The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda 04/22-23/2008 Item # 7A Agenda Item No. 7 A April 22. 2008 Page 1 of 69 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ADA-2007-AR-12714 Sandra Clancy-Koendarfer, represented by Ben Nelson of Nelson Marine Construction, Inc., is requesting an appeal ofBD-2007-AR-12154 which was denied by the Collier County Planning Commission on December 6, 2007 OBJECTIVE: The petitioner has filed an appeal to the decision of the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) pursuant to their denial of the petitioner's boat dock extension application which occurred at properly noticed public hearing on December 6, 2007. The Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) requires that upon hearing of a requested appeal that the Board of Zoning Adjustment and Appeals (BZA) shall affirm, affirm with conditions, reverse or reverse with conditions the action of the Planning Commission. CONSIDERATIONS: The petitioners have filed a timely appeal pursuant to Section 5.2.11 of the "old" LDC (Ordinance No. 91-102) which was subsequently amended in 2004. The "new" LDC (Ordinance No. 04-41) omits Section 5.2.11 and 2.6.21.3 of Ordinance No. 91-102 relating to the process by which a petitioner may appeal the decision of the CCPC and thus causes a conflict pursuant to Paragraph Five, conflict and severability, of Ordinance No. 2004-41 as amended, which provides that the provisions of the previously adopted LDC shall apply in the even of such a conflict. Therefore, pursuant to the (former) section 5.2.11 and 2.6.21.3 of Ordinance No. 91-102, the applicants are appealing the CCPC's denial of their request for a 17- foot boat dock extension to authorize a 37- foot boat dock facility in an RSF -4 Zoning district. The subject property is located at 243 6th Street, further described as Lot 10, Block E, Little Hickory Shores, Unit No.2, according to the plat thereof, of record in Plat Book 3, Page 79, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, Section 05, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. The petitioners brought forward a petition for a boat dock extension to the CCPC, who has final approving authority for boat dock extensions. The applicants requested a 17-foot boat dock extension from the maximum permitted protrusion of 20 feet for waterways greater than 100 feet in width, to allow the construction of a boat docking facility protruding a total of 37 feet into a waterway that is 640 feet wide to allow the mooring of one vessel. The purpose of the request was to replace the existing dock with a new dock consisting of a 4-foot by IS-foot walkway leading to a IO-foot by 20-foot platform with a boat lift to accommodate one vessel. The facility was proposed to protrude a total of 37 feet into a waterway which is 640 feet wide. The CCPC staff report and the minutes of the meeting are attached as exhibits to this executive summary. FISCAL IMPACT: None. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no Growth Management Plan impact. It is anticipated that approval or denial of this appeal will not affect the Growth Management Plan. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This appeal is governed by the Order of Appearance and Time Limitation provisions of Resolution Number 98-167 attached as part of the agenda package. The Resolution provides that staff should make its presentation first, however that practice has been modified over the years with the applicant, or in this case the appellant, going first. Then staff has the opportunity to make its presentation. Thereafter, if there are any registered speakers, they Agenda Item No. 7 A April 22. 2008 Page 2 of 69 may present. The appellant then has an opportunity to present its rebuttal. Staff, upon conclusion of the rebuttal, may ask and be allowed to point out any errors in fact or law in the appellant's rebuttal. After all presentations have been made, tbe Board may ask questions and make comments. The time limits for presentations are as follows: 1. Appellant - 20 minutes, entire case 2. Staff - 20 minutes 3. Anyone else - 5 minutes each speaker, maximum The factors that the CCPC considered as to whether or not to grant the subject boat dock extension are as follows: 1. Primary Criteria: a. Whether the number of dock facilities and/or boat slips proposed is appropriate in relation to the waterfront length, location, upland land use, and zoning of the subject property. Consideration should be made of property on unbridged barrier islands, where vessels are the primary means of transportation to and from the property. (The number should be appropriate; typical, single-family use should be no more than two (2) slips; typical multi-family use should be one (1) slip per dwelling unit: in the case of unbridged barrier island docks, additional slips may be appropriate). b. Whether the water depth at the proposed site is so shallow that a vessel of the general length, type, and draft as that described in the petitioner's application is unable to launch or moor at mean low tide (ML T). (The petitioner's application and survey should establish that the water depth is too shallow to allow launching and mooring of the vessel(s) described without an extension). c. Whether the proposed dock facility may have an adverse impact on navigation within an adjacent marked or charted navigable channel. (The facility should not intrude into any marked or charted navigable channel thus impeding vessel traffic in the channel). d. Whether the proposed dock facility protrudes no more than twenty-five (25) percent of the width of the waterway, and whether a minimum of fifty (50) percent of the waterway width between dock facilities on either side of the waterway is maintained for navigability. (The facility should maintain the required percentages). e. Whether the proposed location and design of the dock facility is such that the facility would not interfere with the use of neighboring docks. (The facility should not interfere with the use oflegally permitted neighboring docks). 2. Secondary criteria: a. Whether there are special conditions, not involving water depth, related to the subject property or waterway, which justify the proposed dimensions and location of the proposed dock facility. (There must be at least one (I) special condition related to the property; these may Agenda Item No. 7A April 22, 2008 Page 3 of 69 include type of shoreline reinforcement, shoreline configuration, mangrove growth, or seagrass beds). b. Whether the proposed dock facility would allow reasonable, safe access to the vessel for loading and/or unloading and routine maintenance, without the use of excessive deck area not directly related to these functions. (The facility should not use excessive deck area). c. For single-family dock facilities, whether the length of the vessel, or vessels in combination, described by the petitioner exceeds fifty (50) percent of the subject property's linear waterfront footage. (The applicable maximum percentage should be maintained). d. Whether the proposed facility would have a major impact on the waterfront view of neighboring waterfront property owners. (The facility should not have a major impact on the view of a neighboring property owner). e. Whether seagrass beds are located within 200 feet of the proposed dock facility. (If seagrass beds are present, compliance with subsection 5.03.06(H)(2). of this LDC must be demonstrated). f. Whether the proposed dock facility is subj ect to the manatee protection requirements of subsection 5.03.06(E)(lI) of this LDC. (If applicable, compliance with section 5.03.06(E)(11) must be demonstrated). Based upon its review of the record of the CCPC hearing and the testimony and other materials presented as part of the appeal, the Board is authorized to affirm, affirm with conditions, reverse or reverse with conditions the action of the CCPC (the action being appealed). COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The CCPC does not hear appeal requests; that is only a function of the Board of Zoning Adjustment and Appeals. RECOMMENDATION: It is staffs opinion that the Boat Dock extension petition meets the required minimum criteria for approval as set forth in the CCPC staff report, attached to this appeal application. Therefore, staff recommends that the Board of Zoning Adjustment and Appeals overturn the Planning Commission's denial ofBD-2007-AR-12154 thereby granting the Boat Dock extension petition. When an appeal is filed for applications upon which the CCPC has the final decision making authority, the Collier County Land Development Code requires that the BZA shall affmn, affirm with conditions, reverse or reverse with conditions the action of the Planning Commission. PREPARED BY: Susan M. Istenes, AICP, Director, Zoning and Land Development Review Item Number: Item Summary: Meeting Date: Page lof2 Agenda Item No. 7 A April 22, 2008 Page 4 of 69 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 7A This item requires that all participants be sworn In and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members_ ADA-2007-AR-12714, Saundra Clancy-Koendarfer, represented by Ben Nelson of Nelson Marine Construction. Inc., is requesting an appeal of BD-2007-AR- 12154 denied by the Collier County Planning Commission on December 6,2007. Subject property is located in Section 5, Township 48, Range 25, Collier County, Florida. 4/22/200890000 AM Prepared By Susan Murray, Alep Community Development & Environmental Services Zoning & Land Development Director Date Approved By Zoning & Land Development Review 3/13/2008 10:00:28 AM Jeff Klatzkow County Attorney Assistant County Attorney Date County Attorney Office 3/14/20083:18 PM Approved By Joseph K. Schmitt Community Development & Environmental Services Community Development & Environmental Services Adminstrator Date Community Development & Environmental Services Admin. 3/26/200810:24 AM Approved By Judy Puig Community Development & Environmental Services Operations Analyst Community Development & Environmental Services Admin. Date Approved By 4/2/2008 12;59 PM Susan Murray, Alep Community Development & Environmental Services Zoning & Land Development Director Date Approved By Zoning & Land Development Review 4/7/20083:56 PM OMB Coordinator County Manager's Office OMS Coordinator Date Office of Management & Budget 4/8/20087:49 AM Approved By Mark Isackson County Manager's Office Budget Analyst Date Office of Management & Budget 4/8/20084:52 PM Approved By Leo E. Ochs, Jr. Board of County Deputy County Manager Date fi le:1 IC :\AgendaTest\Export\ 105 -April%2022, %202008\07. %20BOARD%200F%20Z0Nl... 4/16/2008 Page 2 of2 Agenda Item No. 7A April 22, 2008 Page 5 of 69 Commissioners County Manager's Office 4/13/20089:00 PM file://C :\Agenda Test\Export\ I 05-April%2022, %202008\07. %20BOARD%200F%20Z0NI... 4/16/2008 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET (i) ......jll.. .... . Agenda Item No, 7A April 22, 2008 2800 NORTH HORSESHO~"I!JRPlef 69 NAPLES. FLORIDA 34104 (239) 403-2400 FAX (239) 643-6968 PETITION NO (AR) PROJECT NAME PROJECT NUMBER DATE PROCESSED ASSIGNED PLANNER ADA-2008-AR-12714 CLANCY -KOENDARFER BOAT DOCK EXT Project: 2007080018 DATE: 1/3/08 DUE: 1/17/08 NAME OF OWNER SAUNDRA CLANCY-KOENDARFER ADDRESS 243 6TH STREET CITY BONITA SPRINGS STATE FL ZIP 34134 TELEPHONE # 239-495-6837 CELL # 239-273-4077 FAX # 239-495-6837 E-MAIL ADDRESS NAME OF AGENT/APPLICANT BEN NELSON JR. FIRM NELSON MARINE CONSTRUCTION INC. ADDRESS 10923 ENTERPRISE AVE CITY BONITA SPRINGS STATE FL ZIP 34135 TELEPHONE # 239-992-4443 CELL # FAX # 239-992-0765 E-MAIL ADDRESSNELSON@NELSONMARINE.COM Appeal of Application No. AR- 13D-;Ju.Y7-A~ - I.;:)) sf (P/ease reference the application number that is being appealed) Attach a statement for the basis of the appeal including any pertinent information, exhibits and other backup information in support of the appeal. Submit required application fee in the amount of $1000.00 made payable to the Board of County Commissioners. iIINe/son MARINE CONSTRUCTION. INC. Agenda Item No. 7A April 22, 2008 Page 7 of 69 10923 Enterprise A venu Bonita Springs, FL 3413b 239-992-4443' Fax 239-992-0765 Email: Nelson@nelsonmarine.com Appeal of Administrative Decision of Administrative official Petition No. BD-2007-AR-12154 Project Name: Clancy/Koendarfer BD EXT. Project: 2007080018 ADA-2008-AR-12714 CLANCY.KOENDARFER BOAT DOCK EXT Project: 2007080018 DATE: 1/3/08 DUE: 1/17/08 STATEMENT FOR APPEAL The basis for our appeal of the denial of the variance for protrusion of a single family dock and boat lift further than 20' into the water is that the Planning Commission failed to verbalize the specific reason for denial during conversation or in their motion and ignored the county criteria for consideration and approval of such variances, and the evidence that was presented. We presented as the applicant, substantial and competent evidence that we met all criteria for approval. The Counties own staff agreed and recommended approval. Although an adjacent neighbor complained, no relevant testimony was presented to support his assertions nor was there any credible evidence presented that applied to the criteria as laid out in the process. The result is that instead of being offered relief in the form of a variance, my client was handed down an arbitrary denial which ignored the pertinent facts, the professional staff recommendation, and substantial, supportive evidence and did so without apparent cause or reason. Therefore, I would ask the County Commission to review the evidence, listen to its staff, reverse this decision, and allow my client to have safe and reasonable boat access to her property. I would also request you waive or refund the fee for this appeal. In addition to the adverse affect on my client, this decision will have a chilling effect which will cause people to avoid the process and instead moor their boats in shallow water causing untold environmental and property damage. 