The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda 04/22-23/2008 Item # 7B Agenda Item No. 78 April 22, 2008 Page 1 of 50 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY V A-2007-AR-12477, Gregory W. and Beverly Schuelke, represented by Christopher J. Thornton of Cheffy, Passidomo, Wilson, and Johnson, are requesting 4 after-the-fact- variances to permit a 6-foot side yard setback for a pool decli/wall, a 7.3-foot side yard setback for a pool screen cage, and 4.2 and O.8-foot setbacks for the southwesterly and southeasterly concrete pair of stairs, respectively, pursuant to Section 4.02.03.A., Table 4, Dimensional Standards for Accessory Buildings and Structures on Waterfront Lots and Golf Courses, of the Land Development Code (LDC), which requires a IO-foot minimum side yard setback, for property located at 496 Flamingo Avenue, in the Conner's Vanderbilt Beach Estates Subdivision, in Block U, of Unit 3, on Lot 1, in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, of Collier County, Florida OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) consider the four after-the-fact variances as noted above, and ensure that the project is in harmony with all the applicable codes and regulations in order to make certain that the community's interests are maintained. CONSIDERATIONS: ~. The petitioners, who are not the original owners of the residence, purchased the home in 1997. The home was constructed by the former owner under building permit number 85-3453, which was issued on November 22, 1985. County records indicate that a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) was granted for the home in April of 1986. The pool was built under permit number 86- 360, which was issued on February II, 1986. However, a Certificate of Completion was not issued for the pool, screen cage enclosure, or concrete stairs. On June 5, 2006, Collier County Code Enforcement Department cited the current owners for the following reasons: . The observance of a retaining wall 4.11 feet in height above a sea wall; . A pool screen enclosure (screen cage), stem wall (retaining wall wings), and steps having been constructed, on RSF-3 zoned waterfront property, on a comer lot, without a certificate of completion; and . A retaining wall and related uses atop an existing sea wall measuring from the outside surface of the existing seawall to the base of the retaining wall resulting in a side yard setback encroachment without having prior variance approval leaving these accessory uses in a state of conflict with the LDC. Since the subject property is a comer lot, the provisions of the LDC require a front yard setback along each roadway, with the remaining yards established as side yards for setback purposes. Thus, the subject property does not have a rear yard. Page t of 5 Agenda Item No. 78 April 22, 2008 Page 2 of 50 Section 4.02.03 of the LDC requires that the side yard setback be calculated the same as for principal structures. As this is a waterfront side yard setback, and the principal structure is setback 10 feet on the west-side of the property, the side yard setback (for the accessory structures) on the south-side of the property is therefore 10 feet. Also, walls and fences within waterfront rear yards are limited to 4 feet in height; however, corner lots have no rear yard for setback purposes, and a free-standing fence or wall in the side yard(s) of a waterfront comer lot may reach 6 feet in height within the setback area. Therefore, a variance for the 4.11- foot free-standing stern/wing wall in a side yard is not required. Thus, the applicant is requesting the following variances: . A 4- foot variance for the pool deck to allow an existing pool deck/retaining wall to remain at 6 feet from the side property line; . A 2.7-foot variance for the wire mesh pool screen cage surrounding the pool atop the pool deck to allow the pool screen cage to remain at 7.3 feet from the side property line; . A 9.2-foot variance for the southeasterly stairway to remain at 0.8 feet from the side property line; and . A 5.8-foot variance for the southwesterly stairway to remain at 4.2 feet from the side property line. As shown on the attached original survey, the property line does not coincide with the seawall. The property line is 2.7 feet inside of the outside face of the seawall. In 1986, the side yard requirement for the RSF-3 Zoning District was 7.5 feet. However, in 1996, the requirement for corner-waterfront lots was amended to require minimum side yard setbacks of 10 feet. In 2004, the replacement pool screen cage and southeasterly concrete stairway leading to the pool were reconstructed under building permits 2004091797 and 2004122161 due to damaging hurricane winds. These structures do not comply with current LDC setback requirements of 10 feet, as measured from the property line. However these structures would comply if measured from the outside face of the seawall. Also, the pool deck/wall and southwesterly concrete stairway, constructed by the original owner, are only setback 6 feet and 4 feet, respectively, as measured from the property line. Thus, these structures are also not in compliance with current LDC setback requirements of 10 feet and 7 feet (taking into account the 3-foot projection for stairs) . As stated by the applicant, "The setback problems appear to stem from the unusual circumstance that the property line falls approximately 2.7 feet inside of the sea wall, which was perhaps overlooked by the pool contractor." FISCAL IMPACT: The variance, by and of itself, will have no fiscal impact on Collier County. There is no guarantee that the project, at build out, will maximize its authorized level of development, however, if the variance is approved, a portion of the land could be developed. Page 2 of 5 Agenda Ilem No. 76 April 22, 2008 Page 3 of 50 The County collects impact fees prior to the issuance of building pemlits to help offset the impacts of each new development on public facilities. These impact fees are used to fund projects identified in the Capital Improvement Element (CIE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) as needed to maintain adopted Level of Service (LOS) for public facilities. Additionally, in order to meet the requirements of concurrency management, the developer of every local development order approved by Collier County is required to pay 50 percent of the estimated Transportation Impact Fees associated with the project. Other fees collected prior to issuance of a building permit include building permit review fees and utility fees associated with connecting to the County's water and sewer system. Please note that the inclusion of impact fees and taxes collected are for informational purposes only; they are not included in the criteria used by Staff and the Planning Commission to analyze this petition. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) IMPACT: The site is designated Urban Residential on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The GMP does not address individual variance requests, but deals with the larger issue of the actual use. As previously stated, this variance is being sought for accessory structures on a single-family home site located within a single-family subdivision. As residential uses are an authorized use in this land use designation, the single-family home is consistent with the FLUM. Furthermore, the swimming pool, pool deck, and screened cage enclosure are permitted as accessory uses to the single-family use. Therefore, the uses on the subject site are deemed to be consistent with the Future Land Use Element. AFFORDABLE HOUSING IMPACT: There is no impact to affordable housing. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: There are no environmental issues related to this petition ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION: The EAC does not normally hear Variance petitions, and did not hear this one. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The CCPC heard petition V A-2007-AR-12477 on March 6,2008, and by a vote of 8 in favor and I opposed recommended to forward this petition to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) with a recommendation of approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The 4-foot variance for the pool deck (also referred to as the retaining wall) supporting the pool above the seawall; the 2.7-foot variance for the wire mesh pool screen cage surrounding the pool atop the pool deck; the 9.2-foot Variance Page 3 of5 Agenda Item No. 78 April 22, 2008 Page 4 of 50 for the southeasterly stairway; and the 5.8-foot variance for the southwesterly stairway; shall all be limited to the side yard encroachments as depicted in the Record Survey with a date revision of October 1, 2007. 2. If the residential dwelling structure is destroyed for any reason, to an extent equal to or greater than 50 percent of the actual replacement cost of the structure at the time of its destruction, all reconstruction of the structure and accessory structures must conform to the provisions of the Land Development Code in effect at the time of reconstruction. The one opposing commissioner voted in opposition because she felt that the original southwesterly concrete stairway that is no longer being used was excessive, and should be demolished or filled in. Because the CCPC approval recommendation was not unanimous, this petition can not be placed on the Summary Agenda. No letters of objection from neighboring property owners have been received. