The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda 02/10/2009 Item # 8A Agenda Item No. 8A February 10, 2009 Page 1 of 117 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY RZ-2008-AR-12930, Collier County Coastal Zone Management Department, represented by Laura Dejohn, AICP, of Johnson Engineering, Inc., is requesting a Rezone from the Residential Multi-family (RMF-6) and Commercial Intermediate (C- 3) zoning districts to the Community Facility (CF) zoning district to provide overflow parking for the Bayview Park boat launch. The approximately subject property is located in Section 23, Township 50 South and Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) consider an application to rezone approximately 1.33 acres of land as noted above to allow an overflow boat trailer parking lot for Bayview Park; and to insure that the community's interests are maintained. CONSIDERATIONS: The applicant proposes to construct an off-site parking lot for Bayview Park, a water- related park located in the City of Naples, approximately 1,800 feet west of the subject property. The proposal would provide 39 boat trailer parking spaces, as well as a road linking Bay Street and Danford Street to provide users of the facility with a more direct route between the parking lot and the park. The County, based on Board direction and approval, has gradually acquired the eight subject parcels, along with five others in the neighborhood, as a result of a recommendation made in the 2003 Beach and Boat Access Report (see Appendix 2 of the attached Staff Report), which advised: The County should consider purchasing available residential lots along Danford Street to be used for ove/flow trailer parking. The Parks and Recreation Department requested additional parking from the Hamilton Harbor Development of Regional Impact, and in {sic] original plans fifteen spaces were provided. Huwever, the must recent plans fur the Hamilton Harbor marina do nut pruvide the requested ,paces. The BCC approvcd thc Bcach and Boat Access Master Plan, designed to expand recreational beach and boat access opportunities in the County, in May of 2003; and on April 13, 2004, approved real estate incentives to aid in the purchase of properties adjacent to Bayview Park as a means of furthering this plan. A timeline of the Boards direction and purchasing activities is attached. ......... The applicants maintain that the provision of 39 boat trailer parking spaces at this time is imperative due to the recent popularity of Bayview Park's boat ramp, which has resulted in patrons' unsafe practice of parking vehicles and boat trailers along the Danford Street and Hamilton Avenue (fonnerly Fem Street) rights-of-way once the park's parking capacity has been reached. Presently, Bayview Park has 35 standard parking spaces and 16 boat trailer parking spaces; however. separate from this application, the County's Coastal Zone Page I of9 Agenda Item No. 8A February 10, 2009 Page 2 of 117 Management Department is proposing to redesign the park site to add an additional boat launch and reduce the number of standard spaces by 9 and increase boat trailer parking spaces by 24, bringing the total number of spaces to 26 and 40, respectively. If the subject rezone application is approved, the total number of boat trailer spaces available to users of the park, including the 40 overflow trailer spaces proposed apart from this application, would be 79; and the number of standard parking spaces would remain at 26. As depicted in the submitted Conceptual Master Plan, entitled "Rezone to CF Overflow Parking Bayview Park," prepared by Johnson Engineering and dated October 2008, vehicular access to the site would be afforded via an ingress point on Hamilton Avenue. According to the applicants, after launching their boats at the park, users would leave their vehicles at the subject site and walk approximately 1,800 feet back to the park along Bay Street and Danford Street, which would be linked by the proposed 20-foot wide access road located approximately 550 feet west of the parking lot. Along this access road, a six-foot wide sidewalk would be provided to allow pedestrians an off-street pathway. To retrieve their trailers after boating, patrons would walk back to the parking lot via Danford Street. the access road's sidewalk and Bay Street; exit with their vehicles from the lot's egress point on Bay Street; and return to the park by turning either right, via Bay Street and the access road, or by turning left, via Bay Street, Hamilton Avenue and Danford Street. As previously noted, a total of 39 boat trailer parking spaces would be provided in the lot, with handicapped parking accommodated on the Bayview Park site. The northern and western boundaries of the parking lot would be separated from their adjacent uses by a IS-foot wide Type B buffer, which would surpass the LDC-required buffer by providing an additional five feet in width; trees planted five feet closer on center; and a five-foot hedgerow. The western and southern boundaries of the lot, and the western and eastern sides of the proposed access road linking Danford and Bay streets, would each have ten-foot Type 0 buffers with a double hedgerow maintained at six feet (instead of three feet) and would be enhanced by the strict use of only native species. A vinyl chain- link fence is proposed to separate the uses, although the LDC requires the provision of masonry or prefabricated concrete wall. Because this petition is for a Rezone and not a Planned Unit Development (PUD). deviations from the LDC are not permitted. Therefore, should this petition be approved, statT has included a condition of approval requiring that the site conform to Subsection 5.03.02.E of the LDC. LDC Subsection 10.03.05.1.2 requires the Planning Commission to study and consider a proposed rezoning in relation to 18 specific criteria. A complete analysis of the project relative to these criteria has been included in the staff report. FISCAL IMPACT: The proposed parking lot, in and of itself. would have no fiscal impact on Collier County. There is no guarantee that the project. at build out, would maximize its authorized level of development, however, if the use were approved, a portion of the existing land would be developed and the new development would result in an impact on Collier County public facilities. Page 2 of9 Agenda Item No. 8A February 10, 2009 Page 3 of 117 The County collects all applicable impact fees before the issuance of building permits to help offset the impacts of each new development on its public facilities. These impact fees are used to fund projects identified in the Growth Management Plan's (GMP) Capital Improvement Element (CIE) needed to maintain adopted Levels of Service (LOS) for public facilities. Additionally, in order to meet the requirements of Section 10.02.07(C) of the Land Development Code, 50 percent of the estimated Transportation Impact Fees associated with the project are required to be paid simultaneously with the approval of each final local development order. Other fees collected before the issuance of a building permit include building permit review fees. It should be noted that the inclusion of impact fees and collected taxes are for informational purposes only, and they were not included in the criteria used by staff and the Planning Commission to analyze this petition. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) IMPACT: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The site lies within the Urban Mixed-Use District, Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict of the Future Land Use Map. The Urban Mixed-Use District provides for water-dependent and water-related uses, and other recreational uses, including water-related parks, public or private marinas, yacht clubs, or associated accessory and recreational uses, such as boat storage, launching facilities, fueling facilities, and restaurants. Although the subject site is not a shoreline property, it serves Bayview Park. which as a shoreline development is a water-related use. Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Objective 10.2 of the CCME states, "The County shall continue to insure that access to beaches, shores and waterways remain [sic} available to the public and continue with its program to expand the availability o.t" such access and a method to fund its acquisition. " The County's purchase and rezoning of the subject parcels in the vicinity of Bayview Park to develop an overflow parking facility furthers this policy. CCME Policy 12.2.7 states, "The County shall continue to assess all undeveloped property within the coastal high hazard area and make recommendations on appropriate land use. " The subject petition, which proposes CF zoning for an overflow parking lot, would remove residential and commercial parcels from the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA) and enhance public access to water-related recreational uses and launching facilities. Recreation and Open Space Element (ROSE): Policy 1.1.5 states, "Continue to correct or improve existing parks and recreation facilities [sic} deficiencies which are necessmy in order to meet the level of service standards. " The need for an overflow parking facility is evidenced by vehicles' parking along the streets that serve Bayview Park. The proposed overflow parking lot, in addition to the anticipated expansion of the ramp facilities and trailer parking spaces internal to the park. would help to address this unmet demand. Page 3 of9 Agenda Item No. SA February 10, 2009 Page 4 of 117 ROSE Objective 1.3 states, "Continue to ensure that all public developed recreational facilities. open space and beaches and public water bodies are accessible to the general public. "The proposed rezoning request would provide 39 overflow parking spaces as well as a sidewalk from the parking spaces to Bayview Park. ROSE Policy 1.3.1 states, "Coun~y-owned or -managed parks and recreation facilities shall have automobile, bicycle and/or pedestrian access, where the location is appropriate and where such access is economically feasible. " As stated, the proposed parking lot would provide a total of 39 boat trailer parking spaces for Bayview Park; an access road; and a sidewalk leading to the park on County-owned properties. However, Comprehensive Planning leaves the detemlination as to the appropriateness of the location of these facilities to the Zoning and Land Development Review staff as part of their review of this petition in its entirety. ROSE Policy 1.4.2 states, "Continue to develop and implement a formal program for coordinating County programs with other government agencies. Collier County shall continue to coordinate the provision of recreational facilities and activities with other governmental jurisdictions that own or operate such facilities and activities within. or adjacent to, Collier County. Said governmental entities shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the City of Naples, Florida. " The City of Naples was given a courtesy review of this proposal. However, Bayview Park itself is located within the corporate limits of the City of Naples, and the enhancements proposed to the park, which are apart from this application, would be required to be approved by that jurisdiction. ROSE Objective 1.6 states, "Whenever possible and practical, utilize County-owned property for recreational uses. " As previously noted, Collier County is the owner of the eight lots that are the subject of this rezoning petition. FLUE Policy 5.4 states, "New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, surrounding uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code." Comprehensive Planning leaves this compatibility detennination to the Zoning and Land Development Review staff as part of their review. FLUE Policy 7.1 states, "The County shall encourage devclopers and property owners to connect their properties to ji-onting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. " The subject property does not front on a collector or arterial road. Transportation Element: The Transportation Planning Department considers this petition to be consistent with Transportation Element Policies 5.1 and 5.2, subject to the condition that no structures are erected on any of the subject parcels, except for a booth for personnel associated with parking fee collection; and that no such booth (or machine associated with parking fee collection), nor any gate, be located so as to create traffic queuing into the public right-of-way. Page 4 of9 Agenda Item No. 8A Febnuary 10, 2009 Page 5 of 117 Based upon the above analysis, Comprehensive Planning staff concludes this petition may be deemed consistent with the FLUE of the GMP. AFFORDABLE HOUSING IMPACT: This application proposes a rezone to the CF Zoning District As such, approval of this rezone would have no affordable housing impact ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: The Environmental Services Department has reviewed this petition and has recommended approvaL ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION: Pursuant to LDC Section 8.06,03 0,1 Powers and Duties, the EAC did not review this petition because no protected species or wetland impacts were identified on the site, However, the Environmental Services Department has reviewed this petition and has found no environmental issues associated with it COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The CCPC heard this petition at their December 4,2008 meeting, and voted 6-2 to forward it to the BCC with a recommendation of denial for its failure to comply with the following provisions of the GMP: . The proposal is not consistent with Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) Policy 12.2.7, as determined by Comprehensive Planning staff, since that provision applies only to undeveloped properties and some of the parcels proposed with the subject petition are already developed with single- family homes. . The proposal is not necessarily consistent with Recreation and Open Space Element (ROSE) Policy 1, 1.5 since the provision of oIT-site boat trailer parking is not the only alternative to achieving improved LOS standards. . The proposal is not consistent with ROSE Policy 1.3.1, as determined by Comprehensive Planning staff, since it limits automobile and pedestrian access to where the location is appropriate. (The CCPC considered the proposed parking lot to be inappropriate for the location,) . The proposal is not consistent with ROSE Policy 1.4.2, as determined by Comprehensive Planning staff, since the Parks and Recreation Department failed to coordinate the provision of 15 boat trailer parking spaces at Hamilton Harbor PUD with the City of Naples (which was authorized by Collier County to review and approve the portion ofthe PUD within its jurisdictional boundaries). . The proposal is not consistent with FLUE Policy 5.4, as determined by Zoning and Land Development Review staff. which requires new developments to be compatible with, and complementary to, surrounding uses. Page 5 of9 Agenda Item No. 8A February 10, 2009 Page 6 of 117 The CCPC also noted the proposal's failure to comply with the provisions of Subsection 10.03.05.1.2 of the LDC, specifically criteria: 1,2,3,5,6,7.10, II, 12. 13, ]4, 15, and 18, as noted below (an excerpt of the verbatim minutes has been attached as Appendix A): . An off-site parking lot for a public boat launch and pedestrian/vehicular access road would not be compatible among these low-density residential uses. . The proposed rezoning would create an isolated CF Zoning District within a neighborhood that is predominantly zoned RMF-6. . The existing district boundaries are already logically drawn and do not need to be changed. . There are no new conditions on the site that make rezoning the area necessary. . The proposal would adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. . The change would excessively increase traffic congestion and create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses. . The provision of off-site boat parking spaces within the neighborhood would most certainly diminish property values. . The remaining vacant lots would not likely be developed with residential uses in accordance with the existing zoning if the subject petition were approved. . Approval of the rezone would grant a special privilege to government since a private developer would not possibly be able to get approval with such a project. . There is no substantial reason why the property can not be used in accordance with the existing zoning. . A commercial parking lot is certainly out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood. . There are other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use. . Boat trailer parking for the use should be expanded on the County-owned park site itself rather than authorized to overflow into a residential neighborhood, or accomplished through the consolidation of the three neighborhood properties zoned for the use; but in no way should a parking lot be forced into a successful and established residential neighborhood to accommodate an expanding use. Staff has received] 8 letters of objection and two petitions opposing the project from the surrounding neighbors. Because the CCPe's recommendation was not unanimous, this item could not be placed on the Summary Agenda. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: The petitioner is requesting a rezone from the Residential Multifamily (RMF-6) and Commercial Intermediate (C-3) zoning districts to the Community Facility (CF) Zoning District for an overflow boat trailer parking lot for Bayview Park. The attached staff report and recommendations of the Planning Commission required are advisory only and are not binding on you. Decisions regarding this type of rezone are quasi-judicial, and all testimony given must be under oath. The petitioner has the burden to prove that the proposed rezone is consistent with all the criteria set forth below, and you may question the petitioner or staff to satisfy yourself that the necessary criteria have been met. Approval of this request to rezone requires four affirmative votes of the Board. Should you consider Page 60f9 Agenda Item No. 8A February 10, 2009 Page 7 of 117 denying the rezone, to assure 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: Criteria for Strail!ht Rezones Will the proposed change be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and future land use map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan? Will the proposed rezone be appropriate considering the existing land use pattern? Would the proposed rezone result in the possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts? Are the existing district boundaries illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change? Do changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary? Will the proposed change adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood? Will the proposed change create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety? Will the proposed change create a drainage problem? Will the proposed change seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas? Will the proposed change adversely affect property values in the adjacent area? Will the proposed change be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations? Will the proposed change constitute a grant of :,pecia! privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare? Are there substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning? Is the change suggested out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county? Consider: Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. Page 7 of9 Agenda Item No. 8A February 10, 2009 Page 8 of 117 Consider: The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. What is the impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance [Code ch.l 06, art.II], as amended? Are there other factors, standards, or criteria relating to this rezone request that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare? The proposed Ordinance was prepared by the County Attorney's Office and is sufficient for Board action. -STW SUMMARY: Although a rezoning of this site to the CF Zoning District to allow a boat trailer parking lot would place a community facility in close proximity to the boat launch creating the demand, it is staff s opinion that boat trailer parking should, for the time being, be expanded on the County-owned park site itself within the City of Naples and should not be authorized to overflow into an existing residential neighborhood. Additional parking spaces could also be provided by-right through the consolidation of the three neighborhood properties abutting Hamilton A venue, already zoned C- 3. In any event, forcing a parking lot within a successful and established residential neighborhood in order to accommodate an expanding use appears to be extremely premature at this time and potentially detrimental to the success of that community. Furthermore, as noted in the staff report, Bayview Park's total number of on-site boat trailer parking spaces will already be increased to 40 once the applicants have redesigned the park, According to the Boat and Beach Access Plan approved by the BCC, the park's boat trailer parking deficit is 56 spaces. It is staffs opinion that because of the inherent incompatibilities between the proposed public boat trailer parking lot and residential developmcnt, this 16-space shortfall would be more appropriately recouped on the park site itself (by removing the existing playground or otherwise redesigning the site), or within the neighborhood's C-3 zoning areas adjacent to Hamilton A venue, as noted above. This would also eliminate the need for an access road through the middle of the neighborhood, included merely to facilitate the parking lot's cut through traffic; and although this road would provide the benefit of 270 feet of off-street sidewalks, users would still need to walk in the Bay or Danford street rights-of-way for the remaining, approximately 1,400 feet to the park. For these reasons, Zoning and Land Development Review staff finds the proposed parking lot to be incompatible with the provisions of the LDC and, in particular, with Policy 5.4 of the FLUE. Similarly, staff finds the proposed access road linking Danford Street and Bay Street to be inconsistent with ROSE Policy 1.3.1. Page 80f9 Agenda Item No. 8A February 10, 2009 Page 9 of 117 RECOMMENDA nON: Staff recommends that the BCC deny RZ-2008-AR-12930. However, should the BCC choose to approve the petition, staff recommends that they do so subject to the following conditions, contained in the attached ordinance: I. The Master Plan provided is considered conceptual in nature. Development of the parking area shall be consistent with the LDC requirements at the time of Site Development Plan (SDP) review and approval. 2. Access lighting to illuminate the site's Bay Street pedestrian crosswalk shall be required at the time of SDP review and approval. 3. Parking lot areas shall be composed of a porous material, such as pavers or another similar type of approved porous material that do not produce airborne dust. 4. Irrespective of that depicted on the Master Plan, a masonry wall, as required by Subsection 5.03.02.E of the LDC, shall be provided to separate the parking lot from adjoining residential uses. 5. The hours of operation shall be posted on the site, and a locking gate shall be secured at all times outside of these operating hours. PREPARED BY: John-David Moss, AICP, Principal Planner Department of Zoning & Land Development Review Page 9 of9 Item Number: Item Summary: Meeting Date: Page] of2 Agenda Item No. 8A February 10, 2009 Page 10 of 117 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 8A This item requires that all participants be sworn In and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. RZ-200e.AR-12930, Collier County Coastal Zone Management represented by Laura Dejohn of Johnson Engineering, Inc., requesting a Rezone from the RMF.6 (Residential Multi-family) and C-3 (Commercial Intermediate) to CF (Community Facility) to provide a parkmg lot for the Bayvlew Park boat launch. The subject property IS located in Section 23, TownshIp 50 South and Range 25 East, Collier County. Florida. CTS 2110/2009900:00 AM Prepared By John.David Moss Community Development & Environmental Services Senior Planner Date Approved By Zoning & Land Development 9/22/20089:31 :37 AM Judy Puig Community Development & Environmental Services Operations Analyst Community Development & Environmental Services Admin. Date 1/20120092:53 PM Approved By Steven Williams Attorney's Office Assistant County Attorney Attorney's Office Date 1/26/200910:15 AM Approved By Jeff Klatzkow County Attorney Assistant County Attorney County Attorney Office Date 1/26/20094:45 PM Approved By Joseph K. Schmitt Community Development & Environmental Services Community Development & Environmental Services Adminstrator Community Development & Environmental Services Admin. Date 1/26/20098:34 PM Approved By Susan Istenes, AICP Community Development & Environmental Services Zoning & Land Development Director Date Approved By Zoning & Land Development Review 1/27120098:57 AM Ray Bellows Community Development & Environmental Services Chief Planner Date Approved By Zoning & Land Development Review 1/26/20098:41 AM OMS Coordinator County Manager's Office OMS Coordinator Date Office of Management & Budget 1/28/200910:33 AM Approved By Mark Isackson County Manager's Office Budget Analyst Office of Management & Budget Date 1/30/20091:47 PM file://C :\Agenda T est\Export\ 123 -F ebruary%20 1 0,%202009\08. %20ADVER Tl SED%20PUB ... 2/4/2009 Page 2 of2 Agenda Item No. 8A February 10, 2009 Page 11 of 117 Approved By James V. Mudd Board of County Commissioners County Manager Date County Manager's Office 2/2/2009 9:30 AM file://C:IAgendaTestIExportl 123-February%20 1 0, %202009108.%20ADVER TlSED%20PUB... 2/4/2009 Agenda Item No. 8A February 10, 2009 Page 12 of 117 ,~-~.~~"-,.- ~--,,- .,.-.,,-.., ,- -, . '--"~" -I"'~~"--'""~""'-' -----..'--'..--..-~,'-, '" r ;A,ctivities Related to the 'Deve optment OJ Bay<view : ~J"., ,,'". "'.. ....,....,..Pi:!.r~ R.v,g[fJ:O\'V"P"p-rk~,",-,,,,,...,,..,,, .~, ..,.... "~oj March 12. 