CCPC Backup 06/18/2009 R
CCPC
REGULAR
MEETING
BACKUP
DOCUMENTS
JUNE 18, 2009
ltv-( +- ie~-der
AGENDA
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, JUNE 18,2009,
IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING,
COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMlAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA:
NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM.
INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR
GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAYBE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON
AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE
WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS
MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE
RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS
INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE
APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE
PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC
WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE
AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
IF APPLICABLE,
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED
A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE
MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS
MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON
WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY
3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MAY 21, 2009
6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - MA Y 26, 2009 AND JUNE 9, 2009
7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
A. Petition: CU-2008-AR-13245, Collier County through its Solid Waste Management
Department, represented by David Deans of PBS & J, is requesting Conditional Uses within the
Rural Agricultural Zoning District within the North Belle Meade Overlay and Rural Fringe Mixed
Use District (RFMU) Overlay for Sending Areas to allow I) a "Collection and Transfer Site for
Resource Recovery," pursuant to Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) Section
2.03.01.A.l.c. I 2; and 2) "Public Facilities, including Solid Waste and Resource Recovery
racility" and "Public Vehicle and Equipment Storage and Repair Facilities" pursuant to LDC
Section 2.03.08.AA.a.(3)(b) of the RFMU District for a project to be known as the Resource
Recovery Park. The subject property, consisting of approximately 344cJc acres, is located
approximately 1.5 miles east of Collier Boulevard and 1 mile north of White Lake
Boulevard, in Section 25, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
(Coordinalor: Kay Deselem, AICP)
1
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Petition: BD-2009-AR-14192, Monte Carlo Club Condominium Association, Inc., represented by
Miles L. "Rocky" Scofield of Turrell, Hall and Associates, Inc., requests a 10-foot boat dock extension
over the maximum 20-foot protrusion limit as provided in Section 5.03.06 of the Land Developmenl Codc
to allow a 30-foot boat dock facility that will accommodate 20 additional boat slips for property described
as Lots I and 2, Block B of Baker-Carroll Point Unit 2 Subdivision in Section 29, Township 48 South,
Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida (part of the Monte Carlo Condominium). (Coordinalor: Ashley
Caserta)
B. Petition: CU-2009-AR-14137. St. Monica's Episcopal Church, Inc., represented by Heidi K. Williams,
AICP, of Q. Grady Minor, Inc., is requesting two new Conditional Uses pursuant to the Land Development
Code Section 2.03.0 l.B, l.C., in the Estates Zoning District. The conditional uses being requested are as
follows: LDC 2.03.0 l.B.1.C.3, to allow a child care center; and 2.03.0 I .B.l.CA, to allow a private school
related to the existing religious facility. The subject property is located at 7070 Immokalee Road, on the
south side of Immokalee Road, west of the Logan Boulevard Extension, in Section 29, Township 48 South,
Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, (Coordinator: Melissa Zone) CONTINUED FROM JUNE 4,2009
C. Petition: RZ-2008-AR-13967, The Collier County Department of Parks and Recreation, represented
by Heidi Williams, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor & Associates, is requesting a Rezone from the Residenlial
Single-Family (RSF-4), Village Residential (VR) and Goodland Zoning Overlay (GZO) zoning districts to
the Public (P) Zoning District for a community park. The approximately 2.62-acre waterfront property is
located on the north side of Pear Tree Avenue in Goodland, in Section 18, Township 52 South, Range 27
East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: John-David Moss, AICP) (Companion item /0 YIJ) CONI1NUED
FROM JUNE 4, 2009
D. Petition: V A-2008-AR-13671, The Collier County Parks and Recreation Department, represented by
Heidi Williams, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, is requesting eleven variances from LDC
subsection 4.06.02 regarding butTer requirements and one variance from LDC subsection 4.02.03 regarding
standards for localion of accessory buildings and slructures, with all 12 variances being for a community
park in lhe Residential Single-Family (RSF-4) and Village Residential (VR) zoning districts with a
Goodland Zoning Overlay (GZO). The 2.62-acre subject property is located in Goodland, in Section 18,
Township 52 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: John-David Moss, AICP)
(Companion item 10 Y.C) CONTINUED FROM JUNE 4,2009
10. OLD BUSINESS
11. NEW BUSINESS
12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM
13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA
14. ADJOURN
6/18/09 cepe Agenda/Ray l3ellowslcr
2
AGENDA
Revised
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, JUNE 18,2009,
IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING,
COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER. 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA:
NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM.
INDIViDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR
GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MA Y BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON
AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HA VE
WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN TilE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS
MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE
RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE. WRITTEN MATERIALS
INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE
APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE
PUBLIC HEARING. ALl, MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC
WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE
A V AILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
IF APPLICABLE.
ANY PERSON WHO DECiDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED
A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE
MA Y NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS
MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON
WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY
3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ~ MA Y 7. 2009 AND MA Y 2 I. 2009
6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS ~ MA Y 26. 2009 AND JUNE 9, 2009
7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
A. Petition: CU-2008-AR-13245. Collier County through its Solid Waste Management
Department, represented by David Deans of PBS & J, is requesting Conditional Uses within the
Rural Agricultural Zoning District within the North Belle Meade Overlay and Rural Fringe Mixed
Use District (RFMU) Overlay for Sending Areas to allow I) a "Collection and Transfer Site for
Resource Recovery," pursuant to Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) Section
2.03.0 \ .A.I.c.12; and 2) "Public Facilities, including Solid Waste and Resource Recovery
Facility" and "Public Vehicle and Equipment Storage and Repair Facilities" pursuant to LDC
Section 2.03.08.AA.a.(3)(b) of the RFMU District for a project to be known as the Resource
Recovery Park. The subject property, consisting of approximately 344t acres, is located
approximately 1.5 miles east of Collier Boulevard and 1 mile north of White Lake
Boulevard, in Section 25, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County. Florida.
(Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP)
1
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Collier County Sign Code Revisions (Coordinator: Susan Istenes) TIME CERTAIN 8.'30 A.M-
CONTINUED FROM JUNE 4.2009
B. Petition: BD-2009-AR-14192, Monte Carlo Club Condominium Association, Inc., represented by
Miles L. "Rocky" Scofield of Turrell, Hall and Associates, Inc., requests a 10-foot boat dock extension
over the maximum 20-foot protrusion limit as provided in Section 5.03.06 of the Land Development Code
to allow a 30-foot boat dock tacility that will accommodate 20 additional boat slips for property described
as Lots 1 and 2, Block B of Baker-Carroll Point Unit 2 Subdivision in Section 29, Township 48 South,
Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida (part of the Monte Carlo Condominium). (Coordinator: Ashley
Caserta)
C. Petition: CU-2009-AR-14137, 5t Monica's Episcopal Church, Inc., represented by Heidi K. Williams,
AICp, of Q. Grady Minor, Inc.. is requesting two new Conditional Uses pursuant to the Land Development
Code Section 2.03.0I.B.1.C., in the Estates Zoning District. The conditional uses being requested are as
follows: LDC 2.03.0 I.B.I.C.3, to allow a child care center; and 2.03.0 I.B. I .CA. to allow a private school
related to the existing religious facility. The subject property is located at 7070 Immokalee Road. on the
south side of Immokalee Road. west of the Logan Boulevard Extension. in Section 29, Township 48 South.
Range 26 East. Collier County. Florida. (Coordinator: Melissa Zone) CONTINUED FROM JUNE 4, 2IJIJ9
D. Petition: RZ-200S-AR-13967, The Collier Countv Department of Parks and Recreation, represented
by Heidi Williams, AICP. of Q. Grady Minor & Associates, is requesting a Rezone from the Residential
Single-Family (RSr-4). Village Residential (VR) and Goodland Zoning Overlay (GZO) zoning districts to
the Public (P) Zoning District for a community park. The approximately 2.62-acre waterfront property is
located on the north side of Pear Tree Avenue in Goodland, in Section 18, Township 52 South, Range
27 East. Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: John-David Moss, AICP) (Companion item 10 9.E.)
CONTINUED FROM JUNE 4,2009
E. Petition: VA-200S-AR-13671, The Collier County Parks and Recreation Department, represented by
Heidi Williams, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, is requesting eleven variances from LDC
subsection 4.06.02 regarding butTer requirements and one variance from LDC subsection 4.02.03 regarding
standards for location of accessory buildings and structures, with all 12 variances being for a community
park in the Residential Single-Family (RSF-4) and Village Residential (VR) zoning districts with a
Goodland Zoning Overlay (GZO). The 2.62-acre subject property is located in Goodland, in Section IS,
Township 52 South, Range 27 East. Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: John-David Moss, AICP)
(Componion i/em 10 9 D) CONTINUED FROM JUNE 4. 2009
10. OLD BUSINESS
II. NEW BUSINESS
12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM
13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA
14. ADJOURN
6/1 iliOt.l cepe Agenda/Ray Rcllows/n
2
AGENDA ITEM 8-A
RESOLUTION NO, 09-
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF CONDITIONAL USES FOR A
RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY WITHIN A RURAL
AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT WITHIN THE NORTH
BELLE MEADE OVERLAY AND RURAL MIXED USE
DISTRICT OVERLAY FOR SENDING AREAS PURSUANT
TO SUBSECTION 2.03,01.A.l.c.12 AND SUBSECTION
2.03.08.A.4.a.(3)(b) OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR A PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS
THE RESOURCE RECOVERY PARK, ON PROPERTY
LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 1.5 MILES EAST OF COLLIER
BOULEVARD AND 1 MILE NORTH OF WHITE LAKE
BOULEVARD IN SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 67-1246, Laws of Florida.,
and Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on Collier County the power to establish,
coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection
of the public; and
WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code
(Ordinance No. 2004-41) which includes a Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance establishing
regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the
granting of Conditional Uses; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Appeals (Board), being the duly appointed and
constituted planning board for the area hereby affected, has held a public hearing after notice as
in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of Conditional Uses
for a Resource Recovery Facility within a Rural AgriculturaI Zoning District within the North
Belle Meade Overlay and Rural Mixed Use District Overlay for Sending Areas pursuant to
Subsection 2.03.01.A.1.c.12 and Subsection 2.03.08.A.4.a.(3)(b) of the Collier County Land
Development Code on the property hereinafter described for a project to be known as the
Resource Recovery Park, and the Collier County Planning Commission has found as a matter of
fact (Exhibit "A") that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all
1
applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Subsection 10.08.00.D. of
the Land Development Code; and
WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this Board
in a public meeting assembled and the Board having considered all matters presented.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that:
Petition Number CU-2008-AR-13245 filed by David Deans of PBS & J, representing
Collier County through its Solid Waste Management Department, with respect to the property
described in Exhibit "B", be and the same is hereby approved for Conditional Uses for a
Resource Recovery Facility within a Rural Agricultural Zoning District within the North Belle
Meade Overlay and Rural Mixed Use District Overlay for Sending Areas to allow 1) a
"collection and transfer site for resource recovery" pursuant to Subsection 2.03.01.A.l.c.12, and
2) "public facilities, including solid waste and resource recovery facility" and "public vehicle
and equipment storage and repair facilities" pursuant to Subsection 2.03.08.A.4.a.(3)(b) of the
Collier County Land Development Code, for a project to be known as the Resource Recovery
Park, in accordance with the Conceptual Site Plan described in Exhibit "C" and subject to the
conditions found in Exhibit "D". Exhibits "A", "B", "e" and "D" are attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this
Board.
