Loading...
HEX Final Decision 2022-50HEX NO. 2022-50 HEARING EXAMINER DECISION DATE OF HEARING. October 27, 2022 PF.TITI"N Petition No. BDE-PL20210000314 - 715 Palm Point Drive - Request for a 10-foot boat dock extension over the maximum 20 feet allowed by Section 5.03.06 of the Collier County Land Development Code for a total protrusion of 30 feet to allow an addition to an existing dock facility that will accommodate a second slip with boatlift and boathouse in a waterway that is 87 feet in width for the benefit of property located at 715 Palm Point Drive, and is described as a parcel of land being a portion of Tract 1, as shown on but not a part of the Plat of Goodland Isles Second Addition, in Section 19, Township 52 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION. The Petitioner requests to expand upon the existing facility by adding a new 30-foot dock with boatlift and boathouse for a 24-foot LOA vessel. STAFF RECOMMENDATION. Approval with conditions. FINDINGS. 1. The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction over this Petitioner pursuant to Sec. 2-87(4) of the Collier County of Ordinances, Sec. 8.10.00 of the Land Development Code, and Chapter 9 of the County Administrative Code. 2. The public hearing for this Petition was properly noticed and conducted in accordance with all County and state requirements. 3. The public hearing was conducted electronically and in -person in accordance with Emergency/Executive Order 2020-04. 4. The Petitioner and/or Petitioner's representative executed the Hybrid Virtual Quasi -Judicial Public Hearing Waiver related to conducting the public hearing electronically and in -person. 5. The County Staff presented the Petition followed by the Petitioner and/or Petitioner's representative, public comment and then rebuttal by the Petitioner and/or Petitioner's Page 1 of 7 representative. There were no objections made at the public hearing. A letter of no objection was introduced into the record at the hearing from William Pilger at 674 Palm Drive. 6. The County's Land Development Section 5.03.06.H. lists the criteria for dock facility extensions. The Hearing Examiner may approve, approve with conditions, or deny a boat dock extension request if it is determined that at least four (4) of the five (5) primary criteria, and at least four (4) of the six (6) secondary criteria have been met.' Primary Criteria: 1. 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.) The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS BEEN MET. The subject property is located within a Village Residential (VR) Zoning District and is further located with the Goodland Zoning Overlay (GZO). The VR zoning district allows single-family dwellings as a permitted principal use and further allows private docks and boathouses, subject to LDC Section S. 03.06 as allowable accessory uses. The GZO is silent with respect to docks and boathouses. The proposed project consists of constructing and adding an additional slip, for a total of two boat slips, with a boat lift and boathouse. The typical number of slips for single-family use is two. 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 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.) The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS BEEN MET. Water depths do not exceed 2' at low tide until beyond 20' from the Mean High Water contour, which is not adequate for the property owner's vessel. 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.) The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS BEEN MET. The proposed docking facility is not located within a marked channel. Furthermore, the proposed dock is entirely within the owner's platted property line and has been designed so as not to restrict the waterway any further than any of the other 'The Hearing Examiner's findings are italicized. Page 2 of 7 nearby existing dock facilities. However, pursuant to the provided Boundary Survey, the existing finger pier is not entirely within the property line. Additionally, the subject property is depicted as being part of Tract 1 for which a note appears stating "Not Part of This Plat" and as such is not part of the referenced plat (Goodland Isles Second Addition — Plat Book 8 Page 19); therefore, said property is not platted. 