2003 - (BCC Workshop) BCC hears recommendations for the 2003 Beach and Boat Access Report, which uses established benchmarks and guiding principles to demonstrate current and future needs. Staff recommends the following general principles to guide the County's decisions with regard to maintaining and expanding boat launch and beach access facilities: . Standards set by the Florida Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Planning Guide or comparable industry guidance tools should be adhered to whenever practicable. . Estimates of carrying capacities and levels of service should always take into consideration peak use times and seasonal populations. . All new boat ramp and beach access facilities should be developed with adequate parking as a primary goal. . Improvement upon the current level of service for boat launch facilities should be a goal of the County. . Creation of a system for more countywide comprehensive planning with regard to boat launch and beach access facilities should be considered. . The County should consider the purchase of available properties that would be suitable locations for boat ramps. BCC directs staff to bring back a Master Plan for implementation of its above recommendations that can be adopted in a Master Plan. May 27. 2003 ~ During a regular scheduled BCC Meeting, the BCC adopts a Beach and Boat Access Master Plan which incorporated the recommendations / policies recommended from the March 12, 2003 meeting. (Resolution No. 2003. 193, Agenda Item 1 OE, See Attachment A). Included in the Master Plans guiding policies were the following two items concerning Bayview Park: . Exhibit A.3. The County will maximize parking opportunities at existing boat launch locations. Recognizing the cost of waterfront boat launch facilities, the County should pursue opportunities to expand parking around present locations. Recommendations regarding the expansion of services to include onsite boat storage or other amenities not previously provided by the County (as has been requested by some residents of the community) are not within the scope of this plan. Agenda Item No. 8A February 10, 2009 Page 13 of 117 . Boating Access (Bayview Park) - The County should consider purchasing available space around Bayview Park to be used for additional trailer parking. The Parks and Recreation Department requested additional parking from Hamilton Harbor Development of Regional Impact, and in original plans fifteen spaces were provided. However, the most recent plans show that the request could not be accommodated due to environmental issues. Motion adopted for the Master Plan and passed 5/0. Staff asks for direction regarding potential funding sources for the Master Plan recommendations / policies. lulv 29. 2003-BCC Meeting Agenda Item # 8B/8C - In lieu of boating access to Heritage Bay DRI lakes, developer contributed $700,000 for use for regional park facilities. April 13. 2004 - BCC Meeting Agenda Item #16D1 - Approval of real estate incentives to aid the purchase for beach and boat access. Stated in the Executive Summary was using funds from the Heritage Bay DRI to contribute in the purchase of lands to provide parking for boat launching parking consistent with Bayview Park. B L dP h , ---Daie~-c~~mmBCe"Agena~~'~Prite'''''~~m- _:.,"_ __ __." _ __" ~ ". ... Item __ _ "". __ __ ...._ ___ ___ .._ _... __ May 11, 2004 10E 7 $1,129,400 November 16, 1602 3 $92,730 2004 December 14, 1601 2 $22,070 2004 December 14, 1602 2 $16,365 2004 December 14, 1603 2 $22,070 2004 lanuary 28. 2005- BCC/Parks and Boat Access Workshop - Included Boat Ramp Bus Tour with a stop at Bayview Park, See Attachment B. March 31. 2005 - First BCC/PARAB joint workshop, BCC supports all proposed projects, focuses on carrying capacities, litter control, provision of amenities; staff focuses presentation on funding. Agenda Item No. 8A February 10, 2009 Page 14 of 117 lune 7. 2005 .. Second Bee/PARAB joint workshop held; six priority projects identified; direction given to bond $1.3 million TDe revenue to fund capital element: staff instructed to include top six projects in 06 budget, one relating to boat access was the Keewaydin shuttle. B L dP h .-- ----;Date'-------.- 13CC"'Ageria'a- "'-~'NuiJ:l15erDrTats~-- ~--Prrce~'-- _.".........._. .~~...~ ....gem_ _~ ..___.~.. ..._.___._.~_._.. ._.....:. December 13, 2005 March 14, 2006 July 25, 2007 *May 27,2008 lOB 1 $287,875 $252,700 $575,500 $522,000 16D1 16D19 16D1 *May 27, 2008- Bee Agenda Item 16D1, Budget Amendment in the amount of $522,000 from Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Fund #346 Reserves to fund the purchase of a property to provide offsite remote parking for Bayview Park (Park Project #800603). Agenda Item No. 8A February 10, 2009 Decemb~y.glj.,1 ~t1d87 neighborhood. You start putting in this kind of use, no onets going to want to live by it. So guess what? The county gets to buy other properties out at a better price. We would never ever consider this if a private developer was doing it. And government is not above the law and they shouldn't be in this case. There were discussions here today. There's been no proven environmental problem, They're within a 60-foot right~of-way. The safety issue that they keep harping on is going to be exasperated (sic) more by the parking lot this further distance away than it is now. And we also heard that we are still going to have people probably parking on the side of the road. So nothing is accomplished in what they believe are the accomplishments by making this purchase, So I have a series of lengthy discussion to tell you why I'm going to be voting against this proposal. If you want to piggyback on the back of it, that's up to you all. But I'm going to tell you what they are and then we'll be looking for a motion. In the CCME we have Policy 12.2.7; it says the county shall continue to assess all undeveloped property within the coastal high hazard. fY"oflU"'1 Well, this was acknowledged in testimony, it's developedpel4ey-; So that's inconsistent with CCME Policy 12.2,7. Recreation open space Policy 1.1.5 states, the correct or improve existing parks and recreation facility deficiencies which are necessary in order to meet the level of service standards. We have not seen anything that says this is the only alternative in which to meet the level of service standards. And I surely think that destroying a neighborhood does not make it necessary. Policy 1.3.1 of the recreational and open space says, county owned or managed parks and recreational facilities shall abide by all Appendix A Agenda Item No. 8A February 10, 2009 Decem-gS~e4,62'btJ8 bicycle and pedestrian access where location is appropriate, This is absolutely inappropriate, as clearly stated to us by Collier County staff as being incompatible with the neighborhood. Recreation and open space Policy 1.4.2 states, that Collier County shall continue to coordinate with the provision of recreational facilities and activities with other governmental jurisdictions that own or operate such a facility. Such governmental entities shall include but not necessarily be limited to the City of Naples. I can tell you very clearly, this department didn't even know that they lost the 15 spaces in Hamilton Harbor. So how is that coordinating with the other municipalities? They didn't. So they failed on Policy 1.4.2. If you go to FLUE Policy 5.4, it says, new development shall be compatible with and complimentary to surrounding uses. It is no way there's complementary uses here or compatible with it. Then we have to get into LDC Section 10.03.05(1)(2), and that is all the criteria by which we have to weigh these decisions, Criteria number one -- rather than read the whole criteria, I'm just going to tell you, based on criteria number one, this is not compatible with the neighborhood. Based on criteria number two, again, it is not consistent with the land use pattern. Based on criteria number three, the possible creation of an isolated district, yes, this would be an isolated district. There certainly aren't any others in this district. Under number four, whether existing boundaries are logically drawn: The change does not warrant -- the neighborhood layout does not warrant a change for this kind of commercial parking lot. Number five, whether the changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. There are no conditions unique to this site that make it necessary, They could have bought other sites in the county that could Page 100 Agenda Item No. 8A February 10, 2009 Decem5'~~e.f tb1:Js have provided plenty of access to the water. Number six, whether proposed change will adversely influence living conditions, Absolutely it will. It was testified to by the residents, and it's obvious, Number seven, whether the proposed change will create or successfully increase traffic. M~st certainly. Traf~c is goiIl~}O be increased on ~anford Street, eIther by the quantIty 0[.~.@S or by a way to get ill and out of that parking lot. I don't believe if someone pulling a trailer's going to use the worst route there, they're going to use the easiest route there. Plus it creates a highly unsafe condition on Danford Street, more so than they currently have today, So we actually are aggravating the situation, not bettering it. Whether the proposed change would adversely affect property values. No doubt, the property values will be affected negatively, Whether the proposed change would be a detriment to the improvement or development of adjacent properties. Obviously very few people are going to want to live next to a parking lot. And the additional safety hazards on that street will probably make sure people with children don't move there. Number twelve, whether the proposed change will constitute or grant a special privilege. Well, I think it grants a special privilege to government, one way and above anybody in the private sector could possibly have in a residential neighborhood. Number 13, whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with the existing zoning, There is no reason. In fact, there are two CO's, developed existing homes on that property, showing it could be used. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the Page 101 Agenda Item No. SA February 10, 2009 Decemlfe'19Zl; ~6g neighborhood. There's nothing unique to warrant the change. It certainly is out of scale in a residential neighborhood to have a commercial parking area. Whether it's possible to find other adequate sites in the county. We already know there is. In fact, there's been numerous sites proposed to the BCe. Some have been turned down, some have been taken. Most recently they're considering the one at Port of the Isles. Number 18, such other factors, standards or criteria the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important. Well, as staff has said, there would be an adverse affect upon living conditions in the neighborhood. The expansion should be on the county-owned park itself rather than authorized to overflow into the residential neighborhood. In no way should a parking lot be forced into a successful and established residential neighborhood to accommodate an expanded use. Staff finds the proposed parking lot to be incompatible with provisions of the LDC and particularly Policy 5.4 of the FLUE, and inconsistent with Policy 1.3.1, Now, that's as many as I can mention here and try to be brief. Mr, Klatzkow, is that thorough enough? MR. KLATZKOW: I think you've made your position quite clear. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Maybe when it gets to the BCC, there won't be -- it won't be sent back to us. Anybody else have any other comments? MR. SCHMITT: We'll just add the minutes to the-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a motion on this particular matter? Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'd like to make a motion on RZ-2008-AR-12930, as a -- sorry, with a recommendation of denial. Page 102 IDE RESOLUTION No. 2003-..1.2L A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ADOPTING THE COLUER COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION BOAT LAUNCH AND BEACH ACCESS MASTER PLAN. WHEREAS, adequate public access to coastal lands and waterways is an integral part of the superior quality of life enjoyed by residents of and visitors to Coilier County, and; WHEREAS, The Collier County Growth Management Plan instructs that the County is to "continue to ensure that access to beaches, shores, and waterways remains available to the public and to develop a program to expand the availability of such including funding options for acquisition; and; WHEREAS, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners heard a presentation of the 2003 Collier County Parks and Recreation Beach and Boal Access Repot1 at a public workshop on March 12,2003; and, as a result thereof, instructed staff to present to the Board for its consideration and approval a Master Plan that addresses the recommendations contained in that Report, and; WHEREAS, the Collier County Parks and Recreation Boat Launch and Beach Access Master Plan, at1ached to this Resoiution as Exhibit A, is hereby presented to the Board for its consideration and approvai in response to the Board's instructions to staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVEO BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. that the Collier County Parks and Recreation Boat Launch and Beach Access Master Plan. attached hereto as Exhibit A, is hereby adopted effective immediately. This Resolution adopted this Z'!-Ih day of motion, second, and majority vote favoring adoption. ~ . 2003, after ATTEST: Dwight E. Brock, Clerk BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. COLLlE7UN6 By :J'f'J1--' Tom Henning, Chairman S.2~-o" . : \_, ~ . 'C~, _I~ '::: :: i' ~y~:;,..~~~ . . ': Deputy ,C19rk :: ':Atttlt..,sct,o)Chlll'11llft'S -~;nl~lJ' ( . . . Approv~ ~s.lo,form and legal sufflciency: By: \1;""" r<1l~ Tom Palmer Assistant County At10mey Agenda Item No. SA February 10, 2009 Page 19 of 117 IOE EXHIBIT A 1003 COLLIER COUNTY PARKS AND RECREA nON BOAT LAUNCH AND BEACH ACCESS MASTER PLAN A GUIDING POLICIES 1. The frequency of beach accett 10catioDI will be Increased to distribute beach use more evenly. 1. The County's goal is to provide one parking space per one bundred fifty residents (I:I~) when determining the need for beach parking. 3. The County wiD maximlze parking opportunities at existing boat launch locations. Recognizing the co.t of waterfront boat launch facilities. the County should punut opportunities to npaad parking around present locations. RecommendatioDI regarding tbe expansion of Itn-ices to include OOlite boat storage or other amenities not previously provided by the County <as bas been requested by SOIDt residents or the community) are not within the scope of tbis plan. 4. The Comprehensive Pian and Land Development Codes will reOeet the County'. goal to upaad public beach Bod boat launch opportuDltiea. S. The County will identify and CODsider the purchase of available properties for future boat ramp sites. 6. The Count)' will continue to develop akematlve opportunities to saltwater beach accell and boat launch amenities. B IMPl.EMENT A TJON POLICY Based upon the policies listed above, the following is a master plan for the practical implementation of these recommendations: I. BEACH ACCESS i . Barefoot Beach Preserve 1.1. Back Bay Dock and Pier. Currently, excursion vessels drop off visitors at the southern tip of the park. This practice is damaging to the fragile ecosystem at Wiggins Pass. A dock and pier are planned for the inland side of tbe island to accommodate waterborne visitors while protecting the beach and dunes. This area will also allow Preserve visitors a better look at the mangrove habitat, which presently is only accessible by canoe. Educational programs and signage will accompany the facility. 2. North Vanderbilt Beacb and Conner Park 2.1. Bluebill Access. The Parks and Recreation Department developed Conner Park on Bluebill Avenue with eighty parking spaces to serve a future access point between Delnor-Wiggins State Recreation Area and the Vanderbilt Jnn. The Department is working with the State Parks and Recreation Department to secure an access easement in exchange for improvements at Delnor-Wiggins. It may be possible to gain an easement from the owners of tbe Vanderbilt Inn in the future as well. 2.2. Conner Park Shelter and Rest Room. As the northern parts of Vanderbilt Beach are improved and additional access is added, the beach parking at Conner Park will be in increasing demand. A shelter and rest room will increase the amenity of this facility. Agenda Item No. SA February 10, 2009 Page 20 of 117 IDE 3. Vanderbilt Drive. The Boat and Beach Access Report acknowledged the conflicting sentiment surrounding the future of the Vanderbilt Beach area and the resident outcry that prompted the current moratorium. The report concluded that while a more equitable distribution of beachgoers along the entire Gulf front should be a primary goal of the County, Vanderbilt Beach is currendy the most viable location for improving beach access. The following projects will work to that end' 3.1. Refurbishment of the Pedestrian Accesses. Refurbishment of the walkway easement on Vanderbilt Drive at the Mansions condominium is currently underway. Staff recommends improvements to the other five walkways as well. 3.2. At the workshop on March 12, 2003, staff was given direction to provide rest room facilities in conjunction with any transportation shuttle program that would serve the improved accesses The access easements are too narrow for such a facility. so the purchase of and improvements to lots along Vanderbilt Beach to serve that purpose will be necessary. This will improve the County's ability to qualify for State and Federal funding for renourishment of this beach, since the provision ofa public beach access point every one-half mile is a requirement of these programs. 4. Transportation Shuttle Service. To cost-effectively maintain the 1: 1 SO parking ratio recommended in the Boat and Beach Access Report, a transportation shuttle service is proposed for the northern Collier County beaches. The purchase of Shuttle Busses and land for the parking area, as well as improvements to the parking area will be necessary. Florida Department of Transportation grant funds may be available for purchase of the shuttle busses. 5 Vanderbilt Beach Park. A two-story. 400-space parking garage is planned for Vanderbilt Beach Park. This project is currently delayed by litigation, but resolution of the issue and completion of the project remains a recommendation of staff. With the introduction of a shuttle parking service and the possible construction of a. parking garage at Vanderbilt Beach Park, this facility's existing rest rooms and boardwalks will need refurbishment or expansion. 6. Pelican Bay Beach Access. Collier County owns some inaccessible parcels of land between Vanderbilt Beach and Clam Pass. Staff recommends examining the viability of providing accesses in these areas. 7. Clam Pass Park. Refi.lIbishments planned for this facility include parking lot resurfacing, new handrails, and improvements to the entrance booth. 8. Tigertall Beach Park. The tidal lagoon at this park is now almost completely enclosed. A boardwalk connecting the mainland to Sand Dollar [Sland may be necessary in the future to allow visitors true Gulf-front access. The Parks and Recreation Department is currently developing the scope of a feasibility study to evaluate the environmental impact of this endeavor. Repairs to the dune walkovers at this park will be necessary within the next ten years. 2. BOATING ACCESS 1. Lake Access at Heritage Bay. In its review of the Heritage Bay Development of Regional Impact, the Parks and Recreation Department has requested that the developer, US Homes, provide access to one of the lakes within the area to offset the added strain on existing park facilities that the development will create. 2. Access to Golden Gate Canals. [ssues regarding recreational use of the Golden Gate canal system are currently under review by the County Attorney's office. Currently, an opportunity exists to purchase a parcel of land at the tenninus of 58th Street, which could be developed to provide canal access. 3. Bayview Park. The County should consider purchasing available space around the park to be used for additional traller parking. The Parks and Recreation Department requested additional parking from the Hamilton Harbor Development of Regional Agenda Item No. 8A February 10, 2009 Page 21 of 117 lOE Impact. and in original plans fifteen spaces were provided. However. the most recent plans show that the request could not be accommodated due to environmental issues. 4. Collier Boulevard Boating Park Expansion and Overflow Parking. Expansion to the north will add an additional 47 trailer parking spaces. A second phase ofexpansion to the south may add an additional 28 trailer parking spaces. This will be a multiyear project for which $600,000 is approved for FY 03 and 5600.000 is planned for FY 04. Source funds are Boater Improvement Funds and Impact Fees. 5. Shen Island Road Boat Ramp. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection at Rookery Bay is interested in purchasing the boat ramp facility at the end of Shell Island Road from the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. DEP would then consider leasing the ramp to Collier County in exchange in part for funding to pave Shell Island Road. Improvements to the facility would be necessary. 6. Goodland Boating Parle Based upon previnus Board direction, present Park plans will include two boat ramp lanes and 50 to 75 trailer parking spaces as well as a neighborhood park. This multi-year project has been accelerated to capitalize on existing permits issued to the previous property owner. Master planning is scheduled for FY 04 at 5150.000. A 575,000 Florida Boater Improvement Program Grant has been applied for to offset this cost. Phase I development at $1,500.000 is slated for FY os. Boater Improvement Grant funds can be pursued for development as well. 7. Everglades National Park. The master plan for Everglades National Park includes a boat ramp. The facility has yet to be built because funds have not been available. An opportunity exists for the County to partner with the National Parks System to see this facility to fruition. Agenda Item No. SA February 10, 2009 Page 22 of 117 Agenda Item No. SA February 10, 2009 AGENDj\1jttM'!9-b117 ( Co1t/:r County '~ - - ~ ('~t'>r't /\~\ ~:~\J>~"'D"" .k i' ..::,Al \.11 j' k. ! .,.-'.' ',', '~. ,;J~i'1..." STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION HEARING DATE: DECEMBER 4, 2008 SUBJECT: PETITION: RZ-2008-AR-12930, BA YVIEW P ARK PARKING PROJECT PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT: Owner: Agent: ( Collier County Coastal Zone Management Department 3300 Santa Barbara Boulevard Naples, FL 34116 Laura S, Dejohn Johnson Engineering 2350 Stanford Court Naples, FL 34112 RE UESTEDACTION: To have the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an application to rezone approximately 1.33 acres of land from the Residential Multifamily (RMF-6) and Commercial Intermediate (C-3) zoning districts to the Community Facility (CP) Zoning District for an overflow boat trailer parking lot for Bayview Park. . GEOGRAPHI0-beeA-T-ION::-:- The subject propelty is comprised of six parcels aggregated in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Hamilton Avenue and Bay Street; and two contiguous parcels linking Bay Street and Danford Street, located in Section 23, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, CoIlier County, Florida (see iIIustl'atioll on following page). PURPOSEIDESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: ( The applicant proposes to construct an off-site parking lot for Bayview Park, a water-related park located in the City of Naples, approximately 1,800 feet west of the subject pl'Operty. The proposal would pl'Ovide 39 boat trailer parking spaces. as well as a road linking Bay Stl'eet and Danford Street RZ-2008-AR-12930 Page 1 of 16 <{O"l"" <:oo~ o~ ~N..... _ 0 loo- N al>- ~ ~.al - '" '" '" -0 ....'0.. <::.0 alal ",LL <{ ( ( . i Q~ ::>3 o.il ~ , " wQ ~8 o ~ II 1---- I I I I I I I ~l:..~ I 110 I I I I I I I I ~ l________ Q~ ::>" 0.-' ~~ lnlll.$ lMJt I I I I I I I I ~ I c ~: ::> ~ I 0., ~ I , I I I I I I "''' i ~ ~ ~ ,:".:.,.,'"" - . rncl'ffl'lOAlQ' S31dVU;l,O,I"ll::l llfOI1C1tIOll / - z- r i~! ~ . II b dB lll! . l . I I -I . ! 01 I , I . . a.. <( ~ t9 z z o N o '" '". N ll: " , o o o '" . .... '" .. z o t:: l- . W . a.. <( ~ z- o I- <( o o ..J 1l - ~ -ji 1-- 11 d , , I ~! I @~ . u l' I II! I i b' ,gill I- 0 ~"!I ! If! I n ,. Ii Cl n: , 12 I 'I ~i ~h ~ p h if I~I , 1: I ~.. !H Ii ih , (})~ I 0 , , , 1 I I H" !l , ( I oJ; I'l 'Iii .11 , !J - i , i i ii 1 ~ n I , r~ ~ ~a! Ill! 11m , I ())~. ~ I :a H , I ,. p, .11 , I . I " II , I , " I .1 !I I , . ----------:-11-:-1 - _.