This Resolution adopted after motion, second, and super-majority vote, this _ day of
,2009.
2
ATTEST:
Dwight E. Brock, Clerk
By:
, Deputy Clerk
Approved as to form
and legal sufficiency:
HEIDI ASHTON-CICKO
Assistant County Attorney
Exhibits attached:
A.
B.
C.
D.
08-CPS-00845/12 HFAC 1/21/09
..l., 1:1"
..lV'"," "
~ ~.... \"
//\r.1I
, \
\J
Findings of Fact
Legal Description
Conceptual Site Plan
Conditions
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
COLLIER COUNTY, FWRIDA
By:
DONNA FIALA, Chairman
3
FINDING OF FACT
BY
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FOR
A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION
FOR
CU-2008-AR-13245
The following facts are found:
1. Sections 2.03.02.E.!.c.5 and 2,03.07.L.5.c.v. of the Land Development Code
authorized the conditional use.
2. Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest and will not
adversely affect other property or uses in the same district or neighborhood because
of:
A. Consistency with the Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan:
Yes / No
B. Ingress and egress to property and proposed structures thereon with particular
reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow
and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe:
Adequate ingres~ egress
YesL No_
C. Affects neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic or odor
effects :
_ No affect or / Affect mitigated by "" ~ I- S+>YJvJ..J. '-......
_ Affect cannot be mitigated
D. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district:
Compatible use within district
Yes~ No
Based on the above findings, this conditional use should, with stipulations, (copy attached) be
recommended for approval to the Board of Zoning Appeals.
CHAIRMAN,JJ)
At~
DAlE: 5'jlA -0 ~
EXHIBIT A
Pflitlf 1. ~F"
FINDING OF FACT
BY
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FOR
A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION
CU-2008-AR-13245
The following facts are fOWld:
1. Sections 2.03.02.E.1.c.5 and 2.03.07.L.5.c.v. of the Land Development Code
authorized the conditional use.
2. Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest and will not
adversely affect other property or uses in the same district or neighborhood because
of:
A.
Consistency w~ Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan:
Yes_ No
B.
Ingress and egress to property and proposed structures thereon with particular
reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow
and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe:
Adequate ingr7SS egress
Yes_ No_
C. Affects neighboring properties in relation to ooise, glare, economic Dr odor
effects:
~o lIffect or _ Affect mitigated by
L Affect cannot be mitigated
D. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district:
Compatible use ~n district
YesL No_
Based on the above findings, this conditional use should, with stipulations, (copy attached) be
recommended for approval to the Board of Zoning Appeals.
MEMBER:tJl/
)",~(~Ol
DATE:
ExHIBIT A
PI/fie ).. tlF1
FINDING OF FACT
BY
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FOR
A CONDITIONAL USE PETffiON
FOR
CU-2008-AR-13245
The following facts are found:
1. Sections 2.03.02.E.l.c.5 and 2.03.07.L.5.c.v. of the Land Development Code
authorized the conditional use.
2. Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest and will not
adversely affect other property or uses in the same district or neighborhood because
of:
A. Consistency with the Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan:
Yes v" No
B. Ingress and egress to property and proposed structures thereon with particular
reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow
and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe:
Adequate ingress & egress
Yes /' No_
C. Affects neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic or odor
effects:
_ No affect or ~ffect mitigated by 1},)tI1.b~A .snPtu-lfTlO/JS
_ Affect cannot be mitigated
D. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district:
Compatible USe within district
Yes L No _ /,VIm 'S17PJtI.-AT70'v.$
Based on the above findings, this conditional use should, with stipulations, (copy attached) be
recommended for approval to the Board of Zoning Appeals.
DATE: 5/2.1/01
&tfl1~. ~~~ '/4,Ld ~~
EXHIBIT A
PR;,t 3 t7rq
FINDING OF FACT
BY
COLLmRCOmITYp~GCOMNUSSION
FOR
A CONDITIONAL USE PETTInON
C1J-2008-~-13245
'The following facts are found:
1. Sections 2.03.02.E.l.c.5 and 2.03.07.L.5.c.v. of the Land Development Code
authorized the conditional use.
2. Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest and will not
adversely affect other property or uses in the same district or neighborhood because
of:
A. Consistency with the Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan:
Yes-L No_
B. Ingress and egress to property and proposed structures thereon with particular
reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience. traffic flow
and control, and access in case of fire or catastruphe:
Adequate ingress & egress
YesL No_
C. Affects neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic or odor
effects:
_ No affect or ~ Affect mitigated by Mf NW
_ Affect cannot be mitigated
D. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district:
Compatible use within district
YesL No_
DATE: ~'l 2./ '2t:Q<'l
MEMBER:
Based on the above findings, this conditional use should, with
recommended for approval to the Board of Zoning Appeals.
EXHIBIT A
III' E "" Il;e- 9
FINDING OF FACT
BY
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FOR
A CONDffiONAL USE PETITION
CU-2008-AR-13245
The following facts are found:
1. Sections 2.03.02.E.1.c.5 and 2.03.07.L.5.c.v. of the Land Development Code
authorized the conditional use.
2. Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest and will not
adversely affect other property or uses in the same district or neighborhood because
of:
A. Consistency with the Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan:
Yes V No
B. Ingress and egress to property and proposed structures thereon with particular
reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow
and control, and access in case of tire or catastrophe:
Adequate ingress & egress
Yes'/ No
C, Affects neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic or odor
effects:
~ No affect or _ Affect mitigated by
_ Affect cannot be mitigated
D. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district:
Compatible use within district
Yes~ No
Based on the above findings, this conditional use should, with stipulations, (copy attached) be
recommended for approval to the Board of Zoning Appeals.
DATE: ~;. I-of
MEMBER:
~~~
ExHIBIT A
PFlGI S" IIF '!
FINDING OF FACT
BY
COLLIER COUNlY PLANNING COMMISSION
FOR
A CONDITIONAL USE PETffiON
CU-2008-AR-13245
The following facts are found:
I. Sections 2.03.02.E.l.c.5 and 2.03.01.L.5.c.v. of the Land Development Code
authorized the conditional use.
2, Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest and will not
adversely affect other property or uses in the same district or neighborhood because
of:
A.
Consistency wi~e Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan:
Yes~ No_
B.
Ingress and egress to property and proposed structures thereon with particular
reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow
and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe:
Adequate ingr7& egress
Yes No
C.
Affects neighboring pr~pe . es in relation to noise, glare, economic or odor
effects: -!..
_ No affect or _ Affect mitigated by
_ Affect cannot be mitigated
D.
Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district:
Compatible use ~thin district
yes..L.. No_
Based on the above findings, this conditional use should,
recommend . fo approval to the Board of Zoning Appeals
~
....
DATE: :>
. puIations, (copy attached) be
MEMBER:
EXHIBIT A
fIJ6c 6 or r
FINDINGjOF FACT
BiY
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
i
FOR
A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION
F(j)R
CU-2008-A.R-13245
The following facts are found:
1. Sections 2.03.02.E.1.c.5 and 2.03.07.L.5.c.v. of the Land Development Code
authorized the conditional use.
2. Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest and will not
adversely affect other property or uses in the same district or neighborhood because
of:
A.
Consistency 7 Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan:
Yes_ No
Ingress and egress to property and proposed structures thereon with particular
reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow
and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe:
Adequate in&7 & egress
Yes_ No_
~::reighbOring propelties in relation to noise, glare, economic or odor
e7~,_
_ No affect or _ Affect mitigated by
_ Affect cannot be mitigated
Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district:
B.
C.
D.
Compatible use within district
Yes ~o
EXHIBIT A
Based on the above fmdings, this conditional use should, with stipulations, (
recommended for approval to the Board of Zoning Appeals.
DATE: S/~/fJJ
I '
MEMSeR
\...1.....
vl'6'L /'__~/
fJIIC,c 7 "p r
FINDING OF FACT
BY
COLLffiR COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FOR
A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION
C1J-2008-~-1324S
The following facts are found:
1. Sections 2.03.02.E.1.c.5 and 2.03.07.L.5.c.v. of the Land Development Code
authorized the conditional use.
2. Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the public jnterest and will not
adversely affect other property or uses in the same district or neighborhood because
of:
A.
Consistency 'I the Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan:
Yes No_
B.
Ingress and egress to property and proposed structures thereon with particular
reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow
and control, and access in case of fIre or catastrophe:
Adequate ingres~ egress
YesX No
C. Affects neighboring properties in relation to n,oise, ngIare, economic or odor
effects: /
_ No affect or ..:L Affect mitigated by <:&+~lAA.a:'f(rf'A.j, l.isJu. cl t'~
_ Affect cannot be mitigated e e e.- t.lCfJJ1tM.t "'-d.c..ft'ikS
D. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district:
Compatible use within district
Yes1 No_
Based on the above findings, this conditional use should, with stipulations, (copy attached) be
recommended for approval to the Board of Zoning Appeals.
DAlE: ~~/Oq
/ /
MEMBER:~1~-9 ~:uc
EXHIBIT A
fJl1~e ~ ~'1
Resource Recovery Park
CU-200S-13245
Legal Description
..,QRI_ DAH"D..llAR1..Y OCSCRtel]) A.S j-eL-OW::>:
3f"CtN AT'THF' SOOlHEA...'lT CORN::q OF SfCllON 2~. "'~SHlP 49 SaJ'!li, RA~ 75 EAST, -HNCr N1l9"50'09"'W. A..ctlG ,..[ 501.."1'-4 UNF OF
Sole seCTION 25. ... CISTAACE or- 2647 iJ9 J1:n "0 A POiNT ON TilE SOUlH '/4 COIN(R or SAC S(Cnott 25; n1[HC[ CCJH'I,,!..r[
"'~!J~'09~W. ,lo.L~ It'l SOUTH u~!:. 01- SA!:) sl:;f~ 2~. ,. OISTANCl Of- Z641,GG FLU 10 (Hl SOUHflESf COffN(R OF SAD stCflON 2.5:
n-rr-Cf. ~~r7J~ ,to, 0NCi .,..r. WfST ! ~F' CE 1l-<F SOUTHVlEST 1{. (F SAJ;l Sf~ 25. It OISTA.\l~ OF 'O1.~.~ ruT; THENCF
...e9'4S~7"F. 4 nlSTAhr.t" \7 680.97 fff'';', -"fNCF NOO"A'~W. A OfsrA...::r OF !l7J.36 FUT. THfNr.r. 5ftSl"38'oe"w" " OfSTAJrcCf 660.57
r-C("T TO -II[ V/(Sl 1/4 ::OR'l!:~ or SAIC seCTlON 2:~ TttENC( "30"27'."W. It. D1ST4HC[ ry: 6n.12 rED TO ~( NoqnnilE'ST CORNEA or
T\4:.. w...rHWE::.Sl 1/4 Cf lW:.. SOUflooWo-SI 1/4. (;. ~Hl NtRtHWc.SI 1/4 OF" SAD SEC'J"tOf\: ~: THENCE. N89'".l.!'!iO~ A OISr,wCl OF 2641..57
fU:'1 Ie A. F'Ofht ON T)-.[ CA.S! UN!.. or flit. ~CltfllW(:S.{ J4 or SAID st:cr..()h ~; l't€NCE. CON~I'!'fUE NS9"3j'5O"'t. A DISTANCE Of U20.11
:'fEr; ntEtoICE snsno'4Q"E, A OfSTAPoiCZ c;- nSO.52 fEE":'; '7HDlC[ 'SSO...trn--W. A. DJST.wcE OF' 459.7& FEn. thENCE SOC"21rOS'"L, A
)(ST,,"cr or 878 eo rITT; TI;Er.cr "'69"55'25"(, .. OfSTo\NCC or 658-82. rrET: :\<NCE NOO'2"'22"'W, 4 DlSTA.~C( Cf" 680.1&. THeNCE
"IB.IJ".(.8-i2"E, A D:S~,l.Na: Of 9H.41 flU; l1-!(NCl soo'.36"e"~, A 'JtS1ANC[ or 151!12.2B fErT; T1-f9iC( H89~~'2S~E. A OIS1ANC[ OF .531.93:
n-ncr soo'.w'n'"f. ... QtSTAhCf Of B6S.97 FF:~- TO WF: PO:NT CF arGlN"'INC.
CON1A't.NG .H-4.' AC'([S. wOWl DR l.ESS.
Exhibit B
.s12.TI01
· "iR ~l f~' .fl~~ I
. I.~ I' =- -Ii 'f fit
i Hi ,i '-~ , hi hfir I
~ r ~l \ pi HiL' ,I!
i i .~ _\i' .,
_....L._____ --
~A.,
!ill :'~Ei
" ~!!!!
N~
~/;
m~
~"i
iln
,II
,'m
!
I
=f<i
t 0
~U
'.
-~~
~!I
"!I
? l(!
~ bl
~g ill
%C '
m% .
I'~ '
~~)
I I,
.
I
r
!"f
"'
l[
i'ij
'V,
ill
(J)'
m'
~,
~,
!:
.i!Hi;--",-H. .
!!liI" ~
~og
zJc
c~~
II
PBSJ 5-'100 - CJlP'n~SI'_1 Suil.. 2fXJ
m T<>mp<l, n",>t/o .ll6'"
X Tei ("IJ) 282-727fj
:I: F,,~. (lJI3) 2"S_120J
C6 htfp //"-1'1>"'1"-'
=<
"
Nm~
omo
~~~
~rn~
~
m
......CICI.1lYt~TE~
.
'm~ ~
I
- ~.
"
~ ij
! .
I II
< il
i
1
j
.,
I
l
Conceptual SIte Plan
R.sou~ Rec:ov.ry Park
Solid w_" ............. o.~
oa:>uo..._...._1S[
I
!
il
\\
I ~ - -[:;;
~ _ _ lit
: ~ ~ ullil ~
I - i3~li'
.. ! i ;~S ,j
I . ~~i'l.
I . -,"w-
I ~ ;...Aii" ~
I ; O~~~";
ro S!..(~..~f'1
I( ,i 'i~iM
11;<11 ~~,
JJ" I Z'_
.11 !?a.!!i
I ': m~
~.,m
.j~~
::~
,.
0'
o
,
,
I
,
I
I
.,
,
,
I
,
,
,
~
'"
"
Nm
og
z~
\'l"
~i2
n~
Cn
~
c
m
d' .,
;< I' ,
. IJ I qf., I
...... I I as , ,
, I
,
I ,I; ~ " I
,
I '. . I
I I ~~ ~ ~
1;- €nl~ I
I ,
.,
I .,
I H m !: n
I ~n~ 11
I
. I !~ -I I: !
I ,
I , I
I . I
il . I
~~j~ I ,
,
,
~~ II "
II ,
,
· IIJI;1 '1= 'F I!F 1m P Ii m i
; : hii' Mlil Hit =iU If.n In !
H t r! 'I! r! ~ln . Pi'} ..
I ll~t ,t~ ff~ ii~ t:Ji tf'i~ tli
I if I, .~ · h. ;i~' . H
I .t f I:; ~~ H~! ti. · i" Ill.
o'it I" .; ii' ~ {, i.i il
~, if i' 1 ~ ~1i"J I
\'l ~
>> ~
N
o
Z
~
ll~~
"
.
March 11, 2008
Revised June " 2009
CONDITIONS OF APPROV AL
Collier County Resource Recovery Park
CU-2008-AR-13245
1. The Resource Recovery Park shall be limited to that which is depicted on the conceptual site
plan. identified as the "Collier County Resource Recovery Park" dated March 11, 2008 and
last revised June 1,2009, prepared by PBS&J; and
2. The site plan noted is conceptual in nature for Conditional Use approval. The final design
must be in compliance with all applicable federal, state and county laws and regulations; and
3. The Department of Zoning and Land Development Review Director may approve minor
changes in the location, siting, or height of buildings, structures, and improvements
authorized by this conditional use, so long as these minor changes remain consistent with all
applicable development standards; and
4. Expansion of uses identified and approved within this Conditional Use approval, or major
changes to the approved plan, shall require the submittal of a new conditional use
application, and shall comply with all applicable County ordinances in effect at the time of
submittal, including Chapter 10.02.03, of the Collier County Land Development Code,
Ordinance 04-41, as amended, for Site Development Plan (SDP) review and approval; and
5. If it is judicially determined or otherwise agreed to by the County, then the County shall
provide access to the outparcels identified on the Boundary Survey as #40, #41, and #42 (all
of which are located within the easternmost tract identified on the site plan as "Out Parcel
10.20 Ac Zoned-A"). Said access shall be to Garland Road or other public or private road.
Preserve area calculations shall not be affected by such access; and
6. No permanent access onto 31" Street SW shall be granted as part of this Conditional Use
approval; however, this condition shall not be construed to preclude any temporary
emergency access that may be required by any other government agency; and
7. The 39 acres of off-site mitigation shall bc identified prior to Site Development Plan
approval; and
8. A Red Cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) management plan will be required to be submitted
and approved as part of the next development order.
9. The hours of operation shall be the same as the landfill; and
10. All individual sites within developed area shall be designed as drive-thru as much as
possible to minimize backup movements by vehicles;
11. A 200' wide preserve buffer shall be provided along western side of property;
12. Processing of yard waste shall be on the south side of the property as much as possible with
staging to the north; and
13, Recycling processing machinery shall be enclosed in a building.
Revised 6/2/09 to reflect cepe changes
EXHIBIT 0
m !;di 9,-6"
III (fl <: Ul]
g:9:af 8"><
~;!! ~~~.