1 do not believe that this is the goal of the citizens and the Commissioners of this County. Ben Nelson Jr. President ;/;Ne/son MARINE CONSTRUcnON. INC. Agenda Item No. 7A April 22, 2008 Page 8 of 69 10923 Enterprise Avenue Bonita Springs, FL 34135 239-992-4443 . Fax 239-992-0765 Email: Nelson@nelsonmarine.com ADA-2008-AR-12714 CLANCY -KOENDARFER BOAT DOCK EXT Project: 2007080018 DATE: 1/3/08 DUE: 1/17/08 SUMMARY The primary criteria was met because: . We are consistant with single family uses in the area. . The water depth as proved by a professional surveyor is to shallow without the vanance. . The waterway is 690' across and the dock and lift would not cause a navigational hazard. . The dock protrudes less than 25% of the width of the waterway. . The dock and lift will not interfere with the use of neighbors docks. The secondary criteria was met because: . Although there are no seagrass beds or mangroves, there are oysters. . The proposed design allows for reasonable, safe access without excessive size. . Proposed boat length is less than 50 % of property width. . Proposed facility would not have a major impact on the neighboring waterfront Views. . There are no seagrass or manatee protection requirements. 12/19/2887 14:32 2396436968 COLLIER CTY ZONING PAGE 82/82 Agenda Item No. 7 A April 22, 2008 Page 9 of 69 COLLlER COUNTY GOVERNJv1ENf Community Development and Environmental Services Division Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoc Drive . Naples. Florida 34104 . - ------ ----~ --~-- -- l( Ben Nelson, Jr. Nelson Marine Construction, Inc. 10923 Enterprise A venuc Bonita Springs, Florida 34135 ADA_2008-AR-12714 CLANCY _KOENDARFER BOAT DOCK EXT Project: 2007080018 DATE: 1/3/08 DUE: 1/17/08 December 19.2007 REFERENCE: BD-2007-AR-12154, Clancy-Koendarfer, Saundra Dear Mr. Nelson: On Decembcr 6, 2007 the Collier County Planning Commission heard and denied Petition No. BD. 2007-AR-12154. If you have any questions, please contact mc at 239-252-1942. Sincerely, ~~q-C~bov Ashley Casefta, Senior Planner Department of Zoning and Land Development Review Enc\osur: CC: Saundra Clancy-Koendarfer 243 6t/ii Street Bonita Springs, Florida 34134 Land Dept. Property Appraiser Minutes & Records (BD. PSP & PDt) Customer Service Addressing (peggy Jarrell) M. Ocheltree, Graphics File c a r~ .. . c .. " " . .. T'lL...__ (...."10\ An":l_".d.M Fax. (239) 643-6968 or (239) 213-2913 www.colliagov.nc:t - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then that's the way it will be. Just trying to clean it up. But that's okay, we'll leave it dirty. Anybody else have anything? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll call for the vote. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Thank you. And we will take a IS-minute break. We'll come back at noon. I think we'll finish up easily the boat dock and we'll be closed for the day. So we'll be back at 12:00. Thank you. (Recess.) HmillW Item #8C Agenda Item NO.7 A Decemb~~1~om ADA-2008-AR-12714 CLANCY -KOENDARFER BOAT DOCK EXT Project: 2007080018 DATE: 1/3/08 DUE: 1/17/08 PETITION: BD-2007-AR-121S4, SAUNDRA CLANCY- KOENDARFER CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Please take your seats. Nick is leaving us. He doesn't feel he can contribute to a boat amendment. We're at a loss now. But the next petition up is BD-2007-AR-12154, and it's Saundra Clancy-Koendarfer, represented by Ben Nelson, boat dock up in Little Hickory Shores. Page 104 , . . . Agenda Item NO.7 A Aprij..22",.:mQil, Decembfligtl,1 tMlflg With that, are there any disclosures on the part of the planning commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, how about let's swear in those that are wishing to speak on behalf of this petition. I did it backwards. (Speakers was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And with that, we'll ask the applicant for a presentation. MR. NELSON: Good morning -- or good afternoon, whoops, there we go. Thank you for your patience this morning. I appreciate the job you're doing up there, and I have a real appreciation of what you do, actually. The applicant, Mrs. Koendarfer, and her husband, what their plan is here, if you have drawings that show that, is that they want to replace an existing dock that extends approximately 20 feet out into the water and is approximately 15 foot from the property line. They want to replace that with a dock that extends 25 feet out into the water and has a boat lift on the front of it. So actually, and I will put this on -- what this drawing does, this drawing shows the existing dock lighter and it shows the proposed dock right there. And also, you're going to notice here -- also you'll notice here that this is the adjacent property owner. There is the approximate location of their porch on this side. And this is kind of a line of view that would go across from this corner over across where the existing dock is. And because we've moved this other dock, this is what our recommendation to the client was, was also to move it over to where it was a conforming dock to where it was 25 feet off instead of 15 feet off. And the actual dock extends only about five feet out further than the existing dock. So instead of putting a boat lift right in front of this dock, we Page 105 . . Agenda Item No. 7A April.22..Z.0.oa. Decemb~gt),1 ZMf89' decided to redo the dock, move it over, go out five more feet to get to the better water depth, and then add the lift onto it. And that's essentially it for the boat dock. I'd just like to comment on the reasons for doing this. Naples and Collier County, I think you've all been at the forefront of maintaining in front of these -- in these natural areas, and even on canals, maintaining a good benthic resource in front of these walls. And one of the ways to do it is that back in the past, even on the bays, when somebody would put a seawall in they would dig it out and dig it out to depth, and then you would have nothing in front of these seawalls. And I think that, like I said, Naples and Collier County has been at the forefront of maintaining these now. And this wall here, the existing wall has some rip-rap at the base of it. It has a nice gradual slope. It has some benthic resources, which would be some oyster shells and some other things out. And we have an aerial that really kind of shows -- I hope it shows up. I think you can see on -- maybe you can see. Really light, you can see where this -- the bar comes out right here, the actual water, edge of the water that's the deep water. You can see the rip-rap at the base of the wall, just behind the dock, and you can see this edge of this water. That's what we're trying to get out in front of, well in front of, because that's at the end of where those resources are. So anyway, the goal was to go ahead and get enough water depth to where we would have adequate water depth for the boat that they presently have and for the future boat lift, and also to move it away from the adjacent property owner so that it wouldn't be as much in the view there. And basically I think that's all I have to say, unless you have some questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER CARON: How will you affect -- by moving this dock, how will you affect those oyster beds that are there? Page 106 Agenda Item No. 7A D ~l?!i!-22_ZOAa. ecemUQgll)j 'XM1jg MR. NELSON: What we're doing is we're going out, we're going further out over that. The walkway will be in a different area, but going out further out is the best way to do it, because what we're trying to do is to get the boat into an area to where we won't disturb any of that. The worst problem that we have in a lot of these shallow water areas, if you put your dock in too shallow water, you know that automatically your client is going to be prop dredging, trying to move oyster shells out of the way of the boat. The boat lift is going to continually bottom out and you're going to cause turbidity and all types of stuff. So really, long-term solution, the best way to do this is to go ahead and go out to deeper water so that boat never does kick up turbidity, it allows that bottom to go ahead and be a good part of the ecosystem there. So that's our goal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The picture that we're looking at right now on the visualizer, the -- that's the present boat dock, is it not? MR. NELSON: Yes, sir. And there's a boat moored at the front of it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I see that, yes. And you have a line that you put on there that shows the person's vision from the next door; is that correct? MR. NELSON: Approximately, yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, if you were to superimpose the new dock and push that boat out the distance associated with the new dock, wouldn't that line of vision be obstructed? MR. NELSON: Well, what happens is, though, we come another 10 feet this way. So if we go from here, the actual dock would be out another five feet. So that line would be right about there, would be Page 107 . " Agenda Item No. 7A April.22A:W~a. DecembemeJ~W exactly where the front of the boat would be. So actually, it wouldn't be any -- and that's what we showed on the previous drawing. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, that's what I'm relating to. The previous drawing, when ~- because you didn't have it marked off for the new location. Why don't you put that back up then, please. And I'm not disagreeing with you, I just want to be clear on it because of the old dock. MR. NELSON: So here's the old dock right there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The old dock there. And you're saying to me that's being moved five feet; is that it? MR. NELSON: We've moving it actually-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Ten feet -- MR. NELSON: Ten to 12 feet, actually, because this dock actually goes at an angle here. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, you're making me feel more comfortable when you use the word 12, maybe even 13. Because I would say to you if you're going to be concerned for the vision of the people next door, then you need to come more center to the property. MR. NELSON: Right. And like I said, this dock comes at an angle. So it's 10 feet here, but actually if you go out here where the riparian line is, it moves over some. And if you recall, the boat -- the boat -- actually, I'm going to draw on this. The front of the boat was actually right there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I appreciate it. That's what drew my attention to it, especially when you put a lift on there and that size boat. MR. NELSON: And so when we get over into this area, the boat would be approximately like this. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. MR. NELSON: So I don't think that -- I really think there's a good argument to be made that it doesn't worsen that part of that view. Page 108 Agenda Item No.7 A Decem~(;j2~~ But I think really that my concern when we design these things is that I think that we need to look at the environmental challenges here first, that we really need to start taking better care of our resources. So far as dredging in these areas, really the DEP or anything, they're not going to allow you to do any dredging here, mainly because you have an option. They're going to tell you go out a little further and don't do any harm to the environment and keep this littoral zone intact right here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: The proposed deck area, it is essentially doubling in size. Is that necessary? Or could you lessen the overall extension by making that, the proposed platform, narrower? MR. NELSON: Well, you certainly could narrow it up. I would say that the waterward section of that, the waterward line, the edge of the boat lift needs to stay where it is. But I think that you could narrow that dock up. In other words, right where the boat is moored out is the important point to get to. So you could go eight feet with it, you know, and narrow it up by two feet, but it would actually be the back that moves towards the open water, if you see what I mean. Where the boat actually sits is the important part for the mooring. And maybe I can show you on the drawing. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, because you do actually have depth there now. I mean, all you have to do is take a look at your neighbor to the east. They're only 19 feet out and they've got a lift and they're -- MR. NELSON: But if you'll look at this aerial again, you can see -- you see this line, and I'm going to draw the line along the edge of that. Thanks. You'll see it actually curves like this. And I'm not sure what the water depth is like in this in here, but I have an idea by looking at the Page 109 . , Agenda Item No. 7A April)2...2.QOJl... DecembOO<bj EiMtJIll3/ back end of this that it's probably not -- I know it's not as good as the water depth out here. And if you come back into here, we have a topographical survey that shows that the existing dock, the front is like .3 to .35. That's really not quite adequate for the type of boat that we visualize being moored here. And we would rather be in that minus four to minus five. And I think a lot of you, when you see these come in, that's generally the goal, is to be at that minus four to minus five. Especially when you have a boat lift, and that boat lift cradle itself can be anywhere from 10 inches thick to 12 inches thick to support that boat. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, again, one of the things we were trying to protect in these waterways here, because we're in a shallow backwater area, is that we don't have boats that are too large for the backwaters. MR. NELSON: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: And so by moving out to a depth that will just allow you to have a larger boat is not a goal for this panel or, you know, should it be. We shouldn't be lessening our standards just to accommodate larger boats in an area where it may not be appropriate. MR. NELSON: I agree. And I don't think that this lessens the standards at all. I really don't. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm comfortable with what I see. MR. NELSON: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is -- waterway is 640 feet wide there? MR. NELSON: It's 640 feet, approximately. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you're looking at 37 feet. Have your neighbors complained? MR. NELSON: I think we have had a complaint about the view. That's why I mentioned the view. The neighbor to the east has made a complaint about the view there. And that's why I put this drawing up. Page 11 0 Agenda Item No. 7A April 22, 2008 Decem_f(51,71007 And I know that there's concern, and I'm not going to say that the neighbor shouldn't be concerned. I mean, neighbors have a right to be concerned, so I don't want to -- I just want to show you on this drawing, this is their boat dock right here. This is different for me here. Sorry. There we go. This is their boat dock right here. This is their porch and their lanai right here. And I think their concern was is that because if we went straight out with this dock right here the way it was, it was going to get further into this view. But actually -- and I'm not sure that they were aware of it or not, they may have well been aware of it, but we are moving it over, too. So I think the line of view -- I think a good argument is to be made is that because of that, we're going to stay approximately in the same line of view as we are now. And if you'll notice right here, we have some photographs, but right in here, the reason that we don't crowd this over, right in here there's a lot of vegetation. Pretty substantial vegetation right along this site here that pretty much blocks this view here, the upland view. So that's why we drew this line across the bow of this. This one is probably more of the concern. And because of where their own boat dock is right here, we kind of drew the line across from where that blocked that view. So I don't know if that's a fair representation or not, but it's the best I could come up with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Ray, this is kind ofto you, is that given them the larger deck area, it would be nice if they would cover it. There's nothing we do today that gives them the ability to put a boathouse cover on it or something; isn't that right? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. Page 111 Agenda Item No. 7A April p..zo.qs DecemlftlJle()l,8:.6W7 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So they would have to come back if they wanted to do that? MR. NELSON: Absolutely. And then I think the county's criteria on boathouses and the setbacks on boathouses and the criteria for view really comes into play majorly then. So I would see little or no chance of that happening. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a staff report? THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please? MR. NELSON: Oh, I'm sorry. For the record, Ben Nelson. MS. CASERTA: Hi. Ashley Caserta, Senior Planner for the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you cut your hair? MS. ASHTON: Yes, I did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You look totally different. It looks very nIce. MS. ASHTON: Thank you. No report. Staff does recommend approval. If you have any questions for me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you very much. Ray, do we have any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we have one registered speaker. James C. Welch. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Welch, if you could approach one of the podiums. Thank you for your patience today. I'm sorry the schedule got changed around. MR. WELCH: Thank you for seeing me. I appreciate it. THE COURT REPORTER: Were you sworn in? Page 112 Agenda Item No. 7 A April 22, ~Ojlll DecemBlN"6~ WfJ7 MR. WELCH: No, I wasn't. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. WELCH: I have three current pictures, one, two, three, that will make some sense. And I also took the liberty of taking the Collier appraiser's. I'm not a public speaker, but I'm rather confused why a 37-foot protrusion is necessary when the maximum permitted protrusion is 20 feet as the norm. As the three pictures demonstrate, in my opinion, you know, the docks all along the side are not protruding 37 feet, and they're considerably large boats connected to them, as my neighbors, which has a V -bottom boat and doesn't have the need to be out that far. In my opinion, this wil11eave -- it will have a major impact on my westerly view and sunsets I look forward to. As I see it, there will be a boat hoisted on a lift 25 to 37 feet out in the water, which I think also compromises the existing customary channel of navigation, which is along the seawall. I don't understand why it's necessary to hoist the boat 25 feet from the seawall, as the pictures show. Other boats are not. I would appreciate clarification on the purpose. I haven't gotten it with the depth. I'm asking members of the board to consider the relevance of size of dock versus depth of water. It appears to me that three-and-a-half feet at low tide is plenty of depth for a vessel. I'm also questioning why depth was measured at my property line, as shown in Nelson's rendering, rather than petitioner's proposed site of construction. To this end, I ask that the present character and simplicity of the neighborhood be preserved. I just don't understand the need for a boat lift 25 feet from the seawall. I do not see on the documents what the total elevation of the boat lift will be out there, 25 to 37 feet out. I'm also concerned that at a future date another lift could be installed along the 15-foot walkway, which would further impede our Page 113 Agenda Item No. 7A April 22, ;l,Ollt/ Deceme0F'(j~ 'iJ007 View. This graph paper, I represented a foot by each block, and I actually drew it out exactly the way it comes out to show as it would be rendered, because I couldn't understand the Nelson Marine rendering per square footage. So I went and did one myself. And as you can see, there's a considerable impact on view. I would just ask if this must be approved, I'm going to request that the dock be placed further west of my property in preserving my westerly view, which I cherish greatly and why I chose to be at this location. It seems this raises the bar for allowed protrusions. There are three other protrusions in the bay. One is a public dock, and two of them are for a condo association at the end of the bay. Other than that, they don't protrude out this far. For one boat on a lift, it seems like a considerable amount of protrusion into the bay. I took the picture also, the boat that's there drafts approximately six inches. I draft approximately one foot with my boat. And it's no difficulty, you know, being close to the seawall as I am. That boat right there is a 17-foot boat that I have, and it draws a foot of water. Pontoon boats typically draw six inches of water. And I would ask that the board consider either relocating it further west or maybe by the side of the dock, rather. But the depth, I question how the depth would come about, because I stand in the water out there. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, I have a question. You had -- the last photograph you showed, I mean, I'm trying to figure out where it is, because the -- maybe you could show it, it was number three, you had a number three up in the corner of it. There it is. That picture shows a canal. Where is that in relationship to this facility? MR. WELCH: The canal starts about four or five homes down. My neighbor is still on the bay, as I am. Page 114 . . . . Agenda Item NO.7 A April 22, 2008 Decemt;V~l 0007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I was confused. I remember seeing the diagram that shows a 640-foot deep bay, and that's why I couldn't figure out where the canal occurred. Are there any other questions of the gentleman? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is your concern -- in other words, there's a couple dimensions that are important. One is to the edge of the dock itself and then one is to the outside, you know, edge of the lift. Is your concern more to the edge of the dock or the whole thing out to the outside edge? What he's asking for, his dimensions are to the outer edge of that lift, which is 37 feet. If he pulled the whole thing coming in, what kind of a number would make you comfortable? MR WELCH: Well, if the issue is the depth of the boat, if it was on the side of the dock, that would be perpendicular to the seawall. That would be one issue. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. MR. WELCH: But I don't understand the need to go out that far. I'm confused, because I stand in the water, I know it's deep enough. I have -- I know what my area is. And by the county's picture, I know that there's that band that goes around it, goes against the seawall, but I also know that if you look at that, that's what I'm going to have to look forward to in reality, not that sketch that I saw from Nelson Marine. And I drew that out, hand sketched one foot for every block. And that's what I'm going to be looking at, 37 feet out, God knows how high in the water -- out of the water. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But how many people -- it looks like the existing boat is docked on the outside edge of their dock now. MR WELCH: Yes, but it's in -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It doesn't have a lift, it's in the Page 115 Agenda Item No. 7A April 22,..2.QQ~ l)ecena~~ztID~7 water, right? So your concern is even lifting that boat up, it would lift it into your view. MR. WELCH: Right. Well, it's going to be one more obstruction. There's going to be a protected walkway that's going to have a rail on it. Then there's going to be a dock that's going to be 10 by 20 out. And then on top of that there's going to be a hoisted boat that's going to be 25 to 37 feet out into the water, and that totally blocks my view. I don't know where somebody thinks it doesn't block my view; it's apparent from this sketch that I took the time to draw. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Ray, from our past LDC work, isn't that boat also able to have a cover on it now? MR. WELCH: It has a cover. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I mean, where we came up with regulations on covers that are supported by pilings. So essentially wouldn't this be allowed even on top of that boat that there's a cover sitting out there? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So it's worse than you think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the gentleman? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. WELCH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. By the way, Mr. Klatzkow, do we have to keep the papers he's shown for record? I think we do. MR. KLATZKOW: I think you do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you could give them to the court reporter here, she'll make sure they're filed. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Shouldn't we accept them as evidence? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. We each haven't got a copy, Bob, so let's just leave it like it is. Page 116 Agenda Item No. 7A April 22. 2008 Decerpl)'etlE(f,3JOO7 MR. NELSON: Mr. Chainnan, would I be allowed to make a couple more comments? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, you can have rebuttal. MR. NELSON: So far as the water depth, I think a lot of you remember when it used to be -- water depth used to be a source of contention, the neighbor would say this, we would say that. So that's why you started requiring for us to get the staff is to get a certified surveyor to come in and do the water depths on there. You see this bathymetric survey actually has the water depths on both sides, in other words. And what they did, the reason that they put the lines on both sides here is so that you could kind of connect the dots and come across here and see where those lines are. So it kind of takes the dispute out of it of what the water depth is. And so far as the other docks in the area -- I'm going to change this again -- you have this drawing, too. This kind of shows kind of an example ofthe docks, just a sampling of the docks. From my experience as a marine contractor, a lot of the times these older docks that have been put at 20-foot -- and these don't include the lifts on here, these are just where the dock is, the protrusion of the dock, and these are fairly accurate measurements here. And you'll see that a lot of them are 21,23,21, they're all in that area right there. A lot of times in the past people have just put the docks in at that 20-something feet, rightly because they don't want to go through this variance process. They come to us or come to somebody else and they say, what can we put in? Well, you can go out 20 foot or you can pay another $2,000 and whatever and we'll take a shot at getting you out there with a boat lift. Some people choose not to do that. Some people choose just to go ahead and do a walk-around dock in the shallow water and deal with that shallow water. Page 117 Agenda Item No. 7A April 22. 2008 Decem15'e~'6;4~007 I quite frankly don't think that that's the best case scenario. I think the best case scenario is to get these boats into deeper water, because the resource -- I believe that the resource is very important. Not that the view and everything else isn't important, but most people have a boat and a dock and a boat lift behind their house that they look at too from behind their house as well. And I understand how when you want to look towards the sunset and you want to look across your neighbor's property that that's a concern, but I think that shouldn't get in the way of somebody's right to adequately have safe, reasonable access. And I think that if you ask your staff if this is safe and reasonable access and a reasonable request as part of the criteria that you've set out, I think that you'll find it will be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: What is the depth that you have it at now? MR. NELSON: It's probably -- it's at a bit of an angle to the shoreline, so I'd say it was at an average of a minus 4.5. What that translates into is about at low tide, it's about four-and-a-half feet deep at low tide at the front of the dock. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: And at full tide what is it? MR. NELSON: At full tide it would probably be six foot. If you get a foot-and-a-halftide change, it would probably be six-foot deep at high tide. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Thank you. MR. NELSON: And so far as the channel also, it's fairly deep. I think it's fairly deep across there. The gentleman's right, people have a habit of hugging the shoreline as they go along there. But there is no marked channel in this area, mainly because it stays so deep. This is what I would consider to be a -- you wouldn't call it a manmade waterway, it's a man-altered waterway. Years ago, in the Page 11 8 , . Agenda Item No. 7A April 22. 