~ I I I , I , I , I , I , I I . I I ~~ "p , ! ~ j" l!l I I . ~ , , I- ( , I ----- ---~-------~----- ----------- I! I - 1 j- - -- -------------- -- --- --- '\ oS , ~ ' " I ~ I (f)~ i! i I I iI- , , ! -, ., I <(P"Jf'-.., coo~ o~ ON_ Z .0 ,-~L() 2~~ - OJ rn rn "O~o.. ~.o -(J) 15,u.. <( '1= Ill!! : ill- . ~ ~!I~~: Ii I ~ ~In~! ~ li@0 !OO~ ------1-----------1 J.N3YGEl'VNW'I 3NOZ l\fJ..SVOD ,l.J,NnOO C131l100 >It/\ldM3IM\lEI 8NI>I~\ld M01:ll:l3AO ~:J 013NOZ3l:1 ~ Agenda Item No. SA February 10, 2009 Page 26 of 117 ( to provide users of the facilily with a more direct route between the parking lot and the park. The Counly has gradually acquired the eight subject parcels, along with five others in the neighborhood, as a result of a recommendation made in the 2003 Beach and Boat Access Repolt (see Appendix 2), which advised: "The County should consider purchasing available residential lots along Danford Street to be used for overflow trailer parking. The Parks and Recreation Department requested additional parking from the Hamilton Harbor Development of Regional Impact, and in [sic] original plans fifteen spaces were provided. However, the most recent plans for the Hamilton Harbor marina do not provide the requested spaces." ". The Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approved the Beach and Boat Access Master Plan, designed to expand recreational beach and boat access oPPOltunities in the Counly, in May of 2003; and on Apdll3, 2004, approved real estate incentives to aid in the purchase of properties adjacent to Bayview Park as a means of furthering this plan. The applicants maintain that, aside from this "mandate" by the BCC, the provision of39 boat trailer parking spaces at this time is imperative due to the recent popularity of Bayview Park's boat ramp, which has resulted in patrons' unsafe practice of parking vehicles and boat trailers along the Danford Street and Hamilton Avenue (formerly Fern Street) rights-of-way once the park's parking capacity has been reached. Presently, Bayview Park has 35 standard parking spaces and 16 boat trailer parking spaces; however, separate from this application, the County's Coastal Zone Management Department is proposing to redesign the park site to reduce the number of standard spaces by 9 and increase boat trailer parking spaces by 24, bringing the total number of spaces to 26 and 40, respectively. If the subject rezone application is approved, the total number of boat trailer spaces available to users of the park, including the 40 overflow trailer spaces proposed apart from this application, would be 79; and the number of standard parking spaces would remain at 26. Aerial Photo ( Bayvlew Patk, RZ-2008-AR-12930 pege 2 of 16 Agenda Item No. SA February 10, 2009 Page 27 of 117 ( SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: As previously noted, the subject petition proposes a parking lot comprised of six parcels; and an access road formed by two contiguous parcels located approximately 550 feet to the west of the proposed lot. The uses and zoning districts that surround the area of the proposed parklng lot are as follows: North: South: East: West: Three single-family homes and two vacant lots with an RMF-6 zoning designation; and a single-family home with a C-3 zoning designation A vacant parcel, zoned C-3; and Bay Street Hamilton Avenue, then Naples Botanical Garden PUD A single-family home with an RMF-6 zoning designation The following uses and zoning districts surround the area of the proposed access road linking Bay Street and Danford Street: North: South: East: West: Danford Street Bay Street Two single-family homes with an RMF-6 zoning designation One single-family home and a vacant lot with an RMF-6 zoning designation GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: ( Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The site lies within the Urban Mixed-Use District, Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict of the Future Land Use Map. The Urban Mixed-Use District provides for water-dependent and water-related uses, and other recreational uses, including water-related parks, public 01' private marinas, yacht clubs, or associated accessory and recreational uses, such as boat storage, launching facilities, fueling facilities, and restaurants. Although the subject site is not a shoreliD" prnp",.ty. it =,,~ R"y"~ II shoreline de"eloplll~~ Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Objective 10.2 of dle CCME states, "The County shall continue to insure rhat access to beaches. shores and warerways remain [sic] available to the public and conlinue with its program to expand the availability of such access and a method to fund its acquisition." The County's purchase and rezoning of the subject parcels in the vicinity of Bayview Park to deve]~p an ov~E~w parklng facility f~l~hers this policy. CCME Policy 12.2.7 states, "The County shall continue to assess all undeveloped property within the coastal high hazard area and make recommendations on appropriate land use. " The subject petition, which proposes CF zoning for an overflow parking lot, would remove residential and commercial parcels from the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA) and enhance public access to water-related recreational uses and launching facilities. Recreation and Open Space Element (ROSE): Policy 1.1.5 states, "Continue to correct or improve existing parks and recreation facilities [sic] deficiencies which are necessary in order to meet the level of service 'standards. " The need for an overflow parking facility is evidenced by vehicles' parking ( along the streets that serve Bayview Park. The proposed overflow parking lot, in addition to the Bayvlew Park. RZ-2008--AR-12930 Page 3 of 16 Agenda Item No. 8A February 10, 2009 Page 28 of 117 ( anticipated expansion of the ramp facilities and trailer parking spaces internal to the park, would help to address this unmet demand. ROSE Objective 1.3 states, "Continue to ensure that all public developed recreational facilities, open space and beaches and public water bodies are accessible to the general public." The proposed rezoning l'equest would provide 39 overflow parking spaces as well as a sidewalk from the parking spaces to Bayview Park. Aerial View of Subject Property Relative to Bayview Park Bayview Park Subject Properties I ROSE Policy 1.3.1 states, "County-owned or -managed parks and recreation facilities shall have automobile, bicycle and/or pedestrian fUcess, where the location is appropriate and where such access is economically feasible. " As stated, the proposed parking lot would provide a total of 39 boat ..'-::-trWIerparkingspaces for Bayvlew Park, an accessroadtan(fa:-Slifewalkleading to. the park on County- owned properties. However, Comprehensive Planning leaves the detelmination as to the appropriateness of the location of these facilities to the Zoning and Land Development Review staff as part oftheir review of this petition in its entirety. ROSE Policy 1.4,2 states, "Continue to develop and implement a formal program for coordinating County programs with other government agencies. Collier County shall continue to coordinate the provision of recreational facilities and activities with other governmental jurisdiclions that own or operate such facilities and activities within, or adjacent to, CollieI' County. Said governmental entitles shall include. but /WI necessarily be limited to, the City of Naples, Florida. " The City of Naples was ( given a courtesy review of this proposal. However, Bayview Park itself is located within the corporate Bayview Park, RZ-2008-AR-12930 Page 4 of 16 Agenda Item No. SA February 10, 2009 Page 29 of 117 ( limits of the City of Naples. and the enhancements proposed to the park, which are apart from this application, would be required to be approved by that jurisdiction. ROSE Objective 1.6 states, "Whenever possible and practical, utilize County-owned property for recreational uses. " As previously noted, Collier County is the owner of the eight lots that are the subject of this rezoning petition, FLUE Policy 5.4 states, "New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary 10, surrowuiing uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code. .. Comprehensive Planning leaves tlus compatibility detelmination to the Zoning and Land Development Review staff as part oftheir review. FLUE Policy 7,1 states, "The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code," The subject property does not front on a collector or arterial road. Transportation Element: The Transp011ation Planning Department considers this petition to be consistent with Transp0l1ation Element Policies 5.1 and 5.2, subject to the condition that no structures are erected on any of the subject parcels, except for a booth for personnel associated with parking fee collection; and that no such booth (01' machine associated with parking fee collection), nor any gate. be located so as to create traffic queuing into the public right-of-way. ( Based upon the above analysis, Comprehensive Planning staff concludes this petition may be deemed consistent with the FLUE of the GMP. ANALYSIS: Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition and the criteria upon which a r~~ommenr1.Rtfnf1. m'l~f' .he....based,-~rr:>~i.r,r.Rl1y 'flo.ten in T .smn f)pvP.:10r1YlP.nt Cntip. .(T Dq ~T1b~ecti 1O.02.13.B.5, Planning Commission Recommendation, and Subsection 10.03.0S.H, Planning Commission Hearing and Report to the Board of County Commissioners, which establish factual bases to suppol1 a recommendation. The CCPC uses these same criteria as the basis for their recommendation to the BCC, who in turn use the criteria to support their action on the rezoning request. An evaluation relative to LDC Subsection 10,03.05.1.2, Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report, is discussed below, under the heading "Zoning and Land Development Review . .---~Aiia.lysis:"Iri aaamon~aff"oftersthe following analysis:-::-- - - Environmental: This petitioner was not required to submit an Environment Impact Statement (ElS), nor was a hearing before the Environmental Advisory Commission (EAC) required, because the subject parcels had been previously developed or cleared. However, Environmental Services staff reviewed the petition to address potential environmental concerns, and requested a Protected Species Survey, which concluded that no listed species or their traces were observed on the site. Transpor1ation Planning; As noted in the Traffic Impact Statement (TIS), attached as Appendix 3, the trip estimates show that the rezoning from RMF-6 and C-3 to CF would eliminate potential single- ( family and commercial trips, resulting in a net decrease of traffic, while providing additional boat Bayview Pam, RZ-2008-AR-12930 Page 5 of 16 Agenda Item No. 8A February 10, 2009 Page 30 of 117 ( trailer parking spaces for the park. However, in spite of the parking lot's proposed dawn-to-dusk hours of operation, consistent with those of Bayview Park, Transportation Planning staff has required access lighting at the time of site development plan (SDP) review and approval in order to illuminate the site's Bay Street pedestrian crosswalk. Public Utilities: The Public Utilities Department Staff has reviewed the petition and noted that, based on the Statement of Utility Provisions, the project would not impact the utilities provision since no additional utilities would be required. Accordhlg to the current 2005 Water and Wastewater Master Plan updates, the project is located within the City of Naples water service area and the Collier County Sewer District's service area. Zonin~ and Land Develooment Analvsis: As described in LDC Section 2.03.04.A, the purpose and intent of the CF Zoning District is, "to implement the GMP by permitting nonresidential land uses as generally identified in the urban designation of the future land use element [sic]. These uses can be charactel'lzed as public facilities. institutional uses, water-related or dependant uses, and other such uses generally serving the community at large. The dimensional standards are intended to ensure compatibility with existing or future nearby residential development. " As noted in the preceding GMP Consistency portion of this rep01t, the proposed overflow boat trailer parking lot generally furthers the goals and objectives of the FLUE and the applicable portions of the CCME and the ROSE. However, with regard to FLUE Policy 5.4 and ROSE Policy 1.3.1, Comprehensive Planning staff has left the compatibility determination of the proposed use with its surrounding uses to the discretion of Zoning and Land Development Review staff. ( ( Pedestrian walking afong Danford Street to Bayview Park Bayvlew Park, RZ-200B-AR-12930 Page 6 of 16 Agenda Item No. 8A February 10, 2009 Page 31 of 117 ( As depicted in the submitted Conceptual Master Plan, entitled "Rezone to CF Overflow Parking Bayview Park," prepared by Johnson Engineering and dated October 2008, vehicular access to the site would be afforded via an ingress point on Hamilton Avenue. According to the applicants, after launching their boats at the park. users would leave their vehicles at the subject site and walk the approximately 1,800 feet back to the park along Bay Street and Danford Street, which would be linked by the proposed 20-foot wide access road located approximately 550 feet west of the parking lot. Along this access road, a six-foot wide sidewalk would be pl'Ovided to allow pedestrians an off-street pathway. To retrieve their trailers after boating, patrons would walk back to the parking lot via Danford Street, the access road's sidewalk and Bay Street; then exit with their vehicles from the lot's egress point on Bay Street; and return to the park by turning either right, via Bay Street and the access road, or by tuming left, via Bay Street, Hamilton Avenue and Danford Street As previously noted, a total of 39 boat trailer parking spaces would be provided in the lot, with handicapped parking accommodated on the Bayview Park site. According to the notes on the Mastel' Plan, the parking spaces would be of a pervious material, accessed from an asphalt drive aisle. Stormwater for the site would be provided in a management area in the southem pOltion of the site, adjoining the 14 parking spaces located perpendicular to Bay Street. ( As shown on the Mastel' Plan, the ten percent native vegetation preservation requirement of the LDC would be met in a O.33-acre preserve located in the northeastern corner of the parking lot site, adjacent to the Hamilton Avenue right-of-way. The northern and western boundaries of the parking lot would be separated from their adjacent uses by a IS-foot wide Type B buffer, which would surpass the LDC- required buffer by providing an additional five feet in width; trees planted five feet closer on center; and a five-foot hedgerow. The western and southern boundaries of the lot, and the western and eastern sides of the proposed access road linking Danford and Bay streets, would each have ten-foot Type D buffers with a double hedgerow maintained at six feet (instead of three feet) and would be enhanced by the strict use of only native species. A vinyl chain-link fence is proposed to separate the uses, although the LDC requires the provision of masonry or prefabricated concrete wall. Because this petition is for a Rezone and not a Planned Unit Development (PUD), deviations from the LDC are not pmmttOO.,....Th~'G-ful'e, . staff has itl(:luded~lldi.tiQll...Qt:.approval requiOOg.--that the site cox>wtmS-to Subsection 5.03.02.E of the LDC. LDC Subsection IO.03.05.L2 states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners...shall show that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the following ....Y}f1:e_~appli(:q~le.l~!l!r_~ responses to these cr~teria are provided in non:iyuicized font]: 1. Whether tile proposed cllange wilt be consistmt witll tile goals, objectives, and policies and future land use map and tile elements of tile growth management plan. As noted in the GMP Consistency portion of this report, the proposed overflow parking iot would generally further the goals and objectives of the FLUE and the applicable portions of the CCME and the ROSE. However, Comprehensive Planning staff did not consider the compatibility of t.he proposed use with surrounding uses, and has left that determination to the discretion of Zoning and Land Development Review staff, whose compatibility analysis is summarized below. ( Bayview Park. RZ.2008-AR-12g30 Page 7 of 16 Agenda Item No. SA February 10, 2009 Page 32 of 117 ( 2. Tile existing land use pattern. As described in the "SwTounding Land Use and Zoning" portion of this report, the neighb01'hood's existing land use pattern is characterized by single-family residences and vacant lots. Of the residentially zoned propelties, 20 are developed with dwelling units and 21 are vacant. Of the three commercially zoned lots, one is developed with a single-family home and the other two are vacant An off-site parking lot for a public boat launch and pedestrian/vehicular access road would not be compatible among these low-density residential uses. 3. Tile possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The proposed rezoning would create an isolated CF Zoning District within a neighborhood that is predominantly zoned RMF-6, but which has three parcels abutting Hamilton Avenue zoned C-3. The location of a parking lot on the C-3 parcels (one of which is included in this application) would be permitted by-right and, therefore, not require any rezoning action. However, the applicants assert that were unable to acquire the other two lots and maintain that, even if they had been able, the combined area of these parcels would not be sufficient to accommodate the park facility's parking needs. Nevertheless, as noted by the applicant in the application package, Bayview Park does meet the minimum number of parking spaces required by the City of Naples. ( 4. Wlletller existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions 011 the prt1perty prt1posed for change, AB shown on the zoning map included at the beginning of this report, the existing district boundades are logically drawn. The subject neighborhood was platted in 1954 and is bound by Danford Street, Bay Street and Hamilton Avenue (fonnerly Fern Street). It is comprised Bntirelynf pmpeJ1i". with RnRMEdizoning tip.ig".tinlJ,;..except for fP"!l,l",,,.fMP11lenti parcels abutting the Hamilton Avenue right-of-way, which are designated C-3. As previously noted, all of the lots are either vacant or developed with single"family homes. 5. Wllether clranged or cllUnging conditions make tile passage of tile proposed amendment necessary. -~""--------::-----::~TlieJippliciilits-li8.viiprOViaed--sraTfWilli a memorandum summarlzmglbe results ora traffiC----- = count study they conducted to detennine the number of vehicles entering and exiting Bayview Park during nine days from Saturday, October 4 through Sunday, October 12. 2008 (see Appendix 4). Because patrons counted entering the park during the study could have launched their boats and then exited the park merely to park their cars in one ofthe neighborhood rights- of-way (and then repeated this process to retrieve their boat later in the day) the "best case scenario" based on the results of the study is that each of the cwnulative totals actually represents only half the number of users. (For example, on October 6. there were 88 vehicles counted entering the park; however, this number may actually represent only 44 unique patrons since each could have entered and exited the park in their vehicles twice-and, therefore, been ( double-counted-although they in fact 011ly used the park's boat ramp once that day,) With that Bayvlew Palk, RZ-200B-AR-12930 Page 6 of 16 Agenda Item No. SA February 10, 2009 Page 33 of 117 ( in mind, weekday traffic count totals from the study varied between 84 and 145 daily users (or 42 and 72.5 actual users in the best case scenario). with weekend totals between 161 and 247 users (or 80.5 and 123.5 actual users in the best case scenario). Peak hours appeared to be between 10:00 a.m. and 2:45 p.rn. Although the study does not provide the actual distribution of cars by hour throughout the day, it seems that the facility would continue to suffer from a dearth of parking even if the subject petition were approved, since the total number of spaces that will be available to patrons of Bayview P8l'k after the upgrades proposed apart from this application are completed will be 26 standard and 40 boat trailer spaces, 6, Wltether tlte proposed cltange will adversely influence living conditions in tlte neigftborltood. The area has historically been a residential neighborhood adjacent to a four-acre community park offering water and boat access. The proposed conversion of the subject property to the CF Zoning District to permit a 39-space boat trailer p8l'king lot for the use of county residents and other visitors to Bayview Park would increase traffic through the neighborhood. This is of particular concern to area residents, as the applicants have acknowledged that the subject parcels are merely the first among the 13 they have amassed on the block, all of which they intend to eventually convert to overflow p8l'king spaces for the park. (' Western perspective of boat trailer parking aiong Danford Street, nortll of ti,e subject site. As noted in the letters of objection that staff has received from the community (see Appendix 5), residents have also expressed concern that the proposed lot would be a blemish on their neighborhood; create a safety risk due to the number of strangers it would invite into the area; BByvieW Park. RZ.2008.AR.12930 Page 9 of 16 Agenda Item No. SA February 10, 2009 Page 34 of 117 ( increase criminal activity; promote loitering and litter; and intrude on the privacy of those residents wbose backyards would either directly abut it or the access road. 7. Wlrether tire proposed clrange will create or excessively increase traffw congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of tire development, or otherwise affect public safety. As previously noted, the TIS demonstrates that the proposal would actually reduce the potential number of trips that would be generated if the neighborhood were to develop according to its existing residential and commercial zoning as compared to the proposed CF zoning. The applicants assert that the proposal would also enhance safety for users of tbe park by providing them with an off-street parking lot. However, as evidenced by the applicants' submitted traffic count study, there is already significant public boat trailer traffic dming peak days, incompatible with the residential character of the neighborhood, regularly passing through en route to Bayview Park, Expanding this use by creating additional off-site boat trailer parking would only aggravate this incompatibility and reduce safety for neighborhood residents. 8. Wlretlrer tlte proposed clrange will create a drainage problem. Appropriate stormwater management has been provided on the Master Plan. FurthelIDore, the applicant bas committed to utilizing porous pavers, a best management practice, which would enhance drainage and improve stormwater quality. 9. Wlrether tire proposed cltange will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. As no structures are proposed, neither air nor light would be reduced. 10. Whether tlte proposed change would adversely affect property values in tlte adjacent area, This is a subjective determination affected by a host of circumstances other than zoning but primarily market conditions. Nevertheless, the applicant maintains that the proposal should not adversely affect property values. The opinion of residents, in contrast, is that the provision of off-site boat parking spaces within the area of their neighborhood bound by Danford Street, ------:~. Bay-Street andHailliftOn Avenuewoul<fiillequiYOciillymmlllish theIr property values. 11, Wlletlter tlte proposed change will be a deterrent to tlte improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance witlt existing regulations. ( '. It seems unlikely that the remaining vacant lots would be developed with residential uses in accordance with the existing zoning if the subject petition were approved, especially since the applicants have acknowledged their intention to convert the area bound by Danford Street, Bay SUeet and Hamilton A venue into a parking lot to expand the capacity of the Bayview Park boat launch facility. Nonetheless, the applicants have noted in their application that the proposal would not deter the improvement of adjacent property consistent with existing regulations. Bayvlew Pari<. RZ-20D8.AR-1293D Peg. 10 0116 Agenda Item No. SA February 10, 2009 Page 35 of 117 ( 12. Wllether tile proposed c/lange will constitute a grant oj special privilege to an illilividuaI owner as contrasted with the public welfare. This petition is being made by tbe County's Coastal Zone Management Depattment; therefore, if approved, no individual owner would be granted a special privilege. Rather, the cbange would benefit boaters of the COlUlty at the expense of residents of the neighborhood in which the boat trailer parking lot would be located, 13. WlIether tllere are substantiai reasons wIlY tI,e property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. Although the lots were platted in the early 1950s and, as such, do not conform to existing LDC lot size requirements for the RMF-6 andC-3 zoning districts, they could be aggregated for development 01' simply developed individually in accordance with the LDC's provisions for legally nonconforming lots, 14. Whether tile change suggested is out oj scale with the needs of tile neighborhood or the county, ( As previously noted, the increase in popularity of Bayview Park's boat launch has converted a once small-scale community park into a countywide attractor, generating the attendant traffic and parking conditions of such uses. which while certainly out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood could be considered consistent with those of the county, 15. Whether it is impossible to fmd other adequate sites in the county for tile proposed use in distrkts already permitting sucll use. Thc>e !li.e..cet:lainly--multipl~ ('Qrnmerc;a1 ~H,es.ln-the-col.lJ'l4t-thaL\!<I"1l1t1 p~rmh " I"'rk-inglnthy" right without any such rezoning action, However, the applicants consider this site to be the most appropriate because of its proximity to Bayview Park. Furthermore, they were unable to acquire the neighborhood's two remaining C-3 parcels already zoned for the proposed use because Hamilton Harbor was unwilling to sell the parcel it owns and the private individual owner's asking price was deemed above market value, T6.riie'jjiiyslcitlCllariicteristics'OJtne property anil7lie degree oJsitealteration wllicll woulil7iii required to make tile propel'ty usable for any oj the range of potential uses under tile proposed zoning classification. Two single-family houses would have to be demolished for the proposal; however, the remaining lots are vacant and have mostly been cleared. 17. The impact of development on tile availability oj adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in tile Collier County growth management plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County adequate public facilities f ordjnanc~ Bayvlew Peri<, RZ.2008-AR.12930 Page 11 of16 Agenda Item No. SA February 10, 2009 Page 36 of 117 ( If approved, the project would enhance the availability of beach and boat access and raise the level of service standards in these two categories. 