plan. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report on October 3, 2016. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Hearing Examiner (HEX) approve Petition VA-PL- 20160001181, 342 Trade Winds Avenue Variance. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Attachment A: Application VA-PL20160001181,342 Trade Winds Variance Page 6of7 PREPARED BY: RACHEL BEASLEY, PLANNER DATE ZONING DIVISION-ZONING SERVICES SECTION REVIEWED BY: RAYMOND V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER DATE ZONING DIVISION-ZONING SERVICES SECTION MICHAEL BOSI, AICP, DIRECTOR DATE ZONING DIVISON VA-PL20160001181,342 Trade Winds Variance Page 7of7 EXHIBIT "B" TRANSCRIPT OF PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING —January 19, 2017 ( only the portion related to this matter has been included — pages 1-30) January 19,2017 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples,Florida,January 19,2017 LET IT BE REMEMBERED,that the Collier County Planning Commission,in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building"F"of the Government Complex,East Naples,Florida,with the following members present: CHM: MAN: Mark Strain Stan Chrzanowski Diane Ebert Karen Homiak Joe Schmitt Patrick Dearborn ALSO PRESENT: Mike Bosi,Planning and Zoning Manager Fred Reischl,Principe Planner Jeffrey A.Klatzkow,County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko,Managing Assistant County Attorney Tom Eastman, School District Representative • Page 1 of 46 January 19,2017 PROCEEDINGS MR.BOSI: Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning,everyone.Welcome to the Thursday,January 19th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If everybody will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Roll call by our secretary,please. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. Good morning. Mr.Eastman? MR.EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr.Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms.Ebert is here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms.Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Present. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And,Mr.Dearborn? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And we have two advertised public hearings today. The first one is going to be a variance on a property at 342 Tradeti lsAvenue,'and the second one is a review of our Collier County Land Development Code amen nts. It be the sec or third reading on some of these for the Planning COmmission. It will. be the final. will .. There will be another review. We'll have maybe our final on the 30th in the evening. And with that,we'll move into the Planning Commission absences. We have two upcoming meetings: 5:05 Januaryi0th is the LDC review that I just mentioned. Does anybody know if they're not going to make it on January 30th in the evening in this room? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIT ':,Okay. And the next'regular meeting is February 2nd. Same time,same place,the sane Owe as today. Everybody? Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That one,Mark,I may miss that one,but I'm not sure. What's the agenda look like for that one? MR.BOSI: I believe there's only one item on for the 2nd. CHAIRMAN STRAIN:. ';Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll let you guys know,and then you can let the rest of the commissioners know if,in fact,I'm going to be missing from that one. It could go up go in the air. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER But I'll know by that night. I'll be here for that Monday meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,we'll still have a quorum,so we're good. Thank you. That takes us to approval of minutes. There have been none electronically provided,so we'll skip that. We'll go to the BCC report and recaps. And Ray's not here,but,Mike,you can go ahead. MR.BOSI: Thank you,Chair. Mike Bosi,Planning and Zoning Director. At the hearing on the 10th,the Collier County Resource Recovery Business Park IPUD was approved unanimously. The Naples Heritage PUD amendment to add the 5-acre tennis facility was defeated by a 3-2 vote,and further clarification was provided to staff for the specifics of a moratorium that was going--that is being considered for the East Trail related to self-storage facilities,car washes,pawnshops, and-- i Page 2 of 46 January 19,2017 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gas station. MR.BOSI: --gas stations. Thank you. And so with the further direction,we are bringing back an ordinance on the 14th of February for the Board to consider whether they want to take final action upon that moratorium. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,Mike. That brings us to the chairman's report,and I have just one thing. Good morning,Nora Frances.I hope you're watching today. She's a friend of the Planning Commission's. Happens to be related to Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Only by marriage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The consent agenda,we have none,so we'll move directly into our advertised public hearings. ***The first one up is Item 9A. It's VA-PL20160001181,and it's a variance request for a property located at 342 Tradewinds Avenue. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item,please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. We'll start with disclosures on the Planning Commission from Tom. MR.EASTMAN: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Strangely,none. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I talked with Fred yesterday,and emails and correspondence with a neighbor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've had correspondence with a neighbor,or they just sent you an email? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well,yeah,they Just sent me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's all. I just wanted to make sure. We've all got an email or two on this,and so I think wine are probably similar to everybody else's. I did talk with the applicant when this first came to my other office,and she came in and asked for some clarification of the process, We went over that,and I think we've talked once since then. And I also talked to Mr.Patrick--Pat Neale who represents some residents who are not in favor of this application. And then,of course,staff. Diane? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK` Karen. CHAIRMANMAN STRAIN: Karen,I'm sorry. Diane's over here. OMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Nothing. Just the additional email yesterday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pat? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: None. CHAR AN STRAIN: Okay. With that,we'll move right into the presentation by the applicant to start out. MR. SHAPIRO: I'm Marc Shapiro representing the applicant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you have items that you want to use the overhead for--I don't think you've appeared before us before--that stand over there has a lot more electronic availability for things to show. You might want to use that. MR. SHAPIRO: Yeah,there may be some-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And also,our mikes don't pick up unless you're really close to them. And we have a walk-around mike over there if you need to get closer to something else that you're trying to show. MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll need you to identify yourself and spell your last name for the record, and we'll be good. MR. SHAPIRO: My name is Marc Shapiro. Marc's spelled M-a-r-c; Shapiro,S-h-a-p-i-r-o. Page 3 of 46 January 19,2017 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. SHAPIRO: And I'm representing the petitioners in this case for 342 Tradewinds Avenue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everything,by the way,that you show on overhead will have to be--copies of it will have to be left with the court reporter for the record. MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. They're mainly going to be photographs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's great. Thank you. MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. So there was a variance petition that was filed by the builder in this case, Jason Jenks,and then there was a deficiency letter that was issued,and then my office prepared an amended variance,and that variance was actually recommended for approval. And so that was recommended for approval by,I guess,the Growth Management Department. But I want to read a couple things actually from their words. And,you know,it's important to point out,there's three basic things is--one is the variance we're asking for is a very small variance. So it's--and there's a new code that was brought in this area. So this particular pro ,you couldn't even tell that it doesn't comply with the current variance because there are several houses that are exactly in line. In fact,it doesn't look out of place at all,and you wouldn't know. And,in fact,that comes to my first point is that when the permit was applied for,it was applied for using the setbacks that are currently for the pool right now. Those setbacks were approved. There was many inspections that were done to the property. In each case,during each inspection,it was approved. Nobody even caught that it didn't meet the current code until one of the neighbors,I;guess,came and pointed out to the county that it didn't comply with the current code,and it was at that time that my client was informed they had to do a petition for a variance. So my client,who hired the builder,lbad no idea that it didn't comply with code. In fact,if you'd look at it,there's no way you could even tell that h because it doesn't stick out. It's something that's completely in line with the rest of the structures that are on both sides of the street mon the canal there. So--and it says here--this is from the report that was issued from the Growth Management--the applicant utilized the erroneously approved setbacks unaware of any violations. So when they applied for the pool permit,the county actually actuallyprovAal the setbacks,and they erroneously provided the setbacks that were the older setbacks that hadn't--rather than the updated ones. So based on those setbacks,my client constructed the pool and poured the slab. And we're tal rRlabout approximately two and a half feet. Now,the setbacks,they're about six feet over--instead of a 20-foot .setback, told they had,a 10-foot setback,so they're over the setback,but it's important toheightte that theof the pool wall,if it was two-and-a-half feet lower,they could be 10 feet, the setbacks. Ws 20.feet_setbacks based on the current height. So we're talking two-and-a-half feet. So two-and4balf feet does not really affect anyone's view. In fact,we have the neighbor right across the street--in fact,I brought sonie pictures,which I'll show in a moment,but if anything,the view from the neighbor,their lanai actually stizout further than my client's pool which doesn't have a lanai on it and never will. Also,if you're looking across,there's boats parked,and the boats that are parked,which are legally parked in front of the seawall,stick out higher than my client's pool does. So it's a very,I would say, negligible impact. In fact,when I'looked down the canal,I had to ask,you know,which one--to my client, which one is your house,because you can't tell by looking at it that it sticks out. It's perfectly in line with all of the rest of the houses. We're just talking about two-and-a-half feet up. And a few years ago,when the code was that,you know,that--exactly what they built,so we're not talking about any major impact. Now,it would be a severe economic hardship for my client to have to completely tear down the whole--by the time this was brought to their attention--and,again,it was brought to their attention because, I guess,the neighbor pointed it out to the county--they had already poured the slab. They had already put the whole pool in--where the pool was going to be. That was already in. And they estimate--this is from the builder--and I think it's a very conservative estimate--that to go back and redo this--because they'd have to basically tear out the whole poured concrete pool and start over again--would be,in his words, $50,000. And,again,I think that's a very conservative number. But it would be,at minimum,$50,000 to go back and redo this over essentially two-and-a-half feet. Page4of46 January 19,2017 So I'd like to at this time show some photographs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Fred will help you with the overhead;that's the gentlemen right there. You'll have to use the mike,either the walk-around mike or the stationary one. MR. SHAPIRO: All right. So if you can see where my finger is,this is the structure in question. And,actually,this view is where--the people that are here opposing this,this would be their view. So there's two views. There's an open-water view,and then there's down the canal. So if you're looking down the canal,you'll see that this structure is really in line with all the other structures and,in fact,one of the people that's objecting to this,his pool enclosure is the same height and the same setback as my client's because,as I said,this is a new,I guess,updated requirement. And when they--when they put in the permit for the pool,they were erroneously giving the older setback requirements. So it's not like this sticks out at all. It just doesn't comply with the latest setback requirements. Here's another--this is a similar view,just a little bit more close up. And this is a view here--you'll see that this structure here is the structure in question. And the neighbors on actually both sides,if you line up the seawalls,they line up perfectly together. In other words,the setbacks on both sided,the neighbors on either side,are both exactly the same setbacks as my client's,the petitioner's setback. And,again,it's because these were the former setbacks. So this is the picture of the--you can see the open-water view. And,again,the petitioner's structure is right here. So you'll see if you're looking down,the people that ere objecting to this,the neighbors that are objecting,they are way down towards this range--I'm sorry. They're towards this area here. So they're actually--their view is not obstructed of the open water because the petitioner's structure's down here. And if they look down the canal,I don't see,being on side of the road,how their view could be remotely affected,and if it was affected,it would be affected bythe lanai of the house in front of them,and if it is affected at all,the two-and-a-half feet isn't going to make any difference. In fact,as I said,the boat--the boats that are parked in front of the structure actually stick out above the pool enclosure. So if their views are obstructed at all,it's not because of this.In fact--and I think you have this as part of the application,but there's a couple letters. One letter is from an objector who actually canvassed the neighborhood on both sides of the street-and tried to get as many people to object as possible, and I think he was successful in maybe getting one other,possibly two others,to object. My client,I believe,has 43 pule. Well,I say 43 because that's how many people live there that either didn't care about it or actually signed a petition. her favor or a letter in her favor saying that they didn't beliofre that her house--they believe that the variance should be granted;that her house doesn't obstruct any view,doesn't stick out,doesn't make it look like it's not conforming with the community. In this picture here you'll see this house right here is the subject house,but the house right before that,the lanai actually would inhibit the view and actually that tree right there would inhibit the view of the objectors that are looking down the canal before my client's pool enclosure would. In fact,from this view, which is--you can't even see the pool. And then,lastly,this picture shows--and I want to point out the house next to it with the lanai. So the objectors would be looking down this way,so they'd actually be seeing that lanai before they would see this pool. So I guess the three points I want to make is that it was not purposefully done. When the builder applied for the permit,they were erroneously given the wrong setbacks;they built the pool using the wrong setbacks;there was four inspections along the way,never once did anyone point out that,oh,this doesn't comply. In fact,it wasn't till the neighbor pointed that out,and that's the reason we're here today. The second point I want to make is that if there's any impact at all on the neighborhood,which I submit there's not because it's perfectly in line with the other houses'setbacks--in fact,if you were to walk that street,you wouldn't even notice that this house was out of conformity. But if there is any impact,it would be very negligible. We're basically talking about two-and-a-half feet. If the seawall were two-and-a-half feet lower,the setback would be correct. Also,if they moved it back approximately,I believe,six feet,then they could have it that height. So we're talking about two-and-a-half Page 5 of 46 January 19,2017 feet,and the economic hardship involved in putting it into compliance would be,at minimum,$50,000. So for those reasons and also the fact that I think if you read the planning board's recommendation, they set things forth very thoroughly on why they would--not the planning board but the--I guess the report from-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's called a staff report. MR. SHAPIRO: --yeah,staff report. They set forth very particularly why they're recommending that the variance be approved. So I would ask that,you know,you all take a look at that,and they lay it out very nicely. And they were also aware of the neighbors that were objecting also when they came to that recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you finished,Mr. Shapiro? MR. SHAPIRO: Yeah,I am finished. My understanding is there's sane neighbors that are right across the way that were also going to testify for the petitioner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me tell you what the procedure is,beck I don't think you've been here before. After you finish your presentation,the Planning Commission will;ask questions if they have any. Then from there we'llgo to the staff report. After the staff report and staff make verbal recommendations over parts of their report,we ask questions of them. When they finish,we go to public speakers. MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: After public speakers,you'll have anopportunity for a 10-minute rebuttal, and then we go into discussion and decision on our part,or recommendation on our part. So that will be the process we'll go through. And since you're finished,and before we- to Planning Commission questions, there are a few things I think I'd like you to answer and clear up so the Planning Commission gets the benefit of those answers before any questions are asked. MR. SHAPIRO: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said the code was exactly what it was when they built this 2.5, two-and-a-half years ago. What did you mean by that? MR.SHAPIRO: Well--and,again,I don't know when the time limit was,but-- CHAIRMAN S : Time limit--what do you mean by"time limit"? MR. SHAPIRO: When I say tw nd-a-half ers,I don't know if that's the exact time. CHAIRMAN AIN: Probe in terms of closer to a decade or two. This height issue has been in the code very,very early on. The t,`$' ;. `s` 4114 very obscure in our code to find it,and it only seems to be applicable to Vanderbilt Beach.Spoalfically our co =says Isle of Capri and Marco Island don't have to have this kind ofan applinalon. They go to seven feet,which yours then would have been fine if you were on Isles of Capri or Marco Iland. Also MR. SHAPIRO: SoI misspoke about the two-and-a-half feet. I just was kind of making that up as an example. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wellyou can't make things up. We've got to deal with the code in fact. And if you're going to reference something of the code and it also involves the staff error,we've definitely got to weigh in on that and understand it. You had said that the setbacks were erroneously given to your client. Have you got something that says for your client to a ;• 9 to those setbacks? MR. SHAPIRO: 1 believe there is. The builder is here,and he could probably better answer that than I could. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,that will be helpful.If he's here,then we'll--see,you ought to call him assomeone--a witness on your behalf to begin with before we go to the staff report. So if he's here, we're definitely going to--we'll ask questions of him after the Planning Commission gets finished with you. MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those couple things,though,are important as to how this happened,the time frame. The code has not changed. The code is just obscure and hard to read in this particular issue,I'll grant you that. It certainly isn't clear. And as far as the staff goes,yes,a staff member certainly made an error in approving this the way it Page 6 of 46 January 19, 2017 came through. But I don't know if that was a result of the staff telling you to do it that way or your design professionals decided to do it that way,and that will be something we'll find out shortly. With those clarifications,and before I get into any more of my questions,I'll turn to the Planning Commission for any questions they may have to start with. Anybody? Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Just,those shots you took,those were taken with a drone,I assume? MR. SHAPIRO: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'm glad you did that. It showed it very well. I looked at Google Earth 3D. And from what I could tell on Google Earth 3D,I couldn't see where there was a tremendous difference from this to the other,the older to the new,but those shots showed it pretty good. I was going to ask--you probably don't know. I guess a lot of my other questions are going to be to staff MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have several questions regarding the process,but I'm going to defer and wait to talk to Mr.Reischl,because I need to--but the question I do have for you,Marc,did you--or do you have in your documents--typically when you go in for a building permit,the first thing they do is lay out the site plan,and then on that site plan,the reviewer in the Building Department,is my recollection,would initial off each of the setback requirements and put their initials on--actually right on the document. Do you--is that the procedure now? And I'm going back six,seven years back in--but typically they would--you'd go in,on the building--the building envelope that is allowable for a building would be shown on the site drawing of the--and then all of the setbacks would be checked off to ensure that the setbacks are in compliance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The permits for this project are on my desk. I pulled them yesterday afternoon.That document is there. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Is there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's been four permits: One demo,one pool,the main peuiut for the house,and the dock permit that was reissued,because it was started,then stopped,and then reissued again. And there's some discrepancies betweenthe permits,but the setbacks and everything were acknowledged by staff as being okay and issued that way. And I've . =eu.t got the building permit with me. I didn't know how much the applicant would have brought in case there were questions,but the permit itself was issued at 10 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHMI I`: You don't have that document that shows the setbacks being approved? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's in the file that's on my desk. I did not bring it with me to the meeting. I assumed the applicant would have brought all of that,but-- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm surprised that that's not part of the application or the applicant would have had that to present to us today. My second question--and I'm going to defer to Fred because I want to clearly understand the--again,I've got the MUNI code here. I'm trying to read the MUNI code,because I looked at this before. But in this part I recall nine, 10 years ago,that's what drove the change in the code,if you went up a certain height,and I seem to think it was four feet; is that correct? MR. SHAPIRO: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You go four feet,you have to have a 20-foot setback. If your pool height is less than 4 feet,you only need a 10-foot setback;is that essentially the-- MR. SHAPIRO: That's exactly correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,we can--I'll give Fred the code. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah,let's review that,because I want to make sure that--and I had thought at one time that actually in the LDC there was a diagram that showed that. I guess that's no longer in Page 7 of 46 January 19,2017 the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,but a former administrator by the name of Joe Schmitt actually did a diagram a few years back,and it's in the staff clarification section of our notes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I did,yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fred,if you go here--go to the reference in the table first,and that's--once we get this seen,maybe it will help some of the questions that you-all have. MR. SHAPIRO: But,Mr.Schmitt,my understanding is exactly as you described. And I think their--rather than four feet,they're 6.57. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fred,that--I'm not sure that's the right one. Those were non-waterfront. Go to the next table. MR.REISCHL: Oh. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You're going to have to pan out a"ale bit on that,Fred. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I'll show you--the footnotes on a separate page. Go to the next table. It's the second or third sheet. And if you look down where it says No.4--you have to pan out a little bit--this is for waterfront lots along the Gulf of--and No.4 says,swimming pools and screen enclosure single-family,one-family,and now two-family;rear, 10 feet,and then the little Footnote 3. Now,Footnote 3 is the catchall on this. If you could show Footnote 3,Fred;down the third page,I think. MR.REISCHL: Very small. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,it says 20 feet where swimming pool decks exceed four feet in height above the top of seawall or top of bank except Marco Island and Isle of Capri,which may construct to a maximum of seven feet above the seawall with a maximum offer feet of stem wall exposure with a rear setback of 10 feet. So--and Marco,by the way,is no longer part of Collier County. So I pulled Marco's LDC,and they have mimicked this language in their current standards. So the seven foot applies to Marco and Isles of Capri,but only four foot of concrete exposure,which means it's got to be clad or a buffer with vegetation or sodded. MR.REISCHL: Sodded. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any ayyou'd like. But if they're at less than 20 feet,they can't go higher. It's got to be four feet so that a variance 4-03tfor the suck as much as it is for the height to be at that setback. I hope that hailed clarify because this was note easy one to follow for that language. COMMISSIONE SCHMITT; m -and so the current height as shown,is that correct what we have- 1 A' ,O:..I think tbe county measured at 6.57. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. That's the current height,then. Okay. I thought it was four-point something. Okay. 6.57. All CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. Anybody else have any questions of the applicant? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Marc,you stated that there were four inspections. Those inspections were;n" specifically looking for setbacks. There are several inspections throughout the building process. MR. SHAPIRA Correct. And we're not specifically looking for setbacks,that is correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And I want to make sure that's clear on the record,because if an inspector goes out and does an electrical,he or she's doing electrical inspections,not a setback-- MR. SHAPIRO: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: --verification. MR. SHAPIRO: And I'm talking about--and the builder could better explain this,because I'm getting my information from the builder and relaying it to you. But I think there are four inspections on the pool. So at no time was it ever said during any of those inspections that,hey,your setbacks aren't correct. I guess the point is is that now that it's already there,it would be a very--economic hardship to take it all down. It would come at a considerable cost is,I guess,what I'm trying to say. Page 8 of 46 January 19,2017 And,you know,maybe--and this is up to you.But you were saying that the Marco Island code said you could have a certain height as long as there was a buffer there,and maybe that's a compromise,to put a little hedge in front of the stem wall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Generally what happens is when we run into these situations,the applicant will come prepared with the documentation to basically make their case in regards to how this occurred. And I know you don't--you haven't got any permit applications or anything with you,do you? MR. SHAPIRO: I don't have the permit applications with me,no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have reviewed them,and I didn't bring them because they're our county's copies,but I didn't know you wouldn't be bringing them as well;otherwise,I would have brought them to help clarify some of the things you've asked,Joe. Some of the things you've said I wanted to get some clarification on. You said there were 43 people who didn't call or sign--or necessarily sign in favor. Did someone--and that was an assumption they weren't objecting to it then? MR. SHAPIRO: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you physically or did your client,or do you have something documented that says you actually went to these 43 homes and spoke to those people? Do you have a survey or something where you-- MR. SHAPIRO: No. What I do have--and I thought you already had that,but I have a--I actually have a copy of a letter that was signed by--and then there's signatures,and then next to it is the residence that they live at. MR.REISCHL: That's included in your packet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. How many people are on that signature page? MR. SHAPIRO: Eight. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. His number was 43,and I'm trying to understand-- MR. SHAPIRO: The 43 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: —how valid that MR. SHAPIRO: --because I think that's the number of residents on both sides of the street.And what I was told by my cliff is that the objector that` re today pretty much knocked on everybody's door. CHAIRMAN-STRAIN: Okay. You have a couple times mentioned the view down the canal,and at the end of the canal w se obstructed any more by what your client has built versus what may already exist there. The view corridors-that we consider for these kind of things usually are in line with riparian lines. And that may be an avenue that you may want to look at in reference to view in the future. But down the canal and out the end isn't really something that's considered as directly behind their home. They have riparian rights on both sides of their house,property lines,and that's generally what we take a look at in these kind of matter's, MR. SHAPIRO: If I could show you an answer(sic)that might help answer that question. So these little yellow tabs,and I'm not how sure-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,we can see them. MR. SHAPIRO: You can see them. But those are the people that I believe that are objecting to the variance. And that was taken by Google Earth,so at the time the structure was not up so,unfortunately,I don't have a picture with the structure up,but this vacant lot right here is where the structure was built. So heading this way,that is the open water view heading-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You have a vacant lot? It's not the one with the trees. It's the one two off--yeah,right under the W of Tradewinds. MR. SHAPIRO: Oh,yes,you're correct.That's--yeah. So that's the house in question,and then this is the location of the people that are objecting. So I guess what I'm saying is,it's hard to see how their view would be affected. And if it is affected, it would be very minorly. I mean,we're talking about 2.57 feet. And,actually,when you--if you look straight across the canal,the boat sticks up higher than the elevation of the pool. So you actually can't even see the pool wall because of the boat that's in front of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. A couple other issues. You mentioned,or I thought you stated,that Page 9 of 46 January 19,2017 if this pool was moved back six feet,you could have had it at the height they're at. That's not true. To stay at that height you'd have to be 20 feet back,and you're only 10.15 feet back.Then if you take into consideration your stairwell,you're only 6.5 feet back. So you'd have to be considerably further back. The issue of being forward or backward is not as much of an issue as the height of the deck of the pool. That's the six feet that we're trying to--six-and-a-half feet or so we're trying to deal with. The property is perfectly in line with others.When you made that statement,do you know if the others are above four feet since they're in line with an alignment that could only be allowed if they were at or below four feet? MR.SHAPIRO: Some are and some aren't. Some are below four feet. There are some that are above that--again,probably more than 10 years old when the--before the code changed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,the code is actually older than that. But if there are some above that height and they're in that alignment,it would have certainly been helpful to possibly have looked up those building permits and see what height they're at and maybe would help your argument. But I didn't know if you had that information. I'm double-checking to make sure I don't have any other questions. Oh,I noticed in your photos you didn't show the existing construction with the stairwell. The stairwell is part of the setback alignment. Did you have one with the stairwell? MR. SHAPIRO: Yes. I'll show you a couple. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There you go. MR. SHAPIRO: That would be the stairwell right there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the variance request for the setback is because the stairwell exceeds the allowed protrusion if it was at four feet for tbe pool deck,for example,to go into a setback. Stairwells do have some allowance to--when you go into a se but I believe it's only three feet,and this one's three-and-a-half feet? MR.REISCHL: Three feet is the allowable protrusion,and this one is three-and-a-half. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if this€ne hada inches less of the protrusion of the stairwell and the setback was allowed at 10 f the stair wouldn't be an issue. So I wanted to point that out because it is part of the discussion today,and I nom the closeup photograph you had didn't show the angle from the stairwell. And,by the way,I don't know if staff caught this,that stair is facing a different direction than the stair that was approved on the building permit And if the builder's here,maybe he can answer that question, too. CON1MISSIONLR SCHMITT: Can you back that out a little bit so I can get a full picture of the A':SHAPIROt",:Yes. I actually have another one that has a more full view. If you'd like to look at that,that may be better. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And just for clarification,it was my understanding that the need to build the ,height at the elevation that was built at. Two--one is to meet the base flood elevation for the home,and most residents want to walk out from their residence onto the pool deck rather than walk down the stairs to the pooh Could the po4 have been built--could it have been designed and built at a lower height than what it was built at? Which maw you would have left the house and walked downstairs to another elevation,a lower elevation for the pool. MR. SHAPIRO: So the answer to your question is,I believe so. Now,the builder could better answer that. So it's not whether it could have,because I believe that it could have. I mean,it could have been built at a 4-foot instead of a 6--instead of a 6.57-foot. But the issue is now it's been done,and to kind of un-ring that bell comes at a significant cost. So I don't think it's a matter of could it have been in compliance. I think that if we were to honestly answer that,yes,it could have been built in compliance,but since it hasn't,it's just what is the cost of bringing it into compliance.And I think that's a pretty heavy cost compared to the impact. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Understand. Fred,can you put that other picture up that shows the overhead? I wanted to--again,that's--can Page 10 of 46 January 19,2017 you center the house actually into the picture. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Zoom out a little. MR.REISCHL: Zoom out. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. There. I want to get a picture of the whole thing. Okay. Yeah. That's exactly what I thought. You're coming out from the house onto basically a lanai deck, and then the pool is at the same height. MR.REISCHL: It's just a few inches. The house is--the base flood elevation was 10,and it's nine-point something. It's a little--a few inches less. So you'd step one step down onto the pool deck. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you ask your builder,if he's here.if the builder could come up. We do have questions since we understand he's here. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Is that the builder or the person who designed the house as well? MR. SHAPIRO: Both. I think both. MR.JENKS: I didn't design the house. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll need to say that on the record after you identify yourself. MR.JENKS: Jason Jenks. I was the contractor who built the house. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you did not design the house,was your response to that? MR.JENKS: I did not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Was that the question? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah,that was the question. I wanted to-- COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Did yosub out the work for the pool,or were you actually building the pool as well? MR.JENKS: We subbed out the work for the pool. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: The company 's doing the pool? MR.JENKS: Mack Pools. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mack Pools,okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The information about how this 10-foot,at the height that this deck came about,your--the attorney had indicated that the staff provided you and told you to build it,to design it to that distance;is that true? MR.JENKS: The staff. CHAIRMANSTRAIN: County staff? M.JENKS: Well,;the pool was built by the time we submitted for the variance. So we submitted a set of plans,they were approved,and we started to build. Of course,first thing we built was the pool because of the lot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who--when the pool was put down on a set of plans,did you do that,or did you have an architect do that or somebody else? MR.JENKS: A designer did it. I didn't do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN.Okay. Where did the designer get his information from to determine the setback for that pool? MR.JENKS: I think he made some calls to the county. I don't have that information. I don't work with the designer. He's somebody that designs houses. I was sent the plans. I sent them to an engineer. I have an engineer. I submitted it for a building permit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You do--that's what most GCs would do,so I'm not surprised at that.I'm trying to find out--actually,in your--not your defense,but your client's defense,on how this error occurred. It appears--up until your attorney made the statement he made,it appeared that the applicant,which is your designer or your client,drew the plans up and submitted them to the county,the county reviewed them,and the county erroneously approved them without notifying the client that there was an error in the setback. Page 11 of 46 January 19,2017 I think the error probablywas on the plan I think the error's on both p o part of the applicant as well as the part of county for not catching it.And the county missed it numerous times. I've got the plans. It wasn't vague. It was clear. It was clear where it was. Your structural drawings show how that stair was also--the width of the stair was clear. I mean,anybody that reads plans would have been able to figure this out. I can't--I certainly can't say the staff is not to blame in part of this. Theycertainly are. And I think the issue is that whoever set this up in the site plan trying to determine what the initial setbacks were either went to the wrong table or missed the footnote on the second table,kind of as we started out here today. There's two tables,and one is for waterfront,one is for non-waterfront. But one has a little Subscript 3,and the other doesn't. And if you're from another part of the county,you wouldn't be surprised at six-and-a-half feet in height because I bet you could go up to seven. So there's a lot of little things that came into play on this one. It'a.. inly understandable that some errors were made. I just think we need to find a solution today. In regards to how you were going to finish off this concrete wall now that's there,has anybody looked at opportunities to,say,take away/distract from that wall by cladding it,by putting in shrubbery,by doing embankments or anything like that? MR.JENKS: Those were all options,and it would definitely be some landscaping on the backside of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you-all haven't brought g,though,to propose today? MR.JENKS: We did not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The height of the seawall. You were the GC;the pool contractor was subbed to you. Orick Marine,I believes 'd; e deck. Was he contracted through you or directly to the owner? MR.JENKS: Through the owner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you work-:With him atm in coordinating things? MR.JENKS: I did not;- t,the seawall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you know is he here today;does anybody know? MR.JENKS: Hoot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. fie certified the seawall to be done according to the plans. I see--I found the certification. Theplans call rOa 4.2 deck height,top height on the seawall cap. The plans that all this variance request is front is,a 3.2 `.4 t. I,LISt am now-that's a 1-foot difference. It's significant when you look at th.c difference you lav what your t to seek as a solution to your whole operation. Andes j wondering' ..dering,' s anybody know if that seawall is actually elevated to the 4.2 that the certific seems to insinuate? MR.JENKS: It shouldshow h on the survey that we turned in. AIRMAN STRAIN: Well,it does. It shows 3.2,but I've got a building plan that says it will be capped at 4.2 .and I have a certification from the installer that says that's right. So I'm confused by the height of the cap. MR.JENKS: I don't know the answer to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The stair. Did you submit a change to the plans to have the stair turned in that direction , e 've got here? MR.JENKS: We did not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean,it's a minor issue. It's still the same distance out,but I just happened to notice it was twisted in a different way. MR.JENKS: It was just easier access to the dock. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,actually,it's better for the neighbors,too. It actually makes people using the stairs going in and out a different direction. So from that perspective,it doesn't harm anything. I was just curious if it got cleared through another permit application. That may have had some indication to the setbacks;may have looked at them again. That's all. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Page 12 of 46 January 19,2017 COMMISSIONER EBERT: Have you built in Collier County before? MR.JENKS: This was the first house I ever submitted for for a full construction. We've done lot of remodels and additions in Collier County. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. So you,as a contractor,are familiar with our codes then? MR.JENKS: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. MR.JENKS: But not the code that has the height on the seawall. This wasn't done intentionally. COMMISSIONER EBERT: No,we all kind of understand that,but-- MR.JENKS: Right. COMMISSIONER EBERT: --one other thing. I'm reading through this is that a lot of this was found last October. Is there a CO on this property yet? MR.JENKS: There is not. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So the people have not moved into the home? MR.JENKS: They have not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This started with a complaint that started with Contractor Licensing,and I think in April of 2016,then it was followed up with a slab survey in May of 2016. I think that's when everything was kind of unfolded from that point forward. But it wasn't necessarily Code Enforcement initiated,as some of this information shows. It was Contractor Licensing that initiated it,the call. It came into Contractor Licensing from a neighbor across the way,apparently. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So it does go back quite a ways then? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,April of last year;a little bit less than a year ago. They've been trying to work and get it resolved since then. It started with my office,and then it had to get continued to here. MR.JENKS: We've continued to work on the house,but we haven't touched anything on the pool or the pool deck since we were notified of the issue. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. So the pool deck is-- MR.JENKS: It's exactly like it was whenwe wanted it WitiS not in compliance. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Thank yo CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of the gentleman? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. On that picture shown that you have on the visualizer,the deck that is--and this is a general question that probably the applicant,anybody,can answer. But the deck height that is in the house°utile bottom of t picture,is that boat deck higher in elevation than the existing deck that was haat? MR, _` S: The deck we constructed is higher than that deck. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT; It is? Because this one--that deck to the south appears to go over the seawall,and it's all one structure all the way up to the pool. I'm looking at,is that--was that the intent for this existing-- MR.JENKS: It looks like their dock comes over the-- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's it,the dock. MR.JENKS: --ground is what it is,and they just built the dock and went all the way back to that seawall or to their pool retaining wall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SHAPIRO: Mr. Strain,I just wanted to clarify one thing. When I made the comment that--I guess,that the permitting erroneously gave them the wrong setbacks,so I personally have no idea.I actually read that from the staff report,so that's where I got that information from. That's what they state in their staff report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other witnesses that you want to call,or you done with your Page 13 of 46 January 19, 2017 presentation? MR. SHAPIRO: We are done with the presentation. There--as you said,the only other people would be neighbors,but I believe they go later. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They'll be coming up later,yes. Okay. Thank you very much,both of you.Appreciate it. Fred,do you have a staff report? MR.REISCHL: Thank you,Mr.Chairman. Fred Reischl with Planning and Zoning. You've read the staff report,and staff is recommending approval with the condition. You know normally that variances run with the land. In this case,we're recommending that if there--if the structure is destroyed more than 50 percent of assessed value,that it would have to meet current setbacks. So we're modifying it so--because this is based on a financial hardship,we figure that financial hardship would go away if the house was destroyed;therefore,they'd have to meet current setbacks. It would not run with the land. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any questions of the staff? I think,Joe,you had one earlier. Did you still? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No. I'll just hold off until we have general discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Fred,on the--oh, Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: When we have that general discussion,are we going to be allowed to ask them questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. We won't close the public hearing until that's over. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As far as your understanding of how this originated,do you know if,in fact, staff,at the period in which an applicant may have asked for design features of this location,this lot,was given--was the applicant given information to say he could use a 10-foot setback,or is that just something that seems to be not verified? MR.REISCHL: I don't know the answer to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. At this point the only thing I can find is it was submitted erroneously,then reviewed erroneously,and then a permit was issued erroneously. That's the best I can-- MR.REISCHL: That was my understanding,too,but I don't know for sure if someone directed them to do it at 10 or not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead,Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Fred,you said this is a financial hardship. I would not blame the owners of this home on this at all,but the--being it is--that the pool was stopped so long ago and nothing has been done,I would think that it would be their responsibility and not the owner's responsibility as far as financial;is that correct? • MR.REISCHL: That's a legal question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was going to say... COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well,I mean,we always use money,you know,in this stuff. And I was just--like I say,I don't feel that it should be up to the owner. But were these people--were they told you can proceed at your own risk? MR.REISCHL: That's our standard answer is that,yes,you can proceed at your own risk pending the outcome of the--in this case was the Hearing Examiner and now the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. When were they told that they could proceed at their own risk? How far back? Was this April/May when all this happened? MR.REISCHL: The Building Department would have done that. I don't know. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I want to clarify. I mean,that's-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was going to go there,too. Go ahead,Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHVIITT: I think it's sort of disingenuous to say they're proceeding at their Page 14 of 46 January 19,2017 own risk. It's a procedural process. When you come in and submit for a permit application,the applicant submits,submits the plans and drawings,they're reviewed by staff,and they're approved by staff. So the applicant proceeds based on the understanding that what they submitted meets in compliance with all the requirements. I don't know if that's the proceed-at-risk issue. It is a review and approval. MR.REISCHL: Well,it would be a risk that the variance would be approved versus-- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well,wait a minute.No,I'm going back prior to when the house was first submitted. When the application first goes in,the applicant goes in,the plans are reviewed,the setbacks are reviewed,the setbacks are approved,and the applicant hires a builder,and they build a house based on what the county approved. I don't know if there's a case of sovereign immunity. I guess that's an issue from the county.Could the county be held responsible? I'm not going to go down there,but that's notan issue.The issue here is there's a variance,and--I mean,in general terms,I've got to tell you what,my days in the county,this is more post-traumatic stress than my year in Afghanistan,I've got to tell you. I went through several of these in my tenure as the county--or the administrator for Community Development. And it's a case of applications coming in,the amount of applications coming in and the stress to approve--review and approve,and there was an error made,basically. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: They were given a permit that says 10 feet. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: How much of the house was built when this was found? MR.REISCHL: I was not the original planner on this. One of my coworkers was. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: The contractor would probably know that better than you would. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was going to ask the contractor to come back up. No,you have to come to the microphone,and maybe we've got a couple morequestions for you. Before we do,there was something I wanted Mineution in line with what you were saying. The reviewer on this,by the way,was a fellow we had hired recently from Marco Island,and it wouldn't surprise me if,based on his knowledge of Marco Island,Marco Is. would have allowed this to go to seven feet, that might have also contributed to the error that h =a-t Sir,if you could answer-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Howmuch of the house was built when the problem was found? MR.JENKS: The rear retaining wall was in place,the pool shell was in place,the slab was in place, and I think we had just poured the tie beam,and w 9 �?` ,have started framing by then. I don't have the . .r exact-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. Because there was a comment you made earlier that you did° te pool first. I could understand that,because you couldn't build a pool with the house in the way-- MR.JENKS: Correct. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: --unless you built it from the waterway,which is practically impossible-- MR.JENKS: Correct. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: --which is one of the problem you're going to have if you have to take it out. You've got to take it out from water side,which is practically impossible. You've got to move the dock,you've got to move the boat. So I could see,even if you told them that,hey,the pool was in the wrong place,you know,they might as well not stop because there's nothing they can do. The house is already in the way. MR.JENKS: That's true. That's true. We didn't do anything to make it any harder to remove this pool or,you know-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. But once the house is up to the tie beam,you're not going to get back here to do anything with the pool. MR.JENKS: Correct. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Not easily. MR.JENKS: Not easily. Page 15 of 46 January 19, 2017 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Well,you can do anything you want if you've got enough money. Okay. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got a question,a follow-up. MR.JENKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You anchored the pool,not with piling,with tie grade beams is what you--that's the only thing holding the pool down? MR.JENKS: Pilings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,you've got piling as well. MR.JENKS: And footers,yeah. It's sitting on pilings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now,there was a cost put in the report that said it would be about $50,000 to remove that pool and then,of course,it would have to be redone,then all the debris would have to be removed. I know it's not finished,but I would think the 50,000 is certainly a number that's probably realistic in looking at the condition it's in today just to get that concrete taken out and hauled away,if not more. So to answer--Diane seemed to think you stopped construction and,if you did,maybe your value to replace the pool wouldn't be as great. I think the 50,000 is probably conservative in cost-wise to clean this up if it had to be. MR.JENKS: It probably is. And it wouldn't--nothing changed back there. You know,if it was--we continued with the house at our own risk. We still have to get all the stuff back around the front of the house,so we didn't change anything of tearing the pool out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you very much. MR.JENKS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you have anything? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that,we will go to--we'll start with registered speakers. As your name is called,please come up to one of the microphones,identify yourself for the record,and if your name is hard to spell,just please spell it for the court reporter so we don't get it mixed up. MR.REISCHL: The first speaker is Edward Tappen followed by George Marks. MR.TAPPEN: My name is Edward Tappen. I spell my name T-a-p-p-e-n. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR.TAPPEN: Was there anything else? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,sir,that's fine. We're off to a good start. MR.TAPPEN: For the last year I've been an advocate for having Collier County establish common municipal golf courses. Collier-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This--sir,are you here to talk about the golf course? MR.TAPPEN: Yes,I am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is not that one. MR.TAPPEN: Pardon me? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're not talking about that right now. It's coming up in about-- MR.REISCHL: That's the next item. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the next item. This is about a pool variance,swimming pool variance. MR.TAPPEN: Okay. Sony. I thought my name was called. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No problem. Save his card for later. MR.REISCHL: There was no item listed on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,I'm sorry. It was a mix-up on our part. MR.TAPPEN: Will I be back soon? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I hope so. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: We hope. MR.REISCHL: And I know I called Mr.Marks next,but his attorney,Patrick Neale,requested to go before Mr.Marks. Page 16 of 46 January 19,2017 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR.REISCHL: Patrick Neale followed by George Marks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And,by the way,for those of you who have not attended our meetings before,speakers are limited to three minutes unless waived. We generally don't enforce that as long as the information you're providing is not redundant and it's not repetitive. So we're here to listen to you. Just be conscious of everybody's time,please. Thank you. MR.NEALE: Good morning,ladies and gentlemen. Patrick Neale,N-e-a-1-e,for Mr.and Mrs. Marks who are in opposition to this variance. What I'd like to bring the Board's attention to is--the Commission's attention to is more the legal issues that revolve around this. As you're probably aware,there are,you know,eight criteria that are involved in the granting of a variance. A variance is not something that's to be taken lightly. There's a .°_ t deal of case law out there on variances,and I'm not about to bore anybody with doing what I have to do all day,which is read case law,so I'm not going to do that. But what I'd like to bring to the Board's attention is a case called Indialantic versus Nance,which really sets out the primary issues as to a zoning variance. And.the prerequisite to a granting of the variance is the presence of an exceptionally unique hardship to the individual landowner,unique to that parcel and not shared by other property owners in the area. There's nothing unique about this situation for the landowner. The landowner simply,went in,had a design professional who did not know what they were doing,frankly. They came in and submitted a plan that was in error based on the evidence of record at this point,and. n proceeded to build based on that. Now,yes,they did rely on the county's assertions,but in my experience in dealing with county permits--and I've been here for a while--typically the permit says that it's the responsibility of the landowner and their design professionals to meet the cede. It's not the responsibility of the county to make sure the design professionals did their jobs properly. So we'll go through--and i'm going to very briey,go through the eight different criteria--any special conditions and circumstances particularly land,location,size,and characteristics of the structure. And in this case there are none. These are essentially lots.that are all pretty much the same within a development wherein the Land Development Code sets out what the standards are for this kind of construction. And we've heard ad nauseam what the standards are,as it's a--it's a 20-foot setback here. And this is a significant deviation from that. Is'a 50 percent deviation from the setback,and it's about a 60 percent deviation from the height. So it's a very significant deviation. Any special circumstances do not result from the action of the applicant. Every problem here results from the actions of the applicant. The applicant is the one who made the error in submitting the application. Yes,the county may have messed up,astod they occasionally do that,but in this case,still it's the applicant who had--who made the erroneous application. Will a literal interpretation of the provisions work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant? I say that this is not unnecessary undue hardship because they're the one that made the mistake in the first place. Will the variance,if granted,be the minimum variance to make possible a responsible use of the land,building,or structure?.The minimum use of this is to build a house,and they're going to be able to build a house;they're just not going to be able to put their pool as close to the water as they want it to be. Will it confer on the applicant any special privilege that's denied by these zoning regulations? Well, yes,it does. What it does is allow this person to build their pool where no one else can build it under the same set of circumstances. So,yes,they are getting a special privilege. Is it going to be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the LDC and not injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to public welfare? Well,it's not in harmony with the LDC;that's clear. And I will get testimony here later that will state that it's injurious to the neighborhood. Natural conditions or physically induced conditions? No,there's no natural conditions or physically induced conditions. This was a bare lot in a subdivision. Will it be consistent with the Growth Management Plan? Well,yes,it is. I will admit to that;so it is Page 17 of 46 January 19, 2017 consistent with the Growth Management Plan. So,therefore,I mean,I believe and I would argue that this doesn't meet any of the criteria for the granting of a variance and that the variance should be denied. And so that is all I have to say. Thank you very much. Any questions,please? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Patrick,do you have-- Pat,I've got a couple. MR.NEALE: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The Atlantic(sic)case that you cited is a 1982 case? MR.NEALE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I did notice you didn't provide it as backup. And did you do any research to verify that the variance criteria language in there--in that case in 1982 was identical to the variance language--let me finish first. One at a time. MR.NEALE: Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That way it's identical language that we have in today's code. Because in 1982,we didn't even have--our GMP wasn't even enacted yet. So we had--that was an 82-2 code in Collier County. Have you done any of that research? MR.NEALE: Yes,I did;I did. And I went through and,what we call,Shepardized the case and checked future cases and,basically,they all mirror the same language. And,actually,our code very closely mirrors the language that's set out in Indialantic and other cases that are subsequent in its progeny,so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You didn't bring any of that with you? MR.NEALE: I didn't. I wasn't going to make full-blown legal argument here because-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,we definitely would have appreciated you doing that. MR.NEALE: I can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said it's not in harmony. How come it is in harmony in the community that I believe you actually lived at on Marco Island? How come it's in harmony in Isle of Capri? How come that height would have been in harmony elsewhere in the county but,uniquely at Vanderbilt Beach,it's not in harmony? MR.NEALE: Well,as you know,legislative decisions are made. This is--obviously,that would be a legislative decision setting out the code as opposed to a quasi-judicial decision. And legislatures can make decisions such as that based on the character of that particular community. So the legislature as it was,the County Commission,or those--Marco City Council made those decisions at that point in time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I can ask staff this,but I think you probably have the same answer. This Board's responsibility is to review consistent to the Land Development Code;is that not true? MR.NEALE: Yes,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker,please. MR.REISCHL: Next speaker is George Marks,followed by David Galloway. MR.MARKS: Good morning,everyone. My name is George Marks. I live at 319 Lagoon Avenue in Naples. And I am a licensed architect,and I am here for a reason that I think is important to the entire community of Vanderbilt Beach. What has--I,quite frankly,myself and the other neighbors,we feel badly for the people that are trying--the applicants here that are building this property. They hired a designer,they hired a builder,they hired everybody to build this for them,and their house has been built. And,quite frankly,we think they're building a nice house. The problem becomes the issue of the pool,and the problem becomes not just the--not just the issue of the fact of the way this exists now,but the precedent it sets going forward. We don't believe there's a hardship here. We all know that you can't create your own hardship.I've sat on your side of the table. I understand the legal on--Mr.Neale has already addressed that,and I'm not going to repeat that. But the key issue that Mr. Shapiro stated was that all of his pictures were taken from aerial views. It Page 18 of 46 January 19, 2017 did not show the actual height of the pool. I can use the--your projector there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We need to have something kept. You can't--you'll need to send that to--can you send that to staff-- MR.MARKS: I will email it to Mr.Reischl as soon as we're done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR.MARKS: Okay. If you--can you--does that work okay? Can everybody kind of see that? So if you look at the pool over here that is on the right-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not on,sir. MR.MARKS: Thank you. If you look at the pool that's set over here on the right,this pool is six-and-a-half feet above the seawall. I'm rounding,of course. This is the property directly adjacent to it,and you can see that in that case the pool is significantly within the zoning. If you look at the property to the other side--so on both sides of this property you can see the pool over here on the adjacent property,that is also within the guidelines,and significantly lower than the height of the pool that is being provided here. We're here trying to be practical,and we're here to understand that this is a difficult situation,but we believe that when the county enacted their zoning law,there ate pools that exist that are higher--at the higher level,but in good planning--we moved to Collier County because you've done such a great job with planning. All that we're asking you for is to enforce the actual zoning laws that you put in place. You lowered the height of the pool,and you gave them the option of building.y:,if you're greater than a 20-foot setback, you have to be lower. If you're set back,you can be higher. Why is that? It's for visual corridor. What we don't want to have happen and amain reason I'm here is that we do not want this variance to be granted and then the next person that's further away from the gulf says,well,now I do have a hardship because you allowed that pool to stay in exact,notbeing wi4:2a code,and then this becomes a cancer that spreads throughout the entire Vanderbilt community, We are just asking you to voce the laws that you have. We understand the burden. I'm not going to use the word"hardship"because that's a legal term that we do not believe applies here. To not be unreasonable,we as tbeneighbors that are objecting and asking that this be held,we understand that all the += 1 nsional v e has already been talked about. This is 60 percent higher. It's 60 percent closer to the canal than it should be. Our concernis that the= i corridor,Mrti$train,thatyou spoke about,becomes narrowed.And if you allow tis toIr a; --across whole length of the canal,that visual corridor is diminished. This is not a property onthe gulf or on a wide canal. If you allow this to happen,it narrows that visual corridor as much as 20 feet for that entire corridor for a corridor that's not that wide to begin with. That's the reason we're here. That's the reason we're spending our dollars in hiring Mr.Neale,and that's the reason we're making(sic)our time to be here tonight. Our suggestion to make a compromise solution to this--and you asked Mr.Shapiro if he came with a compromise. You asked him if he had a solution. We're here to offer a solution. Our suggestion is that the fact that they are even--they're even violating their own 10-foot setback requirement by three and a half feet. Our suggestion is,leave the layout where it is but lower the height. If you look at this photograph, you can see how it is grossly higher than the properties that are adjacent to it. And our--you can see it in that picture very clearly. Our--we're not trying to be unreasonable.We're offering a reasonable solution that says,lower the pool to the required height setback,because we believe that is the bigger issue than the setback. The setback, the steps being six inches wider,we're not here to object to that. We're hoping to have the variance defeated.If we have to,and we have to go to the commissioners and that is--and this variance is granted,we are prepared,because of the importance of this issue by not creating a precedent to appeal at a higher level,we would much rather be reasonable people and have a reasonable solution today that takes care of this issue. Thank you. Page 19 of 46 January 19,2017 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Could I ask you a question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? MR.MARKS: Please do. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: The house--as I understand it,that white house,the floor is built to FEMA elevation? MR.REISCHL: Correct. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: How come it looks so much higher than the other two? Are they not? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know. I don't think he could answer that. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Well,if you took the pool out,you'd still be looking at a white face of the wall of the house because it's built to FEMA elevation. You wouldn't see anything different from this view that I'm looking at if you took the entire pool out. So it would still look the same as--you know,higher than the houses on both sides. MR.MARKS: This view is not the objection.The objection is when you're on the adjacent properties and you're looking out the canal,the fact that pool is six-and-a-half feet above. If it was at the four-feet requirement,you would still be able to see and have a visual--not as detrimentally impact the visual barter(sic). COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay, So this view,even though you showed it,doesn't really mean anything? MR.MARKS: We did not wish to violate the neighbors'rights and walk on their property to take these pictures. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And the neighbors have no problem with this? MR.MARKS: I'm not--the neighs"-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We haven't hoard ail the testimony. MR.MARKS: We heard that objection the 43 versus eight. I'm not here to exaggerate any issues. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: ;:rin'just--I was just curious what the objection was with that view. It will looklike that when they take tpool out. MR.MARKS: Viiusing that view to just show the gross difference in the heights. COMMIS SI S° 1.1* CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. Thanks. MR.MARKS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER C Z.ANOWSKI: g# '.: 's due to FEMA. Mit.,, ' ; ` That's not the issue in play here.The issue in play here is the pool,not the height of the bui . COMMISSIONER '; RZAISKI: Okay. MR.MARKS: We haveno objectionsto the height of the building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead,Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I want to go along the same lines. Mr.Marks,is it? MR.MARKS: Yes,sir. COMMISSIONER SIITT: Just,again,for the record,you're showing a comparison to the height.But you do not hany information on when that house that you're showing now,the brown house, which,as I look at it,to the--from the back,to the left,you don't have any information on when that was built or what the base flood elevation requirements were for that--on that house when it was constructed; likewise,the house on the right? There's been significant changes--and you know this,you're an architect--in the flood elevation requirements,as Stan alluded to,the base flood elevation,and mandated by the flood zone. And,regardless, you made a statement about reducing the height. They can only reduce the height of the pool,not the house. MR.MARKS: Absolutely. We have no objection to the height of the house. The purpose of this variance is only the pool,and we're keeping our comments just to the pool. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. So but the house--clearly,the house that you're showing here to the left of the home that's in question,as I look at it from the back,the base flood elevation is clearly a Page 20 of 46 January 19,2017 different elevation than what was now required. MR.MARKS: I am not in a position to answer that one way or the other,sir. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. You brought up the comparison. I'm pointing out the difference. MR.MARKS: Understood. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have a question,a couple questions. First is the County Attorney's Office in regards to the--now,this setting a precedent. Could one of the county attorneys opine on whether this does or not? MR.KLATZKOW: Does it set a precedent? No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr.Marks,are you licensed in the state of Florida as an architect? MR.MARKS: My firm does work here. I am personally not licensed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the state of Florida? MR.MARKS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you licensed at all? MR.MARKS: I am,yes,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What state? MR.MARKS: Pennsylvania. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You indicated that they could leave the pool but lower the height. As an architect,I don't know if you do structural engineering or dea/going as well. Do you do just architect or do you do structural included in your firm? MR.MARKS: I have a BS in structural engineering. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you know that this is built with grade beams and piling? MR.MARKS: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How would you expect t m in to lower the pool? MR.MARKS: They would have to remove the pool.' They'd have to cut off the top of the piles,they have to remove the grade beams. I understand the ', eons. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just want the audience to understand and the people on this panel to understand it. Thank you. You indicated that--the concern about the view corridor going up and down east and west of that canal. First of all,you live opposite the water from this unit down a little bit about--over a hundred feet away;is that correct? The canal's a hundred feet wide,an assumption. MR.MARK : am two properties down across the canal. l3AIRMAN T AII�i: Okay. Your concern is up and down the canal and you feel--I thought you stated that if this went to four feet,as required by the code,and they left it that location,they could actually build the cage like the house you have on the left here. How would a 4-foot-high pool with a cage like that change the view perception when we're only talking two-and-a-half feet overall? So what--how do you see that happening when you could still put the same structures on top of the deck and have the same view corridor that you've got with or,without the two-and-a-half feet? MR.MARKS: You c see through a cage. It's a little tough to see through concrete. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Soup and down that canal people would be seeing through these cages to get views of the waterway? MR.MARKS: If that is what is permitted by code,I support it. I'm only asking that the county enforce the zoning code as they have presented it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. That's all I've got. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question. Is the seawall at the same level for these properties? Is the seawall all even? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. If you look at this map,this is an example of what I was trying to get the applicant to have responded to earlier. That seawall they put in,according to the certified building permits,it's one foot higher than the seawall to the left. This actually shows that.And I'm assuming that you are not any more familiar with this than I am in that regard. Page 21 of 46 January 19,2017 MR.MARKS: I would look at the picture same as you saw it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That one foot I'm not sure was taken into consideration when this whole variance height part of it came into play because the surveys I'm showing called out the old height of the seawall,not the new height that was certified to,which changes the deviation of a foot. So instead of 50 or 60 percent off,we're a little bit--we're another foot,which will take it down substantially. I'm just not sure how anybody measured this or where the measurement came from. MR.MARKS: I would believe some verification would be there,because if the--if the actual deck is six-and-a-half feet above that seawall,the condition's actually worse. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But according to the information supplied,it's six-and-a-half feet above 3.2. That's the old height,not the new height. And that's the best I can tell you from the documents I've read,so... MR.MARKS: I'm not in a position to-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would have been to the benefit of the applicant to have researched that.I wish they had. I don't have any other questions. Thank you,sir. MR.MARKS: Thank you,everyone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker,Fred. MR.REISCHL: Next speaker is David Galloway followed by Nancy Burns. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way,we will take a break at 10. MR.GALLOWAY: David Galloway,resident of the'Vilt Beach residents area. And,you know,we listen to these llama many times. I have to applaud the Planning Commission.I know there's a lot of research done on your IS;Irby appreciate itasjust an average citizen out in Collier County. I feel for the true applicants,the owner dthe property,because it's not their fault even though they hired the contractor,the architec ,_ d whatever,and I feel for them OA this issue. I somewhat feel for the-NA . the architects,but they didn't 'their homework.They didn't do it properly. And even if it w 'a new emptoyee or newer employee that was--new issues from Marco Island, they obviously didn't IOW Collier County,so I think that the Collier County has a true problem here as us as the government. I think possibly that when . , hardship variances based on financial,it's--we should not be making other r ple's problems our problems, y that in all respect,because we've all been through this. I think . « ;,le that woke really some fees here are the attorneys. If you look,both sides have attorneys..And it's unfo` ` e they have to spend the money on their attorneys. It's unfortunate on both sides. I come here free gratis,my time,butit's also an issue that I think we have to--we have great zoning, and code o finances in Collier etunity over the years have been developed very strongly,and I support those; I follow them as they've been developed and the people that do--the commissioners that do enact them. But we have to do this ,rally and fairly across all lines. And it's a slippery slope when we start granting variances iota based€tt"financial hardship even though it's 50,000,25,000,or 100,000. But also the county should be responsible for some of this also and not just saying,well,everybody made a mistake. Let's just let it go away,because it's not fair to the other citizens that live in that community also. So I speak only as a concerned citizen that we have to constantly,in the Collier County,enforce the ordinances and the code equally across the board so that there's--we don't have these kind of long,drawn-out Planning Commission meetings where everybody gets involved in these. And I think that--overall,I think this could be remedied,but it's an issue that's going to come up again,as we know,someplace in the county,whether it's Marco Island or whether it's here,and northern Collier County,but it's an issue that has to be addressed,and we have to get the personnel that are going to be reviewing this and looking at these things so it doesn't come to this point again. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. We have time for one more speaker. Page 22 of 46 January 19, 2017 MR.REISCHL: Nancy Burns. MR. SHAPIRO: We have a speaker that has to leave at 10:30. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir,we're--okay. Yeah.You're not supposed to be doing that. Thank you. MS.BURNS: Nancy Burns,and I'm a resident of Vanderbilt Beach,Gulf Shore Drive. Anyway,I do support the Planning Board,and I do believe that the county has an obligation to validate our issues and also support the codes. I really feel for the people. I'm sorry that it's happened for them,but I do feel code should be enforced. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. That was quicker than I thought. We have one speaker, apparently,who has to leave at 10:30. On that basis,we'll try to accommodate them if they'd like to come up to the microphone. Identify yourself for the record. MR.JORGENSON: Thank you for doing that. I appreciate it. My name is Jerry Jorgenson. I live at 367 Lagoon Avenue. I've been there for 11 years. I have to disagree with Mr.Marks fantastically about the views. With all the trees,palm trees, everything that we have,you can't see up and down the canals anyway. I live right across the street from this property. I looked at a garbage home for 10 years.I had to call inspectors out to get it cleaned up because there was renters there at one time,and the I.a.1y was very nice enough to get it taken care of for me. I'm going to tell you something; I drive those canals all the time,and there's a lot of these high things out there,some prior to the codes,some changed. And,by the way,that wall you're talking about,all the new ones go in now,and you're probably aware,that they are a foot higher now. So whenever you put in a new seawall,it has to go up one foot higher than the old seawalls,so we have seawalls going up and down,up and down until people build,so it really looks kind of ,to tell you the truth. It would be nice if we could all have our seawalls the same height. So there's a lot of ithat occur when you're building. In this case,I live directly across the street, I'm very ed to see the house the way it is. I don't see it being an eyesore in any way,shape,or form,.I'm sorry that the County made a mistake. If they wouldn't have,we wouldn't bestandinglterebe today. And maybe the builder made a mistake. The problem is,is what--your point you made regarding the cage or someone's point regarding the cage,that is exactly comet. It doesn't--if you go down our canal,we have some of the ugliest structures that you want to see. I do rather(sic)try to fight to get these things taken down like I did a lot of huts that used to be on the thing.They were falling apart during the hurricanes,and they finally took them down. The county come out and said,they're not in compliance;take them down. And grass hut things. But on our canal on his side that he looks at,he looks at a lot worse thing then that,I can tell you. We have double-deck wooden structures. They were built,you know,back in the day when you could do that,okay,and they were ugly as heck;painted,peeling,ugly-looking decks. There's one guy who keeps his up nice. The other one,he's got a big tent on top of it. I mean,you're talking about--as you're going out of the canal,we're talking about a beautiful home that's going to have a beautiful--they have every intentions of putting shrubberies and stuff in there. And I don't care what he says;you can't see up and down regardless. I could stand on that side of the canal and sit at Marge and Rich's house on their patio,okay--I go over there and visit them a lot--and we can look right down the canal,and you know,it doesn't obstruct anything. All of our homes,our views,even my home which was built a long time ago--I walk out to my pool from ground level because we were built before the codes changed. And I didn't build it;somebody else did. And when we sit up in our home--we live up in the upper level of our home--we see everything because we have a northern view,you know,looking--and it's--we're so happy this is going up that I'm ecstatic. We have a lot of old homes still in our area,and they keep going down. And as you go out the canal--I don't know,Mr.Marks'house,whoever,he's got a big pool wall with a sand thing next to it. It's,in my opinion,very unattractive to look at. Not his wall but,you know--it's just fine.It's the way it is. And he's allowed to do that,and that's fine. We don't have an issue with it.I don't know him very well,and that's his business what he wants to do. Page 23 of 46 January 19,2017 But in my opinion,you do have--do follow codes. I'm a car dealer. I've built dealerships.We go for variances all the time. You have to go for variances sometimes in life to make things easier and simpler to deal with. If you didn't have variances,what would we have to go back and even--let's just say they wanted a variance before they built because they needed to do it in this particular way because of room--they don't have much room--there's not much property there,so you have to kind of utilize it the best you can. And I'm going to tell you what;it's real nice looking across the street and seeing a beautiful home with a nice wall. And this gentleman Stan,he had a terrific point. I'd rather look at that pool wall than have that pool way down here. Now I'm looking at them trying to build steps to get down to the pool wall,and you're still looking at a wall. And I'm right across the street,literally. And the boat blocks the view anyway,but I like looking at boats,because I have one,too. So thank you for the time. I really appreciate it. And I hope you take under consideration that there's a lot of us there that have no objection to this. I mean,I talked to some of my neighbors;they're not here to speak for themselves,but they said,sure,we don't have a problem with this. I mean,what does it matter? I mean,I agree with rules and stuff,but this one fell through the cracks,and that's why you have variances. And I thank you guys and--for your time and efforts and the time you guys put into your jobs. Thank you so much for letting me speak early.Appreciate it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,sir. Now,with that,we will take a break until 1(05,and then when we get back,we'll resume with public speakers and then after,the rest of our agenda. Thank you. (A brief recess was had.) MR.BOSI: Chair,you have a live-0`.-. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If everybody will please resume their seats. We left off with public testimony. We're going to resume with public testimeny,and Fred will calling the next speaker. MR.REISCHL: Steve Emens,followby John Ptwood. MR.EMENS: I'm Steve Emens,331 Lagoon Avg. I am€ ,.e person who called in April because I noticed that going up. The main reason,,,>,,,yI called is Iknow the code. And at that time,before--they had the slab down, before they built the ceding,construction(sic)this,I ' ed to give them the opportunity,because I knew it was going to cost them a at of money at the end if they didn't get a variance or if they did not get it approved. That's why I called at that that tinle. I couldn't believe that itmissed because youhave your architect that has to do the site plan and the survey` ctor to submit plans with elevations on it,so that's another permit where the elevationst missed b :* .s the b , . ..permit. So the seawall guy submitted and,yes,that seawall is up one foot,and the elevation of the deck,I measured it,is six foot from thenew seawall. So that's where that stands. And I watched everybody come out and survey the whole property in April. And then nothing happened. ,_:ug happened. So now they're applying for a variance after the house is already built. Okay. We're so far along`now,we can't do it. It cost too much money. The homeowner's not at fault,I understand.They depended upon a licensed architect;they depended upon a survey that should have been signed and sealed;they depended upon the pool contractor that should have had signed and seal , plans because it has engineering. You can't submit any plans without signed and sealed. You have to have your elevations on it. Now,those professionals are insured professionals,and they should know the codes in Collier County. The house is beautiful,okay. Nothing wrong with that. It's a great-looking house. The view's good. It's just that it's not to code. It got passed. I don't know what reason. I've seen things happen a lot of time where--well,I don't know the case,so I'm not going to speculate on it--where somebody said,hey,oh,can't you just do this for me? Sure we can. And then they build it,and then it's too late,without going back, resubmitting plans. I don't know that. But I do know across the street there's a new house under construction about the same stage they are. Page 24 of 46 January 19,2017 They're putting their trusses on right now.The house is 20-foot setback. The pool is a 10-foot setback,and it's 10-foot,and they have their stairs coming down. And in reference to FEMA code,I know that swimming pools and auxiliary setbacks do not have to be at that FEMA height. They can be below FEMA height. But you can build anywhere in Vanderbilt at grade without a height requirement for that pool to be FEMA. It's the pool equipment,electronics,and the main house structure. And that's my understanding. So that's-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You said you called. Who did you call? MR.EMENS: I called Code Enforcement first.I didn't know whether it was a building or a code violation. That's where I noticed it was-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A slip came in from Joseph Norris,who is a code compliance for the Contractor Licensing. That's the memo in the file that says you called them. It's got your cell number 860 something or other? MR.EMENS: Yeah,8070. Yeah. I called him.He goes,oh,no,I'm going to forward that on to whomever. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,the only record,the only report is for code licensing. I found under--Code Enforcement didn't get involved at that point. So your call into licensing isn't-- MR.EMENS: Well,yeah,because they turned it right over to that. They said,oh,you're calling the wrong people here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,he went out and took pictures and photographs of the site. So he actually did some of the followup. MR.EMENS: Right,and that's where it all started back then. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And there's pictures that show what stage it was at when this call was made? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. We can put them on the overhead if you'd like. This is basically--it's a similar stage to what you've already got. MR.EMENS: Yeah. I knew it was going to be trouble. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's seven or so pictures. That's one of them. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And what stage was it at? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: About what it is today.They have a--I think-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So the house was there? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR.EMENS: Not in April it wasn't all there.They poured the slab,and they were putting up-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr.Norris went out and took these pictures after--in response to the call. So I didn't--I mean,I haven't got one of the house. That's a picture of what you just about saw. MR.EMENS: Right. The pool was there because they built it before the house went up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR.EMENS: But then when I saw that,it was out--I went over,I measured it. I--and I'm thinking,okay,you going to do your final survey at the end,and now-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What did you measure it with? Did you use a-- MR EMENS: Tape measure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tape measure? MR.EMENS: Yeah,yeah. I hooked it on the-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now,you're the complainant,and you went on the property that you filed a complaint against to show that they were in error.Did you get their permission to go on their property? MR.EMENS: No,I did not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's kind of odd.I don't know--I've never heard anybody doing that before. MR.EMENS: Well,no,I just walked around and-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Trespassed. Page 25 of 46 January 19,2017 MR.EMENS: I just saw it,and I wasn't sure,okay,so I measured it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have some--I noticed in looking at your name--and I didn't have your last name;I had your phone number. When I plugged the phone number in to Google,it came up--you had some YouTubes done,and I guess you do pool work for Nassau Pools. MR.EMENS: I build swimming pools,and that's how I knew the code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'm still curious what stage the house was at,because the information I got before was that the house was partially up when this happened,and he's saying the house was not up at all. MR.EMENS: Well,the walls were up,but it was clear access. You could come straight through the front over the slab right to get to the pool at that time. There was no--nothing inside. It was open. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we can let this one go for now. That's more if the applicant wants to deal with the trespass;that's not our issue. Thank you,sir. MR.EMENS: Yeah. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker,please. MR.REISCHL: John Prestwood followed by Ronald Rossbach. MR.PRESTWOOD: John Prestwood,P-r-e-s-t-w-o-o-d. I'm a neighbor also on Lagoon.And I just wanted to support Mr.Marks'and Mr.Emens'comments and those from Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association that I'm concerned with the code,again,not being enforced. And I realize the more I hear here, it's a very complex situation in terms of the number of errors or perhaps the number of missteps that have been made along the way. I'm in insurance by trade;retired now. I also wondered about the liability that someone else will probably need to determine in this regard,depending upon how you rule,but there is errors and omissions insurance also with respect to the professionals all mentioned here: Architects,builders,engineers,and so forth. I don't know about the county. I wouldn't surmise on that. But it seems like there's a lot of missteps that have been made. So I would encourage you to enforce the code.If there's something that can be done to accommodate things,fine. As far as materiality,$50,000,maybe that's for you to decide. We're talking about multi-million-dollar homes here in this neighborhood. Fifty thousand dollars on a house in Golden Gate might be a lot different than$50,000 in Vanderbilt Beach. That's all I have to say. I support the--Mr.Marks',Mr.Emens'comments,and I appreciate your work. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,sir. Next speaker? MR.REISCHL: The next speaker,Ronald Rossbach followed by Margaret Rossbach. MR.ROSSBACH: Hi. I'm Ronald Rossbach. I live at 355 Lagoon,just opposite the canal,in the canal where the house is. I just want to know let you know we have no objections. As a matter of fact,we felt that the whole situation there,the building and the boat and everything,just enhances our view of the canal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,sir. MR.REISCHL: The final registered speaker is Margaret Rossbach. MS.ROSSBACH: My name is Margaret Rossbach.I am Ronald's wife. I live at 355 Lagoon Avenue,and I'm directly across from house in.question. And before that,we have been--we built our house in 1980. We've been here over 30 years,and we love it here. This is paradise. And from a woman's point of view,this is so gorgeous that it just enhances the neighborhood,and I don't understand why--or I won't understand if this is not going to be approved because it's just all positive. Before that,then there was a house that it was a duplex. It was much older than our house.I'm sure Jerry,if he was here,he would say I'm one of the houses that he doesn't like,but I love my home,and it's Page 26 of 46 January 19, 2017 going to be there until I kick the bucket. And I'm 86 years,going to be 87. So they're going to have to wait a while,because they take such good care of you here in Naples that sometimes you live to be 90 something. So this is not the first time I'm going to come here to beg you to just let this go on and let us all be happy. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,ma'am. Next speaker? MR.REISCHL: That was your fmal registered speaker. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you put something on the overhead. I need to clarify one item. It's Page 10 of the staff report,which is the black-and-white survey. You don't have the staff report? MR.REISCHL: On my computer,electronically. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys. We need to have printers in this room,I can tell. Diane,can I borrow yours? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I've got scribbles on mine. MR.REISCHL: I was trying to keep up with the chairman on being electronic on this one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,you've got to get an Apple then. Sorry. MR.EASTMAN: The advantages of paper. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Actually,that's not the --it doesn't show enough. The actual survey is the few pages back from that,Joe. Keep going.It's this one here. MR.REISCHL: Oh,the resolution. It's attached to the resolution,I believe. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. That's it. If you could let him borrow that,Patrick,that would be great;thank you. Okay. What I wanted to point out on here.--and,ally,you need to zoom in a little bit on the part by the waterway. Right there. Notice on the lower right-hand corner it says,set drill hole on top of concrete seawall,and NAVD elevation,3.32. That's the same elevation that the old seawall was at based on the permit application. Permit application said to cap it,add one foot to it so it would be 4.2,and it also was certified to that. Now,if you'll look over on the left,second note up,it sapper contractor,pool patio stem wall is at 9.9. Now,if you take 9.9,subtract the,3.2,:you et your 6.6,which is the issue in question today.What I'm suggesting is it's not 9.9,and then the 3.2 is now 44 so the real difference is 5.6;5.6 is 18 inches over the four feet thesallow d. And I guess I've`got a question to staff. At that 18 inches,would someone measure from the cap of the seawall,or they'd have to go next door and measure from the old seawall to determine the height that's supposed to be used for this deck? MR.REISCHL: Correct. This is the survey that was submitted. I spoke to Mr.Jones,one of the attorneys involved,I asked that,and this is what was resubmitted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not the question. MR.BOSI: The question: The new seawall,the seawall constructed at this property would be the benchmark for where that elevation would start. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I'm getting at. Now,we've heard testimony that probably--I can't--I have to question how it was obtained,that it was measured by the tape measure to be closer to six--well,five-and-a-half feet or whatever. I would suggest we maybe have an 18-inch discrepancy here instead of a 24-inch. But it's just something to consider as we go through this,and maybe the applicant, by the time they get to the Board of County Commissioners,will have that resolved. I would highly recommend to them that,rather than wait any longer,they do it right away. With that,I don't have any more questions at this time,but we do have an opportunity for the applicant-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Page 27 of 46 January 19, 2017 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: While you're on that survey,I'm fascinated,upper left-hand corner,in the center line of Tradewinds Avenue,there's a NAVD nail(sic)and a couple in elevation 2.8,and I thought every road in Collier County was at five minimum. So I you know,that just fascinates me. C�STRAIN: Okay. This is the time when the applicant's representative or the applicant themselves,someone,you have an opportunityto make a rebuttal if you want to do so. I either need to have you acknowledge you don't have a rebuttal ort you'd like to utilize the time. MR. SHAPIRO: Sure. Do you mind if I use this? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Go right ahead. MR. SHAPIRO: I will be very brief,because I think a lot of the points were,I guess,well brought out and hit on. I would just like to bring out,and I think that the counsel here already has,is that this doesn't set any legal precedent as,of course,I believe most of you know,and I think tha#'s what a lot of the objectors had issue with is that,you know,maybe this would set a precedent down t . But as you know,under case law,these are done on an indi� aal basis,sthe ruling today doesn't set any precedent for future,and hopefully this problem won't haenagain . Again,going by the staff report,I think,you know,there'senough blame to ga around. You know,I am not saying that the petitioner's people,you know,maybe they should have done th` more thoroughly, maybe the county should have reviewed it more thoro�,but we have what we have ham= day,and we have a very unique circumstance because the permit was Sued relying on the wrong setbacl ?and because we have what we have here today,we can just make decisionsoin i+ard,and I just feel that the economic hardships of having to tear all that out and put a new; .+ over somewhere between 18 inches and two-and-a-half feet would just be a verb hardship comb-i,:4 to the negligible impact that this has. So with that,I thank you for your coiderao . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.'- Okay. -Okay. When we had some discussion ier,I think a w of yot icatted you had other questions you wanted to ask before we go-before we closethe pupil e.. .now is the rime to do that. I can't remember-- COMMISSIONERCHMITT: My questionstare answered. CHAIRMAN Everybody else? COMMISSI�" � ' CHRZAN<., KI: I'm al COMMISSIONS Tri,..- : CHAD STRAIN . y. Then"" ase the public hearing,and we will entertain discussion v � or mo c if there's discussion. Does anybody have any discussion items they want to bring up? Joe? + OMMISSIONEIIMI1 °:: end folks in the audience,I was the community development administer from 2010 to 20 orrect 001 to 2009. So during that tenure,of course,I was responsible for all the`fig in the county asas all the review and the building depat tinent,zoning department,and other depart3 under that ort,=$��.tion,which there's been some changes since. But I leftin 2009. So I have a clear un. ?,ding of the process. And the oason P g up my background,because this is not the first variance in this area. I could tell you that beck'eve had similar situations in the past where,because of the code,there is confusion or there still clues to be confusion which,frankly,when I received the packet,I was as I said,it brought back some tough times in that department. But that said,it is an unfortunate circumstance. The design professional's responsible. The homeowner hires design professionals who are licensed, and they're responsible,and I clearly understand that. As an engineer I understand that. The issue at hand,though,is this is an area for redevelopment. It is the original Naples Park.It's been an issue for probably 30 years in the county as this area redeveloped,and these all these lots redeveloped primarily because of the location,not as much as Naples Park has,but all these lots are were teardowns and rebuilds. The issue in this areaVanderbilt Beach,wasa continual problem when I was in the county seven years ago,as it is,I guess,right ow,because we're faced with the same situation of,clearly, 10 pounds of Page 28 of 46 January 19, 2017 flour in a 5-pound sack,because that's--most of these homes are maximizing the building envelope that's allowed. I do think it's an unfortunate circumstance but,however,from the standpoint of the variance,as far as I'm concerned,the house exists,the pool exists,and I'm ready to make a motion,if the--but I'll hold off until we make some further discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm glad you said flour. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I did. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: The military term is blivet,b-l-i-v-e-t. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody else have any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have one item I'd like to discuss. Mike or Fred,would you put what I just handed you on the overhead. You need to back off a little bit. Keep going. Keep going. Right there. So we can read the whole thing. Section 9.04.03 is our criteria for variances.You've heard today that there are eight criteria;there are. And we've had legal counsel advise us from the opposition side to address their position on those eight criteria. Also,a case was referred to us,an old case from a 1982 activity. But we here--as that attorney, even the opposition attorney and as staff has opined today,we're here to adhere to the Land Development Code. The Land Development Code says this in the beginning of the criteria for variances: "Findings: Before any variance shall be recommended for approval to the Board of the Zoning Appeals,the Planning Commission shall consider and be guided by the following standards in making a determination." So while we've heard that they're hard and fast rules,you've got to show a hardship,it can't be this kind of hardship,maybe so,but at the same time we shall consider those and be guided by them.That means it's not mandatory. And,Mike,if you read this differently as Zoning Director,please let me know. But it's my understanding that it means what it says,that we're not bound by those eight items,but they are for consideration. MR.BOSI: My understanding would be--the interpretation that you've adopted would be my understanding;that these are the guidelines and with that emphasis upon the guidelines. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And with that in mind,I have--I've listened to everything,and I've certainly tried to do all the research I can to understand how this happened. I can't see the benefit to force someone to tear down a home such as this. There's been no shown malicious intent in this. It was an--it was a human error. It was a mistake made by multiple parties. To take them to task for this for the cost that it would require for an item that does not set a precedent I don't think is necessary. Now,if we can show they purposely had misled the county,this was done intentionally,I'd say then whatever they deserve they deserve in regards to correcting it. But I have looked at all the records. I have looked at them probably more thoroughly than anybody in this room,and I can assure you nothing like that came out of any of those records. And they're records that this panel doesn't even have access to. They're in the county records department. I've pulled all the folders. There's nothing there that shows malicious intent. In fact,if anything,they were trying to continually keep up with things they needed to to make sure their approvals were consistent and reviewed by the county. So I certainly think that the variance is warranted in this case,whether the variance is 24--two-and-a-half feet--yeah,two-and-a-half feet or 18 inches. Either way,it really doesn't matter. The pool's there,and it should be approved. The only thing I would suggest is that a stipulation be added to do make sure that the intent of where these are allowed at this height,which is everywhere else,basically,but Vanderbilt Beach,that the decorative cladding or landscaping and a berm or a combination thereof of some nature is there,is put in front or applied to this wall to soften it,as the other jurisdictions would have --where they had done so in other parts of the county. Page 29 of 46 January 19,2017 And with that,that's all I've got to say.And if there's nobody else here,we'll close the public hearing and we'll entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I make a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will that motion be subject to the stipulation for the-- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Subject to the stipulations as discussed. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. MR.REISCHL: And the staffs stipulation,too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Staff stipulation as well noting that,subject to the 50 percent rule, that anything constructed thereafter would have to require compliance with the existing code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion's been made to recommend approvalfor the variance subject to staffs recommendation and the one stipulation we just discussed. Any Anther discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. Thank you,all,for attending this morning.We appreciate it. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark,could I ask something? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I was very impressed by the drone photos,and I would think that--seriously,I don't know why the county doesn't do that on a lot of these projects. And I don't know what it takes to legally do drone photos or buy drones,but it seems like,you know,we're the county;we ought to have that kind of to aa �=� gr �.' elthese meetings instead of the petitioner. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: It's a greatidea.The challenge is the FAA. I can tell you,as a realtor,theye realty Creaking down. There's a lot more criteria as to where and when you can fly.I've got to be honest,I don't know with that drone shot--and I'm not trying to open up a can of worms here,I've been told in the past those drones aren't allowed to fly over Vanderbilt Beach either or over that area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN; I would have to--I'd have to agree. The last thing I'd-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: A can of worms? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --like to see is the government having the power of drones. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Stay away from that. COMMISSiER HOMIAK: No trespassing and no drones. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: We work with Luddites. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,Stan. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Stan,stay with Google Earth. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ***Okay. That takes us into the next item,the only item remaining on today's agenda. It's the review of the Land Development Code for both the preservation,I believe,open space and conservation of golf course areas,and this will be a presentation made by staff,Caroline Cilek. It will be our second or third time around for some of these,and not the final. MS.CILEK: Correct. Good morning. Caroline Cilek,for the record. I would like to go through the amendment that has the most individuals here for public comment first,if that's okay with-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know what that is,or do you want me to ask? Page 30 of 46 EXHIBIT "C" RELEVENT Section of the Collier County Land Development Code related to ERRORS in plans submitted. 1111111111111111111111111111111 -Section Building Permit or Land Alteration Permit. 1. Building or land alteration permitand certificate of occupancy compliance process. a. Zoning action on building or land alteration permits.The County Manager or his designee shall be responsible for determining whether applications for building or land alteration permits, as required by the Collier County Building code or this Code are in accord with the requirements of this Code, and no building or land alteration permitshall be issued without written approval that plans submitted conform to applicable zoning regulations, and other land development regulations. For purposes of this section a land alteration permit shall mean any written authorization to alter land and for which a building permitmay not be required. Examples include but are not limited to clearing and excavation permits, site development plan approvals, agricultural clearing permits, and blasting permits. No building or structure shall be erected, moved, added to, altered, utilized or allowed to exist and/or no land alteration shall be permitted without first obtaining the authorization of the required permit(s), inspections and certificate(s) of occupancy as required by the Collier County Building Code or this Code and no building or land alteration permit application shall be approved by the County Manager or his designee for the erection, moving, addition to, or alteration of any building, structure, or land except in conformity with the provisions of this Code unless he shall receive a written order from the Board of Zoning Appeals in the form of an administrative review of the interpretation, or variances as provided by this Code, or unless he shall receive a written order from a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction. b. Application for building or land alteration permit.All applications for building or land alteration permits shall, in addition to containing the information required by the building official, be accompanied by all required plans and drawings drawn to scale, showing the actual shape and dimensions of the lot to be built upon; the sizes and locations on the lot of buildings already existing, if any; the size and location on the lot of the building or buildings to be erected, altered or allowed to exist; the existing use of each building or buildings or parts thereof; the number of families the building is designed to accommodate; the location and number of required off-street parking and off-street loading spaces; approximate location of trees protected by county regulations; changes in grade, including details of berms; and such other information with regard to the lot and existing/proposed structures as provided for the enforcement of this Land development Code. In the case of application for a building or land alteration permiton property adjacent to the Gulf of Mexico, a survey, certified by a land surveyor or an engineer licensed in the State of Florida, and not older than 30 days shall be submitted. If there is a storm event or active erosion on a specific parcel of land for which a building or land alteration permit is requested, which the County Manager or his designee determines may effect the density or other use relationship of the property, a more recent survey may be required. Where ownership or property lines are in doubt,the County Manager or his designee may require the submission of a survey, certified by a land surveyor or engineer licensed in the State of Florida. Property stakes shall be in place at the commencement of construction. c. Construction and use to be as provided in applications;111.11111"-11. Building or land alteration permits or certificates of occupancy issued on the basis of plans and specifications approved by the County Manager or his designee authorize only the use, arrangement, and construction set forth in such approved plans and applications, and no other use, arrangement, or construction. Building use arrangement, or construction different from that authorized shall be deemed a violation of this Land Development Code. i. Statements made by the applicant on the building or land alteration permit-application shall be deemed official statements. prova i7fq application by the Co . Artartagerkyr°sirs ciestmee sr , in no way, exempt the applicant from strict observance of applicable provisions of this Land Development Code and all other applicable regulations, ordinances, codes, and laws. ii. A building or land alteration permit issued in error shall not confer any rights or privileges to the applicant to proceed to or continue with construction, and the county shall have the power to revoke such perm until said error is corrected. d. Adequate public facilities required. No building or land alteration permit or certificate of occupancy shall be issued except in accordance with the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, Ord. No. 90-24(chapters 3, 6 and 10 of this Code) and Rule 9J-5.0055, F.A.C. EXHIBIT "D" Section of FLORDIA BUILDING CODE — Relevant to Errors in plans submitted From the Florida Building Code 2014 6. All public swimming pools and public bathing places defined by and regulated under Chapter 514, Florida Statutes. [A] 105.3.2 Time limitation of application. An application for a permit for any proposed work shall be deemed to have been abandoned 180 days after the date of filing, unless such application has been pursued in good faith or a permit has been issued; except that the building official is authorized to grant one or more extensions of time for additional periods not exceeding 90 days each. The extension shall be requested in writing and justifiable cause demonstrated. 105.3.3 An enforcing authority may not issue a building permit for any building construction, erection, alteration, modification, repair or addition unless the permit either includes on its face or there is attached to the permit the following statement: . .r quireit M15 permit, there = > w ,. ,_> =a applicable to this property that may be found in the public records of this county, and there may be additional permits required from other governmental entities such as water management districts, state agencies, or federal agencies." 105.3.4 A building permit for a single-family residential dwelling must be issued within 30 working days of application therefor unless unusual circumstances require a longer time for processing the application or unless the permit application fails to satisfy the Florida Building Code or the enforcing agency's laws or ordinances. 105.3.5 Identification of minimum premium policy. Except as otherwise provided in Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, Workers' Compensation, every employer shall, as a condition to receiving a building permit, show proof that it has secured compensation for its employees as provided in Sections 440.10 and 440.38, Florida Statutes. 105.4.1 Permit intent. A permit issued shall be construed to be a license to proceed with the work and not as authority to violate, cancel, alter or set aside any of the provisions of the technical codes, nor shall issuance of a permit prevent the building official from thereafter requiring a correction of errors in plans, construction or violations of this code. Every permit issued shall become invalid unless the work authorized by such permit is commenced within six months after its issuance, or if the work authorized by such permit is suspended or abandoned for a period of six months after the time the work is commenced. [A] 105.6 Denial or revocation. Whenever a permit required under this section is denied or revoked because the plan, or the construction, erection, alteration, modification, repair, or demolition of a building, is found by the local enforcing agency to be not in compliance with the Florida Building Code, the local enforcing agency shall identify the specific plan or project features that do not comply with the applicable codes, identify the specific code chapters and sections upon which the finding is based, and provide this information to the permit applicant. If the local building code administrator or inspector finds that the plans are not in compliance with the Florida Building Code, the local building code administrator or inspector shall identify the specific plan features that do not comply with the applicable codes, identify the specific code chapters and sections upon which the finding is based, and provide this information to the local enforcing agency. The local enforcing agency shall provide this information to the permit applicant. Exhibit "E" Resolution from the Vanderbilt Beach Residents Assoc. in support of denying this variance request Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association (VERA) PO Box 771330 Naples, FL 34107 www.vbra.org Vanderbiltbeach54�u yahoo.com Resolution The Board of Directors of the Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association, Inc., passed the following Resolution at its regularly schedule meeting on February 9, 2017: The Board ofDirectors ofthe Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association, Inc hereby fully endorses and supports the Collier County Building and Land Development Codes, and expects that the Collier County Commissioners and staffwill enforce the various provisions ofthe Building and Land Development Codes. The Board ofDirectors ofthe Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association, Inc.further cautions the Collier County Board of County Commissioners and staffto be judicious in their use ofAdministrative Variances in their administration ofthe Building and Land Development Codes, instead giving preference to the formal Public Notice procedures to keep their proceedings in the public's eye. Resolved by the unanimous vote of the Board of Directors of the Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association, Inc., on February 9, 2017. Kathleen R. Robbins, Secretary Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association, Inc. T 239.642.1485 PATRICK Naples: F 239.642.1487 Q\1EALE 5470 Bryson Court Suite 103 E info@patricknale.com t Naples,Florida 34109 www.patrickneakcom { r:..ASSOCIATES Mailing Patrick H. Neale Marrnlsland(byappointment): A.O.Box 9440 950 North Collier Blvd.Suite 400 Naples,Florida 34101-9440 Attorney at Law Marco Island,Florida 34145 January 10,2017 Mr.Fred Reischl Senior Planner Collier County Growth Management Department Zoning Division 2800 Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL RE:Petition VA-PL20160001181 —342 Trade Winds Avenue Dear Fred: I represent Mr.and Mrs.George Marks,the owners of 319 Lagoon Avenue,Naples,Florida 34108, property owners who will be substantially and adversely impacted by the variance requested in the above petition should it be granted.I also represent several other property owners in the area who will also be adversely impacted by the proposed variance should it be granted.My clients strongly oppose the proposed variance and disagree with the staff recommendation for reasons which will be set out below. This letter is to provide additional legal basis for the denial of the Variance.It is requested that this letter be provided to each member of the Planning Board prior to the hearing set for January 19,2017. As the County is aware,the controlling case law for variances is Indialantic v. Nance,400 So. 2d 37 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 1981) as adopted by the Florida Supreme Court in Nance v. Indialantic, 1982 Fla. LEXIS 2530(Fla. 1982).The standard set out in this case is that "[a] prerequisite to the granting of a hardship zoning variance is the presence of an exceptional and unique hardship to the individual landowner,unique to that parcel and not shared by other property owners in the area." There is nothing about the parcel or this landowner that is unique, other than the fact the County issued a building permit based upon plans that did not meet the standards set out in the Collier County Land Development Code. In the balance of this letter, I will comment upon the various criteria set out in LDC section 9.04.03 and incorporated into the staff report. a. Are there special conditions and circumstances existing, which are peculiar to the location,size and characteristics of the land,structure or building involved? Staff:Yes.Per the applicant,the pool shell,retaining wall and stairs are constructed. The applicant commenced construction under building permit,PRBD2015092870601,with an incorrectly cited rear accessory pool setback of 10 feet versus the required 20 feet. The applicant abided by the incorrectly cited rear accessory 10-foot pool setback for the swimming pool,spa, and pool deck. The stairs off the pool deck do encroach 3.5 feet into the erroneously provided 10-foot setback; however they were permitted with the swimming pool, spa, and pool deck. Opposing Position: The conditions and circumstances set out by the Staff are those caused by the actions of the petitioner. The failure of the petitioner to follow the Mr.Fred Reischl January 11.2017 Page 2 of 4 requirements of the Building Code and Land Development Code does not constitute a special condition or circumstance that would give rise to grounds for a variance. b. Are there special conditions and circumstances, which do not result from the action of the applicant such as pre-existing conditions relative to the property, which are the subject of the Variance request? Staff: Yes. The applicant applied and received a pool permit from the County citing an incorrect rear accessory pool setback. The applicant proceeded, and followed, with provided setbacks unaware of any violations. Due to this error, the subject structure is currently encroaching 6.55; more specifically,the pool, spa,pool deck encroach 9.83 feet, resulting in a 10.17 rear yard setback, and the stairs encroach 13.45 feet, resulting in a 6.55-foot encroachment. Opposing Position: Any and all "special conditions and circumstance" result from the negligence of the applicant.The fact that a permit was issued does not excuse the applicant from compliance with the relevant laws. c. Will a literal interpretation of the provisions of this zoning code work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant or create practical difficulties for theapplicant? Yes. Per the applicant, the pool is already constructed and to abide by the required accessory 20-foot setback would require the applicant to remove the existing pool and replace it at an estimated expense of $50,000. The applicant relied on the erroneously issued pool permit with a 10-foot rear accessory setback in constructing the existing pool structure. Opposing Position: The hardship was caused by the negligence of the applicant and/or their contractor. While it may create practical difficulties, that is not within the purview of the Planning Board or Board of Zoning Appeals to relieve the applicant from a problem of their own making. d. Will the Variance,if granted, be the minimum Variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure and which promote standards of health,safety and welfare? Yes.The applicant is only seeking the minimum variance which will allow the pool deck, pool, spa, and stairs to remain. Opposing Position: The property is still completely usable without the granting of the variance. The applicant will only have to construct the pool deck,spa and stairs in a manner that complies with the provisions of the Land Development Code. e. Will granting the Variance confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by these zoning regulations to other lands,buildings,or structures in the same zoning district? Yes.The applicant will be able to retain a decreased accessory rear yard setback for a pool Mr.Fred Reischl January 11.2017 Page 3 of 4 deck that exceed 4 feet in height above the seawall. However, it should be noted that the applicant relied on the County issued permit which cited incorrectly the accessory rear swimming pool and/or screen enclosure setback. Opposing Position: The basic principle of variance procedure as embodied in the LDC and the applicable case law is that a variance should NOT give the applicant any special privilege. This would provide the applicant with a special privilege and diminish the value of surrounding properties.The variance will impede the views of all surrounding properties and set a dangerous precedent which could allow other property owners to receive the same variance,thus making the LDC a sham. £ Will granting the Variance be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this Land Development Code, and not be injurious to the neighborhood,or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare? Yes. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed Variance would legitimize the existence of the pool and pool deck that are currently under construction. Opposing Position:The staff is arguing that this will legitimize the existence of a non- conforming structure that has not been issued a certificate of occupancy and is in violation of the LDC. That is not in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the LDC. Further, this is injurious to the neighborhood in that it impedes, impairs and interferes with the views of the adjacent lot owners. g. Are there natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals and objectives of the regulation such as natural preserves, lakes, golf courses, etc.? Yes. The applicant states that variations in seawall height in this location do not create a uniform height for all houses and therefore create different pool deck height requirements over 4 feet of the seawall. Opposing Position: The standard in the LDC is set so that there is uniformity in the elevation above the seawall. The height above the seawall is the standard. There are no conditions natural or physically induced which justify the granting of this variance. h. Will granting the Variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan? Approval of this Variance will not affect or change the requirements of the Growth Management Plan. Opposing Position: The approval of the Variance will not impact the GMP. Based upon the foregoing response to the Staff Report and Recommendation and testimony to be presented at the hearing on January 19, 2017, my clients respectfully request that the Planning Board deny this application for a variance. The variance as requested does not meet the legal criteria for the granting of a variance. Mr.Fred Reischl January 11.2017 Page 4 of 4 I appreciate this opportunity to present my clients' position and look forward to appearing at the hearing on January 19, 2017 to present these arguments to the Planning Board,respond to their questions and get my clients' testimony on the record.Please contact me if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, 'atric H. eale Cc: Clients PHN/Ps FilsonSue Subject: Patrick Neale 642-1485 and George Marks (Kramer-Marks Architects) 215-654-7722 regarding 342 Trade Winds Avenue, Variance Petition VA-PL20160001181 EX PARTE Location: BCC Office Start: Thu 2/9/2017 1:00 PM End: Thu 2/9/2017 1:30 PM Recurrence: (none) Organizer: McDanielBill Hello, Sue— Mr. Patrick Neale would like to meet with Commissioner McDaniel to discuss Variance Petition VA-PL20160001181—342 Trade Winds Avenue, which will be scheduled in front of the Commission soon. Might he has some time available next week? Best regards, Karen Klukiewicz Chief of Operations Assistant to Attorney Patrick H. Neale Patrick Neale&Associates Phone:239-642-1485 Fax: 239-642-1487 Email: karen(a patrickneale.com Email Servicing: email-service(a�patrickneale.com www.patrickneale.com 1 FilsonSue Subject: Patrick Neale 642-1485 and George Marks (Kramer-Marks Architects) 215-654-7722 regarding 342 Trade Winds Avenue, Variance Petition VA-PL20160001181 EX PARTE Location: BCC Office Start: Thu 2/9/2017 1:00 PM End: Thu 2/9/2017 1:30 PM Recurrence: (none) Organizer: McDanielBill Hello, Sue— Mr. Patrick Neale would like to meet with Commissioner McDaniel to discuss Variance Petition VA-PL20160001181—342 Trade Winds Avenue, which will be scheduled in front of the Commission soon. Might he has some time available next week? Best regards, Karen Klukiewicz Chief of Operations Assistant to Attorney Patrick H. Neale Patrick Neale&Associates Phone:239-642-1485 Fax: 239-642-1487 Email: karen@ratrickneale.com Email Servicing: email-servicepatrickneale.com www.Datrickneale.com 1 Ex parte Items - Commissioner Burt L. Saunders COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA 02/28/2017 ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS (no items require Ex Parte) BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS 8.A. ***This item to be heard at 1:00 p.m.*** This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Recommendation to approve a Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida,for a Variance from Section 4.02.03.A, Table 4 of the Land Development Code to reduce the minimum rear yard accessory structure setback line from 20 feet to 6.55 feet for a swimming pool,spa, pool deck and stairs on a waterfront lot within the Residential Single-Family (RSF-3)zoning district on property located at 342 Trade Winds Avenue, in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida [VA-PL20160001181]. NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM X1 SEE FILE ,k1Vleetings ,Correspondence Xe-mails ❑Calls No_ calls, emailslsor letters;rread Coupn[t�y stafff report in meeting packet. /�,�j 7- out �iM $Qfr 1.4/ ,7 tfsbG6s CMI," ote4, 04:).Nl/ ;4 cooevi GM �j `�'�/s. Astor of ANA. CONSENT AGENDA (no items require Ex Parte) SUMMARY AGENDA 17.E. *** This item is being continued to the March 14, 2017 BCC meeting.*** This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve Petition VAC- PL20160003293, to disclaim, renounce and vacate the County and the public interest in a portion of the 10-foot drainage easement and vacate a portion of the 10-foot utility easement located along the rear border of Lot 50, The Lodgings of Wyndemere, Section One, as recorded in Plat Book 13, Page 8 of the public records of Collier County, Florida, located in Section 19, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. X NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM SEE FILE [Meetings ❑Correspondence He-mails !Calls SUMMARY AGENDA NONE 8.A.b CO er County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ZONING DIVISION-ZONING SERVICES SECTION HEARING DATE: JANUARY 19,2017 SUBJECT: PETITION VA-PL20160001181, 342 TRADE WINDS AVENUE ea PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT: v Owner: Roxanne Stone-Jeske Agent: Matthew L. Jones,Esquire Nancy D. Koeper Law Offices of Marc L. Shapiro,PA R 342 Trade Winds Avenue 720 Goodlette Road North,Suite 304 Naples,FL 34103 Naples, FL 34102 ch REOUESTED ACTION: N as To have the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an application for a Variance from Section 4.02.03.A, Table 4 of the Land Development Code (LDC) to reduce the minimum rear yard accessory structure setback line from 20 feet to 6.55 feet for a swimming pool, spa, pool deck, and stairs on a waterfront lot within the Residential Single-family(RSF-3)zoning district. c a GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: co The subject property is located on Lot 11, Block M, of the Conners Vanderbilt Beach Estates Unit 2 subdivision, on the south side of Trade Winds Avenue, approximately 1000 feet west of Vanderbilt Drive in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County,Florida. (See location map on the next page.) ca PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The purpose of the petition is to request a reduction from LDC Section 4.02.03.A.,Table 4,stating that the minimum swimming pool and/or screen enclosure accessory setback for waterfront lots is 20 feet when the swimming pool deck exceeds 4 feet in height above the top of the seawall. The seawall on this property is 3.31 feet with a pool deck that is 9.9 feet. Thus,the pool deck is 6.59 feet above the seawall,which is 2.59 feet greater than what is permitted by the LDC. The applicant states that the pool and deck plans submitted to Collier County contained the pool deck elevation of 9.67 feet. The County issued a pool permit, PRBD2016010076701, with a rear accessory setback of 10 feet versus the required 20 feet. The applicant built the swimming pool, spa, and pool deck utilizing the 10-foot accessory setback requirements erroneously provided on the building permit rather than the required 20-foot accessory setback requirement. The pool deck encroaches 9.85 feet into the 20- foot setback and the stairs encroach 3.45 feet. VA-PL20160001181,342 Trade Winds Variance Page 1 of 7 Packet Pg.186 8 .b 111111191 MI ®1111111 @CH 'V €'11101111111Mumainummum _.-------,,„,,,, __„--r---r-„,,.,:.,-,....„,...iu ,,.„,„,,,,,,,,,...,,..e . €:, -----.mr., . e , 3LI :1 c• op ® cm alin • ® 0 0 ® p fl p m • fl fl> 0 •Q o lz m0. e g ii gel .„1011 ,,,,, us si . ® .. an :En 10 Wp 1E3 ° ` a ° - c 0_1- 1 EA ®® . mo 0 _la 0E3 ® . oii It gilkroi ...1 El el wpm . MRI COwy la rol . „, 0 re 0 CO ri2 113 181 112iffa V i 111 e-- > pi gi II 0 wila- 0 T"' ,.• Ce ri a lea it WI I- I- N l cc L -a CD 41 ..0 En Z O Q. 4 0 7+ 03 v a cII lja mgaa)apuen ,m a. a j a) c f c ,..-...,- ,. _ CD ico, i .. U -�� `rli f Shore DR ' r. ou ae v I. o U Packet Pg. 187 8 ITRADE WINDS AVE. \ r-- 760'CIO 760.07'(C) -.. ; —41—,.— o---— 79.0r —.1.-11.-- M ——• •--�'--— 1 FP.PkNAIL IN WART. 'O• 1I i CI?T MILE,0,06'W. PD.NAIL E06E OF PVMT IN PVMT O 1 &ONG. / N. GONG. C 1401.66 Q 12 R.G. 1 WVNI 5Se.0410"W 75.00'(R) 75.01'(G) fe:rtil FA7 2i'... Cl WM a MR�15 0.5 ., 2'S ++�� SII , 0.031V.,O.OI'W, I I 4 c'v 51U4 OUT N ill I O ci i to alI Ss V e R 765 v V 24.0' �^ 765' '.'..o R Rf t 4,C' O " p oo 8.05• 454" cac set N e4 `� +O in 9 0' d 'V � H 342 TRADE WIMPS AVE. L O C K M C.@,g. NOUSE (under cnns6.) N Ftr4. FLOOR ELEV.. +-10.4 � Q;14 N inw 0 2U. „_ • c 2,05' Sti crt ' a' ap N 15414; .0' r 4.354) x o o.e m .65' et2 c Ce us 3.46 ft y RAWALL 5»' 19:86 ft a a16i1 w: ?31 1 768' ETAINix6 WALL ALUM.FENCE ' ` t.3c•WIDE CONC. 4FAWALL. LAP -\ T1.14. as as Q 1 5B6'0a'i0^w 75.00. 12) 7501 OA) �� 9E7 PR1t.L140LE • in `; fN'I4P OF CONC.46AWALl. It NAVE ELEV. +05.32 v W A T E R W A •r Accessory setback required by LDC 20ft Accessory setback shown on Building Permit •io ft Additional encroachment by stairway 3.45 ft VA-PL20160001181,342 Trade Winds Variance Page 3 of 7 Packet Pg. 188 $ .b l 0 39.1' 4'i I6A -- ALUM. FENCEc.e 774. sari S �" "der Io55+ WALL GAP —N1, *`1a4' 75.00'( ) 75.0/ SMO ,ET PRI L.t.kbl.E 0 •6 1N TOP OF CAC. 5EAWALL KAVD ELEV. + 03.32 d According to the survey, the applicant built the stairs 3.45 feet into the erroneously provided 10-footas c setback. Per LDC 4.02.01.D.7 stairways shall not protrude over 3 feet into a required front, side, or rear co 7- yard of a single-family dwelling; the stairs were approved,at the 3.45-foot encroachment. Please note that > the building permits,for both the home(PRBD20150617253)and the pool,were permitted with inclusion c of the stairs—as depicted on the survey. Overall,the applicant requests to reduce the setback from 20 feet to 6.55 feet. m 15 is L This petition was originally scheduled to be heard by the Collier County Hearing Examiner on October 27, i' 2016. Because of increased public concern, in accordance with Section 2-87 of the Code of Laws and N Ordinances,this matter is being heard by the CCPC for a recommendation to the Board. N SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING: c a) ca SUBJECT PARCEL: Lot with a home under construction,zoned RSF-3 , t 0 North: Trade Winds Avenue ROW,across which is a single-family home,zoned RSF-3 cu East: Single-family home,zoned RSF-3 a: South: Canal off Vanderbilt Lagoon,across which is a single-family home,zoned RSF-3 03 West: Single-family home,zoned RSF-3 N c .. � w E foti -Co : ',. esit r , ,,,i, zi- r. RS 5t iti4tohmilf. Ilt .,I ,.ik aha: MIP Me •ii' IL:: + t ' ; '° as i 1 1 dir l VA-PL20160001181,342 Trade Winds Variance Page 4 of 7 Packet Pg. 189 .A:b. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN(GMP)CONSISTENCY: The subject property is located in the Urban Residential Subdistrict of the Urban Mixed Use District land use classification on the County's Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The purpose of this subdistrict is to provide for higher densities in an area with fewer natural resource constraints and where existing and planned facilities are concentrated.The GMP does not address individual variance requests;the Plan deals with the larger issue of the actual use. ANALYSIS: The decision to grant a variance is based on the criteria in LDC Section 9.04.03. Staff has analyzed this petition relative to these provisions and offers the following responses: a. Are there special conditions and circumstances existing,which are peculiar to the location,size and characteristics of the land,structure,or building involved? TC) Yes. Per the applicant, the pool shell, retaining wall, and stairs are constructed. The applicant commenced construction under building permit, PRBD2015092870601, with an incorrectly .E_- permitted rear accessory pool setback of 10 feet versus the required 20 feet. The applicant used the incorrectly cited rear accessory 10-foot pool setback for the swimming pool,spa,and pool deck. The a stairs off the pool deck do encroach 3.45 feet into the erroneously provided 10-foot setback;however, they were also permitted with the swimming pool, spa,and pool deck. 12 CO b. Are there special conditions and circumstances, which do not result from the action of the applicant such as pre-existing conditions relative to the property,which are the subject of the Variance request? cc Yes. The applicant applied and received a pool permit from the County citing an incorrect rear accessory pool setback. The applicant utilized the erroneously approved setbacks unaware of any violations.Due to this error,the subject structure is currently encroaching 6.55 feet;more specifically, the pool, spa,and pool deck encroach 9.85 feet, resulting in a 10.15 rear yard setback,and the stairs encroach 13.45 feet,resulting in a 6.55-foot setback. a c. Will a literal interpretation of the provisions of this zoning code work unnecessary and undue co hardship on the applicant or create practical difficulties for the applicant? w c Yes. Per the applicant,the pool is already constructed and to abide by the required accessory 20-foot E setback would require the applicant to remove the existing pool, redesign, and replace it at an estimated expense of$50,000. The applicant relied on the erroneously issued pool permit with a 10- foot rear accessory setback in constructing the existing pool structure and stairs. d. Will the Variance,if granted,be the minimum Variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure and which promote standards of health, safety, and welfare? No. A reasonable use of the land does not necessarily include a pool; however, the applicant relied upon the County-issued permit. Reconstruction of the pool to correct setbacks would create a severe economic hardship. e. Will granting the Variance confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by these zoning regulations to other lands,buildings,or structures in the same zoning district? VA-PL20160001181,342 Trade Winds Variance Page 5 of 7 Packet Pg. 190 8.A.b Yes.The applicant will be able to retain a decreased accessory rear yard setback for a pool deck that exceeds 4 feet in height above the seawall. However, it should be noted that the applicant relied on the County-issued permit which cited, incorrectly, the accessory rear swimming pool and/or screen enclosure setback. 1. Will granting the Variance be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Land Development Code, and not be injurious to the neighborhood,or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare? Staff has received objections to the requested Variance (attached) which state that the reduced rear setback would impact neighboring views, and set a precedent for future variances, among other objections. However, because a reduction in pool deck height of 2.59 feet would permit the pool to legally comply with the 10-foot setback,and signatures of no objection from property owners within the most impacted area were received,and because the setback was the result of a County error,staff is of the opinion that the variance will be in harmony with the neighborhood to the greatest extent possible. R •c co g. Are there natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals and objectives of the regulation such as natural preserves,lakes,golf courses,etc.? Yes. The applicant states that variations in seawall height in this location do not create a uniform height for all houses and therefore create different pool deck height requirements over 4 feet of the co seawall. N h. Will granting the Variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan? N Approval of this Variance will not affect or change the requirements of the Growth Management c Plan. N COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: a The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report on December 30,2016. Se, RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission recommend approval of Petition VA-PL- 20160001181, 342 Trade Winds Avenue Variance,to the Board,with the following condition: • Upon demolition or destruction of 50 percent or more of the structure's assessed value, this Variance will be void and any new structure shall meet setback requirements at the time of issuance of a building permit. VA-PL20160001181,342 Trade Winds Variance Page 6 of 7 Packet Pg.191 1" AI PREPARED BY: 41IP /a1 -029-f4 FRED4 SCHL,AICP,PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: / 12._2,9- 16RAYMO V.BELLOWS,ZONING MANAGER DATE 1 ii ZONING IVISION c rL co i - 3 -I1 c MIKE BOSI,AICP,DIRECTOR DATE ZONING DIVISION d Ia co L APPROVED BY: �.. CO ::-- 7"2141r.