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: The petitioners are requesting after-the- fact variances from the required side yard setbacks for an existing pool deck retaining wall, pool screen enclosure, and two concrete stairways. The granting of such variances is permitted under LDC Section 9.04.02. The attached staff report and recommendations of the Planning Commission are advisory only and are not binding on you. Decisions regarding variances are quasi-judicial, and all testimony given must be under oath. Petitioners have the burden to prove that the proposed variance is consistent with all the criteria set forth below, and you may question the petitioners or staff to assure yourself that the necessary criteria have been satisfied. Should you consider denying the variance, to assure that your decision is not later found to be arbitrary, discriminatory or unreasonable; the denial must be based upon competent, substantial evidence that the proposal does not meet one or more of the listed criteria below. Approval ofthis request requires three affmnative votes of the Board. In granting any variance, the Board of Zoning Appeals may prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards in conformity with the zoning code, including, but not limited to, reasonable time limits within which action for which the variance is required shall be begun or completed, or both. Violation of such conditions and safeguards, when made a part of the terms under which the variance is granted, would be deemed a violation of the zoning code. Criteria for Variances 1. There are special conditions and circumstances eXlstmg which are peculiar to the location, size, and characteristics of the land, structure, or building involved. 2. There are special conditions and circumstances which do not result from the action of the applicant, such as pre-existing conditions relative to the property which is the subject of the variance request. 3. A literal interpretation of the provisions of the LDC work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant or create practical difficulties on the applicant. Page 4 of5 Agenda Item No. 78 April 22, 2008 Page 5 of 50 4. The variance, if granted, will be the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure and which promote standards of health, safety, or welfare. 5. Granting the variance requested will not confer on the petitioner any special privilege that is denied by these zoning regulations to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning district. 6. Granting the variance will be in harmony with the intent and purpose of the LDC, and not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. 7. There are natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals and objectives of the regulation, such as natural preserves, lakes, golf course, etc. 8. Granting the variance will be consistent with the GMP. The proposed Resolution was prepared by the County Attorney's Office and is sufficient for Board action. -JAK RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) approve Petition V A-2007-AR- 12477 subject to the following conditions: 1. The 4-foot variance for the pool deck (also referred to as the retaining wall) supporting the pool above the seawall; the 2.7-foot variance for the wire mesh pool screen cage surrounding the pool atop the pool deck; the 9.2-foot Variance for the southeasterly stairway; and the 5.8- foot variance for the southwesterly stairway; shall all be limited to the side yard encroachments as depicted in the Record Survey with a date revision of October I, 2007. 2. If the residential dwelling structure is destroyed for any reason, to an extent equal to or greater than 50 percent of the actual replacement cost of the structure at the time of its destruction, all reconstruction of the structure and accessory structures must conform to the provisions of the Land Development Code in effect at the time of reconstruction. PREPARED BY: Willie Brown, AICP, Principal Planner Department of Zoning and Land Development Review Page5of5 Item Number: Item Summary: Meeting Date: Page 1 of2 Agenda Item No. 7B April 22, 2008 Page 6 of 50 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 76 This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. VA-2007-AR-12477, Gregory W, and Beverly J. Schuelke, represented by Christopher J. Thornton, of Cheffy, Passidomo, Wilson, and Johnson, Attorneys at Law, LLP, are requesting variances for a project to be known as the Schuelke Variance. The variance petition seeks approval of a side yard setback for encroachment of a pool deck/wall, pool screen cage, and concrete pair of stairs. The subject property is located at 496 Flamingo Avenue, in the Connor's Vanderbilt Beach Estates, Unit 3, Lot 1, Block U on 0.27 acres, Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. 4/22/2008 900:00 AM Prepared By Willie Brown Community Development & Environmental Services Principal Planner Date Zoning & Land Development Review 3/26/2008 2:33:43 PM Approved By Jeff Klatzkow County Attorney Assistant County Attorney Date County Attorney Office 3/26/20086:16 PM Approved By Nick Casalanguida Transportation Services MPO Director Date Transportation Planning 3/28/200810:00 AM Approved By Joseph K. Schmitt Community Development & Environmental Services Community Development & Environmental Services Adminstrator Date Community Development & Environmental Services Admin. 3/31/20088:41 PM Approved By Norm E. Feder, AICP Transportation Services Transportation Division Administrator Date Transportation Services Admin. 4/1/2008 8:08 AM Approved By Judy Puig Community Development & Environmental Services Operations Analyst Community Development & Environmental Services Admin. Date 4/1/2008 9:48 AM Approved By Ray Bellows Community Development & Environmental Services Chief Planner Date Zoning & Land Development Review 4/7/200812:11 PM Approved By file://C:\AgendaTest\Export\ J 05-April%2022. %202008\07. %20BOARD%200F%20Z0NJ... 4/16/2008 Susan Murray. Ale? Community Development & Environmental Services Zoning & Land Development Director Date Page 20f2 Agenda Item No. 78 April 22, 2008 Page 7 of 50 Approved By OMS Coordinator County Manager's Office Zoning & Land Development Review 4/7/20084:01 PM Approved By Mark Isackson County Manager's Office OMS Coordinator Date Approved By James V. Mudd Board of County Commissioners Office of Management & Budget 4/8/20087:48 AM Budget Analyst Date file://C:\Agenda TestlExport\ I 05-April%2022. %202008\07. %20BOARD%200F%20Z0NI... 4/16/2008 Office of Management & Budget 4/8/20084:32 PM County Manager Date County Manager's Office 4/15/200810:58 AM A~~.A'B April 22. 2008 Page 8 of 50 Co~r County - ~~-- - STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION HEARING DATE: MARCH 6, 2008 SUBJECT: PETITION V A-2007-AR-12477, SCHUELKE V ARlANCE PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT: OWNERS: Gregory W. and Beverly Schuelke Co-Trustees (undivided Yz interest) 4636 Sonseeahray Drive Hubertus, WI 53033-9727 DJN Family Limited Partnership (Donald & Judith Nimmer) a Wisconsin Limited Partnership (undivided Yz interest) 4636 Sonseeahray Drive Hubertus, WI 53033-9727 AGENT: Chri&opherJ.Thornton Cheffy Passidomo Wilson and Johnson 821 Fifth Avenue, South Suite 201 Naples. FL 34102 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner is requesting four after-the- fact variances for a raised pool deck, screen enclosure, concrete stairway(s), and retaining wall wing(s) that are single-family home accessory structures within the Residential Single-Family-3 (RSF-3) Zoning District. The requested variances are pursuant to Section 4.02.03.A., Table 4, Dimensional Standards for Accessory Buildings and Structures on Waterfront Lots and Golf Courses, of the Land Development Code (LDC), which requires a lO-foot minimum side yard setback; and pursuant to Section 4.02.01.D.7., Exemptions and Exclusions from Design Standards, which requires that stairways (if greater than 30 inches in height) may not project by more than 3 feet into a required front, side or rear yard of a single- family residence. -,- . . . . " . " . 0 ; . = = ~ . . . . . . '. II....: . . . . . . . . ",000 . > /,-0 en . " .0_ 0 = ON 0 Ze-./Q) - ~ ::;::1 EN W is iE . . Q):= ~ 0 . . ~ ~ == o..a.. < ro<( 0 z .. '0 <( "- ~ w " . c ~ 0 0" W 0 ~ (J) ~ o. W < <( ~ " ~ " . ':I - ". ~ z "I" " "I" ,^~a l'18~ONV"" ~ ztf- a= .,.-:: a= ~-:: 2: =~ ~ ~.,.,:; zwo~~ :;: ~ ;Ii: ! :;: ~ ~: i:;;~IL-~ "; ~ ;;; ;; ~ .; < 9 -!- ~~"~ ~ 0;" ~ 0;. ~ 0;" 2: < 51 ..: ~[I""" < R Ii < ~ 2 2: .. F:i ~~;; i! ..;; fE ~ N =: ~ r;o .. = 2 1Il 18 1Il= :; lIlJ:l 8 2::1 "VIT "IT 'I" -. "j" "I" -" "/" 'I" - "'""I ~ 0... <( ~ (!) Z Z o N (lO6 ~ltlO 11I8WJON"'^ -i- ~ g..l e--:: ~ f.!- - '- ~ -= ~ f-- "o<"t: . " ..- e-: f.;;-- 1i-:- i-=-- - -=-- 2:..: r;- ~ ~ ~ .. ; 0::'" 1;_" -;-~ ~~ r- ~ ~ !-;;- f-- P-- -.: ... w... ... ... 1_' WZO_' ~ ~f----:; I-:- ~~ - ~ I-- e:- ~ I-- ~ ~-...: ... ... <> < _ so .. ~ o~ 8: ~ ~ frO . 0 - . - " ~ Ii!; -'- ~I-- I-;:- ~~ r- w~ ~ <: ... a:: - ~t3---= ...:..:--. ~~ ~ ~1-- . w . .;-I~ r.--~~-: " I _: f-:--. -;_ ::---; L.:.... L-- ~ ~~ ~ ~ .=.---':: ~~ . "o~ e;--;;-;: f;-~~ -.- ~ -". 8<~ ~ ~ ~ L5---= c~-- Z ;-8---= ~--= . - -=- -;; ~ --= I-- ~ t---2 ~ w~ o 0.