18. Sw:/t otller factors, standards, or criteria t/tat tI,e Board of County Commissioners s/tall deem important in tile protection of tile public heal/II, safety and welfllJ'e, Staff anticipates that the proposed change to the CF Zoning District from the RMF-6 and C-3 zoning districts would have an adverse effect upon living conditions in the neighborhood, As previously noted, the surrounding properties contain single-family homes or undeveloped lots, and with the exception of three C- 3 parcels (one of which contains a single-family home), have a residential zoning designation, Although a rezoning of this site to the CF Zoning District to allow a boat trailer parking lot would indeed place a community facility in close proximity to the boat launch creating the demand, it is staffs opinion that boat trailer parking for the use should be expanded on the County-owned park site itself rather than authorized to overflow into a residential neighborhood; 01', it could be accomplished tJn'ough the consolidation of the three neighborhood properties zoned for the use. Nevertheless, in no way should a parking lot be forced into a successful and established residential neighborhood to accommodate an e),,'panding use. Furthermore, as previously noted, Bayview Park's total number of boat trailer parking spaces will be increased to 40 once the applicants have redesigned the park site. According to the Boat and Beach Access Plan approved by the BCC, the park's boat trailer parking space deficit is 56, In staff's opinion, this 16-space shOLtfall would be more appropriately recouped on the park site, 01' within the neighboring areas already zoned for this use, because of the inherent incompatibilities that exist between the public boat trailer parking lot and residential development. This would also eliminate the need for an access road through the middle of the neighborhood merely to facilitate the parking lot's cut through traffic; and although this road would provide the benefit of 270 feet of off-street sidewalks, pedestrians would still be forced to walk in the Bay or Danford street rights-of-way for the remaining, ll:!lpr.oximatel,' 1,400-feet.-t0--the-park POI' tj'''se ''''<OOS ' . Review staff finds the proposed parking lot to be incompatible the provisions of the LDC and, in particular, with Policy 5.4 of the FLUE. Similarly, staff finds the proposed access road linking Danford Street and Bay Street 10 be inconsistent with ROSE Policy 1.3.1. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION: ---'-~-----Jjeacusethe.subjectparcels werealreaay-developedorcleared;'1lle applicants we1-e not require(r1o~.--- -- submit an Environmentallmpact Statement (EIS) for this petition. As a result, a hearing before the EAC was not necessary. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): (Synopsis provided by Cheri Rollins, Administrative Assistant): The first of three NIM meetings was duly noticed by the applicant and held on June 5, 2008 at 6:30 p.m, at the East Naples Community Park. Thirty-five people from the public attended, as well as the applicant's team, including Laura DeJolm, Vince FranceschelIi and Chris Hagan from Johnson ( Engineering, Inc.; Clint Penyman. the Project Manager from the County's Coastal Zone Management Bayview Park, RZ-2008-AR-12930 Page 12 of 16 Agenda Item No. 8A February 10, 2009 Page 37 of 117 ( Depwtment; Marlene McLaughlin, Property Acquisition Specialist from the County's Real Property Management Department, and John-David Moss, the Principal Planner assigned to the project from the Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. Ms, Dejohn presented an overview of the requested rezone from the RMF-6 and C-3 zoning districts to the CF Zoning District, intended to alleviate the current overflow of on-street boat trailer parking around Bayview Park. The Mastel' Plan that she presented to the audience depicted three separate, non-contiguous pw'king lots, The easternmost of these lots provided 26 boat trailer spaces; the middle lot offered 20 standard parking spaces; and the westernmost lot depicted 14 more boat trailer spaces in a lot joined by an access road linking Danford Street and Bay Street. The residents in attendance were strident in their opposition to the location of the proposed parking lots, and had the following concems: . The piece-meal or "checkerboard" design approach would destroy the integrity of their neighborhood; . Three pw'king lots within their small. one-block by one-block neighborhood would reduce their property values; . The project would convert their residential neighborhood into. an essentially commercial area; . The overflow parking lot would not even be utilized and people would continue to park illegally on Hamilton Avenue and Danford Street (which they claimed was never even enforced and which they have never complained about); . The loitering, littering and urination that would most likely occur by patrons of the park who used the parking lots. In addition to these concerns, one owner explained that he had just built his "dream home," whose second-story rear would overlook one of the proposed parking lots if the project were approved, Another couldn't understand why the County would demolish newhousesthat it owned on two of the subject parcels, when dreirow,," ulJulcl ~11"ily b" ":;-.vltl.lul"'p;'u,,,to--Mr.McLangh:lin's-1lllbseql:lent comments about her department's gradual acquisition of properties for this project, an owner remarked that the only people who sold off their properties to the County were absentee landlords or speculators, and that none of the neighborhood's long-standing residents had any desire to leave. One attendee wanted to know why vacant land that is for sale much closer to the park wasn't being targeted for the parking lot rather than theil' established neighborhood. He was told that because there ___....-=e..mangrOJrcs...o.n...the..site.ll...:wQJ.tllLb..G.JoJL.dL:ffkult t[LclJ:velo12' Finally,.another owner conunented that tile request did not lllilke sen,se for the residents of the area. WId wanted toHknow if the County. had' ever asked another neighborhood to make a similar sacrifice for the supposed good of the County. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8: I 0 p,m. The applicants duly noticed and held a second NlM at the East Naples Community Park at 6:30p.m, ou July 10,2008. Thirty-five people from the public attended. as well as the original members of the applicants' team, Also in attendance were Gary McAlpin, Director of the Coastal Zone Management Department. and Lt. Gibbons from the Sheriff's Department, who was invited to address padcing enforcement issues. Bayview Parf<, RZ-2008-AR-12930 Page 13 of 16 Agenda Item No. 8A February 10, 2009 Page 38 of 117 ( To open the presentation, MI'. McAlpin presented a revised Ma&1:er Plan for the petition, which no longer showed the prior middle lot offering 20 standard parking spaces; instead, it had a preserve located there. Despite the change, residents remained discontented with the revised plan for the same reasons that had been articulated at the prior NIM. However, learning for the first time that the park site was going to be expanded to accommodate more boat trailer parking, they wanted to know why this project was even necessary. Mr. McAlpin told them that the expanded lot proposed intemal to Bayview Park would still not meet parking demands, so providing more spaces was necessary. Residents then asked the following: i \ . Why more parking spaces could not be placed in Bayview Park by removing the playground, since nearby East Naples Park has a playground families with children could use; . If the proposed rezone could be postponed until after the Bayview Park renovation to see if more parking would even be needed off-site; . If the County could apply to the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to remove the mangroves at the entrance to the park and put the parking lot there (Mr. Hagan ft'om Johnson Engineering explained that there would be intense Anny Corps' opposition. which would require years, if ever, to get approval); . If the County could purchase land from the Naples Botanical Gardens, on the opposite side of Hamilton Avenue, to locate the parking spaces there; . If the County could aggregate celtain properties in order to put the parking lot at either one end of the block or the other to prevent the proposed checkerboard-type parking lots that would canse random interruptions through their neighborhood; . Why parking on these streets could not simply just continue as it has, since residents have not had issues with il. (Ll Gibbons explained that, although there have been no complaints from the community, parking along the right.of-way was technically iIIegal.); . If Hamilton Avenue right-of-way could be eKpanded to provide parking; or if the culvelts on Danford Street could be covered to provide parallel parking spaces (Mr. McAlpin explained . that the LDC would not allow on-streetparking); . . How safety would be appreciably enhanced if users of the lot would still have to waJk long distances along Bay Street and Danford Street anyway (since no sidewalks exist there). Residents were also exercised by what they perceived as the County shoehorning a parking lot into their neighborhood in order to completely drive them out; or to sufficiently lower their property values so that their land could be purchased cheaply and subsequently incorporated into the parking lot . .:]Jrowct'-s-iarger-masterplan. The meeting ended at approximately 7:30 p.m The applicants duly noticed and held a third NIM at the East Naples Community Park at 6:00 p.m. on September 30, 2008. At this meeting, Mr. McAlpin showed the audience the expansion plans for Bayview Park itself (within the City of Naples), which included the additional 24 boat trailer parking spaces that would bring the total of the park's on-site trailer spaces to 40. He then presented another revised plan of the subject property. identical to the one provided on page two of this report, which eliminated the westernmost parking lot but kept the access road linking Danford and Bay streets. Residents were unhappy that the access road bisecting their block had not been removed. Other issues Bayvlew Park, RZ-200S-AR-12930 Page 14 of 16 Agenda Item No. SA February 10, 2009 Page 39 of 117 ( previously discussed at the prior NIMs were re-discussed, but no new issues were raised. In the end, the attendees remained adamantly opposed to the project; and the meeting was ended at 7;15 p.m. Staff has received a total of 17 letters of objection to the project from 14 different property owners, which as previously noted, have been included in Appendix 5. SUMMARY: Staff anticipates that the proposed change to the CF Zoning District from the RMF-6 and C-3 zoning disb'icts would have an adverse impact upon living conditions in this predominantly residential neighborhood. As noted. staff believes that boat trailer parking should instead be expanded on the County-owned park site itself and not pennitted to overflow into the neighborhood unless it could be accomplished by the applicants' successful consolidation of the three neighborhood properties within the allowable C.3 Zoning District. This would also eliminate the need for the proposed access road through the neighborhood, Due to the failure of the project to adequately address compatibility issues with the neighborhood in which it is proposed to be located, staff finds the proposal to be incompatible the provisions of the LDC and, in particular, with Policy 5.4 of the FLUE and Policy 1.3.1 of the ROSE. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: ( The Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends that the cepc forward Petition RZ- 2008-AR-12930 to the BCC with a recommendation of denial. However, should the CCPC choose to forward the petition with a recommendation of approval, staff suggests that it be contingent upon the following conditions: I. The Master Plan provided is considered conceptual in nature. Development of the parking area shall be consistent with the LDC requirements at the time of site development plan (SDP) reyieW~ppt>e. 2. Access lighting to illuminate the site's Bay Street pedestrian crosswalk shall be required at the time ofSDP review and approval. 3. Parking lot areas shall be composed of a porous material, such as pavers or another similar type of approved porous material that do not produce airborne dust. 4. Irrespective of that depicted on the Master Plan, a masonry wall, as required by Subsection 5.03.02.E of the LDC, sh~l be provided to separate the parking lot from adjo!ning residential uses. 5. The hours of operation shall be posted on the site, and a locking gate shall be secured at all times outside of these opera1ing hours. APPENDICES: Appendix I: County 2003 Beach and Boat Access Repolt Appendix 2: Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) Appendix 3: Traffic Count Study Memo Appendix 4: Letters of Objection Bayview P.rk, RZ-2008-AR-12930 Page 15of16 Agenda Item No. SA February 10, 2009 Page 40 of 117 ( PREPARED BY: / / IJ ) 0 ~ JO -DAVID MOSS, AICP , PRINCIPAL PLANNER Df.. I DEPARTMENT OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REVIEWED BY: ~ NI-- J/-/Z_- O~ . BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER DATE T OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ~~'-(4)f~~ J~/J7JOR AUSAN M. ISTENES, AICP, DIRECTOR ATE f DEPARTMENT OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW J~ 7Wj~ . STEVE WILLIAMS ASSISTANT COUNTY A TIORNEY ( APPROVED BY: It/f.of' DATE CO Tentatively scheduled for the February 10,2009 Board of County Commissioners Meeting COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: ./" I--:-'~ =:.~.; ..... V CUl.,. ,-,t_ MARK P. RAIN, CHAIRMAN . (1-Cr;o'g . DATE ( l3.yview Park, RZ-2008-AR.12930 Page 17 of 17 Agenda Item No. SA February 10, 2009 p:qO,o. 41 ()f 117 . .' ( ::'.', ," (i"' ~l r ( BOAT AND BEACH ACCESS REPORT f::'." 2003 ( APPENDIX 1 Agenda Item No. SA February 10, 2009 Page 42 of 117 ( Collier County BOAT AND BEACH ACCESS REPORT 2003 OBJECTIVE The purpose of the Boat and Beach Access Report Is to assess Collier County's peIformance In providing beach access and boat launch facilities to County residents and visitors. This report will identif-y the overarching complications involved with providing beach access and boat launch services that keep up wilh growth, examine current level of service standards adopted by Collier County and the recreation industry, inventory CUlTCnt facilities and update the 1999 Report with regard to options and inventories, and suggest future options for expansion of services and facilities. ( SUPPLY AND DEMAND While the Gulf of Mexico is a vast but not unlimited resource for water-dependent recreation. limited access to it limits lhc population's ability to use it. Sandy beach, on the other hand, is a fmite recreational resource even further limited by the constraints of access and available parking. Collier County's population continues to grow. but its miles of sandy beach are fixed. The challenge is to provide expanding access to beaches and waterways, including the attendant requisite parking, without exceeding the carrying capacities of the resources and thereby decreasing their desirability and worth. The decreasing availability and increasing cost of land that comes with growth exacerbate this issue. The more access Is needed, the more difficult it is to find and afford. LEVELS OF SERVICE . The Collier County Growth Management Plan outlineS level of service standards . (LOSS) for parkland in three categories: facilities, value, community park acreage. and regional park acreage. Beach, beach parking, and' boating access acreage are currently included the regional park acreage measure for purposes of comprehensive plan concurrency. The 2001 Annual Update and Inventory RepOl;t projects satisfaction of regional park acreage LOSS through 2009 based on acreage acquisitions planned in CIP through 2004. Satisfaction of comprehensive plan acreage standards, however. will not maintain the levels of service_Col1~er County-residents and visitors currently enjoy with regard to . beach-and 'boatingaccess,'Thisis because-the comprehensive-plan requires no distinction . between regional park acreage located inland or developed to serve other functions and acreage reserved for beach and water access. To understand the expectations of the population' an examination of lhe levels of service they have been experiencing is necessary. Boat Ramps Currently 27 boat ramp lanes serve boaters. countywide. The Parks and Recreation Department maintains eleven of these lanes; City or Stale government provides seven; Collier County Boat and BeaCh A0C988 Report ~ 2 1_- Agenda Item No. 8A February 10, 2009 Page 43 of 117 ( and nine are privately owned but open to the public. Table 1 below outlines the locations and amenities of these facilities. Tablet. Boat FllImp Facilities Available to the Public , ( l Twenty-one thousand vessels were registered in Collier County in 2002. LesII than 6000 wet slips and Jess than 3000 commercial dry storage spaces are available to house them. As a result, at least 12,000 vessels countywide are dependent on boat ramps for' water access. At an average of 20 launches per vessel per year, countywide facilities should be able to accommodate 240,000 launches per year to meet demand. Spread across the 27 boat'nimp lanes available, facilities will average 8,889 launches per year, or 24 launches per day. This figure is in accordance with the recommendation o~ the Florida Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Planning Guide of 2000, which stiggests . ......_._.__._.._thalll.single..b.QlIt.rampJalllLc.an..ac.QllIlJInQdallt3.6.JaunclJe.s-P~2.Qmimrts:.sJp.111.LJ2!Il= in anilptill:(Jut time over a 12chourperiod):These calculations are ideal'numbers,' however, and do not provide for peak uSe times such as weekends and holidays or for any boats trailered in from outside of the county. The Florida Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Planning Guide recommends that average peak use be calculaied as follows: "Total user occasions are multiplied by 55 percent and divided by Ill. This formula is derived from state park , attendance, where 55 percent of the total arulUal attendance occurred over 111 days (52 weeks times two weekend days plus seven weekday holidays). Average weekend and holiday use for Collier County's boat ramp-dependcnt vessels then is 1189 launches, or 44 launches per lane per day. To meet the recommended carrying capacity of 36 launches Colll9r County Boat and Baach ACceBS Ruport 2003 3 Agenda Item No. 8A February 10, 2009 Page 44 01 117 i '. per lane per day on an average weekend or holiday Collier County needs an additional six boat ramp lanes countywide. . The growth of boating countywide Is a further consideration with regard to the level of service County boaters can expect to experience. The DUmber of registered vessels in the county has grown steadily at 1000 boats per year over the past six years. Currently few solutions exist for finding homes for these additional boats in dry storage . or slips. They will most likely become ramp users. too. At 20 launches per year they will require an additional 55. launches each day or 99 launches on an average weekend day. This translates to a need for an additional two boat ramp lanes per year for as long as this growth rate Is sustained in order to maintain the levels of service County boaters currently enjoy. Table 2 projects boat ramp lane deficiencies for the next ten years. Number 01 registered vessel. Tabls 2. Pro ecllon of Boat Ram Need Numbar 01 Numbar of vessels Number of ramp Ramp lane welldry slips using boa! ramps Isn... countywIde deficIt tannusllncro..s 01160 wet slips pat year for 2002 to 2007, based on an average of the number 0 pel1lllts Issued by Collier County over the last lour yeal'$; reduced to 120 per year for 2008 to 2012. anticipating stronger enVlronm.ntallaw and decreased .vaU.blllty 01 undevelop.d wat.rfronl property * Incr.... of 350 dry sUps based on propos.d development of Hamllton Hal1>or . S-Iane Increase baeed on plenned development of Ih. Pulling property by lite City 01 Neplee .. 2-lenelnore.ee based on the plenned development pi Goodland Boating Park by Collier COunty Observation reveals. however. th.t where Collier County-run boat ramps are concerned 36 launches per lane per day offers a generous launch and retrieval time, and County boat ramp users can potentially slgnlficantly maximize a ramp's capacity with efficient usage. The problem resides not in the carrying capacity of the ramp but of the parking area. Table 3 illustrates the dellrth of parking available at some County facilities. ......__.__.__Jmiew_Park. for exampk,J!!<fQrdilll!: to the standard could accommodate 72 launches per day, but offers only 16 trailer parking spaces. Weekends see Bayview ramp users parking along the roadside as far as a mile aw.y from the park. Because the County recently adopted a policy to charge a launch fee instead of a parking fee, boaters who must walk significant distances from and to their vehicles .re still required to'pay $3 to use the facility. ( Colller CoUn1y Soat and Beat:h Aoe&8u Report 2003 4 Agenda Item No. 8A February 10,2009 Page 45 of 117 ( An additional consideration with respect to boating is access to fresh waier. Currcntly only Lake Trafford is officially ava.ilabJe for freshwater boating, although a considerable amount of boat traffic fmds its way to the canal system. More a9(:ess to fresh water may alleviate some of the burden on existing faCilities and, as the County popnlation grows, may become an increasing demand in its own right. Beach Access The State of Florida recommends a distance of one half-mile between sites for the sp~g of beach access points at state-financed beach restoration projects. Collier County beaches offer a wide range of choices with regard to the frequency of access points along its benches. In general, State and County beach parks have more sparsely spaced access points to maintain lesser density and a more natural bcach environment and experience. The City of Naples, on the other hand, maintains 34 of its 37 access points within a five-mile stretch of beach, allowing for a more urban beach experience. County residents and visitors are well served by this variety, but to keep up with growth the County should continuously seek ways to improve access, amenity, and parking at its beaches. Table 4 is a summary of the public access available along the county's shoreline, from north to south (facilities operated by Collier County Parks and Recreation are highlighted): . ( AmonIU.. ColDer CountY' Boat end BEtsch ACl;:BUS Report 2003 5 _. .I Agenda Item No. SA February 10, 2009 Page 46 of 117 ( Ke din I.land Hideaway ae.oh Developmen! 3 CIty 01 Nspte. acco$!l.. am avallBbIe amid North Gull Shore condominium. 30,000 34 .ce..... strotch from north of The BeBOh Club to Il2nd Avenue South; Lowd.rmllk, P.rl< .nd ""cosees near Nepl.. Pier offer full am.nltie.; .elect others have .howars and loot showar. 40000 water access ani 5280 prlvata msldances and condominiums. 75% 'rnocc.....lbla to the gimeral ubllO" variable o o none nona . Aocesslblllty oalculated by subtraCllng \4 mila from thelo1al nnear footage for eaoh oontiguous publioly . accElsslbte beach. ~-" f" , Even more than for boatels. a beachgoer's enjoyable day at the beaCh is only as attainable as the nearest available parking space. In the last three years Collier County has added 93 beach parking spaces to its inventory: 80 at Conner Park (whiCh allow for access to Delncr-Wiggins State Recreation Area or Vanderbilt BeaCh) and 13 at North Gulf Shore Access. Total spaces at County beaChes wi~ the completion of the North Gulf Shore project will be 1179. Spaces at City of Naples and State of Florida beaches have remained static at 1122 and 350, respectively. Table 5 outlines the number of beach parking spaces per capita in season over the past three years and projected for the next te ven With the recent additions, available parking is not keeping pace with growth. Tbis year Collier County's population will exceed the 1:1 space-to-res! en ra 0 recommended by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Boald in 1999. I- I ( COllier County Boat and BBBeh Aceles Report 2003 6 Agenda Ilem No. SA Febnuary 10, 2009 Page 47 of 117 ( The 1: I SO space-to-resident mtio was established as a goal by comparing the number of public parking spaces to the seasonal population of the county. To retain the validity of the standard the same formula has been used in the table above. However, a number of considerations improve the outlook where the County's ability to provide sufficient parking for beach access is Concerned. For example, the areas listed in Table 4 as partially inaccessible to the general public nonetheless do serve a portion of the population. Those people who live in the appropriate lIfess and/or purchase ilie required memberships life served by accesses and parking at such semiprivate beaches, The organizations that manage these beaches are able to provide a higher level of service to their constituents than the general public enjoys, Pelican Bay, for example, provides 174' parking spaces for 8600 Wlits, That's a 1:123 space-la-resident ratio assuming 2,5 residents per unit Marco' s Residents Beaches offer a total of 390 spaces for 6654 dwelling units, or 1 space for every 42 residents. Nonetheless the managers of both areas attest that ilieir facilities are inadequate during peak use times, and both have taken steps to improve their service. Pelican Bay is expanding its parking facilities, while Residents Beach restricts guest parking on weekends during season, Additionally, thousands of residences in Collier County are west of Lely Barefoot Boulevard, Gulf Shore Drive, Gulf Shore Boulevard, Gordon Drive. and Collier Boulevard. The people who live in those residences do not need parking accommodation because they live within walking distance of the beach, The recent intrOduction of the Collier Area Transit System may be relieving some of the burden on beach parking for Inland dwellers, Current routes take riders as far west as 6th Street in downtown Naples, which would give a beachgoer a six-block walk to his destination. The County should pursue expanding CAT service to local beaches, as will be discussed in greater detail in the Recommendations section of this report. Other Recreation A fmal topic in a..essing .the County's levels of service witIi. regard to beaches and boating is the introduction of alternative recreational activities. Sugden Regional Par\W.sJlome to the fiO-or,pI" ok" Avalon,.which 01lpporto . "'1\dnmling !leach and . opportunities to participate In non-motorized boating such as sailing, canoeing, kayaking, and paddle boating. Clam Pass Park and Barefoot Beach Preserve offer canoe launches, Future plans also call for a non-motorized vessel launch at the bridge at State Road 92. Upon completion of North Naples Regional Park residents and visitors can enJoy a first- class water park with slides, a lazy river, and children's activity pools-a perfect altemative to the beach for cooling down on a hot day. The existing Golden Gate Aquatie .. ...