-(i CV a JAMES FRENCH,DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE c GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT a' N / ,/�11 A. _ I /c A -7 J re DAVID S. WILKISON,DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT co... u) c E m t Tentatively scheduled for the February 14,2017 BCC Meeting. ISw Q VA-PL20160001181,342 Trade Winds Variance Packet Pg. 192 8A,b RESOLUTION 17 - A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER VA-PL20160001181, FOR A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 4.02.03.A, TABLE 4 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM REAR YARD ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SETBACK LINE FROM 20 FEET TO 6.55 FEET FOR A SWIMMING POOL, SPA, POOL DECK AND STAIRS ON A WATERFRONT LOT WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL a SINGLE-FAMILY (RSF-3) ZONING DISTRICT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 342 TRADE WINDS AVENUE, HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. 'a CD WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and N WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (LDC) (Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the granting of variances; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Board of Zoning Appeals has held a public hearing after notice as in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of a variance ce from Section 4.02.03.A, Table 4 of the Land Development Code to reduce the minimum rear yard accessory structure setback line from 20 feet to 6.55 feet for a swimming pool, spa, pool `f) deck and stairs on a waterfront lot, as shown on the attached Exhibit "A", in the Residential Single-Family (RSF-3) Zoning District for the property hereinafter described, and has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Section 9.04.00 of the Zoning Regulations of said Land Development Code for the unincorporated area of Collier County; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this Board in public meeting assembled, and the Board having considered all matters presented. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: [16-CPS-01573/1298624/1140 Rev. 12/20/16 Petition no. VA-PL20160001 181 /342 Tradewinds Ave. Packet Pg.193 8.A,b Petition Number VA-PL20160001181, filed by Jason Jenks of Jenks Builders, Inc. on behalf of Roxanne Stone-Jeske and Nancy D. Koeper, with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Lot 11, Block M, CONNERS VANDERBILT BEACH ESTATES, Unit 2, according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 17, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Folio No. 27585200007 be and the same hereby is approved for a variance from Section 4.02.03.A, Table 4 of the Land Development Code to reduce the minimum rear yard accessory structure setback line from 20 feet to 6.55 feet for a swimming pool, spa, pool deck and stairs on a waterfront lot, as shown on the attached Exhibit ""A", in the zoning district wherein said property is located. c BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this Board. u, c This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote this day of a . 2017. M t0 N ATTEST: BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS c3, DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA (1.) t 0 0. By: By: , Deputy Clerk , Chairman N a) E Approved as to form and legality: Scott A. Stone LA t. �)/c Assistant County Attorney Attachment: Exhibit A—Conceptual Site Plan 176-CPS-01573/1298624/1.140 Rev. 12/20/16 Petition no. VA-PL20160001181 /342 Tradewinds Ave. 2 Packet Pg. 194 8.A.b / '\ BOUNDARY SURVEY OF LOT 11.BLOCK'M',UNIT N0.2,CONNER'S VANDERBILT BEACH ESTATES,AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3 PAGE 17,OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA. SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS,RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATIONS OF RECORD. TBro. hN 8a 2554-PIM 3667" I2I5' (R) 1215.12'(M) o I O.tvM.,KAVP ELEV.602.88 m to.4A t IN ,►-• -`"\ /VMTCLrwA'c �/ TRADE WINDS AVE, \ �, ,— 760'00 760.07'(C) -.\t ty _ ........—.......—.µ.....--....—4---+—- - -� _'79.01' I 30.0' — /D.ha HAhI IN PVMT ` r CUT•Rd-6,0.06'W PD NAIL 5IUJ'7 •p' 006E OF PNMT. ' IN?VW.CO- 0 M O c O o 12''R.C p,'- �J WV 111 588'04'10'W 75.00'(R) 74.OI'(G) O.PN n 4 Fi0.4,5"11EA.... GWgg001''N. W. NO ill 0WM 4..Msm. 07R499.721.,0.29EA I ..I 1XFX LOS ci ^ WEl RI N t^ d C 2 u-I t4 '� 765' T765' O a 24.0' m m 14A' b CLC u V' Ct ur 0 1- 65' �, N m t C4 9 0' C') rn Ito .n !V ;542 TRADF WINDS 4VE. Ts BLOCK M C.B.S. NOOSE (under conci..) w 4) PIN. FLOOR ELEV. #10.4 N ;� C MI L.6 131 a it U) NOTE: 206' ='r PER CONTRACTOR,POOL/PAT10 2'05 5 o r- IS.O' • p, STEMWALI. IS AT yh I— d ELEV x09.9 4.35'6 09' ) .65' N m RS I \ ' l7 N Z., SET D040400a •' IN TOP OF GONG.SEAWALL -� 59 7' 4'14164 C NAVD ELEV+03.31 765' I :01 OEU114043 Wa_L r- ALUM,FENCE y o e.4 4TAI S -r �� unet w st I�in 135'WIDE CONG. SEAWALL GAP T '.14, �yf I j wal + 56B'04'IO"W 75.00'(Rl 75.011(M) v Q Z., I SET PRILLI}OLE u' INTOP OF GONG.SEAWALL U' NAVD ELEV. +03.32 vi W ATER W AY • SCALE:1"A20' g-5 •s5 061 025 C010•52 VACANT/NAVD ElEV4 wau.:PrirANiHui tmoma BEARINGS BASED ON:t tun i1NDS Ave.A$066`04'IO'W,PET.RECAP PIAT r �°• or+tl�Twr ELEVATIONS BASED ON:NAvO 1988(Mtt6.ON FL ONE.COL 29 1084 OEM) DATE ORDER FIELD BOOK" REVISIONS sM-sri#e ROM a LOCATED IN F1.000 ZONE:AE NO') ,-10.16 `06160(5 COLO'52 FOUNDATION/E.EWLERT.sy,E..ewn/� i' a.wao PER F.I.R,M. DATED:5-16-2o12 ,Y021G 0189N 1216008 C010.82 9TEAAtJAI..L ELEV N° C i.;,7£ SvrMrs CERTIFICATE T7:4CCeY-'AD, AUNT r rw..ar 0'-00) Nal 1;::7„, 0* oo-w r/MM qry r�te)-wIL A 1T-nµ0-1x80) 'F°'°°0 o.d 1:,,1" -ed.y m.0'rndw VALI) -4[AS95E9 rida Wool ot proh.i-n°!lard 3 .1,,,iT}J•r/O'.'. � 33:FL C ..1lGriAtm 0*I+4.Vat0 Cod..Pwruonl to Saco.n 472.027.#l..rd. Woodoni• at .41 forth co StohAn.1 harm. .Wier Loot h 1. .x°' lora Yirtli L11909SED OMNI SURVEYS, INC. !vatictlitLE ^( i) „Dw1.1 �� oche o. Ow col.. S WI w Lunn MEttlt c.M900900 of �Tonup of oc liy.do at.o o,r.y .W-WA7724 VALVE LB 6504” .1'1.4 .L.,,,.--w+s `s a°H3 /J(/�y/ j// - COrTC0_ . �, /J4/4f TEL. ')239) 939-3888 �--u'rm[w Yrtr:.T.F[ � FAX `239) 939-7101 ' -G'"`y'"3*, Seo t Leman'.•.PS 4560 TILTON COURT FORT LEVERS. FL 33)07 Arr —''''-rel Florid° 0.9IYtrotion No. 4920 _ Packet Pg. 195 8;A,b 0 J J W r AA'80—:11FR ©NYA r) a NMI w+in - 1.. 0 -0w R 17 C 4 h11:1 .Rf ^0^ N _Z I..�_ •N 1111 ^ O C L. W L. M 4 10 w tp cu -o 3 ^ N r L n O v �>W —i CO 62 misswIN a . F- P. 1L t,4 a CI ,o ® —as ccNi oo o . 1 X IN1o.' Q n i8 I 1:11 O N �_ d ,..-...........4 Cr) Q, f2 LN . 1 N ) E L. • N � o O - LN � I - 1112 III Fi .42 > : N N m so "1 4 tCft in ai m aaIn c � lis U l O a) aL.-+ j H mz z O o 4- 4-- 1- 0 O O L L U CU CU CU Q) = Packet Pg. 196 8.A.b Collier County Growth Management I am writing to you about Petition NO. VA-PL20160001181. Codes and easements are in effect for a reason. 30 years ago Homes in Vanderbilt Beach were single story, Back walls of the Houses were 30' away from the Sea wall and at Ground Elevation. The area has progressed from Single story,to 2 stories, now 3 stories ( Max Height allowed)to rear set back to side set back. Home builders are building homes so big they are not allowing but 10'for a pool and deck.This is their choice to do so, now I see decks and pools trying to exceed the current set back. In this instance the pool and deck have already been constructed. I can understand if the deck exceded the set back by a little due to a miscalculation by the survey. But this is a gross error and not a minor setback violation 13.5'. But let's not overlook the height violation also.According to code the deck and pool cannot be over 4' above the seawall. This wall is 2' over the code , and with the water bowl pedestals over 3' above the code. I do not expect the home owner to know these codes and had trust in their Architect and General contractor's. M There were at least 2 permits pulled to address this code. N A permit was needed to build this house. The architect and General Contractor of record should have had the elevations on the signed and sealed plans submitted to the county.The architect and General 'N contractor has the responsibility to know the building codes. Q d A site plan, signed and sealed had to be submitted to the county with setbacks and elevations to the county. Whom ever did these plans has the responsibility to know the codes. A permit was needed to build the pool. The pool contractor had to submit signed and sealed plans to R the county with elevations and setback dimensions. The pool contractor has the responsibility to know a the building codes. I see many new homes going up in our area with every new home pushing the envelope to the max. I feel we cannot allow these violations to be approved. If so everyone will be attempting to seek a variance to do the same. Steve Emens Homeowner 331 Lagoon Ave Naples Florida 34108 Packet Pg. 197 8.A.b ReischlFred From: BeasleyRachel Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 10:42 AM To: ReischlFred Cc: BellowsRay Subject: FW: 342 Tradewinds Variance FYI Original Message From: George Marks [mailto:GMarks@kramermarks.comj Sent: Wednesday,October 19, 2016 7:11 PM To: BeasleyRachel Cc: Steve Emens Subject: Re: 342 Tradewinds Variance Rachel, Thank you for sending all of this information. I have spoken to a land use attorney concerning the "Precendent setting" issue of mine. As I feared, Florida law has allowed "precedence"as a basis of future variances. m I will review the plans with you tomorrow at 3:30 in person just as a double check, but based on what I heard from the L attorney we have no choice but to oppose the variance on the basis that one can not create their own hardship(by installing the pool improperly) as a basis of a variance.Additionally, since such a variance would be a basis for future CN1 variances, it regrettably does not give us an option if we wish to prevent future similar variances. See you tomorrow. Thank you, a George E. Marks,AIA Kramer+Marks Architects co 27 S. Main Street N Ambler, PA 19002 c E 215-654-7722 off 215-870/5543 cell >On Oct 19, 2016, at 2:00 PM, BeasleyRachel<RachelBeasley@colliergov.net>wrote: >Good afternoon George, > Per our conversation, I attach the Staff Report and the site plan. > > Best, > Rachel Beasley > Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 1 Packet Pg. 198 8.A.b ><STAFF REPORT 342 Tradewinds Ave.docx><Site Plan 342 TRADEWINDS >AVE_SITE_8-22-16.pdf> m 0 c os .L N C d co L M N t0 N d C 0) y t 0 0. 0 cc tC N .. C C) E U 4- � QW 2 Packet Pg. 199 Arthur "Buzz" Victor 312 Lagoon Avenue Naples,FL 34108 • buzz.victoregmail.com October 23,2016 Ms.Rachel Beasley,Planner Zoning Division Collier County,Growth Management 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34108 as V c as RE: Zoning Petition No.VA-PL20160001181,342 Tradewinds Ave. i`v Dear Ms.Beasley ca I am in receipt of the information sent to me as a nearby property owner regarding the above referenced zoning matter. Unfortunately,I am unable to personally attend the hearing,and therefore must register ch my opposition to the variance via this letter. cNo N It has been eleven years since I built my home on Lagoon Avenue,but I remember the process very well. There were any number of design features that I would have liked to construct,but I found myself . constrained by the applicable codes and their restrictions. Those limitations were imposed for the good of the community as a whole. a a While,in the present circumstance,it is a shame that construction has proceeded to a point where it is costly to remove it,and that the infractions were missed by the controlling authority. This,however,is no reason to simply waive requirements with which the balance of the neighborhood has had to comply. I d hope that the Board hearing the case will require compliance with the code. That is the proper decision. ca Sincerely, B v Arthur"Buzz"Victor Packet Pg.200 8.A.b Letter of Petition in FAVOR of 342 Tradewinds Variance October 2016 Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners We, the undersigned neighbors of 342 Tradewinds within the "impacted area" respectfully submit that we have NO issue with the pool variance being requested by 342 Tradewinci 5 [yent4e N.a.p es H1ortc a . The new home under construction will raise the home values in -47 our area, which is what any homeowner would welcome, and we do not contest the pool variance being requested. We are NOT an agreement with Mr. Marks and Mr. Evens in their position regarding the view or the style of the home and therefore submit that you approve the requested variance from 342 Tradewinds by Ms Jeske and Ms Koeper Respectfully, Signature, 4 Address 3( fre Atha)L Gtl d 11C1711 , 0. Ce ► ! 7 /l' ior / er/v, BIZ 411PLIM yabvitti ezadilad s )% 3 a+ --/./e4Je Ct'i'14°3, Av€ bb'ic ,t1 �4q � ewrn9°1_ IyYC. u 367 G.ila°6 pv a Canned- .y CamSca Packet Pg.201 8.A.b Cristina R. Marks George E. Marks 319 Lagoon Ave. Naples, FL 34708 October 20, 2016 Ms. Rachel Beasley, Planner Zoning Division Collier County,Growth Management Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34108 RE: Zoning Petition No VA-PL20160001181, 342 Tradewinds Ave. U Ms. Beasley, Thank you for taking the time on Thursday,October 20th to meet with me and review the Variance application for the petition noted above. After some thought and evaluation and conversations with other affected neighbors,we have no choice but to OPPOSE the request for variance for the sole purpose of defending the integrity of the existing"View corridor" which would be negatively impacted by the approval/granting of this variance by Collier County. .. ca We oppose this variance as it will impinge on the view corridor that currently exists and will encourage future violations by potentially creating an actual hardship for adjacent property owners. The violation -a as of the required setbacks by 13.45 feet horizontally and 2.36 feet vertically is a GROSS violation of the a zoning ordinance. The applicant has NO BASIS FOR A HARDSHIP and this violation does not qualify as a diminimus violation by definition of law. -t a The required setbacks in the RSF-3 zoning district as per Collier County Land Development Code(LDC), cc Section 4.02.03.A Table 4 states that the minimum setback for an accessory use(swimming pool in this case) when the elevation of the pool deck exceeds 4'-O" above the seawall shall be 20'-0". The current placement of this pool encroaches on this allowable setback by 13.45 feet which places the pool deck (2) within 6.55 feet from the seawall when 20'-0" is required. I have reviewed with you the Staff report and analysis in great detail and disagree with your assessment as noted below: a. Are there special conditions and circumstances existing,which are peculiar to the location, size and characteristics of the land,structure or building involved? The evaluation of any zoning or building application is predicated on the review of the site PRIOR to the construction of any permitted construction. No certificate of occupancy has been granted for this property,therefore the evaluation of this request for variance should be as if the building did not exist. Collier county failed to uphold the zoning code in their approval of the building permit and plans, however,every building application contains verbiage that puts the responsibility to comply with all building and zoning codes on the architects, engineers, contractors and property owners. A county created situation is not a basis for a variance. Mistakes happen all the time and the county should be upholding their responsibility to enforce the correction of the violation. It is clear that NO SPECIAL CONDITIONS exist as a basis for this variance. Packet Pg. 202 8.A.b b. Are there special conditions and circumstances,which do not result from the action of the applicant such as pre-existing conditions relative to the property,which are the subject of the Variance request? The applicant, in this case the builder and/or their architect/engineer, built the structure in question in gross violation of the existing zoning code which they are required to follow regardless of the Collier County approval process. This is a self-created violation of the zoning code and the county should NOT be supporting this violation and request for variance. c. Will the literal interpretation of the provisions of this zoning code work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant or create practical difficulties for the applicant? This application does NOT meet the definition standard of"Hardship"as defined by Zoning law and Collier County is remiss in their duties and responsibilities in supporting such an 0 application. As a matter of law,the cost of$50,000 is not an acceptable basis for a hardship and cca should not be considered as a basis for the granting of a zoning variance. The fact that the as applicant relied on the erroneously issued pool permit is not a material basis for a hardship or Ts the granting of this variance. c d. Will the variance, if granted, be the minimum Variance that will make possible the reasonable o use of the land, building or structure and which promote standards of health,safety and ~ welfare? N CO N No comment a) e. Will granting the variance confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by these a zoning regulations to other lands,buildings or structures in the same zoning district? u) t 0 Yes-The granting of this variance will absolutely grant a special privilege on this applicant not a currently available to other properties within this district. This GROSS violation of the zoning code will create a hardship for adjacent property owners whose visual corridor is diminished by f0 both the horizontal impingement of 13.45 feet and vertical violation of 2.36 feet and may co become a basis for future zoning variance applications. This pool could have been created in the a) same location of the same size, with a correction of the stair location and width within the s zoning standards thereby eliminating the need for this variance. as Qr f. Will granting the Variance be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this Land Development Code and not be injurious to the neighborhood,or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare? This condition is NOT IN HARMONY with the intent of the zoning code and is a gross impingement on the vision corridor that the zoning code is intended to protect. Additionally, the granting of a zoning variance should NEVER be for the purpose of"legitimizing" a gross violation of the zoning code as stated in the Staff report. This is true of any avoidable error whether created by the owner,general contractor,architect, engineer or in this case Collier County. This pool is currently under construction and a certificate of occupancy has not been issued for this property and now is the time to correct this violation. No certificate of occupancy should be issued by the county until this is corrected. Packet Pg.203 8.A.b g. Are there natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals and objectives of the regulation such as natural preserves,lakes,golf courses,etc.? There are NO natural or man-made conditions negatively affecting this applicant. The staff's consideration of the applicant's argument that the variance in seawall heights is a legitimate consideration is seriously flawed. The applicant's seawall height is the highest level allowed by FEMA and is a standard set by Collier county. The variance in seawall heights is not a consideration in this instance as the applicant is already relying on the highest wall allowable and is still in violation of the Zoning ordinance. The current condition already exceeds the maximum allowable seawall height by 2.36 feet and would only be worse if a lower seawall existed,which is not the case in this instance. h. Will granting of this Variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan? a> The staff's contention that the granting of this variance will not violate the Growth Management plan which is based on the zoning ordinance as a basis of the plan is negligent in the staff's assessment. Granting of this variance will be a GROSS violation of the zoning ordinance which is a key basis of the growth management plan. In summary,the granting of this variance should be denied on the following basis: N CN t0 1. No legal hardship exists for this applicant to rely on as a basis of this variance and the variance must be denied on this legal basis. If the county makes the argument that they ate, created a hardship for the applicant,which would be legally flawed, the county would be as self-serving in thereby granting a variance to correct their error. `i) 2. The pool design could have been constructed AND CAN STILL BE CONSTRUCTED in the o.current location with the exact same dimensions within the zoning ordinance by building the pool 2.36 feet lower and a variance would not be required. It would be negligent for the county to grant this variance when a viable solution was and is available to the applicant and in the county without creating a hardship. 3. There were no existing special conditions or circumstances that would contribute to a m hardship and thereby the variance should be denied. 4. The fact that the applicant states that it will cost$50,000 is not material to the c.)a consideration of this variance by law and the granting of this variance would confer Q permanent damage to the visual corridor of the neighborhood that the zoning ordinance exists to protect. 5. The granting of this variance will confer special privilege on this applicant not available to other property owners and would create/necessitate future hardships for adjacent property owners. A variance is not intended to provide special privilege on any property owner in violation of the zoning ordinance. Packet Pg.204 8.A.b Finally,should the county decide to act irresponsibly and approve this variance, we will file an appeal within the allowable appeal period and reserve our right to seek all legal options against Collier County for damages. Additionally,we will request that no further construction occur on the violating area of the property and we will seek an injunction to the issuing of a Certificate of Occupancy by the county until such appeal is heard and resolved. Please feel free to reach out to me or our attorney should you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter prior to the zoning hearing. Respectf, y submitted, George E. Mar s,AIA c 215-870-5543 cell 215-654-7722 office N N tG N O Q. a) cL f6 a) t ca Packet Pg.205 8.A.b ReischlFred From: Vincent Fantegrossi <vfantegrossi@aol.com> Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 11:40 AM To: 'George Marks'; vanderbiltbeach54@yahoo.com; ReischlFred; BellowsRay Cc: 'Steve Emens'; 'Buzz Victor'; 'Gail Fantegrossi'; gbraddon@rochester.rr.com; grv3751 @aol.com;jpwood99@aol.com Subject: RE: 342 Tradewinds Zoning Variance opposition assistance-Vanderbilt Beach Residents Assoc Good Morning Mr. Reischl and Mr. Bellows, I am writing to echo Mr. Marks'concerns about the possibility of a variance being issued in the Tradewinds matter. I am most concerned about precedents being set. The entire Vanderbilt Beach area is in transition. It is clear that older, smaller housing inventory will be steadily replaced in the coming years through tear-downs and new construction. We all have abided by our zoning rules and it is important that those rules and regulations are not weakened by allowing m unwarranted variances. My limited experience with the county inspection and regulation process has always been c positive and I have been impressed with the attention to detail the county gives to all projects. I am confident that when .2 given full deliberation,everyone will agree that the rules in place were established with good reason and should not be taken lightly or disregarded. Thank you for your consideration, a ca Vincent V. Fantegrossi i= 254 Lagoon Ave. Naples, FL 34108 co Mobile:617-680-1125 w C a) 0 a ca w N w C d E cv w w 1 Packet Pg. 206 8.A.c Co r .ty COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www,colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 G- ' �Y ' 'ya }n.#a J5 f6 a1 �X` at) ,i..4l' .s - ',..,,., Vilirirt3.,'OX:4,;i' . -f :-p s^f.i itri$1.:gtaptilf,AVILiatr) i tt4,,,,•`t4emii,,,t, � s dd K „,c! ,,,„, �� i 4' s �f'• a 4. �,-r1'3,. f p `. F PROJECT NUMBER To be completed by staff PROJECT NAME DATE PROCESSED Z (..)�""''��""�'��" �, c I APPLICAN C t ONTACT INFORMATION cr. a as Name of Applicant(s): Roxanne B. Stone Jeske& Clancy .Koeper, as Joint Tenants with Full Rights -a of Survivorship Address: 531 Turtle Hatch_]ane City: Naples State:Florida ZIP: 34143 a> Telephone: N/A Cell:239-450-1930(N. Koeper)Fax: N/A cya H E-Mail Address: nycgirl1459©aol.com el N W N Name of Agent: Marc L.Shapiro,Esquire(See Attached Affidavit of Authorization) c 0 Firm: Marc L. Shapiro,P.A. 3 Address: 720 Goodlette Road North,Suite 304City: Naples State: Florida ZIP: 341Q2 a o. vs Telephone:239-649-8050 Cell: Fax:NIA c E-Mail Address: mionese.attorneyshapiro.com a' c) ca r a rBE AWARE THAT COLLIER COUNTY HAS LOBBYIST REGULATIONS. GUIDE YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY AND ENSURE THAT YOU ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THESE REGULATIONS. 6/4/2014 Page 1 of 6 Packet Pg.207 8.A.c r Coun4 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 wwrw.coNiergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 v i_ 39Pi=lTvz .§: a „s "-� '* -raj A rye'. 43 k{ ' '•' Provide-a-detailed iegal'descriptiion of the property covered by the appllcatioini'(if space is —� inadequate,attach on separate page) Property I.D.Number: 975R,900007 Section/Township/Range: 29 / 48 / 25 Subdivision: Connor's Vanderbilt Beach Estates Unit: 2 Lot: 11 Block: M Metes&Bounds Description:Lot 11, Block M,Connor's Vanderbilt Beach Total Acreage: 21 Est,?tes Unit 2, cco ding to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 17,Public Records of v x�aaress,beniera�rLoocation of Subject Property: 342 Trade Winds Avenue, NaplesNanderbift Beach c ca Estates R N ). hr :,,,w-',-, cA7lACE4T ZONING AN LAND 3E Zoning Land Use '°'a N RSF-3 _ t S RSF-3 Residential it Residential E RSF-3 Residential N W RSF-3 Residential N c Minimum Yard Requirements for Subject Property: ° 1-113 o Front: 30' Corner Lot: Yes [] No W a a Side: 7.5' Waterfront Lot: Yes ® Noa 0 c Rear: 25' CD E .c ca a Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code requires that the applicant must remove their public hearing advertising sign(s) after final action is taken by the Board of County Commissioners. Based on the Board's final action on this item, please remove all public hearing advertising sign(s)immediately. 6/4/2014 Page 2 of 6 Packet Pg.208 8.A.c wiroPCoIauty COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.coliiergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 4SS0(IATI o a Complet.&the..following for all-registered Association(s)that could be affected-by this-petition, Provide additional sheets if necessary. Information can be found on the Board of County Commissioner's website at http:/jwww.coliiergov.net/Index.aspx?page-774. Name of Homeowner Association: Nnt Applicable Mailing Address: City: State: ZIP: -47 Name of Homeowner Association: Mailing Address: City: State: ZIP: ca L. ca Name of Homeowner Association: w, Mailing Address: City: State: ZIP: Name of Homeowner Association: :3 Mailing Address: City: State: ZiP: M Name of Homeowner Association: cNI Mailing Address: City: State: ZIP: C••1 0 [ ,„49V,„ NATURE i3P PETITION ,, ; U a. On a separate sheet,attached to the application,please provide the following: 1. A detailed explanation of the request including what structures are existing and what is proposed; the amount of encroachment proposed using numbers,i.e.reduce front setback from 25 ft.to 18 ft.; when property owner purchased property; when existing principal structure was built (Include Q building permit number(s) if possible);why encroachment is necessary;how existing encroachment came to be;etc. 2. For projects authorized under LDC Section 9.04.02, provide a detailed description of site alterations, including any dredging and filling. 3. Pursuant to LDC section 9.04.00, staff shall be guided in their recommendation to the Hearing Examiner, and the Hearing Examiner shall be guided in the determination to approve or deny a variance petition by the criteria(a-h)listed below. Please address the following criteria: a) Are there special conditions and circumstances existing which are peculiar to the location, size and characteristics of the land,structure,or building involved. 6/4/2014 Page 3 of 6 Packet Pg.209 8.A.c Co r Cou/.ty COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.coliiiergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 b) Are there special conditions and circumstances which do not result from the action of the applicant such as pre-existing conditions relative to the property which is the subject of the variance request. c) Will a literal Interpretation of the provisions of this zoning code work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant or create practical difficulties on the applicant. d) Will the variance, If granted, be the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land,building or structure and which promote standards of health,safety or welfare. e) Will granting the variance requested confer on the petitioner any special privilege that Is denied N by these zoning regulations to other lands,buildings,or structures in the same zoning district. f) Will granting the variance be in harmony with the intent and purpose of this zoning code,and not be injurious to the neighborhood,or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. g) Are therenaturalconditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals and objectives of the regulation such as natural preserves,lakes,golf course,etc. h) Will granting the variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan? N 4. Official Interpretations or Zoning Verifications: To your knowledge, has there been an official m interpretation or zoning verification rendered on this property within the last year? 7.0 Yes J No If yes,please provide copies. a w ca 6/4/2014 Page 4 of 6 Packet Pg. 210 8.A.c ..G... Cor County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.cotliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 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. 44g y( y, ,; 1 I - x ki ) Y A ,— --.-ir }Y ', if k'C, 4 7)t,, �' k ,< ectoREl tS b F0. Ew x s � � " 6 �..i -AT; '•< -4-1)1,N, Completed Application(download current form from County website) Q ❑ ■ c co Pre-Application Meeting Notes 1 ❑ ❑ 'R Project Narrative a 0 ❑ ? Completed Addressing Checklist 1 0 ❑ 'a Conceptual Site Plan 24"x 36"and one 8)4"x 11"copy131 ` _ Survey of property showing the encroachment(measured in feet) 2 0 _ Affidavit of Authorization,signed and notarized 2 0 ❑ '0a Deeds/Legal's 3 ❑❑ 0❑ F Location map 1 Current aerial photographs(available from Property Appraiser)with CV project boundary and,if vegetated,FLUCFCS Codes with legend 5 ❑ ❑ N included on aerial Historical Surveyor waiver request 1 ❑ Elo Environmental Data Requirements or exemption justification 3 ❑ ❑ as Once the first set of review comments are posted,provide the assigned _ planner the Property Owner Advisory Letter and Certification 1 ❑ 0 a ca Electronic copy of all documents and plans :: *Please advise;The Office of the Hearing Examiner requires all 1 0 ❑ cu d materials to be submitted electronically in PDF format. E t as ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS: Q * 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. 6/4/2014 Page 5 of 6 Packet Pg. 211 8.A.c Co,r. r County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT ..� GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www,colliergay.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 Planners:indicate if the petition needs to be routed to the following reviewers: ❑ &ayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment: ❑ Environmental Review:See Pre-Application__ -Executive•Director ❑ Addressing:Annis Moxam Meeting Sign-In Sheet ❑ Graphics:Mariam Ocheltree ❑ City of Naples;Robin Singer,Planning Director r-1ComprehensivePlanning:See Pre-Application r❑-t Historical Review MeetingSign•In Sheet ❑ 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 ❑J School District(Residential Components):Amy EMS:Artie Bay Heartlock Engineering:Alison Bradford co 1 ❑ Other: ❑ Transportation Planning:John Podczerwinsky 'C ❑ Utilities Engineering:Kris Vanlengen >c6E., isi' mac. r 'w d ❑ Pre-Application Meeting:$500.00 ❑ Variance Petition: M o Residential-$2,000.00 co o Non-Residential-$5,000.00 N c o 5th and Subsequent Review-20%of original fee ❑ Estimated Legal Advertising Fee for the Office of the Hearing Examiner:$925.00 ❑ After The Fact Zoning/Land Use Petitions:2x the normal petition fee a ❑ Listed Species Survey(if EIS is not required):$1,000.00 co All checks payable to:Board of County Commissioners The completed application,all required submittal materials,and the permit fee shall be submitted to: Growth Management Division/P)anning and Regulation ATTN:Business Center 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34104 /S/:Marc I . Shapiro December 16,2016 Applicant Signature Date Marr.I Shapiro Printed Name 6/4/2014 Page 6 of 6 Packet Pg.212 8.A.c NATURE OF PETITION I. (BACKGROUND) As part of the construction of a single-family residence,the Applicants'general contractor, Jenks Builders, Inc., submitted plans, including various elevations, for a building permit and approval of a swimming pool and swimming pool deck located behind the subject property.' The plans were approved and a swimming pool permit was issued. After completion of the work and after numerous inspections by County building officials, a neighbor contacted code enforcement and alleged that the height of the swimming pool deck I above the adjacent seawall was violative of the LDC. Specifically,the current LDC mandates that a swimming pool deck be no more than 4' above an adjacent seawall. The seawall in question is at 3.31' NAVD. Four feet above this height would 7.31" NAVD. However, in its current a configuration, the swimming pool deck is at 9.67' NAVD and thus, the swimming pool deck is M N 2.33' higher than allowed by code. LDC Section 4.02,03 A, Table 4 provides that in instances where the swimming pool deck is more than 4' above an adjacent seawall, the rear setback be a � v minimum of 20'. Thus,the Applicanta are requesting a variance to decrease the rear setback form a. 20'to 6.55'. E II. co (LDC Section 9.04.03,Subsections D,E,F and H Criteria for the Granting of Variances) 9.04.03 D The variance if granted will be the absolute bear minimum required to effectuate the project. The variance will make possible the reasonable use of the land and structures located 'Given the property's side setback dimensions,the swimming pool deck stem wall and swimming pool shell had to be constructed and in place prior to the construction of the house foundation. Page 1 of 2 Packet Pg.213 8.A.c thereon. There will be no violation of standards regarding health, safety or welfare to any neighbors,adjacent properties and/or the public at large. 9.04.03 E There will be no special privilege conferred upon to the Applicant should the variance be granted. An examination of the surrounding properties indicates other properties with similar configurations. Additionally,the only alternative available to the Applicants is to remove and reconstruct the swimming pool deck and swimming pool stem wall. Given the interplay of the swimming pool stem wall,swimming pool deck and the foundation of the residence,this would be a very delicate project and would cost a minimum of $50,000.00. Such a situation would have a significant hardship on the Applicants and would constitute economic waste. > Importantly, the situation the Applicants find themselves in is not of their making but rather,is the result of an innocent mistake made by county building officials. The swimming pool and swinuning pool deck were repeatedly and properly permitted and approved as were all pilings N and piling caps on which the swimming pool deck is built. 9.04.03 F If granted the variance will be in harmony with the intent and purpose of the LDC.No neighbors and/or their property will be injured. Although there has been a complaint by property owners across the canal and several house to the West,no harm will befall them. Their line-of- site is already obstructed by serval very large pool cages and any objections to the granting of the instant variance is simply not accurate and is disingenuous.Attached hereto is a letter duly signed by seven separate neighbors (on both sides of the canal) noting their respective non-objection to the Applicants' variance petition. 9.04.03 H The granting of the variance will not be inconsistent with the County's Growth Management Plan. Page 2 of 2 Packet Pg.214 1 The Law Offices of 8.A.c MARC L.SHAPIRO _t M „L# Shapiro, RA.. NATALIE STAROSCHAK v SEAN WHALEY /� 720 ITOODLETTE FRANK ROAD NORTH,Suns 304•NAPLES,FLORIDA 34102 NAPLES:(239)649-8050•FORT MYERS:(239)418-0010 Fax:(239)649-8057 W W W.ATTORNEYSHAPIRO.COM December 16,2016 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO fredreischl®colliergov.net -Mr:Fred-Reischl,AICP Principal Planner Collier County Growth Management Department 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples,Florida 34014 Re: Variance Application PL20160001181 Connor's Vanderbilt Beach Estates Unit 2,Block M,Lot 11 342 Trade Winds Avenue Dear Mr.Reischl: The following information and/or comments are provided in response relative to Ms. Rachel Beasley's August 8, 2016 Insufficiency Letter (hereinafter referred to as the "Letter"), (,) Pursuant to the directive set forth at the end of the Letter,the information herein is responsive to the various Staff comments. The various responses and are set forth in the same order as denoted in the Letter. For your ease of use and reference,I have excerpted each departmental comment as set forth in the Letter. Q REJECTED REVIEW: GRAPHICS- GIS REVIEW REVIEWED BY: JESSICA HUCKEBA CORREC"IION COMMENT 1: Incorrect parcel number,should be 27585200007. The Initial Variance Petition Application(hereinafter referred to as the "Initial Petition") contained an incorrect Parcel Identification Number in the Property Information section.This has been corrected in the First Amended Variance Petition Application(hereinafter referred to as the "Amended Petition")which has been provided herewith. CORRECTION COMMENT 2: This should be RSF-3 for N,S,E and W. The Initial Petition juxtaposed the Zoning and Land Use designations as set forth in the Packet Pg.215 Page 1 of 1 8 x M1 ' .. {<. is kt{ Ii s ' 54 1 �, d A t ( t h r !i ikx5 , t ' 1 i] Y � .nf r, J! �� .5{A •fit•4:: y tea ,or V. 1.') ..: MI c: .{ o .3 CU N a -a ea ch N I N ' t O a 0.... t�1 co i 0 a a 1co } 4) i N 1 s caz Q i r t } i i 1 t } i i i i i , : hitp://maps.collierappraiser.ctm/webmap/output2/Collier_2016_sde0312444 406320.jpg 6/15/2016 Packet Pg.216 8.A.c Mr.Fred Reischl,AICP December 16,2016 Page 2 of 5 Adjacent Zoning and Land Use section. The juxtaposition has been corrected in the Amended Petition which has been provided herewith. CORRECTION COMMENT 3: — - ----- This-is-the STRAP number,should be metes and bounds description. The STRAP number has been deleted and the full legal description of the property is set forth in Property Information section of the Amended Petition. CORRECTION COMMENT 4: Map should be legible; also the site location is too far East.Parcel boundary should be outlined. A revised site map taken from the Collier County Property Appraiser's website is provided herewith. The revised map sets forth the parcel boundaries. CORRECTION COMMENT 5: Block should be M. 0 d The Amended Petition has been corrected to provide the correct Block designation M N REJECTED REVIEW: ZONING REVIEW N REVIEWED BY: RACHEL BEASLEY c CORRECTION COMMENT 1: Correct minimum yard setbacks for subject property:non-waterfront side yarda. setback is 7.5 feet and rear is 25 feet.Please note 2 things: 1.front yard is correct and 2.the rear is not 20 feet--this is because the 20 applies,in this case,to accessory E swimmingpool decks that exceed 4 feet in height above top of seawall. The Amended Petition now sets forth the correct setbacks. CORRECTION COMMENT 2: Please be consistent in measurement, more specifically 10ths of a foot. For example,in the Narrative of the Petition,you switch from decimal measurement to feet and inches. All measurements in the Amended Petition and the Narrative has been corrected to reflect measurement in decimals. Packet Pg.217 8.A.c Mr. Fred Reischl,AICP December 16,2016 Page 3 of 5 CORRECTION COMMENT 3: As noted in County Attorney notes,please note that this is a variance from the required rear Yard setback of 20.feet for accessory pool decks that exceed 4 feet in height above top of seawall. Thus,keep in the description the narrative describing the height difference between the permissible 4 feet above seawall which makes the setback 20 feet rather than the 10 feet. Thus,you are requesting a rear yard setback from the 20 feet to x-feet. ----- --- --- A revised Narrative has been provided herewith to indicate that the variance requested is in fact for a reduction in the rear-yard setback as opposed to a height variance for the pool deck. CORRECTION COMMENT 4: What is the measurement for the pool deck stairs to,the seawall?What is width of the stairs?If the stairs are wider than 3 feet than you must request the rear yard setback from d the stairs and not the deck itself. CO The measurement from the outboard wall of the pool deck stairs to the seawall is 6.55'The stirs are 3.5'in width and thus it is understood that the requested rear yard setback must necessarily c commence at the outboard wall of the pool deck stairs. REJECTED REVIEW: COUNTY ATTORNEY REVIEW REVIEWED BY: SCOTT STONE tD CORRECTION COMMENT 1: The Property Appraiser lists the owners as "Roxanne B.Stone-Jeske and Nancy D.Koeper, as joint tenants," so please update the"Applicant Contact Information"section of thece application accordingly. Q.The Applicant Contact Section of the Amended Petition now states that the owners are Roxanne B.Stone-Jeske and Nancy D.Koeper,as Joint Tenants with Full Rights of Survivorship. E CORRECTION COMMENT 2: Please also provide an Affidavit of Authorization from owner Roxanne B.Stone-Jeske,or other signed written evidence that she agrees/consents to this petition. Affidavits of Authorization from both Ms. Stone-Jeske and Ms. Koeper are provided herewith. CORRECTION COMMENT 3: Your application indicates the minimum side yard setback is 7'.However,according to LDC Section 4.02.01 A,Table 2.1,the minimum side yard setback is 10' for waterfront lots in the RSF-3 zoning district. Please have staff correct me if I'm wrong.Otherwise,please revise your application with the correct minimum setback requirement. Staff has indicated that the correct side yard setback is in fact 7.5'. Packet Pg. 218 8.A.c Mr. Fred Reischl,AICP December 16,2016 Page 4 of 5 CORRECTION COMMENT 4: In your Project Narrative, under#3 please provide more detailed responses to criteria (d),(e),(f),and(h). A more detailed Project Narrative regarding the criteria for the granting of variances as set _ _.______.___forth_.in_LDC_9.04.03, Subsections D,E,F and H is provided herewith. CORRECTION COMMENT 5: As discussed at your pre-app,you are seeking a variance from LDC Section 4.02.03 A, Table 4 to reduce the minimum rear yard accessory structure setback line from 20 feet to 10 feet for a pool that exceeds 4 feet in height above the top of the seawall.However,your project narrative incorrectly indicates that you are seeking a variance for the pool height. Please revise your narrative to correctly and clearly indicate that you are seeking a 117 variance from the setback require NOT the height requirement. As noted in the Respose to Ms.Beasley's Correction Comment 3 above,a revised Narrative has been provided herewith to indicate that the variance requested is in fact for a reduction in the N rear-yard setback as opposed to a height variance for the pool deck.: CORRECTION COMMENT 6: Please provide a cleaner,more legible site plan that clearly labels the seawall,and shows the exact measurement from the pool to the seawall, A more legible site plan with the seawall labeled and the exact measurement from the N pool to the seawall will be provided under separate cover. g 0 CORRECTION COMMENT 7: Please confirm with staff whether the rear setback should be measured from the pool deck,or the stairs(as indicated on your site plan).Please also depict and label the 20CTS - foot rear setback line to demonstrate where the pool would have to be located in order to meet the minimum setback Staff has confirmed that the rear setback must be measured form the outboard wall of the pool deck stairs:A revised site plan to provided under separate cover, will depict where the pool would have to located in order to meet the minimum setback requirement. CORRECTION COMMENT 8: The Warranty Deed you provided is not the most recent deed for this property.Please provide a copy of the most recent deed that accurately shows the current owners of the property. A warranty deed dated December 10, 2015 reflecting that the owners of the property are Roxanne B. Stone-Jeske and Nancy D. Koeper, as Joint Tenants with Full Rights of Survivorship is provided herewith, The Warranty Deed was recorded on December 22,2015 as Instrument Packet Pg. 219 8.A.c Mr.Fred Reischl,AICP December 16,2016 Page 5 of 5 Number 5209385 at Official Records Book 5226, Page 989, et seq., of the Public Records of Collier County,Florida. CORRECTION COMMENT 9: Please provide a copy of the building permit/permit number for the pool:— -- -.. A true and correct photocopy of the building permit for the pool is provided herewith. CORRECTION COMMENT 10: Additional comments may follow receipt of next resubmittal. No additional response by the Applicants is required at this time. REJECTED REVIEW: ADDRESSING-GIS REVIEW 0 REVIEWED BY: ANNIS MOXAM CORRECTION COMMENT 1: On Conceptual Site Plan-The legal description is incomplete.The Block is M and N Subdivision is Conner's Vanderbilt Bch Estates Unit 2. A revised sit plan is provided herewith. The site plan includes a full legal description *774 CORRECTION COMMENT 2: a On Application-Property Information-the Parcel ID number is incorrect(it has one ca u zero too many).Metes and Bounds Description-What's provided,that's the Strap Number. The Amended petition includes the correct Parcel Identification Number and additionally,contains a full legal description of the property. I believe the foregoing adequately answers the various concerns of the Insufficiency Letter. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any other question or concerns you may have. Very truly yours, Matthew L.Jones Packet Pg. 220 I [ B.A.c • I AFFIDAVIT OF AUTHORIZATION FOR PETITION NUMBERS(S) -1)(-•Z 0 t bOb wit t t I, 1 ( Ca 4v,(2.../ Ko ep e (print name), as 0 %J'3 P. C I (title,If applicable)of (company, Iffate' licable),swear or affirm under oath,that I am the(choose o e)owner applicant(—'contract purchaser and that: 1. I have full authority to ecure the approval(s) requested and to Impose covvnants and restrictions on the referenced prope ‘, as a result of any action approved by the Coun in accordance with this ___---application-and-the-La d Development Code; ------ ._ .____ 2. All answers to the que tions in this application and any sketches, data or other supplementary matter attached hereto and m-de a part of this application are honest and true; s 3. I have authorized the taff of Collier County to enter upon the property during normal working hours for the purpose of inve.tigating and evaluating the request made through this application; and that 4. The property will be transferred, conveyed, sold or subdivided subJei✓t to the conditions and restrictions Imp ed b the approvecactlon. 5. We/I authorize'T - L.,..� Cottle-fa- ,g lk--•prt. .-•S-wPI� ac as our/my representative in any matters lig this petitionIncluding 1 though 2 above. `Notes: t t .w t-- . i o.,.. ,, G • if the applicant is a corporation, en It is usually executed by the corp.pres.or v.pre. . • If the applicant is a Limited Lia.illy Company(L.L.C.) or Limited Company(L.C.), then the documents should typically be signed by the Comp.ny's"Managing Member." i v, • if the applicant Is a partnership, en typically a partner can sign on behalf of the partnership, c • If the applicant is a limited part ership, then the general partner must sign and bei identified as the 'Sgeneral 3 partner"of the named partnersht.. P m • If the applicant is a trust, then th,'y must Include the trustee's name and the words"a4 trustee". rs • In each Instance, first determin: the applicant's status, e.g., Individual, corporate, trust, partnership, and then it use the appropriate format for the t ownership. N ca CNAI Under penalties of perjury, I de, are that I have read the foregoing Affidavit of Authorization and that c the facts stated In-lk-are_true. o .' 4!nature _IF_deff I::...)t i Date w c m E t w STATE OF FLORIDA Q COUNTY OF COLLIER 6 Th;�r.regoing instrum nt,�+ sw•rn to(o affirmed)and subscribed before me on L , ../94.246‘41 by . ,,^ , _� . 0 ,.4,/' -- -.'., i (name of person providin ` ath or affirmation), as who Is personally known toilor c,who has produ 41111. (type of Identification)as identific. ion. 111,(..„ iir, , STAMP/SEAL .. lgnature of Notary Public • BifCTNDAA JaK8 " My co8rmiN sloN#aF o33 995b ,.4,-,0,..4: EXPIRES:July 0,2017 _ re ,,. Bonded TTevhbteyP"8;o� CP\08-COA-00115\155 REV 3/24/14 4( Packet Pg.221 8.A.c - t AFFIDAVIT OF AUTHORIZATION FOR PETITION NUMBERS(S) 'P Lr Z 01 t�O Com®)I 1 1, r'-'-N,0 (\A.r,^,p3,one 1 •A e.- (print name), as 0 V..).4"N 42 C (title,if applicable)of (company,If a piicable),swear or affirm under oath,that I am the(choose ane)ownerpplicantrjcontract purchaser and that 1, I have full authority to secure the approval(s)requested and to impose cotenants and restrictions on the referenced prope y as a result of any action approved by the Courkty in accordance with this ___._.application andthe L- d Deveiopment Code; .., .. _ . . .,... 2. Ail answers to the ow stions in this application and any sketches, data or Other supplementary matter attached hereto and i ade a part of this application ars honest and true; during normal workinghours 3. I have authorized the staff of Collier County to enter upon the property u g for the purpose of investigating and evaluating the request made through this application;and that 4. The property will b; transferred, conveyed, sold or subdivided subj4ct to the conditions and restrictions imp ed • the approved, ction. 5. We/I authorize _ L. t r .EA a.c- L •_ F ac(t es our/my representative In any matters/�reeg. ga i g this petition including 1 rough 2 above. t I _ . L5/ .Z. L . 4$L.K t p.ro I � *Notes: +I.-fl'.4 4,. L . — s i C • if the applicant is a corption, hen it is usually executed by the carp.pres.or V.pr s. 1. as • If the applicant is a Limited Lia eiiity Company(L,L.C.) or Limited Company(L.C.), hen the documents should > typically be signed by the Com•any`s"Managing Member." N • If the applicant Is a partnership, then typically a partner can sign on behalf of the partnership. c • If the applicant is a limited pa nership, then the general partner must sign and be identified as the "general 3 partner"of the named partners ip. a) • If the applicant is a trust,then t ey must Include the trustee's name and the words "ds trustee". a • in each Instance, first determi the applicant's status, e.g., individual, corporate, rust, partnership, and then t-- use the appropriate format for t rat ownership. 01 el CO • • Under penalties of perjury, I dclare that I have read the foregoing Affidavit of Authorization and that c the facts tated In it are tr e. 14 o r,, 8�'l 07410 . al Signatu • Date w asESTATE OF FLORIDA f a COUNTY OF COLLIER The for oing Instrument wa orn to(or affirmed)and subscribed before me o . .�96't e)by /4",;'_4.,/&y. ,, ,(66e5 ,.1 (name f-p rson providi a ath or a,'- •ation), as who is personally known t me oywho has produced (type of identification)as identification. /� STAMP/SEAL // ignature of Notary Public ,: — r,� st�o�Art.�ics � .1,::,:: MY cotiom. l0N t F 0349 r+,; EXPIRES;July 0,2017 . . t. 6oadad 11113 Waxy ------------- } CP\O$.COA-00215\155 REV 3/24/14 Packet Pg.222 if [ 8.A.c l ' BOUNDARY SURVEY OF LOT 11,BLOCK"M°,UNIT No.2,CONNER'S VANDERBILT BEACH ESTATES,AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3,PAGE 17,OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA. SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS,RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATIONS OF RECORD. ir TBMr MO PD.PK N Ik DISL"PSU Ur” 1215' (R) 1215.I2'CM) o au,w.,NADP SLEV.+02.88 O Pe.NAIL IN PPMf. Dr.NRLE (TRADE WINDS AVE, t —--�v—-----r-- v--— _ �- 760'rx) 760,07'(C) ---..N: 11.1I 77.O1• M 4 t to M.PK NAIL IN PVMT. I o eo:o% > • EDCr£OF PVh1T. CUT•NOL£,0.06'W I PRk4tL SIIA!'f O - IM PYML CUT- a ezi o ROLE Q. tri c o T ppWV to 558'04'Io"W 75.00'(R) 75.0I'(E) DFN I • y .9R FIRE 4"P6011-.. • $ a� C WM 4 . f„ PSM 9g742'. II Q FIR p.52.5,0.29'P. J 6.0314,0,07 W. N 1.0 4'FY STUB-nut f m 41 m RI ccaa C UJ z sx- rI oK765' 4.0' 765` p 2mtk.o' ?CI • a 8,05ol a5ro N CD �O " •i - _ar 9.0' a d Ra it,. 042 TRAPE WIMPS AVE. BLOCK M C.5.5 NOUSE (under ccnsL.) • or)E11,1. FLOOR ELEV. 4-10.4 n W ((44 m N tV 10 N NOTE 206' `^ c J o PER CONTRACTORSPOOL/PATIO 2.09' :6' a .� STEMWALL IS AT CP11`4 154` - V ELEV. +Q9.9 43646' x •.65`6, as Q CS 12 i0 SET DRILL 61OLE N C E INBP$' Or 6oN6.4E6WALL U NM R.N.+0331 76S'-1 MS RETAINING WALL 99.7• r ALUM.FHIIE c.p.5;3TA! S V 11 rundcr Gansu, "fir its 03 I.35'WIPE CORG.SEAWALL LAP o 1.14' w r-r4 I Q ,i- .1 568°04'10"W 75.00'(8) 75.01'PA) o^ 9ET DRi{4006E °in \.IN TOP aL(41C.5EAWALL u' NAVP ELEV. +0.3.32 rn W A -r E R W A Y P c aart DC It9A{7L POINT EASED ON:V TEAVE WINDS AVE.ASS DI'i0'VSI,PER emd4NREGINA PRAT 4.5•15 0815025 5010-52 VAOGNT/AlAVD EL&VS P;aai. F> �7 0,cgA: SATE. ORDER FIELD BOOK REVISIONS NareaunR ELEVATIONS BASED ON:NAVD 1988(0616.0N Cl.DNR COL 29 1884 OSA "4- .T#;s°1N Ro-f' LOCATED IN FLOOD ZONE:AS(ID') 5-19-I5 0516015 C010.52 FOUNDATION/ELBIcam " PER F.I.R.M. DATED:4.162012 120210 0189 N 1215008 0010.521 9T$6AWALS. ELEV NOTES 4,4'`' rc up'NWo CERTIFICATE MFR i'O[R:D fApry N� r hare./ <4,107 that t1w ohm. that..£ car ty 1 Panel & ea°min forth'by a tt�lmmf.-dkat ONLY '14 o r� ProlaaACa i taw �• FT•tia• 6LT0 w. ONLY 'uarvaywa b Cx*&10 472.22•, FL 4d ot.. Uw Purrn rt b It h x 472027,FloridafbrWITH OMNI SURVEYS, INC, .DFVVli_CITFJdENf s"4"'•f''°'"* ° t a N A .47 for. Whir plc Par€-PURR;VR1tfY fh.EMFM harsh, 4nvh.tl and b wild y wRh *if WEN NETYlt PryrAatOaU i twl d Ut u�daraf0q L•`tV nct�a SEAL 1411*i>•WWE>r rF - NcNtrn of n1 3°r tread.. i en..cum4+vncn. LB 6584"' t' f ss-$M 5TD.515 ) arca..Rr;utD b c.7'4. T_a>F[ 1/44/ /7ilaTEL (239) 439-36fi6 w�.�p�NQp�p�u'°r"EZ FAX (,239) 939-7181 'oaq+ase' ` 4388 TILTON COURT FORT MYERS. FL 33907 _�)P 4E_¢U'ANT.PrPOw5R) F ofaklo Raq�la•J'ati.n No. 4020... ��Q"' ,......1 Packet Pg.223 B.A.d P MM i&f tZ4i Public Notices NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER A RESOLUTION Notice is hereby given that on Tuesday, February 28, 2017, in the Board of County Commissioners Meeting Room,Third Floor, Collier Government Center,3299 Tamiami Trail East,Naples FL., the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) will consider the enactment of a County Resolution. The meeting will commence at 9:00 A.M.The title of the proposed Resolution is as follows: A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA,FOR A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 4.02.03.A, TABLE 4 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM REAR YARD ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SETBACK LINE FROM 20 FEET TO 6.55 FEET FOR A SWIMMING POOL,SPA,POOL DECK AND STAIRS ON A WATERFRONT LOT WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY (RSF-3) ZONING DISTRICT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 342 TRADE WINDS m AVENUE, IN SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 c EAST,COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA.[VA-PL20160001181] ca 'L A copy of the proposed Resolution is on file with the Clerk to the > Board and is available for inspection. All interested parties are N invited to attend and be heard. -a N = co NOTE: All persons wishing to speak on any agenda item must T register with the County manager prior to presentation of a the agenda item to be addressed. Individual speakers will be -a ✓ limited to 3 minutes on any item. The selection of any individual as t< to speak on behalf of an organization or group is encouraged. I— „ If recognized by the Chairman, a spokesperson for a group or a organization may be allotted 10 minutes to speak on an item. co cc 01 Persons wishing to have written or graphic materials included in the Board agenda packets must submit said material a minimum ce) 0 of 3 weeks prior to the respective public hearing. In any case, N written materials intended to be considered by the Board shall ca NJ be submitted to the appropriate County staff a minimum of 0 zi seven days prior to the public hearing. All materials used in Z presentations before the Board will become a permanent part m of the record. 'a a a H Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Board a) will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and Q al therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the ' proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and -a Z - evidence upon which the appeal is based. ro If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation aa) in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please },,: contact the Collier County Facilities Management Division, aai located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East,Suite 101, Naples,FL 34112- a) 5356, (239) 252-8380, at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available u in the Board of County Commissioners Office. ca r BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Q COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA PENNY TAYLOR,CHAIRMAN DWIGHT E.BROCK,CLERK By: Martha Vergara,Deputy Clerk (SEAL) February 10,2017 No. 1481737 Packet Pg. 224 Ex parte Disclosure - Commissioner Solis COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA 02/28/2017 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS 8.A. Recommendation to approve a Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida, for a Variance from Section 4.02.03.A, Table 4 of the Land Development Code to reduce the minimum rear yard accessory structure setback line from 20 feet to 6.55 feet for a swimming pool, spa, pool deck and stairs on a waterfront lot within the Residential Single-Family (RSF-3) zoning district on property located at 342 Trade Winds Avenue, in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida [VA-PL20160001181]. NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM SEE FILE ®Meetings ❑Correspondence ®e-mails ❑Calls SUMMARY AGENDA 17.E. Recommendation to approve Petition VAC-PL20160003293, to disclaim, renounce and vacate the County and the public interest in a portion of the 10-foot drainage easement and vacate a portion of the 10-foot utility easement located along the rear border of Lot 50, The Lodgings of Wyndemere, Section One, as recorded in Plat Book 13, Page 8 of the public records of Collier County, Florida, located in Section 19, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. XQ NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM SEE FILE UMeetings Correspondence ❑e-mails ❑Calls January 27 2 O 7Th January February 2017 Surt Surto TuWe Th Fr Sa o TuWe Th Fr Sa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 Friday 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 29 30 31 26 27 28 FRIDAY Notes 27 7 AM 8 9 Introductory Meeting with Commissioner Solis and Naples Airport Exec Director,Ch Chris Rozansky's Office, Naples Airport Authority, 160 Aviation Drive N., Naples, FL(Phone Robin E. Menard 10 Meeting with Patrick Neale;County Commission Office,3299 Tamiam.> 11 Reconsideration memo 12 PM 1 Andy Unavailable 2 3 4 5 6 SolisAndrew 1 2/27/2017 5:44 PM GoodnerAngela From: pneale@patrickneale.com on behalf of Patrick Neale <pneale@patrickneale.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 5:32 PM To: SolisAndrew Cc: karen@patrickneale.com; khall@patrickneale.com; GoodnerAngela Subject: Registered: RE: Request REGISTERED EMAIL lail CERTIFIED DELIVERY, CONTENT & TIME This is a Registered Email® message from Patrick Neale. Andy Thanks. I will advise my client and get back to Angela. I am tentatively booked Friday morning,but if that clears up,I will call to set a time to meet at the Government Center.If not,I will give you a call. All the best, Pat Patrick H.Neale Patrick Neale&Associates Attorney at Law Primary Office: 5470 Bryson Court, Suite 103 Naples,FL 34109 Marco Island Office: (By Appointment Only) 950 North Collier Blvd. Suite 400 Marco Island,FL 34145 Phone:239 642-1485 Fax:239 642-1487 Mobile:239 404-7930 Primary Email:pneale@patrickneale.com Secondary Email address for service: email-service@patrickneale.com Please visit our website: www.patrickneale.com This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s)or entity(s)named within the message. This e-mail might contain legally privileged and confidential information.If you properly received this e-mail as a client or retained expert,please hold it in confidence to protect the attorney-client or work product privileges. Should the intended recipient forward or disclose this message to another person or party,that action could constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege.If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any review,dissemination,distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited by the sender and to do so might constitute a violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. section 2510-2521.If this communication was received in error we apologize for the intrusion.Please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message without reading same.Nothing in this e-mail message shall,in and of itself,create an attorney-client relationship with the sender. We are a federally designated Debt Relief Agency under the United States Bankruptcy Laws.We assist people with finding solutions to their debt problems,including assisting them with the filing of petitions for relief under the United States Bankruptcy Code. Representation:No representation by our Firm,or by any member of our Firm,shall be deemed to commence by any correspondence other than a mutually signed engagement and representation letter. Evidentiary Privilege:To the extent that this message is being sent to settle a claim or dispute, all evidentiary limitations on its use and admissibility are hereby expressly made applicable to the message and its contents. Disclaimer under Circular 230:Any statements regarding tax matters made herein,including any attachments,are not formal tax opinions by this firm,cannot be relied upon or used by any person to avoid tax penalties,and are not intended to be used or referred to in any marketing or promotional materials. 1 Original Message From: SolisAndrew[mailto:AndrewSolis@colliergov.net] Sent: Tuesday,January 24,2017 5:10 PM To:Patrick Neale<pneale@patrickneale.com> Cc:Karen Klukiewicz<karen@patrickneale.com>;Judi Menard<khall@patrickneale.com>;GoodnerAngela <AngelaGoodner@colliergov.net> Subject:Re: Request Pat, My door is always open. I will be at the Gov't Center Friday morning if that works for you. Otherwise,I can talk on the phone or meet you at my Mercato or Orange Blossom offices Thursday afternoon.As far as meeting with you and your client,I can meet any time on the 2nd at the Mercato or in the afternoon on the 3rd at the Gov't Center. Unfortunately,I am out of town the following week. Please let my assistant Angela Goodner know what works best for you and your client. Be well. Andy Solis,Esq. Commissioner,District 2 Collier County Board of Commissioners District Office:239.252.8602 mobile:239.315.6080 fax:239.252.6946 Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public records.If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead,contact this office by telephone or in writing. From:pneale@patrickneale.com<pneale@patrickneale.com>on behalf of Patrick Neale<pneale@patrickneale.com> Sent:Tuesday,January 24,2017 4:58 PM To: SolisAndrew Cc:karen@patrickneale.com;khall@patrickneale.com Subject:Registered:Request [***RPost Registered Email***] This is a Registered Email®message from Patrick Neale. Andy I would like to speak with you at your convenience about a matter that will be coming before the BCC in February.It is a variance petition in Vanderbilt Beach and I am representing those opposing the petition.My primary client will be in town from February 2-12 and would like to meet during that time period.I would also like to speak to you about this issue prior to our meeting.Please let me know the best time to call and whether you want me to call at the County or your law office. Thanks, Pat Patrick H.Neale Patrick Neale&Associates Attorney at Law Primary Office: 5470 Bryson Court, Suite 103 Naples,FL 34109 Marco Island Office: (By Appointment Only) 950 North Collier Blvd. Suite 400 2 Marco Island,FL 34145 Phone:239 642-1485 Fax:239 642-1487 Mobile:239 404-7930 Primary Email:pneale@patrickneale.com<mailto:pnealeApatrickneale.com> Secondary Email address for service: email-service@patrickneale.com<mailto:email-service@patrickneale.com> Please visit our website:www.patrickneale.com<http://www.patrickneale.com/> This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s)or entity(s)named within the message.This e-mail might contain legally privileged and confidential information.If you properly received this e-mail as a client or retained expert,please hold it in confidence to protect the attorney-client or work product privileges. Should the intended recipient forward or disclose this message to another person or party,that action could constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege.If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any review,dissemination,distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited by the sender and to do so might constitute a violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. section 2510-2521.If this communication was received in error we apologize for the intrusion.Please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message without reading same.Nothing in this e-mail message shall,in and of itself,create an attorney-client relationship with the sender. We are a federally designated Debt Relief Agency under the United States Bankruptcy Laws.We assist people with fmding solutions to their debt problems,including assisting them with the filing of petitions for relief under the United States Bankruptcy Code. Representation:No representation by our Finn,or by any member of our Finn, shall be deemed to commence by any correspondence other than a mutually signed engagement and representation letter. Evidentiary Privilege: To the extent that this message is being sent to settle a claim or dispute,all evidentiary limitations on its use and admissibility are hereby expressly made applicable to the message and its contents. Disclaimer under Circular 230:Any statements regarding tax matters made herein,including any attachments,are not formal tax opinions by this firm,cannot be relied upon or used by any person to avoid tax penalties,and are not intended to be used or referred to in any marketing or promotional materials. Click here<http://rmail.rpost.com/RMAIL/autologin.aspx?rr=56C75864>to send a Registered Email®message to anyone. <http://> [http://open.rpost.net/456091 B 81 D8ECE91 F5C4B98C68C030BA9F771 DD 1- 1 5004C9DDFC9C4D4D2177B49609D23 8EFD5CCCE90/rpost.gif] Click here to send a Registered Email®message to anyone. Po red by RPc*-7:- II jl 3 GoodnerAngela From: pneale@patrickneale.com on behalf of Patrick Neale <pneale@patrickneale.com> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 2:06 PM To: TaylorPenny; McDanielBill; SaundersBurt; SolisAndrew; FialaDonna Cc: OchsLeo; KlatzkowJeff; karen@patrickneale.com; khall@patrickneale.com Subject: Registered: Variance Petition VA-PL20160001181 Attachments: 20170112 marks It reischl.pdf; Collier County Commissioners Zoning Hearing Presentation - 2-26-2017 --FINAL (1).pdf r REGISTERED EMAIL Ma ,� CERTIFIED DELIVERY, CONTENT& TIME This is a Registered Email® message from Patrick Neale. There are two documents attached to this email.The first is a letter from me to Fred Reischl dated January 10, 2017 that does not appear to have been included in the BCC packet. I am sure that it was an oversight, but I request that this be made part of the record. There is also attached a presentation that my client, Mr. George Marks, will be making at tomorrow's hearing and which should also be made part of the record of this case. Best regards, Patrick H. Neale Patrick Neale &Associates Attorney at Law Primary Office: 5470 Bryson Court, Suite 103 Naples, FL 34109 Marco Island Office: (By Appointment Only) 950 North Collier Blvd. Suite 400 Marco Island, FL 34145 Phone: 239 642-1485 Fax: 239 642-1487 Mobile: 239 404-7930 Primary Email: pnealepatrickneale.com Secondary Email address for service: email-service(a�patrickneale.com Please visit our website: www.patrickneale.com This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s) or entity(s) named within the message. This e-mail might contain legally privileged and confidential information. If you properly received this e-mail as a client or retained expert, please hold it in confidence to protect the attorney-client or work product privileges. Should the intended recipient forward or disclose this message to another person or party, that action could constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited by the sender and to do so might constitute a violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. section 2510-2521. If this communication was received in error we apologize for the intrusion. Please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message without reading same. Nothing in this e-mail message shall, in and of itself, create an attorney-client relationship with the sender. We are a federally designated Debt Relief Agency under the United States Bankruptcy Laws. We assist people with finding solutions to their debt problems, including assisting them with the filing of petitions for relief under the United States Bankruptcy Code. Representation: No representation by our Firm, or by any member of our Firm, shall be deemed to commence by any correspondence other than a mutually signed engagement and representation letter. Evidentiary Privilege: To the extent that this message is being sent to settle a claim or dispute, all evidentiary limitations on its use and admissibility are hereby expressly made applicable to the message and its contents. Disclaimer under Circular 230: Any statements regarding tax matters made herein, including any attachments, are not formal tax opinions by this firm, cannot be relied upon or used by any person to avoid tax penalties, and are not intended to be used or referred to in any marketing or promotional materials. Click here to send a Registered Email®message to anyone. 2 T 239.642.1485 PATRICK, Naples F 239.642.14875470 Brymon Court Suite 103 E info@patricknade.com CINEALE Naples,Florida 34109 wwwpatrickneak.com ,: ASSOCIATES A4aiiing Patrick H. Neale MarroIsland(by appointment): P.O.Baa 9440 950 North Collier Blvd.Suite 400 Naples,Florida 34101-9440 Attorney at Law Marco Island,Florida 34145 January 10,2017 Mr.Fred Reischl Senior Planner Collier County Growth Management Department Zoning Division 2800 Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL RE:Petition VA-PL20160001181 —342 Trade Winds Avenue Dear Fred: I represent Mr.and Mrs.George Marks,the owners of 319 Lagoon Avenue,Naples,Florida 34108, property owners who will be substantially and adversely impacted by the variance requested in the above petition should it be granted.I also represent several other property owners in the area who will also be adversely impacted by the proposed variance should it be granted.My clients strongly oppose the proposed variance and disagree with the staff recommendation for reasons which will be set out below. This letter is to provide additional legal basis for the denial of the Variance.It is requested that this letter be provided to each member of the Planning Board prior to the hearing set for January 19,2017. As the County is aware,the controlling case law for variances is Indialantic v. Nance,400 So. 2d 37 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 1981) as adopted by the Florida Supreme Court in Nance v. Indialantic, 1982 Fla. LEXIS 2530(Fla. 1982).The standard set out in this case is that "[a] prerequisite to the granting of a hardship zoning variance is the presence of an exceptional and unique hardship to the individual landowner,unique to that parcel and not shared by other property owners in the area." There is nothing about the parcel or this landowner that is unique, other than the fact the County issued a building permit based upon plans that did not meet the standards set out in the Collier County Land Development Code. In the balance of this letter, I will comment upon the various criteria set out in LDC section 9.04.03 and incorporated into the staff report. a. Are there special conditions and circumstances existing, which are peculiar to the location,size and characteristics of the land,structure or building involved? Staff: Yes. Per the applicant,the pool shell,retaining wall and stairs are constructed. The applicant commenced construction under building permit,PRBD2015092870601,with an incorrectly cited rear accessory pool setback of 10 feet versus the required 20 feet. The applicant abided by the incorrectly cited rear accessory 10-foot pool setback for the swimming pool,spa,and pool deck. The stairs off the pool deck do encroach 3.5 feet into the erroneously provided 10-foot setback; however they were permitted with the swimming pool, spa, and pool deck. Opposing Position: The conditions and circumstances set out by the Staff are those caused by the actions of the petitioner. The failure of the petitioner to follow the 1 r Mr.Fred Reischl January 11. 2017 Page 2 of 4 requirements of the Building Code and Land Development Code does not constitute a special condition or circumstance that would give rise to grounds for a variance. b. Are there special conditions and circumstances, which do not result from the action of the applicant such as pre-existing conditions relative to the property, which are the subject of the Variance request? Staff: Yes. The applicant applied and received a pool permit from the County citing an incorrect rear accessory pool setback. The applicant proceeded, and followed, with provided setbacks unaware of any violations. Due to this error, the subject structure is currently encroaching 6.55;more specifically,the pool, spa,pool deck encroach 9.83 feet, resulting in a 10.17 rear yard setback, and the stairs encroach 13.45 feet, resulting in a 6.55-foot encroachment. Opposing Position: Any and all "special conditions and circumstance" result from the negligence of the applicant.The fact that a permit was issued does not excuse the applicant from compliance with the relevant laws. c. Will a literal interpretation of the provisions of this zoning code work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant or create practical difficulties for the applicant? Yes. Per the applicant, the pool is already constructed and to abide by the required accessory 20-foot setback would require the applicant to remove the existing pool and replace it at an estimated expense of $50,000. The applicant relied on the erroneously issued pool permit with a 10-foot rear accessory setback in constructing the existing pool structure. Opposing Position: The hardship was caused by the negligence of the applicant and/or their contractor. While it may create practical difficulties, that is not within the purview of the Planning Board or Board of Zoning Appeals to relieve the applicant from a problem of their own making. d. Will the Variance,if granted, be the minimum Variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure and which promote standards of health,safety and welfare? Yes.The applicant is only seeking the minimum variance which will allow the pool deck, pool, spa, and stairs to remain. Opposing Position: The property is still completely usable without the granting of the variance. The applicant will only have to construct the pool deck, spa and stairs in a manner that complies with the provisions of the Land Development Code. e. Will granting the Variance confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by these zoning regulations to other lands,buildings,or structures in the same zoning district? Yes.The applicant will be able to retain a decreased accessory rear yard setback for a pool Mr.Fred Reischl January 11.2017 Page 3 of 4 deck that exceed 4 feet in height above the seawall. However, it should be noted that the applicant relied on the County issued permit which cited incorrectly the accessory rear swimming pool and/or screen enclosure setback. Opposing Position: The basic principle of variance procedure as embodied in the LDC and the applicable case law is that a variance should NOT give the applicant any special privilege. This would provide the applicant with a special privilege and diminish the value of surrounding properties.The variance will impede the views of all surrounding properties and set a dangerous precedent which could allow other property owners to receive the same variance,thus making the LDC a sham. E Will granting the Variance be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this Land Development Code,and not be injurious to the neighborhood,or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare? Yes. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed Variance would legitimize the existence of the pool and pool deck that are currently under construction. Opposing Position:The staff is arguing that this will legitimize the existence of a non- conforming structure that has not been issued a certificate of occupancy and is in violation of the LDC. That is not in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the LDC. Further, this is injurious to the neighborhood in that it impedes, impairs and interferes with the views of the adjacent lot owners. g. Are there natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals and objectives of the regulation such as natural preserves, lakes, golf courses, etc.? Yes. The applicant states that variations in seawall height in this location do not create a uniform height for all houses and therefore create different pool deck height requirements over 4 feet of the seawall. Opposing Position: The standard in the LDC is set so that there is uniformity in the elevation above the seawall.The height above the seawall is the standard. There are no conditions natural or physically induced which justify the granting of this variance. h. Will granting the Variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan? Approval of this Variance will not affect or change the requirements of the Growth Management Plan. Opposing Position: The approval of the Variance will not impact the GMP. Based upon the foregoing response to the Staff Report and Recommendation and testimony to be presented at the hearing on January 19, 2017, my clients respectfully request that the Planning Board deny this application for a variance. The variance as requested does not meet the legal criteria for the granting of a variance. r Mr.Fred Reischl January 11. 2017 Page 4 of 4 I appreciate this opportunity to present my clients' position and look forward to appearing at the hearing on January 19, 2017 to present these arguments to the Planning Board,respond to their questions and get my clients' testimony on the record.Please contact me if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, atric H. eale Cc: Clients PHN/Ps I F Collier County Commissioners Meeting February 28, 2017 @ 1:00 q Zoning Variance Hearing 342 Tradewinds Ave. Presentation of George Marks in opposition to the granting of a zoning variance for 342 Tradewinds Ave. Collier County Commissioners Zoning Hearing Presentation George Marks— 319 Lagoon Ave, Vanderbilt Beach, Naples, FL February 28, 2017 @ 1:00 PM (Time certain) I would like to thank the Commissioners for the opportunity to Present our concerns I am here in opposition to the request for a Zoning Variance from the Collier County Land Development Code. Originally, I was in opposition to the variance because I did not understand why FIRST the County Staff,then Second,the Planning Commission would recommend granting this variance without the conditions of a legal hardship being met. As you know, a hardship is a legal standard that an applicant is required to meet in order to be granted a variance. I have worked closely with Mr Neale and he will present in more detail why the conditions of a legal hardship have not been met. I am going to focus on WHY the PC Hearing transcribed Testimony as well as the Planning and Building Staff Recommendations REPORT that are a basis of your consideration are inaccurate and misinformed. At the PC, Mr. Strain asked the County Attorney if the granting of this variance would set a precedent and the County Attorney answered "NO". That is a standard Attorney answer on the basis that no two properties are ever exactly the same. I offer a portion of the transcript as Exhibit "8" (to avoid boring you with the entire transcript) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have a question, a couple questions. First is the County Attorney's Office in regards to the--now, this setting a precedent. Could one of the county attorneys opine on whether this does or not? MR.KLATZKOW: Does it set a precedent? No. However, Mr.Shapiro just spent 20 minutes showing you pictures of an existing pool (That existed PRIOR to the current zoning and is an EXCELLENT example of why the zoning was changed) so while the County Solicitor will say that a variance will not be set, I think we saw today that in practicality,that is not always true as it was the ONLY basis for Mr. Shapiro's argument. The photo below is a picture of the pool that Mr. Shapiro used as a basis of his argument for the granting of the variance. This pool is+/-6'-0"" above the seawall and +/- 12'-0"from the edge of the seawall. The variance is asking for a variance to 6.36 feet (2.36 ft above the seawall) and 10.17 feet from the Seawall when 20'-0" is required. This is a 59%variance in height and 49%variance in depth from the seawall. This is NOT a diminimus variance. I present this photo looking WEST(down the canal)for your consideration. This photo is of the pool that Mr. Shapiro used as a basis of his argument. This photo was taken+/- 15'-0"from the edge of the seawall from the easterly property line and you can clearly see how the view is diminished or blocked. It would be total blocked at 20'0". ir *4 t NU Y ' may+ )'X1, LSI 'tiw W } M S_ } I t.... ,,.. ;. I present the following photo looking EAST of the same pool. This photo was taken +/-20-0" from the edge of the seawall from the westerly property line and you can clearly see how the view is diminished or blocked. 20'-0" is the distance from the seawall required by the Zoning code for a pool deck exceeding 4'-0" above the seawall. I am standing on the adjacent patio, in compliance with the LDC. II ti , � �•,:_ - ."" 1I X11 f 5i i CLEARLY—the County planners had a strong reason for creating the zoning ordinance that they did which limited the height of a pool relative to the seawall and the distance from it. The REASON was to PRESERVE the view corridor for ALL property owners and the granting of this variance be in direct opposition to the County's Zoning laws and detrimental to the overall neighborhood. I have prepared a few diagrams illustrating the following: 1. The setbacks and dimensions that are required by the zoning code 2. The setbacks that are in place for the pool that Mr.Shapiro is using as a basis for his request 3. The setbacks that exist for the pool at 342 Tradewinds on which is the basis of this hearing Please see the attached sketch illustrating the dimensions of the matter at hand today. As you can see, not enforcing zoning laws can create disturbing results if not administered firmly and fairly. Granting this variance would significantly violate the intent of the zoning code and have a NEGATIVE impact on adjacent property values. Collier County LDC requirements The current Pool height is 6.36feet above the seawall. 044 This is what is allowed if the pool is 4'-0"above the seawall • i tA4- -0 1 iDyGGto -t'p.,.L_ Qq,,00e/ cP3 St_' 1 auEYL- is pct-0`t }s4i0.- F49oL- c c-. v4 It a POOL is less than 20'-0"from the Seawall it must be less than 4'-0"above the top of the seawall. This is what currently exists tvcp mot, t lCat-i.-T 1S Ac 6?,3r-o' Ppxy6 mire- g .A4A._. pCe,10-1I 1 -411.41114rAL1- g-9511 k-3 GI '5etBAt-e- W e t u co{ Eck' A\In---411&k.ir _ - 4)-D" -T.P"‘\Q— /IL\ -4411V4141r4rf Pr S1,-Oh -SA�.� c.45.4,3 Ne51- o,--)E7--- 'VA S .a, n eS-IgrI)•-)C-k pbaL.._ 12-0W--- 10 , aE 13P - The STAFF report Let me now focus on the STAFF report and its recommendations and why they are seriously flawed. I will do my best to be brief, but thorough. --I have included the Staff report as Exhibit "A" I will discuss the Items one by one, since each one is a legal argument for a variance. a. Are there special conditions and circumstances existing which are peculiar to the location, size and characteristics of the land structure or building involved. STAFF answer—"Yes, per the applicant the pool shell, retaining wall and stairs are constructed" The proper answer is adamantly NO—no special circumstances existed PRIOR to the construction of the pool and the applicant cannot create THE REASON for a variance then be granted a variance. If that were the case,then why have a zoning code or building code. I will address the STAFF's and PC reason for their respective recommendations later as part of the PC transcript. b. Are there special conditions and circumstances, which do not result from the action of the applicant such as pre-existing conditions relative to the property, which are the subject of the Variance request? STAFF Answer—"Yes—The applicant applied and received a pool permit from the County citing an incorrect rear accessory pool setback. Let me present to you a section of the Florida Building Code 2014 which is Section 105.4.1 "A permit issued shall be construed to be a license to proceed with the work and not as authority to violate,cancel, alter or set aside any of the provisions of the technical codes, nor shall issuance of a permit prevent the building official from thereafter requiring a correction of errors in plans." Let me present to you a section of the Collier County Land Development code which is CHAPTER 10.02.06- Requirements in Permits—Section 1.c states" Statements made by the applicant on the building or land alteration permit application shall be deemed official statements.Approval of the application by the County .. . x `f in no way, exempt the applicant from strict observance of applicable provisions of this Land Development Code and all other applicable regulations, ordinances, codes, and laws. ii. A building or land alteration permit issued in error shall not confer any rights or privileges to the applicant to proceed to or continue with construction, and the county shall have the power to revoke such permit until said error is corrected. c. Will a literal interpretation of the provisions for this zoning code work create unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant or create practical difficulties for the applicant? STAFF answer—YES—Per the applicant,the pool is already constructed at an estimated expense of$50,000. NO—How many times can the staff say,it already exists? This error could have been caught and corrected BEFORE the house was built if a Certified Site Plan had been completed,thereby minimizing the repair costs. The estimated total value of the house is$2.5-3.0 million dollars. The total cost to make the repair of$50,000 while significant, is small relative to the overall value of the property and more importantly the adjacent properties. Had the correction been performed when the owner and contractor were notified in April 2016,the cost to correct would be significantly lower. However,the contractor elected to instead provide the County an Affadavit as a COST SAVING measure and took on any risk. How can the Applicant then claim a financial hardship and worse, how can the County grant such a variance based on financial hardship? ***The AFFADAVIT signed by the contractor is attached on the next page Affidavit in lieu of Certified Site Plan To be filed with Permit Application State of Florida County of Collier • I. /i�,n» MOeY'S..,J , do hereby affirm that the work performed under Permit Number ,4,624.6/0.0706 `'( does not constitute any modification to the onginal permitted footprint of the structure that existed prior to the issuance of this permit. I further affirm that. to the best of my knowledge, the footprint of the structure shall conform to the applicable setback(s) and easement requirement(s) established by Collier County and/or any other applicable agency. I hereby agree that should any work performed under this permit result in a nonconformity with any setback(s) or easement requirement(s) established by Collier County or any other applicable agency. I will have no sustainable rebuttal against Collier County Government and will immediately remediate the nonconformity at no expense to oilier County Government. Signe.: Printed Name. i411)n / . '.t (Check one) Owner/Builder [ ) Contractor [ ✓] Design Professional [ 1 AFFIRMED AND SUBSCRIBED befo e me, the undersigned authority. on / (f /2_ ?4,1+!v. 2010, by --P.-L._ dize.,‘,. (check one)who is personally known to me [ 1or who provided --•Oc--- as identification [ 1. L9--- (Seal) __,,, ,e,:_ee., NOTARY PUBLIC - State of 4:•:;�4t, CAROL RUTH STACHURA k MYCOMMISSION#FF093307 Printed Name: ,� EXPIRES:February 16.2016 ' - aaaear nLio4iyetNonn,s s My commission expires: 7/15/2013 A-128 it The county received from the contractor a signed Affadavit in Lieu of Certified Site Plan,which means the contractor did not wish to submit a Certified Site Plan. I'm not sure why,except to save money as it would be good building practice or I offer maybe the contractor and Owner knew it was wrong and hoped no one would notice? The AFFADAVIT certifies that the Contractor will"IMMEDIATELY remediate the nonconformity at no expense to Collier County Government". If the contractor was notified of the error in APRIL 2016,why wasn't the error corrected then? How then does the contractor continuing to work constitute a financial hardship worthy of a variance that is detremental to the neighborhood and potentially sets up the community for future infractions of the Zoning Code. Since the pool is far in excess of the allowed setbacks,why wouldn't the county then just ENFORCE the Affadavit which grants the County NO FINANCIAL EXPOSURE OR LIABILITY and have the pool design corrected to be within the Zoning Code? So I am confused again Why then doesn't the County then just enforce the Zoning Code and/or enforce the AFFADAVIT instead of us spending THOUSANDS of dollars to defend our neighborhood? Why wait SIX(6) months until October 2016 to actually apply for the variance? d. Will the variance, if granted be the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure and which promote standards of health safety and welfare? STAFF answer—YES—The applicant is only seeking the minimum variance which will allow the pool deck, pool,spa and stairs to remain. We agree that it is the minimum, but the staff answer does not address the standards of health,safety and welfare e. Will granting the variance confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by these zoning regulations to other lands, buildings or structures in the same zoning? STAFF Answer—Yes,The applicant will be able to retain a decreased accessory rear yard setback for a pool However, it should be noted that the applicant relied on the county issued permit which cited incorrectly the accessory rear swimming pool and/or screen enclosure setback? The applicant will CERTAINLY be granted a privilege not available to other property owners. The fact that the county approved an erroneous site plan is a NON-FACTOR for FOUR(4) reasons 1) Because the Contractor elected to not perform a Certified Site Plan in April 2016(time of shell completion),which would have identified the PROPER SETBACKS and alerted the contractor of the error at a time when the correction was easily performed. 2) The County Land Development Code CLEARLY states that the County is not responsible for errors made by the contractor(See Item b.above) 3) The building permit issued on Jan 27,2016 states"Per Collier County Ordinance No.2001-01,as it may be amended,all work must comply with all Applicable laws,codes,ordinances and any additional stipulations or conditions of this permit." A copy of the Pool building permit is attached below. 4) The contractor provided an AFFADAVIT in Lieu of a Certified Site Plan (Exhibit P-x) which states that they will IMMEDIATLEY remediate any non-conformity at no expense to Collier County Government. ***The Building Permit is attached on the next page COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PERMIT PERMIT#: PRBD2016010076701 PERMIT TYPE: PL ISSUED: BY: APPLIED DATE: 01-12-16 APPROVAL DATE:01-27-16 MASTER#: COA: JOB ADDRESS: 342 Trade Winds AVE JOB DESCRIPTION: CONSTRUCTION OF 387 SQ FT IN-GROUND POOL& JOB PHONE: 5'8"X5'8"ZERO EDGE SPA,3HPVSPUMP- ALARMS(PRBD20150928706) 342 TRADEWINDS AVE LOT 11 SUBDIVISION#: BLOCK: LOT: FLOOD MAP: ZONE: ELEVATION: FOLIO#: 27585200007 SECTION-TOWNSHIP-RANGE:29-48-25 OWNER INFORMATION: CONTRACTOR INFORMATION: STONE-JESKE TR,ROXANNE B ROXANNE B MORRISON ALUMINUM CONSTRUCTION INC STONE-JESKE TRUST UTD 8/10/05 (DBA)MAC CUSTOM POOLS-ALUMINUM 531 TURTLE HATCH LN 1020 SE 12TH AVE NAPLES ,FL 34103- CAPE CORAL,FL 33990-- CERTIFICATE#::C33218 PHONE: FCC CODE: CONSTRUCTION CODE: 0218 JOB VALUE: $74,000.00 TOTAL RES SOFT: 0 TOTAL COMM SQFT: 0 SETBACKS FRONT: 30' REAR: 10'Accessory LEFT: 7.5' RIGHT: 7.5' SEWER: WATER: CONTACT NAME: CONTACT PHONE: Per Collier County Ordinance No.2002-01,as it may be amended,all work must comply with all applicable laws,codes,ordinances,and any additional stipulations or conditions of this permit.This permit expires if work authorized by the permit is not commenced within six(6)months from the date of issuance of the permit.Additional fees for failing to obtain permits prior to the commencement of construction may be imposed.Permittee(s)further understands that any contractor that may be employed must be a licensed contractor and that the structure must not be used or occupied until a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. NOTICE:PRIOR TO THE REMOVAL OF ASBESTOS PRODUCTS OR THE DEMOLITION OF A STRUCTURE,FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS REQUIRE THE PERMITTEE(EITHER THE OWNER OR CONTRACTOR)TO SUBMIT A NOTICE OF THE INTENDED WORK TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION(DEP).FOR MORE INFORMATION,CONTACT DEP AT(239)344-5600. In addition to the conditions of this permit,there may be additional restrictions applicable to this property that may be found in the public records of this county,and there may be additional permits required from other governmental entities such as water management districts,state agencies,or federal agencies. WARNING TO OWNER: YOUR FAILURE TO RECORD A NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT MAY RESULT IN YOUR PAYING TWICE FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO YOUR PROPERTY. IF YOU INTEND TO OBTAIN FINANCING, CONSULT WITH YOUR LENDER OR AN ATTORNEY BEFORE RECORDING YOUR NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT. I have attached photos of a few pools currently being constructed or recently completed that ALL appear to comply with the proper zoning. i 1 ai it To? of tD L . 1 r lac �pOFNA x;r•;r it4 , t, ,,....,..............._....t.:-............. ----- . :-.J-- _ _.__ To? DF PaDL t --- .• 1 !.- TOP (DP. a.. >P - i ite i#1 _ !I / 41111 *LIIIP'4';'-il r � -' - - -1 ' 1:1*1 I I V r I have also provided photos of the pool in question so you may see the significant differences. 7 ,aiK'",•.,. - ,-' _ °-; � ......�.,.� .�.r�,.,�", .., .f. •., c;E.:.•'nit,+ ! w,.. $^ (.,13 C_ 5 Dct ,�Ll. a' f. Will granting the variance be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this Land Use Code and not be injurious to the Neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. STAFF Answer- YES—The staff is of the opinion that the proposed variance would legitimize the existence of the pool and pool deck that are currently under construction? I am confused-How does"LEGITIMIZING the existence of the pool" make it in harmony with the general intent of the Land Development Code when it totally ignores the LDC? g. Are there natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals and objectives of the regulation such as natural preserves, lakes golf course, etc.? STAFF answer—Yes. The applicant states that variations in seawall height in this location do not create a uniform height for all house and therefore create different pool deck heights. The current Seawall height is approximately 1'-0"higher than the neighbors on either side. Had they have been using a lower seawall this pool would be actually MORE of a violation of the zoning code.See photos. i. Will Granting the variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan? -'yam �r ♦ �"� 6 a • - 1111 Lk) G UE O) t S t Gr,SAI(L-- STAFF answer—Approval of this variance will not affect or change the requirements of the Growth Management Plan? No comment. PLANNING COMMISSION TRANSCRIPT Let's review comments based on the Planning Commission Transcript. First a few facts. 1. The County Staff erroneously approved the site plan. However,we have proven that should not be a factor in the decision to grant this variance 2. The county staff provided a report that we have shown is in error and does not support a hardship. 3. The County Planning Commission, CHAIRED by the County Staff recommended the same be approved based on a flawed Staff report that does not legally support a hardship. I offer the PC transcript as Exhibit B,which is attached for your review(Anything in italics, represents a phase taken verbatim from the PC hearing transcript) 1. Commissioner Ebert—Fred,you said this is a financial hardship Well, I mean we always use money,you know in this stuff. Like I say I don't feel it should be up to the owner to have to pay...." Mr. Resichl—That our standard answer that,yes,you can proceed at your own risk pending the outcome of the in this case was the HEX and not the Board of Commissioners. If the owners and contractor jointly"Proceeded at their own risk",how can they NOW complain that it is a financial hardship because the house is in place. Additionally,The owner has recourse against their design professionals the architect,site engineer,etc. which all should have Errors and Omissions Insurance that should cover this expense,so this is NOT a financial hardship case. 2. In response to how much of the work was in place... "Mr.Jenks----We continued with the house at our own risk" It has since been determined that the Pool contractor,who was a sub to Mr.Jenks,did not wish to provide a Certified Site Plan and instead provided the Affadavit. If they continued at their own risk,how can that then be the basis of a financial hardship when they have made no effort to mitigate their damages for a situation they created. They waited SIX(6)months to even apply for a variance. 3. Mark Strain (County Staff and PC Chairman Summary and suggested motion)—After 40 minutes of presentation, Mr.Strain gave the following summary) Mr.Strain's quotes are shown in italics and highlighted "CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have one item I'd like to discuss. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike or Fred, would you put what I just handed you on the overhead. You need to back off a little bit. Keep going. Keep going. Right there. So we can read the whole thing. Mr. STRAIN came prepared to put this section of the code on the overhead and Mr.Reischl read the section aloud. CHAIRMAN STRAIN. Section 9.04.03 is our criteria for variances. You've heard today that there are eight criteria;there are. And we've had legal counsel advise us from the opposition side to address their position on those eight criteria. Mr Neale,a respected Land Use attorney in Collier County advised the County that based on their own criteria that there was NO LEGAL BASIS for the granting of a variance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Also, a case was referred to us, an old case from a 1982 activity. But we here--as that attorney, even the opposition attorney and as staff has opined today, EIMMIMIK .L.gpd The Land Development Code requires a 20'-0"setback when the pool deck is more than 4'41" above the seawall. The LDC is VERY clear on this matter. This is what was on the piece presented by the Mr.Strain paper— : The Land Development Code says this in the beginning of the criteria for variances: "Findings: Before any variance shall be recommended for approval to the Board of the Zoning Appeals, the Planning Commission the following standards in making a determination." Mr Strain manipulated those words to say that he could do whatever he wanted and that the LDC was a "SUGGESTION". Do the Commissioners want to allow every real estate developer to treat the LDC code as a loose"Suggestion"? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So while` heard t1 can't be this kind of hardship, maybe so, but at the same time we shall consider those and be guided by them. means it's not mandatory. I'm Confused again.... So Mr. Strain admitted that there is NO HARDSHIP AS A BASIS FOR GRANTING A VARIANCE,yet he recommends one anyway based on the fact that the LDC is just a suggestion? A Hardship is the legal standard for the granting of a variance. It is the ONLY standard for which a Variance should be granted. We must be speaking about driving on the Al Interstate in Italy where the speed limit is `just a suggestion': I doubt the Commissioners want the county run in this manner. As a resident of Vanderbilt Beach,we REALLY need to be diligence on EVERY building permit in our community....and that is why I am here today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And,Mike, if you read this differently as Zoning Director,please let me know. But it's my understanding that it means what it says, that we're not bound by those eight items, but they are for consideration. MR.BOSI:: My understanding would be--the interpretation that you've adopted would be my understanding;that these are the guidelines and with that emphasis upon the guidelines. 1 . I So Mr Bosi,who works closely with Mr.Strain is directed(asked)to verify Mr.Strain's outrageous comment? That does not seem proper to me in a public forum. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And with that in mind,I have--I've listened to everything, and I've certainly tried to do all the research I can to understand how this happened. I.can't see the benefit to force someone to tear down a home such as this. There's been no shown malicious intent in this. I have no idea how Mr.Strain could have come to that conclusion. The Property owners did not say one word during the hearing. After the hearing,I offered the owners the opportunity to speak with me and discuss a compromise and they decided to do that in the hallway after the hearing. However,the conversation was very short. I was immediately told"If you are not willing to discuss leaving the pool exactly where it is,there is nothing to discuss.My response was"Oh so you really don't care about complying with the zoning,you just want what you want?" Since April 2016,the owners have made NO attempt to correct the situation when they could have easy done so before the house was built. I disagree with Mr.Strain's statement. Additionally,after NOT working on the pool for TEN(10)months they started working on the pool again on Saturday,February 25th? Why 3 days PRIOR to the hearing? Did they have information that lead them to believe that this variance would be granted? One of the PC discussion comments was that they would NEVER be able to get a piece of construction equipment behind the pool to remove it—as another reason for their hardship. I offer the following picture that disputes that comment and shows the neighbors contractors currently working on the pool. This picture was taken on Saturda, . y,February 25t1i. II s . , _ .„ , .. , ,,..s. , ,. _.-..fir. .. . . . , . .....,,,,„ , ,.., s. ..„.„...„... . , „... . , .,...„,_„., „...... , ,F, , , _, , , .,,..:,. ', i 11 a , + .. 0 N o.re mi•e- oe-IG,t4-c” of= -n.k ' wAA'L- - Please note the piece of equipment,but also how HIGH and imposing that wall is relative to an adult person and it is only 6.67 feet from the sea wall at the stair location CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was an--it was a human error. It was a mistake made by multiple parties. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To take them to task for this for the cost that it would require for an item that does not set a precedent I don't think is necessary. Note that Mr.Strain specifically asked the County Solicitor to state that this would not set a precedent,but we have already discussed this issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, if we can show they purposely had misled the county, this was done intentionally,I'd say then whatever they deserve they deserve in regards to correcting it. Here,I am confused again and I cannot prove anything. However,since when is"intent"an issue in a Zoning hearing? So if you kill someone with your car on RT 41,you will likely go to jail for Manslaughter whether you"intended to do so or not". CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I have looked at all the records. I have looked at them probably more thoroughly than anybody in this room, and I can assure you nothing like that came out of any of those records. And they're records that this panel doesn't even have access to. They're in the county records department. I've pulled all the folders. Again,I am confused--Mr Strain points out that he has reviewed EVERY folder,so I am sure he saw the AFFADAVIT signed by the contractor. Why does Mr.Strain then recommend approving the variance when as a COUNTY STAFF member,he should have acted on the AFFADAVIT or recommended that someone else do so and have the pool corrected to the LDC standard? We have already shown that"every other"property owner in Vanderbilt Beach is complying with the LDC?I did not measure every pool currently under construction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN.: There's nothing there that shows malicious intent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In fact, if anything, they were trying to continually keep up with things they needed to do to make sure their approvals were consistent and reviewed by the county. Confused— If they were TRULY trying to keep up with everything,they would have directed their contractor to correct the pool in April 2016. Instead,they did not even apply for the variance until SIX(6) months later and were actively working on continuing to build the pool this past weekend PRIOR to this hearing. I'm confused. Also,if the applicants we working CLOSELY WITH THE COUNTY STAFF at each step,why then are we here at this zoning hearing? They should have been directed to make the change immediately So I certainly think that the variance is warranted in this case, whether the variance is 24--two-and-a-halffeet--yeah, two-and-a-halffeet or 18 inches. So we wasted MANY MANY hours and THOUSANDS of legal dollars and Mr.Strain states,"it really doesn't matter?" He just ignored the legal standing,ignored the Affadavit in place,ignored the LDC and decided to recommend to grant the variance anyway? The only thing I would suggest is that a stipulation be added to do make sure that the intent of where these are allowed at this height, which is everywhere else, basically, but Vanderbilt Beach, that the decorative cladding or landscaping and a berm or a combination thereof of some nature is there, is put in front or applied to this wall to soften it,as the other jurisdictions would have--where they had done so in other parts of the county. And with that, that's all I've got to say.And if there's nobody else here, we'll close the public hearing and we'll entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER SCHMIl l: I make a motion to approve. Additional Support: We have worked with and received a resolution from the Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association in opposition to this variance being granted. A copy is attached as Exhibit"E" We have also submitted to the County letters of opposition from other Vanderbilt Residents that are part of the official record. Numerous residents presented at the Planning Commission in Opposition to the granting of this variance and many more are here today including David Galloway,President of the VBRA. Summary of why this variance should NOT BE GRANTED 1. Mr. Strain admits in his testimony at the PC hearing that there may not be a"hardship" as a basis for granting this variance. NO hardship exists and the variance should be denied just on this fact alone. 2. The excessive variance required would have significant impact on the community and canal view corridor as it exists and as new homes are built and the neighborhood continues to develop and attorneys come forth now using THIS pool as their example 3. The County may also rely on Three (3) documents which protect the County financially— i. Affadavit signed by contractor ii. The error language in the LDC iii. The error language in the Florida Bldg Code 2014 4. The granting of this variance (if Mr Strain is allowed to interpret the LDC as just a "guide")will essentially empower the county staff to not just enforce the laws and codes of Collier County, but to make them up as they go along. I doubt the Commissioners who are elected by the residents of Collier County wish to allow that to happen or to open the door for every developer to do the same. 5. There is no legal basis for a variance and the Commissioners would be wrong to grant a variance without the legal basis for one. Such a decision would likely be overturned in an appeal and does the Commission really want to send the message to every developer knocking at the county door that their LDC is just a "suggestion"? Thank you for granting me the necessary time to make this presentation. Respectful +Submitted, / AP / All 1 -orge E. Marks j STAFF REPORT — Exhibit A Cot t ie-r County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ZONING DIVISION-ZONING SERVICES SECTION HEARING DATE: OCTOBER 27, 2016 SUBJECT: PETITION VA-PL20160001181, 342 TRADE WINDS AVENUE PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT: Owner: Roxanne Stone-Jeske Agent: Jason Jenks Nancy D. Koeper Jenks Builders, Inc. 342 Tradewinds Avenue 7600 Alico Road 12-2 Naples, FL 34103 Fort Myers, FL 33912 REQUESTED ACTION: To have the Collier County Hearing Examiner (HEX) consider an application for a Variance from Section 4.02.03.A, Table 4 of the Land Development Code to reduce the minimum rear yard accessory structure setback line from 20 feet to 6.55 feet for a swimming pool, spa, pool deck and stairs on a waterfront lot within the Residential Single-Family (RSF-3) zoning district. See location map on page 2. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property is located on Lot 11, Block M of the Conners Vanderbilt Beach Estates Unit 2 subdivision, on the south side of Trade Winds Avenue, approximately 1000 feet west of Vanderbilt Drive in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The purpose of the petition is to request a reduction from the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC), Section 4.02.03.A.Table 4 stating that the minimum swimming pool and/or screen enclosure accessory setback for waterfront lots is 20 feet when the swimming pool deck exceeds 4 feet in height above the top of seawall. The seawall on this property is 3.31 feet with a pool deck that is 9.67 feet. Thus, the pool deck is 6.36 feet above the seawall, which is 2.36 feet above what is permitted by the LDC. VA-PL20160001181,342 Trade Winds Variance Page 1 of 7 The applicant states that the pool and deck plans submitted to Collier County ("County") contained the pool deck elevation of 9.67 feet. The County issued a pool permit, PRBD2016010076701, with a rear accessory setback of 10 feet versus the required 20 feet. The applicant built the swimming pool, spa, and pool deck utilizing the 10-foot accessory setback requirements erroneously provided on the building permit rather than the required 20 feet accessory setback requirement. The pool deck encroaches 9.83 feet into the 20-foot setback. According to the permit building plans, the applicant built the stairs 3.5 feet into the erroneously provided 10-foot setback, Per LDC 4.02.01.D.7 stairways shall not protrude over 3 feet into a required front, side or rear yard of a single family dwelling; the stairs were approved at the 3.5- foot encroachment. Please note that the building permits, for both home (PRBD20150617253) and the pool, were permitted with inclusion of the stairs—as depicted on the survey on the proceeding page. The permitted pool and deck are located in the Residential Single-family District (RSF-3); the rear yard swimming pool and/or screen enclosure (one- and two-family) accessory setback for waterfront lots is 10 feet unless the swimming pool deck exceeds 4 feet in height above the top of the seawall; creating a required setback of 20 feet. SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING: SUBJECT PARCEL: Vacant Lot with building permit for new home, zoned RSF-3 North: Single-family residential development, zoned RSF-3 East: Single-family residential development,zoned RSF-3 South: Canal and then single-family residential development, zoned RSF-3 West: Single-family residential development, zoned RSF-3 • . Ain- ' .4 r m lkiirA ist Iiit 21,1 T,.y.W.nz AJi "� ilik . `T' 3 , 14 # it r 4 : ' v. , - ..—.it mit.."1,11°t ,Y {�+ , 1'4''. ik ." on-- Prot— (1 it 440411 .,..;.,....., , '•"4.- _ '' ' :, .....1 .44. Aerial photo taken from Collier County Property Appraiser website VA-PL20160001181,342 Trade Winds Variance Page 4 of 7 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN(GMP) CONSISTENCY: The subject property is located in the Urban Residential Subdistrict of the Urban Mixed Use District land use classification on the County's Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The purpose of this subdistrict is to provide for higher densities in an area with fewer natural resource constraints and where existing and planned facilities are concentrated. The Growth Management Plan(GMP) does not address individual variance requests; the Plan deals with the larger issue of the actual use. ANALYSIS: The decision to grant a variance is based on the criteria in LDC Section 9.04.03. Staff has analyzed this petition relative to these provisions and offers the following responses: a. Are there special conditions and circumstances existing, which are peculiar to the location, size and characteristics of the land, structure or building involved? Yes. Per the applicant, the pool shell, retaining wall and stairs are constructed. The applicant commenced construction under building permit, PRBD2015092870601, with an incorrectly cited rear accessory pool setback of 10 feet versus the required 20 feet. The applicant abided by the incorrectly cited rear accessory 10-foot pool setback for the swimming pool, spa, and pool deck. The stairs off the pool deck do encroach 3.5 feet into the erroneously provided 10-foot setback; however they were permitted with the swimming pool, spa, and pool deck. b. Are there special conditions and circumstances, which do not result from the action of the applicant such as pre-existing conditions relative to the property, which are the subject of the Variance request? Yes. The applicant applied and received a pool permit from the County citing an incorrect rear accessory pool setback. The applicant proceeded, and followed, with provided setbacks unaware of any violations. Due to this error, the subject structure is currently encroaching 6.55; more specifically, the pool, spa, pool deck encroach 9.83 feet, resulting in a 10.17 rear yard setback, and the stairs encroach 13.45 feet, resulting in a 6.55-foot encroachment. c. Will a literal interpretation of the provisions of this zoning code work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant or create practical difficulties for the applicant? Yes. Per the applicant, the pool is already constructed and to abide by the required accessory 20-foot setback would require the applicant to remove the existing pool and replace it at an estimated expense of $50,000. The applicant relied on the erroneously issued pool permit with a 10-foot rear accessory setback in constructing the existing pool structure. d. Will the Variance, if granted, be the minimum Variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure and which promote standards of health, safety and welfare? VA-PL20160001181,342 Trade Winds Variance Page 5 of 7 Yes. The applicant is only seeking the minimum variance which will allow the pool deck, pool, spa, and stairs to remain. e. Will granting the Variance confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by these zoning regulations to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning district? Yes. The applicant will be able to retain a decreased accessory rear yard setback for a pool deck that exceed 4 feet in height above the seawall. However, it should be noted that the applicant relied on the County issued permit which cited incorrectly the accessory rear swimming pool and/or screen enclosure setback. f. Will granting the Variance be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this Land Development Code, and not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare? Yes. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed Variance would legitimize the existence of the pool and pool deck that are currently under construction. g. Are there natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals and objectives of the regulation such as natural preserves, lakes, golf courses, etc.? Yes. The applicant states that variations in seawall height in this location do not create a uniform height for all houses and therefore create different pool deck height requirements over 4 feet of the seawall. h. Will granting the Variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan? Approval of this Variance will not affect or change the requirements of the Growth Management Plan. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report on October 3, 2016. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Hearing Examiner (HEX) approve Petition VA-PL- 20160001181, 342 Trade Winds Avenue Variance. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Attachment A: Application VA-PL20160001181,342 Trade Winds Variance Page 6 of 7 G PREPARED BY: RACHEL BEASLEY, PLANNER DATE ZONING DIVISION-ZONING SERVICES SECTION REVIEWED BY: RAYMOND V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER DATE ZONING DIVISION-ZONING SERVICES SECTION MICHAEL BOSI, AICP, DIRECTOR DATE ZONING DIVISON VA-PL20160001181,342 Trade Winds Variance Page 7of7 EXHIBIT "B" TRANSCRIPT OF PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING —January 19, 2017 ( only the portion related to this matter has been included — pages 1-30) January 19,2017 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples,Florida,January 19,2017 LET IT BE REMEMBERED,that the Collier County Planning Commission,in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building"F"of the Government Complex,East Naples,Florida,with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Stan Chrzanowski Diane Ebert Karen Homiak Joe Schmitt Patrick.Dearborn ALSO PRESENT: Mike Bosi,Planning and Zoning Manager Fred Reischl,Principal Planner Jeffrey A.Klatzkow,County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko,Managing Assistant County Attorney Tom Eastman,School District Representative Page 1 of 46 January 19,2017 PROCEEDINGS MR.BOSI: Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning,everyone.Welcome to the Thursday,January 19th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If everybody will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Roll call by our secretary,please. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. Good morning. Mr.Eastman? MR.EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr.Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms.Ebert is here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms.Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr.Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Present. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And,Mr.Dearborn? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And we have two advised public hearings today. The first one is going to be a variance on a property at 342 Tra s Avenue,and the second one is a review of our Collier County Land Development Code amendments. It will be the second or third reading on some of these for the Planning Commission. It willnot be the Awl. There will be another review. We'll have maybe our final on the 30th in the evenin And with that,we'll move into thoPlanning Commission absences. We have two upcoming meetings: 5:05 January 30th is the LDC° view that I mentioned. Does anybody know if they're not going to make it on January 30th in the ening in this room? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the next regular meeting is February 2nd. Same time,same place,the sannsittlaCnas same place as today. Everybody? Okay. ISSIO SCH1vf ; That one,Mark,I may miss that one,but I'm not sure. What's the agenda look like for that one? MR.BOSI: I believe t re's onlyone item on for the 2nd. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll let you guys know,and then you can let the rest of the commissioners htitiw if,in fact,Fm going to be missing from that one. It could go up go in the air. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSION. CHMITT: But I'll know by that night. I'll be here for that Monday meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,we'll still have a quorum,so we're good. Thank you. That takes us to approval of minutes. There have been none electronically provided,so we'll skip that. We'll go to the BCC report and recaps. And Ray's not here,but,Mike,you can go ahead. MR.BOSI: Thank you,Chair. Mike Bosi,Planning and Zoning Director. At the hearing on the 10th,the Collier County Resource RecoveryBusiness Park IPUD was approved unanimously. The Naples Heritage PUD amendment to add the 5-acre tennis facility was defeated by a 3-2 vote,and further clarification was provided to staff for the specifics of a moratorium that was going--that is being considered for the East Trail related to self-storage facilities,car washes,pawnshops, and-- Page 2 of 46 January 19,2017 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gas station. MR.BOSI: --gas stations. Thank you. And so with the further direction,we are bringing back an ordinance on the 14th of February for the Board to consider whether they want to take final action upon that moratorium. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,Mike. That brings us to the chairman's report,and I have just one thing. Good morning,Nora Frances.I hope you're watching today. She's a friend of the Planning Commission's. Happens to be related to Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Only by marriage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The consent agenda,we have none,so we'll move directly into our advertised public hearings. ***The first one up is Item 9A. It's VA-PL20160001181,and it's a variance request for a property located at 342 Tradewinds Avenue. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item,please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. We'll start with disclosures on the Planning Commission from Tom. MR.EASTMAN: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Strangely,none. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I talked with Fred yesterday,and emails and correspondence with a neighbor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've had correspondence with a neighbor,or they just sent you an email? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well,yeah,they just sent me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's all. I just wanted to make sure. We've all got an email or two on this,and so I t thine are probably similar to everybody else's. I did talk with the applicant when this first came to my other office,and she came in and asked for some clarification of the process, We went over that,and I think we've talked once since then. And I also talked to Mr.Patrick--Pat Neale who represents some residents who are not in favor of this application. And then,of course,staff. Diane? COMMISSIONER NOMIAK: Karen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karen,I'm sorry. Diane's over here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Nothing. Just the additional email yesterday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pat? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN; Okay. With that,we'll move right into the presentation by the applicant to start out. MR. SHAPIRO: I'm Marc Shapiro representing the applicant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you have items that you want to use the overhead for--I don't think you've appeared before us before--that stand over there has a lot more electronic availability for things to show. You might want to use that. MR. SHAPIRO: Yeah,there may be some-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And also,our mikes don't pick up unless you're really close to them. And we have a walk-around mike over there if you need to get closer to something else that you're trying to show. MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll need you to identify yourself and spell your last name for the record, and we'll be good. MR. SHAPIRO: My name is Marc Shapiro. Marc's spelled M-a-r-c; Shapiro,S-h-a-p-i-r-o. Page 3 of 46 January 19,2017 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR.SHAPIRO: And I'm representing the petitioners in this case for 342 Tradewinds Avenue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everything,by the way,that you show on overhead will have to" be--copies of it will have to be left with the court reporter for the record. MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. They're mainly going to be photographs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's great. Thank you. MR.SHAPIRO: Okay. So there was a variance petition that was filed by the builder in this case, Jason Jenks,and then there was a deficiency letter that was issued,and then my office prepared an amended variance,and that variance was actually recommended for approval. And so that was recommended for approval by,I guess,the Growth Management Department. But I want to read a couple things actually from their words. And,you know,it's important to point out,there's three basic things is--one is the variance we're asking for is a very small variance. So it's--and there's a new code that was brought in this area. So this particular property,you couldn't even tell that it doesn't comply with the current variance because there are several houses that are exactly in line. In fact,it . doesn't look out of place at all,and you wouldn't know. And,in fact,that comes to my first point is that when the permit was applied for,it was applied for using the setbacks that are currently for the pool right now. Those setbacks were approved. There was many inspections that were done to the property. In each case,during each inspection,it was approved. Nobody even caught that it didn't meet the current code until one of the neighbors,I guess,came and pointed out to the county that it didn't comply with the current code,and it was at that time that my client was informed they had to do a petition for a variance. So my client,who hired the builder had no idea that it didn't comply with code. In fact,if you'd look at it,there's no way you could even tell that it -because it doesn't stick out. It's something that's completely in line with the rest of the structures that are on both sides of the street or on the canal there. So--and it says here--this is from the report that was issued from the Growth Management--the applicant utilized the erroneously approved setbacks unaware of any violations. So when they applied for the pool permit,the county actually actuallyproVidad the setbacks,and they erroneously provided the setbacks that were the older setbacks that hadn't--rather thwa the updated ones. So based on those setbacks,my client constructed the pool and poured the slab. And we're talking about approximately two anca half feet. Now,the setbacks,they're about six feet over--instead of a 20-foot setback,two told they had a 10-foot setback,so they're over the setback,but it's important toote that the 'the pool wall.,� 'it was two-and-a-half feet lower,they could be 10 feet, the setback4tattrAtet=setbacsed on the current height. So we're talking two-and-a-half feet. Sithe two-and-alf feet tktea not really affect anyone's view. In fact,we have the neighbor right acro `street--in fact,I brought some pictures,which I'll show in a moment,but if anything,the view from t # ghbor,their lanai actually sticout further than my client's pool which doesn't have a lanai on it and never will. Also,;if=you're looking across,there's boats parked,and the boats that are parked,which are legally parked in front ce seawall,stick out higher than my client's pool does. So it's a very,I would say, negligible impact. to fct,when I looked down the canal,I had to ask,you know,which one--to my client, which one is your house,because you can't tell by looking at it that it sticks out. It's perfectly in line with all of the rest of the houses. We're just talking about two-and-a-half feet up. And a few years ago,when the code was that,you know,that--exactly what they built,so we're not talking about any major impact. Now,it would be a severe economic hardship for my client to have to completely tear down the whole--by the time this was brought to their attention--and,again,it was brought to their attention because, I guess,the neighbor pointed it out to the county--they had already poured the slab. They had already put the whole pool in--where the pool was going to be. That was already in. And they estimate--this is from the builder--and I think it's a very conservative estimate--that to go back and redo this--because they'd have to basically tear out the whole poured concrete pool and start over again--would be,in his words, $50,000. And,again,I think that's a very conservative number. But it would be,at minimum,$50,000 to go back and redo this over essentially two-and-a-half feet. Page 4 of 46 • January 19,2017 So I'd like to at this time show some photographs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Fred will help you with the overhead;that's the gentlemen right there. You'll have to use the mike,either the walk-around mike or the stationary one. MR. SHAPIRO: All right. So if you can see where my finger is,this is the structure in question. And,actually,this view is where--the people that are here opposing this,this would be their view. So there's two views. There's an open-water view,and then there's down the canal. So if you're looking down the canal,you'll see that this structure is really in line with all the other structures and,in fact,one of the people that's objecting to this,his pool enclosure is the same height and the same setback as my client's because,as I said,this is a new,I guess,updated requirement. And when they--when they put in the permit for the pool,they were erroneously giving the older setback requirements. So it's not like this sticks out at all. It just doesn't comply with the latest setback requirements. Here's another--this is a similar view,just a little bit more close up. And this is a view here--you'll see that this structure here is the structure in question. And the neighbors on actually both sides,if you line up the seawalls,they line up perfectly together. In other words,the setbacks on both sided,the neighbors on either side,are both exactly the same setbacks as my client's,the petitioner's setback. And,again,it's because these were the former setbacks. So this is the picture of the--you can see the open-water view. And,again,the petitioner's structure is right here. So you'll see if you're looking down,the people that are objecting to this,the neighbors that are objecting,they are way down towards this range--I'm sorry. They're towards this area here. So they're actually--their view is not obstructed of the open water because the petitioner's structure's down here. And if they look down the canal,I don't see,being on this side of the road,how their view could be remotely affected,and if it was affected,it would be affected by the lanai of the house in front of them,and if it is affected at all,the two-and-a-half feet isn't going to make any difference. In fact,as I said,the boat--the boats that are parked:in front of the structure actually stick out above the pool enclosure. So if their views are obstructed at it`s not because of this.In fact--and I think you have this as part of the application,but there's a couple letters. One letter is from an objector who actually canvassed the neighborhood on both sides of the street and tried to get as many people to object as possible, and I think he was successful in maybe getting one other,possibly two others,to object. My client,I believe,has 43 people. Well,I say 43 because that's how many people live there that either didn't care bout it or actually signed a petitionin her favor or a letter in her favor saying that they didn't believe dug her house--they believe that the variance should be granted;that her house doesn't obstruct any view,doesn't stick out,doesn't make it look like it's not conforming with the community. In this picture here you'll see this house right here is the subject house,but the house right before that,the lanai actually would inhibit the view and actually that tree right there would inhibit the view of the objectors that are looking down the canal before my client's pool enclosure would. In fact,from this view, which is--you can't even see the pool. And then,lastly,this picture shows--and I want to point out the house next to it with the lanai. So the objectors would be looking down this way,so they'd actually be seeing that lanai before they would see this pool. So I guess the three points I want to make is that it was not purposefully done. When the builder applied for the permit,they were erroneously given the wrong setbacks;they built the pool using the wrong setbacks;there was four inspections along the way,never once did anyone point out that,oh,this doesn't comply. In fact,it wasn't till the neighbor pointed that out,and that's the reason we're here today. The second point I want to make is that if there's any impact at all on the neighborhood,which I submit there's not because it's perfectly in line with the other houses'setbacks--in fact,if you were to walk that street,you wouldn't even notice that this house was out of conformity. But if there is any impact,it would be very negligible. We're basically talking about two-and-a-half feet. If the seawall were two-and-a-half feet lower,the setback would be correct. Also,if they moved it back approximately,I believe,six feet,then they could have it that height. So we're talking about two-and-a-half Page 5 of 46 January 19,2017 feet,and the economic hardship involved in putting it into compliance would be,at minimum,$50,000. So for those reasons and also the fact that I think if you read the planning board's recommendation, they set things forth very thoroughly on why they would--not the planning board but the--I guess the report from-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's called a staff report. • MR. SHAPIRO: --yeah,staff report. They set forth very particularly why they're recommending that the variance be approved. So I would ask that,you know,you all take a look at that,and they lay it out very nicely. And they were also aware of the neighbors that were objecting also when they came to that recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you finished,Mr.Shapiro? MR. SHAPIRO: Yeah,I am finished. My understanding is there's some neighbors that are right across the way that were also going to testify for the petitioner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me tell you what the procedure is„because I don't think you've been here before. After you finish your presentation,the Planning Commission will ask questions if they have any. Then from there we'll go to the staff report. After the staff report and staff make verbal recommendations over parts of their report,we ask questions of them. When they finish,we go to public speakers. MR.SHAPIRO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: After public speakers,you'll have an opportunity for a 10-mute rebuttal, and then we go into discussion and decision on our part,or recommendation on our part. So that will be the process we'll go through. And since you're finished,and before we . ,to Planning Commission questions, there are a few things I think I'd like you to answer and clear up so the Planning Commission gets the benefit of those answers before any questions are asked. MR. SHAPIRO: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said the code was exactly what it was when they built this 2.5, two-and-a-half years ago. What did you mean by that? MR. SHAPIRO: Well and,again,I don't know when the time limit was,but-- CHAIRMAN STRMN: Time limit--what do you mean by"time limit"? MR. SHAPIRO: When I say two-and-a-half years,I don't know if that's the exact time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Probably in terms of closer to a decade or two. This height issue has been in the code very,very early on. The a> . �a is it's very obscure in our code to find it,and it only seems to be applicable to Vanderbilt Beach. , .1"ically oar code says Isle of Capri and Marco Island don't have to have this kind o� ;' §x.*, They bio seven feet,which yours then would have been fine if you were on Isles of Caprior Marco Island Also-- IR. SHAPIRO: So Imisspoke out the two-and-a-half feet. I just was kind of making that up as an example. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,you can't make things up. We've got to deal with the code in fact. And if you're t:#.i g to reference something of the code and it also involves the staff error,we've definitely got to weigh in on that and understand'it. You had said that the setbacks were erroneously given to your client. Have you got something that says for your client to design to those setbacks? MR. SHAPIRO:,I believe there is. The builder is here,and he could probably better answer that than I could. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,that will be helpful.If he's here,then we'll--see,you ought to call him as someone--a witness on your behalf to begin with before we go to the staff report. So if he's here, we're defmitely going to--we'll ask questions of him after the Planning Commission gets finished with you. MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those couple things,though,are important as to how this happened,the time frame. The code has not changed. The code is just obscure and hard to read in this particular issue,I'll grant you that. It certainly isn't clear. And as far as the staff goes,yes,a staff member certainly made an error in approving this the way it Page 6 of 46 January 19,2017 came through. But I don't know if that was a result of the staff telling you to do it that way or your design professionals decided to do it that way,and that will be something we'll find out shortly. With those clarifications,and before I get into any more of my questions,I'll turn to the Planning Commission for any questions they may have to start with. Anybody? Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Just,those shots you took,those were taken with a drone,I assume? MR. SHAPIRO: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'm glad you did that. It showed it very well. I looked at Google Earth 3D. And from what I could tell on Google Earth 3D,I couldn't see where there was a tremendous difference from this to the other,the older to the new,but those shots showed it pretty good. I was going to ask--you probably don't know.I guess a lot of my other questions are going to be to staff. MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have several questions regarding the process,but I'm going to defer and wait to talk to Mr.Reischl,because I need to--but the question I do have for you,Marc,did you--or do you have in your documents--typically when you go in for a building permit,the first thing they do is lay out the site plan,and then on that site plan,the reviewer in the Building Department,is my recollection,would initial off each of the setback requirements and put their initials on--actually right on the document. Do you--is that the procedure now? And I'm going back six,seven years back in--but typically they would--you'd go in,on the building--the building envelope that is allowable for a building would be shown on the site drawing of the--and then all of the setbacks would be checked off to ensure that the setbacks are in compliance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The permits for this prnisen proare on my desk. I pulled them yesterday afternoon.That document is there. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Is there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's been four permits: One demo,one pool,the main permit for the house,and the dock permit that was reissued,because it was started,then stopped,and then reissued again. And there's some discrepancies between the permits,but the setbacks and everything were acknowledged by staff as being okay and issued.tit way. And I've agtaallyactually got the building permit with me. I didn't know how much the applicant would have brought in case there were questions,but the permit itself was issued at 10 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIMITT: You don't have that document that shows the setbacks being approved? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's in the file that's on my desk. I did not bring it with me to the meeting. I assumed the applicant would have brought all of that,but-- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm surprised that that's not part of the application or the applicant would have had that to present to us today. My second question and I'm going to defer to Fred because I want to clearly understand the--again,I've got the MUNI code here. I'm trying to read the MUNI code,because I looked at this before. But in this part I recall nine, 10 years ago,that's what drove the change in the code,if you went up a certain height,and I seem to think it was four feet;is that correct? MR. SHAPIRO: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You go four feet,you have to have a 20-foot setback. If your pool height is less than 4 feet,you only need a 10-foot setback;is that essentially the-- MR. SHAPIRO: That's exactly correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,we can--I'll give Fred the code. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah,let's review that,because I want to make sure that--and I had thought at one time that actually in the LDC there was a diagram that showed that. I guess that's no longer in Page 7 of 46 January 19,2017 the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,but a former administrator by the name of Joe Schmitt actually did a diagram a few years back,and it's in the staff clarification section of our notes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I did,yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fred,if you go here--go to the reference in the table first,and that's--once we get this seen,maybe it will help some of the questions that you-all have. MR. SHAPIRO: But,Mr.Schmitt,my understanding is exactly as you described. And I think their--rather than four feet,they're 6.57. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fred,that--I'm not sure that's the right one. Those were non-waterfront. Go to the next table. MR.REISCHL: Oh. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You're going to have to pan out a little bit on that,Fred. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I'll show you--the footnotes are on a separate page. Go to the next table. It's the second or third sheet. And if you look down where it says No.4--you have to pan out a little bit--this is for waterfront lots along the Gulf of--and No.4 says,swimming.pools and screen enclosure single-family,one-family,and now two-family;rear, 10 feet,and then the little Footnote 3. Now,Footnote 3 is the catchall on this. If you could show Footnote 3,Fred;down the third page,I think. MR.REISCHL: Very small. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,it says 20 feet where swimming pool decks exceed four feet in height above the top of seawall or top of bank except Marco Island and isle of Capri,which may construct to a maximum of seven feet above the seawall with a maximum of four feet of stem wall exposure with a rear setback of 10 feet. So--and Marco,by the way,is no longer part of Collier County. So I pulled Marco's LDC,and they have mimicked this language in their current standards:; So the seven foot applies to Marco and Isles of Capri,but only four foot of concrete exposure,which means it's got to be clad or a buffer with vegetation or sodded. MR.REISCHL: Sodded. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any way you'd like. Put if they're at less than 20 feet,they can't go higher. It's got to be four feet so that a variance is not for the s« ,ck as much as it is for the height to be at that setback. I hope that helped clarify became this was not easy one to follow for that language. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: and so the current height as shown,is that correct what we have-- $ A' =RO: I think tlx county measured at 6.57. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SHMITT; Okay. That's the current height,then. Okay. I thought it was four-point something. Okay. 6.57. All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. Anybody else have any questions of the applicant? COMMISSIONER SSIONER SCHMITT: Marc,you stated that there were four inspections. Those inspections were not specifically looking for setbacks. There are several inspections throughout the building process. MR. SHAPIRO: Correct. And we're not specifically looking for setbacks,that is correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And I want to make sure that's clear on the record,because if an inspector goes out and does an electrical,he or she's doing electrical inspections,not a setback-- MR.SHAPIRO: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: --verification. MR. SHAPIRO: And I'm talking about--and the builder could better explain this,because I'm getting my information from the builder and relaying it to you. But I think there are four inspections on the pool. So at no time was it ever said during any of those inspections that,hey,your setbacks aren't correct. I guess the point is is that now that it's already there,it would be a very--economic hardship to take it all down. It would come at a considerable cost is,I guess,what I'm trying to say. Page 8 of 46 January 19,2017 And,you know,maybe--and this is up to you.But you were saying that the Marco Island code said you could have a certain height as long as there was a buffer there,and maybe that's a compromise,to put a little hedge in front of the stem wall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Generally what happens is when we run into these situations,the applicant will come prepared with the documentation to basically make their case in regards to how this occurred. And I know you don't--you haven't got any permit applications or anything with you,do you? MR. SHAPIRO: I don't have the permit applications with me,no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have reviewed them,and I didn't bring them because they're our county's copies,but I didn't know you wouldn't be bringing them as well; otherwise,I would have brought them to help clarify some of the things you've asked,Joe. Some of the things you've said I wanted to get some clarification on. You said there were 43 people who didn't call or sign--or necessarily sign in favor. Did someone--and that was an assumption they weren't objecting to it then? MR. SHAPIRO: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you physically or did your client,or do you have something documented that says you actually went to these 43 homes and spoke to those people? Do you have a survey or something where you-- MR. SHAPIRO: No. What I do have--and I thought you already had that,but I have a--I actually have a copy of a letter that was signed by--and then there's signatures,and then next to it is the residence that they live at. MR.REISCHL: That's included in your packet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. How many people are on that signature page? MR. SHAPIRO: Eight. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. His number was 43,and I'm trying to understand-- MR. SHAPIRO: The 43 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN; --how valid that is. MR. SHAPIRO: --because I think that's then +9 9 er of residents on both sides of the street.And what I was told by my client is that the objector that's here today pretty much knocked on everybody's door. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You have a couple times mentioned the view down the canal,and at the end of the canal wasn't obstructed any more by what your client has built versus what may already exist there. The view corridors that we consider for these kind of things usually are in line with riparian lines. And that may be an avenue that you may want to look at in reference to view in the future. But down the canal and out the end isn't really something that's considered as directly behind their home. They have riparian rights on both sides of their house,property lines,and that's generally what we take a look at in these kind of matters. MR. SHAPIRO: If I could show you an answer(sic)that might help answer that question. So these little yellow tabs,and I'm not how sure-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,we can see them. MR. SHAPIRO: You can see them. But those are the people that I believe that are objecting to the variance. And that was taken by Google Earth,so at the time the structure was not up so,unfortunately,I don't have a picture with the structure up,but this vacant lot right here is where the structure was built. So heading this way,that is the open water view heading-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You have a vacant lot? It's not the one with the trees. It's the one two off--yeah,right under the W of Tradewinds. MR. SHAPIRO: Oh,yes,you're correct.That's--yeah. So that's the house in question,and then this is the location of the people that are objecting. So I guess what I'm saying is,it's hard to see how their view would be affected. And if it is affected, it would be very minorly. I mean,we're talking about 2.57 feet. And,actually,when you--if you look straight across the canal,the boat sticks up higher than the elevation of the pool. So you actually can't even see the pool wall because of the boat that's in front of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. A couple other issues. You mentioned,or I thought you stated,that Page 9 of 46 January 19,2017 if this pool was moved back six feet,you could have had it at the height they're at. That's not true. To stay at that height you'd have to be 20 feet back,and you're only 10.15 feet back.Then if you take into consideration your stairwell,you're only 6.5 feet back. So you'd have to be considerably further back. The issue of being forward or backward is not as much of an issue as the height of the deck of the pool. That's the six feet that we're trying to--six-and-a-half feet or so we're trying to deal with. The property is perfectly in line with others.When you made that statement,do you know if the others are above four feet since they're in line with an alignment that could only be allowed if they were at or below four feet? MR. SHAPIRO: Some are and some aren't. Some are below four feet. There are some that are above that--again,probably more than 10 years old when the--before the code changed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,the code is actually older than that. But if there are some above that height and they're in that alignment,it would have certainly been helpfulto possibly have looked up those building permits and see what height they're at and maybe would help your argument. But I didn't know if you had that information. I'm double-checking to make sure I don't have any other questions. Oh,I noticed in your photos you didn't show the existing construction with the stairwell. The stairwell is part of the setback alignment. Did you have one with the stairwell? MR.SHAPIRO: Yes. I'll show you a couple,; CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There you go. MR. SHAPIRO: That would be the stairwell right there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the variance request for the setback is because the stairwell exceeds the allowed protrusion if it was at four feet for the pool deck,for example,to go into a setback. Stairwells do have some allowance to--when you go into ase but I believe it's only three feet,and this one's three-and-a-half feet? MR.REISCHL: Three feet is the allowable protrusion,and this one is three-and-a-half. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if thone had six incheses ls of the protrusion of the stairwell and the setback was allowed at 10 feet,the stair wouldn't be an issue. So I wanted to point that out because it is part of the discussion today,and I noticed the closer photograph you had didn't show the angle from the stairwell. And,by the way,I don't know if staff caught this,that stair is facing a different direction than the stair that was approved on the buildiermit. ,And if the builder's here,maybe he can answer that question, too. COMMISSIONER SCHMiTT: Can you back that out a little bit so I can get a full picture of the-- W.SHAPIRO: Yes. I actually have another one that has a more full view. If you'd like to look at that, { may be better. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And just for clarification,it was my understanding that the need to build the-pool height at the elevation that was built at. Two--one is to meet the base flood elevation for the home,and moat residents want to walk out from their residence onto the pool deck rather than walk down the stairs to the pool, Could the pool have beta built--could it have been designed and built at a lower height than what it was built at? Which twins you would have left the house and walked downstairs to another elevation,a lower elevation for the pod. MR.SHAPIRO: So the answer to your question is,I believe so. Now,the builder could better answer that. So it's not whether it could have,because I believe that it could have. I mean,it could have been built at a 4-foot instead of a 6--instead of a 6.57-foot. But the issue is now it's been done,and to kind of un-ring that bell comes at a significant cost. So I don't think it's a matter of could it have been in compliance. I think that if we were to honestly answer that,yes,it could have been built in compliance,but since it hasn't,it's just what is the cost of bringing it into compliance.And I think that's a pretty heavy cost compared to the impact. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Understand. Fred,can you put that other picture up that shows the overhead? I wanted to--again,that's--can Page 10 of 46 January 19,2017 you center the house actually into the picture. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKJ: Zoom out a little. MR.REISCHL: Zoom out. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. There. I want to get a picture of the whole thing. Okay. Yeah. That's exactly what I thought. You're coming out from the house onto basically a lanai deck, and then the pool is at the same height. MR.REISCHL: It's just a few inches. The house is--the base flood elevation was 10,and it's nine-point something. It's a little--a few inches less. So you'd step one step down onto the pool deck. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you ask your builder,if he's here,if the builder could come up. We do have questions since we understand he's here. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Is that the builder or the person who designed the house as well? MR. SHAPIRO: Both. I think both. MR.JENKS: I didn't design the house. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll need to say that on the record after you identify yourself. MR.JENKS: Jason Jenks. I was the contractor who built the house. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you did not design the house,was your response to that? MR.JENKS: I did not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Was that the question? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah,that was the question. I wanted to-- COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Did you sub out the work for the pool,or were you actually building the pool as well? MR.JENKS: We subbed out the work for the pool. COMMISSIONER DEA. ORN: The 0.1 'pally who's doing the pool? MR.JENKS: Mack Pools. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mack Pools,okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The information about how this 10-foot,at the height that this deck came about,your--the attorney had indicated that the staff provided you and told you to build it,to design it to that distance;is that true? MR.JENKS: The staff.:- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: County staff? MR.JENKS: Well,the pool was built by the time we submitted for the variance. So we submitted a set of plans,they were approved,and we started to build. Of course,first thing we built was the pool because of the lot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who--when the pool was put down on a set of plans,did you do that,or did you have an architect do that or somebody else? MR.JENKS: A designer did it. I didn't do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Where did the designer get his information from to determine the setback for that pool? MR.JENKS: I think he made some calls to the county. I don't have that information. I don't work with the designer. He's somebody that designs houses. I was sent the plans. I sent them to an engineer. I have an engineer. I submitted it for a building permit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You do--that's what most GCs would do,so I'm not surprised at that.I'm trying to find out--actually,in your--not your defense,but your client's defense,on how this error occurred. It appears--up until your attorney made the statement he made,it appeared that the applicant,which is your designer or your client,drew the plans up and submitted them to the county,the county reviewed them,and the county erroneously approved them without notifying the client that there was an error in the setback. Page 11 of 46 January 19,2017 I think the error probably was on the plan. I think the error's on both part of the applicant as well as the part of county for not catching it.And the county missed it numerous times. I've got the plans. It wasn't vague. It was clear. It was clear where it was. Your structural drawings show how that stair was also--the width of the stair was clear. I mean,anybody that reads plans would have been able to figure this out. I can't--I certainly can't say the staff is not to blame in part of this. They certainly are. And I think the issue is that whoever set this up in the site plan trying to determine what the initial setbacks were either went to the wrong table or missed the footnote on the second table,kind of as we started out here today. There's two tables,and one is for waterfront,one is for non-waterfront. But one has a little Subscript 3,and the other doesn't. And if you're from another part of the county,you wouldn't be surprised at six-and-a-half feet in height because I bet you could go up to seven. So there's a lot of little things that came into play on this one. It's certainly understandable that some errors were made. I just think we need to find a solution today. In regards to how you were going to finish off this concrete wall now that's there,has anybody looked at opportunities to,say,take away/distract from that wall by cladding it,by putting in shrubbery,by doing embankments or anything like that? MR.JENKS: Those were all options,and it would definitely be some landscaping on the backside of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you-all haven't brought anything,though,to propose today? MR.JENKS: We did not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The height of the seawall, You were the GC;the pool contractor was subbed to you. Orick Marine,I believe,did the deck. Was he contracted through you or directly to the owner? MR.JENKS: Through the owner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you work-with him at all in coordinating things? MR.JENKS: I did not;not the seawall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: oto..Do you kr ow--is he here today;does anybody know? MR.JENKS: Hes not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. He certified the seawall to be done according to the plans. I see--I found the certification. The plans call fora 4.2.deck height,top height on the seawall cap. The plans that all this variance request is fronds a 3 2 ?, _ 1 tam now--that's a 1-foot difference. It's significant when you look at the difference you have in what you're ; + to seek as a solution to your whole operation. 1,114 rotj Bering, es anybody know if that seawall is actually elevated to the 4.2 that the certification seems to iiinte? MR.JENKS: It should show its the survey that we turned in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN,-Well,it does. It shows 3.2,but I've got a building plan that says it will be capped at 4.2,and I have a certification from the ins aller that says that's right. So I'm confused by the height of the cap. MR.JENKS: I don't know the answer to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The stair. Did you submit a change to the plans to have the stair turned in that direction you've got here? MR.JENKS: We did not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean,it's a minor issue. It's still the same distance out,but I just happened to notice it was twisted in a different way. MR.JENKS: It was just easier access to the dock. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,actually,it's better for the neighbors,too. It actually makes people using the stairs going in and out a different direction. So from that perspective,it doesn't harm anything. I was just curious if it got cleared through another permit application. That may have had some indication to the setbacks;may have looked at them again. That's all. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Page 12 of 46 f January 19,2017 COMMISSIONER EBERT: Have you built in Collier County before? MR.JENKS: This was the first house I ever submitted for for a full construction. We've done lot of remodels and additions in Collier County. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. So you,as a contractor,are familiar with our codes then? MR.JENKS: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. MR.JENKS: But not the code that has the height on the seawall. This wasn't done intentionally. COMMISSIONER EBERT: No,we all kind of understand that,but-- MR.JENKS: Right. COMMISSIONER EBERT: --one other thing. I'm reading through this,is that a lot of this was found last October. Is there a CO on this property yet? MR.JENKS: There is not. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So the people have not moved into the home? MR.JENKS: They have not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This started with a complaint that started with Contractor Licensing,and I think in April of 2016,then it was followed up with a slab survey in May of 2016. I think that's when everything was kind of unfolded from that point forward. But it wasn't necessarily Code Enforcement initiated,as some of this information shows. It was Contractor Licensing that initiated it,the call. It came into Contractor Licensing from a neighbor across the way,apparently. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So it does go back quite a ways then? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,April of last year;a little bit less than a year ago. They've been trying to work and get it resolved since then. It started with my office,and then it had to get continued to here. MR.JENKS: We've continued to work on the house,but we haven't touched anything on the pool or the pool deck since we were notified of the issue. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. So the pool deck is-- MR.JENKS: It's exactly like it was when we were told it was not in compliance. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of the gentleman? COMMISSIO SCHMITT:;Yes. On thaticture shown that you have on the visualizer,the deck that is--and this is a general question that probably the applicant,anybody,can answer. But the deck height that is in the house on the bottom of the picture,is that boat deck higher in elevation than the existing deck that was built? MR.JENKS: The deck weconstructed is higher than that deck. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It is? Because this one--that deck to the south appears to go over the seawall,and it's all one structure all the way up to the pool. I'm looking at,is that--was that the intent for this existing-- MR,.,JENKS: It looks like their dock comes over the-- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's it,the dock. MR.JENKS: --ground is what it is,and they just built the dock and went all the way back to that seawall or to their pool retaining.wall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SHAPIRO: Mr. Strain,I just wanted to clarify one thing. When I made the comment that--I guess,that the permitting erroneously gave them the wrong setbacks,so I personally have no idea.I actually read that from the staff report,so that's where I got that information from. That's what they state in their staff report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other witnesses that you want to call,or you done with your Page 13 of 46 January 19,2017 presentation? MR. SHAPIRO: We are done with the presentation. There--as you said,the only other people would be neighbors,but I believe they go later. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They'll be coming up later,yes. Okay. Thank you very much,both of you.Appreciate it. Fred,do you have a staff report? MR.REISCHL: Thank you,Mr.Chairman. Fred Reischl with Planning and Zoning. You've read the staff report,and staff is recommending approval with the condition. You know normally that variances run with the land. In this case,we're recommending that if there--if the structure is destroyed more than 50 percent of assessed value,that it would have to meet current setbacks. So we're modifying it so--because this is based on a financial hardship,we figure that financial hardship would go away if the house was destroyed;therefore,they'd have to meet current setbacks. It would not run with the land. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any questions of the staff? I think,Joe,you had one earlier. Did you still? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No. I'll just hold off until we have general discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Fred,on the--oh, Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: When we have that general discussion,are we going to be allowed to ask them questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. We won't close the public hearing until that's over. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As far as your understanding of how this originated,do you know if,in fact, staff,at the period in which an applicant may have asked for design features of this location,this lot,was given--was the applicant given information to say he could use a 10-foot setback,or is that just something that seems to be not verified? MR.REISCHL: I don't know the answer to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. At this point the only thing I can find is it was submitted erroneously,then reviewed erroneously,and then a permit was issued erroneously. That's the best I can-- MR.REISCHL: That was my understanding,too,but I don't know for sure if someone directed them to do it at 10 or not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead,Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Fred,you said this is a financial hardship. I would not blame the owners of this home on this at all,but the--being it is--that the pool was stopped so long ago and nothing has been done,I would think that it would be their responsibility and not the owner's responsibility as far as financial;is that correct? • MR.REISCHL: That's a legal question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was going to say... COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well,I mean,we always use money,you know,in this stuff. And I was just--like I say,I don't feel that it should be up to the owner. But were these people--were they told you can proceed at your own risk? MR.REISCHL: That's our standard answer is that,yes,you can proceed at your own risk pending the outcome of the--in this case was the Hearing Examiner and now the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. When were they told that they could proceed at their own risk? How far back? Was this April/May when all this happened? MR.REISCHL: The Building Department would have done that. I don't know. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I want to clarify. I mean,that's-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was going to go there,too. Go ahead,Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I think it's sort of disingenuous to say they're proceeding at their Page 14 of 46 January 19,2017 own risk. It's a procedural process. When you come in and submit for a permit application,the applicant submits,submits the plans and drawings,they're reviewed by staff,and they're approved by staff. So the applicant proceeds based on the understanding that what they submitted meets in compliance with all the requirements. I don't know if that's the proceed-at-risk issue. It is a review and approval. MR.REISCHL: Well,it would be a risk that the variance would be approved versus-- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well,wait a minute.No,I'm going back prior to when the house was first submitted. When the application first goes in,the applicant goes in,the plans are reviewed,the setbacks are reviewed,the setbacks are approved,and the applicant hires a builder,and they build a house based on what the county approved. I don't know if there's a case of sovereign immunity. I guess that's an issue from the county.Could the county be held responsible? I'm not going to go down there,but that's not an issue.The issue here is there's a variance,and--I mean,in general terms,I've got to tell you what,my days in the county,this is more post-traumatic stress than my year in Afghanistan,I've got to tell you. I went through several of these in my tenure as the county--or the administrator for Community Development. And it's a case of applications coming in,the amount of applications coming in and the stress to approve--review and approve,and there was an error made,basically. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: They were givena permit that says 10 feet. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: How much of the house was built when this was found? MR.REISCHL: I was not the original planner on this. One of my coworkers was. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: The contractor would probably know that better than you would. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was going to ask the contractor to come back up. No,you have to come to the microphone,and maybe we've got a couple more questions for you. Before we do,there was something I wanted to mention in line with what you were saying. The reviewer on this,by the way,was a fellow we had hired recently from Marco Island,and it wouldn't surprise me if,based on his knowledge of Marco Island,Marco Is would have allowed this to go to seven feet, that might have also contributed to the etror that happen,' Sir,if you could answer-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: How much of the house was built when the problem was found? MR.JENKS: The rear retaining wall was in place,the pool shell was in place,the slab was in place, and I think we had just poured the tie beam,and we may;have started framing by then. I don't have the exact-- OMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. Because there was a comment you made earlier that you did the pool first. I could understand that,because you couldn't build a pool with the house in the way-- MR.JENKS: Correct, COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: --unless you built it from the waterway,which is practically impossible-- MR.JENKS: Correct. COMMISSIONER CZANOWSKI: --which is one of the problem you're going to have if you have to take it out. You've got to take it out from water side,which is practically impossible. You've got to move the dock,you've got to move the boat. So I could see,even if you told them that,hey,the pool was in the wrong place,you know,they might as well not stop because there's nothing they can do. The house is already in the way. MR.JENKS: That's true. That's true. We didn't do anything to make it any harder to remove this pool or,you know-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. But once the house is up to the tie beam,you're not going to get back here to do anything with the pool. MR.JENKS: Correct. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Not easily. MR.JENKS: Not easily. Page 15 of 46 January 19,2017 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Well,you can do anything you want if you've got enough money.Okay. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got a question,a follow-up. MR.JENKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You anchored the pool,not with piling,with tie grade beams is what you--that's the only thing holding the pool down? MR.JENKS: Pilings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,you've got piling as well. MR.JENKS: And footers,yeah. It's sitting on pilings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now,there was a cost put in the report that said it would be about $50,000 to remove that pool and then,of course,it would have to be redone,then all the debris would have to be removed. I know it's not finished,but I would think the 50,000 is certainly a number that's probably realistic in looking at the condition it's in today just to get that concrete taken out and hauled away,if not more. So to answer--Diane seemed to think you stopped construction and,if you did,maybe your value to replace the pool wouldn't be as great. I think the 50,000 is probably conservative in cost-wise to clean this up if it had to be. MR.JENKS: It probably is. And it wouldn't--nothing changed back there. You know,if it was--we continued with the house at our own risk. We still have to get all the stuff back around the front of the house,so we didn't change anything of tearing the pool out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you very much. MR.JENKS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you have anything? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that,we will go to--we'll start with registered speakers. As your name is called,please come up to one of the microphones,identify yourself for the record,and if your name is hard to spell,just please spell it for the court reporter so we don't get it mixed up. MR.REISCHL: The first speaker is Edward Tappen followed by George Marks. MR.TAPPEN: My name is Edward Tappen. I spell my name T-a-p-p-e-n. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR.TAPPEN: Was there anything else? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,sir,that's fine. We're off to a good start. MR.TAPPEN: For the last year I've been an advocate for having Collier County establish common municipal golf courses. Collier-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This--sir,are you here to talk about the golf course? MR.TAPPEN: Yes,I am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is not that one. MR.TAPPEN: Pardon me? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're not talking about that right now. It's coming up in about-- MR.REISCHL: That's the next item. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the next item. This is about a pool variance,swimming pool variance. MR.TAPPEN: Okay. Sony. I thought my name was called. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No problem. Save his card for later. MR.REISCHL: There was no item listed on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,I'm sorry. It was a mix-up on our part. MR.TAPPEN: Will I be back soon? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I hope so. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: We hope. MR.REISCHL: And I know I called Mr.Marks next,but his attorney,Patrick Neale,requested to go before Mr.Marks. Page 16 of 46 January 19,2017 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR.REISCHL: Patrick Neale followed by George Marks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And,by the way,for those of you who have not attended our meetings before,speakers are limited to three minutes unless waived. We generally don't enforce that as long as the information you're providing is not redundant and it's not repetitive. So we're here to listen to you. Just be conscious of everybody's time,please. Thank you. MR.NEALE: Good morning,ladies and gentlemen. Patrick Neale,N-e-a-1-e,for Mr. and Mrs. Marks who are in opposition to this variance. What I'd like to bring the Board's attention to is--the Commission's attention to is more the legal issues that revolve around this. As you're probably aware,there are,you know,eight criteria that are involved in the granting of a variance. A variance is not something that's to be taken lightly. There's a great deal of case law out there on variances,and I'm not about to bore anybody with doing what I have to do all day,which is read case law,so I'm not going to do that. But what I'd like to bring to the Board's attention is a case called Indialantic versus Nance,which really sets out the primary issues as to a zoning variance. And the prerequisite to a granting of the variance is the presence of an exceptionally unique hardship to the individual landowner,unique to that parcel and not shared by other property owners in the area. There's nothing unique about this situation for the landowner. The landowner simply went in,had a design professional who did not know what they were doing,frankly. They came in and submitted a plan that was in error based on the evidence of record at this point,and then proceeded to build based on that. Now,yes,they did rely on the county's assertions,but in my experience in dealing with county permits--and I've been here for a while--typicallythe permit says that it's the responsibility of the landowner and their design professionals to meet the code. It's not the responsibility of the county to make sure the design professionals did their jobs properly. So we'll go through--and I'm going to very briefl :.go through the eight different criteria--any special conditions and circumstances particularly 1; location,size,and characteristics of the structure. And in this case there are none. These are essentially lots it t are all pretty much the same within a development wherein the Land Development Code sets out what the standards are for this kind of construction. And we've heard ad nauseam what the standards are,as it's a--it's a 20-foot setback here. And this is a significant deviation from that. It's a 50 percent deviation from the setback,and it's about a 60 percent deviation from the height. So it's a very significant deviation. Ani 'ial ci cumstanceS do not result from the action of the applicant. Every problem here results from the actions of the applicant. The applicant is the one who made the error in submitting the application. Yes,the county may have messed up,mkt and they occasionally do that,but in this case,still it's the applicant who had--who made the erroneous application. Will a literal interpretation of the provisions work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant? I say that this is not unnecessary undue hardship because they're the one that made the mistake in the first place. Will the variance,if granted,be the minimum variance to make possible a responsible use of the land,building,or structure? The minimum use of this is to build a house,and they're going to be able to build a house;they're just not going to be able to put their pool as close to the water as they want it to be. Will it confer on the applicant any special privilege that's denied by these zoning regulations? Well, yes,it does. What it does is allow this person to build their pool where no one else can build it under the same set of circumstances. So,yes,they are getting a special privilege. Is it going to be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the LDC and not injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to public welfare? Well,it's not in harmony with the LDC;that's clear. And I will get testimony here later that will state that it's injurious to the neighborhood. Natural conditions or physically induced conditions? No,there's no natural conditions or physically induced conditions. This was a bare lot in a subdivision. Will it be consistent with the Growth Management Plan? Well,yes,it is. I will admit to that;so it is Page 17 of 46 January 19,2017 consistent with the Growth Management Plan. So,therefore,I mean,I believe and I would argue that this doesn't meet any of the criteria for the granting of a variance and that the variance should be denied. And so that is all I have to say. Thank you very much. Any questions,please? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Patrick,do you have-- Pat,I've got a couple. MR.NEALE: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The Atlantic(sic)case that you cited is a 1982 case? MR.NEALE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I did notice you didn't provide it as backup. And did you do any research to verify that the variance criteria language in there--in that case in 1982 was identical to the variance language--let me finish first. One at a time. MR.NEALE: Sony. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That way it's identical language that we have in today's code. Because in 1982,we didn't even have--our GMP wasn't even enacted yet. So we had--that was an 82-2 code in Collier County. Have you done any of that research? MR.NEALE: Yes,I did;I did. And I went through and,what we call,Shepardized the case and checked future cases and,basically,they all mirror the same language. And,actually,our code very closely mirrors the language that's set out in Indialantic and other cases that are subsequent in its progeny,so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You didn't bring any of that with you? MR.NEALE: I didn't. I wasn't going to make full-blown legal argument here because-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,we definitely would have appreciated you doing that. MR.NEALE: I can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said it's not in harmony. How come it is in harmony in the community that I believe you actually lived at on Marco Island? How come it's in harmony in Isle of Capri? How come that height would have been in harmony elsewhere in the county but,uniquely at Vanderbilt Beach,it's not in harmony? MR.NEALE: Well,as you know,legislative decisions are made. This is--obviously,that would be a legislative decision setting out the code as opposed to a quasi-judicial decision. And legislatures can make decisions such as that based on the character of that particular community. So the legislature as it was,the County Commission,or those--Marco City Council made those decisions at that point in time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I can ask staff this,but I think you probably have the same answer. This Board's responsibility is to review consistent to the Land Development Code;is that not true? MR.NEALE: Yes,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker,please. MR.REISCHL: Next speaker is George Marks,followed by David Galloway. MR.MARKS: Good morning,everyone. My name is George Marks. I live at 319 Lagoon Avenue in Naples. And I am a licensed architect,and I am here for a reason that I think is important to the entire community of Vanderbilt Beach. What has--I,quite frankly,myself and the other neighbors,we feel badly for the people that are trying--the applicants here that are building this property. They hired a designer,they hired a builder,they hired everybody to build this for them,and their house has been built. And,quite frankly,we think they're building a nice house. The problem becomes the issue of the pool,and the problem becomes not just the--not just the issue of the fact of the way this exists now,but the precedent it sets going forward. We don't believe there's a hardship here. We all know that you can't create your own hardship.I've sat on your side of the table. I understand the legal on--Mr.Neale has already addressed that,and I'm not going to repeat that. But the key issue that Mr.Shapiro stated was that all of his pictures were taken from aerial views. It Page 18 of 46 r January 19, 2017 did not show the actual height of the pool. I can use the--your projector there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We need to have something kept. You can't--you'll need to send that to--can you send that to staff-- MR.MARKS: I will email it to Mr.Reischl as soon as we're done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR.MARKS: Okay. If you--can you--does that work okay? Can everybody kind of see that? So if you look at the pool over here that is on the right-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not on,sir. MR.MARKS: Thank you. If you look at the pool that's set over here on the right,this pool is six-and-a-half feet above the seawall. I'm rounding,of course. This is the property directly adjacent to it,and you can see that in that case the pool is significantly within the zoning. If you look at the property to the other side--so on both sides of this property you can see the pool over here on the adjacent property,that is also within the guidelines,and significantly lower than the height of the pool that is being provided here. We're here trying to be practical,and we're here to understand that this is a difficult situation,but we believe that when the county enacted their zoning law,there are pools that exist that are higher--at the higher level,but in good planning--we moved to Collier County because you've done such a great job with planning. All that we're asking you for is to enforce the actual zoning laws that you put in place. You lowered the height of the pool,and you gave them the option of building—if you're greater than a 20-foot setback, you have to be lower. If you're set back,you can be higher. Why is that? It's for visual corridor. What we don't want to have happen and the main reason I'm here is that we do not want this variance to be granted and then the next person that's further away from the gulf says,well,now I do have a hardship because you allowed that pool to stay in exact,not being within code,and then this becomes a cancer that spreads throughout the entire Vanderbilt community. We are just asking you to enforce the laws,that you have. We understand the burden. I'm not going to use the word"hardship"because that's a legal term that we do not believe applies here. To not be unreasonable,we as the neighbors 14. are objecting and asking that this be held,we understand that all the dimensional variance has already been talked about. This is 60 percent higher. It's 60 percent closer to the canal than it should be. Our concern is that the visual corridor,Mr. ,that you spoke about,becomes narrowed.And if you allow thia tato Iacross to whole length of the canal,that visual corridor is diminished. This is not a property on the gulf or on a wide canal. If you allow this to happen,it narrows that visual corridor as much as 20 feet for that entire corridor for a corridor that's not that wide to begin with. That's the reason we're here. That's the reason we're spending our dollars in hiring Mr.Neale,and that's the reason we're making(sic)our time to be here tonight. Our suggestion to make a compromise solution to this--and you asked Mr. Shapiro if he came with a compromise. You asked him if he had a solution. We're here to offer a solution. Our suggestion is that the fact that they are even--they're even violating their own 10-foot setback requirement by three and a half feet. Our suggestion is,leave the layout where it is but lower the height. If you look at this photograph, you can see how it is grossly higher than the properties that are adjacent to it. And our--you can see it in that picture very clearly. Our--we're not trying to be unreasonable.We're offering a reasonable solution that says,lower the pool to the required height setback,because we believe that is the bigger issue than the setback. The setback, the steps being six inches wider,we're not here to object to that. We're hoping to have the variance defeated.If we have to,and we have to go to the commissioners and that is--and this variance is granted,we are prepared,because of the importance of this issue by not creating a precedent to appeal at a higher level,we would much rather be reasonable people and have a reasonable solution today that takes care of this issue. Thank you. Page 19 of 46 January 19,2017 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Could I ask you a question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? MR.MARKS: Please do. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: The house--as I understand it,that white house,the floor is built to FEMA elevation? MR.REISCHL: Correct. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: How come it looks so much higher than the other two? Are they not? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know. I don't think he could answer that. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Well,if you took the pool out,you'd still be looking at a white face of the wall of the house because it's built to FEMA elevation. You wouldn't see anything different from this view that I'm looking at if you took the entire pool out. So it would still look the same as--you know,higher than the houses on both sides. MR.MARKS: This view is not the objection.The objection is when you're on the adjacent properties and you're looking out the canal,the fact that pool is sirand-a-half feet above. If it was at the four-feet requirement,you would still be able to see and have a visual--not as detrimentally impact the visual barter(sic). COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. So this view,even though you showed it,doesn't really mean anything? MR.MARKS: We did not wish to violate the neiors'rights and walk on their property to take these pictures. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOW : And the neighbors have no problem with this? MR.MARKS: I'm not--the neighbors--= - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We haven't heard all the testimony. MR.MARKS: We heard that objection=on the 43 versuseight. I'm not here to exaggerate any issues. COMMISSIONER C ZZANOWSKI: Okay. Fm just--I wag just curious what the objection was with that view. It will look like that when they take dee pool out. MR.MARKS: I'm using that view to just show the gross difference in the heights. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. Thanks. MR MARKS: Thank...you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: But that's due to FEMA. MARK :T,That's net the issue in play here.The issue in play here is the pool,not the height of the bui COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. .MARKS: We have no objections to the height of the building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead,Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I want to go along the same lines. Mr.Marks,is it? MR.MARKS: Yes,sir. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just,again,for the record,you're showing a comparison to the height.But you do not have any information on when that house that you're showing now,the brown house, which,as I look at it,to the--from the back,to the left,you don't have any information on when that was built or what the base flood elevation requirements were for that--on that house when it was constructed; likewise,the house on the right? There's been significant changes--and you know this,you're an architect--in the flood elevation requirements,as Stan alluded to,the base flood elevation,and mandated by the flood zone. And,regardless, you made a statement about reducing the height. They can only reduce the height of the pool,not the house. MR.MARKS: Absolutely. We have no objection to the height of the house. The purpose of this variance is only the pool,and we're keeping our comments just to the pool. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. So but the house--clearly,the house that you're showing here to the left of the home that's in question,as I look at it from the back,the base flood elevation is clearly a Page 20 of 46 January 19,2017 different elevation than what was now required. MR.MARKS: I am not in a position to answer that one way or the other,sir. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. You brought up the comparison. I'm pointing out the difference. MR.MARKS: Understood. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have a question,a couple questions. First is the County Attorney's Office in regards to the--now,this setting a precedent. Could one of the county attorneys opine on whether this does or not? MR.KLATZKOW: Does it set a precedent? No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr.Marks,are you licensed in the state of Florida as an architect? MR.MARKS: My firm does work here. I am personally not licensed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the state of Florida? MR.MARKS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you licensed at all? MR.MARKS: I am,yes,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What state? MR.MARKS: Pennsylvania. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You indicated that they could leave the pool but lower the height. As an architect,I don't know if you do structural engineering or designing as well. Do you do just architect or do you do structural included in your firm? MR.MARKS: I have a BS in structural engineering. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you know that this is built with grade beams and piling? MR.MARKS: Ido. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How would youexpect them in to lower the pool? MR.MARKS: They would have to remove the pool. They'd have to cut off the top of the piles,they have to remove the grade beams. I understand the implications. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just want the audience to understand and the people on this panel to understand it. Thank you. You indicated that--the concern about the view corridor going up and down east and west of that canal. First of all,you live opposite the water from this unit-down a little bit about--over a hundred feet away;is that correct? The canal's a hundred feet assumption. MR,:MARKS: I am twoproperties down across the canal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Your concern is up and down the canal and you feel--I thought you stated that if this went to four feet,as required by the code,and they left it that location,they could actually build the cage like the house you have on the left here. How would a 4-foot-high pool with a cage like that change the view perception when we're only talking two-and-a-half feet overall? So what--how do you see that happening when you could still put the same structures on top of the deck and have the same view corridor that you've got with or without the two-and-a-half feet? MR.MARKS: You can see through a cage. It's a little tough to see through concrete. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So up and down that canal people would be seeing through these cages to get views of the waterway? MR.MARKS: If that is what is permitted by code,I support it. I'm only asking that the county enforce the zoning code as they have presented it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. That's all I've got. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question. Is the seawall at the same level for these properties? Is the seawall all even? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. If you look at this map,this is an example of what I was trying to get the applicant to have responded to earlier. That seawall they put in,according to the certified building permits,it's one foot higher than the seawall to the left. This actually shows that.And I'm assuming that you are not any more familiar with this than I am in that regard. Page 21 of 46 • January 19,2017 MR.MARKS: I would look at the picture same as you saw it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That one foot I'm not sure was taken into consideration when this whole variance height part of it came into play because the surveys I'm showing called out the old height of the seawall,not the new height that was certified to,which changes the deviation of a foot. So instead of 50 or 60 percent off,we're a little bit--we're another foot,which will take it down substantially. I'm just not sure how anybody measured this or where the measurement came from. MR.MARKS: I would believe some verification would be there,because if the--if the actual deck is six-and-a-half feet above that seawall,the condition's actually worse. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But according to the information supplied,it's six-and-a-half feet above 3.2. That's the old height,not the new height. And that's the best I can tell you from the documents I've read,so... MR.MARKS: I'm not in a position to-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would have been to the benefit of tbeapplicant to have researched that.I wish they had. I don't have any other questions. Thank you,sir. MR.MARKS: Thank you,everyone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker,Fred. MR.REISCHL: Next speaker is David Galloway followed by Nancy Burns. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way,we will take a break at I0:30. MR.GALLOWAY: David Galloway,resident of the Vanderbilt Beach residents area. And,you know,we listen to these A ,• .many times. I have to applaud the Planning Commission.I know there's a lot of research done on your pas,treally appreciate it as just an average citizen out in Collier County. I feel for the true applicants,the owner thero p perty because its not their fault even though they hired the contractor,the architects,and whatever,and I feelfor them this issue. I somewhat feel for the architects,butthey didn't` their homework.They didn't do it properly. And even if it WaS a new employee or newer employee that was--new issues from Marco Island, they obviously didn't kndor Collier County,so I think that the Collier County has a true problem here as us as the government. I think possibly that when we -, a.hardship variances based on financial,it's--we should not be making other people's problems ourproblems;, 1 say that in all respect,because we've all been through this. I thi�.� ...people that°rake really some fees here are the attorneys. If you look,both sides have attorneys.=;mid it's unfortunate they to spend the money on their attorneys. It's unfortunate on both sides, I come here free gratis, ay time,batit's also an issue that I think we have to--we have great zoning, and code ordinances in Collier County over the years have been developed very strongly,and I support those; I follow them as they've been developed and the people that do--the commissioners that do enact them. But we have to do this equally and fairly across all lines. And it's a slippery slope when we start granting variances just based(*.financial hardship even though it's 50,000,25,000,or 100,000. But also the county should be responsible for some of this also and not just saying,well,everybody made a mistake. Let's just let it go away,becausi't`s not fair to the other citizens that live in that community also. So I speak only as a concerned citizen that weatto constantly,in the Collier County,enforce the ordinances and the code equally across the board so that there's--we don't have these kind of long,drawn-out Planning Commission meetings where everybody gets involved in these. And I think that--overall,I think this could be remedied,but it's an issue that's going to come up again,as we know,someplace in the county,whether it's Marco Island or whether it's here,and northern Collier County,but it's an issue that has to be addressed,and we have to get the personnel that are going to be reviewing this and looking at these things so it doesn't come to this point again. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. We have time for one more speaker. Page 22 of 46 January 19,2017 MR.REISCHL: Nancy Burns. MR. SHAPIRO: We have a speaker that has to leave at 10:30. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir,we're--okay. Yeah.You're not supposed to be doing that. Thank you. MS.BURNS: Nancy Burns,and I'm a resident of Vanderbilt Beach,Gulf Shore Drive. Anyway,I do support the Planning Board,and I do believe that the county has an obligation to validate our issues and also support the codes. I really feel for the people. I'm sorry that it's happened for them,but I do feel code should be enforced. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. That was quicker than I thought. We have one speaker, apparently,who has to leave at 10:30. On that basis,we'll try to accommodate them if they'd like to come up to the microphone. Identify yourself for the record. MR.JORGENSON: Thank you for doing that. I appreciate it. My name is Jerry Jorgenson. I live at 367 Lagoon Avenue. I've been there for 11 years. I have to disagree with Mr.Marks fantastically about the views. With all the trees,palm trees, everything that we have,you can't see up and down the canals anyway. I live right across the street from this property. I looked at a garbage home for 10 years.I had to call inspectors out to get it cleaned up because there was renters there at one time,and the lady was very nice enough to get it taken care of for me. I'm going to tell you something; I drive those canals all the time,and there's a lot of these high things out there,some prior to the codes,some changed. And,by the way,that wall you're talking about,all the new ones go in now,and you're probably aware,that they are a foot higher now. So whenever you put in a new seawall,it has to go up one foot higher than the old seawalls,so we have seawalls going up and down,up and down until people build,so it really looks kind of ugly,to tell you the truth. It would be nice if we could all have our seawalls the same height. So there's a lot of issues that occur when you're building. In this case,I live directly across the street. I'm very leased to see the house the way it is. I don't see it being an eyesore in any way,shape,or form,.=I'm sorry that the county made a mistake. If they wouldn't have,we wouldn't be stan51 here today. And maybe the builder made a mistake. The problem is,is what--your point you made,regarding the cage or someone's point regarding the cage,that is exactly comet. It doesn't--if you go down our canal,we have some of the ugliest structures that you want to see. I do rather(sic)try to fight to get these things taken down like I did a lot of huts that used to be on the thing.They were falling apart during t iurrics,and they finally took them down. The county come out and said,they're not in compliance;takettern5 own. And-then these grass hut things. But on our canal on his side that he looks at,he looks at a lot worse thing than that,I can tell you. We have double-deck wooden structures. They were built,you know,back in the day when you could do that,okay,and they were ugly as heck;painted,peeling,ugly-looking decks. There's one guy who keeps his up nice. The other one,he's got a big tent on top of it. I mean,you're talking about--as you're going out of the canal,we're talking about a beautiful home that's going to have a beautiful--they have every intentions of putting shrubberies and stuff in there. And I don't care what he says;you can't see up and down regardless. I could stand on that side of the canal and sit at Marge and Rich's house on their patio,okay--I go over there and visit them a lot--and we can look right down the canal,and you know,it doesn't obstruct anything. All of our homes,our views,even my home which was built a long time ago--I walk out to my pool from ground level because we were built before the codes changed. And I didn't build it;somebody else did. And when we sit up in our home--we live up in the upper level of our home--we see everything because we have a northern view,you know,looking--and it's--we're so happy this is going up that I'm ecstatic. We have a lot of old homes still in our area,and they keep going down. And as you go out the canal--I don't know,Mr.Marks'house,whoever,he's got a big pool wall with a sand thing next to it. It's,in my opinion,very unattractive to look at. Not his wall but,you know--it's just fme.It's the way it is. And he's allowed to do that,and that's fine. We don't have an issue with it.I don't know him very well,and that's his business what he wants to do. Page 23 of 46 • r. a January 19,2017 But in my opinion,you do have--do follow codes. I'm a car dealer. I've built dealerships.We go for variances all the time. You have to go for variances sometimes in life to make things easier and simpler to deal with. If you didn't have variances,what would we have to go back and even--let's just say they wanted a variance before they built because they needed to do it in this particular way because of room--they don't have much room--there's not much property there,so you have to kind of utilize it the best you can. And I'm going to tell you what;it's real nice looking across the street and seeing a beautiful home with a nice wall. And this gentleman Stan,he had a terrific point. I'd rather look at that pool wall than have that pool way down here. Now I'm looking at them trying to build steps to get down to the pool wall,and you're still looking at a wall. And I'm right across the street,literally. And the boat blocks the view anyway,but I like looking at boats,because I have one,too. So thank you for the time. I really appreciate it. And I hope you take under consideration that there's a lot of us there that have no objection to this. I mean,I talked to some of my neighbors;they're not here to speak for themselves,but they said,sure,we don't have a problem with this. I mean,what does it matter? I mean,I agree with rules and stuff,but this one fell through the cracks,and that's why you have variances. And I thank you guys and--for your time and efforts and the time you guys put into your jobs. Thank you so much for letting me speak early.Appreciate it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,sir. Now,with that,we will take a break until 1045,and then when we get back,we'll resume with public speakers and then after,the rest of our agenda. Thank you. (A brief recess was had.) MR.BOSI: Chair,you have a live mike.. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If everybody will please resume their seats. We left off with public testimony. We're going to resume with public testimony,and Fred will be calling the next speaker. MR.REISCHL: Steve Emens,followby John Prestwood. MR.EMENS: I'm Steve Emens,331 Lagoon Ave. I ain the person who called in April because I noticed that going up. The main reason w' I calledilknow the cede. And at that time,before--they had the slab down, before they built the ceiling,construction(sic)this,I wanted to give them the opportunity,because I knew it was going to cost them*Jot of money at the end if they didn't get a variance or if they did not get it approved. That's why I called at that time. I couldn't believe that it gotssed because youthave your architect that has to do the site plan and the surveye‘ytitirffit4nontractto has to submit plans with elevations on it,so that's another permit where the elevati e34rf.Agit missed b ":`` the b4 4 permit. So the seawall guy submitted his and,yes,that seawall is up one foot,and the elevation of the deck,I measured t,is six foot from the new seawall. So that's where that stands. Andd watched everybody come out and survey the whole property in April. And then nothing happened. 1 ..44.4 g happened. SO now they're applying for a variance after the house is already built. Okay. We're so far aloinow,we can't do it. It cost too much money. The homeowner's not at fault,I understand.They depended upon a licensed architect;they depended upon a survey that should have been signed and sealed;they depended upon the pool contractor that should have had signed and sealed plans because it has engineering. You can't submit any plans without signed and sealed. You have to have your elevations on it. Now,those professionals are insured professionals,and they should know the codes in Collier County. The house is beautiful,okay. Nothing wrong with that. It's a great-looking house. The view's good. It's just that it's not to code. It got passed. I don't know what reason. I've seen things happen a lot of time where--well,I don't know the case,so I'm not going to speculate on it--where somebody said,hey,oh,can't you just do this for me? Sure we can. And then they build it,and then it's too late,without going back, resubmitting plans. I don't know that. But I do know across the street there's a new house under construction about the same stage they are. Page 24 of 46 4 e1 January 19,2017 They're putting their trusses on right now.The house is 20-foot setback. The pool is a 10-foot setback,and it's 10-foot,and they have their stairs coming down. And in reference to FEMA code,I know that swimming pools and auxiliary setbacks do not have to be at that FEMA height. They can be below FEMA height. But you can build anywhere in Vanderbilt at grade without a height requirement for that pool to be FEMA. It's the pool equipment,electronics,and the main house structure. And that's my understanding. So that's-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You said you called. Who did you call? MR.EMENS: I called Code Enforcement first.I didn't know whether it was a building or a code violation. That's where I noticed it was-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A slip came in from Joseph Norris,who is a code compliance for the Contractor Licensing. That's the memo in the file that says you called them. It's got your cell number 860 something or other? MR.EMENS: Yeah,8070. Yeah. I called him.He goes,oh,no,I'm going to forward that on to whomever. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,the only record,the only report is for code licensing. I found under--Code Enforcement didn't get involved at that point. So your call into licensing isn't-- MR.EMENS: Well,yeah,because they turned it right over to that. They said,oh,you're calling the wrong people here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,he went out and took pictures and photographs of the site. So he actually did some of the followup. MR.EMENS: Right,and that's where it all started back then. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And there's pictures that show what stage it was at when this call was made? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. We can put them on the overhead if you'd like. This is basically--it's a similar stage to what you've already got. MR.EMENS: Yeah. I knew it was going to be trouble. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's seven or so pictures. That's one of them. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And what stage was it at? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: About what it is today.They have a--I think-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So the house was there? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR.EMENS: Not in April it wasn't all there.They poured the slab,and they were putting up-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr.Norris went out and took these pictures after--in response to the call. So I didn't--I mean,I haven't got one of the house. That's a picture of what you just about saw. MR. EMENS: Right. The pool was there because they built it before the house went up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR.EMENS: But then when I saw that,it was out--I went over,I measured it. I--and I'm thinking,okay,you going to do your final survey at the end,and now-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What did you measure it with? Did you use a-- MR.EMENS: Tape measure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tape measure? MR.EMENS: Yeah,yeah. I hooked it on the-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now,you're the complainant,and you went on the property that you filed a complaint against to show that they were in error.Did you get their permission to go on their property? MR.EMENS: No,I did not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's kind of odd.I don't know--I've never heard anybody doing that before. MR.EMENS: Well,no,I just walked around and-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Trespassed. Page 25 of 46 January 19, 2017 MR.EMENS: I just saw it,and I wasn't sure,okay,so I measured it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have some--I noticed in looking at your name--and I didn't have your last name;I had your phone number. When I plugged the phone number in to Google,it came up--you had some YouTubes done,and I guess you do pool work for Nassau Pools. MR.EMENS: I build swimming pools,and that's how I knew the code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'm still curious what stage the house was at,because the information I got before was that the house was partially up when this happened,and he's saying the house was not up at all. MR.EMENS: Well,the walls were up,but it was clear access. You could come straight through the front over the slab right to get to the pool at that time. There was no--nothing inside. It was open. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we can let this one go for now. That's more if the applicant wants to deal with the trespass;that's not our issue. Thank you,sir. MR.EMENS: Yeah. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker,please. MR.REISCHL: John Prestwood followed by Ronald Rossbach. MR.PRESTWOOD: John Prestwood,P-r-e-s-t-w-o-o-d. I'm a neighbor also on Lagoon.And I just wanted to support Mr.Marks'and Mr.Emens'comments and those from Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association that I'm concerned with the code,again,not being enforced. And I realize the more I hear here, it's a very complex situation in terms of the number of errors or perhaps the number of missteps that have been made along the way. I'm in insurance by trade;retired now. I also wondered about the liability that someone else will probably need to determine in this regard,depending upon how you rule,but there is errors and omissions insurance also with respect to the professionals all mentioned here: Architects,builders,engineers,and so forth. I don't know about the county. I wouldn't surmise on that. But it seems like there's a lot of missteps that have been made. So I would encourage you to enforce the code.If there's something that can be done to accommodate things,fine. As far as materiality,$50,000,maybe that's for you to decide. We're talking about multi-million-dollar homes here in this neighborhood. Fifty thousand dollars on a house in Golden Gate might be a lot different than$50,000 in Vanderbilt Beach. That's all I have to say. I support the--Mr.Marks',Mr.Emens'comments,and I appreciate your work. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,sir. Next speaker? MR.REISCHL: The next speaker,Ronald Rossbach followed by Margaret Rossbach. MR.ROSSBACH: Hi. I'm Ronald Rossbach. I live at 355 Lagoon,just opposite the canal,in the canal where the house is. I just want to know let you know we have no objections. As a matter of fact,we felt that the whole situation there,the building and the boat and everything,just enhances our view of the canal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,sir. MR.REISCHL: The fmal registered speaker is Margaret Rossbach. MS.ROSSBACH: My name is Margaret Rossbach.I am Ronald's wife. I live at 355 Lagoon Avenue,and I'm directly across from house in question. And before that,we have been--we built our house in 1980. We've been here over 30 years,and we love it here. This is paradise. And from a woman's point of view,this is so gorgeous that it just enhances the neighborhood,and I don't understand why--or I won't understand if this is not going to be approved because it's just all positive. Before that,then there was a house that it was a duplex. It was much older than our house.I'm sure Jerry,if he was here,he would say I'm one of the houses that he doesn't like,but I love my home,and it's Page 26 of 46 January 19,2017 going to be there until I kick the bucket. And I'm 86 years,going to be 87. So they're going to have to wait a while,because they take such good care of you here in Naples that sometimes you live to be 90 something. So this is not the first time I'm going to come here to beg you to just let this go on and let us all be happy. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,ma'am. Next speaker? MR.REISCHL: That was your final registered speaker. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you put something on the overhead. I need to clarify one item. It's Page 10 of the staff report,which is the black-and-white survey. You don't Imre the staff report? MR.REISCHL: On my computer,electronically. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys. We need to have printers in this oom,I can tell. Diane,can I borrow yours? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I've got scribbles on mine. MR.REISCHL: I was trying to keep up with the chairman on being electronic on this one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,you've got to get an Apple then. Sorry. MR.EASTMAN: The advantages of paper. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Actually,that's not the one--it doesn't show enough. The actual survey is the few pages back from that,Joe. Keep going.It's this one here. MR.REISCHL: Oh,the resolution. It's attached to the resolution,I believe. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. That's it. If you could let him borrow that,Patrick,that would be great;thank you. Okay. What I wanted to point out on here--and,actually,you need to zoom in a little bit on the part by the waterway. Right there. Notice on the lower right-hand corner it says,set drill hole on top of concrete seawall,and NAVD elevation,3.32. That's the same elevation that the olawall was at based on the permit application. Permit application said to cap it,add one footi it so it would be 4.2,and it also was certified to that. Now,if you'll look over on the left,second note up,it says,per contractor,pool patio stem wall is at 9.9. Now,if you take 9.9,subtract the 3.2,you get your 6.6,which is the issue in question today.What I'm suggesting is it's not 9.9,and then the 3.2 is now 4.2,so the real difference is 5.6;5.6 is 18 inches over the four feet Una, And I guess I've got a questionto staff. At that 18 inches,would someone measure from the cap of the seawall,or they'd have to go next door and measure from the old seawall to determine the height that's supposed to be used for this deck? MR REISCHL: Correct. This is the survey that was submitted. I spoke to Mr.Jones,one of the attorneys involved,I asked that,and this is what was resubmitted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not the question. MR.BOSI: The question: The new seawall,the seawall constructed at this property would be the benchmark for where that elevation would start. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I'm getting at. Now,we've heard testimony that probably--I can't--I have to question how it was obtained,that it was measured by the tape measure to be closer to six--well,five-and-a-half feet or whatever. I would suggest we maybe have an 18-inch discrepancy here instead of a 24-inch. But it's just something to consider as we go through this,and maybe the applicant, by the time they get to the Board of County Commissioners,will have that resolved. I would highly recommend to them that,rather than wait any longer,they do it right away. With that,I don't have any more questions at this time,but we do have an opportunity for the applicant-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Page 27 of 46 January 19,2017 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: While you're on that survey,I'm fascinated,upper left-hand corner,in the center line of Tradewinds Avenue,there's a NAVD nail(sic)and a couple in elevation 2.8,and I thought every road in Collier County was at five minimum. So I--you know,that just fascinates me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. This is the time when the applicant's representative or the applicant themselves,someone,you have an opportunity to make a rebuttal if you want to do so. I either need to have you acknowledge you don't have a rebuttal or you'd like to utilize the time. MR. SHAPIRO: Sure. Do you mind if I use this? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Go right ahead. MR. SHAPIRO: I will be very brief,because I think a lot of the points were,I guess,well brought out and hit on. I would just like to bring out,and I think that the counsel here already has,is that this doesn't set any legal precedent as,of course,I believe most of you know,and I think that's what a lot of the objectors had issue with is that,you know,maybe this would set a precedent down the line. But as you know,under case law,these are done on an individual basis,so the ruling today doesn't set any precedent for future,and hopefully this problem won't happen again. Again,going by the staff report,I think,you know,there's enough blame to go around. You know,I am not saying that the petitioner's people,you know,maybe they should have done things more thoroughly, maybe the county should have reviewed it more thoroily,but we have what we have here today,and we have a very unique circumstance because the permit was-issued relying on the wrong setbacks,and because we have what we have here today,we can just make decisions going forward,and I just feel that the economic hardships of having to tear all that out and put a new pool in over somewhere between 18 inches and two-and-a-half feet would just be a verylar'ge hardship compared to the negligible impact that this has. So with that,I thank you for your consideration. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay. When we had some discussion earlier,I think few of you indicated you had other questions you wanted to ask before we go--before we close the public hearing,so now is the time to do that. I can't remember-- COMMISSIONER CHMITT:, y questions are answered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everyy else? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'm all - COMMISSIONER SCHMI'["T:', ;-+'berate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ctkay. Then we willvlose the public hearing,and we will entertain discussio 1.0 i ire or motion,if there's discussion. Does anybody have any discussion items they want to bring Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMI'I : And folks in the audience,I was the community development admini _'? sr from 2010 to 20.0oorrection,2001 to 2009. So during that tenure,of course,I was responsible for all the znaing in the county as as all the review and the building department,zoning department,and other departitiMts under that organization,which there's been some changes since. But I left in 2009. So I have a clear un. _+ending of the process. And the oil ason I bring up my background,because this is not the first variance in this area. I could tell you that because we've had similar situations in the past where,because of the code,there is confusion or there still continues to be confusion which,frankly,when I received the packet,I was--as I said,it brought back some tough times in that department. But that said,it is an unfortunate circumstance. The design professional's responsible. The homeowner hires design professionals who are licensed, and they're responsible,and I clearly understand that. As an engineer I understand that. The issue at hand,though,is this is an area for redevelopment. It is the original Naples Park.It's been an issue for probably 30 years in the county as this area redeveloped,and these--all these lots redeveloped primarily because of the location,not as much as Naples Park has,but all these lots are--were teardowns and rebuilds. The issue in this area,Vanderbilt Beach,was a continual problem when I was in the county seven years ago,as it is,I guess,right now,because we're faced with the same situation of,clearly, 10 pounds of Page 28 of 46 January 19, 2017 flour in a 5-pound sack,because that's--most of these homes are maximizing the building envelope that's allowed. I do think it's an unfortunate circumstance but,however,from the standpoint of the variance,as far as I'm concerned,the house exists,the pool exists,and I'm ready to make a motion,if the--but I'll hold off until we make some further discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm glad you said flour. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I did. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: The military term is blivet,b-l-i-v-e-t. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody else have any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have one item I'd like to discuss. Mike or Fred,would you put what I just handed you on the overhead. You need to back off a little bit. Keep going. Keep going. Right there. So we can read the whole thing. Section 9.04.03 is our criteria for variances.You've heard today that there are eight criteria;there are. And we've had legal counsel advise us from the opposition side to address their position on those eight criteria. Also,a case was referred to us,an old case from a 1982 activity. But we here--as that attorney, even the opposition attorney and as staff has opined today,we're here to adhere to the Land Development Code. The Land Development Code says this in the beginning of the criteria for variances: "Findings: Before any variance shall be recommended for approval to the Board of the Zoning Appeals,the Planning Commission shall consider and be guided by the following standards in making a determination." So while we've heard that they're hard and fast rules,you've got to show a hardship,it can't be this kind of hardship,maybe so,but at the same time we shall consider those and be guided by them.That means it's not mandatory. And,Mike,if you read this differently as Zoning Director,please let me know. But it's my understanding that it means what it says,that we're not bound by those eight items,but they are for consideration. MR.BOSI: My understanding would be--the interpretation that you've adopted would be my understanding;that these are the guidelines and with that emphasis upon the guidelines. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And with that in mind,I have--I've listened to everything,and I've certainly tried to do all the research I can to understand how this happened. I can't see the benefit to force someone to tear down a home such as this. There's been no shown malicious intent in this. It was an--it was a human error. It was a mistake made by multiple parties. To take them to task for this for the cost that it would require for an item that does not set a precedent I don't think is necessary. Now,if we can show they purposely had misled the county,this was done intentionally,I'd say then whatever they deserve they deserve in regards to correcting it. But I have looked at all the records. I have looked at them probably more thoroughly than anybody in this room,and I can assure you nothing like that came out of any of those records. And they're records that this panel doesn't even have access to. They're in the county records department. I've pulled all the folders. There's nothing there that shows malicious intent. In fact,if anything,they were trying to continually keep up with things they needed to to make sure their approvals were consistent and reviewed by the county. So I certainly think that the variance is warranted in this case,whether the variance is 24--two-and-a-half feet--yeah,two-and-a-half feet or 18 inches. Either way,it really doesn't matter. The pool's there,and it should be approved. The only thing I would suggest is that a stipulation be added to do make sure that the intent of where these are allowed at this height,which is everywhere else,basically,but Vanderbilt Beach,that the decorative cladding or landscaping and a berm or a combination thereof of some nature is there,is put in front or applied to this wall to soften it,as the other jurisdictions would have --where they had done so in other parts of the county. Page 29 of 46 January 19,2017 And with that,that's all I've got to say.And if there's nobody else here,we'll close the public hearing and we'll entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I make a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will that motion be subject to the stipulation for the-- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Subject to the stipulations as discussed. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. MR.REISCHL: And the staffs stipulation,too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Staff stipulation as well noting that,subject to the 50 percent rule, that anything constructed thereafter would have to require compliance with the existing code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion's been made to recommend approval for the variance subject to staffs recommendation and the one stipulation we just discussed. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. Thank you,all,for attending this morning.We appreciate it. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark,could I ask something? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes., ., COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I was very impressed by the drone photos,and I would think that--seriously,I don't know why the county doesn't do that on a lot of these projects. And I don't know what it takes to legally do drone photos or buy drones,but it seems like,you know,we're the county;we ought to have that kind of photography coining to these meetings instead of the petitioner. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: It's a great idea.The challenge is the FAA. I can tell you,as a realtor,they're really cracking down. There's a lot more criteria as to where and when you can fly.I've got to be honest,I don't know with that drone shot--and I'm not trying to open up a can of worms here,I've been told lathe past those drones aren't allowed to fly over Vanderbilt Beach either or over that area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would have to--I'd have to agree. The last thing I'd-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: A can of worms? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --like to see is the government having the power of drones. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Stay away from that. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No trespassing and no drones. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: We work with Luddites. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,Stan. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Stan,stay with Google Earth. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ***Okay. That takes us into the next item,the only item remaining on today's agenda. It's the review of the Land Development Code for both the preservation,I believe,open space and conservation of golf course areas,and this will be a presentation made by staff,Caroline Cilek. It will be our second or third time around for some of these,and not the final. MS.CILEK: Correct. Good morning. Caroline Cilek,for the record. I would like to go through the amendment that has the most individuals here for public comment first,if that's okay with-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know what that is,or do you want me to ask? Page 30 of 46 111111111111111111111.11111111111. -Section Building Permit or Land Alteration Permit. 1. Building or land alteration permitand certificate of occupancy compliance process. a. Zoning action on building or land alteration permits.The County Manager or his designee shall be responsible for determining whether applications for building or land alteration permits, as required by the Collier County Building code or this Code are in accord with the requirements of this Code, and no building or land alteration permitshall be issued without written approval that plans submitted conform to applicable zoning regulations, and other land development regulations. For purposes of this section a land alteration permit shall mean any written authorization to alter land and for which a building perm/tmay not be required. Examples include but are not limited to clearing and excavation permits, site development plan approvals, agricultural clearing permits, and blasting permits. No building or structure shall be erected, moved, added to, altered, utilized or allowed to exist and/or no land alteration shall be permitted without first obtaining the authorization of the required permit(s), inspections and certificate(s) of occupancy as required by the Collier County Building Code or this Code and no building or land alteration permit application shall be approved by the County Manager or his designee for the erection, moving, addition to, or alteration of any building, structure, or land except in conformity with the provisions of this Code unless he shall receive a written order from the Board of Zoning Appeals in the form of an administrative review of the interpretation, or variances as provided by this Code, or unless he shall receive a written order from a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction. b. Application for building or land alteration permit.All applications for building or land alteration permits shall, in addition to containing the information required by the building official, be accompanied by all required plans and drawings drawn to scale, showing the actual shape and dimensions of the lot to be built upon; the sizes and locations on the lot of buildings already existing, if any;the size and location on the lot of the building or buildings to be erected, altered or allowed to exist; the existing use of each building or buildings or parts thereof; the number of families the building is designed to accommodate; the location and number of required off-street parking and off-street loading spaces; approximate location of trees protected by county regulations; changes in grade, including details of berms; and such other information with regard to the lot and existing/proposed structures as provided for the enforcement of this Land development Code. In the case of application for a building or land alteration permiton property adjacent to the Gulf of Mexico, a survey, certified by a land surveyor or an engineer licensed in the State of Florida, and not older than 30 days shall be submitted. If there is a storm event or active erosion on a specific parcel of land for which a building or land alteration permit is requested, which the County Manager or his designee determines may effect the density or other use relationship of the property, a more recent survey may be required. Where ownership or property lines are in doubt,the County Manager or his designee may require the submission of a survey, certified by a land surveyor or engineer licensed in the State of Florida. Property stakes shall be in place at the commencement of construction. c. Construction and use to be as provided in applications;1111111.11111111. ®Building or land alteration permits or certificates of occupancy issued on the basis of plans and specifications approved by the County Manager or his designee authorize only the use, arrangement, and construction set forth in such approved plans and applications, and no other use, arrangement, or construction. Building use arrangement, or construction different from that authorized shall be deemed a violation of this Land Development Code. Statements made by the applicant on the building or land alteration 4 permitapplication shall be deemed official statements :+prova oftlie applic:`= . in no wa y. exempt the applicant from strict observance of applicable provisions. this Land Development Code and all other applicable regulations, ordinances, codes, and laws. ii. A building or land alteration permit issued in error shall not confer any rights or privileges to the applicant to proceed to or continue with construction, and the county shall have the power to revoke such permit until said error is corrected. d. Adequate public facilities required. No building or land alteration permit or certificate of occupancy shall be issued except in accordance with the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, Ord. No. 90-24(chapters 3, 6 and 10 of this Code) and Rule 9J-5.0055, F.A.C. • l 1 EXHIBIT "D" Section of FLORDIA BUILDING CODE — Relevant to Errors in plans submitted From the Florida Building Code 2014 6. All public swimming pools and public bathing places defined by and regulated under Chapter 514, Florida Statutes. [A] 105.3.2 Time limitation of application. An application for a permit for any proposed work shall be deemed to have been abandoned 180 days after the date of filing, unless such application has been pursued in good faith or a permit has been issued; except that the building official is authorized to grant one or more extensions of time for additional periods not exceeding 90 days each. The extension shall be requested in writing and justifiable cause demonstrated. 105.3.3 An enforcing authority may not issue a building permit for any building construction, erection, alteration, modification, repair or addition unless the permit either includes on its face or there is attached to the permit the following statement: ",i . , permit, there may be additional AMR applicable to this property that may be found in the public records of this county, and there may be additional permits required from other governmental entities such as water management districts, state agencies, or federal agencies.' 105.3.4 A building permit for a single-family residential dwelling must be issued within 30 working days of application therefor unless unusual circumstances require a longer time for processing the application or unless the permit application fails to satisfy the Florida Building Code or the enforcing agency's laws or ordinances. 105.3.5 Identification of minimum premium policy. Except as otherwise provided in Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, Workers' Compensation, every employer shall, as a condition to receiving a building permit, show proof that it has secured compensation for its employees as provided in Sections 440.10 and 440.38, Florida Statutes. 105.4.1 Permit intent. A permit issued shall be construed to be a license to proceed with the work and not as authority to violate, cancel, alter or set aside any of the provisions of the technical codes, nor shall issuance of a construction or violations of this code. Every permit issued shall become invalid unless the work authorized by such permit is commenced within six months after its issuance, or if the work authorized by such permit is suspended or abandoned for a period of six months after the time the work is commenced. [A] 105.6 Denial or revocation. Whenever a permit required under this section is denied or revoked because the plan, or the construction, erection, alteration, modification, repair, or demolition of a building, is found by the local enforcing agency to be not in compliance with the Florida Building Code, the local enforcing agency shall identify the specific plan or project features that do not comply with the applicable codes, identify the specific code chapters and sections upon which the finding is based, and provide this • LI information to the permit applicant. If the local building code administrator or inspector finds that the plans are not in compliance with the Florida Building Code, the local building code administrator or inspector shall identify the specific plan features that do not comply with the applicable codes, identify the specific code chapters and sections upon which the finding is based, and provide this information to the local enforcing agency. The local enforcing agency shall provide this information to the permit applicant. Exhibit "E" Resolution from the Vanderbilt Beach Residents Assoc. in support of denying this variance request { Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association (VERA} 111. PO Box 771330 Naples, FL 34107 www.vbra.org Vanderbiltbeach54(a,yahoo.com Resolution The Board of Directors of the Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association, Inc., passed the following Resolution at its regularly schedule meeting on February 9, 2017: The Board ofDirectors of the Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association, Inc. hereby fully endorses and supports the Collier County Building and Land Development Codes, and expects that the Collier County Commissioners and staffwill enforce the various provisions of the Building and Land Development Codes. The Board ofDirectors of the Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association, Inc.further cautions the Collier County Board ofCounty Commissioners and staffto bejudicious in their use ofAdministrative Variances in their administration of the Building and Land Development Codes, instead giving preference to the formal Public Notice procedures to keep their proceedings in the public's eye. Resolved by the unanimous vote of the Board of Directors of the Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association, Inc., on February 9, 2017. Kathleen R. Robbins, Secretary Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association, Inc. BCC Meeting: February 28, 2017 Agenda Item #8A - Petition : VA-PL20160001 181 Located at: 324 Trade Winds Ave. Presented by: Patrick Neale Collier County Commissioners Meeting February 28, 2017 1:00 iiiih Zoning Variance Hearing 342 Trdewinds Ave. a ten i 1 i 0 s 2 h.� 2 2 2 2 -� Presentation of George Marks in opposition to the gr2 anting of a zoning variance for 342 Tradewinds Ave. 2 2 Collier County Commissioners Zoning Hearing Presentation George Marks — 319 Lagoon Ave, Vanderbilt Beach, Naples, FL February 28, 2017 @ 1:00 PM (Time certain) I would like to thank the Commissioners for the opportunity to Present our concerns I am here in opposition to the request for a Zoning Variance from the Collier County Land Development Code. Originally, I was in opposition to the variance because I did not understand why FIRST the County Staff,then Second,the Planning Commission would recommend granting this variance without the conditions of a legal hardship being met. As you know, a hardship is a legal standard that an applicant is required to meet in order to be granted a variance. I have worked closely with Mr Neale and he will present in more detail why the conditions of a legal hardship have not been met. I am going to focus on WHY the PC Hearing transcribed Testimony as well as the Planning and Building Staff Recommendations REPORT that are a basis of your consideration are inaccurate and misinformed. At the PC, Mr. Strain asked the County Attorney if the granting of this variance would set a precedent and the County Attorney answered "NO". That is a standard Attorney answer on the basis that no two properties are ever exactly the same. I offer a portion of the transcript as Exhibit"B" (to avoid boring you with the entire transcript) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have a question, a couple questions. First is the County Attorney's Office in regards to the--now, this setting a precedent. Could one of the county attorneys opine on whether this does or not? MR.KLATZKOW: Does it set a precedent? No. However, Mr.Shapiro just spent 20 minutes showing you pictures of an existing pool (That existed PRIOR to the current zoning and is an EXCELLENT example of why the zoning was changed) so while the County Solicitor will say that a variance will not be set, I think we saw today that in practicality,that is not always true as it was the ONLY basis for Mr. Shapiro's argument. The photo below is a picture of the pool that Mr. Shapiro used as a basis of his argument for the granting of the variance. This pool is+/-6'-0"" above the seawall and +/- 12'-0"from the edge of the seawall. The variance is asking for a variance to 6.36 feet (2.36 ft above the seawall) and 10.17 feet from the Seawall when 20'-0" is required. This is a 59%variance in height and 49%variance in depth from the seawall. This is NOT a diminimus variance. I present this photo looking WEST(down the canal) for your consideration. This photo is of the pool that Mr. Shapiro used as a basis of his argument. This photo was taken +/- 15'-0" from the edge of the seawall from the easterly property line and you can clearly see how the view is diminished or blocked. It would be total blocked at 20'0". t Off" w -a it a I present the following photo looking EAST of the same pool. This photo was taken +/-20-0" from the edge of the seawall from the westerly property line and you can clearly see how the view is diminished or blocked. 20'-0" is the distance from the seawall required by the Zoning code for a pool deck exceeding 4'-0" above the seawall. I am standing on the adjacent patio, in compliance with the LDC. • f CLEARLY—the County planners had a strong reason for creating the zoning ordinance that they did which limited the height of a pool relative to the seawall and the distance from it. The REASON was to PRESERVE the view corridor for ALL property owners and the granting of this variance be in direct opposition to the County's Zoning laws and detrimental to the overall neighborhood. I have prepared a few diagrams illustrating the following: 1. The setbacks and dimensions that are required by the zoning code 2. The setbacks that are in place for the pool that Mr.Shapiro is using as a basis for his request 3. The setbacks that exist for the pool at 342 Tradewinds on which is the basis of this hearing Please see the attached sketch illustrating the dimensions of the matter at hand today. As you can see, not enforcing zoning laws can create disturbing results if not administered firmly and fairly. ,.� Granting this variance would significantly violate the intent of the zoning code and have a NEGATIVE impact on adjacent property values. e-. Collier County LDC requirements • The current Pool height is 6.36feet above the seawall. &Ala This is what is allowed if the pool is 4'-0" above the seawall /////:e/ept :// amg II V c'o 'CPC L 9644Am! C41,0 SLC coat- A 4 1.0" )M'?-I- pp.!)L- U c -. If a POOL is less than 20'-0"from the Seawall it must be less than 4`-0"above the top of the seawall This is what currently exists 601-415,3-r- mot - AE1CIWV 1S Ar lo,aro' A( rE -T+i _ ` r r i - g�NGI s � w co - - �`�. 4 .0 STAN h ♦� Pr Sir'04 -7At_L... `e" ,J ci�,t3 Nicrr c5vErt.„-- `tom 12C-CP t?►f The STAFF report Let me now focus on the STAFF report and its recommendations and why they are seriously flawed. I will do my best to be brief, but thorough. --I have included the Staff report as Exhibit "A" I will discuss the Items one by one, since each one is a legal argument for a variance. a. Are there special conditions and circumstances existing which are peculiar to the location, size and characteristics of the land structure or building involved. STAFF answer "Yes, per the applicant the pool shell, retaining wall and stairs are constructed" The proper answer is adamantly NO—no special circumstances existed PRIOR to the construction ^ of the pool and the applicant cannot create THE REASON for a variance then be granted a variance. If that were the case,then why have a zoning code or building code. I will address the STAFF's and �.� PC reason for their respective recommendations later as part of the PC transcript. b. Are there special conditions and circumstances, which do not result from the action of the .� applicant such as pre-existing conditions relative to the property, which are the subject of the Variance request? .-. STAFF Answer "Yes The applicant applied and received a pool permit from the County citing an incorrect rear accessory pool setback. Let me present to you a section of the Florida Building Code 2014 which is Section 105.4.1 "A permit issued shall be construed to be a license to proceed with the work and not as authority to violate, cancel, alter or set aside any of the provisions of the technical codes, nor shall issuance of a permit prevent the building official from thereafter requiring a correction of errors in plans." Let me present to you a section of the Collier County Land Development code which is CHAPTER 10.02.06 - Requirements in Permits—Section 1.c states" Statements made by the applicant on the building or land alteration permit application shall be deemed official statements. Approval of the application by the County Manager or his designee shall, in no way, exempt the applicant from strict observance of applicable provisions of this Land Development Code and all other applicable regulations, ordinances, codes, and laws. ll. A building or land alteration permit issued in error shall not confer any rights or privileges to the applicant to proceed to or continue with construction, and the county shall have the power to revoke such permit until said error is corrected. c. Will a literal interpretation of the provisions for this zoning code work create unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant or create practical difficulties for the applicant? STAFF answer—YES—Per the applicant, the pool is already constructed at an estimated expense of$50,000. NO—How many times can the staff say, it already exists? This error could have been caught and corrected BEFORE the house was built if a Certified Site Plan had been completed,thereby minimizing the repair costs. The estimated total value of the house is$2.5-3.0 million dollars. The total cost to make the repair of$50,000 while significant, is small relative to the overall value of the property and more importantly the adjacent properties. Had the correction been performed when the owner and contractor were notified in April 2016,the cost to correct would be significantly lower. However,the contractor elected to instead provide the County an Affadavit as a COST SAVING measure and took on any risk. How can the Applicant then claim a financial hardship and worse, how can the County grant such a variance based on financial hardship? ***The AFFADAVIT signed by the contractor is attached on the next page Affidavit in lieu of Certified Site Plan To be filed with Permit Application State of Florida County of Collier • I /14./1 MO re°.$ , do hereby affirm that the work performed under Permit Number yqf-Zddare70,-po does not constitute any modification to the original permitted footprint or the structure that existed prior to the issuance of this permit further affirm that, to the best of my knowledge. the footprint of the structure shall conform to the applicable setback(s) and easement requirement(s) established by Collier County and/or any other applicable agency. hereby agree that should any work performed under this permit result in a nonconformity with any setback(s) or easement requirement(s) established by Collier County or any other applicable agency. I will have no sustainable rebuttal against Collier County Government and will immediately remediate the nonconformity at no expense to oilier County Government. Signe.: - ---4111.111*.or, Printed Name /4•716•7 Ma/I-)../ (Check one) Owner/Builder [ Contractor [ . 1 Design Professional [ AFFIRMED AND SUBSCRIBED befo e me the undersigned authority, on /2— 7,41 2010, by 1 (check one) who is personally known to me [ 1 or who provided as identification [ (Seal) NOTARY PUBLIC - State of e';!:•:::kr, CAROL RUTH STACHURA 46, MY COMMISSION FF D93307 Printed Name: EXPIRES:February 16,2016 le 0, Bcridel Ito Bo*Wiley Seri ices My commission expires 7/15/2013 A-128 r-. The county received from the contractor a signed Affadavit in Lieu of Certified Site Plan,which means the contractor did not wish to submit a Certified Site Plan. I'm not sure why,except to save money as it would be good building practice or I offer maybe the contractor and Owner knew it was wrong and hoped no one would notice? ,.� The AFFADAVIT certifies that the Contractor will"IMMEDIATELY remediate the nonconformity at no expense to Collier County Government". If the contractor was notified of the error in APRIL 2016,why wasn't the error corrected then? How then does the contractor continuing to work constitute a financial hardship worthy of a variance that is detremental to the neighborhood and potentially sets up the community for future infractions of the Zoning Code. Since the pool is far in excess of the allowed setbacks,why wouldn't the county then just ENFORCE the Affadavit which grants the County NO FINANCIAL EXPOSURE OR LIABILITY and have the pool .-. design corrected to be within the Zoning Code? So I am confused again Why then doesn't the County then just enforce the Zoning Code and/or ^ enforce the AFFADAVIT instead of us spending THOUSANDS of dollars to defend our neighborhood? Why wait SIX(6) months until October 2016 to actually apply for the variance? d. Will the variance, if granted be the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure and which promote standards of health safety and welfare? STAFF answer—YES—The applicant is only seeking the minimum variance which will allow the pool deck, pool,spa and stairs to remain. We agree that it is the minimum, but the staff answer does not address the standards of health, safety and welfare..... e. Will granting the variance confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by these zoning regulations to other lands, buildings or structures in the same zoning? STAFF Answer—Yes,The applicant will be able to retain a decreased accessory rear yard setback for a pool However, it should be noted that the applicant relied on the county issued permit which cited incorrectly the accessory rear swimming pool and/or screen enclosure setback? The applicant will CERTAINLY be granted a privilege not available to other property owners. The fact that the county approved an erroneous site plan is a NON-FACTOR for FOUR(4) reasons 1) Because the Contractor elected to not perform a Certified Site Plan in April 2016(time of shell completion),which would have identified the PROPER SETBACKS and alerted the contractor of the error at a time when the correction was easily performed. 2) The County Land Development Code CLEARLY states that the County is not responsible for errors made by the contractor(See Item b.above) 3) The building permit issued on Jan 27,2016 states"Per Collier County Ordinance No.2001-01,as it may be amended,all work must comply with all Applicable laws,codes, ordinances and any additional stipulations or conditions of this permit." A copy of the Pool building permit is attached below. 4) The contractor provided an AFFADAVIT in Lieu of a Certified Site Plan (Exhibit P-x)which states that they will IMMEDIATLEY remediate any non-conformity at no expense to Collier County Government. ***The Building Permit is attached on the next page COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PERMIT PERMIT#: PRBD2016010076701 PERMIT TYPE: PL ISSUED: BY: APPLIED DATE: 01-12-16 APPROVAL DATE:01-27-16 MASTER#: COA: JOB ADDRESS: 342 Trade Winds AVE • JOB DESCRIPTION: CONSTRUCTION OF 387 SQ FT IN-GROUND POOL& JOB PHONE: 5'8"X 5'8"ZERO EDGE SPA,3 HP VS PUMP- ALARMS(PRBD20150928706) 342 TRADEWINDS AVE LOT 11 • SUBDIVISION#: BLOCK: LOT: �. FLOOD MAP: ZONE: ELEVATION: FOLIO#: 27585200007 SECTION-TOWNSHIP-RANGE:29-48-25 OWNER INFORMATION: CONTRACTOR INFORMATION: STONE-JESKE TR,ROXANNE B ROXANNE B MORRISON ALUMINUM CONSTRUCTION INC STONE-JESKE TRUST UTD 8/10/05 (DBA)MAC CUSTOM POOLS-ALUMINUM 531 TURTLE HATCH LN 1020 SE 12TH AVE #~ NAPLES ,FL 34103- CAPE CORAL,FL 33990-- '^ CERTIFICATE#::C33218 PHONE: FCC CODE: • CONSTRUCTION CODE: 0218 • JOB VALUE: $74,000.00 TOTAL RES SQFT: 0 TOTAL COMM SQFT: 0 ^ SETBACKS FRONT: 30' REAR: 10'Accessory LEFT: 7.5' RIGHT: 7.5' SEWER: WATER: CONTACT NAME: ^ CONTACT PHONE: Per Collier County Ordinance No.2002-01,as it may be amended,all work must comply with all applicable laws,codes,ordinances,and any additional stipulations or conditions of this permit.This permit expires if work authorized by the permit is not commenced within six(6)months from the date of ,.y issuance of the permit.Additional fees for failing to obtain permits prior to the commencement of construction may be imposed.Permittee(s)further understands that any contractor that may be employed must be a licensed contractor and that the structure must not be used or occupied until a ''` Certificate of Occupancy is issued. • NOTICE: PRIOR TO THE REMOVAL OF ASBESTOS PRODUCTS OR THE DEMOLITION OF A STRUCTURE,FEDERAL • AND STATE LAWS REQUIRE THE PERMITTEE(EITHER THE OWNER OR CONTRACTOR)TO SUBMIT A NOTICE OF THE INTENDED WORK TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION(DEP).FOR MORE INFORMATION,CONTACT DEP AT(239)344-5600. In addition to the conditions of this permit,there may be additional restrictions applicable to this property that may be found in /"" the public records of this county,and there may be additional permits required from other governmental entities such as water management districts,state agencies,or federal agencies. WARNING TO OWNER: YOUR FAILURE TO RECORD A NOTICE OF - COMMENCEMENT MAY RESULT IN YOUR PAYING TWICE FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO YOUR PROPERTY. IF YOU INTEND TO OBTAIN FINANCING, CONSULT WITH YOUR LENDER OR AN ATTORNEY BEFORE RECORDING YOUR NOTICE OF `'� COMMENCEMENT. I have attached photos of a few pools currently being constructed or recently completed that ALL appear to comply with the proper zoning. z , roli-11 i i 111,.. ----- _ ,I.,j r r -�'DQ .t9 . f '',- L. HI ' ' -:'1.-;441.,,,,,:,,, `TaP oF' 4) 44'(' To? PSL- pt'Z —~i -- . 'TOPc i ^ZJP�— 1 nn SS a, tf. ; ._ ) Ti ToP oF- ? , -1-DP °F- .-. I have also provided photos of the pool in question so you may see the significant differences. ua .;z:ii„,..,1.:144,;.,.:isajwilz:4.,i41,t.,.,,,. ,, .40ILL om T___, f ___A - -...-k - s, a. 9€1/ l...1a� 1.4011 'v A' --- s6r? — 1„p« ' LL $ SDS f. Will granting the variance be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this Land Use Code and not be injurious to the Neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. STAFF Answer- YES—The staff is of the opinion that the proposed variance would legitimize the existence of the pool and pool deck that are currently under construction? I am confused-How does"LEGITIMIZING the existence of the pool" make it in harmony with the general intent of the Land Development Code when it totally ignores the LDC? g. Are there natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals and objectives of the regulation such as natural preserves, lakes golf course, etc.? STAFF answer—Yes. The applicant states that variations in seawall height in this location do not create a uniform height for all house and therefore create different pool deck heights. The current Seawall height is approximately 1'-O" higher than the neighbors on either side. Had they have been using a lower seawall this pool would be actually MORE of a violation of the zoning code. See photos. i. Will Granting the variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan? 4' It t. 23s t LIQ.) 42095r101`) 01'J tS G — y'Tx t /0. STAFF answer—Approval of this variance will not affect or change the requirements of the Growth Management Plan? No comment. PLANNING COMMISSION TRANSCRIPT Let's review comments based on the Planning Commission Transcript. First a few facts. 1. The County Staff erroneously approved the site plan. However,we have proven that should not ,_. be a factor in the decision to grant this variance .-. 2. The county staff provided a report that we have shown is in error and does not support a hardship. 3. The County Planning Commission, CHAIRED by the County Staff recommended the same be approved based on a flawed Staff report that does not legally support a hardship. I offer the PC transcript as Exhibit B,which is attached for your review(Anything in italics, represents a phase taken verbatim from the PC hearing transcript) 1. Commissioner Ebert—Fred, you said this is a financial hardship Well, 1 mean we always use money, you know in this stuff. Like I say I don't feel it should be up to the owner to have to pay...." Mr. Resichl—That our standard answer that, yes,you can proceed at your own risk pending the outcome of the in this case was the HEX and not the Board of Commissioners. If the owners and contractor jointly"Proceeded at their own risk",how can they NOW complain that it is a financial hardship because the house is in place. Additionally,The owner has recourse against their design professionals the architect,site engineer,etc. which all should have Errors and Omissions Insurance that should cover this expense,so this is NOT a financial hardship case. 2. In response to how much of the work was in place... "Mr.Jenks----We continued with the house at our own risk" It has since been determined that the Pool contractor,who was a sub to Mr.Jenks,did not wish to provide a Certified Site Plan and instead provided the Affadavit. If they continued at their own risk, how can that .-\ then be the basis of a financial hardship when they have made no effort to mitigate their damages for a situation they created. They waited SIX(6) months to even apply for a variance. 3. Mark Strain (County Staff and PC Chairman Summary and suggested motion)—After 40 minutes of presentation, Mr. Strain gave the following summary) Mr. Strain's quotes are shown in italics and highlighted "CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have one item I'd like to discuss. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike or Fred, would you put what I just handed you on the overhead. You need to back off a little bit. Keep going. Keep going. Right there. So we can read the whole thing. Mr. STRAIN came prepared to put this section of the code on the overhead and Mr.Reischl read the section aloud. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Section 9.04.03 is our criteria for variances. You've heard today that there are eight criteria; there are. And we've had legal counsel advise us from the opposition side to address their position on those eight criteria. Mr Neale,a respected Land Use attorney in Collier County advised the County that based on their own criteria that there was NO LEGAL BASIS for the granting of a variance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Also, a case was referred to us, an old case from a 1982 activity. But we here--as that attorney, even the opposition attorney and as staff has opined today, The Land Development Code requires a 20'-0"setback when the pool deck is more than 4'-0"above the seawall. The LDC is VERY clear on this matter. This is what was on the piece presented by the Mr. Strain paper— The Land Development Code says this in the beginning of the criteria for variances: "Findings: Before any variance shall be recommended for approval to the Board of the Zoning Appeals, the Planning Commission the following standards in making a determination." Mr Strain manipulated those words to say that he could do whatever he wanted and that the LDC was a "SUGGESTION". Do the Commissioners want to allow every real estate developer to treat the LDC code as a loose"Suggestion"? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: mai be so, but at the same time we shall consider those and be guided by them. That means it's not mandatory. I'm Confused again.... So Mr. Strain admitted that there is NO HARDSHIP AS A BASIS FOR GRANTING A VARIANCE,yet he recommends one anyway based on the fact that the LDC is just a suggestion? A Hardship is the legal standard for the granting of a variance. It is the ONLY standard for which a Variance should be granted. We must be speaking about driving on the Al Interstate in Italy where the speed limit is "just a suggestion': 1 doubt the Commissioners want the county run in this manner. As a resident of Vanderbilt Beach,we REALLY need to be diligence on EVERY building permit in our community....and that is why I am here today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Mike, if you read this differently as Zoning Director,please let me know. But it's my understanding that it means what it says, that we're not bound by those eight items, but they are for consideration. MR. BOSI: My understanding would be--the interpretation that you've adopted would be my _ understanding; that these are the guidelines and with that emphasis upon the guidelines. — So Mr Bosi,who works closely with Mr. Strain is directed(asked)to verify Mr.Strain's outrageous _ comment? That does not seem proper to me in a public forum. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And with that in mind, I have--I've listened to everything, and I've certainly tried to do all the research I can to understand how this happened I.can't see the benefit to force someone to tear down a home such as this. There's been no shown malicious intent in this. I have no idea how Mr. Strain could have come to that conclusion. The Property owners did not say one — word during the hearing. After the hearing,I offered the owners the opportunity to speak with me and discuss a compromise and they decided to do that in the hallway after the hearing. — However,the conversation was very short. I was immediately told"If you are not willing to discuss leaving _ the pool exactly where it is,there is nothing to discuss.My response was"Oh so you really don't care about complying with the zoning,you just want what you want?" Since April 2016,the owners have made NO attempt to correct the situation when they could have easy done so before the house was built. I disagree with Mr. Strain's statement. Additionally,after NOT working on the pool for TEN(10)months they started working on the pool again on Saturday,February 25th? Why 3 days PRIOR to the hearing? Did they have information that lead _ them to believe that this variance would be granted? — One of the PC discussion comments was that they would NEVER be able to get a piece of construction equipment behind the pool to remove it---as another reason for their hardship. I offer the following picture that disputes that comment and shows the neighbors contractors currently working on the pool. This picture was taken on Saturday,February 25tH _ t 7.::::::"." ,:''*tt'--'"';',Zr:''4:Z::::''t,7::Z.F':''' 7::' , - ''It- ms.,µ .'":1-"' ,,;i,-,k,,,,,, „, g o M I N 0TE 'Tk' 14.61 C1 K" OE=- u'a'c•-• Please note the piece of equipment,but also how HIGH and imposing that wall is relative to an adult person and it is only 6.67 feet from the sea wall at the stair location CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was an--it was a human error. It was a mistake made by multiple parties. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To take them to task for this for the cost that it would require for an item that does not set a precedent I don't think is necessary. Note that Mr.Strain specifically asked the County Solicitor to state that this would not set a precedent,but we have already discussed this issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, if we can show they purposely had misled the county, this was done intentionally, I'd say then whatever they deserve they deserve in regards to correcting it. Here,I am confused again and I cannot prove anything. However,since when is"intent"an issue in a Zoning hearing? So if you kill someone with your car on RT 41,you will likely go to jail for Manslaughter whether you"intended to do so or not". CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I have looked at all the records. I have looked at them probably more thoroughly than anybody in this room, and I can assure you nothing like that came out of any of those records. And they're records that this panel doesn't even have access to. They're in the county records department. I've pulled all the folders. Again,I am confused—Mr Strain points out that he has reviewed EVERY folder,so I am sure he saw the AFFADAVIT signed by the contractor. Why does Mr.Strain then recommend approving the variance when as a COUNTY STAFF member,he should have acted on the AFFADAVIT or recommended that someone else do so and have the pool corrected to the LDC standard? We have already shown that"every other"property owner in Vanderbilt Beach is complying with the LDC?I did not measure every pool currently under construction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's nothing there that shows malicious intent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In fact, if anything, they were trying to continually keep up with things they needed to do to make sure their approvals were consistent and reviewed by the county. Confused-- If they were TRULY trying to keep up with everything,they would have directed their contractor to correct the pool in April 2016. Instead,they did not even apply for the variance until SIX months later and were actively working on continuing to build the pool this past weekend PRIOR to this hearing. I'm confused. Also,if the applicants we working CLOSELY WITH THE COUNTY STAFF at each step,why then are we here at this zoning hearing? They should have been directed to make the change immediately So I certainly think that the variance is warranted in this case, whether the variance is 24--two-and-a-half feet--yeah, two-and-a-halffeet or 18 inches. So we wasted MANY MANY hours and THOUSANDS of legal dollars and Mr. Strain states,"it really doesn't matter?" He just ignored the legal standing,ignored the Affadavit in place,ignored the LDC and decided to recommend to grant the variance anyway? The only thing I would suggest is that a stipulation be added to do make sure that the intent of where these are allowed at this height, which is everywhere else, basically, but Vanderbilt Beach, that the decorative cladding or landscaping and a berm or a combination thereof of some nature is there, is put in front or applied to this wall .. to soften it, as the other jurisdictions would have--where they had done so in other parts of the county. And with that, that's all I've got to say. And if there's nobody else here, we'll close the public hearing and we'll entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I make a motion to approve. Additional Support: We have worked with and received a resolution from the Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association in opposition to this variance being granted. A copy is attached as Exhibit"E" We have also submitted to the County letters of opposition from other Vanderbilt Residents that are part of the official record. Numerous residents presented at the Planning Commission in Opposition to the granting of this variance and many more are here today including David Galloway, President of the VBRA. Summary of why this variance should NOT BE GRANTED 1. Mr. Strain admits in his testimony at the PC hearing that there may not be a "hardship"as a basis for granting this variance. NO hardship exists and the variance should be denied just on this fact alone. 2. The excessive variance required would have significant impact on the community and canal view corridor as it exists and as new homes are built and the neighborhood continues to develop and attorneys come forth now using THIS pool as their example 3. The County may also rely on Three (3) documents which protect the County financially— i. Affadavit signed by contractor ii. The error language in the LDC iii. The error language in the Florida Bldg Code 2014 4. The granting of this variance (if Mr Strain is allowed to interpret the LDC as just a "guide")will essentially empower the county staff to not just enforce the laws and codes of Collier County, but to make them up as they go along. I doubt the Commissioners who are elected by the residents of Collier County wish to allow that to happen or to open the door for every developer to do the same. 5. There is no legal basis for a variance and the Commissioners would be wrong to grant a variance without the legal basis for one. Such a decision would likely be overturned in an appeal and does the Commission really want to send the message to every developer knocking at the county door that their LDC is just a "suggestion"? Thank you for granting me the necessary time to make this presentation. Respectful Submitted, f Gorge E. Marks /1 STAFF REPORT — Exhibit A Collier County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ZONING DIVISION- ZONING SERVICES SECTION HEARING DATE: OCTOBER 27, 2016 SUBJECT: PETITION VA-PL20160001181, 342 TRADE WINDS AVENUE PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT: Owner: Roxanne Stone-Jeske Agent: Jason Jenks Nancy D. Koeper Jenks Builders, Inc. 342 Tradewinds Avenue 7600 Alico Road 12-2 Naples, FL 34103 Fort Myers, FL 33912 .01 REQUESTED ACTION: To have the Collier County Hearing Examiner (HEX) consider an application for a Variance from Section 4.02.03.A, Table 4 of the Land Development Code to reduce the minimum rear yard accessory structure setback line from 20 feet to 6.55 feet for a swimming pool, spa, pool deck and stairs on a waterfront lot within the Residential Single-Family (RSF-3) zoning district. See location map on page 2. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property is located on Lot 11, Block M of the Conners Vanderbilt Beach Estates Unit 2 subdivision, on the south side of Trade Winds Avenue, approximately 1000 feet west of Vanderbilt Drive in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The purpose of the petition is to request a reduction from the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC), Section 4.02.03.A.Table 4 stating that the minimum swimming pool and/or screen enclosure accessory setback for waterfront lots is 20 feet when the swimming pool deck exceeds 4 feet in height above the top of seawall. The seawall on this property is 3.31 feet with a pool deck that is 9.67 feet. Thus, the pool deck is 6.36 feet above the seawall, which is 2.36 feet above what is permitted by the LDC. VA-PL20160001181, 342 Trade Winds Variance Page 1 of 7 ^ The applicant states that the pool and deck plans submitted to Collier County ("County") contained the pool deck elevation of 9.67 feet. The County issued a pool permit, .-. PRBD2016010076701, with a rear accessory setback of 10 feet versus the required 20 feet. The applicant built the swimming pool, spa, and pool deck utilizing the 10-foot accessory setback requirements erroneously provided on the building permit rather than the required 20 feet ^ accessory setback requirement. The pool deck encroaches 9.83 feet into the 20-foot setback. According to the permit building plans, the applicant built the stairs 3.5 feet into the erroneously provided 10-foot setback, Per LDC 4.02.01.D.7 stairways shall not protrude over 3 feet into a required front, side or rear yard of a single family dwelling; the stairs were approved at the 3.5- foot encroachment. Please note that the building permits, for both home (PRBD20150617253) and the pool, were permitted with inclusion of the stairs—as depicted on the survey on the proceeding page. The permitted pool and deck are located in the Residential Single-family District (RSF-3); the rear yard swimming pool and/or screen enclosure (one- and two-family) accessory setback for waterfront lots is 10 feet unless the swimming pool deck exceeds 4 feet in height above the top of the seawall; creating a required setback of 20 feet. SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING: SUBJECT PARCEL: Vacant Lot with building permit for new home, zoned RSF-3 North: Single-family residential development, zoned RSF-3 East: Single-family residential development, zoned RSF-3 South: Canal and then single-family residential development, zoned RSF-3 .-- West: Single-family residential development, zoned RSF-3 Nolte ^ /-. is 3-4 ' 4 .v 'f3'i,•, met ".x ;n.,=+. �� Aerial photo taken from Collier County Property flppraiser website VA-PL20160001181, 342 Trade Winds Variance - Page 4 of 7 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: The subject property is located in the Urban Residential Subdistrict of the Urban Mixed Use District land use classification on the County's Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The purpose of this subdistrict is to provide for higher densities in an area with fewer natural resource constraints and where existing and planned facilities are concentrated. The Growth Management Plan (GMP) does not address individual variance requests; the Plan deals with the larger issue of the actual use. ANALYSIS: The decision to grant a variance is based on the criteria in LDC Section 9.04.03. Staff has analyzed this petition relative to these provisions and offers the following responses: a. Are there special conditions and circumstances existing, which are peculiar to the location, size and characteristics of the land, structure or building involved? Yes. Per the applicant, the pool shell, retaining wall and stairs are constructed. The applicant commenced construction under building permit, PRBD2015092870601, with an incorrectly cited rear accessory pool setback of 10 feet versus the required 20 feet. The applicant abided by the incorrectly cited rear accessory 10-foot pool setback for the swimming pool, spa, and pool deck. The stairs off the pool deck do encroach 3.5 feet into the erroneously provided 10-foot setback; however they were permitted with the swimming pool, spa, and pool deck. .-. b. Are there special conditions and circumstances, which do not result from the action of the applicant such as pre-existing conditions relative to the property,which are the subject of the Variance request? Yes. The applicant applied and received a pool permit from the County citing an incorrect rear accessory pool setback. The applicant proceeded, and followed, with provided setbacks unaware of any violations. Due to this error, the subject structure is currently encroaching 6.55; more specifically, the pool, spa, pool deck encroach 9.83 feet, resulting in a 10.17 rear yard setback, and the stairs encroach 13.45 feet, resulting in a 6.55-foot encroachment. c. Will a literal interpretation of the provisions of this zoning code work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant or create practical difficulties for the applicant? Yes. Per the applicant, the pool is already constructed and to abide by the required accessory 20-foot setback would require the applicant to remove the existing pool and replace it at an estimated expense of $50,000. The applicant relied on the erroneously issued pool permit with a 10-foot rear accessory setback in constructing the existing pool structure. d. Will the Variance, if granted, be the minimum Variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure and which promote standards of health, safety and welfare? VA-PL20160001181, 342 Trade Winds Variance Page5of7 Yes. The applicant is only seeking the minimum variance which will allow the pool deck, pool, spa, and stairs to remain. e. Will granting the Variance confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by these zoning regulations to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning district? Yes. The applicant will be able to retain a decreased accessory rear yard setback for a pool deck that exceed 4 feet in height above the seawall. However, it should be noted that the applicant relied on the County issued permit which cited incorrectly the accessory rear swimming pool and/or screen enclosure setback. f. Will granting the Variance be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this Land Development Code, and not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare? Yes. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed Variance would legitimize the existence of the pool and pool deck that are currently under construction. g. Are there natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals and objectives of the regulation such as natural preserves, lakes, golf courses, etc.? Yes. The applicant states that variations in seawall height in this location do not create a uniform height for all houses and therefore create different pool deck height requirements over 4 feet of the seawall. h. Will granting the Variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan? Approval of this Variance will not affect or change the requirements of the Growth Management Plan. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report on October 3, 2016. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Hearing Examiner (HEX) approve Petition VA-PL- - 20160001181, 342 Trade Winds Avenue Variance. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Attachment A: Application VA-PL20160001181,342 Trade Winds Variance Page 6 of 7 PREPARED BY: RACHEL BEASLEY,PLANNER DATE ZONING DIVISION-ZONING SERVICES SECTION REVIEWED BY: RAYMOND V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER DATE ZONING DIVISION-ZONING SERVICES SECTION ^ MICHAEL BOSI, AICP, DIRECTOR DATE ZONING DIVISON VA-PL20160001181, 342 Trade Winds Variance Page 7 of 7 EXHIBIT "B" TRANSCRIPT OF PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING — January 19, 2017 ( only the portion related to this matter has been included — pages 1-30) January 19,2017 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples,Florida,January 19,2017 LET IT BE REMEMBERED,that the Collier County Planning Commission,in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building"F"of the Government Complex,East Naples,Florida,with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Stan Chrzanowski Diane Ebert Karen Homiak Joe Schmitt Patrick Dearborn ALSO PRESENT: Mike Bosi,Planning and Zoning Manager Fred Reischl,Principal Planner Jeffrey A.Klatzkow,County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko,Managing Assistant County Attorney Tom Eastman,School District Representative Page 1 of 46 January 19,2017 PROCEEDINGS MR.BOSI: Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning,everyone.Welcome to the Thursday,January 19th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If everybody will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Roll call by our secretary,please. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. Good morning. Mr.Eastman? MR.EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr.Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms.Ebert is here. Mr. Strain? .-. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms.Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Present. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And,Mr.Dearborn? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Here. ^ COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And we have two advertised public hearings today. The first one is going to be a variance on a property at 342 Tradewinds Avenue,and the second one is a review of our Collier County Land Development Code amendments. It will be the second or third reading on some of these for the Planning Commission. It will not be the final. There will be another review. We'll have maybe our final on the 30th in the evening. And with that,we'll move into the Planning Commission absences. We have two upcoming meetings: 5:05 January 30th is the LDC review that I just mentioned. Does anybody know if they're not going to make it on January 30th in the evening in this room? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the next regular meeting is February 2nd. Same time, same place,the same place as today. Everybody? Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That one,Mark,I may miss that one,but I'm not sure. What's the agenda look like for that one? MR.BOSI: I believe there's only one item on for the 2nd. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll let you guys know,and then you can let the rest of the commissioners know if,in fact,I'm going to be missing from that one. It could go up go in the air. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But I'll know by that night. I'll be here for that Monday meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,we'll still have a quorum,so we're good. Thank you. That takes us to approval of minutes. There have been none electronically provided,so we'll skip that. We'll go to the BCC report and recaps. And Ray's not here,but,Mike,you can go ahead. MR.BOSI: Thank you,Chair. Mike Bosi,Planning and Zoning Director. At the hearing on the 10th,the Collier County Resource Recovery Business Park IPUD was approved unanimously. The Naples Heritage PUD amendment to add the 5-acre tennis facility was defeated by a 3-2 vote,and further clarification was provided to staff for the specifics of a moratorium that was going--that is being considered for the East Trail related to self-storage facilities,car washes,pawnshops, and-- .-� Page 2 of 46 January 19,2017 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gas station. MR.BOSI: --gas stations. Thank you. And so with the further direction,we are bringing back an '1 ordinance on the 14th of February for the Board to consider whether they want to take final action upon that moratorium. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,Mike. That brings us to the chairman's report,and I have just one thing. Good morning,Nora Frances.I hope you're watching today. She's a friend of the Planning Commission's. Happens to be related to Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Only by marriage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The consent agenda,we have none,so we'll move directly into our advertised public hearings. ***The first one up is Item 9A. It's VA-PL20160001181,and it's a variance request for a property located at 342 Tradewinds Avenue. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item,please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. We'll start with disclosures on the Planning Commission from Tom. MR.EASTMAN: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Strangely,none. .-. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I talked with Fred yesterday, and emails and correspondence with a ,.� neighbor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've had correspondence with a neighbor,or they just sent you an email? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well,yeah,they just sent me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's all. I just wanted to make sure. We've all got an email or two on this,and so I think mine are probably similar to everybody else's. I did talk with the applicant when this first came to my other office,and she came in and asked for some clarification of the process. We went over that,and I think we've talked once since then. And I also talked to Mr.Patrick--Pat Neale who represents some residents who are not in favor of this application. And then,of course,staff. Diane? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Karen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karen,I'm sorry. Diane's over here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Nothing. Just the additional email yesterday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pat? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that,we'll move right into the presentation by the applicant to start out. MR. SHAPIRO: I'm Marc Shapiro representing the applicant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you have items that you want to use the overhead for--I don't think you've appeared before us before--that stand over there has a lot more electronic availability for things to show. You might want to use that. MR. SHAPIRO: Yeah,there may be some-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And also,our mikes don't pick up unless you're really close to them. And we have a walk-around mike over there if you need to get closer to something else that you're trying to show. MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll need you to identify yourself and spell your last name for the record, and we'll be good. MR. SHAPIRO: My name is Marc Shapiro. Marc's spelled M-a-r-c; Shapiro,S-h-a-p-i-r-o. ^ Page 3 of 46 January 19, 2017 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. SHAPIRO: And I'm representing the petitioners in this case for 342 Tradewinds Avenue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everything,by the way,that you show on overhead will have to be--copies of it will have to be left with the court reporter for the record. MR.SHAPIRO: Okay. They're mainly going to be photographs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's great. Thank you. MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. So there was a variance petition that was filed by the builder in this case, ,.� Jason Jenks,and then there was a deficiency letter that was issued,and then my office prepared an amended variance,and that variance was actually recommended for approval. And so that was recommended for approval by,I guess,the Growth Management Department. But I want to read a couple things actually from their words. And,you know,it's important to point out,there's three basic things is--one is the variance we're asking for is a very small variance. So it's--and there's a new code that was brought in this area. So this particular property,you couldn't even tell that it doesn't comply with the current variance because there are several houses that are exactly in line. In fact,it doesn't look out of place at all,and you wouldn't know. And,in fact,that comes to my first point is that when the permit was applied for,it was applied for using the setbacks that are currently for the pool right now. Those setbacks were approved. There was many inspections that were done to the property. In each case,during each inspection,it was approved. Nobody even caught that it didn't meet the current code until one of the neighbors,I guess,came and pointed out to the county that it didn't comply with the current code,and it was at that time that my client was informed they �-. had to do a petition for a variance. So my client,who hired the builder,had no idea that it didn't comply with code. In fact,if you'd look at it,there's no way you could even tell that it--because it doesn't stick out. It's something that's completely in line with the rest of the structures that are on both sides of the street or on the canal there. So--and it says here--this is from the report that was issued from the Growth Management--the applicant utilized the erroneously approved setbacks unaware of any violations. So when they applied for the pool permit,the county actually provided the setbacks,and they erroneously provided the setbacks that were the older setbacks that hadn't--rather than the updated ones. So based on those setbacks,my client constructed the pool and poured the slab. And we're talking about approximately two and a half feet. Now,the setbacks,they're about six feet over--instead of a 20-foot setback,they were told they had a 10-foot setback, so they're over the setback,but it's important to note that the height of the pool wall,if it was two-and-a-half feet lower,they could be 10 feet, the setbacks. It's 20-feet setbacks based on the current height. So we're talking two-and-a-half feet. So the two-and-a-half feet does not really affect anyone's view. In fact,we have the neighbor right across the street--in fact,I brought some pictures,which I'll show in a moment,but if anything,the view from the neighbor,their lanai actually sticks out further than my client's pool which doesn't have a lanai on it and never will. Also,if you're looking across,there's boats parked,and the boats that are parked,which are legally .-. parked in front of the seawall, stick out higher than my client's pool does. So it's a very,I would say, negligible impact. In fact,when I looked down the canal,I had to ask,you know,which one--to my client, which one is your house,because you can't tell by looking at it that it sticks out. It's perfectly in line with all .