:a @ en ",5f!!l. 10
~tIl~ ;i=~r
..~~ I~I li
ii
II
-- -
o
tlIrv )>>0
roc:!-t -l~g:lD~
~~~ ~({j~~~~
z!fo ~lB 5"~a~
s(fl' ([)Z~o~(')
sa:~ ~~[G~~
~o@ ~"
KhLo
--- '^I
~.~~ ~
"'~"'< ~m~
"~r '+ ..,,-02
~ ~ .....>ZCfij
m . ~~nl
0-<
m Z
~
:u
N< ""gQ
0)> ,+ gm~
Zo ~~~
m)> :"'=<!ZO
Oz ~ OS;
ni:"!'Irri
:1>" ~>
~~~
~~
JI~ ~
~ ~
O~ m ;:g-; ~~~
>[tj ~ omjj o _
. O-C ~~m fi(J)rrl
< 1:(1)0
~ ~ z
m
0
~
\
"-
'-...
I~ III
~i~ I
",JS
~,
q~~
CD~~
c . 0
..~O
~1ii
~o
,+ 8~
:;;::CJIZ
0.,.,0
~~~
~~
~
~~
~S;go
. ~r
~m~
0<0
. ~~
-<-<
m
II
;
I
I
I
~I
,~ I'
o 0
o >
~Il
".
.....(1) i
.g ~ I
o 0
~<5'
5=~
o .
,;
3
o
o
r
r
m
;0
NO
00
ZC
mz
'?::;!
)>
S;; ,
~11',
j= I
r ,
I
,
t
, ,
~ '
Z
m
~
J
~
/
~
o
~~
'+ g~
~fiim
wla""
N~"
O~>O
~~~C
<;J>m-l
;00,
~.~
;ii
,.
_m
..
~~
~
CIJ
m
~
~
m
x
!1
5'
~
Ii
o
.
.
~~
~~
m
ro
~
\
It
;
I
~.8 4' g ~
!;;.~. $ if:;!
~.""o
I- 3 ([)..i5 -U
~ Qi' 5. ~
, ,,=. ~
I ~ 6" 3 :<
8: 3 ~ ([)
~H~~
1lI _. CD <e:
-::J..... ::;"
~3' ~ ~
:::I (: 0 III
, .... 3?5' g.
, ~ r;r (i3-<'
(jj5.3~
::J.Ul 0 ([)
e!.@Diiii
~ ~ '; a
'<CT::TUl
lif~ ~~
9: a.([)
"
N.
o
z
m
o
:I>
~
c
""Dm~
a ~ m
1iio)>
~3g
'< r.
L.~!:l
o~)>
wale-
-0
~
IIi
hh
~
.
:E~
o~
~.
s;;~8
zzC
omZ
o::;!
o
)>on. rv
-im5.~q
~Ui[::fl[;;'~
Ull1l:J~:J"'O
::T!\l -la.(ll
Cll z 4' 0 !l! ()
!E. 0 ([l III M
.....ib:(lltl-g
~"
.
GI\RLANOROAD
N
o
z
m
o
:I>
m
X
I
OJ
=i
SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 49 S, RANGE 26 E
5300 West Cypress Street Suite 200
Tampa, Florida 33607
Tel. (813) 282-7275
Fox, (813) 286-1207
http://www.pbsjcom
~
~
Ii
I'
I'
,I
Gl
NmO
OUl5
z)!m
m"z
t?mG)
mUl)>
"
m
~
~
I
.~
II
il
~ ~ o~
~ ~ ill~
iii 0 ~.~
~ ~i~ ~
s~ ~CIJ
W ~(') m
~Q~ d ~
)>. Sil 0 ):>
ii~ ~i ~
iii"'~ z!9),:
iii~~ ~.~
b~ .t:z
~~ ~
-r ~
~ bl
;
I
....0'l0l~
ltl 00'
g?f.?f.~
@aatll
~~~
Cilltlltl a
8o-:';:tlI
<0"......:;;1
.!i""@
. a. 5: ~
. ,
m.1i'
o Cil ()
."",0
i'l_,
_00
Q Cil n
~ 3 ~
_00
is: S' ~
. c 0
o 0 ~
.~A
1D~p"
o .
a.g
[
i
~
Conceptual Site Plan
Resource Recovery Park
Solid Waste Management Department
,
~
tl
,I
"
,I
MAIN GOLDEN GATE CANAL
N~"
~~:iJo
mOne
o)>m-l
1-0r
f
"om
/D&,:""
8' OJ 0
.gs
~~a
-< ~tlI
--0
o ~ n
o 0 .
~ it!.
~o"
rn il.g
/D 2.
"3 r
. c 0
3 0
~w
00
'~
8'0
-'"
. '"
..
~w
cr'
o .
0:1 ;=,:
~.
a
3
-.~
15tl1.
1J1B ~
.30
. " n
ltl ;a 8
, . ,
oo~
)>,0
Cil 8 @
~ ~ ~.
~ :T
,,0
~o
. ~
< 0
.0
;Ow
00
o ~
~. ~
CJ::
~,
~~
. '
~o
~o
5'
-I
o
~
,
"
;U
o
~
m
o
-I
)>
;U
\!)
.
~
] CJ
r
m
"
m
z
o
~[JII~~
~~8~~~
~--;:lJ:!!:m
r~:::!:!!:m)>
en. O:E Z:xl
.:EZ>-I~
~~F:rri:iJ.
~~~;:lJ~~
,.~rnS;~~
01Jmz......)>
~ 1J;:lJ)> r-J.
o~~ffi,.0
~m;;os:0d
r&;2::~-I-I
mc-l~~
~~~~
~o~U;
en'Tl.m
_0 m
0::0 1+ Z
OIll~O
~~N-I
~ri1"~
Z;:tIfJ~
-tz-t
cnGl~
~. )>
om'
)>'
, ~
,,)>
h
-I
o
~
r
-,~
IiI
)>
h
~
Ii
n
I
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
I
o
Nm
00
zC
m"
oGl
:1>0
,r
O'T1
CO
r
C
III
II
II
II
II
II
II
II I
II
II
II...-J
I
II
II
II
II
III
II
II "
II ~
II ~
II ~
II g
II ~
II ~
II
H"::
V II
'.11
a II
II
II
II
lf~
IIi
t
N
q
3
~
N
o
Z
m
o
:I>
(j)S22 ~
J?s:s~
:!!: n m ~
o ~ ~:u
g]a.iai2,
"Cl!!!.a3.
Illltl .... -.
\Jla15g
iii' g g ~
a].... if
;0:;;1::1'....
ltl a. 'Tl 0
<1Il-.....
~. g.~ 8
ClJlOlll -
<'\lm~o
11-g!!l. 3
g ~.~ m
0l3:!!:....
N(I) III s:
N a ffi ltl
-.0
"' 0
'" 3
.
"
if~ ~.g ~
.... 0 , III -t
OIfr8-g,<
~:g ltl a:
~ ltl ~. 0
........ g. r
~a~:r~
aoOa.
:E .... :;;I III
III ltl ~ g
s'3ma:
<:;". .....0'
a:Qiir~
III n ::J <tI
~ 0 ~;;;
III 3 s:l :::T
Q Q""'O!!!..
a.51<tl;
a g~:
3 :T ~ r>.)
Qltl:e!;:
ltl ~ g8
~;Illr
~a 0.:
o ..
ocr~
~ c'
-g,~~
~ , 0
2:lIllC
o ~.
""C!!!..o
C3~
~a:~
g,~~
0-0
~o~
0:1 Q.:;;I
ltl/5'<:O
2 nil
c 0 cr
"l'!:: III
. " n
3 -< ~
~5~
!/lOa.
. ..
" 0
~~
Q@
1ii
"
<;;
z
z
Z
Gl
z
o
-I
m
!"
m
,
~
~
Il~;
'I I
I
I
~
March 11,2008
Revised June 1, 2009
eepe recommended changes are indicated by dark red/merlot typeface.
'1A
5.06.00 SIGN REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS BY LAND USE CLASSIFICATION
A. Definitions. The definitions of the following terms shall apply to the requirements
of the Land Development Code, in particular this section 5.06.00, to be known as
the "Collier County Sign Code."
Activated sign: Any sign which contains or uses for illumination any light,
lighting device, or lights which change color, flash, or alternate; or change
appearance of said sign or any part thereof automatically; any sign which
contains moving parts as part of its normal operation, such as rotating signs,
shall be considered an activated sign.
Animated/Activated sign: A sign depicting or involving action, motion,
through electrical or mechanical means.
. ^ Level 1 Animated Sign is a static dislllay on whiGh messages are
changed with no transition in Golor. The interval between message
Ghanges shall be no less than 15 seGonds.
. ^ Level 2 Animated Sign is a statiG dislllay with "fade" or "dissolve"
transitions or similar slIbtle transitions and frame effeGts that do not
have the allllearanGe of mo'ting text.
. ^ Level 3 Animated Sign is a statiG dislllay with "fade", "dissolve",
"travel", or "sGrolling" transitions, or similar transitions and frame
effeGts that ha'le text or animated images that allllear to move or
change in size, or be re'lealed seqllentially rather than all at onGe.
. A Level 4 Animated Sign is a dislllay with filII animation, flashing
grallhiGs and ,'ideo dislllays.
Awning sign: (aka canopy sign or marquee sign): A sign suspended from
or forming part of a shelter supported partially or entirely by the exterior wall of a
building or structure.
Banner sign: A temporary sign on lightweight material and either enclosed
or not enclosed on a rigid frame, and secured or mounted to allow motion caused
by the atmosphere.
Billboard sign: A sign advertising an establishment, merchandise, service,
or entertainment, which is not sold, produced, manufactured, or furnished at the
premises upon which the sign is located
Bulk permit: A permit issued for any number of signs.
Canopy sign: (See Awning, sign.)
Changeable copy: A sign or portion of a sign upon which messages may
be changed manually through the utilization of attachable letters, numbers,
symbols and other similar graphics which are mounted in or on a track system.
Construction sign: A sign erected on premises under construction.