2008 Decem6'e~E{t,S.2007 late 1950's, early 1960's, they went around the area and in some areas they dug this out by crane. You can see that by aerial photo. It's kind of interesting, really. And so right now the whole area's taken 40 to 50 years to kind of recover environmentally from that. And so what our goal here is just to try to do something that doesn't hinder that process. And although we would be -- I have no objection at all to moving it further away to the west away from the client here, I have no objection to doing that at all, as long as we don't encroach in the 25 feet from the other side. I'm sure my applicant has no objection to doing that. But it will make it go towards the other neighbor we haven't heard from, but they're not here, so I can't speak for them, that's for sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Nelson, I think you said something about improving safety or making sure that there was safety associated with -- MR. NELSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Does that mean that when the original community was developed that the 20- foot docks were not safe? MR. NELSON: Well, I think that what the goal is to have safe and reasonable access. And because of the 20-foot dock, when you put a 20-foot dock in there, if it's too shallow, if you don't have a boat lift, if you don't have proper access, your boat sits on the bottom or whatever. I don't think it's considered safe access. And, you know what, there's a good argument to be made that if you're not in that deep water depth, and as long as you're able to stay out of a navigational channel, I think that you've got safe access. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sir, I'm not going to disagree with you necessarily, but I will say that one of the pictures that we saw looking down to that canal seemed to be a very large vessel behind the vessel that was just in front. And I would say that if the Page 119 Agenda Item No. 7A April 22, 2008 Decemt)e'I"6~ 2007 community were planned with the 20-foot there, I recognize there's a great deal of width in the bay, but a vision -- you know, somebody's view is important, and the community character is important. And ordinarily I wouldn't take umbrage, but we have somebody who's indicating it's directly impacting. And even I noted that it looked to me like when you put that other vessel out there, and you made a statement earlier on indicating the vessel they want to put there, which means that they have in mind something other than the vessel we're looking at right now -- MR. NELSON: Sure, most people do. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- which would be considerably larger. MR. NELSON: It could be. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Presumably. So I don't know, I thought that these were safe the way they were. I just caught that and wondered about your choice of the word there. MR. NELSON: And towards the other end of the canal there, where the picture was taken down there in the canal, the character of that canal changes. As you get down further towards the mouth of that canal, the water depth increases towards the seawall. As you can see by the drawing, the water depth increases towards the seawall, it gets deeper, so you're able to come back in there further. Also, as you get to that canal, you're limited. That canal is only 80 feet wide. You're limited to 20 feet, and that's all you'll ever be able to do. So that's what they have to live with. And being a manmade canal then towards that end, you're able to dredge there. So there's a lot of reasons why it changes as it gets down towards that way right there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: From the point of land to the water, how far out would it be for three feet of water? MR. NELSON: Right now the dock is 20 feet out, and it's at 3.5 Page 120 Agenda Item NO.7 A April 22, 2008 DecemBe!f8612007 feet. So the existing dock. So right now if she just left the boat the way it is, she's in three-and-a-half feet of water. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: How long would it be if it was just three feet? MR. NELSON: It appears -- it says right here that it's at minus two point -- see, it drops off rather rapidly. At 15 feet out it's minus 2.3. At 20 feet out it's minus 3.5, so you kind of split the difference in between there. Approximately 18 feet. Now, minus three, by the way, minus three, if you ask the department of environmental protection, minus three is the minimum water depth that they would consider adequate water depth. And so very seldom -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: It is adequate. I've been using it too. MR. NELSON: Yeah, it's very minimal adequate water depth, but -- and it depends on the draft of your boat. Generally, and I think that in the environmental community, generally minus four, like I said, a minus four to minus five is the usual, and it is the best thing for the environment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One thing right now. They couldn't put a lift on the existing dock right now, because that would add dimension to it and would violate the 20 feet, correct? MR. NELSON: We would still be here. Yeah, we would still be here to get a variance for that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So it's not like we're just -- you know, the rebuilt dock is quite a bit bigger because of that lift. The lift lifts the boat into a view that it may not normally be in. And because of the potential of the covers that we recently approved, it could be a permanent structure sitting out there. I'm done. Thank you, Mark. Page 121 , , I Agenda Item No.7 A April 22, 2008 DecemotlJr6~ 2fOO7 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of anyone at this point? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mr. Nelson. Ray, we're done with public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Move to deny. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion's been made to deny, motion's been seconded. Is there discussion? The only consideration I would have thought is the gentleman suggested that if they could move this dock further away from his house, it might help the situation. And I think they could move it further away, based on the plan that's presented. I saw that as a positive. So that was my comment. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, can I respond to that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: He can only move it over five more feet. And even looking at it, I was trying to sketch it, he could really only pull it in five more feet. So moving it over five feet and bringing it down to 32 still doesn't help, I think, the issue with the neighbor. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's right. MR. NELSON: But I would ask what the option for the client is. Does he not have the ability to have a boat lift? Is that what the commission is telling us? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Based upon the 20 feet, probably not. I mean, nobody else does past the 20 feet. Page 122 . J ,- ~ Agenda Item No. 7A April 22, 2008 DecemE'8~elf,91i:ffl7 MR. NELSON: Yeah, there's a whole county full of people that do, actually. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I mean on the wall of this thing. I think there was another thing that Donna said true, too, is that this isn't an area where they really want to go out ofthe way to keep getting bigger and bigger boats into it. So that's another factor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other comments on the motion? There's been a motion made to deny. It's been seconded, there's been discussion. All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those opposed? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Motion carries 5-2. Okay, with that, we will end. Thank you all for attending today. Item #9 OLD BUSINESS Next order of business is old business. Do we have any old business? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just want to kind of bring one thing up is -- and Ray, we've got to be wasting a lot of money on delivery of things. I'm getting letters, I'm getting fellows to the door with one piece of paper. Page 123 .; . -.". Agenda Item No.7 A April 22, 2008 Decem6'~~e6,O 1{fth Could we do this, could you organize how you update data and poll the members to see which they prefer? And here's what happens: I print out an agenda that comes in e-mail, then two days later there's a guy handing me one at the door. So we didn't achieve anything other than the waste, that guy's expense. So isn't there some way you could poll the board and see what's the preferable method of update for different members? And also, I think when you revise the agenda, I think revising it like you did here, revision two, is a good idea. But I think if you could just put the date that you revised it, that would be better than numbering them one, two, three. So I just really feel bad getting a letter, getting a guy and getting an e-mail at the same time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, rather than have to have staff make phone calls and correspondence back and forth, why don't we just ask it? As far as I'm concerned, if we were to establish a policy, say 10 pages or less it becomes e-mailed, 11 pages or more you send it out, unless one of us indicates otherwise. Does that work for everybody here? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Works for me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That will save you polling everybody. MR. BELLOWS: That will help. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: I appreciate it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Good. Thank you, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any other old business? Item #10 NEW BUSINESS Is there any new business? Page 124 . - .. Agenda Item No. 7A April 22, 2008 Decem'bg~e6,1 2mh (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, I'll ask for a motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made, seconded by Mr. Midney. All in favor? Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're adjourned. Thank you all. **** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:35 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK P. STRAIN, Chairman These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected , TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM. Page 125 ". . ~OLllER COUNTY GOVER aNT DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW WWW.COLLlERGOV.NET (i) . Agenda Item NO.7 A 28oo-1iiORTH HORSESHO~~i2 ;fg~ NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 403-2400 FAX (239) 643-6968 PETITION NO (AR) PROJECT NAME PROJECT NUMBER DATE PROCESSED ASSIGNED PLANNER BD-2007-AR-12154 REV: 1 CLANCY/KOENOARFER SO EXT Project: 2007080018 Date: 8/13/07 DUE: 8127/07 ] ABOVE ro BE COMPLETED BY STAFF THIS PETITION IS FOR (check one): IXI DOCK EXTENSION D BOATHOUSE . APPLICANT INFORMATION "";", I NAME OF APPLlCANT(S) SAUNDRA CLANCY-KOENDARFER ADDRESS 243 6TH STREET CITY BONITA SPRINGS TELEPHONE # 239-495-6837 CELL # E-MAIL ADDRESS: STATE FL ZIP 34134 FAX # 239-495-6837 NAME OF AGENT BEN NELSON JR. FIRM NELSON MARINE CONSTRUCTION INC. ADDRESS 10923 ENTERPRISE AVE CITY BONITA SPRINGS. STATE_FL ZIP 34135 TELEPHONE # 239-992-4443 CELL # FAX # 239-992-0765 E-MAIL ADDRESS:NELSON((i)NELSONMARINE.COM BE AWARE THAT COLLIER COUNTY HAS LOBBYIST REGULATIONS. GUIDE YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY AND ENSURE THAT YOU ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THESE REGULATIONS. ADA-2008-AR-12714 CLANCY-KOENDARFER BOAT DOCK EXT Project: 2007080018 DATE: 1/3/08 DUE: 1/17/08 PAGE 2 of 9 i'. Agenda Item No. 7A A ril 22, 2008 f69 I 25 Property 1.0.#: 55900800009 Lot(s) 10 Block(s E Current Zoning and Land use of Subject Property: RSF4 Address of Subject Property 243 6" Street SectionfTownship/Range 05 I 48 Subdivision: Little Hickory Shores Unit 2 Zoning Land use N Little Hickory Bav S Sixth Street West Riaht-of-Wav E RSF-4 W RSF-4 Sinale Familv Residence Sinale Familv Residence Narrative description of project (indicate extent of work, new dock, repiacement, addition to existing facility, any other pertinent information): Replace existinl! dock with a 4' x IS' walkwav leadinl! to a 10' x 20' platform and install one 7.000Ib boat lift. Accompanying this application must be 1) a signed, sealed survey depicting mean high water (MHW) and mean low water (MLW), and relevant water depths measured at no less than 5-foot increments; 2) a chart, drawn to scale, of the waterway at the site, depicting the waterway width, the proximity of the proposed facility to any adjacent navigable channel, the proximity of the proposed facility to docks, if any, on the adjacent lots, and the unobstructed waterway between the proposed facility and the opposite bank or any dock facility on the opposite bank; and 3) a site plan to scale showing dimensions and locatio'; of existing and proposed dock structures, as well as a cross section showing the facility in relation to MHW /MLW and shoreline (bank, seawall or rip-rap revetment). PAGE 3 of 8 ,'. Width of waterway: 640' ft.; 'measurement from 0 plat ~ other (specify) Aerial Photo o survey 0 visual estimate Total property water frontage: 75' ft. ft. 37 ft. Setbacks: provided 25 ft. required , 5 Total protrusion of proposed facility into water Number and length of vessels to use facility: 1. 26' Pontoon ft., 2. ft., 3. ft. list any additional dock facilities in close proximity to the subject property and indicate the total protrusion into the waterway of each: Manv docks in the area extend from approximatelv 22' to approximatelv48' into waterwav. See Attached Drawinl! The following criteria, (pursuant to Section 5.03.06 of the land Development Code) shall be used as a guide by staff in determining its recammendation to the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), and by the CCPC in its decision to approve or deny a particular Dock Extension request. In order for the CCPC to approve the request, it must be determined that at least 4 of the 5 primary criteria, and at least 4 of the 6 secondary criteria, must be met. Please provide a narrative response to the listed criteria and! or questions. Attach additional pages if necessary. 