> ~ I=- < I-- ~ ~ I------; w ~~ ~ ow ::::d Q"w " I--;; I ~ I-- I ~ nt:lIiQlj.gN / E- ;- ; Ii II ,U '! I ;!il" ,tll!; I! 11lI0! _! ... -~ I I I II il , , I: z :> o u i I ; w w ~ ~- :w.:rmoo__ '."" -.... - rl !i" , III , ~ 1 ill > I: ~I I' , / , , , ! -- ..... ~il . . III MEXICO OF GULF Agenda Item No. 7B April 22, 2008 Page 10 of 50 GEOGRAPIDC LOCATION: The 0.27-acre subject property is a waterfront lot located at 496 Flamingo Avenue, in the Conner's Vanderbilt Beach Estates Subdivision, in Block D, ofDnit 3, on Lot I at the southwest comer of Flamingo Avenue and Vanderbilt Drive, in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, of Collier County, Florida (see location map) PURPOSEIDESCRlPTION OF PROJECT: The petitioners, who are not the original owners of the residence, purchased the home in 1997. The home was constructed by the former owner under building permit number 85-3453, which was issued on November 22, 1985. County records indicate that a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) was granted for the home in April of 1986. The pool was built under permit number 86- 360, which was issued on February 11, 1986. However, a Certificate of Completion was not issued for the pool, screen cage enclosure, or concrete stairs. On June 5, 2006, Collier County Code Enforcement Department cited the current owners for the following reasons: . The observance of a retaining wall 4.11 feet in height above a sea wall; . A pool screen enclosure (screen cage), stem wall (retaining wall wings), and steps having been constructed, on RSF-3 zoned waterfront property, on a comer lot, without a certificate of completion; and . A retaining wall and related uses atop an existing sea wall measuring from the outside surface of the existing seawall to the base of the retaining wall resulting in a side yard setback encroachment without having prior variance approval leaving these accessory uses in a state of conflict with the LDC. Since the subject property is a comer lot, the provisions of the LDC require a front yard setback along each roadway, with the remaining yards established as side yards for setback purposes. Thus, the subject property does not have a rear yard. Section 4.02.03 of the LDC requires that the side yard setback be calculated the same as for principal structures. As this is a waterfront side yard setback, and the principal structure is setback 10 feet on the west-side of the property, the side yard setback (for the accessory structures) on the south-side of the property is therefore 10 feet. Also, walls and fences within waterfront rear yards are limited to 4 feet; however, comer lots have no rear yard for setback purposes, and a free-standing fence or wall in the side yard(s) of a waterfront comer lot may reach 6 feet in height within the setback area. Therefore, a variance for the 4.1 I-foot free-standing stem/wing wall in a side yard is not required. Thus, the applicant is requesting the following Variances: . A 4-foot variance from the required 10-foot side yard setback to 6 feet for the pool screen cage enclosure and pool deck (also referred to as the retaining wall), which supports the pool above the sea wall; and -3- Agenda Item No. 7B April 22, 2008 Page 11 of 50 Back Yard Photo ElGIm ('. 5" Southwesterly Retaining Wall Wing -4 - Agenda Item No. 78 April 22, 2008 Page 12 of 50 Stairways . A 6.2-foot variance from the required 7-foot side yard setback to 0.8 feet for the concrete pair of stairs (Le., which accounts for the allowance of a 3-foot projection for stairs into a residential single-family setback). As shown on the attached original survey, the property line does not coincide with the seawall. The property line is 2.7 feet inside of the outside face of the seawall. In 1986, the side yard requirement for the RSF-3 Zoning District was 7.5 feet. However, in 1996, the requirement for corner-waterfront lots was amended to require minimum side yard setbacks of 10 feet. In 2004, the replacement pool screen cage and southeasterly concrete stairway leading to the pool were reconstructed under building permits 2004091797 and 2004122161 due to damaging hurricane winds. These structures do not comply with current LDC setback requirements of 10 feet, as measured from the property line. However these structures would comply if measured from the outside face of the seawall. Also, the pool deck/wall and southwesterly concrete stairway, constructed by the original owner, are only setback 6 feet and 4 feet, respectively, as measured from the property line. Thus, these structures are also not in compliance with current LDC setback requirements of 10 feet and 7 feet (taking into account the 3-foot projection for stairs). As stated by the applicant, "The setback problems appear to stem from the unusual circumstance that the property line falls approximately 2.7 feet inside of the sea wall, which was perhaps overlooked by the pool contractor." He also states "that the replacement cage and stairwell would meet current setback requirements if measured from the outside face of the seawall instead of the property line." - 5- [Deac r--O", O~ ON 0 ZN'C0 "'N~ -_ OJ Q) ';:: en == 0.. rn (1)<((L '0 c OJ OJ <( '7/ / 'I I fl,i l :r.i'.e- I . ~. ;;.~L ! ~~o.. Q~ ~ ~.. - - - .,i h1 k " oil " It .!!.,! I . . .~~ i & .l~ ~ll~! ~:lln 1lI.f ...~ '" l . . . '.~ . ~"l ... .-= :!. 2l!:!., g- , ;;!. liL:.1 li~1 i!!;ill'~!1 !~i.m .. ......11,..../:...... =~S~~5J1~~..:i<lC"..... .I~ , rn > k_ (f4"W dfIr 11 ~U?- , I ~;, II ~ ,11 ", I~:i !I~ Itz.~ 11: I GJ'~ I " ~I" " " " I ! I " I ::al ~~~ h~~1 ~j~: ~~p ~I I I , I '1. if' I JJ~ II: I ~n.. I L - _ _ C-~I'.4';"~'~ _ ~-=-=- __ ".-,-, :mN~Y {Y.))OJfJ!U ~ 'w ~~ .e "~ f ~ .. ;;;;, ~~ "" ~~ . . '~h .~ .1 jl .!t_...: !~~:::. ....~t-.... Jo<~~g ,. '" ,.. Iii ~ Ix1 .. Q 1'1 i '" iJl! : 8 i~ rl tl I'!I i I illal ~l Ijib: II ,!i!1l . . .-Ir. ill ~ "'. .~ !!I!j j,dH ~ :J ..e... a ... 1= 110. I ~ .hl! i ~ : i!id II t .. .! ~ . . i,l '-l 'II j' , I; :j j j!h h~ 11" .!.lll . in~~ I - ~g:; - ! . . . ~ w ~ ... ~ ~ u .. . ,. ~ .. . u " 2 0 "J'[ 11 . , I: ~ I ~ ~.! '" :iJ i:! . . ~~ $8.. l~~.~ bE;~ i"li~ .i!ll.i 1.6' ... ," .''/1.," tD fA'r;p~" h O.O'/7,J' to P"'Porty Iiu d7J6.0' i'l"fJlt'/l"" l1<.z'I. /KOP'I'I,1llo .... .. n.," rd,'/'l.,l fa pt'fptJrly fm drlU' f~ "'''POri, /lot. -.,. HI U~rl'~,,,, 41"......... ,...... lk8 fvw H'" .. .r WOMII _. ...... DErAIl. I' = 20' SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING: North: East: South: West: a Single Family Dwelling; zoned RSF-3 a Single Family Dwelling; zoned RSF-3 a Canal, then single family dwelling; zoned RSF-3 a Single Family Dwelling; zoned RSF-3 Agenda Item No. 78 April 22. 2008 Page 14 of 50 l u IdO' EasterlySlepo Side ProIiO NOfltlSC.II.E Aerial Map -7- Agenda Item No. 78 April 22, 2008 Page 15 of 50 Staff has determined this to be correct. The LDC requires that setbacks be established from the most restrictive point. In this case, the property line inside of the sea wall is the most restrictive point, which is the reason the accessory uses (accessory structures) are found to be in conflict with the LDC. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: The site is designated Urban Residential on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The GMP does not address individual variance requests, but deals with the larger issue of the actual use. As previously stated, this variance is being sought for accessory structures on a single-family home site located within a single-family subdivision. As residential uses are an authorized use in this land use designation, the single-family home is consistent with the FLUM. Furthermore, the swimming pool, pool deck, and screened cage enclosure are permitted as accessory uses to the single-family use. Therefore, the uses on the subject site are deemed to be consistent with the Future Land Use Element. ANALYSIS: Section 9.04.01 of the LDC gives the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) the authority to grant Variances. The Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) is advisory to the BZA and utilizes the provisions of Section 9.04.03 A. through H. (in bold font below), as general guidelines to assist in making their recommendation of approval or denial. Staff has analyzed this petition relative to these provisions and offers the following responses: a. Are there special conditions and circumstances existing, which are peculiar to the location, size and characteristics of the land, structure or building involved? There is not a land-related hardship. The lot is situated in a platted, developed subdivision; and absent this variance approval, the petitioners would still have reasonable use of their property. However, evidence suggests that had the pool Contractor properly interpreted the property survey measuring the distance of the pool from the property line rather than the outside face of the sea wall, this variance would not be necessary. Furthermore, nine letters of support from neighboring property owners were submitted in support of the variance. b. Are there special conditions and circumstances, which do not result from the action of the applicant such as pre-existing conditions relative to the property, which are the subject of the Variance request? Yes, this condition is pre-existing. The applicants are not the original owners of the property, which contained the accessory uses upon their purchase of the home in 1997. c. Will a literal interpretation of the provisions of this zoning code work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant or create practical difficulties for the applicant? If this variance is not approved, the swimming pool, pool deck, retaining wall wings, and stairwell would have to be demolished or moved behind the setback line to comply with the 10 foot side yard setback requirement. Failure to correct the violations would also .8. Agenda Item No. 78 April 22, 2008 Page 16 of 50 result in fines, prosecution, and/or repairs. Therefore, a literal interpretation of the LDC does create practical difficulties for the applicants. d. Will the variance, if granted, be the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure and which promote standards of health, safety and welfare? Yes, the proposed variance would be the minimum allowing reasonable use of the existing pool, screen enclosure, and retaining wall. The proposed variance will not have a negative impact on standards of health, safety, and welfare. e. Will granting the variance confer ou the applicant any special privilege that is denied by these zoning regulations to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning district? Yes, a Variance confers some dimensional relief from the zoning regulations specific to a site by definition. While