Directional sign. A ground or wall sign located within, or at the exit or
1
1:\08 Amend the LDC\Sign Code\CAO's Ordinance\Sign Code Revision per cepe (060509).doc
't" ,,\ t\
t"r ·
._{.,...;\ .. <t.J I Ai:,'''''' ;
. '\t.. J ....~J1NnIH.....
eepe recommended changes are indicated by dark red/merlot typeface.
entrance of a parcel or development.
Directory sign: A sign located at the entrance to a multiple-occupancy
parcel or multiple parcels developed under a unified plan of development. This
sign may be a freestanding (pole, monument or ground), awning, or wall sign.
Double-faced sign: A sign having two display surfaces, displaying the
same copy on both faces, which are parallel and back-to-back and not more than
24 inches apart. Double f3ced signs Sh311 be me3sured by only 1 side if both
sides displ3Y the C3me mess3ge!gr3phics
Electric sign: Any sign containing electric wiring, but not including signs
illuminated by exterior light sources, such as floodlights.
Flag: A sign made of material secured on 1 side from a flagpole such that
the sign material hangs when not set in motion by the movement of air.
Flagpole: A freestanding, ground mounted, structure or a structure
mounted to a building, or to the roof of a building and used for the sole purpose
of displaying a flag.
Freestanding sign: (See Pole sign)
Ground sign: A sign that is supported by one or more columns, upright
poles, or braces extended from the ground or from an object on the ground, or
that is erected on the ground, where no part of the sign is attached to any part of
a building.
Hand-held sign: A sign held or waved by a person.
Illuminated sign: An illuminated sign is one which either: (a) provides
artificial light through exposed bulbs, lamps, or luminous tubes on the sign
surface; (b) emits light through transparent or translucent material from a source
within the sign; or (c) reflects light from a source intentionally directed upon it.
Inflatable sign: Any object made of plastic, vinyl, or other similar material
that, when inflated with gas or air, represents, advertises, or otherwise draws
attention to a product, service, or activity.
Institutional use: Five or more contiguous acres developed under unified
ownership as part of a unified plan of development and used predominantly for
educational, medical or governmental purposes.
Mansard sign: Any sign which is attached to a mansard-style roof with the
face parallel to the structure to which it is attached and which does not project
more than 18 inches from such structure, or above the roofline. Mansard signs
shall be considered wall signs.
Marquee sign. (See Awning sign.)
Mobile billboard. Any sign displayed upon a vehicle where the principal
purpose of the vehicle is not general transportation, but the display of the sign
itself.
Monument sign: A ground sign with low overall height. Typically, the
base is nearly as wide as the sign itself.
Mural sign: A sign that is a painting or an artistic work comprised of
2
1:\08 Amend the LDC\Sign Code\CAO's Ordinance\Sign Code Revision per cepe (060509).doc
,
eepe recommended changes are indicated by dark red/merlot typeface.
photographs or arrangements of color that displays a commercial or
noncommercial message, relies solely on the side of the building for rigid
structural support, and is painted on the building or depicted on vinyl, fabric, or
other similarly flexible materials that is held in place flush or flat against the
surface of a building.
Nonconforming sign: Any sign or advertising structure lawfully in
existence within Collier County on the date this ordinance became effective
(November 14, 1991) or was subsequently amended, which by its height, area,
location, use or structure does not conform to the requirements of the sign code.
This definition shall not be construed to include signs specifically prohibited by
this LDC.
Off-premise directional sign: A sign that is displayed for a building,
structure, or use that is located on another premise. A billboard is not an off-
premise directional sign.
On-premises sign: A sign displayed on a premises. A sign containing non-
commercial speech is considered an on-premises sign.
Pennant sign: A triangular shaped sign or series of signs made of paper,
plastic, or fabric of any kind intended to be hung by being tethered along its base.
Permanent sign: A sign which is affixed to a building or the ground in
such a manner as to be immobile.
Pole sign: A sign, 8 feet in height or greater that is independent of support
from any building, that is mounted on freestanding poles or other supports.
Portable sign: Any sign which is designed to be transported by trailer or
on its own wheels, even though the wheels may be removed and the remaining
chassis is attached to the ground. It is characteristic of such sign that a portion of
the space provided for display consists of a changeable copy sign.
Projecting sign: Any sign which is attached to and which projects, more
than 18 inches from the outside wall of any building or structure, excluding wall,
marquee, and canopy signs.
Real estate sign: A ground or building sign erected on premises for sale,
lease, or exchange.
Reasonable repairs and maintenance: The work necessary to keep the
sign, including the sign structure, in a good state of repair; but shall not include
replacement of materials in the sign structure or any change to the graphics or
message displayed.
Revolving sign (a/kla rotating sign): Any sign so erected or constructed as
to periodically or continuously change the direction toward which any plane
containing the display surface is oriented.
Roof sign: Any sign erected, constructed, or maintained either on the roof,
or more than 18 inches above the roof of any building.
Sandwich board/sidewalk sign: A sign not secured or attached to the
ground or surface upon which it is located, but supported by its own frame and
most often forming the cross-sectional shape of the letter A when viewed from
the side. Sandwich boardlsidewalk signs are not considered portable signs.
3
1:\08 Amend the LDC\Sign Code\CAO's Ordinance\Sign Code Revision per CCPC (060509).doc
eepe recommended changes are indicated by dark red/merlot typeface.
Sign: Any visual fepresentation intended to advertise, identify, or
communicate information to attract the attention of the public for any purpose and
includes any symbols, letters, figures, illustrations, graphics or forms painted or
otherwise affixed to any structure or device.
Sign area: The entire area within the periphery of a regular geometric
form or combination of regular geometric forms comprising all of the display area
of the sign and including all the elements of the matter displayed. Signs
consisting of detached letters shall also be measured as defined above.
Sign face: The area, display surface, or part of a sign on which the
graphic is placed.
Sign structure: Any structure which supports or is capable of supporting
sign. This definition shall not include a building to which a sign is attached.
Snipe sign: A sign made of any material and attached to a utility pole,
tree, fence post, stake, stick, mailbox, or any similar object.
Temporary sign: A sign bearing a message which is displayed before,
during and after an event, to which the sign relates, and which is scheduled to
take place at a specific time and place.
Under-canopy/blade sign' A small projecting sign either illuminated or
non-illuminated designed to be suspended from a canopy or to project from a
wall above a walkway that aids pedestrians in locating store entrances.
Unified development plan. Land, under unified control, to be planned and
developed as a whole in a single development or a programmed series of
development phases.
V-shaped sign: Two single-face freestanding signs that are constructed in
the form of a "V" when viewed from above, provided the internal angle at the
apex is not more than 90 degrees, and the two faces are not separated by more
than six inches at the apex and displaying the same message on both faces.
Wall sign, fascia or parapet: A sign affixed in a manner to any exterior
wall of a building or structure, and which is parallel to and projects not more than
18 inches from the building or structure wall, and which does not extend more
than 18 inches above the roof line of the main building. Signs attached to parapet
walls shall not exceed the height of the parapet wall.
Window sign: A window sign which is painted on, attached to, or visible
through a window, excluding displays of merchandise.
4
1:\08 Amend the LDC\Sign Code\CAO's Ordinance\Sign Code Revision per cepe (060509).doc
eepe recommended changes are indicated by dark red/merlot typeface.
5.06.01 Generally
A. Purpose and intent. The purpose of this sign code is to provide the minimum
control of signs necessary to promote the health, safety and general welfare of
the citizens of Collier County, Florida, by lessening hazards to pedestrians and
vehicular traffic, by preserving property values, by preventing unsightly and
detrimental signs that detract from the aesthetic appeal of the county and lead to
economic decline and blight, by preventing signs from reaching such excessive
size and numbers that they obscure one another to the detriment of the county,
by assuring good and attractive design that will strengthen the county's
appearance and economic base, and by preserving the right of free speech and
expression in the display of signs.
5.06.02 Development Standards for Signs within Residential Districts
A. Noncommercial signs are allowed in all districts and may be substituted for any
sign expressly allowed under this ordinance, and any sign permitted by this
ordinance may display a noncommercial message. Noncommercial signs are
subject to the same permit requirements, restrictions on size and type, and other
conditions and specifications as apply to the sign for which they are being
substituted.
B. Applicability. Signs within residential zoning districts, and in designated
residential portions of PUD zoned properties shall be permitted as provided for in
this section.
1. Development standards.
a. Maximum allowable height. All signs within residential zoning
districts, and as applicable to designated residential portions of
PUD zoned properties, are limited to a maximum height of 8 feet,
or as otherwise provided within this Code. Height shall be
measured from the lowest centerline grade of the nearest public or
private right-of-way. or easement to the uppermost portion of the
sign structure.
b. Minimum setback. All signs within residential zoning districts and
as applicable to designated residential portions of PUD zoned
properties shall be located no closer than 10 feet from the
property line, unless otherwise noted below or as provided for in
section 9.03.07 of the LDC. When a property line encompasses a
portion of the roadway, then the setback shall be no less than 10
feet from the edge of the roadway, paved surface or back of the
curb, as applicable, unless otherwise provided for in this section.
c. If the applicant is not the property owner, then a copy of a
notarized authorization letter between the property owner or
property manager and the applicant is required, specifically
authorizing approval of the erection of a sign on the subject
parcel.
