Agenda 09/25/2012 Item #17B 9/25/2012 Item 17.B.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
VA-PL20110002627: Donald Gray Variance- A Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals
of Collier County, Florida, relating to Petition Number VA-PL20110002627, for a variance
from Land Development Code Sections 4.02.03 and 5.03.06.E.5 to permit a reduced
riparian side yard setback from 7.5 feet to 0 feet on the west side of the subject property
and a reduced riparian side yard setback from 7.5 feet to 1.55 feet on the east side of the
subject property located on Lot 6, Block G of the Little Hickory Shores Subdivision in
Section 5, Township 48 South, Range 25 East in Collier County,Florida.
OBJECTIVE:
To have the Board of Zoning and Appeals (BZA) review staff's findings and recommendations
along with the recommendations of the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) regarding
the above referenced variance petition and render a decision regarding the 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 petitioner is proposing to remove a pre-existing non-conforming dock facility that protrudes
approximately 30 feet into the waterway and to construct a 3.7-foot wide finger dock that will
service 2 boat lifts and vessels. The pre-existing non-conforming dock was originally
constructed in 1994 pursuant to building permit 940010797. The proposed dock facility is
located on a small boat dock lot that has an irregular shoreline that is approximately 32-feet in
width and consists of one lot totaling 0.01 acres that is too small to accommodate a single family
residence. Please note that boat dock lots are a permitted use without a residential dwelling unit
pursuant to PU-87-17C, Resolution 87-260 and as amended in Resolution 99-236. The proposed
boat dock facility will have a total protrusion of 50.3 feet from the Mean High Water Line
(MHWL) into a waterway that is approximately 250 feet in width. The proposed dock requires a
30.3-foot boat dock extension and a companion boat dock extension application BDE-
PL20110000940 has been heard by the CCPC.
The proposed boat dock facility protrudes into the required 7.5-foot riparian line setback. The
variance is sought to allow a boat dock facility to encroach into the riparian line side yard setback
from 7.5 feet to 0 feet on the west side of the subject property and from 7.5 feet to 1.55 feet on
the east side of the subject property. The requested action (if approved) would allow a dock
facility at 0 feet and 1.55 feet from the riparian lines. A previous variance, Resolution 2000-51,
for 19 of the 34 boat dock lots in this area was approved by the BZA to permit a 0-foot riparian
side yard setback. The owner of the subject property was out of the County at the time of the
approved variance request and could not provide the required authorization and was therefore not
part of the approved setback variance.
Page 1 of 3
VA-PL20110002627,Gray Variance
August 23,2012(revised August 24,2012,August 27,2012)
Packet Page-3339-
9/25/2012 Item 17.B.
The Conceptual Site Plan entitled "Donald Gray Bonita Springs, Boat Dock Extension Site Plan"
dated November 2011, and prepared by Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. illustrates the location
of the proposed boat dock and boat lifts. (See Site Plan on page 4 of 9 of the Staff Report).
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Variance request by and of itself will have no fiscal impact on Collier County.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) IMPACT:
The subject property is located in the Urban Mixed Use Residential land use classification on the
County's Future Land Use Map (FLUM). This land use category is designed to accommodate a
variety of residential uses including single-family, multi-family, duplex, mobile home and
mixed-use projects. As previously noted, the subject petition seeks a variance for a boat dock lot
that is located within a single-family subdivision, which is an authorized use in this land use
designation, therefore, the boat dock use is consistent with the FLUM. The Growth Management
Plan (GMP) does not address individual variance requests; the plan deals with the larger issue of
the actual use.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION:
The CCPC heard petition VA-PL20110002627 on July 19, 2012, and by unanimous vote of 9 to
0 recommended to forward this petition to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) with a
recommendation of approval.
Because no letters of objection have been received, this petition has been placed on the Summary
Agenda.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS:
Petitioner is requesting a Variance to reduce riparian line side yard setbacks. 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 9.04.02.A requires that "based upon the evidence given in public hearing;
and the findings of the Planning Commission" you "should determine to the maximum extent
possible if the granting of the Variance will diminish or otherwise have a detrimental effect on
the public interest, safety or welfare." 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.
Page 2 of 3
VA-PL20110002627,Gray Variance
August 23,2012(revised August 24,2012,August 27,2012)
Packet Page -3340-
9/25/2012 Item 17.B.
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.
The proposed Resolution was prepared by the County Attorney's Office and is legally sufficient
for Board action. A majority vote is necessary for Board approval.-HFAC
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff concurs with the recommendations of the CCPC and further recommends that the Board of
Zoning Appeals approve the request subject to the attached Resolution.
PREPARED BY:
Michael Sawyer, Project Manager, Department of Planning and Zoning
Growth Management Division, Planning and Regulation
Attachments: 1) Staff Report 2) Location Map 3) Site Plan 4)Resolution 5)Application
Page 3 of 3
VA-PL20110002627,Gray Variance
August 23,2012(revised August 24,2012,August 27,2012)
Packet Page -3341-
9/25/2012 Item 17.B.
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Item Number: 17.B.
Item Summary: 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.
VA-PL20110002627: Donald Gray Variance-A Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of
Collier County, Florida, relating to Petition Number VA-PL2011-2627,for a variance from Land
Development Code Sections 4.02.03 and 5.03.06.E.5 to permit a reduced riparian side yard
setback from 7.5 feet to 0 feet on the west side of the subject property and a reduced riparian
side yard setback from 7.5 feet to 1.55 feet on the east side of the subject property located on
Lot 6, Block G of the Little Hickory Shores Subdivision in Section 5,Township 48 South, Range 25
East in Collier County, Florida.
Meeting Date: R/25/2012
Prepared By
Name: SawyerMichael
Title: Project Manager,Engineering&Environmental Servic
8/29/2012 3:10:45 PM
Approved By
Name: BellowsRay
Title: Manager-Planning,Comprehensive Planning
Date: 8/30/2012 8:53:28 AM
Name: BosiMichael
Title: Manager-Planning,Comprehensive Planning
Date: 8/30/2012 2:45:32 PM
Name: PuigJudy
Title: Operations Analyst,GMD P&R
Date: 9/5/2012 2:04:44 PM
Name: MarcellaJeanne
Title: Executive Secretary,Transportation Planning
Date: 9/14/2012 4:04:04 PM
Packet Page-3342-
9/25/2012 Item 17.B.
Name: AshtonHeidi
Title: Section Chief/Land Use-Transportation,County Attor
Date: 9/17/2012 8:46:52 AM
Name: KlatzkowJeff
Title: County Attorney
Date: 9/17/2012 9:05:25 AM
Name:FinnEd
Title: Senior Budget Analyst, OMB
Date: 9/17/2012 9:41:43 AM
Name: OchsLeo
Title: County Manager
Date: 9/17/2012 3:10:27 PM
Packet Page-3343-
9/25/2012 Item 17.B.