1. Whether or not the number of dock facilities and/or boat slips proposed is appropriate in relation to the waterfront length, location, upland land use and zoning of the subject property; consideration should be made of property on unbridged barrier islands, where vessels are the primary means of transportation to and from the property. ((The number should be appropriate; typical, single-family use should be no more than two slips; typical multi-family use should be one slip per dwelling unit; in the case of unb'ridged barrier island docks, additional slips may be appropriate)) The dock consists of one boat slip. 2. Whether or not the water depth at the proposed site is so shallow that a vessel of the general length, type, and draft as that described in the petitioner's application is unable to launch or moor at mean low tide (Ml T). ((The petitioner's application and survey should show that the water depth is too shallow to allow launch and mooring of the vessel (s) described without an extension)) 25' will I!et the edl!e of the dock to an adeauate water depth of between 4' & 5' at MHW and lift will extend out another 12'. therefore needinl! the extension. PAGE 4 of 8 .'. Agenda Item No. 7A April 22. 2008 Page 35 of 69 3. Whether or not the proposed dock facility may hove on adverse impact on navigation within on adjacent marked or charted navigable channel. ((The facility should not intrude into any marked or charted navigable channel thus impeding vessel traffic in the channel)) . . No marked channel exists. Waterwav is 640' wide and proposed dock and lift will not impede navil!ation. 4. Whether or not the proposed dock facility protrudes no more than 25 percent of the width of the waterway, and whether or not 0 minimum of 50 percent of the waterway width between dock facilities on either side of the waterway is maintained for navigability. ((The facility should maintain the required percentages)). The dock protrudes less than 25% of width ofwaterwav. 5. Whether or not the proposed location and design of the dock facility is such that the facility would not interfere with the use of neighboring docks. ((The facility should not interfere with the use oflegally permitted neighboring docks)) The proposed dock and lift will not interfere with use of nei!!hborinl! docks. 1. Whether or not there ore special conditions, not involving water depth, related to the subject property or waterway, which justify the proposed dimensions and location of the proposed dock facility. ((There must be at least one special condition related to the property; these may include type of shoreline reinforcement, shoreline configuration, mangrove growth, or seagrass beds )) None 2. Whether the proposed dock facility would allow reasonable, safe, access to the vessel for loading/unloading and routine maintenance, without the use of excessive deck orea not directly related to these functions. ((The facility should not use excessive deck area)) The proposed desil!ll allows for reasonable safe access without excessive deck area. PAGE 5 of 8 ,'. ." Agenda Item No. 7 A April 22, 2008 Page 36 of 69 3. For single-family dock facilities, whether or not the length of the vessel, or vessels in combination, described by the peiltioner exceeds 50 percent of the subject property's linear waterfront footage. ((The applicable maximum percentage should be maintained)) . . The proposed boat lenl!th (26') does not exceed 50% of subiect propertv width (75'). 4. Whether or not the proposed facility would have a major impact on the waterfront view af neighboring waterfront property owners. ((The facility should not have a major impact on the view of either property owner.)) Proposed facility would not have a maior impact on neil!hborinl! waterfront views. 5. Whether or not sea grass beds are located within 200 feet of the proposed dock facility. ({If seagrass beds are present, compliance with subsection 5.03.06.1. of this code must be demonstrated)) No seal!l'ass were noted within 200 feet of the proposed dock facility. 6. Whether or not the proposed dock facility is subject to the manatee protection requirements of subsection 5.03.06.E.ll of this code. ((If applicable, compliance with section 5.03.03.E.ii must be demonstrated)) The proposed facility is not known to be subiect to the manatee protection reauirements of subsection 5.03.06.E.ll of this code. I HEREBY ATTEST THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS APPLICATION IS TRUE AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. I UNDERSTAND THAT, IN ADDITION TO APPROVAL OF THIS DOCK EXTENSION, A BUILDING PERMIT IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION. I UNDERSTAND THAT IF THIS DOCK EXTENSION PETITION IS APPROVED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, AN AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNER MAY FILE AN APPEAL WITHIN 14 DAYS OF THE HEARING. IF I PROCEED WITH CONSTRUCTION DURING THIS TIME, I DO SO AT MY OWN RISK. Signature of Petitioner or Agent PAGE 6 of 8 . . Agenda Item No. 7A April 22, 2008 Page 37 of 69 (i) AFFIDAVIT ($nE.~8LE.Ll~\b..& ~ ~\tU!o1~ L~~!?tG-~~ :Pi~ We/Lc::;..,...""A C~-~""""fI!:~ ~dV1y swo;.;'-;-~epose an say that well amlare the owners of the property deseri herein and which is the subject matter of the proposed hearing; that 01/ the answers to the questions in this application, including the disclosure of inferest information, all sketches, data, and other supplementary maHer attached to and made a port of this application, are honest and true to the best of our knowledge and belief. Well understand that the information requested on this application must be complete and accurate and that the content of this form, whether computer generated or County printed shall not be alfered. Public hearings will not be advertised until this application is deemed complete, and all required information has been submitted. l'.!; properf,,! O\:'tne:- \lvel! f:.:rfher c!'lffhor!zehJ,::.~\ H.w~~rc.~"'(lH"'TI'01'tT..V" to act as ovr / my representative in any matters regarding this Petition. ~~ ~"~~Io\ ~'~:-reusteS... Typed or Printed Name of Owner .sc:tU/)", k! c,. ;(. (' I q" H Typed or Printed Name of Owner' KbeN c{cu Fel~ The foregoing inst~ument was acknowledged_b;.fore me this ;;; tlfh: day of ~~,~ 2007 . byS<t.wIl.w" i. e 10-,,(' /' i< ~,jMfW~o is personally known to me or has produced /"']: tJ(.. 1f" as identification. Slate of Florida County of Collier ( 1<. (Signature of Nota (Print, Type, or Stamp Commissioned Name of Notary Public) MML'tN.L WN.DRDN -., NlIIc, SllIle d ."V~ . ~ of ClIIdIIld lilJCl-.6IaIQl. ~__... 81 AIIllIf....eue,.1lI C'J::./~ RECEIVED OCT - 3 2007 PAGE 8 ofq ZONING DEPARTMENT FIELDBOOK 195 PAGE NORTH ARROW - 8 DA TE 5-30-07 ,TWP 48 $,~tm', 2 ~ E LEGEND SECTION 5 FOUNDAT/ONLOCATION PAGE ~ FIELDBOOK LEGAL DESCRIPTION (AS PROVIDED BY CLIENT) This is not a boundary survey. This is a special purpose survey for dock location only. Lot 10, Block E, Little Hickory Shores, Unit 2 as recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 79 of the public records of Collier County, Florida. The property address is 243 6th Street per client. . SETcrJNC.MOII.WIC';/>Ul.f'MS:l . SETIIlOffFWW/CAPI.D.I:J6& l!l ro.CCWCMON_lI!OI.P o ro. COHC. MON. ~-:~:,::z,"::.EVATIC.W ._~ R RScoRaED . ~, CON'T REVERSE SIDE FINAL SURVEY DATE SCALE 1"=30' Lot 11 Occupied Block E 3.x3~ Mon. -10.1 -10.0 -9.8 -7.3 -5.3 -5.2 -3.5 -2.3 -1.0 -.20 -10.14 -9.95 -9,64 -7.14 -5.34 -5.04 -3.29 -2.14 .1.04 -.34 0"'0 .26 rill Hole a: to to C'i~ "'''' ~N W"'! - '" <Xl", N~ o (j) a: '" <Xl ~cO ",N tO~ "'!W to- N'" ~N o (j) Lot 9 Occupied Lot 10 Residence Not Located S: S: ~~ .4>~ ",'" "'0. 0..._ <'..., ~ 5/8" 6811 1/2 No J.D :~~~f#h~ NOTES 1. REPRODUCTION OF THIS SKETCH IS NOT VALID UNLESS SEALED WITH AN EMBOSSED SURVEYOR'S SEAL, 2. NO INSTRUMENTS OF RECORD REFLECTING EASEMENTS, RiGHTS- OF.WAY, AND OR OWNERSHIP WERE FURNISHED THIS SURVEYOR EXCEPT AS SHOWN. 3. NO UNDERGROUND INSTALLATIONS OR IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN LOCATED EXCEPT AS NOTED. 4. BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON Centerline Sixth St West being SB9"32'W 5. THIS PROPE;RTY LIES IN Fj,. D ZONE AE EL 14} NGVD PER F.I.R.M. PANEL No.12021 17 .DATEDTI-17_~6 6. LAST DATE OF FIELDWORK 7. All DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND DECIMAlS THEREOF. FAX: (239) 992-6070 TELE: (239)992-8900 OWN. BY CHK'D BY JLA CERTIFICATE IhllrebYDllrtlfylhalthealJovedeacrlbedpto~wa"UfVeyed uoder my di1ecUOll Bod the sketch ofSUrvllY Is true aod COrrBcI: lolhe besl of my kno'lMdgB. Thlslul'lleymeelsorexceetds lhe minimum lechnical stendllrdssBtlortt1 bytheFlarid860llfd of lend SUn/eyors, purwanttl:l Rulli 61017 -6 flOOds Adminisff8tive Code, and pursuant to Sectlon 472.027 Florida Statutes. Th8fll are no visible encroachmenls other thlIn those 'lhownhereon. - hJ&r7 ~~~'PLS MARK O. ALLEN P.L.S. #3553 LB #6558 MARK O. ALLEN, INC. PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR ORDERED BY Nelson Marine 10602 WOODS CIRCLE BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34135 SHEET OF 1 DWG.NO. 20 7.131 .OCT-la,2007 THU.02:00 PM Aprtoc Exlsllng Shore1in Koendarfer Site 2B'6"PmtruolIon 21'6"_00 23Ir _on _... 17'_ 2D'B"F'rolrUoi... 6' ProInJsien . ISDN MARINE FAX No, 2.92 0765 Agenda Item ~b09A April 22, 2008 Page 39 of 69 Ann of UttJe Hickory Bay .lim~on "KtIondarf...!.ooeIion M 6I141fJ1 L ings. to 1 'butt2.5 . I Stringers 'Z' x 8" .60 Treated I 0ed<.4O #1 Grade 'Z' X 6" SS Oed< Saews I Bolts 1/2" to SZ' Stainless Steel, Galvanized ~nalee Signs to be placed at most outward piling . Agenda Item No. 7A April 22, 2008 Page 40 of 69 i I . ~I ~.I ... "I c. iiil I I Proposed 7,000 Lb. 1 A1um-A-Hoist I ';0 ~: I" ::> jc iii DoI1thIChert 4G I 10 35' 7.5 3iJ 5.5 2S 5 2rJ 3.5 3T 15' -2 10 -1 5' .5 25' .sting Mjoiring \/\ell Dredged Bay 640' Wde Existing Adjoini VIall Existing VIall +1.5 MHW ( VO) VIaIkway 3iJ t~ 243 6th Street ~~ 15' 10 12' Proposed Dock Proposed Required Proposed (10x2O') 7,000 Lb. Handrail \/\elkway .to Replace A1um-A-Hoist I Exi ng +1.5 MHW Existi (NGVD) \/\ell - -.-"-"-. -.- -"---.- _.~ MLW -3.5 (NGVD) Scale:1 ";;;1 D' . .5 -7.5 3T t Owner: Koendarfer I I I 75' L._._._._._._._._._. " " ... Ne/SOll manne consrru....uon I I I ._. - ._._._. _._._._.1 In : Bonita Springs County: Collier . Koendarfer Scale: 1 "=20' ~ 8/1/07 Purpose: Replace Dock, Add Lift '\<> f"\ o o l't " 0' tJ' II ~)z ~J ::as ,,.12_ ~J=;l; e~~ ~E' =~ ~! , 1 . ...:..." c__ ...,............... ........) Mac: ACftQN nn..& IDVIC.'II Add~: J'DJ"""" TnI NwtIl ....... n. .MJI) __.........by, BEVERLY A. OXENDER of AC'I'ION Tm.I..VIC&I ... .-....ary _Ural act tile tutfWmeac of I.~ ---.s ia. ddc iaJuraDcc COfIIIIIiImeDl &quod by .. P'Npeny AppI'lUen Puc:d Idcnti(lCAIiuG (Mio) NIlftlbcr(i): 55900800009 0mMe(.) 5,5.'(1): -..-.--.llJ4['i AIlOYi THIS L\Ni. fI>>; MlJ("UlIK; DAU- _..... FILE NO: 99120038 WARRANTY DEED ttt 2568636: 2621 PGf\~ .."" No. 7A _ ..lIIIeJII _II CIWII _.lWril 22, 2008 II/WI"' It tl:lIl1_ t. _. ems f1age 41 of 69 _ UIIII.. ... I.. toe-.!I 111I.. ....: IC!IIIIm1 CO 1IC1 .. ""'_..,-......_. .........__..110II................__..._.. _....1 TIIIo W-,. Dood _..... lOth..,. of December ~.D. 19 99. b, MARK II. MAASZ AND KATHRYN MAASZ, HUSBAND AND WIFE wIiloIc marUI_till 0: .......,..,caJ&.d dw.rantOI'. whole PM' ulflCe addn:u.: .. SAUNDRA CLANCY, .. SINGLE PERSON ..... poll offICe add~ is: 243 6TH STREET. KAPLES ~ FL 34102 ~WJerlIhe.raneec, WITNESSETH: ThaI.... ,raDlor. rIll' ud in COllI_ration uf lhc 5Wn l.lf $10.00 DoIlan. IDd odwr v.alulbtl: I..~. ~ wbcnof iI hereby KkDOWIcqed, bn'cby ,fUD, baqa.. lielb. alcns, rcm&aes. rdeues. t."OD\'~)'S uwIc:uo11rmf. ~ .. ........dWcrnaiDlud""*i11 COLLIER c...-.y, Florida,vil:: LOT 10. BLOCK E, Lr'M'LE HICKO UNIT NO.2. ACCORDING 1'0 THE PLAT THEREOF. OF RECO 3, PAGE 79, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLI (J _,..,..."IIIII.,*J""- "J'OGE'I'IIEIlwilb aJllbt_. T._'" ..1IoId,..........1e< _ ...... bereby covenanD w.said . bat pod rilla ad ...Ad audloril)' ID tdI and comey lIoid , .. KfWonlUr beIWy fldly wUQl1b ... Iitk '" said land and will ......... .... apinM ... 1.wful c:l.iml of.u penou -.bonuoner; and Ihat uiII iIad is free of.n cncllDhnDca. ell.a=pl Qua 1ClI:NiIII""""1O Dcc:aDber3l. 19 99, racnalKllll, ~and e:uemeMI oIM:OId. ifall)'. IN WITNESS WHEIlEOF. G.-antur Iw. Itc........ IruIor's lwId aDd seallbc dIly and )'ar rll'Sl ~e wriaea. fi).,'1J/ e~ S... Sealed and Delivered in Our Pmi:ncc: . ~7 ~=~J1rlt\;',""<Qv",'cI ....._, -z!J,..~,~~ ... ""'-d N...: /);/.1,1 L.~",.. ,.... -' w~_, ............. N.....,; ,.... .........: ...... N_: ___Is-I ST"TE_DI' ~ENNSYLVANIA ~P.\e:. .II. n. fweaDiaI iaAnanent wu KkDo1rled8ed before _ this 91t day of #AU t,., 4J~ ... MARK W. MlIASZ AND KATHRYN MAASZ, HUSBAND AND WIFE .19'1'P ... iaJ... pmo_11y known 10 _ or who IluJhave prodtad .~. ....... ~ 1lI)'.,.,.......... ....,..__- -..... .., -~:;:'1,_ -,.:-:- ~.~. ~ " ',""C' ......... . J ". *** 258741 OR: 2636 p~?e~f~~~~~ 6~ QCOIllID .. "'mAl QCOIDI ,f COIL111 comf.~lle 42 0 69 Dl/ll1ll1O It Il:llI1 DfIGl! I. BIOCI, CliO DC nJ 1.11 COlli. 1.11 IIIC 1.11 . Itta: Ilmu 1 cwo III Ill'! 101I7I snUG! PL 3U!H QmT CLAIM DBBD KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: ThatllA1IIlD1U. CLABC'f, a sinBle penon. whose address ia 243 6'h Street, Bonita Sprin... FL, 33923, quit claim. to TD Il&VOCAm.B LIYDIO TIW8T CD' - L. CLAIICY DA'l'IID ~ 30, 1999, whooe addreu i. 243 6" Street, Bonita Sprinp. FL, 33923, the foUowinS deacribed premise. in Collier Collnty, Florida. to-wit: LOT 10, BLOCK E, LlTl'LE HICKORY SHORES, UNn' NO, 2, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT niEREOF, OF RECORD IN PLAT BOOK 3, PAGE 79, OF niE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COWER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PROPERTI APPRAISERS PARCEL ID NO. 55900800009 (or the fuU consideration of None - Exempt. If thr land beinl conveyed i,,1 unplatted. the foUowinl i. deemed to be included: -Thi. property may be located within the vici.nity of f_nnland or . farm operation. Generally accepted. aaricultural and manapment practices which may Fnerate nailte, duat, odOR saciated condition. may be ulled and are protected by the Michipn Rilht to Farm "" \Jb OU./I,i Daled thi..2llI day of o\; ,2000. ./oj.:. WITNESSES: /7// ~-" abIPe _ . I \ STATE OF F'WRlDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~.dM of I.MllaDY 2000, by Sallndra C1an<y, a lIincle person. IDENTIFIED BY III 0.1..' .1 75't'~B7 873 CLERK OF CIRC.utr-.'e, UIIT... ", ..... ....... ". .C. o .... 'I.' . Pll RICU 1111 . S, DE?u:r~"CU.RK . Notary PIIbllc. COWI'Y, FlDnda . My Commi.sion ExPire",' ..i.' .: . . In.trwnent drafted by: Kathryn M. Caruso, 5840 Lorsc on.....C.......t..., Mf 48346 '. . ....