5
1:\08 Amend the LDC\Sign Code\CAO's Ordinance\Sign Code Revision per cepe (060509).doc
eepe recommended changes are indicated by dark red/merlot typeface.
d. Double-faced signs shall be measured by only one side if both
sides are the same.
e. The use of fluorescent colors on signs is prohibited
f. The permit number shall be displayed or affixed at the base of the
sign structure and shall have the same life expectancy as the
sign. Such permit number shall be clearly legible to a person
standing 5 feet in front of the base of the sign and, in no case,
shall the permit number be less than Y, inch in size
g. No signs shall be permitted on a vacant lot or parcel, unless a
building permit or clearing permit has been issued, with the
exception of real estate signs which may be allowed on parcels
less than 10 acres
2. Real estate signs. The following signs classified as real estate signs
shall be permitted in residential districts subject to the following.
a. One ground sign with a maximum height of 6 feet or wall sign,
with a maximum area of 4 square feet, per street frontage for
each parcel, or lot less than 1 acre in size. Such sign shall be
located no closer than 10 feet from any adjacent residential
property and may be placed up to the property line abutting a
right-of-way, provided it is a minimum of 10 feet from the edge of
the roadway, paved surface or back of the curb, as applicable. No
building permit is required.
b. One ground sign with a maximum height of 8 feet or wall sign,
with a maximum sign area of 12 square feet, per street frontage
for each parcel, or lot 1-10 acres in size. No building permit
required.
c. One pole sign with a maximum height of 15 feet or wall sign,
with a maximum sign area of 64 square feet, per street frontage
for each parcel or lot in excess of 10 acres. A building permit is
required.
d. Real estate signs shall be located a minimum of 10 feet from any
property line.
e. A real estate sign shall be removed within 7 days after a sale,
rental, or exchange has been completed. A sign advertising that
a property has been sold or leased shall not be displayed for more
than 14 days after it is installed.
3. Open House Signs.
a. Off-premises open house signs.
6
1:\08 Amend the LDC\Sign Code\CAO's Ordinance\Sign Code Revision per cepe (060509).doc
eepe recommended changes are indicated by dark red/merlot typeface.
i. Signs may only be displayed on supervised open house
days, between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. No
flags, pennants, balloons, or other attention type devices
may be used with such signs and they shall not be lighted
or illuminated in any manner.
ii. One sign may be placed in the public right-of-way
abutting the subject property no closer than 10 feet from
the edge of the roadway, paved surface or back of the
curb, as applicable. No building or right-of-way permit is
required.
iii. Two signs may be placed within the public right-of-way
for a supervised open house that is available for immediate
viewing and examination by prospective buyers, renters,
andlor lessees. Such signs shall be located no closer
than 100 feet from another sign providing direction. (No
building or right-of-way permit required.)
iv. Signs shall not exceed 4 square feet in area and 4 feet in
height; however, any such sign placed at an intersection
may not exceed 29 inches in height as per section 6.05.05
of this Code.
v. Signs may be placed in the right-of-way no closer than 10
feet from the edge of the roadway, paved surface or back
of the curb, as applicable, and shall not interfere with the
visibility of pedestrians or motorists. Additionally, signs
shall not be located within any median.
vi. Sign Removal, Retrieval, and Disposal. Off-premises
open house signs shall be prohibited except as specified
above. Any such sign found to be in violation of this
section shall be removed by the County Manager or
designee. All such removed signs are subject to disposal
by the County. This section shall not inhibit nor prevent
any other enforcement actions that may be deemed
appropriate.
4. Construction signs. Signs may be erected and located upon the site
under construction. Such signs shall be securely built and allowed under
the following restrictions.
a. One ground sign with a maximum height of 6 feet or wall sign,
with a maximum sign area of 4 square feet, may be used as a
construction sign or as a permit board within each front yard for
each parcel less than one acre in size. No building permit is
required.
b. One ground sign with a maximum height of 8 feet or wall sign,
7
1:\08 Amend the LDC\Sign Code\CAO's Ordinance\Sign Code Revision per cepe (060509).doc
eepe recommended changes are indicated by dark red/merlot typeface.
with a maximum sign area of 12 square feet, may be used as a
construction sign or as a permit board, within each front yard
for each parcel 1-10 acres in size. No building permit is required.
c. One pole sign with a maximum height of 15 feet or wall sign,
with a maximum sign area of 64 square feet, may be used as a
construction sign or as a permit board, within each front yard
for each parcel in excess of 10 acres. A building permit is
required.
d. In addition to those signs identified above, 1 ground or wall sign,
with a maximum sign area of 4 square feet and a maximum
height of 6 feet, may be used as a construction sign regardless
of parcel size No building permit required.
e. Construction signs may be placed on a site when either a
building permit is issued or a permit is issued to clear the site. All
constructions signs shall be removed prior to the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy for the structure.
5. On-premises directional signs. Directional signs no greater than 4 square
feet in area, 4 feet in height, and located internal to the subdivision or
development may be allowed under the following restrictions.
a. Each sign shall be setback a minimum of 10 feet from the edge of
the roadway, paved surface or back of the curb, as applicable.
b. These signs may be combined into 1 sign with a maximum area of
24 square feet and a maximum height of 8 feet. Such combined
signs require a building permit.
6. On-premises signs within residential districts. Two ground signs with a
maximum height of 8 feet or wall, residential entrance or gate signs with a
maximum height of 8 feet may be located at each entrance to a multi-
family or single-family development and mobile home or recreational
vehicle park subject to the following requirements:
a. Such signs shall maintain a 10-foot setback from any property line
unless placed on a fence or wall subject to the restrictions set
forth in section 5.03.02 "Fences and Walls." Furthermore, bridge
signs located on private bridges directly leading to private
communities shall not be considered off-premises signs. Bridge
signs complying with the requirements of section 5.06.02 may be
substituted for ground or wall signs in residential districts.
b. The ground or wall signs shall not exceed a combined area of 64
square feet, and shall not exceed the height or length of the wall
or gate upon which it is located.
c. Architectural embellishments less than 10 square feet in area shall
not be considered signs and shall be allowed throughout the
development. However, should such architectural
8
1:\08 Amend the LDC\Sign Code\CAO's Ordinance\Sign Code Revision per cepe (060509).doc
eepe recommended changes are indicated by dark red/merlot typeface.
embellishments be located closer than 10 feet to any sign, then
the architectural embellishment shall be counted toward the
permitted sign area of such sign.
d. Official Address Numbers or range of Official Address Numbers
shall be displayed in numerals at least 6 inches high on the upper
50 percent of the sign face and located such that it shall not be
covered by landscaping or other appurtenances. Where signs
are erected on streets that do not match the Official Address
Number of the building, no address numbers shall be posted on
the sign.
7. Signs for nonresidential uses within residential zoning districts and as
applicable to designated residential portions of PUD zoned properties:
a. Such signs shall follow the requirements for signs within
nonresidential districts, except as follows:
i. Illuminated signs shall not be allowed facing residential
uses unless the nonresidential use is separated from the
residential use by an arterial or collector road.
II. Commercial signage for conditional uses within
residential and agricultural districts.
8. Conditional uses within the residential and agricultural districts.
a. Properties granted uses within the residential district are
permitted one wall sign with a maximum of 32 square feet. Corner
lots are permitted two such wall signs.
b. Properties granted conditional uses within the agricultural district
in the urban area, residential and estates districts with a street
frontage of 150 feet or more are permitted a ground sign with a
maximum height of 8 feet and a maximum area of 44 square feet.
9. Single-family residential signs. In all residential land use districts and
agricultural district properties used for single-family residential use as
designated in the Collier County Land Development Code,
a. One noncommercial ground or wall sign shall be allowed per
premise, not to exceed 6 square feet in size and 3 feet in height.
b. Home occupation signs are not permitted. See section 5.02.00.
c. Nothing contained in this section shall be construed to permit the
display of signs when otherwise prohibited or restricted by private
restrictions or covenants of residential property.
10. Mobile billboard. It shall be unlawful for any person to display or construct
any mobile billboard.
11. Flags & Flagpoles. Residential properties including Estates, Con &
Agricultural zoned districts with residential uses that have been issued a
9
1:\08 Amend the LDC\Sign Code\CAO's Ordinance\Sign Code Revision per cepe (060509).doc
eepe recommended changes are indicated by dark red/merlot typeface.
certificate of occupancy are permitted up to three flags on a single
flagpole
a. On single-family and duplex lots a flagpole shall not exceed 30
feet in height above finished grade or extend more than 20 feet
from any building to which it is are attached.
b On all other residentially zoned parcels a flagpole shall not
exceed 35 feet in height above finished grade or extend more than
20 feet from any building to which it is attached.
c. Residential developments at least 10 acres in size having
multiple entrances, may have up to 3 flagpoles at each entrance
that provides ingresslegress off an arterial or collector road,
provided that there is a minimum 300-foot separation between
entrances.
I. Four additional flagpoles may be permitted within a
residential development provided that the flagpoles are
not visible to motorists along any frontage roadways.
d. Flagpoles in excess of 15 feet shall have the flagpole foundation
or flagpole attachment designlconstruction plan signed and sealed
by a design professional enginoer licensed in tho St3te of as
provided for in the Florida Building Code. The designlconstruction
plan shall indicate the maximum flag area that the flagpole is
capable of supporting
e. All flagpoles shall have a minimum five foot setback from all
property lines.
f. All flagpoles that are permitted must display their permit number at
the base of the flagpole in, at minimum, 'h inch numerals.
5.06.03 Development Standards for Signs for Institutional Uses
A. Applicability. These requirements apply to signs for institutional use facilities
where signs are informational and contain no commercial message.
1. Signage for these facilities is exempt from the requirements provided in
section 5.06.02 B.8 Conditional uses within residential and agricultural
districts.
2. In addition, the number of signs, location and distance restrictions per
section 5.06.04 E. shall not apply to institutional use signage.
3. Applications for such sign permits must be applied for according to the
requirements of section 5.06.11 of the LDC.
10
1:\08 Amend the LDC\Sign Code\CAO's Ordinance\Sign Code Revision per cepe (060509).doc
eepe recommended changes are indicated by dark red/merlot typeface.