___....._. _.__....Center_lind.small..water_parlult-V..ineyards-Community.Eark.pro'lide.mo.re..choices,J1s well. 'TfulCriiJiity should coniil1ueto diversify thefecreati6nalactivitiesitoffers, Variety' builds the participant base and alleviates the burden on traditional resources such as beaches. PLANNED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Many of Colller County's Parks and Recreation facilities are relatively new, and few to date have required extensive renovations. As these facilities age and the burden of use--or overuse if new facllities are not constructed-accumulates, renovations to Colller County Boat and Beach Acee" Report 2003 1 _..~- ...._. . -, Agenda Item No. SA February 10, 2009 Page4S of 117 ( existing facilities will become an inpreasing demand on capital expenditures. Meanwhile the CQunty's population will continue to grow and demand for new facilities will remain. Balancing the need to sustain or improve existing facilities and add new ones will be a mounting challenge in the future. The mix of renovation and construction as a destination for capital dollars is reflected already in the following boat ramp and beach access projects, all of which are incorporated in the five-year Capital ImprovementPlan: Bayview Park Renovation and Dredging Renovations will include an additional dock and renovations of the existing dock and fish-cleaning tables. Funding through a Florida R,ecreation Development Assistance Program grant is secured for up to $120,000. A fifty percent match is required; $75,000 is approved for FY 03. The balance of the match will be made up from reserves or through in-kind services. Dredging will constitute a separate project, for which $100,000 is approved for FY 03. Gulf Shore Drive Beach Accesses Improvements The six accesses along Gulf Shore Drive at Vandetbilt Beach will be refurbished over several years. Improveinents at Bayview Drlve are approved for $125,000 of'IDC funding for FY 03. Collier Boulevard Boating Park Expansion and Overflow Parking Expansion to the north will add an additional 47 trailer parking spaces, A'second phase of expansion to the south may add an additional 28 trailer parking spaces. Lease of and improvements to a parcel of land across CR 951 may supply additional overflow parking spaces. This will be a multiyear projeot for which $600,000 is approved for FY 03 and $600,000 is planned for FY 04. Lake Trafford Park Improvements, Improvements will be the Installation 'of r1prap around the water bank and repairs to the pier. arme mg IS In Land Purchase for Shuttle Parking The Department will pursue purchasing land along the US 41 coll'idor to develop for parking in conjunction with a CAT beach shuttle service. Proposed funding is $2,000,000 in FY 04, .---- --:::-:~-----:~:~.:GocOfiatchee River Park-Seawall and. Dock Repair .., Seawall and dock repair is proposed for FY04 at a cost of $100,000. Caxambas Park Seawall Repair and landscaping Seawall repair and landscaping projects are proposed for FY OS at $60.000 each. Goodland Boating Park Development Park development will include two boat ramp lanes and SO to 75 trailer parking spaces as well as a neighborhOOd park. This multiyear project is scheduled for master planning at $100.000 in FY 06 and Phase I development at $1,000,000 in FY 07. ( COlUer countY Boat and Beach Acce9s .RepOrt 2003 8 Aoenda Item No. 8A ~ebruary 10, 2009 Page 49 of 117 RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends the following general principles guide the County's decisions with regard to maintaining and expanding boat launch and beach access facilities: . Standards set by the Florida Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Planning Guide or comparable industry guidance tools should be adhered to whenever practicable, . Estimates of carrying capacities and levels of service should always take into consideration peak use times and seasonal populations. . All new boat ramp and beach access facilities should be developed with adequate parking as a primary goal. . Improvement upon the current level of service for boat launch facilities should be a goal of the County. . Maintenance of the 1: 150 parking space-to-resident ratio for beach access should be a goal of the County. . A more even distribution of impact on County beaches through an increased. f!equency of access points should be a goal of the County. . Creation of a system for more cOlrntywide comprehensive planning with regard to boat launch and beach access facilities should be considered. . The County should consider the purchase of available properties that would be suitable locations for boat ramps. · The County should consider the purchase of available properties that would be suitable locations for beach access and beach parking. More specifically, the following are areas where Collier County can maintain or improve its services to residents and visitors by expanding their aCCesS to open water and the beach: '1'1e.. Access..aUlel:itage-Bay In its review of the Heritage Bay Development of Regional Impact, the Parks and Recreation Department has requested that the developer, US Homes. provide one hundred acres and access to one of the lakes within the area to offset the added strain on existing park facilities that the development will create. Access to Golden Gate Canals issllesteganJrng .reCteatlO1laI use oftlleGOluen.Gate cani(system are currently under------.- .." review by the County Attorney's office. Currently an opportunity exists to purchase a parcel of land at the terminus of 58th Stteet, which could be developed to provide canal access. Bayview Park The County should consider purchasing available residential lots along Danford Street to be used for overflow trailer parking. The Parks and Recreation Department requested additional parking from the Hamilton Harbor Development of Regional Impact, and in original plans fifteen spaces were provided. However, the most recent plans for the Hamilton Harbor marina do not provide the requested spaces. Comer County Boat and Beach ACOO8S FkIport 2003 . 9 Agenda Item No. SA February 10, 2009 Page 50 of 117 r- Shell Island Road Boat Ramp The Florida Department of Environmental Protection ~t Rookery Bay is interested in purchasing the boat ramp facility at the end of Shell Island Road from the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. DEP would then consider selling or leasing the ramp to Collier County in exchange in part for funding to pave Shell Island Road. Improvements to the facility would be necessary, and possession is preferred over lease holding. Everglades National Park The master plan for Everglades National Park includes a boat ramp. The facilitY has yet to be built because demand did not appear high enough and funds have not been available. An opportunity exists for the County to partner with the national parks system to see this facility to fruition. Barefoot Beach Preserve Not exceeding the carrying capacity of this park is a primary objective because of its status as a nature preserve. Some current uses raise concern. For example, excursion vessels frequently drop off visitors at the southern tip of the park. This practice is damaging to the fragile ecosystem at Wiggins Pass. A dock and pier are planned for the inland side of the island to accommodate waterborne visitors while protecting the beach and dunes, This area will also allow Preserve visitors a better look at the mangrove habitat, which presently is only accessible by canoe. Educational programs and signage will accompany the facility. Another concern is visits to the park by excursion buses. The parking fee of $4 per vehicle per day was established in part to encourage carpooling, but a $4 entrance fee for a full bus load of visitors is not financially comparable to the amount of impact such a group has on the park. An increased fee for vehicles transporting over eight passengers as is charged at State facilities .should be considered. Vanderbilt Beach Area Conflicting sentiment surrounds the future of the Vanderbilt Beach area. Resident outcry prompted the current moratorium. but preliminary investigation reveals that the process of change that residents sought to hold in abeyance may be too far underway to be prevented, While a more equitable distribution of beachgoers along the entire Gulf front should be a primary goal of the County, Vanderbilt Beach is currently the most viable 10cus.for.irnpr{)"'ing--beach.a0G..ss~The')'leS5ibiHties--lU'e:aS'fol1o!ls;-ad!hessetl'ftW!! ..,Qrtlx to south:' . ...... ........ ... .. ..... .. -, .UH' .. - Officials at Delnor- Wiggins State Recreation Area advise that parking at that park does not accommodate the full carrying capacity of the facility. The State should install an additional 180 parking spaces, equal to the additional 500 beachgoers the facility can hold. The Parks and Recreation Department developed Conner Park on Bluebill Avenue with future plans of securing a beach access point between Delnor- Wiggins State Recreation Area and the Vanderbilt hm. Eighty parking spaces are available to serve an access that as yet is not forthcoming. To ihe north. the State so far has been unwilling to grant an access easement in exchange for improvements at Delnor- Wiggins. To the south. Comer County Boat and Beach Aecess Report 2003 10 Agenda Item No. SA February 10, 2009 Page 51 of 117 I plans to renovate the Vanderbilt Inn are mired in the current moratorium. The owners wish to convert the hotel to condominiums, and the County was going to exchange a small setback variance for a public beach access. This deal may still go through once the moratorium is lifted. A more equitable distribution of beachgoers along Vanderbilt Beach itself is called for to reduce the burden on Vanderbilt Beach Park. To this end, refurbishri1ents will be made to the six walkway easements along Gulf Shore Drive. However, these renovations will not greatly improve the usefulness of the accesses unless closer parking or shuttle service accompanies them. The County should consider the purchase of available lots along this portion of Gulf Shore Drive to be used for parking. See also the transportation recommendation below. A two-story, 400-space parking garage is planned for Vanderbilt Beach Park. This project is CUlTently delayed by litigation in which Collier County is suing WCI developers over deed restrictions on the site. Resolution of the issue and completion of the project remains a recommendation of staff. Land Developmpnt Code Provisions Currently, staff conducts negotiations for allowances for public access on a case-by-case basis as coastal properties are developed or redeveloped. These deals are then approved by the Board along with the development or redevelopment plan for the site. A more formalized system to provide for these exchanges should be codified through the Land Development Code. The substance of the trade should be based on quantifiable characteristics, such as number of units developed or refurbished or acreage involved. The remuneration would likewise need to be pre-established, a~ a given number of parking spaces. rest rooms, feet of easement, or acres of land. The system would ensure that the amount of public benefit would be commensurate for each case of private gain. Tigertail Beach The tidal lagoon at this park is now almost completely enclosed. A boardwalk connecting . the mainland to Sand Dollar Island may be necessary in the future to allow visitors true Gulf-front access. The Parks and Recreation Department has secured funding to study the feasibility of this endeavor. Transportation Shuttle Service Because the purchase ofland west of US 41 is often cost prohibitive, the COWlty should ~-._---~~----_... -..consider-pr.oviding..beaca.access-through-a-slmttl~ewiGth-The-eJQsting..GAT--s-y&tem . . "sliouldbeexpaiided lo include more slOps neai beacn accesses. The Couiity should' consider the purchase of appropriate available lots along the US 41 corridor to be used for parking in conjWlction with shuttle service to Vanderbilt, North Gulf Shore, and Clam Pass Beaches. Bus loading and unloading lanes along Gulf Shore Drive would increase the amenity of the six walkway easements along Vanderbilt Beach. FISCAL OPTIONS Improving levels of service for beaches and boat ramps will be a costly affair. The 2002 Park Impact Fee Update on which Parks Irripact Fees are currently based calculated beach parking acreage at $875,000 per acre based on the value of one acre or larger Collier County Boat and Baach Access Report 2003 11 Agenda Item No. 8A February 10. 2009 Page 52 of 117 commercial parcels west of US 41 in the vicinity of Vanderbilt Beach. Development of such a parcel into a beach parking facility consistent with County code would yield approximately 60 parking spaces peracre at $1000 per space. The Impact Fee Update assigned a cost per acre of $1,350,000 to beach and boating access land. based on the recent purchase of parcels at Barefoot Beach and Goodland, Development of the Goodland property with two boat ramp lanes, parking. and minor other recreation facilities is estimated to cost $1,500,000. Funding sources for these projects are limited. Current budgets suffice for maintenance and minor improvements to existing facilities, but acquisition and development projects of a magnitude that will keep pace with growth will require millions more. Over the next five years a significant portion of Parks Impact Fees are dedicated to development of regional and community parks. Boater Improvement Funds and boat registration fees should be used for capital improvements to launch facilities, but they too are earmarked for necessary expansions and renovations to existing ramps over the next several years. Grant revenues are a consistent but not munificent source of funds, accounting for about $200,000 per year in capital improvement dollars. The most appropriate available source of funds for purchase and development of additional boat ramp and beach access facilities is tourist development money. If the Board of County Commissioners agrees with the recommendations of this report, then the Tourist Development Council should consider increasing the Parks and Recreation line item within the TDC budget to address these issues. This use ofIDC funds is clearly within the parameters set forth for their use and is consistent with the Growth Management Plan, as well. Unfortunately, Conservation Collier funds will seldom be appropriate for the types of projects described here. Little undeveloped coastal land that would be suitable for beach access and boat ramps remains, and in most cases these uses would create a greater impact on the parcels than is the intention of the Conservation Collier program. CONCLU.mON In summary, the levels of service that today's residents and visitors enjoy are currently adequate for beach parking but under the established standards for boat launches. Over the next ten years, continued groWth will significantly lessen the levels provided unless new public beach parking and boat launching facilities are developed. As existing facilities age, competition for capital dollars between renovation projects and development projects will intensify, and current funding levels are already too low to ------------::-::.~ll,lloVo'for.significantelCpansion-of-the-beach-acces,and-boatianm:h-rretwork. Colli.. County Boat aod Beach Acees. Report 2003 J 2 Agenda Item No. 8A February 10, 2009 Page 53 of 117 RZ_2008-AR-12930 REV: 1 BAYVIEW PARK PARKING Project: 2007110027 Date: 2122/08 DUE: 3/21108 PARKING AND TRIP GENERATION RATES -----.--- BAYVIEW PARK OVERFLOW PARKING AREA Prepared For Collier County Coastal Zone Management 3300 Santa Barbara Bonlevard Naples, FL 34116 Prepared By - , JOHNS II ENGINEERING ->> ~-;',-:,." February Z008 )L~ 1- /zo jog 2350 Stanford Court 0 Naples, Florida 34H2 (239) 434.0333 0 Fax (239) 434.9320 APPENDIX 2 Agenda Item No. 8A February 10, 2009 Page 54 of 117 I. Background Collier County Coastal Zone Management is proposing to construct overllow parking areas to accommodate public patrons of Bayview Boat Ramp, This is a County Park facility located at the end of Danford Street off Thomasson Drive in Collier County Florida. The existing boat ramp facility provides boaters access to the Gordon lUver which inrer navigates through Gordon Pass out to the Gulf of Mexico, Due to the popularity of this recreational park, the existing oDSite 16 boat trailer parking spaces and 35 regular parlring spaces a:re quickly occupied on the weekends. Other arrivals are compelled to park on public right-of-way along Danford, Fern and Bay Streets, The expansion limitations within the existing 4-acre park and public safety concerns have necessitated the limited internal parking space expansion and the overflow parking proposal. II. Trip Generation Pa:rking and trip generation rates can be derived from the principles of vehicle travel and parking', For any given time period, the trip generation of a proposed development is the sum of the vellicle arrivals and vehicle departures during that time period. The vehicle arrivals represent the inbound trips and the vehicle departures represent the outbound trips, This relationship can be described by the following mathematical equation; TGen, = Arr, +Dep, Where: TGen, is the total two-way trip generation in time period t; An, is the total vehicle arrival in time period t; and, Dep, is the total vehicle depa:rtures in time period t. FQi-ii~....,k~"a8-:lSll~~~~ uii:> g,c.uuall,-,,; observed will be a sample of the average daily traffic (ADY) equating to TGen, From observations of the number of boats launching during a Sundsy' and the duration of pa:rking (Stall Occupancy), it is safe to assume that the majority of the park's pattons are sport fishermen or recreational boater that will be out on the water for a half or full ____.__.._..___.__<'l'!:J'. Th-'..p,arking along the residential roadway; has beel1..9a=~d:J&W2..sp_a.c.e'-_ -- ~...---_.. .,. 'occupiedbyvehiclnnd'bollt tra:iler'inthn6ath:ighH\f=way~TIin6tiJ:615sefVed"TGen; ......... ...., for existing Bayview Park on this specific Sunday' is as follows: Total onsite parking = 16 ryehicle and Boat Trailer) + 35 (ReguJar) = 51 Occupancies Total Roadside parking = 32 ry ehicle and Boat Trailer) = 32 Occupancies ArtSun,., = 51 + 32 = 83 and Depsuo"', = 83 This yields a total of 166 trips/day. I Ptinciples And Relationships of Parking And Trip Generation Rates, ITE Article AHA95E17, 1995 'Taken ftom a JEI count at 2:00 p,m. on 02/03/08. Agenda Item No. 8A February 10, 2009 Page 55 of 117 Collier County Coastal Zone Management has purchased eleven (11) single family home sites and has ownership of one (1) vacant commercial lot zoned (C3) located in the immediate area between Danford Street and Bay Street in order alleviate the unsafe roadside parking md to providing the necessary space for the proposed overflow patking. The proposed parking lot design includes an interconnection between Danford Street and Bay Street facilitating better traffic circulation and safer off-street parking. Trip generation rates for these potenthl Single Family residential homes and the C3 commercial retail lot can be estimated using ITE Trip Generation Manual, Seventh Edition. The estimated total Sunday trip reduction due to the replacement land use of the potential single family lots and commercial lot are as follows': Ln(T) = 0.89 Ln(x0 + 0.44 T = 401,67 * (xc) Where x. is the number of residenthl dwelling units = 11, and Xc is the commercial building square footage per 1000 S.P. = 2, therefore: TGenRe,idenclol = EXP (0.89* Ln(l1) + 0.44) = 13.12 ;::: 13 Trips TGeIleommemaI = 401.67 * 2 = 803.34 ;::: 803 Trips TGenE,ostingPo"ntial = 166 + 13 + 803 = 982 Trips The proposed improvements to Bayview Park will result in providing 40 vehicle an.d trailer spaces and 26 regular parking spaces on site. The overflow parking lot will result in providing 40 vehicle and trailer and 20 regular parking spaces. Considering a strict enforcement policy of no parking in the right-of-W1lY. we can expect a post construction traffic count of: ArrSuOday = 40 + 26 + 40 + 20 = 126 and DepSunday = 40 + 26 + 40 + 20 = 126 TGen Pwposeii = 252 TRIPS --,_.__._-"._--~-~-_.~._--- ,----~~-~------~-~~~----_..,--------_.. , ITE Trip Generation.. 7" Edition. Land Use Code 210 Pitted CutVe Equation and LUC S51, for 2000 SF Convenience Store Used lower End Rare. Agenda Item No. SA February 10, 2009 Page 56 of 117 III. Conclusion The consequence of estimated total trips that will be aniving and deputing the area between Danford and Bay Streets on a Sunday as a result of the rezoning and proposed overflow parking plan is calculated as follows: TGenSuoday = TGenp,opo,'" - TgenExisting Potential = 252 - 982 = (-730) Trips TI,e above calculations, observations and estimates show that the proposed patking improvements will accommodate vehicles using Bayview Park while eliminating potential single family and commercial trips tl:uough the proposed rezoning. Based on the rezoning from RMF-6 and C-3 to CP, Community Facility, the net effect is a decrease in traffic. ._m"_"__'__'_~'_"__"_'.'_"_"~'_' .-., ""_. -..-..---..-..---. ~...._~..,-_., Agenda Item No. SA February 10, 2009 Page 57 of 117 JOI-Il'fS m)N S U-j(!.; 1946 , 1 , .~ . , t ENGINEERING TO: Gary MCAJPin.~. .... . H -- FROM: ChrIS aWin. . DI\ TE: October 16, 2008 RE: Bayview Traffic Counts This memorandum is submitted as a follow up to my review of the traffic counts taken at the ref- erenced site from Saturday, October 4'" through Sunday, October 12'h I have reviewed our raw data with Gene Calvert and Steve Yu of Collier County Transportation Services Division to con- firm the counts. Steve Yu noted that Column 2 (cars and trailers) and Column 8 (< 5 axle dou- ble) should be added to get the total count for cars with boat trailers. Column 8 readings are for heavily loaded boat trailers. Based on this, we have come up with the following traffic count information: I Dav Date Total East Bound Total West Bound i Saturday 10/4 189 182 Sunday 10/5 16] 164 I Monday 10/6 88 84 I Tuesday 10/7 98 100 I ! Wednesday 10/8 97 97 i Thursday 10/9 94 97 I Friday JOIIO 143 145 . . ..1 i... . ..... Saturdav _ . .... 3.llLll .. . . .... .. 'lzl.'; .. i Sunday 10/12 197 199 : I i i i , --------'- , \,._----"---'".. ! Per the Hamilton Harbor harbor master, the only trips entering their facility are carS and there- fore do not impact the car trailer counts listed above. This shows an average weekend volume of 396 trips per day and an average week day volumeof229 trips per day. The avera~eed stays .. ..nelIr 20-ro:25~rn pn .J-'eak-nour.alwaysappears to &e:6elween f i)";OOa,m;' and-2:45-p,in:' -,..... .... .. --- .....''''-' I I ! ~._+- ..-~.., ... .~!-_. I believe this provides a brief outline of the raw data. If you have any comments or questions regarding this, please contact me. Copy: Laura Dejohn Vince Franceschelli Jason Tomassetti H:\20070000\20077Zl9-002 ~ eZM. Bayvl~lt' fark Expr:msionICorresfXJndf!ncciWfemos\/O./6-D8. CDH 2350 Stanford Court. Naples, Florida 34112 (239) 434-0333. Fax (239) 434.9320 APPENDIX 3 ~~~ 0/1, ~CC~ -'>. ~ 'w\-?,~'1_l,; G. <\,,--........,'\,';0 '. L.:-'", \I~~,\:;~~ 4-1>.. \e.'<\U "'~C!.~~''''''^'i ~ ~",c.~\>"",,,~ \>"'''~M-.,\ ",-\,,,-,,- c"" ~-='-\ \.,<y. DM '<'\!.<'>"~C> "'''''~ ~c "-"'. ,-","<q 'M.. \"''>o.'''y,.~,\ Q...{~",-~~"'<... ,~... ~~\'<..",>.,.\; ';:.., ~<;;"'1lI\ '\c. ~'.R.. "",<>.,A~,\ "'~<!.C- ~"~'" ,,~ \.0 ""\'\.\(.. <::::~,,~\t c""' ~<:1"\o~ ':s~... l"-,,-,--,, <1- ".,,-~ "''<.~,.~Q,~~, "-\ Cl..\I~ <:"'\.0,,","'-. 'IS t:S:~ '\.....:l"".~\Q.. ""''''\~ '\\\~"k ~\L~~'''{' ~ "h<<.. 'l".j,\"..,~'<..1t \,.)Q.. \0",,-,-\~ b '~d <1- ~. ~:,u.:;"-~" \.,(), ~'\ C>, <~"te "'\ '0",,:,,-,,--. (,:;Q., ."""'<;:. ~11.. "'t<l.~-~"',<:,.J:.,\ . ::".,. ,~,,~~ ,,-M,'~<>.,\ ~'L.~ \......,:0'<--". """'---<-\:::"- ~",-"" -\.",\\ -\'~"-'~""\~~,,,'\'\h ':0.= ~ ''2>~:''-, .~.... b',\\ ",s.\.Q.." ,\0. l..J\.....'->~ ').,.::.LL ~"--...,'<- '<:>."'-" ~ "'-"--'/L' ~. . ~~. -\"'e"",-<,,,,,~c""-"-~ )>,,<(\~'1 <:!L'I': "- "'-" ~,,-,:>~~~~I.,"- ~ \\ '-\, . \...""" ~ '"\ . "'-""~ lJ...c,.,,,,~,,,, \~\I':'" \"II.. \"-..'.;,.\ ~..."~<:,,h s.~. Agenda Item No. SA February 10, 2009 Page 58 of 117 Agenda Item No. 8A February 10, 2009 Page 59 of 117 June 02, 2008 To Whom It May Concern: We, Terry & Bonnie Nichols, 2013 Danford Street, Naples are against the rezoning of the property in the Naples Bayview addition for boat trailer parking. Why not use the end of Danford Street on the other side of the Hamilton Harbor area where the "mangroves" have already been destroyed. We thought they were suppose to be protected! ! Also, why do you always have the meetings after the "snowbirds" have already returned North. Since this concerns us, why not have them in January or February? We as fellow boaters (for about 30 years) feel that the park is not big enough to handle a greater influx of boat traffic, ~e~~d'J 'V.~. \jL ~wu ~ . ~~ 0 ryL - ~r\:::::' \"1......\ h'__""\::'=:;x- .. ,. .-.., .,' ~~~...~ .,., '\ ~..~) m:~ q":)~ ~ ;'. J\.lI"HI4-E0M EEt2S fR()'l:MCCRRY ENT~JSES B2B25~0703 I I r-..... ~ohnson,. I'Vf r=ved yo! aIlOlb:r- . '. 'nM lottor liom I J>lIl1lI in\enlfm& \l) desecnllo Ib, !Il!~ Thiil~ iIlift ~ SClllllfOdplolsb:l>oaHnWaporDug..;n or_ horr~.. yl<ws, loWer Open:y values, and .erioWIy lnc...... _ _. I hl.O_lIIlqlllllllllliilllg_. rdpMferlOotl'eratllrishc:aring,blllr"'lIllt pI'OSlntly lMlIe mlDWlL I'm p~ 10 come homo aM build an my 101 in the lIlIU !\duro. r cI be!enibly ~ to fiDd rmc:b aDd lnilets ill my baok yard. 1 wholcblllll<dly disagree willi r Bl'[IlOlCh to solving IIris parking problem. Pilllll.1lOIe IlDOlher .010 In ""'t" wilh your p!an. Sineml}, Mlll7 1= K1iJlF ~ 'hI..uj ';1"'''-; ~6WJ With regard to :203D Danford S~ p-,,> Agenda Item No. 8A February 10, 2009 Page 60 of 117 BayviewPark 12930 Agendflltern, No, ~A FebrlJ~HJ,Q,!OO9 Page 61 of 117 MossJohndavid ______~.~._n_M._~__"______._.__...._..~.._..."__....~_,,.______..._..__,,__., .~__.___..______~.____._~__,,_.____..___.__"._._..______.,,__-'__'__'-'-"_'_'_'__ From: Philip Litow [capnlit@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday. June 15. 