-"1 ,,' . .. Recording Fee: State Transfer Tax Tax Parcel' When recorded, return to: Send Sll bseqllcnt tax bills to: Details . . Agendal/agc fjj({)ff 1 April 22, 2008 Page 43 of 69 IIIIIIlI Property Record --- I~ Aeria I I Sketches . Folio No.ij 55UooBOOOOU Current Ownership Property Add....1243 6TH ST . Owner Name Addresses CLANCY TR, SANDRA ITF SANDRA CLANCYRLT 12.2o-UU 243 6TH ST BONITA SPRINGS State FL ZI 34134.7400 C Legall LITTLE HICKORY SHORES UNIT 2 BLK E LOT 10 Section Townshl Ran e Acres 05 48 25 0.23 Sub No. 488400 LITTLE HICKORY SHORES UNIT 2 "'t Use Cod. 1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Ma No. 3A05 Slra No. 468400 E 103A05 170 2007 Preliminary Tax Roll (Subjecllo Change) Latest Sales History If all Values shown below equal 0 this parcel was created after the Final Tax Roll Land Value $ n7,600.00 + 1m roved Value $ 265,423.00 :II: Mar1tet Value $ 1,043,023.00 . SOH Exem Value $ 388,235.00 . Assessed Value $ 654,788.00 (-) Horns.lead and olher Exam I Value $ 25,000.00 = Taxable Value $ 629,788.00 SOH - .Save Our Homes. exempt value due to cap on assessment Increases. Date Book ~ Pa Amount 01/ 2000 ~tQ $ 0.00 12/1999 2621 _ 745 $ 425,000.00 03/1996 240C115 $ 315.000.00 .... The Information is Updated Weekly. http://www.collierappraiser.comIRecordDetail.asp?Map=&FolioID=OOOOO55900800009 7/17/2007 .',' .... . . · Florida Department of Envrronmental Protection Agenda Item No. 7A ~~~~~~~~i: leff Kottkamp Lt. Governor South District Ollice P.O. Box 2549 Ft. Myers. Florida 33902-2549 Michael W. Sole Secretary June 25, 2007 Sandra Clancy Koendarfer c/o Ben Nelson Nelson Marine Construction 10923 Enterprise Ave Bonita Springs, FL 34135 Re: Collier Cmrnty - ERP File No. 11-0279058-004 Dear Mr. Nelson: Thank you for your application to replace a single-family dock in little Hickory Bay, Section 5, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County. This type of activity may require authorization for construction and operation of the project (regulatory authorization), unless otherWise exempt by statute or rule, authorization to use state-owned submerged lands (proprietary authorization), and federal authorization for works in waters of the United States through the State Programmatic General Permit (SPGP) program. Your request has been reviewed for all three authorizations. 1']1.e authorizations you have been-granted are listed below. Please read each section carefully. Your project MAY NOT have qualified for all three authorizations. H your project did not qualify for one or more of the authorizations, then that specific section will advise you how to obtain it. You may NOT commence your project without all three authorizations. If you change the project from what you submitted, the authorization(s) granted may no longer be valid at the time of commencement of the project. Please contact us prior to beginning your project if you wish to make any changes. REGULATORY REVIEW - APPROVED Based on: the information you sent to us, we have determined that your projed is exempt from the need for an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP). You must comply with the criteria and limiting conditions in accordance with Section 40E-4.051(3)(b), Florida Administrative Code. PROPRIETARY REVIEW - APPROVED Your project occurs on state-owned, submerged land and will require authorization from the Department to use these lands for private purposes. 1']1.e Department has reviewed your project as described above and on the attached documents and/or drawings, and as long as the work performed is .located within the boundaries as described and. is consistent with the terms and conditions therein, we find your project qualifies for a consent to use state-owned submerged lands. This consent is conditioned upon acceptance of and compliance with the attached General Consent <:;:6nditions. ''More Protection, Less Process" 1-\.'J.1II.1I.dep.state.fl. us .... "'. . . . Applicant: Sandra Clancy Koendarfer Application No.: 11-0279058-001 Page 2 of 2 . Agenda Item No. 7A April 22, 2008 Page 45 of 69 SPGP (FEDERAL) REVIEW - APPROVED WITH MANA TEE CONDITIONS Your project has been reviewed for compliance with State Programmatic General Permit (SPGP) IV effective September 1, 2006. Your proposed activity as outlined on the drawings attached to your application is in compliance with the SPGP program. U.s. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Specific conditions apply to your project, if attached. No further permitting for this activity is required by the Corps. The authority granted under this SPGP expires July 24, 2011. Your project must be completed prior to this expiration date. This authorization is conditioned upon acceptance of and compliance with the attached General Conditions for Federal Authorizations and Standard Manatee Construction Conditions. Authority for review - an agreement with the us. Army Corps of Engineers entitled "Coordination Agreement Between the U.s. Army Corps of Engineers Gacksonville District) and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection State Programmatic General Permit, Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbor Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act." This notice constitutes final agency action andis subjectto the.provisions. of Chapter 12D,f.s.Q>.aptE!1'J2Q,_ UF.s. does not apply fii.the SPGp'review. If you have any questions, please contact Mark Miller at the letterhead address, by telephone at (239) 332-6975 extension 111 or by email atMark.Miller@dep.state.fl.us. When referring to this project, please reference the file number listed above. XJlt-~ Environmental Manager Submerged Lands and Environmental Resource Program MRM/mac Enclosures: Rights of Affected Parties Notice of Determination of Exemption Standard Manatee Construction Conditions State Lands General Consent Conditions cc: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Myers, Log # 10429 Dredged Bay 640' IMde Agenda Item No. 7A ~ . ^rril 22, 2008 ADA-2008-AR-12714 Page 46 of 69 CLANCY -KOENDARFER BOAT DOCK EXT Project: 2007080018 DATE: 1/3/08 DUE: 1/17/08 \ , \ \ New . ,\ NejVlew of Adjacent ~ ghbor Following \ I \ Projec:l , \ i ", ~urrent View . , . of Adjacent '. I' Neighbor , \ 1'\,\ \ . \ stI~\ Dock . \ , Proposed Ufl , Proposed Dock -1==~ 1 I 1--25' Trees, Hedges Blocking Adjacent Neighbor VI"" Screen Endosure Adjacent Neighbor Screen Enclosure 1 j1j\j I/O> r - G 6th Street g~ 1 1 1 L __ _ 75' - ~ ~- --~~ .. Nelson manna conSfFuction 1 1 1 1 _________1 In : Bonita Springs County: Collier . Koendarfer View Scale: 1 "=20' ~ 1 4/07 Owner: Koendarfer Purpose: Replace Dock, Add Lift _...~-"".c..,..~." , 'lings to 1 bull2.5 . I stringers 2" x 8".80 Treated I Deck .40 #1 Grade 2" X 6" SS Deck Screws I Bolts 112" to 5/8" Stainless Steel, Galvanized Manatee Signs to be placed at most outward piling Existing Adjoini VII3I1 Owner: Koendarfer Existi VII3I1 I I I ._ _._._._ _._._._.1 Dredged Bay 640' Wde ;01 ij ::I. D)' ::II C. all I I Proposed ] 7,000 Lb. 12' A1um-A-Hoist Existing VII3I1 3C1 t~ 243 6th Street 1=15'-+-1G , Proposed Dock ,Required Proposed (1Gx2O') Handrail VII3Ikway to Replace J Exi?ting Proposed 7,000 Lb. A1um-A-Hoist -3.5 Scale:1"=1G 37 I 75' L_._._._ _'_ _._._. ~ ~ .. Ne/sOIl manne COnSffUl.LIOn Purpose: Replace Dock, Add Lift --- . ADA-200Q:,~-J~lj4'n ?[>..-- CLANCY~UE~Mrl!~ BOAT DOC K 1El(1Ill4 i of 69 Project: 2007080018 DATE: 1/3/08 DUE: 1/17 37 I .::u 1 I~ jc iil D8DtJ,IChIllf 4GI10 '2rJ 3.5 15' ' -2 1U -1 5' .5 25' 'sting Adjoining VII3I1 g/v 12' +1.5 MHW (NGVD) -'t- Lo MLW (NGVD) .5 -7.5 t In : Bonita Springs County: Collier . Koendarfer Scale: 1 "=20' ~ /1/ 7 Aprox, ExIsting ShoreIi Koendarfer Site 28'6" Prolruoion 21'&" ProIrusion 5' Protrusion 23'6" PrcIrusion T Protrusion 1T Protrusion 2f1f1' PrcIrusicn 6' Protrusion . . ADA-20~1ilr"~'M,. 7A-- CLANCY~K()EMIlARqR BOAT DOCK~'t48 of 69 Project: 2007080018 DATE: 1/3/08 DUE: 1/17/08 Ann of Little Hickory Bay 13' Protrusion 640' 11T PrcIrusion Scale: 1"=100' _li~~Jmion "Koendafer Loc::obon M 6/14107 Agenda Item No.P'A.e 1 of 1 A nl 22. 20Clll" 49 of 69 ( "- \ ')' ADA-200S-AR-12714-- CLANCY -KOENDARFER BOAT DOCK EXT Project: 2007080018 DATE: 1/3/08 DUE: 1/17/08 ( ~ http://maps.collierappraiser.comloutput/Collier _ 2007_ sde02483 65968422 jpg 12/5/2007 O"tlaJO)> )>c;oro -l-' )> )> )> mCD-lZ' . (') ON .=rro-<g ~~g;-~ g ~ :~q~ S; OmZ' COx .... o ON OO-l)>,"", C.... ;12.... mCO ". m ;12 Agenda Item No. 7A April 22. 2008 Page 50 of 69 .... - .... '"'" - o co Agenda Item No. 7A April 22. 2008 Page 51 of 69 Official Receipt - Collier County Board of County Commissioner CDPR1103 - Official Receipt , Trans Number 813031 Date 1/3/20081:25:18 PM Post Date 1/3/2008 Pa ment Sli Nbr AR 12714 Appl Name: NELSON MARINE CONSTRUCTION, INC Appl Stage/Status: COMPLETENESS STAGE/PENDING Address: BEN NELSON, JR 10923 ENTERPRISE AVE BONITA SPRINGS FL 34135 proj Name: CLANCY-KOENDARFER BOAT DOCK EXTENSION Type: T AZ: 2 Subdiv Nbr: 1079 Project Nbr: 2007080018 Payor: NELSON MARINE CONSTRUCTION Fee Information 1 Fee Code I Descriolion I GL Account ~ I Amount Waived 111ADMA 1 ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS FEES 113113832634121000000 -- $1000.00 I Total $1000.00 Payments I Payment Code :s::.HECK __ I AccounllCheck Number i 3568 ____J Total Cash I Total Non-Cash Amount] $1000.00 $0.00] $100000] Total Paid L $100000] Memo: Cashier/location: MURPHYLlNDA / 1 User: DANELLECARREL ADA.2008-AR~12714 CLANCY -KOENDARFER BOAT DOCK EXT Project: 2007080018 DATE: 1/3/08 DUE: 1/17/08 Collier County Board of County Commissioners CD-Plus for Windows 95/NT Printed:1/3/2008 1 :25:51 PM Agenda Item No. 7A April 22, 2008 Page 52 of 69 Official Receipt - Collier County Board of County Commissioners CDPR1103 - Official Receipt Trans Number 813031 Date 1/3/20081:25:18 PM Post Date 1/3/2008 Nbr Appl Name: NELSON MARINE CONSTRUCTION, INC Appl Stage/Status: COMPLETENESS STAGE/PENDING Address: BEN NELSON, JR 10923 ENTERPRISE AVE BONITA SPRINGS FL 34135 Proj Name: CLANCY-KOENDARFER BOAT DOCK EXTENSION Type: TAZ: 2 Subdiv Nbr: 1079 Project Nbr: 2007080018 Payor: NELSON MARINE CONSTRUCTION Fee Information I Fee Code I Descriotion 111ADMA I ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS FEES Amount I Waived I $1000.00 I I $1000.00 i 1 GL Account 113113832634121000000 Total Payments I Payment Code ~HECK AccounVCheck Number I 13568 Total Paid Amoui1t1 $1000.00 I $0.00 I $1000.00 $1000.00 I Total Cash Total Non-Cash Memo: Cashier/location: MURPHYLlNDA / 1 User: DANELLE CARREL ADA_2008-AR-12714---- CLANCY _KOENDARFER BOAT DOCK EXT Project: 2007080018 DATE: 1/3/08 DUE: 1/17/08 Collier County Board of County Commissioners CD-Plus for Windows 95/NT Printed:1/3/2008 1 :25:51 PM Agenda Item No.7 A April 22, 2008 Page 53 of 69 RESOLUTION 08-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2007-AR-12154, WHICH WAS DENIED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ON DECEMBER 6, 2007. FOR AN EXTENSION OF A BOAT DOCK ON PROPERTY HEREINAFrER DESCRffiED IN COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125. Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County adopted the previous Land Development Code (LDC) (Ordinance 91~102) in October 1991 which was subsequently amended and included the regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which are provisions for granting extensions for boat docks: and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a new Land Development Code (WC) (Ordinance 04-41, as amended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which are provisions for granting extensions for boat docks; and 'WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), being duly appointed, on December 6, 2007, held a properly noticed public hearing and considered the advisability of a 17-foot extension for a boat dock from the 20-foot length allowed by LDC Section 5.03.06.E.1. to authorize a 37-foot boat dock facility in an RSF-4 Zoning District for the property hereinafter described; and WHEREAS, the CCPC found as a matter of fact that the request did not meet the criteria required by LDC Section 5.03.06.E.l and accordingly denied the Petition; and WHEREAS, the new LDC omits Sections 5.2.11. and 2.6.21.3. of Ordinance 91-102, as amended, relating to the process by which a Petitioner may appeal a decision of the ccpe and thus causes a conflict pursuant to Paragraph Five, Conflict and Severability, of Ordinance 2004~ 41. as amended (the new LDC); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Paragraph Five, Conflict and Severability, of Ordinance 2004- 41, as amended provisions of the previously adopted WC shall apply in the evenl of such a conflict; and WHEREAS. the Petitioner duly appealed the decision of the CCPC pursuant to the Collier County LDC (omitted Sections 5.2.11. and 2.6.21.3. of Ordinance 91-102, as amended) to the Collier County ColJier County Board of Zoning Appeals. Page I of 2 Agenda Item No.7 A April 22, 2008 Page 54 of 69 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZOJo.1NG APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: Petition Number ADA-2007-AR-12714, appealing the CCPC's denial of Petition Number BD-2007-AR-12154 pursuant to previous, hut still effective, Sections 5.2.11. and 2.6.21.3. of Ordinance 91-102, as amended, filed on behalf of Saundra Clancey-Koendarfer by Ben Nelson, of Nelson Marine Construction, Inc., for the property hereinafter described as: Lot 10, Block E. Little Hickory Shores. Unit No.2, according to the plat thereof. of record in Plat Book 3, Page 79. of the Public Records of Collier County Florida. Property Appmisers Parcel ID No. 55900800009 be, and the same is hereby approved, thus reversing the cepe's denial of the Petition Number BD-2007.AR-12154, for a 17-foot extension of a boat dock from the 20-foot length otherwise allowed by LDC Section 5.03.06.E.I., to authorize a 37-foot boat docking facility in the RSF-4 zoning district wherein said property is located, subject to the following conditions: 1. Corresponding permits, or letters of exemption, from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection shall be provided to Collier County prior to the issuance of a building pennit. 2. Reflectors and house numbers of no less than four (4) inches in height must be installed at the outennost end on both sides of all docks or mooring pilings, whichever protrudes the furthest into the waterway, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Completion. 