Cattier County
STAFF REPORT
TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION, PLANNING AND
REGULATION
HEARING DATE: JULY 19,2012
SUBJECT: PETITION VA-PL20110002627, DONALD E. GRAY VARIANCE
COMPANION ITEM: BDE-PL20110000940
PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT:
Owner: Donald E. Gray Agent: D. Wayne Arnold, AICP,
144 Linetree Park Drive Q. Grady Minor and Associates,
Bonita Springs, Fl 34135 3800 Via Del Rey,
Bonita Springs, Fl 34135
REQUESTED ACTION:
To have the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an application for a
proposed variance to permit an encroachment into the minimum riparian line side yard setback
from 7.5 feet to 0 feet on the west side of the subject property and an encroachment into the
minimum riparian line side yard setback from 7.5 feet to 1.55 feet on the east side of the subject
property. The requested action (if approved) would allow a dock facility at 0 feet and 1.55 feet
from the riparian lines.
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The subject boat dock lot is located at 267 3r1 Street West, Little Hickory Shores, Unit 3, Replat
Block G, Lot 6, in Section 5, Township 48 South,Range 25 East in Collier County Florida, Folio
number 56000880009. (See location map on the following page).
PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
The purpose of the project is to construct a single family dock facility on a boat dock lot located
in Bonita Shores. The proposed facility consists of a 30.3-foot boat dock extension to replace an
existing dock facility. The boat dock lot consists of one lot totaling 0.01 acres that is too small to
accommodate a single family residence. Please note that boat dock lots are a permitted use
VA-PL20110002627,Donald E.Gray Variance
June 26,2012(revised July 5,2012) Ont.,.I ^f o
Packet Page-3344-
9/25/2012 Item 17.B.
without a residential dwelling unit pursuant to PU-87-17C, Resolution 87-260 and as amended in
Resolution 99-236. The proposed boat dock facility will have a total protrusion of 50.3 feet from
the Mean High Water Line(MHWL) into a water way that is approximately 250 feet in width. A
previous Variance, Resolution 2000-51, for 19 of the 34 boat dock lots in this area was approved
by the BZA to permit a 0-foot riparian side yard setback. The owner of the subject property was
out of the County at the time of the approved variance request and could not provide the required
authorization and was therefore not part of the approved setback variance. A companion Boat
Dock Extension (BDE) application BDE-PL20110000940 has been filed. The existing dock
does not have a boat dock extension.
The proposed boat dock facility protrudes into the required 7.5-foot riparian line setback. A
Variance is sought to allow a boat dock facility at 0 feet from the riparian lines on the west
setback and 1.55 feet from the riparian line on the east setback. There is no dredging proposed
for this dock facility. The Conceptual Site Plan entitled "Donald Gray Bonita Shores — Boat
Dock Extension Site Plan" dated November, 2011, and prepared by Q. Grady Minor and
Associates, P.A. illustrates the location of the proposed boat dock and boat lifts. (See attached
Site Plan). According to information provided by the applicant, both of the neighboring parcels
have existing docks.
VA-PL20110002627,Donald E.Gray Variance
June 26,2012(revised July 5,2012) Pana 7 of Q
Packet Page-3345-
9/25/2012 Item 17.B.
r. N b @ P N m E "- r
e N W ' " g W a m W i m N �. ,. ...,
O' �O Or NO 0 , NOggp� >S V VI.I N(. Q: N O N c`6 N W N
-e^u_ N w- 2 m
A N g N ^ N o _
W 0 W G A
r N ~ W N 0
O N to
N J x r
V. x_r
ii a1112
1 r-
z
1111 EL
^ za^ =� L
N
r -
ill � 2
A
. %ilk m ,t.illiegil -
Ur G f 2 p
rn
^♦ d
g y tires D
O CI J ^ a ^ _
UU LS J
wa 0.>0 G O A ^ „ L
Lam
Q' ° �� 1S3M 1332115 ONIHL O
^ N A N b
n
m . g
N
Ow ow
D } , O N.CV
CD
_ m mew=mm N
CV
J
a
TVOS 01 ION
Q
U
--I—'JNRtnd-1l0dafV __1 A30MS O pin
H 1 4S b� . (tc Z'oi 1 ES I i i t...,.. H iiii
- i ' lit I R i E— LLI
E a
pp g413 €
Ld a 9: 22. p
r:Ia a a.
gk Qe W5tl p 18 3g 5 g i� e Q
3
WO
2'i.54 n ; g8 dY b n 1 € 1 „ g
a Q g,� P �_ . N.g ism O
¢v ay ire 3 Iii
cL. 3
r - w,,..an j i I .....
m5 ,g , , iii
Z 1
!WW1 1170N3ONVA ei lilt ill ii u_ilmi.,_,_
I Ilk
L, 10e.120
LLw I� N����
,J
A`-_, mB GUI! OF MEXICO
Packet Page-3346-
�� �, ,��•N• ,�,� .p 9/25/2012 Item 17.B.
4.',1,
N Z C7
n h '.1 W Y T Alit
- O OOU
a xma
a_ 'gN
I O 0."
Z O¢p
g ; -,,,s
O � W
g KZ~O
5 FA
10.110.111111.1 \ OO � �0J
Z
ul O O
F
E w a
r' Z
� N � O
_ °w o F „
Z
N � c� w �'.
O OJ J c) W a
N p Y
C o a~
N cz
N p m°
C i N
o 0 ti o N o
p
T.I 0 ui W
.p N
s--
a To .6
Q o =
> G G O �gON In
40.1' PROTR OF 26' !-
BASED ON A BOAT LENGTH O m
,- 'J v g
O
x 0< MN s
a a 0
• m.111111111,..si lirs <0 I:
o 'i O p a m
Q 0 v),_,...��z it ¢R� °c Fr c.i
co - . . .,
1 c' V-4- ' 2�O C�
,p. u %—'66,. I-- () w x �- 1
Wo t�. .. ; c) -. O m �z Eg
2 1 ,r +
, .' @ x
4 c',-,.4.,, o m
X-N
e0.- kt �. a J O 3 All K 0 2.1 < "6
NI t VP °c�' �ZZ ~ v
Hx� S Wiggle a�0
-
W , �g
\ 1
Packet Page-3347-
9/25/2012 Item 17.B.
SURROUNDING LAND USE &ZONING:
SUBJECT PARCEL: Boat Dock Lot,with a zoning designation of RSF-4
North: Little Hickory Bay
East: Boat Dock Lot,with a zoning designation of RSF-4
South: 3r'. Street West ROW, then Boat Dock Lot with a zoning designation of of
RSF-4
West: Boat Dock Lot,with a zoning designation of RSF-4
Aerial photo taken from Collier County Property Appraiser website.
■
µ w Subject
-le
,,,,...<„
, ,, ,,,, ,,,,.,
g
y It
�� .. _
r
m
> -7.7e4:1 , :- ,,i .,:,..,4t,,,.. .,,,,
ffYY
x6.<i#, ., 1,es.�..Tom".ASe
VA-PL20110002627,Donald E.Gray Variance
June 26,2012(revised July 5,2012) Pan,*F^f Q
Packet Page-3348-
9/25/2012 Item 17.B.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY:
The subject property is located in the Urban Mixed Use Residential land use classification on the
County's Future Land Use Map (FLUM). This land use category is designed to accommodate a
variety of residential uses including single family, multi-family, duplex, mobile home and
mixed-use projects. As previously noted, the subject petition seeks a variance for a single family
boat dock lot which is an authorized use in this land use designation,therefore, the boat dock use
is consistent with the FLUM. The Growth Management Plan(GMP)does not address individual
variance requests;the Plan deals with the larger issue of the actual use.