5.06.04 Development Standards for Signs in Nonresidential Districts.
A. Noncommercial signs are allowed in all districts and may be substituted for any
sign expressly allowed under this ordinance, and any sign permitted by this
ordinance may display a noncommercial message. Noncommercial signs are
subject to the same permit requirements, restrictions on size and type, and other
conditions and specifications as apply to the sign for which a noncommercial
message is being substituted for a commercial message.
B. Applicability. Signs within nonresidential zoning districts and in designated
nonresidential portions of PUD zoned properties shall be permitted as provided
for in this section.
C. Development standards.
1. The maximum size limitation shall apply to each structure. Pole or ground
signs may be placed back to back or in V-type construction, when both
sides bear the same graphic display; then such sign structure shall be
considered as one sign.
2. Spot or floodlights shall be permitted only where such spot or floodlight is
non revol'ling static and light shines only on the owner's premises or
signs and away from any right-of-way.
3. The use of accent lighting 3S defined by the L3nd Development Code is
prohibited on signs.
4. The use of fluorescent colors on signs is prohibited.
5. If the applicant is not the owner of the property, then a copy of a
notarized authorization letter between the property owner or property
manager and the applicant is required, specifically authorizing approval
of the erection of a sign on the subject parcel.
6. Official Address Numbers andlor the range of Official Address Numbers
shall be posted within the upper third portion of the sign face for
commercial signage that utilizes the following sign types: pole sign,
ground sign, and directory sign. Address numbers on signs shall be a
minimum height of 8 inches. Where signs are erected on streets that do
not match the building address, no address numbers shall be posted on
the sign. Address numbers shall not count as sign copy, unless address
numbers exceed 12 inches in height.
7. The permit number shall be displayed or affixed at the base of the sign
structure and shall have the same life expectancy as the sign. Such
permit number shall be clearly legible to a person standing 5 feet in front
of the base of the sign and, in no case, shall the permit number be less
than Y, inch in size
8. Double-faced signs shall be measured by one side only if both sides
display the same graphics.
11
1:\08 Amend the LDC\Sign Code\CAO's Ordinance\Sign Code Revision per cepe (060509).doc
eepe recommended changes are indicated by dark red/merlot typeface.
9. No signs shall be permitted on a vacant lot or parcel, unless a building
permit or clearing permit has been issued, with the exception of real
estate signs which may be allowed on parcels less than 10 acres.
D. Real estate signs shall be permitted in nonresidential districts subject to the
following:
1. One ground sign with a maximum height of 10 feet or wall sign with a
maximum sign area of 12 square feet per street frontage for each
parcel, or lot less than 1 acre in size. No building permit is required.
2. One ground sign with a maximum height of 10 feet or wall sign with a
maximum area of 32 square feet per street frontage for each parcel, or
lot of1-10 acres in size. No building permit is required.
3. One ground sign with a maximum height of 15 feet or wall sign with a
maximum sign area of 64 square feet per street frontage for each
parcel or lot in excess of 10 acres in size. A building permit is required.
4. Real estate signs shall be located no closer than 10 feet from any
property line. When a property line encompasses a portion of the road,
then the setback shall be no less than 10 feet from the edge of the
roadway, paved surface or back of the curb, as applicable, unless
otherwise provided for in this section.
5. Real estate signs shall be removed when an applicable temporary use
permit has expired, or within 7 days of any of the following conditions:
ownership has changed; or, the property is no longer for sale, rent, lease
or exchange.
E. Construction signs. Signs may be erected and located upon a site under
construction. Such signs shall be securely built, and allowed under the following
1. Signs shall be located a minimum of 10 feet from any property line.
2. One ground sign with a maximum height of 10 feet or wall sign with a
maximum sign area of 12 square feet is allowed within each front yard
for each parcel less than one acre in size. No building permit is required.
3 One ground sign with a maximum height of 10 feet or wall sign with a
maximum sign area of 32 square feet is allowed within each front yard
for each parcel 1-10 acres in area. No building permit is required.
4. One pole sign with a maximum height of 15 feet or wall sign, with a
maximum sign area of 64 square feet is allowed within each front yard
for each parcel in excess of 10 acres in size. A building permit is required.
5. In addition to those signs identified above, 1 ground or wall sign, with a
maximum sign area of 4 square feet and a maximum height of 6 feet,
may be used as a construction sign regardless of parcel size. No building
permit required.
12
1:\08 Amend the LDC\Sign Code\CAO's Ordinance\Sign Code Revision per cepe (060509).doc
eepe recommended changes are indicated by dark red/merlot typeface.
6. Construction signs may be placed on a site when either a building
permit is issued or a permit is issued to clear the site. All construction
signs shall be removed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy
for the structure.
F. On-premise signs. On-premise pole signs, ground signs, projecting signs, wall
signs, and mansard signs shall be allowed in all nonresidential zoning districts
subject to the restrictions below:
1. Pole or ground signs. Single-occupancy or multiple-occupancy parcels,
having frontage of 150 feet or more on a public street, or combined
public street frontage of 220 linear feet or more for corner lots, shall be
permitted one pole or ground sign. Additional pole or ground signs may
be permitted provided that there is a minimum of a 1 ,OOO-foot separation
between such signs, and all setback requirements are met. In no case
shall the number of pole or ground signs exceed two per street frontage.
a. Maximum allowable height. All pole or ground signs within
nonresidential zoning districts and as applicable to designated
nonresidential portions of PUD zoned properties are limited to a
maximum height of 15 feet when located along an arterial or
collector road and 12 feet for all other roads, except as otherwise
provided herein. Height shall be measured from the lowest
centerline grade of the nearest public or private ROW or
easement to the uppermost portion of the sign structure.
b. Minimum setback. All pole or ground signs within nonresidential
zoning districts, and as applicable to designated nonresidential
portions of PUD zoned properties, shall be located no closer than
10 feet from any property line.
c. Maximum allowable sign area: 80 square feet for pole or ground
signs located along an arterial or collector road and 60 square
feet for all other roads.
d. Pole signs shall provide a pole cover no less than 50 percent of
the width of the sign, with architectural design features including
colors and or materials common to those used in the design of the
building to which the sign is accessory.
e. A minimum 100 square foot landscaping area shall be provided
around the base of any ground sign or pole sign.
f. Level 1 animated signs no 13rger th3n 12 squ3re feet in sign
area 3ra permitted 35 (] componont of another sign.
f. Ground signs for smaller lots. Single occupancy or multiple
occupancy parcels shall be allowed 1 ground sign provided the
following minimum requirements, as applicable, are met,:
i. For those lots or parcels with public road frontage of fle
less th3n 100 linear feet, but less than 150 linear feet, or
for corner lots or parcels with a combined public street
frontage of 150 linear feet but less than 220 linear feet the
following shall apply.
13
1:108 Amend the LDCISign CodelCAO's OrdinancelSign Code Revision per cepe (060509).doc
eepe recommended changes are indicated by dark red/merlot typeface.
a) No portion of the ground sign may be located
closer than 10 feet from any property line.
b) A landscaping area of no less than 100 square feet
shall be provided around the base of the ground
sign.
c) The ground sign design shall include features
common to those used in the design of the
building(s) to which the sign is accessory.
d) The ground sign may be double-sided but cannot
be placed in a V-shape.
e) Any illumination of the sign shall be non-revolving
and shine away from any right-of-way. An
electrical permit is required and the sign shall meet
the standards of the National Electric Code, as
adopted by Collier County.
f) The Official Address Numbers andlor the range of
Official Address Numbers for the property shall be
displayed in numerals at least 8 inches high on all
of the sign faces and shall be located so as to not
be covered by landscaping or other impediments;
Address numbers shall not count as sign copy,
unless address numbers exceed 12 inches in
height
g) No other freestanding signs shall be allowed on the
same lot or parcel.
II. In 3ddition,For lots or parcels with frontage of 121 linear
feet but less than 150 linear feet, or for corner lots or
parcels with a combined public street frontage of 150
linear feet but less than 220 linear feet the following shall
apply.
a) The ground sign shall be limited to 8 feet in height,
as measured from the lowest centerline grade of
the nearest public road to the uppermost portion of
the sign structure regardless of the roadway
classification; and
b) The maximum allowable sign area is 32 square
feet
iii. In 3ddition,For lots or parcels with frontage of 100 linear
feet but less than 121 linear feet the following shall apply:
a) The ground sign shall be limited to 6 feet in height,
as measured from the lowest centerline grade of
the nearest public road to the uppermost portion of
the sign structure regardless of the roadway
classification; and
14
1:\08 Amend the LDC\Sign Code\CAO's Ordinance\Sign Code Revision per cepe {060509).doc
eepe recommended changes are indicated by dark red/merlot typeface.
b) The maximum allowable sign area is 16 square
feet.
2. Outparcels. In addition to the above requirements, signs for outparcels,
regardless of the outparcel size, shall be limited to the following:
a. In addition to any wall signs permitted by this Code, outparcels
may by allowed one additional 60 square foot wall sign facing the
shopping center if the additional sign is not oriented towards any
public right-of-way. In no case shall the number of wall signs for
an outparcel exceed 2 signs; and,
b. A single ground sign for outparcels having a frontage of 150
feet or more, shall not exceed 60 square feet. Ground signs shall
be limited to 8 feet in height.
3. Directory Signs. Multiple-occupancy parcels or multiple parcels
developed under a unified plan of development, with a minimum of 8
independent units, and containing 25,000 square feet or more of leasable
floor area will be permitted one directory sign. One directory sign,
containing a minimum of 4 panels and a maximum of 8 panels shall be
permitted for one single entrance on each public street.
a. The maximum height for directory signs is limited to 20 feet.
Height shall be measured from the lowest centerline grade of the
nearest public or private right-of-way or easement to the
uppermost portion of the sign structure.
b. Directory signs shall be no closer than 15 feet from the property
line, unless otherwise noted below or as provided for in section
9.03.07 of the Code.
c. Maximum allowable sign area: 150 square feet for directory
signs.
d. A minimum 100 square foot landscaping area shall be provided
around the base of any directory sign.