-� of the rest of the houses. We're just talking about two-and-a-half feet up. And a few years ago,when the code was that,you know,that--exactly what they built,so we're not talking about any major impact. Now,it would be a severe economic hardship for my client to have to completely tear down the whole--by the time this was brought to their attention--and,again,it was brought to their attention because, I guess,the neighbor pointed it out to the county--they had already poured the slab. They had already put the whole pool in--where the pool was going to be. That was already in. And they estimate--this is from the builder--and I think it's a very conservative estimate--that to go back and redo this--because they'd have to basically tear out the whole poured concrete pool and start over again--would be,in his words, $50,000. And,again,I think that's a very conservative number. But it would be,at minimum, $50,000 to go back and redo this over essentially two-and-a-half feet. Page 4 of 46 January 19, 2017 So I'd like to at this time show some photographs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Fred will help you with the overhead;that's the gentlemen right there. You'll have to use the mike,either the walk-around mike or the stationary one. MR. SHAPIRO: All right. So if you can see where my finger is,this is the structure in question. And,actually,this view is where--the people that are here opposing this,this would be their view. So there's two views. There's an open-water view,and then there's down the canal. So if you're looking down the canal,you'll see that this structure is really in line with all the other structures and,in fact,one of the people that's objecting to this,his pool enclosure is the same height and the same setback as my client's because,as I said,this is a new,I guess,updated requirement. And when they--when they put in the permit for the pool,they were erroneously giving the older setback requirements. So it's not like this sticks out at all. It just doesn't comply with the latest setback requirements. Here's another--this is a similar view,just a little bit more close up. And this is a view here--you'll see that this structure here is the structure in question. And the neighbors on actually both sides,if you line up the seawalls,they line up perfectly together. In other words,the setbacks on both sided,the neighbors on either side,are both exactly the same setbacks as my client's,the petitioner's setback. And, again,it's because these were the former setbacks. So this is the picture of the--you can see the open-water view. And,again,the petitioner's structure is right here. So you'll see if you're looking down,the people that are objecting to this,the neighbors that are objecting,they are way down towards this range--I'm sorry. They're towards this area here. So they're actually--their view is not obstructed of the open water because the petitioner's structure's down here. And if they look down the canal,I don't see,being on this side of the road,how their view could be remotely ^ affected,and if it was affected,it would be affected by the lanai of the house in front of them,and if it is affected at all,the two-and-a-half feet isn't going to make any difference. In fact,as I said,the boat--the boats that are parked in front of the structure actually stick out above the pool enclosure. So if their views are obstructed at all,it's not because of this.In fact--and I think you have this as part of the application,but there's a couple letters. One letter is from an objector who actually canvassed the neighborhood on both sides of the street and tried to get as many people to object as possible, and I think he was successful in maybe getting one other,possibly two others,to object. My client,I believe,has 43 people. Well,I say 43 because that's how many people live there that either didn't care about it or actually signed a petition in her favor or a letter in her favor saying that they didn't believe that her house--they believe that the variance should be granted;that her house doesn't obstruct any view,doesn't stick out,doesn't make it look like it's not conforming with the community. In this picture here you'll see this house right here is the subject house,but the house right before that,the lanai actually would inhibit the view and actually that tree right there would inhibit the view of the objectors that are looking down the canal before my client's pool enclosure would. In fact,from this view, which is--you can't even see the pool. And then,lastly,this picture shows--and I want to point out the house next to it with the lanai. So the objectors would be looking down this way,so they'd actually be seeing that lanai before they would see this pool. ,-. So I guess the three points I want to make is that it was not purposefully done. When the builder applied for the permit,they were erroneously given the wrong setbacks;they built the pool using the wrong setbacks;there was four inspections along the way,never once did anyone point out that,oh,this doesn't comply. In fact,it wasn't till the neighbor pointed that out,and that's the reason we're here today. The second point I want to make is that if there's any impact at all on the neighborhood,which I submit there's not because it's perfectly in line with the other houses'setbacks--in fact,if you were to walk that street,you wouldn't even notice that this house was out of conformity. But if there is any impact,it would be very negligible. We're basically talking about two-and-a-half feet. If the seawall were two-and-a-half feet lower,the setback would be correct. Also,if they moved it back approximately,I believe,six feet,then they could have it that height. So we're talking about two-and-a-half Page 5 of 46 January 19,2017 feet,and the economic hardship involved in putting it into compliance would be,at minimum, $50,000. So for those reasons and also the fact that I think if you read the planning board's recommendation, they set things forth very thoroughly on why they would--not the planning board but the--I guess the report from-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's called a staff report. MR. SHAPIRO: --yeah, staff report. They set forth very particularly why they're recommending that the variance be approved. So I would ask that,you know,you all take a look at that,and they lay it out very nicely. And they were also aware of the neighbors that were objecting also when they came to that recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you finished,Mr. Shapiro? MR. SHAPIRO: Yeah,I am finished. My understanding is there's some neighbors that are right across the way that were also going to testify for the petitioner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me tell you what the procedure is,because I don't think you've been here before. After you finish your presentation,the Planning Commission will ask questions if they have .-. any. Then from there we'll go to the staff report. After the staff report and staff make verbal recommendations over parts of their report,we ask questions of them. When they finish,we go to public speakers. MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: After public speakers,you'll have an opportunity for a 10-minute rebuttal, and then we go into discussion and decision on our part,or recommendation on our part. So that will be the process we'll go through. And since you're finished,and before we go to Planning Commission questions, there are a few things I think I'd like you to answer and clear up so the Planning Commission gets the benefit of those answers before any questions are asked. MR. SHAPIRO: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said the code was exactly what it was when they built this 2.5, two-and-a-half years ago. What did you mean by that? MR. SHAPIRO: Well--and,again,I don't know when the time limit was,but-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Time limit--what do you mean by"time limit"? MR. SHAPIRO: When I say two-and-a-half years,I don't know if that's the exact time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Probably in terms of closer to a decade or two. This height issue has been in the code very,very early on. The problem is it's very obscure in our code to find it, and it only seems to be applicable to Vanderbilt Beach. Specifically our code says Isle of Capri and Marco Island don't have to have this kind of an application. They go to seven feet,which yours then would have been fine if you were on Isles of Capri or Marco Island. Also-- MR. SHAPIRO: So I misspoke about the two-and-a-half feet. I just was kind of making that up as an example. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,you can't make things up. We've got to deal with the code in fact. And if you're going to reference something of the code and it also involves the staff error,we've definitely got to weigh in on that and understand it. You had said that the setbacks were erroneously given to your client. Have you got something that says for your client to design to those setbacks? MR. SHAPIRO: I believe there is. The builder is here,and he could probably better answer that than I could. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,that will be helpful. If he's here,then we'll--see,you ought to call him as someone--a witness on your behalf to begin with before we go to the staff report. So if he's here, we're definitely going to--we'll ask questions of him after the Planning Commission gets finished with you. MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those couple things,though,are important as to how this happened,the time frame. The code has not changed. The code is just obscure and hard to read in this particular issue,I'll grant you that. It certainly isn't clear. And as far as the staff goes,yes,a staff member certainly made an error in approving this the way it Page 6 of 46 January 19, 2017 came through. But I don't know if that was a result of the staff telling you to do it that way or your design professionals decided to do it that way,and that will be something we'll find out shortly. With those clarifications,and before I get into any more of my questions,I'll turn to the Planning Commission for any questions they may have to start with. Anybody? Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Just,those shots you took,those were taken with a drone, I assume? ,.� MR.SHAPIRO: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'm glad you did that. It showed it very well. I looked at Google Earth 3D. And from what I could tell on Google Earth 3D,I couldn't see where there was a tremendous difference from this to the other,the older to the new,but those shots showed it pretty good. I was going to ask--you probably don't know.I guess a lot of my other questions are going to be to staff. MR.SHAPIRO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have several questions regarding the process,but I'm going to defer and wait to talk to Mr.Reischl,because I need to--but the question I do have for you,Marc,did you--or do you have in your documents--typically when you go in for a building permit,the first thing they do is lay out the site plan,and then on that site plan,the reviewer in the Building Department,is my �-. recollection,would initial off each of the setback requirements and put their initials on--actually right on the document. ,.\ Do you--is that the procedure now? And I'm going back six, seven years back in--but typically they would--you'd go in,on the building--the building envelope that is allowable for a building would be shown on the site drawing of the--and then all of the setbacks would be checked off to ensure that the setbacks are in compliance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The permits for this project are on my desk. I pulled them yesterday afternoon.That document is there. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Is there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's been four permits: One demo,one pool,the main permit for the house,and the dock permit that was reissued,because it was started,then stopped,and then reissued again. And there's some discrepancies between the permits,but the setbacks and everything were acknowledged by staff as being okay and issued that way. And I've actually got the building permit with me. I didn't know how much the applicant would have brought in case there were questions,but the permit itself was issued at 10 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You don't have that document that shows the setbacks being approved? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's in the file that's on my desk. I did not bring it with me to the meeting. I assumed the applicant would have brought all of that,but-- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm surprised that that's not part of the application or the applicant would have had that to present to us today. My second question--and I'm going to defer to Fred because I want to clearly understand the--again,I've got the MUNI code here. I'm trying to read the MUM code,because I looked at this before. But in this part I recall nine, 10 years ago,that's what drove the change in the code,if you went up a certain height,and I seem to think it was four feet;is that correct? MR. SHAPIRO: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You go four feet,you have to have a 20-foot setback. If your pool height is less than 4 feet,you only need a 10-foot setback; is that essentially the-- MR. SHAPIRO: That's exactly correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,we can--I'll give Fred the code. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah,let's review that,because I want to make sure that--and I had thought at one time that actually in the LDC there was a diagram that showed that. I guess that's no longer in Page 7 of 46 January 19,2017 the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,but a former administrator by the name of Joe Schmitt actually did a diagram a few years back,and it's in the staff clarification section of our notes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I did,yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fred,if you go here--go to the reference in the table first,and that's--once we get this seen,maybe it will help some of the questions that you-all have. MR.SHAPIRO: But,Mr.Schmitt,my understanding is exactly as you described. And I think their--rather than four feet,they're 6.57. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fred,that--I'm not sure that's the right one. Those were non-waterfront. Go to the next table. MR.REISCHL: Oh. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You're going to have to pan out a little bit on that,Fred. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I'll show you--the footnotes are on a separate page. Go to the next table. It's the second or third sheet. And if you look down where it says No.4--you have to pan out a little bit--this is for waterfront lots along the Gulf of--and No.4 says,swimming pools and screen enclosure single-family,one-family,and now two-family;rear, 10 feet,and then the little Footnote 3. Now,Footnote 3 is the catchall on this. If you could show Footnote 3,Fred; down the third page,I think. .�. MR.REISCHL: Very small. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,it says 20 feet where swimming pool decks exceed four feet in height above the top of seawall or top of bank except Marco Island and Isle of Capri,which may construct to a maximum of seven feet above the seawall with a maximum of four feet of stem wall exposure with a rear setback of 10 feet. So--and Marco,by the way,is no longer part of Collier County. So I pulled Marco's LDC,and they have mimicked this language in their current standards. So the seven foot applies to Marco and Isles of Capri,but only four foot of concrete exposure,which means it's got to be clad or a buffer with vegetation or sodded. MR.REISCHL: Sodded. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any way you'd like. But if they're at less than 20 feet,they can't go higher. It's got to be four feet so that a variance is not for the setback as much as it is for the height to be at that setback. I hope that helped clarify because this was not an easy one to follow for that language. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: What--and so the current height as shown,is that correct what we have-- MR. SHAPIRO: I think the county measured at 6.57. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. That's the current height,then. Okay. I thought it was four-point something. Okay. 6.57. All right. .�. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. Anybody else have any questions of the applicant? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Marc,you stated that there were four inspections. Those ,.1 inspections were not specifically looking for setbacks. There are several inspections throughout the building process. MR.SHAPIRO: Correct. And we're not specifically looking for setbacks,that is correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And I want to make sure that's clear on the record,because if an inspector goes out and does an electrical,he or she's doing electrical inspections,not a setback-- MR. SHAPIRO: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: --verification. MR. SHAPIRO: And I'm talking about--and the builder could better explain this,because I'm getting my information from the builder and relaying it to you. But I think there are four inspections on the pool. So at no time was it ever said during any of those inspections that,hey,your setbacks aren't correct. I guess the point is is that now that it's already there,it would be a very--economic hardship to take it all down. It would come at a considerable cost is,I guess,what I'm trying to say. Page 8 of 46 January 19,2017 ,.� And,you know,maybe--and this is up to you.But you were saying that the Marco Island code said you could have a certain height as long as there was a buffer there,and maybe that's a compromise,to put a little hedge in front of the stem wall. �-. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Generally what happens is when we run into these situations,the applicant .r. will come prepared with the documentation to basically make their case in regards to how this occurred. And I know you don't--you haven't got any permit applications or anything with you,do you? MR. SHAPIRO: I don't have the permit applications with me,no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have reviewed them,and I didn't bring them because they're our county's copies,but I didn't know you wouldn't be bringing them as well; otherwise,I would have brought them to help clarify some of the things you've asked,Joe. Some of the things you've said I wanted to get some clarification on. You said there were 43 people who didn't call or sign--or necessarily sign in favor. Did someone--and that was an assumption they weren't objecting to it then? MR. SHAPIRO: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you physically or did your client,or do you have something documented that says you actually went to these 43 homes and spoke to those people? Do you have a survey or something where you-- .. MR. SHAPIRO: No. What I do have--and I thought you already had that,but I have a--I actually have a copy of a letter that was signed by--and then there's signatures, and then next to it is the residence that they live at. MR.REISCHL: That's included in your packet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. How many people are on that signature page? MR. SHAPIRO: Eight. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. His number was 43,and I'm trying to understand-- MR. SHAPIRO: The 43 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --how valid that is. MR. SHAPIRO: --because I think that's the number of residents on both sides of the street.And what I was told by my client is that the objector that's here today pretty much knocked on everybody's door. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You have a couple times mentioned the view down the canal,and at the end of the canal wasn't obstructed any more by what your client has built versus what may already exist there. The view corridors that we consider for these kind of things usually are in line with riparian lines. And that may be an avenue that you may want to look at in reference to view in the future. But down the canal and out the end isn't really something that's considered as directly behind their home. They have riparian rights on both sides of their house,property lines,and that's generally what we take a look at in these kind of matters. MR. SHAPIRO: If I could show you an answer(sic)that might help answer that question. So these little yellow tabs,and I'm not how sure-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,we can see them. MR. SHAPIRO: You can see them. But those are the people that I believe that are objecting to the variance. And that was taken by Google Earth,so at the time the structure was not up so,unfortunately,I don't have a picture with the structure up,but this vacant lot right here is where the structure was built. So heading this way,that is the open water view heading-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You have a vacant lot? It's not the one with the trees. It's the one two off--yeah,right under the W of Tradewinds. MR. SHAPIRO: Oh,yes,you're correct.That's--yeah. So that's the house in question,and then this is the location of the people that are objecting. So I guess what I'm saying is,it's hard to see how their view would be affected. And if it is affected, it would be very minorly. I mean,we're talking about 2.57 feet. And,actually,when you--if you look straight across the canal,the boat sticks up higher than the elevation of the pool. So you actually can't even see the pool wall because of the boat that's in front of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. A couple other issues. You mentioned,or I thought you stated,that Page 9 of 46 January 19,2017 if this pool was moved back six feet,you could have had it at the height they're at. That's not true. To stay at that height you'd have to be 20 feet back,and you're only 10.15 feet back.Then if you take into consideration your stairwell,you're only 6.5 feet back. So you'd have to be considerably further back. The issue of being forward or backward is not as much of an issue as the height of the deck of the pool. That's the six feet that we're trying to--six-and-a-half feet or so we're trying to deal with. ^ The property is perfectly in line with others.When you made that statement,do you know if the others are above four feet since they're in line with an alignment that could only be allowed if they were at or below four feet? MR. SHAPIRO: Some are and some aren't. Some are below four feet. There are some that are above that--again,probably more than 10 years old when the--before the code changed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,the code is actually older than that. But if there are some above that height and they're in that alignment,it would have certainly been helpful to possibly have looked up those building permits and see what height they're at and maybe would help your argument. But I didn't know if you had that information. I'm double-checking to make sure I don't have any other questions. Oh, I noticed in your photos you didn't show the existing construction with the stairwell. The stairwell is part of the setback alignment. Did you have one with the stairwell? �-. MR. SHAPIRO: Yes. I'll show you a couple. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There you go. MR. SHAPIRO: That would be the stairwell right there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the variance request for the setback is because the stairwell exceeds the allowed protrusion if it was at four feet for the pool deck,for example,to go into a setback. Stairwells do have some allowance to--when you go into a setback,but I believe it's only three feet,and this one's three-and-a-half feet? MR.REISCHL: Three feet is the allowable protrusion,and this one is three-and-a-half. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if this one had six inches less of the protrusion of the stairwell and the setback was allowed at 10 feet,the stair wouldn't be an issue. So I wanted to point that out because it is part of the discussion today,and I noticed the closeup photograph you had didn't show the angle from the stairwell. And,by the way,I don't know if staff caught this,that stair is facing a different direction than the stair that was approved on the building permit. And if the builder's here,maybe he can answer that question, too. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Can you back that out a little bit so I can get a full picture of the-- MR. SHAPIRO: Yes. I actually have another one that has a more full view. If you'd like to look at that,that may be better. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And just for clarification,it was my understanding that the need to build the pool height at the elevation that was built at. Two--one is to meet the base flood elevation for the home,and most residents want to walk out from their residence onto the pool deck rather than walk down the stairs to the pool. Could the pool have been built--could it have been designed and built at a lower height than what it was built at? Which means you would have left the house and walked downstairs to another elevation,a lower elevation for the pool. MR. SHAPIRO: So the answer to your question is,I believe so. Now,the builder could better answer that. So it's not whether it could have,because I believe that it could have. I mean,it could have been built at a 4-foot instead of a 6--instead of a 6.57-foot. But the issue is now it's been done,and to kind of un-ring that bell comes at a significant cost. So I don't think it's a matter of could it have been in compliance. I think that if we were to honestly answer that,yes,it could have been built in compliance,but since it hasn't,it's just what is the cost of bringing it into compliance.And I think that's a pretty heavy cost compared to the impact. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Understand. Fred,can you put that other picture up that shows the overhead? I wanted to--again,that's--can Page 10 of 46 January 19,2017 ,.� you center the house actually into the picture. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Zoom out a little. MR.REISCHL: Zoom out. �. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. There. I want to get a picture of the whole thing. Okay. Yeah. That's exactly what I thought. You're coming out from the house onto basically a lanai deck, and then the pool is at the same height. MR.REISCHL: It's just a few inches. The house is--the base flood elevation was 10,and it's nine-point something. It's a little--a few inches less. So you'd step one step down onto the pool deck. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you ask your builder,if he's here,if the builder could come up. We �-. do have questions since we understand he's here. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Is that the builder or the person who designed the house as well? MR. SHAPIRO: Both. I think both. MR.JENKS: I didn't design the house. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll need to say that on the record after you identify yourself. MR.JENKS: Jason Jenks. I was the contractor who built the house. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you did not design the house,was your response to that? MR.JENKS: I did not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Was that the question? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah,that was the question. I wanted to-- COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Did you sub out the work for the pool,or were you actually building the pool as well? MR.JENKS: We subbed out the work for the pool. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: The company who's doing the pool? MR.JENKS: Mack Pools. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mack Pools,okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The information about how this 10-foot,at the height that this deck came about,your--the attorney had indicated that the staff provided you and told you to build it,to design it to that distance;is that true? MR.JENKS: The staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: County staff? MR.JENKS: Well,the pool was built by the time we submitted for the variance. So we submitted a set of plans,they were approved,and we started to build. Of course,first thing we built was the pool because of the lot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who--when the pool was put down on a set of plans,did you do that,or did you have an architect do that or somebody else? MR.JENKS: A designer did it. I didn't do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Where did the designer get his information from to determine the setback for that pool? MR.JENKS: I think he made some calls to the county. I don't have that information. I don't work with the designer. He's somebody that designs houses. I was sent the plans. I sent them to an engineer. I have an engineer. I submitted it for a building permit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You do--that's what most GCs would do,so I'm not surprised at that. I'm trying to find out--actually,in your--not your defense,but your client's defense,on how this error occurred. It appears--up until your attorney made the statement he made,it appeared that the applicant,which is your designer or your client,drew the plans up and submitted them to the county,the county reviewed them,and the county erroneously approved them without notifying the client that there was an error in the setback. Page 11 of 46 January 19,2017 ,.� I think the error probably was on the plan. I think the error's on both part of the applicant as well as the part of county for not catching it.And the county missed it numerous times. I've got the plans. It wasn't vague. It was clear. It was clear where it was. Your structural drawings show how that stair was also--the width of the stair was clear. I mean,anybody that reads plans would have been able to figure this out. I can't--I certainly can't say the staff is not to blame in part of this. They certainly are. And I think the issue is that whoever set this up in the site plan trying to determine what the initial setbacks were either went to the wrong table or missed the footnote on the second table,kind of as we started out here today. There's two tables,and one is for waterfront,one is for non-waterfront. But one has a little Subscript 3,and the other doesn't. And if you're from another part of the county,you wouldn't be surprised at six-and-a-half feet in height because I bet you could go up to seven. So there's a lot of little things that came into play on this one. It's certainly understandable that some errors were made. I just think we need to find a solution today. In regards to how you were going to finish off this concrete wall now that's there,has anybody looked at opportunities to,say,take away/distract from that wall by cladding it,by putting in shrubbery,by doing embankments or anything like that? MR.JENKS: Those were all options,and it would definitely be some landscaping on the backside �-. of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you-all haven't brought anything,though,to propose today? MR.JENKS: We did not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The height of the seawall. You were the GC;the pool contractor ^ was subbed to you. Orick Marine,I believe,did the deck. Was he contracted through you or directly to the owner? MR.JENKS: Through the owner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you work with him at all in coordinating things? MR.JENKS: I did not;not the seawall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you know--is he here today;does anybody know? MR.JENKS: He's not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. He certified the seawall to be done according to the plans. I see--I found the certification. The plans call for a 4.2 deck height,top height on the seawall cap. The plans that all this variance request is from is a 3.2 height. I just am now--that's a 1-foot difference. It's significant when you look at the difference you have in what you're trying to seek as a solution to your whole operation. And I'm just wondering, does anybody know if that seawall is actually elevated to the 4.2 that the certification seems to insinuate? MR.JENKS: It should show it on the survey that we turned in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,it does. It shows 3.2,but I've got a building plan that says it will be capped at 4.2,and I have a certification from the installer that says that's right. So I'm confused by the height of the cap. MR.JENKS: I don't know the answer to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The stair. Did you submit a change to the plans to have the stair turned in that direction you've got here? MR.JENKS: We did not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean,it's a minor issue. It's still the same distance out,but I just happened to notice it was twisted in a different way. MR.JENKS: It was just easier access to the dock. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,actually,it's better for the neighbors,too. It actually makes people using the stairs going in and out a different direction. So from that perspective,it doesn't harm anything. I was just curious if it got cleared through another permit application. That may have had some indication to the setbacks;may have looked at them again. That's all. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Page 12 of 46 January 19, 2017 COMMISSIONER EBERT: Have you built in Collier County before? MR.JENKS: This was the first house I ever submitted for for a full construction. We've done lot of remodels and additions in Collier County. �-. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. So you,as a contractor,are familiar with our codes then? MR.JENKS: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. MR.JENKS: But not the code that has the height on the seawall. This wasn't done intentionally. COMMISSIONER EBERT: No,we all kind of understand that,but-- MR.JENKS: Right. COMMISSIONER EBERT: --one other thing. I'm reading through this,is that a lot of this was found last October. Is there a CO on this property yet? MR.JENKS: There is not. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So the people have not moved into the home? MR.JENKS: They have not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This started with a complaint that started with Contractor Licensing,and I think in April of 2016,then it was followed up with a slab survey in May of 2016. I think that's when everything was kind of unfolded from that point forward. But it wasn't necessarily Code Enforcement initiated,as some of this information shows. It was Contractor Licensing that initiated it,the call. It came into Contractor Licensing from a neighbor across the way,apparently. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So it does go back quite a ways then? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,April of last year;a little bit less than a year ago. They've been trying to work and get it resolved since then. It started with my office,and then it had to get continued to here. MR.JENKS: We've continued to work on the house,but we haven't touched anything on the pool or the pool deck since we were notified of the issue. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. So the pool deck is-- MR.JENKS: It's exactly like it was when we were told it was not in compliance. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Thank you. .-. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of the gentleman? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. On that picture shown that you have on the visualizer,the deck that is--and this is a general question that probably the applicant,anybody,can answer. But the deck height that is in the house on the bottom of the picture, is that boat deck higher in elevation than the existing deck that was built? MR.JENKS: The deck we constructed is higher than that deck. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It is? Because this one--that deck to the south appears to go over the seawall,and it's all one structure all the way up to the pool. I'm looking at,is that--was that the intent for this existing-- ^ MR.JENKS: It looks like their dock comes over the-- ^ COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's it,the dock. MR.JENKS: --ground is what it is,and they just built the dock and went all the way back to that seawall or to their pool retaining wall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SHAPIRO: Mr. Strain,I just wanted to clarify one thing. When I made the comment that--I guess,that the permitting erroneously gave them the wrong setbacks,so I personally have no idea.I actually read that from the staff report,so that's where I got that information from. That's what they state in their staff report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other witnesses that you want to call,or you done with your Page 13 of 46 January 19,2017 presentation? MR.SHAPIRO: We are done with the presentation. There--as you said,the only other people would be neighbors,but I believe they go later. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They'll be coming up later,yes. Okay. Thank you very much,both of you.Appreciate it. Fred,do you have a staff report? MR.REISCHL: Thank you,Mr.Chairman. Fred Reischl with Planning and Zoning. You've read the staff report,and staff is recommending approval with the condition. You know normally that variances run with the land. In this case,we're recommending that if there--if the structure is destroyed more than 50 percent of assessed value,that it would have to meet current setbacks. So we're modifying it so--because this is based on a financial hardship,we figure that financial hardship would go away if the house was destroyed;therefore,they'd have to meet current setbacks. It would not run with the land. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any questions of the staff? I think,Joe,you had one earlier. Did you still? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No. I'll just hold off until we have general discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Fred,on the--oh, Stan? ,-� COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: When we have that general discussion,are we going to be allowed to ask them questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. We won't close the public hearing until that's over. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As far as your understanding of how this originated,do you know if,in fact, staff,at the period in which an applicant may have asked for design features of this location,this lot,was given--was the applicant given information to say he could use a 10-foot setback,or is that just something that seems to be not verified? MR.REISCHL: I don't know the answer to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. At this point the only thing I can find is it was submitted .-. erroneously,then reviewed erroneously,and then a permit was issued erroneously. That's the best I can-- MR.REISCHL: That was my understanding,too,but I don't know for sure if someone directed them to do it at 10 or not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead,Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Fred,you said this is a financial hardship. I would not blame the owners of this home on this at all,but the--being it is--that the pool was stopped so long ago and nothing has been done,I would think that it would be their responsibility and not the owner's responsibility as far as financial;is that correct? MR.REISCHL: That's a legal question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was going to say... COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well,I mean,we always use money,you know,in this stuff. And I was just--like I say,I don't feel that it should be up to the owner. But were these people--were they told you can proceed at your own risk? MR.REISCHL: That's our standard answer is that,yes,you can proceed at your own risk pending the outcome of the--in this case was the Hearing Examiner and now the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. When were they told that they could proceed at their own risk? How far back? Was this April/May when all this happened? MR.REISCHL: The Building Department would have done that. I don't know. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I want to clarify. I mean,that's-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was going to go there,too. Go ahead,Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I think it's sort of disingenuous to say they're proceeding at their Page 14 of 46 r-� January 19,2017 own risk. It's a procedural process. When you come in and submit for a permit application,the applicant submits,submits the plans and drawings,they're reviewed by staff,and they're approved by staff. So the applicant proceeds based on the understanding that what they submitted meets in compliance ^. with all the requirements. I don't know if that's the proceed-at-risk issue. It is a review and approval. MR.REISCHL: Well,it would be a risk that the variance would be approved versus-- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well,wait a minute.No,I'm going back prior to when the house was first submitted. When the application first goes in,the applicant goes in,the plans are reviewed,the setbacks are reviewed,the setbacks are approved,and the applicant hires a builder,and they build a house based on what the county approved. I don't know if there's a case of sovereign immunity. I guess that's an issue from the county. Could the county be held responsible? I'm not going to go down there,but that's not an issue.The issue here is there's a variance,and--I mean,in general terms,I've got to tell you what,my days in the county,this is more post-traumatic stress than my year in Afghanistan,I've got to tell you. I went through several of these in my tenure as the county--or the administrator for Community Development. And it's a case of applications coming in,the amount of applications coming in and the stress to approve--review and approve,and there was an error made,basically. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: They were given a permit that says 10 feet. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: How much of the house was built when this was found? MR.REISCHL: I was not the original planner on this. One of my coworkers was. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: The contractor would probably know that better than you �-. would. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was going to ask the contractor to come back up. No,you have to come to the microphone,and maybe we've got a couple more questions for you. Before we do,there was something I wanted to mention in line with what you were saying. The reviewer on this,by the way,was a fellow we had hired recently from Marco Island,and it wouldn't surprise me if,based on his knowledge of Marco Island,Marco Island would have allowed this to go to seven feet, that might have also contributed to the error that happened. �-. Sir,if you could answer-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: How much of the house was built when the problem was found? MR.JENKS: The rear retaining wall was in place,the pool shell was in place,the slab was in place, and I think we had just poured the tie beam,and we may have started framing by then. I don't have the exact-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. Because there was a comment you made earlier that you did the pool first. I could understand that,because you couldn't build a pool with the house in the way-- MR.JENKS: Correct. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: --unless you built it from the waterway,which is practically impossible-- MR.JENKS: Correct. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: --which is one of the problem you're going to have if you have to take it out. You've got to take it out from water side,which is practically impossible. You've got to �., move the dock,you've got to move the boat. So I could see,even if you told them that,hey,the pool was in the wrong place,you know,they might as well not stop because there's nothing they can do. The house is already in the way. MR.JENKS: That's true. That's true. We didn't do anything to make it any harder to remove this pool or,you know-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. But once the house is up to the tie beam,you're not going to get back here to do anything with the pool. MR.JENKS: Correct. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Not easily. MR.JENKS: Not easily. .-. Page 15 of 46 January 19,2017 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Well,you can do anything you want if you've got enough money. Okay. Thanks. '� CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got a question,a follow-up. MR.JENKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You anchored the pool,not with piling,with tie grade beams is what you--that's the only thing holding the pool down? MR.JENKS: Pilings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,you've got piling as well. MR.JENKS: And footers,yeah. It's sitting on pilings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now,there was a cost put in the report that said it would be about $50,000 to remove that pool and then,of course,it would have to be redone,then all the debris would have to be removed. I know it's not finished,but I would think the 50,000 is certainly a number that's probably realistic in looking at the condition it's in today just to get that concrete taken out and hauled away,if not more. So to answer--Diane seemed to think you stopped construction and,if you did,maybe your value to replace the pool wouldn't be as great. I think the 50,000 is probably conservative in cost-wise to clean this up if it had to be. MR.JENKS: It probably is. And it wouldn't--nothing changed back there. You know,if it was--we continued with the house at our own risk. We still have to get all the stuff back around the front of the house,so we didn't change anything of tearing the pool out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you very much. ^ MR.JENKS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you have anything? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that,we will go to--we'll start with registered speakers. As your name is called,please come up to one of the microphones,identify yourself for the record,and if your name is hard to spell,just please spell it for the court reporter so we don't get it mixed up. �-. MR.REISCHL: The first speaker is Edward Tappen followed by George Marks. MR.TAPPEN: My name is Edward Tappen. I spell my name T-a-p-p-e-n. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR.TAPPEN: Was there anything else? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, sir,that's fine. We're off to a good start. MR.TAPPEN: For the last year I've been an advocate for having Collier County establish common municipal golf courses. Collier-- - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This--sir,are you here to talk about the golf course? MR.TAPPEN: Yes,I am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is not that one. MR.TAPPEN: Pardon me? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're not talking about that right now. It's coming up in about-- MR.REISCHL: That's the next item. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the next item. This is about a pool variance,swimming pool variance. MR.TAPPEN: Okay. Sony. I thought my name was called. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No problem. Save his card for later. MR.REISCHL: There was no item listed on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,I'm sorry. It was a mix-up on our part. MR.TAPPEN: Will I be back soon? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I hope so. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: We hope. MR.REISCHL: And I know I called Mr.Marks next,but his attorney,Patrick Neale,requested to go before Mr.Marks. Page 16 of 46 January 19,2017 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR.REISCHL: Patrick Neale followed by George Marks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And,by the way,for those of you who have not attended our meetings before,speakers are limited to three minutes unless waived. We generally don't enforce that as long as the information you're providing is not redundant and it's not repetitive. So we're here to listen to you. Just be conscious of everybody's time,please. Thank you. MR.NEALE: Good morning,ladies and gentlemen. Patrick Neale,N-e-a-1-e,for Mr. and Mrs. Marks who are in opposition to this variance. What I'd like to bring the Board's attention to is--the Commission's attention to is more the legal issues that revolve around this. As you're probably aware,there are,you know,eight criteria that are involved in the granting of a variance. A variance is not something that's to be taken lightly. There's a great deal of case law out there on variances,and I'm not about to bore anybody with doing what I have to do all day,which is read case law,so I'm not going to do that. But what I'd like to bring to the Board's attention is a case called Indialantic versus Nance,which really sets out the primary issues as to a zoning variance. And the prerequisite to a granting of the variance is the presence of an exceptionally unique hardship to the individual landowner,unique to that parcel and not shared by other property owners in the area. There's nothing unique about this situation for the landowner. The landowner simply went in,had a design professional who did not know what they were doing,frankly. They came in and submitted a plan that was in error based on the evidence of record at this point,and then proceeded to build based on that. Now,yes,they did rely on the county's assertions,but in my experience in dealing with county permits--and I've been here for a while--typically the permit says that it's the responsibility of the landowner and their design professionals to meet the code. It's not the responsibility of the county to make sure the design professionals did their jobs properly. So we'll go through--and I'm going to very briefly go through the eight different criteria--any special conditions and circumstances particularly land,location,size,and characteristics of the structure. And in this case there are none. These are essentially lots that are all pretty much the same within a development wherein the Land Development Code sets out what the standards are for this kind of construction. And we've heard ad nauseam what the standards are,as it's a--it's a 20-foot setback here. And this is a significant deviation from that. It's a 50 percent deviation from the setback,and it's about a 60 percent deviation from the height. So it's a very significant deviation. Any special circumstances do not result from the action of the applicant. Every problem here results from the actions of the applicant. The applicant is the one who made the error in submitting the application. .-� Yes,the county may have messed up,and they occasionally do that,but in this case, still it's the applicant who had--who made the erroneous application. Will a literal interpretation of the provisions work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant? .-. I say that this is not unnecessary undue hardship because they're the one that made the mistake in the first place. Will the variance,if granted,be the minimum variance to make possible a responsible use of the land,building,or structure? The minimum use of this is to build a house,and they're going to be able to build a house;they're just not going to be able to put their pool as close to the water as they want it to be. Will it confer on the applicant any special privilege that's denied by these zoning regulations? Well, yes,it does. What it does is allow this person to build their pool where no one else can build it under the same set of circumstances. So,yes,they are getting a special privilege. Is it going to be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the LDC and not injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to public welfare? Well,it's not in harmony with the LDC;that's clear. And I will get testimony here later that will state that it's injurious to the neighborhood. Natural conditions or physically induced conditions? No,there's no natural conditions or physically induced conditions. This was a bare lot in a subdivision. Will it be consistent with the Growth Management Plan? Well,yes,it is. I will admit to that;so it is Page 17 of 46 .1 January 19, 2017 consistent with the Growth Management Plan. So,therefore,I mean,I believe and I would argue that this doesn't meet any of the criteria for the granting of a variance and that the variance should be denied. And so that is all I have to say. Thank you very much. Any questions,please? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Patrick,do you have-- Pat,I've got a couple. MR.NEALE: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The Atlantic(sic)case that you cited is a 1982 case? MR.NEALE: Yes. �-. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I did notice you didn't provide it as backup. And did you do any research to verify that the variance criteria language in there--in that case in 1982 was identical to the variance language--let me finish first. One at a time. MR.NEALE: Sony. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That way it's identical language that we have in today's code. Because in 1982,we didn't even have--our GMP wasn't even enacted yet. So we had--that was an 82-2 code in Collier County. Have you done any of that research? MR.NEALE: Yes,I did;I did. And I went through and,what we call, Shepardized the case and checked future cases and,basically,they all mirror the same language. And,actually,our code very closely mirrors the language that's set out in Indialantic and other cases that are subsequent in its progeny,so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You didn't bring any of that with you? MR.NEALE: I didn't. I wasn't going to make full-blown legal argument here because-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,we definitely would have appreciated you doing that. MR.NEALE: I can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said it's not in harmony. How come it is in harmony in the community that I believe you actually lived at on Marco Island? How come it's in harmony in Isle of Capri? How come that height would have been in harmony elsewhere in the county but,uniquely at Vanderbilt Beach,it's not in harmony? MR.NEALE: Well,as you know,legislative decisions are made. This is--obviously,that would be a legislative decision setting out the code as opposed to a quasi-judicial decision. And legislatures can make decisions such as that based on the character of that particular community. So the legislature as it was,the County Commission,or those--Marco City Council made those decisions at that point in time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I can ask staff this,but I think you probably have the same answer. This Board's responsibility is to review consistent to the Land Development Code;is that not true? MR.NEALE: Yes,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker,please. MR.REISCHL: Next speaker is George Marks,followed by David Galloway. MR.MARKS: Good morning,everyone. My name is George Marks. I live at 319 Lagoon Avenue in Naples. And I am a licensed architect,and I am here for a reason that I think is important to the entire community of Vanderbilt Beach. What has--I,quite frankly,myself and the other neighbors,we feel badly for the people that are trying--the applicants here that are building this property. They hired a designer,they hired a builder,they hired everybody to build this for them,and their house has been built. And,quite frankly,we think they're building a nice house. The problem becomes the issue of the pool,and the problem becomes not just the--not just the issue of the fact of the way this exists now,but the precedent it sets going forward. We don't believe there's a hardship here. We all know that you can't create your own hardship.I've sat on your side of the table. I understand the legal on--Mr.Neale has already addressed that,and I'm not going to repeat that. But the key issue that Mr. Shapiro stated was that all of his pictures were taken from aerial views. It Page 18 of 46 January 19, 2017 did not show the actual height of the pool. I can use the--your projector there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We need to have something kept. You can't--you'll need to send that to--can you send that to staff-- .. MR.MARKS: I will email it to Mr.Reischl as soon as we're done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR.MARKS: Okay. If you--can you--does that work okay? Can everybody kind of see that? So if you look at the pool over here that is on the right-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not on,sir. MR.MARKS: Thank you. If you look at the pool that's set over here on the right,this pool is six-and-a-half feet above the .-. seawall. I'm rounding,of course. This is the property directly adjacent to it, and you can see that in that case the pool is significantly within the zoning. If you look at the property to the other side--so on both sides of this property you can see the pool over here on the adjacent property,that is also within the guidelines,and significantly lower than the height of the pool that is being provided here. We're here trying to be practical,and we're here to understand that this is a difficult situation,but we believe that when the county enacted their zoning law,there are pools that exist that are higher--at the higher level,but in good planning--we moved to Collier County because you've done such a great job with planning. All that we're asking you for is to enforce the actual zoning laws that you put in place. You lowered the height of the pool,and you gave them the option of building--if you're greater than a 20-foot setback, you have to be lower. If you're set back,you can be higher. Why is that? It's for visual corridor. What we don't want to have happen and the main reason I'm here is that we do not want this variance to be granted and then the next person that's further away from the gulf says,well,now I do have a hardship because you allowed that pool to stay in exact,not being within code,and then this becomes a cancer that spreads throughout the entire Vanderbilt community. We are just asking you to enforce the laws that you have. We understand the burden. I'm not going to use the word"hardship"because that's a legal term that we do not believe applies here. To not be unreasonable,we as the neighbors that are objecting and asking that this be held,we understand that all the dimensional variance has already been talked about. This is 60 percent higher. It's 60 percent closer to the canal than it should be. Our concern is that the visual corridor,Mr.Strain,that you spoke about,becomes narrowed.And if you allow this to continue across the whole length of the canal,that visual corridor is diminished. This is not a property on the gulf or on a wide canal. If you allow this to happen,it narrows that visual corridor as much as 20 feet for that entire corridor for a corridor that's not that wide to begin with. That's the reason we're here. That's the reason we're spending our dollars in hiring Mr.Neale,and that's the reason we're making(sic)our time to be here tonight. Our suggestion to make a compromise solution to this--and you asked Mr.Shapiro if he came with a compromise. You asked him if he had a solution. We're here to offer a solution. Our suggestion is that the fact that they are even--they're even violating their own 10-foot setback requirement by three and a half feet. Our suggestion is,leave the layout where it is but lower the height. If you look at this photograph, you can see how it is grossly higher than the properties that are adjacent to it. And our--you can see it in that picture very clearly. Our--we're not trying to be unreasonable.We're offering a reasonable solution that says,lower the pool to the required height setback,because we believe that is the bigger issue than the setback. The setback, the steps being six inches wider,we're not here to object to that. We're hoping to have the variance defeated.If we have to,and we have to go to the commissioners and that is--and this variance is granted,we are prepared,because of the importance of this issue by not creating a precedent to appeal at a higher level,we would much rather be reasonable people and have a reasonable solution today that takes care of this issue. Thank you. Page 19 of 46 January 19,2017 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Could I ask you a question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? MR.MARKS: Please do. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: The house--as I understand it,that white house,the floor is built to FEMA elevation? MR.REISCHL: Correct. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: How come it looks so much higher than the other two? Are they not? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know. I don't think he could answer that. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Well,if you took the pool out,you'd still be looking at a white face of the wall of the house because it's built to FEMA elevation. You wouldn't see anything different from this view that I'm looking at if you took the entire pool out. So it would still look the same as--you know,higher than the houses on both sides. ^ MR.MARKS: This view is not the objection.The objection is when you're on the adjacent properties and you're looking out the canal,the fact that pool is six-and-a-half feet above. If it was at the four-feet requirement,you would still be able to see and have a visual--not as detrimentally impact the visual barter(sic). COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. So this view,even though you showed it, doesn't really mean anything? MR.MARKS: We did not wish to violate the neighbors'rights and walk on their property to take these pictures. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And the neighbors have no problem with this? MR.MARKS: I'm not--the neighbors-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We haven't heard all the testimony. �-. MR.MARKS: We heard that objection on the 43 versus eight. I'm not here to exaggerate any issues. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. I'm just--I was just curious what the objection was with that view. It will look like that when they take the pool out. MR.MARKS: I'm using that view to just show the gross difference in the heights. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. Thanks. MR.MARKS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: But that's due to FEMA. MR.MARKS: That's not the issue in play here.The issue in play here is the pool,not the height of the building. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. MR.MARKS: We have no objections to the height of the building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead,Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I want to go along the same lines. Mr.Marks,is it? MR.MARKS: Yes,sir. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just,again,for the record,you're showing a comparison to the height.But you do not have any information on when that house that you're showing now,the brown house, which,as I look at it,to the--from the back,to the left,you don't have any information on when that was built or what the base flood elevation requirements were for that--on that house when it was constructed; likewise,the house on the right? There's been significant changes--and you know this,you're an architect--in the flood elevation requirements,as Stan alluded to,the base flood elevation,and mandated by the flood zone. And,regardless, you made a statement about reducing the height. They can only reduce the height of the pool,not the house. MR.MARKS: Absolutely. We have no objection to the height of the house. The purpose of this variance is only the pool,and we're keeping our comments just to the pool. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. So but the house--clearly,the house that you're showing �-. here to the left of the home that's in question,as I look at it from the back,the base flood elevation is clearly a Page 20 of 46 January 19,2017 .-. different elevation than what was now required. MR.MARKS: I am not in a position to answer that one way or the other,sir. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. You brought up the comparison. I'm pointing out the difference. MR.MARKS: Understood. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have a question,a couple questions. First is the County Attorney's Office in regards to the--now,this setting a precedent. Could one of the county attorneys opine on whether this does or not? MR.KLATZKOW: Does it set a precedent? No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr.Marks,are you licensed in the state of Florida as an architect? MR.MARKS: My firm does work here. I am personally not licensed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: hi the state of Florida? MR.MARKS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you licensed at all? MR.MARKS: I am,yes,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What state? MR.MARKS: Pennsylvania. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You indicated that they could leave the pool but lower the height. As an architect,I don't know if you do structural engineering or designing as well. Do you do just architect or do you do structural included in your firm? MR.MARKS: I have a BS in structural engineering. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you know that this is built with grade beams and piling? MR.MARKS: Ido. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How would you expect them in to lower the pool? MR.MARKS: They would have to remove the pool. They'd have to cut off the top of the piles,they have to remove the grade beams. I understand the implications. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just want the audience to understand and the people on this panel to understand it. Thank you. You indicated that--the concern about the view corridor going up and down east and west of that canal. First of all,you live opposite the water from this unit down a little bit about--over a hundred feet away;is that correct? The canal's a hundred feet wide,an assumption. MR.MARKS: I am two properties down across the canal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Your concern is up and down the canal and you feel--I thought you stated that if this went to four feet,as required by the code,and they left it that location,they could actually build the cage like the house you have on the left here. How would a 4-foot-high pool with a cage like that change the view perception when we're only talking two-and-a-half feet overall? So what--how do you see that happening when you could still put the same structures on top of the deck and have the same view corridor that you've got with or without the two-and-a-half feet? MR.MARKS: You can see through a cage. It's a little tough to see through concrete. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So up and down that canal people would be seeing through these cages to get views of the waterway? MR.MARKS: If that is what is permitted by code,I support it. I'm only asking that the county enforce the zoning code as they have presented it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. That's all I've got. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question. Is the seawall at the same level for these properties? Is the seawall all even? " CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. If you look at this map,this is an example of what I was trying to get the applicant to have responded to earlier. That seawall they put in,according to the certified building permits,it's one foot higher than the seawall to the left. This actually shows that.And I'm assuming that you are not any more familiar with this than I am in that regard. Page 21 of 46 January 19, 2017 MR.MARKS: I would look at the picture same as you saw it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That one foot I'm not sure was taken into consideration when this whole variance height part of it came into play because the surveys I'm showing called out the old height of the �-. seawall,not the new height that was certified to,which changes the deviation of a foot. So instead of 50 or 60 percent off,we're a little bit--we're another foot,which will take it down substantially. I'm just not sure how anybody measured this or where the measurement came from. MR.MARKS: I would believe some verification would be there,because if the--if the actual deck is six-and-a-half feet above that seawall,the condition's actually worse. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But according to the information supplied,it's six-and-a-half feet above 3.2. That's the old height,not the new height. And that's the best I can tell you from the documents I've read,so... MR.MARKS: I'm not in a position to-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would have been to the benefit of the applicant to have researched that. I wish they had. I don't have any other questions. Thank you,sir. MR.MARKS: Thank you,everyone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker,Fred. MR.REISCHL: Next speaker is David Galloway followed by Nancy Burns. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way,we will take a break at 10:30. MR.GALLOWAY: David Galloway,resident of the Vanderbilt Beach residents area. And,you know,we listen to these issues many times. I have to applaud the Planning Commission.I know there's a lot of research done on your part;I really appreciate it as just an average citizen out in Collier County. I feel for the true applicants,the owner of the property,because it's not their fault even though they hired the contractor,the architects,and whatever,and I feel for them on this issue. I somewhat feel for the builder,the architects,but they didn't do their homework.They didn't do it properly. And even if it was a new employee or newer employee that was--new issues from Marco Island, they obviously didn't know Collier County, so I think that the Collier County has a true problem here as us as the government. I think possibly that when we start issuing hardship variances based on financial,it's--we should not be making other people's problems our problems,and I say that in all respect,because we've all been through this. I think the only people that make really some fees here are the attorneys. If you look,both sides have attorneys.And it's unfortunate they have to spend the money on their attorneys. It's unfortunate on both -- sides. I come here free gratis,my time,but it's also an issue that I think we have to--we have great zoning, and code ordinances in Collier County over the years have been developed very strongly,and I support those; I follow them as they've been developed and the people that do--the commissioners that do enact them. But we have to do this equally and fairly across all lines. And it's a slippery slope when we start granting variances just based on financial hardship even though it's 50,000,25,000,or 100,000. But also the county should be responsible for some of this also and not just saying,well,everybody made a mistake. Let's just let it go away,because it's not fair to the other citizens that live in that community also. So I speak only as a concerned citizen that we have to constantly,in the Collier County,enforce the ordinances and the code equally across the board so that there's--we don't have these kind of long,drawn-out Planning Commission meetings where everybody gets involved in these. And I think that--overall,I think this could be remedied,but it's an issue that's going to come up again,as we know, someplace in the county,whether it's Marco Island or whether it's here,and northern Collier County,but it's an issue that has to be addressed,and we have to get the personnel that are going to be reviewing this and looking at these things so it doesn't come to this point again. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. We have time for one more speaker. Page 22 of 46 January 19, 2017 MR.REISCHL: Nancy Burns. MR. SHAPIRO: We have a speaker that has to leave at 10:30. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir,we're--okay. Yeah.You're not supposed to be doing that. Thank you. MS.BURNS: Nancy Burns,and I'm a resident of Vanderbilt Beach,Gulf Shore Drive. Anyway,I do support the Planning Board,and I do believe that the county has an obligation to validate our issues and also support the codes. I really feel for the people. I'm sorry that it's happened for them,but I do feel code should be enforced. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. That was quicker than I thought. We have one speaker, apparently,who has to leave at 10:30. On that basis,we'll try to accommodate them if they'd like to come up to the microphone. Identify yourself for the record. MR.JORGENSON: Thank you for doing that. I appreciate it. My name is Jerry Jorgenson. I live at 367 Lagoon Avenue. I've been there for 11 years. I have to disagree with Mr.Marks fantastically about the views. With all the trees,palm trees, everything that we have,you can't see up and down the canals anyway. I live right across the street from this property. I looked at a garbage home for 10 years.I had to call inspectors out to get it cleaned up because there was renters there at one time,and the lady was very nice enough to get it taken care of for me. I'm going to tell you something; I drive those canals all the time,and there's a lot of these high things out there,some prior to the codes,some changed. And,by the way,that wall you're talking about,all the new ones go in now,and you're probably aware,that they are a foot higher now. So whenever you put in a new seawall,it has to go up one foot higher than the old seawalls,so we have seawalls going up and down,up and down until people build,so it really looks kind of ugly,to tell you the truth. It would be nice if we could all have our seawalls the same height. So there's a lot of issues that occur when you're building. In this case,I live directly across the street. I'm very pleased to see the house the way it is. I don't see it being an eyesore in any way,shape,or form. I'm sorry that the county made a mistake. If they wouldn't have,we wouldn't be standing here today. And maybe the builder made a mistake. The problem is,is what--your point you made regarding the cage or someone's point regarding the cage,that is exactly correct. It doesn't--if you go down our canal,we have some of the ugliest structures that you want to see. I do rather(sic)try to fight to get these things taken down like I did a lot of huts that used to be on the thing.They were falling apart during the hurricanes,and they finally took them down. The county come out and said,they're not in compliance;take them down. And then these grass hut things. But on our canal on his side that he looks at,he looks at a lot worse thing than that,I can tell you. We have double-deck wooden structures. They were built,you know,back in the day when you could do that,okay,and they were ugly as heck;painted,peeling,ugly-looking decks. There's one guy who keeps his up nice. The other one,he's got a big tent on top of it. I mean,you're talking about--as you're going out of the canal,we're talking about a beautiful home that's going to have a beautiful--they have every intentions of putting shrubberies and stuff in there. ^ And I don't care what he says;you can't see up and down regardless. I could stand on that side of the canal and sit at Marge and Rich's house on their patio,okay--I go over there and visit them a lot--and we can look right down the canal,and you know,it doesn't obstruct anything. �-. All of our homes,our views,even my home which was built a long time ago--I walk out to my pool from ground level because we were built before the codes changed. And I didn't build it; somebody else did. And when we sit up in our home--we live up in the upper level of our home--we see everything because we have a northern view,you know,looking--and it's--we're so happy this is going up that I'm ecstatic. We have a lot of old homes still in our area,and they keep going down. And as you go out the canal--I don't know,Mr.Marks'house,whoever,he's got a big pool wall with a sand thing next to it. It's,in my opinion,very unattractive to look at. Not his wall but,you know--it's just fine.It's the way it is. And he's allowed to do that,and that's fine. We don't have an issue with it.I don't know him very well,and that's his business what he wants to do. .01 Page 23 of 46 January 19, 2017 But in my opinion,you do have--do follow codes. I'm a car dealer. I've built dealerships.We go for variances all the time. You have to go for variances sometimes in life to make things easier and simpler to deal with. If you didn't have variances,what would we have to go back and even--let's just say they wanted a variance before they built because they needed to do it in this particular way because of room--they don't have much room--there's not much property there,so you have to kind of utilize it the best you can. And I'm going to tell you what;it's real nice looking across the street and seeing a beautiful home with a nice wall. And this gentleman Stan,he had a terrific point. I'd rather look at that pool wall than have that pool way down here. Now I'm looking at them trying to build steps to get down to the pool wall,and you're still looking at a wall. And I'm right across the street,literally. And the boat blocks the view anyway,but I like looking at boats,because I have one,too. So thank you for the time. I really appreciate it. And I hope you take under consideration that there's a lot of us there that have no objection to this. I mean,I talked to some of my neighbors;they're not here to speak for themselves,but they said,sure,we don't have a problem with this. I mean,what does it matter? I mean,I agree with rules and stuff,but this one fell through the cracks,and that's why you have variances. And I thank you guys and--for your time and efforts and the time you guys put into your jobs. Thank you so much for letting me speak early.Appreciate it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,sir. Now,with that,we will take a break until 10:45,and then when we get back,we'll resume with public speakers and then after,the rest of our agenda. Thank you. (A brief recess was had.) MR.BOSI: Chair,you have a live mike. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If everybody will please resume their seats. We left off with public testimony. We're going to resume with public testimony, and Fred will be calling the next speaker. MR.REISCHL: Steve Emens,followed by John Prestwood. MR.EMENS: I'm Steve Emens,331 Lagoon Avenue. I am the person who called in April because I noticed that going up. The main reason why I called is I know the code. And at that time,before--they had the slab down, before they built the ceiling,construction(sic)this,I wanted to give them the opportunity,because I knew it was going to cost them a lot of money at the end if they didn't get a variance or if they did not get it approved. That's why I called at that time. I couldn't believe that it got missed because you have your architect that has to do the site plan and the surveyor,your pool contractor has to submit plans with elevations on it,so that's another permit where the elevations got missed besides the basic permit. �• So the seawall guy submitted his and,yes,that seawall is up one foot,and the elevation of the deck,I measured it,is six foot from the new seawall. So that's where that stands. And I watched everybody come out and survey the whole property in April. And then nothing happened. Nothing happened. So now they're applying for a variance after the house is already built. Okay. We're so far along now,we can't do it. It cost too much money. The homeowner's not at fault,I understand.They depended upon a licensed architect;they depended upon a survey that should have been signed and sealed;they depended upon the pool contractor that should �-. have had signed and sealed plans because it has engineering. You can't submit any plans without signed and sealed. You have to have your elevations on it. Now,those professionals are insured professionals,and they should know the codes in Collier County. The house is beautiful,okay. Nothing wrong with that. It's a great-looking house. The view's good. It's just that it's not to code. It got passed. I don't know what reason. I've seen things happen a lot of time where--well,I don't know the case,so I'm not going to speculate on it--where somebody said,hey,oh,can't you just do this for me? Sure we can. And then they build it,and then it's too late,without going back, resubmitting plans. I don't know that. But I do know across the street there's a new house under construction about the same stage they are. Page 24 of 46 January 19, 2017 ,.� They're putting their trusses on right now.The house is 20-foot setback. The pool is a 10-foot setback,and it's 10-foot,and they have their stairs coming down. And in reference to FEMA code,I know that swimming pools and auxiliary setbacks do not have to �• be at that FEMA height. They can be below FEMA height. But you can build anywhere in Vanderbilt at grade without a height requirement for that pool to be FEMA. It's the pool equipment,electronics,and the main house structure. And that's my understanding. So that's-- ^ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You said you called. Who did you call? MR.EMENS: I called Code Enforcement first.I didn't know whether it was a building or a code violation. That's where I noticed it was-- .. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A slip came in from Joseph Norris,who is a code compliance for the Contractor Licensing. That's the memo in the file that says you called them. It's got your cell number 860 something or other? MR.EMENS: Yeah, 8070. Yeah. I called him.He goes,oh,no,I'm going to forward that on to whomever. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,the only record,the only report is for code licensing. I found under--Code Enforcement didn't get involved at that point. So your call into licensing isn't-- �-. MR.EMENS: Well,yeah,because they turned it right over to that. They said,oh,you're calling the wrong people here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,he went out and took pictures and photographs of the site. So he actually did some of the followup. MR.EMENS: Right,and that's where it all started back then. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And there's pictures that show what stage it was at when this call was made? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. We can put them on the overhead if you'd like. This is basically--it's a similar stage to what you've already got. MR.EMENS: Yeah. I knew it was going to be trouble. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's seven or so pictures. That's one of them. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And what stage was it at? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: About what it is today.They have a--I think-- ^ COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So the house was there? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR.EMENS: Not in April it wasn't all there. They poured the slab,and they were putting up-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr.Norris went out and took these pictures after--in response to the call. So I didn't--I mean,I haven't got one of the house. That's a picture of what you just about saw. MR. EMENS: Right. The pool was there because they built it before the house went up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR.EMENS: But then when I saw that,it was out--I went over,I measured it. I--and I'm thinking,okay,you going to do your final survey at the end,and now-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What did you measure it with? Did you use a-- MR.EMENS: Tape measure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tape measure? MR.EMENS: Yeah,yeah. I hooked it on the-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now,you're the complainant,and you went on the property that you filed a complaint against to show that they were in error.Did you get their permission to go on their property? MR.EMENS: No,I did not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's kind of odd. I don't know--I've never heard anybody doing that before. MR.EMENS: Well,no,I just walked around and-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Trespassed. Page 25 of 46 January 19, 2017 MR.EMENS: I just saw it,and I wasn't sure,okay,so I measured it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have some--I noticed in looking at your name--and I didn't have your last name; I had your phone number. When I plugged the phone number in to Google,it came up--you had some YouTubes done,and I guess you do pool work for Nassau Pools. MR.EMENS: I build swimming pools,and that's how I knew the code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'm still curious what stage the house was at,because the information I got before was that the house was partially up when this happened,and he's saying the house was not up at all. MR.EMENS: Well,the walls were up,but it was clear access. You could come straight through the front over the slab right to get to the pool at that time. There was no nothing inside. It was open. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we can let this one go for now. That's more if the applicant wants to deal with the trespass;that's not our issue. Thank you,sir. MR.EMENS: Yeah. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker,please. MR.REISCHL: John Prestwood followed by Ronald Rossbach. MR.PRESTWOOD: John Prestwood,P-r-e-s-t-w-o-o-d. I'm a neighbor also on Lagoon.And I just wanted to support Mr.Marks'and Mr.Emens'comments and those from Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association that I'm concerned with the code,again,not being enforced. And I realize the more I hear here, it's a very complex situation in terms of the number of errors or perhaps the number of missteps that have been made along the way. I'm in insurance by trade;retired now. I also wondered about the liability that someone else will probably need to determine in this regard,depending upon how you rule,but there is errors and omissions insurance also with respect to the professionals all mentioned here: Architects,builders,engineers,and so forth. I don't know about the county. I wouldn't surmise on that. But it seems like there's a lot of missteps that have been made. So I would encourage you to enforce the code.If there's something that can be done to accommodate things,fine. As far as materiality, $50,000,maybe that's for you to decide. We're talking about multi-million-dollar homes here in this neighborhood. Fifty thousand dollars on a house in Golden Gate might be a lot different than$50,000 in Vanderbilt Beach. That's all I have to say. I support the--Mr.Marks',Mr.Emens'comments,and I appreciate your work. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,sir. Next speaker? MR.REISCHL: The next speaker,Ronald Rossbach followed by Margaret Rossbach. MR.ROSSBACH: Hi. I'm Ronald Rossbach. I live at 355 Lagoon,just opposite the canal,in the canal where the house is. I just want to know let you know we have no objections. As a matter of fact,we felt that the whole situation there,the building and the boat and everything,just enhances our view of the canal. ,.� CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,sir. MR.REISCHL: The final registered speaker is Margaret Rossbach. MS.ROSSBACH: My name is Margaret Rossbach.I am Ronald's wife. I live at 355 Lagoon Avenue,and I'm directly across from house in question. And before that,we have been--we built our house in 1980. We've been here over 30 years,and we love it here. This is paradise. And from a woman's point of view,this is so gorgeous that it just enhances the neighborhood,and I ,., don't understand why--or I won't understand if this is not going to be approved because it's just all positive. Before that,then there was a house that it was a duplex. It was much older than our house.I'm sure Jerry,if he was here,he would say I'm one of the houses that he doesn't like,but I love my home,and it's Page 26 of 46 January 19, 2017 going to be there until I kick the bucket. And I'm 86 years,going to be 87. So they're going to have to wait a while,because they take such good care of you here in Naples that sometimes you live to be 90 something. So this is not the first time I'm going to come here to beg you to just let this go on and let us all be happy. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,ma'am. Next speaker? MR.REISCHL: That was your final registered speaker. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you put something on the overhead. I need to clarify one item. It's �-. Page 10 of the staff report,which is the black-and-white survey. You don't have the staff report? MR.REISCHL: On my computer,electronically. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys. We need to have printers in this room,I can tell. Diane,can I borrow yours? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I've got scribbles on mine. MR.REISCHL: I was trying to keep up with the chairman on being electronic on this one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,you've got to get an Apple then. Sorry. MR.EASTMAN: The advantages of paper. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Actually,that's not the one--it doesn't show enough. The actual survey is the few pages back from that,Joe. Keep going.It's this one here. MR.REISCHL: Oh,the resolution. It's attached to the resolution,I believe. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. That's it. If you could let him borrow that,Patrick,that would be great;thank you. Okay. What I wanted to point out on here--and,actually,you need to zoom in a little bit on the part by the waterway. Right there. Notice on the lower right-hand corner it says,set drill hole on top of concrete seawall,and NAVD elevation,3.32. That's the same elevation that the old seawall was at based on the permit application. Permit application said to cap it,add one foot to it so it would be 4.2,and it also was certified to that. Now,if you'll look over on the left,second note up,it says,per contractor,pool patio stem wall is at 9.9. Now,if you take 9.9,subtract the 3.2,you get your 6.6,which is the issue in question today.What I'm suggesting is it's not 9.9,and then the 3.2 is now 4.2,so the real difference is 5.6; 5.6 is 18 inches over the four feet that's allowed. And I guess I've got a question to staff. At that 18 inches,would someone measure from the cap of the seawall,or they'd have to go next door and measure from the old seawall to determine the height that's supposed to be used for this deck? MR.REISCHL: Correct. This is the survey that was submitted. I spoke to Mr.Jones,one of the attorneys involved,I asked that,and this is what was resubmitted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not the question. MR.BOSI: The question: The new seawall,the seawall constructed at this property would be the benchmark for where that elevation would start. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I'm getting at. Now,we've heard testimony that probably--I can't--I have to question how it was obtained,that it was measured by the tape measure to be closer to six--well,five-and-a-half feet or whatever. I would suggest we maybe have an 18-inch discrepancy here instead of a 24-inch. But it's just something to consider as we go through this,and maybe the applicant, by the time they get to the Board of County Commissioners,will have that resolved. I would highly recommend to them that,rather than wait any longer,they do it right away. With that,I don't have any more questions at this time,but we do have an opportunity for the applicant-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Page 27 of 46 January 19, 2017 .� COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: While you're on that survey,I'm fascinated,upper left-hand corner,in the center line of Tradewinds Avenue,there's a NAVD nail(sic)and a couple in elevation 2.8,and �-. I thought every road in Collier County was at five minimum. So I--you know,that just fascinates me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. This is the time when the applicant's representative or the applicant themselves,someone,you have an opportunity to make a rebuttal if you want to do so. I either need to have you acknowledge you don't have a rebuttal or you'd like to utilize the time. MR. SHAPIRO: Sure. Do you mind if I use this? �-. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Go right ahead. MR. SHAPIRO: I will be very brief,because I think a lot of the points were,I guess,well brought out and hit on. I would just like to bring out,and I think that the counsel here already has,is that this doesn't set any legal precedent as,of course,I believe most of you know,and I think that's what a lot of the objectors had issue with is that,you know,maybe this would set a precedent down the line. But as you know,under case law,these are done on an individual basis,so the ruling today doesn't set any precedent for future,and hopefully this problem won't happen again. Again,going by the staff report,I think,you know,there's enough blame to go around. You know,I am not saying that the petitioner's people,you know,maybe they should have done things more thoroughly, maybe the county should have reviewed it more thoroughly,but we have what we have here today,and we have a very unique circumstance because the permit was issued relying on the wrong setbacks,and because T we have what we have here today,we can just make decisions going forward, and I just feel that the economic hardships of having to tear all that out and put a new pool in over somewhere between 18 inches ,.� and two-and-a-half feet would just be a very large hardship compared to the negligible impact that this has. So with that,I thank you for your consideration. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay. When we had some discussion earlier,I think a few of you indicated you had other questions you wanted to ask before we go--before we close the public hearing,so now is the time to do that. I can't remember-- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: My questions are answered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody else? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'm all -- ^ COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Deliberate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then we will close the public hearing,and we will entertain discussion before we go for motion,if there's discussion. Does anybody have any discussion items they want to bring up? Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And folks in the audience,I was the community development administrator from 2010 to 20--correction,2001 to 2009. So during that tenure,of course,I was responsible for all the zoning in the county as far as all the review and the building department,zoning department,and other departments under that organization,which there's been some changes since. But I left in 2009. So I have a clear understanding of the process. And the only reason I bring up my background,because this is not the first variance in this area. I could tell you that because we've had similar situations in the past where,because of the code,there is .�. confusion or there still continues to be confusion which,frankly,when I received the packet,I was--as I said,it brought back some tough times in that department. But that said,it is an unfortunate circumstance. The design professional's responsible. The homeowner hires design professionals who are licensed, and they're responsible,and I clearly understand that. As an engineer I understand that. The issue at hand,though,is this is an area for redevelopment. It is the original Naples Park.It's been an issue for probably 30 years in the county as this area redeveloped,and these--all these lots redeveloped primarily because of the location,not as much as Naples Park has,but all these lots are--were teardowns and rebuilds. The issue in this area,Vanderbilt Beach,was a continual problem when I was in the county seven years ago,as it is,I guess,right now,because we're faced with the same situation of,clearly, 10 pounds of Page 28 of 46 AON January 19, 2017 flour in a 5-pound sack,because that's--most of these homes are maximizing the building envelope that's allowed. .-. I do think it's an unfortunate circumstance but,however,from the standpoint of the variance,as far as I'm concerned,the house exists,the pool exists,and I'm ready to make a motion,if the--but I'll hold off until we make some further discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm glad you said flour. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I did. �-, COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: The military term is blivet,b-l-i-v-e-t. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody else have any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have one item I'd like to discuss. Mike or Fred,would you put what I just handed you on the overhead. You need to back off a little bit. Keep going. Keep going. Right there. So we can read the whole thing. Section 9.04.03 is our criteria for variances.You've heard today that there are eight criteria;there are. And we've had legal counsel advise us from the opposition side to address their position on those eight criteria. Also,a case was referred to us,an old case from a 1982 activity. But we here- as that attorney, even the opposition attorney and as staff has opined today,we're here to adhere to the Land Development Code. The Land Development Code says this in the beginning of the criteria for variances: "Findings: Before any variance shall be recommended for approval to the Board of the Zoning Appeals,the Planning Commission shall consider and be guided by the following standards in making a determination." So while we've heard that they're hard and fast rules,you've got to show a hardship,it can't be this kind of hardship,maybe so,but at the same time we shall consider those and be guided by them. That means it's not mandatory. And, Mike, if you read this differently as Zoning Director,please let me know. But it's my understanding that it means what it says,that we're not bound by those eight items,but they are for consideration. MR. BOSI: My understanding would be--the interpretation that you've adopted would be my understanding; that these are the guidelines and with that emphasis upon the guidelines. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And with that in mind,I have-- I've listened to everything,and I've certainly tried to do all the research I can to understand how this happened. I can't see the benefit to force someone to tear down a home such as this. There's been no shown malicious intent in this. It was an--it was a human error. It was a mistake made by multiple parties. To take them to task for this for the cost that it would require for an item that does not set a precedent I don't think is necessary. Now,if we can show they purposely had misled the county,this was done intentionally,I'd say then whatever they deserve they deserve in regards to correcting it. But I have looked at all the records. I have looked at them probably more thoroughly than anybody _ in this room, and I can assure you nothing like that came out of any of those records. And they're records that this panel doesn't even hay e access to. They're in the county records department. I've pulled all the folders. There's nothing there that shows malicious intent. In fact,if anything,they were Hying to continually keep up with things they needed to to make sure their approvals were consistent and reviewed by the county. So I certainly think that the variance is warranted in this case,whether the variance is 24--two-and-a-half feet--yeah,two-and-a-half feet or 18 inches. Either way, it really doesn't matter. The pool's there,and it should be approved. The only thing I would suggest is that a stipulation be added to do make sure that the intent of where these are allowed at this height,which is everywhere else,basically,but Vanderbilt Beach,that the decorative cladding or landscaping and a berm or a combination thereof of some nature is there,is put in front or applied to this wall to soften it,as the other jurisdictions would have--where they had done so in other parts of the r` county. Page 29 of 46 January 19, 2017 And with that,that's all I've got to say.And if there's nobody else here,we'll close the public hearing and we'll entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I make a motion to approve. ^ COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will that motion be subject to the stipulation for the-- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Subject to the stipulations as discussed. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. MR.REISCHL: And the staffs stipulation,too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Staff stipulation as well noting that, subject to the 50 percent rule, that anything constructed thereafter would have to require compliance with the existing code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion's been made to recommend approval for the variance subject to staffs recommendation and the one stipulation we just discussed. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. Thank you,all,for attending this morning. We appreciate it. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark,could I ask something? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. ^• COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I was very impressed by the drone photos,and I would think that--seriously,I don't know why the county doesn't do that on a lot of these projects. And I don't know what it takes to legally do drone photos or buy drones,but it seems like,you know,we're the county;we ought to have that kind of photography coming to these meetings instead of the petitioner. �. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: It's a great idea.The challenge is the FAA. I can tell you,as a realtor,they're really cracking down. There's a lot more criteria as to where and when you can fly.I've got to be honest,I don't know with that drone shot--and I'm not trying to open up a can of worms here,I've been told in the past those drones aren't allowed to fly over Vanderbilt Beach either or over that area. ^ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would have to--I'd have to agree. The last thing I'd-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: A can of worms? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --like to see is the government having the power of drones. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Stay away from that. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No trespassing and no drones. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: We work with Luddites. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, Stan. ^ COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Stan,stay with Google Earth. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ***Okay. That takes us into the next item,the only item remaining on today's agenda. It's the review of the Land Development Code for both the preservation,I believe, open space and conservation of golf course areas,and this will be a presentation made by staff,Caroline Cilek. It will be our second or third time around for some of these,and not the final. MS.CILEK: Correct. Good morning. Caroline Cilek,for the record. I would like to go through the amendment that has the most individuals here for public comment first,if that's okay with-- �' CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know what that is,or do you want me to ask? Page 30 of 46 EXHIBIT "C" RELEVENT Section of the Collier County Land Development Code related to ERRORS in plans submitted. -Section Building Permit or Land Alteration Permit. 1. Building or land alteration permit and certificate of occupancy compliance process. a. Zoning action on building or land alteration permits.The County Manager or his designee shall be responsible for determining whether applications for building or land alteration permits, as required by the Collier County Building code or this Code are in accord with the requirements of this Code, and no building or land alteration permitshall be issued without written approval that plans submitted conform to applicable zoning regulations, and other land development regulations. For purposes of this section a land alteration permit shall mean any written authorization to alter land and for which a building permit may not be required. Examples include but are not limited to clearing and excavation permits, site development plan approvals, agricultural clearing permits, and blasting permits. No building or structure shall be erected, moved, added to, altered, utilized or allowed to exist and/or no land alteration shall be permitted without first obtaining the authorization of the required permit(s), inspections and certificate(s) of occupancy as required by the Collier County Building Code or this Code and no building or land alteration permit application shall be approved by the County Manager or his designee for the erection, moving, addition to, or alteration of any building, structure, or land except in conformity with the provisions of this Code unless he shall receive a written order from the Board of Zoning Appeals in the form of an administrative review of the interpretation, or variances as provided by this Code, or unless he shall receive a written order from a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction. b. Application for building or land alteration permit. All applications for building or land alteration permits shall, in addition to containing the information required by the building official, be accompanied by all required plans and drawings drawn to scale, showing the actual shape and dimensions of the lot to be built upon; the sizes and locations on the lot of buildings already existing, if any; the size and location on the lot of the building or buildings to be erected, altered or allowed to exist; the existing use of each building or buildings or parts thereof; the number of families the building is designed to accommodate; the location and number of required off-street parking and off-street loading spaces; approximate location of trees protected by county regulations; changes in grade, including details of berms; and such other information with regard to the lot and existing/proposed structures as provided for the enforcement of this Land development Code. In the case of application for a building or land alteration permit on property adjacent to the Gulf of Mexico, a survey, certified by a land surveyor or an engineer licensed in the State of Florida, and not older than 30 days shall be submitted. If there is a storm event or active erosion on a specific parcel of land for which a building or land alteration permitis requested, which the County Manager or his designee determines may effect the density or other use relationship of the property, a more recent survey may be required. Where ownership or property lines are in doubt, the County Manager or his designee may require the submission of a survey, certified by a land surveyor or engineer licensed in the State of Florida. Property stakes shall be in place at the commencement of construction. c. Construction and use to be as provided in applications,•status of permit issued Building or land alteration permits or certificates of occupancy issued on the basis of plans and specifications approved by the County Manager or his designee authorize only the use, arrangement, and construction set forth in such approved plans and applications, and no other use, arrangement, or construction. Building use arrangement, or construction different from that authorized shall be deemed a violation of this Land Development Code. Statements made by the applicant on the building or land alteration permitapplication shall be deemed official statements. Approval of the application by the County Manager or his designee shall, in no way, exempt the applicant from strict observance of applicable provisions of this Land Development Code and all other applicable regulations, ordinances, codes, and laws. A building or land alteration permitissued in error shall not confer any rights or privileges to the applicant to proceed to or continue with construction, and the county shall have the power to revoke such permit until said error is corrected. d. Adequate public facilities required No building or land alteration permit or certificate of occupancy shall be issued except in accordance with the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, Ord. No. 90-24 (chapters 3, 6 and 10 of this Code) and Rule 9J-5.0055, F.A.C. p EXHIBIT "D" Section of FLORDIA BUILDING CODE — Relevant to Errors in plans submitted ~~ � ~~ From the Florida Building Code 2014 6. All public swimming pools and public bathing places defined by and regulated under Chapter 514, Florida Statutes. [A] 105.3.2 Time limitation of application. An application for a permit for any proposed work shall be deemed to have been abandoned 180 days after the date of filing, unless such application has been pursued in good faith or a permit has ^- been issued; except that the building official is authorized to grant one or more extensions of time for additional periods not exceeding 90 days each. The extension shall be requested in writing and justifiable cause demonstrated. ~ 105.3.3 An enforcing authority may not issue a building permit for any building construction, erection, a|tenaUon, nnodifimatinn, repair or addition unless the permit either includes on its face or there is attached to the permit the following statement: "NOTICE: In addition to the requirements penniL there may be additional restrictions applicable to this property that may be found in the public records of this oounty, and there may be additional permits required from other governmental entities such as water management dis1ricts, state agencies. or federal ogencies.^ 105.3.4 A building permit for a single-family residential dwelling must be issued within 30 working days of -- application therefor unless unusual circumstances require a longer time for processing the — application or unless the permit application fails to satisfy the Florida Building Code or the enforcing agency's laws or ordinances. 105.3.5 Identification of minimum premium policy. Except as otherwise provided in Chapter 440, Florida 3tatuApo, Workers' CompenoaUon, every employer shall, as a condition to receiving a building pennit, show proof that it has secured compensation for its employees as provided in Sections 440.10 and 440.38, Florida Statutes. 105.4.1 Permit intent. A permit issued shall be construed to be a license to proceed with the work and not as authority to -- violate. oance|, alter or set aside any of the provisions of the technical nodos, nor shall issuance of a permit prevent the building official from thereafter requiring a correction of errors in p|ans, construction or violations of this code. Every permit issued shall become invalid unless the work authorized by such permit is commenced within six months after its issuance, or if the work authorized by such permit is suspended or abandoned for a period of six months after the time the work incommenced. _ [A] 105.6 Denial or revocation. Whenever a permit required under this section is denied or revoked because the plan, or the oonstructinn, ereotinn, m|teratinn, modification, repoir, or demolition of a bui|ding, is found by the local ~- enforcing agency to be not in compliance with the Florida Building Code, the local enforcing agency shall identify the specific plan or project features that do not comply with the applicable codes, identify the specific code chapters and sections upon which the finding is based, and provide this information to the permit applicant. If the local building code administrator or inspector finds that the plans are not in compliance with the Florida Building Code, the local building code administrator or inspector shall identify the specific plan features that do not comply with the applicable codes, identify the specific code chapters and sections upon which the finding is based, and provide this information to the local enforcing agency. The local enforcing agency shall provide this information to the permit applicant. Exhibit "E" Resolution from the Vanderbilt Beach Residents Assoc. in support of denying this variance request r 1 Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association (VBRA) PO Box 771330 Naples, FL 34107 www.vbra.org Vanderbiltbeach54(a,yahoo.com Resolution The Board of Directors of the Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association, Inc., passed the following Resolution at its regularly schedule meeting on February 9, 2017: The Board ofDirectors of the Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association, Inc. herebyfully endorses and supports the Collier County Building and Land Development Codes, and expects that the Collier County Commissioners and staffwill enforce the various provisions of the Building and Land Development Codes. The Board ofDirectors of the Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association, Inc.further cautions the Collier County Board of County Commissioners and staffto bejudicious in their use ofAdministrative Variances in their administration of the Building and Land Development Codes, instead giving preference to the formal Public Notice procedures to keep their proceedings in the public's eye. Resolved by the unanimous vote of the Board of Directors of the Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association, Inc., on February 9, 2017. t?axrasz, 2. Kathleen R. Robbins, Secretary Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association, Inc. COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS HEARING NOTEBOOK PETITION VA-PL20160001181, 342 TRADE WINDS AVENUE —Item 8.A, BCC Meeting EXHIBIT AND CASE LAW HANDOUT TABLE OF CONTENTS EXHIBITS A through E A: Letter Dated January 10, 2017 to Fred Reischl B. Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association Resolution dated February 9, 2017 C. Qualifiers Page D. Pool Permit E. Pool Affidavit Case Law Handouts 1. P.M. Realty &INVS v. City of Tampa, 779 So. 2d 404 2. Nance v. Indialantic, 1982 LEXIS 2530 3. Bd. Of County Commissioners v. Snyder, 627 So. 2d 469 PATRICK H. NEALE PATRICK NEALE & ASSOCIATES PAT RIC EALE ASSOCIAI ES EXHIBIT A PATRICK -T 239.642.1485 Naples: F 2394642.1487 -i' 5470 Bryson Court Suite 103 E info@patrickneale.com ' Naples,Florida 34109 wwwpatrickneale.com (�.. ..:ASSOCIATES Mailing: Marco Island(by appointment): P.O.Box 9440 Patrick H. Neale Naples,Florida 34101-9440 Attorneyat Law 950 North Calan,Florida.Suite 400 p Marco Island,Fl34145 January 10,2017 Mr.Fred Reischl Senior Planner Collier County Growth Management Department Zoning Division 2800 Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL RE:Petition VA-PL20160001181 —342 Trade Winds Avenue Dear Fred: I represent Mr. and Mrs. George Marks,the owners of 319 Lagoon Avenue, Naples,Florida 34108, property owners who will be substantially and adversely impacted by the variance requested in the above petition should it be granted. I also represent several other property owners in the area who will also be adversely impacted by the proposed variance should it be granted. My clients strongly oppose the proposed variance and disagree with the staff recommendation for reasons which will be set out below. This letter is to provide additional legal basis for the denial of the Variance. It is requested that this letter be provided to each member of the Planning Board prior to the hearing set for January 19, 2017. As the County is aware,the controlling case law for variances is Indialantic v. Nance, 400 So. 2d 37 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 1981) as adopted by the Florida Supreme Court in Nance v. Indialantic, 1982 Fla. LEXIS 2530(Fla. 1982). The standard set out in this case is that "[al prerequisite to the granting of a hardship zoning variance is the presence of an exceptional and unique hardship to the individual landowner,unique to that parcel and not shared by other property owners in the area." There is nothing about the parcel or this landowner that is unique, other than the fact the County issued a building permit based upon plans that did not meet the standards set out in the Collier County Land Development Code. In the balance of this letter, I will comment upon the various criteria set out in LDC section 9.04.03 and incorporated into the staff report. a. Are there special conditions and circumstances existing, which are peculiar to the location,size and characteristics of the land, structure or building involved? Staff: Yes. Per the applicant, the pool shell,retaining wall and stairs are constructed. The applicant commenced construction under building permit,PRBD2015092870601,with an incorrectly cited rear accessory pool setback of 10 feet versus the required 20 feet. The applicant abided by the incorrectly cited rear accessory 10-foot pool setback for the swimming pool, spa, and pool deck. The stairs off the pool deck do encroach 3.5 feet into the erroneously provided 10-foot setback; however they were permitted with the swimming pool, spa, and pool deck. Opposing Position: The conditions and circumstances set out by the Staff are those caused by the actions of the petitioner. The failure of the petitioner to follow the 1 EXHIBIT A PATRIC T 239.642.1485 Naples: F 239.642.1487 ;" �r Bryson Court Suite 103 E info@patrickneale.com .r l`\L .L 5470 Naples,Florida 34109 www.patrickneale.com ASSOCIATES Mailing: Patrick H. Neale Marco Island(by appointment): P.O.Box 9440 950 North Collier Blvd.Suite 400 Naples,Florida 34101-9.440 Attorney at Law Marco Island,Florida 34145 January 10,2017 Mr.Fred Reischl Senior Planner Collier County Growth Management Department Zoning Division 2800 Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL RE: Petition VA-PL20160001181 —342 Trade Winds Avenue Dear Fred: I represent Mr. and Mrs. George Marks,the owners of 319 Lagoon Avenue, Naples,Florida 34108, property owners who will be substantially and adversely impacted by the variance requested in the above petition should it be granted. I also represent several other property owners in the area who will also be adversely impacted by the proposed variance should it be granted. My clients strongly oppose the proposed variance and disagree with the staff recommendation for reasons which will be set out below. This letter is to provide additional legal basis for the denial of the Variance. It is requested that this letter be provided to each member of the Planning Board prior to the hearing set for January 19, 2017. As the County is aware, the controlling case law for variances is Indialantic v. Nance, 400 So. 2d 37 (Fla.Dist. Ct.App. 5th Dist. 1981) as adopted by the Florida Supreme Court in Nance v. Indialantic, 1982 Fla. LEXIS 2530 (Fla. 1982). The standard set out in this case is that "[a] prerequisite to the granting of a hardship zoning variance is the presence of an exceptional and unique hardship to the individual landowner,unique to that parcel and not shared by other property owners in the area."There is nothing about the parcel or this landowner that is unique, other than the fact the County issued a building permit based upon plans that did not meet the standards set out in the Collier County Land Development Code. In the balance of this letter, I will comment upon the various criteria set out in LDC section 9.04.03 and incorporated into the staff report. a Are there special conditions and circumstances existing, which are peculiar to the location,size and characteristics of the land, structure or building involved? Staff: Yes. Per the applicant,the pool shell,retaining wall and stairs are constructed. The applicant commenced construction under building permit,PRBD2015092870601,with an incorrectly cited rear accessory pool setback of 10 feet versus the required 20 feet. The applicant abided by the incorrectly cited rear accessory 10-foot pool setback for the swimming pool, spa, and pool deck. The stairs off the pool deck do encroach 3.5 feet into the erroneously provided 10-foot setback; however they were permitted with the swimming pool, spa, and pool deck. Opposing Position: The conditions and circumstances set out by the Staff are those caused by the actions of the petitioner. The failure of the petitioner to follow the 2 EXHIBIT A Mr. Fred Reischl January 11. 2017 Page 2 of 4 requirements of the Building Code and Land Development Code does not constitute a special condition or circumstance that would give rise to grounds for a variance. b. Are there special conditions and circumstances, which do not result from the action of the applicant such as pre-existing conditions relative to the property, which are the subject of the Variance request? Staff: Yes. The applicant applied and received a pool permit from the County citing an incorrect rear accessory pool setback. The applicant proceeded, and followed, with provided setbacks unaware of any violations. Due to this error, the subject structure is currently encroaching 6.55; more specifically, the pool, spa, pool deck encroach 9.83 feet, resulting in a 10.17 rear yard setback, and the stairs encroach 13.45 feet, resulting in a 6.55-foot encroachment. Opposing Position: Any and all "special conditions and circumstance" result from the negligence of the applicant.The fact that a permit was issued does not excuse the applicant from compliance with the relevant laws. c. Will a literal interpretation of the provisions of this zoning code work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant or create practical difficulties for theapplicant? Yes. Per the applicant, the pool is already constructed and to abide by the required accessory 20-foot setback would require the applicant to remove the existing pool and replace it at an estimated expense of $50,000. The applicant relied on the erroneously issued pool permit with a 10-foot rear accessory setback in constructing the existing pool structure. Opposing Position: The hardship was caused by the negligence of the applicant and/or their contractor. While it may create practical difficulties, that is not within the purview of the Planning Board or Board of Zoning Appeals to relieve the applicant from a problem of their own making. d. Will the Variance, if granted, be the minimum Variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure and which promote standards of health,safety and welfare? Yes.The applicant is only seeking the minimum variance which will allow the pool deck, pool, spa,'and stairs to remain. Opposing Position: The property is still completely usable without the granting of the variance.The applicant will only have to construct the pool deck, spa and stairs in a manner that complies with the provisions of the Land Development Code. e. Will granting the Variance confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by these zoning regulations to other lands,buildings,or structures in the same zoning district? Yes.The applicant will be able to retain a decreased accessory rear yard setback for a pool II 3 EXHIBIT A Mr.Fred Reischl January 11.2017 Page 3 of 4 deck that exceed 4 feet in height above the seawall. However, it should be noted that the applicant relied on the County issued permit which cited incorrectly the accessory rear swimming pool and/or screen enclosure setback. Opposing Position: The basic principle of variance procedure as embodied in the LDC and the applicable case law is that a variance should NOT give the applicant any special privilege. This would provide the applicant with a special privilege and diminish the value of surrounding properties.The variance will impede the views of all surrounding properties and set a dangerous precedent which could allow other property owners to receive the same variance,thus making the L1)C a sham. f. Will granting the Variance be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this Land Development Code, and not be injurious to the neighborhood,or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare? Yes. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed Variance would legitimize the existence of the pool and pool deck that are currently under construction. Opposing Position:The staff is arguing that this will legitimize the existence of a non- conforming structure that has not been issued a certificate of occupancy and is in violation of the LOC. That is not in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the LDC. Further, this is injurious to the neighborhood in that it impedes, impairs and interferes with the views of the adjacent lot owners. g Are there natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals and objectives of the regulation such as natural preserves, lakes, golf courses, etc.? Yes. The applicant states that variations in seawall height in this location do not create a uniform height for all houses and therefore create different pool deck height requirements over 4 feet of the seawall. Opposing Position: The standard in the LDC is set so that there is uniformity in the elevation above the seawall.The height above the seawall is the standard.There are no conditions natural or physically induced which justify the granting of this variance. h Will granting the Variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan? Approval of this Variance will not affect or change the requirements of the Growth Management Plan. Opposing Position: The approval of the Variance will not impact the GMP. Based upon the foregoing response to the Staff Report and Recommendation and testimony to be presented at the hearing on January 19, 2017, my clients respectfully request that the Planning Board deny this application for a variance. The variance as requested does not meet the legal criteria for the granting of a variance. II 4 EXHIBIT A Mr. Fred Reischl January 11. 2017 Page4of4 I appreciate this opportunity to present my clients' position and look forward to appearing at the hearing on January 19, 2017 to present these arguments to the Planning Board, respond to their questions and get my clients' testimony on the record. Please contact me if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, J 'atric H. eale Cc: Clients PHN/Ps 5 EXHIBIT B it I r � k '' Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association (VBRA) PO Box 771330 Naples, FL 34107 www.vbra.or Vanderbiltbeach54a,vahoo.com Resolution The Board of Directors of the Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association, Inc., passed the following Resolution at its regularly schedule meeting on February 9, 2017: The Board ofDirectors of the Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association, Inc. herebyfully endorses and supports the Collier County Building and Land Development Codes, and expects that the Collier County Commissioners and staffwill enforce the various provisions of the Building and Land Development Codes. The Board ofDirectors of the Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association, Inc.further cautions the Collier County Board of County Commissioners and staffto bejudicious in their use ofAdministrative Variances in their administration of the Building and Land Development Codes, instead givingpreference to the formal Public Notice procedures to keep their proceedings in the public's eye. i Resolved by the unanimous vote of the Board of Directors of the Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association, Inc., on February 9, 2017. 1,644120.4 thalLtwo.... k. Kathleen R. Robbins, Secretary Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association,Inc. _1 QUALIFIERS PAGE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COLLIER COUNTY REGULATIONS Application is hereby made to obtain a permit to do the work and installations as indicated. I certify that no work or installation has commenced prior to the issuance of a permit and that all work will be performed to meet the standards of all laws regulating construction in this jurisdiction. The permit or application fee may have additional fees imposed for failing to obtain permits prior to commencement of construction. The approved permit and/or permit application expires if not commenced within 180 days from the date of issuance. The permittee further understands that only licensed contractors may be employed and that the structure will not be used or occupied until a certificate of occupancy is issued. By signing this permit application, I agree that I have been retained by the owner/permittee to provide contracting services for the trade for which I am listed. Furthermore, it is my responsibility to I• 'I, ke • Permittin. De • rtrnent , . • - •- -own- • - Note: If change of contractor, please provide the following: Permit Number: E-mail Address: Tel: COMPANY NAME: L7F 6c /C:04 -J.; ..."?Vd. STATE LICENSE NO: ...1107)Af2fet54ii QUALIFIER'S NAME(PRINT dre.-/.0 QUALIFIER'S SIGNATUR STATE OF: 042.- COUNTY OF: ee SWORN TO(OR AFFIRMED)AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME THIS, WHO IS PERSONALLY KNOWN: OR AS PRODUCED ID: Ark , AID= CI 4' MY 90MMISSIONIFF034955 TYPE OF ID: EXPIRES:lay 9.2017 Waded Tim Notary NM Ur/deadens NOTARY PUBLIC SIGNATURE &.a ' . NOTICE z' IN ADDITION TO THE REQUIREMEN = OF THIS PERMIT, THE M BE ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS APPLICABLE TO THIS PROPERTY THAT MAY BE FOUND IN THE PUBLIC R CORDS OF THIS C• r , AND ERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL PERMITS REQUIRED FROM OTHER GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES W R MANAGEMENT D TRICT,ST TE AGENCIES,OR FEDERAL,AGENCIES. WARNING OF POSSIBLE DEED RESTRICTIONS THE LAND SUBJECT TO THIS PERMIT MAY BE SUBJECT TO DEED, AND OTHER RESTRICTIONS THAT MAY LIMIT OR IMPAIR THE LANDOW NER'S RIGHTS. COLLIER COUNTY IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THESE RESTRICTIONS, NOR ARE COLLIER COUNTY EMPLOYEES AUTHORIZED TO PROVIDE LEGAL OR BUSINESS ADVICE TO THE PUBLIC RELATIVE 10 THESE RESTRICTIONS. THE LANDOWNER OR ANY APPLICANT ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE LANDOWNER IS CAUTIONED TO SEE K PROFESSIONAL ADVICE. WARNING ON WORK IN COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAYS THIS PERMIT DOES NOT AUTHORIZE CONSTRUCTION OR INSTALL ATION OF ANY STRUCTURE OR UTILITY, ABOVE OR BELOW GROUND, WITHIN ANY RIGHT-OF-W AY OR EASEMENT RESERVED FOR ACCESS,DRAINAGE OR UTILITY PURPOSES. THIS RESTRICTION SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITS FENCING, SPRINKLER SYSTEMS, LANDSCAPING OTHER THAN SOD, SIGNS, WATER,:SEWER, CABLE AND DRAINAGE WORK THEREIN. IF SUCH IMPROVEMENTS ME NECESSARY, A SEPAR ATE PERMIT FOR THAT PURPOSE MUST BE OBTAINED FROM TRANSPORTATION/ROW PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS(239)252-8192. ARNI NG TO OWNER: YOUR FAILURE TO RECORD A NOTICE OF O MMEN RC EECMOE RN DT I NGYOUR MAYRNOTICEESULTOIN COMMENCEMENT.OORIURRENRPCAEYMINEGNT.TWICE FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO YOUR PROPERTY. IF YOU INTEND TO OBTAIN FINANCING, CONSULT WITH YOUR LENDER OR AN ATTORNEY BEFORE Per Florida Statutes 713.135 a Notice of Commencement(NOC)is required for construction of improvements totaling more than$2,500,with certain exceptions.For AiC Repairs or Replacements a notice of commencement is required forimprovements more than$7,500. The applicant shall file with the issuing authorityprior to the first inspection either a certified copy of the recorded NOC ora notarized statement that the HOC has been filed for recording,along with a copythereof.in orderto compiywith the state requirement,permits will be placed In inspection hold until proof of the HOC Is filed with the building permitting and inspection department.The issuing authority shal not perform or approve subsequent inspections until the applicant files by mail,facsimile,hand delivery,email or any other means such certified copy with the issuing authority. EXHIBIT D COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PERMIT PERMIT#: PRBD2016010076701 PERMIT TYPE: PL ISSUED: BY: APPLIED DATE: 01-12-16 APPROVAL DATE:01-27-16 MASTER#: COA: JOB ADDRESS: 342 Trade Winds AVE JOB DESCRIPTION: CONSTRUCTION OF 387 SQ FT 1N-GROUND POOL& JOB PHONE: 5'8"X 5'8"ZERO EDGE SPA,3 HP VS PUMP- ALARMS(PRBD20150928706) 342 TRADEWINDS AVE LOT 11 SUBDIVISION#: BLOCK: LOT: FLOOD MAP: ZONE: ELEVATION: FOLIO#: 27585200007 SECTION-TOWNSHIP-RANGE:29-48-25 OWNER INFORMATION: CONTRACTOR INFORMATION: STONE-JESKE TR,ROXANNE B ROXANNE B MORRISON ALUMINUM CONSTRUCTION INC STONE-JESKE TRUST UTD 8/10/05 (DBA)MAC CUSTOM POOLS-ALUMINUM 531 TURTLE HATCH LN 1020 SE 12TH AVE NAPLES ,FL 34103- CAPE CORAL,FL 33990-- CERTIFICATE#: C33218 PHONE: FCC CODE: CONSTRUCTION CODE: 0218 JOB VALUE: $74,000.00 TOTAL RES SQFT: 0 TOTAL COMM SQFT: 0 SETBACKS FRONT: 30' REAR: 10'Accessory LEFT: 7.5' RIGHT: 7.5' SEWER: WATER: CONTACT NAME: CONTACT PHONE: Per Collier County Ordinance No.2002-01,as it may be amended,all work must comply with all applicable laws,codes,ordinances,and any additional stipulations or conditions of this permit.This permit expires if work authorized by the permit is not commenced within six(6)months from the date of issuance of the permit.Additional fees for failing to obtain permits prior to the commencement of construction may be imposed.Permittee(s)further understands that any contractor that may be employed must be a licensed contractor and that the structure must not be used or occupied until a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. NOTICE: PRIOR TO THE REMOVAL OF ASBESTOS PRODUCTS OR THE DEMOLITION OF A STRUCTURE,FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS REQUIRE THE PERMITTEE(EITHER THE OWNER OR CONTRACTOR)TO SUBMIT A NOTICE OF THE INTENDED WORK TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION(DEP).FOR MORE INFORMATION,CONTACT DEP AT(239)344-5600. In addition to the conditions of this permit,there may be additional restrictions applicable to this property that may be found in the public records of this county,and there may be additional permits required from other governmental entities such as water management districts,state agencies,or federal agencies. WARNING TO OWNER: YOUR FAILURE TO RECORD A NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT MAY RESULT IN YOUR PAYING TWICE FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO YOUR PROPERTY. IF YOU INTEND TO OBTAIN FINANCING, CONSULT WITH YOUR LENDER OR AN ATTORNEY BEFORE RECORDING YOUR NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT. 1 EXHIBIT E Affidavit in lieu of Certified Site Plan To be filed with Permit Application State of Florida County of Collier I, /t. r,: /Y1ov-?So,41 , do hereby affirm that the work performed under Permit Number 2 O'('OIOa 7( does not constitute any modification to the original permitted footprint of the structure that existed prior to the issuance of this permit. I further affirm that. to the best of my knowledge, the footprint of the structure shall conform to the applicable setback(s) and easement requirement(s) established by Collier County and/or any other applicable agency. I hereby agree that should any work performed under this permit result in a nonconformity with any setback(s) or easement requirement(s) established by Collier County or any other applicable agency, I will have no sustainable rebuttal against Collier County Government and will immediately remediate the nonconformity at no expense oilier County Government. e01111116‘ Sign� .: LexisNexis. User Name: Patrick Neale Date and Time: Monday, February 27, 2017 3:34:00 PM EST Job Number:44054124 Document (1) 1. P.M. Realt & Invs. Inc. v. Cit of Tam.a 779 So. 2d 404 Client/Matter: -None- •LexisNexis•I A0p4t0)0§Npxp I PrivAPY P.P.RPY I TPIrn§,&,g9tIciot)q I g_QPYTillbt920171-exisNexis Patrick Neale _ Y AM. Caution As of:February 27,2017 3:34 PM EST P.M. Realty & .1mw., Inc. v. City of Tampa Court of Appeal of Florida,Second District August 25,2000,Opinion Filed CASE NO. 2D99-135 Reporter 779 So.2d 404*;2000 Fla.App.LEXIS 10933**;25 Fla.L.Weekly D 2040 P.M.REALTY&INVESTMENTS,INC.,Appellant,v. Overview CITY OF TAMPA,FLORIDA,a municipal corporation,and Appellant engaged in the business of offering the vending of GLORIA MOREDA,in her official capacity as zoning alcoholic beverages and the presentation of exotic- dance administrator for the city of Tampa,Florida Appellees. performances. It began business without a special-use permit, claiming it was surrounded by other night clubs serving Subsequent History:Review denied by P.M Realty&Irrv., alcohol which were not affected by the existence of the Inc. v. City of Tampa, 786 So. 2d 580, 2001 Fla.LEXIS 522 cabaret. The trial court granted appellee city's motion for a (Fla., 2001) preliminary injunction, finding appellant failed to obtain a Remanded by RM...Realty&Irzus.,ince.�.. CitJy_c Tama� special permit pursuant to Tampa City,Fla.,Code di. 27. The ?004 Fla.4pp JI,FX IS 521_ la.Dist C t App ?d Dist„Jan. court affirmed.Appellee was entitled to relief where appellant ?3, 2004) opened a business, aware of violations to the ordinance. Continued operation was balanced against injury suffered by Prior History: [**11 Appeal from nonfinal order of the appellee; the harm to appellee outweighed the harm to Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; James S. Moody, Jr., appellant. Public interest was served by seeing that appellant Judge. complied with city zoning plan. Appellee's zoning ordinance limited the location where adult businesses could have This Opinion Substituted on Grant of Rehearing and Denial of operated. It did not try to prohibit the type of free speech Rehearing En Banc for Withdrawn Opinion of May 5, 2000, addressed in the case. Previously Reported at:2000 Ha.App. L:I LS 5171. Outcome P.M Realty&Invs.,Inc. v. City of Tampa 2000 Ha App. Judgment affirmed because appellant had failed to comply LL' .I.S 5171 Oa. Dist. Ct. nf,Irp 2d;Drst:, May 5, 20002 with zoning ordinance requirements and preliminary injunction was proper where harm to appellee outweighed Disposition:Affirmed the order of the trial court. harm to appellant. Core Terms LexisNexis® Headnotes ordinance,contends,injunction,zoning,adult,trial court, zoning ordinance,judicial review,prompt,city council,prior restraint,free speech,debatable,provides,parcels,days, special use permit,adult business,trial judge Civil Procedure>...>Injunctions>Grounds for Injunctions.>Public Interest Case Summary Civil Procedure>Remedies>Injunctions>Preliminary Temporary Injunctions Procedural Posture Civil Procedure>Appeals>Standards of Review>General Overview Appellant sought review of order of the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County(Florida), granting appellee's motion for Civil Procedure>Appeals>Standards of Review>Abuse of a preliminary injunction, fording appellant had failed to Discretion comply with zoning requirements for its exotic dance club, pursuant to Tampa Fla.,Code ch.27. .11Ni[ '] The standard of review concerning a preliminary Patrick Neale Page 2 of 6 779 So, 2d 404, *404;2000 Fla.App.LEXIS 10933, **1 injunction is abuse of discretion, which is based. The four- H\ [i] Tampa, Fla., Code § 27.277(l)(d) provides that in part test is as follows: A temporary injunction should only be the instance of S-1 permits the zoning administrator must granted where there is a showing of (1) the likelihood of review the permit application and issue a decision within irreparable harm and.the unavailability of an adequate remedy thirty days. Section 27.277(1)(d) provides for appeal by the at law, (2) the substantial likelihood of success on the merits, applicant within 30 days of a decision and that review of a (3) that the threatened injury to petitioner outweigh any negative decision must be ruled upon by the city council possible harm to respondent, and (4) that the granting of the within forty-five days. Appeal of the city council's decision is injunction will not disserve the public interest. to the circuit court as provided by law. Civil Procedure>Remedies>Injunctions>Preliminary& Real Property Law>Zoning>General Overview Temporary Injunctions Real Property Law>Zoning>General Overview //NO* The state may legitimately use the content of materials shown in x-rated theaters as the basis for placing Business&Corporate Compliance>...>Real Property them in a different classification from other motion pictures. Law>Zoning>Constitutional Limits Business&Corporate Compliance>...>Real Property Law>Zoning>Ordinances Constitutional Law>...>Fundamental Freedoms>Freedom of ilN2[A] When one violates a city ordinance, irreparable Speech>Obscenity harm is presumed. Zoning ordinances that limit the Constitutional Law>...>Fundamental Freedoms>Judicial& geographical areas in which adult businesses may locate have Legislative Restraints>General Overview been upheld as constitutional. Real Property Law>Zoning>General Overview tIN?[ ] U.S. Const amend I requires only that a city refrain Governments>Local Governments Police Power from effectively denying a party a reasonable opportunity to open and operate an adult theater within the city. Real Property Law>Zoning>General Overview .11h3[ ] Where the government seeks an injunction in order to enforce its police power, any alternative legal remedy is Real Property Law>Zoning>General Overview ignored and irreparable harm is presumed.Where one opens a business aware of the violations to the ordinances and 1LY8[ ] It is settled law that from a federal standpoint, an continues to operate that business in. violation, the adult use ordinance need only satisfy the fairly debatable test. government has a clear legal right to relief Environmental Law>Land Use&Zoning>Conditional Use Real Property Law>Zoning>General Overview Permits&Variances Real Property Law>Zoning>General Overview HN4[Al An S-1 special use permit is required where specified uses or characteristics of use could have adverse Real Property Law>Zoning>Judicial Review effects on adjacent properties unless special requirements are Business&Corporate Compliance>...>Real Property met. Tampa, Fla., Code § 27-267(b)(l). An S-2 permit is Law>Zoning>Ordinances required where specified uses or occupancies involve matters deemed to be of citywide or area-wide importance. Tampa, I1N9[A] The fairly debatable test should be used for review Fla.,Code§27.267(b)(2). of legislative zoning enactments. Counsel:Luke Charles Lirot of Luke Charles Lirot,P.A., Tampa,for Appellant. Real Property Law>Zoning>General Overview Real Property Law>Zoning>Judicial Review Richard E.Fee,Assistant City Attorney,and James D. Patrick Neale Page 3 of 6 779 So.2d 404, *404;2000 Fla.App. LEXIS 10933, **l Palermo Chief Assistant City Attorney,Tampa,for Appellees. reasonableness. See Richard v. Behavioral Healthcare Options, Inc., 647 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). The Judges: GREEN,Judge. CAMPBELL,A.C.J.,and correct four-part test set out in Cosmic Corp. v. Miami Dade. ALTENBERND,J.,Concur. County, 706 So. 2d 347 1FIaa 3d DCA .1998), was applied in this case.The four-part test provided for in Cosmic Corp. is as Opinion by: GREEN follows: A temporary injunction should only be granted where there is Opinion a showing of(1) the likelihood of irreparable harm and the unavailability of an adequate remedy at law, (2) the [*405] BY ORDER OF THE COURT: substantial likelihood of success on the merits, (3) that the threatened injury to petitioner outweigh any possible harm to We grant appellant's motion for rehearing and deny respondent,and(4) that the granting of the injunction will not appellant's motion for rehearing en bane. We withdraw our disserve the public interest. opinion dated May 5, 2000,and substitute the following in its place. 706 So. 2d at 348. P.M. believes the trial judge incorrectly applied these factors. GREEN,Judge. P.M. Realty & Investments, Inc. (P.M.), timely appeals the The trial court properly held that II11'2[#] when one violates a city ordinance, irreparable harm is presumed. See ./Torula trial court's nonfinal order granting the motion for a preliminary injunction filed by the city of Tampa, Florida, a Dep't of .Reg. i. lirrrzak; 590 So. 2c1.11110(Ila. 3d J)C',4 municipal corporation, and. Gloria Moreda, in her official 19y ' [**4l Zoning ordinances that limit the geographical areas in which adult businesses may locate have been upheld capacity as zoning administrator for the city of Tampa, Florida[**2] (Tampa).We affirm. as constitutional. See 421 Narthluke Bhr ,,,.( nrp_ti. Ycllrx e <f N.Palm Beach„753 So, 2d 754(Flu 4th 1)(4_20,00);see also In February 1996,P.M.engaged in a business called the Club U.S. Partners Fin. Car . v. Kansas Cit 707 F Supp. 1090 Flamingo, in a historic district of Tampa, Florida, known as (WD. M . 1989) (holding city had right to regulate time, Ybor City. The development of Club Flamingo was place, and manner of offering of adult entertainment in city). undertaken with the specific intent of offering to the public Furthermore, competent,substantial evidence is not needed to the vending of alcoholic beverages and the presentation of support the injunction. See Centerfold Club, inc. z. City of St. exotic dance performances. Petersburg, 969 I° Supp. 1288(M..D. Fla. 1997) (holding that while city had burden to justify zoning ordinance for adult P.M. contends that the trial court erred by finding that the entertainment establishments, link was only required to be required special use permit procedures in chapter 27 of the supported by reasonable belief, not by substantial, competent Tampa City Code were controlling authority over its motion evidence). to dismiss. P.M. also contends that chapter 27 of the Tampa City Code constitutes a prior restraint on free speech due to P.M. argues that it did not apply for an appropriate adult use lack of adequate procedural safeguards and that the ordinance permit because chapter 27 of the city code is unconstitutional. denies P.M.equal protection of the law.P.M.further contends Therefore, any injury to the city caused by noncompliance is, that imposition of the ordinance constitutes a taking of or at most, remote and speculative, and other legal remedies infringement on its First Amendment right and that the would be more appropriate than an injunction. In ordinance is facially unconstitutional and unconstitutional as Metropolitan Dade County v. O'Brien, 660 So. 2d 364 (Fla. applied. 3d DCA 1995),[**5] the O'Briens established a business without complying with various county ordinances or Club Flamingo began business in Ybor City without applying securing necessary permits.As a result,the Third District held for a special use [*406] permit required by Tampa for adult that "HAT3[t] where the government seeks an injunction in businesses. P.M.'s reasoning was that Club Flamingo was order to enforce its police power,any alternative legal remedy surrounded by night clubs serving alcohol which were not is ignored and irreparable harm is presumed." 660 So. 2d at affected by the existence[**3] of the cabaret. 365. The court also held that under the circumstance where one opens a business aware of the violations to the ordinances I. Whether a Temporary Injunction Should be Granted and continues to operate that business in violation, the .,. government has a clear legal right to relief. Accordingly, we HR'I[#] The standard of review in this appeal is abuse of believe that Tampa has satisfied the first two prongs of the discretion, which is based on the principle of general test set out in Cosmic Coll) 706 So. . d 347. Patrick Neale Page 4 of 6 779 So,2d 404, *406;2000 Fla.App.LEXIS 10933,**5 The trial judge also found that the continued violation of the JINS[P]The subject code provides that in the instance of S-1 city ordinance by P.M. was a greater harm to Tampa than to permits[**8] the zoning administrator must review the perinit P.M. P.M. refused to voluntarily comply with the ordinance, application and issue a decision within thirty days. Subsection leaving Tampa no choice but to seek an injunction.The club's (d) of the ordinance provides for appeal by the applicant continued operation was balanced against injury to the city, within thirty days of a decision and that review of a negative and the trial judge, in his discretion, ruled "the threatened decision must be ruled upon by the city council within forty- injury to [the city] outweighs the harm to [P.M.]