ANALYSIS:
Section 9.04.01 of the Land Development Code gives the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) the
authority to grant Variances. The Planning Commission is advisory to the BZA and utilizes the
provisions of Section 9.04.03 A. through H. (in bold font below), as general guidelines to assist
in making their recommendation of approval or denial. 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. According to information provided by the applicant, the subject property was platted
in 1960 and staff notes that it does not meet minimum lot size and width standards required
by the current LDC. As a result, a boat dock is the only permitted use allowed on the
subject lot as provided for in Resolution 87-260. As noted above the previous Variance,
Resolution 2000-51, for 19 of the 34 boat dock lots in this area was approved by the BZA
to permit a 0-foot riparian side yard setbacks. The owner of the subject property was out
of the County at the time of the approved variance request and could not provide the
required authorization and was therefore not part of the approved setback 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?
Yes. According to information provided by the applicant, due to the limited lot width, the
required 7.5 foot riparian setback from each side yard will result in a dock facility of only
17 feet in width which can only accommodate one of the two vessels proposed. The
requested variance is needed to accommodate the second vessel as allowed on those lots
that previously received a variance as provided for in Resolution 2000-51.
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. According to County records the existing dock and deck were permitted with
Building Permit 940010797, which was approved on October 7, 1994. The existing dock
and deck do not meet the currently required riparian line setbacks and for this reason are
VA-PL20110002627,Donald E.Gray Variance
June 26,2012(revised July 5,2012) Donn R of
Packet Page-3349-
9/25/2012 Item 17.B.
pre-existing non-conforming. Aerial photos appear to over time show that there have been
both one and two slips in use on the subject lot. If the applicant were to maintain the
required riparian set back lines, he would be limited to one moored vessel for the new boat
dock facility, unlike the other 19 boat dock lot owners included in the previously approved
variance who are afforded adequate room to moor two vessels with the approved 0'
riparian setback.
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 proposed dock is reasonable because it does not adversely impact the ingress and
egress of adjacent boat docks and it provides for safe access for the vessels to be moored
within the riparian boundaries.
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?
No. Many of the neighboring properties moor two vessels on similar sized lots, especially
those included in the previous variance approval. This property owner is seeking the same
consideration.
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, the granting of this Variance will be harmonious with the LDC and there will be no
injury to the neighborhood that was approved for non-commercial boat dock facilities.
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. As previously stated, the subject site is a boat dock lot that was not included in the
previous variance. Private boat docks are the only allowable use consistent with the
provisional use noted above. Because of this, the applicant is restricted to constructing the
boat dock facility within the proposed dock facility area.
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.
VA-PL20110002627,Donald E.Gray Variance
June 26,2012(revised July 5,2012) Paae 7 of 9
Packet Page-3350-
9/25/2012 Item 17.B.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL(EAC) RECOMMENDATION:
This Variance petition was not required to go before the EAC for review and approval.
COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW:
The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report VA-PL-20110000940, revised July 5,
2012.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) forward Petition VA-
PL-20110000940, Donald Gray Boat Dock Variance to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)with
a recommendation of approval subject to the approval of the companion boat dock extension
petition BD-PL20110000940.
VA-PL20110002627,Donald E.Gray Variance
June 26,2012(revised July 5,2012) Paoe 8 of 9
Packet Page-3351-
I 1
9/25/2012 Item 17.B.
PREPARED BY:
i 74_ /it
4
I`' EL SA' YE' PROJECT MANAGER DATE
DEP 'RTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING
REVIEWED BY:
fir. - 7�.°
RAYMOND D V. BELLOWS,ZONING MANAGER DA LE
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING
MICHAEL BOSI, AICP. INTERIM DIRECTOR DATE
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING
APPROVED BY:
/ ,
NICK CASALANGUDA, AI INIS' T
I OR DATE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION
Tentatively scheduled for the September 25, 2012 Board of County Commissioners Meeting
Attachment: A. Draft Resolution
B. Resolution 87-260
C. Resolution 99-236
VA-PL20110002627,Donald E.Gray Variance
June 26,2012 Paoe 9 of 9
Packet Page -3352-
n N O
b °' m
� 1
b Pi
1— W H G...
b N W b N p W • m L, n O n
b 2
I
Ob W m V., a
gO -O- HO N O n i HO:N &y co b N n p
_
Y N 0
N O _ b O , m N ■
N N G�hI
n -li -N n W }V/�♦Y N Z to p ILL F14 N N (/1 CC N N CO r tu -o N N W p@ H el
N N c r J N N == O WI 0
N
1 X
`y f (n N al E
N h m r =O CL
, 11:11 i CI.g <
m
0 0 1111:1 21101
in , T
co
m
Q: Wg a
Z re M m
Y n N b 1S3M 133815 4?
< \I sik 1 IHl O
� m m : >:
N
r
m a
m
E 7
Y
U_
_ .., ~
LL
F: W x }y Q Q O cD O
U
= w w N
N
�W) ? J w
^. Jmm
iD
N
J
37.175 OL 10N a
Q
Z
pS; yp� �FJ i avoa 6amno-iaodan LIMI A3none O
Z
_ 1 1 nil E ili Vol . § i� w
• �� � N
a.
1
�' moa rrrvaiiwoou ______Ail
If IIl1 B ` 10 . .g 1`' liss'a'7) n
°a n
b
i 154 �" . 5 i t. ^ I % i s I. N e �i 11111°B
�111i7�_ r „A; TBL II; rvi
(us.a�1 Q^33j g
F Z TnGnual TRAIL F76 " /- a q �8
w ri,� � �e � Z
�� ® ��€3 gd m R imp A U g o
1 a lars'a71 - s I I _'� _. 1� neae7r+.1n While/
r
it Ilk b ham ; U N
U
—41rek..--arill* Ifig.41.: ii. iiiripirl --■
r
0 a
'' CULF OF MEXICO 3
CO
i
----------- 9/25/2012 Item 17.B.
-.•^N - ,A -
° „ u s ES
z—� � wW
U N Z
N m
KU
>'Sn
d K 0_N
= oar
Z U K O
2° -
wnu
N
II
Z V S O U O O
E z.
Z G
° ° Q ta O
� 2 iii
O
¢g
a) Y cal N U
C } O8 ti
V 6
n
N f� m
�a y
N
O N O
N '-' M ,.i q
O w \ W
'B N M
0- f0 Qj
C ...1 u
j p p Q S
, D of 2s H
-, .. O
s
gp$E ellili J Sm u
5
w� O .RI
N aOrc ` . and''IIIIIIIIIr4 o m ooa V) d =
1 t 4 a0� 2" cio
Z 1YM j
zoo X Z a
1114 20' O mz ®
Argi
x -7100,4,, „ lir ,...v..-
04.