3. At least one (1) "Manatee Area" sign must be posted in a conspicuous manner as close as possible to the furthest protrusion of the dock into the waterway, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Completion. 4. All prohibited exotic species, as such term may now or hereinafter be established in the LDC, must be removed from the subject property prior to issuance of the required Certificate of Completion and the property must be maintained free from all prohibited exotic species in perpetuity. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this Commission and filed with the County Clerk's Office. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote this _ day of .2008. ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: . Deputy Clerk By: TOM HENNING, CHAIRMAN Page 2 of 2 Agenda Item No. 7A April 22, 2008 Page 55 of 69 Coltr County ~~ - STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION HEARING DATE: DECEMBER 6, 2007 SUBJECT: PETITION BD-2007-AR-12154 AGENT/APPLICANT: Agent: Ben Nelson, Ir. Nelson Marine Construction, Inc. 10923 Enterprise Avenue Bonita Springs, Florida 34135 Owner: Saundra Clancy-Koendarfer, Trustee 243 6th Street Bonita Springs, Florida 34134 REOVESTED ACTION: The petitioner is requesting a 17-foot boat dock extension from the maximum permitted protrusion of 20 feet for waterways greater than 100 feet in width, which will allow construction of a boat docking facility protruding a total of 3 7 feet into a waterway that is 640 feet wide to allow the mooring of one vessel. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property is located at 243 6th Street, further described as Lot 10, Block E, Little Hickory Shores, Unit No.2, according to the plat thereof, of record in Plat Book 3, Page 79, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, Section 05, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. PURPOSEIDESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The purpose of the project is to replace the existing dock with a new dock consisting of a 4- foot by 15-foot walkway leading to a I O-foot by 20-foot platform with a boat lift to I Agenda Item No. 7A April 22, 2008 Page 56 of 69 accommodate one vessel. The facility will protrude a total of 37 feet into a waterway 640 feet wide. LAND USE & ZONING: Existing: Surrounding: Existing Single-Family Residence, zoned RSF-4 North - Little Hickory Bay South - Sixth Street Right-of-Way East - Single-Family Residence, zoned RSF-4 West - Single-Family Residence, zoned RSF-4 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION: Environmental Services staff has reviewed this petition and has no objection to the granting of this request. Section 5.03.06(E)(lI) (Manatee Protection) of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) is applicable to all multi-slip docking facilities with ten (10) or more slips. The proposed facility consists of one boat slip and is therefore not subj ect to the provisions of this section. STAFF COMMENTS: The Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny, a dock facility extension request based on the following criteria. In order for the CCPC to approve this request, it must be determined that at least four of the five primary criteria and four of the six secondary criteria have been met. Staff has reviewed this petition in accordance with Section 5.03.06 and finds the following: Primary Criteria I. Whether the number of dock facilities and/or boat slips proposed is appropriate in relation to the waterfront length, location, upland land use and zoning of the subject property. Consideration should be made of property on unbridged barrier islands, where vessels are the primary means of transportation to and from the property. (The number should be appropriate; typical single-family use should be no more than two slips; typical multi-family use should be one slip per dwelling unit; in the case of unbridged barrier island docks, additional slips may be appropriate.) Criterion met. The proposed facility consists of one boat slip, which is appropriate in relation to the 75-foot waterfront length of the property. The subject property is zoned RSF-4, and a single-family residence exists. 2. Whether the water depth at the proposed site is so shallow that a vessel of the general length, type and draft as that described in the petitioner's application is unable to launch or moor at mean low tide (MLT). (The petitioner's 2 Agenda Item NO.7 A April 22, 2008 Page 57 of 69 application and survey should establish that the water depth is too shallow to allow launching and mooring of the vessel(s) described without an extension.) Criterion met. According to the survey submitted by the petitioner, the water depth at the site is too shallow to accommodate the 26-foot vessel described in the petitioner's application at mean low tide. 3. Whether the proposed dock facility may have an adverse impact on navigation within an adjacent marked or charted navigable channel. (The facility should not intrude into any marked or charted navigable channel thus impeding vessel traffic in the channel.) Criterion met. According to the drawing submitted by the petitioner, the proposed dock and lift will not have an adverse impact on navigation. The width of the waterway is approximately 640 feet as shown on the location map submitted with the application, and the proposed dock and lift will protrude into the waterway 37 feet. 4. Whether the proposed dock facility protrudes no more than 25 percent ofthe width of the waterway, and whether a minimum of 50 percent of the waterway width between dock facilities on either side is maintained for navigability. (The facility should maintain the required percentages.) Criterion met. According to the information provided by the petitioner, the waterway is 640 feet wide at the site as measured by an aerial photo. The proposed facility will occupy about six percent of the waterway width, and about ninety-four percent of the width will be maintained for navigability. 5. Whether the proposed location and design of the dock facility is such that the facility would not interfere with the use of neighboring docks. (The facility should not interfere with the use ofIegally permitted neighboring docks.) Criterion met. According to the drawings submitted by the petitioner, the proposed facility will not interfere with the use of neighboring docks. The proposed dock is located near the center of the lot and is thirty feet from the west riparian line and twenty-five feet from the east riparian line. Secondary Criteria 1. Whether there are special conditions not involving water depth, related to the subject property or waterway, which justify the proposed dimensions and location of the proposed dock facility. (There must be at least one special condition related to the property; these may include type of shoreline reinforcement, shoreline coufiguratiou, mangrove growth, or seagrass beds.) Criterion not met. The applicant does not contend that there are any special circumstances associated with this property. 3 Agenda Item No. 7A April 22, 2008 Page 58 of 69 2. Whether the proposed dock facility would allow reasonable, safe access to the vessel for loading/unloading and routine maintenance, without the use of excessive deck area not directly related to these functions. (The facility should not use excessive deck area.) Criterion met. As shown on the drawings submitted by the petitioner, the deck area is not excessive. 3. For single-family dock facilities, whether the length of the vessel, or vessels in combination, described by the petitioner, exceeds 50 percent of the subject property's linear waterfront footage. (The applicable maximum percentage should be maintained.) Criterion met. The subject property contains 75 feet of water frontage, and the 37- foot vessel will occupy thirty-five percent of the waterfront footage. 4. Whether the proposed facility would have a major impact on the waterfront view of neighboring property owners. (The facility should not have a major impact on the view of a neighboring property owner.) Criterion met. The proposed faciiity will be centrally located on the lot and will not have a major impact on the waterfront view of the neighboring property owners. 5. Whether sea grass beds will be impacted by the proposed dock facility. (If seagrass beds are present, compliance with subsection 5.03.06(1) ofthe LDC must be demonstrated.) Criterion met. A site inspection by an environmental specialist has determined that no seagrass beds will be impacted by the proposed dock facility. No seagrass beds were located within 200 feet of the proposed dock facility. 6. Whether the proposed dock facility is subject to the manatee protection requirements of subsection 5.03.06(E)(Il) of this Code. (If applicable, compliance with section 5.03.06(E)(Il) must be demonstrated.) Criterion met. The proposed dock facility is for the mooring of one vessel at a single-family residence and therefore is not subject to the Collier County Manatee Protection Plan Guidelines. The application indicates that the facility will be constructed per the manatee construction standards. The survey shows that the lot has approximately seventy-five feet of shoreline and the proposed dock facility accommodates one boat slip. Staff analysis indicates that the request meets all of the five primary criteria and five of the six secondary criteria. 4 Agenda Item NO.7 A April 22, 2008 Page 59 of 69 APPEAL OF BOAT DOCK EXTENSION TO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS: As to any boat dock extension petition upon which the CCPC takes action, an aggrieved petitioner, or adversely affected property owner, may appeal such final action to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Such appeal shall be filed with the Community Development and Enviromnental Services Administrator within 14 days of the action by the CCPC. In the event that the petition has been approved by the CCPC, the applicant shall be advised that he/she proceeds with construction at his/her own risk during this l4-day period. STAFF RECOMMENDA nON: Based on the above findings, staffrecommends that the CCPC approve Petition BD-2007- AR-12l54 subject to the following stipulations: I. Corresponding permits, or letters of exemption, from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida Department of Enviromnental Protection, shall be provided to Collier County prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. Reflectors and house numbers of no less than four inches in height shall be installed at the outermost end, on both sides of all docks or mooring pilings, whichever protrudes the furthest into the waterway, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Completion. 3 At least one "Manatee Area" sign shall be posted in a conspicuous manner as close as possible to the furthest protrusion of the dock into the waterway, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Completion. 4. All prohibited exotic species, as such term may now, or hereinafter, be established in the LDC, shall be removed from the subj ect property prior to issuance of the required Certificate of Completion, and the property shall be maintained free from all prohibited exotic species in perpetuity. 5 PREPARED BY: ASHLEY CASERTA, SENIOR PLANNER DEPARTMENT OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REVIEWED BY: JEFFREY A. KLATZKOW CHIEF ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY REVIEWED BY: ROSS GOCHENAUR, PLANNING MANAGER DEPARTMENT OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REVIEWED BY: SUSAN M. ISTENES, AICP, DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVED BY: JOSEPH K. SCHMITT, ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Petition Number: BD-2007-AR-12154 Staff Report for meeting of CCPC on December 6, 2007 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: MARK P. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN 417/07 rg Agenda Item No. 7A April 22, 2008 Page 60 of 69 DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE 6 Agenda Item No. 7A April 22, 2008 Page 61 of 69 Memorandum To: Collier County Planning Commission From: Susan M. Istenes, AICP, Director Department of Zoning and Land Development Review Date: March 26, 2008 Subject: BD-2007-AR-12154 denied by the CCPC on December 6, 2007 and appealed to the BZA on March 25, 2008. At a public hearing on March 25, 2008, the Board of County Commissioners sitting as the Board of Zoning Adjustment and Appeals (BZA) directed the County Manager to send the above referenced Boat Dock petition back to the Planning Commission for clarification on your reasons for denial. Specifically, the BZA decided that before they would take action on the appeal filed on this item they would like the motion-maker to provide a specific statement as to the reason for denial. Furthermore, my understanding is the BZA wishes to have the CCPC provide a specific reason for denial on any future petition, to include a specific reference to the applicable Land Development Code citations and/or Growth Management Plan citations where a petition fails to, or in the case of a recommendation for approval, is successful in meeting the minimum requirements of the Land Development Code and/or Growth Management Plan which are applicable to those specific petition types. It is further my understand that, per the County Attomey's office, in the case of denial, the motion maker ought be the designated individual who defines the specific reason for denial but in the case of a motion for approval, where any Planning Commissioner may vote in the negative, 1 believe the Board and staff would also be well served by understanding the specific reasons any member has for denying a petition, even though the final recommendation from the CCPC may be for approval. For your convenience I have the executive summary, the meeting minutes and the CCPC staff report that went to the BZA in their agenda packet. As time is of the essence, I anticipate the attached information will be adequate for you to provide the BZA the information they seek so that the petitioner will not experience additional delays. Community Development and Environmental Services Office of the Administrator Agenda Item No. 7A April 22, 2008 Page 62 of 69 Agenda Item No. 7 A April 22, 2008 Page 63 of 69 Memorandum To: Collier County Board of County Commissioners From: Susan M. Istenes, AICP, Director Department of Zoning and Land Development Review Date: Apri18,2008 Subject: ADA-2008-AR-I2714 returned to the