200810:01 AM To: MossJohndavid Subject: Re: Bayview Park 12930 Dear Mr. Ross, Thank you for the update on the plans to create parking lots in our neighborhood. This is to inform you that in spite of any alterations or added amenities 1 still protest the implementation of this bad idea. Since it would be near the end of Bay 811d Danforth streets it would be of little benefit and hardly lessen the distance boaters would have to walk to the launch area. Actually if, as previously proposed, parking is eliminated along the mBllgroves near the park the distBllce would be greater. Instead of making for safer conditions for the area children, trailers pulling in Blld out can only make for greater likelihood of accidents. At present with parking along the =groves Blld Fern St. there is no such activity where people live Blld children play. Add to that the potential for trouble in the parking area after dark. Besides these particulars there are issues which haven't been considered at all, nBlllely the effect such a project would have 011 the quality of life of those most directly affected Blld the value of their properties. Rhetorically, would such a project ever even be considered in Port Royal, Royal Harbor, or where BllY of the Commisioners live? Sincerely, Philip Litow 1970 Danford St. ----- Original Message ---- From: MossJohndavid <JohndavidMoss@colliergov.net> . To:capnlit@yahoo.com Sent: Friday, June 13,2008 10:01 :29 AM Subject: Bayview Park 12930 Mr. Utow, Here is my email address, and my other contact info is below. Sincerely, Jofin4)a'()U! 'Jvloss, AlCP Principal Planner Zoning & Land Development Review Community Development & Environmental Services 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104 tel. 239.252.4237 fax 239.252.6968 6/16/2008 AgendiMffll>.mfBA February 10, 2009 Page 62 of 11 7 MossJohndavid -_._._-----------~~----------------- From: MikeyDC3@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 200812:33 PM To: MossJohndavid; capniit@yahoo.com Subject: Re: Bayview Parking Lot Mr Moss, thanks for your information on the Bayview parking .. I am still objecting to the idea by collier county's plan to put in place Parking area in a Residential neighbor hood. we object due to Several areas, 1sl parking lowers our property values, .2nd Parking put parkers in & out all hours of the day & night, adding alcohol & profanity. trash, peopie going to the bathroom in the backyards of the Residents. also adds crime & place to break into Unoccupied vehicles.3rd Adding the parking requires the tearing down of TWO NEW houses acquired by the county from a Developer, not a resident !.4th.this parking area Doesn't replace the removal of parking along the street ,by the park on Danford st ,5th Is this going to be OVERFLOW Parking for Hamitton Harbor?? .6th County Has NOT changed any of the problem areas with the park, such as turning area, most people cannot turn around in the park, drive up Danford st to the corner, Make a U turn speed back down the street to pick up their Boat.. Does the county need a play ground in a water front area? with 2 with in a mlle?.could the area be used in a more efficient manner? 7th the county needs to expiore buying the area the the south of the park offer by a resident, changing the Zoning ,for parking. Has the County talked to The Botanical Garden, they have over 150 acres of land some by fern st & Hamilton Harbor. wouldn't this be a better area for parking, by a marina? 8th, Last let the County sell the lots & houses bought from developers to residents & leave the Community intact, Or BUY ALL OF US REPLACEMENT HOUSE,S 1 BLOCK FROM THE NAPLES BAY. GRAND FATHER OUR TAXES & MOVE ALL THE RESIDENTS thanks Michael Sanford resident 2045 Danford sl Naples F134112, cell 239-370-9031 in a message dated 616/2006 12:1528 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, JohndavidMoss@colliergov.netwrites: Mr. Sanford, I just wanted to give you my emall address, as promised. I have a meeting with the applicants on Wednesday to discuss the NIM last night. I am going to encourage them to withdraw the petition. Hopefully you and your neighbors' opposition made them realize the absurdity of their proposal! Feel free to follow up with me on Thursday or afterwards. Sincerely. PS I use to fly AirTran back and forth from DC when I lived there, so I might have been a passenger of yours a time or mol Jofin-"Da'Via :Moss, AICP ~~~i-~_~~_e~-~~16p~rri~ri;R~~~~~=~:=~~-~~'-'-'~---------'------'----.-.-----=~==.~--:~='=---~:-"..---"~~=--"-~~-.--"--.-"-~-~--~=.=---= Community Development & Em~ronment:al Services 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104, tel. 239.252.4237 fux 239.252.6968 Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for fuel-efficient ~S('t9 Ci'ifS. 7/8/2008 Agend~~'in~f $A February 10. 2009 Page 63 of 117 Thank you for your thoughtful letter. I will include it with the materials I send with my report to the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners so that they wlil read it too. Sincerely. John-David From: Is;Ig!Jt>r~g@-'19!,<;Qm [mi'l)ltQ;I~jg!Jpr~Q@Qol.c:O!1J] Sent: Tuesday, July OB, 2008 11: 15 PM To: MossJohndavid Subject: Bayview Park 12930 Mr. Moss, I do expect to attend the meeting on 7/10/08, but would like to have my objection to re-zoning of MY lots on DBllford or Bay Sts to parking documented by this email. If 1 Blll persuaded differently during the 7!l 0 meeting, I will certainly advise differently in writing following the meeting. We WBllt Collier County to recognize that we are a Neighborhood that provides opportunities for affordable housing and affordable lots near the water, which are presUlllably more rare even thBll public boat access to the water. It is a neighborhood with groV\1h potential like BllY other in Naples; Blld with that, in the long run, the County would benefit from increased taxes. (The County could also benefit from selling the two houses that it owns rather than tearing them down for a parking lot... imagine how that event will look on the front page of the Daily News.._). At our first meeting, the woman from the acquisitions department made much of the fact that some properly owners had sold lots or had approached the County to sell their lots. Well, guess what. Most neighborhoods undergo tumover even without aggressive pursuit by willing buyers as Collier County. In this economy, the numbers of willing sellers listed in the Sunday paper real estate section would stBlld in line for days for even the .. l-'~~~;bjffty dial the-fumtyorallyol1c clse-might-offer-to-buy-theiIpropertii,,_ The ~~le or possible sale, by some property owners doesn't m= that the Neighborhood is disintegrating or has any intention of doing so.. I think that you must have gotten that message during our first meeting. Rezoning of any lots for parking would be detrimental to the Neighborhood. Properly values would decrease_ Safety for the Public Blld the Homeowners would be compromised by parking lots interspersed __ _u_ Blllong residentiaLpmpe.rties.. _.___._ __. .__.____u__.___.u.__. ..'..n _.'_.._u HBlllilton Harbor has its marina Blld managed to chB11ge the nBllle of Fem St to Hamiton_ (The possibility however remote, that the County might at some future date sell, rent,or otherwise extend use ofBllY lot to Hamilton Harbor for additional parking of their guests would add insult to the injury inflicted by the placement of the boat storage facility). The Public has Bayview Park, Blld Public enthusiasm for boating has not been dampened by parking along Fem St(or by the cost of gas, it seems). The Neighborhood just WBllts to remain residential with no additional infringement by the Marina or the Public; Blld we think that the County should support the Neighborhood interests in this regard. There's no reason that the existence of the three entities as they now are, can't reflect a harmonious, charming area of Collier County. 7/1412008 AgendiagenlNJf BA February 10, 2009 Page 64 of 117 MossJohndavld From: ieighbreed@aoLcom Sent: Tuesday, July OB, 200B 11:15 PM To: MossJohndavid Subject: Bayview Park 12930 Mr. Mossl 1 do expect to attend the meeting on 7110/08, but would like to have my objection to re-zoning ofany lots on Danford or Bay Sts to parking documented by this emai1.lfI am persuaded differently during the 7/10 meeting, I will certainly advise differently in writing following the meeting. We want Collier County to recognize that we are a Neighborhood that provides opportunities for affordable housing and affordable lots near the water, which are presumably more rare even thBll public boat access to the water. It is a neighborhood with growth potential like any other in Naples; and with that, in the long run, the County would benefit from increased taxes. (The County could also benefit from selling the two houses that it owns rather than tearing them down for a parking lot... imagine how that event will look on the front page of the Daily News...). At our first meeting, the woman from the acquisitions department made much of the fact that some property owners had sold lots or had approached the County to sell their lots. Well, guess what. Most neighborhoods undergo turnover even without aggressive pursuit by willing buyers as Collier County. In this economy, the numbers of willing sellers listed in the Sunday paper real estate section would stand in line for days for even the possibility that the County or anyone else might offer to buy their properties. The point is, the sale or possible sale, by some property owners doesn't mean that the Neighborhood is disintegrating or has any intention of doing so.. I think that you must have gotten that message during our first meeting. Rezoning of any lots for parking would be detrimental to the Neighborhood. Property values would decrease. Safety for the Public and the Homeowners would be compromised by parking lots interspersed among residential properties. HamIlton Harbor has Its marma and managed to chBllge the name of Fern St to Hamiton. (The possibility however remote, that the County might at some future date sell, rent,or otherwise extend use of any lot to Hamilton Harbor for additional parking oftheir guests would add insult to the injury inflicted by the placement of the boat storage facility). The Public has Bayvicw Park, and Public enthusiasm for boating has not been dampened by parking along Fern St(or by the cost of gas, it seems). The :Neighborhood jUst\'@lt~t9~I:~m.,,!ig.resiq~!l.tial .~with.!1Q:NsJjjjQll~ljnfringemenLby_the. MarinaDLthe..._ ..:.::.: Pub I ic.;. and we .thi n k-that theCounty.sh ould-supporttheNeighborhoodinterests in.thisregard~There'sriO reasOn that the existence of the three entities as they noW are, can't reflect a harmonious, charming area of CoIlier County . Leigh Breeden 1970 Danford St. Naples, FL The Famous. the infamous, the lame. in your browser. Get the TMZ Toolbar Ngw! APPENDIX 4 71912008 Agend~ :NofflA February 10. 2009 Page 65 of 117 MossJohndavid -,_._~--"~-,.._._._-_._- ----_.,-~------,-------,._-,-------~---_.__._-_..__.__.--_.~._"._..._----------- From: Philip Litow [capnlit@yahoo.GOm] Sent: Friday, July 11, 20081:56 PM To: MossJohndavid Subject: Bayview Park parking Dear Mr. Moss, Last night after talking to you outside at the end of the formal meeting we went out to eat. When we returned at about 10PM B13d turned onto DB11ford St. we passed a car towing a boat B13d leaving the park. So much for parking stopping at dusk. About B13 hour ago I took my dog for a walk down to(but not in) the park. There were 6 trailers in the park Blld 1 parked along the mBllgroves out- side the park on a beautiful Fri. midday. So much for a pressing need for more parking. The notion of chopping up and ruining a neighborhood for a small gain in parking for weekend boaters is ludicrous. This is especially so when other options which were proposed at last night's meeting are available(building B13d paving over culverts along the IDBllgroves, using thg the mangrove areas themselves, getting IBlld from the Botanical Garden) along with the planned added parking spots within the park make the intrusion unnecessary. It is obvious that whoever conceived this plBll Blld WB11ts to pursue it has one intention in mind: to acquire through a piecemeal process what couldn't be done by the use of eminent domain. The grBlld scheme to convert the entire neighborhood into parking in this way is one that would never be considered in Port Royal, Royal Harbor. Pelican Bay, or any neighborhood where any of the commissioners lives. Philip M. Litow 1970 DB11ford St. 7/11/2008 Agend!?<liTnlN#. BA February 10, 2009 Page 66 of 117 MossJohndavid _.-._----_.~._---~--,_. .. -.-..-..--"""----- From: leighbreed@aol.com Sent: Saturday. July 12.200812:10 PM To: MossJohndavid Subject: Re: Bayview Park 12930 Mr. Moss, This is to advise again that, as result of the 7/10 meeting, I continue to be adB111Blltly opposed to re- zoning of any lots in the Neighborhood ofDBllford Blld Bay Sts. 1 was stunned by B11 early statement (the county has invested in these lots and is committed to pursuing its original plan) intended to stBlllp out any consideration or discussion of parking options outside the County established parameters. What a bone-headded thing to say. What blatant disregard and disrespect for Neighborhood residents, aka Taxpayers, who had ccme to discuss and offer ideas for possible resolutions that could satisfy all parties. What lack of concern over the County's choice to pursue Bll idea that may have appeared to be well- intended in its conception but is proving to be flawed as it nears fruition. What Bll insult to our intelligence to think that Bllyone in that room really believed that the plarmed carving up of a residential neighborhood for interspersed boattrailer traffic would be in our best interest, to keep us safe and secure. What I'm thinking is that this drama would be a superb topic (Murder of a Neighborhood by Its Well lntended and Benevolent Parent) for Carl Hiassen to explore for Bll upccming book. Maybe I'll send a 'S~fggE3t-ion.~- - - " -- -"' .. _.,- -- ,- . ",,- ",. ,-.,---.".-,-." I do know that it is unnecessary to recap here the Neighborhood list of concerns and other options that did get presented and recorded despite the initial effort to squelch. We very much appreciate the fuet that you, at least, take them seriously and have promised to make them heard at future meetings with the PlBllning Commission.. Thank you for that. We look forward to the next report on where we ... . .gQ frqffihere.._.____ _.____H Leigh Breeden 1970 DBllford St -----Original Message----- From: MossJohndavid <JohndavidMoss@colliergov.net> To: leighbreed@aol.com Sent: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 8:35 B1ll Subject: RE: Bayview Park 12930 Ms, Breeden, 7/14/2008 ------ Agenda item No. 8A February 10, 2009 Page 67 of 117 October 1, 2008 R€CfEIVeD Ocr 0 7 2008 70N - ING DEP I'lFlTMENT To: Jolm David Moss As longtime residents of Danford Street, we strongly object to rezoning for overflow parking and the new cross street between Bay and Danford Streets. We feel there are no safety issues now and that there would be more if parking is alIowed in a residential neighborhood. We have no problem with parking the way that it is, as most overflow is on Saturday and mainly Stmday. We feel that rezoning for parking in a residential neighborhood would devalue our homes and give the county ability to buy property at cheaper prices - a fonn of back door eminent domain. Thank you, David and Sharon Kramer .18~Stieel. Agenda Item No. 8A February 10, 2009 Page 68 of 1'17 October 2, 2008 Collier County Community Development Environmental Services Division Dept of ZOning and Land Development Review RE: Rezoning residential lots for parking lots Dear, Mr. John David Moss, First we would like to take this opportunity to thank you for attending the Bayview Park residents community meetings, for providing information about the re-zoning Blld most of aU for listening to our concerns in reference to the residential lots rezoning on Bay Street and DBllford street to parking lots. As we stated on all three meetings, we are opposed to building parking lots within our residences on Bay Street Blld DBllford Street. The rezoning will lessen the value of our hard working investments Blld the quality of our lives. We are concerned that once Collier COImty rezones one parcel of IBlld either on Bay Street or DBllford Street it will continue to buy Blld turn additional lots for parking until our dreBllI homes Blld quiet neighborhood is divided. .. .. Wearenot {)ppOs~(Ltoth",ex:Pltl1Si()n oftl1e~ayyit;'Y.J'~ktQ iD.9)tI~kJh~~<igillQ!lillZ:L_... parking spaces or to the eXTension of the park intO the lots diaT the county owns that now is populated with mBllgroves. We do not like to see any environmental impact in the park but if rezoning this area is going to help fix all the parking issue, then lets do it with the minimum impact to the environment. We are not opposing to additional parking facilities for other residents to enjoy, but what we would like is for the county to correct the parking issue with the least impact to our lovely Bayview Community. . ..." ". ..m.__...~_'" ._ "'__~..'.. "'..____ _____,~_,..__",_, In conclusion we would like for the county officials, commissioners Blld the West Coastal Water MBllagements to take in consideration the impact that the rezoning will have in the quality of the life for the citizens of Bayview Park Once again, thB11k you for your support Blld cooperation. Sincerely, Alfredo & SBlldra Arafet 1920 Danford Street Naples, Fl 34112 '..:-~~ Agenda Item No. 8A February 10. 2009 Page 69 of 117 October 3, 2008 RECEIVED OCT 0 8 2008 ZONING DEPARTMENT Mr. John David Moss Dept. of Zoning & LB11d Development 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 Dear Mr. Moss: We, Terry & Bonnie Nichols, 2013 DB11ford Street, Naples are against the rezoning of the property in the Naples Bayview addition for boat trailer parking. We like Danford Street the way it is. First of all, it will reduce our property value Blld I am relatively sure that you would not WB11t it next to your home. There are people out there that need homes they CB11 afford to live in and there are homes on Bay Street that have sat empty since they were built. What a shame! I!! They do not need to be torn down Blld made into trailer parking!!!! Also, we are against taking down any more "mBllgroves" in our area We thought they were suppose to be protected. Why do we have to destroy everything for progress? We have been told that our opinions matter. Our opinion is NO !lI! Thank you, - .-- -. (~. -"'-- -- -.. .--... du~~ ~~ L~ ~ k0L.J Terry & Bonnie Nichols 1415 Douglas Ter. Dixon, IL. 61021 Agend~li8[llNor 8A February 10, '2'009 Page 70 of 1-17 MossJohndavid From: Kimberly A Branch [klmbranch1@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Monday, October 06,200812:32 PM To: MossJohndavid Subject: Parking Protest Attachments: Larry Fax.doc Attached you will find the letter previously written in protest of BllY parking in our neighborhood. We protest the ONE lot currently debated. 10/6/2008 Agenda Item No. 8A February 10. 2009 Page 71 of 1.17 BriBll Blld Kim Thompson 995 Richmond Road Lyndhurst, Ohio 44124 October 6, 2008 Re: Overflow Parking areas for Bayview Park To Whom It May Concern: We are writing to strongly protest the proposed rezoning request for additional boat trailer parking in our residential neighborhood. Our concerns are regarding our privacy, property values Blld our safety. The improvements in the Bayshore area are commendable Blld we are pleased that Bll attempt to solve the parking problem at the park is being addressed. The rejuvenation is welcome, however we are disappointed that we have come so far Blld suddenly there is the prospect of looking at 3 separate parking lots dividing 1 short city block on 2 different streets! The proposed overflow parking lots consisting of 2.13 acres in Naples Bayview Addition No.1, lots 4-6, 24-27, 40, 48-49, and 52-56 in Section 23 divide us from our neighbors, destroy our views Blld create noise problems for those whom directly back up to or face these lots; One site is directly behind a brand new swimming pool. Another lot backs up to a new home! Our properties will devaluate for the obvious reason that who in there right mind would buy a home that looks at a parking lot. A fBlilily with children will not be safe. -.-- -'~ ...- ~ .,,- ., -,,-. As residents of DBllfbrd Street, (he boa! traffic has oeen Bll issue for a long tIme. Signs were posted prohibiting trailers from parking in front of our homes. With additional lots we are inviting more speeding traffic down a narrow street. The city has dealt with problems in the park already. Why would we invite more? Hamilton Harbor has cast a shadow on all residents of Bay Street. The mangroves were _~_..:_JIP.Pr9y~f9-,-q~SJl}lcJiop,f9Itl1eirproj"ct;-.w.I1YwaSl1't..tl1e:_-PQ~~ill.itiJy~QLaddr<:ssirtg:!l1e::.. parking at the park considered at that time? Removing more mangroves and maintaining the parking at t11at end of the street would certainly be the better solution. The roadside parking to be alleviated for safety issues is an absurd excuse and we reject that logic. The current roadside parking is along the mBllgroves and Fern Road. NOT in front of or behind our homes. As gas prices continue to rise, is there a need for so many trailer boat parking spaces? The boat rBlilp CBll not accommodate as mBllY boaters that CBll park. There is inadequate dock space for boaters to tie up to while they walk to their parking spaces. Agenda Item No. 8A February 10, 2009 Page 72 of 117 We know that our concerns are reasonable and hope that they will be heard and considered. How would you like a boat trailer lot in your yard? Thank you for giving this matter your attention. We may be reached at 216-870-2159 or 216-408-0412_ Sincerely, BriM and Kim Thompson Property Owners 1893 DBllford Street "., -- ......_~.._---,_._..... ~...." _.~ ",_.._",,^, ...-.....,.. -....-.. '_' "n__..___.____._ _ __"..__,_ _~_,,~,_"__"_~.___'___ _.._._.,___....___n._ Agenda item No. 8A February 10. 2009 Page 73 of 1'17 Newt Lowe h;31 Bay 5t Naples. FL 34112-6460 tl [)V1 ~ ...~.~~ ~. {:Vi J3 ~ ~, L~ f: If 'if0' c.Lc/ i vi ~17 1M /3~.J;f~:tj/~;-'.,.1tt;Jt/Jy.-I..~r;~'.~. .~~ 4 ~~~. 1~.C{'---M<- ____'~'_~::..:._'..=:.._._ ;_~~_:~~:'::'~:. ':':":~m' _'::':"w"::::':::.._:... ~'-~-v~:~------ ... _.____ ..1~--~ ....13f:Of!; ',:'7:::6' 8f6fJ6/VEb . zqif)fiirIdcfi.:2008 ZONI"G t.".' . "' V"PArfrrvrt::NT , . RECEIVED OCT a 7 2008 16 - '3 - u~ ~ ZONING DEi"ARTMEN'{ ~<: ,\O\,,,,<,\f~D':"";:. (\.",:'t,. ti......Ol.Yl... ~.J... ~\'0-CM\6, WQ... , ~'""'~~.~ ~",h ~~''''--''-: \\f\"",,",--\.~Y'\, \~Q.... ~>... \"\.'::,\ ~G.-"S-.c::,1:"6 ~~. ~,,,,.:~\'L~ II "'- "'" ~ ""Q..Q'<.. \ 0\ ~:~ ~~-'>-A'2.. ~'0f\ ~~ \ '\>sb,. th" <4 ""',?'X'c<:>', ~~O(\ -\0 ~-.&.. ~a~o~~ _~"'~~'\ <::!.."'<:2..~~ 0" ~'\ ~'?Q..~ .~~ ;:,~.,\" -\,,\""\~ ~""-~ ~ ~<:o> ~.-.....Q.. YQ,~~'1 \Js.."='C.Q::" \.'t;,~ . ~"".,-\ ~Q,,~e "'~. l,)au.. \<2:" ''As'--'-.. c~ CI..'0.,-\ 'O(\~ .1.;::;\l,~-\_ ~~ \ ~~ _~~~ ~~ Q. ~Q., ~~~ c:...~~~. ~-L~ ,,-:';, \'-..o~ ~"-~\C S,C,," --\\,'C.. \::.\.........;, \~~~'" W\\.D c:..\,<"'-Q,~\ \ '0l~ oC\ ~~ ~\."Z~~'Y. 'L::J\---Q.\ l..;),\\ - :~''''::2':;.:.';S:'3'2s;:.;5:s::.~~::~~~..?\2co,\~.:>=:~::.~::::-:?~.<<":::__..~.:.:.-=:::.-.-::.:::__. '\~=~~~~ \\~~'\ '00.\\ ~\,,-(L ~-\~Q.. ~~Q...~~ Q:..~ ~~ ~C:"S'~ ~',\\ \"-..&<y ~ \C~, ~.<:L "' 'b....~c:,.: , ~ Q..."'~ ~'2..~ " ~ -\ \-v2.., Q" ~ Q... Q....0,O '->-:$: """"~~Q... <::-.6 '0\ -,..".:y-"",,:,:;"\' ~'\,\ -~~e. ';-"'--0\".'C..,\ 0" \,,'0'" $~,~ ~~ ~0.."" ~\ ~~ ~ ~Q..~~. ~<:::;~;:;Q.. ~V00 b'C..co..,,-~\~v.. \ \.-'2..<.,0 \\.p ""'-~). Q..e, '-"- \ <h 'be.. '~~ ':'\.,e->L...':)f2... I Agenda Item No. 8A February 10, 2009 Page 74 of 117 Agenda Item No. 8A February 10, 2009 Page 75 of ! 17 l.'1 "". ;4 ~::' C~, ::.~~, ~, r "'-"" <.;;,-\'<..c:.~ c:.~ ~~<:" ~ ~"<4. -\\~,'^- ~ c,'->..) $ . ~'-~"- Q..~'<. ~~ "".'-\ '\-,,\<::)~,,- \<c.'S,'::, "L.~-\6.~e.."", 0~ ~~'<?.. ~~~<;;"'2-~ .\.06.0>,' ~ ~-'>...\..~ 'L,.:)~Q,-\ ~~~ o~ ~~"'~">, ~<;;...~\ ~\c,~~":;, c"" ""<::>~ ~~~'-\ (f'-'-- ~o...i..~ ~~c.'--'<..~~ -\""~~"- ~~~~'\ ~~C2.-\b~ 'W~ \:)c ~~ 1....:lQ..,,~ ~\'2.-"^'-, Q~ ~\-<.-~ \"~~S -\~-;,""^- ~~ \><::..,\.(~ 'b."?SI::,":::, ~,~ ~'\ ~'" <:::. '-'- <:: 'W ~--6,.c> '--0 ';;,.. . _ ~OG.'~'&-..~ \)~\.,)Q.., 'h~~", .~,,\\..~\ 0"",, b<::-~ '-........ ~'" ~ ~ ~ e>\., --\~ ~ 0 a.6" lo ~ ~:::" "'on." .._..___......__~.. _.....""_......__ ..._. "'_' ,_....__.. __...~...'__._ "o,,-,~ ~ ~'<.. ~"'", '\(<:iL.'M..'G.\"",-G~\" ~" ~"'- ~\.:,.,,~ ~,C-\Q..<:\\1. ~=.;, \.Q..o;;,> ~::, \;:,~ ~\\ 'S~ ..\."",,,,,~ \<:, ~~ <::>" ',""'''',,'--'...t,.. ~~~:_~::::..:.~"":~",,,~:.'\-.~~:_~,,::~...~..~.:~\,-:s:,'S:..-- ~""'-"'~~~ ~~'L~'S,. "'Kct, '~Q.-"""~'\..,. '.,'\ " \. ,) '\\1\. \.. "--~.'( '\ ~ ""-"'-~ ~~Q.." \V\......~"''- ~. Agenda Item N~A II-FEjbwar)"1 ~ ,oou9 Page 77 of 117 20.. M.w.. dJ ~ ~': RECEIVFD & tdvk. i; ~ 6~, J .~n ~ cvt ~nblfl\! Jlg 2008' ^ ~ ~ -t--nt r.:u.^l.,,~ () t'V"~ J:tv.it cJ,/V"" ...~ ~- f2Jv:.- ~ vJ-J;- J ~V" ~.~ ~ Ot M!/ ~ 1&IN~ARTMENT 3MA(kU R ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~v17L, ~iJ v.g ~ bf f~. L: ~ NMJ~' a ~~- ~V{Jk ~ uf~ ~Vv.uJ ~ ~.~ ~~_ ~ ~ Mu. 2- N.w ~~,fwt- Q ~ ~ 7i:uu.,'24~ ~ lV\ ~ ~ JIv( J-y..~ ~ ~ r~ ~~ ;6; ~ ~ .~ ~ oJ) 1 ~_ ~( ~ . Yu So f;u-iA M 'Mpj ~ ~lvJ~ ~~.j~ ~ u~f ;t;:~. ~ w~ j; ~ ~ :tJv. ~ l~ ~ ~ (j-fJv'-k~?-. 1"- "l:k Xiv- /itdj ~ Mw ; (fJ" VvV ~ ~ ~* ~ f:rtw ~- /'h ~; M ~. ~ ~ ~\-{. ~ Vv(;:!v{ fu ~ jL)! cJ ~ l;f ~~ *0 ~,~ ~ ~~ hf ~.~ '4-: ,~~ -AAl:Jk~ ~ ~~M ~ ~ i4t ~~- ~ ~~ }l\S1---i;... ~ ~ ~ <ft e0f'bL ~i-!, rW 1 "'''' ~ M0I-- ~.;"fr;:J..~...~.".._""~,_.fu.o.~v',!.I........~" ~ ~ ~ ~ d: ~~i;Z~.~ ~ ~O~~'!.T~ .....?j,~, ~ ~ .""- - :;-FJ?'D.--'?".'& c::.:\;."I:~--" a" v '--"-"VJ 7~ ,-- . ~(d-f/ 31/112- r? 5, -::#- ') 7 ,)~- 3SJ ~ . )k.v. flu <U));J. JJ.rn..~ ~ ' id:;... t4t ~ !u- 7~ -..k-' ;: "'t;::;.,~ ~ ~ yJt;j ~ ~ --u.:, W~ 6v ~ J-Gf ~ Mt1 U--: rJ ~ i~ ? ~- -,~'"~ ""~.........._.~,,. - <("'.... coo~ o~ ON4- Z _0 0", E"-f'-.. Q)CQ,l :::::COOl m:::::;m -o~o.. C.D m" o;LL <( - , - ----- Agenda Item No. 8A February 10, 2009 Page 80 of 117 .:.~~ ~~.~~~ r~~~~~ "~'N~~%~ . "/fJ::?:!;;:dY-.d2~ ~,.u J ..u..~~__~~.u;?Qu~.~~.. u... . ."..._d.~~~ ~ ... f;~ ..~f~~.~A .-~.~ ~.. .~.:r- ~......-.-.... .':--~.~..~.....".... ..u.._._.....u. . .. - .. ... ~.':~ ~ .. . ~ ... ctAi.~u. ,~--.~ ~~e:(..~.C:..... ... . ..~.'~~... .~~~...".-. .....AJ<J..~....trT.' ~ ~.~ ."A .... .(jb.d';;r~~ tt::::.._..-..A~u ..... ....... .