QDG , C 4 ?
_X
'g 4 oO �- � Tt
o e ` , 41a ' _ o d S
go
L d
4 o„...04,00 ,i,N
"'t-1111011111111110111.,,ispo°,1c3 g:.:* -,-, 40 . - p W O p
Q ., c-8. m Xorn SO r f
1
H
P( c �9 3 • I
T s%
Is
W
E--
I
Packet Page-3354-
9/25/2012 Item 17.B.
Co Iller County
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104
PLANNING AND REGULATION 239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-6358
www.colliergov.net
VARIANCE PETITION APPLICATION
(VARIANCE FROM SETBACK(s) REQUIRED FOR A PARTICULAR ZONING DISTRICT)
VAR-PL20110002627 REV:2
PROJECT NUMBER Donald. E. Gray
PROJECT NAME DATE: 2/23/12
DATE PROCESSED
DUE: 3/8/12
APPLICANT/AGENT INFORMATION
NAME OF APPLICANT(S) Donald E. Gray
ADDRESS 144 Limetree Park Drive, Bonita Springs, FL 34135
TELEPHONE# CELL# 239.671.6666 FAX#
E-MAIL ADDRESS: viking2b @hotmail.com
NAME OF AGENT D.Wayne Arnold, AICP, Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A.
ADDRESS 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34135
TELEPHONE# 239.947.1144 CELL# FAX# 239.947.0375
E-MAIL ADDRESS: wamold @gradyminor.com
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
Legal Description of Subject Property: Little Hickory Shores Unit 3 Replat Blk G Lot 6 OR 1234 PG 99
Section/Township/Range 05 48 /25 Property I.D.#• 56000880009
subdivision: Little Hickory Shores Unit 3 Lot: 6 Block: G
Metes &Bounds Description:
Acreage: 0.01
Address of Subject Property(If different from Petitioner's address): 267 3rd Street West
BE AWARE THAT COLLIER COUNTY HAS LOBBYIST REGULATIONS. GUIDE YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY
AND ENSURE THAT YOU ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THESE REGULATIONS.
8/30/2010
Packet Page-3355-
9/25/2012 Item 17.B.
Co ter County
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104
PLANNING AND REGULATION 239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-6358
www.colliergov.net
NATURE OF PETITION
Provide 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'to
18'; 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.
For projects authorized under LDC Section 9.04.02, provide detailed description of site alterations,
including any dredging and filling.
Please note that staff and the Collier County Planning Commission shall be guided in their recommendation
to the Board of zoning Appeals,and that the Board of zoning appeals shall be guided in its determination
to approve or deny a variance petition by the below listed criteria (1-8). (Please address these criteria
using additional pages if necessary.)
1. Are there special conditions and circumstances existing which are peculiar to the location, size and
characteristics of the land,structure,or building involved.
Please see Exhibit 1
2. 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.
Please see Exhibit 1
3. 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.
Please see Exhibit 1
4. 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.
Please see Exhibit 1
5. 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.
Please see Exhibit 1
6. 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.
Please see Exhibit 1
8/30/2010
Packet Page-3356-
9/25/2012 Item 17.B.
Exhibit 1
Variance Petition Application
Nature of Petition
1. Yes, the subject lot was platted in 1960 and does not meet the minimum lot size and
width for a residential dwelling. There are approximately 34 residential zoned lots
on 3rd Street West, which have been platted at widths ranging from 25'. to 35' in
width. The subject property is 28.8' in width at the ROW line and approximately 32'
wide at the water line. The County Commission previously approved conditional
uses for the subject property recognizing the ability to construct boat docks without
having a dwelling unit on the property. A single variance for 19 of the 34 lots to
permit a zero foot side yard setback on both sides of the property line was approved
by the County Commission. This variance was only approved for those property
owners having authorized the agent to seek the variances in their behalf. The owner
of the subject property was out of the country at the time of the variance request and
could not provide the required authorization forms and therefore was not a part of the
multiple variance application.
2. The riparian property lines are not perpendicular to the existing shoreline. The
owner wishes to retain the existing wooden dock which is parallel to the shoreline and
replace the finger dock extending into Little Hickory Bay with a new one of similar
width (approximately 3.7'), and which will accommodate two lifts at adequate water
depth to moor a 34' length sport boat and a smaller pontoon/deck boat. If the 7.5'
setback for each side riparian line is applied to the property, only 17' of width exists
in which the dock and boat could be accommodated. The property owner requires a
lift 16' wide to accommodate the 34' length sport boat, which is nearly equal to the
available area for the dock and boat under the current setback requirements. Mooring
a second boat at the location would not be possible. The variance is necessary in
order allow sufficient area to accommodate the two proposed boat lifts.
3. Yes, a literal interpretation of the code will not permit installation of the new docking
facility as proposed. The existing dock and deck do not meet the required 7.5' side
yard requirement. The dock is within 2.8' of the western property line and 3.5 feet of
the eastern property line.
4. Yes, the variance to permit a zero foot side yard setback is necessary in order to
install two lifts which will accommodate the property owner's watercraft. No
health, safety or welfare issues result from the variance. The neighboring dock to the
east has been constructed with a zero foot setback, which is consistent with the 19
other docks which obtained the multi-property variance in 2000. Side yard setbacks
for boat docks is commonly seen as required so view for adjacent homes are not
impacted. Because no homes can be built on either side of the subject property, no
views are impacted.
5. Yes, a majority of the properties on 3rd Street West have been granted similar
variances due to the recognition that these lots are unique, and similar situations do
not exist anywhere else in the County.
Page 1 of 2
Packet Page -3357-
9/25/2012 Item 17.B.
CO er County
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104
PLANNING AND REGULATION 239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-6358
www.colliergov.net
VARIANCE PETITION (VA)APPLICATION
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST
THIS COMPLETED CHECKLIST IS TO BE SUBMITTED WITH APPLICATION PACKET IN THE EXACT ORDER LISTED BELOW
W/COVER SHEETS ATTACHED TO EACH SECTION. NOTE:INCOMPLETE SUMBITTALS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED.
REQUIREMENTS #OF REQUIRED NOT
COPIES REQUIRED
Completed Application(download from website for current form) ❑ X
Completed Addressing Checklist,Signed by Addressing Department I X
Conceptual Site Plan 24"x 36"and one 8 1/2 "x 11"copy ❑ D _ ❑
Survey of property showing the encroachment(measured in feet) 2 CI ❑
Owner/Agent Affidavit signed¬arized 1 0 _ ❑ _
Deeds/Legal's 3 ❑
Location map 1 0 ❑
Aerial photographs(taken within the previous 12 months min.scaled 5 ❑ 0
1"=200'),showing FLUCCS Codes, Legend,and project boundary
Electronic copy of all documents and plans (CDROM or Diskette) 2 0 ❑
Historical Survey or waiver request 1 ❑ 0
Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)and digital/electronic copy of EIS or ❑ o
• exemption justification 3
Within 30 days after receipt of the first review comment letter,provide 1 X
Property Owner Advisory Letter and Certification
Project Narrative ❑ X
FEES:
❑ Pre-application Fee $500.00 (Applications submitted 9 months or more after the date of the last pre-app
meeting shall not be credited towards application fees and a new pre-application meeting will be required.)