the approval of a variance doesn't set a precedent for other Variances, it should be noted that several variances have been granted in the immediate neighborhood for the following: . V-92-5, for a side yard setback variance; . V -96-21, for a rear yard setback variance; . V A-Ol-AR-18l0, for a rear yard back variance; . V A-04-AR-6449, for a rear yard setback variance; and . V A-07-AR-12005, for a rear yard setback variance f. Will granting the Variance be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this Land Development Code, and not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare? Because the pool and steps have been in the same location since 1997 without any known deleterious effects, it is likely that approval of this variance would be neither injurious to the neighborhood nor detrimental to the public welfare. No letters of opposition have been received. g. Are there natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals and objectives of the regulation such as natural preserves, lakes, golf courses, etc.? Yes, the subject property is an end-of-canal, corner, waterfront lot and the area for which the variance is being requested abuts a seawall. Thus those existing conditions which ameliorate the goals and objectives of the regulation are: (1) the lot abuts Vanderbilt Road on the east side, (2) the lot (and accessory structures above a sea wall) abut a canal on the south side, and (3) the lot abuts a single-family dwelling with a pool and similar accessory structures on the west side. This adjacent single-family lot was granted a variance (the Zilavy variance) by the Board in January 2008 for similar accessory structures; however, the lot had a rear and not a side yard. - 9- Agenda Item No. 7B April 22, 2008 Page 17 of 50 h. Will granting the variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan? Approval of this variance will not affect or change the requirements of the Growth Management Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION: The EAC does not normally hear Variance petitions, and did not hear this one. RECOMMENDATION: Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) forward petition V A-2007-AR-12477 to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) with a recommendation of approval, subject to the following condition: 1. The 4-foot variance for the pool deck (also referred to as the retaining wall) supporting the pool above the seawall; the 2.7-foot variance for the wire mesh pool screen cage surrounding the pool atop the pool deck; the 9.2-foot Variance for the southeasterly stairway; and the 5.8-foot variance for the southwesterly stairway; shall all be limited to the side yard encroachments as depicted in the Record Survey with a date revision of October 1, 2007. 2. If the residential dwelling structure is destroyed for any reason, to an extent equal to or greater than 50 percent of the actual replacement cost of the structure at the time of its destruction, all reconstruction of the structure and accessory structures must conform to the provisions of the Land Development Code in effect at the time of reconstruction. -10 - Agenda Item No. 76 April 22, 2008 Page 18 of 50 PREPARED BY: W'Jh. ~.wn WILLIE BROWN, AlCP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW .2) \ 108 . REVIEWED BY: 2~f?/O 8' DA ' '..R--5,'~R. ~/i.;:/ () 6 hrJEFF I) CHIE l\SSISTANTCOUNTY ATTORNEY ~Jl- '-;,,!o~ RA YM V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER DXTE / DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ~ Lfn. ~ c1/c>?~/o!J StrSAN MURRA Y-ISTENES, AICP, DIRECTOR DATE DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVED BY: ~"b--!o l(' PH K. SCHMITT, ADMIN STRA TOR DATE I ITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DNISION MARK P. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN DATE Tentatively scheduled for the Apri122, 2008 Board of County Commissioners' Meeting. Agenda Item No. 78 April 22, 2008 Page 19 of 50 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW WWW.COLLlERGOV.NET (i) 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 403-2400 FAX (239) 643.6968 ~~~IF"~"""'f",iE-'WIf4<"1'I"lG-',";o;"'~'''~';WT'''''''~;.I "t"""J.-t-,-'f"-"'l'<:-11 """""'-')])'l'r~""" t~'.; ",.;rw""""""~'~ <., ~ ,\,,:f.''..,,_. .,,'_~ ',-,"5:' 'I ir.,l..., "1 ".;J~~r;d ');.~;:\.",'"1 <;J'<;1n;;:'J:!<~rn:: ' 1.!:"'f~~~1;S; J.~.f':'f::""'.Y'::{~A::-~.s~i,;;-.tH d"..t.:-.";,;~>"'" :..-~,~>_ 1 l~ ';,.".-_ '_*" L', __.~<_::._ _-.<d T" 4- cJ ~J. ,:~~~ ~~,-.;'i"'~';::,,-.;:~t:~:.::t~~~~_~.><:?t~;:,=;-,: _~j~t,-~L:;~l:-.i:~~~ =-.:~.~:;<-~:.:{' %-<-)~: -''':--~-~:~;''~' ::'c~~_t : ~IE''\ "-'-,,~>--e>-\:.:J.'~t A<1f Ut, ~~1-' J'''<J~'', ~l ~l.il"r~~rt,;: 1 '1 If:J"L'!::.(7.1 ':;<\1 j" '111I" IIJ\,_1. ,".0:] !l'l.r"'H'1 ~r~~~~a:;:~~&:f~.=~:.lt :2;.~'~~~\~~.~:->~ ~:~~:IO~~;.i:~~<.;i~~~~;~,~ PETITION NO (AR) PROJECT NAME PROJECT NUMBER DATE PROCESSED ASSIGNED PLANNER [VA_2007_AR_12477 .,J SCHUELKE VARIANCE . PROJECT: 2007080028 DATE: 10129/07 DUE: 11/13/07 Above to be completed by staff .~iIIi~~",_~",",.,,,,,,,N""'1 ,..,-~;.,~'~ ,.,,...,.~-~~...',,, _".' _. ,,:oJ!!! '..., ,'i-,.';:,,,.:. "',,~c$~"~i:,'i1~:.~.'~lb~~~;:ff:i1l:r:, NAMS OF APPLlCANT(S) GREGORY W. SCHUELKE AND BEVERLY J. SCHUELKE, AS CO-TRUSTEES OF THE GREGORY W. SCHUELKE AND BEVERLY J. SCHUELKE JOINT REVOCABLE liVING TRUST DATED MAY 11, 1998 (AS TO AN UNDIVIDED 1/2 INTEREST) AND DJN FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, A WISCONSIN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (AS TO AN UNDIVIDED 1/2 INTEREST) ADDRESS 4636 SONSEEAHRAY DR. CITY HUBERTUS STATE WI ZIP 53033-9727 TELEPHONE # (262) 628-9747 CELL # FAX # E-MAil ADDRESS:GSCHUELKE@ENERCONMAll.COM NAME OF AGENT CHRISTOPHER J. THORNTON - CHEFFY PASSIDOMO WILSON & JOHNSON ADDRESS 821 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 201 CITY NAPLES STATE Fl ZIP 34102 TELEPHONE # (239)261-9300 CELL # FAX # (239)261-9782 E.MAIL ADDRESS: CJTHORNTON@NAPLESLAW.COM BE AWARE THAT COLLIER COUNTY HAS LOBBYIST REGULATIONS. GUIDE YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY AND ENSURE THAT YOU ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THESE REGULATIONS. Variance AppliClltion rev. 121231{)4 Pflge 1 of8 Agenda Item No. 76 April 22. 2008 Page LU 0\ to '~<>L,~.~f~,~i~~~"".:1 . ""..,., ,_" _ , , ' , _,,,,, ,".. . ,,~_... ".,.. .,.." .', i.. ..!i!!i.... . .~ ~".. .." J~~,-=-,''''''n;";;~','1~~....~,,~.., Complete the following for all Association(s) affiliated with this petition. Provide additional sheets if necessary_ NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION. MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION. MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION. MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION: MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION. MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION: MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP Cf.t~"'~~{il ' ". , ~ , , - !- - , ".". ':", ~T;.'1i~ .,A~:,~,,.,':,.t~r;/ Legal Description of Subject PI'Operly' Sectlon/Townshlp/Range 29/48/25 Property I.D.#: 2763600004 Subdivision: CONNOR'S VANDERBILT BEACH ESTATES Unit 3 Lot: 1 Block. U Metes & Bounds Description: Acreage: 0.27 Address of Subject Property (If dlffereni from Petitioner's addressl. 496 FLAMINGO AVENUE, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34108 ~_~~~E{~~w~m~t:~i1~~;~t~!V Zoning Lond Use N RSF-3 S RSF-3 Variance Application rey. ]2/.23104 Resldentlol Single Family Residentlol SIngle Family Page 2 ofa E RMF.6 W RSF-3 Residential Single Family Residential STngle Family Agenda Item No. 78 April 22, 2008 Page 21 of 50 Minimum Yard Reauirement. for Subiect PrOl'J8rtv: Front: principal. 30'; accessary-SPS Corner Loll Ves ~ No 0 Side, principal (weterfrontl-l 0'1 principal (nonwoterfront)-7.S'; occessory pool (waterfront)-SPS Waterfront Lot: Ves ~ No 0 Rear: prlncipal-2S'; weterfront accessory pool. 1 0' (20' If deck exceeds 4' above seewoll) Provide a de/ailed explanation of the request including what structures are existing and what is proposed; the amount of encroachment proposed using numbers, i.e. reduce front setback from 25' to 18'1 when property owner purchased property; when existing principal structure was built (include building permit number (sli' possible); why encroachment is necessarYI how existing encroachment came to be; etc. For pralects authorized under LDC Section 9.04.02, provide detailed description of site alterations, including any dredging and filling. Petitioner seeks variance approval for three (3) alleged side yard setback encroachments for a pool retaining wall, pool screen cage, and eastern concrete stairs as shown in the survey prepared by A. Trigo & Associates, Inc, dated October 1, 2007, attached as Exhibit "A", The 2007 aerial photograph from the property appraiser is attached as Exhibit "8". Five photographs of the rear of the home, depicting the retaining wall, cage, and stairs, are attached as composite Exhibit "C". The subject property is a waterfront comer lot. The CBS home was constructed by a tormer owner under building permit 85-3453, issued November 22, ] 985 and COd April 10, 1986. Petitioners acquired the subject property on June 12, 1997, 1) Original Pool Retaining Wall. The pool behind the house was constructed by a former owner under building permit 86-360 issued on February II, 1986. No CO for the pool has been located. The pool deck is supported approximately 5' above the elevation of the seawall cap by a retaining wall. The outside face of the retaining wall is setback approximately 6,0' from the property boundary and approximately 8.7' from the outside face of the seawall (thc outside face of the seawall is approximately 2.7' outside the property boundary). In addition, the westerly and easterly supportive "wing" portions of the retaining wall extend to or almost to the property boundary. At the time the retaining wall and pool were constructed in 1986, Section 8.2 of Ord. No. 82-2 imposed a waterfront accessory side yard setback of 7.5' for a swimming pool, and the current waterfront accessory side yard setback for a pool in Table 4 of LDC Section 4.02.03.A is SPS, or 10'. As shown in the survey, the main portion of the pool retaining wall met the 1986 setback of7.5' if measurcd from the seawall, but not if measured from the property line. Other than the installation of the easterly stair discussed below, the pool and retaining wall have remained in place without modification since they were constructed in 1986. Except for any portions of the retaining wall that are exempt from the setback under the fence and wall regulations in LDC Section 5.03,02.C.4 and the definition of "yard" in LDC Section 1.08.02, Petitioner seeks to reduce the side setback for the main portion of the existing retaining wall from 10' to 6', and for the "wings" of the retaining wall from 10' to 0', .