CCPC for clarification on the reasons for denial by the BZA on March 25, 2008 At a public hearing on March 25, 2008, the Board of County Commissioners sitting as the Board of Zoning Adjustment and Appeals (BZA) directed the County Manager to send the above referenced Boat Dock petition back to the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) for clarification on their reasons for denial. Specifically, the BZA decided that before they would take action on the appeal filed on this item they would like the motion-maker to provide a specific statement as to the reasons for denial. Prior to the April 3, 2008 CCPC, meeting the motion-maker (Brad Shiffert) sent a memo to me explaining his reasons for making a motion for denial. His explanation memo is part of the back up in your April 220d agenda packet, along with a cover memo authored by me explaining your request. At the regular CCPC meeting on April 3, 2008, the CCPC members held a brief discussion on the contents of the memo, wherein 4 out of the 5 members who voted to support the motion for denial confmned that their reasons for voting for denial were consistent with the contents of the memo prepared by Brad Shiffert. Two members, Donna Carron and Bob Vigliotti, also added that in addition to the reasons set forth in the memo, they also felt that the water depth at the subject property was sufficient at a distance less than the requested boat dock extension. At least one of the members would like the Board to understand that their recommendation not to support the motion for denial was due to the fact that he did not agree with the reasons placed on the record, or lack thereof, for the motion to deny. I am providing this correspondence because I am not certain if the minutes ofthe April 3, 2008 CCPC meeting will be available in time to become part of your agenda packet. If they are not available in time, and provided they are available at the time of your scheduled meeting for this item which is April 22, 2008, 1 will hand deliver them to you at the meeting if you would like and/or I will otherwise have them available at the meeting for reference. Attachments: Shiffert memo Community Development and Environmental Services Office ofthe Administrator Agenda Item No. 7 A April 22, 2008 Page 64 of 69 Agenda Item No. 7 A April 22, 2008 Page 65 of 69 Memorandum To: Susan M Istenes, AlCP, Director Department of Zoning and Land Development Review Date: August 31, 2008 Subject: Response to your Memorandum of March 26, 2008 Regarding: BD-2007-AR-12154 The reason 1 moved to deny the variance to the twenty (20) foot maximum protrusion into a waterway is that the existing compliant dock accommodates the vessel noted in the application so no extension is required for the new dock. The requested design reached further out to a water depth greater than necessary and the twenty (20) foot by ten (10) foot deck is excessive. Because of the ability to now add a Boat Lift Canopy, by right, (Ordinance No. 06-63 5.03.06 G attached); 1 judge how the Boat Dock Facility will look with its allowed canopy size. Because this design would extend out over half of neighborhood typical lot widths it would cause a non-compatible visual protrusion from the shoreline and adjacent dock facilities. It would impact the view of the waterway from the adjoining properties. If the intent of this request was to support a larger vessel it should have been noted on the application along with data to support its scale within the waterways. The staff method of scoring the criteria was added to the Land Development Code early 2007 (Ordinance No. 06-63 5.03.06 H attached_ the text is underlined below). A concem during the hearings for the Code change was that this could establish the appearance that the extension is available by right by meeting the criteria score, essentially an administrative process. These criteria are the basis from which the CCPC may begin to find an extension appropriate via a public hearing allowing judgment regarding compatibility with the scale and character of the neighboring docks and shoreline. The Land Development Code establishes a maximum protrusion I've only supported extensions when necessary. Respectfully; Brad Schiffer AlA Attached: My review of the 5.03.06 G Criteria Page 64 of Ordinance No. 2006-63 Agenda Item No. 7 A April 22, 2008 Page 66 of 69 5.03.06 Dock Facilities A. Generally.Docks and the like are primarily intended to adequately secure moored vessels and provide safe access for routine maintenance and use, while minimally impacting navigation within any adjacent navigable channel, the use of the waterway, the use of neighboring docks, the native marine habitat, manatees, and the view of the waterway by the neighboring property owners. . . . . . . . . . . . . E. Standards for dock facilities. The following criteria apply to dock facilities and boathouses, with the exception of dock facilities and boathouses on manmade lakes and other manmade bodies of water under private control. 1. For lots on a canal or waterway that is 100 feet or greater in width, no boathouse or dock facilitylboat combination shall protrude more than twenty (20) feet into the waterway (i.e. the total protrusion of the dock facility plus the total protrusion of the moored vessel). . . . . . . . . . . . . G. Dock facility extension. Additional protrusion of a dock facility into any waterway beyond the limits established in subsection 5.03.06(E) of this Code may be considered appropriate under certain circumstances. In order for the Planning Commission to approve the boat dock extension request. it must be determined that at least four of the five primarv criteria. and at least four of the six secondary criteria. have been met. These criteria are as follows: 1. Primary Criteria: a. Whether the number of dock facilities and/or boat slips proposed is appropriate in relation to the waterfront length, location, upland land use, and zoning of the subject property. Consideration should be made of property on unbridged barrier islands, where vessels are the primary means of transportation to and from the property. (The number should be appropriate; typical, single- family use should be no more than two (2) slips; typical multi-family use should be one (1) slip per dwelling unit; in the case of un bridged barrier island docks, additional slips may be appropriate). Criteria met, the application was for one 26' Pontoon craft. b. Whether the water depth at the proposed site is so shallow that a vessel of the general length, type, and draft as that described in the petitioner's application is unable to launch or moor at mean low tide (ML T). (The petitioner's application and survey should establish that the water depth is too shallow to allow launching and mooring of the vessel(s) described without an extension). Criteria not met, the vessel described in the application does not need the draft requested. Since no mention of problems mooring now, which must occur between the dock and seawall [LCC 5. 03. 06.E.l,] there is no needfor the extension. The adjoining sites sharing the seawall seem to be able to comply with the 20 foot requirement. Agenda Item No.7 A April 22. 2008 Page 67 of 69 c. Whether the proposed dock facility may have an adverse impact on navigation within an adjacent marked or charted navigable channel. (The facility should not intrude into any marked or charted navigable cbannel thus impeding vessel traffic in the channel). Criteria assumed met, there was no data presented showing water depth past the outer edge of the proposed dock facility except being noted as "dredged bay" it may be assumed to be freely navigated. There was testimony by applicants' agent that the vessels exiting/entering the canal to the west "have a habit of hugging the shoreline" (minute's p1l8 / bottom) which cause concern for an extension. d. Whether the proposed dock facility protrudes no more than twenty-five (25) percent of the width of the waterway, and whether a minimum of fifty (50) percent of the waterway width between dock facilities on either side of the waterway is maintained for navigability. (The facility should maintain the required percentages). Criteria assumed met, see c above. e. Whether the proposed location and design of the dock facility is such that the facility would not interfere with the use of neighboring docks. (The facility should not interfere with the use of legally permitted neighboring docks). Criteria met, no testimony or data showed interference. 2. Secondary criteria: a. Whether there are special conditions, not involving water depth, related to the subject property or waterway, which justify the proposed dimensions and location of the proposed dock facility. (There must be at least one (I) special condition related to the property; these may include type of shoreline reinforcement, shoreline configuration, mangrove growth, or seagrass beds). Criteria not met. b. Whether the proposed dock facility would allow reasonable, safe access to the vessel for loading and/or unloading and routine maintenance, without the use of excessive deck area not directly related to these functions. (The facility should not use excessive deck area). Criteria not met, the proposed dock has an excessive 10 foot by 20' deck area. Agenda Item No. 7A April 22, 2008 Page 68 of 69 c. For single-family dock facilities, whether the length of the vessel, or vessels in combination, described by the petitioner exceeds fifty (50) percent of the subject property's linear waterfront footage. (The applicable maximum percentage should be maintained). Criteria met, the 26' boat length is 34.6% of lot width. d. Whether the proposed facility would have a major impact on the waterfront view of neighboring waterfront property owners. (The facility should not have a major impact on the view of a neighboring property owner). The applicant's agent did show the dock facility (without any vessels moored) would have similar visual impact from the western edge of the adjacent neighbor's patio but this sketch would show the opposite if taken from the center or eastern edge. Requesting a boat lift means that a Boat Lift Canopy can be added, by right. The maximum size could be 35 feet wide, 16.5 feet deep and 12 feet high. The neighbor to the east testified, with his sketch (which is not included in your packet), that he felt it would impact his view of the bay. d. Whether sea grass beds are located within 200 feet of the proposed dock facility. (If sea grass beds are present, compliance with subsection 5.03.06(H)(2). of this LDC must be demonstrated). Criteria met, no data showing seagrass within 200 feet.. f. Whether the proposed dock facility is subject to the manatee protection requirements of subsection 5.03.06(E)(11) of this LDC. (If applicable, compliance with section 5.03.06(E)(11) must be demonstrated). A criterion not applicable for it has less than 10 slips. e. If deemed necessary based upon review of the above criteria, the Planning Commission may impose such conditions upon the approval of an extension request that it deems necessary to accomplish the purposes of this Code and to protect the safety and welfare of the public. Such conditions may include, but shall not be limited to, greater side setback(s), and provision oflight(s), additional reflectors, or reflectors larger than four (4) inches. Not really a criteria but an allowance to adjust design and require safety features. While there was conversation on centering the dock facility but there is the concern of changing the advertised design. Agenda Item No. 7A April 22, 2008 Page 69 of 69 side setbacks. 3. Maximum height: Fifteen (15) feet as measured from the top of the seawall or bank, whichever is more restrictive, to the peak or highest elevation of the roof. 4. Maximum number of boathouses or covered structures per site; One (1). 5. All boathouses and covered structures shall be completely open on all four (4) sides. 6. Roofing material and roof color shall be the same as materials and colors used on the principal structure or may be of a palm frond "chickee" style. A single-family dwelling unit must be constructed on the subject lot prior to, or simultaneously with, the construction of any boathouse or covered dock structure. 7. The boathouse or covered structure must be so located as to minimize the impact on the view of the adjacent neighbors to the greatest extent practicable. G. Standards for boat 11ft canoDle.. 1. Boat 11ft canoDies shall be Dermitted over an existinG boat lift attached to a dock leaallv oermitted bv the reQuisite local state and federal aGencies. if the follollVinQ criteria are met. a. CanaDY covers shall not extend more than 27 inches beyond the width of the boat lift on each side. b. The lenGth of the boat 11ft canODV shall not exceed 35 feet. c. The heioht of the boat 11ft CanaDY shall not exceed 12 feet measured from the hiahest Doint of the CanaDY to the heiaht of the dock walkway. d. The sides of the canODV cover shall remain ODen on all sides. excget that a droa curtain. not to exceed 18" shall be oermitted on the sides. e. Boat 11ft canoDles shall meet the reQuirements of Awninas and Cenoeies in the Florida Buildino Code. f. CanaDv cover material shall be limited to beioe or mid-ranee shades of blue or areen. a, No boatllft canooles shall be oermitted at sites that contain either a boathouse or a covered structure. 2. Lots with frentaae on canals shall be oermitted a maximum of 1 boatllft canaDY oer site. Lots with frontaoe on bays shall be Dermitted a maximum of 2 beatllft caneD'as oer site. .3. If an aooHcant wishes to construct a beat lift CanaDY that does not meet the standard. of subsection 5.03.06 G. above. then a oelition for a boat 11ft caneDv deviation may be made to the Plannina Commission which shall review a sufficient Detition aDDlication and either aDD rove or denv the reauest. G !:!.. Dock facility extension. Addition protrusion of a dock facility into any waterway beyond the limits established in subsection 5.03.06(E) of this Code may be considered appropriate under certain circumstances. In order for the PlanninG Commission to aDorove the boat dock extension reauest. it must be determined that at least four of the five Drimarv criteria and at least four of the six secondary criteria. have been met. These criteria are as follows: ~ l. Procedures for approval of docks. dock facilities and boathouses. Page 64 of 97 Words stnraJ( tRrsl:igl; are deleted. words underlined are added