." This five days. Appeal of the city council's decision is to the circuit finding satisfies the third prong of the cosmic Corp. test. court as provided by law. See § 27.277(1)(d). The ordinance in question is significantly different from that in the case of [**61 P.M. claims that the injunction does not serve the 13abi,Tarn 154 F.3d 1097,wherein the unsuccessful applicant public interest because it is a restraint on the freedom and was required to file a petition for mandamus in state court for rights guaranteed by both state and federal constitutions. relief. However, Tampa contends that the public has an interest in seeing that its [*407] ordinances and city zoning plan are The United. States Supreme Court in the case of 1 !WPBS,v._ complied with. We agree that the injunction serves the public City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 107L. Ed. 2d 603, 110 S. CI, interest. Having satisfied the four-part test in Cosmic Corp., 596(1990,emphasized that the possibility and availability of the temporary injunction was properly granted. prompt judicial review will satisfy the standard. Justice O'Connor wrote that "expeditious judicial review of that II. S-1 vs. 5-2 Permit decision must he available" and that "there must be the P.M. contends that the permit required to operate an adult use possibility of prompt judicial review in the event that the business would be an S-2 special use permit,rather than an S- license is erroneously denied." r We do not rule out the Possibility of a mandamus proceeding with respect to a city 1 permit. The trial court ruled that the S-1 permit was required, and because P.M. did not apply for one, it was in council recalcitrant(**9] in completing its duties. However, violation. HiV4[#] An S-1 special use permit is required we do not perceive that to be a significant procedural problem where "specified uses or characteristics of use could have and, therefore, disagree [*408] with the conclusion reached adverse effects on adjacent by Judge Lopez. properties unless special requirements are met." Tampa,Fla., Code § 27-267(b)(1).Atr In the present case,the trial court ruled that zoning ordinances S-2 permit is required where "specified uses or occupancies restricting the location of adult businesses have been held not involve matters deemed to be of citywide or area wide [sic] importance." § 27.267(b)(2). We agree with the trial court that to constitute invalid prior restraints on speech. Tampa's the location of Club Flamingo requires P.M. to obtain[**7] zoning ordinance limits the location where adult businesses an S-1 special use permit. may[**10] operate. It does not try to prohibit the type of free speech addressed in this case. This finding is in compliance III.Is the Ordinance a Prior Restraint on Free Speech? with the United States Supreme Court in the case of Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc., 427 US. 50, 49 L. Ed. 2d 310, P.M. also contends that the zoning ordinance is a prior 96 S a 2440 0976). restraint on free speech due to either unbridled administrative discretion or lack of prompt judicial review. P.M. supports With respect to P.M.'s argument that the ordinance gives this theory by referencing a trial court order issued by Judge Tampa unbridled discretion, the trial judge made the Manuel Lopez in State v. Fowler, slip op., Case No. 98 following findings and conclusions. We quote approvingly 25685,Div.E.,Hillsborough County Criminal Court(1997). from the trial judge's order. Defendant argues that the ordinance lacks adequate Judge Lopez, relying partly on the decision of Baty Tari v. C_it} ofLas Vegas, 151.F.3c11097 j911r_Cu 199 1, found that section 27.267(1)(d), which "provides for judicial review of city council's decision by circuit court as provided by lav r The continents in F.W:,PI3S y,,City of Dallas,493 US. 215, 107 L. does not provide for prompt judicial review." Judge Lopez Ed 2d 603, 110 S Ct.5,96(1990).have been construed differently in also found that section 27.394(c), which mandates when the various federal circuits. However, we do not believe those city council shall set a hearing but provides no time limits for differences have application in this case. See C y News tc: ove0y,. the council to reach a decision, and its related prevision that Iiu r CitynfI aukeshy, 3.1 Wis 2d<J3,.604 rti Tt'?d�47�tTfirs._,_11p.. 1999);see also Blue,foon Triter r Inc._...i Pinellas County Dep.X.9f review of city council's decision shall be by certiorari, does Consumer Prvtectioli,_;9 F Stipp....2d 1134 (11D._„i la ?l1D01 not provide for prompt judicial review.Judge Lopez therefore ("prompt judicial review"means access to such review;prompt,final ruled that the ordinance violated due process.We disagree. decision is not required). Patrick Neale Page 5 of 6 779 So.2d 404,*408;2000 Fla.App.LEXIS 10933, **10 procedural safeguards and has no provision for the court approvingly cited United States v. Riverside constitutionally prompt review. The City of Tampa Code Bayview Homes, Inc. 474 US 121 126 88 L. Ed. 2d 419 provides that (I) the Zoning Coordinator must review an 106 S. C't. 455 11985} (holding there is a taking "if the application and issue a determination within thirty days of ordinance does not substantially advance legitimate [*4091 receipt thereof; (2) an appeal of the Zoning Coordinator's state interests . . . or denies an(**131 owner economically decision is made directly to the City Council; (3) the City viable use of his land"). The Tampa ordinance advances a Council will hear the appeal and rule on it within forty-five legitimate state interest and provides for ample alternative days of receipt of a complete application; (4) review of the uses of the land,and there was no taking. Council's decision is made by the circuit court. VI. Whether the Ordinance is Unconstitutional Defendant contends that (1) since the Code does not set forth any mandatory allowances to being an adult use business[,] if P.M. contends that the zoning ordinance is unconstitutional as the Zoning Coordinator does not render[**11] a decision applied to Club Flamingo. In support of this argument, P.M. within thirty days, there are no mandatory time limits for refers to locations where surrounding parcels of land are rendering a speedy judicial decision on appeal to the City zoned differently than the Club Flamingo parcel. Contrary to Council; and (2) since Defendant is required to appeal to the P.M.'s argument, P.M.'s parcel of land is being treated the City Council prior to judicial review, the ordinance is an same as other parcels in that area. None of the parcels can be impermissible prior restraint on free speech. Zoning used for adult uses. This is not an instance where the ordinances restricting the location of adult businesses have ordinance is applied differently and more restrictively to P.M. been determined not to constitute invalid prior restraints on than to comparable adjacent parcels. free speech. See, e.g., Young v. American Mini Theaters, Inc., 427 U.S. [50] (1976); U.S. Partners Financial Corp, v. P.M. also contends that the ordinance is facially Kansas City 7_91±. .Sit} 1090 LTD Mo. 1989ilcrdo }__ unconstitutional in that there are not enough alternative sites available to comply with the tune, place, and manner test. Lewisville, 848 S.W2d 380 (1993, Tex. App. Forth Worth) [sic].Accordingly,Defendant's contentions are without merit. According to Cit1' of Renton v Pla time I eatres,_Inc., 475 US. 41, 54, 89 L. Ed 2d 29, 106 S. Ct. 925(198 ), "HN7[+] IV Equal Protection the First Amendment requires only that [the city]refrain from effectively denying respondents a reasonable opportunity to open and operate [**14] an adult theater within the city." The P.M. claims that the different treatment Club Flamingo is receiving,compared to the other night clubs in Ybor City, is a ordinance does not forbid P.M. from opening an adult use business within the city. The trial court went into great detail violation of equal protection. A similar argument was raised in Young v. AmericanMini Theatres, Inc., 427 US. 5(1 49,,w in researching the availability of alternative sites for adult uses. In fact, the trial judge visited many of the sites listed as Ed. 2d 310, 96 S. C t. 7440 ('1976). In Young, the appellant acceptable alternate locations. Appellant's argument in this complained that his x-rated theaters were being treated differently for zoning[**121 purposes than other movie regard is without merit. See Specialty Malls, 916 F. Supp, theaters. The Supreme Court held that "II '6[4'] the State 1222;see also 421 Northlake Blvd.,753 So.2d 754. may legitimately use the content of these materials as the basis for placing them in a different classification from other VII. Improper Predicate motion pictures." 427 US. at 70-71. Likewise, Tampa may use the content of the entertainment of Club Flamingo as the Finally, P.M. contends that the predicate upon which the city from other based its ordinance is insufficient. P.M. claims the adverse basis for placing it in a different classification night clubs. secondary effects Tampa seeks to control with the ordinance must be proven by competent,substantial evidence. However, V. Taking Tampa contends that the fairly debatable test controls the review of the ordinance. I1:18[ '] It is settled law that from a P.M. contends that the trial court erred in holding that the federal standpoint, an adult use ordinance need only satisfy zoning ordinance did not constitute a taking in violation of the the fairly debatable test. See City of Renton, 475 US. 41, 106 First Amendment by suppressing or restricting access to .S. Ct. 925, 89 L. Ed. 2d ;Into+t International I'atcrics c lrrr,Ine_, lawful speech. The trial court correctly ruled that there was no ?'•Brorcrrd County, 941 F.2d 1157 VIA Or..19_911. taking. Although the club could not be used as an adult cabaret, the zoning regulations allowed for some thirty-eight There has been some confusion as to which standard applies alternative categories of uses. In Specialty Malls of Tampa, in Florida. However, we[**15] agree with the trial court that Inc. v. City of Tampa, CI1 d F. Supp. 1222 (:.121:). Fla 1996), IIN9[V] the fairly debatable test should be used for review of Patrick Neale Page 6 of 6 779 So. 2d 404,*409;2000 Fla.App.LEXIS 10933,**15 legislative zoning enactments. This decision is in compliance with the Florida Supreme Court in Nance is Town of Indialantic, 419 So. 2d 1041 (F1a. 1982) (holding the fairly debatable test should be used to review legislative-type zoning enactments, while a variance seeker must demonstrate a wlique hardship in order to qualify for a variance), and Board of County Commissioners v. Snyder, 627 So. 2d 469 (147a. 1993) (holding comprehensive rezonings affecting a large portion of the public are legislative in nature and are subject to fairly debatable standard of review). This court has addressed the issues raised in Nance and Snyder in Lee County v. Sunbelt Equities, II, Ltd. Partnership, 619 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 2d DCA 1.993). In Sunbelt Equities, this court quoted Nance as stating the fairly debatable test was created to review the legislative- type enactments of zoning ordinances. Accordingly,we affirm.the order of the trial court. CAMPBELL, [**161 A.C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., Concur. End of Document Patrick Neale •• L exis• User Name: Patrick Neale Date and Time: Monday, February 27, 2017 3:33:00 PM EST Job Number: 44054084 Document(1) 1. Nance v. India!antic, 1982 Fla. LEXIS 2530 Client/Matter: -None- "LeXIS1 Xis'i About LexL i?c1s I Privacy Policy I Terms&,Candltions I Copyright 0 2_.017 LexisNexis Patrick Neale Last updated January 10,2017 12:08:16 pin GMT Nance v. India'antic Supreme Court of Florida. July 29, 1982;Rehearing Denied Oct.22, 1982. No. 60901. Reporter 1982 Fla.LEXIS 2530*;419 So.2d 1041 James H.NANCE,Petitioner,v.TOWN OF INDIALANTIC, LexisNexis® Headnotes Respondent. Core Terms hardship,variance,zoning variance,district court,debatable, Environmental Law>Land Use&Zoning>Conditional Use Zoning Permits&Variances Real Property Law>Zoning>Judicial Review Case Summary Business&Corporate Compliance>...> pReal Property Law>Zoning>Variances Procedural Posture Business&Corporate Compliance>...>Real Property The court reviewed the decision of the District Court of Law:>Zoning>Zoning Methods Appeal,Fifth District(Florida),which held that a prerequisite to the granting of a hardship zoning variance was the presence 11N1[4 The "fairly debatable" test should be used to review of an exceptional and unique hardship to the individual legislative-type zoning enactments, while a variance seeker landowner. must demonstrate a unique hardship in order to qualify for a variance. Overview Counsel: [*11 Mallory H.Horton of Horton,Perse& The district court held that a prerequisite to the granting of a. Ginsberg,Miami,for petitioner. hardship zoning variance was the presence of an exceptional and unique hardship to the individual landowner, unique to Edward J. Silberllorir,Andrew A.Graham and Kerry I. that parcel and not shared by other property owners in the Evander of Reisman,Harrell,Silberhorn,Moule,Boyd& area. The district court distinguished the fairly debatable test Graham,Melbourne,for respondents. of reviewing zoning decisions from the unique hardship burden of proof for variances and held that the proper Judges: Before McDONALD,Justice. ALDERMAN,C.J., standard of review in a zoning variance case was whether the and BOY D,OVERTON,SUNDBERG and EHRLICH,JJ., lower tribunal had before it competent substantial evidence to concur. ADKINS,J.,dissents. support its finding.Upon review, the court concluded that the district court properly analyzed the .facts and applied Opinion by:McDONALD appropriate precedent. The court emphasized that the fairly debatable test should he used to review legislative-type Opinion zoning enactments, while a variance seeker must demonstrate a unique hardship in order to qualify for a variance. McDONALD,Justice. Outcome We review Town cr .hrr ialan1ic i. fiance 400 So di 37., Fla. The court approved the district court's opinion and adopted it t L_ ' 1 _._._. 5th DCA 19�41j, because of conflict Ivitll r11444g,_Alortggge as its owns on the ground that the district court properly CorR_1, Citi llliarni Burch 308 S_o.2d 6 (Fla. 3d DCA), analyzed the facts and applied appropriate precedent. ._ cert. denied, 317 So.2d 763 (,la.1975). In a comprehensive and articulate opinion the district court stated in the instant Patrick Neale Page 2 of 2 1982 Fla.LEXIS 2530, *1 case that"[a]prerequisite to the granting of a hardship zoning variance is the presence of an exceptional and unique hardship to the individual landowner, unique to that parcel and not shared by other property owners in the area." 400 So.2d at 40. The court distinguished the "fairly debatable"test of reviewing zoning decisions from the "unique hardship" burden of proof for variances and held that "the proper standard of review in a zoning variance case is whether the lower tribunal had before ]*2] it competent substantial evidence to support its finding. DeGroot v, Shcffeld .95 Sny44912_jFla,I957)." Id. (emphasis in original, footnote omitted). The district court has properly analyzed the facts and applied appropriate precedent, and we approve that court's opinion and adopt it as our own. In so doing, we emphasize that.HNI{?J the "fairly debatable" test should be used to review legislative-type zoning enactments, while a variance seeker must demonstrate a "unique hardship" in order to qualify for a variance. We disapprove Allstate Mortgage Corp. to the extent of conflict with the instant opinion. It is so ordered. ALDERMAN, C.J., and BOYD, OVERTON, SUNDBERG and EHRLICH,JJ.,concur. ADKINS,J.,dissents. End of Document II Patrick Neale • LexisNexis User Name: Patrick Neale Date and Time: Monday, February 27, 2017 3:31:00 PM EST Job Number: 44053822 Document (1) 1. Bd. of County Comm'Rs v. Snyder. 627 So. 2d 469 Client/Matter: -None- . > `LexisNexis'I About t_ex SNexis I Privacy Policy Terms_&Conditions I copyright©2017 LexisNexis. Patrick Neale Q Last updated. February 27,2017 03:27:55 pm GMT Bd. of County C;o;nnr'Rs v. Snyder Supreme Court of Florida October 7, 1993,Decided No. 79,7211 Reporter 627 So.2d 469*;1993 Fla.LEXIS 1628**; 18 Fla.L.Weekly S 522 zoning classification allowed for the construction of a single- BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF BREVARD family residence. Respondents filed an application to rezone COUNTY,FLORIDA,Petitioner,v.JACK R.SNYDER,et their property, which was denied by petitioner county ux.,Respondents. commission. The appellate court granted relief to respondents and held that petitioner's denial was arbitrary and capricious. Subsequent History: 1**11 As Revised.December 23, 1993. The court quashed the decision of the appellate court and held Petition for Rehearing Denied.December 23, 1993. Released that, because petitioner's action on respondents' application for Publication January 18, 1994. was quasi-judicial,the practical effect was to review the case by strict scrutiny in the sense of strict compliance with the Prior History:Application for Review of the Decision of the comprehensive zoning plan.Applying that principle,the court District Court of Appeal-Direct Conflict of Decisions. Fifth opined that respondents were charged with the burden of District-Case Na.90-1214. proving that their proposal was consistent with the comprehensive plan. Then the burden shifted to petitioner to Orginial Opinion of March 20, 1992, Reported at: 1992 lila. show that maintaining the existing zoning plan accomplished App. LEXIS 12297. a legitimate public purpose. Because the appellate court did not follow this rationale,its judgment was quashed. Core Terms zoning,rezoning,comprehensive plan,land use,quasi- Outcome judicial,local government,zoning classification,debatable, The judgment of the appellate court, which found that decisions,landowner,rezoning application,board's action, petitioner's denial of respondents'request for a zoning change ordinance,county commissioners,judicial review,strict was arbitrarily and unreasonably denied,was quashed because scrutiny,local plan,requirements,intensities,regulation, the appellate court did not follow the appropriate burden- reasons,orders shifting rationale in place for challenges to a local government's comprehensive plan. Case Summary LexisNexis® Headnotes Procedural Posture Petitioner filed an application for review of a decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal (Florida) which ruled, in Governments>Local Governments>Finance apparent conflict with another appellate court,that petitioner's Real Property Law>Water Rights>Nonconsumptive denial of respondents request for a zoning change,which was Uses>General Overview based on petitioner's comprehensive plan, was arbitrary and Real Property Law>Zoning>General Overview unreasonable. Business&Corporate Compliance>...>Real Property Overview Law>Zoning>Comprehensive Plans The court granted review of an appellate court decision Business&Corporate Compliance>...>Real Property relating to a zoning matter because it conflicted with another Law>Zoning>Growth Control appellate decision. Respondent landowners owned a one-half Transportation Law>Public Transportation acre parcel of property that was zoned for general use. The Patrick Neale Page 2 of 8 627 So.2d 469, *469; 1993 Fla.LEXIS 1628, **1 IL '1[j] Pursuant to the Growth Management Act, Fla. Stat. circuit court. However, in deference to the policy-making ch. 85-55,each county and municipality is required to prepare function of a board when acting in a legislative capacity, its a comprehensive plan for approval by the Department of actions are sustained as long as they are fairly debatable, On Community Affairs. The adopted local plan must include the other hand, the rulings of a board acting iu its quasi- principles, guidelines, and standards for the orderly and judicial capacity are subject to review by certiorari and are balanced future economic, social, physical, environmental, upheld only if they are supported by substantial competent and fiscal development of the local government's evidence. jurisdictional area.At a minimum,the local plan must include elements covering future land use; capital improvements generally; sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, potable water, and natural ground water aquifer protection Real Property Law>Zoning>General Overview specifically; conservation; recreation and open space; Business&Corporate Compliance>...>Real Property housing; traffic circulation; intergovernmental coordination; Law>Zoning>Ordinances coastal management (for local government in the coastal zone), and mass transit (for local jurisdictions with 50,000 or IING[ ] Enactments of original zoning ordinances are more people). considered legislative. Real Property Law>Zoning>General Overview Administrative Law>Agency Adjudication>Hearings>General Overview IIN2[A] See.147a. Stat. ch. 163.3194(3)(1991). JfNTA] It is the character of the hearing that determines whether or not board action is legislative or quasi-judicial. Generally speaking, legislative action results in the Real Property Law>Zoning>General Overview formulation of a general rule of policy, whereas judicial action results in the application of a general rule of policy. ITh?[ ] See F/a. Stat. ch. 163.3164(1991). Administrative Law>Agency Adjudication>Hearings=>General Business&Corporate Compliance>...>Environmental Overview Law>Land Use&Zoning>Comprehensive&General Plans Real Property Law>Zoning:>General Overview IIN8[Al A judicial or quasi-judicial act determines the rules of law applicable, and the rights affected by them, in relation Business&Corporate Compliance> >Real Property to past transactions. On the other hand, a quasi-legislative or Law>Zoning>Comprehensive Plans administrative order prescribes what the rule or requirement II_N4[ ] Because an order granting or denying rezoning of administratively determined duty shall be with respect to constitutes a development order, and development orders transactions to be executed in the future, in order that same must be consistent with the comprehensive plan, it is clear shall be considered lawful. But even so, quasi-legislative and that orders on rezoningapplications must be consistent with quasi-executive orders, after they have already been entered, the comprehensive plan. may have a quasi-judicial attribute if capable of being arrived at and provided by law to be declared by the administrative agency only after express statutory notice, hearing, and consideration of evidence to be adduced as a basis for the Administrative Law>Judicial Review>Standards of making thereof. Review>General Overview Civil Procedure>Appeals>Appellate Jurisdiction>State Court Review Real Property Law>Zoning>Judicial Review Governments>Local Govermnents>Administrative Boards IIN9[A]Rezoning actions which have an impact on a limited IIi'!T5[:' ] A board's legislative action is subject to attack in number of persons or property owners, on identifiable parties Patrick Neale Page 3 of 8 627 So.2d 469, *469; 1993 Fla.LEXIS 1628, **1 and interests, where the decision is contingent on a fact or where none previously existed. Moreover, when it is the facts arrived at from distinct alternatives presented at a zoning classification that is challenged, the comprehensive hearing,and where the decision can be functionally viewed as plan is relevant only when the suggested use is inconsistent policy application,rather than policy setting,are in the nature with that plan. Where any of several zoning classifications is of quasi-judicial action. consistent with the plan, the applicant seeking a change from one to the other is not entitled to judicial relief absent proof the status quo is no longer reasonable.It is not enough simply to be "consistent"; the proposed change cannot be Environmental Law>Land Use&Zoning>Constitutional Limits inconsistent, and will be subject to "strict scrutiny" to insure Business&Corporate Compliance>...>Real Property this does not happen. Law>Zoning>Comprehensive Plans Counsel: Robert D.Guthrie,County Attorney and Eden Business&Corporate Compliance>...>Real Property Law>Zoning:>Constitutional Limits Bentley,Assistant County Attorney,Melbourne,Florida,for Petitioner. Real Property Law>Zoning>Judicial Review Frank J.Griffith,Jr. of Cianfrogna,Telfer,Reda&Faherty, .11N10[A] In practical effect, the review by strict scrutiny in P.A.,Titusville,Florida,for Respondents. zoning cases appears to be the same as that given in the review of other quasi-judicial decisions. The term as used in Denis Dean and Jonathan A. Glogau,Assistant Attorneys the review of land use decisions must be distinguished from General,Tallahassee,Florida,Amicus Curiae for The the type of strict scrutiny review afforded in some Attorney General, State of Florida constitutional cases. Nancy Stuparich,Assistant General Counsel and Jane C. Hayman,Deputy General Counsel,Tallahassee,Florida, Amicus Curiae for Florida League of Cities,Inc.. Real Property Law>Zoning>General Overview Business&Corporate Compliance>...>Real Property Paul R.Gougelman,III and Maureen M.Matheson of Lav>Zoning>Comprehensive Plans Reinman,Harrell,Graham,Mitchell&Wattwood,P.A., Melbourne,Florida,Amicus Curiae for Space Coast League HVI.1[ '] A comprehensive plan only establishes a long- of Cities,Inc.,City of Melbourne,and Town of Indialantic. range maximum limit on the possible intensity of land use; a plan does not simultaneously establish an immediateRichard E.Gentry,Florida Home Builders Association, minimum limit on the possible intensity of land use. The Tallahassee,Florida;and Robert M.Rhodes and Cathy M. present use of land may, by zoning ordinance, continue to be Sellers of Steel,Hector and Davis,Tallahassee,Florida, more limited than the future use contemplated by the Amicus Curiae for Florida Home 1**2] Builders Association. comprehensive plan. David La Croix of Pennington,Wilkinson&Dunlap,P.A., Tallahassee,Florida;and William J. Roberts of Roberts and Eagan,P.A.,Tallahassee,Florida,Amicus Curiae for Florida Business&Corporate Compliance>...>Environmental Association of Counties. Law>Land Use&Zoning>Comprehensive&General Plans David.J.Russ and Karen Brodeen,Assistant General Business&Corporate Compliance>...>Real Property Counsels,Tallahassee,Florida,Amiens Curiae for Florida Law >Zoning>Comprehensive Plans Department of Community Affairs. Real Property Law>Zoning>Judicial Review Richard Grosso,Legal Director, 1000 Friends of Florida, HA'12[j] Absent the assertion of some enforceable property Tallahassee,Florida;and C.Allen Watts of Cobb,Cole and right, an application for rezoning appeals at least in part to Bell,Daytona Beach,Florida,Amicus Curiae for 1000 local officials' discretion to accept or reject the applicant's Friends of Florida. argument that change is desirable.The right of judicial review does not ipso facto ease the burden on a party seeking to Neal D.Bowen,County Attorney,Kissimmee,Florida, overturn a decision made by a local government,and certainly Amicus Curiae for Osceola County. does not confer any property-based right upon the owner Patrick Neale Page 4 of 8 627 So.2d 469, *469; 1993 Fla.LEXIS 1628, **2 M. Stephen Turner and David K.Miller of Broad and Cassel, all aspects of the comprehensive plan except for the fact that Tallahassee,Florida,Amicus Curiae for Monticello Drug it was located in the one-hundred-year flood plain in which a Company. maximum of only two units per acre was permitted. For this reason,the staff recommended that the request be denied. John J.Copelan,Jr.,County Attorney and Barbara S. Monahan,Assistant County Attorney for Broward County, At the planning and zoning board meeting, the county Fort Lauderdale,Florida;and Emeline Acton,County planning and zoning director indicated that when the property Attorney for Hillsborough County,Tampa,Florida,Amici was developed the land elevation would be raised to the point Curiae for Broward County,Hillsborough County,and where the one-hundred-year-flood plain restriction would no Florida Association of County Attorneys,Inc.. longer be applicable.Thus,the director stated that the staff no longer opposed the application. The planning and zoning Thomas G.Pelham of Holland&Knight,Tallahassee, board[**5] voted to approve the Snyders'rezoning request. Florida,Amicus Curiae for Thomas G.Pelham,pro se. When the matter came before the board of county Judges: GRIMES, [**3] BARKETT,OVERTON, commissioners, Snyder stated that he intended to build only McDONALD,KOGAN,HARDING,SHAW five or six units on the property. However, a number of citizens spoke in opposition to the rezoning request. Their Opinion by: GRIMES primary concern was the increase in traffic which would be caused by the development.Ultimately,the commission voted Opinion to deny the rezoning request without stating a reason for the denial. [*470] The Motion for Rehearing filed by Petitioner, having The Snyders filed a petition fbr certiorari in the circuit court. been considered in light of the revised opinion, is hereby Three circuit judges,sitting en bane,reviewed the petition and denied. denied it by a two-to-one decision. The Snyders then filed a GRIMES,J. petition for certiorari in the Fifth District Court of Appeal. We review Snyder r Board of County, Commissioner s 595 The district court of appeal acknowledged that zoning So. 2d 65 (Fla. 5th DC 4 1991), because of its conflict with decisions have traditionally been considered legislative in Schauer v. City of Miami Beach, 112 So. 2d 838(Fla. 1959); nature.Therefore,courts were required to uphold them if they Citta oilacksonville Beach v. Grubbs, 461 So. 2d 160(Fla. 1st could be justified as being "fairly debatable." Drawing heavily on Fcr DCA l984), review denied, 469 So. Zd 749 (Fla. 1985); and sano ti. Hoare;,c/•Connh% Cornrrussinners,,,64 1'alrn Beach County v. Tinnerman, 517 So. 2d 699 (Ka. 4th Ure_ev514, 7 P 211,..'3 O.i___.1973), however, the court DCA 1987), review denied, [*4711 528 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. concluded that, unlike initial zoning enactments and 1988).We have jurisdiction under article i, section 3(h)(3)of comprehensive rezonings or rezonings affecting a large the Florida Constitution. Jack and Gail Snyder owned a one- portion of the[**G] public, a rezoning action which entails half acre parcel of property on Merritt Island in the the application of a general rule or policy to specific • unincorporated area of Brevard County.The property is zoned individuals, interests, or activities is quasi-judicial in nature. GU(general use)which allows construction of a single-family Under the latter circumstances, the court reasoned that a residence. The Snyders filed an application to rezone their stricter standard of judicial review of the rezoning decision property to the RU-2-15 zoning classification which allows was required.The court went on to hold: the[**4] construction of fifteen units per acre. The area is (4) Since a property owner's right to own and use his designated for residential use under the 1988 Brevard Comity property is constitutionally protected, review of any Comprehensive Plan. Future Land Use Map. Twenty-nine governmental action denying or abridging that right is zoning classifications are considered potentially consistent subject to close judicial scrutiny. Effective judicial with this land use designation, including both the GU and the review, constitutional due process and other essential • RU-2-15 classifications. requirements of law, all necessitate that the After the application for rezoning was filed, the Brevard governmental agency (by whatever name it may be County Planning and Zoning staff reviewed the application characterized)applying legislated land use restrictions to and completed the county's standard "rezoning review particular parcels of privately owned lands, must state worksheet." The worksheet indicated that the proposed reasons for action that denies the owner the use of his multifamily use of the Snyders' property was consistent with land and must make findings of fact and a record of its proceedings, sufficient for judicial review of: the legal Patrick Neale Page 5 of 8 627 So.2d 469, *471; 1993 Fla. LEXIS 1628, **6 sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings of fact suggests that the requirement to make findings in support of made, the legal sufficiency of the findings of fact its rezoning decision will place an insurmountable burden on supporting the reasons given and the legal adequacy, the zoning authorities. The county also asserts that the under applicable law (i.e., under general salutary purpose of the comprehensive plan to provide comprehensive[**7] zoning ordinances, applicable state controlled growth will be thwarted by the court's ruling that and case law and state and federal constitutional the maximum use permitted by the plan must be approved provisions) of the reasons given for the result of the once the rezoning application is determined to be consistent action taken. with it. (5) The initial burden is upon the landowner to The Snyders respond that the decision below should be demonstrate that his petition or application for use of upheld in all of its major premises. They argue that the privately owned [*472] lands, (rezoning, special rationale for the early decisions that rezonings are legislative exception, conditional use permit, variance, site plan in nature has been changed by the enactment of the Growth approval, etc.) complies with the reasonable procedural Management Act. Thus, in order to ensure that local requirements of the ordinance and that the use sought is governments follow the principles enunciated in their consistent with the applicable comprehensive zoning comprehensive plans, it is necessary for the courts to exercise plan. Upon such a showing the landowner is stricter scrutiny than would be provided under the fairly presumptively entitled to use his property in the manner debatable rule. The Snyders contend that their rezoning he seeks unless the opposing governmental agency application was consistent with the comprehensive plan. asserts and proves by clear and convincing evidence that Because there are no findings of fact or reasons given for the a specifically stated public necessity requires a specified, denial by the board of county commissioners, there is no more restrictive, use. After such a showing the burden basis[**10] upon which the denial could be upheld. Various shifts to the landowner to assert and prove that such amici curiae have also submitted briefs in support of their specified more restrictive land use constitutes a taking of several positions. his property for public use for which he is entitled to compensation under the taking provisions of the state or Historically, local governments have exercised the zoning federal constitutions. power pursuant to a broad delegation of state legislative power subject only to constitutional-limitations. Both federal Snyder v. Board of County Commissioners, 595 So. 2d at 81 and state courts adopted a highly deferential standard of _ (footnotes omitted). judicial review early in the history of local zoning. In Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 US. 365, 47 S. CI. 114, [**8] Applying these principles to the facts of the case, the 71 L. Ed. 303 (1926), the United States Supreme Court held court found (1) that the Snyders' petition for rezoning was that"if the validity of the legislative classification for zoning consistent with the comprehensive plan; (2)that there was no purposes be fairly debatable,the legislative judgment must be assertion or evidence that a more restrictive zoning allowed to control." 272 US. at 388. This Court expressly classification was necessary to protect the health, safety, adopted the fairly debatable principle in (7)t}=offnmx 13ecrcli, morals, or welfare of the general public; and (3) that the v. Ocean ct7 Inland Co., 147 Fla. 480. 3 So. 2a 364(1941 . denial of the requested zoning classification without reasons supported by facts was, as a matter of law, arbitrary and Inhibited only by the loose judicial scrutiny afforded by the unreasonable.The court granted the petition for certiorari. fairly debatable rule, local zoning systems developed in a markedly inconsistent manner. Many land use experts and Before this Court, the county contends that the standard of practitioners 1**111 have been critical of the local zoning review for the county's denial of the Snyders' rezoning system. Richard Babcock deplored the effect of application is whether or not the decision was fairly "neighborhoodism" and [*473] rank political influence on the debatable. The county further argues that the opinion below local decision-making process. Richard F. Babcock, The eliminates a local government's ability to operate in a Zoning Game (1966). Mandelker and Tarlock recently stated legislative context and impairs its ability to respond to public that "zoning decisions are too often ad hoc, sloppy and self- comment. The county refers to Jennings v. Dade County, 589 serving decisions with well-defined adverse consequences So. 2d 1337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), review denied, 598 So. 2d without off-setting benefits." Daniel R. Mandelker and A. 75 (Fla. 1992),for the proposition that if its rezoning decision Dan Tarlock,Shifting the Presumption of Constitutionality in is quasi-judicial, the commissioners will be prohibited from Land-Use Law,24 Urb.Law. 1,2(1992). obtaining community[**9] input by way of ex parte communications from its citizens. In addition, the county Professor Charles Harr,a leading proponent of zoning reform, Patrick Neale • Page 6 of 8 627 So.2d 469, *473; 1993 Fla. LEXIS 1628, **11 was an early advocate of requiring that local land use The local plata must be implemented through the adoption of regulation be consistent with a legally binding comprehensive land development regulations that are consistent with the plan which would serve long range goals, counteract local plan. Id. § 163.3202. In addition, all development, [**141 pressures for preferential treatment, and provide courts with a both public and private, and all development orders approved meaningful standard of review. Charles M. Harr, "In by local governments must be consistent with the adopted Accordance With A Comprehensive Plan," 68 Harv. L. Rev. local plan. Id. ¢ 163.3194(J)(a). II1V2[?] Section 1154(1955).In 1975,the American Law Institute adopted'the 163.3194(3), Florida Statutes(1991), explains consistency as Model Land Development Code, which provided for follows: procedural and planning reforms at the local level and (a) A development order or land development regulation increased state participation[**121 in land use decision- shall be consistent with the comprehensive plan if the making for developments of regional impact and areas of land uses, densities or intensities, and other aspects of critical state concern. development permitted by such order or regulation are compatible with and further the objectives,policies, land Reacting to the increasing calls for reform, numerous states uses, and densities or intensities in the comprehensive have adopted legislation to change the local land use decision J plan and if it meets all other criteria enumerated. by The making process. As one of the leaders of this national reform, local government. Florida adopted the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act of 1975. Ch. 75-257, Laws of Fla. This law was //.N3[?] Section 163.3164, Florida Statutes (1991), reads in substantially strengthened in 1985 by the Growth pertinent part: Management Act. Ch.85-55,Laws of Fla. (6) "Development order" means any order granting, denying,or granting with conditions an application for a HrVI[?] Pursuant to the Growth Management Act, each development permit. county and municipality is required to prepare a comprehensive plan for approval by the Department of [*4741 (7) "Development permit" includes any building Community Affairs. The adopted local plan must include permit, zoning permit, subdivision approval, rezoning, "principles, guidelines, and standards for the orderly and certification, special exception, variance, or any other balanced future economic, social, physical, environmental, official action of local government having the effect of and fiscal development" of the local government's permitting the development of land. jurisdictional area. St 163.3177(1), Fla. Stat. (1991). At the .•. j minimum, the local plan must include elements covering IIiV4[+] Because an order granting or denying rezoning future land use; capital improvements generally; sanitary constitutes a development order and development[**15] sewer, solid waste, drainage, potable water, and natural orders must be consistent with the comprehensive plan, it is ground water aquifer protection specifically; conservation; clear that orders on rezoning applications must be consistent recreation and open space;housing;traffic circulation; [**131 with the comprehensive plan. intergovernmental coordination; coastal management (for local government in the coastal zone); and mass transit (for The first issue we must decide is whether the Board's action local jurisdictions with 50,000 or more people). Id. on Snyder's rezoning application was legislative or quasi 163.3177(6). judicial. L( [*] A board's legislative action is subject to attack in circuit court. Hirt.v, PolkCpzm1y fad qf catagy. Of special relevance to local rezoning actions,the future land Cottrnt is 57 So vd SIS FladLP i 19911 However, in use plan element of the local plan must contain both a future deference to the policy-making function of a board when land use map and goals, policies, and measurable objectives acting in a legislative capacity, its actions will be sustained as to guide future land use decisions. This plan element must long as they are fairly debatable. Nance v. Town of designate the "proposed future general distribution, location, Irtdicxlatitc, 419 So. 2c1 1 t)4.1 Oa 1982). On the other hand, and extent of the uses of land" for various purposes. Id. § the rulings of a board acting in its quasi-judicial capacity are 163.3177(6)(4 It must include standards to be utilized in the subject to review by certiorari and will be upheld only if they control and distribution of densities and intensities of are supported by substantial competent evidence. Z)e(;hoot��. development. In addition, the future land use plan must be She field 95 So. 2d 912 Ila. 1957 based on adequate data and analysis concerning the local jurisdiction,including the projected population,the amount of IIr1V6[♦] Enactments of original zoning ordinances have land needed to accommodate the estimated population, the always been considered legislative. Gut .�l Eastern rz L?ei,,,. availability of public services and facilities, and the character Corp, v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 354 SQ. 2d 57 (Fla. 19M; of undeveloped land.Id. 163.3177(6)(a). County of Pasco v. J Dico, Inc.,343 So. 2d 83 (Ha. 2d DO! Patrick Neale Page 7 of 8 627 So.2d 469, *474; 1993 Fla. LEXIS 1628, **15 19°77j.[**16] In Schauer v. City of Miami Beach, this Court Snyder, ,595 So 2d at 78. Therefore, the board's action oil held that the passage of an amending zoning ordinance was Snyder's application was in the nature of a quasi-judicial the exercise of a legislative function. 112 So. 2d at 839. proceeding and [*4'7.5] properly reviewable by petition for However, the amendment in that case was comprehensive in certiorari. nature in that it effected a change in the zoning of a large area so as to permit it to be used as locations for multiple family [**191 We also agree with the court below that the review is buildings and hotels. Id. In. City of Jacksonville Beach v. subject to strict scrutiny. .11N10[+] In practical effect, the Grubbs and Palm Beach County v. Tinnerinan, the district review by strict scrutiny in zoning cases appears to be the courts of appeal went further and held that board action on same as that given in the review of other quasi-judicial specific rezoning applications of individual property owners decisions. See Lee County v. Sunbelt Equities, II, Ltd. was also legislative. 9c00,5:,4,4i 461 Scz 'd at 16 3, 1 runt man,, Partnership, 619 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 2d DC4 1993) (The term 517 Sp. 2d at 700. "strict scrutiny" arises from the necessity of strict compliance with comprehensive plan.). This term as used in the review of tIN7[V] It is the character of the hearing that determines land use decisions must be distinguished from the type of whether or not board action is legislative or quasi-judicial. strict scrutiny review afforded in some constitutional cases. Coral Reef Nurseries, Inc. v. Babcock Co., 410 So. 2d 648 Compare Snyder v..._Board of CountyCctntm'r�s,..595...So.....2cd61 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Generally speaking, Iegislative action 75-76 (lila. 5th DCA 1991) (land use), and Machado v. results in the formulation of a general rule of policy, whereas Musgrove, 519 So. 2d 629, 632 (Ila. 3d DCA .1987), review judicial action results in the application of a general rule of denied, 529 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 1988), and review denied, 529 policy. Carl J. Pecldngpaugh, Jr., Comment, [**17] Burden So. 2d 694 (Fla. 1988) (land use), with In re Estate of of Proof in Land Use Regulations: A Unified Approach and Greenberg, 390 So. 2d 40, 42-43 (Fla. 1980) (general Application to Florida, 8 Fla. St. U.L.Rev. 499, 504 (1980). discussion of strict scrutiny review in context of fiuiclamental In West F1aeler Amusement Co. v. State Racing Commission, rights), appeal dismissed,[**20] 450 U.S. 961, 101 S. Ct. 1.?2 Fla. 22 225=_165 So.664, 65 1.193:11,we explained:11N8[ 1475, 67 L. Ed. 2d 610 (1981), IFllorida_ftgh Scar__ictivities ] Ass'n Via. Thomas;_434So. 2d 30Flcr__ 195'3). (equal A judicial or quasi-judicial act determines the rules of protection), and Department of Revenue v..__ Mag ire law applicable, and the rights affected by them, in Publishers q/..4.meric.a,.Inc, 604.,So, ld459 (Ila 1992)(First relation to past transactions. On the other hand, a quasi- Amendment). legislative or administrative order prescribes what the rule or requirement of administratively determined duty At this point,we depart from the rationale of the court below. shall be with respect to transactions to be executed in.the In the first place, the opinion overlooks the premise that the future,in order that same shall be considered lawful. But comprehensive plan is intended to provide for the future use even so, quasi-legislative and quasi-executive orders, of land, which contemplates a gradual and ordered growth. after they have already been entered, may have a quasi- See City of Jacksonville Beach, 461 So. 2d at 163, in which judicial attribute if capable of being arrivedat and the following statement from Marcacci ►>._l'it o _Scc ppoosct provided by law to be declared by the administrative 26{Ire.ApJr_13155_?P.2d 552, 553 (C)r. CLApp. 1.9751,was agency only after express statutory notice, hearing and approved: consideration of evidence to be adduced as a basis for the making thereof. IIN11011 [A] comprehensive plan only establishes a long-range maximum limit on the possible intensity of Applying this criterion, it is evident that comprehensive land use; a plan does not simultaneously establish an rezonings affecting a large portion of the public are legislative immediate minimum limit on the possible intensity of in nature. [**18] However, we agree with the court below land use. The present use of land may, by zoning when it said: ordinance, continue to be more limited than the future use contemplated by the[**211 comprehensive plan. HN9[+] Rezoning actions which have an impact on a limited number of persons or property owners, on identifiable parties and interests, where the decision is contingent on a fact or facts arrived at from distinct r One or more of the amicus briefs suggests that Snyder's remedy alternatives presented at a hearing, and where the was to bring a de novo action in circuit court pursuant to ,secticrna decision can be functionally viewed as policy 166,3„321,7,_,1lorida Statutes (1991). However, in Parker v. Leon application,rather than policy setting,are in the nature of County,Nos. 80,230 and 80,288,627 S' .2c1476(Fla. Oct. 7, 1993), . . .quasi-judicial action. . . . we explained that this statute only provides a remedy for third parties to challenge the consistency of development orders. Patrick Neale Page 8 of 8 627 So.2d 469, *475; 1993 Fla.LEXIS 1628, **21 Even where a denial of a zoning application would be We do not believe the Growth Management Act was intended inconsistent with the plan, the local government should have to preclude development but only to insure that it proceed in the discretion to decide that the maximum development an orderly manner. density should not be allowed provided the governmental body approves some development that is consistent with the Upon consideration, we hold that a landowner seeking to plan and the government's decision is supported by rezone property has the burden of proving that the proposal is substantial,competent evidence. consistent with the comprehensive plan and complies with all procedural requirements of the zoning ordinance. At this Further, we cannot accept the proposition that once the point, the burden shifts to the governmental board to landowner demonstrates that the proposed use is consistent demonstrate that maintaining the existing zoning with the comprehensive plan, he is presumptively entitled to classification with respect to the property accomplishes a this use unless the opposing governmental agency proves by legitimate public purpose. In effect, the landowners' clear and convincing evidence that specifically stated public traditional remedies will be subsumed within this rule,and the necessity requires a more restricted use. We do not believe board will now have the burden of showing that the refusal to that a property owner is necessarily entitled to relief by rezone the property is not arbitrary, discriminatory, or proving consistency when the board action is also consistent unreasonable. If the board carries its burden, the with the plan. As noted in Lee County v. Sunbelt Equities II, application[**241 should be denied. Limited Partnership: While they may be useful, the board will not be required to 11N12[+] Absent the assertion of some enforceable make findings of fact. However,in order to sustain the board's property right, an application for rezoning appeals at action,upon review by certiorari in the circuit court it must be least in part to local officials' discretion to accept or shown that there was competent substantial evidence reject the applicant's argument that change is desirable. presented to the board to support its ruling.Further review in The right of judicial review[**22J does not ipso facto the district court of appeal will continue to be governed by the ease the burden on a party seeking to overturn a decision principles of City c DecrJield Beach v Y�aillant, 419 5`9.2c made by a local government, and certainly does not 0241Fla 1982). confer any property-based right upon the owner where none previously existed. Based on the foregoing, we quash the decision below and disapprove City of Jacksonville Beach v. Grubbs and Palm Beach County v. Tinnerman, to the extent they are Moreover, when it is the zoning classification that is inconsistent with this opinion.However,in the posture of this challenged, the comprehensive plan is relevant only case, we are reluctant to preclude the Snyders from any when the suggested use is inconsistent with that plan. avenue of relief. Because of the possibility that conditions Where any of several zoning classifications is consistent have changed during the extended lapse of time since their with the plan, the applicant seeking a change from one to original application was filed, we believe that justice would the other is not entitled to judicial relief absent proof the be best served by permitting them to file a new application for status quo is no longer reasonable. It is not enough rezoning of the property. The application will be without simply to be"consistent"; the proposed change cannot be prejudice of the result reached by this decision and will allow inconsistent, and will be subject to the "strict [*4761 the process to begin anew according to the[**25] procedure scrutiny"of Machado to insure this does not happen. outlined in our opinion. 619 So. 2d at 1005-06. It is so ordered. This raises a question of whether the Growth Management Act provides any comfort to the landowner when the denial of BARKETT, C.J., and OVERTON, McDONALD, KOGAN the rezoning request is consistent with the comprehensive and HARDINCT,JJ.,concur. plan.It could be argued that the only recourse is to pursue the traditional remedy of attempting to prove that the denial of the SHAW,J.,dissents. application was arbitrary, discriminatory, or [**23] unreasonable. Burritt v. Harris, 172 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 1965); End of Document City of Naples v. Central Plaza of Naples, Inc., 303 So.,2d 423,Fla. 2d DC 1971. Yet, the fact that a proposed use is consistent with the plan means that the planners contemplated that that use would be acceptable at some point in the future. Patrick Neale BCC Meeting : February 28 , 2017 Agenda Item #8A - Petition : VA-PL20160001 181 Located at: 324 Trade Winds Ave. Presentation by: Mark Shapiro Collier County Planning Commission Transcript January 19,2017 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples,Florida,January 19,2017 LET IT BE REMEMBERED,that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building"F"of the Government Complex,East Naples,Florida,with the follotg members present: CHAIN: Mark Strain Stan Chrzanowski Diane Ebert Karen Homiak Joe Schmitt Patrick Dearborn ALSO PRESENT: Mike Bosi,Planning and Zoning Mana_:ry Fred Reischl,Principal Planner Jeffrey A.Klatzkow,County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko,Managing Assistant County Attorney Tom , A . , School District Representative sfop 4404/4" es Page 1 of 46 January 19, 2017 PROCEEDINGS MR.BOSI: Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning,everyone. Welcome to the Thursday,January 19th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If everybody will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Roll call by our secretary,please. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. Good morning. Mr.Eastman? MR.EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr.Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms.Ebert is here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. / .f, COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms.Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Present. - COMMISSIONER EBERT: And,Mr. Dearborn.' COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you. ,. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And we have two ao rtised public hearings today. The first one is going to be a variance on a property at 342 Tradewinds Avenue,and the second one is a review of our Collier County Land Development Code amendments. It will be the second or third reading on some of these for the Planning Commission. It will not be the final There will be another review. We'll have maybe our final on the 30th in the evening. And with that,we'll move into the Planning Commission absences. We have two upcoming meetings: 5:05 January 30th is the LD :*iew that Ijust mentioned. Does anybody know if they're not going to make it on January 30th in the evening in this room? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anile next regular meeting is February 2nd. Same time,same place,the same place as today. Everybody? Okay COMMISSIONER SCHMITT:That one,Mark,I may miss that one,but I'm not sure. What's the agenda look like for that one? MR BOSI: I believe there's only one item on for the 2nd. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMIONER SCVIITT: I'll let you guys know,and then you can let the rest of the commissioners know if,in fact,I'm going to be missing from that one. It could go up go in the air. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But I'll know by that night. I'll be here for that Monday meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,we'll still have a quorum, so we're good. Thank you. That takes us to approval of minutes. There have been none electronically provided,so we'll skip that. We'll go to the BCC report and recaps. And Ray's not here,but,Mike,you can go ahead. MR.BOSI: Thank you,Chair. Mike Bosi,Planning and Zoning Director. At the hearing on the 10th,the Collier County Resource Recovery Business Park IPUD was approved unanimously. The Naples Heritage PUD amendment to add the 5-acre tennis facility was defeated by a 3-2 vote,and further clarification was provided to staff for the specifics of a moratorium that was going--that is being considered for the East Trail related to self-storage facilities,car washes,pawnshops, and-- Page 2 of 46 January 19, 2017 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gas station. MR.BOSI: --gas stations. Thank you. And so with the further direction,we are bringing back an ordinance on the 14th of February for the Board to consider whether they want to take final action upon that moratorium. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,Mike. That brings us to the chairman's report,and I have just one thing. Good morning,Nora Frances.I hope you're watching today. She's a friend of the Planning Commission's. Happens to be related to Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Only by marriage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The consent agenda,we have none,so we'll move directly into our advertised public hearings. ***The first one up is Item 9A. It's VA-PL20160001181,and it's a variance request for a property located at 342 Tradewinds Avenue. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item,please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. We'll start with disclosures on the Planning Commission from Tom. MR.EASTMAN: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Strangely,none. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I talked with Fred yesterday,and emails and correspondence with a neighbor. % CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've had correspondence with #.l or,or they just sent you an email'? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well,yeah,they just ent me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's all. I just metednake4 We've all got an email or two on this,and so 1 think mine obably similar to everybody else's. I did talk with the applicant when this, came to my other office,and ifie came in and asked for some clarification of the process. We wenfr 'that,and think we've talked once since then. And I also talked to Mr.Patrick--Pat Neale who represents` a residents who are not in favor of this application. And then,of course, staff. Diane? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Karen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kan,I'm sorry. Diane's over here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK`'Nothing. Just the additional email yesterday. CHAIRMAN STRA • Joe'; COMMISSIONERTT: None. Fr CHA i' •N STRAIN: Pat'? CO ! ,I ,: IONER DEARBORN: None. CHA ;STRAIN: Okay. With that,we'll move right into the presentation by the applicant to start out. A#41-40' MR SHAP I *' `arc Shapiro representing the applicant. CHAIRMANi: If you have items that you want to use the overhead for--I don't think you've appeared before us before--that stand over there has a lot more electronic availability for things to show. You might want to use that. MR. SHAPIRO: Yeah,there may be some-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And also,our mikes don't pick up unless you're really close to them. And we have a walk-around mike over there if you need to get closer to something else that you're trying to show. MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll need you to identify yourself and spell your last name for the record, and we'll be good. MR. SHAPIRO: My name is Marc Shapiro. Marc's spelled M-a-r-c; Shapiro, S-h-a-p-i-r-o. Page 3 of 46 r. ■ January 19,2017 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. SHAPIRO: And I'm representing the petitioners in this case for 342 Tradewinds Avenue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everything,by the way,that you show on overhead will have to be--copies of it will have to be left with the court reporter for the record. MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. They're mainly going to be photographs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's great. Thank you. MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. So there was a variance petition that was filed by the builder in this case, Jason Jenks,and then there was a deficiency letter that was issued,and then my office prepared an amended variance,and that variance was actually recommended for approval. And so that was recommended for approval by,I guess,the Growth Management Department. But I want to read a couple things actually from their words. And,you know,it's important to point out,there's three basic things is--one is the variance we're asking for is a very small variance. So it's--and there's a new code that was brought in this area. So this particular property,you couldn't even tell that it doesn't comply with the current variance because there are several houses that are exactly in line. In fact,it doesn't look out of place at all,and you wouldn't know. And,in fact,that comes to my first point is that wheoe permit was applied for, it was applied for using the setbacks that are currently for the pool right now. Those setbacks were approved. There was many inspections that were done to the property. In each case,during each inspection,it was approved. Nobody even caught that it didn't meet the current code until one of the neighbc4J,guess,came and pointed out to the county that it didn't comply with the current code,and it was at thatiMte that my client was informed they had to do a petition for a variance. So my client,who hired the builder,had no idea that it didn't comply with code. In fact,if you'd look at it,there's no way you could even tell that it--because it doesn't stick out. It's something that's completely in line with the rest of the structures that are on both sides of the street or on the canal there. So--and it says here--this is from the report that was issued from the Growth Management--the applicant utilized the erroneously approved setbaeb unaware of any violations. So when they applied for the pool permit,the county actually provided the setbacks,and they erroneously provided the setbacks that were the older setbacks that hadn't--ratheielan the updated ones. So based on those setbacks,my client constructed the pool and poured the slab. And we're talking about apprc timately two and a half feet. Now,the setbacks,they're about six feet over--instead of a 20-foot setback They were told they hada 10-foot setback,so they're over the setback,but it's important to note that the height of the pool wall,if it was two-and-a-half feet lower,they could be 10 feet, the setbacks. It's 20-feet-setbacks based on the current height. So we're talking two-and-a-half feet. So the two-and-a-half feet does not really affect anyone's view. In fact,we have the neighbor right acros**street--in fact,I brought some pictures,which I'll show in a moment,but if anything,the view from tt•neighbor,their lanai actually sticks out further than my client's pool which doesn't have a lanai on it and never will. Also,if you're looking across,there's boats parked,and the boats that are parked,which are legally parked m front of the seawall,strut higher than my client's pool does. So it's a very,I would say, negligible impact. In fact,when 1 looked down the canal,I had to ask,you know,which one--to my client, which one is your house,because you can't tell by looking at it that it sticks out. It's perfectly in line with all of the rest of the houses. We're just talking about two-and-a-half feet up. And a few years ago,when the code was that,you know,that--exactly what they built,so we're not talking about any major impact. Now,it would be a severe economic hardship for my client to have to completely tear down the whole--by the time this was brought to their attention--and,again,it was brought to their attention because, I guess,the neighbor pointed it out to the county--they had already poured the slab. They had already put the whole pool in--where the pool was going to be. That was already in. And they estimate--this is from the builder--and I think it's a very conservative estimate--that to go back and redo this--because they'd have to basically tear out the whole poured concrete pool and start over again--would be,in his words, $50,000. And,again,I think that's a very conservative number. But it would be,at minimum,$50,000 to go back and redo this over essentially two-and-a-half feet. Page 4 of 46 January 19,2017 So I'd like to at this time show some photographs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Fred will help you with the overhead;that's the gentlemen right there. You'll have to use the mike,either the walk-around mike or the stationary one. MR. SHAPIRO: All right. So if you can see where my finger is,this is the structure in question. And,actually,this view is where--the people that are here opposing this,this would be their view. So there's two views. There's an open-water view,and then there's down the canal. So if you're looking down the canal,you'll see that this structure is really in line with all the other structures and,in fact,one of the people that's objecting to this,his pool enclosure is the same height and the same setback as my client's because,as I said,this is a new,I guess,updated requirement. And when they--when they put in the permit for the pool,they were erroneously giving the older setback requirements. So it's not like this sticks out at all. It just doesn't comply with the latest setback requirements. Here's another--this is a similar view,just a little bit more close up. And this is a view here--you'll see that this structure here is the structure in question. And the neighbors on actually both sides,if you line up the seawalls,they line up perfectly together. In other wordsAw setbacks on both sided,the neighbors on either side,are both exactly the same setbacks as my client's,thtioner's setbaok. And,again, it's because these were the former setbacks. So this is the picture of the--you can see the open-water view. And,again,the petitioner's structure is right here. So you'll see if you're looking down,the people that are objecting to this,the neighbors that are objecting,they are way down towards this range--I'm sorry. They're towards this area here. So they're actually--their view is not obstructed of the open water because the petitioner's structure's down here. And if they look down the canal, I don't see,being on this side of the road,how their view could be remotely affected,and if it was affected,it would be affected by the lanai of the house in front of them,and if it is affected at all,the two-and-a-half feet isn't going to make any difference. In fact,as I said,the boat, .the boats that are parked in front of the structure actually stick out above the pool enclosure. So if their vieWs are obstructed at all, it's not because of this. In fact--and I think you have this as part of the application,but there's a couple letters. One letter is from an objector who actually canvassed the neighborhood on both sides of the street and tried to get as many people to object as possible, and I think he was sucdessful in maybe getting one othewsibly two others,to object. My client,I believe,has 43 people. Well,I say 43 because that's how many people live there that either didn't care about it or actually signed a petition in her favor or a letter in her favor saying that they didn't believe that her house--they believe that the Variance should be granted;that her house doesn't obstruct any view,dc 't'stick out,doesn't make it look like it's not conforming with the community. In this picture here you'll see this house right here is the subject house,but the house right before that,the lanai actually would inhibit the view and actually that tree right there would inhibit the view of the objectors that are looking down the canal before my client's pool enclosure would. In fact,from this view, which is--you can't even see the pool. And then,lastly,this picture shows--and I want to point out the house next to it with the lanai. So the objectors would be looking down this way,so they'd actually be seeing that lanai before they would see this pool. So I guess the three points I want to make is that it was not purposefully done. When the builder applied for the permit,they were erroneously given the wrong setbacks;they built the pool using the wrong setbacks;there was four inspections along the way,never once did anyone point out that,oh,this doesn't comply. In fact,it wasn't till the neighbor pointed that out,and that's the reason we're here today. The second point I want to make is that if there's any impact at all on the neighborhood,which I submit there's not because it's perfectly in line with the other houses'setbacks--in fact,if you were to walk that street,you wouldn't even notice that this house was out of conformity. But if there is any impact,it would be very negligible. We're basically talking about two-and-a-half feet. If the seawall were two-and-a-half feet lower,the setback would be correct. Also,if they moved it back approximately,I believe,six feet,then they could have it that height. So we're talking about two-and-a-half Page 5 of 46 January 19,2017 feet,and the economic hardship involved in putting it into compliance would be,at minimum, $50,000. So for those reasons and also the fact that I think if you read the planning board's recommendation, they set things forth very thoroughly on why they would--not the planning board but the--I guess the report from-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's called a staff report. MR. SHAPIRO: --yeah, staff report. They set forth very particularly why they're recommending that the variance be approved. So I would ask that,you know,you all take a look at that,and they lay it out very nicely. And they were also aware of the neighbors that were objecting also when they came to that recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you finished,Mr. Shapiro? MR. SHAPIRO: Yeah,I am finished. My understanding is there's so eighbors that are right across the way that were also going to testify for the petitioner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me tell you what the procedure is,because I don't think you've been here before. After you finish your presentation,the Planning Commission will ask questions if they have any. Then from there we'll go to the staff report. After the staff report and staff make verbal recommendations over parts of their report,we ask questions of them. When they finish,we go to public speakers. MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: After public speakers,you'll have an opportunity for a 104 ..*u'.'te rebuttal, and then we go into discussion and decision on our part,or recommendation on our part. So that will be the process we'll go through. And since you're finished,and before we go to Planning Commission questions, there are a few things I think Pd like you to answer and clear up so the Planning Commission gets the benefit of those answers before any questions are asked MR. SHAPIRO: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said the code was exactly what it was when they built this 2.5, two-and-a-half years ago. What did you mean by that? MR. SHAPIRO: Well--and,again,I don't know when the time limit was,but-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Time mit--what do you mean by"time limit"? MR. SHAPIRO: When I say two-and-a-half years, I don't know if that's the exact time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Probably in terms of closer to a decade or two. This height issue has been in the code very,very early on. The problem is it's very obscure in our code to find it, and it only seems to be applicable to,,yanderbilt Beach. Specifically our code says Isle of Capri and Marco Island don't have to have this kindapplication. They go to seven feet,which yours then would have been fine if you were on Isles of 1,, 'or Marco Island. Also-- } . SHAPIROSo I misspoke about the two-and-a-half feet. I just was kind of making that up as an exa 411/0- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,you can't make things up. We've got to deal with the code in fact. And if you're going to reference something of the code and it also involves the staff error,we've definitely got to weigh in on that and understand it. You had said that the setbacks were erroneously given to your client. Have you got something that says for your client to design to those setbacks? MR. SHAPIRO ,I believe there is. The builder is here,and he could probably better answer that than I could. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,that will be helpful. If he's here,then we'll--see,you ought to call him as someone--a witness on your behalf to begin with before we go to the staff report. So if he's here, we're definitely going to--we'll ask questions of him after the Planning Commission gets finished with you. MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those couple things,though,are important as to how this happened,the time frame. The code has not changed. The code is just obscure and hard to read in this particular issue,I'll grant you that. It certainly isn't clear. And as far as the staff goes,yes,a staff member certainly made an error in approving this the way it Page 6 of 46 January 19, 2017 came through. But I don't know if that was a result of the staff telling you to do it that way or your design professionals decided to do it that way,and that will be something we'll find out shortly. With those clarifications,and before I get into any more of my questions,I'll turn to the Planning Commission for any questions they may have to start with. Anybody? Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Just,those shots you took,those were taken with a drone,I assume? MR. SHAPIRO: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'm glad you did that. It showed it very well. I looked at Google Earth 3D. And from what I could tell on Google Earth 3D,I couldn't see where there was a tremendous difference from this to the other,the older to the new,but thosersb showed it pretty good. f I was going to ask--you probably don't know.I guess a lot of £ questions are going to be to staff. MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? Joe'? / Iv �. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have several questions regarding the pry i/,'; ,ut I'm going to defer and wait to talk to Mr.Reischl,because I need to--but the question I do have foi*Marc,did you--or do you have in your documents--typically when you go in for a building perntll ; first thing they do is lay out the site plan,and then on that site plan,the reviewer in theBuilding Departmei ny recollection,would initial off each of the setback requirements and put their initials on--actually right on the document. Do you--is that the procedure now? And I'm going back six,seven years back in--but typically they would--you'd go in,on the building--the building envelope that is allowable for a building would be shown on the site drawing of the--and then all of the setbacks would be checked off to ensure that the setbacks are in compliance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN; The permits for this project are on my desk. I pulled them yesterday afternoon.That document is there. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Is there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's been four permits: One demo,one pool,the main permit for the house,and the dock perttit that was reissued,because if was started,then stopped,and then reissued again. And there's some discrepancies between the permits,but the setbacks and everything were acknowledged by staff as being okay and issued that way. And I've actually got the building permit with me. I didn't know how much the applicant would have brought in case there were questions,but the permit itself was issued at 10 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT You don't have that document that shows the setbacks being approved'? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's in the file that's on my desk. I did not bring it with me to the meeting. I assumed the applicant would have brought all of that,but-- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm surprised that that's not part of the application or the applicant would have had that to present to us today. My second question-and I'm going to defer to Fred because I want to clearly understand the--again,I've got the MUNI code here. I'm trying to read the MUNI code,because I looked at this before. But in this part I recall nine, 10 years ago,that's what drove the change in the code,if you went up a certain height,and I seem to think it was four feet;is that correct? MR. SHAPIRO: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You go four feet,you have to have a 20-foot setback. If your pool height is less than 4 feet,you only need a 10-foot setback; is that essentially the-- MR. SHAPIRO: That's exactly correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,we can--I'll give Fred the code. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah,let's review that,because I want to make sure that--and I had thought at one time that actually in the LDC there was a diagram that showed that. I guess that's no longer in Page 7 of 46 t �••., January 19,2017 the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,but a former administrator by the name of Joe Schmitt actually did a diagram a few years back,and it's in the staff clarification section of our notes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I did,yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fred, if you go here--go to the reference in the table first,and that's--once we get this seen,maybe it will help some of the questions that you-all have. MR. SHAPIRO: But,Mr. Schmitt,my understanding is exactly as you described. And I think their--rather than four feet,they're 6.57. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fred,that--I'm not sure that's the right one. Those were non-waterfront. Go to the next table. MR.REISCHL: Oh. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You're going to have to pan out a lie bit on that,Fred. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I'll show you--the footnotes are on a separate page. Go to the next table. It's the second or third sheet. And if you look down where it says No. 4--you have to pan out a little bit--this is for waterfront lots along the Gulf of--and No.4 says,swimming pools and screen enclosure single-family,one-family,and now two-family;rear, 10 feet,and then the little Footnote 3. Now,Footnote 3 is the catchall on this. If you could show Footnote 3,Fred;down the third page,I think. MR.REISCHL: Very small. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,it says 20 feet where swimming pool decks exceed four feet in height above the top of seawall or top of bank except Marco Island and Isle`of Capri,which may construct to a maximum of seven feet above the seawall with a maximum of four feet of stem wall exposure with a rear setback of 10 feet. <,_f �. -40, So--and Marco,by the way, is no longer part of Collier County. So I pulled Marco's LDC,and they have mimicked this language in their current standards. So the seven foot applies to Marco and Isles of Cam.:tut only four foot of concrete exposure,which means it's got to be clad or a buffer with vegetation or sodded. MR.REISCHL: Sodded. CHAIRMAN S '° >. Any way you'd like. But if they're at less than 20 feet,they can't go higher. It's got to be four feet so that a variance is not for the setback as much as it is for the height to be at that setback. I hope that helped clarify because this was not an easy one to follow for that language. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: What--and so the current height as shown,is that correct what we have-- MR. SHAPIRO: I think the county measured at 6.57. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. That's the current height,then. Okay. I thought it was four-point something. Okay. 6.57. All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. Anybody else have any questions of the applicant? COMMI, SIONER SCHMITT: Marc,you stated that there were four inspections. Those inspections wet ecifically looking for setbacks. There are several inspections throughout the building process. MR. SHAP I--4 'ct. And we're not specifically looking for setbacks,that is correct. COMMISSIO �°%> CHMITT: And I want to make sure that's clear on the record,because if an inspector goes out and does an electrical,he or she's doing electrical inspections,not a setback-- MR. SHAPIRO: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: --verification. MR. SHAPIRO: And I'm talking about--and the builder could better explain this,because I'm getting my information from the builder and relaying it to you. But I think there are four inspections on the pool. So at no time was it ever said during any of those inspections that,hey,your setbacks aren't correct. I guess the point is is that now that it's already there, it would be a very--economic hardship to take it all down. It would come at a considerable cost is,I guess,what I'm trying to say. Page 8 of 46 January 19,2017 And,you know,maybe--and this is up to you.But you were saying that the Marco Island code said you could have a certain height as long as there was a buffer there,and maybe that's a compromise,to put a little hedge in front of the stem wall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Generally what happens is when we run into these situations,the applicant will come prepared with the documentation to basically make their case in regards to how this occurred. And I know you don't--you haven't got any permit applications or anything with you,do you? MR. SHAPIRO: I don't have the permit applications with me,no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have reviewed them,and I didn't bring them because they're our county's copies,but I didn't know you wouldn't be bringing them as well; otherwise,I would have brought them to help clarify some of the things you've asked,Joe. Some of the things you've said I wanted to get some clarification on. You said there were 43 people who didn't call or sign--or necessarily sign in favor. Did someone--and that was an assumption they weren't objecting to it then? MR. SHAPIRO: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you physically or did your client/or do you have something documented that says you actually went to these 43 homes and spoke to those people? Do you have a survey or something where you-- MR. SHAPIRO: No. What I do have--and I #,4,! you already had that,but`iave a--I actually have a copy of a letter that was signed by--and then thAfiIgnatureittthen next to it is the residence that they live at. MR.REISCHL: That's included in your packet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. How many people are on that signature page? MR. SHAPIRO: Eight. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. His number was 43,and I'm trying to understand-- MR. SHAPIRO: The 43 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: how valid that is. MR. SHAPIRO: --because I think that's`the number of residents on both sides of the street.And what I was told by my client is that the objector that's here today pretty much knocked on everybody's door. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You have a couple times mentioned the view down the canal,and at the end of the canal wasn't obstructed$y more by what your client has built versus what may already exist there. The view corridors that we consider for these kind of things usually are in line with riparian lines. And that may be 1 enue that you may want to look at in reference to view in the future. But down the canal and out the ''t really something that's considered as directly behind their home. They have riparian rights on both sides of their house,property lines,and that's generally what we take a look at in these kind of matters. MR.SHAPIRO: If I could show you an answer(sic)that might help answer that question. So these little yellowand I'm not how sure-- CIfM„ �N STRAIN: Oh,we can see them. MR SPIRO: You can see them. But those are the people that I believe that are objecting to the variance. And that was taken by Google Earth, so at the time the structure was not up so,unfortunately,I don't have a picture with the structure up,but this vacant lot right here is where the structure was built. So heading this way,that is the open water view heading-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You have a vacant lot? It's not the one with the trees. It's the one two off--yeah,right under the W of Tradewinds. MR. SHAPIRO: Oh,yes,you're correct.That's--yeah. So that's the house in question,and then this is the location of the people that are objecting. So I guess what I'm saying is, it's hard to see how their view would be affected. And if it is affected, it would be very minorly. I mean,we're talking about 2.57 feet. And,actually,when you--if you look straight across the canal,the boat sticks up higher than the elevation of the pool. So you actually can't even see the pool wall because of the boat that's in front of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. A couple other issues. You mentioned,or I thought you stated,that Page 9 of 46 • — January 19,2017 if this pool was moved back six feet,you could have had it at the height they're at. That's not true. To stay at that height you'd have to be 20 feet back,and you're only 10.15 feet back.Then if you take into consideration your stairwell,you're only 6.5 feet back. So you'd have to be considerably further back. The issue of being forward or backward is not as much of an issue as the height of the deck of the pool. That's the six feet that we're trying to--six-and-a-half feet or so we're trying to deal with. The property is perfectly in line with others.When you made that statement,do you know if the others are above four feet since they're in line with an alignment that could only be allowed if they were at or below four feet? MR. SHAPIRO: Some are and some aren't. Some are below four feet. There are some that are above that--again,probably more than 10 years old when the--before the code changed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,the code is actually older than that. But if there are some above that height and they're in that alignment,it would have certainly been helpful to possibly have looked up those building permits and see what height they're at and maybe would help your argument. But I didn't know if you had that information. rm double-checking to make sure I don't have any other questions. Oh,I noticed in your photos you didn't show the existing construction with the stairwell. The stairwell is part of the setlzk alignment. Did you have one with the stairwell? MR. SHAPIRO: Yes. I'll show you a couple. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There you go. MR. SHAPIRO: That would be the stairwell right there, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the variance request for the setback'is because the stairwell exceeds the allowed protrusion if it was at four feet for At pool deck,for example,to go into a setback. Stairwells do have some allowance to--when you go into a setback,but I believe it's only three feet,and this one's three-and-a-half feet? MR.REISCHL: Three feet is the allowable protrus $d this one is three-and-a-half CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if this one had six mutes less of the protrusion of the stairwell and the setback was allowed 010 feet,the stair wouldn't be an issue.•':**I wanted to point that out because it is part of the discussion today,and I noticed the closeup photograph you had didn't show the angle from the stairwell. *50 And,by the way,I don't know if staff caught thiOat stair is facing a different direction than the stair that was approved on the building permit: And if thilder's here,maybe he can answer that question, too. f. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Can you back that out a little bit so I can get a full picture of the-- R. SHAPIRO: Yes. I actually have another one that has a more full view. If you'd like to look at that,**pay be better. "00/11M ISSIONER SCHMITT. And just for clarification,it was my understanding that the need to build the`ikkil height at the elevation that was built at. Two--one is to meet the base flood elevation for the home,and dost residents wantto walk out from their residence onto the pool deck rather than walk down the stairs to the pool. 444/4 Could the pool have been built--could it have been designed and built at a lower height than what it was built at? Which means you would have left the house and walked downstairs to another elevation,a lower elevation for the pool. MR. SHAPIRO: So the answer to your question is,I believe so. Now,the builder could better answer that. So it's not whether it could have,because I believe that it could have. I mean,it could have been built at a 4-foot instead of a 6-- instead of a 6.57-foot. But the issue is now it's been done,and to kind of un-ring that bell comes at a significant cost. So I don't think it's a matter of could it have been in compliance. I think that if we were to honestly answer that,yes,it could have been built in compliance,but since it hasn't, it's just what is the cost of bringing it into compliance.And I think that's a pretty heavy cost compared to the impact. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Understand. Fred,can you put that other picture up that shows the overhead? I wanted to--again,that's--can Page 10 of 46 ■ January 19,2017 you center the house actually into the picture. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Zoom out a little. MR.REISCHL: Zoom out. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. There. I want to get a picture of the whole thing. Okay. Yeah. That's exactly what I thought. You're coming out from the house onto basically a lanai deck, and then the pool is at the same height. MR.REISCHL: It's just a few inches. The house is--the base flood elevation was 10,and it's nine-point something. It's a little--a few inches less. So you'd step one step down onto the pool deck. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you ask your builder,if he's here, if the builder could come up. We do have questions since we understand he's here. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Is that the builder or the person who designed the house as well? MR. SHAPIRO: Both. I think both. MR.JENKS: I didn't design the house. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll need to say that • ;,,; cord after you identify yourself MR.JENKS: Jason Jenks. I was the contract• !'.,,' ut the house. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you did not desi s :> •use,w ;•`' r response to that? MR.JENKS: I did not. f CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Was that the question? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah,that was the question. I wanted to-- COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Did you sub out the work for the pool,or were you actually building the pool as well? MR.JENKS: We subbed out the work for the pool. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: The company who's doing the pool? MR.JENKS: MackPools. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mack Pools,okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The information about how this 10-foot,at the height that this deck came about,your--the attorney had indicated that the staff provided you and told you to build it,to design it to that distance;is that true? MR.JENKS: The staff. -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: County staff? " f MR.JENKS: Well,the pool was built by the time we submitted for the variance. So we submitted a set of plans,they were approved,and we started to build. Of course,first thing we built was the pool because of the lot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who--when the pool was put down on a set of plans,did you do that,or did you have an architect do that or somebody else? MR.JENKS: A designer did it. I didn't do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Where did the designer get his information from to determine the setback for that pool? MR.JENKS: I think he made some calls to the county. I don't have that information. I don't work with the designer. He's somebody that designs houses. I was sent the plans. I sent them to an engineer. I have an engineer. I submitted it for a building permit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You do--that's what most GCs would do, so I'm not surprised at that.I'm trying to find out--actually,in your--not your defense,but your client's defense,on how this error occurred. It appears--up until your attorney made the statement he made,it appeared that the applicant,which is your designer or your client,drew the plans up and submitted them to the county,the county reviewed them,and the county erroneously approved them without notifying the client that there was an error in the setback. Page 11 of 46 January 19, 2017 I think the error probably was on the plan. I think the error's on both part of the applicant as well as the part of county for not catching it.And the county missed it numerous times. I've got the plans. It wasn't vague. It was clear. It was clear where it was. Your structural drawings show how that stair was also--the width of the stair was clear. I mean,anybody that reads plans would have been able to figure this out. I can't-- I certainly can't say the staff is not to blame in part of this. They certainly are. And I think the issue is that whoever set this up in the site plan trying to determine what the initial setbacks were either went to the wrong table or missed the footnote on the second table,kind of as we started out here today. There's two tables,and one is for waterfront,one is for non-waterfront. But one has a little Subscript 3,and the other doesn't. And if you're from another part of the county,you wouldn't be surprised at six-and-a-half feel.') height because I bet you could go up to seven. So there's a lot of little things that came into play on this one. It's certain y understandable that some errors were made. I just think we need to find a solution today. In regards to how you were going to finish off this concrete wall now that's there,has anybody looked at opportunities to,say,take away/distract from that wall by cladding it,by putting in shrubbery,by doing embankments or anything like that? MR.JENKS: Those were all options,and it would definitely be some landscaping on the backside of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you-all haven't brought anything,though,to propose today? MR.JENKS: We did not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The height of the seawall. You were the GC;the pool contractor was subbed to you. Orick Marine,I believe,did the deck. Was he contracted through you or directly to the owner? MR.JENKS: Through the owner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you work with him at all in coordinating things? MR.JENKS: I did not;not the seawall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you know--is he here today;does anybody know? MR.JENKS: He's not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. He certified the seawall to be done according to the plans. I see--I found the certification. The plans call for a 4.2 deck height,top height on the seawall cap. The plans that all this variance request is from is a 3.2 height. I justam now--that's a 1-foot difference. It's significant when you look at the difference you have in what you're'trying to seek as a solution to your whole operation. And I'm just wondering,does anybody know if that seawall is actually elevated to the 4.2 that the certification seems to insinuate? MR.JENKS: It should show it on the survey that we turned in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it does. It shows 3.2,but I've got a building plan that says it will be capped at 4.2,and I have a certification from the installer that says that's right. So I'm confused by the height of the cap. MR.JENKS: I don't know the answer to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The stair. Did you submit a change to the plans to have the stair turned in that direction you've got here? MR.JENKS: We did not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean,it's a minor issue. It's still the same distance out,but I just happened to notice it was twisted in a different way. MR.JENKS: It was just easier access to the dock. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,actually, it's better for the neighbors,too. It actually makes people using the stairs going in and out a different direction. So from that perspective,it doesn't harm anything. I was just curious if it got cleared through another permit application. That may have had some indication to the setbacks;may have looked at them again. That's all. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Page 12 of 46 t r January 19,2017 COMMISSIONER EBERT: Have you built in Collier County before? MR.JENKS: This was the first house I ever submitted for for a full construction. We've done lot of remodels and additions in Collier County. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. So you,as a contractor,are familiar with our codes then? MR.JENKS: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. MR.JENKS: But not the code that has the height on the seawall. This wasn't done intentionally. COMMISSIONER EBERT: No,we all kind of understand that,but-- MR.JENKS: Right. COMMISSIONER EBERT: --one other thing. I'm reading through this,is that a lot of this was found last October. Is there a CO on this property yet? MR.JENKS: There is not. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So the people have not moved into the home? MR.JENKS: They have not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This started with a complaint that started with Contractor Licensing,and I think in April of 2016,then it was followed up with a slab survey in May of 2016 I think that's when everything was kind of unfolded from that point forward. But it wasn't necessarily Code Enforcement initiated,as some of this information shows. It was Contractor Licensing that initiated it,the call. It came into Contractor Licensing from a neighbor across the way,apparently. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So it does go back quite a ways then? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,April of last year;a little bit less than a year ago. They've been trying to work and get it resolved since then. It started with my office,and then it had to get continued to here. MR.JENKS: We've continued to work on the house,but we haven't touched anything on the pool or the pool deck since we were notified of the issue. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. So the pool deck is— MR.JENKS: It's exactly like it was when we were told it was not in compliance. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybdily else have any questions of the gentleman? COMMISSION R SCHMITT Yes. On that picture shown that you have on the visualizer,the deck that is--and this is a general question that probably the applicant,anybody,can answer. But the deck height that is in the house on the bottom of the picture, is that boat deck higher in elevation than the existing deck that was built'? MR.JENKS: The deck we constructed is higher than that deck. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It is? Because this one--that deck to the south appears to go over the seawall,and it's all one structure all the way up to the pool. Pm looking at, is that--was that the intent for this existing-- MR.JENKS: It looks like their dock comes over the-- COMMISSIONER SCOTT: That's it,the dock. MR.JENKS: -- grouraliWhatground it is,and they just built the dock and went all the way back to that seawall or to their pool retaining wall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SHAPIRO: Mr. Strain,I just wanted to clarify one thing. When I made the comment that--I guess,that the permitting erroneously gave them the wrong setbacks,so I personally have no idea. I actually read that from the staff report, so that's where I got that information from. That's what they state in their staff report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other witnesses that you want to call,or you done with your Page 13 of 46 January 19, 2017 presentation? MR. SHAPIRO: We are done with the presentation. There--as you said,the only other people would be neighbors,but I believe they go later. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They'll be coming up later,yes. Okay. Thank you very much,both of you.Appreciate it. Fred,do you have a staff report? MR.REISCHL: Thank you,Mr.Chairman. Fred Reischl with Planning and Zoning. You've read the staff report,and staff is recommending approval with the condition. You know normally that variances run with the land. In this case,we're recommending that if there-- if the structure is destroyed more than 50 percent of assessed value,that it would have to meet current setbacks. So we're modifying it so--because this is based on a financial hardship,we figure that financial hardship would go away if the house was destroyed;therefore,they'd have to meet current setbacks. It would not run with the land. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any questions of the staff? I think,Joe,you had one earlier. Did you still? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No. I'll just hold off until we have general discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Fred,on the-- oh,Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: When we have that general discussion,are we going to be allowed to ask them questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. We won't close the public hearing until that's over. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As far as your understanding of how this originated,do you know if,in fact, staff,at the period in which an applicant may have asked for design features of this location,this lot,was given--was the applicant given information to say he could use a 10-foot setback,or is that just something that seems to be not verified? MR.REISCHL: I don't know the answer to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay;_At this point the only thing I can find is it was submitted erroneously,then reviewed erroneously,and then a permit was issued erroneously. That's the best I can-- MR.REISCHL: That was my understanding,too,but I don't know for sure if someone directed them to do it at 10 or not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONEREBERT: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead,Diane COMMISSIONER EBERT: Fred,you said this is a financial hardship. I would not blame the owners of this home on this at all,but the--being it is--that the pool was stopped so long ago and nothing has been done,I would think that it would be their responsibility and not the owner's responsibility as far as financial; is that correct? MR.REISCHL: That's a legal question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was going to say... COMMISSIONEl BERT: Well,I mean,we always use money,you know,in this stuff. And I was just--like I say,I don't feel that it should be up to the owner. But were these people--were they told you can proceed at your own risk? MR.REISCHL: That's our standard answer is that,yes,you can proceed at your own risk pending the outcome of the-- in this case was the Hearing Examiner and now the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. When were they told that they could proceed at their own risk? How far back? Was this April/May when all this happened? MR.REISCHL: The Building Department would have done that. I don't know. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I want to clarify. I mean,that's-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was going to go there,too. Go ahead,Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I think it's sort of disingenuous to say they're proceeding at their Page 14 of 46 � r January 19, 2017 own risk. It's a procedural process. When you come in and submit for a permit application,the applicant submits,submits the plans and drawings,they're reviewed by staff,and they're approved by staff. So the applicant proceeds based on the understanding that what they submitted meets in compliance with all the requirements. I don't know if that's the proceed-at-risk issue. It is a review and approval. MR.REISCHL: Well,it would be a risk that the variance would be approved versus-- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well,wait a minute.No,I'm going back prior to when the house was first submitted. When the application first goes in,the applicant goes in,the plans are reviewed,the setbacks are reviewed,the setbacks are approved,and the applicant hires a builder,and they build a house based on what the county approved. I don't know if there's a case of sovereign immunity. I guess that's an issue from the county. Could the county be held responsible? I'm not going to go down there,but that's not an issue.The issue here is there's a variance,and--I mean,in general terms,I've got to tell you what,my days in the county,this is more post-traumatic stress than my year in Afghanistan,I've got to tell you. I went through several of these in my tenure as the county or the administrator for Community Development. And it's a case of applications coming in,the amount applications coming in and the stress to approve--review and approve,and there was an error made,basically. Pp PP � COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: They were given a permit that says 10 feet. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: How much of the house was built whe 4i%j As found? MR.REISCHL: I was not the original planner on this. One of my coworkers was COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: The contractor would probably know that better than you would. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was going to ask the contractor to come back up. No,you have to come to the microphone,and maybe we've got a couple more questions for you. Before we do,there was something I wanted to mention in line with what you were saying. The reviewer on this,by the way,was a fellow we had hired recently from Mar land,and it wouldn't surprise me if,based on his knowledge of Marco Island,Marco Islanld would have allowed this to go to seven feet, that might have also contributed to the or that happened. Sir,if you could answer COMMISSIONER CHRZANWSKI: How much of the house was built when the problem was found? MR.JENKS: The rear retaining wall was in place,the pool shell was in place,the slab was in place, and I think we had just poured the tie beam,and we may have started framing by then. I don't have the exact-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. Because there was a comment you made earlier that you did the pool first. I could understand that,because you couldn't build a pool with the house in the way-- MR.JENKS: Correct. COMMISSIONER CI-IR2ANOWSKI: --unless you built it from the waterway,which is practically impossible-- MR.JENKS: Correct. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: --which is one of the problem you're going to have if you have to take it out. You've got to take it out from water side,which is practically impossible. You've got to move the dock,you've got to move the boat. So I could see,even if you told them that,hey,the pool was in the wrong place,you know,they might as well not stop because there's nothing they can do. The house is already in the way. MR.JENKS: That's true. That's true. We didn't do anything to make it any harder to remove this pool or,you know— COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. But once the house is up to the tie beam,you're not going to get back here to do anything with the pool. MR.JENKS: Correct. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Not easily. MR.JENKS: Not easily. Page 15 of 46 January 19,2017 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Well,you can do anything you want if you've got enough money.Okay. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got a question,a follow-up. MR.JENKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You anchored the pool,not with piling,with tie grade beams is what you--that's the only thing holding the pool down? MR.JENKS: Pilings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,you've got piling as well. MR.JENKS: And footers,yeah. It's sitting on pilings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now,there was a cost put in the report that said it would be about $50,000 to remove that pool and then,of course,it would have to be redone,then all the debris would have to be removed. I know it's not finished,but I would think the 50,000 is certainly a number that's probably realistic in looking at the condition it's in today just to get that concrete taken out and hauled away,if not more. So to answer--Diane seemed to think you stopped construction and, if you did,maybe your value to replace the pool wouldn't be as great. I think the 50,000 is prbably conservative in cost-wise to clean this up if it had to be. it MR.JENKS: It probably is. And it wouldn't notating changed back there. YOU know, if it was--we continued with the house at our own risk. We still have to get all the stuff back around the front of the house,so we didn't change anything of tearing the pool out CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you very much MR.JENKS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you have anything? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that,we will go to--we'll start with registered speakers. As your name is called,please come up to one of the microphones, identify yourself for the record,and if your name is hard to spell,just please spell it for the court reporter so we don't,get it mixed up. MR.REISCHL: The first speaker is Edward Tappen followed by George Marks. MR.TAPPEN: My name is Edward Tappen. I spell my name T-a-p-p-e-n. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR.TAPPEN: Was there anything else? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, sir,that's fine. We're off to a good start. MR.TAPPEN: For the last year I've been an advocate for having Collier County establish common municipal golf courses. Collier--` CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This sirs are you here to talk about the golf course'? MR.TAPPEN: Yes,I am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is not that one. MR"TAPPEN: Pardon me? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're not talking about that right now. It's coming up in about-- MR.REISCHL: That's the next item. CHAIRMANTRAIN: That's the next item. This is about a pool variance,swimming pool variance. MR.TAPPEN: Okay. Sony. I thought my name was called. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No problem. Save his card for later. MR.REISCHL: There was no item listed on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,I'm sorry. It was a mix-up on our part. MR.TAPPEN: Will I be back soon? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I hope so. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: We hope. MR.REISCHL: And I know I called Mr.Marks next,but his attorney,Patrick Neale,requested to go before Mr.Marks. Page 16 of 46 January 19, 2017 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR.REISCHL: Patrick Neale followed by George Marks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And,by the way,for those of you who have not attended our meetings before,speakers are limited to three minutes unless waived. We generally don't enforce that as long as the information you're providing is not redundant and it's not repetitive. So we're here to listen to you. Just be conscious of everybody's time,please. Thank you. MR.NEALE: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Patrick Neale,N-e-a-1-e,for Mr. and Mrs. Marks who are in opposition to this variance. What I'd like to bring the Board's attention to is--the Commission's attention to is more the legal issues that revolve around this. As you're probably aware,there are,you know,eight criteria that are involved in the granting of a variance. A variance is not something that's to be taken lightly. There's a great deal of case law out there on variances,and I'm not about to bore anybody with doing what I have to do all day,which is read case law, so I'm not going to do that. But what I'd like to bring to the Board's attention is a case called Indialantic versus Nance,which really sets out the primary issues as to a zoning variance Ai d eprerequisite to a granting of the variance is the presence of an exceptionally unique hardship to the inc ,*landowner,unique to that parcel and not shared by other property owners in the area. There's nothing unique about this situation for th 4pwner Ilie landowner simply went in,had a design professional who did not know what they were doirl ly` 'came in and submitted a plan that was in error based on the evidence of record at this point,a d then proceeded to build based on that. Now,yes,they did rely on the county's assertions,but in my experience in dealing with county permits--and I've been here for a while--typically thefermit says that it's the responsibility of the landowner and their design professionals to meet the code. It's not the responsibility of the county to make sure the design professionals did their jobs properly. So we'll go through--and I'm going to very briefly go through the eight different criteria--any special conditions and circumstances particularly land,location,size,and characteristics of the structure. And in this case there are none. These are essentially lots that are all pretty much the same within a development wherein the Land Development Code sets out what the standards are for this kind of construction. And we've heard ad nauseam what the standards are,as it's a--it's a 20-foot setback here. And this is a significant deviation from that. It's a 50 percent deviation from the setback,and it's about a 60 percent deviation from the height. So it's a very significant deviation. Any special circumstances do not result froth:the action of the applicant. Every problem here results from the actions of the applicant. The applicant is the one who made the error in submitting the application. Yes,tie county may have messed up,and they occasionally do that,but in this case, still it's the applicant who had--who made the erroneous application. Will a literal interpretation of the provisions work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant? I say that this is not unnecessary undue hardship because they're the one that made the mistake in the first place Will the variance, if granted,be the minimum variance to make possible a responsible use of the land,building,or structure? The minimum use of this is to build a house,and they're going to be able to build a house;they're just not going to be able to put their pool as close to the water as they want it to be. Will it confer on the applicant any special privilege that's denied by these zoning regulations? Well, yes,it does. What it does is allow this person to build their pool where no one else can build it under the same set of circumstances. So,yes,they are getting a special privilege. Is it going to be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the LDC and not injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to public welfare? Well,it's not in harmony with the LDC;that's clear. And I will get testimony here later that will state that it's injurious to the neighborhood. Natural conditions or physically induced conditions? No,there's no natural conditions or physically induced conditions. This was a bare lot in a subdivision. Will it be consistent with the Growth Management Plan? Well,yes,it is. I will admit to that; so it is Page 17 of 46 January 19,2017 consistent with the Growth Management Plan. So,therefore, I mean,I believe and I would argue that this doesn't meet any of the criteria for the granting of a variance and that the variance should be denied. And so that is all I have to say. Thank you very much. Any questions,please? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Patrick,do you have-- Pat,I've got a couple. MR.NEALE: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The Atlantic(sic)case that you cited is a 1982 case? MR.NEALE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I did notice you didn't provide it as backup. And did you do any research to verify that the variance criteria language in there-- in that case in 1982 was identical to the variance language--let me finish first. One at a time. MR.NEALE: Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That way it's identical language that we have in today's code. Because in 1982,we didn't even have--our GMP wasn't even enacted yet. So we had--that wa an 82-2 code in Collier County. Have you done any of that research? ,?%f MR.NEALE: Yes,I did;I did. And I went through and,what we call,Shepardtiattie case and checked future cases and,basically,they all mirror the same language. And,actually,our co very closely mirrors the language that's set out in Indialantic and other cases that are subsequent in its progeny,so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You didn't bring any of that with you? MR.NEALE: I didn't. I wasn't going to make full-blown legal argument here because-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,we definitely would have appreciated you doing that. MR.NEALE: I can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said it's not in harmony. How comeit.Is in harmony in the community F�f that I believe you actually lived at,pn Marco Island? How come it's in harmony in Isle of Capri? How come that height would have been in harmony elsewhere in> county but,uniquely at Vanderbilt Beach,it's not in harmony? MR.NEALE: Well,as you know,legislative decisions are made. This is--obviously,that would be a legislative decision setting out the code as opposed to a quasi judicial decision. And legislatures can make decisions such as that based on the character of that particular community. So the legislature as it was,the County Commission,or those--Marco City Council made those decisions at that point in time. CH IRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I can ask staff this,but I think you probably have the same answer, This Board's responsibility is to review consistent to the Land Development Code; is that not true? MR.NEALE: Yes,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker,please. MR.REISCHL: Nextspeaker is George Marks,followed by David Galloway. MR.MARKS; Good morning,everyone. My name is George Marks. I live at 319 Lagoon Avenue in Naples. And I am a I' _ hitect and I am here for a reason that I think is important to the entire community of Vanderbilt ch. What has--I,quite frankly,myself and the other neighbors,we feel badly for the people that are trying--the applicants here that are building this property. They hired a designer,they hired a builder,they hired everybody to build this for them,and their house has been built. And,quite frankly,we think they're building a nice house. The problem becomes the issue of the pool,and the problem becomes not just the--not just the issue of the fact of the way this exists now,but the precedent it sets going forward. We don't believe there's a hardship here. We all know that you can't create your own hardship.I've sat on your side of the table. I understand the legal on--Mr.Neale has already addressed that,and I'm not going to repeat that. But the key issue that Mr. Shapiro stated was that all of his pictures were taken from aerial views. It Page 18 of 46 January 19, 2017 did not show the actual height of the pool. I can use the--your projector there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We need to have something kept. You can't--you'll need to send that to--can you send that to staff-- MR.MARKS: I will email it to Mr.Reischl as soon as we're done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR.MARKS: Okay. If you--can you--does that work okay? Can everybody kind of see that? So if you look at the pool over here that is on the right-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not on,sir. MR.MARKS: Thank you. If you look at the pool that's set over here on the right,this pool is six-and-a-half feet above the seawall. Pm rounding,of course. This is the property directly adjacent to it,and you can see that in that case the pool is significantly within the zoning. If you look at the property to the other side--so on both sides of this property you can see the pool over here on the adjacent property,that is also within the guidelines,and significantly lower than the height of the pool that is being provided here. We're here trying to be practical,and we're here to understand that this is a difficult situation,but we believe that when the county enacted their zoning law,there are pools that exist that are higher--at the higher level,but in good planning--we moved to Collier County because you've done such a great job with planning. All that we're asking you for is to enforce the actual zoning laws that you put in place. You lowered the height of the pool,and you gave them the option of building--if you're greater than a 20-foot setback, you have to be lower. If you're set back,you can be higher. Why is that? It's for visual corridor. What we don't want to have happen and the main reason I'm here is that we do not want this variance to be granted and then the next person that's further away fr m the gulf says,well,now I do have a hardship because you allowed that pool to stay in exact,not beingin code,and then this becomes a cancer that spreads throughout the entire Vanderbilt community. We are just asking you to eat**the laws that you have. We understand the burden. I'm not going to use the word"hardship"because thats legal term that we do not believe applies here. To not be unreasonable,we as�`�neighbors that are objecting and asking that this be held,we m understand that all the dizonal v has already been talked about. This is 60 percent higher. It's 60 percent closer to the canal* t sh«JtI Our concern is that*visual' �*Mr. Strain,that you spoke about,becomes narrowed.And if you allow this to continue across the whole length of the canal,that visual corridor is diminished. This is not a property on the gulf or on a,wide canal. If you allow this to happen,it narrows that visual corridor as much as 20 feet for that entire corridor for a corridor that's not that wide to begin with. That's the reason we're here. That's the reason we're spending our dollars in hiring Mr.Neale,and that's the reason we're making(sic)our time to be here tonight. Our suggestion to make a compromise solution to this--and you asked Mr. Shapiro if he came with a compromise. You asked him if he had a solution. We're here to offer a solution. Our suggestion is that the fact that they are even--they're even violating their own 10-foot setback requirement by three and a half feet. Our suggestio ,,s,leave the layout where it is but lower the height. If you look at this photograph, you can see how it is grossly higher than the properties that are adjacent to it. And our--you can see it in that picture very clearly. Our--we're not trying to be unreasonable.We're offering a reasonable solution that says,lower the pool to the required height setback,because we believe that is the bigger issue than the setback. The setback, the steps being six inches wider,we're not here to object to that. We're hoping to have the variance defeated.If we have to,and we have to go to the commissioners and that is--and this variance is granted,we are prepared,because of the importance of this issue by not creating a precedent to appeal at a higher level,we would much rather be reasonable people and have a reasonable solution today that takes care of this issue. Thank you. Page 19 of 46 January 19,2017 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Could I ask you a question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? MR.MARKS: Please do. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: The house--as I understand it,that white house,the floor is built to FEMA elevation? MR.REISCHL: Correct. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: How come it looks so much higher than the other two? Are they not? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know. I don't think he could answer that. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Well,if you took the pool out,you'd still be looking at a white face of the wall of the house because it's built to FEMA elevation. You wouldn't see anything different from this view that I'm looking at if you took the entire pool out. So it would still look the same as--you know,higher than the houses on both sides. MR.MARKS: This view is not the objection.The objection is when you're on the adjacent properties and you're looking out the canal,the fact that pool is six-and-a-half feet above. If it was at the four-feet requirement,you would still be able to see and have a visual--not as detrimentally impact the visual barter(sic). COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay Ott tli5 view,even though you showed it,doesn't really mean anything? MR.MARKS: We did not wish to violate the neighbdt 'rights and walk on their property to take these pictures. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And the neighbors have no problem with this? MR.MARKS: I'm not--the neighbors-- , -fiem./ 4 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We haven't heard all the testimony. MR.MARKS: We heard that objection on the 43 versus eight. I'm not here to exaggerate any issues. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. I'm just-- I was just curious what the objection was with that view. It will look like that when they take the pool out. MR.MARKS: Pm using that view to just show the gross difference in the heights. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. Thanks. MR.MARKS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: But that's due to FEMA. MR.MARKS: That's n*th issue in play here. The issue in play here is the pool,not the height of the building. ' COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. I .MARKS: We have no objections to the height of the building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead,Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I want to go along the same lines. Mr.Marks,is it? r r:> MR I' : Yes,sir: COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just,again,for the record,you're showing a comparison to the height.But you do not have any information on when that house that you're showing now,the brown house, which,as I look at it,to the--from the back,to the left,you don't have any information on when that was built or what the base flood elevation requirements were for that--on that house when it was constructed; likewise,the house on the right? There's been significant changes--and you know this,you're an architect--in the flood elevation requirements,as Stan alluded to,the base flood elevation,and mandated by the flood zone. And,regardless, you made a statement about reducing the height. They can only reduce the height of the pool,not the house. MR.MARKS: Absolutely. We have no objection to the height of the house. The purpose of this variance is only the pool,and we're keeping our comments just to the pool. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. So but the house--clearly,the house that you're showing here to the left of the home that's in question,as I look at it from the back,the base flood elevation is clearly a Page 20 of 46 January 19, 2017 different elevation than what was now required. MR.MARKS: I am not in a position to answer that one way or the other, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. You brought up the comparison. I'm pointing out the difference. MR.MARKS: Understood. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have a question,a couple questions. First is the County Attorney's Office in regards to the--now,this setting a precedent. Could one of the county attorneys opine on whether this does or not? MR.KLATZKOW: Does it set a precedent? No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr.Marks,are you licensed in the state of Florida as an architect? MR.MARKS: My firm does work here. I am personally not lic, id. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the state of Florida? MR.MARKS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you licensed at all? MR.MARKS: I am,yes,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What state? MR.MARKS: Pennsylvania. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You indicated that they-0'41d leave*00,ol but lower the Wight. As an architect,I don't know if you do structural engineering or di4iing.aiiiio11. Do you do just architect or do you do structural included in your firm? MR.MARKS: I have a BS in structural engineering. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you know that this is built with grade beams and piling? MR.MARKS: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How would you expect them in to lower the pool? MR.MARKS: They would have to remove the pool. They'd have to cut off the top of the piles,they have to remove the grade beams. I understand the imltions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just want the aud ' understand and the people on this panel to understand it. Thank you. You indicated tkat--the concern about the view corridor going up and down east and west of that canal. First of all,you live opposite the water from this unit down a little bit about--over a hundred feet away; is that correct? The canal's a hundred feet wide,an assumption. MR.MARKS: I am two properties down across the canal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Your concern is up and down the canal and you feel--I thought you stated that if this went to four feet, as required by the code,and they left it that location,they could actually build the cap/like the house you have on they left here. How would a 4-foot-high pool with a cage like that change the; _;,.erception when we're only talking two-and-a-half feet overall'? So what--how do you see that happen ', ; n you could still put the same structures on top of the deck and have the same view corridor that y of with or flout the two-and-a-half feet? MR MARKS: You can see through a cage. It's a little tough to see through concrete. CHAIRMAN§x , So up and down that canal people would be seeing through these cages to get views of the waterw t ` MR.MARKS: If that is what is permitted by code,I support it. I'm only asking that the county enforce the zoning code as they have presented it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. That's all I've got. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question. Is the seawall at the same level for these properties? Is the seawall all even? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. If you look at this map,this is an example of what I was trying to get the applicant to have responded to earlier. That seawall they put in,according to the certified building permits,it's one foot higher than the seawall to the left. This actually shows that.And I'm assuming that you are not any more familiar with this than I am in that regard. Page 21 of 46 January 19,2017 MR.MARKS: I would look at the picture same as you saw it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That one foot I'm not sure was taken into consideration when this whole variance height part of it came into play because the surveys I'm showing called out the old height of the seawall,not the new height that was certified to,which changes the deviation of a foot. So instead of 50 or 60 percent off,we're a little bit--we're another foot,which will take it down substantially. I'm just not sure how anybody measured this or where the measurement came from. MR.MARKS: I would believe some verification would be there,because if the--if the actual deck is six-and-a-half feet above that seawall,the condition's actually worse. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But according to the information supplied,it's six-and-a-half feet above 3.2. That's the old height,not the new height. And that's the best I can tellyou from the documents I've read,so... MR.MARKS: I'm not in a position to-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would have been to the benefit o t to have researched that.I wish they had. 'cA ` ,,«,, I don't have anyother questions. ' !%' f q �``F"F Thank you,sir. MR.MARKS: Thank you,everyone. ,41:440, , CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker,Fred. 4 MR.REISCHL: Next speaker is David Galloway followed by Nancy Burns. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way,we will take a break at 10:30. MR.GALLOWAY: David Galloway,resident of the Vanderbilt Beach residents area. And,you know,we listen to these issues many times. I have to applaud the Planning Commission.I know there's a lot of research done on your part;I really appreciate it just an average citizen out in Collier County. I feel for the true applicants,the owner of the property,because it's not their fault even though they hired the contractor,the architects,and whatever,and I feel for them on this issue. I somewhat feel forthebuilder,the architects,but they didn't do their homework.They didn't do it properly. And even if it was a new employee or newer employee that was--new issues from Marco Island, they obviously didn't know Collier County,so I think that the Collier County has a true problem here as us as the government. I think possibly that when we start issuing hardship variances based on financial,it's--we should not be making other;fpeople's problems t�problems,and I say that in all respect,because we've all been through this. I think thely people that make really some fees here are the attorneys. If you look,both sides have attorneys.And it's unfortunate they have to spend the money on their attorneys. It's unfortunate on both sides. I come here free IA a -<u time,but it's also an issue that I think we have to--we have great zoning, and code ordinances in Collie , ty over the years have been developed very strongly,and I support those; I follow them as they've been ; ,.,ped and the people that do--the commissioners that do enact them. But we41- 40 do thi -lly and fairly across all lines. And it's a slippery slope when we start granting variances just basest:,k f:" 'ancial hardship even though it's 50,000,25,000,or 100,000. But also the county should be responsible f`fT some of this also and not just saying,well,everybody made a mistake. Let's just let it go away,because it's not fair to the other citizens that live in that community also. So I speak only as a concerned citizen that we have to constantly,in the Collier County,enforce the ordinances and the code equally across the board so that there's--we don't have these kind of long,drawn-out Planning Commission meetings where everybody gets involved in these. And I think that--overall,I think this could be remedied,but it's an issue that's going to come up again,as we know,someplace in the county,whether it's Marco Island or whether it's here,and northern Collier County,but it's an issue that has to be addressed,and we have to get the personnel that are going to be reviewing this and looking at these things so it doesn't come to this point again. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. We have time for one more speaker. Page 22 of 46 January 19, 2017 MR.REISCHL: Nancy Burns. MR. SHAPIRO: We have a speaker that has to leave at 10:30. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir,we're--okay. Yeah.You're not supposed to be doing that. Thank you. MS.BURNS: Nancy Burns,and Pm a resident of Vanderbilt Beach,Gulf Shore Drive. Anyway,I do support the Planning Board,and I do believe that the county has an obligation to validate our issues and also support the codes. I really feel for the people. I'm sorry that it's happened for them,but I do feel code should be enforced. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. That was quicker than I thought. We have one speaker, apparently,who has to leave at 10:30. On that basis,we'll try to accommodate them if they'd like to come up to the microphone. Identify yourself for the record. MR.JORGENSON: Thank you for doing that. I appreciate it. My name is Jerry Jorgenson. I live at 367 Lagoon Avenue. Pve been there for 11 years. I have to disagree with Mr.Marks fantastically about the views. With all the trees,palm trees, everything that we have,you can't see up and down the canals anyway. I live right across the street from this property. I looked at a garbage home for 10 years.I had to call inspectors out to get it cleaned up because there was renters there at one time,and the lady was very nice enough to get it taken care of for me. Pm going to tell you something;I drive those canals all the time,and there's a lot of these high things out there,some prior to the codes,some changed. And,by the way,that wall you're talking about,all the new ones go in now,and you're probably aware,that they are a foot higher now. So whenever you put in a new seawall,it has to go up one foot higher than the old seawalls,so we have seawalls going up and down,up and down until people build,so it really looks kind of ugly,to tell you the truth. It would be nice if we could all have our seawalls the same height. So there's a lot of issues that occur when you're building. In this case,I live directly across the street. I'm very plead to see' house the way it is. I don't see it being an eyesore in any way,shape,or form. I'm sorry that*` nty made a mistake. If they wouldn't have,we wouldn't be standing here today. And maybe theber made a mistake. The problem is,is what--your point you made regarding the cage or someone's point regarding the cage,that is exactly cofct. It �' doesn't � ou go down our canal,we have some of the ugliest structures that you want to see. I do _i . (sic)try to fight to get these things taken down like I did a lot of huts that used to be on the thing.They were falling apart during the hurricanes,and they fmally took them down. The county come out and said,they're not in compliance;take them down. And then these grass hut things. But on our canal on his side that he looks at,he looks at a lot worse thing than that,I can tell you.,,We have double-deck wooden structures. They were built,you know,back in the day when you could do that,okay,and they were ugly as heck;painted,peeling,ugly-looking decks. There pieguy who keeps lis up nice. `Tether one,he's got a big tent on top of it. I mean,you're talking about a yoi�going out of the canal,we#re talking about a beautiful home that's going to have a beautiful-- e every intentions of putting shrubberies and stuff in there. And I e wha s;you can't see up and down regardless. I could stand on that side of the canal and sit at M k.w:: ,!+ ; house on their patio,okay--I go over there and visit them a lot--and we can look right down t�` ` 'td you know,it doesn't obstruct anything. All of our homer views,even my home which was built a long time ago--I walk out to my pool from ground level because we were built before the codes changed. And I didn't build it;somebody else did. And when we sit up in our home--we live up in the upper level of our home--we see everything because we have a northern view,you know,looking--and it's--we're so happy this is going up that Pm ecstatic. We have a lot of old homes still in our area,and they keep going down. And as you go out the canal--I don't know,Mr.Marks'house,whoever,he's got a big pool wall with a sand thing next to it. It's, in my opinion,very unattractive to look at. Not his wall but,you know--it's just fine.It's the way it is. And he's allowed to do that,and that's fine. We don't have an issue with it. I don't know him very well,and that's his business what he wants to do. Page 23 of 46 January 19, 2017 But in my opinion,you do have--do follow codes. I'm a car dealer. I've built dealerships.We go for variances all the time. You have to go for variances sometimes in life to make things easier and simpler to deal with. If you didn't have variances,what would we have to go back and even--let's just say they wanted a variance before they built because they needed to do it in this particular way because of room--they don't have much room--there's not much property there,so you have to kind of utilize it the best you can. And I'm going to tell you what; it's real nice looking across the street and seeing a beautiful home with a nice wall. And this gentleman Stan,he had a terrific point. I'd rather look at that pool wall than have that pool way down here. Now I'm looking at them trying to build steps to get down to the pool wall,and you're still looking at a wall. And I'm right across the street, literally. And the boat blocks the view anyway,but I like looking at boats,because I have one,too. So thank you for the time. I really appreciate it. And I hope you take under consideration that there's a lot of us there that have no objection to this. I mean,I talked to some of my neighbors;they're not here to speak for themselves,but they said,sure,we don't have a problem with this. I mean,what does it matter? I mean,I agree with rules and stuff,but this one fell through the cracks,and that's why you have variances. And I thank you guys and--for your time and efforts and the time you guys put ;your jobs. Thank you so much for letting me speak early.Appreciate it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,sir. Now,with that,we will take a break until O i45,and then when we get back,we'll resume with public speakers and then after,the rest of our agenda. Thank you. (A brief recess was had.) MR.BOSI: Chair,you have a live mike. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If everybody will please resume their seats. We left off with public testimony. We're going to resume with public testimony,and Fred will be calling the next speaker. MR.REISCHL: Steve Emens,followed by John Prestwood. MR.EMENS: I'm Steve Emens,331 Lagoon Avenue. I am"the person who called in April because I noticed that going up. The main reason why I called is I know the code. And at that time,before--they had the slab down, before they built the ceiling,construction(sic)this,I wanted to give them the opportunity,because I knew it was going to cost them a lot of money at the end if they dtdp;'t get a variance or if they did not get it approved. That's why I called at that time. I couldn't believe that it got missed because you have your architect that has to do the site plan and the surveyor,your pool contractor h .to submit plans with elevations on it,so that's another permit where the elevations got missed besides the basic permit. So the seawall guy submitted his and,yes,that seawall is up one foot,and the elevation of the deck,I measured kris six foot from the new seawall. So that's where that stands. And Iwatched everybody ome out and survey the whole property in April. And then nothing happened. Nothing happened. Sehow they're applying for a variance after the house is already built. Okay. We're so far along now, we can't do it. It cost too much money. The homeowner's not at fault,I understand.They depended upon a licensed architect;they depended upon a survey that should have been signed and sealed;they depended upon the pool contractor that should have had signed and sealedplans because it has engineering. You can't submit any plans without signed and sealed. You have to have your elevations on it. Now,those professionals are insured professionals,and they should know the codes in Collier County. The house is beautiful,okay. Nothing wrong with that. It's a great-looking house. The view's good. It's just that it's not to code. It got passed. I don't know what reason. I've seen things happen a lot of time where--well,I don't know the case, so I'm not going to speculate on it--where somebody said,hey,oh,can't you just do this for me? Sure we can. And then they build it,and then it's too late,without going back, resubmitting plans. I don't know that. But I do know across the street there's a new house under construction about the same stage they are. Page 24 of 46 January 19, 2017 They're putting their trusses on right now. The house is 20-foot setback. The pool is a 10-foot setback,and it's 10-foot,and they have their stairs coming down. And in reference to FEMA code,I know that swimming pools and auxiliary setbacks do not have to be at that FEMA height. They can be below FEMA height. But you can build anywhere in Vanderbilt at grade without a height requirement for that pool to be FEMA. It's the pool equipment,electronics,and the main house structure. And that's my understanding. So that's-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You said you called. Who did you call? MR.EMENS: I called Code Enforcement first. I didn't know whether it was a building or a code violation. That's where I noticed it was-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A slip came in from Joseph Norris,who is a code compliance for the Contractor Licensing. That's the memo in the file that says you called them. It's got your cell number 860 something or other? MR.EMENS: Yeah, 8070. Yeah. I called him.He goes,oh,no,I'm going to forward that on to whomever. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,the only record,the only report is for code licensing. I found under--Code Enforcement didn't get involved at that point. So your call into licensing isn't-- MR.EMENS: Well,yeah,because they turned it right over to that. They said,oh,you're calling the wrong people here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,he went out and took pictures and photographs of the site. So he actually did some of the followup. MR.EMENS: Right,and that's where it all started back then. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And there's pictures that show what stage it was at when this call was made? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. We can put them on the overhead if you'd like. This is basically--it's a similar stage to,what you've already got. MR.EMENS: Yeah. I knew it was going to be trouble. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The` seven or so p c res. That's one of them. COMMISSIONER CHRZAN(*SKI And:f1$tstage was it at? CHAIRMAN' SIN: About t a �at it is tod �: y have a--I think-- COMMISSIONT CHRZANO : So the Wilk was there? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. M tEMENS: Not in April it wasn't all there.They poured the slab,and they were putting up-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr.Norris went out and took these pictures after--in response to the call. So I didn't-- I mean,I haven't got one of the house. That's a picture of what you just about saw. AMENS: Right. The pool was there because they built it before the house went up. C I AIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR.EMENS: But then when I saw that,it was out--I went over,I measured it. I--and I'm thinking,okay,you going to do final survey at the end,and now-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What did you measure it with? Did you use a-- MR.EMENS: Tape measure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tape measure? MR.EMENS: Yeah,yeah. I hooked it on the-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now,you're the complainant,and you went on the property that you filed a complaint against to show that they were in error.Did you get their permission to go on their property? MR.EMENS: No,I did not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's kind of odd.I don't know--I've never heard anybody doing that before. MR.EMENS: Well,no,I just walked around and-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Trespassed. Page 25 of 46 t I January 19,2017 MR.EMENS: I just saw it,and I wasn't sure,okay,so I measured it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have some--I noticed in looking at your name--and I didn't have your last name; I had your phone number. When I plugged the phone number in to Google,it came up--you had some YouTubes done,and I guess you do pool work for Nassau Pools. MR.EMENS: I build swimming pools,and that's how I knew the code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'm still curious what stage the house was at,because the information I got before was that the house was partially up when this happened,and he's saying the house was not up at all. MR.EMENS: Well,the walls were up,but it was clear access. You wad come straight through the front over the slab right to get to the pool at that time. There was no--nothing inside. It was open. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we can let this one go for now. That's more if the applicant wants to deal with the trespass;that's not our issue. Thank you, sir. MR.EMENS: Yeah. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker,please. MR.REISCHL: John Prestwood followed by R 7.4'4,,y '* bach. MR.PRESTWOOD: John Prestwood,P r e-s two+ -d. I'm a neighbor also on Lagoon.And I just wanted to support Mr.Marks'and Mr.Emens'comments.and those from anderbilt Beach Residents Association that Pm concerned with the code,again,not being enforced. And I realize the more I hear here, it's a very complex situation in terms of the number of errors or perhaps the number of missteps that have been made along the way. I'm in insurance by trade;retired now. I also wondered about the liability that someone else will probably need to determine in this regard,depending upon how,you rule,but there is errors and omissions insurance also with respect to the professionals all mentioned heft: Archite builders,engineers,and so forth. I don't know about the county. I wouldn't surmise on that. But it seems like there's a lot of missteps that have been made. So I would encourage you to enforce the code. If there's something that can be done to accommodate things,fine. As far as materiality,$50,000, �'be that's for you to decide. We're talking about multi-million-dollar homes here in this nei hhorhood. Fifty thousand dollars on a house in Golden Gate might be a lot different than$50,000 in Vanderbilt Beach. That's all I have to say. I support the--Mr. Marks',Mr.Emens'comments,and I appreciate your work. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,sir. Next speaker? MR. REISCHL: The next speakeronald Rossbach followed by Margaret Rossbach. MR.ROSSBACH: Hi. I'm Ronald Rossbach. I live at 355 Lagoon,just opposite the canal,in the canal where the houseis. I just want to know let you know we have no objections. As a matter of fact,we felt that the whole situation there,the building and the boat and everything,just enhances our view of the canal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,sir. MR.REISCHL: The final registered speaker is Margaret Rossbach. MS.ROSSBACH: My name is Margaret Rossbach.I am Ronald's wife. I live at 355 Lagoon Avenue,and I'm directly across from house in question. And before that,we have been--we built our house in 1980. We've been here over 30 years,and we love it here. This is paradise. And from a woman's point of view,this is so gorgeous that it just enhances the neighborhood,and I don't understand why--or I won't understand if this is not going to be approved because it's just all positive. Before that,then there was a house that it was a duplex. It was much older than our house.I'm sure Jerry, if he was here,he would say I'm one of the houses that he doesn't like,but I love my home,and it's Page 26 of 46 r January 19, 2017 going to be there until I kick the bucket. And Pm 86 years,going to be 87. So they're going to have to wait a while,because they take such good care of you here in Naples that sometimes you live to be 90 something. So this is not the first time I'm going to come here to beg you to just let this go on and let us all be happy. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,ma'am. Next speaker? MR.REISCHL: That was your final registered speaker. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you put something on the overhead. I wed to clarify one item. It's Page 10 of the staff report,which is the black-and-white survey. You don't have d e staff report? MR.REISCHL: On my computer,electronically. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys. We need to have printers in this room,I can tell. Diane,can I borrow yours? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I've got scribbles on mine. MR.REISCHL: I was trying to keep up with the chairman on being electy n this one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,you've got to get an Apple then. Sorry. MR.EASTMAN: The advantages of paper. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Actually,that's not the one-- it doesn't show enough Thi at_al survey is the few pages back from that,Joe. Keep going. It's this one here. MR.REISCHL: Oh,the resolution. It's attached to the resolution,I believe. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yew. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. That's it. If you could let him borrow that,Patrick,that would be great;thank you. Okay. What I wanted to point out on here--and,actually,you need to zoom in a little bit on the part by the waterway. Right there. Notice on the lower nght-hand corner it says,set drill hole on top of concrete seawall,and NAVD elevation,3.32. That's the same elevation that the old seaWll was at based on the permit application. Permit application said to cap it,add one foot; so it would be 4.2,and it also was certified to that. Now, if you'll look over on the left, second note up, it sayer contractor,pool patio stem wall is at 9.9. Now, if you take 9.9,subtract the 3.2,you get your 6.6,which is the issue in question today.What Pm suggesting is it's not 9.9,and then the 3.2 is now 4.2,so the real difference is 5.6;5.6 is 18 inches over the four feet that's allowed. And I guess I've got a question to staff. At that 18 inches,would someone measure from the cap of the seater or they'd have to go next door and measure from the old seawall to determine the height that's suppo**lae used for this`deck? p SCHL: Correct. This is the survey that was submitted. I spoke to Mr.Jones,one of the attorneys m ,I asked that,and this is what was resubmitted. CHA TRAIN Mat's not the question. MR ' � F BOS The new seawall,the seawall constructed at this property would be the benchmark for where "ion would start. CHAIRMAN g° >'-'I : Okay. That's what I'm getting at. Now,we've heard testimony that probably--I can't-- I have to question how it was obtained,that it was measured by the tape measure to be closer to six--well,five-and-a-half feet or whatever. I would suggest we maybe have an 18-inch discrepancy here instead of a 24-inch. But it's just something to consider as we go through this,and maybe the applicant, by the time they get to the Board of County Commissioners,will have that resolved. I would highly recommend to them that,rather than wait any longer,they do it right away. With that,I don't have any more questions at this time,but we do have an opportunity for the applicant-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Page 27 of 46 imernmenimm January 19,2017 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: While you're on that survey,I'm fascinated,upper left-hand corner, in the center line of Tradewinds Avenue,there's a NAVD nail(sic)and a couple in elevation 2.8,and I thought every road in Collier County was at five minimum. So I--you know,that just fascinates me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. This is the time when the applicant's representative or the applicant themselves,someone,you have an opportunity to make a rebuttal if you want to do so. I either need to have you acknowledge you don't have a rebuttal or you'd like to utilize the time. MR. SHAPIRO: Sure. Do you mind if I use this? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Go right ahead. MR. SHAPIRO: I will be very brief,because I think a lot of the points were,I guess,well brought out and hit on. I would just like to bring out,and I think that the counsel here already has,is that this doesn't set any legal precedent as,of course,I believe most of you know,and I think that's what a lot of the objectors had issue with is that,you know,maybe this would set a precedent down the line. But as you know,under case law,these are done on an individual basis,so the ruling today doesn't set any precedent for future,and hopefully this problem won't happen again. Again, going by the staff report,I think,you know,there's enough blame to go around. You know,I am not saying that the petitioner's people,you know,maybe they should have done things more thoroughly, maybe the county should have reviewed it more thorougiki,but we have what we have here today,and we have a very unique circumstance because the permit wai1ssued relying on`the wrong setbacks,and because we have what we have here today,we can just make decisions going'forward,and I just feel that the economic hardships of having to tear all that out and put a new pool in over somewhere between 18 inches and two-and-a-half feet would just be a very large hardship compared to the negligible impact that this has. So with that,I thank you for your consideration. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.., Okay. When we had some discussion earlier, I think a few of you indicated you had other questions you wanted to ask before we g. s ore we close the pub *wing, so now is the time to do that. I can't remember-- W4 COMMISSION ITT: My questions are answered. CHAIRMAN "'RAIN: Everybody else? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'm all-- COMMISSIONR SCHMITT: Deliberate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then we will close the public hearing,and we will entertain discussion before we go for motion,if there's discussion. Does anybody have any discussion items they want to bring? Joe? %> COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And folks in the audience,I was the community development administrator from 2010 to 20--correction,2001 to 2009. So during that tenure,of course,I was responsible for all the zoning in the county as far as all the review and the building department,zoning department,and other departments under that orgation,which there's been some changes since. But I left in 2009. So I have a clear understanding of the process. And the only reason I bring up my background,because this is not the first variance in this area. I could tell you that because we've had similar situations in the past where,because of the code,there is confusion or there still continues to be confusion which,frankly,when I received the packet,I was--as I said,it brought back some tough times in that department. But that said,it is an unfortunate circumstance. The design professional's responsible. The homeowner hires design professionals who are licensed, and they're responsible,and I clearly understand that. As an engineer I understand that. The issue at hand,though,is this is an area for redevelopment. It is the original Naples Park.It's been an issue for probably 30 years in the county as this area redeveloped,and these--all these lots redeveloped primarily because of the location,not as much as Naples Park has,but all these lots are--were teardowns and rebuilds. The issue in this area,Vanderbilt Beach,was a continual problem when I was in the county seven years ago,as it is,I guess,right now,because we're faced with the same situation of,clearly, 10 pounds of Page 28 of 46 January 19, 2017 flour in a 5-pound sack,because that's--most of these homes are maximizing the building envelope that's allowed. I do think it's an unfortunate circumstance but,however,from the standpoint of the variance,as far as I'm concerned,the house exists,the pool exists,and Pm ready to make a motion,if the--but I'll hold off until we make some further discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pm glad you said flour. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I did. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: The military term is blivet,b-l-i-v-e-t. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody else have any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have one item I'd like to discuss. Mike or Fred,would you put what I just handed you on the overhead. You need to back off a little bit. Keep going. Keep going. Right there. So we can read the whole thing. Section 9.04.03 is our criteria for variances. You've heard today that there are eight criteria;there are. And we've had legal counsel advise us from the opposition side t *tress their position on those eight criteria. Also,a case was referred to us,an old case from a 1982 activity. But we here--as that attorney, even the opposition attorney and as staff has opined today,we're here to adhere to the Land Development Code. The Land Development Code says this in the beginning of the criteria for variances: "Findings: Before any variance shall be recommended for approval to the Board of the Zoning Appeals,the Planning Commission shall corilifer and be guided by the following standards in making a determination." So while we've heard that they're hard and fast rutes,you've gat to show a hardship,it can't be this kind of hardship,maybe so,but at the same time we shall consider those and be guided by them.That means it's not mandatory. And,Mike, if you read this differently as Zoning Director,please let me know. But it's my understanding that it means what it says,that we're not bound by those eight items,but they are for consideration. MR.BOSI: My understanding would be the terpretation that you've adopted would be my understanding;that these are the guidelines and with*emphasis emphasis upon the guidelines. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And with that in mind, I have--I've listened to everything,and I've certainly tried to do all the research J can to understand how this happened. I can't see the benefit to force someone to tear down a home stultaIcthis. There's been no shown malicious intent in this. It was an--it was a human error. It was a mistake made by multiple parties. Take them to task for this for the cost that it would require for an item that does not set a precedent I don't'' is necessary. Now, if we canshow they purposely had misled the county,this was done intentionally,I'd say then whatever they deserve they deserve in regards to correcting it. But I have looked at a the'records. I have looked at them probably more thoroughly than anybody in this room,a 14 assure Y .thing like that came out of any of those records. And they're records that this panel doesn't even have accefS to. They're in the county records department. I've pulled all the folders. There's nothing there that shows malicious intent. In fact,if anything,they were trying to continually keep up with things they needed to to make sure their approvals were consistent and reviewed by the county. So I certainly think that the variance is warranted in this case,whether the variance is 24--two-and-a-half feet--yeah,two-and-a-half feet or 18 inches. Either way,it really doesn't matter. The pool's there,and it should be approved. The only thing I would suggest is that a stipulation be added to do make sure that the intent of where these are allowed at this height,which is everywhere else,basically,but Vanderbilt Beach,that the decorative cladding or landscaping and a berm or a combination thereof of some nature is there,is put in front or applied to this wall to soften it,as the other jurisdictions would have--where they had done so in other parts of the county. Page 29 of 46 January 19, 2017 And with that,that's all I've got to say.And if there's nobody else here,we'll close the public hearing and we'll entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I make a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will that motion be subject to the stipulation for the-- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Subject to the stipulations as discussed. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. MR.REISCHL: And the staffs stipulation,too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Staff stipulation as well noting that,subject to the 50 percent rule, that anything constructed thereafter would have to require compliance with the existing code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion's been made to recommend approval for the variance subject to staffs recommendation and the one stipulation we just discussed. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.' COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. Thank you,all,for attending this morning.We appreciate it. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark,could I ask something? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I was very impressed by the drone photos,and I would think that--seriously,I don't know why the county doesn't do that on a lot of these projects. And I don't know what it takes to legally do drone photos or buy drones, but lit seems like,you know,we're the county;we ought to have that kind of photography coming to these rungs instead of the petitioner. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: It's a great Oea.The challenge is the FAA. I can tell you,as a realtor,they're really cracking down. There's a lot mor `criteria as to where and when you can fly.I've got to be honest,I don't knoWith that drone shot--and I'm not trying to open up a can of worms here,I've been told it'fbg,,ast those drones aren't allowed to fly over Vanderbilt Beach either or over that area. I' •N STRAIN: I would have to--I'd have to agree. The last thing I'd-- 41i SSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: A can of worms? C P U x N STRAIN. like to see is the government having the power of drones. CO 11NER S I TT: Stay away from that. COMMI04"l„ ; • : No trespassing and no drones. 4.yeCOMMISSl I' ANOWSKI: We work with Luddites. CHAIRMAN S` NN: Oh, Stan. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Stan,stay with Google Earth. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ***Okay. That takes us into the next item,the only item remaining on today's agenda. It's the review of the Land Development Code for both the preservation,I believe,open space and conservation of golf course areas,and this will be a presentation made by staff,Caroline Cilek. It will be our second or third time around for some of these,and not the final. MS.CILEK: Correct. Good morning. Caroline Cilek,for the record. I would like to go through the amendment that has the most individuals here for public comment first,if that's okay with-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know what that is,or do you want me to ask? Page 30 of 46 January 19,2017 MS.CILEK: I don't. If you could ask. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many people are here for the golf course amendment? (Show of hands.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many people are here for anything else but that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I think it's the golf course amendment. MS.CILEK: Thank you for asking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's move right into that,then,Caroline. Just tell us what page of the staff report to start with. MS.CILEK: All righty. We are going to take a look at--the narrative begins on Page 24,and we have highlighted text that has been amended since we last saw you. And I'm happy to answer questions on the narrative. Mostly,it was just explaining the changes in the LDC text. There are a couple of errors,but we highlighted those and fixed them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That narrative was,yeah,pretty much just the corrections we talked about last time or the other things you caught. Does anybody have any narrative questions and on the-- no? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Caroline,I will be calling you,thou. , because I missed the last meeting,and I know this is a very important-- ` MS.CILEK: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: --subject for this county. So with the three different reports that we've had so far,I will be in contact with you,because I want to get it down right. MS.CILEK: No problem. I'm always available. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,let's move directly into the LDC language. MS.CILEK: Super. That begins on Page 34, and we've added a new LDC section to this amendment and are amending 3,05.07,part of the preservation standards, and this is in regards to basically mirroring and supporting another provision that we're adding in the greenway area of the code so that it's consistent throughout. doefir womogri, f.: And I would like to explain it when we get to that portion because I think it will be a little easier to understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That will take us to your--that's the first section of highlighting on Page 34,right? MS.CILEK: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then when we move to Page 35,we've got some more. .CILEK: So Page 35 we Isitithe 5.05.15 language. And I have a couple of small changes I'd like to just`""share with you so that when wg the amendment back on the 30th,it's as clean as possible. We would like to chat t B on Sof,compatibility design review,that last sentence,we're going to remove that word>"permitted." 'ermitted conditional use is a little bit awkward,and we're just going to start that sentence off with identifying the conditional uses. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Caroline,also. MS.CILEK: Yep MS.ASHTON-CICKO: I'm sorry. Right before that under B 1,2 and 3,it talks about utilizing a use, and I think you want to put"where the proposed use." So,for example,zoning actions,this section applies to a golf course constructed in any zoning district where the proposed use is not currently. MS.CILEK: Okay. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: And I would make that similar type of change under 1,2,and 3. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great. MS.CILEK: I could do that. So we're just going to clean up the last sentence of 3,and then we made the change to"constructed"consistent throughout A. My next changes are on Page 36 under the DAS,the Developer's Alternative Statement. And here our changes are under 2.B.I.A and B,and these were in reference to our discussion at the last meeting.And Page 31 of 46 January 19,2017 staff was also thinking about,you know,how to relate the golf course to the HOAs that exist or may exist during the conversion process. And so this is what we have proposed for our language. I'd like to just get your feedback and see if this will work for the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's better. Yeah. It gets us there. MS.CILEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Last week,I think it was,or maybe early--yeah,I think it was last week--one of the land use attorneys,Richard Yovanovich,was talking to me about something else,and I could tell he was really excited about the golf course conversion standards. And one of the things that he mentioned--and it was a good point. I'll have to concede that--that there is no time frames for response to these. So if someone puts them on the table,how long have they got to sit there before they're considered qualified and met that criteria? And I think that's a very good point. We need to make sure it's tightened up that way. And I'd suggest by the time we come back we figure out a way to address that. MS.CILEK: Sure. In previous drafts we had proposed time frame in particular for 2.B.II,but it's my understanding that generally the County Attorney's Office doesn't support timers. But I'd be happy to start that conversation again with them and see if it's something we can include. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,I mean,I'm just concerned if,say,we-Ito*--well, obviously,if this goes through, someone's required to meet that standard. So there's a lettthere now on the Riviera golf course,for example. It says they want$3.5 million,and they're offering ittt ounty and maybe others and international investors and all this. Well,how long before we can say,okay,they offered it to these various groups,there was no response,yet they go and sell it to another builder or somebody that tries to put homes there,and the other groups say,wait a minute. We haven't responded to that offer yet. I think out of fairness to everybody,a time frame ought to be established,and maybe there's a way the County Attorney's Office could see fit to find something to include here. If not,then we need,I guess,the legal-- I'd like to know the understanding how we deal with it legally in regards to when does an ofr expire. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Well,at prefer-ad ioput a time limit in there and to just apply a reasonableness standard. This is something they have to prepare a report as to the alternatives and what they did,and that's something that you can question as they go forward. But I can't imagine that,you know,they'd be able to get through the application process with only giving them a couple weeks,because we know how it takes.r-how long it takes to get through the process to begin with. So--but if you want a date, we'll come up with a time frame. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would just want to make sure that--and I'm sure--Mr.Yovanovich is here today,so"m l sure he's going to jump in. And now that I brought this up,I'm sure we'll hear more,but I would like to make sure we have a reasonable understanding on how this unfolds so that,for example,the offer that'0an;the county right now from*owner of Riviera,that's how this one came about. They sent a letter ovef4lie commissioner and said,were considering selling this. Is the county interested in buying it? What .county doesn't respond for two or three years and they decide after they've sold to somebody else we want to buy it.0.think that's the scenario I'm concerned about,so... MS.ASHTON-CICKO. mean,I would be reluctant to put a period longer than 30 days after the date that they issue an offer,letter because I think that we could have some problems with,you know, interfering with the transfer of property if they're looking to sell it to other parties and,also,I don't want to get into takings claims or anything like that,so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I understand. Thank you. MS.CILEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all I've got to say on it. Never mind. We'll listen to Mr. Yovanovich's argument and go from there. MS.CILEK: Okay. On 2.B.III,the Conceptual Development Plan,we would like to just tidy up the sentence structure of the first sentence. We're going to break it into two parts. It's a compound sentence. It needs to be a little easier to read, so we'll share that with you at the next--no intent changes,just making it a little bit simpler to understand. Page 32 of 46 ■ January 19, 2017 That's all the changes I have on 36. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS.CILEK: Page 37,the cross-reference in 3.0 is incorrect. Line 20 needs to be Subsection G, which is the greenway. It moved. One thing I did want to ask you about is 3.D,Line 32. This is something that was an oversight on my part. At one of the previous Planning Commission meetings,we had talked about removing the word "reasonable"when talking about what the stakeholders are providing as input and that all input should be addressed. And in our admin code sections,we're actually going to get a little bit more detail about that,and we're going to say it be addressed in categories. So not every single question has to be listed out,but rather this category of question and provide a paragraph response. So that's a little easterfor the applicant to be able to do that. But here we did not remove the term"reasonable." So I think on Line 32 in this section,we need to make this consistent with the following section and remove the"reasonable"term,because we want all input to be responded to,whether it's reasonable or not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS.CILEK: 4.B,Line 49 and Line 50,we have updated the language as requested by the Planning Commission and the County Attorney's Office,and this was regarding basically prohibiting deviations from this section. And that's all I have on that page. Anything else? rF ` CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. MS.CILEK: Okay. Page 38,just some cleanup; in F.4 we're missing a couple small words. And then on Page 39,this is where'*get into the good stuff,following up with our conversations regarding preserves on the golf course. All right. So down on G.3,Line 49,we took a comprehensive look at preserves. And I worked with our environmental staff to prepare this language.And we have two different concepts going on here. One is where we have isolated preserves less than a half an acre in size We a supporting them to be able to re-create a preserve greater than that half an acre. 40* ` Currently when that's done,a PUD deviation has to be requested and approved. Here we're saying you don't have to go through the PUD deviation reque you can just do that automatically. And then that's why we added 3.05.07 to this amendment so that it allows for that as well in that section. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Ido have a recommended change on this section. MS.CILEK: Sure. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Cline asked to meet with me,but I wasn't available. Under Line 47,I would sa;�� ; following preserve standard supplement" in place of"requirements are in addition to." So it would read, llowing preserve standard supplement,those in the LDC Section 3.05.07." Mf.CILEK: That's great:, d then I would combine the two sentences in A. So under Line 51,it would say, "ConsdtK§ ed mt. <$' priated preserve that may be greater than one acre in size in the aggregate to meet the prese and then you would delete the second sentence that's on the top of Page 340. ," '"'�`< ' `' ..lf' ff . MS.CILEK: ,amain do that. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody? MS.CILEK: Okay. And then on Page 40,the second concept is looking at existing preserves.And we've broken it into two sections to deal with straight zoning golf courses and PUD golf courses,because they are very different. So in the first one,B.I,we're looking at a straight zoning or conventional zoning district,the GC,or another zoning district that's straight zoning. And here we're saying that they may utilize that preserve that's on that golf course toward the new development,because it's a self-contained parcel of land zoned,and it's rezoned,and they can use that preserve as they move forward. Page 33 of 46 January 19, 2017 Under B.II,we're looking at a PUD. And here,when they put the preserve,it was in connection with the existing development within that PUD project,and so they would be able to use excess preserve on the golf course but not the preserve for the current PUD project because it's already been utilized by what was approved previously. Any questions on what we're proposing for the preserves? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nope. Before you go down to H,I got a couple questions that probably fit into this category. MS.CILEK: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You and I touched on them a little bit,and I think the last meeting I asked about them. First of all,transportation. Many of these golf courses are within communities that are somewhat restrictive as far as the size of the roads go. They have existing density in there. We haven't addressed how that's supposed to be handled or looked at. Likewise,many of the golf courses only have small accessways to the roadways because they used them for either golf carts or maintenance carts. Well,putting a road system in,that's substantial. And I learned at a meeting I was at last week,it was--that some of these side--where they say a golf course was going to go in and they didn't have enough access,wide enough accessway,they wanted to pick up enough land to make it wide enough for a roadway. Well,the land on both sides,a lot of times,is deed 'acted fp a gle-family or rest tial housing. All that is going to come into play,and we haven't addressed F eret Is something that how would that come out of this process?Because it would be good to know on. If I was the applicant,I'd want to know,okay,I better get over some of these thresholds before I even go out to these people. We haven't addressed transportation,so--have you thought about addressing if**, e manner? MS.CILEK: Well,two things to remember. One is that the Coal Development Plan on Page 36,which is requirement of the DAS and then is taken through the stakeho :outreach meetings and then is utilized through the land use petition process,does require that existing and proposed roadway and pedestrian systems are identified. So they're going to have to figur .out how they're going to--what roadways are going to be used and how they're going to access this project.And then from there,our idea was that the standard LDC requirements for transporan would apply to the project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ,91,9x,,,§o that means tl�their widths for those accessways would have to meet our minimum standard a tire's not.any exceptions into this process. MS.CILEK: Correct It d be what is already in the LDC,and they would need to show that they woad meet those. rft, � CHAIRMAN S'T'RAIN: Okay. And I-- MS.ASHTON-CICKO: But I be if they're doing,like,a PUD amendment,they could ask for a deviation to,y know,reduce the widths like they do with most petitions. C N STRAIN: Right. And that's just something that would have to be considered on it's own merit. MS.CILFK That would be-- MS.ASHTON-CICKO: And as you know,but maybe the others don't,as part of our review,we do check to make sure that they have legal access. We confirm that on all the projects. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But your legal access in the way you look at it is--you analyze the width of the accessway in regards to the minimum standards of the code,or you take into consideration the deviation--how do you evaluate? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: We'd be confirming that they have an easement that allows them to use those roadways for access. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those accessways for,like,a public road or private-- MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Or a private road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --or a private road,because a lot of times those may be restricted to golf course access only. In fact,I know one golf course that is deed restricted and so that those connections can Page 34 of 46 January 19, 2017 only be used for golf maintenance vehicles or golf carts. That,then,wouldn't meet your standard as far as public access roadway that had to be redone. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: They'd have to clean that up through the courts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And at the same time,the width of the roadway would be something that you wouldn't necessarily--would you care about that in your legal review,or would you defer that to the review later on? I mean,if they come up with a 30-foot access,would you still say--and they actually have it for road use and vehicles,but that can't meet our standard. So how would that be approached by your department? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Well,I would advise staff that they have a 30-foot easement,and I wouldn't be looking at the widths myself. That would be up to staff to say that's insufficient or to the applicant to request a deviation that's going to get down that low,but that will be a Board mon. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then the second--go ahead. MS.CILEK: Real quick. Thank you,Heidi,for mentioning that. Yes, staff did contemplate that the deviation process may be utilized for transportation. But a thing to consider was that it would be required that the applicant identify all the deviations either at this zone(sic), if they know of them,or at the NIM. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's right. It is at the NIM. Thank you. Then the second item I want to make sure we somehow think about, some of these golf courses are not contiguous,and they're little pieces. We ran into this about a year.at cn one of them that came through, and it just dawned on all of us in the pre-ap that,wait a minute,you eantedb a PUD.They don't connect. To do straight zoning on five different pieces might be real awkward. So how--and we would--if this were to happen,the best thing to creativity--creative-wise proceed would be for the public's benefit and for this board and the Board of County Commissioners is to consider this as a PUD use. That way we can, you know,be creative on how it's protected in the neighborhood. But we can't get there the way it is now. So I know you were going tp=look into that and try to figure out a solution for it. What have you come up with? MS.CILEK: Well, I would be happy to not*with the County Attorney's Office to see if we can include a provision within 5.05.15 to allow for PUDs to be multi parcels and go through the process. Due to advertising requirements,we weren't able to advertise that section of the code,which is in Chapter 4,to ensure consistency with both sections. We could--I can work with the County Attorney's Office and figure out what's the best path for it to address that,but we're not going to be able to do Chapter 4 by the 30th,which is just in a week and a half away. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,maybe we can just figure out a way it can be addressed then. MS. CILEK: Sure. We will fallQWfup on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. ody else have anything on that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Okay. Anything else,Caroline? MS.CILEK: I just wanted to go through H real quick,which is the lighting. So we put together a bit of information about the international Dark Sky and Dark Skies concepts in your packet. Hopefully,you were able to take a look at that. And from that research,we were able to provide you language in H. We did change it a bit. And at the end of the day,you know, lighting,depending on the type of use,can be really specific. So we really do want it to go through the process to figure out what is best for compatibility with some overarching goals of making sure that there's reduction of glare and sky glow. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Catches the finers points of it. Okay. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I have a quick question just for clarification. MS.CILEK: Sure. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So H,Line 35,34,excessive glare,I get that. Light trespass and sky glow. Help me understand the light trespass part of that. MS.CILEK: Yes. So light trespass is when your light that's on your property continues over into Page 35 of 46 • January 19,2017 the other person's property. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Okay. MS.CILEK: So we,as the Planning Commission knows,have gone through several PUDs where they are addressing this issue,and they do it by a distance requirement or by having a shielded light source. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Caroline,I think that takes us just about to the last page,then,doesn't it? MS.CILEK: Sure. On Page 40 I'll just mention,all of 10.03.06 is new,but it's all just implementing the standards in the section. I'll be happy to answer any questions. We tried to make no changes; simply share what needed to happen from the notice perspective. And this information will also be in the administrative code sections as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great. Thank you. Mike? Oh,before we go to public speakers, is there any questionsf the Planning Commission of staff? (No response) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mike? We're goi art out with the registered public speakers, then if anybody else is not registered and you'd still like to speak,we're here to listen to you,so... MR.BOSI: Chair,there's two registered speakers. Mr.Edward Tappen and Diane Rupnow. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr.Tappen,now you're up. MR.TAPPEN: Tappen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tappen,thank you. MR.TAPPEN: Thank you. My name is Edward Tappen, ' a p-p-e-n. For the last year,I have been an advocate for having Collier County establish common municipal golf courses. Collier now has none. I believe that I am a common person that is one who lacks the characteristics of having power;therefore,I have written letters,asked for advice from others,attended county meetings,and written to people in power positions and collectedn great deal of information. I love golfing. Like millions of average and/or common people across the world,I would rather be golfmg today,any day. Many common people m Collier County,including visitors,cannot afford to play golf in Collier County.Imagine that. In fact,joining a club is out of the question for most common people like me. I am a single golfer who has paid$900 more annual fees than the player I played next to and who joined as a.couple in one of the smallest clubs in Naples. In April of 2015,I began--after.being taken advantage of,it came to an end last year,so I resigned that small country club Somber 2015y country clubs charge more for single inequity members than each golfer who joined as a couple;ho .akewood seemed to be a higher percentage,and my appeal to the directors or owners was deni4 In Aprit2016,Lakewood Country Club news told members Lakewood club--golf club is definitely not tE;sale,is not to be sold. Beca ood Country Club is owned by approximately 66 equity members and found that they had financia _ .s - they voted to sell the club. A recent letter to the editor said it is now listed for sale at 2.9 million. Before the 66 members voted to start negotiations for sales they were told it probably would be worth two or two-and-a-half million and that as of this time,our lawyer states that--this is a quote;our lawyer states that any remaining funds available,(sic)all commitments are met,will be equally shared among these 66 equal members. The current loan balance is approximately$170,000. Actually,the county market value is much less than 2.9 million. Even when Lakewood is having financial problems,the board of directors has not increased their annual fees for more than five years. Their management of the club and getting members to vote seem questionable when they voted yes. I believe that the county could negotiate to save golf land without rezoning. That's my appeal to this board,this commission. I have collected a lot of information during the past years,this past year,and will gladly share it to Page 36 of 46 January 19,2017 the Planning Commissioner--Commission,you. I have collected--letting greedy people profit and changing natural land would be a shame. The Planning Commission should at least offer to negotiate with owners and find out the facts,then provide commissioners a plan to save the natural lands. In addition,when and if the county owned the land,it could hire professional managers and often--and offer good workers that are maintaining the courses at this time. The workers at,for instance, Lakewood have been exceptional and,under management of professionals,could do wonders. The county might even get an award from the Audubon intentional program and be designated as a certified Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary. See the paper from yesterday or the day before. I think it was yesterday. Another municipality provided--other municipalities have provided funds to have golf courses since 1899. Why not Collier? Bob Cooling who lived at Lakewood and was on the founding equity--one of the founding equity members said when he heard about Lakewood being put up for sale,the club--he said--and this was recorded in the minutes--the club needs a financial expert. The answer in the minutes of that meeting were,this has been investigated. Mr.Cooling passed away in June 2016. That concludes what I have to say. I have copies of this to share with whoever. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,there's a couple things you probably could"benefit from being aware of The request to change the language in the code to do what we're being asked to do t would assist in getting--accomplish maybe what you're asking for. You want the county to consider p g a public golf course,whether it's Lakewood or one other. One of the steps that are required here,a.S*1 courses come up for conversion,the county would be considering those. It doe,n't mean they're going to buy them, but that option would be on the table. '' The documents that you have would be better held until that process starts. This is just the process to get to where you want to go. If this gets approved,when they convert that golf course,one of the steps they have to do is offer it to the county,they have to offer it to the homeowners association,if they're interested, and then the general public or whoever else they want to offer it to at that pg : So some of the issues y#te,aslcing for could be attained once this language is adopted,and that's what this meeting today is that far. So it's the first step,and it may actually help what you're trying to do. � MR.TAPPElsk,derstand,but as a common person trying to figure out why they are--Pm sure that money buys what 0,'want. And what I'm saying is that if the rezoning goes on to a--to have people sell their golf course,theii4e land is gone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN; We don't disagree,but these steps will help the county at least consider that golf course for a purchase That's--so that goal is somewhat in line with what you're talking about.We just need to get this language going firs 0then that will happen. Other than that,this board doesn't make any decisions on purchases by the county` smade by the county commissioners.But I think this would help that process get started,so... MR.TAPPEN: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,and for your patience in waiting today. I appreciate this. Mike,n aker? MR.BOSI: The next speaker,and it's the last official speaker slip, is Diane Rupnow. MS.RUPNOW: Thank you. I've read the draft,and I'm pleased that stakeholders will have an opportunity for input in this process. I think that's a very important feature. If the intent of this amendment is to identify and facilitate the process of converting preexisting golf courses into non-golf course use,why isn't that language in the document,is my question. What would be wrong with including a statement that this conversion amendment applies only to preexisting golf courses that were in business prior to the April 12th,2016,moratorium and not just to a golf course that's in the permit process? That's my only question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pm not sure--well,when we get done with public speakers,I'll ask staff to address your question,okay? MS.RUPNOW: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do we have any other registered public speakers? Page 37 of 46 January 19, 2017 MR.BOSI: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any member of the public who has not spoken that would like to speak on this matter today? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Caroline,you heard the lady's question. I'd like to make sure we get it clarified. If you're not clear on the question,we can have it asked again. It was a little fuzzy,but did you understand where she was going? MS.CILEK: Well,I think we can say that moratoriums,basically,do not allow people to come forward with new pre-application meeting requests and to submit rezones and the like. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or golf courses. MS.CILEK: Or golf course conversions,period. So it would have applied to any golf course that existed as of,you know,April 12,2016,date. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So a working golf course as of April,okay. MS.CILEK: Yeah. Any of those that were previously approved or under the moratorium or if they were seeking to convert. • CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that moratorium is qv in--April 11th,right? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: The language that you are considering is golf courses that are constructed. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Already in use? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: That's the applicabih l / CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Constructed. ' MS.ASHTON-CICKO: If it's built it doesn't-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If a deve a$ .has built a go e,then that golf course would fall under this new language. MS.CILEK: Right. That's the second part of the concept,I wouldth nk. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And I hope that answers-- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The amendment--to clarify the question,the amendment covers all aspects,whether conversion or retention,under some other type of management,meaning the county could take it over or somebody else. I mean, is not artnendment strictly just to redevelop a golf course. It's also an amendment to allow other opti er 9 %+r retentither uses. MS. CILEK: Sure, yes. Throtigh the process COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I think that was your question,was it not? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll have to come up and use the mike again. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You'll have tct`come up. MS.RUPNOW: I get co , ,by all this technical language. All I want to know is does this l 'e'f conversion apply to golf courses that in business,and it was my understanding that there are quite a few golf courses that maybe haven't been m profit and,therefore,they want to convert their golf course to some other use. So is this conversion process going to apply to just golf courses that were in business before this moratorium? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It will apply to all golf courses. All golf courses. So whether they're in business or not. We have declining golf courses that are no longer in business. It applies to them as well; every golf course. MS.RUPNOW: I'm talking--Pm referring to specific land that is adjacent to the subdivision in which I live that is permitted to build a golf course,but those of us who live next to this land--and it's being cleared under the guise of building a golf course,but we have reason to believe that's not the true intention of the developer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The words are constructed. So the course would have to have some kind of permitting for the golf course or something,I would imagine. MR.KLATZKOW: I don't think that's what she's saying. What you're telling me is that you're concerned that somebody said they're building a golf course but they're really not going to be doing that? MS.RUPNOW: Right. MR.KLATZKOW: So the golf course has not been constructed. Page 38 of 46 January 19,2017 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS.RUPNOW: No. The land is being cleared,but the golf course has not been constructed. MR.KLATZKOW: The question is,if you're zoned for a golf course but you haven't constructed it, are you still part of the moratorium? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,I don't know about the moratorium. You're not part of the conversion process because you wouldn't have triggered it because you're not constructed. So that's what it means. MS.RUPNOW: Okay. So thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And a PUD may have--it's the language-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're experienced with that,aren't we? We have a lot of golf courses. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: A PUD may have in its language to allow for the golf course to be constructed but it--there's always--if they haven't constructed it yet,there's always the option to come in and do a re-plat and eliminate the golf course issues. MS.RUPNOW: I understand that. I understand that. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Which takes a public hearing and all the neighbors are notified and everybody-- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No,not if it's internal to the PUD. They made-- if it's a PUD that has never really laid out a golf course and designed it,there's nothing to say that they have to build that golf course. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I've never seen a PUD that,doesn't have some kind of wording in it that says we're going to build--to get the PUD,you have to say I'm going to build a golf course or something. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We've had PUDs clearly approved that have now since evolved and decided not to build a golf course. Isles of Collier was approved witl ;i golf course intent,and then when it came in for initial plat and final plat,it does not have a.golf course. Naples Reserve is another one. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Naples Reserve,that's the one I was thiinking of,but they changed that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,that's the exception,not the torm,but there are cases like that. COMMISSIONER CHRZA( WSKI Thank 04 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. There are no other speakers Agi l ing--any,inembers of the commission have any questions of anybody at this point? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Carmine, I appreciate it. I think we're done with the golf course one. And I want to ask this panel what they'd like to do. I think we can finish this up rather quickly. We only have the preservation standards left. So I'd rather suggest we not take a lunch break and just finish right up,or if we get here past--if we're not close to being done by 12:15 or 12:30,we'll take a short break. But I'd like to work through lunch if that's okay. COMMISSIONER I ARBORN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER HOM LAK: Third. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Caroline,that concludes the discussion on the golf course language. It's going to come back again for a final discussion on the 30th at 5:05 in the evening;it's anticipated to be final. So that will be at the point where we would leave the language in place,we'd recommend it to the Board of County Commissioners to proceed in their manner. So hopefully we'll be done with it by then. So okay. I can't take questions from the audience,sir. Now we're going to move on to the-- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You can ask staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. You can ask staff members,if you'd like,Mike or somebody else. We can move on to the next item on the agenda which is the preservation standards that were presented to us as part of this. MS.CILEK: Let me pull up the amendment. Page 39 of 46 January 19, 2017 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way,Caroline,that was good information on Dark Skies. MS.CILEK: Oh,thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good read. Thank you. The contrast between the way the light poles are unshielded and shielded makes that understandable why we try to make sure they're all shielded,so that's a good move. MS.CILEK: Images are helpful. It's exciting what the county's embarking on with regards to lighting standards. Okay. The preservation standards amendment starts on Page 8. And I'll just do a little recap for you. This amendment was brought before you last year following board direction to look at the endowment payment amount for Conversation Collier lands both for the monetary option andthen also for the land donation option. So this should be somewhat familiar. We were working with you-all,and you provided the recommendation that,more or less,you wanted to promote on-site preservation rather than offsite preserves. So we went back to DSAC and CCLAC and worked with their subcommittees to put together numbers that would promote on-site retention of preserve lands. So I have staff here with me to help answer any questions. The narrative shoul .1e very similar to prior amendment--prior amendment regarding the endowments;however,we did work with DSAC,and they actually suggested that we take a look at the initial Section to the offsite,which is the applicability,and work through that and really kind of tweak it to meet the 0404ral intent. My experience with working with Summer has beetat she has to reiterate the idea behind what is supposed to go offsite when that is being asked,how much land should be able to go offsite. And so the initial LDC amendment is addressing that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. How do you want to walk through it just as far as our review through the narrative? MS.CILEK: Sure. You want to go through the narrative or LDC section text language? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's see if there's any questions on the narrative first,then we'll move into the text after that. �4104 MS.CILEK: Perfect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the narrative section does anybody have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Good. We'll move right directly into the text. MS. CILEK: All right. So what I was just discussing was with regards to H.1.F.I,applicability. So here we're really guiding what should be allowed to go offsite and took a look at the different criteria that one would have to meetto be able to go offsite and really geared it towards small preserves,small aggravated (sic)language. Yeah,small preserves,.,- CHAIRMAN reserves,CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's one acre or less. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: One acre or less,yeah. MS SEK: And then there's specific provision for PUDs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN;; hder the applicability where it says existing,are we that far yet? MS.CILEK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes,H. It would be Line 36 and 39. Existing portion of preserves located within single-family platted lots. If they're existing,why are we even wanting to convert them?I mean, what's the basis behind this? What's the reasoning behind it? MS.CILEK: Sure. One is that this is an existing provision already in the code,so we didn't want to remove it,and that my understanding is that there are several residential subdivisions that were approved many moons ago that allowed for and,you know,identified the preserve on the single-family platted lots; however,staff feels that there's a small amount of preserve there and that they no longer need to retain it. It doesn't benefit the single-family homeowner or the preserve. It's hard to maintain it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike,you're familiar--and it was before Caroline's time--Twin Eagles. Do you remember what they did? They took their lots and tried to find a way around the rules at the time,I believe,and included within the lots their longer and deeper sections of the golf course,and I believe even Page 40 of 46 , January 19, 2017 preserves. How would they be affected by language like this? Because they did that to circumvent,I believe,their requirements at the time and still retain what they were supposed to. They did it in a different way. I'm not saying it was bad or good. But I don't want--I want to make sure that if that was a requirement to get to where they got,they couldn't come in and re-plat and do away with some of this. MS.CILEK: And I could have Summer speak on this as well. She's is here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The easiest way to get to the answer is all I'm looking for. COMMISSIONER EBERT: It wasn't only Twin Eagles. Da Vinci and Olde Cypress also did the same thing. They never put in preserves,so the county made them put 20 feet on each property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're just going to take away your backyard, COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well,it wasn't mine.It's a different division in there. I live on the preserve,so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Summer? MS.ARAQUE: Summer Araque,Principal Environmental Specialist,for the record. So this is existing language,and I think we were trying to clean it up. I think your points are very valid. They would still need to meet the minimum requirement. So Audubon Country Club is actually a good example. That's a PUD. And they're somewhere in the 50 to 60 percent range on their preserve provided. So they're well above their 25 percent minimum. But there are certain lots in there that have strips on the back,and that's an example of one where this could come into play. But I think the examples that you all have brought up ,good examples to see how this would apply to those. So if we think about Twin Eagles,they would still have to maintain their minimum requirement-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Overall. MS.ARAQUE: --overall. But we cpuld kind of think through how this particular section would affect those projects that you just mentioned to make sure that we're not creating a loophole. CHAIRMAN STRAIN; ,tel it's coming back on the 30th,so between now and then,if there's an issue there,please just flesh it o = 4 a what we need to do with it. MS.CILEK: Okay , CHAIRMAN STRA 1 : Down under D.1,essential service facilities other than parks--this is from your exceptions--I would like to suggest we need to say essential service facility,governmental facilities. And I know that's existing language,tut there's a reason for that. We've got a lot of things out there that aren't governmental that are considered now essential service,and that's changing over time, so there's no reason we shouldn't be trying to keep up with it with the code. MS.CILEK: Sure. We can make that change,and I'll take a look at the definition as well. And, actually,I was looking at the wrong section. I did want to mention that the intent that we're adding is under H.1.F,and there on Line 11, 12, 13,we are identifying that these can go offsite because they are small aic i fated and less than an acre. I didn't read the full sentence. I was looking in the wrong area. C STRAIN: Okay. The next couple of pages,anybody have any questions? CO 14.a w h R DEARBORN: No. MS.AS _ KO: Are you on Page 19 yet? CHAIRMA ~ R We could be;sure. What would you like? MS.ASHTON:`..,,ts- 0: I have a requested deletion of the double--or the triple I on Page 19, starting at Line 3,because that's already covered under 9.03.07 of your LDC. So I would request deletion of that entire paragraph. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Where did you say,Heidi? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: It's on Page 19 starting at Line 3,and it's the whole paragraph under triple I. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. MS.CILEK: Thank you for letting me know that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't have any other issues till Page 21. Anybody else? (No response.) Page 41 of 46 4 0 , January 19, 2017 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 21 refers to a post-development value. I really think that's kind of unfair. And you and I have talked about this, so I would suggest predevelopment. MS.CILEK: Okay. So-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we establish at what time frame in predevelopment that would be. MS.CILEK: Okay. One thing to recognize is that there are two different recommendations going on here;one is from DSAC,and the other is from CCLAC. I just want to bring that to your attention. They are different. So the DSAC recommendation is on page--starts on Page 19,and then the exact same language but with different recommendations for how to address monetary payment in the land donation for CCLAC is on Page 21. And we do have one thing we want to bring to your attention with regards to the CCLAC one. And I'm happy to revisit how the numbers were derived from DSAC, if that would be helpful at all. A little bit of that history goes back to the other amendment,so just let me know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I--you know,what this is going to boil down to are the DSAC's recommendations,the Conservation Collier's recommendations,and then what We suggest as either one or the other or a compromise. And I was wondering,between now and the 30th,could staff lay this--I know you've got a table in here,but we ought to lay this out and figuiednt a way to simply understand it,because putting it in the text of the LDC and then trying to analyze it there just doesn't cut it vei*ely. MS.CILEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I think it's going to boil down to numbers at this point` how we measure numbers,when we measure the numbers,and what those numbers are. MS.CILEK: Okay. We can put in the next packet thtd Lumbers of how each of these subcommittees arrived at the numbers. They start with the same one,but then how they look at it over a 20-year period is different. And we can try to just streamline it a little bit based on what staff recommends as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know what you did in the architectural standards,when you had that--and Jeremy did that colorful table and he said, here's the stdard,here's the standard,and here's the options or something--I forget law he worded it--that was a peff t`side-by-side comparison to explain how the language works ou fr ;.teot* aed on the calculations. I would think it would help us get our arms around it. MS.CILEK: Okay. e can Looking at the recommendati $br the monetary payment for CCLAC,though,you did have a suggestion regarding a different appraisal option than what is here. Do you want to repeat that for me,please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're suggesting under CCLAC,a monitor payment shall be based on the amount of post-development appraisal value. So that means the developer goes in,goes through the risk of getting all*entitlements,and they're rewarded by saying,now,that's the value you're going to have to use to do te preserve offsite when you start planning your project. I think that's a penalty, not an incentive.And I would suggest we look at predevelopment within a year's time of when the first DO is actually constructed--first construction tacked a DO on the site. For example,we have ,eople in town who have owned property here for decades and decades and decades,so it can't go on the �'3� ` fen theyt the property 40 years ago but certainly within a year,say,prior to the development pen° re'movmg forward with in which they're requesting the preservation;that entitlement period w•sta a better than saying after you've gone through the risk of getting your entitlements, now we're going to pens •,'. you for it by using that number. I just don't think that's the fair way to go. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mark,I agree. MS.CILEK: Another thing to consider for this option would be just a set fee based on,like,the average cost of land in the urban area or the rural land grant,because they are different. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And that--and you and I talked about that. That is going to have to be,though,tied to a nexus that's rationale. And one of the items we may want to look at in this analysis,sort of this table that would be a little simpler way to approach it,is look at the AUIR.And we have regional and community parks. We know what we pay in the rural area,and we know what we pay in the urban area. We ought to look at two standards for there. So if you've got a project in the rural area,your standard for contribution,if you want to just use--instead of looking at the appraisal route,this could be it. Urban Page 42 of 46 January 19,2017 area would be a little different,obviously. So I would suggest if we're going to tie it to a fixed fee,it's tied to a fee that we've established as valid,and we do that through the AUIR. MS.CILEK: Sure. Yeah, staff would be happy to prepare those numbers for you. Another thing to consider is that based on my work with Alex in looking at those numbers,it's very--for the urban one,it's very similar--the AUIR number is very similar to what her experience has been in purchasing that land. So we have evidence that that is even a more valid number based on top of how they get to that just from the AUIR process alone. So we can support that. It would simplify this process a bit.Appraisals can be a lot of extra work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would,and maybe that's why we should look at this option as another option. I'm more concerned about validating the value instead of just coming up with an arbitrary staff value saying,well,let's use 250,000 or 200,000. I'd rather see a valid--I mean,we go through a lot of effort in the AUIR to try to justify those numbers. MS.CILEK: And we can put that in the table for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Those are a couple items that will give us some-- MS.CILEK: And then another recommendation just from a staff perspective--and I have chatted with Alex about this--is that in this 4.A,after the post-development appraisal value is discussed,we talk about a 125 percent would be the endowment amount for the monetary amount. It would be really great for the LDC if we could streamline it and just put one number forward for efirfrment for both the monetary and the land donation so that they're the same,and everybody knows what the endowment amount would be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So instead of 125 percent, use a set value? MS.CILEK: Yes. And we could;tom the one that we can discuss in the land donation. That's what DSAC did. They proposed one standard endowment amount,and that way everyone would know.They're different. DSAC and CCLAC have differentones,but DSAC did propose one number so that it's easy to understand what you have to provide as the endowment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have no--I think that would be a good way to start. MS.CILEK: Super. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At least we'll look at it. I'm not sure what will fly,but we'll have numbers to look at. MS.CILEK Ws. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then--Patrick you look like you've got a question. COMMISSIONER I5ARBORN: Like you said,we'll look at it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. The endowment is a little tricky because,generally,you know,if you've got to pay for maintenance and exotic removal,not all parcels have the same amount of exotic infestation. COMMISSIONER D ' •ORN: That's a challenge. CHA N STRAIN: + say everybody has to pay the same when you may have better environmental land,more refined environmental land,more value to it because it has exotics,we're almost penalizing them with the endowment,so... MS.CILEK: And we have numbers to support how the number for the endowment was derived,and the number per acre per year is the same for DSAC and CCLAC. It's just after five years they made different assumptions,and so we can show those to you in a table. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: You're saying after five years-- MS.CILEK: I'm saying after five years DSAC looks at the amount that is needed to manage land differently than CCLAC does. CCLAC uses the same number throughout every year,and DSAC looks at it differently. So we'll be happy to provide the numbers to you so you can look at them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Generally what happens,when you go in to clear initially for exotics,you get the Brazilian pepper that's 20 feet high. It's a pain. Plus,sometimes it's mechanical,sometimes it's stump-and-squirt operation. Page 43 of 46 • January 19,2017 What DSAC's saying is that after you do that,the continued maintenance has leveled off. I think the experience that Conservation Collier's trying to say is it's not leveled off as much as you think. So that's what we need to address. MS.CILEK: And we can provide you the numbers that Conservation Collier has experienced on a large parcel,maintaining that for several years,and that may help you understand what number to go with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you know who probably has some information they could gather on this is a guy named Joe Schmitt. There was initial--there was some really intensive heavy acreage done on a project he and I worked on that had a lot of exotics and had to go in be done both mechanically and by hand. And I am no longer there,so I'm not sure how the maintenance of that is going with the CDD that took over. But that would be interesting to see how their numbers look,Joe. I mean,it was probably before you got the CDD. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. That was all before I got there. But,I mean,that information's available. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know if they're experiencing that much of a high intensity invasion. I know when it got done it was gorgeous. It just came out really well. It's just a matter of did it come back and what's it taking to keep it. // ;, COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We have other--I'm sure that is available W y '�£. r environmental consultants,Tim Hall and others that do work right now. If we can--they could give yoaverage cost. MS.CILEK: And they work together to figure out the first costs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Good. MS.CILEK: It's just the DSAC,with Tim Hall, looked at--or a different individual,sorry,not that individual. They looked at it,and after five years they made a different assumption. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Fiddler's Creek was a tremendous cost to--that preserve across from the spreader canal which was cleared,but it's been very successful over the years once they went in and treated it and no reinfestation. So that cost has been cut signiftikt4y. But the jnitial cost is heavy. MS.CILEK: Also,I'll say,when we provide the matei1 to you--which I'd like to go over the date in just a couple minutes--feel free to give us a call if you have any questions on them so we can help explain them so that you understand while you're reviewmgthem and ahead of the meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Sounds good. MS.CILEK: One more thing,if I may.Actually a couple more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MS.CILEK: But under Page 22,f44CCLAC we have the$50,000 endowment. That was actually a staff oversight in guiding CCLAC. We really wanted to keep with the recommendation of the previous amendment,and so that would be a different number. It's a lesser number. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS.CILEK: So we'll provide that in the table for you to see,but that will be a change from that amendment. Okay. I thought I would also ask if there's anything that the Planning Commission wanted to recommend with rids to who the land is donated to. Currently it discusses,I believe,a government entity, and I wanted to m sure that was still what the Planning Commission believes should happen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I--I guess it depends on how you define government entity,because I've understood there's been some attempt to have CDDs be able to be the entity that it's donated to. I would highly recommend that not happen.CDDs are stable in some regards until there's a recession. When there's a recession,they're no long stable. We've experienced that. We've had some CDDs across the state go out of business. I'm not sure that's the best way to assure long-term maintenance if they're no longer an operation. So we may want to just leave it governmental,and it just stays that way as long as governmental is not considered CDDs. MS.CILEK: Okay. I'll work with the County Attorney's Office if clarification is needed to identify what governmental entity includes. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. CDD is considered a governmental entity. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah,it is. Page 44 of 46 e r , a January 19,2017 MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Who owns the areas like the Nancy Payton Preserve? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's Collier County,I think. That would be under Conservation Collier. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's Conservation Collier,okay. All right. That's what I'm thinking of,where you would want to add to those larger swaths of land rather than--where there's some benefit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There was a project that came through that wanted--that had to do some offsite mitigation,and it was a CDD project. They said,you know,instead of donating the offsite to government entity,they're just going to donate it to themselves. That's where the twist came in.That's why the question's come up,the first time it was attempted,and we're not sure if it'sthe right thing to do in regards to longevity and assurance that the property will always be perpetually maintained. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So there's no option to go intonther preserve and buy PHUs in an approved--government approved privately-run preserve,land bank*something else like that? MS.CILEK: Sure. I'm not--I don't know, actually,but I think with this language--and it's--I will tell you what page it's on,and I was mistaken. It's not governmental entity. It's governmental agency. It's on Page 20,Line 18. I can have Alex speak on the panther preserve,but I think it comes down to,like,a general-purpose government agency or a specific governmental,and panther-- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: U.S.Fish and Wildlife is always attempting to buy land to mass sufficient quantities of property for panther preserve,but-- MS.CILEK: That might be considered-- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: --I'm not sure if it's really U.S. Fish and Wildlife or it's privately approved. I mean,it's like a land bank for wetland mitigation. Those are typically privately run. They're approved through federal agencies and permitted,but they are typically private run. What's the one up in Lee County,panther--panther mitigation bank. MS.CILEK: Right. I can take a look at that.And this was a question asked. I didn't do a bunch of research beforehand,but we can do that before we come back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? MS.CILEK: Let me ask staff if I need to discuss anything else. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No? Yes? Caroline? MS.CILEK: I believe that's it for this amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there registered public speakers,Mike? MR.EOSI: None. COWMAN STRAIN: Are there any members of the public here who would like to speak on this items ., „v (l4 response) <.... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then we know that these two are coming back on the 30th at an evening meeting,which we'll --that's an opportunity for the public to talk again on these. And with that,I don't think,Caroline,there's anything else we have on your item,right? MS. i gust a note. Just due to the short time frame of the 30th,we were wondering if we could provide you t• . ets on Wednesday the 25th. So they would be on that Thursday morning. CHAIRMAN S IN: It's all going to be stuff we have already reviewed once,twice,or more. MS.CILEK: Yes,yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys okay with that? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: That's fine. MS.CILEK: Less time,but still a weekend. Staff just has a really short turnaround time to prepare the packets for you this time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've got three people now electronically doing this. Stan's electronic now.Joe. We are getting there. MS.CILEK: Thank you. I'm good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Is there any new business? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's a pretty neat trick,though. A PUD donated to itself. Page 45 of 46 January 19, 2017 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,that's why the question came up,Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We have to preserve anyway,but we're going to donate it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think anybody thought about it before. All of a sudden it pops up and they go,whoa,wait a minute. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. That doesn't sound right. Good catch. Anyways, I was just thinking about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. It took a minute when I first heard it,too. I was like,wait a minute, how do you do that? So we've got no new business listed. There is no old business listed. Any members of the public here that would like to comment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none,is there a motion to adjourn by Patrick? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion. Second by Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded. All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye f%*,; CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here. Thank you,all. There beingno4the good of the County,the meeting was adjourned by order of � the Chair at 12:14 p.m OL COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN,CHAIRMAN ATTEST DWIGHT E : CLE' These minutes approved by the Board on ,as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S.LEGAL SUPPORT,INC., BY TERRI LEWIS,COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 46 of 46 Staff Report NNW .' 00.06,00,TEM 4sago9lttftbfotsksoigoomiwi*os', Cm4. nty, - . - STAFF IMPORT' TO: COLLIER COUNTY.PLANN1140 CO1011$SION FROM: GROWTHMAIgABE1VIENT DEPARTMENT zONTh.a D1VrSraN-ZONThr $02V100$.$g01.104 REARING DATE: SANUARY 19,2017 SUBJECTI PE111ION VA-PL20160001.181,542:TRADE-WINDS ANIENIUR .• _ PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT:. Owner: Roxanne Stone,Ieske Agent MattheW,L;Tones: Nancy D.Keeper Law Cofeg::TS..a.)i*V14:lb.ftfatP,:PA 342 Trak Vfrr14410 AVe4110. 720 Weittilie Road North,Suite Naples,FL 34105 $4.104 FL 3412 14E-OurSTEIx4cnow: Th• *: we the Collier County • • . CPC)'06014Of an application for Variance from Section 4.02A03A4 Table 4 of The laud.Development Code(LDC)to reduce The minimum roar Ora accessory structure setbsek tine teM 20 feet to$4$tottera awnuining p0.01, spa,pootAtat,Cabit stairs oa,:avgartroaler.. rho:Rest dotti4a*e4airrityl-,RSF43)zortiagilistrict, G1tOORAPIIIt LOCATIONi, The subject property ia located on Lot 11,:mock .Of'the'COMO Vantfethift Estill:et Unit 2 ,, ._ „ httilYtisitflt..0.410..*Mt side of Trade Winda.A.VeMiet,;apprexittiately 1000 feet west of Vanderbilt Drive In Section 29,Township 48 South,Range 2S Eait4,collier County,0004,*(*e location map on thelten• PORPOSE/DESCRIPTION oPirit0001,1' rbotttotiieorttioxeion is;tonquest a reduction from,IDC,Septt;04404,04.ki:17:$4*44*.tatin::olter0 minimum swnmningjiool npil*.:Screen exiciOSUre4000.00t)Mthaelt for WatrXifOtit10It IS,2afeetWitenthe swbmning pool deck auaarlit,-.4Act in height above the top of the seawall The se:Emil on thie property is 331 feetviithapoottleckAatis 9.9 feet Thus,the pool deck is6 59 IbetaboVetheseavvall;whichta2$9 feet greater thort what PelMitt0.4 by the LDC. The applicant states that the pool and deck ph111S*bniitted to Collier County contained the pool deck elevation of967 feet, The County issued a..001 permit. PRED201601007611111 with.•A;rear.accessory „ setback of 10 feet versus the required 20 feet, The appliengbuilt thepod spa,and pool deck utilizing the 10-foot 0.0faaktI*back requirements erroneously provided iin the',Imilding-permitrather than the reqiitre4'20fOot arieeSSOry setbackleqUirement The pool deck encroaches 9i5 tear hlto**20,,.... footaethack and,the Oaks encroach 3,44$:•104 VA40016000104,$42;Trade:Winus VAriart.C9. Oage:1•Of 7 9 1 6 Mill0'@ 11 0 t'Licil! ®R ®; t IIet a a aln • © a 9 - ;® 0 . .8 ® .„, e'; -„® b' iri 1..1_ iInO4 ~C.Q- Ta nDi a .Q, li ' . I ,„ . ., e„ .41- , ,0. rien r MI . mil ^ � a S V .. e) C 8,VI r.111 lip all 0. ®* 111 d' I I 1,1 0:!i trim rig rim . . 10 Silt ti. R .. ., .. .„, , , , , I i ".! . ...... .... . ZV T" T: i , 1( E $ 1 1 I , y - , 1 , _ _____J- -, ,,. _, ,,b-.!: 2- , TT :'--.-, -... .- ',c4)14 ;48. a . ,., isi, .. 17 ;z, X 141111101101044wammassar0W . ' 1..t . TRADE WINOS AVE760...,,...i00. 7.647 a.,:..:47.,;<:-!:,..,,,:-:2:9,1:, .. i. .... , . t .: .-'.4.6,140',NAiR,.,,W . t i I '. 40044.04i'WI, t•41144Att -.1 /PEE dr Pt,• ..t: • - -Itt`itiatT . .. . . ....., ...... 4 0 N t... .- - ROA = irt g * ,• reS Pi i=....4=.....ase......a....... ..........74,:;:z7:0( sa.„....m.,m, Re........%I :wit Orr 1. •, ISty O41-01W 75,401R) 7541#ta) .-E. .., , . . 1 7. w ''OP ..a.i*A.. '''. ' ' - . ''4. - ..: 111(441ifirSAAEL• 4V: •••PW :04 Our • . . •.-• • iti .d. i. , 4 . - ', • ; , . • '65--•' b 2 ' %44' 14 X • '•• 0, ..4.A ., •,..,. lek.: . y '—'1r. CZ; ....:: . ..t . . ;,..4). . ..., • 4 . kft'e• TWO' ,..Wtri4. ,it'A. • •71-- I 1,,,i).,cK . til: • ,,_, , ,,, , ROUSE tunder•oft.10,), : , to RA. FLOttit turv, 4,:gt4, 7f,; .• '• ti, ,, , J . :. ,..-., _ : ..., i..,,e.• . .tir, ,-:, I • i ' l-'' g ,. •• - • :.- ,• 4: trte • '• ,- .. . .. . ... - , .t..• -,'. ' ,,::;•44.•-•'' ... . ... , 0 ,.•,,. , lit .,1. '4:7.7•V"-.6.' • • • lit ,•:.1 )k .• . ....„ . f2 ,,._ ..,„ ...„.,,,. _ . . „., ,,. ,..„ ......... . ...,...„... . . , 10 -. - ---•• - • - -- -r.''..'. '. ' ' it .....; . RAVA414. - .'", -:- •-• •-- - •, ...-;ft: 4,-,,'•••- •••:'•• • • •61.-.• ,. ., . ,-:.-'•••• . 41 - • :41",!.., -'' '''- ' ---- -- -- - -: -• - . - .: ':-- -' '''---'''''''''':''''''.4 ''.''--:•'•=''-';':''':''''''''''- 1,411"IMSIV -'-. ,...a , __ _ .... .........-......-.-.......-- -.• '.,- . - • '''...;''•• ''.,''' _-.:::--1.-' 7..i602111MBIll*..k CfatkAtt.40.-..: . „.....'•'''Cl. ;.:44.4-.r- . - ..- _ .......::......i....,:...„....:„. ,...,,,......_... .. ,.. . .. • -'16-:' SttlifttiVW . M00tii 7,.: ,Olv,•,i ,•,,l'im, • • ••• - t'• • OW.1910.0ftc,AFA14" 4 'alW t,0.04Z WATER Accessory'setback:11010101ii..... .. ... 111Y... :IOC'. 20ft-- H Accessory setback,114101011HOftliktikkallif Pella*40ft „ . Otillkittional cmqr000000,0014" - - ,W, 'fttillAftliftity,345 ft, VA44,4)1000f142 Tracie WindsVallove. Rageof-? IC) SS/r 4111G11, ALUM.FENCE ._- Al-48 .p-'10' Auto mish5 f ___,_ WALL 6A4, - ,1 1.44" .anse- Apv............•MPOIONIONMINKOw 750001R) 75.0/ 1M} :1*- tt ET PIL.14014 ' 4--. 94.101)-Of Mg. ffAIVALL. SAW EMI,: +03.3t According to the survey, the applicant built the stairs 3.45 feet into the erroneously provided in-foot setback,Per LDC 4.02.01.D.7 stairways shall not protrude over 3 feet into a required front, side, or rear yard of a single-family dwelling;the stairs Were approved.attke 3.45-foot encroachment,Pleastanote that the building permits,for both the home(PIED201506172.53)and the pool,were permitted with inclusion of thestairs—as depicted on the survey. Overall,the applicant requests to reduce the setback from 20 feat 10 645 feet, This Petition was originally scheduled to be heard by the Collier County Hearing Examiner on October 27, 2016.. Because of increased public concern,in accordance with Section 2-87 of the Code of Laws and Ordinances,this matter is being heard by the CCPC for a recommendation to the Board. SURROUNDING LAND USE&ZONING: SUBJECT PARCEL: Lot with a home under construction,zoned RSP-3 North: Trade Winds Avenue ROW,across Which is a single-family home,zoned RSF-3 East: Singlerfandly home,zoned RSF-3 South: Canal off Vanderbilt Lagoon,across which is a single-family home,zoned RSF=3 Wyatt Single-familyhome,zoned RSF-3 i.. r...... - VA-PL20160001181,342 Trade Winds Variance Page 4 of 7 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN(GMP)CONSISTENCY: The subject property is located in the Urban Residential Subdistrict of the Urban Mixed Use District land use classification on the County's Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The purpose of this subdistrict is to provide for higher densities in an area with fewer natural resource constraints and where existing and planned facilities are concentrated.The GMP does not address individual variance requests;the Plan deals with the larger issue of the actual use. ANALYSIS: The decision to grant a variance is based on the criteria in LDC Section 9.04.03. Staff has analyzed this petition relative to these provisions and offers the following responses: a. Are there special conditions and circumstances existing,which are peculiar to the location,size and characteristics of the land,structure,or building involved? Yes. Fer the applicant, the pool shell, retaining wall, and stairs are constructed. The applicant commenced construction under building permit, PRBD2015092870601, with an incorrectly permitted rear accessory pool setback of 10 feet versus the required 20 feet. The applicant used the incorrectly cited rear accessory 10-foot pool setback for the swimming pool,spa,and pool deck. The stairs offthe pool deck do encroach 3.45 feet into the erroneously provided 10-foot setback;however, they were also permitted with the swimming pool,spa,and pool deck. b. Are there special conditions and circumstances, which do not result from the action of the applicant such as pre-existing conditions relative to the property,which are the subject of the Variance request? Yes. The applicant applied and received a pool permit from the County citing an incorrect rear accessory pool setback. The applicant utilized the erroneously approved setbacks unaware of any violations.Due to this error,the subject structure is currently encroaching 6.55 feet;more specifically, the pool, spa, and pool deck encroach 9.85 feet,resulting in a 10.15 rear yard setback,and the stairs encroach 13.45 feet,resulting in a 6.55-foot setback. c. Will a literal interpretation of the provisions of this zoning code work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant or create practical difficulties for the applicant? Yes. Per the applicant,the pool is already constructed and to abide by the required accessory 20-foot setback would require the applicant to remove the existing pool, redesign, and replace it at an estimated expense of$50,000. The applicant relied on the erroneously issued pool permit with a 10- foot rear accessory setback in constructing the existing pool structure and stairs. d. Will the Variance,if granted,be the minimum Variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure and which promote standards of health, safety, and welfare? No. A reasonable use of the land does not necessarily include a pool; however, the applicant relied upon the County-issued permit.Reconstruction of the pool to correct setbacks would create a severe economic hardship. e. Will granting the Variance confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by these zoning regulations to other lands,buildings,or structures in the same zoning district? VA-PL20160001181,342 Trade Winds Variance Page5of7 E ' Yes.The applicant will be able to retain a decreased accessory rear yard setback for a pool deck that exceeds 4 feet in height above the seawall. However,it should be noted that the applicant relied on the County-issued permit which cited, incorrectly,the accessory rear swimming pool and/or screen enclosure setback. f. Will granting the Variance be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Land Development Code,and not be injurious to the neighborhood,or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare? Staff has received objections to the requested Variance(attached)which state that the reduced rear setback would impact neighboring views, and set a precedent for future variances, among other objections. However, because a reduction in pool deck height of 2.59 feet would permit the pool to legally comply with the 10-foot setback,and signatures of no objection from property owners within the most impacted area were received,and because the setback was the result of a County error,staff is of the opinion that the variance will be in harmony with the neighborhood to the greatest extent possible. g. Are there natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals and objectives of the regulation such as natural preserves,lakes,golf courses,etc.? Yes. The applicant states that variations in seawall height in this location do not create a uniform height for all houses and therefore create different pool deck height requirements over 4 feet of the seawall. h. Will granting the Variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan? Approval of this Variance will not affect or change the requirements of the Growth Management Plan. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report on December 30,2016. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission recommend approval of Petition VA-PL- 20160001181,342 Trade Winds Avenue Variance,to the Board,with the following condition: • Upon demolition or destruction of 50 percent or more of the structure's assessed value, this Variance will be void and any new structure shall meet setback requirements at the time of issuance of a building permit. VA-PL20160001181,342 Trade Winds Variance Page 6-of 7 , PREPARED AY; . .- . FRED 411/ - CHL,AICP,PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE:. ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: di . AC. . - ,. . RAYMO -.41,,V.BELLOWS,ZONING MANAGER DATE ZONING' i',' '.SION -a-1 7 MIKE BOSI,AICP,DIRECTOR DATE ZONING DIVISION APPROVED BY: -- 461.---(1 / .JAMES FRENCHI.DEPUTY DEPARTMENT IfEAD - di—/.2 , PATs. GROWTH MAN AGI DEPARTMENT 40 —dlitie DAVID S.WILKISON,-,DEPARiMBNTittkb DATE_ , OkOWITIMANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT Tentatively scheduled for tile FebrgtlY 14401 BOC:MeOting. k..' i vA-Puotoneviat a4gTmtle Wit*WOO I I • RESOLUTION 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, FOR A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 4.02.03.A, TABLE 4 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM REAR YARD ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SETBACK LINE FROM 20 FEET TO 6.55 FEET FOR A SWIMMING POOL, SPA, POOL DECK AND STAIRS ON A WATERFRONT LOT WITHIN THE :RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY (RSA`-3) ZONING DISTRICT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 342 TRADE WINDS AVENUE, HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. IVA- PL201.600011811 WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida:in Chapter 125,.Florida Statutes,has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as-are necessary for the protea of the public and WHEREAS,the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Develop? Code(LDC) (Ordinance No. 2004-41,as amended)which establishes regulations for the zoning;of pcular; geographic divisions of the County,among which is the ming of variances;and WHEREAS,the Collier Com Board of Zoning Appeals has held a public hearing after notice es in said regulations made and provided,and has considered the advisability of a variance from Section 4.02.03.A, Table 4 of the Land Development Code to reduce the minimum rear yard aceessory structure setback line from 20 feet to 6.55 feet for a swimming pool, spa, pool deck .and stairs on a: waterfront lot, as shown on the attached Exhibit "A", in the Residential Single-Family (RSF-3) Zoning District for the property hereinafter described, and has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Section 9,000 of the Zoning Regulations said Land Development Code for the unincorporated area of Collier County;and a WHEREAS,all interestedpyres have been given opportunity to be fwd by this Board in public meeting assembled,and the Board having considered all matters presented. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA that; Petition Number VA-PL2O160001181, filed by Jason Jenks of Jenks Builders, Inc. on behalf of Roxanne ,.r one-Jeske and"Nancy D. 'Covet,with respect to the property hereinafter describetas: (16-CPs-0157.E/13t71617/!J40 Rev.1110/7" Petition no. PA P.1 0140001181 1341 Tradewinds Ave. 1; S ,• , Lot 11, Block M, CONNERS VANDERBILT BEACH ESTATES, Unit 2, according to the plat thereof recorded in Platteok 3, Page 17,Public Records of Collier County,Florida. Polio No.2758520000/ be and the sante hereby is approved for a variance from Section 4.02.01A,Table 4 of the Land Development Code to reduce the minimum rear yard accessory structure setback line from 20 feet to 6.5$ feet for a swimming poet spa, pool deck and stairs oh•a waterfront lot,as sheM1-00. the attached Exhibit'A",in the zoning district wherein said popertr is looated,, BE IT RATHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this Board. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote this day of 2017• ATTEST: BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DWIGHT E,BROCK.CLERK COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA. By: Deputy Clerk PennY Taylor Chatrullm Approvedattof emend legality: $0011 atone Assistant County Attorney Attachment: Exhibit A--Conceptual Site Plan 141)8-01573/431001111140 Rev.1111;07 Peritioti'm PA-PU(0001181 1342 Two**A*. 2 41141 Exhibit A 1 BOUNDARY SURVEY OF \ LOT 11,BLOCK V,UNIT No.2,CONNER'S VANDERBILT BEACH ESTATES,AS RECORDED IN PLAT 800K 3,PAGE 17.OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA. SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS,RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATIONS OF RECORD. 1 1 TBM121 s'(a) 1215.12 (M) Fp.rS N Ik Cfsc'1'51X3667" c 0,o,m,NAVD ELAV.4-02.89 O RI YD..IA,c cN 7- PIAAT.to raom (TRADE WINDS AVE. ,.•- 760'(X) 760,07'(0) t ly ----vtb ---w*- q--- w. op. of PM NAIL IN PINs./. t ( 1 i GU6NQE,0.06'W FA NAIL WAFT .1 EV6E OF 14VM IN rVMY.an. �• o Nobsp 0 0 s M M C 1 12"R.L.T. -_.....a ipI1 ID 'O 1 368'04'10"W 75.00•(R) 75A• I1'(C) P124�}5ss"ZSM.... {I DWMZa a' FIRY54.92'8.,0.29'E. ' ._ 0.0.F'H.,0,a1'W. I 4"PVt S(U•B•8BY CC IOn IC ro 1n NJ a 2 " X65' '� 4 OIY 24.0' m m 14,0' 7.65' p ,1`IS' 8.1)6 1n65'7 ci uN0 V to -N 41 in 9.o' .c g p42 TRADE WIMPS AVE. S BLOCK M C.B.S. HOUSE (under const:.) w FIN. FLOOR F_UEV. +10.4 f. a eO u, 2Q6' tra NOTE: sIL PER CONTRACTOR,POOL/PATIO 2'05.1 C. CK 15.0' 8 STENIWALL. IS ATk ELEV 105.9 4.75'6' x A. -.,` ''� 415'Bi G K 12 1•......)--,_,-"' 1 0 SET oRILLUoLE k • IN tOP Or CAN 6OAWALL- 59,7' 4'UN&A NAVE ECFV+00.3) z,5. £E$.N T4II4ING WALL . ALUM.FENCE 1 o.O.f,fYAI i 1 ki CuLt!Anfl t{, T LW YAK CONC.SEAWALL co T rr S L`.-l.ls' :69'04'10"W 75.n0'O 75.a11rM) a� • o o PET PRILLROLE �� 1NTOP OF LONL.SEAWALL to ELSE +03.32 W A I F R W A V • SCALE;1"=20' 5.5.45 0015 025 0010.52 VACANT/NAVD etov$,,,v.0.*.'"":nfwmpn w001 °'vm BEARINGS Bn5E8 ON:F 1RA0F WINDS AUE AS 968'04 10'W,PER RUMP PLI DATE ORDER FIELD BOOK REVISIONS :NT ELEVAl D I ISA5ED ONI NAVD 190>!(nR16.0N it OfJR COL 29 IOM 65M} aw. •I LOCATED IN FLOOD ZONE:AE(la'} 5.19.16 0616015 'COM.52 FOUNOATIOM/EL6/GUT sow.. s1aNM, PER F,LR.M, DATED:5.15 2012 120210 0488 0 1216009 CO10.52 9TEMWAU- e1.EV NNTER,Ck�.-• „ CERTIFICATE ^�'ItR. •'r ti-1, I hone* e.nly Ud Ur oboe, SWM e,n,eq `,?i(2.., ,a CT.11�a.dsM) tip..Mt.a t Tr mad,br m,N a•V my V" "y tinct ng of be and mMby Om p.rlainnBeettAl ONLY ►i Nn1an WA R. ,.,y,lu� � sun.ra,In cASJ-t7.6yp 17.0{T tL 0 . Aamldabagw OeMda b R4tl 726 a II nt EMBOSSED � .�.� � Pte. M�7 OMNI SURVEYS, INC. 'IA'IA�oO " '"d'.,'w"..yao�..a.�e ` , us,r�,�d SPx wM .• atit earalleol4n W ML.Ye.FV a/neem o •lIntnnw,. A,., SIO LB 6$84 i.4 a• TEL, 239}459-3886 1::-.,y.1J'i� FAX 39 959-7181 �ti .'' .P•POM481 fie,4' ( Z ito,I'9 O. 4888 TILTON COURT FORT MYERS, 33907 ag. Mort&R4gl.tedbn No.4020 1 E tb (Z1/01014, COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliereov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 PROJECT NUMBER To be completed by staff PROJECT NAME DATE PROCESSED Name of Applicant(s): : �_ �_ 6, . ��: , II • a R�. 'a o a rvtvorsh p Address: 531'Turtle Hatch Lane City: Naples aate; I a _.„2IP 34.403 Telephone: NIA Cell:239.450-1930(N.Koeper)Fax: NIA E-Mail Address: nycyir11459t aol.com Name of Agent: ht ' ''. I' agko Firm: Marc L.Shapiro.P.A. Address: 720 Goodlette Road North,_Suite 304CIty: Naples State: Florida ZIP: 34102 _ Telephone:239-649-8050 Cell: Fax:fy/A E-Mail Address: nyones@attorrmevshaairQ.rom BE AWARE THAT COLLIER COUNTY HAS LOBBYIST REGULATIONS. GUIDE YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY AND ENSURE THAT YOU ARE IN COMPUANCE WITH THESE REGULATIONS._ 6/4/2014 Page 1 of 6 I „ COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.conleritov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 • .t a.detallediegal-description-of thnpropertycoveredby the applicatialfi"(ifip-kelf--- inadequate,attach on separate page) Property LD.Number:_975R52nnnn7 Sectionfrovvnship/Range: 2 / 4A j_25._ StitathVidtOU gngtgliudgeMogit0401‘,...._,Unit:2jLot: Ai Mode AL_ 4144,1 aBounds Ossaifititt: = Total Acreage: biter:fat Megeof recor-ded 3 -0E1047,Public Records of I -411 r.'41 • n of Subeat-Propertyl %. 11_2, 7%. {" Lend the ; 0-- ReAdangat -t. Minimum Yard Requirements for Subject Property: Front: 30' Corner Lot: Yes 0 No Ed Side: 7.5' Waterfront Lot: Yes gi No Li Rear: 25' Chapter 8 of the Administrative faidn,jratiniras that IfilialqiiMnint must Nanny,tbilfa falba = - • hearing advertising sign(s)after final action is taken by the Board of County earrusfesfser„ Rased on the Board's final action on this item, please remove all public hearing advertising _ imrriediateig. 6/4/2014 Page 2 of 6 f> , r ' k COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colllergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 Complateibe fol lowing for-all-registerec-Association(s)-that-could-be*affected-bV this-petittdr--- Provide additional sheets if necessary. Information can be found on the Board of County Commissioner's website at htto://www.collieraov.nettindex.aspx?Pager-7,74. Name of Homeowner Association: . Mailing Address:, , r City; State: ZIP , Name of Homeowner Association: - Mailing Address: City: State: ZIP: I Name of Homeowner Assodation t.., Mailing Address: _ .. City: State: ZIP: , r name of Homeowner Association: Mailing Address: ,. . City: State: ZIP: �;; - Name of Homeowner Association: �.,.. Mailing Address: City: State: ZIP: On a separate sheet,attached to the application,please provide the following: 3 1. A detailed explanation of the request including what structures are existing and what is proposed; the amount of encroachment,proposed using numbers,i.e.reduce front setback from 25 ft.to 18 ft.; whenroperty owner p purchased property; when existing principal structure was built (Include 4 building permit number(s)if possible);why encroachment is necessary;how existing encroachment came to be;etc. k, 2. For projects authorized under LDC Section 9.04.02,provide a detailed description of site alterations, including any dredging and filling. 3. Pursuant to LDC section 9.04.10, staff shall be guided in their recommendation to the Hearing I Examiner, and the Hearing Examiner shall be guided in the determination to approve or deny a i variance petition by the criteria(a-h)fisted below.Please address the following criteria: I a) Are there special conditions and circumstances existing which are peculiar to the location, size i and characteristics of the land,structure,or building involved. a 4 6/4/2014 Page 3 of 6 I 3 f Como COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 b) Are there special conditions and circumstances which do not result from the action of the applicant such as pre-existing conditions relative to the property which is the subject of the variance request. c) Will a literal interpretation of the provisions of this zoning code work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant or create practical difficulties on the applicant. d) Will the variance, If granted, be the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land,building or structure and which promote standards of health,safety or welfare. e) Will granting the variance requested confer on the petitioner any special privilege that is denied by these zoning regulations to other lands,buildings,or structures in the same zoning district. 1) Will granting the variance be in harmony with the intent and purpose of this zoning code,and not be injurious to the neighborhood,or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. -g) Are there naturalconditionsor'physkally induced conditions`-that ameliorate the jails and objectives of the regulation such as natural preserves,lakes,golf course,etc. h) Will granting the variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan? 1 4. 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? El Yes liC No If yes,please provide copies, E • 1 3 1 i j 1 1 a \ 6/4/2014 Page 4 of 6 3 ) i i I ) w�wr. •'�� ; ' 0014110 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliereov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 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 subnilttals will not be accepted. - • Completed' .,lication download current form from Coun website Pre-Application Meeting Notes. 1 Project Narrative ad anifinMa Compteted Addressing Checklist 1 Ni Conceptual Site Plan 24"x 36"and one 8 l ".x li"copy uj N P rty g c1ntteasuredin°fe .iYaY-Ff.Rto e ashowio .theeneroa . , -w,.-- � .. m. davit of ori':tion signed and notarized 2 nu. "` Deeds/Legal's 3 MIMEO* Location map • 1 Current aerial photographs(available from Property Appraiser)with project boundary and,if vegetated,FLUCFCS Codes with legend 5 0 0 Included on aerial Historical Survey or waiver request �•' . Environmental Data Requirements or exem. -on'ustiflcatlon _- 3 � Once the first set of review comments are posted,provide the assign a ' 1-1 planner the Property Owner Advisory Letter and Certification 1 Electronic copy of all documents and plans = 4ftglilPsadifite:TheaffiCitOrtheileitelng Examiner requires all 1 be r< " in PDF format. 0 0 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. r 6/4/2014 Page 5of6 . . . 1 4 I .birmaa.. ) , 144110101 I (700SintrO 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 lithe petition needs to be routed to the following reviewers: r-i Bayshore/GatewayMangle Redevelopment: ri EnvironMental Review:See Pre-Application__ ____. • — "------L---ExecutiveDirector----- - -- "-' - -- ''''-"I Meeting SignInSheet 11 AddressilligAnnISMOxem _. Graphics:Mariam Ocheltree El CRY of Naplecito*R1 Singer,Planning DIritotor Historical Review : , ri ComprebensWe Planning:See Pre-Application 0 Immokalee Water/Sewer District: " Meeting Sign-In Sheet , , ' Oaf-VOL Nklittle•ltyian Parks and Recreation:Vicky Ahmad 4.. i a ' . AttOMWSOte:ffeldfAshtonticko — 'L Transportation Pathways:Stacey Revel/ .1 r-i. Emergency Management:Dan Summers;and/or ri School District(Residential Components):Amy " EMS:Artie Ba " Heartlock NIEngineering:Alison Bradford I Transportation Planning:John Podczerwinsky 1 _ - , 0 Other: 0 Utilities Engineering:Kris Vaniengei ; ..........--..----................---_,.......---..........................—______------............------..... t a i. i. t S 0 Pre-Application Meeting:$500.00 . . . i 0 Variance Petition: Li ' ( o Reskiential-$2,00040 o Nall-fteddential-$540,040 o Stk and Subsequent*We*.2096 of orlginal fee 1 : 0 Estimated Legal Advertising Fee for the Once&the lientbqtelltobm$925(00 - ' i ! 0 Aileen*FactiOnIngilend Uselettdonellg tbe nomad petition** , 0 listed Spades Survey lif ES Isnot tuqt6s4:$10300.00 i . . .. 1 •, Al checks payable to:Board of County Commissioners 1 , . . The completed application,all required submittal materials,and the permit fee shall be submitted to: _ Growth Management Division/Planning and Regulation ATTN:Business Center 2800 North Horseshoe Drive i Naples,Fl. 34104 i 1 l Is!:Marc L Shapiro December 16.2016 1 Applicant Signature Date 1 Marv:I Stutpirn ) I Printed Name i i ' ‘•...of ...- 11. ( 6/4/2014 Page 6 of 6 , 1 . '.. I F 1 re . OF ' t I. (BACKGROUND) As part of the construction of a single-family residence,the Applicants'general contractor, Jenks Builders, Inc., submitted plans, including various elevations, for a building permit and approval of a swimming pool and swimming pool deck located behind the subject property.'The plans were approved and a swimming pool permit was issued. After completion of the work and after numerous inspections by County building officials, a neighbor contacted code enforcement and alleged that the height of the swimming pool deck above the adjacent seawall was violative of the LDC. Specifically,the current LDC mandates that a swimming pool deck be no more than 4' above an adjacent seawall. The seawall in question is at 3.31' NAVD. Four feet above this height would 7.31" NAVD. However, in its current it configuration, the swimming pool deck is at 9.67' NAVD and thus, the swimming pool deck is i k Suwe 233' higher than allowed by code. LDC Section 4.02.03 A, Table 4 provides that in instances i ' where the swimming pool deck is more than 4' above an adjacent seawall,the rear setback be a • • } minimum of 20'.Thus,the Applicanta are requesting a variance to decrease the rear setback form 20'to 6.55'. II. (LDC Section 9.04.03,Subsections D,E,F and II Criteria for the Granting of Variances) 9,04.03 D The variance if granted will be the absolute bear minimum required to effectuate the project. The variance will make possible the reasonable use of the land and structures located 'Given the property's side setback dimensions,the swimming pool deck stem wall and swimming pool shell had to be constructed and in place prior to the construction of the house foundation. Page 1 of 2 1 thereon. There will be no violation of standards regarding health, safety or welfare to any neighbors,adjacent properties and/or the public at large. �.• 9.04.03 E There will be no special privilege conferred upon to the Applicant should the variance be granted. An examination of the surrounding properties indicates other properties with similar 65! M'.t$ SIP 15.1' _.�.a..-:..:: —.... Additionally,the only alternative available to the Applicants is to remove and reconstruct the swimming pool deck and swimming pool stem wall. Given the interplay of the swimming pool stem wall,swimming pool deck and the foundation of the residence,this would be a very delicate project and would cost a minimum of$50,000.00. Such a situation would have a significant hardship on the Applicants and would constitute economic waste. Importantly, the situation the Applicants find themselves in is not of their making but rather,is the result of an innocent mistake made by county building officials.The swimming pool and swimming pool deck were repeatedly and properly permitted and approved as were all pilings Loi and piling caps on which the swimming pool deck is built. 9.04.03 F If granted the variance will be in harmony with the intent and purpose of the LDC.No. _ _ neighbors and/or their property will be injured. Although there has been a complaint by property owners across the canal and several house to the West,no harm will befall them. Their line-of- site ine-ofsite is already obstructed by serval very large pool cages and any objections to the granting of the instant variance is simply not accurate and is disingenuous. Attached hereto is a letter duly signed by seven separate neighbors(on both sides of the canal)noting their respective non-objection to the Applicants' variance petition. 9.04.03 H The granting of the variance will not be inconsistent with the County's Growth Management Plan. i Page 2 of 2 The Law Offices of MARC L.SxAPo NATALIE STALOSCHAK MaflLShit'O,PA.Shapiro" SEAN WHALEY ,. 720 4000LETIE FRANK ROAD NORTH,Sun's 304•NAPLES,FLORIDA 34102 NAPLES:(239)649-8050•Fora Wilts:(239)418-0010 FAX:(239)649-8057 W W W.ATIORNEYSHAPIRo.COM i December 16,2016 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO fredreischl@colliergov.net ---- ,_.,,---Mr---FredR.eitetil,AICP Principal Planner Collier County Growth Management Department 2885 Horseshoe Drive South _ Naples,Florida 34014 Re: Variance Application PL20160001181 Connor's Vanderbilt Beach Estates Unit 2,Block M,Lot 11 342 Trade Winds Avenue Dear Mr. Reischl: The following information and/or comments arerovided in response sponse relative to Ms. Rachel Beasley's August 8, 2016 Insufficiency Letter(hereinafter referred to as the "Letter"). Pursuant to the directive set forth at the end of the Letter,the information herein is responsive to . the various Staff comments,The various responses and are set forth in the same order as denoted in the Letter.For your easeof use and reference,I have excerpted each departmental comment as set forth in the Letter. REJECTED REVIEW:GRAPHICS- GIS REVIEW REVIEWED BY: JESSICA HUCKEBA 1 CORRECTION COMMENT I: Incorrect parcel number,should be 27585200007. The initial V Application(hereinafter referred to as the "Initial Petition") cone;4 fication Number in the Property Information section.This has bel ;c acl in the nisi Antebded Variance Petitionlication AI�p (hereinafter referred to as the "Amended Petition")which has been provided herewith. CORRECTION COMMENT 2: This should be RSF-3 for N,S,E and W. The Initial Petition juxtaposed the Zoning and Land Use designations as set forth in the k . .. . . Page 1 of 1 ..- ,.. , --A.- . ... , LI . .. ,. . . . . . ---'l .r•-j.„ • , . . . , . ,. - i . . . .? ., 1 . 1 . I . . . ',:'• ' . . , .. ,.. f t . A . . : . 1 : . . . i . #: . , i . , . 1 . ' I • , . I i ..t , I i . C •, .! , A ' I .1 ) ,, 1 il .. , . 1 I . 1 , . http://maps.00llierappraiser,.,m/webittapitst#4.42/COffiet.2016_fide0312444406320.jpg 6/15/2016 . .. l' i S S 1 Mr.Fred Reischl,AICP December 16,2016 Page 2 of 5 Adjacent Zoning and Land Use section. The juxtaposition has been corrected in the Amended Petition which has been provided herewith. C, URRECTIQN CQ NLENT 3, ---This-is-thc STRAP number,should be metes and bounds description. The STRAP number has been deleted and the full legal description of the property is set forth in Property Information section of the Amended Petition. cowcnoN Map should be legible;also is too far East.Parcel boundary should be outlined. A revised site map taken from the Collier County Property Appraiser's website is provided herewith.The revised map sets forth the parcel boundaries. to f" .>.. Amid behf. The Amended Petition has been corrected to provide the correct Block designation REJECTED REVIEW: ZONING REVIEW REVIEWED BY: RACHEL BEASLEY CORRECTION COMMENT 1 Correct minimum yard setbacks for subject property:non-waterfront side yard setback is 7.S feet and rear is 25 feet.Please note 2 things 1.front yard is correct and 2.the rear is not 20 feet—this is because the 20 applies,in this case,to accessory swimming.pool decks that exceed 4 feet in height above top of seawall. The Amended Petition now sets forth the correct setbacks. CORRECTION COMMENT 2: Please be consistent in measurement,more specifically lOths of a foot. For example,in the Narrative of the Petition,you switch from decimal measurement to feet and inches. All measurements in the Amended Petition and the Narrative has been corrected to reflect measurement in decimals. 3 Mr.Fred Reischl,AICP December 16,2016 Page 3 of 5 CORRECTJON COMMENT 31, As noted in County Attorney notes,please note that this is a variance from the required rear Yard setback of 20 feet for accessory pool decks that exceed 4 feet in height above top of seawall. Thus,keep in the description the narrative describing the height difference between the permissible 4 feet above seawall which makes the setback 20 feet rather than ___ihe..10 feet.. us,you are requesting a rear yard setback from the 20 feet to x-feet. A revised Narrative has been provided herewith to indicate that the variance requested is in fact for a reduction in the rear-yard setback as opposed to a height variance for the pool deck. CORRECTION COMMENT 4 What is the measurement for the pool deck stairs to,the seawall?What is width of the stairs?If the stairs are wider than 3 feet than you must request the rear yard setback from the stairs and not the deck itself. The measurement from the outboard wail of the pool deck stairs to the:seawall is 6.55'The stirs are 3.5'in width and thus it is understood that the requested rearyard setback must necessarily commence at the outboard wall of the pool deck stairs. REJECTED REVIEW: COUNTY ATTORNEY REVIEW REVIEWED BY: SCOTT STONE CO' I ON CO N : The Property Appraiser lists 1, - ; '-; and Nancy D.Koeper, as joint,tenants,"so please update the"Applitant`C laformal "sechon of the The Applicant Contact Section of the Amended Petition now states that the owners are Roxanne B. Stone-Jeske and Nancy D.Koeper,as Joint Tenants with Full Rights of Survivorship. CORRECTION COMMENT 2: Please also provide an Affidavit of Authorization from owner Roxanne B.Stone-Jeske,or other signed written evidence that she agrees/consents to this petition. Affidavits of Authorization from both Ms. Stone-Jeske and Ms. Koeper are provided herewith. CORRECTION COMMENT 3: Your application indicates the minimum side yard setback is 7'.However,according to LDC Section 4.02.01 A Table 2.1,the minimum side yard setback is 10'for waterfront lots in the RSF-3 zoning district.Please have staff correct me if Pm wrong.Otherwise,please revise your application with the correct minimum setback requirement. Staff has indicated that the correct side yard setback is in fact 7.5'. 1/4.01 Mr.Fred Reischl,AICP December 16,2016 Page 5 of 5 Number 5209385 at Official Records Book 5226, Page 989, et seq., of the Public Records of Collier County,Florida. CORRECTIQN COMMENT 9: e•provide a copy of the building permit/permit number for the pool. A true and correct photocopy of the building permit for the pool is provided herewith. } CORRECTION COMMENT 19: Additional comments may follow receipt of next resubmittal. • No additional response by the Applicants is required at this time. REJECTED REVIEW: ADDRESSING-GIS REVIEW REVIEWED BY: ANNIS MOXAM CORRECTION COMMENT I: On Conceptual Site Plan-Thelegal description is incomplete.The Block is M and Subdivision is Conner's Vanderbilt Bch Estates Unit 2. A revised sit plan is provided herewith.The site plan includes a full legal description CORRECTION COMMENT 2: On Application-Property Information-the Parcel ID number is incorrect(it has one } zero too many).Metes and Bounds Description-What's provided,that's the Strap Number. The Amended petition includes the correct Parcel Identification Number and additionally,contains a full legal description of the property. I believe the foregoing adequately answers the various concerns of the Insufficiency Letter. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any other question or concerns you may have. Very truly yours, Matthew L.Jones t kid Miiiiill.111.11.111111.11111.1.11 4 * i ... AFIFDAVIT OF AUTHORIZATION • --PL. c,* 11 .1 FOR PETITION NUMBERS(S) .,,,t„...-...t.- . 11 . , (print name),as 0 vs.)r'N - , (title,if applicable)of (company,if-...* 4,,.ie), swear or affirm under oath,that I am the(dome )owner tliplinoent as,., , . purchas- gland that: 1. I have full authority to secure the approval(s) requested and to impose .,, , ,- and restrictions on the referenced proper* as a result of any action approved by the , . in accordance with this 2. All answers to theqUi4 in this application and any sketches.data or 4 supplementary matter attached hereto and a part of this application are honest and true; 3. I have authorized the riliff of Collier County to enter upon the property d ,. g normal working hours . . for the purpose of iniging and evaluating the request made through 4 - application;and that 4. The property will be transferred, conveyed, sold or subdivided 4 , to the conditions and restrictions ,..,,. 4 bl\ ,, 5. Well authorize ' 1....- - , . , .. — 4 , as our/my representative in any matters 4 this petittoq inckidinif ' . , 4 g above. t. 1.t......r..pe. ir1 *Notes: (..T' ' ' -,,, L .. ...30.-Ark • if the applicant is a corporation, It is usually executed by the corp.ores.or v.p • if the applicant is a Limited jJotØ. .Compafiy(L.L.C.) or Limited Company (L.C.), . the documents should typically be signed by the Comp4flft"Managing Member.° • If the applicant Is a partnership,Ow typically a partner can sign on behalf of the ' , - . • , • If the applicant is a limited 0, then the general partner must sign and ,; identified as the 'general partner"of the named pam.i $ - . • If the applicant is a trust then thrirreust Include the trustee's name and the words ;, trustee°. • In each instance, first defenninil the applicant's status, e.g, individual, corporate, . ,., partnership, and then '1/4,......-- use the appropriate format for Hat ownership- , Under penalties of perjury, Iifire that I have read the foregoing Affidavit of ,, ,, • ,s On and that dal --- --thelacts-stateclirvILare_true.• - 19 -/ 4 01114t k STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER • ,„ 4 0`.. . to ,4' , , and subscribed before me on .,,,,-.74,„./.. ,7- a211‘41 by .. : 4 ,-- „,, .-..+,141..* _ . (name of person . . . . . , or affirmation), as , ,.. , - who Is personally known .,4 ,, Zi.,. or who has 4' 4 4 4 • giok, , (type of Identification)as 4, . _. 4.n, txt -,,„ ,. - ...-.4 STAMP/SEAL .•,, of 1 otary , •-r ,, r. .... mitottoaintat , offirvati . , I , AFFIDAVIT OF AUTHORIZATION FOR PETITION NUMBERS(S) L.,Zell_ 0..f,.... i I isetatetn I, r"'%crt k‘A•.c-%r` (print name),as tt. P\• r (title,if sPrinitibmof , (company, . ,. ) swear or affirm under oath,that I am the(choose oft) , . mil ,,. •. me.. 1 « 1 . • il . that: s 1. I have full authority t0410ture the approval(s)requested and to Impose and restrictions on the referenced inopelgy as a result of any action approved by the 4.. ‘. In accordance with this ..,...applioatktRAIdittUtrinfrODPRIO.021*._ ,„„..., ,, ..„,,,, 2. AO answers to the(potions in this applicationandiketches;data'or ,,, itlimilemeritariiiiener attached hereto and made a part of this application are honest end true; ' 3. I have authorized the)stat of Collier County to enter upon the property *, . normal working hours for the purpose of bwesikiating and evaluating the request made through application;and that 4. The property will hti transferred, conveyed, sold or subdivided - , ., to the conditions and restrictions , — -=.:lit,I 5. Well :, , ,. .-, ..4,1 I , _ -I , , as our/my representative in any matters ;" :, , • • ., • , , •" 1 i7, , ° , 2 above. , (.32 • ,rn,„, L. .5i....4ro "I'"' L.— ....1...AlrA, v. , - • If the applicant is a corpAtion,, ' t is usually eXOCUOMby the corp.pros.or V.p - - • if the applicant is a Limited 4 Company(L1..C.)or Limited Company(L.C.), , . the documents should typically be signed by the f4,< ; ,,i lailorewho Afessibee • lf the applicant is a partnership, , 1N:tattys partner can sign on behalf°film , - • i s • if the applicant is a limited 000101,1* then the general partner must sign and . identified as the °general partner"of the named parloanW' • if the applicant is a trust,then ftif must include the trustee's name and the words trustee". • in each instance, first rn.b the applicant's status, e.g., individual, corporate, partnership, and then use the appropriate format for tiet ownership. Under penalties of perjury,I*Moo that I have read the foregoing Affidavit of ,° , • • • and that .. the facts f .1111440 - , . . i , STATE OF FLORIDA , t COUNTY OF COLLIER A/a•4.., ZYdie)by to(or affirmed)and subscribed before me « ,/ Ale , ..- .0'.. ...?- - i A , ..1,,.. = = , = = • 41; 'Or Ali "' )6.Oa a who Is • , ‘ his i,,,... 44:,,i /.e „„1_,,,,...A. i 1, . , , . ; •. —ie.,.- . 1 (type ontsitScation)as Identitioidion. -dA- STAMP/SEAL 4111 " I 1 . ‘volii CP\08-00A-001151155 RSV 3,14/14 . irilmili, 1 k 1 , "r"."."1"6"..."1".6".".'".""""...""1"....""""*"samuleillimilli11111.1.1.1111111.11.1111.1.1111111.111111111111111114.11 BOUNDARY SURVEY OF LOT 11,BLOCK'M",UNIT No 2,CONNER'S VANDERBILT BEACH ESTATES,AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3,PAGE 17,OF THE PUBUC RECORDS OF COWER COUNTY,FLORIDA SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS,RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATIONS OF RECORD • , TBM Fp pot s&DiSt•MM OM?" i2i5' (R) 1215.12'(m) I2), 0.11'M.,MVP el.av 1.-02,68 )a , ig (TRADE WINDS AVE. / ' ZritritIrtti. t ,— / Is INet 4. 14. : . ,=,11fite GS':: illeirriSIIIMIlir ‘1111.0irar.=-Ismos - - a Iliez&s==sass&Fogrows=spygoteso,„ 6 i I•-••• , wy I I ! 586'04'141-W 75.00"(R) 75.01`(C) PH 1 11' s t__, ,t, __ AvAti / tome, a 921, 2g,e. ',411 Ai, ins, , FIE 511. ' O. ) li. • oE IJ ::-..-11—Cc : .. . In z tu — , ...., °w 11460 7 I .' ' izi b _ ci ‘ o Lrl - oi • c.4 F' 1 F.) F 1 ..t)42 TRAP, WIN AVE. L, BLOCK GILA 1400SE runti&F eTtist..). 4ikood 1::, *_, • • , tu , FI4 FLE/ot* ,4 eLEV 't * t•0 0 , PR CONTRACTOR,POOL/PATIO -' ' ^ __..._ ,..--- ZTEFAWALL IS AT = ... ELEv 4-013 ——. 12 10 SET prtiLLAste ' NMM(.0 4t/w4i.i. , ....Pr 4'&61 . • NASD EMU+0331 ... 558'04'10'W ISBOI1P F' AO 'it ..., SET Pg I L.LAD LE • —..., *Ilk — ifi Top-OF tritir 5EAMILL o 40' KAVD ELM( t032 W A T E R W A ? ,.. ,. SCALE:1'w 29' inagrarnikageraiiiezi-r , . 01,,. ,,::: ..,.; com.1,,,,,. czci.rgiNr orofortai sato OKI TRAM IV/FIPSWE As466'04'ill3V,PER IttlaRDA ....,:_as. SsS Colis.oN FL pm*.cal ts test --**•*"..! ,* /, 14 FLOOD zwe Aa(IA) / , •A- ...?:"7 ' ::1r At,' V - : '14.741C-g., w.i.q• 011:e p. ,, • . ......,, ,,.-.1 'MN i i 1 OMNI SURVEYS,INC. : - ::-- ,,,-- -1; seasse it , I k - ' .040.1000. .. .. , , , I ID. two 9.30-3-00 - . ,,_ 4 ' ' , 1 PX ;LI, s*-4/141 4 ••.•.:-A, • , , -... --; , , 1 . Collier County Growth Management I am writing to you about Petition NO. VA-PL20160001181. Codes and easements are in effect for a reason. 30 years ago Homes in Vanderbilt Beach were single story, Back walls of the Houses were 30' away from the Sea wall and at Ground Elevation. The area has progressed from Single story,to 2 stories, now 3 stories ( Max Height allowed)to rear set back to side set back. Home builders are building homes so big they are not allowing but 10'for a pool and deck.This is their choice to do so, now I see decks and pools trying to exceed the current set back. In this instance the pool and deck have already been constructed. I can understand if the deck exceded the set back by a little due to a miscalculation by the survey. But this is a gross error and not a minor setback violation 13.5'. But let's not overlook the height violation also.According to code the deck and pool cannot be over 4' above the seawall. This wall is 2'over the code, and with the water bowl pedestals over 3' above the code. I do not expect the home owner to know these codes and had trust in their Architect and General contractor's. There were at least 2 permits pulled to address this code. A permit was needed to build this house. The architect and General Contractor of record should have had the elevations on the signed and sealed plans submitted to the county.The architect and General contractor has the responsibility to know the building codes. A site plan, signed and sealed had to be submitted to the county with setbacks and elevations to the county. Whom ever did these plans has the responsibility to know the codes. A permit was needed to build the pool.The pool contractor had to submit signed and sealed plans to the county with elevations and setback dimensions.The pool contractor has the responsibility to know the building codes. I see many new homes going up in our area with every new home pushing the envelope to the max. feel we cannot allow these violations to be approved. If so everyone will be attempting to seek a variance to do the same. Steve Emens Homeowner 331 Lagoon Ave Naples Florida 34108 ReischlFred From: BeasleyRachel Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 10:42 AM To: ReischlFred Cc: BellowsRay Subject: FW: 342 Tradewinds Variance FYI Original Message From:George Marks [mailto:GMarks@kramermarks.com] Sent:Wednesday,October 19,2016 7:11 PM To:BeasleyRachel Cc:Steve Emens Subject: Re:342 Tradewinds Variance Rachel, Thank you for sending all of this information. I have spoken to a land use attorney concerning the "Precendent setting" issue of mine. As I feared, Florida law has allowed "precedence"as a basis of future variances. I will review the plans with you tomorrow at 3:30 in person just as a double check, but based on what I heard from the attorney we have no choice but to oppose the variance on the basis that one can not create their own hardship(by installing the pool improperly)as a basis of a variance.Additionally,since such a variance would be a basis for future variances,it regrettably does not give us an option if we wish to prevent future similar variances. See you tomorrow. Thank you, George E.Marks,AIA Kramer+Marks Architects 27 S. Main Street Ambler, PA 19002 215-654-7722 off 215-870/5543 cell >On Oct 19,2016,at 2:00 PM, BeasleyRachel<RachelBeasley@colliergov.net>wrote: >Good afternoon George, > Per our conversation, I attach the Staff Report and the site plan. > Best, > 3 > Rachel Beasley > l > >Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead,contact this office by telephone or in writing. 1 ><STAFF REPORT 342 Tradewinds Ave.docx><Site Plan 342 TRADEWINDS >AVE SITE_8-22-16.pdf> • • • • 3q� ppd F 3� 2 3. 3, Arartur"Buzz' Victor 312 Lagoon Avenue III. Naples,IQ 34108 . ht=„victoregntalcont October 23,2016 Ms.Rachel Beasley,Planner Zoning Division Collier County,Growth Management 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34108 RE: Zoning Petition No.VA-P120100011A 342 TradowindsAve. Dear Ms.Beasley lam httectipt of blformatiott Sent tO Me 44 a Rear:hy prOpetly owner regarding the:above refetettced zoning matter UribrtiMetaYilam tirWhidto pers014yittti444 the hearing,axil Therefore mots** illY-OPPO*4iO4tO thaVarianta Via OliS loiter It has been eleven years since I built/1101mm on Lagoon Avenue,but tremember the process very we.11, There wereanymuriber of design,features that I would have liked to construct,but I flaund myself constrained by the applicable codes and their restrictions. Those limitations were iniposed for thegood of thecommunity as a-whole, While,,intheposeritinstanee;it is a3shame thatvonstxuctiOnhas proceeded to apoint whereitts costly.to reretVe it arta iNtihe itlfractionS*44`e MiS4001.1*theCfMkollinz antWity; Tbi,s,however,is no reason io 441PlY waive requitehtent$with Which the halariee*the ileiffhbOthoOd has had to comply, I ho1,4*0 the BoArd he:lotus he case**111:tequixe complia0getiAlhe tYlik. That is!theciosib4, 'Sit1r-er036 B V ...„,uzz-,,...r , , limi t . . , Letter of Petitlon In FAVOR of 342 Tradewinds Variance October 2016 Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners We, the undersigned neighbors of$42 Tradewlnds within the Impacted area" respectfully submit that we have NO Issue with the pool variance being requested by-342-.114Wilitit The new home under COnstructiOn Will raise the home values:II . our area,Which is what any homeowner would welcome, and we 041 not contest the variance being requested. We are NOT an agreement with Mr. Marks and Mr.Evens in their position regarding the view or the style of the home end therefore submit that you approve the requestedvariance from 342 TradeWindstY MS Jeske and Ms KOOPet Respectfully. . Signaturel Address if v . 'elifik -- 4 1111 1 ' P9 ,,, 1 - •eleldi 3,4$716cI 1 al - '1 . . ., . . - .. Of ,' ao-s- A/94e-roft.11--V4C „ , he' 6.r , - 1 & Qs) y3yA a y• .i - - — but itke.„ rattlyt,/ 4 . , , 54,t 77,9kt„ , 3 m Arc _ -r d4 .. -6,7 ,kittat- ci , . ( -- . - , mar ' 4-4,-.70:1,--,--,------ -,--. -.--_,- -- , ,,,:. . . ..-„,„,„,. ,, ,,, , _ ,, , _ , , Cristina R. Marks George E. Marks 319 Lagoon Ave. Naples, FL 34108 October 20, 2016 Ms.Rachel Beasley, Planner Zoning Division Collier County,Growth Management Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34108 RE:Zoning Petition No VA-PL20160001181,342 Tradewinds Ave. Ms. Beasley, Thank you for taking the time on Thursday,October 20th to meet with me and review the Variance application for the petition noted above. After some thought and evaluation and conversations with other affected neighbors,we have no choice but to OPPOSE the request for variance for the sole purpose of defending the integrity of the existing"View corridor"which would be negatively impacted by the approval/granting of this variance by Collier County. We oppose this variance as it will impinge on the view corridor that currently exists and will encourage future violations by potentially creating an actual hardship for adjacent property owners. The violation of the required setbacks by 13.45 feet horizontally and 2.36 feet vertically is a GROSS violation of the zoning ordinance. The applicant has NO BASIS FOR A HARDSHIP and this violation does not qualify as a diminimus violation by definition of law. The required setbacks in the RSF-3 zoning district as per Collier County Land Development Code{LDC), Section 4.02.03.A Table 4 states that the minimum setback for an accessory use(swimming pool in this case)when the elevation of the pool deck exceeds 4'-0"above the seawall shall be 20'-0". The current placement of this pool encroaches on this allowable setback by 13.45 feet which places the pool deck within 6.55 feet from the seawall when 20'-0"is required. I have reviewed with you the Staff report and analysis in great detail and disagree with your assessment as noted below: a. Are there special conditions and circumstances existing,which are peculiar to the location, size and characteristics of the land,structure or building involved? The evaluation of any zoning or building application is predicated on the review of the site PRIOR to the construction of any permitted construction. No certificate of occupancy has been granted for this property,therefore the evaluation of this request for variance should be as if the building did not exist. Collier county failed to uphold the zoning code in their approval of the building permit and plans, however,every building application contains verbiage that puts the responsibility to comply with all building and zoning codes on the architects,engineers,contractors and property owners. A county created situation is not a basis for a variance. Mistakes happen all the time and the county should be upholding their responsibility to enforce the correction of the violation. It is clear that NO SPECIAL CONDITIONS exist as a basis for this variance. g. Are there natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals and objectives of the regulation such as natural preserves,lakes,golf courses,etc.? There are NO natural or man-made conditions negatively affecting this applicant. The staff's consideration of the applicant's argument that the variance in seawall heights is a legitimate consideration is seriously flawed. The applicant's seawall height is the highest level allowed by FEMA and is a standard set by Collier county. The variance in seawall heights is not a consideration in this instance as the applicant is already relying on the highest wall allowable and is still in violation of the Zoning ordinance. The current condition already exceeds the maximum allowable seawall height by 2.36 feet and would only be worse if a lower seawall existed,which is not the case in this instance. h. Will granting of this Variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan? The staff's contention that the granting of this variance will not violate the Growth Management plan which is based on the zoning ordinance as a basis of the plan is negligent in the staff's assessment. Granting of this variance will be a GROSS violation of the zoning ordinance which is a key basis of the growth management plan. In summary,the granting of this variance should be denied on the following basis: 1. No legal hardship exists for this applicant to rely on as a basis of this variance and the variance must be denied on this legal basis. If the county makes the argument that they created a hardship for the applicant,which would be legally flawed,the county would be self-serving in thereby granting a variance to correct their error. 2. The pool design could have been constructed AND CAN STILL BE CONSTRUCTED in the current location with the exact same dimensions within the zoning ordinance by building the pool 2.36 feet lower and a variance would not be required. It would be negligent for the county to grant this variance when a viable solution was and is available to the applicant and the county without creating a hardship. 3. There were no existing special conditions or circumstances that would contribute to a hardship and thereby the variance should be denied. 4. The fact that the applicant states that it will cost$50,000 is not material to the consideration of this variance by law and the granting of this variance would confer permanent damage to the visual corridor of the neighborhood that the zoning ordinance exists to protect. 5. The granting of this variance will confer special privilege on this applicant not available to other property owners and would create/necessitate future hardships for adjacent property owners. A variance is not intended to provide special privilege on any property owner in violation of the zoning ordinance. ftet$C-hiFted FromVincent Fantegressi'<vfaritegrossi@aol.00rri>. Sent Monday,October 24,201611:40m trg 'George.Marks',Vancleftlitbeach54eyahoo4orm ReischlFred,BeilowsRay Cc: `Steve Bmens',tBuzzAnctori; 'Fentegroesi';gbnaddon@rochester.0.00trt;:gry3761 aol.com;jpwoodineaokoorrt Subject: RE: 342 Tradewinds Zoning Variance opposition assistance-Vanderbilt Beach Residenta Assoc Good Morning Mr.Reischl and Mr.Bellows, Ian,Writing tO gtho-Mr.Marks'contents about the possibility of 0 Variance being issued in the Traciewinds-Matter. I am most concerned about precedents being set, Theentire Vanderbilt Beach area is in'transition, Itis cigar that older,: housing inventory will be steadily replaced in the corningyears throUgh tear-downsend neWtonstrtiction. We all have abided by our zoning rules and it is important that those rules and regulatiOns',.arenot weakened by allowing :unwarranted variances. My limited experience with the county Inspection and regulation processhasalways been positive and I have been impressed with the attention to detaillhetOUntygivet to all projects.I am tonfident,that when, given full everyone will agrfte that the rules in place were ettabilabed with good reason and should not be taken lightly or disregarded. 1ranki100 for your consideration, Vincent V.Pantegrossi 254 Lagoon Ave. Naples, FL 34108 Mobile:617-6804125 1 f Building Permit Application And Permit COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION Growth Management Division 12800 N.Horseshoe Drive,Naples,Florida 34104 TEL: 239-252-2400 Please fold plans with the plain side out. Ensure documents are stapled inside each set of plans. bQ OJ2Ifiesidenti•o'r 2 Units(Single Family/Duplex) ❑Residential 3 or more Units(Multi-family)❑Commercial Permit No.P 1 4.1-06-0(47/ 7 2--S-3 Master Permit No. VA ontractor DDesign Professional Downer Builder Parcel/Folio: Z-7 7 0 ,> �9 0000/ �y p Job Address: 2 V`]� W(`�✓� O License#State Ce eg.-Prefix: #: 0O I I "f ! 0�j Owner's Phone No.:75q-cq(p -l a rj,� �e H Company Name: CO. < 1 o Atka-�'S D of 1 L I(: ,PL �( o � 0 Owner's Name: $To'V --Jc k S 1�C E -rt' o Qualifier/Professi al Name: C_o. 5+01QT I;V G� Lot: (/ Block: Unit: Z.„ z Contact Name: U O Subdivision: IC Et, U• L L=V `0/%iV4i 'V/ I/ lam( g g t 3 .a /J Cl/� I!V if ",` Address: 1 1 CO00 Z et Township: P Range: Section: t� Q H p �a g 7 Ii-I uI U City: �/, 1 L S State: P l Zip: 5 y(I I 7 , p FEMA BFE: Flood Zone: Phone 2 q -7 -77.5 Z- Fax: `L$q'Sq�t'�vJ.S SDP/PL: p E-mail Address: I ( 121�.�l -I( o hot-, (o vu,-- c-) Code Case: COA DAlteration OMechanical DClean Agent System OLP Gas zDConvenience Book nMobile Home (Fire Alarm OPre-Engineered Fire qDemo DNew Construction ( Fire Alarm Monitoring D Suppression S 'DDoor/Window lumbing r, ti (Fire Pumps ❑Standpipes PC i nElectric/Low Voltage Pool w nFire Sprinkler System (Spray Booths O a DElectric from House nRe-roof W W OFossil Fuel Storage System QTents 1101 Fence Screen Enclosure Q. a DHoods 0Underground Fire Lines a.• 0Gas _Shutter H DMarine nSign/Flagpole OTHER (Solar J a D Private Provider n Plumbing z DNon-sprinkled f Sprinided f O �! O D Roofing O ElectricaliT 0.1 U D Septic p Low Voltage a• w. DIA DIB DIIA D)IB 4zr • IA D Shutters O Mechanical grip" F n�A D� DIVA O l ii-,,I/ C D Permit by Affidavit 4 O f VA OVBr U U Occupancy Classification(s): i,�Description of W(ork: / u 1h 0 k I r >= iv,t.;‹ • GuA1 C0 '.e AIL L bt , Vt Aµ �WAy , LLAtiC- © hllt7 C(QAw CtVO �'w� Ao-, CfVAif1::-z (,leA ' ;2. It (11't z ( ` L O ( t . L . & lei t 01,65) COO n� E" V •( IIP l` (� Declared Value$: 9 600 - Project Name: `�L 1 tX I fit/t 'IAA C4 O NEW CONSTRUCTION/ADDITION AREA ALTERATION WORK AREA- SQ.FT. rr. z - If applicable: #Stories/Floors: #Units: #Tons: U RESIDENTIAL: '2i/00 g #Bedrooms: #Baths: Living: Non-living: 00 RESIDENTIAL: Living: Non-living: Total sq.ft: TOTAL SQ.FT.: 44 COMMERCIAL: Interior. Exterior: COMMERCIAL: #Fixtures: Interior: Exterior: Total: TOTAL SQ.FT.: SEWAGE: m D Septic D Ave Maria DCity of Naples D Collier County D Golden Gate City O Immokalee D Orange Tree D Other w E. WATER SUPPLY: P., D Well D Ave Maria DCity ofNaples fl Collier County D Golden Gate City 0 Immokalee D Orange Tree DOther Application/Plans Discrepancies-Customer Acknowledgement of possible rejection for the following missed information: 1.Square footage discrepancies 2.Occupancy Classification/Construction type not provided 3.Required documents not certified 4.Incomplete Plan Sets or Drawings 5.Sets not identical Nov.1,2014—PMR Date: Coii Days Review: ft Set of Plans: _2— QUALIFIERS PAGE QIS \ or* i);AL MV, ACKNGAIEDGEMENT OF COLLIER COUNTY REGULATIONS Application is hereby made to obtain a permit to do the work and installations as indicated. I certify that no work or installation has commenced prior to the issuance of a permit and that all work will be performed to meet the standards of all laws regulating construction in this jurisdiction. The permit or application fee may have additional fees imposed for failing to obtain permits prior to commencement of construction. The approved permit and/or permit application expires if not commenced within 180 days from the date of issuance. The permittee further understands that only licensed contractors may be employed and that the structure will not be used or occupied until a certificate of occupancy is issued. By signing this permit application, I agree that I have been retained by the owner/permittee to provide contracting services for the trade for which I am listed. Furthermore, it is my responsibility to notify the Building Review and Permitting De partment should I no longer be the contractor responsible for providing said contracting services. I further agree that I understand that the review and issuing of this permit does not exempt me from complying with all County Codes and Ordinances. It is further understood that the property owner/permittee is the owner of the permit. Note: If change of contractor, please provide the following: Permit Number: E-mail Address: Tel: COMPANY NAME: C t7- °� � solus 1,V-5'1-ATE LICENSE NO: \L 1 0-9 "ctt QUALIFIER'S NAME(PRINT): lJ o-x- Y C4 : �' \ -00/3 QUALIFIER'S SIGNATURE: . r • ca. - L STATE OF: , L COUNTY OF: 0.49LL/Le, SWORN TO(OR AFFIRMED)AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME THIS o6 l D i 1, i• `'e"'4, �tary P flotilla ` 1 • • , =My Comm.Esplrs Aug 10.2018 ' WHO IS PERSONALLY KNOWN: OR AS PRODUCED ID: Commission I Fr 1I01133 Sonde'!Through Nsi♦oNl Navy MW TYPE OF ID: U. NOTARY PUBLIC SIGNATURE: Gtr, (SEAL) NOTICE IN ADDITION TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS PERMIT, THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS APPLICABLE TO THIS PROPERTY THAT MAY BE FOUND IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF THIS COUNTY, AND THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL PERMITS REQUIRED FROM OTHER GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES SUCH AS WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT,STATE AGENCIES,OR FEDERAL AGENCIES. WARNING OF POSSIBLE DEED RESTRICTIONS THE LAND SUBJECT TO THIS PERMIT MAY BE SUBJECT TO DEED, AND OTHER RESTRICTIONS THAT M AY LIMIT OR IMPAIR THE LANDOW NER'S RIGHTS. COLLIER COUNTY IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THESE RESTRICTIONS, NOR ARE COLLIER COUNTY EMPLOYEES AUTHORIZED TO PROVIDE LEGAL OR BUSINESS ADVICE TO THE PUBLIC RELATIVE TO THESE RESTRICTIONS. THE LANDOWNER OR ANY APPLICANT ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE LANDOWNER IS CAUTIONED TO SEE K PROFESSIONAL ADVICE. WARNING ON WORK IN COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAYS THIS PERMIT DOES NOT AUTHORIZE CONSTRUCTION OR INSTALL ATION OF ANY STRUCTURE OR UTILITY, ABOVE OR BELOW GROUND, WITHIN ANY RIGHT-OF-W AY OR EASEMENT RESERVED FOR ACCESS, DRAINAGE OR UTILITY PURPOSES. THIS RESTRICTION SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITS FENCING, SPRINKLER SYSTEMS, LANDSCAPING OTHER TH AN SOD, SIGNS, WATER, SEWER, CABLE MID DRAINAGE WORK THEREIN. IF SUCH IMPROVEMENTS ARE NECESSARY, A SEPAR ATE PERMIT FOR THAT PURPOSE MUST BE OBTAINED FROM TRANSPORTATION/ROW PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS(239)252-8192 ARNING TO OWNER: YOUR FAILURE TO RECORD A NOTICE OF OMMENCEMENT MAY RESULT IN YOUR PAYING TWICE FOR MPROVEMENTS TO YOUR PROPERTY. IF YOU INTEND TO OBTAIN INANCING, CONSULT WITH YOUR LENDER OR AN ATTORNEY EFORE RECORDING YOUR NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT. Per Florida Statutes 713.135 a Notice of Corn mencem ent(NOC)is required for construction of im provem eats totaling more than$2,500,with certain exceptions. For A/C Repairs or Replacements a notice of commencement is required for improvements more than$7,500. The applicant shall file with the issuing authoritypriorto the first inspection eithera certified copy of the recorded NOC ora notarized statement that the NOC has been filed for recording,along with a copy thereof.In orderto comply with the state requirement,permits will be placed in inspection hold until proof of the NOC is filed with the building permitting and inspection department.The issuing authority shall not perform or approve subsequent inspections until the applicant files by mail,facsimile,hand delivery,email or any other means such certified copy with the issuing authority. L'/ ROUTE SHEET Performance Review Residential Permit Number: PRBD20150617253 Permit Type: Demolition Submittal: 1 1 Initial Submittal 06/02/2015 Submittal In Person Method: 2 Fast Track: Simultaneous: Master Permit#: Sets: Private Provider: Expedited Review: Planning Project: Business Name: Job DEMO WHOLE HOUSE, KNOCK DOWN, BREAK UP, HAUL AWAY, LEAVE ONLY CLEAN Description: GROUND AND GRADED CLEAN FILL DIRT(COMPLETE DEMO) 342 TRADEWINDS AVE LOT 11 Details: Fire District: 11 North Naples Fire Review In Date Group/PMR Status Reviewer Comments: Fee$ Date Final Review 5 Day Review 6/2/2015 6/9/2015 Time FEMA Review 6/2/2015 6/5/2015 Residential Review 6/2/2015 6/5/2015 4 ter q4///S' Other Applicable Reviews: Review In Date Group/PMR Status Reviewer Comments: Fee$ Date � I 000 s c5'` Entered by: stachuracarol Report Updated:12/31/2014 -Ionia I = - r t, I - - - , r:, . 4 . . , , . . r. . . . , , ,...... „.