- 2) Replacement pool screen cage. A pool screen cage was installed when the house and pool were constructed in 1986, and was positioned at the southerly edge of the retaining wall, A building permit Variance Application rev. 12123/04 PII~ 3 of8 Agenda Item No. 76 . April 22, 2008 for the original pool screen cage has not been located. The original cage was damaged by i'aQl'l'RJaue 50 in 2004. Petitioner obtained a permit to replace the cage, building permit 2004-091797, issued on September 27, 2004. The replacement cage has been installed but has not been COd due to setback issues. Apparently, the survey used for the permitting of the cage was difficult for the contractor to read, and the contractor made the mistaken assumption that the property boundary either coincided with or fell waterward of the face of the seawall. Therefore, although the replacement cage was pushed northward approximately I' from the original cage location, and is located exactly 10' from the outside face of the seawall, the replacement cage is only 7.3' from the property boundary. Petitioner seeks to reduce the side setback for the pool screen cage fl.-om 10' to 7.3', 3) Replacement concrete stairs, As originally constructed in 1986, a concrete stailway, shown as the westerly stairway on the survey, provided access from the level of the seawall up to the pool deck, and there was a screen door at the top of the stairs. Due to a change in code regarding stairway landings and door openings, a screen door at the location of the original stairs was not allowed in the above-referenced permit for the replacement cage, and the original westerly stairway could not be used. Therefore, the Petitioner obtained a permit for a replacement concrete stairway, building permit 2004-122161. The replacement concrete stairway, shown as the easterly stairway on the survey, has been constructed but has not been COd due to setback issues. In accordance with LDC Section 4.02.01.D.7, stairs are permitted to project up to 3' into the required setback, and in accordance with Table 2.1 in LDC Section 4.02,01.A, the waterfront side yard setback is 10'. As shown in the survey, the stalrway is located 7.1' from the outside face of the seawall, but the southeasterly comer of the stairway comes to within 0.8' of the property boundary. Petitioner seeks to reduce the side yard setback for the ~1airway from 7' to 0.8'. Please note thot stoff and the Collier County Planning Commission sholl be guided in their recommendation to the Boord of zoning Appeals, and that the Boord of zoning appeals sholl be guided In Ks determination to approve or deny 0 variance petition by the below listed criteria (1-8). (Please address these criteria using additional pages if nece"ary.) 1. Are there special c:ondf1lons and circumstances exfstlng which ore peculiar to the location, size and characteristics of the land, structure, or building involved. Yes. The pool retaining wall has been in existence since 1986 with no complaints or problem" and is necessary to support the pool. The setback problems appear to stem from the unusuol circumstance that the property line falls approximately 2.7' inside the seawall, 0 fact apparently not recognized by the contractors. The replacement cage and stairwell would meet the current setback if measured from the outside face of the seawall. 2. Are there special conditions and circumstances which do not result from the action of the applicant such as pre-existing condition, relative to tne property wnlch Is the sublect of the variance request. Ye,. The Petitioner purchased the subject property In June of 1997, eleven years after the construclion of the pool and pool retaining wall. The seawall that Is located outside the property boundary was permitted, building permit 81-4170, and 0 CO for Ine seawall was Issued October 18, 1982. The setback problem, a550clated with tne replacement cage and stairs seem to stem from the focI that the property boundary does not coincide with the seewallj end the contractors were unable to distinguish that fact from the survey they were u,lng. Varian<;c Application rev. 12123104 Page 4 ora Agenda Item No. 7B April 22, 2008 3. WlII a literal Interpretation of the provisions of this zoning code work unnecessary and undue Page 23 of 50 hardship on the applicant or create practical difficulties on the applicant. . Yes. Had the Petitioner known that the pool retaining wall was In violation of the applicable setback, the Pefllloner would not have purchased the properly, and denial of the variance would result in the loss of the pool that Is supported by Ihe wall. 4, Will the variance, If granted, be the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or struelure and which promote standards of health, safely or welfare. Yes. The requested variance Is the minimum necessary to continue the use of the existing pool, and the replacemenl cage and stairwell. 5. Will granHng the variance requested confer on the petitioner any special privilege thaI is denied by these zoning regulaHons to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning dIstrict. No. All of the uses and structures are permItted In the zoning dlstrld, dnd this variance request should be granted based on the unique set of facts applicable to Ihls request. The granting of this request will not set 0 precedent for other variance requests. Variance Application rev. 12123/04 Page 5 of8 1 Agenda Item No. 78 April 22. 2008 Page 24 of 50 6. Will granting the varianc.. be In harmony with the Intent and purpose of this zoning code, and not be Inlurlous to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Yes..The varlanc.. Is In harmony with the zoning code and will not be In[urlous to the neighborhood or detrimental to the public w"lfar". The pool retaining wall has been in Its current location for more than 20 , years, and neither the retaining wall, screen cage, nor the stairway obstrocts the view of of surrounding property owners. 7. Are there natural conditions or physically Induced conditions that ameliorate the goals and oblectlves of the regulation such as natural preserves, lakes, golf course, etc. Yes. With respect to the replacement stairway, It should be noted that the stairway Is merely a penetratioB of the retaining wall leading from the lower grade of the seawall to the higher grade of the back yard. . 8. Will granting the variance be consistent with the growth management plan. Yes. BE ADVISED THAT SECTION' 1 O.03.05.B.3 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES AN APPLICANT TO REMOVE THEIR PUBLIC. HEARING SIGN (S) AFTER FINAL ACTION IS TAKEN BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. BASED ON THE BOARD'S FINAL ACTION ON THIS ITEM, PLEASE REMOVE ALL PUBLIC HEARING ADVERTISING SIGN(S) IMMEDIATELY. . Variance Application rev, 12123104 Page 6 of8 I!l III:! j'liu t~~ -1.. I · i~ a I, I ~;~ '. . 'II> c ~~ (,Iii b 9~ '; 'II l'I I . IiI ~ - 1 ~ e CllcOO ,,0'" .0_ ON 0 Z '''' ~~N - Q) Q.J:-:::: OJ :::::: 0. ctI m<o.. '0 c Q) 0> <( J ill . '" t-_ oo-D7 I ~l' I Jl: I I I ~' I~~ ~;. I I I I I jl! I . ~ I . ~ rn -. .... I: 11 ~ .. , . . ~ ~l' II lJ: ~ If ~ I l~' i fil ;111 ~~q!l!im !~ n ~ ;i~~;;~~~~1~~ I~fl ~ !I t~ ~i~' il!l,':~ i' Li Il'~ lll!~~ ~Ii~llli Ii 111( II ~ rill; . i ;'0111I,10 .....1 lid i ......,.~....~l~~.. ll' t ._O~..CI..~o;a."lI. ~ . ~ ~ ... ~ !! ,~ .. ~~ . . il . . ~ ~ . ! ~ . I L ,--.. . I , _ .un J .1lZ,~~H N, .liM - - ZIJ;;;i:=':Ji:iY1~ - - ---- - ~ - - I~ '-I.t !~~I' N2tS ~Mi roeco .~::: o ~" ?El EN 2~ ~~ -g ..... Q) " 0> ~ <: ~ --- ~ I ~ ! ~I J j ~ ::l i I ! j I ! 011 r- ~. ;;s ~. J I I 11 i I> I a I . ; 2 I t , !! . I~ ~l :.& .~.1 r g~ OlJil "c iJ .i I: 8;..Il .. t ~ ~ 8 ~ : .l! ~ i J J .!i Ii ~ N .. r-- o ~ "" ..... ;:; ..... e:D .,.; ..... t- ..... 00 '<t" a- r-- 00 i ~ t ~ ~ g: <( c..; r;r. ~ +- ..... ~ -.Q Jl ~ , - 't ~j ........ '!. ~ . . c " , , , J , , J ! -' I ( c I , 'j I J i , , I , d j Agenda Item No. 76 April 22, 2008 Page 31 of 50 ....., , tn '. '. cJ ,. t- .1 iiii :: - ~! a Agenda Item No. 76 Apri I 22, 2008 Page 32 of 50 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT DEPT, OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW y.JWW.C:OLL1ERGOV.NET (i) 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE ORNE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 403-2400 FAX (239) 643-6968 o Dimensional VA,2007-AR_12477 SCHUELKE VARIANCE PROJECT: 2007080028 DA TE: r 0/29/07 DUE: II! 13/07 VARIANCE PETITION Dalol~ Tlmo. Prolocl Name. PRE.APPLlCA TION MEETING NOTES * & SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST W'I\\~~ \ ~ g,,'tT'\ Asslgnod Planno" e:.........,..... Pralod Adm/Locallon, '1<\1.. +\o"'~~J'" "',,~~... Phone: Applicant Name: Firm: f) \ . Current Zoning, R<;lf- ~ Owne, Namol 1?><::)O""j ~y.,v.e-\\z.e- Owne, Add...., 41."