Review Fees:
❑ $2,000.00 Residential
❑ $5,000.00 Non-Residential
❑ $2,000.00 Sign Variance
❑ $100.00 Fire Review
❑ After-The-Fact Zoning/Land Use Petitions 2x the normal petition fee
❑ $925.00 Estimated Legal Advertising Fee-CCPC Meeting
❑ $500.00 Estimated Legal Advertising Fee- BCC Meeting
(any over-or under-payment will be reconciled upon receipt of Invoice from Naples Daily News).
❑ $2,500.00 EIS Review
❑ $1,000.00 Listed Species Survey(If EIS is not required)
OTHER REQUIREMENTS:
Agent/Owner Signature , Date
8/30/2020
Packet Page -3358-
, A + ,`' 9/25/2012 Item 17.B.
c' C .y _yr
, , }•4 T I { t �l• T ;
t
• rat i :4. 1'1"•; 43 4'' -,..,, p.,...
ob . . . .
. • . . •. .
i il t,i, ' �wl ! � b t s•`00 :t}i' i* JI I:4'144 I£1 f ;3. r' ✓i t (
f -
t E , }t5 1 x •.z S $t tl
ly firm
''±� OCTOBER 27 1987 - gt"
,s
i j tam,9711 .,j
RESOLUTION 87-280, PETITION P0-87-17C, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION K
RIMUSTING-PROVISIONAL USE "A" OP THE R8P-4 DISTRICT FOR
NON-CONNERCIAL 80AT LAUNCHING PACILITIE8 - ADOPTED
Planner Weeks stated the property is located approximately 1/4
wile south of Bonita Beach Road, and 3/4 mile west of Vanderbilt Drive
in the Little;, Hickory Shores Subdivision. He stated that the Board .y
•i4
° ' •, directed staff to initiate a Provisional Use for this property beca-
}k','.; use of the small lot size which cannot be used for a principal strut:-
tune. He said it appears that these lots were intended for boat
;'-dock lots, however, that is not indicated on the plat. -_i.. 3,
y '• Mr. Weeks stated the rrPC has reviewed this petition and forwarded .,Fn;4
'•�'.°y:. it with a 'recommendation of approval. He said correspondence on this •. 1.4
"nS •
;. . petition was received, with six letters in favor and one in opposition.
He noted the letter of opposition was due to misinformation and after
clarification by Staff, the objection was verbally withdrawn. He said
•Staff rdeosm►ends •
approval. ' . • •., r,. ' ' ; M
w.
.A'"'`: In:response to Chairman Hasse, Planning/Zoning Director McKim ,` gym. t
stated .the docks are for private use only, however, renting of 'boat,' '. :
1. docks is a problem throughout the County. She explained that Staff
only becomes aware of this type of violation if there is a complaint.
commissioner Visitor moved, seconded by commissioner Goodnight and ; :'.)
7 parried unanimously, that Resolution 17-260, Petition PC-87-17C,
for non-commercial boat launching facilities for property located
""t.: approximately 1/4 ails south of Bonita Beach Road and 3/4 mile west
., of • "
?, Vanderbilt Drive, be adopted.
u t ?•i ,- t/. • . .:j:r;1. itF G� :.a -. „,,
"
i
?
«e:
N tt Y w•
r # 47 t lo ,
.•,
' ”fi 4 f,T4.; ; .:c •ff
J. ,� , ,
?1i i1 t . . a' tr u :1> ur . 4
.„•■.*1 y 'at L,.t. t' t! 3tt c
Packet Page -3359- .. . .. . . . ..._..
9/25/2012 Item 17.B.
•
RESOLUTION 87- 260 OCT 271987
}• RELATING TO PETITION NO. PU-87-17C FOR
PROVISIONAL USE OF PROPERTY HEREINAFTER
• DESCRIBED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
b '
WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter
67-1246, Laws of Florida, and Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has
conferred on Collier County the power to establish, coordinate end
enforce Boning and such business regulations as are necessary for
tho protection of the public; and
t`
WHEREAS, The County pursuant thereto has adopted a Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance establishing regulations for the zoning of particular
geographic divisions of the County, among which is the granting of
provisional uses; and
WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission, being the duly
appointed and constituted planning board for the area hereby affected.
has held a public heaaing after notice as in said regulations made and
provided, and has considered the advisability of Provisional Use "a" in
a RSF-4 sons for the property hereinafter described, and has found as a
matter of fact (Exhibit "A") that satisfactory provision and
arrangement has been nude concerning all applicable natters required by
said regulations and in accordance with Section 13 - Id of the Zoning
Regulations for the Collie_ County Planning Commission; 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 promoted.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, EY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS of
1 .
Collier County, Florida that the petition of Community Development
Division, representing the Board of County Commissioners, with respect to
the property hereinafter described as:
Lots I through 23, Block "G", Little Hickory Shores,
Unit 13, as recorded in P?.at Book 6, Page 2, Official
Records of Collier County
°• 1884 109 flu 27
_Packet Page-3360- .
9/25/2012 Item 17.B.
°ma 109 FM 28
OCT 2 71987
c, be sad the saes is hereby approved for Provisional Use "a" of the REF-4
s..
4yv;- zoning district for Non-Cos.ercisl Bost Launching Facilities, subject to
• i
111$ the following conditions:
e Y L a. At tine of obtaining a dock permit, a right-of-way permit
: shall be obtained and the owner shall provide access
improvements to prevent dasage to the roadway and roadway
r drainage improvements.
J
't b. All boat docks ersctsd on the subject lots must comply
with Section 8.46 of the Zoning Ordinance (82-2).
I
• BE IT MINER RESOLVED that this resolution be recorded in tbs
` sm utas of this Board.
�
Cousisaioner Pistor offered the foregoing resolution
and sowed its adoption, seconded by Comiasioner nendnigh*
and upon roll call, the vote was:
. , AYES: Commissioners Pistor, Goodnight, Glass, Saunders and Hasse
NAYS: None
v.
M. ABSENT AND NOT VOTING: Nona
44
.• ABSTENTION: None
it Dona this 27th day of October , 1987.
j
BOARD OF ZONING A$FEALS
=tin COUNfl, FLORIDA
iTA • BY: ��i �_ ' ,J ,
L r / _
MAX A. SE, JR., i
`a: 1t�kAT*TEN't4
t, JAMS`Cl:GILES. CLEAN
c By: ' 4 //� i
• g la qrs., ty Clerk
ti APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL FVFFlCIENCT:
x R. DRUCR AR ON
i ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY
,. PU-87-17C Resolution .t
_ Packet Page -3361- . . . .. .._._.._,_._:._._. •_._._._... _,.
i
9/25/2012 Item 17.B.
. • -.:: OCT 27 1987
. $a �;
.
d,
• FNiIBIT A
e
t FINDING OF FACT
1'• ET
y.•
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FOR .
A PROVISIONAL USE PETITION
. FOR
PU-87-17C
y.