„.., ...._ N �. _ � ilommet 7oirji I ..i- . _ u,_. • Ni linn 00 iy; ^� I U �� I ?' I "fl N p- CD.4 1 A ...,..., • , I o - 1 `\ ' i flwo I i "NI 11 .,.... ... ...w A ., _'. .....wr n 1 I 1 a r E ' Q I •, - � - - f I 1 _.-- \ J y : n J0 5 -• Z x r o _ W LR ' e ( " , 1 ,21 n - ' I I g . : ' c r4 Qa .j O . 1 . O F-, ? o .5 - 0. V iF _ ' t- `4 - _ r o 4 i 16 \ r i r 6 9 b L o' f23 `�• �[. � •� - - - .- - r 1 1 a i (A1 ez .'?� -y = I '- i1` • Z j; 2 C - 7 � bQ ' 6o A � e41 .o _ S Rl, u1N CfSA4y,o 3 c - 0 9� sl - - 0 g .-.Ii•� O 1� i',,i I:- s \= i - •• _ ° "+' .� vim' , Y, . a - c Q n :=r0 tt ,i j, I 1 1' � j z 2 j � a r i a A� o ^-fa R' - bI11 1 �2. 11 A • .F C O t^ !` O Nk�i p �1 .� off. p, II �. •�--- — — - � - -- -o ---�----"�o � f } d 3 -1 1, fi I K:�7 i I r r,_. - - o i ' T LI.:;.1'7)-7 z ` c _ c v 7s ns ,n z o t PI n,v 9J •Slti �"rt++i 1. 7Z � .� 1 �[�� ng � ao � _ , $ 7th-�.� � �I —' --' ( I S o i _ .- t6 ' - o Y T n * n ry i s , 3 3 to a i 1 , 3 I I. _ 11 k• 1 0 9 c n o U? D.i?u OINI r T , • ' ti I �l n - •- 1 t - � aw ��{�; t - - �- - — -- -_•-- .-..L...�._i_,.._i...i_,�1"__-.- ,L,-1 40..... -, "'I i ' t t ', - tt,w'co ...--F I 1 -1'%al\ ' r) - . i % 1 I te.1V\ \I. I At rk I JJ [ C� 04 P. .� , I Ob- it 1` 1 I n '� n s1 e ham' c ail � � �t { �j ._ �v� v IT...„1, r c yy I1 1 4 zi' illN �i 1(,lf,CI (V.3 ,-(I) `,,.:P p$ _ •;, ‘,,,,,: I v k 1 th ,to I 1S` Vl ,v 11\1Vi0 lv p v v �jj o - a' �1 t ` 11111111111111■ ■1111■1111■■ ■1111■ -■■■■11■■ ■■■ ■■1111■■ ■ 1111■ • \I / * 1111■a■■■■■■■ ■11■■ 11 ■ 1011 j= "Mil 1: ■■■m■■■■■■■ 11■ ■11■■ ■■11■■■■■■ 1 C , :' , r ■■■■11■■1111■11m■■11■■■■■■■11■■■■■■11 1111■■■■1110■11■■11■a■■■■■■■11■11■1111■■■■a■ : `11 CM 1111■■■10.11■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■11■■■■■■■■a 2 °°Mii ■■■■11■■.■■a■1111■■a■11■■■■11■■.=■1111■■■■a■11 N ' mina■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■a11■■■■ ■■■ii ■■1111■■■■■■■■■■■11■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■a ■■11■■1111■■■■n■■ ■■■■■■1111■■■■■■■■■■■W a ■■1110■■1110■■1110■■■■■■■11■■■■aa 1111■■■■■ni a 1111■■■■■■11■■■■■11■■■■■1111■■m1111■■11■■■■7 � a ■■■■■■11■■11■■■■a■■■■■_■■■■■■■..■■■1111 > ■■■a111■■■1111■■■1111■■■11■ ■111111■■■■■11IIMIN Q ■■1111■■■1111■11.11■■1111■■■■■ ■■■■■a■■■■� i Nman • �� 1111■■■■■11■■■■■■1011■■■■■■■ ■■1111■■■■■■t 0 * 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1111■■11111111■■�- 1111■a■■111110 1111■■■ 1111■1111 ■■ 11■ n■ ' • ■■11111111■■■ 111111 ■■ ■■■ d • ■ ■■■ 11■ ■■■s■ 11ma 11■■■■■ ■■■ ■ ■■ 11111111 ■ 11.11■■ ■ ■■■10 , 1111111 IENIMMINIMMI 1..111111111111.11111111111111111111111.111111111111.1.11111111111,1111 ■■■11■■1111.11 ■11■11■1111■■■■m■■■11■■■ 11■■■■■1111■■■■■■ ■■■■■■1111■11■1111■.■■11■■■11 ■a■■■■■1111■■■ , -11.11■■1111■.1111.111110■■■■■1111 ■a■■■a■11■■■■ 11.11■■■■■■■■■■1111■■■■■ ■1111■■■■■■■■■ ; ' a■■■11■■■■10■.■■10■I11■■■■10111011■■■10■a■a■ ^ , . ■■■a■■■■11■■■■1111■11■■■1111■1111■■■1111■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■11■■■■11■■■■■1011■■■■1111 ■1111■ ■11■■■■11■■11■1111■■■■11■■■a■■■■■■■■■■aa■ 4 ■■■■■■■■■■a10■■■.10■■■■11■.■■11■■■m■■a11 0 ■■11.11■1111■■a■1111■■n■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ �_ _ ,fit f'4 N Z4 3. t%*"s •• * " 4' k'-. \\ \X A \INA r.,14 -, ) ,40a q 3; iic,IkN, 'Tez\ ; ),-.1 ,L.1 -\4 ' ' '-' ,.t z. .‘rAt , 'F., ,N\ : .z. %. . 2 k\‘ T .v, , k br , ' . 1 1 v. fir, r z -� ` %` ` '• * 4` 5 i ' -14 - :' • ''' /' ' /c:, .. 1,125: ",&• ,i I4 Tr A M „ r' .. i , �` ` 1 o sn t) c ,O, z t T 3 it Lii 1 tv . ‘N , °A-, '6 5 Z4, ',. 43 'i%19 3 . — $� f '•p ''� t -4 y- Ir < O Z m gI -- 1 1 — r - , p z D _ 7 r m r __ G.3m z - _ - - f r VI� – /� r a .._. - - . c po < - Ui___ rt c i j _ 1 NI mb• 1 µ - �'�� I. co - f { IR gs m •.__-_-. 1 , - ! - ' - o It I 1 f — D C 1 ! t 1 W_.� a. f I \\ _ 1 fes7 _1 [ C • Z �c m P-1 S :tt ' v ` ic Da7. 13,CO sr o N � 3 y 3 '1 r g _ SJ N . c A �g N -- a — lm i. • -- N ( r a: �.T - - t I a fCit of { z -YSw3 ;r'pQ ro 'Pi? 2♦ EA"41:*Ei9No pp-[a_rFv>r of 11_p•_�£ -, m' !b 2•<17,12a9,:.-_ n M o iX a,8 Qs•1 = q$p$ 2_ r. g4_23 ±7,= s' Ir.I $ CG O m .,o ,b z o Z g + •C gi 3 g R ± aY i kr= o t. A ; p t� !a I o a p I + Q Z .2'- .e. I o 1 �► o p I �� c ! p z i 411' 1- I II 1 2Ir�ni mi eft z- Vc r L. rAi l S • A p 1 .�'-- - 1 ♦ p R".��-$•,` 2 -1 2 /+1'0[C 1 •S M 2 2 N Z1 ' ,1 D u`.4 N- z z m Z7 N E 4.9mg-. h k, t' rAi ggi , Q R l V: _ _,4goQ i E---1.--:_.': I il 1 I 'I R N, 7'�4-:, x a7. = Ill I~ �� i x�H r ice, ^ i m '� tet, 4 v.=n <[ .., - w 4 a x D g.3 ,� -.r"I,y w z a a - .. . c 1R,;i rg mDn � � a �.• pp +c'�c c'c 3398 c r • Fra r. p n% - Y • ; 8 t a IV . -.rrn r. —~ S� ._..- -. - -.-..c � o 0,.-.-.-. - .1 I NVLO 1 _-.._. , m § �.- ___.. __..-. . am_ - i L. -71 . w 1 I 1 1 . t ' D O C - 2 •m •C4 ` I- 1 1 \r [et rf p _� p I 1 1 . _,_______„ II a 1 f o z M .....• y z 1117 lit a. 1 0 C -0 r s `{ L Irr� _ __. 1 I. I i H 1 , \i / 0m ' / ` \ f r73 > m _I). 0 C) 1 N 0 m O O 4 1 3. o , 1 0 ❑ - r w r ❑ _ _ • • I , .�-1.. k, -. `` N ' T 41 'Ol k a, > 13 .3) m r,{ v v x L n Al *.S 0 7 {� > 0 I 1' m Collier County Property Appraiser http://www.collierappraiser.com/webmap/Map.aspx?folio=27585200007 Collier County Property Apprpa�iser HrJNE n tN1RODUCTIM j iEEDBACK I HELP-'i' 5 i_ ( \/�/, Ib E V'v t t\1.�S ,,,=P 5 SMALV I MEDIUM I LARGE IINIF Zoom Out d 4 . *I) itio t7 - }' - - r1 llklUA i' V; :, ill Introduction 4 �� a Search for Parcels by it , ` � Search Results f-;40„7",,i € FullCounty I�Layers ._ 4 Legend € 116 Print x - 1 -- . Beleeted a Home Page Clear Map 41 Graphics 4 Help i ; _ . r.- l Overview r kl Aerial Year. " 2015 �+ ,-4 c.3 ' Sales Year. " it eg OFF ,r.twcatirt - O /lfti Aerial Photography January Urban-2015-Rural-2014 1 of 1 6/1/2015 11:04 PM http://www.collierappraiser.cona/Main_Search/RecordDetail.html?F... Collier County Property Appraiser Property Summary Parcel No. 27585200007 Site Adr. 342 TRADEWINDS AVE Name/Address STONE-JESKE TR. ROXANNE B ROXANNE B STONE-JESKE TRUST UTD 8/10/05 531 TURTLE HATCH LN City NAPLES State FL Zip 34103-8538 Map No. Strap No. Section Township Range Acres *Estimated 3A29 233800 M 113A29 29 48 25 0.21 Legal CONNER'S VANDERBILT BCH EST UNIT 2 BLK M LOT 11 • Millage Area 0 154 Millage Rates 0 *Calculations Sub./Condo 233800-CONNERS VANDERBILT BCH EST#2 School Other Total Use Code 0 8- MULTI-FAMILY LESS THAN 10 UNIT 5.58 6.1776 11.7576 Latest Sales History 2014 Certified Tax Roll (Not all Sales are listed due to Confidentiality) (Subject to Change) Date Book-Page Amount Land Value $469,200 08/30/05 3878-2924 $0 (+) Improved Value $108,370 12/05/00 2750-3426 $549,000 (•-•) Market Value $577,570 01/19/98 2503-621 $0 08/01/87 1289-1542 $172,500 (-) 10%Cap $21,623 07/01/86 1206-999 $160,500 (=) Assessed Value $555,947 04/01/82965-1203 $152,500 (,-) School Taxable Value $577,570. • (=> Taxable Value $555,947 If all Values shown above equal 0 this parcel was created after the Final Tax Roll 1 of 1 5/28/2015 10:03 PM Details Page 1 of 1 Print New Search Tax Bills Change of Address Property Summary Property Detail ( Aerial II Sketches 11 Trim Notices 1 Parcel No. 27585200007 Site Adr. 342 TRADEWINDS AVE Name/Address STONE-JESKE TR, ROXANNE B ROXANNE B STONE-JESKE TRUST UTD 8/10/05 531 TURTLE HATCH LN City NAPLES State FL Zip 34103-8538 Permits Tax Yr Issuer Permit# CO Date Tmp CO Final Bldg Type 1968 COUNTY 68-260 05/01/68 1990 COUNTY 88-2531 ADDITION, NO PICKUP 1990 COUNTY 89-2244 08/20/90 OTHER Land Building/Extra Features # Calc Code Units # Year Built Description Area Adj Area 10 RESIDENTIAL FF 75 10 1968 MULTI- 2350 2350 FAMILY 20 1968 WOOD 100 100 DOCK ALUM 30 2000 SCREEN 588 588 PORCH 40 1978 CONCRETE 160 160 50 1968 SEAWALL 75 75 http://www.collierappraiser.com/Main_Search/RecordDetail.html?Fo1ioID=27585200007 6/2/2015 SCC Meeting : February 28 , 2017 Agenda Item #8A - Petition: VA-PL20160001 181 Located at: 324 Trade Winds Ave. Presented by: Mark Shapiro House Plans (3) Layouts — Too large to scan and can be found at the Clerk to the Board' s Office, 4th Floor, Building F COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PERMIT PERMIT#: PRBD2016010076701 PERMIT TYPE: PL ISSUED: BY: APPLIED DATE: 01-12-16 APPROVAL DATE:01-27-16 MASTER#: COA: JOB ADDRESS: 342 Trade Winds AVE JOB DESCRIPTION: CONSTRUCTION OF 387 SQ FT IN-GROUND POOL& JOB PHONE: 5'8"X 5'8" ZERO EDGE SPA,3 HP VS PUMP- ALARMS(PRBD20150928706) 342 TRADEWINDS AVE LOT 11 SUBDIVISION#: BLOCK: LOT: FLOOD MAP: ZONE: ELEVATION: FOLIO#: 27585200007 SECTION-TOWNSHIP-RANGE:29-48-25 OWNER INFORMATION: CONTRACTOR INFORMATION: STONE-JESKE TR,ROXANNE B ROXANNE B MORRISON ALUMINUM CONSTRUCTION INC STONE-JESKE TRUST UTD 8/10/05 (DBA)MAC CUSTOM POOLS-ALUMINUM 531 TURTLE HATCH LN 1020 SE 12TH AVE NAPLES ,FL 34103- CAPE CORAL,FL 33990-- CERTIFICATE#: C33218 PHONE: FCC CODE: CONSTRUCTION CODE: 0218 JOB VALUE: $74,000.00 TOTAL RES SQFT: 0 TOTAL COMM SQFT: 0 SETBACKS FRONT: 30' REAR: 10'Accessory LEFT: 7.5' RIGHT: 7.5' SEWER: WATER: CONTACT NAME: CONTACT PHONE: Per Collier County Ordinance No.2002-01,as it may be amended,all work must comply with all applicable laws,codes,ordinances,and any additional stipulations or conditions of this permit.This permit expires if work authorized by the permit is not commenced within six(6)months from the date of issuance of the permit.Additional fees for failing to obtain permits prior to the commencement of construction may be imposed.Permittee(s)further understands that any contractor that may be employed must be a licensed contractor and that the structure must not be used or occupied until a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. NOTICE: PRIOR TO THE REMOVAL OF ASBESTOS PRODUCTS OR THE DEMOLITION OF A STRUCTURE,FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS REQUIRE THE PERMITTEE(EITHER THE OWNER OR CONTRACTOR)TO SUBMIT A NOTICE OF THE INTENDED WORK TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION(DEP).FOR MORE INFORMATION,CONTACT DEP AT(239)344-5600. In addition to the conditions of this permit,there may be additional restrictions applicable to this property that may be found in the public records of this county,and there may be additional permits required from other governmental entities such as water management districts,state agencies,or federal agencies. WARNING TO OWNER: YOUR FAILURE TO RECORD A NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT MAY RESULT IN YOUR PAYING TWICE FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO YOUR PROPERTY. IF YOU INTEND TO OBTAIN FINANCING, CONSULT WITH YOUR LENDER OR AN ATTORNEY BEFORE RECORDING YOUR NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT. INSPECTION JOB CARD—COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA FOR INSPECTIONS PHONE 252-3726 PERMIT NUMBER: APPLICATION NUMBER: ISSUED: PRBD2015092870601 PRBD20150928706 JOB DESCRIPTION: CONSTRUCT NEW HOME(DEMO PRBD20150617253) 342 TRADEWINDS AVE LOT 11 4 bed/5.5 bath rm JOB LOCATION: 342 Trade Winds AVE LEGAL DESCRIPTION: CONNER'S VANDERBILT BCH EST UNIT 2 BLK M LOT 11 FOLIO#: 27585200007 SECTION-TOWNSHIP-RANGE: 29-48-25 OWNER NAME: STONE-JESKE TR, ROXANNE B ROXANNE B STONE-JESKE TRUST UTD 8/10/05 CONTRACTOR: JENKS BUILDERS, INC. SETBACKS: FRONT: 30' REAR: 25' LEFT: 7.5' RIGHT: 7.5' SPECIAL: FLOOD FZAE Principal ZONE: /10' accessor DESCRIPTION OUTCOME COMMENTS 101-Pile Caps 102-Grade Beam To include the utility footing rebar(UFR) 103-Floating Slab To include the utility footing rebar(UFR) 104-Tie Beam 105-Shearwall 107-Sheathing Facia 108- Framing 109-Insulation 111-Roof in Progress 115- Final Building 119- Fill Cells 120-Flood Vent Relief NOTE: If you are unable to schedule your inspection, please contact the inspection desk at 252-2406. NOISE ORDINANCE: Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances 54-92(f) Construction Sound. NOISE LIMITATIONS are in effect at all times. Work permitted, RESIDENTIAL Areas — 6:30 AM to 7:00 PM Monday thru Saturday; NON-RESIDENTIAL Areas (more than 500 feet from Residential Area) 6:00AM to 8:00PM Monday thru Saturday. No Work on Sundays or Holidays. RADIOS, LOUDSPEAKERS, ETC. — Must not disturb peace, quiet and comfort of neighboring inhabitants. FREE CABLE LOCATIONS — Call 48 Hours prior to digging/FPL 434-1222/UTS 1-800-542-0088/PalmerCATV 783-0638 and all other applicable utilities. WARNING TO OWNER: YOUR FAILURE TO RECORD A NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT MAY RESULT IN YOUR PAYING TWICE FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO YOUR PROPERTY. IF YOU INTEND TO OBTAIN FINANCING,CONSULT WITH YOUR LENDER OR AN ATTORNEY BEFORE RECORDING YOUR NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT. FS§713.135 INSPECTION JOB CARD—COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA FOR INSPECTIONS PHONE 252-3726 121- Epicore Deck 134-Final Roofing 136-Impact Glass 200-Plumbing Underground 201-Plumbing Rough-in 202-Plumbing Stack 203-Sewer Tap 204-Final Plumbing 300-A/C Rough 301-A/C Final 501- Elec. Rough 502-Final Electrical 505-Residential Temporary Power 508-TV/Telephone Rough 509-TV/Telephone Final 801-Site Drainage This building permit has a stormwater management plan,signed and sealed by a registered Florida Professional Engineer as was reviewed by RosenblumBrett 11/09/2015 10:06 AM. 802- Landscaping 810-Exotic Vegetation Removal 814-Erosion/Silt OPEN CONDITIONS >Elevation Certificate BFE AE-10'navd proposed FFE-10.33' navd MooreRobert 09/11/2015 4:21 PM >Notice of Commencement NOTE: If you are unable to schedule your inspection, please contact the inspection desk at 252-2406. NOISE ORDINANCE: Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances 54-92(f) Construction Sound. NOISE LIMITATIONS are in effect at all times. Work permitted, RESIDENTIAL Areas — 6:30 AM to 7:00 PM Monday thru Saturday; NON-RESIDENTIAL Areas (more than 500 feet from Residential Area) 6:00AM to 8:00PM Monday thru Saturday. No Work on Sundays or Holidays. RADIOS, LOUDSPEAKERS, ETC. — Must not disturb peace, quiet and comfort of neighboring inhabitants. FREE CABLE LOCATIONS — Call 48 Hours prior to digging/FPL 434-1222/UTS 1-800-542-0088/PalmerCATV 783-0638 and all other applicable utilities. WARNING TO OWNER: YOUR FAILURE TO RECORD A NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT MAY RESULT IN YOUR PAYING TWICE FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO YOUR PROPERTY. IF YOU INTEND TO OBTAIN FINANCING, CONSULT WITH YOUR LENDER OR AN ATTORNEY BEFORE RECORDING YOUR NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT. FS§713.135 INSPECTION JOB CARD—COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA FOR INSPECTIONS PHONE 252-3726 Any required County impact fees will be due prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy >Spot Survey CO Hold: Spot Survey will be required within 10 days of passing a 103 or 133 inspection of slab,at which point an "Inspection HOLD"will be placed on this Permit. NOTE: Spot Survey must verify slab meets setbacks and minimum elevation per Chapter 62, Collier County Code of Laws(higher of BFE or 1.5'above crown of road,or per SFWMD Permit). >Compaction Test Engineer's piling certification required. rm This building permit has a stormwater management plan,signed and sealed by a registered Florida Professional Engineer as was reviewed by RosenblumBrett 11/09/2015 10:06 AM. >Need Sub Contractors roof plumbing electric mechanical NOTE: If you are unable to schedule your inspection, please contact the inspection desk at 252-2406. NOISE ORDINANCE: Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances 54-92(f) Construction Sound. NOISE LIMITATIONS are in effect at all times. Work permitted, RESIDENTIAL Areas — 6:30 AM to 7:00 PM Monday thru Saturday; NON-RESIDENTIAL Areas (more than 500 feet from Residential Area) 6:00AM to 8:00PM Monday thru Saturday. No Work on Sundays or Holidays. RADIOS, LOUDSPEAKERS, ETC. — Must not disturb peace, quiet and comfort of neighboring inhabitants. FREE CABLE LOCATIONS — Call 48 Hours prior to digging/FPL 434-1222/UTS 1-800-542-0088/PalmerCATV 783-0638 and all other applicable utilities. WARNING TO OWNER: YOUR FAILURE TO RECORD A NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT MAY RESULT IN YOUR PAYING TWICE FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO YOUR PROPERTY. IF YOU INTEND TO OBTAIN FINANCING,CONSULT WITH YOUR LENDER OR AN ATTORNEY BEFORE RECORDING YOUR NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT. FS§713.135 4.02.03 -Specific Standards for Location of Accessory Buildings and Structures A. For the purposes of this section, in order to determine yard requirements,the term"accessory structure"shall include detached and attached accessory use structures or buildings notwithstanding the attachment of such structure or building containing the accessory use to the principal use structure or building. Accessory buildings and structures must be constructed simultaneously with or following the construction of the principal structure and shall conform with the following setbacks and building separations. Table 3. Dimensional Standards for Accessory Buildings and Structures on Non-Waterfront Lots And Non-Golf Course Lots in Zoning Districts other than Rural Agricultural (A) and Estates (E)**. Structure to Front Rear Side Structure (If Detached) 1. Parking garage or carport, single-family SPS 10 SPS 10 feet feet , 35 2. One-story parking structures and/or carports SPS SPS 10 feet feet 35 3. Multistory parking structures SPS feet SPS 1/1* { Swimming pool and/or screen enclosure (one-and two- 10 4. SPS SPS N family) feet 20 5. Swimming pool (multi-family and commercial) SPS feet 15 feet N I ...._i15 6. Tennis courts (private) (one-and two-family) SPS SPS 10 feet feet I I - _ 20 7. Tennis courts (multi family, and commercial) SPS 15 feet 20 feet feet 10 8. Utility buildings j SPS SPS 10 feet feet 10 9. Chickee, barbecue areas SPS feet SPS 10 feet 10 10. Attached screen porch SPS feet SPS N/A Page 1 11. Unlisted accessory SPS SPS SPS 10 feet 12. Satellite dish antenna NP 15 SPS 10 feet feet 10 See Sec.4.02.01 N/A 13. Permanent emergency generators NP feet D.13 N = None. N/A= Not applicable. NP = Structure allowed in rear of building only. SPS = Calculated same as principal structure. * = 1 foot of accessory height= 1 foot building separation. **=All accessory structures in Rural Agricultural and Estates zoning districts must meet principal structure setbacks. Table 4. Dimensional Standards for Accessory Buildings and Structures on Waterfront Lots and Golf Course Lots in Zoning Districts other than Rural Agricultural (A) and Estates (E)** 2 Setbacks Structure to Front Rear i Side structure (If Detached) 1.-----r--Parking garage or carport, single-family SPS SPS SPS 10 feet 1 2. One-story parking structures SPS SPS SPS 10 feet 3. Multistory parking structures SPS SPS SPS 1/11 Swimming pool and/or screen enclosure (one-and 10 4. SPS SPS N two-family) feet3 5. Swimming pool (multi-family and commercial) SPS 20 feet 15 feet N 6. Tennis courts (private) (one-and two-family) SPS 15 feet SPS 10 feet Page 2 a _ 7. Tennis courts (multi-family and commercial) SPS 35 feet SPS 20 feet 8. Boathouses and boat shelters (private) SPS N/A 7.5 feet or 15 feet j 10 feet See subsection 5.03.06F. r. 9. Utility buildings SPS SPS 10 feet 10 feet 10. Chickee, barbecue areas SPS 10 feet SPS N 11. Davits, hoists and lifts N/A N/A 7.5 feet or 15 feet SPS 10 12. Attached screen porch SPS 4 SPS SPS feet 13. Unlisted accessory SPS SPS SPS 10 feet 14. Docks, decks and mooring pilings N/A N/A ' 7.5 feet or 15 feet N/A 15. Boat slips and ramps (private) N/A N/A 7.5 feet N/A 16. Satellite dish antennas NP 15 feet SPS ---- 10 feet See Sec.4.02.01 17. ` Permanent emergency generators NP 10 feet N/A D.13 I 50 __ 18. Golf clubhouse and maintenance buildings' feet 50 feet 50 feet ) N/A 3 I I N = None. N/A= Not applicable. NP = Structure allowed in rear of building only. SPS = Calculated same as principal structure. ** =All accessory structures in Rural Agricultural and Estates zoning districts must meet principal structure setbacks. 11 foot of accessory height= 1 foot of building separation. 21n those cases where the coastal construction control line is involved, the coastal construction control line will apply. Page 3 Pool Permit Application And Permit Morrison Aluminum Construction, Inc CUSTOM POOLS r ALUMINUMz2. s�t= January 18, 2016 Re: PRBD20160100767 342 Trade Winds Avenue Naples, Florida 34103 Dear Sir or Madam; The deck material to be used with this pool project is Travertine Stone pavers . Lighting selection for pool lights: Nichless LED Piling Cap locations as highlighted on Grade Beam Plan from House permit PRBD20160928706 The elevation of the pool equipment pad shall be 10'as required. Thank you, Kevin R. Morrison Contractor 1020 SE 12th Avenue Phone: 239.573.0549 Cape Coral, Florida 33990 www.macpools.net Fax: 239.573.6993 Lee AL000111 •CRC 1329307•CPC 1457467•RX 0066476 0 0 0 0 0 ,0 I ❑0 0 0 ❑O, ❑0 : ❑0 ❑0 ?0 0 00 J L r 0 0 0 '❑ ❑, u r 1 r , r , r I I of LoiO 0 0 � 0 � `ih❑ ❑' r -1 \l‘ , -.__77_LO M J Ki) `--- _, r + r ® r , ❑ 0 ❑ 0 L_0 ....e-L--,7... 0 L J 0 0 r J r ti Ni L J r o L J ❑I0 0 ❑ Q 0e ` o ® r IO11 0 V L-, 0 o ❑' 110 '-o1 L ® 1. F 0 4' 4' ii g F F V `� 'Ft ci #1$ 1 h- f ..-0-1® ❑, ^❑fo ,0 64 + O J 0 LO J 0 '�\ ro ❑ ❑ ❑ 4 Fv J 0 0 o ❑� J 0 nroo 4 Jn D 0 L JO yy � n Z ypA v iN 3 Ay u ;,PHeti a m z 1- gRY€ Iid. 71g D EE U A Ut tAl :fix s 0 I F m m 0 0 0 8 0 ro o o o . 0 0'C) 01 0 1 0® 0® - 0 0® ....e.--..,.... L----J o0 01 o0 0 , 0 DI L_______-.1 ,-________I L________, 0 0 L.0 J L 0 0 I 0 0 T 1 r „ n r 0 ‘Ik1 i / 0 0 _, L -.1 ...sie.,.....—.... 1‘ ,,/.. 0 0 0 ® , 00 0 _I r --- ' i ....,,... 1--- io • oe I i Ir--------'-'1 0 J le 0 4- r 7 - ® r0 0 ® 0 0 .ae.-.....,..., 0 , /\ L J : o DI_ r , J L J :0 0 0 1 '00 Do b ® - - -1 ,® ‘I‘ — n \l‘ ,-, ' 0 ' „-D 0 10 o 0 iii HD qiip J L -'ii h L _ ,-bi it TO 0 .1 r 1 0 ( z 1 r 1 r 1 r " t Iffil ® ‘I‘ ‘t ...e--, 51 1 440 i ® e---, \i‘ 0 ,,-0-10 -I L I-0-' 0 I- 0 -, r j 0 ° P 4.15 wl x sol. 0 O 0 , \ik -.‘ io 0 ,, 0Lo e 0 1 r--' qZ , a., ec'wi rriL ® ol L 0.- -0 10 )0 0 ...... L0 0 0o 0' .., L 0 CS ei ? 2 ill n, _.0 C) > 4W py --1 i,-,„ g Z Aktil X i lq i i lh i4i I 0 `I. k $ $g'i I i' 54 03 „T i . , Residential Swimming Pool Safety Act Section A104 Contractor Accountability Two conies of this page shall be completed and returned with the permit application Job Address 342 Tradewinds Avenue permit Number The residential Swimming Pool Safety Act requires that a barrier isolate any new or substantially remodeled swimming pool, spa, hot tub or water feature that has a water level that is more than 24" deep. This barrier may be horizontal (an approved safety cover) or vertical (a wall, fence, screen cage, raised deck or appropriate combination). If the vertical barrier is penetrated by a door, window or gate an alarm or self- closing device may also be required. Because of design variations more than one method may be required to isolate the water and should be so noted below. I acknowledge that a new swimming pool, spa or hot tub or water feature will be installed at the above address, and hereby affirm that one or more of the following methods shall be used to comply with the requirements of the current Florida Building Code. (Please initial as many methods as necessary to provide compliance) 1. The pool shall be equipped with a listed and approved safety cover that complies with ASTM p46-91. )1P/21,____‹. The pool shall be isolated from access by an enclosure that complies with the pool barrier requirement of the currently adopted Florida Building Code. I understand that not complying with the current Florida Building Code at the time of the final inspection, or when the pool is completed for contract purposes, shall constitute a violation of Chapter 515, Florida Statutes and shall be considered as committing a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable by fines of up to$500.00 and/or up to 60 days in ' -s established in chapter 775 Florida Statutes. ,44.1.7 Kevin R. Morrison Co r'ae i'.gnature & date Contractor's Name (please print) 09/03/2015 ei(Geitex , • . .. .- ., eillaideA5 e474)4teetaz° I ii1 - I 'sPM- — { WMN Ei I !,s.� errl,j► _ EDr o 11' SCALE TTm LEGAL DC-SCRIPTION LOT,11 { • / I taill .mN,vw re.aa Q � Mt. cauvr.Collier I cQ I d v*al � �--Iiimmla PLACEMENT SURVEYOR TO VERIFY i a) PNT OFT ¢T]CITT.NNT NOOSE ON SITE PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION. ! m CO d •SITE PLAN • ' o N z SFAEc I•.,R•-o• ! Y a c7 I GENERAL NOTES INDEX _ ° I.DO NOT SCALP r oRAW5.N6PRITTBN ON@51a+s DESIGN PARAMETERS. 1 SHEET # DESCRIPTION ' • i AND NOTE SHALL CONTROL CONTACT THE ME LO NIANASER 1 YON ANT CONFLICTS IN THE PLANS BEFORE BEGINNINs 7,97..,_ 1 SITE PLAN-/ COVER SHEET t FORK 2 ON-SITE VSRIISCATION OF ALL SIMB151OINS AND ter, 2 FOUNDATION PLAN I CONGMONS SHALL BE TIE RESPONLIENUTY O'Ti. SUB-CONTRACTORS. EACH SUB-CONTRACTOR SHALL / FIRST FLOOR NOTE PLAN i REPORT TO THC PIEID MANASER ANY DISCREPANCY OR �•r,,,�„v,=.yam ■ops- ORM OUESnONS PERTAININS To THE DR.wINGS AND/OR .no.pro...m.. 4 SECOND FLOOR NOTE PLAN j# SPECIFICATIONS. "7::•••=.7".......•'`...4.44.• S. IT IS Ti.INTENT THAT new DRAWINGS BE IN mom ""�'-- 1E FIRST FLOOR DIMENSION PLAN I A CONFORMANCE WTI ALL APPLICABLE LOCAL p,_.A. .4.4.4.....444 . .� o==r. '�' . COMM STATE AND PeoenAL Coves,ORDINANCES.LABS, g.... v, D- ST SECOND FLOOR DIMENSION PLAN REHLATIONS AND RE STRIGTIVE GO./ENANTS GOVERIUNS THE ........ 1 m sTE or BDAK A•_� ...".."'- .15:=7............7.. i 2 FIRST FLOOR ELECTRICAL PLAN s ALL TRADES SHALL FURNISH ALL LABOR ENiIIPMBIf. "'"" 0.0......... � , vim:: SECOND FLOOR ELECTRICAL PLAN t�� MATERIALS.AND PERFORM ALL PLONK NEOESSARY, a,�,e INDICATED,REASONABLY NFERREI OR REQRRED BY ANY v.4*%-.----- o—.:.�.. ,,,�, 2 ELEVATIONS CODE WTI 11RISGICTION TO TIEIR SCOPE OF .�� o==r-.... I BOREc o.�= °° m,�� .1.4 FI FVATNS Mow.OF owes nom 11.omooms W.MULL Mr MAX MC alllna Cr Z.,......7==...=======-.4-7 .'""'"*."—.'.."—" 11 CEILING PLAN iling====map To=mum/NW DC Arc owarIleribi. .........,-..................r� ».mss_ P..Tr .R �.e M..a..�.RR�,..a<.............. >Z ROOF PLAN'EO *Warr.03 fiNW.Or MOFIXI TO oec Anon,.or Tic 17010.5 are.RS .R /..a..uu R o.sR.s rmwnR.NV.ue. ,] TYPICAL SECTIONS • MI agipii xO 'itim ' lid 1,44"9 l>< N 01! in • i¢t ggig6g"�_, o•ra Y CRs 111 \` ' f� c FPI 143 i r 2\/%\'f// /2 3,,,f • itt II- \ \/ /\ \/ a ,/, . P. GC. d 111rAx :Mai ( .\. ks ---4 1--.3_ gig c.., a$ 4 K. pp b T An ; 71 rn F !Q �a In 9 A�T�� d N 1 Ili Z I g . q,b> i-1 . rri ) . 1` as ALK K�{i °p 53. ill. i j gc SPg w 2w1 �o� �o� 11 Hi -,Vg illi ag 5gli vR" ii 'b R € b a 4gE� o" 1A6f i nn g � :Ala bh lebm ti- gc e Q in 911 itil liii 1* O 3; o Ltz a s 51f4 I! P it-.7AI 'i; fe,. 2 ( p.t.., :,t7s 1 , Vap[5 Ynl So Ln 2 < m o N D ,� I m •• 1 15 ft. 0▪: H \ -\ n.M - -I 3 M (D Q 5. Ncrc s C �' w (D "0ND L 0 O n O (n n (I) n 0 me 1 j N (7)::0„...„:::: au N c c.1 .lH 1-4� 14 I a,< m5. 0 JD O O m 7____ W to n- -0 _ ® O O. B ,-G m 11 ft. 7, N -0 7 (D D , n ( CD Or O ' O O O 0) N m 11) _ rt Q . 0 a) 0. m - N 7'(in -- m N N Q- =' S O m_o W W O 'D O 0 O (D v 10 to - Q O h n a p J1 (J t1.:1) '' W ill OO rn o ,-+ "4 v, N �, -, _ ---- n m- C.3 C.3 Q) O VOi O y 4 ft. Oo -aa W —d N W —CO �7 T CO X ❑ C' 0 N (D - • = (A 0 -a fii I) 0 =, u18 i A it) 0Q, Led c.nN� 7 �t _ 0 \" !°; I- I N. lel l., cs 0 N UI8 L 7 D cD - JI ROUTE SHEET Performance Review Tye$ a # -s' •' ". r '` S{ 's i."- 3F- 5 `d li ffi� t 3 ,-rte s< �. Residential �� ,,�x�.:_:�;.�. .... r. ,.. r„r .:. __ _.a - •F,. -- Permit Number: PRBD20160100767 Permit Type: Pool Submittal: 1 1 Initial Submittal 01/12/2016 Submittal In Person Method: 2 Fast Track: Simultaneous: Master Permit#: Sets: Private Provider: Expedited Review: Planning Project: Business Name: Job CONSTRUCTION OF 387 SQ FT IN-GROUND POOL&5'8" X 5'8"ZERO EDGE SPA, 3 HP VS Description: PUMP-ALARMS (PRBD20150928706) 342 TRADEWINDS AVE LOT 11 Details: Fire District: 11 North Naples Fire Bldg Code in FBC 5th Edition 2014 Effect: Review In Date Group/PMR Status Reviewer Comments: Fee$ Date Final Review 5 Day Review 1/12/2016 1/20/2016 Time FEMA Review 1/12/2016 1/15/2016 Plumbing and Handicap Review 1/12/2016 1/15/2016 Zoning Review 1/12/2016 1/15/2016 affid scanned k [ (3 / 1 - Other Applicable Reviews: Review In Date Group/PMR Status Reviewer Comments: Fee$ Date Entered by: stachuracarol Report Updated:0629/2015 -Tonic NourseJoseph From: Jacksonian Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 9:23 AM To: NourseJoseph Cc: BridwellJason Subject: 342 Tradewinds Complainant, Steve 860-8070, states deck at rear of property unpermitted or noncompliant w/setbacks. Permit issued for new construction home, pool, dock/lift. Thanks. Ian Jackson Collier County License Compliance Officer Operations and Regulatory Management Growth Management Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, F134104 239-252-2451 ianjackson@colliergov.net Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public records.If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead.contact this office by telephone or in writing. 1 Permit Application Status - CityView Portal Page 1 of 2 GMD Public Portal Permit Application Status In order to schedule inspections,you need to be signed in. Note:You can collapse and expand individual sections by clicking the header of the section you wish to collapse/expand. — Summary Application Number: PRBD20160100767 Application Type: Building Application Status: Inspections Commenced Property Owner's Full Name: STONE-JESKE TR,ROXANNE B ROXANNE B STONE-JESKE TRUST UTD 8/10/05 Category of Work: Addition Occupancy Code: Residential,One and Two Family New or Guest House Description of Work: CONSTRUCTION OF 387 SQ FT IN-GROUND POOL&5'8"X 5'8"ZERO EDGE SPA,3 HP VS PUMP-ALARMS(PRBD20150928706) 342 TRADEWINDS AVE LOT 11 Locations: 27585200007 342 Trade Winds AVE Application Date: 01/12/2016 Issued Date: 01/28/2016 Expiration Date: 09/26/2016 1-2 Family or Comm: 1-2 Family Contacts Contractor: MORRISON ALUMINUM CONSTRUCTION INC(DBA)MAC CUSTOM POOLS- ALUMINUM,Address:1020 SE 12TH AVE,Phone:(239)573-0549 License Status Qualifier: KEVIN R.MORRISON,Address:7045 WESTWOOD DRIVE,Phone:(941) 925-9150 License Status Property Owner: STONE-JESKE TR,ROXANNE B ROXANNE B STONE-JESKE TRUST UTD 8/10/05,Address:531 TURTLE HATCH LN Contractor:Electrical: RAY ALLEN ELECTRICAL SERVICE INC,Address:5527 BERRYMAN STREET, Phone:(239)560-9148 License Status _ Permits(Click to See Reviews) _ Fees _ Inspections _ Conditions _ Documents&Images A,-/S Srar4ce4 CAf,is Sco7Y--- http://cvportal.colliergov.net/CityViewWeb/Permit/Stat-\ts?permitId=144424 4/25 \016 • Permit Application Status - CityView Portal Page 1 of 2 GMD Public Portal Permit Application Status In order to schedule inspections,you need to be signed in. Note:You can collapse and expand individual sections by clicking the header of the section you wish to collapse/expand. — Summary Application Number: PRBD20150412083 Application Type: Building Application Status: Inspections Commenced Property Owner's Full Name: STONE-JESKE TR, ROXANNE B ROXANNE B STONE-JESKE TRUST UTD 8/10/05 Category of Work: New Construction Occupancy Code: Residential,One and Two Family New or Guest House Description of Work: NEW SEAWALL,DOCK,BOATLIFT,AND ELECTRIC 342 TRADEWINDS AVE Locations: 27585200007 342 Trade Winds AVE Application Date: 04/20/2015 Issued Date: 05/04/2015 Expiration Date: 08/02/2016 1-2 Family or Comm: 1-2 Family - Contacts Property Owner: STONE-JESKE TR,ROXANNE B ROXANNE B STONE-JESKE TRUST UTD 8/10/05,Address:531 TURTLE HATCH LN Contractor: GREG ORICK II MARINE CONSTRUCTION,INC,Address:27171 DRIFTWOOD DR,Phone:(239)289-0792 License Status Qualifier: GREGORY L.ORICK II,Address:270 NAPLES COVE,Phone:(239)289- 0792 License Status Contractor: Electrical: A GREG ORICK MARINE CONSTRUCTION INC.,Address:27171 Driftwood Drive,Phone:(239)289-0792 License Status - Permits(Click to See Reviews) — Fees _ Inspections - Conditions - Documents&Images http://cvportal.colliergov.net/CityViewWeb/Permit/Status?permitId=115234 4/25/2016 Permit Application Status- CityView Portal Page 1 of 2 GMD Public Portal Permit Application Status In order to schedule inspections,you need to be signed in. Note:You can collapse and expand individual sections by clicking the header of the section you wish to collapse/expand. Summary Application Number: PRBD20150928706 Application Type: Building Application Status: Inspections Commenced Property Owner's Full Name: STONE-JESKE TR,ROXANNE B ROXANNE B STONE-JESKE TRUST UTD 8/10/05 Category of Work: New Construction Occupancy Code: Residential,One and Two Family New or Guest House Description of Work: CONSTRUCT NEW HOME(DEMO PRBD20150617253) 342 TRADEWINDS AVE LOT 11 4 bed/5.5 bath rm Locations: 27585200007 342 Trade Winds AVE Application Date: 09/08/2015 Issued Date: 11/16/2015 Expiration Date: 10/16/2016 1-2 Family or Comm: 1-2 Family - Contacts Property Owner: STONE-JESKE TR,ROXANNE B ROXANNE B STONE-JESKE TRUST UTD 8/10/05,Address:531 TURTLE HATCH LN Contractor: JENKS BUILDERS,INC.,Address:7600 ALICO RD#12 PMB 2,Phone:(239) 481-1219 License Status Qualifier: Jenks,Jason L.,Address:7600 Alico Rd.#12 PMB,Phone:(941)481-1219 ,License Status Contractor:Roofing: D PECK ROOFING INC,Address:2990 CARGO ST,Phone:(239)489-2200 License Status Contractor: Electrical: RAY ALLEN ELECTRICAL SERVICE INC,Address:5527 BERRYMAN STREET, Phone:(239)560-9148 License Status Contractor: Plumbing: SOUTHERN PLUMBING SOLUTIONS INC,Address:PO BOX 50218,Phone: (239)288-4574 License Status Contractor: Mechanical: COOL RUSH AIR INC,Address:422 SW 2ND TER 215,Phone:(239)810- 1798 License Status - Permits(Click to See Reviews) - Fees - Inspections - Conditions - Documents&Images http://cvportal.colliergov.net/CityViewWeb/Permit/Status?permitId=131853 4/25/2016 [VIDEO] Nassau Pools concept w screen Naples Florida - YouTube =) - - www.youtube.com(watch?v=f0RHmA71T2s - 16_ BY POOLSTE'+1El 294 VIEWS LL Oct 21 2011 Nassau Pools concept w screen Naples Florida ... Swimming 2.31 -,;��_,._,; III` Pool& spa wl screen enclosure Call Steve Emens a 239-860-8070 For... [V1DEol Swimming Pool Concept J McCray Rev 1, Naples Florida - YouTube o www.youtube.com!watch?v=lDWjbsayhyl t IL CY POOLSTEVEI 67 VIEWS lii „, Jul 15 2012 Designed bv Steve, Call 239-860-8070 for information &Quotes 1:18 ; , Nassau Pools Naples Florida *** INSTR 5169459 OR 5192 PG 2459 RECORDED 9/8/2015 2:30 PM PAGES 1 *** DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA REC $10.00 O /® )--0/ (a a /u 0.- Permit No. PK ? $Oq/.Z% 'Folio No. NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT State of FLORIDA County of COLLIER The undersigned hereby gives notice that improvement will be made to certain real property,and in accordance with Chapter 713,Florida Statutes, the following information is provided In this Notice of Commencement. c ' 2 io lA' de 1gascription of Property:(legal description of the property,and street address if available) �y� .4—,4644,./...-)0/ y� Lour l'P L/�a/er- /f�� .Xi/. drrf,?.�i,�'z' .l //, Ovl 2. General description of Improvement:/✓' J �f P// PFJ//�/ f3�iv>� kJ/ Pt. cS//dd 3. Owner information: /� /� T o2�9- S�SJ-1430 a. Name and address: �Li�i�/7e .A( . .Ie4ij/f"< <-1.Let ;z2e� b. Interest in property: o.rY7e.-- c. Name and address of fee simple titleholder(if other than Owner): 4.a. ontractor:I name and address) z .6t/. Z.,-.,{ . �'��,� Z-.�3R/..Z b. Contractor's phone number. X134. LIGcf ��-� 5. Surety �I T\ a. Name and Address: no^ b. Phone number. , C, . c. Amount o rtta' Ga. Lender(name and address) // \--------f-\ b. Lender's phone number. ^\ / 1 7a. Persons within the State of Florida Desi a =d • n r po =a est or ther documents may be served as provided by Section 713.13(1)(a)7.,FI'.ai' S tut -nd•(;.ress)1 r • b. Phone numbers of designated person : \ � �" 8a. (,/ In addition to himself or herself,Owne - nates >O of to receive a copy of Llenor's Notice as prov , -r'I ection 713.13(1)(b)F tatutes. b. Phone number of person or entity designa -. • . i er: {�^+y, 9. Expiration date of notice of commencement(the ?,. �o � year from the date of recording unless a different date is specified) WARNING TO OWNER: ANY PAYMENTS MADE BY THE OWNER AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT ARE CONSIDERED IMPROPER PAYMENTS UNDER CHAPTER 713,PART I,SECTION 713.13,FLORIDA STATUTES,AND CAN RESULT IN YOUR PAYING TWICE FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO YOUR PROPERTY.A NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT MUST BE RECORDED AND POSTED ON THE JOB SITE BEFORE THE FIRST INSPECTION.IF YOU INTEND TO OBTAIN FINANCING,CONSULT WfrLENDE j OR AN ATTORN BEFORE COMMENCING WORK OR RECORDING YOUR NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT. 7/.. .,(a4----__ Nay?ref (Signature�r or Owneds Authorized Officer/Director/Partner/Manager) (Signatory's Title/Office) The fogoing InsteIment was acknowledged before me this day of j/. 11 2 ti l J(year),by i U tw n� -511,1 W-oe(xf (name of person)as (type of authority,...e.g. officer,trustee,attorney in fact)for (name of party on behalf of whom instrument was executed). DWIGHT E BROCK,CLERK OF CIRCUIT COURT Oa,,. tJLt_41 /1t. (Signature of Deputy Clerk) &Signature of Notary Public,-pate of Florida) Awrt F.Ir OAHntrace_ (Printed name of Deputy Clerk) (Print,Type,or Stamp Commissioned Name of Notary Public) Personally Known X OR Produced IdentificationDAWN EILEEN HARDEE Type of Identification Produced ( eiF:\l , Notary Public.Stats of Florida 1 ( My Comm.Es'kes Aug 23.2016 ) Verification pursuant to Section 92.525,Florida Statutes, Under penalties of peril ->.• - thrOrrINDIVicfrdefirfithoeg and that the facts stated in it are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. (Signature of Natural Person Signing Above) Rev.7/2007 c ROUTE SHEET Performance Review .'d .€. � .' 'S IA Permit Number: PRBD20160100767 Permit Type: Pool Submittal: 2 2 Re-Submittal 01/20/2016-corr 1 Submittal fil 'erson Method: 2 Fast Track: Simultaneous: Master Permit#: Sets: Private Provider: Expedited Review: Planning Project: Business Name: Job CONSTRUCTION OF 387 SQ FT IN-GROUND POOL&5' 8"X 5'8"ZERO EDGE SPA, 3 HP VS Description: PUMP-ALARMS (PRBD20150928706) 342 TRADEWINDS AVE LOT 11 Details: Fire District: 11 North Naples Fire Bldg Code in FBC 5th Edition 2014 Effect: Review In Date Group/PMR Status Reviewer Comments: Fee$ Date Final Review 5 Day Review 1/20/2016 1/27/2016 Time FEMA Review 1/20/2016 1/25/2016 10'.2-/4 Plumbing and Handicap Review 1/20/2016 1/25/2016 /V l Other Applicable Reviews: Review In Date Group/PMR Status Reviewer Comments: Fee$ Date Entered by: AngelTarpley ReportUpdated:06/29/2015 -Tonic ROUTE SHEET Performance Review Residential - Permit Number: PRBD20160100767 Permit Type: Pool Submittal: 1 1 Initial Submittal 01/12/2016 Submittal In Person Method: 2 Fast Track: Simultaneous: Master Permit#: Sets: Private Provider: Expedited Review: Planning Project: Business Name: Job CONSTRUCTION OF 387 SQ FT IN-GROUND POOL&5'8"X 5'8"ZERO EDGE SPA, 3 HP VS Description: PUMP-ALARMS (PRBD20150928706) 342 TRADEWINDS AVE LOT 11 Details: Fire District: 11 North Naples Fire Bldg Code in FBC 5th Edition 2014 Effect: Review In Date Group/PMR Status Reviewer Comments: Fee$ Date Final Review 5 Day Review 1/12/2016 1/20/2016 Time FEMA Review 1/12/2016 1/15/2016 2 /j Plumbing and Handicap Review 1/12/2016 1/15/2016 ! ` / / / Zoning Review 1/12/2016 1/15/2016 affid scanned Other Applicable Reviews: Review In Date Group/PMR Status Reviewer Comments: Fee$ Date Entered by: stachuracarol Report Updated:0629/2015 -Tone Affidavit in lieu of Certified Site Plan To be filed with Permit Application State of Florida County of Collier I, /��„�, /no , do hereby affirm that the work performed under Permit Number >4f,4a (e2O/Ua -2G7-2 does not constitute any modification to the original permitted footprint of the structure that existed prior to the issuance of this permit. I further affirm that, to the best of my knowledge, the footprint of the structure shall conform to the applicable setback(s) and easement requirement(s) established by Collier County and/or any other applicable agency. I hereby agree that should any work performed under this permit result in a nonconformity with any setback(s) or easement requirement(s) established by Collier County or any other applicable agency, I will have no sustainable rebuttal against Collier County Government and will immediately remediate the nonconformity at no expense oilier County Government. Si ne•: .Jl441111 Printed Name: i47:✓» (Check one) Owner/Builder [ 1 Contractor ( f Design Professional ( 1 AFFIRMED AND SUBSCRIBED before me, the undersigned authority, on //)(/ / 7-416., 2010, by Z.--1-4(A--L___ � (check one) who is personally known to me I I or who provided as identification ( 1. i (Seal) NOTARY PUBLIC - State of ".":.kkt, CAROL RUTH STACHURA MY COMMISSION#FF093307 Printed Name: to^: EXPIRES:February 16,2018 4, 00- Bonded ThruBudget Notary Services My commission expires: 7/15/2013 A-128 COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION Growth Management Division I 2800 N.Horseshoe Drive,Naples,Florida 34104 TEL: 239-252-2400 Please fold plans with the plain side out. Ensure documents are stapled inside each set of plans. (✓ Reside tiial 1 or2 Units(Single Family/Duplex) ❑Residential 3 or more Units(Multi-family)D Commercial Permit No. ,--E__‘;1 -e27(4 ,a/.e) 0--2(.,-7 Master Permit No. Parcel/Folio: 27585200007 0�Contractor design Professional (Owner Builder Job Address: 342 Tradewinds Avenue O License#State Cert/Reg.-Prefix: CPC #: 1457467 Owner's Phone No.: 405-343-4215 _11' Company Name: Morrison Aluminum Construction Inc. 0 Owner's Name: Roxanne B.Stone-Jeske TR 0 Qualifier/Professional Name: Kevin R. Morrison vLot: 11 Block: M Unit: 2 4 Contact Name: Kathy Gagne OSubdivision: Conner's Vanderbuilt Bch. Est.#2 C Address: 1020 SE 12th Avenue a C Township: 48 Range: 25 Section: 29 U City: Cape Coral State: Florida Zip: 33990 239-573-0549 Fax: 239-573-6993 FEMA: BFE: Flood Zone: E- Phone SDP/PL: p E-mail Address: Kathy@macpools.net U Code Case: COA: flAlteration OMechanical (Clean Agent System (LP Gas Convenience Book ]Mobile Home (Fire Alarm (Pre-Engineered Fire Demo ]New Construction p,; (Fire Alarm Monitoring El Suppression AE■ (Door/Window (Plumbing i, rF'., (Fire Pumps Standpipes m ]Electric/Low Voltage 0✓ Pool C 0Fire Sprinkler System (Spray Booths C w (Electric from House (Re-roof W W Fossil Fuel Storage System (Tents a 8Fence Screen Enclosure p, 0.1 (Hoods Underground Fire Lines Gas BShutter F H 0Marine 0 Sign/Flagpole OTHER (Solar va 0 Private Provider O Plumbing z Ion-sprinkled ]Sprinkled o 0 0 Roofing 0 Electrical F U W (IA DIB DIIA (IIB Al U 0 Septic 0 Low Voltage ;, a, C (Shutters Ell Mechanical H F (MA OMB DIVA (IVB fVA (VB Zz O (Permit by Affidavit o U Occupancy Classification(s): Description of Work: Construction of 387 sq ft in-ground pool&5'8"x 5'8"zero edge spa 6-75S4, 3 Ai, V( j2c.,Me — t4)1/ .„; z 0 E" Declared Value$: 74,000.00 Project Name: Stone-Jeske pool/spa O NEW CONSTRUCTION/ADDITION AREA ALTERATION WORK AREA- SO.FT. IE HIf applicable: #Stories/Floors:_ #Units: #Tons: U RESIDENTIAL: h #Bedrooms: #Baths: Living: Non-living: 8 RESIDENTIAL: Living: Non-living: Total sq.ft: TOTAL SQ.FT.: w COMMERCIAL: Interior: Exterior: COMMERCIAL: #Fixtures: Interior: Exterior: Total: TOTAL SQ.FT.: SEWAGE: w ( Septic ED Ave Maria QCity of Naples 0 Collier County El Golden Gate City 0 Immokalee El Orange Tree (Other E- WATER SUPPLY: d El Well (Ave Maria Frity of Naples (Collier County (Golden Gate City 0 Immokalee (Orange Tree]Other a Application/Plans Discrepancies-Customer Acknowledgement of possible rejection for the following missed information: 1.Square footage discrepancies 2.Occupancy Classification/Construction type not provided 3.Required documents not ce 'fled 4.Incomplete Plan Sets or Drawings 5. Sets not identical Nov.1,2014-PMR Date: Days Review: # Set of Plans: 2 QUALIFIERS PAGE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COLLIER COUNTY REGULATIONS Application is hereby made to obtain a permit to do the work and installations as indicated. I certify that no work or installation has commenced prior to the issuance of a permit and that all work will be performed to meet the standards of all laws regulating construction in this jurisdiction. The permit or application fee may have additional fees imposed for failing to obtain permits prior to commencement of construction. The approved permit and/or permit application expires if not commenced within 180 days from the date of issuance. The permittee further understands that only licensed contractors may be employed and that the structure will not be used or occupied until a certificate of occupancy is issued. By signing this permit application, I agree that I have been retained by the owner/permittee to provide contracting services for the trade for which I am listed. Furthermore, it is my responsibility to notify the Building Review and Permitting De partment should I no longer be the contractor responsible for providing said contracting services. I further agree that I understand that the review and issuing of this permit does not exempt me from complying with all County Codes and Ordinances. It is further understood that the property owner/permittee is the owner of the permit. Note: If change of contractor, please provide the following: Permit Number: E-mail Address: Tel: COMPANY NAME: Morrison Aluminum Construction Inc. STATE LICENSE NO: CPC 1457467 QUALIFIER'S NAME (PRINT) : Kevin R. Morrison QUALIFIER'S SIGNATUR • �i��'_ � 11111000°' tttt111iHIHlllf/!NN 04!f STATE OF: Florida `/....to. • -- `�� N.`iA �� / SWORN TO(OR AFFIRMED AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME THIS 7 / i i / '-7/ej f:,....4.54:;:::::".1(*);.-:::::1 WHO IS PERSONALLY KNOWN: t/ ORAS PRODUCED ID: 1. � a TYPE OF ID: , j (SE///4/9, llls!!Q!o�N\\`\` NOTARY PUBLIC SIGNATURE: _ _ ... _ • NOTICE IN ADDITION TO THE REQUIREMENT- OF THIS PERMIT, THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS APPLICABLE TO THIS PROPERTY THAT MAY BE FOUND IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF THIS COUNTY, AND THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL PERMITS REQUIRED FROM OTHER GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES SUCH AS WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT,STATE AGENCIES,OR FEDERAL AGENCIES. WARNING OF POSSIBLE DEED RESTRICTIONS THE LAND SUBJECT TO THIS PERMIT MAY BE SUBJECT TO DEED, AND OTHER RESTRICTIONS THAT MAY LIMIT OR IMPAIR THE LANDOW NER'S RIGHTS. COLLIER COUNTY IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THESE RESTRICTIONS, NOR ARE COLLIER COUNTY EMPLOYEES AUTHORIZED TO PROVIDE LEGAL OR BUSINESS ADVICE TO THE PUBLIC RELATIVE TO THESE RESTRICTIONS. THE LANDOWNER OR ANY APPLICANT ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE LANDOWNER IS CAUTIONED TO SEE K PROFESSIONAL ADVICE. WARNING ON WORK IN COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAYS THIS PERMIT DOES_NOT AUTHORIZE CONSTRUCTION OR INSTALL ATION OF ANY STRUCTURE OR UTILITY, ABOVE OR BELOW GROUND, WITHIN ANY RIGHT-OF-W AY OR EASEMENT RESERVED FOR ACCESS, DRAINAGE OR UTILITY PURPOSES. THIS RESTRICTION SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITS FENCING, SPRINKLER SYSTEMS, LANDSCAPING OTHER TH AN SOD, SIGNS, WATER, SEWER, CABLE AND DRAINAGE W ORK THEREIN. IF SUCH IMPROVEMENTS ARE NECESSARY, A SEPARATE PERMIT FOR THAT PURPOSE MUST BE OBTAINED FROM TRANSPORTATION/ROW PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS(239)252-8192. ARNING TO OWNER: YOUR FAILURE TO RECORD A NOTICE OF OMMENCEMENT MAY RESULT IN YOUR PAYING TWICE FOR MPROVEMENTS TO YOUR PROPERTY. IF YOU INTEND TO OBTAIN INANCING, CONSULT WITH YOUR LENDER OR AN ATTORNEY EFORE RECORDING YOUR NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT. Per Florida Statutes 713.135 a Notice of Commencement(NOC)is required for construction of improvements totaling more than$2,500,with certain exceptions. For A/C Repairs or Replacements a notice of commencement is required for improvements more than$7,500. The applicant shall file with the issuing authority prior to the first inspection either a certified copy of the recorded NOC or a notarized statement that the NOC has been filed for recording,along with a copy thereof.In order to comply with the state requirement,permits will be placed in inspection hold until proof of the NOC is filed with the building permitting and inspection department.The issuing authority shall not perform or approve subsequent inspections until the applicant files by mail,facsimile,hand delivery,email or any other means such certified copy with the issuing authority. COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION / PLANNING AND REGULATION 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples FL 34104 * Phone (239) 252-2400 Outstanding Corrections Date: January 20, 2016 PERMIT NO: PRBD2016010076701 Contact Name: MORRISON ALUMINUM CONSTRUCTION APPLICATION NO: PRBD20160100767 INC (DBA) MAC CUSTOM POOLS-ALUMINUM Address: 1020 SE 12TH AVE JOB SITE ADDRESS: 342 Trade Winds AVE City,State Zip: CAPE CORAL, FL 33990— Fax: (239) 573-6993 Email: Dear Applicant: Plans submitted with the referenced permit have been reviewed. We are unable to approve your permit application for the reason(s) indicated below. Submit 2 sets of revised sheets along with 2 letters of response addressing each item. All corrections must be clouded. Corrections must be submitted in person, the GMD office receiving corrections is open until 4:00 pm. (NOTE: SIRE permit corrections must be resubmitted through SIRE) JOB DESCRIPTION: CONSTRUCTION OF 387 SQ FT IN-GROUND POOL&5' 8"X 5' 8"ZERO EDGE SPA, 3 HP VS PUMP -ALARMS (PRBD20150928706) 342 TRADEWINDS AVE LOT 11 Rejected Review: FEMA Review Reviewed By: Tim Rygiel Phone:239-252-2455 Email:TimothyRygiel@colliergov.net Correction Comment 1: Provide pool equipment pad elevation. AE 10 flood zone.All equipment must be above BFE Rejected Review: Plumbing and Handicap Review Reviewed By: Tim Rygiel Phone:239-252-2455 Email:TimothyRygiel@colliergov.net Correction Comment 1: Provide pile cap location detail. Correction Comment 2: Provide deck material (concrete or pavers) and lighting selection (nichless LED or niche required LED/100w) ATTENTION: Collier County Plan Review and Inspections routinely reviews all outstanding permit applications in order to determine their status. The review process includes appropriate responses from the permit applicant when the permit cannot be approved. When the applicant is advised of deficiencies and does not respond within 180 days with corrected plans or an appeal to the Code Enforcement Board, the permit application will be canceled as per Collier County Ordinance 2002-01, Section, 104.5.1.1 to 104.5.1.4. IMPORTANT: The new Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM) will be effective on March 30, 2012. All development and building permit must be in compliance with the DFIRM flood zone and flood elevation requirements beginning on March 30, 2012. Please note that applications submitted prior to March 30, 2012, but issued after March 29, 2012, must be in compliance with the DFIRM requirements. \., Poc, \ COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PERMIT PERMIT*: PRBD2015092870601 PERMIT TYPE: BD ISSUED: BY: APPLIED DATE:09-08-15 APPROVAL DATE: 11-13-15 MASTER#: COA; JOB ADDRESS 342 Trade Winds AVE • JOB DESCRIPTION: CONSTRUCT NEW HOME(DEMO PRBD20150617253) JOB PHONE: 342 TRADEWINDS AVE LOT 11 4 bed/5.5 bath rm '` BLOCK: LUT: SUBDIVISION#: FLOOD MAP: ELEVATION: ZOONj: FOLIO#: 27585200007 SECTION-TOWNSHIP-RANGE:29-48-25 OWNER INFORMATION: CONTRACTOR INFORMATION: STONE-JESKE TR,ROXANNE B ROXANNE B JENKS BUILDERS,INC. STONE-JESKE TRUST UTD 8/10/05 7600 ALICO RD#12 PMB 2 531 TURTLE HATCH LN FORT MYERS,FL 33912- NAPLES ,FL 34103- CERTIFICATE#::C'2e383 PHONE: FCC CODE: CONSTRUCTION CODE: 0218 JOB VALUE: $1,100,000.00 TOTAL RES SOFT: 6449 TOTAL COMM SOFT: 0 SETBACKS FRONT: 30' REAR; 25'Principal/ 10'accessory LEFT: 7.5' RIGHT: 7.5' WATER: Existing SEWER; Sewer CONTACT NAME: CONTACT PHONE: d any Per Collier County Ordinance No.2002-01,as it may be amended, alwork must uthorized by comply the permith s no applicable ommenced within six(6)monthss,ordinances,afrom the date of additional stipulations or conditions of this permit.This permit expires if work issuance of the permit.Additional fees for failing to obtain permits prior to the commencement of construction may be imposed.Permittee(s)further understands that any contractor that may be employed must be a licensed contractor and that the structure must not be used or occupied until a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. NOTICE:PRIOR TO THE REMOVAL OF ASBESTOS PRODUCTS OR THE DEMOLITIONR OLRACOFR)T SSTRUCTURE, FEDERALR AND STATE LAWS REQUIRE THE PERMft'1'L�E(EITHER THE F THE INTENDED WORK TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION(DEP).FOR MORE INFORMATION,CONTACT DEP AT(239)344-5600. that In addition to the conditions of this permit,there may be dh ermits reqnal uired fromons ptcable to other governmentas l entit es such as water ay be found in the public records of this county,and there may be additionalP management districts,state agencies;or federal agencies. WARNING TO OWNER: YOUR FAILURE TO RECORD A NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT MAY RESULT IN YOUR PAYING TWICE FOR ONSOVLET WITH TO YOUR PROPERTY. IF YOU INTEND TO OBTAIN FINANCING, YOUR LENDER OR AN ATTORNEY BEFORE RECORDING YOUR NOTICE OF ALPHA ENGINEERING Structural Engineering •Consulting Civil Engineers January 11,,2016 CoMier County Government - Growth Management 28tO N. Horseshoe Dr_ Naples, Florida 34104 l Koeper Residence ATFN: (City Officials) To whom it may concern: The following leiter is to inform you of the fogowing changes made to the Koeper Residence and that Alpha Engineering has made these changes and approves of them as follows: 1_ We are removing the Grade Beam from the pool _ 2_ We are going to continue the footer at slabs height in the designated areas by contractor 3_ Pilling Ws 23&47 are good at 12 ton capacity rather than the previous 15 ton capacity noted 4_ Engineer approves the change of concrete pad from 30x24 to the new size of 24x24 wf ag7 top& - Should you have any questions feel free to contact our atanytime_ Sincerelyf • e"?`"°% ALPHA TERING OF LEE COUNTY, INC. R d arvey Strauss, RE . � • President HSfas 6315 Presidential Court•Suite 120•Fort Myers, FL 33919 PHONE (239)267-7777 • FAX (239)267-7752 �'"vivuw alp iec®vykcg an # .` BUILDING f T COPY 4 S. . Attach to File REV WED FGRCOQECOMPLW4EV DATE Zoning Engineering Building Electrical Mechanical Gas Plumbing Structural 4. Fire Prey. Health Utilities R g-slz ao \ sv .ez\-4,41.(lo" • o1 COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT REVISION FORM Growth Management Division 12500 N.Horseshoe Drive,Naples Florida 34104 TEL: 239-252-2400 0 Residential 1 or 2 Units(Single Family/Duplex) p Residential 3 or more Units (Multi-family) 0 Commercial Permit No. PRBD2015092870601 []Contractor ❑Own Builder' -) Job Address: 342 Trade Winds Ave ¢ zy Company Name: Jenks BuiIder�d Inc 0 27585200007 , o Qualifier/Professional Name: Jason Jenks E Parcel#/Folio: °a t= a Contact Name:Jason Jenks Owner's Name: Stone-Jakes TR Roxanne Boxanr c o Address: 7600 Alico Rd 12-2 o `t' —z City:Fort Myers State:Fl Zip:33912 Jason Jenks � Phone 239-481-1219 Fax:239.481-8004 Agent Submitting Revision: c E-mail Address: Jason@jenksbuildersinc.com ALL REVISIONS MUST BE"CLOUDED"WITH AN ITEMIZED LIST OF THE SCOPE OF WOR,K Note:Changes to any exterior portion of the building may result in an architectural review which may require an SDP amendment/change.Please clearly indicate any change to the facade and/or exterior of building.Additional Cost value must be greater than zero dollars($0). Description of Work: Engineer changed bearing capacity on 2 pilings, deleted 2 grade beams on pool deck and resized footing due ground water. Project Name: Koeper Additional Cost of Construction$: 0 ,t0 G Additional SQ.Ft.Living/Interior: 0 Additional SQ.Ft.Non Living/Exterior: 0 Check Trades Affected B Revision check all a' 1 licable trades associated with revision 0 Private Provider 0 Plumbing 0 Roofing El Electrical []Septic 0 Low Voltage El Shutters 0 Mechanical D Permit by Affidavit EA Structural Qualifier Acknowledgement of Revision Submittal COMPANY NAME: Jenks Builders Inc STATE LICENSE NO:CBC 058565 QUALIFIER'S NAME(PRINT); J son Jenks Cr ' ttt. UALIFIER'S SIGNATURE-- /74.--2c.----& /r ��Il r. Q 7 ``I8 STATE OF: Ft COUNTY OF: Lee <-'0 SWORN TO(OR AFFIRMED)AND SUSUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME THIS0101 /19 /16 WHO IS PERSONALLY KNOWN:1 1 OR AS PRODUCED ID: I [ILmi J _.. SHONDAA..EN} mrommISSI # 0349EXPIRES:July 9,2017 TYPE OF ID: ,TV Ban dl YPUbUndeI7lte(S i z NOTARY PUBLIC SIGNATURE: IL ;/.( (A_-`K ---C--- ---A--- (SEAL) PLEASE DO NOT WRITE BELOW.FOR STAFF USE ONLY INSPECTIONS NEEDED: ADDITIONAL FEES: Building: $ Fire: $ 11/1/14—PMR Date: Days Review: i # Set of Plans: 3 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION / PLANNING AND REGULATION 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples FL 34104 * Phone (239) 252-2400 Outstanding Corrections Date: January 25, 2016 PERMIT NO: PRBD2015092870601 Contact Name: JENKS BUILDERS, INC. APPLICATION NO: PRBD20150928706 Address: 7600 ALICO RD#12 PMB 2 JOB SITE ADDRESS: 342 Trade Winds AVE City,State Zip: FORT MYERS, FL 33912- Fax: (239)481-8004 Email:Jason@Jenksbuildersinc.com Dear Applicant: Plans submitted with the referenced permit have been reviewed. We are unable to approve your permit application for the reason(s) indicated below. Submit 3 sets of revised sheets along with 3 letters of response addressing each item. All corrections must be clouded. Corrections must be submitted in person, the GMD office receiving corrections is open until 4:00 pm. (NOTE: SIRE permit corrections must be resubmitted through SIRE) JOB DESCRIPTION: CONSTRUCT NEW HOME (DEMO PRBD20150617253) 342 TRADEWINDS AVE LOT 11 4 bed/5.5 bath rm Rejected Review: Residential Review Reviewed By: Dan Wasch Phone:239-252-6811 Email:danielwasch@colliergov.net Correction Comment 1: Provide revised plans showing which grade beams are being deleted,which footer in what designated areas are being extended, and which pad is being changed. Correction Comment 2:This review shall be considered incomplete pending receipt of the information requested. Subsequent reviews may reveal additional deficiencies. ATTENTION: Collier County Plan Review and Inspections routinely reviews all outstanding permit applications in order to determine their status. The review process includes appropriate responses from the permit applicant when the permit cannot be approved. When the applicant is advised of deficiencies and does not respond within 180 days with corrected plans or an appeal to the Code Enforcement Board, the permit application will be canceled as per Collier County Ordinance 2002-01, Section, 104.5.1.1 to 104.5.1.4. IMPORTANT: The new Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM) will be effective on March 30, 2012. All development and building permit must be in compliance with the DFIRM flood zone and flood elevation requirements beginning on March 30, 2012. Please note that applications submitted prior to March 30, 2012, but issued after March 29, 2012, must be in compliance with the DFIRM requirements. ROUTE SHEET Performance Review _ Residential _ ase. .... ��.........,�.s..+.'s.. _r:Z .wmi ..F.aa... ,.-uxx ✓ "..�.. .. -.. - ._<�: ..,u£`o:.>.e:.Y`.s.,—a*% Permit Number: PRBD20150928706 Permit Type: Revision - Building Submittal: 5 5 Re-Submittal corr 4 Submittal Drop Off Method: 3 Fast Track: Simultaneous: Master Permit#: Sets: Private Provider: Expedited Review: Planning Project: Business Name: Job CONSTRUCT NEW HOME (DEMO PRBD20150617253) Description: 342 TRADEWINDS AVE LOT 11 4 bed/ 5.5 bath rm Details: REVISION # 1 ENGINEER CHANGED BEARING CAPACITY ON 2 PILINGS DELTED 2 GRADE BEAMS ON POOL DECK AND RESIZED FOOTING DUE TO GROUND WATER Fire District: 11 North Naples Fire Bldg Code in FBC 5th Edition 2014 Effect: Review In Date Group/PMR Status Reviewer Comments: Fee$ Date Final Review 5 Day Review 2/2/2016 2/9/2016 Time Residential Review --ic , \ 2/2/2016 2/5/2016 Other Applicable Reviews: Review In Date Group/PMR Status Reviewer Comments: Fee$ Date (IP) Citilr&A-4-e • Entered by: vickiscott Report Updated:06/29/2015 -Tonic 1041 et, JENKS BUILDERS, INC. 7000 ALICO RD. 12-2 FORT MYERS, FL 33912 PHONE: 239-481-1219 February 1, 2016 Collier County Government Growth Management Division/Planning and Regulation 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 Re: 342 Tradewinds Ave. Permit No.: PRBD2015092870601 Dear Sirs: I am in response to your letter dated January 25, 2016. Correction comment 1: Sheet S3 has been provided showing deleted grade beams,new footer size and raised grade. Should you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at 239-565- 3571. Sincerely, f .77 ' Jason Jenks Jenks Builders, Inc. • ELEVATION CERTIFICATE, page 2 IMPORTANT:In these spaces,copy the corresponding information from Section A. FOR INSURANCE COMPANY USE Building Street Address(including Apt.,Unit,Suite,and/or Bldg. No.)or PO. Route and Box No. Policy Number: 342 TRADE WINDS AVENUE City State ZIP Code Company NAIC Number: NAPLES FL 34103 SECTION D—SURVEYOR,ENGINEER,OR ARCHITECT CERTIFICATION (CONTINUED) Copy both sides of this Elevation Certificate for(1)community official,(2)insurance agent/company,and(3)building owner. Comments C2.e)is a concrete A/C pad on the East side of the building Signatureil Date 05/19/2016 SECTION E—BUILD G ELEVATION INFORMATION (SURVEY NOT REQUIRED) FOR ZONE AO AND ZONE A (WITHOUT BFE) For Zones AO and A(without BFE),complete Items El—E5. If the Certificate is intended to support a LOMA or LOMR-F request,complete Sections A,B,and C. For Items El—E4,use natural grade,if available.Check the measurement used. In Puerto Rico only,enter meters. El.Provide elevation information for the following and check the appropriate boxes to show whether the elevation is above or below the highest adjacent grade(HAG)and the lowest adjacent grade(LAG). a)Top of bottom floor(including basement,crawlspace,or enclosure)is El feet ❑meters El above or El below the HAG. b)Top of bottom floor(including basement,crawlspace,or enclosure)is ❑feet ❑meters ❑above or ❑below the LAG. E2.For Building Diagrams 6-9 with permanent flood openings provided in Section A Items 8 and/or 9(see pages 8-9 of Instructions), the next higher floor(elevation C2.b in the diagrams)of the building is El feet ❑meters 0 above or ❑below the HAG. E3.Attached garage(top of slab)is ❑feet ❑meters ❑above or ❑below the HAG. E4.Top of platform of machinery and/or equipment servicing the building is 0 feet ❑meters 0 above or ❑below the HAG. E5.Zone AO only: If no flood depth number is available,is the top of the bottom floor elevated in accordance with the community's floodplain management ordinance?❑Yes ❑No ❑Unknown.The local official must certify this information in Section G. SECTION F—PROPERTY OWNER (OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE) CERTIFICATION The property owner or owner's authorized representative who completes Sections A,B,and E for Zone A(without a FEMA-issued or community-issued BFE)or Zone AO must sign here.The statements in Sections A,B,and E are correct to the best of my knowledge. Property Owner or Owner's Authorized Representative's Name Address City State ZIP Code Signature Date Telephone Comments ❑Check here if attachments. SECTION G—COMMUNITY INFORMATION (OPTIONAL) The local official who is authorized by law or ordinance to administer the community's floodplain management ordinance can complete Sections A,B,C(or E),and G of this Elevation Certificate.Complete the applicable item(s)and sign below.Check the measurement used in Items G8—G10.In Puerto Rico only,enter meters. Gl. El The information in Section C was taken from other documentation that has been signed and sealed by a licensed surveyor,engineer,or architect who is authorized by law to certify elevation information.(Indicate the source and date of the elevation data in the Comments area below.) G2. El A community official completed Section E for a building located in Zone A(without a FEMA-issued or community-issued BFE)or Zone AO. G3. El The following information(Items G4—G9)is provided for community floodplain management purposes. G4. Permit Number G5. Date Permit Issued G6. Date Certificate Of Compliance/Occupancy Issued G7. This permit has been issued for: ❑New Construction ❑Substantial Improvement G8. Elevation of as-built lowest floor(including basement)of the building: El feet El meters Datum G9. BFE or(in Zone AO)depth of flooding at the building site: ❑feet ❑meters Datum GlO.Community's design flood elevation: ❑feet El meters Datum Local Official's Name Title Community Name Telephone Signature Date Comments El Check here if attachments. FEMA Form 086-0-33(7/12) Replaces all previous editions. U.S.DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY ELEVATION CERTIFICATE OMB No. 1660-0008 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY National Flood fnsumnce Program IMPORTANT:Follow the instructions on pages 1-9. Expiration Date: July 31, 2015 SECTION A-PROPERTY INFORMATION FOR INSURANCE COMPANY USE Al. Building Owner's Name STONE-JESKE/KOEPER Policy Number: A2. Building treet TRADEess( clu ing A/Apt Unit,Suite,and/or Bldg. No.)or PO. Route and Box No. Company NAIC Number: city NAPLES State FL ZIP Code 34103 A3. Property Description(Lot and Block Numbers,Tax Parcel Number, Legal Description,etc.) LOT 11, BLOCK M, UNIT No. 2, CONNER'S VANDERBILT BEACH ESTATES A4. Building Use(e.g.,Residential,Non-Residential,Addition,Accessory,etc.) RESIDENTIAL A5. Latitude/Longitude: Lat. 28° 15'42" Long. 81°49' 12" Horizontal Datum: 0 NAD 1927 ❑x NAD 1983 A6. Attach at least 2 photographs of the building if the Certificate is being used to obtain flood insurance. A7. Building Diagram Number 1R A8. For a building with a crawlspace or enclosure(s): A9.For a building with an attached garage: a) Square footage of crawlspace or enclosure(s) 0 sq ft a) Square footage of attached garage 555 sq ft b) No. of permanent flood openings in the crawlspace or 0 b) Number of permanent flood openings in the attached garage enclosure(s)within 1.0 foot above adjacent grade within 1.0 foot above adjacent grade 0 c) Total net area of flood openings in A8.b 0 sq in c) Total net area of flood openings in A9.b 0 sq in d) Engineered flood openings? ❑Yes ®No d) Engineered flood openings? ❑Yes ®No SECTION B-FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP (FIRM) INFORMATION B1. NFIP Community Name&Community Number B2.County Name 3. State UNINCORPORATED COLLIER COUNTY 120067 COLLIER B4. Map/Panel Number B5.Suffix 86. FIRM Index Date B7. FIRM Panel Effective/ B8. Flood Zone(s) B9. Base Flood Elevation(s)(Zone Revised Date A0,use base flood depth) 12021C0189 H 05/16/2012 05/16/2012 AE 10' B10.Indicate the source of the Base Flood Elevation(BFE)data or base flood depth entered in Item B9: ❑FIS Profile a FIRM ❑Community Determined ❑Other/Source: 811.Indicate elevation datum used for BFE in Item B9: ❑NGVD 1929 ®NAVD 1988 ❑Other/Source: B12.Is the building located in a Coastal Barrier Resources System(CBRS)area or Otherwise Protected Area(OPA)? ❑Yes ®No Designation Date: / / 0 CBRS ❑OPA SECTION C- BUILDING ELEVATION INFORMATION (SURVEY REQUIRED) Cl. Building elevations are based on: ❑Construction Drawings* ®Building Under Construction* 0 Finished Construction *A new Elevation Certificate will be required when construction of the building is complete. C2. Elevations—Zones A1—A30,AE,AH,A(with BFE),VE,V1—V30,V(with BFE),AR,AR/A,AR/AE,AR/A1—A30,AR/AH,AR/AO.Complete Items C2.a—h below according to the building diagram specified in Item A7. In Puerto Rico only,enter meters. Benchmark Utilized: FL DNR COL 29 Vertical Datum: NAVD 1988 Indicate elevation datum used for the elevations in items a)through h)below. 0 NGVD 1929 ®NAVD 1988 0 Other/Source: Datum used for building elevations must be the same as that used for the BFE. Check the measurement used. a) Top of bottom floor(including basement,crawlspace,or enclosure floor) 10 . 4 ®feet 0 meters b) Top of the next higher floor n/a . ❑feet 0 meters c) Bottom of the lowest horizontal structural member(V Zones only) n/a . 0 feet 0 meters d) Attached garage(top of slab) 04 . 8 IN feet 0 meters e) Lowest elevation of machinery or equipment servicing the building 10 . 3 ®feet 0 meters (Describe type of equipment and location in Comments) f) Lowest adjacent(finished)grade next to building(LAG) 03 , 8 14 feet 0 meters g) Highest adjacent(finished)grade next to building(HAG) 09 , 8 e.feet 0 meters h) Lowest adjacent grade at lowest elevation of deck or stairs, including n/a . 0 feet ❑meters structural support SECTION D-SURVEYOR,ENGINEER,OR ARCHITECT CERTIFICATION This certification is to be signed and sealed by a land surveyor,engineer,or architect authorized by law to certify elevation information.I certify that the information on this Certificate represents my best efforts to interpret the data available. I understand that any false statement may be punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.Code,Section 1001. 0 Check here if comments are provided on back of form. Were latitude and longitude in Section A provided by a 0 Check here if attachments. licensed land surveyor? ❑Yes ®No i- Certifier's Name License Number SCOTT E. MARHENKE 4920 =_ _ Title Company Name P.S.M. OMNI SURVEYS, INC. Address City State ZIP Code 4568 TILTON COURT FORT MYERS FL 33907 Signature / Date Telephone i p 05/19/2016 (239)939-3666 'A Form 086-0-33(7/12) See reverse side for continuation. Replaces all previous editions. COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT REVISION FORM Growth Management Division 12800 N.Horseshoe Drive,Naples Florida 34104 TEL: 239-252-2400 Residential 1 or 2 Units(Single Family/Duplex) []Residential 3 or more Units(Multi-family) ❑ Commercial Permit No. P R `t :4 1�'C 1 R a (:) i a �ntractor ❑ w Oner Builder Job Address3L\a l 1(" e W w c- S A ✓ z R. Company Name: 1.7e v' I�\5 1 _LA f I,-\p r S I-i c y ) pp w o Qualifier Professional Name: Fo Parcel#/Folio: x O ,� o ff Qualifier/ Professional C Contact Name: J to`,c>,--, -, e:--, k..S o -- o _______ a i _ V - a o Address: 766:70 ,4 1;, , /e l - .9- Owner's Name: 6':� ("_5 ` . r F z ` /<c rc n l3. i ^ City:t�./'Ti jj7 State: fL Zip: 2)x1 1 a Agent Submitting Revision: J '7 7 c \ P.--N k 5o Phone HCl 'I I � ) i Fax:o� �l /:-/. /'�« E-mail Address:=N Se-‘ L -1< k ^ A P C Tr')t ,c c>An ALL REVISIONS MUST BE"CLOUDED"WITH AN ITEMIZED LIST OF THE SCOPE OF WORK Note:Changes to any exterior portion of the building may result in an architectural review which may require an SDP amendment/change.Please clearly indicate any change to the façade and/or exterior of building.g.Additional Cost value must be greater than zero dollars($0). Description of Work / /1 e S /-(-4 , (1G t � C\P fn ,A r', s^c‘-` j i (\ e poo t� \,_)P�,-, C \-N r\ c r, . t �-- ��v P V —1 a is c_ ( e 0 c !—pro,v-\ /A r sr S 1- r I, QV LA c.A ,p10 c, -fiProject Name: J< U e C f' 1 Additional Cost of Construction$: ' Additional SQ.Ft.Living/Interior: 0 Additional SQ.Ft.Non Living/Exterior: 0 Check Trades Affected By Revision (check all applicable trades associated tlii i cion) 0 Private Provider 0 Plumbing '' 0 Roofing 0 Electrical EMEMil El Septic 0 Low Voltagethoqi 0 Shutters 0 Mechanical NAME 0 Permit by Affidavit p'S`tructural Qualifier Acknowledgement of Revision Submittal r:t-1; COMPANY NAME: F'v-\ r``a �� \.,- ,` A,1 0C.5 STATE LICENSE NO: L C C) -5 bt5 s QUALIFIER'S NAME(PRINT): -3 c 5 r% —1 -e1 `s7 QUALIFIER'S SIGNATURE: -'=------,-,--�-'z ----- 4 ,,0*`*.(i, CAROL RUTH STACHU.RA STATE OF: t- COUNTY OF: — �� *• ,i•�y` * MY COMMISSION#PF 093307 ,...2 � 0,;1; f //' a II _ ...• EXPIRES:Febtaty 18;2018 SWORN TO(OR AFFIRMED)AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME THIS / ( 11' 9fN,,p '! BondedThmBudget Notary gervieeg WHO IS PERSONALLY KNO N: OR AS PRODUCED ID:or; TYPE OF ID: _---z____::"..,,... NOTARY PUBLIC SIGNATURE �_-_4._ ----""C--- (SEAL) PLEASE DO NOT WRITE BELOW.FOR STAFF USE ONLY INSPECTIONS NEEDED: ADDITIONAL FEES: Building: $ Fire: $ 11/1/14—PMR Date: Days Review: # Set of Plans: COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT REVISION Fi * Growth Management Division 12800 N.Horseshoe Drive,Naples Florida 34104 TEL: 239-252-2400 rfi�/e4n �I residential 1 or 2 Units(Single Family/Duplex) ElResidential 3 or more Units(Multi-family) //I❑r" kifmmerk� 7 Permit No. R r,)(� i 5" !a -0,b, /� a ❑Contractor^ ['Owner Builder Job Address:3e-0,-.77;\P ^ . ,•ems �-1-V e z (�'�` 1 SC7 y Company Name: r =, •- - .A_vN '_-- ' n�-� Z tn FParcel#/Folio: C-Z—1 5 g �,C ': C'' z H Qualifier/Professional Name:. ' a Contact Name:_ o C / x 0 Address: /6 L 'rte :/'t I i c o f< ra 1,--)--:a� as Owner's Name: - --) t--C; l 0 - 1s.('_1( N F w City: 19/(/id/i. State:FL Zip: 33(\ \,� 1 l' F Phone L� }1 -��\c\ Fax: tf3I - Le() 1 Agent Submitting Revision) .' c' P L',K 5 z ` " E-mail Address:-- .5c'"` `2 --S e'v, >wj--,;lc),''i`t.ic. Coy.-) ALL REVISIONS MUST BE"CLOUDED"WITH AN ITEMIZED LIST OF THE SCOPE OF WORK Note:Changes to any exterior portion of the building may result in an architectural review which may require an SDP amendment/change.Please clearly indicate any change to the façade and/or exterior of building.Additional Cost value must be greater than zero dollars($0). r• r ` \ �' V'.e,\\ _ 3,, _, rt-3 . c Description of Work: C.1-Ar c-- ,Ac....., � (.2\1r.)�-� x `^ �c'� C' ..> >" � � �v . Project Name: t\C'F F < Additional Cost of Construction$: Additional SQ.Ft.Living/Interior: n Additional SQ.Ft.Non Living/Exterior: 0 Check Trades Affected By Revision (check all applicable trades associated with revision) 0 Private Provider 0 Plumbing El Roofing 0 Electrical E:1 Septic 0 Low Voltage 0 Shutters 0 Mechanical 0 Permit by Affidavit ►tructural Qualifier Acknowledgement of Revision Submittal \ COMP NAME: STATE LICENSE NO: ALIFIER'S NAME(PRINT): 77 QUALIFIER'S SIGNATURE: STATE OF: COUNTY OF: SWORN TO(OR AFFIRMED)AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME THIS / / WHO IS PERSONALLY KNOWN: ORAS PRODUCED ID: , TYPE OF ID: NO 'RY PUBLIC SIGNATURE: (SEAL) PLEASE DO NOT WRITE BELOW,FOR STAFF USE ONLY INSPECTIONS NEEDED: ADDITIONAL : :ui •Ing: $ Fire: $ 11/1/14-PMR Date: 3 - c)-3 Days Review \, c #Set of Plans: 3 c,o 1�5 ROUTE SHEET Performance Review - - Residential Permit Number: PRBD20150928706 Permit Type: Revision - Building Submittal: 6 6 Revision Submittal Submittal In Person Method: 3 Fast Track: Simultaneous: Master Permit#: Sets: Private Provider: Expedited Review: Planning Project: Business Name: Job CONSTRUCT NEW HOME (DEMO PRBD20150617253) Description: 342 TRADEWINDS AVE LOT 11 4 bed/5.5 bath rm Details: 3/21/16 HOUSE PLANS ERRONEOUSLY SHOW#5 REBAR IN POOL, POOL PLANS CALL FOR#3, REVISION TO CLARIFY VIA ENGINEER'S LETTER/ECB Fire District: 11 North Naples Fire Bldg Code in FBC 5th Edition 2014 Effect: Review In Date Group/PMR Status Reviewer Comments: Fee$ Date Final Review 1 Day Review 3/21/2016 3/22/2016 Time Residential Review 3/21/2016 3/22/2016 /1 Other Applicable Reviews: Review In Date Group/PMR Status Reviewer Comments: Fee$ Date Entered by: edwardbouza Report Updated:06/29/2015 -Tonic irALPHA ENGINEERING Structural Engineering Consulting Civil Engineers March 23,2016 Collier County Government Growth Management Division/Planning and regulation 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 RE: 342 Tradewinds Ave. (Permit#: PRBD20150928706) Attn: (City Officials) To Whom It May Concern: The following letter is to inform you of the following changes made to the 342 Tradewinds Ave Residence and that Alpha Engineering has made these changes and approves of them as follows: 1. The stair noted detail and side pool bench detail on sheet S7 are deleted from these structural plans. Should you have an questions please feel free to contact our office at anytime. Sincerely, ��`��r��llultrRp///ie,/i • • 1* Harve :trauss, P.E. *./ * Presi;ent = ./. ST E F `4, ALPHA ENGINEERING OF LEE COUNTY, INC. �� '• 23 HS/SA �sS. 0 N A u�,c ii)i}�0% 6315 Presidential Court Suite 120 Fort Myers, FL 33919 PHONE (239) 267-7777 FAX (239) 267-7752 www.alphaleecounty.com .7 ' ice' ALPHA ENGINEERING Structural Engineering Consulting Civil Engineers March 14,2016 Collier County Government Growth Management Division/Planning and regulation 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 RE: 342 Tradewinds Ave. (Permit#: PRBD20150928706) Attn: (City Officials) To Whom It May Concern: The following letter is to inform you of the following changes made to the 2654 Shoreview Residence and that Alpha Engineering has made these changes and approves of them as follows: 1. AU steel in pool shell will be changed to#3`s. Should you have any questions please feel free to contact our office at anytime. Sincerely, 001111118/#0,. /we, \\! >- )sE <t.144�11V 4„ f ey Strauss, P.E. :7;:.*? 9 resident �, * ALPHA ENGINEERING OF LEE COUNTY, INC. !� S A/,EaF ,.�� HS/SA ��fs pqW 11 I A n 0\`\�,``4• 6315 Presidential Court Suite 120 Fort Myers, FL 33919 PHONE (239) 267-7777 FAX (239) 267-7752 www.alphaleecounty.com i 1 1 I BUILDING DEPT 21,13N,71,,, 644„--ipm, eil.f.;„r.-7ry This plan shall E3e at The zitn during a!1 irepacte,ns . 7.•jic!inr; ,\flchanical ..._..........___________ ______.....__ ______.. ..._...... frik vg.timir ALPHA ENGINEERING Structural Engineering Consulting Civil Engineers June 9, 2016 •• • Collier County Government Growth Management Division/Planning and regulation 2800 N.Horseshoe Dr. Naples,FL 34104 RE: 342 Tradewinds Ave. (Permit#: PRBD20150928706) Attn: (City Officials) To Whom It May Concern: The three(3)rear lanai beams spanning 16'6,22' and 12"are to be 12"x 16"4000 psi concrete beams with 3 #5's top and 5#7's bottom and#3 stirrups at 6"on center. The two(2)lanai beams running North and South spanning 15'6 and 11'that support the wet deck are to be 12"x 16"4000 psi concrete with 3 #5's top and 4#7's bottom with stirrups at 7"on center Should you have any questions please feel free to contact our office at anytime. Sincerely, / "�`_ ties .•.• r ,,• ��R/f H= -y Strauss,P.E. •• I =9 President - NA- 0 7/ OF 1 ALPHA ENGINEERING OF LEE COUNTY, INC. ,� ` p HS/SA , ai.L E• S‘`: 6315 Presidential Court Suite 120 Fort Myers, FL 33919 PHONE (239) 267-7777 FAX (239) 267-7752 www.alphaleecounty.com 7 (-) (-- n 9 -2, S-? O 6 _,..,,, BOUNDARY SURVEY OF LOT 11, BLOCK"M", UNIT No. 2, CONNER'S VANDERBILT BEACH ESTATES, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3, PAGE 17, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATIONS OF RECORD. Fv.B N & t'15 ' PSAA 9667'M 1215' (R ) 1215. 12' CM ) o O.U' W.,NAV P ELEV. 9- 02.88 MI PD.NAIL iN . PVMt.GUi•uOLE (TRADE WINDS AVE . ( c-- 760' (k) 760.07'(C) -,-,, I W — - -�4-•- ...a - M---—?-4- --- °�-- 75.01 ' 1. �l 34.0' r FD.PK NAIL IN PVMT. 1 1 1 CUT•NOLE, 0.06'W ' Ft)NAIL SHAFT ' 1IN PVMT.GUT- hi- �► F_D6E OF PVMT. C G DNC. - HOLE p coNG. p m m O M 4 , I coO I 12'• R.G. I WV '� 588°04-' 10"W 75.00'CR) 75.01'CC) , Sp F1R 5"PSM.... i QWM !'iR#50.52'5.,0.29'E. „J P5M 5762" c 0.03'N.,0.07'W. 4"PV STUB OUT m CC O m til W Lt CZ Z s 1 < ^ ' 7.65' ze 24.0' m 4 4.0 76 5) o .__/ 65 05' '`t 8. o 0 m �, cv - LA 9.0' to d' 4 m z 342 TRADE WIMPS AVE: 0 B LO C K WI C.S.S. I-10USE (under con5L') 0 a I FIN. FLOOR ELEV. +10.4 N In in Lu N ` 20.6' . 0 v 'n Zs 2.0aD vv) U" 15.0"a 4.35' _ Xf7j to i0.8' it) i7 0 SET DRiLLUOLE ' iN TOP OF CONC. yE11WALL 59.7' ALUM.IF t NAVD ELEV. 4-03.31 76 X11 S.RETAiNING WALL f ll c.B.S. j:Li. _ wA._� .3S' WIDE CONC. SEAWALL GAP '-\ c 1 1.14' 1 I $ -1 ,1 588°04'10"W 75.00'(8) 75.01'(M) > . om SET DRILLI10LE IN TOP OF CONC. SEAWALL NAVD ELEV. + 03.32 W A -r E R W A •r SCALE: 1"=20' :US!. = PERMANENT CONTROL POINT BEARINGS BASED ON: TRADE,WINV5 AVE AS-68B°04'10"W PER RECORD PLA 9- 5 -15 0815025 C010-52 VACANT/NAVD El.-EV P.R.M. a PERMANENT REFERENCE ELEVATIONS BASED ON:NAVA 1988 (ORIG.ON FL DNR COL 29 1984 65M DATE ORDER FIELD BOOK REVISIONS MONUMENT SIR = SET �g IRON ROfD LOCATED IN FLOOD ZONE: AE (IO') 5-19- 16 0516015 C010- 52 FOUNDATION/EL2f C1=Rr W/CAP'OMNI SURVEYS' PER F.I.R.M. DATED: 5.16.20►2 120216 0189 N SIR#4 SET #4 IRON ROD _W/cArOMNI SURVEYS' CERTIFICATE ' C.M. = WNCRETE MONUMENT I hereby FOUND IRON ROD certify that the above sketch correctly Nde( ) = NAIL do (T=TIN,D=DISK) represents a land survey mode by me or under my VALID FD. = FOUND direct supervision and meets the minimum technicol R = RECORD standards as set forth by the Florida Board of ONLY a MEASURED Professional Land Surveyors in Ch 5J 17.050 5J 17.052 FL WITH U - DEED CALCULATED Administrable Code, Pursuant to Section 472.027, Florida 0M N = DRAINAGE EASEMENT Statutes. I further certify that it is only for the lands EMBOSSED cil O� ` "�' SURVEYS, '° m C' PUE = PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT herein described and is valid only w�h the raised SEAL WM WATER METER embossed surveyor's seal of the undersigned, It is not a WV= WATER VALVE certification of Title, Zoning or freedom of encumbrances. FH = FIRE HYDRANT( LB 6584 RCP — RONFORCb CONCRETE P PEM) CMP = CORRUGATED METAL PIPE TEL. (239) 939-3666 ME = MRERED ENDI. ia FAX (239) 939-7181 CB - C4TCH BASIN Sco Marhenke, P5 4568 TILTON COURT FORT MYERS, FL 33907 _()P = POLE___OLOLICHT,P=POWER) _GA GUY IWVMOR Florida Registration No. 4920 Dock and Seawall Permit Application And Permit OCT 252016 EXTENSION FORM By Date: //),275- p Permit#: rPI 6;261 )4 I C, O83 / / ? Primary Permit#(if required):1 8D D15c 1166 Contractor: g/ejorie It/ IT, lE �Jy/IS/t ii)2i Phone it y q•5-6—g Address: 02`7/'7/ )i I'te, i&f 7)k i34/7 45 Ft 3Y/3S r. Contractors E-mail Address: /7/1-6 ' Crlfc/fK fiiiPi Owner's name: QOA'ail/ S7`Vf1 JS�i•t?✓ Job Address: 3Y I!/tceu1r1tie, Permit Description: / 2 iiu )c1/ CLLk/ / P1 1.t- xiLQ e 1eek ;C: Permit Expiration Date: /� -/ /4 Has work commenced yet? YC'S Reason for extension: LA3 ;41,19 8r'i AG05 c Estimate time of extension: 9 Cr cit.,/s No.of other extensions: / (MAXIMUM 90 DAYS) / (MAXIMUM 3 EXTENSIONS ALLOWED) Signature .-License�ontract alifier Print name of Licensed Contractor/Qualifier yV �reJt�r(cX'T • State of Florida County /�� Sworn to and subscribed before me this r 5 day of t c -o be r OU75a By: O)/" f_/1"/�- _i (L)-Prsonally known ( )Produced Identification Type of Identification " ',r,, HOLLY LINDSLY Signature of Notary Public: .of�: , r ' Notary Public-State of Florida t'• Commission a FF 969598 (�(� �/�, ; 92�' g My Comm.Expires Jun 29.2020 r` ,"°,,'d''F' Bonded through National Notary Assn Extension granted Permit extension period v Extension denied Reason for denial Collier County Fax No: (239)252-6318 '\1� E- Collier GMDPermitExtension(Jcoltierrov.net JB ENGINEERING 11338 Bonita Beach Rd. SE Suite 103 OF Bonita Springs, Florida 34135 S.W. FL, INC. Engineering Business # 28318 (239) 949-0030 Fax (239) 948-7486 E-Mail: jj@jbengswfl.com December 16, 2015 To: Collier County Building Department 2800 Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 FILE Re: Seawall Replacement 342 Tradewinds Ave. Collier County, FL Application#: PRBD20150412083 CERTIFICATION I have inspected the replacement seawall for this project and certify that it has been completed in accordance with our approved permit drawings ( our job # JB-15-GO-056 ) and the requirements of Ordinance # 85-2 (Collier County). Respectfully submitted(//i, t -,�� 1// No 507)7_. • ® �\\V\ Joseph J. B6iT bass': •., .- . Fla. Cert. # x,0702 Nov 12 1511:47a Greg Orick Marine 2393012238 p.1 ii _ ,,,,,,„,,, Cot( 7 county EXTENSION FORM Date: /- /0 -/5— Permit#: PP'f1' Doo, bq%i AO FS(' / • Primary Permit#(if required J: I t�v (�L` i? 0i ali0 /Db Contractor:RiPel, i'Jckla itiati - Phone#: V4 ,,fC5 Address: c?'71'?/ Dri1ix C 7)riir-" �r7;?�-sj r:n�s F2 3�i3.: Contractor's E-mail Address: ire 62Atir,C7liz7;`ii7e .<:Grn Owner's name: exannL _5"- -nne- ,/Pyre Job Address: .,---),(7c. 7a_C/e& ;,Ick 4w:. Permit Description: It%£_'e.-t.% mel&6Jf Qrt✓C1�� `(-CI- ail_ of tJe 1 i-1 Permit Expiration Date: /0 - 3 i-,.,5" Has work commenced yet? E'er Reason for extension: /r1 (?0/1t/0/P/? (di)/, i /1�ii�.t e ftc 5' d�in e. ja.d Estimate time of extension: 616; cieC.5 No.of other extensions: (MAXIMUM 90 DAYS) // (MAXIMUM 3 EXTENSIONS ALLOWED) Signature 1 f icensed ontractor/Qualifier Print name of Licensed Contractor/Qualifier �1 �` // )y_____ /. Cuf f c.e:_ f/ State of Florida County / e aA , � Sworn to and subscribed before me this /02 day of NJ 4/Pril bet- , , Vb/6— By: (3fP�OA/Ci ( sonall known Y ( )Produced Identification Type of Identification Signature of No ary Public: tt�;, a HOLLY LINDSLY '' . 4L3/ Aryl Notary m. licE=My Comm.EPCommission ax EE 194085 '' °F:q P. Bonded Through National Notary Assn. Extension granted Permit extension period """ Extension denied Reason for denial Collier County Fax No: (239)252-6318 E-mail: GMDPermitExtension@colliegov,net N Ft 1E JB ENGINEERING 11338 Bonita Beach Rd. SE Suite 103 OF Bonita Springs, Florida 34135 S.W. FL, INC. Engineering Business # 28318 (239) 949-0030 Fax (239) 948-7486 E-Mail: jj@jbengswfl.com February 3, 2016 To: Collier County Building Department 2800 Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 Re: Seawall Replacement 342 Tradewinds Avenue Collier County, FL Application#: PRBD20150412083 CERTIFICATION I have inspected the replacement seawall for this project and certify that it has been completed in accordance with our approved peg nit drawings ( our job# JB-15-GO-056) and the requirements of Ordinance# 85-2 (Collier County). Respecsubmitted, 0`o� 3 e"i1/`'� .�\ ,lk 8 e ,.��` �'x. ENSE•........,9,rio� \lc ••\ GC PI -, ..,::-..*-s ,p • �, --.r. '.:• ., 2-3-16 ii/O 4.t'...-.,--.... .-..Y-,�, `\�� Jo•trilt.jX410•ssaro, P.E. Fla. Cert. # 50702 COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION Growth Management Division 12800 N.Horseshoe Drive,Naples,Florida 34104 TEL: 239-252-2400 Please fold plans with the plain side out. Ensure documents are stapled inside each set of plans. [residential I.or 2 Units(Single Family/Duplex)0 Residential 3 or more Units(Multi-family)❑Commercial Permit No. Pr-RD-a5 f`-OC//7-0?-5 Master Permit No. Parcel/Folio: A 11 ''S'6.1OC3 O / [Qontractor =Design Professional =owner Builder Job Address: g 14 a Trc cd ew r:Id S AL o License#State Cert/Reg.-Prefix: ( #: ,i2S7-96/ Owner's PhoneNo..':0/05) 3c/3•--L/ 1� -t Company Name: er5,01-k TE marine (vS J is - COwner's Name: N �per C Qualifier/Professional Name: C re Crq L L . On'��7L- Lot: / I Block: Unit g— z Contact Name: Care Or! g subdivision:c33?c-c-C.)rtnei5 avidetl)/Jt C Address:c'2/f)/ J)ti ci-uir/ J>%i'e 1:6.: Township: j _Range: rs� Section: Cs� City.6 ri,i�-i� S State: FL Zip: 035 FEMA: BFE: Flood Zone: Phone l`/ `''5 &87 Fax„.239`3L /'A2-38 SDP/PL: p E-mail Address: /FTG( Or/CR r Con-1 Code Case: COA: U =Alteration =Mechanical =Clean Agent System OLP Gas z =Convenience Book =Mobile Home W =Fire Alarm =Pre-Engineered Fire q =Demo =New Construction et =Fire Alarm Monitoring =Suppression mi i- =Door/Window []Plumbing E- Fire Pumps =Standpipes t =Electric/Low Voltage =Pool W. Fire Sprinkler System =Spray Booths C 5.5 =Electric from House =Re-roof C a Fossil Fuel Storage System (Tents Fence Screen Enclosure a a =Hoods =Underground Fire Lines =Shutter E.- F [ Gfarine =Sign/Flagpole OTHER =Solar r 0 Private Provider =Plumbing z =Non-sprinkled riSprinkled / 0 O =Roofing [D-1 lectrical P 02 ' 0 Septic =Low Voltage F. z a =IA DIB ODA =IIs m r, =Shutters D Mechanical i- >.. = a� DIVA f IVB =VA ' = - J C =Permit by Affidavit p `� f I� U 1 Occupancy Classification(s): Description of Work:h e u) 3 ect LTJ an i rin C_K. i 60c -1 t C t + e(e c-t-r i C z 0 E- cc/ Project Name: -L\ K Cie_pe e r Declared Value$: I '551 D. g 1_ O NEW CONSTRUCTION/ADDITION AREA ALTERATION WORK AREA- SQ.FT. z If applicable: #Stories/Floors: #Units: #Tons: U 7 RESIDENTIAL: ;-,-4 #Bedrooms: #Baths: Living: Non living: h C RESIDENTIAL: Living: Non-living: 5/oZ Total sq.ft.: J-709..-t/ TOTAL SQ.FT.: 0. COMMERCIAL: COMMERCIAL: Interior: Exterior: #Fixtures: Interior: Exterior: Total: TOTAL SQ.FT.: SEWAGE: r°'a =Septic 0 Ave Maria=City ofNaples 0 Collier County 0 Golden Gate City Q Immokalee 0 Orange Tree 0 Other -r WATER SUPPLY: P. =Well 0 Ave Maria (City ofNaples (l Collier County =Golden Gate City =Immokalee =Orange Tree=Other S Application/Plans Discrepancies-Customer Acknowledgement of possible rejection for the following missed information: 1.Square footage discrepancies 2.Occupancy Classification/Construction type not provided 3.Required documents not certified 4.Incomplete Plan Sets or Drawings 5.Sets not identical `7 Nov.1 2014-PMR Date: /Z Days Review: # Set of Plans: QUALIFIERS PAGE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COLLIER COUNTY REGULATIONS Application is hereby made to obtain a permit to do the work and installations as indicated. I certify that no work or installation has commenced prior to the issuance of a permit and that all work will be performed to meet the standards of all laws regulating construction in this jurisdiction. The permit or application fee may have additional fees imposed for failing to obtain permits prior to commencement of construction. The approved permit and/or permit application expires if not commenced within 180 days from the date of issuance. The permittee further understands that only licensed contractors may be employed and that the structure will not be used or occupied until a certificate of occupancy is issued. By signing this permit application, I agree that I have been retained by the owner/permittee to provide contracting services for the trade for which I am listed. Furthermore, it is my responsibility to notify the Building Review and Permitting De partment should I no longer be the contractor responsible for providing said contracting services. I further agree that I understand that the review and issuing of this permit does not exempt me from complying with all County Codes and Ordinances. It is further understood that the property owner/permittee is the owner of the permit. Note: If change of contractor, please provide the following: Permit Number: E-mail Address: Tel: COMPANY NAME: (jOC/ J/ L1� 4e alas/e :a-XL:STATE LICENSE NO: Cef.1g'9,I QUALIFIER'S N• i (PRINT) : '/C) Oil CIC- T QUALIFIER'S SIG Mr 4; (\MI STATE OF: COUNTY COUY OF: Lee SWORN TO(OR AFFIRMED)AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME THIS / / d2% WHO IS PERSONALLY KNOWN: 1/ OR AS PRODUCED ID: HOLLY LINDSLY Notary Public-State of Florida TYPE OF ID: My Comm.Expires Jun 29,2016 SPA•- Commission#r EE 194085 NOTARY PUBLIC SIGNATURE: �� Ronde y.� , ational Notary Assn. NOTICE IN ADDITION TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS PERMIT, THE'E MAY BE ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS APPLICABLE TO THIS PROPERTY THAT MAY BE FOUND IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF THIS COUNTY, AND THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL PERMITS REQUIRED FROM OTHER GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES SUCH AS WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT,STATE AGENCIES,OR FEDERAL AGENCIES. WARNING OF POSSIBLE DEED RESTRICTIONS THE LAND SUBJECT TO THIS PERMIT MAY BE SUBJECT TO DEED, AND OTHER RESTRICTIONS THAT MAY LIMIT OR IMPAIR THE LANDOW NER'S RIGHTS. COLLIER COUNTY IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THESE RESTRICTIONS, NOR ARE COLLIER COUNTY EMPLOYEES AUTHORIZED TO PROVIDE LEGAL OR BUSINESS ADVICE TO THE PUBLIC RELATIVE TO THESE RESTRICTIONS. THE LANDOWNER OR ANY APPLICANT ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE LANDOWNER IS CAUTIONED TO SEE K PROFESSIONAL ADVICE. WARNING ON WORK IN COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAYS THIS PERMIT DOES NOT AUTHORIZE CONSTRUCTION OR INSTALL ATION OF ANY STRUCTURE OR UTILITY, ABOVE OR BELOW GROUND, WITHIN ANY RIGHT-OF-W AY OR EASEMENT RESERVED FOR ACCESS, DRAINAGE OR UTILITY PURPOSES. THIS RESTRICTION SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITS FENCING, SPRINKLER SYSTEMS, LANDSCAPING OTHER TH AN SOD, SIGNS, WATER, SEWER, CABLE AND DRAINAGE WORK THEREIN. IF SUCH IMPROVEMENTS ARE NECESSARY, A SEPARATE PERMIT FOR THAT PURPOSE MUST BE OBTAINED FROM TRANSPORTATION/ROW PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS(239)252-8192. WARNING TO OWNER: YOUR FAILURE TO RECORD A NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT MAY RESULT IN YOUR PAYING TWICE FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO YOUR PROPERTY. IF YOU INTEND TO OBTAIN 'FINANCING, CONSULT WITH YOUR LENDER OR AN ATTORNEY BEFORE RECORDING YOUR NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT. Per Florida Statutes 713.135 a Notice of Commencement(NOC)is required for construction of improvements totaling more than$2,500,with certain exceptions.For AIC Repairs or Replacements a notice of commencement is required for improvements more than$7,500. The applicant shall file with the issuing authority prior to the first inspection eithera certified copy of the recorded NOC or a notarized statement that the NOC has been filed for recording,along with a copy thereof_In order to comply with the state requirement,permits will be placed in inspection hold until proof of the NOC is filed with the building permitting and inspection department.The issuing authority shall not perform or approve subsequent inspections until the applicantfiles by mail,facsimile,hand delivery,email or any other means such certified copy with the issuing authority. Permit# Co ier Covt�ty Growth Management Division Planning & Regulation Building Review SUBCONTRACTOR AFFIRMATION To be completed by the qualifier working under the General Contractor. (Circle One Below) Electrical Plumbing / Mechanical / Roofing / Septic I Other Company Name zA �re3C r:\(\(JMar lrma=\P_ � r ca try- . State License# EL I.3a) .51q4- Qualifier's Name iIer* Alig.-{'S 414 i` Qualifier's Signature 1" Contractor's Phone#0-3q• 143s- I apt::Email V -1 C7Le I e 5 COi--y, Jobsite Address 3L-1 a AQC- . \C Name of General Contractor for Project C�\�� t'i\C !1- `�'i 1i1� � 1 t"1[_ Attention: Knowingly providing false information to obtain a permit to practice construction contracting is a violation of Florida Statute 489.129 and 489.533 STATE OF ROrriCIA COON Y F (.QF L(�SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME THIS DAY OFAp; f , 20 /S� NOTARY PUBLIC(CHECK ONE): PERSONALLY KNOWN TO ME " PRODUCED I.D. TYPE OF ID PRODUCED SIGN ,„4/414041°1""'"---- _.`.'"r�"°�;MATTHEW NEVILLE HANSARD PRINT �) Civ t-' ,O f`ARW MISSION#FFI 75871 •''E"o?' EXPIRES November 13,2018 OF � .•a.1E (407)398-0153 FloridallotaryServlce.corn k (fit,, *** INSTR 5105110 OR 5137 PG 3547 RECORDED 4/8/2015 10:42 AM PAGES 1 *** DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA REC $10.00 SCANNED State of FLORIDA .'s County of Collier Permit No. Tax Folio No. e: 751;51Q /))n7 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT this is a true and correct copy of a document recorded NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT in the OFFICIAL RECORDS of Collier County State of FLORIDA WITNESS my hand and official seal County of COLLIER date,4/8/2015 DWIGHrrB: LERK OF CIRCUIT COURT The undersigned hereby gives notice that improvement will be made to certain real property,and in accordance with Chapter 713,Florida Statutes, r 4-'4 the following Information is provided in this Notice of Commencement BY:��_`�`= D.C. 1.Desiption of P o e! _ J- Q M z..67_ t0!'r.5 p varkei/1"b/'t7�f� �pLLX�/!�" tl YX` d ilab� / �,/I 2. General description of improvement: ea X .t1. -01-/if?" �1PCl' • • 3. Owner Information: a. Name and address: /(,h/y.�{1 ,r ,qyc '7 iiidc A_rip_ ples/ Az .34!603 b. Interest In property: 0 r c. Name and address of fee simple titleholder(d different from Owner fisted above): 4.a, ontractor:(na ea .ad. -ss) . , b. Con.- tor's phone number:02-3 . aw 1 `�'. 51 5. Surety(if applicable,a copy of the payment bond is attached): 37 3J a. Name and Address: b. Phone number: . c. Amount of bond: • 6a. Lender:(name and address) b. Lender's phone number: 7. Persons within the State of Florida Designated by Owner upon whom notices or other documents may be served as provided by Section 713.13(1)(a)7.,Florida Statutes: a. Name and address: • b. Phone numbers of designated persons: 8a. In addition to himself or herself,Owner designates to receive a copy of Lienor's Notice as provided in Section 713.13(1)(b)Florida Statutes,of b. Phone number of person or entity designated by owner: 9. Expiration date of notice of commencement(the expiration date may not be before the completion of construction and final payment to the contractor,but will be 1 year from the date of recording unless a different date is specified) WARNING TO OWNER: ANY PAYMENTS MADE BY THE OWNER AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT ARE CONSIDERED IMPROPER PAYMENTS UNDER CHAPTER 713,PART I,SECTION 713.13,FLORIDA STATUTES,AND CAN RESULT IN YOUR PAYING TWICE FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO YOUR PROPERTY.A NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT MUST BE RECORDED AND POSTED ON THE JOB SITE BEFORE THE FIRST INSPECTION.IF YOU INTEND TO OBTAIN FINANCING,CONSULT WiTH YOUR LENDER OR AN ATTORNEY BEFORE COMMENCING WORK OR RECORDING YOUR NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT. Under alty of perjury,I declare that i have read the foregoing notice of commencement and that the facts to the . of my kn I At iedge and belief. g stated therein are true (Sig ''''..f el- o ...:...L TX1P� r er's or Lessee's Authorized Officer/Director/Partner/Manager) /(Signatory's Title/Office) e foregoing .trume s acknowledged before me this 'qday of n 1 p! i (year),by (•D (name of person)as officer,trustee,attorney in fact)for (type of suthority,...e.�- (name of party behalf of whore instrument was executed). DWIGHT E BROCK,CLERK OF CIRCUIT COURT / / (Signature of Deputy Clerk) - ./.� i/ , (Signature of Nota. Public—State of Fl.rida) (Printed name of Deputy Clerk) (Print Type,or Stamp Commissioned Name of Notary Public) Personally Known OR Produced Identification 1 ,,;k: ROUTE SHEET Performance Review Residential Permit Number: PRBD20150412083 Permit Type: Marine Submittal: 1 1 Initial Submittal 04/20/2015 Submittal In Person Method: 2 Fast Track: Simultaneous: Master Permit#: Sets: Private Provider: Expedited Review: Planning Project: Business Name: Job NEW SEAWALL, DOCK, BOATLIFT, AND ELECTRIC Description: 342 TRADEWINDS AVE Details: Fire District: 11 North Naples Fire Review In Date Group/PMR Status Reviewer Comments: Fee$ Date Final Review 5 Day Review 4/20/2015 4/27/2015 Time Environmental Review 4/20/2015 4/23/2015 FEMA Review 4/20/2015 4/23/2015 A tV Alt L-1\2,4\ 1ST Residential Review 4/20/2015 4/23/2015 Afsa w\-wtivs"- Zoning Review 4/20/2015 4/23/2015 Other Applicable Reviews: Review In Date Group/PMR Status Reviewer Comments: Fee$ Date "fere" I 600 SOL Entered by: SamanthaGibson ROUTE SHEET Performance Review Residential Permit Number: PRBD20150412083 Permit Type: Marine Submittal: 1 1 Initial Submittal 04/20/2015 Submittal In Person Method: 2 Fast Track: Simultaneous: Master Permit#: Sets: Private Provider: Expedited Review: Planning Project: Business Name: Job NEW SEAWALL, DOCK, BOATLIFT, AND ELECTRIC Description: 342 TRADEWINDS AVE Details: Fire District: 11 North Naples Fire Review In Date Group/PMR Status Reviewer Comments: Fee$ Date Final Review 5 Day Review 4/20/2015 4/27/2015 Time Ck Environmental Review 4/20/2015 4/23/20151/L 611 /�1l.L FEMA Review 4/20/2015 4/23/2015 Residential Review 4/20/2015 4/23/2015 Zoning Review 4/20/2015 4/23/2015 ,(1\ Other Applicable Reviews: Review In Date Group/PMR Status Reviewer Comments: Fee$ Date Entered by: SamanthaGibson i:iCh S�-Oil pK,q,, 7 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION BOB MARTINEZ CENTER 2600 BLAIRSTONE ROAD TALLAHASSEE,FLORIDA 32399-2400 SELF CERTIFICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A PRIVATE,RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY DOCK Self Certification File No.: 0333782001EE File Name: 342 Tradewinds Ave Naples,FL 34108 - Self Cert Exempt Dock with Boat Lift(s) (General) Dear GREG ORICK II: On, 04/01/2015,you used the Department's electronic Self Certification Process to certify compliance with the terms and conditions necessary for construction of a private,residential single-family dock, at a detached, single-family residence located at: LAT-Degrees: 26 Minutes: 15 Seconds: 41.8644 LONG-Degrees: -81 Minutes: 49 Seconds: 11.4482 SITE ADDRESS: 342 Tradewinds Ave Naples,FL 34108 COUNTY: Collier For: Nancy Koeper 342 Tradewinds Ave Naples,FL 34108 You have certified that the dock you propose to construct at the above location meets all the conditions of the Self Certification Process. A dock that is built in conformance to those conditions (attached for reference) will: 1. Qualify for a regulatory exemption under Part IV of Chapter 373 and Section 403.813(2)(b)of the Florida Statutes, and Chapters 62-330, and 62-343 of the Florida Administrative Code(F.A.C.). As such, it is exempt from the need to obtain a DEP Environmental Resource Permit. 2. Qualify for a consent by rule to use submerged lands under Chapter 253 of the Florida Statutes and Chapter 18-21 of the Florida Administrative Code,when the dock is located on submerged lands owned by the State of Florida. Your Self Certification is based solely on the information you provided under this process, and applies only to the statutes and rules in effect when your certification was completed. The certification is effective only for the specific dock proposed, and only if the dock is constructed, operated, and maintained in conformance with all the terms, conditions, and limitations stated in the Self Certification Process. In addition, any substantial modifications in your plans should be submitted to the Department for review, as changes may result in a permit being required. You have acknowledged that this Self Certification will automatically expire if: 1. Construction of the dock is not completed within one year from the self certification date; 2. site conditions materially change; 3. the terms, conditions, and limitations of the Self Certification are not followed; or 4. the governing statutes or rules are amended before construction of the project. Completion of the Self Certification constitutes your authorization for Department personnel to enter the property for purposes of inspecting for compliance. Receipt of this Self Certification constitutes letter of consent required by rule 18-21.004(7)F.A.C. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION This Self Certification Process does not relieve you from the responsibility of obtaining other permits or authorizations from other agencies(federal, state,Water Management District,or local)that may be required for the project. Construction of the dock may require federal authorization. The Corps has been furnished a copy of your Self Certification letter. They will contact you with further information about their process. If you do not hear from them,please contact them directly. Jacksonville District contact information can be found at: http:/;'vw-wvv.saj.usace.army.miliNlissionsiRegulatory.aspx. Failure to obtain all applicable authorizations prior to construction of the dock may result in enforcement. If you have any questions,please contact your local Department District Office. Contact information can be found at: http:%/vvww.dep.state.H usater:vvetlands does;sler_contacts.pdf. When referring to your project, please use the Self Certification file number listed above. Sincerely, Florida Department of Environmental Protection Enclosures: Single Family Dock Criteria General Conditions for Soverignty/State-Owned Submerged Lands Authorization Manatee Conditions Private residential single family docks are subject to the following criteria in accordance with Section 403.813(1)(b),F.S. The dock to be constructed: 1. Has 1,000 square feet or less over water surface(includes adjacent wetlands)in accordance with Chapter 62-340, F.A.C.; 2. Is constructed on or held in place by pilings and is constructed so as not to involve filling or dredging other than that necessary to install the pilings; 3. Will not substantially impede the flow of water, cause water pollution, or create a navigational hazard; 4. Is used ONLY for recreational, noncommercial activities associated with the mooring or storage of boats and boat paraphernalia; 5. Is the sole dock on the parcel; and 6. Must not be subject to any conservation easement or restrictive covenant of record prohibiting the activity. Boat lifts are subject to the following additional conditions: 1. Is to be installed in an existing slip or, at or adjacent to the waterward end of the dock; 2. With other mooring will not result in the mooring of more than two vessels(including jet skis); 3. Will not be located in areas prohibited for mooring by a previously issued permit or other form of authorization issued by a local government; General Conditions for Soverignty/State-Owned Submerged Lands Authorization Any use of sovereignty/state-owned submerged lands is subject to the following general conditions that are binding upon the applicant and are enforceable under Chapters 253 or 258, F.S.: 1. Sovereignty/state-owned submerged lands may be used only for the specified activity or use. Any unauthorized deviation from the specified activity or use and the conditions for undertaking that activity or use will constitute a violation. Violation of the authorization will result in suspension or revocation of the applicant's use of the sovereignty/state-owned submerged lands unless cured to the satisfaction of the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund(Board). 2. Authorization under Rule 18-21.005,F.A.C., conveys no title to sovereignty/state-owned submerged lands or water column,nor does it constitute recognition or acknowledgment of any other person's title to such land or water. 3. Authorizations under Rule 18-21.005,F.A.C.,may be modified, suspended or revoked in accordance with its terms or the remedies provided in Sections 253.04,F.S. or Chapter 18-14, F.A.C. 4. Structures or activities will be constructed and used to avoid or minimize adverse impacts to resources. 5. Construction,use, or operation of the structure or activity will not adversely affect any species which is endangered,threatened or of special concern, as listed in Rules 68A-27.003, 68A-27.004, and 68A-27.005,F.A.C. 6. Structures or activities will not unreasonably interfere with riparian rights. When a court of competent jurisdiction determines that riparian rights have been unlawfully affected,the structure or activity will be modified in accordance with the court's decision. 7. Structures or activities will not create a navigational hazard. 8. Structures will be maintained in a functional condition and will be repaired or removed if they become dilapidated to such an extent that they are no longer functional. 9. Structures or activities will be constructed, operated, and maintained solely for water dependent purposes. 10. The applicant agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Board and the State of Florida from all claims, actions, lawsuits and demands in any form arising out of the authorization to use sovereignty/state-owned submerged lands or the applicant's use and construction of structures on sovereignty/state-owned submerged lands. This duty to indemnify and hold harmless will include any and all liabilities that are associated with the structure or activity including special assessments or taxes that are now or in the future assessed against the structure or activity during the period of the authorization. 11. Failure by the Board to enforce any violation of the authorization or waiver by the Board of any provision of the authorization will not invalidate the provision not enforced or waived,nor will the failure or waiver prevent the Board from enforcing the waived or unenforced provision in the event of a future violation of that provision. 12. Applicant binds itself and its successors and assigns to abide by the provisions and conditions set forth in the authorization. If the applicant or its successors or assigns fails or refuses to comply with the provisions and conditions of the authorization,the authorization may be terminated by the Board after written notice to the applicant or its successors or assigns. Upon receipt of such notice, the applicant or its successors or assigns will have thirty(30) days in which to correct the violations. Failure to correct the violations within this period will result in the automatic revocation of this authorization. 13. All costs incurred by the Board in enforcing the terms and conditions of the authorization will be paid by the applicant. Any notice required by law will be made by certified mail at the address shown on page one of the authorization. The applicant will notify the Board in writing of any change of address at least ten days before the change becomes effective. 14. This authorization does not allow any activity prohibited in a conservation easement or restrictive covenant of record that prohibits the activity. Manatee Conditions The following conditions are intended to protect manatees from direct project effects; THESE CONDITIONS APPLY ONLY IN WATERS THAT ARE ACCESSIBLE TO MANATEES: 1. All personnel associated with the project will be instructed about the presence of manatees and manatee speed zones, and the need to avoid collisions with and injury to manatees. The permittee will advise all construction personnel that there are civil and criminal penalties for harming,harassing, or killing manatees which are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act,the Endangered Species Act, and the Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act. 2. All vessels associated with the construction project will operate at"Idle Speed/No Wake" at all times while in the immediate area and while in water where the draft of the vessel provides less than a four-foot clearance from the bottom.All vessels will follow routes of deep water whenever possible. 3. Siltation or turbidity barriers will be made of material in which manatees cannot become entangled, will be properly secured, and will be regularly monitored to avoid manatee entanglement or entrapment. Barriers must not impede manatee movement. 4. All on-site project personnel are responsible for observing water-related activities for the presence of manatee(s). All in-water operations, including vessels,must be shutdown if a manatee(s) comes within 50 feet of the operation. Activities will not resume until the manatee(s)has moved beyond the 50-foot radius of the project operation, or until 30 minutes elapses if the manatee(s)has not reappeared within 50 feet of the operation.Animals must not be herded away or harassed into leaving. 5. Any collision with or injury to a manatee will be reported immediately to the FWC Hotline at 1-888-404-FWCC. Collision and/or injury should also be reported to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Jacksonville (1-904-731-3336)for north Florida or Vero Beach(1-772-562-3909) for south Florida. 6. Temporary signs concerning manatees will be posted prior to and during all in-water project activities. All signs are to be removed by the permittee upon completion of the project.Awareness signs that have already been approved for this use by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission(FWC) must be used(see MyFWC.com). One sign which reads Caution: Boaters must be posted. A second sign measuring at least 8 1/2"by 11" explaining the requirements for"Idle Speed/No Wake" and the shut down of in-water operations must be posted in a location prominently visible to all personnel engaged in water-related activities. http://www.collierappraiser.com/Main Search/RecordDetail.html?Fol... Collier County Property Appraiser Property Summary Parcel No. 27585200007 Site Adr. 342 TRADEWINDS AVE Name/Address STONE-JESKE TR, ROXANNE B ROXANNE B STONE-JESKE TRUST UTD 8/10/05 531 TURTLE HATCH LN City NAPLES State FL Zip 34103-8538 Map No. Strap No. Section Township Range Acres *Estimated 3A29 233800 M 113A29 29 48 25 0.21 Legal CONNER'S VANDERBILT BCH EST UNIT 2 BLK M LOT 11 Millage Area 0 154 Millage Rates 0 *Calculations Sub./Condo 233800 - CONNERS VANDERBILT BCH EST#2 School Other Total Use Code 0 8 - MULTI-FAMILY LESS THAN 10 UNIT 5.58 6.1776 11.7576 Latest Sales History 2014 Certified Tax Roll (Not all Sales are listed due to Confidentiality) (Subject to Change) Date Book-Page Amount Land Value $ 469,200 08/30/05 3878-2924 $ 0 (+) Improved Value $ 108,370 12/05/00 2750-3426 $ 549,000 (_) Market Value $ 577,570 01/19/98 2503-621 $ 0 08/01/87 1289-1542 $ 172,500 (-) 10% Cap $21,623 07/01/86 1206-999 $ 160,500 (=) Assessed Value $ 555,947 04/01/82 965-1203 $ 152,500 (—) School Taxable Value $ 577,570 (=) Taxable Value $ 555,947 If all Values shown above equal 0 this parcel was created after the Final Tax Roll of 1 3/31/2015 2:09 PM http://www.collierappraiser.com/Main Search/RecordDetail.html?Fol... Collier County Property Appraiser Property Aerial Parcel No. 27585200007 Site Adr. 342 TRADEWtNDS AVE ,,lire 4-' 1,A f 1 • •n mswi 7`£ s . 4.zyr Arrc T % . ADA -'A'f10 .ti - TR �,.F - t ;4 ?., } Vii! `:ir a-.2.— ' .-7- r _ _- , 7::"...4.4,'C �3y �-� ti � 3 � " .1_,,,41._1__...41' , _ .,11,..-- i• •Ap...7-..-____ -,,,,..,:wit,.+Ar_____m---1" .____- . ,.....,. • • l- - * �� • . P. . � JJ ' - ir . N117 ColliertC0LI11ty.PropertyAppraiser, Naples, FL 3131/2O152:0� 16.Pt4427585200007 of 1 3/31/2015 2:10 PM HURRICANE BOAT LIFTS CATEGORY-5 VERTICAL LIFTS ENGINEERING SPECIFICATIONS , i?r?:',,,7,, 14 e- 11.. 6 ?, io 0 ltvi 11 0 �/ EB.D.O 0 0 © © lz.,1,.1, Bi - ,DIRECTX➢RIVE \ FLGEAAT R ATE GEAR \\ I� � 41H'& OPTIDNOPTICINOPTIONAD ,i Q © M DIRECT DRIVE i�� pp 1 OPTIONPILING SPACINGNI,�1 co•`. • QUI@ 0' � Lift A B RECOMMENDED CAPACITY PILING SIZES N • 4.......„ 4.500 LB 150' 132' 8'To 10'DIA II �' \�` 7,0011 LB 150' 144' 8'To 10'DIA ToPonB Penetration II © \ iii © 10,000 LB 150' ISO' 9'To 10'DIA Be 10' Into The I�1,\�- I] 13,000 LB 150' 150' 9'To 10'DIA Sand Bottom Or 5' 0 ��i' 16,0W LB 150' 168' 9'To 10'DIA Into The Rock Strata -,4 e"#---- 20,000 LB 168' 168' 10'To 12' DIARecorn,e,, A �i 24,000 LB 192' 192' 10'To 12'DIA 6 Piles OJT-TO-DUT /j B OUT-TO-DOT OUT-TOUT B CENTER-TD-CENTER 1 4``I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 III Top 2 Cradles Bunk Guide Drive Flat Plt. EBB. H.S. U.H.SX2 Lift Bean per lift Board Coble port Bearings Shaft Grar Genr Gear Gear Cop. Channel 1-Bean (P7) Size 0 Motor Motor Motor Motor Size Size Carpeted Bright �Ze HP. HP. HP. HP. 2 Ea. 6'H x 4'V (2 En.) (2 Ea.) (2 Ea.) (2 Ea.) 4.500* 4H x 15 x.29/.19 X4) 3/4 HP. 3/4 H.P. 3/4 H.P. 1 I/2 H.P. 200x.23 x 132' 0 5/16' 5' 120/206 110/206 120/26A 240/106 150'Lg. 4.03 Wt./Lin Ft. 140/106 240/106 240/106 ■ a. 6'H x 4'V SST. (2 Ea.) (2 Ea.) (2 Ea.) (2 En.) �f114■ 5 x 15 x.35/.21 1 H.P. 1 H.P. 1 H.P.7,0000 2.7 V x 144' 0 1 Part (5 En.) 1 1/2 H.P. _ 120/20A 120/206 120/20A �� ' 150,Lg 4.70 Vt./Lin Ft.2'x8'x144' 6' 6' N 240/10A 24D/1OA 240/IDA 240/10A '-' tt Ea. 13;14.3;4523/ CARPETED 1'Solid (2 Ea.) (2 Ea.) (2 Ea.) (2 Ea.) 6H x 17 a 3/4 H.P. 3/4 H.P. 3/4 H.P. 10.000* X5 9 x 150'2 120/20A 120/20A 120/20A 1 1/2 H.P. Stainless Steel Piling Mount Bracket 1502'Lg. 6.18 Wt./Lin Ft. (4) 6061-T6 � 240/106 240/106 240/106 240/106 With 2-3/B' Bolts Connecting The 7H x z Ea,18'H x 5.00 x41/.25 5/16' ALUM. s u (2 Ea.) (2 Ea.) 7 Bracket To The Assembly. 13,000* 2.75 V x 150'0 ra m 1 H.P. 1 1/2 H.P. 2-3/8'x3' Stainless Steel Lag Bolts 150'9 L.7.02 Vt✓Lin Ft. SST. - o - 240/106 (2 En. 240/106 Into The Side OF King 2 Ea 10'H x 6'W H (2 En.) (2 Eo.) 7IO x.41/.25 3'x10'x144 2 Part �"' ]H.P.-ND I HP, 1 1/2 H.P. 16,000* 3.510 168'e PILEIIAOUNTDETAIL x 8.64 Vt./Lin Ft.Carpeted 240/106 N/A 240/106 150' Lg. 86 xa�5 10'H 6'V240/10A (2 Ea.) x.41/.25 3'x10'x168' (4) (6 Ea.) 20,0000 3.75 W 1 I/O H.P. RAI x 160'2 Carpeted lQ• 168'LQ 1.64 Wt✓LIn Ft. 5/16' 2' Solid 240/106 22 10'H x 6'V 6061-T6 N/A (2 Ea.) 8H xa25 x.50/.29 3'x10'x192' SST. 24,000* 3.75 V a 191' R Carpeted ALUM. 1 1/2 HP. 1942'1 Le.10.28 Vt./Lin Ft 3 Port 240/10A THE WORK SPECIFIED HEREIN HAS BEEN DESIGNED 0 ALL WORK SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH STRUCTURAL PROVISIONS OF THE 2010 FLORIDA BUILDING CODE. NATE. THIS LIFTING STRUCTURE HAS BEEN DESIGNED TO WITHSTAND WIND LOADS ASSOCIATED WITH WIND SPEEDS OF V,A,a 180 MPH, VAv=139 MPH(3 DEC.GUST)EXPOSURE'D' WITFOUT A BOAT ON THE LIFT PER ASCE 7-10 USING ABOVE GROUND SIGN/WALL METHOD,THE LIFTING STRUCTURE INCLUDING BOAT HAS BEEN DESIGNED TO WITHSTAND WIND SPEEDS OF V„5=90 MPH IN EXPOSURE'C' OR 80 MPH IN EXPOSURE'D'. OWNER RESPONSIBLE TO REMOVE BOAT FROM LIFT DURING WINDSTORM EVENT IN EXCESS Vasd AS CALATED BELOW,PER FBC 3105.5.3 STRUCTURES DESIGNED TO BE READILY REMOVED OR REPOSITIONED BURNING PERIODS O'HIGH WIND VELOCITY SHALL BE POSTED WITH A LEGIBLE AND READILY VISIBLE DECAL OR PAINTED INSTRUCTIONS'TO BE THE OWNER OR TENANT TO REMOVE OR REPOSITION THE STRUCTURE OR PART THEREOF BURNING SUCH PERIODS OF TIME AS ARE DESIGNATED BY THE U.S.WEATHER BUREAU AS BEING A HURRICANE WARNING DR ALERT.THE LIFT OWNER SHALL BE NOTIFIED OF THESE CONDITIONS BY THE PERMIT HOLDER.NO WARRANTY,EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED,IS CONTAINED HEREIN.Vasd MAY BE CALCULATED BY THE FOLLOWING FORMULA!Vasd=,1 0.6 5 Volt.DESIGN OF BOAT WIND LOADING HAS BEEN PERFORMED WITH THE FOLLOWING RATIOS AS CONFIRMED BY OTHERS.B/s--3,s/h a 0.75,FOR A Cf of 1.6 MAXIMUM WHERE H IS THE HEIGHT TO TOP OF BOAT, B IS HORIZONTAL DIMENSION,AND S IS VERTICAL DIMENSION. CERTIFICATION OF BOAT LIFT TO EXISTING STRUCTURE AND ALL ELECTRICAL OR MECHANICAL CERTIFICATIONS ARE BY OTHERS,ENGINEER SEAL CERTIFIES ASSEMBLY OF LIFT ONLY. THIS DETAIL IS PREPARED AS A GENERAL NON-SITE SPECIFIC MASTER PLAN SHEET DETAIL.TYPICAL FIELD CONDITIONS ARE ASSUMED IN THE DESIGN.WOOD PILES SHALL BE SEASONED WOOD WITH Ga0S5 OR BETTER.SHOULD ANY SPECIFIC LOCATION DIFFER FROM THAT SPECIFIED HEREIN,OR STANDARD FIELD CONDITIONS,ADDITIONAL SPECIFIC ENGINEERING MAY BE REQUIRED AS DETERMINED BY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR AND PERMITTING CONTRACTOR.CARE SHALL BE TAKEN BY CONTRACTOR IN ALL APPLICATIONS OF TMS DETAIL AS THIS IS NOT A SITE SPECIFIC BRAVING,IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF OTHERS TO ENSURE THE INTEGRITY of INSTALLATION TO THE HOST STRUCTURE. ALUMINUM MATERIAL.6061 T6 ALUMINUM ALL WELDS ARE MIN.1/4' FULL FILLET WELD USING 5556 FILLER ALLOY.ALL WELDING MUST CONFORM TO AISC STEEL CONSTRUCTION MANUAL 13TH ED AS INSPECTED AND VERIFIED BY OTHERS.THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO INSULATE ALUMINUM MEMBERS FROM DISSIMILAR METALS TO PREVENT ELECTROLYSIS. FASTENERS ALL ANCHORS TO BE HILTI BRAND OR MFR EQUIVALENT.ALL BOLTS SHALL BE HOT DIPPED GALVANIZED,DR STAINLESS STEEL I MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM A304 WITH HARDENED WASHERS AND HEX NUTS.WASHERS SHALL BE USED BETWEEN VOID)6 BOLT HEAD i BETWEEN WOOD&NUT.WHERE GENERIC FASTENERS ARE LABELED IN DETAILS, CAPACITIES SHALL BE EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN HILTI KVIK BOLT II OR RED HEAD TMRU BOLTS.EMBEDMENT DEPTHS SPECIFIED HEREIN ARE DEPTHS INTO SOLID SUBSTRATE AND DO NOT RCLUDE THICKNESS OF STUCCO OR OTHER FINISHES. ALI*4INUM MEMBERS IN CONTACT WITH CONCRETE AND WOOD SHALL BE PROTECTED BY'KOPPERS BITUMINOUS PAINT'OR POLYETHYLENE TAPE UMW (ULTRA HIGH MOLECULAR WEIGHT)11.7 nes(0.30 en)MIN.TOTAL THICKNESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH CURRENT FLORIDA BUILDING CODE.ALL WELDS PER FLORIDA BUILDING CODE BIB CONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC.HAS NOT VISITED THIS.ONSITE.INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS RASED ON CONTRACTOR SUPPLIED DATA AND MEASUREMENTS.BIB CONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC.SHALL NOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE OR LIABLE IN ANY VAY FOR ERRONEOUS OR INACCURATE DATA OR MEASUREMENTS.WORK SHALL BE VERIFIED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. BIB CONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC.SHALL BE NOTIFIED AND GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO REEVALUATE OUR WORK UPON DISCOVERY OF ANY INACCURATE INFORMATION PRIOR TO MODIFICATION OF EXISTING FIELD CONDITIONS AND FABRICATION AND INSTALLATION OF MATERIALS. ENGINEERING SEAL AFFIXED HERETO VALIDATES STRUCTURAL DESIGN AS SHOWN ONLY.USE IT TMS SPECIFICATION BY CONTRACTOR,et.nL INDEMNIFIES I SAVES HARMLESS THIS ENGINEER FOR ALL COSTS I DAMAGES INCLUDING LEGAL FEES I.APPELLATE FEES RESULTING FROM MATERIAL FABRICATION, SYSTEM ERECTION I CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES BEYOND THAT WHICH IS CALLED FOR BY LOCAL,STATE,I.FEDERAL CODES I FORM DEVIATIONS OF THIS PLAN,EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY PROVIDED IN HEREIN,NO CERTIFICATION OR AFFIRMATIONS ARE INTENDED. Oscar M. Bermudez, PE. DATE1 Reg. Florida No. 55141 HURRICANE BOAT LIFTS .�- 3301 S.E. Slater Street B&B Engineers, ,� Stuart, Florida 34997 706 S. 7th STREET / , / (772)-781-2556 FT. PIERCE, FLORIDA 34950 . ,,,L.- � t ;; �'.,- '.--- Fax Fax (772)-781-4854 , RevMD warn DECUICATTOD ERECT III MOM AT AIN IRC '- .----_.- 410 MIcc) v �; SiAa1NGS ut 5 O L7 n. r -q Q a1A _ c zz _ m ;t, L Ta if o Y� '� O_ N N X0 , '00 Coe 01 .F - o .+.+ f!�� le rok G }'= I'�''6 Q] Y -in v 2 N J/ moi' : N i) U vi }- N '' t d S r 0, c im 4 Qv D46•0 4 C:1 co _ D1tn C n rA ti. III � � Q U a F = v cep G rte+ I � ;�' flo to x M n so to �'�7[111021c1 I Q t 00 i x !!1 O _ + x N O N a� t°n }n iv c `^na V P Q C ol N fl. v v ► } O II L T. I ° t`i a z a is at glit \ II.II 1a. a L L o . n a w r,• n n a o w �/ na z u ) 0- '5 00 / c. .n 0 � � � � a� \ _ :: 0 0 u ii. �I Z W z N it 0 0U N J R\ 1 r 3 f t it. Lo1 1 1 + • ` • \ Cl • J 1--j Oo M • f r--0 / 1 O it I :\ � F+ � N v 1 ? e� N c� M f 4 ZM4M s ; I • ? r CA I • I 1 1- - i N ' 1r j i z ¢ A I 1 j i 1 vim & ' 8.g 1 1 la ! U 1 z I Z 00 1 i ._ 00 f i itt n 1 i ---______if. l 1---- . In L__ U U ,, 0,1 in ! I �M" O v CDU -pala ( J IN, 1 f • N J a 1 ti a I ta O h �r 2O J in o a T- tr_ .N-, N O '� 0 o E° v v c CC 1r m aa, 0 N ma _ ru j ` ti J a III •a .J U E ry t o • 0 o U C ` • act - E[(nxmn-, - NiM i `-: Ifl to 1: W 01 O. , 6 I ` r M O o ._.._ .-, 'o T a, ---r --' o O N O curO CD oo • M. � .. M xes I *-I tu 0 C� [, ..• N En o C NN Gy 1 d M a Z M Z f'/ a L O a o 1 i iO V] N a) 'o �� a w \ H CD a - ovm€ a 1 c v °�VO G o u Hi ' a a V N O J c a O 2' a O m.n W a a • � �LI- zU lUi 1Ak 00 a-) 411, 7w s c O .-a tp I. z ,■ ■ s c IMMMI II a o o *w J V ulN_ Q c 3 LO I o ` 0 3 Vf fQ OJ Ctr i Z O Omni al V En O z au o I " OJtaCI —Y w cv 0 U a N J RS W d AV-- 1 to w 0-• O 0aNaz A <ii w aD xo z4 Qi Cn w zw z m W z w 0. o - 0 Q cn a Aw E-� Z N o OIX ww a -,,,, +f 4-1Q w LL Li QCilF � o CO i Qip, s c Z 0 A E* (1 4 7- W a w Z c� z w 3 Ho . o H ZU� Fa a� �Z, z w,-. '1 ir p (V 0 o �z a � 0 a •5a; ►-� ,JQ U CC azz zH zF "i - Q m ,-3 r:3 c0� Q ave F Z0 W wo a' ¢ a. Q 6 E J N & 0 z u I, (cm) j, w m 1.11 0 tD Ut0mmm �f� , ■ _� ��m0N cv • ('d.u) V R 60LLmVvv y Q A „0—,c .I' n 6 w i m F--i Q Z m m V 5 Z aNN A 7 W W z z i- a w ui. m 0 (.431 = m u°" a N 00 4-73.-'4›.'C. ) n N NFSI in cri w z �� z �'' W W 0 ZOo� z .r H o Z � , a W 1 cc i� Z WA pt/` Z W ' -4 x �. — q -1 a re cn !.L a o Li / \\``1111 1 W Z • o �• \\\ �® ///W W •-" 1 -H \Y••• t ELI .4 ,..„ ---- —41.fir./. vi Z En G.•cr] ‘ : -' • (0,,, w . ■ i :� fir' .4 A d: in Ez o Lu 0i ._ 7 O u Po E Z Z •9.7,1 1 Z� ►' Wc7dFic� U).-.r�tif/�^Rsaly�� Cj O Z ti O q Oao OA F^ 41 I m CC a Cx W F W a .-i I p' W d C O w V. d O OA E OP"'wg• W 'i OAwZW `.c f� z a ZOwd �4 • p. .. N CCI OH �1 pFx�w Z x . W F, Oc ;4 CT.. 6` 11.w.WQA ` C1 .`3 a '.�' W O ff'i WE.,+wO = <4 Cr O W Wi r Z w li 1y0CAz epoz A U7 O W 00 Cl]A I: .=a•--,0.,G4 W O <� En O \ GO A E-x a '� •'d ,Wa F d^W � a 5 O ..,„4,,.., + O \ 0 al H""ll a ccw a; z F `, 'lel ( 1 IV- Egimil \ : I t 1 p ncill CO V > `+ .._;c` —L.—si Nit . + _L i ` - kt ;. D D o In- inNI \ .A. __ . _ __ Z /(� ff' z Ilit z / / / / rn d V 1 X a '�IIIAI ,t T x EXHIBIT Jenks Builders,Inc. ! Estimate 7600 Alico Rd.#12 PMB#2 Date Estimate Fort Myers,FL 33912 212812017 041900 Name/Address Nancy Koeper&Roxanne Jeske 342 Tradewinds Ave. Naples,FL 34108 IRep Project Description Total Estimated cost to remove pool shell,lower ste ttwwall.redtg and shoot new pool shell. Saw cut remove and dispose of 2'6 x 89'of 1 "thick retaining wall, 10,000.00 Saw cut,chip and remove pool shell and pileaps. 25,000.00 Cut pilings to accommodate new pool shell. ( 1.500.00 Dig,form and shoot new pool shell. 30,000.00 Properly dispose of all debris. {f� Total 566,500.00 j((E £ 1 ' nV n92 r.706 e BOUNDARY SURVEY OF LOT 11, BLOCK"M", UNIT No. 2, CONNER'S VANDERBILT BEACH ESTATES, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3, PAGE 17, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATIONS OF RECORD. a.B M & Dl sc PSAA 366 '� 1215' (Ig ) 1215.!2' (M ) O F17. 11'W., NAV P ELEV. + 02.88 coca pp.NAIL IN • PANT.GUT•uOLE TRADE WINDS AVE . ( _ — �-- 760' (1Z) 76 0.07'(C) --� : _ w 75.01 ' 1 1� 30.0' I FD.PK NAIL IN PVMT. I I.=1 I I CUT-OLE, 0.06'W ' FD NAIL 514AFT A. ' -( -EDGE CF PVMT. IN PVAtT.GUT — c o N G. GONG. p HOLE 0 O Kt�' rp O C I M � c;I2" R.G. pp WV 588'04' 10"W 75.00'(R) 75.01'CG F FIR*5"P6M.... 175M 5762" 0.03'N.0.01'W. N O WM & 4"PV 5U6 � ., ,..jmCCWm m OUpT1R#5 0.52'5 ' � . 0 Z Ia 765' 24.0' m m 14.0 765 6 0 czi 8.05' 5 N o v; v:$ -' N 9.0' (o ko 342 TRADE WIMPS AVE. /' ' BLOCK til r :, C.B.S. HOUSE (under const..) w FIN. FLOOR ELEV. 4.10.4 r b mu, u% it 20.6' e O v '2.05, ,i ' •- ` < 15.0' ; y - 4.35.6' In 0.8' u. 65' en 1 0 1 O SET DRILLI1OLE f IN TOP OF CONG. ' AWALL 59.7' 4'141614NAVD ELEV. +03.31 76. II G.: 6.RETAINING WALL r— ALUM. FENCE IIc.s.s. ,-j;UN 1 al .35' WIPE CONC. SEAWALL CAP c * 1.14' 1 5 88 04 IO W 7S.001(1?) 75.01 (M) d- om r 5ET 0 .lLLI•I0LE 1NTOP OF GONG. SEAWALL NAVE? ELV. + 03.32 W ATER ''1 AY SCALE: 1"=20' P.c.P. = PERMANENT CONTROL POINT BEARINGS BASED ON:4 TRADE'W1NPS AVE.AS.686°04'10"41l PER RECORD PLA 9- 5 -15 0815025 C010-52 VACANT/NAVD ELEVS P.R.M. = MONUMENT T REFERENCE ELEVATIONS BASED ON:NAVD 1988 (ORIG.ON FL DNR G0L 29 1984 S5M DATE ORDER MELD BOOK REVISIONS SiR - SET 5 IRON ROD' LOCATED IN FLOOD ZONE: AE (10') 5-19- 16 0516015 C010- 52 FOUNDATION/ELCV CERT• IV/SET OMNI SURVEYS' PER F.I.R.M. DATED: 5.16.2012 120210 0189 H SIR�4 SET 4 IRON ROD W/CAPOMNI SURVEYS" CERTIFICATE C.M. = CONCRETE MONUMENT16) I herebycorrectly FIR FOUND IRON ROD certify that the above sketch N&( ) = NAIL & (T=TIN,D=DISK) represents a land survey mode by me or under my VALID FD. - FOUND direct supervision and meets the minimum technical R = RECORD standards as set forth by the Florida Board of ONLY = MEASURED Professional Land Surveyors in Ch 5J-i7050-5J-17.052 FL WITH C = CALCULATED Administrative Code, Pursuant to Section 472.027, Florida = DRAINAGE EASEMENT Statutes. I further certify that it is any for the lands EMBOSSED OMNI S U�i V E YS t INC. PUE = PUBLLC UTILTIY EASEMENi heroin described and is valid only with the rotted SEAL WM WATER METER embossed surveyor's seal of the undersigned, It is not o WV = WATER VALVE certification of Title, Zoning or freedom of encumbrances. FH = FIRE HYDRANT LB 6584 MH - MANHOLE (SS=SAN,STS=STORM) RCP = REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE CMP = CORRUGATED METAL PIPE TEL (239) 939-3666 ME = METERED END � FAX 239 9397181 CB = CATCH BASIN ID'U ( ) OP = POLE fL UGHLP=POWER) SCO Marhenke, P$ ARRR 111 Tf1A1 rill IDT Cr1DT \MDC CI 2Zotl�-r ___- -. .-. .. .. .. .. .��_ EXHIBIT 2/28/2017 Collier County,FL Land Development Code I ' 4.02.03 - Specific Standards for Location of Accessory Buildings and Structures - `-�` A. For the purposes of this section, in order to determine yard requirements, the term "accessory structure" shall include detached and attached accessory use structures or buildings notwithstanding the attachment of such structure or building containing the accessory use to the principal use structure or building. Accessory buildings and structures must be constructed simultaneously with or following the construction of the principal structure and shall conform with the following setbacks and building separations. Table 3. Dimensional Standards for Accessory Buildings and Structures on Non-Waterfront Lots And Non-Golf Course Lots in Zoning Districts other than Rural Agricultural (A) and Estates (E)**. i 1 Front Rear Side i Structure E ' to Structure (If Detached) 1. Parking garage or carport, single-family SPS 10 feet SPS 10 feet 2. One-story parking structures and/or SPS 35 feet SPS 10 feet carports 3. Multistory parking structures i SPS 35 feet SPS 1/1* 4. Swimming pool and/or screen enclosure SPS 10 feet SPS • (one- and two-family) 5. Swimming pool (multi-family and SPS 20 feet 15 feet N commercial) 6. Tennis courts (private) (one- and two- SPS 15 feet SPS 10 feet family) 7. j Tennis courts (multi-family, anda______ SPS 20 feet 15 feet 20 feet commercial) 8. i Utility buildings ' SPS 10 feet SPS 1 10 feet https://www.m uni code.com/I i brary/fl/col l ier_county/codes/I and_developm ent_code?nodeld=C H4SIDED EST 1/5 2/2872017 Collier County,FL Land Development Code 9. Chickee, barbecue areas SPS 10 feet SPS 10 feet 10. Attached screen porch SPS 10 feet SPS N/A 11. Unlisted accessory SPS SPS SPS 10 feet 12. i Satellite dish antenna NP 15 feet SPS 10 feet 13. Permanent emergency generators NP 10 feet See Sec. N/A 4.02.01 D.13 N = None. N/A= Not applicable. NP = Structure allowed in rear of building only. SPS = Calculated same as principal structure. * = 1 foot of accessory height = 1 foot building separation. ** = All accessory structures in Rural Agricultural and Estates zoning districts must meet principal structure setbacks. Table 4. Dimensional Standards for Accessory Buildings and Structures on Waterfront Lots and Golf Course Lots in Zoning Districts other than Rural Agricultural (A) and Estates (E)** 2 1 � Setbacks Front Rear Side Structure { E to structure (If Detached) https://www.municode.com/library/fl/collier_county/codes/land development_code?nodeld=CH4SIDEDEST 2/5 2/28/2017 Collier County,FL Land Development Code 1. Parking garage or carport, single- SPS FSPS SPS 10 feet 1 1 family E 2. One-story parking structures SPS SPS SPS 10 feet 3. Multistory parking structures SPS SPS SPS 1/1 1 4. Swimming pool and/or screen SPS 10 feet3 SPS N enclosure (one- and two-family) 5. Swimming pool (multi-family and SPS 20 feet 15 feet N commercial) 6. Tennis courts (private) (one- and SPS 15 feet SPS 10 feet two-family) 7. Tennis courts (multi-family and SPS 35 feet SPS 20 feet commercial) 8. Boathouses and boat shelters SPS N/A 7.5 feet or 10 feet (private) 15 feet See subsection 5.03.06F. 9. Utility buildings SPS SPS 10 feet 10 feet 10. Chickee, barbecue areas SPS 10 feet SPS N 11. Davits, hoists and lifts N/A N/A 7.5 feet or SPS 15 feet 1 12. Attached screen porch SPS 10 feet4 SPS SPS 13. Unlisted accessory SPS SPS SPS 10 feet https://www.municode.com/library/fl/collier_county/codes/land development_code?nodeld=CH4SIDEDEST 3/5 2/28/2017 Collier County,FL Land Development Code 14. Docks, decks and mooring pilings N/A N/A 7.5 feet or N/A 15 feet 15. Boat slips and ramps (private) N/A N/A 7.5 feet N/A 16. Satellite dish antennas NP 15 feet SPS 10 feet i 17. Permanent emergency generators NP 10 feet See Sec. N/A 4.02.01 D.13 18. Golf clubhouse and maintenance 50 feet 50 feet 50 feet N/A buildings5 N = None. N/A= Not applicable. NP = Structure allowed in rear of building only. SPS = Calculated same as principal structure. ** = All accessory structures in Rural Agricultural and Estates zoning districts must meet principal structure setbacks. 11 foot of accessory height = 1 foot of building separation. 2ln those cases where the coastal construction control line is involved, the coastal construction control line will apply. 320 feet where swimming pool decks exceed 4 feet in height above top of seawall or top of bank, except Marco Island and Isles of Capri which may construct to a maximum of seven feet above the seawall with a maximum of four feet of stem wall exposure, with the rear setback of ten feet. 420 feet where floor or deck of porch exceeds 4 feet in height above top of seawall or top of bank, except Marco Island and Isles of Capri which may construct to a maximum of seven feet above the seawall with a maximum of four feet of stem wall exposure, with the rear setback of ten feet. 5 The setback shall apply to external boundaries of the golf course district, and shall be inclusive of separately platted buffer tracts. https://www.m unicode.com/I i brary/fl/col I ier_county/codes/land_developm entcode?nodeld=C H4SI D ED EST 4/5 2228/2017 Collier County,FL Land Development Code B. Accessory buildings shall not occupy an area greater than five (5) percent of the total lot area in all residential zoning districts, or occupy an area greater than forty(40) percent of any building envelope (i.e., area of lot remaining for building purposes after accounting for required setbacks), whichever is the lesser, provided the total maximum coverage provision of this ordinance for all principal and accessory buildings is not exceeded. Nothing herein contained shall serve to prevent the construction of an accessory building containing an area of less than 500 square feet provided all yard and building spacing requirements can be met. (Ord. No. 06-07, § 3.F; Ord. No. 07-67, § 3.J; Ord. No. 08-63, § 3.J; Ord. No. 14-33, § 3.J; Ord. No. 15-45, § 2.B) https://www.municode.com/library/fl/collier county/codes/land_development_code?nodeld=CH4SIDED EST 5/5 EXHIBIT January 19,2017 1 ik economic hardship involved in putting it into compliance would be,at minimum,$50,000. So for those reasons and also the fact that I think if you read the planning board's recommendation, they set things forth very thoroughly on why they would--not the planning board but the--I guess the report from-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's called a staff report. MR. SHAPIRO: --yeah, staff report. They set forth very particularly why they're recommending that the variance be approved. So I would ask that,you know,you all take a look at that,and they lay it out very nicely. And they were also aware of the neighbors that were objecting also when they came to that recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you finished,Mr. Shapiro? MR. SHAPIRO: Yeah,I am finished. My understanding is there's,.:=t$$ 'eighbors that are right across the way that were also going to testify for the petitioner. f idt CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me tell you what the procedure ',.,$)t,"=;.:(;15; don't think you've been here before. After you finish your presentation,the Planning Co ''li. • •uestions if they have any. Then from there we'll go to the staff report. After the stall •,i `d sta` ', erbal recommendations over parts of their report,we ask questions ,sr: . When thef'";":145.,we go to public speakers. s`','; ,>>. MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. (v` CHAIRMAN STRAIN: After public speakers,<.;-; ;• ave an ,00-tunity for a l l`'Is! to rebuttal, and then wego into discussion and decision on our art,o •74411,07:‘,.' on our part. So t at will be the p process we'll go through. And since you're finished,and befo` o Planning Commission questions, there are a few things I think Pd like you tofb';;��>',,,and clear up s.;I '.anning Commission gets the benefit of those answers before any questions are a , '`/. �i� f� ;,-� MR. SHAPIRO: Yes. '<< ' :. ;, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said the y was '.›."A:Or;',,'�,_ •.tit "',' '. en they built this 2.5, • two-and-a-half years ago. Wh;,•'•, ou mean ; ? :. MR. SHAPIRO: V E` ain,I do`f •• `ef. th-- g limit was,but-- CHAIRMAN Si ,° 16; •' ~fj• t--wha„e , • .`mean by"time limit"? MR. SHAPIRr.' en I say d-a-hal 1,240„-,,I don't know if that's the exact time. CHAIRMAN b ?:,I : Pro'110in terms o ;_, ;-„ to a decade or two. This height issue has been in the code very,very e. ;` *ft ` g,*e. ery:(•(,,, e in our code to find it,and it only seems to be applicable to .• bilt Be. . ;3C'•9 :y s Isle of Capri and Marco Island don't have to have this kind •�%" iak..• Th- > seven feet, yours then would have been fine if you were on Isles o � I ,f ,•. A SHAPIRO. • '• issp• a-'ut the two-and-a-half feet. I just was kind of making that up as ane . .ny ST' • g> _<>1, ell,you can't make things up. We've got to deal with the code in fact. And if you r to referenc • ething of the code and it also involves the staff error,we've definitely got to weigh in on t:. =:,• under, }. ,t. You had w eks were erroneously given to your client. Have you got something that •says for your client t./ 'ose setbacks? MR. SHAPIR• ''elieve there is. The builder is here,and he could probably better answer that than I could. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,that will be helpful. If he's here,then we'll--see,you ought to call him as someone--a witness on your behalf to begin with before we go to the staff report. So if he's here, we're definitely going to--we'll ask questions of him after the Planning Commission gets finished with you. MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those couple things,though,are important as to how this happened,the time frame. The code has not changed. The code is just obscure and hard to read in this particular issue,I'll grant you that. It certainly isn't clear. And as far as the staff goes,yes,a staff member certainly made an error in approving this the way it Page 6 of 46 BCC Meeting: February 28, 2017 Agenda Item #8A - Petition: VA-PL20160001 181 Located at: 324 Trade Winds Ave. Presentation by: Mark Shapiro Picture Exhibits: #5, lz, 8, 10, 11 , 13, 7, 4, 9, 6, 16, 1 , & 2 These exhibits are too large to scan and can be found at the Clerk to the Board's Office — BMR, 4th Floor, Building F BCC Meeting : February 28, 2017 Agenda Item #8A — Petition VA-PL20160001 181 Located at: 324 Trade Winds Ave. Pictures Presented by: Jerry Jorgansen ----, - , J I1 ' )qIiiIII''Ni.f,''',', rr , %Ili I ti$,''1!": 1,t,, ' ',. 'r f'\ ' ' ''''' '' 1 ,'\ IS; l'i,i'll4,"1:;:,',1',1 ,(,'"; ' ', II _, 7—, :::.—i.,ii. , , '• , )y i'' \K i'il,!'t 0 cil, , , 1-1—, • . 'y " , '1 , 11, ,,,,4 I, 1 •4i II 't, ',,I.:11,i'',,I; , „:lir;. .1„, ,, , ,, , 0 \ I , ,il i ,ri '1,.,\ „ 1:AI, '0;,,i,11,,,,,.,I ' : -'- .,;A;-,(..•,.0_ ' ) \ \ \ 1‘ ''''\\ .1. ‘((r\''''kill'Illi1\111i'\11111'i,'''''ilill'i: 111 , ' _71' ':‘.4• \ S ._. ill 14 , ,\ J i' , ,.II ji .-. , i An ' ' . -- 4.":Et; 'Pa ii....... ' 1\ '', kl, „I,A.',l't" . 1 I,.1‘,\,,\1,\1 41 .'1,11„,1 J .4,,, . — oo •,' , . ' ..i ' 4 Er.=. .• , It t ' )...3. , \ i d i $4":' ':P?'jii,n, 'I I' -- .1,111 — --__,, 1 111,1r . . . , 1 I ' f : ';. $k(111 . -.0. —6111016111.-.0•••,I '''' • Aiiiimpr, / I / ., inia\rim...110 \grrAl . I _ \ \ , , I l 110'' • - 1111111: /I" l, mippoli ,4411/ I . . , ----- 1 ,------ I , 1 ' ' , • i il ;, ,, 1, r' ; ', 1,. I I . i ' '! ', : ,I' : , ' ,-) r•,'f . r , ._ • , , , ., , , 1 f .Nr r...10 4 12 / `�/I Iv 11�I' IIS ,„ '. <d 1 ,t/(01, p j�, �I �j � 4 1 L,i yr 33f �� .� '4. �Ir! "4 1 ''r i . e l ` 1I ,ro, ;••j ��_ 191 �• �;11 �I ; . I1 I.,. IIID1 01.' I (,,R4:I,1'I r ' i'41 I �lI jl IIII 114�II1{ " ,. Y• e A t _ W. 11i-�' 11• 'f 14}1/11 fP' • p K`. 1 b l" •{ )r I "• 4 ti y li 1 ;` •�;,�. 1110: Ily' ,f,;d'' .� 1 �� 9 a &,d .� Y10 1 A. '; 11+(}I�I� fill 1, {I '"' , ru 'I T Il 4�1It'll' 1( 1_., 't' i I II,'o1 I I, I' rl '''',''''.' ''.:''''''i El !,'Ili,, 1' A h I'�i',' I•glia I I, ti YF :1 II. ,', i 111JI•'4 1• ,41' I w„ Cpp(�°1: , ... _I I',GII t ,;;,,,N,I� ii1 '4 4.1 p{ SIIIIII �� II,poi', , I �' 1I q ` I I�I'''��lI1I � 1� (11jIIT 'Y, ,1:. '.1 I : `�1 � J1 , ' IVr?UP 4', TI _ alt I) 11 +IVI , `� L II � .� i I � rl � (i I II I � Pd ' q�lI ,1.111,),1,:, I IpoMr,, ( I ry1 i II �,; I� , � , I I ' liI"YI , ci 11 ill 1III,,'IA I� Iilir'[ II II�I II �K Ary: T �I � + l1 I�I 114 i III !^ . @ , Ill 'I I. Ii " F- ��^^111/ • 'r ' J flll gll'I1i11If I' Ill h �a I I�r �� 11 '<I ,I',,,11��,M11�{II��I,I 0,71 cr 1 r, , �I`I, ,11..4,, , If �� '1�ri' 11ll 7, ,,./11,11,,,;/ (� 1I I I, I�I'II I,I,I I " 1 1 1,11jIJq 11 I �,I, II ISI I)I 1 1.1 I I 1. I 1 I ' ••SII �f ' •4 • /1 ' I II/l'!•'',/ il•'I'll I111i141.yll III I LI�I�II I�t .;1 I 1 �"'� I; I I1��I� I I '' 1 I• r7i I IIII'III��l IIS II• I',iI'I • �'‘ , �') "I li 1'1IY 11�I'll II^' I I'•111 •itl I(.11'I 41'411;0 E t j•j • • •i,1111 .� /'II1;1 ll�h�P'I'1�r1(II'41,4011 ,./010IIi'lliI1411,1�,i,rr c�- ,1r1 � 777-6 ''' QA', 0.1...,% ,I( 1 1 (• � �� I 1ii, ,,_-— $ I +' 111 1 r',' 'dr .11141 .' �,+ ''' i M, 1'd� " i. ' r•:-vim �. ., ' .m II,'11!'1�, 1'II l C I �I X1I ,Ili. , I -� �_ _ �, � _ illcaelitilri \ . ,' rn _ ' _int I. r 1[M1 IS� ✓�1 ' }I[ I h ' I�V i :)'1' p 1' rl ji I �+ I ' t,�rS jj' i 11 I� `� 11 �,,{} rF ',111? tt F I p la ''� �q i�rt fiiiNt 1,1,•,,„I'Ii+Il II ++ I AL AV +yfl I '� 1'1} ;a liiIi l', Inti 1� 1II i' I I ii p 1 �i' I^1�1 I ' III IIID.'1,+I `. ),,,, 1,IhI^ ),/!I+ I jII' l 1 IllflIII�I III 1 I art li I� II11 iI .... "" JJI {I/1,1 ;14,11,11,1,,,1,111171::,1,1 1:134-ii� 7 11 ,ll�l ��Iff � � I1tl j I' Ill', l' 11 I �III1il', ill,, 1 I I n I�I 1 IilY�I,�� ', 111 II II _ ., I II I SIII,II 4,,h,,' litI 1 ' �4- If }IfIl Ill 1I ,11,,1j,,,l; I . II I � ,. II.I'dl�,tit?iII !1' III + I • IIIr/ lll� � • �II ��;� ISI ;1 1 1 jl�I �1 ' � III '1I 'iI II I' �' _ 9991' 11,I J' 'I ' 1 I 1 s'i I }, �� I, � ,IIII. 1 , ' �� NiriII I1 ql I'�I�II�1�11��II� I! I � �i' Itr j 1II�I I� I 1 II JI'�I� I I1 1 I; 'I` llllll ll� Ilr I lit I I' 11t 1 �,11 r- , 9 +� I I,1 �,I ��ill i t �;,�' ._ I + 'I 'f�/I) I ' I'I I 1 �11�1111�, II 'il' I I I. I I 11111 ;I I 1111 li,II ' II i I Ir �IIjl 11Al* 0 I I IJ I , 1' .I , +,_ _i . _1. , - - 7). --- .,..1'.7,...;.,-..,."-- V . I . . ./K-- __ 'Irwir , . I it , •,••.- . • ill : 04 ,. • .---' ,.'\ ..,.,, . , ';."i -.;;; • I II ' .:-'4 A , \' , 4 1 , 11. 1 -I, IN Lr i A OWIIIMIIIINIONIMMI innummillialli II' 111: ' - L, \- igi ., ' ' VIIIINIIIMPIII111111111 I ' l'IT..,111r7ritYr 1• f , , \ ' 1110',5514 .4 .. , . . . '''' , 1 1 ,., . _ .. I .,,,m.'PS ' , . j\'''9[ ''. I i.V I ii;,,'Wo, ----,,,,, i ! ', ', !''1," •.Y:","?,' .,,' 0., k _ . ,,,—,•••,,,,.—‘. 1 i., -). —7.' .' I .• -I' . . uK' ,...,.. g ... . I ri I , a, a . t; , g .• •,,,,,,,,- _ . ',,,, i't , --... f'11 L. -1... '. 7.M 'Aran." di 1 '1'A !......„,,,„ .. . , I ., ! ,) pd• EL--111111 , . . , i 1 , II .6. . . . .,, ,..,...s. , --,-:.. , , , r 'r ;_--=_-IIIIII § .-s•s;. ...,. Ar, - , ,4, .. , , # .,,, ••.,...,'•• ' , ., , i • ' . • - N-; * 1 • ' . ./-. I.E4, ::: --•'. , I ,..,•..,k''.4:1„,,..^s.:;,.,.,,. ' . • -.. •• .1',.... ', .•,.. . -,....--- . Itl _II , I . , il ). '1111 1:;'\'''•,`, . .•,\•,::\,, ( 1 MIN : :\ -Il Ak H- I r . -i • , , , M NM '',•''k 1 ..