~~ ::~l~r"~.. . .. ..... ..~. O^"~ .-. --.-..--- .... .----.~?OI J.{()cJ CYl(j ., ~.~~~ %-r~VL- ') Agenda Item No. 8A February 10, 2009 Page 81 of 117 Date: 11120/2008 From: Jeffrey Lowe 1701 Bay 8t Naples, FL 34112 To Whom It May Concern: Concerning the County's plan to place boat parking in a residential neighborhood. I am totally against your plan to dlstUffi our neighborhood ana cause our property value to diminish. If the County Government is so concerned about boaster access, why didn't they buy Boat Haven, or Wiggins' Pass Marina or even the Turner Marine. You have had ample opportunities' to purchase these properties for the Public and you have not. Why don't you look into the purchase of some of the Property at Botanical Gardens. I do believe you will find that this property was zoned for Conservation Land, but why are they allowed to bulldoze half of their Property? I'm sure the County could get the zoning changed to CF on 3 to 4 acres for boat parking. Has anyone looked into this? Concerning the R~~d-th~iy~uwa;;tt;'; c~l.;';~;,;;;;~f;Goihood'm-fialrV;'ith,-tRore---~-'...- is not reason why the traffic can not stay on Danford 51. Having the traffic coming on to Bay 8t will create a dangerous situation. We have children that play on this street, and it has always been a safe environment and now you wish to take this safe environment away from our little neighborhood. ...:.::....:...I'm..sure...you-.-can-.-find.a._different.IQ~tion-.-iQr:::the-Beat-.Parking-and-seU-the-__._ property to individuals that want to build in our nelghbo'iIloocfa'ndkeepifthe'-"--- same. Thank you, ,7 1);jP~ ~ :/iIl Agenda Item No. 8A February 10, 2009 Page 82 of 117 , I I',. I \ ; id' ..:. - I \ RECEIVED NOn 5 21JD8 ZONING DE? 'AFlTMENT /7fva 9' ~/ --1-;;[. 3LfllD ~ ( R 2> ';<60 g_ -A-Jf- I;;. cr 36 ~A: ~.~ ~Ci~ ~~~ ~ tl p~ '~/'(( a:i~ I ~~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~~ ~ ~ ~. (CZ--R--Z ~~~~~ t(~~il "... ~..., .~,_ _ ...__,...""""."..___"_.____.._.""._,"",,. ___,.,..........__.....u" .."......."...._....__.......".._.. I . ~~~~~.. ~ f-u--~~ ~~ < ------:==-~-=.~=-~:-:?-:.::=:=:-:::===:_:::==~==_::===:=== . !?'~f . ~>~ ?J--" :< '3 cr. L_~~t.'L/ 7- ~L,,~s- Agenda Item No. 8A February 10, 2009 Page 83 of 117 1945 Bay Street Naples, Fl 34112-641:> (239) 775-185. November 25, 2008 Mr. Tor Kolflat, District IV Planning Commissioner Collier County Planning Commission 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34112 Re: Bayview Park Overflow Parking Rezone Request Dear Mr, Kolflat, It has taken me some time to write this letter for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that I'd hoped this rezone request would fade away, You've no doubt already reviewed the proposed plan for this project. I would like to make it clear that I support additional parking for visitors to Bayview Park. The manner in which this is going to be accomplished is of concern. As our district representative on the Planning Commission, I am requesting that you deny the request presented by the Collier County Coastal Zone Management Department as it stands. My reasons for this are quite simple. 1. The "parking" plan as presented will include the development of a road dissecting our neighborhood between Danford and Bay Streets. The road will direct vehicular with trailer, and pedestrian traffic through what are now residential back yards_ There are no plans to fence this road. ....2.. The newToadwiILdire.Qtand. i:?ringjrugk\lllithtrailertraffic to Bay Street to enter a parking lot there ,-' . . ._-.- ........- . d.. .. 3. The parking lot entrance/driveway on Bay Street is within a few feet of my house. Naturally, this is alarming. According to Coastal Zone Management staff, the parking lot will be open 24 hours, with required lighting on all night. This lot will also be constructed of pervious surface and may be just lime rock. 4. When leaving the parking lot by vehicle, visitors will be asked to drive out to the planned ._-'."--::::::::::::..Ramilton...A;:venoe::::exitandJhengriy.e.bEl~~::::10=I3_a.yview-Rark~ia.Danfo[d.st[eJ~L_. _~____..._ 5. When leaving the parking lot on foot or presumabfy'ori5icycle-as well; visitorswillbeaskedto"-': travel back down Bay Street and through the yards to Danford Street and then on to the park. In other words, or at least the way I see it, the Coastal Zone Management staff is proposing a plan that will direct vehicular and pedestrian traffic through, and looping around, our neighborhood for no reason. It's as if everyone will be heading about in circles. 1 hesitate to even call it a plan. It has been my understanding that in 2004 when the Collier County Commission voted to pursue the acquisition of residential lots in the area for future park development that is exactly what they meant. I don't recall a deadline for having a parking lot built, although there may be one. As you know, it sometimes takes a couple of generations to acquire all the land needed for a proper park. In the meantime however, there is and has been land available for purchase and the County has declined to do so. In fact there is property avaUable adjacent to the County owned Hamilton Avenue property that is probably large enough to provide an exit and entrance to the proposed parking lot. Agenda Item No. 8A February 10, 2009 Page 84 of 117 This property is also zoned commercial, and the immediate area is devoid of residences. This would altogether eliminate the need for any traffic through anyone's yards or on Bay Street. The property is also adjacent to the existing safe walking/biking path to the park. There is possibly additional land available for diagonal parking in the right of way on Hamilton Avenue. That property also has direct access to the safe walking/biking path to the park. I know this project is a worthwhile one in concept. As you probably know, Bayview Park is one of the crown jewels of the park system. Just take a look at it from the bay and you'll see. As you also know, it is the only public boat launch facility with direct and immediate access to Gordon Pass. The park is the reason my husband and I moved to this home 24 years ago. It and our wonderful neighborhood are what keep us here as well. I support the effort to provide access for all residents and visitors to the park to be able to enjoy it as we have for so many years. There is a better way to go about this proposal though and I think part of that is to give this project more thought and more time. Where there are challenges. there are opportunities. Our community as a whole deserves thoughtful planning for access to this invaluable resource. Remember, we are __-RlanI1iD9J.or.gene.rations..1o...come-lUsnlgoinglo-bappen.nv.emigbt As you can see, I copied members of the Collier County Planning Commission as well as District IV BCC Commissioner Fred Coyle via e-mail on this communication. It is my hope to garner interest in our little corner of the world that also happens to be a great asset for the public. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you or anyone else have any questions, need further - infol111ation or would like to schedule a meeting. Thank you very much for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, .--- -NannetteKGerhardt.. Dear Commissioner Coyle, We, t.he residents of!he Bayvi<;w ~ark neigh~orhood, w~uld like ~o~ to ~owh.(j~_ ._" m~ch we oppose receIlt p1ans of Collier Co. _which would, m out optnlon,severely' ->., affect our quality of life and adversely affect the value of our homes by tearing down perfectly good new homes and cutting a thoroughfare between existing-homes in l order to] ~ol~e'whaf iS15~~ti811Y, a non-problem of insufficient P::J;;g.. . . . -~ - (~-:-~----- .. ~ 1119-i2~~-X~-~----~~:----- ____L~ _ ::BY.:~_______ __LgD_s>__i?!a~~____~__:..________ ___.1~..:2-~.. ____i1~~~~----~.JC:~---~----------- if'!?' jj I/-~..d. ~-- .::j:f~i..J;.~_;"E:y-!:gL~5i~~~~=~~~:~-=:~:= ---{_?_::_]---~~~--~~------------------- _ _ _ _ r_ ____ ___ __ ____ __~_~~~_~~~tt\:~_~.___________________ 27;J 1fr!f~~- ~~~=====~=-~~~=~ __J_~~____ __~ ~___________________ _~~~:3.______~ _ _ ___________________________ -'~"7_,_~____~~~-------;-------------------- ~~~~__~~~~_~L::::__________________ "/ c 2:J . ,.6' ~ ./-_...,..:2.6:L__~'1l{2 _____~J.._______________ _if!_r..~_:!Y_L}e..~__..ff:.___.q_~4r__".:3:_~_::::.:___ lifL _ :-:(#"".~_-==~-= f.'-1) :.., -- ../..-l--~-------- ---~,- ------::;-------------- _.1X~.L_!'.2.dJ!.L<:.. i2d.__1__"_______________ ,pJ 'i! Tl .y. [' '-1"' _.Lu____l__L:2J1___~;UC_ :.$.l~______________________ __L~_':!. ~1}/:!:J...,.~ll!5f!f.[;~':;_;:::::::=:__::::::---- ,_ ... -- -t~~-I:l~-~~. ...,............... . .--====::::.:-.--.....: )J~~~b- tf~x~~t~~~~~: -~~=~~~~=~~ .---- ---~----------- ---~ ---------------------- _1:tBL___ __ ~ -_____________ 1[11 ~' _ :~-~-jc~^j~~~ ~r;--~~~=-~~~~~~-- ___.__.-J__~~~-----;2:L---__----------------..-- ..__~'?f,i_d..Lfk(~_~"':_______________~________ j;7Cf?; - 2'.... ." . 7~,--r . ....,-_._,. -.-- -.---i?-0.j-f!2.--5.:L-.-.-----:::-~------.--- .-;J:"7~L-----~---~-!:--------:::~-:~~--::~:::::~- ... ---..................--"'......-- - s:::,-. - - ----~L~~;z:rr u .ri::77~ 12--::~ 0 ~._-~~~ T!-rrzt _ _ A. _ ~_G"'''''''_ -~~...--~:~........... . . ~.- -._- -. ...----- .-_ h.__.~~._ r. u"'~~'~n~'~ {I'rin.. Agenda Item No. 8A February 10, 2009 Page 85 of 117 , Agenda Item No. 8A February 10, 2009 Page 86 of 117 Dear Commissioner Coyle, We, the residents of the Bayviiw Park neighborhood, would like you to know how . ID1;1ch ~eoppose rece!rtliIiinS of Collier. <;:0. _which would, in out opinion; severelY -... 8ffect oui quality of life and adversely affect the value of our homes by tearing down perfectly good new homes and cutting a thoroughfare-between exist:i1ig homes in order to solve-w -iris ,es~enuauy,-a'iion-problem of insufficient parking. ;.. ~C-- ._ Uf't2 fJ1.;J fc~-C/ - -~-=------------------- ~----~----15'-----~--~--~~~--------"------- _________________ -1___~________1.1_~~.a!:____________________________ ----------------------------------------~-- ~-------~----------------------------------- ----------------------------------------Q--- ------------------------~~~---------------- '--,.,., -------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- .-.....--',..,. -----~------------------~--~-----~---------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- ------------.--------- ___________________________________________~____~_~_~d__ _______~_____________o~____.________________ -------------------------------------------- ------------------------------.------------- -------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- ------------------------- ...... -------------------------------------~---- - --~ "- ------------------------------------------- -----~------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------- ---------~--------------------------------- -------------------------- -------- -~---------------------------------------------------~-- ----------------------------~--~---------_.------------- --------------------------~----------------------~----- -------------------------------------------------------- ---------~--------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- ."" ....,..,.--..- .~... ~" ...,,".. ,..,.......-.. '., ,~.,..-_. ....,--... ..-..... . ~-----------------------~~~-----------------' -------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------_._-----------------~--------- - -------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------_.._------~------- ---------------------- __~___"______.._.~_____..________...____....J!!'_~~~.::-'?~:.!'~__~~.~.:':,,~~'::'_==_=~..::::_------------...------------------------- m_,____.._^, .,."~.,..,,~., ..,._.. _____._,. .,....._.,_.___"..____, __,_______". __.__"'-::-...:=-:--.-~...--..-.-,---'..---'---'- ___..'n___'_',___-.__n__'_____..".. ",,_'_______n___'___... ----------------------------------~--------------------- ------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- -------------------~----------------------- ----------------------------------------=-- ------------------------------------------- ---~~--~------------------------------- ---~1:~~---------------~:~~~:~---~-~~~~-- ncfnTtlr r ("l"+,d'f~_Ol'It!.t. ;{ImmEl r.:JOiUI(""'.oorreh.'lror.~.snll:duu _________~________________~~___m_____=d_____~___m_~____ -----~------------~-------------------------~----------- ___________________~_____________________ft________~_____ ______~_____M___________________________________________ -~--------------------------------------~--------------- - -- ..-.... .~".-- -----------~~-----~---~--------~------------------------ ---------------------------~---------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- -~-----~--~----------------------=-------~-------~------ I Agenda Item No. 8A February 10, 2009 Page 87 of 117 Disclaimer: This information will be used strictly for the purposes of opposing the re- zoning of the County owned lots on Danford and Bay Streets, by and for the residents. This information may be compiled to present to the County Commissioner representing this area. The infurmation will not be used to target anyone individual. This information will not be provided to any Real Estate person( s). L/ /0 / CJg :ALk;UST 7L~V8 tfS-- lf0'~ Lf7 ;139- 73..2.. - 1'ij?/v Date: .. )RA~,- Print Name: AddresslLot Nwnber: Contact Phone Number; Opposed to Re-Zoning: 625. No How long have you been a current resident of the street: Are you effected by overflow parking from the Community Park at the end of Danford St.?lfsohow? Do plan on selling your property ill the near future? And if so when? Counter O:ffi:r to proposed re-zoning request: PUT C1 fl..J( At By rR!'t- Ju e:J-. GA-l IV SjPI9L@S C/... e -rD 8 .. . VJ-/ .. ~ Key Point to Address with the Commissioner fur the area: j,- c.. Agenda Item No. 8A February 10, 2009 Page 88 of 117 Disclaimer. This infurmation will be used strictly fur the purposes of opposing the re- zoning of the COWlty owned lots on Danford Blld Bay Streets, by and for the residents. This information may be compiled to present to the CoWlty Commissioner representing this area. The information will not be used to target anyone individuaL This information will not be provided to BllY Real Estate person(s). AddressILot Number: I !~/--'2R- QIMLd S0 \~i I ~~\ bCL>' ~:c"r d S1-. ;(7:>q 'tS-(;- (S7~ Date: Print Name: Contact Phone Number: Opposed to Re-Zoning: ~ No How long have you been a current resident of the street: Ow".~ LJ-C L{~ Are you effected by overflow parking from the Community Park at the end ofDB11ford St.? If so how? Do plBll on selling your property in the near future? And if so when? .1\, C \1'-1 ., Counter Offer to proposed re-zoning request: -, ,-- "..._._..~--,~.. ~._, -"--'-, ~ \ \l- \.--- --~~~-"~~--.--......._- .". """ -,>._-~,,,., -".._"....,----,--,,--~.. . m _~__"__...m_._,__,_"__.._+.._~_ Key Point to Address with the Conunissioner fur the area: Aoenda Item No. 8A February 10, 2009 Page 89 of 117 Disclaimer: This information will be used strictly for the purposes of opposing the re- zoning of the County owned lots on Danford and Bay Streets, by and for the residems. This information may be compiled to present to the County Commissioner representing this area The information will not be used to target anyone individual. This information will not be provided to BllY Real Estate person(s). Date: 7; L/); ~o ))~'O &//111('/ /170 IJrW4<< ~ /7 t-J - cJ /3 c;:: Print NB1lle: AddresslLot Number: Contact Phone Number: Opposed to Re-Zoning:.~ No How long have you be\ln a current residem of the street: 3:z Y/fS / Are you effected by overflow parking from the Community Park at the end of Danford St? If so how? /1/0 Do plan on selling your property in the near future? And if so when? A0 Counter Offer to proposed re-zoning request: )2_~tI~;&f2-_.~__~~~Lv;j_~~ 1X.73/~ ~~~'dj7~~~~~_~'~~ nv ~L . / ~,"""7 ..-.. "'0''"_/ (.. Agenda Item No. 8A February 10, 2009 Page 90 of 117 Disclaimer: This information will be used strictly fur the purposes of opposing the re- zoning of the County owned lots on Danford Blld Bay Streets, by and for the residents. This information may be compiled to present to the County Commissioner representing this area The information will not be used to target anyone individual. This information will not be provided to any Real Estate person( s). Date: r /1/)' o"{ Print Name: n-6-- r-f'- Y' fl. Y 1- cP kJ f' . AddressILot Number: ) 7/9) 6~)1 Ji::(- I R '3 i -! If LJ '\ t5.~ :Jj. /.' Contact Phone Number: '-17 ~ ~,,7//!p 7 Opposed to Re-Zoning: (22 No How long have you been a current resident of the street: -L 5S ,/1.-/0 <' J Are you effected by overflow parking from the Community Park at the end of Danford St.? If so how? y~( h1~~~ ~ (J~~'CJ ~~.Jl17l;;J;.~ Do plan on selling your property in the near future? And if so when? /1l....tr -- /~ Counter Offer to proposed re-zoning request: fjA1':J {J/'1-Rph1- ~(Y~ 0 ;;;t~~~ ~ .m,,'- ....__'...._."..~_,,_. Key Point to Address with the Commissioner fur the area; ~i1~....k/ +--- ff-rl~~ Agenda item No. 8A February 10, 2009 Page 91 of 117 Disclaimer: This information will be used strictly for the purposes of opposing the re- zoning of the County owned lots on Danford and Bay Streets, by and for the residents. This information may be compiled to present to the County Commissioner representing this area The information will not be used to target any one individual TWs information will not be provided to BllY Real Estate person(s). Contact Phone Number: r; -!~/ D SS /[71 fI1~ S I rA--~ $ ~ /7C,'f /24-1 >/ -rq7 - (., l,,<.. S Date: Print Name: AddressILot Number: Opposed to Re-Zoni11!:: CYev No How long have you been a current resident ofthe street: .7 (:J Aj ~cv...o Are you effected by overflow parking from the Connnunity Park at the end of Danford St? lf so how? 'I L ;-~ Do plan on selling your property in the near future? And if so when? I pI~ , Counter Offer to proposed re-zoning request: Key Point to Address with the Commissioner for the area: Agenda Item No. 8A February 10, 2009 Page 92 of 117 Disclaimer: This information will be used strictly for the purposes of opposing the re- zoning of the County owned lots on Danfurd and Bay Streets, by and for the residents. This infurmation may be compiled to present to the County Commissioner representing this area. The information will not be used to target anyone individual. This information will not be provided to BllY Real Estate person(s). Date: 7 / --1Q / D;; Print Name: UGh f'.+-+ e f h; f f -, D " o - Address/LotNumber: ISD3 l~f1Y st l.;[d.~!)j r LIz- Contact Phone Number: 71::>-- 35 S' 0- cdP :iJ;f,J ~ 6 7/ z Opposed to Re-Zoning: (~~ No drft\;*3D~ How long have you been a current resident of the street: Are you effected by overflow parking from the Community Park at the end ofDB11ford St.?Ifso how? / ( /.. // 1m J 4t- rrv- ~ ALL jJ. ~ 'Yy--';o, <2- j.;t. Roa~ &{) Do plB11 on selling your property in the near future? And if so when? NO : Counter Offer to proposed re-zonmg request: I . J ~\.".,. eo.'\- a...- - (jJJ.g,t- C1Jnr"f I a \) n" ,Q, '; k' f?\ s+y p.p+ --~-~~ -----~-~~ Key Point to Address with the Commissioner for the area: . _')[1 S}~I. \-'o'\\--'t\<--..-hv.--.k Hnlu.. ~"r...r fVl)~ej{.r Agenda Item No. 8A February 10, 2009 Page 93 of 117 Disclaimer: This information will be used strictly for the purposes of opposing the re- zoning of the County owned 100S on Danford and Bay Streets, by and for the residents. This infurmation may be compiled to present to the County Conunissioner representing this area. The information will not be used to target anyone individuaL This information will not be provided to BllY Real Estate person(s). Date: :J-Ik/~ Print Name: ~~".) ~-A\y ~~Pr0 Adclress/Lot Number: \ 7'6 \ ~V) ~<-c\ "S,y Contact Phone Number: J:3 4- J-'61 - '8 i I \ Opposed to Re-Zoning: ~ No How long have you been a current resident of the street: \ :J- Y.e(-)Q Are you effected by overflow parking from the Community Park at the end ofDB11ford St.? lfso how? \fe") ~ "\~ -L '-"'<, lu,e. \oo'Kfn.,$ e.+ ~'Q ~"'~i'i5 \k Do pIan on selling your property in the near future? And if so when? 'Y",c Counter Offer to proposed re-wrung request: -S~~ -\- "',\"1')2- -\o,,~n-- ~T,> ~"u.I,", ov'- --\-',.-,,,,,,,,,'\5. Key Point to Address with the Conunissioner for the area: \)'0 ~"k~ \~ Agenda Item No. 8A February 10,2009 Page 94 of 117 Disclaimer: This information will be used strictly for the purposes of opposing the re- zoning of the County owned lots on Danford and Bay Streets, by and for the residents. This infurmation may be compiled to present to the County Commissioner representing this area The information will not be used to target anyone individual This information will not be provided to BllY Real Estate person(s). Contact Phone Number: -7 I~/ (}~ .-1J A iJ Po R t C-L4.l E ~ CPf+0G,JBT Rlc t+ TEl. 4 5 jL{(P j <17 I I 73 d. - 9'-1 C/o Date: Print Name: AddresslLot Number: Opposed to Re-Zoning: ~ No How long have you been a current resident of the street: Are you effucted by overflow parking from the Community Park at the end of Danford St.? If so how? Do plan on selling your property in the near future? And if so when? /0'0 Counter Otter to proposed re-zonmg request: Key Point to Address with the Commissioner for the area: Agenda Item No. 8A February 10, 2009 Page 95 of 117 Disclaimer: Tills infurmation will be used strictly for the purposes of opposing the re- zoning of the County owned lots on Danford and Bay Streets, by and for the residents. This information may be compiled to present to tbe County Commissioner representing this area The infurmation will not be used to target anyone individual This infurmation will not be provided to any Real Estate person(s). Date: CY11/ 0 I Ot' LA) I [( t-,(J h--1 ~'fJ1A!J~JLM fY1DD~ ~iZq ~c--k e..~J J)di-- . FC-, FL q41_-("'{~- ;3L,.) ) 3'57-18 0t) No Print Name: AddressILot NUlllber: Contact Phone NUlllber: Opposed to Re-Zoning: How long have you been a current resident of the street: Are you effected by overflow parking from the Community Park at the end of Danford Sl?Ifsohow? Do plan on selling your property in the near future? And if so when? 1 P r> JIVf p.P-k E / r06u. ~ I~g Counter Ofter to proposed re-zo~uest Key Point to Address with the Commissioner fur the area: Agenda Item No. 8A February 10, 2009 Page 96 of 117 Disclaimer: This information will be used strictly for the purposes of opposing the re- zoning of the County owned lots on Danford 811d Bay Streets, by Blld for the residents. This information may be compiled to present to the County Commissioner representing this area. The information will not he used to target anyone individual. This information will not be provided to BllY Real Estate person( s). Contact Phone Number: 0'7 I/O IO!? ALPREPtJ '" S'A:Nf:,tCt<\ AR.A~e.+ /7).0 )/trJ.FD RJ:> ~ ~ q5:Y ~'I5-1 S-6g-' Date: Print Name: Address/Lot Number: Opposed to Re-Zoning: G;) No How long have you been a current resident of the street: 'itu,'lbJN6- fr ,ue;uJl-{.o1Js:e- Are you effected by overflow parking from the Community Park at the end of Danford St.? If so how? Yes- Do plBll on selling your property in the near future? And if so when? NO! . Cuunt,,, {)ffi;, it, pru0""J ,~-~;u,:rg '''4.u~;L Key Point to Address with the Commissioner fur the area: Agenda item No. SA February 10, 2009 Page 97 of 117 Disclaimer: This information will be used strictly for the purposes of opposing the re- zoning of the County owned lots on Danford and Bay Streets, by and for the residents. This infurlUation may be compiled to present to the County Commissioner representing this area The infurmation will not be used to target anyone individual. This infurmation will not be provided to any Real Estate person(s)- Date: 1 I--'-E- I () rf> fr/J 'f:; j,IdtJ-/- Lt{19hJ3RE~tc.-l J 77 (/JJAAJ!" f( & 5)-_ 7;7~ - .2 ~ C 1 €2 No , Print Name: AddressfLot Number: Contact Phone Number: Opposed to Re-Zonmg: How long have you been a current resident of the street: ,3 ~ /1..J Are you effected by overflow parking from the Community Park at the end of Danford j':OO_ho:~M~k~~~ Do plan on selling your property in the near future? And if so when? ~ rI.l .... <P <P .0 rJ) ~ <P1%l .= ...."Cl ClJ)~ .5l 1:'$ "'''Cl o ;.. ~~ 5; "'Q lo< <P = = 0 ~ rI.l o~ - .c"Cl lo< <P <P = 'It g.~ ~ mw w_;"m ...... ...~.... ~.o ~ '" = e ..... = '\:l = 0 '\:l ~u ~ .~ if '" .... .> , <P 0 - '- m___ ~ ~____ lj) .~..II) ..m___m_-'~___ ...""~~~~_- =.-:-.. ~ ., Ii! ~ 5""" .. z <{mr- ooO~ o~ -''''''\1- _ 0 !oo _. m w >- w =roOl ro::lro "O~CL <::.0 WW ""ll.. <{ == = .""" ..... ~ Q,I ~ C' = ., 5 5 " u ~ .. .. oS ., 5 .. = .. = " >. .. ., '\:l = = .e - ., '" ;;> ~ e = - 0: = ". .~ 00 - = 'C =- ., - " ~ -"'''- -o~ ooo~ ci0J....... Z ..0 00) E~O) CD >, ID :::::rocn m:om -o~D- ".0 <D <D ",LL <( == e .~ ..... ~ ~ ~ ......-......_. .., .... ~ ~ .... ':.fl .... iI'= ~= o:5'i:l ~ = iI'= .... 'i:l ~ l-o Q..,s Q..= o iI'= ..,~ l-o = ; 0 i!;: "" O,"S C'i:l 100 ~ ~ = Cl.i!;: o 0 10L.._ "" = .... :I = 0 ~U ..... ..... ~ 0 ~...en ;l ---... -~... -= o N I ~ ~ Z' = .. 5 5 ~ u ... = .. .. .s:: .. 5 .. = .. = ~ ... t .", = = .. 0= := I d ,. I .. ., e- e = - .. = .!:/l "" .. 5 .. Z ..... = .;: ~ .. - .. ~ ~ 5 e e .. u .... ;I ... .sl "" .. ~ e ~ .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ = ... ,.Cl ~ ~ .... "d ~ '---~;-l; ";j "'C := Q lo, ~ c..,s e. 5; ~~ ~ = = Q ~ III o~ - C"d lo, ~ ~ Cl c..~ e Q ... ..-..-..---.-....- .......-.....-....... ....-e3..-.............. '" = .... = 1- Cl Q ~u ~ .... <\:: ~'E: <.J. ~'b11 .... ." .::------.Er - ~.. --' ... ........_._......_._..._...__...... ...... ...=.....--.-...-....'4..- ... ~ ...... .. Q .6' ~ ~ ~ a "'" ~ ! ~ ~ <{ene- ",o~ o~ .-""''''\1 4- .0 .!o .. 0 <V '"'~ =~ID ro::>'" 'O~ro =~n.. i'i,u.. <{ == Q .~ ~ .1l'"4 ~ <Jd ~ ~ ~I\ ~ "'I ~ e = ... .. = toI) 00 1-- (/) .{ <\ l <. "'- ~ ~ If) ." _,>,_ _..._ __._ _ _4~ .