4. Whether the proposed dock facility protrudes no more than 25 percent of the 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.) The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS NOT BEENMET. The waterway width is approximately 87' in width next to the proposed structure. The proposed structure protrudes 30' into the waterway or 35% of the width of the waterway. Structures on the opposite side of the waterway protrude 19' into the waterway or 22% of the width of the waterway. This will leave a space of 38' through which public navigation can occur or 43% of the width of the waterway. This amount of protrusion exceeds the normal parameters of Collier County's LDC. 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 of legally permitted neighboring docks.) The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS BEEN MET. The proposed docking facility will meet the required side yard setbacks of 15 feet and will protrude so as to match the existing dock on site. Considering that this property is located nearly at the end of a canal, the shallow water depths within 20' of the subject property do not supply navigable space, and public navigation should not be affected by the project, our opinion is that the proposed dock will not interfere with any existing or future neighboring docking facilities. 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 configuration, mangrove growth, or seagrass beds.) The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS BEENMET. The subject property's shoreline is comprised of a mix of mangroves and rip rap. While the property owner is permitted to trim the mangroves, they still serve as significant obstacles for mooring a vessel at this site, particularly within 20' of the Mean High -Water Line. Additionally, the existing dock on site further serves to make mooring within 20' of the MHWL difficult, particularly because it cannot be altered, as this would comprise a violation of the access easement's terms and conditions. The mangrove and rip Page 3 of 7 rap shoreline constitute a special condition, as does the existing dock with access easement. 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.) The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS BEEN MET. The proposed docking facility will cover approximately 472 square feet of the overwater structure, bringing the total overwater square footage at the site to 559 square feet. This is small enough to qualify the dock as being exempt from needing a permit from the state (the Florida Department of Environmental Protection). It is also significantly smaller than most of the nearby docks, and the majority of this square footage will occur within 20' of the Mean High -Water Line. The amount of decking proposed would allow reasonable, safe access, and 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.) The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS NOT BEEN MET. The length of the applicant's vessel is 24'. The length of the access easement grantee's vessel is approximately 19'. Collectively, both vessels would therefore amount to 43', which is more than 50% of the applicant's total shoreline (83 ). " It is uncertain as to the length of the access easement holder's vessel and therefore find this criterion has not been satisfied. 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.) The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS BEENMET. The proposed docking facility is located entirely within the riparian area of the property owner and also entirely within his platted property lines as well. Furthermore, the project site is largely blocked on both sides by mangroves. Therefore, the views of neighbors will not be significantly affected by the proposed project. 5. Whether seagrass beds will be impacted by the proposed dock facility. (If seagrass beds are present, compliance with subsection 5.03.06.J of the LDC must be demonstrated.) The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS BEEN MET. There are no seagrass beds present on the property nor the neighboring properties within 200 feet of the existing dock structure. Page 4 of 7 6. Whether the proposed dock facility is subject to the manatee protection requirements of subsection 5.03.06(E)(11) of this Code. (If applicable, compliance with section 5.03.06(E)(11) must be demonstrated.) The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion is NOT APPLICABLE. The proposed project is for a single-family residential boat dock facility. Section 5.03. 