?ll.. -S""'<<=\-..~:.J Ur...... Meellng Allendee.. (allach Sign In Sheet) Phone, NOTES. t'nv,/~ -1Jo .AtZ1JiU{J f(}tJt2M -- \~ ~"' r vJ: (""~"""';:-r'--J ,S",C""\.c...e. """'S .....S ~ l~ ~(>o\.,..."'s . If telephone pre-applloatlon meeting Is held, direct the petitioner to coo,dlnate with Linda concerning the requirement for the petJtloner to send the notice letter to the surrounding property owners or to give them thai Information that Linda typically provide, th6m -) ~- ~~~.r 0.. _C",v..(\".s.::J c.o-\>;;:s",~J --cwJi. ~ ~"'..\ \N"-\\ 1 as.-.~ ~~-~\ Q",wn;;:!) ~ ~ 1- c........:i'\.\1o,t.ct. W~'") \"\8(,;, '''-'ii""r~........~-ts '^- '-l~'.<I""t.L W ,1"\ 'o~n~,,-Il- J Agenda Item No. 76 April 22, 2008 Page 33 of 50 VARIANCE PETITION (VA) APPLICATION SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST THIS COMPLETED CHECKLIsT IS TO BE SUBMITTED WITH APPLICATION PACKET IN THE EXACT ORDER LISTED BELOW W /COVER SHEETS ATTACHED TO EACH SECTION. NOTE, INCOMPLETE SUMBITT ALS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED, #OF NOT REQUIREMENTS COPIES REQUIRED REQUIRED , Com-;:;jetod ,i.;:;;:;jltatlon (download from websll. fo, currenl fo,';;\ 15 " . Pre..A"'P'\rtcatlon meeHnn notes 15 ,/ Co';;;;lotod Addresslno Checklist, Slcnod bv Addressing De.;orlmenl 1 ,/ Conce~tuol Site Pion 24'0 x 36" and one B 1/1 tt X 1111 co,.,v 15 ",' Survey of property snowIng the encroachment (measured In feet) 1 1/ OwnerTAg.nt Affidavit signod & notarl2ed 1 ,/ De>>dSTlegal'. 2 ,/ -. locotlon map 1 \/ - Aerial ~~~tographs (taken within the previous 12 months min. .caled 5 V- 1"=200' . .howlno FLUCCS Codes, logend, and orolect baundarv Eloctronlc copY of 011 dO<llm.nts and plan. (CDROM or Dlskotte) 1 V , Historical SurveY-Or walvor request 1 ./ './ PrO;:;;;;rv Owner Advlso"- Lettor and Certification 1 0/ EnVlronm.ntallm.~~ct Slat.mantIEIS) and dlgltal/alectronic copy of X EIS or ex.emotlon ustJficatlon 3 Eilll o P,e.appllcation Fee $500.00 IAppllcations submitted 9 month. ., male after the dale of the laol ~re.app meeting shan not be credited towards application fees and a new pre-application meeting will b. ,aquired.) Review Fees: ~OOO,OO Re,ldenllol ~5000'OO Non-Resldenllal Aft.r. The.Fatt Zoning/Land Use Petitions 2x the normal petition fa. ~ J760,OO Estlmoted legal Advertising Fee - CCPC Moetlng [3"$363,00 Estimated Legol Advertising Fee - BCC Meeting (any over. or under~pC1yment will be reC:Qnclled upon receipt of Invoice from Naples Dolly New,). o $2500.00 EIS Review OTHER REQUIREMENTS, o o o fl 'd,.,J Date 2 <Deco ~~ 0, .j~ I I EN Q) Q)~ Ol :=: a. ctS <1l <{ a- u c Q) ~ 0> <: .~ .. ;:;.: g '5 ell E f'!'~ 0. 0 ~~ ~ ~ C ~1lI ; ~ "1:1 ~ c -4 w '0 !;( "'cO Q oil J l;l) .. ~ .5 ~ c: . o .. :! Eo-; ~1 ~ 0 ~ - c ~ ~ ~ 1:1 t 8- 0> ~ ; ~~ :cl ~ ell ~ Q "1:1 eo:! "1:1 ~ <( :.= ~ ~ ~ 1 tfj c .. 3 ~ " '" o;J ~t; ',:~, :~.~/~l!f ~:~iarer '.'....OJ'~.!,. -iI, ',' (:~t;: :~I~. ,,) ;.,- ~ -:: 1 .... r-J I <<I ;:;.: ~ w Z ..... ~ ~ ~ OJ ~ .a Z. "" e <( Q ::> z w Z t; 5 OJ c w ~ .. (3 .<:: '" <( "" "" -- ~ !ii IlIl Q Q <( ... ~ 't. v 9i ~ :) z. w Z o ::c "" \' <t ~ ~ ~ Iii " Q i \\1 ~!& ~ ~ S! ii: a is .. h >- 0 ~ .l !Z \.;J" 5 i III U 1\1 (j .. ~ ,: l!! g ill "\j .. '~ ~. o 'C ~ on ;;; z Cl ~ o 1<1 ~ i ~ <>. i ~ ~ c; \ \- Z0..-0 7 ~1O C<J~I ~ co _ ~r;= UJ ~ 8#-&W'lM ~enda Item No, 76 ~~008 ~~ige 35 0(50 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA b.~~ . NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND ORDER TO CORRECT ..fr-'24-47 ~j ORDER TO CORRECT VIOLATION(S\ YOU ARE DIRECTED BY THIS NOTICE TO TAKE THE FOLLOWING CORRECTIVE ACTION(S) Must submit a spot survey wbich Indicates proof of compliance with Collier Co. set back requirements! reference permits NO,2004091797 & 2004122161 for improvements at 469 Flamingo Ave. Naples, Fla, within 14 days of receipt of tbis notice. Or, must request and obtain a scheduled pre-- application meeting for review of an "after-the-fact" variance request for a rear yard encroachment at location in question, no ~_ter than 30 days after receipt of this notice. Must submit a complete and sufficient "after-tbe-fact" variance request application for aU rear yard setback encroachments in question, within 90 days of pre-application meeting. Upon obtaining variance approval, must then complete the process of executing the aforementioned permits by obtaining aU required inspections, through to issuance of Certificate of Completion for the pool enclosure and retaining wall in question within 90 days after receipt of variance approval. Or, must submit a conceptual plan for demolition, removal and rehabilitation of all non allowed structural encroachments at location in question to Collier Co. Planning Services personnel for their review and approva~ no later than 21 days after receipt of this notice. Upon having received conceptual plan approval, must then obtain a Collier Co. Demolition Permit within 30 days of plan approval and must obtain all required inspections through to /"_. the issuance of a certificate of completion for tbe removal of all I non-allowed structural encroachments and resulting debris, restoring all premises to a state of compliance with all provisions of Collier Co. "RSF-3" zoning district regulations and requirements within 60 days after issuance of Demolition Permit. PENALTffiS MAY BE IMPOSED: Failure to correct the violations on or before the date specified above will result in, I) the filing of an affidavit of violation with the Collier County Code Enforcement Board, "C.E,B,", or Special Master S,M. charging you with the violation(s) as described on this fonn. You willlhavc receive(d) notification that a hearing will be held which you and/or .. legal represeotative may attend. Failure to appear may resuit in the Board/S, M. proceeding and making a determination in your absence. If the Code Enforcement Board or Special Master finds a violation exists, a maximum fme of $1000,00 per clay in the case of a fIrst violation, a maximum fme of $5000,00 per clay for a repcat violation and a maximum fme of $]5,000,00 per violation in the event there is a finding that the violation is of an irreparable or irreversible nature. Fines may be imposed on a per day basis foZeaCh day each violation exists, Costs of prosecution and/or re . may also be assessed against yo.u for any violation.. SERVED BY,- --CERT, MAIL---PERSONAL TO: GREGORY W. & BEVERLEY J. SCHUELKE, CO- TR,S Of"DJN FAMILY LlMlTED PARTNERSIDP" 4636 SONSEEAHRAY DR. HlnBEFt11JS, VVl. 530339727 LOCATION OF VIOLATION (LEGAL AND ADDRESS) WITHIN COLLIER COUNTY ZONING DlST."RSF-3", SEC,29, TWN.48, RNG,25, SUED. Conner's Vanderbilt Bcb, Est. Unit 3, B1ock-U, u,t.] , 10#27636000004, OR Book 2433, Page 1203 of Collier County record. A.K.A Pool screen enclosure & related head wall areas at 496 Flamingo Ave. Naples, Fla. NOTICE PURSUANT TO COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD (C E B ) ORD # 05-55 and 97-35, AS AMENDED,YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT THE FOLLOWING VIOLATIONS EXIST, ORD. NO. 0441, as amended, codified as the Land Development Code, (LDC) SEC, 4,02.00, site design standards SUB SEC. 4.02.03, specific standards for location of accessory buildings and structures, par.-A, TABLE-4, #4 and par.- B SEe. 8.08.00, Code Enforcement Board, par.- B, "violation". SEC. 9.04.00, variances SUB SEC. 9.04.04, specific requirel!1ents for minor after tbe fact encroachments, par.- B. SEC, 10.01.00, generally SUB SEC. 10.02.06, submittal requirements for pennits, par. -8, 'I building permits", I-a tbru. l-e. * 1 DESCRIPTION OF CONDmONS CONSTITUTING THE VIOLATION (S). Observed:, the existence of a pool screen enclosure and related retaining wall having been constructed on a corner lot ,on "RSF-3" zoned waterfront property in Collier County known as 496 Flamingo Ave. Naples, Fla. (reference Collier Co. Building Permit No. 200409] 797 f'poo1 enclosure replacement" / no certificate of completion and NO. 2004122161 / "footing, stem wall, steps! no certificate of completion). Same retaining wall measuring an approximate 4',11" +/- in height from the top of an existing seawall and an approximate 8'.4" +/_ distance from the base of the retaining wall to the outside surface of the existing seawall, resulting in aI' .8" +/- encroachment into the req,tred 10' side yard set back. (a comer lot is described as having 2 side yards and 2 front yards, side yards substitute for rear yard). Same pool enclosure and retaining waIl encroachments not having received prior Collier Co. variance approval, not having received a Certificate of Completion, left in a state of conflict with Collier Co. Land Development Codes and requirements. .", 1 Please read through the following SEe'S. and related SUB SEC'S. so as to further adduce pertinent conclusive facts. SEC. 1.04.00, applicability SUB SEC, 1.04.01, general. par's. A and B SEC, 2,03.00, zoulng districts SUB SEC, 2,03.01, residential zoning districts, par,~C, "RSF-3". SEC, 2,07.00, table of set backs for base zoning districts, HRSF-3/waterfront" INQUIRIES AND COMMENTS SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO CODE ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATOR: DENNIS MAZZONE 2800 No. Hon:esboe Dr. Naples, Fla. 34104 (239) 403~2447, FAX (239) 403-2343 j'-." Investigator's Signature <V"d) ""VC:lQ M13~ VIOLATION STATUS: ~_X_INITIAL u'- CERT. MAlL RECEIPT NO# ~-~~ I ,HEREBY acknowledgc I have received, read, and understand this notice of violation.: Print .....1tk ~ DATED TIllS,yvAY OF~tlN'~, 2006 /'" REF: CASE NO 2006050623 Agenda Item No, 76 April 22, 2008 Page 36 of 50 -., Willie Brown Principal Planner Collier County Zoning and Land Development 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 RE: Letter of No Objection Schuelke Variance - Petition V A-2007-AR-12477 496 Flamingo Avenue Dear Mr, Brown: It is our understanding that the Schuelkes have applied to Collier County for a variance for their existing pool retaining wall, pool screen cage, and concrete slairwell, This has not been a problem and we believe that having the Schuelkes reconstruct these items would serve no useful purpose. We have reviewed the materials contained in the petition for variance submitted by the Schuelkes. We have no objection to the requested variance and believe the variance should be approved, Thank you for your attention and consideration. V cry truly yours, Name Signature 'J \tViVd,C0 \j \c\L~ DflO \.'0 Address 4 n f\o.. V'.v~~ p".. ~ Date 2-1 \ l oct, ~ " Agenda Item No. 76 April 22, 2008 Page 37 of 50 Willie Brown Principal Planner Collier County Zoning and Land Development 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 RE: Letter of No Objection Schuelke Variance - Petition V A-2007-AR-12477 496 Flamingo Avenue Dear Mr, Brown: It is our understanding that the Schuelkes have applied to Collier County for a variance for their existing pool retaining wall, pool screen cage, and concrete stairwell, This has not been a problem and we believe that having the Schuelkes reconstruct these items would serve no useful purpose, We have reviewed the materials contained in the petition for variance submitted by the Schuelkes, We have no objection to the requested variance and believe the variance should be approved. Thank you for your attention and consideration, / ;;~4/0~~~ 0.