-"'--. ' . " , , ' �N jEST i CN' • 73 J m C)- $47, ) —�J2 me 2q� Lo 2 %s 'LANN'N• •c\o SFS • REAL 5OVJ Promise Zone _ _ \\\J E S T FL O C31')//....111:5 J :% \��\N E S T FLo4) • �O ip -y L....s.N... m U C. � cs �< PLA`NCti \- \)'\ 02`; 0 h S&FS * REAL SO� C/s PLA� C� \O2 SFS . REAL 5O\'J Jason Stoltzfus Grants Program Administrator Margaret A. Wuerstle,AICP jstoltzfus@swfrpc.org Executive Director mwuerstle@swfrpc.org 1400 Colonial Blvd.,Suite 1 Fort Myers,Florida 33907 1400 Colonial Blvd.,Suite 1 P.239.938.1813 x241 Fort Myers,Florida 33907 C.941.666.3403 P.239.938.1813 x222 F.239.938.1817 F.239.938.1817 www.swfrpc.org www.swfrpc.org SOUTHWEST FLORIDA Zone Southwest Florida Promise Zone Project Summaries Southwest Florida Promise Zone Funding Needs Organization Project Total Cost Request Category Collier County Immokalee ATV Park and Adventureland $ 4,246,000 $ 3,646,000 Economic Development Immokalee Culinary Arts & Production Collier County Campus $ 6,600,000 $ 100,000 Economic Development Collier County Eastern Immokalee Sidewalk Project $ 13,117,240 $ 10,493,792 Infrastructure Collier County Eleven Bridge Replacements Project $23,000,000 $ 23,000,000 Infrastructure Collier County Immokalee Sidewalk Improvement Project $ 2,000,000 $ 475,000 Infrastructure Collier County Main Street Improvements $ 2,500,000 $ 2,500,000 Infrastructure Immokalee Stormwater Improvement Collier County Program Infrastructure "A Star is Born"- Florida Culinary Collier County Accelerator @ Immokalee $ 2,250,000 $ 2,250,000 Economic Development "Get on Immokalee's Food Truck"- Florida Collier County Culinary Accelerator @ Immokalee $ 160,000 $ 160,000 Economic Development Business and Commerce Park Roadway and Infrastructure, Economic Glades County Stormwater Construction $ 5,804,967 $ 2,000,000 Development Economic Development, Glades County Glades County Regional Training Center $ 10,082,000 $ 3,272,000 Education Airglades Industrial Park Wastewater Hendry County Infrastructure $ 5,400,000 $ 5,400,000 Infrastructure Four Corners Stormwater/Water Quality Hendry County Project $ 4,200,000 $ 4,200,000 Infrastructure Generator Replacements at Evacuation Hendry County Centers $ 500,000 $ 500,000 Infrastructure Harlem Community Gymnasium Hendry County Rehabilitation $ 150,000 $ 150,000 Infrastructure Hendry County Justice Center Feasibility Infrastructure, Crime Hendry County Study $ 95,000 $ 95,000 Reduction Multi-Family Housing for Essential Service Infrastructure, Economic Hendry County Employees $ 4,500,000 $ 4,500,000 Development Old Hendry County Historic Courthouse Hendry County Restoration $ 3,000,000 $ 3,000,000 Infrastructure Port LaBelle Utility Service Defective Water Hendry County Line Replacement $ 200,000 $ 200,000 Infrastructure Economic Development, Hendry County Tiger Village Infrastructure City of Clewiston Ventura Avenue Water Main Extension $ 71,188 $ 71,188 Infrastructure Economic Development, City of Clewiston W. Pasadena Avenue Utility Relocation $ 300,000 $ 300,000 Infrastructure Hendry County School Hendry County Schools Board Administration/Training Center $ 21,000,000 $ 21,000,000 Education Organization Project Total Cost Request Category Hendry County School Intensive Intensive Supports to Transform Board Leadership,Teaching and Learning Education Circle C Farm Circle C Farm $ 5,000,000 $ 2,000,000 Economic Development Circle C Farm Abattoir and Butcher Shop $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 Economic Development Fixed Bus Route Between Immokalee, Economic Development, Good Wheels LaBelle, Clewiston,and Moore Haven $ 500,000 $ 450,000 Education Guadalupe Center Early Learning&Smart Guadalupe Center Start $ 6,006,000 $ 1,671,204 Education Hodges University Nurse Education Program $ 200,000 $ 70,000 Education Human Trafficking Awareness Partnerships Human Trafficking Prevention Program $ 25,000 $ 22,500 Crime Prevention Human Trafficking Resource Center at The Collaborative Prevention and Florida Gulf Coast Reduction of Human Trafficking in Hendry, University Glades & Immokalee $ 750,000 $ 750,000 Crime Prevention Immokalee Fire Control District Immokalee Fire Station 31 $ 3,100,000 $ 3,100,000 Infrastructure Immokalee Fire Control District Immokalee Fire Station 31 Ladder Truck $ 850,000 $ 850,000 Infrastructure Path 2 Freedom Path 2 Freedom Campus $ 8,972,000 $ 8,822,000 Crime Prevention Southwest Florida Community Foundation Certification Pipeline Alignment Project $ 106,000 $ 96,000 Economic Development Southwest Florida Community Foundation Foundational Skills Program $ 215,000 $ 160,000 Education,Job Creation Southwest Florida Community Foundation Sustainable Communities Plan $ 137,000 $ 122,000 Economic Development Southwest Florida Regional Human Coordinating Efforts to Address Human Trafficking Coalition Trafficking in Southwest Florida $ 425,494 $ 323,199 Crime Prevention The Joseph Project 863 Jobs Project $ 65,000 $ 30,000 Education,Job Creation The Shelter for Abused Emergency Shelter for Victims of Domestic Women &Children Violence and Human Trafficking $ 4,190,000 $ 4,190,000 Crime Prevention Southwest Florida Workforce Development Board Destination Graduation $ 1,056,000 $ 840,000 Education University of Florida, Institute of Food and Online Training for Farm Labor Supervisors Economic Development, Agricultural Sciences (FLS) $ 405,500 $ 265,000 Education QSOUTHWEST FLORIDA Southwest Florida Promise Zone Project Summaries Crime Prevention Southwest Florida Promise Zone Funding Needs Organization Project Total Cost Request Category Human Trafficking Awareness Partnerships Human Trafficking Prevention Program $ 25,000 $ 22,500 Crime Prevention Human Trafficking Resource Center at The Collaborative Prevention and Florida Gulf Coast Reduction of Human Trafficking in Hendry, University Glades & Immokalee $ 750,000 $ 750,000 Crime Prevention Path 2 Freedom Path 2 Freedom Campus $ 8,972,000 $ 8,822,000 Crime Prevention Southwest Florida Regional Human Coordinating Efforts to Address Human Trafficking Coalition Trafficking in Southwest Florida $ 425,494 $ 323,199 Crime Prevention The Shelter for Abused Emergency Shelter for Victims of Domestic Women &Children Violence and Human Trafficking $ 4,190,000 $ 4,190,000 Crime Prevention • SOUTHWEST FLORIDA Zone PROJECT SUMMARY Project Title Human Trafficking Prevention Program Organization Human Trafficking Awareness Partnerships Contact Nola Theiss Contact Phone 239-415-2635 Contact Email nola@humantraffickingawareness.org Total Project Cost $25,000. Amount Requested $22,500. Local Match $2500 We have worked with the PACE school in Immokalee in 2016,educating students about human trafficking and inspiring them to create art which will inform others.We would like to expand the program by working with students and parents in the Coalition of Immokalee workers.This would be especially suited to the migrant worker families as the Project Description art form we are using is large banners based on art often used in Guatemala. We feel that this would be an especially significant project as many of the students and teachers at the PACE school have indicated a desire to know more about the Coalition and the migrant families would have a lot to express about their experiences in their indigenous art. Timeline We expect that we would do this program in the Spring,with planning stages beginning in December.The program might expand into summer programs as well. We feel that this would be an especially significant project as many of the students and Benefits teachers at the PACE school have indicated a desire to know more about the Coalition and the migrant families would have a lot to express about their experiences in their indigenous art. We feel that this project would open up an understanding of the PACE students and the Promise Zone CIW migrant families who currently co-exist but have little contact with each other.By Goals increasing the understanding of labor trafficking and creating art that touches their lives, both organizations would benefit as will the community overall benefit through the exhibition of art. We expect that the Immokalee area would most benefit, including the migrant families,the • students at the PACE school who often live in other parts of Collier County. We hope that Regional Impact it would bring the Coalition and the school closer where they may find advantages to working together.In Glades and Hendry Counties there are probably other co-existing groups who could be joined by art. We would like to work with Dr. Genelle Grant of the GRACE project who has years of Partners experience of working with migrant women,the PACE school and the Coalition of Immokalee Workers.We might expand the program to other educational facilities in the Immokalee area as well. SOUTHWEST FLORIDA Zone PROJECT SUMMARY Project Title The Collaborative Prevention and Reduction of Human Trafficking in Hendry,Glades& Immokalee Organization Human Trafficking Resource Center at Florida Gulf Coast University Contact Alex Olivares Contact Phone 239-677-6162 • Contact Email aolivares@fgcu.edu Total Project Cost $250,000 per year x3 years($750,000) Amount Requested $250,000 per year Local Match In-kind$15,000 per year Human Trafficking in Hendry and Glades counties is a severely underreported crime that affects children,adults,migrants and many other segments of the population. To effectively prevent,reduce and identify this crime there needs to be a systematic approach that involves social services,law enforcement,medical services,mental health and child welfare. This project would entail the Human Trafficking Resource Center coordinating a Project Description concerted awareness effort to all of the above mentioned at risk populations in a culturally and person centered manner. The center will also collaborate with the Sheriff's Department in Hendry county to establish a dedicated law enforcement officer to investigate human trafficking. The Collier County Sheriff will provide training to all newly assigned detectives.Finally,the center will also coordinate the delivery and accessibility of services to identified survivors of human trafficking.All of the statistical information obtained would be collected and analyzed by the center and then made available to the community at large. The partnerships have already been established and the project would be prepared to begin Timeline on February 1st,2017. The total project time would be three calendar years(02/01/17- 02/01/20). Increased identification and investigation of both sex and labor trafficking in the identified target areas. Benefits Markedly improved community awareness in the identified target areas. The development of a concerted community effort that is accessible and effective for survivors of human trafficking in the area. Promise Zone This project will meet the Promise Zone goal of crime reduction. Goals Regional Impact This project will impact Hendry County,Glades County and Immokalee. Hendry County Sheriff Glades County Sheriff Partners Collier County Sheriff Health Department of Labelle Catholic Charities SOUTHWEST FLORIDA Zone Naples Shelter Department of Children and Families SOUTHWEST FLORIDA Zone PROJECT SUMMARY Project Title Path 2 Freedom Campus Organization Path 2 Freedom,Inc. Contact Ana Stevenson,President Contact Phone 239-398-9961 Contact Email ana@path2freedom.org Total Project Cost $ 19,867,000.00—Phase 1 $ 8,972,000.00 Amount Requested $8,822,000.00 Local Match 150,000.00 Of all the shelters in Collier County today, none specialize in long-term housing and rehabilitation care for sex trafficking victims. The Path2Freedom campus will provide transitional and restorative services coupled with long- term safe housing for rescued victims of sex trafficking. The program focuses on empowering survivors to become independent and self-sufficient through a'wide range of services, including counseling, medical care,educational and re-employment assistance and social re-entry. Florida ranks 3rd nationally in human trafficking cases with the area between Miami and Tampa ranking# 1 in the state. The Path 2 Freedom Master Plan intentionally defines a "progression of care" that the organization believes is essential for deliveries in the rescued individual's journey. That path, starting with their rescue and arrival on the campus,through individualized professional care and restoration services and culminating in their release back to society is the goal for this facility. Project Description There exists no Specialty Treatment Facility presently in the SW Florida area with this facility filling that need. This campus will be situated in the Immokalee, Florida area to enable the organization to successfully service the 5 county area of Collier, Glades, Hendry,Lee and Charlotte. This project will be completed in several phases, will include administration/intake building, seven residential safe houses, counseling center building, educational & vocational training building, community center, animal therapy barn, rescue kennels and equine therapy. This project will be developed in two or three phases. The attached projections are for the entire project cost and for an annual running budget when facility is opened. Attached is the projected budget for the entire Path 2 Freedom campus as well as the Phase 1 building budget. Timeline Anticipated time frame for this project is to break ground in 2016 with Phase 1 with completion of Phase 1 late 2017.Phase 2 will follow with the addition of funds. With SWFL area ranking # 1within the state of Florida in human trafficking it is far Benefits overdue that a Specialty Treatment Facility be available to rescued humans within the Glades,Hendry counties and Immokalee area. SOUTHWEST FLORIDA Zone Path 2 Freedom, Inc. project will enhance the Promise Zone areas with job creation, economic development, enhancing infrastructure, crime reduction and education. The Promise Zone addition of this facility in the economically depressed Immokalee, Florida area will create Goals the potential for local job creation for administration, staffing and maintenance positions, sourcing of provisions from local businesses and bring destination traffic to the area which would help the viability of the struggling Main Street business area. Regional Impact Collier,Charlotte,Lee Hendry, Glades especially the Immokalee area of Collier County, including tribal land. Abuse Counseling Treatment, Inc., Our Mother's Home, New Life Oasis, Human Trafficking Awareness and Prevention,with MOU's for criminal justice and court systems Partners in Collier, Lee, Hendry, Glades and Charlotte Counties; Lee Memorial Health Systems, FGCU, Florida Southwest University and Ave Maria University School of Law, United Way,several area churches and business organizations. SOUTHWEST FLORIDA o e PROJECT SUMMARY Project Title Coordinating Efforts to Address Human Trafficking in Southwest Florida Organization Southwest Regional Human Trafficking Coalition Contact Lynn Brewer Contact Phone (239)691-1128 Contact Email Lynn@swfl-humantrafficking.org Total Project Cost $425,494(based on 12 months) Amount Requested $323,199(based on 12 months Local Match $102,295 An alliance for combined action is always better than a single entity's actions alone. Social action issues have traditionally banded together in coalitions with examples of domestic violence and sexual assault services coalitions having profound impacts on those issues nationwide. Currently there are no comprehensive advocacy coalitions,or for that fact,even a model,that address human trafficking virtually anywhere. This proposal is poised to act as a replicable human trafficking Coalition model that Project Description allows the distribution of funding to service providers,the professional training and certification of direct service providers,first responders,criminal justice and court personnel and volunteers,the technical support for service providers that includes website design and support,grant oversite,a regional dedicated toll free crisis line and links to referrals for immediate crisis needs. In the future,VOCA,VAWA,State and other crime victim funding will be sought for coalition service provider members. Evaluation of the need for coordination among service providers or those espousing values that address human trafficking is completed and a strategic plan laid out that would meet Timeline these needs.Infrastructure will be in place within six weeks of secured funding. All projects based on 12 months implementation from funding date. When concern about the horror-of human trafficking first entered our conscious in the late 1990's,evidence of that was in Immokalee,Florida.That area was used as the impetus and unfortunate role model for exactly what trafficking looked like. It is hard to believe that in the two decades since,there has not been an organized coalition to reduce and address the Benefits crime of trafficking in this area. Funding this coalition that will bring competing and often at-odds organizations together, as a united front to reduce this crime and provide for the needs of trafficked persons is long overdue in what was known in the 1990's as"trafficking central". When social issue entrepreneurs,even those with their hearts in the right place,smell money,things go awry SOUTHWEST FLORIDA } � - � � � one quickly. The Coalition,based in"trafficking central"will bring together the service providers to use a peer system to determine funding allocations,and act as one advocacy voice in State and Federal arenas. Additionally the Coalition would become the pass-through funding source for member agencies,set standards of expectations and then review and report to the appropriate funding source on the member agencies ability to implement and maintain the high service provision standards. Since the trafficking of persons was first signed into federal law in 2000,success in implementing the provisions and programs within that law has been sporadic and uneven. Funding this coalition will approach every element of its approach primarily as one of crime reduction and secondarily one of education. Promise Zone Primarily Crime Reduction,secondarily Education Goals Regional Impact Charlotte,Collier,Glades,Hendry and Lee Counties and the especially the Immokalee area of Collier County,including tribal land. Abuse Counseling and Treatment,Inc.,Our Mother's Home,Path 2 Freedom,New Life Oasis,Human Trafficking Awareness and Prevention(all claim to be direct service providers);MOU's are in place with criminal justice and court systems in Collier,Lee, Partners Hendry,Glades and Charlotte Counties; Lee Memorial Health Systems;The Southwest Florida Promise Zone(one of seven designated in the US)choose the Coalition as their primary partner in their application and the Coalition is a part of the planning and implementation of its plans;Florida Gulf Coast University,Florida Southwest University and Ave Maria University School of Law. SOUTHWEST FLORIDA Zone PROJECT SUMMARY Project Title Emergency Shelter for Victims of Domestic Violence and Human Trafficking Organization The Shelter for Abused Women&Children(The Shelter) Contact Linda Oberhaus Contact Phone 239-775-3862 Contact Email loberhaus@naplesshelter.org Total Project Cost $4,190,000.00 Amount Requested $4,190,000.00 Local Match The Shelter understands that match dollars vary by funding source and is prepared to provide any match funds required by funding agencies. The Shelter faces the effects of human trafficking every day.Recently,The Shelter was presented with a shocking situation that touched everyone's heart in the facility.It was a photo of a mobile brothel,acquired by the Collier County Sheriff's Office(CCSO)which was driven to farm fields,construction sites,and local neighborhoods.The women in the van were forced to have sex with men that had lined up outside of the vehicle.Once the line ended,the driver closed the doors and drove to the next site. Domestic violence and human trafficking are different forms of victimization.However, there are many similarities between both crimes.Perpetrators of human trafficking and domestic violence use power and control to terrorize and control their victims. Similar to victims of domestic violence,survivors of human trafficking are controlled and mistreated by those who are close to them.Both victims suffer from physical and sexual abuse, isolation,threats of harm,name calling,degradation,shame,and control of finances. Project Description The Shelter has extensive experience in providing services to victims of domestic violence and human trafficking.During the period of July 1,2015 through June 30,2016,The Shelter provided services to over 2,200 victims of domestic violence and became a safe haven to thirteen victims of human trafficking.The Shelter has the wrap around services and collaborating partners needed to offer victims of human trafficking the support and guidance necessary to help them regain control of their lives. The Southwest Florida Region lacks an emergency shelter that oversees the critical needs of victims of domestic violence and the long-term therapeutic care for victims of human trafficking.The Shelter is seeking funding in order to build a Domestic Violence and Human Trafficking Emergency Shelter in Immokalee,Florida.Funds will be utilized toward the construction of the facility. When construction is complete,The Shelter will offer safety through its emergency shelter,counseling and advocacy,transitional housing, community referrals,economic empowerment,medical assistance,court and legal advocacy,substance abuse assistance,and much more. Timeline See attached timeline For victims of domestic violence,the proposed project will: Benefits • Provide victims with strategies for enhancing their safety SOUTHWEST FLORIDA Zone • Increase victim's knowledge of available community resources • Provide avenues for victims to become gainfully employed • Assist victims in obtaining permanent housing • Assist survivors in becoming more hopeful about their futures • Increase survivors' knowledge regarding their rights and options • Increase a survivors confidence in their decision making skills For victims of human trafficking,the proposed project will: • Provide victims with strategies for enhancing their safety • Increase victim's knowledge of available community resources • Provide avenues for victims to become gainfully employed • Assist victims in obtaining permanent housing • Increase independent living skills and self-sufficiency through The Shelter's Economic Empowerment program The following Southwest Florida Promise Zone goals will be met as a result of this project: Promise Zone Goals • Crime reduction • Job creation Through this project,the Southwest Florida Region will: • Experience a decrease in the number of domestic violence and human trafficking occurrences • Increase awareness regarding domestic violence and human trafficking Through this project victims of domestic violence will: • Become healthy,happy,and empowered to address their lives in a manner that Regional Impact best meets their needs • Lessen the likelihood of returning to their abusers solely due to financial reasons • Be safe and free from domestic violence or human trafficking • Increase awareness regarding domestic violence Through this project victims of human trafficking will: • Become healthy,happy,and empowered to address their lives in a manner that best meets their needs • Lessen the likelihood of returning to their traffickers solely due to financial SOUTHWEST FLORIDA Zone reasons • Be safe and free from domestic violence or human trafficking • Be relocated safely • Increase self-sufficiency • Become positive contributing members of society • Increase awareness regarding human trafficking For over 27 years,The Shelter has provided victim services to thousands of adults and children in need. Throughout this period,The Shelter has established many collaborative partnerships. Some established partnerships include: • Collier County Sheriff's Office • Naples Police Department • Marco Island Police Department • David Lawrence Mental Health Center • Neighborhood Health Clinic • State Attorney's Office • Federal Bureau of Investigation • Coalition of Immokalee Workers • Youth Haven • Naples Equestrian Challenge Partners • Department of Children&Families • Healthy Families • Redlands Christian Migrants Association • Pace Center for Girls • Immokalee Technical College • Collier County Public Schools • Collier County Health Department • Project Help • Catholic Charities • Children's Advocacy Center • Legal Aid • Naples Community Hospital • Physicians Regional Healthcare System Promise Zone Timeline Immokalee Domestic Violence and Human Trafficking Emergency Shelter Phase Description Start Date End Date Status Phase I 1. Needs Assessment * 1. 2015 1. 2015 1. Complete *Extensive needs assessment was utilized in order to identify the needs of victims of domestic violence and the needs of victims of human trafficking. Phase II 1. Identify land and enter 1. 2015 1. 2017 1. Verbal into contract for sale commitment contingent on rezoning received of land 2. 2016 2. Complete appraisal 2. 2016 3. 2017 2. In Process 3. Rezone property 3. 2017 4. 2017 3. Pending 4. Close on land 4. 2017 4. Pending Phase III 1. Environmental, 1. 2017 1. 2018 1. Pending Engineering, design, construction drawings, permitting Phase IV 1. Begin Construction 1. 2018/2019 1. 2019/2020 1. Pending Phase V 1. Complete Construction 1. N/A 1. 2019/2020 1. Pending (anticipated) Phase VI 1. Open Immokalee Shelter 1. Ongoing 2. 2019/2020 1. Pending and provide DV and (anticipated) HT services. Move victims of HT to Immokalee Shelter Q SOUTHWEST FLORIDA Zone Southwest Florida Promise Zone Project Summaries Economic Development Southwest Florida Promise Zone Funding Needs Organization Project Total Cost Request Category Collier County Immokalee ATV Park and Adventureland $ 4,246,000 $ 3,646,000 Economic Development Immokalee Culinary Arts& Production Collier County Campus $ 6,600,000 $ 100,000 Economic Development "A Star is Born"-Florida Culinary Collier County Accelerator @ Immokalee $ 2,250,000 $ 2,250,000 Economic Development "Get on Immokalee's Food Truck"- Florida Collier County Culinary Accelerator @ Immokalee $ 160,000 $ 160,000 Economic Development Economic Development, Glades County Glades County Regional Training Center $ 10,082,000 $ 3,272,000 Education Economic Development, Hendry County Tiger Village Infrastructure Economic Development, City of Clewiston W. Pasadena Avenue Utility Relocation $ 300,000 $ 300,000 Infrastructure Circle C Farm Circle C Farm $ 5,000,000 $ 2,000,000 Economic Development Circle C Farm Abattoir and Butcher Shop $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 Economic Development Fixed Bus Route Between Immokalee, Economic Development, Good Wheels LaBelle, Clewiston, and Moore Haven $ 500,000 $ 450,000 Education Southwest Florida Community Foundation Certification Pipeline Alignment Project $ 106,000 $ 96,000 Economic Development Southwest Florida Community Foundation Sustainable Communities Plan $ 137,000 $ 122,000 Economic Development University of Florida, Institute of Food and Online Training for Farm Labor Supervisors Economic Development, Agricultural Sciences (FLS) $ 405,500 $ 265,000 Education Q SOUTHWEST FLORIDA Zone PROJECT SUMMARY Project Title Immokalee ATV Park and Adventureland Organization Collier County Parks&Recreation Division Contact Barry Williams,Director Contact Phone 239-252-4035 Contact Email BarryWilliams@colliergov.net It is estimated conservatively that mitigation costs associated with developing an ATV park in the full footprint of the Immokalee Airport is $3,646,000. The Collier County Parks and Recreation Division is seeking to develop a conceptual plan of an ATV Park and approach US Fish and Wildlife to determine a more accurate estimate of panther mitigation necessary to fully develop the parcel. Total Project Cost The Division also has at its disposal $3,000,000 for the design, further permitting, and construction of the site. Given that the total estimate is considered to be $6,646,000; however, exploration to lower that total costs is dependent on the review of the US Fish and Wildlife Service and US Army Corps of Engineers permits and design. Mitigation costs associated with panthers typically involve purchase of Panther Habitat Units (PHU's) from a land management bank.in Florida. These lands are preserved in perpetuity for an expanded habitat for the panther. The Division is looking for a contribution of up to $3,646,000, which is the conservative Amount Requested estimate associated with the costs related to panther mitigation by the U.S.Fish&Wildlife Service and other U.S.Army Corps of Engineers permits. Local Match Local cash contribution$3 million legal settlement targeted for an ATV/dirt bike park. Assistance with purchase of PHU's required for the development of the parcel is necessary because 2/3's of the parcel is located within a secondary panther habitat zone. This is an area that is known to have panther habitat. Given the proximity of the land to the airport it is not considered a primary habitat zone by US Fish and Wildlife that constructed the boundaries of both the primary and secondary zones. Once permit requirements are satisified for this environmental impact, other permitting agencies will need to be satisfied, but this remains the biggest hurdle for the project and the best opportunity given the land's proximity to the airport, which are lands already disturbed for this use. A favorable response from the US Fish and Wildlife Service will Project Description see that worst case scenario of funding needed for PHU's to be reduced. Immokalee's agrarian economy is being diversified with industries that have rising opportunities, including the recreational economy, gaming and adventure tourism. Immokalee already has the Immokalee Regional Raceway, a drag racing strip. The Immokalee ATV Park and Adventureland would complement the raceway by creating ATV and dirt bike trails and other possible recreational experiences, such as zip lines, as well as a campground for overnight stays. Participants from the Florida Culinary Accelerator @ Immokalee, which is expected to start construction in December, would operate the concession stand, local residents would be hired for other jobs, iTECh vocational school's machinery program would be approached to provide a repair service v.2—last updated 1/26/17 SOUTHWEST FLORIDA Zone and young Immokalee entrepreneurs could set up an ATV and dirt bike rental shop. Our feasibility study estimates there would be 100 visits daily at a fee of$20 each for an ATV park alone, with total annual revenue estimated at $409,000 annually. The Parks and Recreation Division will pay the Immokalee Regional Airport a total of 15 percent of gross revenues from the Park and $1,000 monthly as fair market value for use of the property. The Park itself comes from a settlement agreement reached with South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) when they acquired lands within Picuyne Forest in Southern Collier County. SFWMD agreed to purchase the lands for Everglades Restoration,but also to provide for a place for those who enjoyed the area with ATV's to recreate. SFWMD attempts to find a suitable location were not successful and SFWMD and the Collier County Board of County Commissioners reached a settlement where funds would be provided to the Board for them to pursue the development of an ATV Park for Collier County citizens. The Board is committed to seeking out a suitable location for ATV enthusiasts to enjoy this recreational pursuit in Collier County. The Parks and Recreation ATV Park Site Ad Hoc Committee has been meeting regularly Timeline for public hearings to discuss options, find a site and conduct feasibility studies. A 2019 opening date has been targeted. Land around Immokalee Regional Airport totaling 300 acres has been recommended.Total development cost are estimated at$6.246 million. This project aims to diversify available resources and activities within the SWFL Rural Promise Zone and expand the recreational economy for the three-county Promise Zone areas. Regionally, services would be expanded to improve and benefit residents as well as visitors. The park would draw participants and spectators from across the state and perhaps the region, boosting adventure tourism and agri-tourism, bringing people to Immokalee businesses, and area farms. Regionally, it would diversify the available resources, thawing people to Glades and Hendry counties, especially Lazy Springs Benefits Recreation Park in Felda (Hendry County), which offers motocross, 4x4, fishing, waterskiing and wave runners (three-wheel ATVs are prohibited) on Saturdays and Sundays. At Immokalee ATV Park & Adventureland, the three counties could share championships during alternating years. There is a possibility we could draw national events, such as championships or award dinners, which could be held at the Seminole Casino. The Florida Culinary Accelerator @ Immokalee would benefit because an ATV and entertainment park would provide a venue for our chef entrepreneur participants to sell their products at an ATV park concession stand. The overall target of this project is to be a catalyst for economic and recreational Promise Zone development in the Southwest Florida Promise Zone. The park would provide residents Goals and visitors with a sports venue, draw visitors to the area and pump money into the economy by increasing adventure tourism and agri-tourism. The park, which would initially be open Friday through Monday, would bring people to Immokalee and those who drove a long distance would stay in the ATV park campground and spend money in the local economy. ATV park visitors would purchase food at the Regional Impact concession stand or area restaurants. It likely would increase numbers of people watching weekend races at Immokalee Regional Raceway and possibly draw visitors to the Lazy Springs Entertainment Park in Felda, Hendry County, a 375-acre entertainment and ATV park about 14 miles away that also offers water skiing, wave runners, fishing and motocross. In Immokalee, visitors could go to the farmers market, the Pepper Ranch and v.2—last updated 1/26/17 SOUTHWEST FLORIDA re the county's Immokalee Pioneer Museum, which both host festivals and tours. Shooting enthusiasts would likely be drawn to the hog and turkey hunts held at the Immokalee Pioneer Museum. The park could be a boon to Immokalee's Lake Trafford Marina,which features "airboats and alligators" rides. Visitors also might drive the roughly 40 miles to Naples and frequent businesses,museums,art galleries,and restaurants there. Collier County Board of County Commissioners, Economic Incubators Inc., Florida Partners Culinary Accelerator @ Immokalee, iTECH, Immokalee Chamber of Commerce, Immokalee CRA. I v.2—last updated 1/26/17 SOUTHWEST FLORIDA di 4- ,. ., 1 a i t�a _ 4' e Zone PROJECT SUMMARY Project Title Immokalee Culinary Arts&Production(I-CAP)Campus Organization Collier County Board of County Commissioners(BCC) Contact Mr.Jace Kentner Contact Phone 239-252-4040 Contact Email jacekentner@colliergov.net Total Project Cost $6,600,000 Amount Requested Phase 1:$100,000 Planning Grant(USDA Local Food Hub/DEO Land Planning Grant) Phase 2:$3,250,000(for the first 50,000 sq.ft) Local Match $3,250,000 The purpose of the Immokalee Culinary Arts&Production Campus is to embrace economic and business development by providing access to a world-class high-tech shared commercial food and beverage facility that provides hands-on developmental and production assistance with business,products and innovation,combined with educational programs,student mentoring,and a wide-range of internship opportunities across a broad Project Description spectrum of the culinary arts and high tech food production systems.The keystone to be a 50,000-100,000 sq.ft.shared multi-focused kitchen,production and education and research facility that will serve as the hub for private sector investment and build-out of the campus park.Grant funds will be used to develop a Market Analysis and Feasibility Report that provides in-depth data related to Land Use Planning;€eonomic Development Impact,and Financial Viability of the Immokalee Culinary Arts&Production Campus. • Non-Profits—provides students hands on experience in all aspects of business, mentorship,leadership opportunities and scholarships around all aspects of the food industry and the global food market place. • Economic Development(Accelerators)—provides a high end technological opportunity for businesses development through state the art facilities,mentoring, Benefits networking and financial and operational assistance. • Educational Institutions—provides curriculum,proof of concept analysis,research and development assistance,a high level of expertise in food analysis and testing, internships,collaborative development and experimentation. • Private Sector—provides production,education,product development,marketing, internship,jobs and testing opportunities. Collier County seeks to diversify the agricultural,food service and educational opportunities in Immokalee by creating a first of its kind Culinary Arts and Production Promise Zone Campus.In keeping with the goals of creating jobs,enhancing economic activity, Goals improving educational opportunities,reducing crime and improving community infrastructure,this project qualifies for priority consideration or preference points under the State of Florida's Rural Area of Opportunity(RAO)program and the U.S.Department of Housing and Urban Development's Rural Promise Zone(PZ)initiative. The I-CAP will complement the Immokalee ATV Park/Adventureland and the Glades Regional Impact Regional Training Facility proposals.It will provide culinary services for the patrons of the ATV Park/Adventureland,and a professional launch-pad for the graduates from the Glades Regional Training Facility and other students in the Immokalee and wider SOUTHWEST FLORIDA Zone Southwest Florida Promise Zone.This dynamic will promote greater culinary innovation and associated business recruitment and retention in the Southwest Florida Promise Zone and provide higher priced options for many of Florida's depressed agricultural commodity markets. Project Timeline January 2018 Collier County has partnered with Economic Incubators,Inc.,the Taste of Immokalee, the Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce,the University of Florida,Florida Gulf Partners Coast University,Collier County School District and private sector organizations such as Alternate Laboratories-a leader in food technology and production-to develop a thorough source of knowledge and expertise related to the key sectors around the potential Culinary Campus. SOUTHWEST FLORIDA Zone PROJECT SUMMARY Project Title "A Star is Born"—Florida Culinary Accelerator @ Immokalee Organization Collier County,Economic Incubators Inc(EII) Contact Dr.Marshall Goodman Contact Phone 863-660-2987 Contact Email Mgoodman.catalyst@,gmail.com Total Project Cost $2.25 million Amount Requested $2.25 million Local Match $0 The Florida Culinary Accelerator @ Immokalee (FCA@I) is a culinary and agribusiness shared space in Immokalee,Florida,that will offer state-of-the-art commercial equipment, food product development and testing and cold and dry food storage that meets U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and other applicable state food safety requirements. Project Description "A Star is Born" will provide 20 culinary program scholarships over three years. These scholarships will ease some of the regulatory costs associated with food entrepreneurship and boost accelerator use while also providing social marketing support. These scholarships, which are non-renewable, will be available only to culinary professionals with a business plan who are interested in being a member of the FCA@I. Ell therefore requests $2.25 million to finance this brand development and market penetration initiative. Participants of the FCA@I will receive support in social media marketing and food compliance,which will help brand development and market penetration.Without this Benefits intervention,these"foodpreneurs"would be unable to use the accelerator(as only industry compliant users are permitted)and their brand development would continue to be hindered. The overall Promise Zone goal impacted is regional and sustainable economic Promise Zone development.The target is that by 2025: Goals • 540 jobs will be created;and • $23 million in capital investments will benefit Immokalee. Regional Impact Immokalee,located in Collier County,Florida Project Timeline January 2017 to December 2019.(EII will evaluate whether"A Star is Born"should be a recurring program after the pilot effort). Partners EII,Collier County Board of County Commissioners,University of Florida,Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce,Immokalee Chamber of Commerce,Immokalee CRA SOUTHWEST FLORIDA 7 „ ,, tf, ,, , one PROJECT SUMMARY Project Title "Get on Immokalee's Food Truck”—Florida Culinary Accelerator @ Immokalee Organization Economic Incubators Inc(Ell) Contact Dr.Marshall Goodman Contact Phone 863-660-2987 Contact Email Mgoodman.catalyst@gmail.com Total Project Cost $160,000 Amount Requested $160,000 Local Match $0 The Florida Culinary Accelerator @ Immokalee (FCA@I) is a culinary and agribusiness shared space in Immokalee,Florida,that will offer state-of-the-art commercial equipment, food product development and testing and cold and dry food storage that meets U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and other applicable state food safety requirements. Project Description Food trucks are a dynamic mobile marketing and distribution vehicle for"foodpreneurs" that allow them to enter the market without a brick-and-mortar restaurant.Because they're mobile billboards that offer pop up culinary services,they will market the Immokalee- based accelerator.Food trucks also will be used in secondary school outreach programs to introduce students to the culinary arts and science profession and the possibilities Immokalee offers.EII therefore requests$160,000 to purchase(or lease-to-own)two commercial food trucks that will be rented to accelerator participants to allow them to test and sell their food innovations on"Get on Immokalee's Food Truck"project. 1. Improved marketing for accelerator participants. 2. A vehicle for commercial traction(i.e. developing a sales track record). Benefits Without this intervention,accelerator participants would have to independently develop their sales records,which would delay their access to major retailers. The overall Promise Zone goal impacted is regional and sustainable economic Promise Zone development. The target is that by 2025: Goals • 540 jobs will be created;and • $23 million in capital investment will benefit Immokalee. Regional Impact Immokalee,located in Collier County,Florida January 2017 to December 2019.(EH will evaluate whether"Get on Immokalee's Food Project Timeline Truck"should be a recurring program after this project). Ell,Collier County Board of County Commissioners,University of Florida,Greater Partners Naples Chamber of Commerce,Immokalee Chamber of Commerce,Immokalee CRA, Immokalee Technical Institute(i-TECH) SOUTHWEST FLORIDA Zone PROJECT SUMMARY Project Title Glades County Regional Training Center Organization Glades County Board of County Commissioners/Glades County Economic Development Council Contact Glades County Manager Paul Carlisle/Glades EDC executive director Tracy Whirls Contact Phone (863)946-6000/(863)946-0300 Contact Email PCarlisle@MYGLADES.COM/twhirls@gladescountyedc.com Total Project Cost $10,082,000 $3,272,000.00--$2 million for capex for the warehouse/classroom improvements;$1.2m Amount Requested for equipment for the welding,diesel mechanics and machining classes;$72K for office furnishings and the student lounge Local Match $4,850,000 state of Florida;$1,800,000 from Glades County;$66,000 private funds; $94,000 school board and county funds for a total of$6,810,000 Glades and Hendry Counties and the Immokalee area of Collier County have historically been agriculture and natural resource-based economies, with an emphasis on growing sugar cane, oranges, and table vegetables and harvesting natural resources including pine, sand and aggregate. The increasingly mechanized harvesting and processing/manufacturing of these resources into usable products has had two effects on the regional economy: the increased mechanization has displaced manual labor over time and the increasingly automated nature of agricultural processing and manufacturing requires that new and incumbent workers receive training in a variety of disciplines including information technology (as more and more processes and equipment are computer driven and use programable logic and other software driven programs) and advanced manufacturing disciplines like robotics, CNC machining and other skills requiring training and/or certification. This need is exacerbated by the aging out of the baby boomer generation employed by these businesses as they approach retirement.At the same time, all of those agricultural and natural resource products, be they sugar, mortar, mulch or orange juice must be packaged, labeled or assigned a barcode, entered into a Project Description database, shipped and often tracked using advanced IT applications requiring instruction not only in information technology but cyber security as well, creating a need for training in warehousing, logistics and transportation. Many of these skills are then transferrable to other advanced manufacturing and logistics operations, providing an opportunity for Promise Zone Communities to recruit new manufacturing and logistics businesses and thereby diversify the local economy. The goal of the Glades County Regional Training Center project is to provide a sustainable pipeline of talent for existing businesses in the region and for new manufacturing and warehousing companies which can be recruited to the area. This will be accomplished(once the facility is complete and equipped to offer courses identified as needed by existing businesses through a series of focus groups) by working with our partners in the education, workforce and economic development communities to identify and assess potential entry level and incumbent worker trainees from high school age, to out of school youth, TANF recipients, veterans and others who are un or underemployed and providing a training/career pathway (via hands on coursework leading to industry certifications)and job placement via job fairs,internships and apprenticeships. QSOUTHWEST FLORIDA Engineering and design are complete for retrofitting approximately 4,000 square feet of Timeline the 30,000 square foot working warehouse. Curriculum have been identified for the remaining programs and equipment lists collected. Existing businesses have identified a need to hire in excess of 300 people per year to replace employees as they approach retirement.Other companies which have been recruited to the area since 2009 have seen their workforces double and foresee an Benefits additional need to hire additional employees as they expand.The ability to meet the needs of these existing businesses to recruit new employees will help us establish that we have the ability to provide a talent pipeline for new companies which we can recruit to the region,thereby diversifying the local economy. By providing training to underemployed populations in the region,we'll increase the number of individuals with education certifications in growing industries in the region and Promise Zone fill jobs expected to be created through retirement while at the same time providing an Goals incentive(in the form of grant-funded skills training for new and incumbent workers)to new companies to expand and relocate to the region,creating other jobs and promoting economic development. Although the Glades County regional training center is located in Glades County,it is expected to serve students and businesses in Glades and Hendry Counties as well as Regional Impact residents of the community of Immokalee who may elect to attend training here as similar programs in Immokalee have waiting lists and in some cases(as in a planned CDL program)acquire training which otherwise isn't available in their local community. Career Source Southwest Florida,Glades County School District,Hendry County School Partners District,Florida Southwestern State College,Polk State College,Palm Beach State College, I-Tech, Collier County School District,Glades County EDC,Hendry County EDC,Community Foundation of Southwest Florida SOUTHWEST FLORIDA or -,, ,-.f i r-,,, „_ , one PROJECT SUMMARY • Project Title Tiger Village(proto type rental mixed housing village—public service employees, teachers,police,nurses,workforce,special needs,seniors-for entire PZ) Organization Promise Area Community Development Corporation(concept-in planning stages) Contact Brent Kettler Contact Phone (863)612-4914 Contact Email brent@hendryedc.com Total Project Cost TBD—150 to 200 units—will be phased based on need Amount Requested TBD—survey,planning,engineering,permitting, site development,building construction -depends on phasing Local Match TBD—based on available resources for different housing tenants -public service employees,teachers,police,nurses,workforce,special needs,and seniors. The Tiger Village concept is based on the need in Clewiston and throughout the PZ for affordable rental units for public service employees,teachers,police,nurses,workforce, special needs,and seniors.The location of the first proto-type village would be located across the street from Clewiston High School(The Tigers). The village community center would be set up for continued learning space for groups and individual(tutoring,virtual class room,other training,meetings). The village greens would be available for individual and team recreation,neighborhood garden,farmers markets,yard sales,festivals,etc.). Project Description The overall concept is to utilize a Habit for Humanity type approach where the units would be built by the community and those that would be tenants. Those individuals would come from throughout the PZ area.There would be a tie-in to the PZ High Schools Career Academies for the students to participate in the planning,design,engineering, costing,permitting,landscaping,signage,and construction.Once the first proto-type village is proven then it would be repeated(in no particular order)in Moore Haven,La Belle and Immokalee—depending on where there is available land. All federal,state,and private funding programs would be explored. The proto-type project is in preliminary visioning and planning stages to develop the exact proposal to be discussed with all parties that would be on the team from the entire PZ. Timeline Timeline— 1. Concept and presentation development,presentations made,formation of Promise Area Community Development Corporation—Nov 2016 thru Jan 2017. QSOUTHWEST FLORIDA Zone 2. Survey,planning,engineering, costing and funding—Feb 2017 thru May 2017. 3. Permitting and phase one site development—June 2017 thru Nov 2017 4. Phase One building construction—Dec 2017 thru May 2018 5. Phase One certificate of occupancy—June 2018 The anticipated benefits/outcomes of the project are to bring the PZ communities together to execute a much needed project along with tying into the High.School Career Benefits Academies. The entire project would be a learning experience with a tangible success of bricks and mortar for all to celebrate. It becomes the foundation of what the PZ communities can accomplish as a team to then be repeated for many more projects. Promise Zone All the Promise Zone goals will be met as a result of the project(job creation,economic Goals development,enhance infrastructure,crime reduction, education) Regional Impact The cities of Clewiston,Moore Haven,La Belle,Immokalee,Hendry,Glades and eastern Collier County will be directly impacted by the project. It is anticipated that PZ organizations dealing with the goals of the PZ and affordable Partners rental housing for public service employees,teachers,police,nurses,workforce,special needs,and seniors. SOUTHWEST FLORIDA Zone PROJECT SUMMARY Project Title W.Pasadena Avenue Utility Relocation Organization City of Clewiston Contact Danny Williams Contact Phone 863-233-7249 Contact Email _ Danny.williams@clewiston-fl.gov Total Project Cost $300,000 Amount Requested $300,000 Local Match none A Hampton Inn hotel is scheduled to be constructed on W.Pasadena Avenue in the next 18 months. Existing Utilities on the project site must be relocated. Project Description Project will relocate facilities on one city block area. Existing Utilities are city-owned water,electric,sewer,as well as privately owned fiber optic,telephone cable and internet) The Hotel Construction and Operations will have an economic benefit for the City(please Benefits see the attached"Economic Impact tables". Project also benefits adjacent vacant lot for future development. Promise Zone Promise Zone goals that will be met as a result of the project are job creation, economic Goals development,and enhance infrastructure. Regional Impact The region that will be directly impacted by the project are Hendry County and the City of Clewiston. Project Timeline Hotel construction is in planning stage;Utilities relocation should be completed sometime in 2018. Partners i Introduction A hotel operations employing 15 people paying a total of$380,000 in total wages annually,is locating in Hendry County,Florida.Based on the data provided by the company,the following tables provide estimates of the firm's annual economic impact and the impact created during the construction phase of the hotel.The impacts shown below are derived using the IMPLAN model.Presented below is one � • possible scenario of the construction and preparation,along with the annual recurring impacts from the project's operations.The impact only pertains to Hendry County.However,spillover effects to neighboring jurisdictions can occur in terms of economic activity,jobs,wages and salary,and income. Construction and Preparation Economic impacts associated with construction,equipment and furnishing the property are one-time, short term impacts that should be expected to occur during the initial phase of the project.They represent an investment of$9.3 million in capital investment.The expenditures will provide direct employment for 58 people while supporting an additional 48 jobs,for a total impact of 106 employees, paying just over$27 thousand in wages salaries and benefits. One Time Economic and Fiscal Impacts of Hotel Construction Description Direct Indirect Induced Total Economic Activity $9,300,000 $3,390,000 $1,000,300 $13,690,300 Wages,Salaries,Benefits $1,771,600 $949,400 $246,700 $2,967,700 Employment 58 38 10 106 State Taxes $30,000 $116,300 $29,500 $175,800 Local Taxes* $15,800 $178,000 $42,800 $236,600 *Includes County,Municipalities,and Special Districts Source:IMPLAN Recurring Impacts for Operations The hotel is expected to hire 15 people with an average annual wage of more than$25 thousand.These salaries,along with the other purchases made in the county for contract services,utilities,and other goods,will generate more than$1.7 million in economic activity and support an additional 5 jobs—for a total of 20 employees in Hendry County.These jobs will generate$498 thousand in annual wages, salaries and benefits,and this activity will produce more than$255,200 in additional state and local tax revenues. Table on the following Page II 1 • I Ongoing Economic and Fiscal Impacts of Hotel Operations Description Direct Indirect Induced Total Economic Activity $1,376,100 $249,600 $168,500 $1,794,200 Wages,Salaries,Benefits $380,900 $76,400 $41,500 $498,800 Employment 15 3 2 20 State Taxes $89,100 $5,600 $4,900 $99,600 Local Taxes* $140,200 $8,200 $7,200 $155,600 *includes County,Municipalities,and Special Districts • Source:IMPLAN If 1fi { Std i I SOUTHWEST FLORIDA Zone PROJECT SUMMARY Project Title Circle C Farm Abattoir and Butcher Shop,Art,Education and Event Epicenter Organization Circle C Farm Contact Nicole Kozak Contact Phone 239-287-4032 Contact Email circlecfarmsfelda@hotmail.com Total Project Cost $2M Amount Requested $2M Local Match n/a Circle C Farm Abattoir & Butcher Shop will continue to provide the most ethical and humane harvesting of animals along with the highest quality local grass fed meats and meat processing services to our community of local and regional farmers in the State of Florida and to meat eating consumers. To date,there is no other facility in the state that is positioned to provide these services to farmers. Our new facility on an additional 70 acres would further support small farmers who are part of our Circle C Farm network of grass fed farmers program in the region by providing a location in which they could sell their grass fed animals to us for general consumption Project Description and resale of meats in our butcher shop. Further supporting local farmers' ability to have an outlet for their quality grown animals other than the livestock market;which typically pays them less than the animal is worth. Our Art, Education and Event Epicenter will provide a year round venue for educational classes on such topics as AG and farming in South Florida,Culinary classes taught by local, regional and nationally recognized ACF Chefs and local and regional culinary and food experts, art classes taught by local and regional artists, host local weddings, functions, charity and corporate events, as well as our Farm to Table Series of lunches and dinners. Circle C Farm Abattoir&Butcher Shop has identified 70 acres of land and is ready to proceed with land acquisition and vertical construction. Plans are already complete, location and zoning are complete. Time frame once land is acquired would be Timeline approximately 6 months for the abattoir and 3 months max for the Education and Event Epicenter,which would be immediately job creating and revenue bearing for the community. CCF A&BS will be the ONLY on farm facility in the State of Florida with red and white meat harvesting abilities.Local/Regional Agriculture HUB within community, accessible Benefits to everyone, agri-tourism HUB for people to see true free range and pastured species successfully grown here in South Florida,facilitate farming knowledge to the AG community and drive economic development and awareness to the region with the visitors coming from areas other than the 3 PZ counties. SOUTHWEST FLORIDA Zone Promise Zone goals that will be met as a result of the project include: immediate job creation,economic development,enhance infrastructure in south Florida,AG education, Promise Zone apprenticeships,partnering with universities and local public school systems,partnering Goals with local community organizations,spotlight a non-traditional region for its AG tourism bringing more individuals to visit the entire PZ area,enhancing the economic growth in the entire area. Direct impact of this project begins with Collier,Hendry,and Glades counties. Secondary Regional Impact impacts extend into Lee,Charlotte,Sarasota and Manatee Counties.With continued impacts felts on the east coast of Florida and into Central Florida. There is NO other facility of its kind in the State. UF/IFAS,Culinary Incubator in Immokalee,FGCU apprenticeships,Collier,Hendry and Partners Glades County post-secondary internships and or apprenticeships. SWFL Small Farmers Network, *VA—PTSD therapy/job creation program.(Family is/was military/vets) • SOUTHWEST FLORIDA Zone PROJECT SUMMARY Project Title Circle C Farm Food Forest,Farm Labor Housing, Camp Grounds, Organic Raised Garden and Food Plots&Small Scale Feed Mill Organization Circle C Farm Contact Nicole Kozak Contact Phone 239-287-4032 Contact Email circlecfarmsfelda@hotmail.com Total Project Cost $5M Amount Requested $5M Local Match n/a Phase 2: Circle C Farm will look to extend its reach by adding 344 acres for an expansive food forest, on farm labor housing, camp grounds amongst the pastures and raised bed food plots for families and individuals to reserve and use. All nestled around pastures full of Heritage breed sheep, hogs and cattle with mobile chicken and turkey coops free ranging. Our small scale Feed Mill will provide local farmers, small and large, the ability to source feed for their multiple species of animals, using organic and non-GMO minerals, supplements and feeds in quantities that are manageable and readily available reasonably. Project Description The organic raised garden and food beds will be available for individuals or families to reserve and maintain for whatever planting they would like. Staff support will be available and well as basic gardening equipment for use. These resources will be accessible to our entire local and regional community here in the State of Florida and to visitors from other regions of Florida and out of state visitors as a final destination location. To date,there is no other facility in the state that is positioned to provide these experiences or services. Our Art, Education and Event Epicenter will bring individuals year round for educational classes on sustainable farming, creating your own food forest at home, art classes with local and regional artists. The Food Forest will be designed to accommodate weddings and or events and functions, as well as charity and corporate events, creating additional locations for our Farm to Table Series of lunches and dinners. Circle C Farm has identified land and is ready to proceed with land acquisition and vertical construction. Site Plans are already drafted, location and zoning are AG,so no Timeline zoing issues. Time frame once land is acquired would be approximately 1 month for the Food Forest to begin installation, up to 6 months for the infrastructure for the Farm Housing, 1-2 months for the camping areas to be established and designated,immediate SOUTHWEST FLORIDA Zone sectioning of areas for pastures to wrap around all facilities. 1-2 months on the creation of the raised food plots and 2-3 months for the feed mill to be operational. Immediate job creation and within 1-2 months be revenue bearing. Circle C Farm will be the ONLY on farm facility in the State of Florida with anything like this. Local/Regional Agriculture HUB within community, accessible to everyone,agri- Benefits tourism HUB for people to see true free range and pastured species successfully grown here in South Florida,facilitate farming knowledge to the AG community and drive economic development and awareness to the region with the visitors coming from areas other than the 3 PZ counties. Spotlighting what our area has to offer in the fields of AG, Arts,Education,"Entertainment"in context of Nature,and sustainable farming practices. Promise Zone goals that will be met as a result of the project include:immediate job creation,economic development,enhance infrastructure in south central Florida,AG Promise Zone education,apprenticeships,partnering with universities and local public school systems, Goals partnering with local community organizations,spotlight a non-traditional region for its AG tourism bringing more individuals to visit the entire PZ area,enhancing the economic growth in the entire area. Direct impact of this project begins with Collier,Hendry, and Glades counties. Secondary impacts extend into Lee,Charlotte,Sarasota and Manatee Counties.With continued Regional Impact impacts felts on the east coast of Florida and into Central Florida. There is NO other facility of its kind in the State.Possible National attention given the art,camping and sustainable farming focus that is highlighted. UF/WAS, Culinary Incubator in Immokalee,FGCU apprenticeships, Collier,Hendry and Partners Glades County post-secondary internships and or apprenticeships. SWFL Small Farmers Network,Florida Edible Landscaping and Fertrell Organics, *VA—PTSD therapy/job creation program. (Family is/was military/vets) SOUTHWEST FLORIDA Zone PROJECT SUMMARY Project Title Fixed Bus Route between Immokalee,LaBelle,Clewiston, and Moore Haven Organization Good Wheels,Inc. Contact Alan M.Mandel Contact Phone 239 980 9898 Contact Email amandel@goodwheels.org Total Project Cost $500,000.00 Amount Requested $450,000 Local Match $50,000 The project will permit residents of the Immokalee area to travel and receive medical care at the Hendry Medical facilities in LaBelle and/or Clewiston. It will also enable students Proj ect Description from Hendry and Glades to travel to the technical schools in Immokalee and/or Moore Haven. Two buses will operate in opposite directions seven days per week. Timeline This project would begin 30 days following funding. Benefits Educational opportunities and health care benefits for disadvantaged residents of the promise Zone Promise Zone Economic development by providing trained workers for the area.Health care will Goals improve too. Regional Impact Immokalee in Collier,LaBelle and Clewiston in Hendry, and Moore Haven in Glades counties will receive the benefits. Partners The local match has been pledged by Collier,Hendry, and Glades counties;as well as the Collier and Southwest Florida Foundations/ SOUTHWEST FLORIDA "I, N- ,,, 4 j;,,,,' rlt F asZone PROJECT SUMMARY Project Title Certification Pipeline Alignment Project Organization FutureMakers Coalition—Southwest Florida Community Foundation Contact Tessa LeSage Contact Phone 239-274-5900 Contact Email tlesage@floridacommunity.com Total Project Cost $106,000 Amount Requested $96,000 Local Match $10,000 in-kind salary cost from Southwest Florida Community Foundation staff This project is an expansion of a pilot program focusing on CNAs that was facilitated by the FutureMakers Coalition in 2016.The pilot was based off the shared identified issue of a lack of persistence for CNAs and local employer demand.Based on that program, similar pipelines,focused on alignment and supplemental financial aid,are sought to be created. First,technical education programs that have low completion rates will be identified.Then program providers,fmancial aid providers,and related local employers together to map Project Description system and identify gaps will be convened, as well as students/former students in identified programs to identify achievement barriers.This information will then be report back to stakeholders group,create action plan/micro-strategies to fill gaps,reduce barriers. From that plan rapid-cycle testing micro-strategies to streamline system will follow. Menawhile,enrolled student will be tracked for persistence and progress,which will help to identify students needing additional financial support.Those students can then apply for supplemental financial aid.Throughout the project,regular meetings with stakeholder group to review rapid-cycle test and performance data and craft improvement strategies will be held. . Timeline This project is shovel ready and can be conducted starting early 2017. This project's intermediate outcomes include:an increased number of technical education students that have access to supplemental funding,an increase number of technical education students persisting through their chosen program,and increased alignment Benefits between technical education providers,financial aid providers,and related local employers.The end outcome is an increased percentage of students completing certificates and certifications in 2 years or less,which is aligned with the FutureMakers Coalition • regional outcomes. Promise Zone This project is related to the SFPZ goals in job creation(train Residents for Jobs and Goals Connect Them with Employers). CareerSource is a regional educational support institution serving many students in the Regional Impact SFPZ and the Glades Regional Technical Center and Immokalee Technical are located in the SFPZ and predominantly serve students from the region. The program will target employers and needed training programs in the SFPZ. SOUTHWEST FLORIDA -‘'.4; 6 ane Partners FutureMakers Coalition—Persistence and Progress Team,CareerSource,Glades Regional Technical Center,Immokalee Technical,local employers SOUTHWEST FLORIDA Y Zone PROJECT SUMMARY Project Title Sustainable Communities Plan Stakeholder Engagement and Priority Setting Project Organization FutureMakers Coalition—Southwest Florida Community Foundation Contact Tessa LeSage Contact Phone 239-274-5900 Contact Email tlesage@floridacommunity.com Total Project Cost $137,000 Amount Requested $122,000 Local Match $15,000 in-kind salary cost from Southwest Florida Community Foundation staff This project is the first step in the process of creating community sustainability plans for each of the SFPZ community,areas.This beginning work engages the community and related stakeholders in the collective impact process to identify assets and prioritize outcomes that can roll into future projects and programs to make significant impact across the region. This project will use the STAR rating system to guide the outcome setting and reporting process.Activities of this project include:convening SFPZ stakeholders in the areas of natural systems,health and safety,education,arts and community,economy and jobs, Project Description climate and energy,built environment,and equity and empowerment to introduce the concept of sustainable communities and the STAR rating system,as well as to map community assets. Community meetings and electronic questionnaires will be used to introduce concepts related to sustainable communities and rank outcome priorities leading to a set of prioritized outcomes.Baseline report on outcome-indicator data.The creation of a public website will help communicate the SFPZ sustainable community plan and the creation of a stakeholder data collection tool will help track progress on outcomes. Regular meetings with stakeholder groups to review data,craft improvement strategies are also involved in the process. Timeline Shovel ready—Process can begin January 2017 This project is the first step in setting community-specific prioritized outcomes that will have sweeping impacts across the SFPZ.However, the project will immediately increase Benefits the understanding and engagement on sustainable communities in SFPZ,increase network capacity of SFPZ organizations,businesses,agencies working in sustainable community areas,and increase community capacity(objective setting/planning,identification/access to resources)in the SFPZ. Promise Zone The Promise Zone goals that will be met as a result of the project reduce violent crime, Goals community infrastructure,education,create jobs,and increase economic activity. All areas of the SFPZ will be positively impacted by this project as it seeks to plan and Regional Impact coordinate context-specific community-wide plans for each of the SFPZ community areas —Glades County,Hendry County,and Immokalee. SOUTHWEST FLORIDA one FutureMakers Coalition,Southwest Florida Community Foundation,SFPZ service Partners organizations,agencies,businesses, and local government agencies SOUTHWEST FLORIDA Zone PROJECT SUMMARY Project Title Online training for farm labor supervisors(FLS) Organization University of Florida—Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences Contact Fritz M.Roka Contact Phone (239)658-3528 Contact Email fmroka@ufl.edu Total Project Cost $405,000 Amount Requested $265,000 Local Match $140,000 The goal of this project is to increase access of The Farm Labor Supervisor(FLS)training program through online and internet services.The FLS program started in 2010 as an educational program for supervisors of seasonal and migrant farmworkers to increase their Project Description knowledge of farm labor regulations,promote safety culture within the farming organization,and enhance the overall professionalism among farm labor supervisors. Funding from this project will expand access of training classes and materials for farm labor supervisors of specialty crop farms by creating online training modules and facilitating on-farm training workshops. As of September 2016, 13 training modules have been developed ranging from wage/hour and antidiscrimination to transportation and pesticide safety to first aid and CPR.These classes have been developed as traditional extension workshops where the training is done face-to-face with the participants.In the first year of this two-year project,8 classes will Timeline be converted into an online format complete with knowledge assessment capability.Also during the first year,various video conferencing technologies such as Skype and GoTo I Meeting will be incorporated to facilitate workshops at distance locations.Marketing efforts will encourage the utilization of the training materials during the second year and a program evaluation of the online training will be conducted. Benefits Expand access of FLS training program through online and distance technologies. Education: Starting in 2014 the UF/IFAS Certificate of Farm Labor Management was awarded to anyone completing eight FLS classes and successfully passing a knowledge test for each class.This certificate of achievement recognizes a professional Promise Zone accomplishment of a farm labor supervisor. Goals Economic Development:As knowledge,awareness,and overall professionalism of farm labor supervisors increase,the economic and social welfare of seasonal and migrant farm workers(the bulk of the labor hired by Florida's specialty crop farms)will be improved. More directly,the number and severity of regulatory fines levied against agricultural operations will be reduced and productivity of the workforce should increase. Agriculture the Promise Zone counties of Hendry and Collier,which includes Immokalee, Regional Impact estimated to generate$1 billion of annual farm gate sales.Total economic impact from agriculture in southwest Florida is estimated to be more than$1.6 billion. Partners Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council,Gulf Citrus Growers Association,US Dept of Labor—Wage/Hour Division,Tampa Office. SOUTHWEST FLORIDA Zone Southwest Florida Promise Zone Project Summaries Education Southwest Florida Promise Zone Funding Needs Organization Project Total Cost Request Category Economic Development, Glades County Glades County Regional Training Center $ 10,082,000 $ 3,272,000 Education Hendry County School Hendry County Schools Board Administration/Training Center $ 21,000,000 $ 21,000,000 Education Hendry County School Intensive Intensive Supports to Transform Board Leadership,Teaching and Learning Education Fixed Bus Route Between Immokalee, Economic Development, Good Wheels LaBelle, Clewiston, and Moore Haven $ 500,000 $ 450,000 Education Guadalupe Center Early Learning&Smart Guadalupe Center Start $ 6,006,000 $ 1,671,204 Education Hodges University Nurse Education Program $ 200,000 $ 70,000 Education Southwest Florida Community Foundation Foundational Skills Program $ 215,000 $ 160,000 Education,Job Creation The Joseph Project 863 Jobs Project $ 65,000 $ 30,000 Education,Job Creation Southwest Florida Workforce Development Board Destination Graduation $ 1,056,000 $ 840,000 Education University of Florida, Institute of Food and Online Training for Farm Labor Supervisors Economic Development, Agricultural Sciences (FLS) $ 405,500 $ 265,000 Education SOUTHWEST FLORIDA i' Zone PROJECT SUMMARY Project Title Glades County Regional Training Center Organization Glades County Board of County Commissioners/Glades County Economic Development Council Contact Glades County Manager Paul Carlisle/Glades EDC executive director Tracy Whirls Contact Phone (863)946-6000/(863)946-0300 Contact Email PCarlisle@MYGLADES.COM/twhirls@gladescountyedc.com Total Project Cost $10,082,000 $3,272,000.00--$2 million for capex for the warehouse/classroom improvements;$1.2m Amount Requested for equipment for the welding,diesel mechanics and machining classes;$72K for office furnishings and the student lounge Local Match $4,850,000 state of Florida;$1,800,000 from Glades County;$66,000 private funds; $94,000 school board and county funds for a total of$6,810,000 Glades and Hendry Counties and the Immokalee area of Collier County have historically been agriculture and natural resource-based economies, with an emphasis on growing sugar cane, oranges, and table vegetables and harvesting natural resources including pine, sand and aggregate. The increasingly mechanized harvesting and processing/manufacturing of these resources into usable products has had two effects on the regional economy: the increased mechanization has displaced manual labor over time and the increasingly automated nature of agricultural processing and manufacturing requires that new and incumbent workers receive training in a variety of disciplines including information technology (as more and more processes and equipment are computer driven and use programable logic and other software driven programs) and advanced manufacturing disciplines like robotics, CNC machining and other skills requiring training and/or certification. This need is exacerbated by the aging out of the baby boomer generation employed by these businesses as they approach retirement.At the same time, all of those agricultural and natural resource products, be they sugar, mortar, mulch or orange juice must be packaged, labeled or assigned a barcode, entered into a Project Description database, shipped and often tracked using advanced IT applications requiring instruction not only in information technology but cyber security as well, creating a need for training in warehousing, logistics and transportation. Many of these skills are then transferrable to other advanced manufacturing and logistics operations, providing an opportunity for Promise Zone Communities to recruit new manufacturing and logistics businesses and thereby diversify the local economy. The goal of the Glades County Regional Training Center project is to provide a sustainable pipeline of talent for existing businesses in the region and for new manufacturing and warehousing companies which can be recruited to the area. This will be accomplished(once the facility is complete and equipped to offer courses identified as needed by existing businesses through a series of focus groups) by working with our partners in the education, workforce and economic development communities to identify and assess potential entry level and incumbent worker trainees from high school age, to out of school youth, TANF recipients, veterans and others who are un or underemployed and providing a training/career pathway (via hands on coursework leading to industry certifications)and job placement via job fairs,internships and apprenticeships. 1 SOUTHWEST FLORIDA Zone Engineering and design are complete for retrofitting approximately 4,000 square feet of Timeline the 30,000 square foot working warehouse.Curriculum have been identified for the remaining programs and equipment lists collected. Existing businesses have identified a need to hire in excess of 300 people per year to replace employees as they approach retirement. Other companies which have been recruited to the area since 2009 have seen their workforces double and foresee an Benefits additional need to hire additional employees as they expand.The ability to meet the needs of these existing businesses to recruit new employees will help us establish that we have the ability to provide a talent pipeline for new companies which we can recruit to the region,thereby diversifying the local economy. By providing training to underemployed populations in the region,we'll increase the number of individuals with education certifications in growing industries in the region and Promise Zone fill jobs expected to be created through retirement while at the same time providing an Goals incentive(in the form of grant-funded skills training for new and incumbent workers)to new companies to expand and relocate to the region,creating other jobs and promoting economic development. Although the Glades County regional training center is located in Glades County, it is expected to serve students and businesses in Glades and Hendry Counties as well as Regional Impact residents of the community of Immokalee who may elect to attend training here as similar programs in Immokalee have waiting lists and in some cases(as in a planned CDL program)acquire training which otherwise isn't available in their local community. Career Source Southwest Florida,Glades County School District,Hendry County School Partners District,Florida Southwestern State College,Polk State College,Palm Beach State College, I-Tech,Collier County School District,Glades County EDC,Hendry County EDC,Community Foundation of Southwest Florida • SOUTHWEST FLORIDA � one PROJECT SUMMARY Project Title Hendry County Schools Administration/Training Center Organization Hendry County School Board Contact Michael Swindle,Director of Adult Education&Workforce Development Contact Phone 863-983-1511 Contact Email swindlem@hendry-schools.net Total Project Cost $21,000,000.00 Amount Requested $21,000,000.00 Local Match None at this time The Hendry County School Board Administration is spread out over multiple locations. All facilities are very old and in need of repair for safety of facilities and personnel.We also desire to bring all school board operations under one roof to provide efficient operations for students,parents and communities that depend on efficient services from all branches of the school board. Project Description In order to keep up with state mandates and local workforce demands,we also have the need for a staff training facility that will provide not only safe but a state of the art informational center for administrators and teachers to gather information from stakeholders.This center will be used to prepare administrators and teachers for the rigors of teaching students in Hendry.County.This center will provide a professional environment that will enhance education for our diverse student population. Timeline We are in the concept stages.Our goal is to obtain funding for engineering,design and construction.We would like to occupy the facility by the end of the 17-18 school year. Our goal is to deliver a more unified and professional education to all students throughout Benefits Hendry County.The benefit and experience of a state of the art facility will resonate through the entire education process. The end result will touch every aspect of the promise zone grant.Students being better Promise Zone prepared will lead to better jobs and employment.As Hendry County begins to see this Goals immediate benefit,communities will improve from higher education such as post- secondary opportunities and housing.Increased business interactions will result from a better trained and prepared workforce. Our region is very closely tied together. Communities and schools are very similar in their needs and interactions.As Hendry County Schools increases the ability to positively Regional Impact impact students,the communities surrounding will also feel the benefit.The main goal is to provide a better prepared workforce that is ready to meet the demands of businesses within our region. Hendry County School board has many partners that have a vested in improving the educational process that we currently know.The Hendry County Educational Task Force, Partners Hendry County Economic Development Council,Southwest Florida Community Foundation are all great partners in guiding and molding the educational future of Hendry County.Our business partners,such as U.S. Sugar,are also great partners. SOUTHWEST FLORIDA Zone PROJECT SUMMARY Project Title Intensive Supports to Transform Leadership,Teaching and Learning Organization Hendry County District Schools Contact James Sealey,Director of Professional Development Contact Phone 863-674-4555 Contact Email sealeyj@hendry-schools.net Total Project Cost Total cost Amount Requested Funding requested Local Match Local cash contribution Hendry County District's schools have great potential for high student achievement. Our dedicated principals,leadership teams,and teachers are committed to providing an excellent education for all children,but we also recognize that more needs to be done to improve student learning.We have taken strong action through professional development to advance the quality of instructional leadership by our principals,and are moving forward to develop an evaluation system for teachers that supports professional growth. Project Description Through careful stewardship of district resources,we are mapping out a course to provide high quality professional development for our teachers that will prepare them to teach at the high levels of rigor demanded by the Florida Standards.Our students need and deserve this level of excellent teaching to prepare them for college and productive careers. Funding through the Promise Zone would allow us to accelerate the systemic change that is needed to provide a superior education for all students,and enhance their quality of life. Timeline This project is fully planned and ready to implement when funded. Region will become more attractive to potential new business because of its: • Rigorous,world-class education in all schools • Higher school grades in the Florida Accountability System Benefits • Higher student achievement • Higher graduation rates • Increased student participation in postsecondary education • Better educated workforce Promise Zone This project meets the Promise Zone Goal of ensuring opportunity for a high-quality Goals education for all children. Regional Impact The children of Hendry County will be the primary beneficiaries of this initiative. Partners Hendry County District Schools;Learning Sciences International,LLC CISOUTHWEST FLORIDA Zone PROJECT SUMMARY Project Title Fixed Bus Route between Immokalee,LaBelle, Clewiston,and Moore Haven Organization Good Wheels,Inc. Contact Alan M.Mandel Contact Phone 239 980 9898 Contact Email amandel@goodwheels.org Total Project Cost $500,000.00 Amount Requested $450,000 Local Match $50,000 The project will permit residents of the Immokalee area to travel and receive medical care at the Hendry Medical facilities in LaBelle and/or Clewiston. It will also enable students Project Description from Hendry and Glades to travel to the technical schools in Immokalee and/or Moore Haven. Two buses will operate in opposite directions seven days per week. Timeline This project would begin 30 days following funding. Benefits Educational opportunities and health care benefits for disadvantaged residents of the promise Zone Promise Zone Economic development by providing trained workers for the area.Health care will Goals improve too. Regional Impact Immokalee in Collier,LaBelle and Clewiston in Hendry, and Moore Haven in Glades counties will receive the benefits. The local match has been pledged by Collier,Hendry,and Glades counties;as well as the Partners Collier and Southwest Florida Foundations/ SOUTHWEST FLORIDA e44 „,.,,,a,. 1, 14 k ta Zone PROJECT SUMMARY Project Title Guadalupe Center Early Learning&Smart Start Organization Guadalupe Center Contact Dawn Montecalvo Contact Phone 239-657-7711 Contact Email dmontecalvo@,guadalupecenter.rog Total Project Cost Total Cost=$6,006,000 Amount Requested $1,671,204*requested in existing Promise Zones Request Local Match Local cash contribution The Guadalupe Center has three educational programs,aimed at breaking the cycle of . poverty through education for the children of Immokalee,Florida.The Early Childhood Education Program prepares students from low-income households for kindergarten, providing them a high-quality academic foundation on which to build.This program serves 270 students and has a wait list in excess of 400 children consistently.The greatest need is for students from ages 0-3. In addition to the existing Early Childhood Education Program,the Guadalupe Center is collaborating with Collier County Public Schools to provide Early Childhood Education on-site at an elementary school in Immokalee for teacher's children.In addition,the Guadalupe Center will expand the number of students and families served,offering approximately 50 children and their families a high-quality, home-based,family focused curriculum that educates both children and parents.During Project Description weekly sessions parents will be provided the tools and instruction to guide children through specific activities and exercises,with an aim of children achieving age appropriate developmental milestones and gaining skills to succeed in school. In the After-school Tutoring and Summer Enrichment Program the Guadalupe Center provides 690 at-risk elementary students from kindergarten through 2nd grade with the academic support they need to achieve on grade level and eliminate summer learning loss. Finally,in the Tutor Corps Program the Guadalupe Center ensures that academically capable but financially needy students successfully graduate high school and have an opportunity to attend college and pursue their dreams.This program serves 80 high school students and more than 120 college students.This school year more than 130 high school students applied for the 24 open slots in this prestigious program. The programs are on-going with a fiscal year from October 1—September 30.The Timeline expansions to the Early Childhood Program will occur this fiscal year.Plans are in place and funding is being sought. The Early Childhood Education Program has a focus of providing children with the high- quality education required to enter elementary school prepared.The program has a proven track record of success that dates back to 2006.Each year more than 85%of voluntary pre-kindergarten students completing the Guadalupe Center's program are found Benefits kindergarten ready-surpassing state and national kindergarten readiness rates. Within the CCPS/ECE collaboration we anticipate that students will gain the skills for success in elementary school and beyond. Children participating in the Guadalupe Center's existing ECE program demonstrate more than 90%kindergarten readiness rate I 1 I SOUTHWEST FLORIDA } one upon completion of the program and we anticipate the same for the students served through the expansion. Of the 50 students and families we serve in the Smart Start Program,we expect that all families will be connected with tools and resources to aid in facilitating home learning.In addition,due to weekly sessions with the Program Director and partnership with the Guadalupe Center's Family Support Worker we anticipate that all children will either be on track to meet age appropriate developmental milestones or be connected with appropriate resources as necessary. The After-school Tutoring Program provides children that are struggling in elementary school with critical academic enrichment and remediation aimed at enhancing their skills and getting them to perform on grade level. Students in the program demonstrate gains in reading and math,and retain their grade level with support from the Guadalupe Center's team. Finally,the Tutor Corps Program has a consistent 100%high school graduation rate,and a 90%and better college graduation rate,making it a highly successful college preparatory program. Students receive a wide array of college preparatory courses in addition to earning a wage working as tutors in the After-school Tutoring Program.Financial barriers to higher education are alleviated and removed as students are assisted with scholarship and financial aid applications,and earn Guadalupe Center scholarship dollars.To-date more than 110 Tutor Corps graduates have college degrees and are in the workforce as productive members of society. Promise Zone Education Goals Regional Impact Immokalee,FL The Guadalupe Center boasts an array of community collaborations that are critical to our programs success. Guadalupe Center is a lead partner in the Future Ready Collier Initiative. ELLM,Early Steps,FDLRS, Able Academy, HUGS Redlands Christian Migrant Association and Early Head Start Early Learning Initiative with both RCMA and Immokalee Child Care Ronald McDonald House Charities and University of Florida,College of Dentistry Naples Children&Education Foundation's Children's Vision Initiative,Vision Quest, Partners Lighthouse of Collier and the Bonita Springs Lions Eye Clinic NCH Safe&Healthy Children's Coalition of Collier County through the Naples Children &Education Foundation Children's Museum of Naples(C'MON) The Immokalee Foundation at Village Oaks Elementary School David Lawrence Center and Collier Huealth Under Guided Systems(HUGS) United Art's Council Charity for Change's Giver Program. Collier County Public Schools SCUT -- WEST FLORIDA Z ( ' n e _ _ ___ _____ __ ____ ____,_ PROJECT' SUMMARY Project Title Nurse Education Program Organization Hodges University School of Allied Health Contact Dr. William Griz, Dean Contact Phone 239-598-6223 Contact Email bgriz@hodges.edu Total Project Cost $200,000 Amount Requested $70,000 Local Match TBD As individuals in the U.S. age, they increasingly enjoy better health and independence and rely far less on acute care and intensive end-of-life healthcare services. Instead,they prefer to "Age in Place", that is, remain in their home of choice for as long as possible. Over 90%of older individuals report that they would prefer to stay in their residence of choice (AARP, 2015). These individuals will need a wide range of services to allow them to reside and thrive where they choose,and to supply area healthcare providers with personnel that meet their rigorous needs for quality, highly skilled, compassionate caregivers. Hodges University School of Allied Health(SOAH) will develop and implement a multilevel nursing education program to address the personnel needs of home, assisted living,memory care, outpatient, and institutional healthcare providers. The nursing profession is a diverse, highly specialized part of the medical delivery system in this country. It encompasses a wide continuum and extends from Project Description certificate programs in nursing assistant and practical nursing through associate, bachelor,and master's degrees, to doctoral degrees for nursing practice. We will enter this continuum in two places; at the Certified Nurse Assistant level and also the Associate to Bachelor bridge program for registered nurses, known as a RN to BSN program. Further, our plan is to develop and implement"bridge"programs moving students seamlessly from one professional level to the next as recommended by the National League for Nursing(NLN)(NLN, 2011). An integral component to all medical training is the opportunity to experience a variety of medical situations prior to actual patient contact. This project will focus on the acquisition of Laerdal Adult,Neonate and Obstetric advanced patient simulators and supporting equipment. 1 SOUTHWEST FLO I {._-. A Zone _______. Using manikins in clinical simulations allows future healthcare providers to practice in a safe and controlled environment. The reality of manikin-based simulations allows for virtual feedback using computers that regulate the manikin's Benefits compressors,mimicking pulses, simulate heart tones and other vital cues. These provide real-time information to students.By practicing true clinical skills in a safe and regulated environment, future healthcare providers have the opportunity to learn excellent evaluation and treatment techniques. __ As a designated Hispanic Serving Institution by the Federal Department of Education, Promise Zone Hodges University is uniquely situated in the community to address the Promise Zone Goals Goals of both Education and Economic Development. Regional Impact Collier,Lee, Hendry, Glades, Hillaboro Curriculum and degree programs have been developed.The simulation laboratory will be Project Timeline needed by September 2017, Partners TBD SOUTHWEST FLORIDA i yZone PROJECT SUMMARY Project Title Foundational Skills Program Organization FutureMakers Coalition—Southwest Florida Community Foundation Contact Tessa LeSage Contact Phone 239-218-0121 Contact Email tlesage@floridacommunity.com Total Project Cost $215,000 Amount Requested $160,000 Local Match $55,000($50,000 from local business partners and$5,000 in-kind salary cost from Southwest Florida Community Foundation staff) 2014 Horizon Council survey of SWFL employers found workforce issues surrounding soft skills(foundational skills)in the employee pool.Based on this survey,the most important foundational skills for the local workforce were determined to be active listening,critical thinking/problem solving,interpersonal skills,teamwork,and work ethic. This project first seeks to develop a locally tailored curriculum based on these foundational skills that can be implemented at the high school and post-secondary level. Project Description The curriculum will then be piloted with students and provisionally expanded at the regional Florida Southwestern State College(FSW). Students completing the program will be issued special certificates.Employers will be coached on the curriculum content and facilitated through alignment of the curriculum with their interview and hiring processes through workshops.A PR campaign to foster value of the completion certification and recruit additional employers to the alignment workshops will be created. Students completing the program will be tracked through the interview and employment process to determine the effectiveness and impact of the program and feedback to the coordination team for continuous improvement of implementation. Shovel ready—Curriculum RFP underway RFP call,review—October 2016-January 2017 Curriculum development—February 2017—July 2017 Pilot implementation—August 2017—May 2018 Expand implementation—August 2018—May 2019 Employer workshops—October—November 2017 Timeline Pilot program completers interviewed/placed—January—February 2018 Completer employment tracking—January 2018-December 2018 Certificate PR campaign—January 2018-December 2018 Subsequent program completers interviewed/placed—January—February 2019 Subsequent completer employment tracking—January-December 2019 Anticipated intermediate outcomes of the program include:employers who value students with Foundational Skills Certificate,an increase in foundational skills of post-secondary Benefits students,an increase in employability of post-secondary students,and improved employer assessment of employment candidate foundational skills.End outcomes of the project include an increase in business-education partnerships. SOUTHWEST FLORIDA n 0 Promise Zone This project is related to the SFPZ goals in job creation(train Residents for Jobs and Goals Connect Them with Employers)and education(Expand Career Development Program throughout SFPZ). FSW is a regional post-secondary institution and has a campus in Hendry County. However,many students from the SFPZ also attend the Collier and Lee campuses.Local employers involved in the project,such as Lee Health and Gartner are regional employers, Regional Impact with Arthrex having a location in Immokalee.Description of the region(counties,cities, etc.)that will be directly impacted by the project.This project will affect many students and employers in the SFPZ. FutureMakers Coalition—Persistence&Progress Team Florida Southwestern State College Partners Local employers(Lee Health,Gartner,Arthrex,etc..) Southwest Florida Community Foundation 1 QSOUTHWEST FLORIDA .4, „.„, . ,, :. Zone PROJECT SUMMARY Project Title Destination Graduation Organization Southwest Florida Workforce Development Board,Inc.dba CareerSource Southwest Florida Contact Carmen Woywod / Mary Anne Zurn Contact Phone (239)225-2500 Contact Email cwoywod@careersourcesouthwestflorida.com / mzurn@sfwdb.org Total Project Cost $1,056,000 Amount Requested $840,000 Local Match $216,000 local cash contribution Destination Graduation is a comprehensive mentoring and academic intervention program designed for high school students at risk of dropping out. Students for the program and the control group are identified by the school team as being at greatest risk of dropping out. (Generally in the bottom 25%academic progress). Program group receives Destination Graduation services; control group does not(comparison for effectiveness). Project Description Student(in the program)and parent sign"contract"containing behavioral and progress -General goals in the areas of academic and workplace readiness skills. In collaboration with the description of the school districts,the program provides work-readiness training, one-on-one mentoring, need and project individualized academic assistance,a summer employment opportunity and incentives to for which funding attend school regularly,improve grades and graduate. is being requested The new Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act(WIOA)increased the rate of WIOA Youth funding to be used for Out-of-School Youth from 30% to 75%. This means we will no longer be able to sustain this highly successful program or expand it to Immokalee (the fourth high school located within the Promise Zone).The project costs noted above include two years at Moore Haven,Clewiston,LaBelle and Immokalee high schools. Timeline- Describe current phase of the project July 2017—June 2019. (shovel ready, engineering& Design complete. Destination Graduation was established in 2009 by placing mentors in design complete, two schools. This program now serves 15 high schools to include Moore Haven, etc.)Provide Clewiston and LaBelle,which are located within the Southwest Florida Promise Zone;one beginning and of only four rural areas within the nation to receive this competitive designation. ending dates if applicable Benefits- Description of the The overall graduation rate for Destination Graduation participants is 91%;much higher anticipated than the control group at 55%,the Southwest Florida rate of 72%and Florida's 74%. This benefits/outcomes program is making a huge impact on the lives of these students,their families,their Page 1 of 2 11/7/16 X� SOUTHWEST FLORIDA A. of the project friends,the communities and the economy. "The average high school dropout will cost taxpayers over$292,000 in lower tax revenues,higher cash and in-kind transfer costs,and imposed incarceration costs relative to an average high school graduate." (Northeastern University,2009) The Destination Graduation program will prepare the student holistically for post- secondary education and/or to enter the workforce successfully. After graduation,60%of our participants plan to go on to a 4-year degree, 13%to a 2-year degree,9%to vocational/technical training, 13%to the military and 5%to employment. Promise Zone Goals-Identify the Promise Zone The goal of Destination Graduation is to help decrease the high school drop-out rates as goals that will be they negatively impact the economic and workforce development needed to build a met as a result of thriving region/state capable of competing in a global economy. In addition to summer the project(job employment opportunities,the youth are provided employability skills training,career creation,economic development,life skills development and financial literacy education. development, enhance The Promise Zone goals that will be met as a result of this project are to"Train residents infrastructure, for jobs and connect them with employers"and"Expand career development programs." crime reduction, Engaging students in this way may also impact goals related to crime prevention. education) Regional Impact- Description of the The region that will be directly impacted by the project is the Southwest Florida Promise region(counties, Zone: Glades County,Hendry County and Immokalee. These rural areas' economies rely cities,etc.)that will heavily on agricultural industries and have low graduation rates,high unemployment rates be directly and high poverty rates. impacted by the project Partners- The key to the success of the Destination Graduation program is the Mentors and their Organizations relationships with their students and the community. Partners include the school districts included in the of Hendry,Glades and Collier counties;parents of students in the program;many deliverables of the employers for the summer employment component,job shadowing and direct job project(if known) placement. Page 2 of 2 11/7/16 yy . , SOUTHWEST FLORIDA tA, Zone PROJECT SUMMARY Project Title Online training for farm labor supervisors(FLS) Organization University of Florida—Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences Contact Fritz M.Roka Contact Phone (239)658-3528 Contact Email fmroka@ufl.edu Total Project Cost $405,000 Amount Requested $265,000 Local Match $140,000 The goal of this project is to increase access of The Farm Labor Supervisor(FLS)training program through online and internet services.The FLS program started in 2010 as an educational program for supervisors of seasonal and migrant farmworkers to increase their Project Description knowledge of farm labor regulations,promote safety culture within the fanning organization,and enhance the overall professionalism among farm labor supervisors. Funding from this project will expand access of training classes and materials for farm labor supervisors of specialty crop farms by creating online training modules and facilitating on-farm training workshops. As of September 2016, 13 training modules have been developed ranging from wage/hour and antidiscrimination to transportation and pesticide safety to first aid and CPR.These classes have been developed as traditional extension workshops where the training is done face-to-face with the participants.In the first year of this two-year project, 8 classes will j Timeline be converted into an online format complete with knowledge assessment capability.Also during the first year,various video conferencing technologies such as Skype and GoTo Meeting will be incorporated to facilitate workshops at distance locations.Marketing efforts will encourage the utilization of the training materials during the second year and a program evaluation of the online training will be conducted. Benefits Expand access of FLS training program through online and distance technologies. Education: Starting in 2014 the UF/WAS Certificate of Farm Labor Management was awarded to anyone completing eight FLS classes and successfully passing a knowledge test for each class.This certificate of achievement recognizes a professional Promise Zone accomplishment of a farm labor supervisor. Goals Economic Development:As knowledge,awareness,and overall professionalism of farm labor supervisors increase,the economic and social welfare of seasonal and migrant farm workers(the bulk of the labor hired by Florida's specialty crop farms)will be improved. More directly,the number and severity of regulatory fines levied against agricultural operations will be reduced and productivity of the workforce should increase. Agriculture the Promise Zone counties of Hendry and Collier,which includes Immokalee, Regional Impact estimated to generate$1 billion of annual farm gate sales.Total economic impact from agriculture in southwest Florida is estimated to be more than$1.6 billion. Partners Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council,Gulf Citrus Growers Association,US Dept of Labor—Wage/Hour Division,Tampa Office. SOUTHWEST FLORIDA Zone Southwest Florida Promise Zone Project Summaries Infrastructure Southwest Florida Promise Zone Funding Needs Organization Project Total Cost Request Category Collier County Eastern Immokalee Sidewalk Project $ 13,117,240 $ 10,493,792 Infrastructure Collier County Eleven Bridge Replacements Project $23,000,000 $ 23,000,000 Infrastructure Collier County Immokalee Sidewalk Improvement Project $ 2,000,000 $ 475,000 Infrastructure Collier County Main Street Improvements $ 2,500,000 $ 2,500,000 Infrastructure Immokalee Stormwater Improvement Collier County Program Infrastructure Business and Commerce Park Roadway and Infrastructure, Economic Glades County Stormwater Construction $ 5,804,967 $ 2,000,000 Development Airglades Industrial Park Wastewater Hendry County Infrastructure $ 5,400,000 $ 5,400,000 Infrastructure Four Corners Stormwater/Water Quality Hendry County Project $ 4,200,000 $ 4,200,000 Infrastructure • Generator Replacements at Evacuation Hendry County Centers $ 500,000 $ 500,000 Infrastructure Harlem Community Gymnasium Hendry County Rehabilitation $ 150,000 $ 150,000 Infrastructure Hendry County Justice Center Feasibility Infrastructure, Crime Hendry County Study $ 95,000 $ 95,000 Reduction Multi-Family Housing for Essential Service Infrastructure, Economic Hendry County Employees $ 4,500,000 $ 4,500,000 Development Old Hendry County Historic Courthouse Hendry County Restoration $ 3,000,000 $ 3,000,000 Infrastructure Port LaBelle Utility Service Defective Water Hendry County Line Replacement $ 200,000 $ 200,000 Infrastructure Economic Development, Hendry County Tiger Village Infrastructure City of Clewiston Ventura Avenue Water Main Extension $ 71,188 $ 71,188 Infrastructure Economic Development, City of Clewiston W. Pasadena Avenue Utility Relocation $ 300,000 $ 300,000 Infrastructure Immokalee Fire Control District Immokalee Fire Station 31 $ 3,100,000 $ 3,100,000 Infrastructure Immokalee Fire Control District Immokalee Fire Station 31 Ladder Truck $ 850,000 $ 850,000 Infrastructure SOUTHWEST FLORIDA t Ott t one t i PROJECT SUMMARY Project Title Eastern Immokalee Sidewalk Project Organization Collier County Transportation Planning Contact Trinity Scott Contact Phone 239-252-5832 Contact Email TrinityScott@colliergov.net 1 Total Project Cost $13,117,240 Amount Requested $10,493,792 Local Match $2,623,448 This project will provide for the design and construction of approximately 22 miles of much needed sidewalks,4.5 miles of street lighting,along with 20 bus shelters,benches, bicycle racks,drainage improvements and appropriate landscaping in Immokalee Florida. A portion of this project is within the Seminole Tribe of Florida Reservation. Project Description This project is located in southwest Florida in the town of Immokalee where 45%of the population lives below the national poverty level and 47%of the population use public transit,bicycles or walk to work. The proposed improvements will result in a crash reduction benefit of$3M/Yr by Benefits separating pedestrians from the roadway and street lighting,there will be increased mobility options and a reduction in emissions from vehicle miles traveled.This project will create 241 jobs,including 154 direct/indirect jobs and 87 induced jobs. This project will enhance the infrastructure of Immokalee by adding 22 miles of sidewalks,4.5 miles of street lighting,including 76 intersections;and drainage Promise Zone improvements.The project will also create 241 jobs; 154 direct/indirect jobs and 87 Goals induced jobs.Public transit will be enhanced by providing additional ADA compliant bus shelters in the area.The sidewalks will allow students and adults to walk to the Immokalee Technical Center where they are enrolled to further their education and enhance their quality of life. Regional Impact The rural,agricultural town of Immokalee in Collier County Florida will be directly impacted by this project. Project Timeline This project was started in March 2016 and will be completed by June 2019. Partners Seminole Tribe of Florida,Immokalee CRA,FDOT and Pathways Advisory Committee. SOUTHWEST FLORIDA one PROJECT SUMMARY Project Title Eleven Bridge Replacements Project Organization Collier County Contact Anthony O. Stolts Contact Phone 239-252-5835 Contact Email AnthonyStolts@colliergov.net Total Project Cost Design Estimate:$1,900,000-$2,500,000 Construction Estimate:Approximately$20,500,000 Amount Requested Maximum amount available for construction. Local Match As required to complete the project. This project will replace eleven functionally obsolete bridges east of State Road 29 in Collier County,Florida.Bridge numbers: 030136,030137,030138,030139,030140 and 030141 [CR-846/Immokalee Road] 030153,030154,030155 and 030156[CR-858/Oil Well Road] 030158 [CR-858/County Line Road] Project Description The existing bridges have timber pile foundations generally of unknown depth.Each bridge is experiencing exponential pile decay and several are Scour Critical. The primary objective of this project is to replace the bridges identified herein as soon as possible while limiting ancillary work to only what is necessary and/or required to replace each bridge and provide safe roadway approaches per applicable codes, guidelines,regulations,permitting agency requirements,etcetera. The new bridges will enhance the local infrastructure by establishing reliable Benefits Emergency Service Vehicle and Agricultural/Industrial Truck routes that support economic stability and safety within the promise zone. Promise Zone Goals This project assures continued agricultural/industrial access to Immokalee and provides reliable public safety within the Promise Zone for the future. Regional Impact The completed project will maintain and enhance the infrastructure that services Immokalee and the surrounding community. Project Timeline Estimated Design Phase(Active):Mid 2016-Mid 2018 Estimated Construction Phase:Mid 2018-Mid 2020. Partners Collier County OSOUTHWEST FLORIDA Zone PROJECT SUMMARY Project Title Immokalee Sidewalk Improvement Project Organization Immokalee CRA Contact James Sainvilus Contact Phone 239-867-0026 Contact Email Jamessainvilus@colliergov.net Total Project Cost $2,000,000 Amount Requested $475,000 Local Match $0.00 The Immokalee Lighting and Beautification Municipal Services Taxing Unit (MSTU), is seeking funding assistance for Design and construction of Sidewalk/Streetscape improvements on various locations in Immokalee.Immokalee is a walking community and a community is where walking is a safe and convenient mode of transportation and recreation.In order to promote walking,the CRA and MSTU build sidewalks in locations where the highest concentrations of pedestrians exist and where the lack of a sidewalk Project Description poses the greatest threat to the pedestrian. The subject project will provide pedestrian facilities (sidewalks) to the residential and commercial areas in various locations in Immokalee. It will be designed using MSTU funds and using the requested CDBG grant funding for implementation. This project is aimed at addressing pedestrian and vehicular safety issues, while also Benefits enhancing the community's character through improved aesthetic appeal. Promise Zone Pedestrian Safety,enhance infrastructure and crime reduction. Goals Regional Impact Collier County:Immokalee's Main Street. On March 22,2016—CRA/MSTU Submitted Community Development Block Grant Project Timeline (CDBG)applications On May 5,2016-Immokalee CRA was selected and awarded grant funds for less than requested in the amount of$475,000 • Partners Collier County Community and Human Services(CHS)Division U.S.Department of Housing and Urban Development SOUTHWEST FLORIDA Zone PROJECT SUMMARY Project Title SR 29(Main Street)Improvements—Sight Line Improvements and Supplemental Services for American's with Disabilities Act(ADA)Compliance. Organization Florida Department of Transportation,FDOT Contact David,Wheeler Contact Phone 239-225-1974 Contact Email David.Wheeler@dot.state.fl.us Total Project Cost $2,500,000.00 Amount Requested $0.00 Local Match $0.00 Immokalee CRA/MSTU had submitted an application for consideration of funding allocation for SR 29/Immokalee Main Street Improvement project, located within the existing Right-Of-Way SR 29/Main Street from First Street to Ninth Street. This project will better serve the Immokalee Community by creating a safe and comfortable public Project Description environment. FDOT will be implementing this project with their safety improvement funding, no grant or LAP agreement is necessary. This project will improve the sight line, ADA and sidewalk accessibility at intersections; Benefits upgrade deteriorated public site furnishings, new crossing lights, and street lights. But, landscape and irrigation are not included. Promise Zone Pedestrian Safety,enhance infrastructure and crime reduction. Goals Regional Impact Collier County:Immokalee's Main Street. January 15,2015—Design:Hardscape,Landscape and Irrigation Plans. August 13,2015-Immokalee Pedestrian Crosswalk Improvements Study and Final Project Timeline Design 2017-2018 FDOT Design 2018-2019 FDOT Construction Partners Immokalee CRA and MSTU SOUTHWEST FLORIDA Zone PROJECT SUMMARY Project Title Immokalee Stormwater Improvement Program Organization Collier County Stormwater Management Contact Amy Patterson Contact Phone 239-252-5721 Contact Email AmyPatterson@colliergov.net Total Project Cost Amount Requested Local Match The Immokalee Stormwater Improvement Program(ImmSIP)is being developed to address long standing problems of localized flooding in the Immokalee,FL community area while also working towards stormwater discharge quality improvements that can have a positive benefit to the receiving water body,Lake Trafford,and the SR-29 canal. Lake Project Description Trafford has been identified as an impaired water body with an identified Total Maximum Daily Load(TMDL)by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Individual stormwater capital projects proposed in the ImmSIP will utilize ponds,swales, storm drainage pipes and other BMPs to reduce the localized flooding while providing stormwater quality treatment capability where none currently exists. Benefits Anticipated benefits include reduction in localized flooding,stormwater discharge water quality improvements,public safety,and aesthetic appearance. The ImmSIP will primarily address the Promise Zone goal of enhancing stormwater Promise Zone infrastructure by upgrading an old drainage system into an interconnected stormwater Goals management system network of water quality treatment swales and ponds with new and upgraded stormwater piping where needed to decrease localized flooding and provide water quality treatment prior to discharging out of the system. The ImmSIP will primarily impact the urbanized Immokalee area of Collier County,with Regional Impact potential favorable water quality impacts to offsite receiving areas of Lake Trafford and those lands receiving water from the SR-29 canal. Initial stormwater master planning work began in 2004. The ImmSIP is projected to re- Proj ect Timeline invigorate that initial work through design and construction of a number of individual stormwater improvement projects through approximately 2023. The Big Cypress Basin of the South Florida Water Management District is one currently Partners identified potential partner to work with Collier County in the implementation and progress of the ImmSIP. SOUTHWEST FLORIDA is ane t PROJECT SUMMARY Project Title Glades County Business and Commerce Park permanent roadway and stormwater construction Organization Glades County Board of County Commissioners/Glades County Economic Development Council Contact Glades County Manager Paul Carlisle/Glades EDC executive director Tracy Whirls Contact Phone (863)946-6000/(863)946-0300 Contact Email PCarlisle@MYGLADES.COM/twhirls@gladescountyedc.com Total Project Cost $5,804,967 Amount Requested $2,000,000 $1.3 million Glades County;$350,000 DEP wastewater grant;$1,154,967 CDBG, Local Match $300,000 DEO feasibility grant,$700k FDOT US 27 improvements for a total of $3,804,967 Glades County purchased the 72- acre Hudson property in 2006 at a cost of$10,000 per acre. In April 2006, the county contracted with AIM Engineering to complete the boundary verification and topo survey to devise a plan to provide essential services to businesses which locate in the Americas Gateway Logistics Center property which surrounds the county compound. Construction of the Glades County Detention Center, funded by a bond issue, but operating by the Glades County Sheriffs Office was completed on site in 2007,offering new businesses onsite security. Glades County and its private sector partners Lykes Bros. Inc. and A Duda& Sons lobbied for and secured a$5 million legislative appropriation the county to construct the new Leeds Silver Certified Glades County Health Department, which opened in January 2011 and will provide corporate health services to businesses locating at AGLC. In 2014, continuing the same strategy, the county completed construction of the Emergency Operations Center, which houses emergency management, fire and EMS,which will offer businesses locating in the larger industrial complex reduced insurance rates via the proximity to fire and other services. Project Description While infrastructure to support the health department and EOC was included in those appropriations, in 2014 Glades County, the fifth poorest county in the state of Florida, provided $1.3 million in reserves and a $350,000 Florida Department of Environmental Protection grant for sewer service to bring in water,sewer,electricity,telecommunications services and completed a temporary entrance and stormwater systems to support construction of the Glades County Regional Training Center, which will provide grant funded training for new businesses locating in the Glades County Business Park and AGLC. In 2015, construction of the first phase of the Training Center was completed. Also in 2015, via a public private partnership with A Duda& Sons,the county secured a $300,000 rural infrastructure fund feasibility grant from the Department of Economic Opportunity to complete the necessary engineering to link the county property to Americas Gateway Logistics Center,to serve the first tenant, a Love's Travel Stop,which will invest $11 million in capex and employ 40 low to moderate income residents. In October 2016,using a$1, 154,967 Community Development Block grant,work will begin to extend water, sewer, electricity infrastructure to the entrance of AGLC. Moreover, completion of that infrastructure, including paving of the entrance road to AGLC s SOUTHWEST FLORIDA 3Zone (International Drive) will make available 1.2 million square feet of"shovel ready" space for commercial and industrial tenants. Engineering and design are complete for extending the existing temporary road and Timeline stormwater system through the business park to the travel center,to reconfigure the entrance and construct a dogleg out onto US 27 to connect with a right out only exit from the business park to a merge lane already constructed by FDOT. By completing the permanent roadway and stormwater improvements linking the Glades County Business and Commerce Park to AGLC,the frontage road allows students attending the training center and employees of future businesses which site in the commerce park the ability to access restaurants and other amenities planned in the Benefits commercial frontage at AGLC,creating trip capture on site to help with traffic on US 27. Similarly,construction of the dogleg connecting the US 27 exit from the business park to the turnlane on US 27 constructed by FDOT to serve that purpose is intended to relieve future anticipated traffic stacking on SR 78 as the business park and AGLC continue to expand,and was required by FDOT as part of the permitting process. Completing the permanent roadway and stormwater system linking the Glades County Promise Zone Business Park and AGLC will make the business park fully shovel-ready for new Goals businesses looking to expand or relocate on the county property,promoting sustainable economic development and job creation. Development of the Glades County Business and Commerce Park is in sync with larger regional developments including Americas Gateway Logistics Center and the Airglades Regional Impact International Airport air cargo facility in Hendry County and are part of a significant and sustained regional economic development effort.As such it is included in the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council's Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy. Career Source Southwest Florida, Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council,Florida Partners Department of Transportation,Florida Department of Economic Opportunity,Glades County EDC Q SOUTHWEST FLORIDA Zone PROJECT SUMMARY Project Title Wastewater Infrastructure on US27/SR80—Wastewater force main from Airglades Airport/Industrial Park to City of Clewiston WWTP Organization Hendry County Public Works Contact Shane Parker,Director Contact Phone 863-612-4722 Contact Email sparker@hendryfla.net Total Project Cost $5,400,000 Amount Requested $5,400,000 Local Match TBD—Land Value Match Construct 10.4miles of wastewater lines to the existing Clewiston Wastewater Treatment Plant(WWTP). The Airglades Industrial Park is shovel-ready for new tenants except that it lacks additional wastewater capacity at the current Airglades package plant. The Project Description inability of the current wastewater plant to treat industrial wastes to proper public health and environmental standards is a limiting factor for regional economic development. The FDOT,EDA,DEP,CDBG and Hendry County have invested millions of dollars into the development of Airglades Airport and Industrial Park over the past 20 years. Timeline Phase I was the preliminary design,funded by the State. Phase II is design,permitting, ROW Acquisition. Construction timeline TBD Benefits Support the expansion of the Airglades Airport and provide infrastructure for existing and future planned development along US 27 to Clewiston Promise Zone Job creation,economic development,enhance infrastructure Goals Regional Impact Hendry County,Glades County Partners Hendry County Government,Airglades International Airport,City of Clewiston SOUTHWEST FLORIDA r'lFc Zone PROJECT SUMMARY Project Title Four Corners Stormwater/Water Quality Project Organization Hendry County Public Works Contact Shane Parker,Director Contact Phone 863-612-4722 Contact Email sparker@hendryfla.net Total Project Cost $4,200,000 Amount Requested $4,200,000 Local Match TBD—Land Value Match Four Corners MSBU/County Line Ditch Widening was designed to provide both additional storage and conveyance for stormwater to the Caloosahatchee River during large storm events. Currently,residents experience flooding conditions due to the lack of drainage infrastructure capacity. By implementing the proposed project,the upstream Project Description watershed can pass through a system that will reduce nutrient loading prior to discharging into the Caloosahatchee River downstream to the Gulf of Mexico near the beaches of Sanibel/Captiva and Fort Myers Beach. Using current methodology, it is theoretically estimated that the nutrient loading will be reduced by 76%Total Phosphorous and 144% Total Nitrogen. Timeline This is a SHOVEL READY project. All engineering and design work is complete and permitting is in place.Construction time is 12-18 months. Mitigate flood prone residential areas;reduce nutrient loading into the Caloosahatchee River watershed area. This project is in the Caloosahatchee Watershed Protection Plan Benefits and enjoys broad public support from area stakeholders. It has been identified in the South Florida Water Management District's Strategic Plan as a specific project dating back to 2006. Promise Zone Job creation,economic development,enhance infrastructure Goals Regional Impact Hendry County,Glades County,Highlands County,Lee County Partners South Florida Water Management District,Hendry County Government,Four Corners MSBU SOUTHWEST FLORIDA , ,:. 4 .1„4,i, Zone PROJECT SUMMARY Project Title Generator Replacements at Evacuation Centers Organization Hendry County Emergency Management Contact Brian Newhouse,Director Contact Phone 863-674-5404 Contact Email Brian.newhouse@hendryfla.net Total Project Cost $500,000 Amount Requested $500,000 Local Match TBD Many of the emergency generators that are located at the public shelters are obsolete and non-functional. The existing shelters not only provide basic shelter from storm events for Project Description Hendry County residents,we are an evacuation route for the east coast(Miami-Dade, Broward,and Palm Beach Counties)and the west coast(Lee and Collier Counties)of Florida. It's critical that emergency power is available at the shelters for health,life and safety for the people and volunteers who occupy the building during an emergency. • Timeline This is a SHOVEL READY project. Replacing existing non-functional generators. Benefits Health,Life, Safety in times of disasters for residents and coastal evacuees Promise Zone Enhance infrastructure Goals Regional Impact Hendry County,Glades County,Lee County,Collier County,Palm Beach County,Miami- Dade County,Broward County Partners South Florida Water Management District,Hendry County Government,Port LaBelle Utility Service;Port LaBelle Community Development District Q SOUTHWEST FLORIDA '''' :' , : one x � �„, .,„ ..4.,.,. t., PROJECT SUMMARY Project Title Rehabilitation of the Harlem Community Gymnasium Organization Hendry County Contact Charles Chapman,County Administrator Contact Phone 863-675-5220 Contact Email cchapman@hendryfla.net Total Project Cost $150,000 Amount Requested $150,000 Local Match TBD—Land Value Match I The Old Harlem Academy Gymnasium was once part of the Harlem Academy that was 1 Project Description closed in 1968. It is still a hub for recreational activities. The gymnasium needs a new roof,windows,and hardwood floor,exterior paint;the pool needs to be refurbished,locker rooms,showers and restrooms need upgrades. Timeline This is a SHOVEL-READY project,work could be complete in 12 months or sooner Benefits The gymnasium is well used by the community all year round. Promise Zone Enhance infrastructure Goals Regional Impact Hendry County,Harlem Community Partners Hendry County Government,Harlem Tenants Association SOUTHWEST FLORIDA Zone PROJECT SUMMARY Project Title Feasibility Study for New Hendry County Justice Center Organization Hendry County Contact Charles Chapman,County Administrator Contact Phone 863-675-5220 Contact Email cchapman@hendryfla.net Total Project Cost $95,000 Amount Requested $95,000 Local Match TBD The Hendry County Jail facility is inadequate and in need of extensive rehabilitation. The existing facility sits on approximately 7 acres of land includes the Sheriff's administration offices,the correctional facility,parking and impound lots. Project Description The feasibility study is needed to identify the extent of the need from a regional prospective,i.e. organizational programmatic needs;site evaluation,environmental and economic impact,the cost,funding resources,and repayment plan Timeline 12-18 months Accommodate target population based on current standards,expand capacity,reduce Benefits recidivism, rehabilitation,education for re-entry;consolidate essential regional services with our other Promise Zone partners; Promise Zone Job creation,economic development, enhance infrastructure,crime reduction,and Goals education Regional Impact Hendry County,Glades County,Immokalee Community of Collier County Hendry County Government,Hendry County Clerk of Court/Judicial Partners,Hendry Partners County Sheriff's Office,Crossroads Mental Health Provider will all provide input for the feasibility study. SOUTHWEST FLORIDA . Zone PROJECT SUMMARY Project Title Multi-Family Housing for Essential Service Employees Organization Hendry County Area Housing Commission Contact Ron Zimmerly,Director Contact Phone 863-675-2872 Contact Email rzimmerly@citylabelle.com Total Project Cost $4,500,000 Amount Requested $4,500,000 Local Match TBD—Land Value Match Hendry County is in critical need for multi-family housing for essential service employees;teachers,health care professionals,police,fire,and EMS workers,and Project Description municipal employees. Historically,it's been very difficult to recruit and retain essential service employees when affordable housing is unavailable or more than 20 miles from our employment centers. Timeline TBD Benefits Residual economic impacts are more productive employees,increase in local economy when employees reside in the community. Promise Zone Job creation,economic development, enhance infrastructure Goals Regional Impact Hendry County,Glades County,Immokalee Community of Collier County Hendry County Area Housing Commission,Hendry County Housing and Social Services Partners Department,Hendry County Schools,Hendry Regional Medical Center,Hendry County Government , SOUTHWEST FLORIDA Zone PROJECT SUMMARY Project Title Old Hendry County Historic Courthouse Restoration Organization Hendry County Contact Janet Papinaw,Director,Office of Budget&Grants Contact Phone 863-675-5264 Contact Email jpapinaw@hendryfla.net Total Project Cost $3,000,000 Amount Requested $3,000,000 Local Match TBD—Land Value Match The Old Hendry County Courthouse was built in 1926. Age and environmental conditions have deteriorated the 3-story brick building described as"Italian Renaissance"because of the distinctive clock tower,wide bracketed eaves, distinctive columns,decorative balconettes,overhangs,louvers, and Spanish barrel tile roof. Project Description Water intrusion is very evident on the interior plaster walls. All the brick façade needs repointing,the process of removing old deteriorated mortar joints and replacing it with new mortar. Properly done,repointing restores the visual and physical integrity of the masonry. Interior restoration will include returning to the original interior design and function. Funding for foundation restoration and phase I façade preservation has been secured from Timeline the State of Florida Bureau of Historic Preservation. The scope of work will be concluded by September 2019. Complete restoration is estimated to take 3 additional years. Benefits Most historically significant landmark building in Hendry County. Community pride. Promise Zone Enhance infrastructure Goals Regional Impact Hendry County,Glades County Partners Hendry County Government,LaBelle Historical Society and Museum,LaBelle Downtown Revitalization Corporation,City of LaBelle • Q SOUTHWEST FLORIDA Zone PROJECT SUMMARY Project Title Port LaBelle Utility Service Defective Water Line Replacement Organization Hendry County Contact Roger Greer,Director Contact Phone 863-675-5376 Contact Email rgreer@hendryfla.net Total Project Cost $200,000 Amount Requested $200,000 Local Match TBD—Land Value Match Port LaBelle Utility Service(PLUS)is owned and operated by Hendry County. It serves the Port LaBelle area in Hendry and Glades County east of the City of LaBelle. Certain Project Description waterlines that were installed in 1998 have developed many structural leaks and the maintenance and repair costs are becoming extensive. The best practice would be to properly replace with new pipe in the worst areas that have already been identified. Timeline This is a SHOVEL READY project. Existing waterlines will be replaced. Benefits Conservation of potable water;dependable service to consumers;less maintenance and expense that is ultimately passed on to the consumer Promise Zone Enhance infrastructure Goals Regional Impact Hendry County,Glades County South Florida Water Management District,Hendry County Government,Port LaBelle Partners Utility Service;Port LaBelle Community Development District :,, . SOUTHWEST FLORIDA a 4t , , '‘ tZ o n e PROJECT SUMMARY Project Title Tiger Village(proto type rental mixed housing village—public service employees, teachers,police,nurses,workforce,special needs,seniors-for entire PZ) Organization Promise Area Community Development Corporation(concept-in planning stages) Contact Brent Kettler Contact Phone (863)612-4914 Contact Email brent@hendryedc.com Total Project Cost TBD—150 to 200 units—will be phased based on need Amount Requested TBD—survey,planning,engineering,permitting,site development,building construction -depends on phasing Local Match TBD—based on available resources for different housing tenants -public service employees,teachers,police,nurses,workforce,special needs,and seniors. The Tiger Village concept is based on the need in Clewiston and throughout the PZ for affordable rental units for public service employees,teachers,police,nurses,workforce, special needs,and seniors.The location of the first proto-type village would be located across the street from Clewiston High School(The Tigers). The village community center would be set up for continued learning space for groups and individual(tutoring,virtual class room,other training,meetings). The village greens would be available for individual and team recreation,neighborhood garden,farmers markets,yard sales,festivals,etc.). Project Description The overall concept is to utilize a Habit for Humanity type approach where the units would be built by the community and those that would be tenants. Those individuals would come from throughout the PZ area.There would be a tie-in to the PZ High Schools Career Academies for the students to participate in the planning,design,engineering, costing,permitting,landscaping,signage,and construction.Once the first proto-type village is proven then it would be repeated(in no particular order)in Moore Haven,La Belle and Immokalee—depending on where there is available land. All federal,state,and private funding programs would be explored. The proto-type project is in preliminary visioning and planning stages to develop the exact proposal to be discussed with all parties that would be on the team from the entire PZ. Timeline Timeline— 1. Concept and presentation development,presentations made,formation of Promise Area Community Development Corporation—Nov 2016 thru Jan 2017. SOUTHWEST FLORIDA Zcre 2. Survey,planning,engineering,costing and funding—Feb 2017 thru May 2017. 3. Permitting and phase one site development—June 2017 thru Nov 2017 4. Phase One building construction—Dec 2017 thru May 2018 5. Phase One certificate of occupancy—June 2018 The anticipated benefits/outcomes of the project are to bring the PZ communities together to execute a much needed project along with tying into the High School Career Benefits Academies. The entire project would be a learning experience with a tangible success of bricks and mortar for all to celebrate. It becomes the foundation of what the PZ communities can accomplish as a team to then be repeated for many more projects. Promise Zone All the Promise Zone goals will be met as a result of the project(job creation,economic Goals development,enhance infrastructure,crime reduction,education) Regional Impact The cities of Clewiston,Moore Haven,La Belle,Immokalee,Hendry,Glades and eastern Collier County will be directly impacted by the project. It is anticipated that PZ organizations dealing with the goals of the PZ and affordable Partners rental housing for public service employees,teachers,police,nurses,workforce,special needs,and seniors. SOUTHWEST FLORIDA e.- ,,Q 4 4. Zone PROJECT SUMMARY Project Title Ventura Avenue Water Main Extension Organization City of Clewiston Contact Danny Williams Contact Phone 863-233-7249 Contact Email danny.williams@clewiston-fl.gov Total Project Cost $71,187.50 Amount Requested $71,187.50 Local Match none By agreement executed August 19,2016 between the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the City of Clewiston,the Department provided$1.5 Million dollars for the design,engineering and construction of a new Police Station. The term of the Project Description agreement is from 7/1/16 to 6/30/17. In order to provide water service to the newly constructed station,a water main extension along Ventura Avenue is necessary at a cost of$71,187.50. The project for which funding is requested is to procure and install: 850 linear feet 8"pipe,420 linear feet 6"pipe,3 "T- joints"—10",4"and 2" Benefits The City does not have the funds to pay for the additional piping in FY2017. Promise Zone The Promise Zone goals that will be met as a result of the project are enhanced Goals infrastructure and crime reduction. Regional Impact City of Clewiston Project Timeline Project must be complete no later than 6/30/17. Partners None SOUTHWEST FLORIDA Zone PROJECT SUMMARY Project Title W.Pasadena Avenue Utility Relocation Organization City of Clewiston Contact Danny Williams Contact Phone 863-233-7249 Contact Email Danny.williams@clewiston-fl.gov Total Project Cost $300,000 Amount Requested $300,000 Local Match none A Hampton Inn hotel is scheduled to be constructed on W.Pasadena Avenue in the next 18 months. Existing Utilities on the project site must be relocated. Project Description Project will relocate facilities on one city block area. Existing Utilities are city-owned water,electric,sewer, as well as privately owned fiber optic,telephone cable and interne) The Hotel Construction and Operations will have an economic benefit for the City(please Benefits see the attached"Economic Impact tables". Project also benefits adjacent vacant lot for future development. Promise Zone Promise Zone goals that will be met as a result of the project are job creation,economic Goals development, and enhance infrastructure. Regional Impact The region that will be directly impacted by the project are Hendry County and the City of Clewiston. Proj ect Timeline Hotel construction is in planning stage;Utilities relocation should be completed sometime in 2018. Partners SOUTHWEST FLORIDA �xr Zone PROJECT SUMMARY - Project Title Immokalee Fire Station 31 Organization Immokalee Fire Control District Contact Paul Anderson Contact Phone 239-657-2111 Contact Email panderson@immfire.com Total Project Cost $3,100,000 Amount Requested $3,100,000(CDBG) Local Match $546,000 available if necessary and/or required Our current fire station 31 is over 30 years old,part of the building was constructed on someone else's property, and the fire district has outgrown the building There are currently only two apparatus bays and station quarters to accommodate only 5 responders. Currently there is one fire unit and a Collier County EMS'ambulance stationed there, with otherfare units parked outside in the weather and unsecured due to no room in the building We need to add vehicles and personnel to this station, however Project Description we currently are no able to due to space. We are also looking at relocating the station due to growth and improvement of response time to our highest call areas. This new facility would also assist with crime reduction, as it would be registered as a "Safe Place"for children to seek assistance and also would provide a safe haven for victims of crime to seek refuge, as the front lobby will be open to the public with a direct phone line to sherds office dispatch.A potential victim could enter the lobby, lock the door behind them, and pick up a phone that will immediately connect to the 9-1-1 dispatcher. Timeline We already have design of the station completed and would be ready to build. Benefits Improved fire and emergency services response to an area with a large number of HUD and government subsidized housing. Promise Zone Goals Enhance infrastructure and crime reduction Regional Impact Immokalee CDP, north-east Collier County,south Hendry County Partners Immokalee Fire Control District, Collier County EMS SOUTHWEST FLORIDA Zane,t PROJECT SUMMARY Project Title Immokalee Fire Station 31 Ladder Truck Organization Immokalee Fire Control District Contact Paul Anderson Contact Phone 239-657-2111 Contact Email panderson@immfire.com Total Project Cost $850,000 Amount Requested $850,000(CDBG) Local Match $100,000 available if necessary and/or required Our current Ladder truck serving the Immokalee CDP is 27 years old and has been out of service for an extended period of time and is not cost-effective to repair.This truck protects the entire Immokalee CDP,including an area of low income residents with a significant number of HUD and government subsidized housing.This is a vital piece of equipment for the protection of the community.The Fire District has not yet fully Project Description recovered from the economic downturn,which resulted in the layoff of 6 Firefighters and the elimination of other fire district positions.The District has since been able to recover the 6 Firefighter positions through a federal FEMA SAFER grant,however will need to begin covering the cost of those positions in FY 2017-2018,leaving no funds in the budget for replacement of fire apparatus.This ladder truck is also a tool that the Collier County Sheriffs Office can utilize for aerial crime scene photography,area surveillance,and searches of building rooftops to assist with crime reduction. Timeline We have specifications completed for a ladder truck;simply awaiting available funding for purchase. Benefits Improved fire and emergency services response to an area with a large number of HUD and government subsidized housing. Promise Zone Enhance infrastructure and crime reduction Goals Regional Impact Immokalee CDP,north-east Collier County,south Hendry County Partners Immokalee Fire Control District,Collier County EMS m a) 13 0 lD N c U) Lo c to u) U)trlLO C SQ ID UD 10 lO VD c-I °a O v ci ,-1 a' ri N a0 N ci C' ci c-I O ci ci ataN C O O O O O 7 c O 0_ O O N O O O OO ° N O ,C.:.3 NC h _ .OO C al0 C N N 0 l0 co N O m ' A ci u o' O Nr1 O .-IN ] K N N O .-I N N N N K N N N N Z Z Cl LO ti c-1 L.01 N N I..0 Ol m ,H d" Q Q C O a E c a tiU U 0) U E aC teC f0 C y a+.- aN v , ti o a' a) SE d Cl v a! o _ Y VI Y a+ J-+ ffC d C C a TA N N > a 1:8CL/l vA _a ,C a) O a' to u L O L y > 0 72> N CE -0 .0 v d m Y )" s c v i vc m a, a, ro . = C '= Ca vc 40 a a >' a' v "0 1_ u cu v ao EvEvEvo LL 0 o oLL o o 2 QZ cc u ,cEa' ?' a w v = o lo > om, Q Q G od4 Q du cu w ` 15 ra = mu u c7Ci0 o • y 70 ai ou a w-GY " 9 ' O > > > xx '-'' Dx w 6.2 0 . cE fu6E Ln cu '� a' av aO p u Ec w w dv G' . o O O O =Q a at. �',9 ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ,-47 a ❑ 4,Q - Gh • ❑ In ttO -0 y OO •G"4d �- • • roo � 4p P6 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ •LL .O u� • • • • ❑ ❑d J-ti��d JP 040 ❑ • ❑ • • • • ❑N �4.- ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ • • ■ cu • ',3, p of C.- N4 J iP .d, ❑ • • ■ E 'P 9(� e ■ • ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ o■ C v vSi E N (Ea (Q C C C Q L U j f6 •p_ C f9 F (0 C cr, Ca t6 m 2 a) (6 f`0 N o p p U C c as N 'En Y CC p U` p o 0 +' 0 w 0 > c Lo a L v 'o O .2 O _ _ a o a n. c .0 Q n. p �, °' .n U _Cc n m Q v o c E .1-, F' v v p � ..J u m v c _ a W} u o (a o v N E p u c no = a v v u E c c C7 `^ o U` ` E `n v E o z o ca c C F o a O 0) p_ _1 Q a 9 5)3 'O ro 7u- .- U U u E L. Il D_ > w=- E Q m u E c o > a F- i O1 L� p a) D N T . C L 0 O` o O C , Cl fa N O_ N >- co co O L F U 2 C O p U a) E W C '� y C -p O C U a) c' C c V' O C' o L C E c! > a K ra x u = m d a O O F- o u Z W C N To r6 U bE 6.13 a U � O 9 ` U ■ (o Z aLa O sA+ CS Vf Z E O C' a o o c d A Y O a >. O E = d W E 0 �O E [a U C C a ° E ° a E n, a = d E E u o i a a u C z m u a c o E >- LL a u a o a ca a 0 a' c �- L C > U co u' LL E m s E 7a = u To a m c U o wI o o o c w w a o a o E E E c E Q y o r t c ra c c u a 0 E p 12 o 0 0 E a o L i .oL'i u co a) 0 0 to C to to to to to to w C LU to to to to rl c-1 r-1 c-I N a1 ,H -1 ri rl N o p n o 0 0 0 0 Q Q 0N o \ Q 0 Q ....... ° a W a\a 7 M Z Z M a cc, N M Z M N Z U ° rq \ \ \ \ L—' c\-I 0 \ \ \ \ _,,,.---• ----OS Z 00 to t0 to LU to LID LU w d' `v a a Q C o v -o cc C C m e c .6 m ea e0 °ca o o c Y E c 2 m c c a) . c c o m y c C • W y :N a m 0 N > > > N O Y Cr. u = a) N 0 0 0 6'N O"-N o"'N 0 0 C 00 N a0.0 C .fl C _ 'o al �' C al = 2 = Lu N CI LL1 a1 41 N = I N U .`O+ 4O, a0+ N d - L c 3 L ._ -_ C •C E u rau a c 3 c c c c c c .Oc 3 c 3 c 3 c c c •011 _° 0E -E o a .n a a 3 .a 2 Gds E 0 3 c o �`0 3 0 c v ''^ v :_ a :_ m y m Y u�0 Y=a a - N = 2 = w m m g r o a o °' o g •m c a. 3 3 3 �' r r C 3 C 3 m 0 cn u O o E .� w _ o ▪ -.i.) f` N 'C R E 7 G (Ca ra ra = o = o = o ra as y a) y N J O Q >. c ? C cc N m cc ra E a1 u u u a a a u u .J S .J 2 a. E o_ E S ✓j lo.;_): •C Y a C_ 0 N .n 0 .0 is O N O N O d O O a <7 Q ' U CI d a d w tL LL a a cu w Q w Q'r ✓ Ea1E° o ¢ = Q O O°C)C.�9' ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ • ! • cti ■1111 ❑ ❑ Oil •ss11■■ ❑ ❑ IN co 04. 0110 0 I 1111 O •G''GO a, 111111 • • • • • • • • • a o °�, 11011 ❑ MI Cl ,7N ✓ y • 1 LL d J %..$ C JGP�s''',6% ❑ 11 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ • ❑ 1111 , il CL 111 Jo� IA ❑ ❑ N N v1 w ar u v E E E E E u N a1 v E 0 C C d C N L > 0 > > 7 N t` N tib `6 ca C C to �, i N N N (L N ra tea R C :ID no to m 00 m m .0 ❑ C7 U Z = t) 4) +• 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 C7 a) C i• N O. N C h° C m Y � C .0 .0 d o_ o_ a o_ n. N Y N O N C C ❑, ❑ U ( C D U U m Q _ a a 0 Q G C O C C En o v c ` E v O o a o acO ^ ` !_ O c O ' • OO to• a) n.• zc N a o C ° o o d L U a cO ~ - � o Qo 9 Lo c'am T u m u u ` 6 - Q L›,..1 ` Ii o_ C !a W L cb N I• S u L U d cc ra a) Tu O c' O i O E , S a) a) a C L U O tL ` E N -,T, C O .0 OC N w al a) CO W S m O al as .O i tN @ > 2 'u U A C d' U a�j -• O al E a) L C E O C d N 00 O -0 01 O Z U roo t0 y C O M Y O • c = O C7 an ra a ra ,r j• c II N ❑ U C > y O` 00 o m -O m L J Q U d .0 0 u 0 2 ° > 0 N .2 O • v O c o U la O O X W S w U N S�, ,C,' LL1 N C 0 a) N > C 0 u C' U to CO co 9 a .5 m J LL -0 O` O O to N C O m '� 3 U Q O O c'''' C C t_6a In 3 C./ > ha ° Y .0 N m Ql U o O N c S • J in v I C I 0 0 • `?'. Y m co m S 00 LL O O I I 3 ❑ L ❑ C V W ` C -II 0 N S C c 6- E N O no 4! O 9 W .l a1 al m E E E a' E C � 0 T " O E a t6 '0 U a a TY_ a `- a _ a a ' U vi vi 0 in E a a o cri a` o E n D D 7 m W 7 ❑ n l0 l0 l0 l0 c-I ci cio N to � 0 0 Q NNQ Q Q ¢ a N0NNN •� m N W Z Z Z Z Z vi co Z U V N m N n m In n n Q co .t2 W n 10 a Ec ,- cic We W Cy N t ¢ W Y Y W vl �Cp c C al C N 0,0 W C W C W U N E a, a• E c 3 .c 3 .� ri .c 3 a - m fl °_, co v .W n v '�G To c c.� c '� c '� c .W +. a n:, E W u a E- oF- of of of o w v O. W v asQ13 3 x h0c(pp 3 +- u W W w .. O W W ♦.1., al -) W y a1 ` Q Q Y-. Q W -a > 3 2 •^ Lp -a o E v. E ,,, E I E AO E _l o_ Z o m .,_ u+ m > C >. C T c T c >. C w Z al Vl O Z •,s�.6 °6 EQE¢ E¢ E¢ Tx ¢ ` u o CI- CO Q E tW ' W W W W W O U �P s >rdP o z -OGas `1":.)3,p,.G X99 • • • • • Za E ❑ sPg • • ❑ H ss •�y - sl6. Oti00 a iGpe, 171.. 0. % e y CU -• .0 d o �`0a G1 -7avy -aCU •G� O `0,p 0 U. t J'4i0Ad. H GCU G C s 7�OJ N 4- • In ❑ ❑ 0 CU ss J tn a iP s ❑ • o 6 6' I O J .fo In • ❑ ss Nv 174- ❑ • • .0 h -O c W 2 o i W E E ° 3 > > c u 3 m E ai 2 m .�°1., a y v y E m d F c bD u Q c7 o t N ¢ L s- as OL O d. I- m O �7 f6 C V d -O C 6. c Z' p O v W w ✓T N ❑ L O H C } O Q C O. O 55p >- @ Ul 'O �' N N E C v rl a l ,a a L aC O 7 m ‘5.- Q a X O o U c is 7 ti E = C > v lra x O -.1-' C U O - Q U E w 'm C N -moi W m J W z N. .a N �' t6 p f0 j p 0 .„ o U o w W v ,'9. " E -a o a) co w 5 W a E a ro 3 ❑ > o u E. z :It, ' W m W u '� ❑ m c m C 0 W yi.,; Kas I; U ❑ C L- o_u ❑. C W O O y W ❑ 3 - C O DO G 0. a t c W ? O m �° v o a E C m m 3 u N y CL p E W Q m 0 a V. ¢ w ° a n C 0 .2 a ° E c ° a 'U ° Q .n 'n m O «UU C " d ❑ W ,,, 0 v a c c T o • Q y ❑ E O o_ E N C n o O w E _ 3 c Oo C N i �. lL W - 3 E N Ol N j C L W w m A u o. . a E K. W cc c E ❑ O a j b W t O in m c an vi w o w Z D = -. • a` a o E a FLORIDA oJ�� EST Ft 043 SOUTHWEST . J E ZONES ,cIii#RURAL PROMISpIANN\N �, SOUTHWEST FLORIDA SSUES ,REAL SO\J REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL a GOALS C125 0.0„ am A .s.t Create Jobs Enhance Improve Reduce Crime Improve Economic Activity Educational Community Opportunities Infrastructure PRIORITY FUNDING ACCESS PROMISE ZONE AREA Promise Zones will receive priority ."�` -"---- ''. 1 ` access to federal investments that aeo,o '"'�"°` Oheachabee further their strategic plans, federalj staff on the ground to help them implement their goals, and five full- - Chartorte time AmeriCorps VISTA members to recruit and manage volunteers and r strengthen the capacity of the i_ , Promise Zone initiatives. Promise77:_i I .Lx rreei.en Zone designations will have a term C4elo� FL of ten years and may be extended as ' L71:7-1 „n„ necessary to capture the full term of -' availability of the Promise Zone tax __ ,7r.,_, _ -- incentives if enacted by Congress. Legend Pmm se:me 9oaN USDA \\*IEST Flo Big Issues...Real Solutions J •--- Building Prosperity, High Paying Jobs, Vibrant o �� `0 Communities and Global Competitiveness -C y �<pLA ,c=y isSUFs . REAL 5O J SOUTHWEST FLORIDA rr One SOUTHWEST FLORIDA PROMISE ZONE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Southwest Florida Promise Zone(SFPZ),which covers Glades,Hendry,and the Immokalee portion of Collier counties,was designated by President Barack Obama in June 2016. The SFPZ is one of only four rural areas within the country that have received this competitive designation since 2014. The designation was received due to the SFPZ's high rates of poverty and unemployment(31.2%and 15.65%respectively),the strength of community partnerships,and a strategic plan aimed at improving the quality of life and providing new opportunities for residents.The goals of the SFPZ Strategic Plan center around creating jobs,enhancing economic activity,improving educational opportunities,reducing crime,and improving community infrastructure. The Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council(SWFRPC)is the lead entity for the PZ initiative.It has over 40 years of experience of bringing together diverse partners to accomplish common goals. Glades,Hendry,and Collier Counties will serve as the Implementation Partners. The Southwest Florida Workforce Development Board, Small Business Development Center,Immokalee Business Development Center,Immokalee Foundation and the Southwest Florida Regional Human Trafficking Council were included in the initial application and are partners in this initiative. Additional partners from the public,private,and non-profit sectors are essential to achieving our goals and will be added as we move forward. GOALS SNAPSHOT Job Creation • Attract new businesses • Train residents for jobs and connect them with employers Enhance Economic Activity • Provide resources to help small businesses form and grow • Develop and market eco-tourism attractions Improve Eductional Opportunities • Expand educational programs • Expand career development programs • Expand post-secondary and career success programs Reduce Crime- Human Trafficking And Drug Intervention • Prevent recruitment of HT victims through education and events • Reduce HT through education of professionals likely to interact with HT victims • Expand drug and mental health treatment programs Improve Infrastructure • Enhance and improve public infrastructure throughout the Promise Zone