The following facts are found:
4.
I +
1. Section 7. 11 b.3)(a) of the Zoning Ordinance authorised the
provisional use.
2. Granting the provisional use will not aversely affect the public
interest and viii not adversely affect ther property or uses in
the same district or neighborhood because of:
A. General compliance with the Comprehensive Plan:
Complies with Comprehensive Plan
Yes _ No .
E. Ingress and egress to property and proposed structures thereon
with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety
and convenience, traffic flow and control, and access in ease
of firs or catastrophe:
Adequate ingress & egress
• Tea No
C. Affects neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare,
economic or odor effects:
k No affect or Affect mitigated by
Af iet cannot be mitigated
D. General compatibility with adjacent properties and other
property in the districts
Campstible use within district
Tee No
Eased on the above findings, this provisional use d, with
stipulations, (copy attached) (sMonid--noel-be rec. ' •ed f• `,. •ravel
DATE: J P7 chat.
FINDIMG OF FACT FORM -,
gr:
ii. 4�
t . beet 1O9pvt 29
._..._... ......._.._.. Packet Page -3362-......__. .._. ..-_ .._,__..._._...---........ ......... ... . .
- 9/25/2012 Item 17.B.
•
J n .t
try
sr
RESOLUTION 99-
A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT
OF NON-COMERCIAL BOAT LAUNCHING FACILITIES
CONDITIONAL USE 1 IN THE RSF-4 ZONING DISTRICT
PURSUANT TO SECTION 2.2.4.3. OF THE COLLIER
COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR PROPERTY
• LOCATED IN SECTION 5,TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE
25 EAST.COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA.
WHEREAS. the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 67-1246. Laws of Florida,and
Chapter 125. Florida Statutes.has conferred on Collier County the power to establish, coordinate and
enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public;and
WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (Ordinance
No. 91-102) which includes a Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance establishing regulations for the
zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County. among which is the granting of Conditional
Uses;and
WHEREAS. the Collier County Planning Commission. being the duly appointed and
constituted planning board for the area hereby affected,has held a public hearing after notice as in said
regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of Conditional Use I of Section
2.2.4.3. in an RSF-4 Zone for Non-commercial boat launching facilities on the property hereinafter
described,and has found as a matter of fact (Exhibit "A")that satisfactory provision and arrangement
have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with
Subsection 2.7.4.4 of the Land Development Code for the Collier County Planning Commission;and
WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this I3oard in a
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:
The petition filed by Collier County Development and Environmental Services Division
representing the Board of County Commissioners with respect to the property hereinafter described as:
Lots 1 through II, Block "H", Little Hickory Shores, Unit 03 Rc-Plat. as recorded in
• Plat Book 3,Page 97,Official Records of Collier County.
be and the same is hereby approved for Conditional Usc l of Section 2.2.4.3. of the RSF-4 Zoning
District for Non-commercial boat launching facilities subject to the following conditions:
All boat docks erected on the subject lots shall comply with the requirements of Section
2.6.21.of the Land Development Codc.
Packet Page-3363-
9/25/2012 Item 17.B.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this Board.
• This Resolution adopted after motion,second and majority vote.
Done this /I • day of `lau/. , 1999.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
COLLIE: COUNTY,FLORIDA
l/ ' li /(MV/
BY:/
D.ttest is to Chair-sal 1 'AMELA S. MAC'KIE.CI airwoman
st7naturt onl1.
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E.BROCK,Clerk
4.--Z4LIA•4A— e
Approved as to Form and
Legal Sufficiency:
MarjoI4e M.Student
Assistant County Attorney
WU-7.1M Rr•SOLUTION
Packet Page-3364-
9/25/2012 Item 17.B.
. ..1, 3 .. 1 .
0 A 34
FINDING OF FACT
BY
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FOR
A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION
FOR
CU-99-04
The following facts are found:
1 . Section of the Land Development Code
authorized the conditional use.
2 . Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the
public interest and will not adversely affect other property
or uses in the same district or neighborhood because of :
A. Consistency with the Land Development Code and Growth
Management Plan:
Yes No
No
B. Ingress and egress to property and proposed structures
thereon with particular reference to automotive and
pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and
control, and access in case of fire or :•atastrophe :
Adequate ingr s & egress
Yes No
C. Affects neighboring properties in rela*.. ion to noise,
g e, economic or odor effects:
No affect or Affect mitigated by
Affect cannot be mitigated
D. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other
property in the distric :
Compatible use w in district
Yes No
Based on the above findings, this conditional use should, with
stipulatio (copy attached) (should not) be recommended for
approval
DATE: 1 — �4 �q CHAIRMAN:
IIIIF
f/FI::GING OF FACT CHAIRMAN/
CIIII
EXHIBIT "A"
Packet Page -3365-.
9/25/2012 Item 17.B.
13Ai
FINDING OF FACT 4
BY
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FOR
A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION
FOR
CU-99-04
The following facts are found:
I . Section of the Land Development Code
authorized the conditional use.
2 . Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the
public interest and will not adversely affect other property
or uses in the same district or neighborhood because of :
A. Consistency with the Land Development Code and
Growth Management Plan:
Yes ' No
8. Ingress and egress to property and proposed
structures thereon with particular reference to
automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience,
traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire or
catastrophe:
Adequate ingress & egress
Yes ' No
C. Affects neighboring properties in relation to noise,
glare, economic or odor effects:
No affect or Affect mitigated by (,-
Affect cannot be mitigated
D. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other
property in the district:
Compatible use within district
Yes ✓ No
Based on the above findings, this conditional use should, with
stipulations, (copy attached) (should not) be recommended for
approval .
DATE: f' l-S MEMB • it_..�.• �-
f/FIND DIG OF FACT I.sR/
Packet Page -3366-
9/25/2012 Item 17.B.
4
FINDING OF FACT
BY
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FOR
A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION
FOR 134J
CU-99-04
The following facts are found:
1 . Section of the Land Development Code
authorized the conditional use.
2 . Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the
public interest and will not adversely affect other property
or uses in the same district or neighborhood because of :
A. Consistency with the Land Development Code and
Growth Management Plan:
Yes 1 ' No
B. Ingress and egress to property and proposed
structures thereon with particular reference to
automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience,
traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire or
catastrophe:
Adequate ingress & egres-s
Yes L. No
C. Affects-tieiahboring properties in relation to noise,
glare economic or odor effects:
t/ No affect or Affect mitigated by
Affect cannot be mitigated
D. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other
property in the district:
Compatible use within district
Yes L. No
Based on the above findings, this conditional use sho ld, with
stipulations, (copy attached) (should not) be recomme ded for
approval y'.5
-
DATE: r f �'�1; MEMBER:,/#/ 7/ 7--
:/PINDIMS or PACT MOJA/
•
Packet Page-3367-
9/25/2012 Item 17.B.
FINDING OF FACT
BY
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FOR
A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION
FOR
•
CU-99-04 13Ai .,44 1
The following facts are found:
1 . Section of the Land Development Code
authorized the conditional use.