06.E. H, Manatee Protection Plan, is not applicable to this boat dock proposal. Standards for Boathouses: 1. Minimum side setback requirement: Fifteen Feet. The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS BEENMET. As per the provided Dock Plan, the boathouse is setback more than 15 feet from both the northern and southern side/riparian lines. 2. Maximum protrusion into the waterway: Twenty-five percent of canal width or 20 feet, whichever is less. The roof alone may overhang no more than 3 feet into the waterway beyond the maximum protrusion and/or side setbacks. The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS BEENMET. Cross Section AA indicates there is no roof overhang to the front or back of the proposed boathouse. The waterway at this point is 87 feet which would allow the boathouse to protrude up to 17.4 feet; however, if approved, the subject BDE allows for additional protrusion of up to 30 feet. 3. Maximum height: Fifteen feet as measured from the top of the seawall or bank, whichever is more restrictive, to the peak or highest elevation of the roof. The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS BEENMET. The proposed height is 15 feet above the seawall. 4. Maximum number of boathouses or covered structures per site: One. The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS BEENMET. Only one boathouse is to be built on this property. 5. All boathouses and covered structures shall be completely open on all 4 sides. The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS BEENMET. The boathouse will be open on all four 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 Page 5 of 7 dwelling unit must be constructed on the subject lot prior to, or simultaneously with, the construction of any boathouse or covered dock structure. The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS BEENMET. The roofing material and color of the proposed boathouse will match that of the principal 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 practical. The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS BEENMET. The boathouse is located within the required side/riparian setbacks and, as per the applicant's agent, is flanked by mangroves. ANALYSIS. Based on a review of the record including the Petition, application, exhibits, the County's staff report, and hearing comments and testimony from the Petitioner and/or the Petitioner's representative(s), County staff and any given by the public, the Hearing Examiner finds that there is enough competent, substantial evidence as applied to the criteria set forth in Section 5.03.06.H of the Land Development Code to approve Petition. The Petition for the boat dock extension meets 4 out of 5 of the primary criteria and 4 out of 6 secondary criteria, with one criterion being not applicable. The Petition for the boathouse meets 7 out of 7 of the required criteria. DECISION. The Hearing Examiner hereby APPROVES Petition Number BDE-PL20210000314, filed by Nick Pearson of Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. representing Thomas A. and Debra A. Donahue, with respect to the property described as 715 Palm Point Drive, located in Section 19, Township 52 South, Range 27 East. Collier County, Florida, for the following: • A 10-foot boat dock extension over the maximum permitted protrusion of 20 feet allowed for waterways greater than 100 feet in width, pursuant to Section 5.03.06 of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC), to allow an addition to an existing dock facility that protrudes a total of 30 feet into a waterway that is 87± feet wide. Said changes are fully described in the Dock, Boathouse and Site Plans attached as Exhibit "A" and are subject to the condition(s) set forth below. ATTACHMENTS. Exhibit A — Dock, Boathouse and Site Plans Page 6 of 7 LEGAL DESCRIPTION. 715 Palm Point Drive, located in Section 19, Township 52 South, Range 27 East. Collier County, Florida CONDITIONS. 1. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development. 