<, ,,/~-. >i"""R Date Agenda Item No, 76 April 22, 2008 Page 38 of 50 Willie Brown Principal Planner Collier County Zoning and Land Development 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 RE: Letter of No Objection Schuelke Variance - Petition V A-2007-AR-12477 496 Flamingo Avenue Dear Mr. Brown: It is our understanding that the Schuelkes have ap lied to Collier County fur a variance for their existing pool retaining wall, pool screen cage, and cone stairwell, This has not been a problem and we believe that having the Schuelkes recons1roct these items would serve no useful purpose, We have reviewed the materials contained in the petition for variance submitted hy the Schuelkes, We have no ohjection to the requested variance and believe the variance should be approved. Thank you for your attention and consideration.. Very truly yours, Signature (~..: .-L-- ?---r:;;:- Name J2 ;c.."./.1,ei> ;].e if CK~Tl Address '-f ] ~ (:=-7-.4 /1-'1 IN 11 0 ~ii / /l~~~--M /J1-f1i? Y 5l1'<::4-C.t::Ert ~/L~ (~. Date I L - 2--( - 0 7 Agenda Item No, 76 April 22, 2008 Page 39 01 50 Willie Brown Principal Planner Collier County Zoning and Land Development 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 RE: Letter of No Objection Schuelke Variance - Petition V A-2007-AR-12477 496 Flamingo Avenue Dear Mr. Brown: It is our understanding that the Schuelkes have applied to Collier County for a variance for their existing pool retaining wall, pool screen cage, and concrete stairwell, This has not been a problem and we believe that having the Schuelkes reconstruct these items would serve no useful purpose, We have reviewed the materials contained in the petition for variance submitted by the Schuelkes, We have no objection to the requested variance and believe the variance should be approved. Thank you for your attention and consideration, Very truly yours, Name l5eti ~v~orxL- Address 15/ ;::r!i1m~ haul!.- vf'dlflf!.5 I J:L 31111? Date 1-II-erE Agenda Item No, 76 April 22, 2008 Page 40 of 50 Eugene and Nancy Zilavy 480 Flamingo Avenue Naples, FL 34108 Willie Brown Principal Planner Collier County Zoning and Land Development 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 RE: Lette, of No Objection Schuelke Variance- Petition VA-2007-AR-12477 496 Flamingo Avenue Dear Mr, Brown: The undersigned are the owners of the property located at 480 Flamingo Avenue, which is next door to the Schuelke property at 496 Flamingo A venue, It is our understanding that the Schuelkes have applied to Collier County for a variance for their existing pool retaining wall, pool screen cage, and concrete stairwell. We have reviewed the materials contained in the petition for variance submitted by the Schuelkes, and have no objection to the requested variance, Thank you for your attention and considemtion, v cry truly yours, .(\ I Date: Agenda Item No. 76 April 22, 2008 Page 41 of 50 Willie Brown Principal Planner Collier County Zoning and Land Development 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 RE: Letter of No Objection Schuelke Variance - Petition V A-2007-AR-12477 496 Flamingo Avenue Dear Mr. Brown: It is our understanding that the Schuelkes have applied to Collier County for a variance for their existing pool retaining wall, pool screen cage, and concrete stairwelL This has not beeo a problem and we believe that having the Schue1kes reconstruct these items would setVe no useful purpose, We have reviewed the materials contained in the petition for variance submitted by the Schuelkes, We bave no ohjection to the requested variance and believe the variance should be approved, Thank yon for your attention and considemtion, ~ 9. ~fU4 Sigoature Name M(WA~ 'vii, A--r~ Address t{,Pt Fl~:'-jo ~~. t /2.. - 1.-1 - J...6D 7 ;tr or te ~ 3 ~LO ~ Date Agenda Item No, 76 April 22, 2008 Page 42 of 50 Willie Brown Principal Planner Collier County Zoning and Land Development 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 RE: Letter of No Objection Schuelke Variance - Petition V A-2007-AR-12477 496 Flamingo Avenue Dear Mr, Brown: It is our understanding that the Schuelkes have applied to Collier County for a variance for their existing pool retaining wall, pool screen cage, and concrete stairwelL This has not been a problem and we believe that having the Schuelkes reconstmct these items would serve no useful purpose. We have reviewed the materials contained in the petition for variance submitted by the Schuelkes. We have no objection to the requested variance and believe the variance should he approved. Thank you for your _ntion and consideration. _ Very truly yours, () V- . nf/ f1.// ,j'~ "--- l.. (7/7~ "I p , ! 7 fJ :ij tZ/?r( t/L"16 {l~ I ? Address 1- !I' / ___ ?3 1- O'J Signature Name Date Agenda Item No. 76 April 22, 2008 Page 43 of 50 Willie Brown Principal Planner Collier County Zoning and Land Development 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 RE: Letter of No Objection Schuelke Variance - Petition V A-2007-AR-12477 496 Flamingo Avenue Dear Mr, Brown: It is our understanding that the Schuelkes have applied to Coilier County for a variance for their existing pool retaining wall, pool screen cage, and concrete stairwell. This has not been a problem and we believe that having the Schuelkes reconstruct these items would serve no useful purpose. We have reviewed the materials contained in the petition for variance submitted by the Schuelke,., We have no objection to the requested variance and believe the variance should be approved, Thank you for your attention and considemtion, Date Very truly yo Signature Q 1"'1 1 II 5 'F(c~ YVl /9/6<[ lLi1CO UiNI:. ~; als (Fj);C))JL-- Name Address ~50 Ii J '=L- Agenda Item No, 76 April 22, 2008 Page 44 of 50 Willie Brown Principal Planner Collier County Zoning and Land Development 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 RE: Letter of No Objection Schuelke Variance - Petition V A-2007-AR-12477 496 Flamingo Avenue Dear Mr. Brown: It is our understanding that the Schuelkes have applied to Collier County for a variance for their existing pool retaining wall, pool screen cage, and concrete stairwell, This has not been a problem and we beiieve that having the Schuelkes reconstruct these items would serve no useful purpose. We have reviewed the materials contained in the petition for variance submitted by the Schuelkes, We have no objection to the requested varian<:e and believe the variance should be approved. Thank you for your attention and consideration, Very truly yours, ::'"~;) ~ 'l...lI(.. Address ~., tt..,.... ~c. ,a :r.,~ . & Date Agenda Item No, 76 April 22, 2008 Page 45 of 50 Willie Brown Principal Planner Collier County Zoning and Land Development 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 RE: Letter of No Objection Schuelke Variance - Petition V A-2007-AR-12477 496 Flamingo A venue Dear Mr, Brown: It is our understanding that the Schuelkes have applied to Collier County for a variance for their existing pool retaining wall, pool screen cage, and concrete stairwell. This has not been a problem and we believe that having the Schuelkes recons1ruct these items would serve no useful purpose, We have reviewed the materials contained in the petition for variance submitted by the Scbuelkes, We have no objection to the requested variance and believe the variance should be approved. Thank you for your attention and consideration. Signature . , Name b"i \ \ 13l.""':)<' ,S j)eld,-e) P4.V'r-~ Address Lf~o P{qJt....:'->-j? ~ Date Nwpt'<2>S//L 3'--1LOP f~/'f-tJ'? Agenda Item No, 76 April 22, 2008 Page 46 of 50 Willie Brown Principal Planner Collier County Zoning and Land Development 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 RE: Letter of No Objection Schuelke Variance - Petition V A-2007-AR-12477 496 Flamingo Avenue Dear Mr. Brown: It is our understanding that the Schuelkes have applied to Collier County for a variance for their existing pool retaining wall, pool screen cage, and concrete stairwell. This has not been a problem and we believe that having the Schuelkes reconstruct these items would serve no useful purpose, We have reviewed the materials contained in the petition for variance submitted by the Schuelkes, We have no objection to the requested variance and believe the variance should be approved. Thank you for your attention and consideration. V cry truly yours, , 1\ ~ Signarure G?~.