~~ __ .. ... .. ~ COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW WWW.COLLlERGOV.NET (i) Agenda Item No. 8A February 10, 2009 Page 101 of 117 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 403-2400 FAX (239) 643-6968 STANDARD REZONE APPLICATION PETITION NO (AR) PROJECT NAME PROJECT NUMBER DATE PROCESSED ASSIGNED PLANNER To be completed by staff Above /0 be completed by SIqfJ APPLICANT/AGENT INFORMATION NAME OF APPLlCANT(S) COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ADDRESS 3300 SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD CITY NAPLES STATE FL ZIP 34116 TELEPHONE # (239) 213-2966 CELL # FAX # E-MAIL ADDRESS:CLlNTONPERRYMAN@COLLlERGOV.NET NAME OF AGENT LAURA S.DEJOHN, AICP / JOHNSON ENGINEERING, INC. ADDRESS 2350 STANFORD COURT CITY NAPLES STATE FL ZIP 34112 TELEPHONE # (239) 434-0333 CELL # FAX # ('239) 434-9320 E-MAIL ADDRESS:LDEJOHN@JOHNSONENG.COM BE AWARE THAT COLLIER COUNTY HAS LOBBYIST REGULATIONS. GUIDE YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY AND ENSURE THAT YOU ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THESE REGULATIONS. ArPLICA TION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR STANDARD REZONE - Il12NI1006 Agenda Item No. 8A February 10, 2009 Page 102 of 117 ASSOCIATIONS Complete the following for all Association(s) affiliated with this petition. Provide additianal sheets if necessary. NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION: WINDSTAR MASTER ASSOCIATION INC. MAILING ADDRESS 1700 WINDSTAR 1I0ULEVARD CITY NAPLES STATE FL ZIP 34112 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 DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST INFORMATION a. If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL, tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest os well as the percentage of such interest. (Use additional sheets if necessary). Name and Address Percentage of Ownership Collier County, 3301 Tamiami Trail E, Naples, FL 34112 100% I ! i I AI'I'LlCA TlON FOR PUDLlC HEARING FOR ST ANOARD REZONE - 1112812006 Agenda Item No. 8A February 10, 2009 Page 103 of 117 b, If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders end the percentage 01 stock owned by each. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership NjA I c. If the property is In the name 01 a TRUSTEE, list the benelidaries 01 the trust with the percentage of interest. Name end Address Percentage of Ownership NjA I I , I 'c__ d. II the property is in the name 01 a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, list the name of the generol and/or limited partners. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership NjA APPLICATION FOR J)UBLIC HEARING FOR STANDARD REZONE-l1f28/2006 Agenda Item No. 8A February 10, 2009 Page 104 of 117 e. If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an indivlduai or individuals, 0 Corporction, Trustee, or a Portnership, list the names of the contract purchosers below, including the officers, stockholders, beneficiaries, or partners. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership N/A Date af Contract, f. If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or officers, If a corporation, partnership, or trust. Name and Address N/A g. Dote subject Term of lease property, acquired yrs/mos. IgJ iease d o SEE ATTACHED DEEDS If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate date of optiam N/ A and date option terminates: , or anticipated dosing date h. Should any changes of awnership or changes In cantracts far purchase accur subsequent ta the date of application, but priar ta the date of the final public hearing, it Is the respansibility of the applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental dIsclosure of interest form. APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR STANDARD RE7..DNE - 11/28120D6 Agenda Item No. 8A February 10, 2009 Page 105 of 117 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Legal Descliption of Subject Property: (If space is inadequate, ottach on separate page.) If request involves change to mare than ane zoning district, include separate legal description for property involved in each district. Applicant shall submit four (4) copies of a recent survey (completed within the last six months, maximum 1" to 400' scole) if required to do sa at the pre-appiication meeting. NOTE: The opplicant is responsible for supplying the correct legal description. If questions arise concerning the legal description, en engineer's certiftcation or sealed survey may be required. Section/Township/Range 23 / 50 / 25 Lot: 4-6, 24-27,40,48-49,52-56 Block: N/A Subdivision: Naples Bayview Addition No.1 Plat Book 4 Page #: 20 Property I.D. #: 613800B0006, 61380600004, (, 1380640006, 61380(,80008, 61381000001,61381240007,61381280009,61381360000,61381360107,(,1381400009,61381400106, 61381400203 Metes & Bounds Description: N/A Size of I>ropertv: varies ft. X varies ft. "Tolal Sq. Fl. 92782.8 Acres2.13 Address/l!enerallocation orsubiect propertv: 1828, ]8]2, & 179G Danford Street; 1783, 1973, 1987,200], 20]5, & 2029 Bay Street; xxxx Fem Street ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE Zoning Land Use N RMF-6, C-3 5 PUD Single Family resldentioJ Hamilton Harbor Marine and Boct Storage E PUD, RMF-6 W RMF-6 Naples Botanieal Garden Single Family residential Does the owner of the subject property own property contiguous to the subject property? If so, give complete legal description of entire contiguous property. (If space is inadequate, aUach on separate page). Section/T own.hip/Range / / Subdivision: Lot: Block: Property 1-0.#: Plat Book: Page # Metes & Bounds Description: APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR STANDARD REZONE -11128/2006 Agenda Item No. 8A February 10, 2009 Page 106 of 117 REZONE REQUEST This application is requesting a rezone from the RMF-6 and C-3 zoning district(s) to the CF, Community Facilities zoning district(s). Present Use of the Property: Residential and Undeveloped Proposed Use (or range of uses) of the property: Public parking to support Bayvlew Park Boat launch Facility EVALUATION CRITERIA Pursuant to Section lO.03.05.G. of the Cotller County Land Oevelopment Code, staff's analysis and recommendation to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission's recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners shall be based upon consideration 01 the applicabie criteria noted below. Provide a narrative statement describing the re~one request with specific: reference to the criteria noted below. Indude any backup materials and documentation In support of the request. Standard Rezone Considerations fLOC Section 10.03.0S.G.l 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and future lond use map and the elements of the growth management plan. 2. The existing land use pattern. 3. The possible creation of an isolated disfrict unrelated to adiocent ond nearby districts. 4. Whether existing district boundaries ore illogically drawn i/1 relation to existing conditions on the property for the proposed chonge. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment (rezone) netessary. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompafible with surrounding land uses, becouse of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. 8. Whether the proposed change will creole a droinoge problem. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and oir to odiacent areas. 10. Whether the proposed change will seriously affect property values in the odiaeen! area. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrenl to the improvement or development of odioeent property in accordance with existing regulations. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of speclof privilege to on individual owner as contrasted with fhe public welfare. APPLlCA nON FOR PIIDLlC HEARING FOR ST ANnAR!} REZONE - 11/28/2006 Agenda Item No. 8A February 10. 2009 Page 107 of 117 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of seole with the needs of the neighborhood or the county. 15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permiHing such use. J 6. The physical ehome/eristics of the property ond /he degree of site alteration which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County growth management plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequote Public Facilities Ordinance [Code ch. 106, art. II], os amended. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that 'he board of county commissioners sholl deem important in the protection of fhe public health, safety, and welfare. Deed Restrictions: The County is legally precluded from enforcing deed restrictions, however, many communities have adopted such restrictions. You may wish to contact- the civic or property owners os.sodation in the crea for which this use is being requested in order to ascertain whether or not the request is affected by existing deed restrictions. Previous land use petitions on the subiect orooertv: To your knowledge, has 0 public hearing been held on this property within the lost year? If so, what wos the nature of that Hearing? No Additional Submittal reauirements: In oddition to this completed application, the following sholl be submitted in order for your application to be deemed sufficient, unless otherwise waived during the pre-application meeting. o. A copy of the pre-application meeting notes; b. If this rezone is being requested for a specific use, provide fifteen (15) copies of Q 24" x 36" conceptual site pion (16 copies If for affordable housing) [and one reduced 8'12" x 11" copy of site plan], drawn to a maximum scale 01 1 inch equols 400 feet, depicting the loilowing [Additional copies of the plan may be requested upon completion of stoff evaluation for distributron to the Board and various advisory boords such as the Environmental Advisory Boord (EAB), or ccPq; . all existing and proposed structures and the dimensions thereof, . provisions for existing and/or proposed ingress and egress (including pedestrian Ingress and egress to the site and the structure(s) on siteL . an existing and/or proposed parking and loading areas [include matrix indicating required and provided parking and loading, including required parking for the dlsobled], . required yards, open space and preserve areas, . proposed locations for utilities (os well as location of existing utility services to the site), . proposed and/or existing landscaping and buffering as may be required by the County, c. An architectural rendering of any proposed structures. APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR STANDARD REZONE - 11128/2006 Agenda Item No. 8A February 10, 2009 Page 108 of 117 d. An Environmentailmpact Statement lEiS), os required by Section 10.02.02. of the land Development Code IlDC) , or 0 request for waiver If oppropriate. e. Whether or not an EIS is required, two copies of a recent aerial photograph, (taken within the previous twelve months), minimum scale of one inch equals 400 feet! sholl be submitted. Said aerial shall identify plant and/or wildlife habitats and their boundaries. Such identification shel-] be consistent with Florida Deportment of Transportation Land Use Cover and Forms Ciassification System. Additionally, a calculation of the ocreage lor square feet) of native vegetation on sltet by areal and a calculation and location(s) of the required portion of native vegetation to be preserved (per lDC Section 3.05.07.B.1.). f. Statement of utility provisions (with 011 required attachments and sketches); g. A Traffic Impact Statement (TIS), uniess waiv"d at the pre-application meeting; h. A historical and archeological surveyor woiver application If property is located within on areo of historical or archaeological probability (as identified at pre-application meeting); i. Any additional requirements as may be applIcable to specific conditional uses and identified during the pre-application meeting, including but not limited to any required state or federai permits. Seelion 10.03.05.B.3. of the land Development Code requires an applicant to remove their public hearing advertising sign (s) after final aelion is token by the Board of County Commissioners. Based on the Board's Finol Clclion on this item, .please remove CllI public hearing Cldvertising sign (s) immediately APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR STANDARD REZONE - 11/28/2066 Agenda Item No. 8A February 10, 2009 Page 109 of 117 Evaluation Criteria Standard Rezone Considerations (LDC Sectionl 0.03.05.1.) 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and future IBlld use map Blld the elements of the growth lUBllagement plan. The subject property is within the Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict of the UrbBll Mixed Use District of the Future LBlld Use Map. The site is within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) boundary, however it is not within the Redevelopment Ovcrlay Futurc Land Use designation, The location is seaward of the Coastal High Hazard Area boundary, where the County seeks to limit residential density in an eff0l1 to balBllce protection of environmentally sensitive Conservation designated areas. The proposed rezoning from RMF-6 and C.3 to CF, Community Facility, is consistent with the Future LBlld Use Element because it removes residential and commercial activities from the Coastal High Hazard Area and provides for improved public access to the waterfront. This is also consistent with Objective 10.2 of the Conservation and Coastal MBl1agement Element of the Growth Management Plan, which states that, "The County shall continue to insure that access to beaches, shores and waterways remain available to the public Blld continue with its program to expand the availability of snch access Blld a method to fund its acquisition." The provision of needed parking areas for Bayview Park furthers Policy 10.2.4, which states, "All public access facilities shall include PBl'king facilities and roadway access." Although Bayview Park is constructed with the required number of parking spaces, the popularity of this boat ramp results in overflow parking along the DBllford Blld Fern Street roadsides. The provision of the proposed parking lots to handle the overflow will further provision of safe parking areas to facilitate public use of Bayview Park. 2. The existing land use pattem. The subject property is within a trBllsrtroning neighborhood. The site is within a subdivision of developed and vacBllt single family homesites, Blld vacBllt or abandoned commercial sites. To the west is Bayview Park Blld to the south is Hamilton Harbor Marina. The adjacent street system acconunodates CBl', tmck and trailer traffic and parking for those using the boat rBlnp at Bayview Park. The introduction of overflow parking lots addresses the existing conditions to the benefit of the surrounding neighborhood and is consistent with the existing land use pattem. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent Blld nearby districts. The surrounding neighborhood is characterized by its connection to Naples Bay. This is not unlike the character of nearby neighborhoods and districts which also revolve around Agenda Item No. 8A February 10, 2009 Page 110 of 117 proxImity to channels Blld bays and recreational activities such as boating. The introduction of overflow parking areas will not create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn ill relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. The existing zoning districts designate residential Blld commercial uses on the subj ect property. As referenced above, the trBllsitioning nature of the neighborhood is the reason for the request to redesignate the site as Community Facility to address the need for overflow parking areas to accommodate access to Bayview Park. 5. Whether chBllged or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed Blllendment necessary. The rezoning of the property to Conmlunity Facility is requested to accommodate parking conditions that have developed due to public use of Bayview Parle Bayview Park has the required number of parking spaces on site, however dernBlld is greater than the site can accommodate, and a number of patrons park vehic1es Blld trailers within the rights of way of the surrounding street system. This has created an unsafe situation for motorists, pedestriBlls, Blld residents of the area. The rezoning request is intended to alleviate this problem by providing necessary off-street overflow parking for the patrons of Bayview Park. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. The proposed change will not adversely influence living conditions within the neighborhood as it is aimed to alleviate the growing problem of Bayview Park patrons who park along the roadways. The neighborhood contains developed Blld undeveloped single family properties. The proposed c11Bllge to Community Facility zoning is intended to organizc parking within the neighborhood. The parking areas shall bc designed consistent with COImty requirements for buffering adjacent to single fBlnily and commercial properties. 7. Whether the proposed cha.nge will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, inc1uding activity dUling construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. The proposed change does not include the addition of any new traffic generators. The rezoning will eliminate potential traffic generation that would result from retaining the sites as RMF-6 and C-3 designated IBlld. The proposed chBllge improves the safety, walkability and circulation in the neighborhood by accommodating existing traffic in orgBllized off-street parking areas. This will improve the traffic condition for the surroUllding neighborhood as it will reduce the number of vehic1es parked along the Agenda Item No. 8A February 10, 2009 Page 111 of 117 streets. It will allow traffic to flow more freely Blld accommodate vehicles off the street when overflow parking is needed. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. Appropriate drainage \.vill be designed and utilized for the site in accordBllce with County and District regulations. Pervious parking spaces are anticipated to minimize stonnwater runo ff. 9. Whether the proposed chBllge will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. The proposed chBllge will not include any structures of any height that would reduce light or air to adjacent areas. 10. Whether the proposed chBllgc will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. The proposed change will improve circulation and eliminate the area's parking problems along the roadways, which should not adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. II. Whether the proposed chBllge will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. The proposed change will improve the transportation situation for the area. The proposed chBllge will be consistent with current and developing activities in the neighborhood and will not deter the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordBllce with existing regulations. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grBllt of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare, Public welfare is served by the proposed change due to the improvement of unsafe conditions on the streets within the neighborhood during peak demand periods for Bayview Parle 13. Whether there are substBlltial reasons why the property CBllllot be used in accordance with existing zoning, The congested parking conditions during peak demBlld periods for Bayview Park Ramp detracts from the residential use of the subject property. There are not substantial reasons why the property CBllllot be used in accordance with existing zoning. However, the proposed rezoning will allow for much needed off-street parking that will be beneficial to the community. Agenda Item No. 8A February 10, 2009 Page 112 of 117 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the cOlmty. The proposed ch811ge is consistent with the need to accommodate overflow parking within the neighborhood. Parking areas, landscape buffers and pedestri811 paths will be at a scale that is compatible wit the hum811 scale of the neighborhood. 15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the cOlmty for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. The subjcct site is appropriate for the proposed use because of its proximity to Bayview Park. There are no other properties in the County already pennitting such a use that would be adequate in accommodating overflow parking in proximity to Bayview Park. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which would be required to make the property usable for 811Y of the rBllge of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. The property is currently occupied with single-fBlllily homes and vegetation. Site alterations will involve removal of buildings Blld clearing to construct parking areas. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities 811d services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County growth m811agement plan and as defined 811d implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance [Code ch. 106, art. II], as amended. The proposed use will accommodate existing traffic and will not include the addition of 811Y new traffic generators. The residential and conmlercial uses allowed under existing zoning will be eliminated, lowering dem811ds on public services. By removing the overflow parking that occurs in the road rights-of-way and accommodating in off-street parking areas, the levels of service on adjacent streets will be improved. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the board of county commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. N/A Agenda Item No. 8A February 10. 2009 Page 113 of 117 ORDINANCE NO. 09- AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY-6 (RivIF-6) AND COMMERCIAL INTERMEDIATE (C-3) ZONING DISTRICTS TO A COMMUNITY FACILITY (CF) ZONING DISTRICT LOCATED ON PORTIONS OF DANFORD STREET, FERN STREET AND BAY STREET, IN SECTION 23, TOWNSHTP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; PROVIDING FOR STAFF AND PLANNlNG COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Laura S. Dejohn, AICP, of Johnson Engineering, Inc., representing Collier County Coastal Zone Management Department, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the hcrein described real property, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: The zoning classification of the real property as more particularly described by Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, and located in Section 23, Township 50 South, Rangc 25 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from Residential Multi-Family-6 (RMF-6) and Commercial Intelmediate (C-3) Zoning Districts to a Community Facility (CF) Zoning District, and the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance 2004- 41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is/are hereby amended Page I of2 Rev,Oll13/09-STW Agenda Item No. 8A February 10, 2009 Page 114 of 117 accordingly. The herein described real property is the SB1lle for which the rezone is hereby approved subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit "B". SECTION TWO: This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by a supermajority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this ____ day of ,2009. ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk BOARD OF COUNTY COMMlSSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: By: , Deputy Clerk DONNA FIALA, Chainn811 Approved as to Form 811d Legal Sufficiency Steven T. Williams ~~.,> Assistant County Attomey Attachments: Exhibit A: Legal Description Exhibit B: Site Plan Exhibit C: Conditions of Approval CP\08-epS-00807\18 Page 2 of2 Rev.Ol/I3/09-STW EXHIBIT A *~,* OR: 3601 PGAg6~a1IMJ; No. 8A February 10, 2009 Page 115 of 117 Lots .54, 55, and 56, NapJes Bayview Addition No.1, according 10 the pIal thereof, recorded in Plel Book 4, Page 20, and as described in thai certain Warranty Deed at O.R. Book 3039, Page /779, orllle Public Records orCollier County, Florida, And Lots 52 and 53. Naples Bayview Apdition No. J, according 10 the map or plat lhereof, as recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 2p~,ti'M as described in Ihal certain Warranly Deed al O. R. Book 3330. Page 2094, of the Public Records of Collier COllllly, Florid" AlId Lot 48 and 49, Naples Bayview Addilion No. I, according to the pIal thereof, recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 20, and" described in lhal certaill Warranty Deed at O.R, Book 3032, Page 457. ofthe Public Records of Collier CounlY, Florida. /~co~, ~\pJt--._-Q.t\!~~ ("O/ .....;./). , ."/ "-': , r~=-'.-'~J\ \ }.CcCIDtr" t: \'\ ~ "- {>\\, ( , "-' ><'j, .0 .<1" .G' ~ o~ .<\~/ "J./'r~___'~-<"(..) V "))!H c~~>... ,,1ih! L~;;,'" .',':J, .' ',:,,': '".', . ~ "'" . ,';',"'" .; :~j" j~j J"';: .jl~;;:;" :,;~~~ \ ~~\\\'~I Agenda Item No. 8A February 10, 2009 Page 116 of 117 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RZ-2008-AR-12930 NOVEMBER 17,2008 1. The Master Plan provided is considered conceptual in nature. Development of the parking area shall be consistent with the LDC requirements at the time of site development plan (SDP) review and approval. 2. Access lighting to illuminate the site's Bay Street pedestrian crosswalk shall be required at the time of SDP review and approval. 3. Parking lot areas shall be composed of a porous material, such as pavers or 8110ther similar type of approved porous material that do not produce airbome d~Jst. 4. lnespective of that depicted on the Master Plan, a masonry wall, as required by Subsection 5.03.02.E of the LDC, shall be provided to sepmate the parking lot from adjoining residential uses. 5. The hours of operation shall be posted on the site, and a locking gate shall be secured at all times outside of these operating hours. Exhibit B <("'r--I~ I'll ro 0 ~ ,i., .0'<'"' ':l! ln~: ON_ ... ~I' zcio .: M ~,,-.:;:: a; >,..... - ~ -ro'" ro=>o; ~..oro '" ",0.. 0;"- <( Z! + u ;:; :oS ..c= >'i fool I lN3~3DVNVW 3NOZ lV1SVO~ A.lNnoo };33Jll0::1 >ftl\ld M3iAA\f8 ElNI>ll:I\ld MOldl:l3^0 dO 01 3NOZ3l:1 ll@~ !@~ ---------------------------~ I , ~ HAMILTON AVE II ,,/' L j'" 11:' ~; -{...e I ! 1---- ':\\':i']: jir--l ! I' 1 /_-d. [f,l' I , ! @~ i ~~'!@tlJl ' If- [J I ;.~; I ~ 0/ I I , ill I :- //~ II! !~ I ' I ~ I ~ ~,-: Itt [ 'I lE ' ~+0-::' !~ '[ f2 \ ;::~:;J 0:: i ,~ z ". //w-................II~......1 i ~ I' r,/ ~ ~ ~, : v lD I " '~~~i' I' i ! (ID~ ~ + ~ i , I I << ~'! \ , S;;~~, ! i n__...! ! i ), i ! ! i ~~' i ! ir9\[f,l ! i Wlrj i I !@tEJ I ' , [ , I I ' I : ' I ! 1 \ ' ! i i ! !-ffi-j i-ffi-! I ' , I , I I ' I ' , I , I I ' I ' , I , I I ' 1 ~' ! ' I i I! ~ W~ ~i; ! i , ~ ' I ~ -- --- - ~_______m__~_ --- - I o - ~_________M~____ ---~~--- I !'! I llJ~ Ii; i i J~ . ~ - W! Ii N - , 0 ."",~"",~, " ,~ , i ~ Sl>lmSl^3~ d~. u II eE ! I ~l t i l' ~ Q~ ji ! ~~ - I iQ ;~: u I!. ~ j! ~; ~ij l;' ., II g~' i! i' al! P ,I hi ;ll II n; L " " I. i \ '1' I"' I . j ! 11 !l ~~lliHddu ! ~D! I ill 1100 I ~fl 0 F\ ~., . . , Ii ~I:-t- ~e .. i1 , ,I ., II i Ii !. t " jl V. I! ,~!I!> II 11,1l !i I~ i' , I I g!!l I'll ,118 m