2. The applicant must incorporate a railing or otherwise chain or rope off the northern side of both the new/proposed dock and the existing finger dock to inhibit the docking or mooring of any vessel(s) thereby resulting in a third boat slip. DISCLAIMER. Pursuant to Section 125.022(5) F.S., issuance of a development permit by a county does not in any way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. APPEALS. This decision becomes effective on the date it is rendered. An appeal of this decision shall be done in accordance with applicable ordinances, codes and law. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AND EXHIBITS: SEE CLERK OF COURT, MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. DECISIONS OF THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR VARIANCES, CONDITIONAL USES, AND BOAT DOCK EXTENSIONS SHALL BE NOTED ON THE ZONING MAP FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES. Date Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP Hearing Examiner Page 7 of 7 EXHIBIT "A" STATE ®F FLaRIDA 6 TAMPA 4 k FT.MYER APL S M MARCO ISLAN SUBJECT PROPERTY GULF OF MEXICO EVERGLADES KEY WEST �''e CITY COLLIER COUNTY SITE ADDRESS: <> 715 PALM POINT DR <> LATITUDE: N 25.921851 SUBJECT GOODLAND, FL 34140 —LONGITUDE: W-81.647370 LPROPE NOTES: <> THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE. VICINITY MAP DESIGNED: NP }, Terrell, Hall &Associates, Inc. 715 PAL M P O I N T R CREATEDDRAWN Br 0Rw S•21 3. Marine & Environmental Consulting JOB NO 20035.70 14. 3584 Exchange Ave. Naples, FL 34104-3732 LOCATION MAP SHEET NO D1 OF09 15. Email: tuna@thanaples.com Phone: (239) 643-0166 Fax: (239) 643-6632 SECTION- 18 TOWNSHIP- 52 S RANGE- 27 E 0 k FG . STANDARD BUILDING LIMIT '' " CONTOUR (20' FROM MHWL) MANGROVES 0 0 N EXISTING DOCKS ©1M 30 60 S'C�[LE9N�E'E7 3 r ° _+ ` SITE ADDRESS: 715 PALM POINT DR ARIAN y —� GOODLAND, FL 34145 LINE RAP }1 r ;.. N h rr I -o P R AN LIN .. 1EXISTING g 'RESIDENCE -a 1 O X 52' ` . s co EXISTING 6' 24 1!a PILES T PER _4 ` ESS Ep r 30 w. \*01 6g pr. - 0R � z n 12 a Alk ING DOCK - h NO REMAIN 19' SKIFF OWNED BY ACCESS ►, v + EASEMFNT GRANTEE RIPARIAN LINE • �r � ETBACK IPARIAN t G OVES EXISTING y_ DO Terrell, Hall &Associates, Inc. DESIGNED• NP , 71 5 PALM POINT R Marine & Environmental Consulting JOB NO.; 20035.10 4. 3584 Exchange Ave. Naples, FL34104-3732 EXISTING CONDITIONS SNEETNO ozofoe s Email: tuna@thana iles.com Phonc: 1.239) 643- }166 Fax: (239) 643-6632 SECTION-'18 TOWNSHIP- 52 S RANGE- 27 E II RIPARIAN LINE 20' BUILDING LIMIT CONTOUR RTpARIAN LINE SETBACK 30' — 10, 87' PROPOSED BOAT LIFT BB 05 N w� 0 PROPOSED 24' (LOA,4ESSEL — PROPOSED BOATHOUSE 04 Ate` N A- s 0 !0 20 40 SC1{CE 9N 7=EE7 r -o O r (3+ > Cif NOTES: • THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT CIS G DOCK TO REMAIN INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE • ALL WATER DEPTHS AND DREDGE ELEVATIONS ARE REFERENCED TO MLW SURVEY COURTESY OF "MARCO SURVEYING 6 MAPPING" SURVEY DATED 05-"2022 APPLICANT OWNED SHORELINE (APPX LF): SY • EXISTING OVERWATER STRUCTURE (APPX SF). ST • WIDTH OF WATERWAY, MHW TO MHW (APPX): ST DAL DATUM. MHW (NAVD- ., MLw (NAVD� -+ PROPOSED OVERWATER STRUCTURE (APPX SF)- TOTAL OVERWATER STRUCTURE (APPX SF): TOTAL PROTRUSION FROM MHWL 472 sw w Turrell, Hall & Associates, In Inc._ 1 5 PALM POINT RDRAWN DESIGNED- NP Y. 15, Marine & Environmental Consulting G�Lr' 3584 Exchange Ave. Naples, FL 34104-3732 r g p PROPOSED DOCK "S-21 a : U ,. SHEET SHEET NO. 03OF200n 030F09 5 Email: tuna@thanaples.com Phone: (239) 643-0166 Fax: (239) 643-6632 L SECTION- 18 TOWNSHIP- 52S RANGE- 27E 12' BOAT LIFT MHW =+0.6T (NAVD MLW = =' .81' (NAVD 88) BOATHOUSE ROOF MATERIAL AND COLOR TO MATCH PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE 30' FINGER DOCK ZDEPTHS VARY a g ao SC?tCE9N�EE? PROPOSED FIXED DOCK EXISTING RIPRAP TO BE REFURBISHED DESIGNED: NP I1, _ Terrell, Hall &Associates, Inc. 7 � 5 PALM POINT � R CREATED: 6-005.21 Marine & Environmental Consulting JOB NO.: 20035.10 3584 Exchange Ave. Naples, FL 34104-3732 CROSS SECTION AA SHEET NO.: 04OF09 Is. Email: tuna@thanaples.com Phone: (239) 643-0166 Fax: (239) 643-6632 SECTION- 18 TOWNSHIP- 52 S RANGE- 27 E 16' BOATHOUSE nn�nr�o�n rlvrn MHW = +0 67' (NAVD 88) WIN = -1.81' (NAVD 88) DEPTHS - VARY 0 3 +o S AU9N9EZ:Yl BOATHOUSE ROOF MATERIAL AND COLOR TO MATCH PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE EXISTING DOCK DESIGNED: NP 7, Terrell, Hall &Associates, Inc. 71 5 PALM P O I N -T R CREATEDr 06-05.21 3. Marine & Environmental Consulting JOB NO.: 20035.10 <. 