2 . Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the
public interest and will not adversely affect other property
or uses in the same district or neighborhood because of :
A. Consistency with the Land Development Code and .
Growth Management Plan:
Yes L No
B. Ingress and egress to property and proposed
structures thereon with particular reference to
automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience,
traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire or
catastrophe:
Adequate ingress & egress
Yes ,Z No
C. Affects neighboring properties in relation to noise,
glare, economic or odor effects:
No affect or Affect mitigated by
Affect cannot be mitigated
D. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other
property in the district:
Compatible use within district
Yes No j
•
Based on the above findings, this conditional use should, with
stipulations, (copy attached) (should not) be.recom ended for
approval ;
DATE: —y 1 MEMBER: �j'ur,s
i,
C/FINDING or PACT "WSW
•
Packet Page -3368-
9/25/2012 Item 17.B.
FINDING CF FACT
EY
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FOR
A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION
FOR I 3 A .,,,�
CU-99-04 •
The following facts are found:
Section of the Land Development Code
authorized the conditional use.
2 . Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the
public interest and will not adversely affect other property
or uses in the same district or neighborhood because of :
•
A. Consistency with the Land Development Code and
Growth Management Pi4n:
Yes V No
E. Ingress and egress to property and proposed
structures thereon with particular reference to
automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience,
traffic flow and control, and access in case cf fire or
catastrophe: / ; ,
Adequate ingress & bress
Yes �" No
C. Affects neighboring properties in relation to noise,
glar , economic or odor effects:
No affect or Affect mitigated by
Affect cannot be mitigated
D. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other
property in the district:
Compatible use_ y/ithin district
Yes V No
Based on the above findings, this conditional use should, with
stipulations, (copy attached) { )2 be rec/ ded fpr
approval • '
DATE: ' j zip G MEMBER/ C -G
t/PINDMG OP PAC: PmtEat/
Packet Page-3369-
9/25/2012 Item 17.B.
3 . :.
FINDING OF FACT
BY
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 13/11 FOR
A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION
• FOR
CU-99-04
The following facts are found:
1 . Section of the Land Development Code
authorized the conditional use.
2 . Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the
public interest and will not adversely affect other property
or uses in the same district or neighborhood because of :
A. Consistency with the Land Development Code and
Growth Management Plan:
Yes .% No
B. Ingress and egress to property and proposed
structures thereon with particular reference to
automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience,
traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire or
catastrophe:
Adequate ingress & egress
Yes / No
C. Affects neighboring properties in relation to noise,
glare, economic or odor effects:
No affect or Affect mitigated by
Affect cannot be mitigated
D. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other
property in the district:
Compatible use within district
Yes � No
Based on the above findings, this conditional use should, with
stipulations, (copy attached)(ishoul�. :iot) be recommended for
approval .
DATE: y /5 9 i MEMBER: /i(.�,c.,.-lief
f/FINDIM3 OF FACT flZ BDI/
Packet Page-3370-
9/25/2012 Item 17.B.
FINDING OF FACT
BY
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FOR
A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION
FOR
CU-99-04 loll
13A1
The following facts are found:
1 . Section of the Land Development Code
authorized the conditional use.
2 . Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the
public interest and will not adversely affect other property
or uses in the same district or neighborhood because of :
A. Consistency with the Land Development Code and
Growth Management Plan:
Yes No
B. Ingress and egress to •property and proposed
structures thereon with particular reference to
automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience,
traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire or
catastrophe:
Adequate ingress & egress
Yes No
C. Affects neighboring properties in relation co noise,
glare, economic or odor effects:
No affect or Affect mitigated by
Affect cannot be mitigated
D. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other
property in the district:
Compatible use within district
Yes No
Based on the above findings, this conditional use should, with
stipulations, (copy attached) (should not) be recommended for
approval .
DATE: MEMBER: l
t/FINDING or PACT I(DmDI/
Packet Page-3371-
•
9/25/2012 Item 17.B.
. 3
FINDING OF FACT
BY
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FOR
A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION
FOR Al
CU-99-04
The following facts are found:
_ . Section of the Land Development Code
authorized the conditional use.
2 . Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the
public interest and will not adversely affect other property
cr uses in the same district or neighborhood because of :
A. Consistency with the and Development _ode and
Growth Management P1 n:
Yes V No
B. :Egress and egress to property and prcp:.sed
structures thereon with particular reference tc
automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience,
traffic flow and control , and access in case cf fire or
catastrophe :
Adequate ingress & ec-ess
Yes V1 No
C. Affects neighboring properties in relation tc noise,
clay , economic or odor effects:
No affect or Affect mitigated by
Affect cannot be mitigated
D. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other
property in the district:
Compatible use w,i.thin district
Yes No
Based on the above findings, this conditional use should, with
stipulations, (copy attached) !should not) be recomm 'ed for
approval
DATE: y 9 9 MEMBER: `t dad .� «_
t/FXWD Na of PACT MOM/
/
Packet Page -3372-
9/25/2012 Item 17.B. '
I FINDING OF FACT
EY
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSI N 4
FOR
A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION
FOR
• CU-99-04
•
The following facts are found:
1 . Section of the Land Development Code
authorized the conditional use.
2 . Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the
public interest and will not adversely affect other property
or uses in the same district or neighborhood because of:
A. Consistency with the Land Development Code and
Growth Management P• 1}.n
(Yes ) r .No
B. Ingress and egress to property and prc.posed
structures thereon with particular reference to
automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience,
traffic flow and control, and access incase of fire or
catastrophe:
Adequate ingreap e&_ Tess
Yes` YY No
C. Affe neighboring properties in relation to noise,
g , is or odor effects:
o affec or Affect mitigated by
Affect cannot be mitigated
D. Compatibility with adj - ent properties and other
property in the dist • ct:
Compatib - ithin district
No
Based on the above findings, this conditional use should, with
stipulations, -- - - _ - be recommended for
approval APPROVE ,Q
DATE: 4 15/99 MEMBER: , u, , i
1/
u44
f/FINDING OF FACT Meat/
Packet Page-3373-
9/25/2012 Item 17.B.
24D » Wednesday,September 5,2012 )> NAPLES DAILY NEWS
NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER RESOLUTION
Notice is hereby given that the Board of County Commissioners, as the Board of
Zoning Appeals,of Collier County will hold a public hearing on Tuesday,September
25, 2012, in the Boardroom, 3rd Floor, Administration Building, Collier County
Government Center, 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida. The meeting will
begin 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, RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER VA-PL2011-2627, FOR A VARIANCE
FROM LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS 4.02.03 AND 5.03.06.E.5 TO PERMIT A
REDUCED RIPARIAN SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM 73 FEET TO 0 FEET ON THE WEST
SIDE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND A REDUCED RIPARIAN SIDE YARD SETBACK
FROM 73 FEET TO 1.55 FEET ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY
LOCATED ON LOT 6, BLOCK G OF THE LITTLE HICKORY SHORES SUBDIVISION IN
•SECTION 5,TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH,RANGE 25 EAST IN COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA.