~ I N It'v- ^,,/\ /){)JiWfD~S-fll'r1eJ'L ame l'J'" l IV"," J' I'-w'1 I' r;" 3'+1oK Address Fn HOJH,;l'~t Av1 (lJllplvC Date I)H!ot EDWARD K. CHEFFY BOARD CEATIFIED CIVIL TRIAL ATTOANEY BOARD CERTIFIED BUSINESS LtTlGATlON ATTORNEY JOHN M. PASSIDOMO BOARD CERTIFIED REAL ESTATE ATTORNEY GEORGE A. WILSON BOARD CERTIFIED WILLS, TRUSTS & ESTATES ATTORNEY F, EDWARD JOHNSON BOARD CERTIFIED WILLS, TRUSTS & ESTATES ATTORNEY JOHN D, KEHOE BOARD CERTIFIED CIVil TRIAL ATTORNEY LOUIS D. D'AGOSTINO BOARD CERTIFIED APPELLATE PRACTICE ATTORNEY JEFF M, NOVATT DAVID A. ZUUAN KEVIN A, DENTI JEFFREY S, HOFFMAN BOARD CERTIFIED WlL.LS. TRUSTS & ESTATES ATTORNEY CHEFFY PASSIDOMO WILSON & JOHNSON ATTORNEYS AT U\1v, UP 821 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 201 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34'02 TELEPHONE: (239) 26' .9300 FAX: (239) 261.9782 EMA1L: CPWJ@napleslaw.com Agenda Item No. 76 April 22, 2008 Page 47 of 50 LOUIS W. CHEFFY BOARD CERTIAED REALE$TATE ATTORNEY USA H. BARNETT BOARD CERTIFIED REAL ESTATE ATTORNEY CLAY C, BROOKER ANDREW H, REISS WILUAM J, DEMPSEY BOARD CERTIFIED REAL ESTATE ATTORNEY MICHAEL W, PETTIT CHRISTOI'HER J, THORNTON MICHAEL S, GROSS JOHN C, CLOUGH JASON O. LOWE February 13, 2008 OF COUNSEL: GEORGE L VARNADOE Willie Brown, Principal Planner Collier County Zoning and Land Development 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Re: Letters of No Objection Schuelke Variance - Petition VA-2007-AR-12477 496 Flamingo Avenue Dear Mr. Brown: As a follow-up to our letter of January 29, 2008 in reference to the pending variance application, please find enclosed two additional Letters of No Objection from neighbors. If you have any questions regarding this matter or the enclosed letters, please do not hesitate to call either me or Chris Thornton, MLBI Enclosures Sincerely, YJ14.<..cL ./~ Martha L. Bennett Legal Assistant to Christopher J. Thornton F:\wpdocs\RE\Schuelke 13593\Transmittalletter to Brown of Letters of No Obj 2.13~08,doc RECEIVED FEB 1 4 Z008 ZONING DEPARTMENT ooeco ~::: o .co E01..;t .$~ ~ - O-co CO <{ 0. "0 C Q) 0> <: ---- ~'I "'I ~ Q) c Q; ;S . I <D l'- l ~- o ~.~J'~ - ~ w ...., = s ;:: tn :<0- :<0- '- _Clk ~ t=. ~ ..... . 0 OIl k .., Qc Q A: .... ::s o V2 ~ I' ~~.~ l~~ ~ i ~.~ :::3 :g un ~ - 2t>, ?:: bi' r~, - ,~ '" "-::"~"a ~ ~ <; <:: ~ ----I ) -"*- 00'0{' o ~ _ III .... lA...... W :<0- =1:; o w u a. "" 0 ....... ... "'~ - ~.... loo.o ....- ... w w w .... .... "'N iii . $:'" ..d I:l .... .... ::SA 0- U1 .... ~ ~ ~l~ H~ lo:_" ~. "" i?<o ~g, -'" ~:!: . . :20. oj,!&) ~~ .... <::) <:: lf~ ... CI:: HIl; ",co rn 'IJf1,/t! dJ'O,.8f.lS 'Or At wOE,S;".. S 11 .~ II~'" 11~~ ~ tl~ m., ~ ~H~ - 41 ~ .3 II co II ~ II~I II I \. . ~ ";;:' .~ "'Il c..> lij ~1 ~ ~~;I l; ill S~3 .fi'; , ... '" - '"' ~ Gli ~ - ~ r~ ~ (J':;", . I... ~! - rot: "I (\; loo. - _0" ... c,'tI :: Q) '" -- Q. Q> ~;,. ~t.) :9 ::: ~!..IL<: <.0 '+ III ... Qc iil~'1:>N,w:::.... ~ '-tU- 4ioo::: oll.c~ti...,...,......;..... lO::.!:!,>lc'U III <.I ;.;: 1;;!;j.tI1 (.J <tI~ 1;;. "oe....~ o 0 M_"" '61 0.. U ~ ~ i '=! .cJf;;3 :> t '(1,1 P"~ 01 ,9'tl ~ k~ .... ." " ;Je '" ~ IQ 'at 9'M' ~ i .l! Ii Ii: . .... ~ 'lJ! .~~ .UTe> :1 "Ol.!meC/ N ) - ::; .... -!IIOIIt (:II ~~-o~ J40........ 0< .... q; ... ~ \II.! l ....wl.OO - IS ... g 0 Q, 0.. 0< 't "i /"j . ~ ,; ... "'Q.~ lis";; .!4;;~ f h II \ ! RESOLUTION- 08.__ A RBSOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPFiAI ^~ OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORJlJA, RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER VA.2007.AR.l2477, FOR AFJ'Ej{.THE.FACT VARIANCES FROM THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD SRTBACKS FOR AN EXISTING POOL DECK RETAINING WALL, POOL SCREEN ENCLOSURE, AND TWO CONCRETE STAIRWAYS. ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 496 FLAMINGO A VENUE, NAPLES, FLORIDA, WHEREAS, the Legislature of the Shlle uf Florida in Chapter 125, Florida St~tutes, has l..:Ollfcncd on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations a.<; are Clecessm'y for the protection of tlle public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto hilS adopteu a Land Development Code (LDC) (Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended) wIdell establishes regulations for the zoning of pm1iculnr geogmphit: divisions ()r the County, among whkb i.s the granting of variances; and WHEREAS, Petitioners Gregory W. Schuelke and Beverly J. Schuelke, as Trustees, <Iud DIN Family Limited Partnership ru'e seeking aflei'-Ihe-facl Variallcc..'i from the rellllircd side yard setbacks for all original pool deck retaining wall cuns[ructed in 1986, a replacement pool screen enclosure constructed ill 2004, and two existing concrete stairway,,>; und WIlEREAS, tIle Collier COllnty Board of Zoning Appeals has held u public hearing after notice as in .'laid regulations made and provided, and I1n... considered the advisability of an after- the-fact 4-foot vmirmce from tbe required side yard setback of 10 feet to 6 teet for the original pool deck retaining wall, an after-the-fact 2:/~foot vflrillllcc [1'0111 the required side yaro setback of 10 feet to 7 J feet fOl' the replacement pool screen cm;Josul"C, .Ill <ICIer-the-fact 9.2-foot variam:e from the required side Yi'lrd setback of 10 feet to O,H feet for the southeasterly replacement concrete stairway, and 1111 ;\fter the fnet 5.8-foOl vadllllcc from the required 10'(00t ~idc yard setback to 4.2 feet for the southwesterly concrete stairway, us shown on the aHached plot plan, Exhibit A, in the RSF-3 Zoning District for the properly hereinafter described, and bas found us a mutter of f<lct that sMjsf~~tory provisioll and arrangement have. been mude concerning nil npplieablc maltel'S required by said regulation); ,md in accordance with Section 9.04,00 of the Zoning Regulations of ,qid L<''J.ud Development Code for the unincorpOt'lllcd area of Collier COUl\ty; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opporhmily to be bt.':mu by this Board in pubJic mt.':etillg u1iscmblcd, and the Bomd having considered all matters presented. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONINO APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY.I'LORlDA, lhut: Page I Dfl Revised 3~26-08 Ikm *7B Apn / O'd; Of)O~ The Petition VA-2004-AR-12477 filed by Christopher J. Thornton, Esq., of ehcny, P:'lssidolllO Wilsoll IUlcl Johnson, LLP, representing Gregory W. Schuelke and Beverly J. Schuelke, llS Tmstee.<;, and DJN Family Umited PlIftnc;.rship, with respect to thr. property hcreinafter described as: Lot I, Block U, CONNORS VANDERBILT BEACH ESTATES, UNrr NO 3, accordillg tu (lie plat Lhereof, recorded ill Pint Book 3, Page 89, Public Records of Collier County, Plorida bc at,d the salll~ hereby is approved for an ilfter-tlle-fact 4-foot variance from the required side YlIrd setback of 10 feet to 6 feet fur the original pool deck retaining wall, an aner-lhe-fHct 2.7~ fnot vnrillnce from the required side yard setbnck of 10 feet to 7.) feet for the replacement pool screell t.'.nclo~urc. an nf(cr~tlle~fact 9.2-foot vClrimlce from the required side yard setl)l)ck of 10 feet to 0.8 feet for the southeasterly replacelUent concreLe stairway, and an aftcr the fact 5.S-fuot variance from the required IO-foot side ynrd setback to 4.2 ({lel for the s.outhwesterly concrete .sttlirway, as shown 011 the attached plOl plan, Exhibit A, in the zoning district wllucill said property is located, subject to the following cundition: 1. The 4-foot variance for the pool deck (also referred to as the retaininr; wall) supporting the pool above the .~eaw.L11; the 2.7-foot variance for the wire mesh pool screen cage surrounding the pool atop the pool deck; the 9.2-foul variance for the :mutheasteL'ly stairway; and the 5.ft-foot vuriance for the southwesterly ~l.airway; ,Ill sh.\1l be limited 10 the side yard encroachments ns depicted it the record survey with a date revision nf October 1, 2007. 2. If the residential dwelling structure is destroye.d for any rCllS0ll, to Jill extent equal fo or greater than 50 percent of the actual replncement cost of the structure at the time of its destruction, 11\1 rcconstmction of the tilrL1clure and nccessory structures mllst conform to the provisions of the LrllJd Development Code ill effect at the time of reconstruction. DE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number V A-. 2007-AR-12477 be recorded in the minutes of this Board. Thill Resolution .tdopted after motion. second i\nd majority vote this. ,,_ day of ,2008. ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COLLIER COUNTY, PLORIDA By: By: TOM HENNING, CHAIRMAN , Deputy Clerk Approved as to fOrln lmd legal sufficiency: ..~ . .11 1') Jeffrey A. Klntzkow . Chief Assistant County Attorney Page 2 of 2 Revlsed 3-26-08 -::r -/em -:U:- r"} B =~.:t""ri't'::::'1 ~~I~:iO" _"/l'/U .@. . .~jT- (oo-''''''''!a,o'5''l.,.",mo '''lTTtI SQ'.,E V.cNDERlIiLTDRlV$ I-------~~------i- . . ",,,,, ::::-s.......-'il MQ,!f:;J.f:. :"n'"JJ ("! ..~~ ""-' ,I B .~ ~____..............__ l:~B -o---u-........- ~ - . ~.or ~ , ~ !' ~~. g~j,~ 1!i k . , ~" " . ~ I "~ -- , ::::.;:;;. 1 .........n..r ....,:os.. ..."...~.H C... NA L M"IltOl"..t~"~ ~u ". I. / E."""~'":.,. ~ ~fW'HIC: SC.ou: F'J , to "" ID. ,...,.. on.... ,. ~ 20 Ttcm :#:1f> ''',,-:- I I ,,.rlo_,,,,,,, J~'''''''.'''_"" ~r,.u''"-_'''r'''' ....."'r"_~,J',." ''''~- E:"'~-"':.. urllDucril1!;<;>n ...-.,-, ""'..-,,.,.,......-..- <""'",~...J....._.,....r__~...oc ..."""""""'~="""'."""'- ~_,,_" eLi. 'i:".-<J>' 3:nl""="...-...,.....~ i~ .....-...'''''...''''' E:: tf: ~ fjf, ,,;;;r-- !~l. _.IM i~~7-~ .. .._"".... ~- :::;.~;:-::[:J:'~5t~ l:.l..r...._...~_...... ~....~ , ""l.'::u.IW ...,.......-..-...........,... ...- ..''''-...----- ......"'" -- RECORD SURVEY , .. ~- ....."".M._.- ....----..~..-, ............,-....-....... .,..,.,--....- .....,tot_..__ ..\,-" ... ""P_., .-------t:'U,i-t A