3584 Exchange Ave. Naples, FL 34104-3732 CROSS SECTION BB SHEET NC,' 05 OF 09 S. : Email: tuna,'�thanaples.com Phone: (239) 643-0166 Fax: (239) 643-6632 SECTION- 18 TOWNSHIP- 52S RANGE- 27 E I -% Ak SUB aT NO - RESOURCES FOUND DURING 41 SURVEY ^•- RGED _. RESOURCE SURVEY TRANSECTS 10' O.C. � t lee r 1r >� I � T N �e �E r S 0 24 q ILA SC7{CE9N�Ei7 PROPOSED ` DOCK AND ' BOATH SE O EXISTING MANGROVE yrr :t c 4 - f•••YYYj NOTES: • THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE, • ALL WATER DEPTHS AND DREDGE ELEVATIONS ARE REFERENCED TO MLW • SURVEY COURTESY OF •MARCO SURVEYING d MAPPING" • SURVEY DATED 05-23.18 • • APPLICANT OWNED SHORELINE (APPX LF) 83' • EXISTING OVERWATER STRUCTURE (APPX SF): or • WIDTH OF WATERWAY, MHW TO MHW (APPX): or • TIDAL DATUM: •• MHW (NAVD? *0.8r • MLW (NAVD)= •1.81, • • PROPOSED OVERWATER STRUCTURE (APPX SF) 472 • TOTAL OVERWATER STRUCTURE (APPX SF). so TOTAL PROTRUSION FROM MHWL 1. 11 DESIWN GNED' NP Terrell, Hall &Associates, Inc. 71 5 PA L M DRA P O I N T S FR CREATEDY RMJ S2, 3 - Marine & Environmental Consulting JOB NO 200351: d G 584ExchangeAve. Naples, FL34104-3732 SUBMERGED RESOURCE SURVEY SHEETNO 06O=09 e Email: tuna@thanaples.com Phone: (239) 643-0166 Fax: (239) 643-6632 SECTION- 18 TOWNSHIP- 52S FLANGE- 27 E n.. r K =; gal .owl& •_.. ` r N *4 �rp _(p a z m s a 0 2 5a +ao m ,err � _ SC1tCE9N7=E'Ei `Jo PROPOSED, 88'. DOCK L I 7 . • L 33': 2 82Alk ill( r Z } n ' t3 � .om' �, , 3 _a. . 4, # >. '00e••• � NOTES: THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE. ALL WATER DEPTHS AND DREDGE ELEVATIONS ARE REFERENCED TO MLW SURVEY COURTESY OF 'MARC O SURVEYING 6 MAPPING' �. SURVEY DATED 05.23-18 _ APPLICANT OWNED SHORELINE (APPX LF) 63' t,.,}y ��► EXISTING OVERWATER STRUCTURE %APPX SF). BT WIDTH OF WATERWAY, MHW TO MHW (APPX). 8T TIDAL DATUM- MHW (NAVDr +0.8T y .• MLW (NAVD)= -1.81, • PROPOSED OVERWATER STRUCTURE (APPX SF)- 472 TOTAL OVERWATER STRUCTURE (APPX SF) so yy TOTAL PROTRUSION FROM MHWL. 30 Terrell, Hall &Associates, Inc. DESIGNED NP , Marine &Environmental Consulting 7 '1 5 PAL M P O I N -T � FR EOY 88-052, ; JOB NO 20035 10 4 3584 Exchange Ave. Naples, FL34104-3732 ADJACENT DOCK PLAN - OVERVIEW HEETNO 07OF09 s. Email: tuna@thanaples.com Phone: (239) 643-0166 Fax: (239) 643-6632 SECTION- 18 TOWNSHIP- 52S RANGE- 27 E IITka x r _ t • — ® _ z 7 NOTES: 77 ' • THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT _w -- INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE. ALL WATER DEPTHS AND DREDGE ELEVATIONS ARE REFERENCED TO MLW SURVEY COURTESY OF: *WARCO SURVEYING 3 MAPPING" a SURVEY DATED: 8S-23-18 , Tr APPLICANT OWNED SHORELINE (APPX LF): 83' EXISTING OVERWATER STRUCTURE (APPX SF): 87 .-. �, • WIDTH OF WATERWAY, MHW TO MHW (APPX): 8T TIDAL DATUM: N MHW (NAND)= +0.87' MLW (NAVD)= -1.81' PROPOSED OVERWATER STRUCTURE (APPX SF): 472 TOTAL OVERWATER STRUCTURE (APPX SF): 553 TOTAL PROTRUSION FROM MHWL: 30 Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. 71 5 PALM POINT R DESIGNED' NP 1 Marine &Environmental Consulting 3584 Exchange Ave. Naples, FL 34104-3732 ADJACENT DOCK PLAN CEAATTED �y.2t 3 JOB NO 2003510 4 SHEET NO 08 of 09 15 Email: tuna@thanaples.com Phone: (239) 643-0166 Fax: (239) 643-6632 SECTION- 1a TOWNSHIP-52S RANGE-27E N �. �ijiryl- mos * i=+0.67' 0 2 50 +oa ti { � ' SCP(CE9N�i�7 PROPOSED , A- DOPK +� 7 y y•� ... 1 `�'. O si on r L - ST Alt "-t; F ZONING OVERLAY n V- P 421 •'�/T - -f _ rr -air AL /' •: -� i 6 1000, NOTES: THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT 'a x INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE. ems} ALL WATER DEPTHS AND DREDGE ELEVATIONS ARE REFERENCED TO MLW r.. SURVEY COURTESY OF "MARCO SURVEYING & MAPPING" SURVEY DATED 05.23.18 • « APPLICANT OWNED SHORELINE (APPX LF): BY • EXISTING OVERWATER STRUCTURE APPX SF) 87 WIDTH OF WATERWAY, MHW TO MHW (APM 8r TIDAL DATUM: « MHW (NAVD,= •0.87' MLW (NAVD)= -1.81• t 'L'"� •• PROPOSED OVERWATER STRUCTURE (APPX SF) 472 TOTAL OVERWATER STRUCTURE (APPX SF,I. 559 TOTAL PROTRUSION FROM MHWL. 30 DESIGNED' NIPTurrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. 1 5 PALM POINT � FR DRAWN BY RMJ 2 Marine & Environmental Consulting JOB NO 1:CREATED 200350 SVi 4 4 3584 Exchange Ave. Naples, FL 34104-3732 ST OVERLAY MAP S -.' o. . 5 Email: tuna@thanaples.com Phone: (239) 643-0166 Fax: (239) 643-6632 SECTION- 18 TOWNSHIP- 52S RANGE- 27 E