A copy of the proposed Resolution is on file with the Clerk to the Board and is
available for inspection. All interested parties are invited to attend and be heard.
NOTE: All Persons wishing to speak on any agenda item must register with the
County.Administrator.prior to presentation of the agenda item to be addressed.
Individual speakers will be limited to 3 minutes on any item. The selection of an ,
individual to speak on behalf of an organization or group is encouraged.
If recognized by the Chair, a spokesperson for a group or organization may be
allotted.10 minutes to speak on an item.
Persons wishing to have written or graphic materials included in the Board agenda
packets must submit said material a minimum of•3 weeks prior to the respective
public hearing. In any case, written materials intended to be considered by the
Board shall be submitted to the appropriate County staff a minimum of seven days
prior to the public hearing. All material used in presentations before the Board will
become a permanent part of the record.
Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the Board will need a record of the
proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim
record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and
evidence upon which the appeal is based. •
• If you are a person with disability who needs any accommodation 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
Department, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suite #101, Building W, Naples,
Florida 34112, (239)252-8380; assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are
available in the County Commissioners'Office.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA .
FRED COYLE;CHAIRMAN •
DWIGHT E.BROCK,CLERK •
By: Martha Vergara,Deputy Clerk •
(SEAL)
September 5.2012 No 1960338
•
•
•
•
Packet Page-3374-
•
9/25/2012 Item 17.B.
RESOLUTION NO. 12-
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, RELATING TO
PETITION NUMBER VA-PL2011-2627 FOR A VARIANCE
FROM LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS 4.02.03
AND 5.03.06.E.5 TO PERMIT A REDUCED RIPARIAN
SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM 7.5 FEET TO 0 FEET ON
THE WEST SIDE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND A
REDUCED RIPARIAN SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM 7.5
FEET TO 135 FEET ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATED ON LOT 6, BLOCK G
OF THE LITTLE HICKORY SHORES SUBDIVISION IN
SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST 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 was made and provided, and has considered the advisability of a
variance from Sections 4.02.03 and 5.03.06.E.5 of the Land Development Code to permit a
reduced west riparian side yard setback from 7.5 feet to 0 feet and a reduced east riparian side
yard setback from 7.5 feet to 1.55 feet for a dock facility as shown on the attached Exhibit "A" in
the RSF-4 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 "I'IIE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that:
Petition Number VA-PL2011-2627 filed on behalf of Donald E. Gray by D. Wayne
Arnold, AICP of Q. Grady Minor and Associates. P.A. with respect to the property hereinafter
described as:
Lot 6, Block G. of that certain subdivision known as LITTLE HICKORY
SHORES, REPLAT OF UNIT 3, according to the map or plat thereof on file and
Amok
Gray Variance TVA-PL201 1-2627
Rev 9/04/12 1 of 2
Packet Page-3375-
9/25/2012 Item 17.B.
recorded in Plat Book 6, page 2. Public Records of Collier County, Florida (Folio
No. 56000880009)
be and the same hereby is approved for a variance to permit a reduced west riparian side yard
setback from 7.5 feet to 0 feet and a reduced east riparian side yard setback from 7.5 feet to 1.55
feet for a dock facility as shown on the attached Exhibit "A" in the RSF-4 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
2012.
ATTEST: BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA
By: By:
. Deputy Clerk FRED W. COYLE, Chairman
Approved as to form and
legal sufficiency:
t;
Heidi Ashton-Cicko
Managing Assistant County Attorney
Attachment: Exhibit A— Site Plan
11-CPS-01131/18•
Gray Variance/VA-PL201 1-2627
Rev 9/04/12 � of 2
Packet Page-3376-
9/25/2012 Item 17 B
, ...
'.I;I.ti RI'',' •
I -- ,, a
71
„AN
;i:
71 ,,.
I I-,. ::""S
.7. ''' ?.:.t.',' 0
,. ,, __.... :- ,.:,,,I"4.•
, .
, . .
. . '...:„.; ',,, ,, "....„..■
■ ; . ; ,,,____.--.
■ ,___----- i , .,t :c."
Y . ...._...,- ., .
' :i.
0., ,... .......,......_
, ,........___....................„...
.....„_-_„„....--,
................-
f•4 , ---.,
o ,
, , • __„------ ,,,.
:<-
0 .L, ,...,, ■-.4 ,.:
,-.■ m +-I .,
* I. rq '-'• , _, --
ko P
> C3 CI
N ' F• E''!,
. -_-.....-„
--.7.-- ,
. =0_ • .
— .
. , .
I
, = ___,------- \
‘r:,.‘ 1 ... ..
,...: .
/ ,.,-------
1..1 A
ri
.., ,
•,', 1 , -......- IV7O;,... cir,,,,,.' 4, 7 LI tt
.... .,.. s
z,...&". .... ,..■
1 -,,".1'.' ,.....t .
t ...t. ,,. .
-----1- I ..,,,,-Sr. /..,,, &,..,. ''''., * "...L.T;,,,,,V., :..., :• :
-----'."\'' 1 N'_.. 7C.: 1 ''\‘ ':.,N\ C..9 „...t"-- \
..
t :, , 11:•.:4-l','''''''
CO Ti .7.. 1 • Ask
...t ...-", CD 0 ill--t, \
k ,,
A2.. ,,- 1 ': %%0'".As1:\ 0 Fr Ft:-9 \
""=" \ ' "-I''''''' '''"C14'1''\"1,),C6,3'V') 0 al''
----L,,,„ , m-7, . -- „..--- 6- - .1 -, 0 -_-:,0,„.
.....-- Y : ;"‘ S -ls _,-..-r:o
. ,.....--"--' „, \ 7,--, t.:.z •=, .....,
'2 4 ',9-•'s i x ...---- 00 ..,--,' + .e,..-- A 11,1, -s,..
,, 7 ,,,, t,-. ,4.40 ...-- c,/ ,,--, ,,,4,k,._ ,-,N,\ '...-' ;....5.
'..'.i \
'- ,--:-....,', , i.q.11.--- I\ „--
-- -----4.7-: `':'..----..”" )ti'' --- -'4”-. ,,,....---\,
:-----'.1`,„ ,-*--',-"Ak';
,,," \ 4-5r I ':.'"q ''-.\
A/' r. a i ,7.5''' \ ,.-----e-
0.,',
,--'■ 4..... \,\,,,...,--'.\
OD ,
, _. . ,
, ...,.... .,,v,...,
r..
",r. ,■
; •., °°A, .S„,,8
° C-. It
,,,.„...- , - , ,..._
• , ---0;,---
0 ''''.;,..„.\ „- s /,.--;4t1...t:_s,,,,.__,(..,„;-11 ...
.,..,
.,
I;.1.-: ,-. "; ;-,
' "c‘t, ....< I ‘ it,,i,
-,-. ....,
CD
1 ...,2, ..
..-..- ...--
........- . ; .i.t,z
w .... -, ;..,. ...„....„..4..
. -
•
-----I'''' -- -
' ■ .4
H
H .....,
. _.
„.,
. .,
7..?.■ .
1
1
: .
......_........ ,
Packet Page-3377-