4. Wall, mansard, canopy or awning signs. One wall, mansard, canopy or
awning sign shall be permitted for each single-occupancy parcel, or for
each unit in a multiple-occupancy parcel. End units within shopping
centers, multiple-occupancy parcels, or single occupancy parcels where
there is double frontage on a public right-of-way, shall be allowed 2
signs, but such signs shall not be placed on one wall. Retail businesses
with a floor area of larger than 25,000 square feet and a front wall length
of more than 200 linear feet, are allowed 3 wall signs; however, the
combined area of those signs shall not exceed the maximum allowable
display area for signs by this Code.
a. The maximum allowable display area for signs shall not be more
than 20 percent of the total square footage of the visual facade
including windows of the building to which the sign will be
attached and shall not, in any case, exceed 150 square feet for
buildings or units with less than 25,000 square feet, 200 square
feet for buildings or units with 25,000 square feet but less than
60,000 square feet and 250 square feet for buildings over 60,000
15
1:\08 Amend the lDC\Sign Code\CAQ's Ordinance\Sign Code Revision per cepe (060509).doc
eepe recommended changes are indicated by dark red/merlot typeface.
square feet in area.
b. No wall sign shall exceed 80 percent of the width of the unit(s) or
the building with a minimum of 10 percent clear area on each
outer edge of the unit(s) or of the building. The clear area;
however, may be reduced in width or eliminated if it interferes with
the architectural features of the unit(s) or the building.
c. No wall or mansard sign shall project more than 18 inches from
the building or roofline or exceed the height of the parapet wall to
which it is attached.
d. Additional wall signs may be allowed on facades located interior to
courtyards and shopping malls and the like provided the signs are
not visible from any public property (e.g. street, right of way,
sidewalk, alley), interior drive, parking lot or adjacent private
property.
e. In addition, any non-illuminated sign located in a window shall not
exceed 25 percent of the window area. No building permit
required.
I. Signs located in windows shall not be illuminated in any
manner with the following exception:
a) One sign per business establishment that is
located in a window may have 2.25 square feet of
illuminated signage.
f. Multi-story buildings with 3 or more stories are limited to 1 wall
sign per street frontage not to exceed a maximum of 2 wall
signs per building, but such signs shall not be placed on the
same wall.
I. Wall signs may be located in the uppermost portion of the
building not to exceed the main roof or parapet. A
notarized authorization letter is required at the time of
building permit submittal from the property owner or
property management company giving authorization as to
which tenant sign will be allowed.
ii. In 3ddition On first floor commercial units only, shall be
allowed 1 wall sign not to exceed 20 percent of the total
square footage of the visual facade of the unit to which the
sign will be attached and shall not in any case exceed 64
square feet. This sign shall be located solely on the
facade of the unit which the tenant occupies.
5. Menu boards. One sign with a maximum height of 6 feet measured from
the drive thru lane grade adjacent to the sign and 64 square feet of sign
area is allowed per drive thru lane, not to exceed 2 signs per parcel.
6. Projecting signs. Projecting signs may be substituted for wall or mansard
signs provided that the display area of the projecting sign shall not
exceed 60 square feet of display area.
16
1:\08 Amend the LDC\Sign Code\CAO's Ordinance\Sign Code Revision per cepe (060509).doc
eepe recommended changes are indicated by dark red/merlot typeface.
a. Projecting signs shall not project more than 4 feet from the
building wall to which it is attached.
b. Projecting signs shall not extend above the roofline of the
building to which it is attached.
c. Projecting signs shall not project into the public right-of-way.
d. Projecting signs which project over any pedestrian way shall be
elevated to a minimum height of 8 feet above such pedestrian
way.
7. Under-canopy/blade sign. In addition to any other sign allowed by this
Code, one under-canopy/blade sign shall be allowed for each unit in a
multiple-occupancy development. This sign shall not exceed 6 square
feet in area and shall be a minimum of 8 feet above finished grade.
Under-canopy/blade signs do not require a building permit unless the
sign is equipped with an electrical component.
8. Flags & Flagpoles. Non-residential zoned properties that have been
issued a certificate of occupancy are permitted up to 3 flags on a single
flagpole.
a. On all non-residential zoned properties, a flagpole shall not
exceed 50 feet in height from the finished grade, nor extend more
than 20 feet from any building to which it is attached.
b. Non-residential developments at least 10 acres in size having
multiple entrances, may have up to 3 flagpoles at each entrance
that provides ingresslegress off an arterial or collector road,
provided that there is a minimum 300-foot separation between
entrances.
i. Four additional flagpoles may be permitted within a non-
residential development provided that the flagpoles are
not visible to motorists along any frontage roadways.
c. FI3gpolos in excess of 15 feet All non-residential flagpoles shall
have the flagpole foundation or flagpole attachment
designlconstruction plan signed and sealed by a design
professional engineer licenced in the St3te of as provided for in
the Florida Building Code. The designlconstruction plan shall
indicate the maximum flag area that the flagpole is capable of
supporting.
d. All flagpoles shall have a minimum 5-foot setback from all
property lines.
e. All flagpoles that are permitted shall display their permit number at
the base of the flagpole in numerals a minimum of 1/2-inch in
height.
17
1:\08 Amend the LDC\Sign Code\CAO's Ordinance\Sign Code Revision per cepe (060509).doc
eepe recommended changes are indicated by dark red/merlot typeface.
9. Temporary signs. A temporary use permit is required to erect a
temporary sign as set forth in section 10.02.06 G." unless otherwise
provided herein. Applicants for temporary sign permits shall pay the fee
established for a temporary sign permit. Temporary signs shall be
allowed subject to the restrictions imposed by this section and other
relevant parts of this Code. Temporary use permits for special events
signage are located in section 5.04.05.
a. Temporary signs. An occupant of a parcel, multi-tenant parcel or
mixed use building, may display one on-site temporary
commercial sign or 2 such signs for properties containing more
than 1 street frontage, not to exceed 32 square feet in area or 8
feet in height. (See subsection 5.04.05 A. for time limits on the
display of temporary signs.)
i. Such signs shall be located a minimum of 10 feet from any
property line.
b. Temporary sign covers made of vinyl or canvas may be
authorized for an existing ground or pole sign, under the
following conditions:
i. A blank sign cover made from all-white material, shall be
allowed for 90 days, after which time the cover shall be
removed, regardless of whether or not the sign face has
been replaced. A permit is not required.
II. A sign cover made from all-white material, displaying
graphics limited to 32 square feet, shall be permitted for 14
days. A temporary use permit (TUP) is required. A
maximum of 2 temporary use permits may be issued within
12 consecutive months. If the graphics are removed from
the sign cover, then it may remain for the balance of the
90 days.
a) Submittal requirements for a TUP include an
application deemed sufficient by County staff, a
dimensioned drawing of the graphic, which may
appear on both sides of the sign cover, and the
permit fee as indicated in the CDES fee schedule.
10. On-premises directional signs may be permitted within non-residential
zoning districts intended to facilitate the movement of pedestrians and
vehicles within the site upon which such signs are posted. On-premises
directional signs shall not exceed 6 square feet in area and 4 feet in
height. On-premises directional signs shall be limited to two at each
vehicle access point and a maximum of four internal to the
development. Internal signs are not intended to be readily visible from
the road.
a. Directional signs located internal to the subdivision or
18
1:\08 Amend the LDC\Sign Code\CAO's Ordinance\Sign Code Revision per cepe (060509).doc
eepe recommended changes are indicated by dark red/merlot typeface.
development shall maintain a minimum setback of 10 feet from
the edge of the roadway, paved surface or back of the curb, as
applicable.
b. Directional signs may be combined into a single sign not to
exceed 6 feet in height and 64 square feet in area. Such signs
shall require a building permit.
11. On-premise signs within agricultural districts.
a. In the rural agricultural area designated on the future land use
map of the growth management plan. On-premises signs shall be
permitted within agriculturally zoned or used property, for agri-
commercial uses defined within the Collier County zoning
ordinance only, and subject to the following restrictions:
i. One pole or ground sign, located at the entrance or gate
of each street frontage. The maximum allowable sign
area for each pole or ground sign shall not exceed 100
square feet with a maximum height of 20 feet, and shall be
located a minimum of 15 feet from any property lines,
public or private rights-of-way or easements.
b. On-premises signs within agricultural zoning districts in the urban
area shall comply with the requirements of section 5.06.04 of the
Land Development Code.
c. Wall, mansard canopy or awning signs within agricultural districts.
Wall, mansard, canopy or awning signs shall be permitted within
agriculturally zoned or used property, for agri-commercial uses
defined within the Collier County zoning ordinance only, and
subject to the following restrictions:
i. One wall or mansard, canopy or awning sign shall be
permitted for each principal use structure on the parcel.
Corner parcels or double-frontage parcels shall be
allowed one sign per street frontage, but such signs shall
not be combined for the purpose of placing the combined
area on one wall. The maximum allowable display area for
any sign shall not be more than 20 percent of the total
square footage of the wall to which it is affixed, and shall
not in any case exceed 250 square feet in area per sign.
12. Illuminated signs. All illuminated signs shall have electrical components,
connections, and installations that conform to the National Electrical
Code, and all other applicable federal, state, and local codes and
regulations. Further, lighted signs shall be shielded in such a manner as
to produce no glare, hazard or nuisance to motorists or occupants of
adjacent properties; nor be reflective or phosphorescent; have a steady
non-fluctuating or non-undulating light source.
11. H:Jnd ho,ld signs. E3Ch premiso shall be permitted 2 hand held cigns. A
h3nd held sign shall be no gre3ter th3n 12 squ3ro foot in 3ma and 3
m3ximum of 8 feet in hoight. Tho 3ggrog3to sign area for both h3nd held
signs sh311 not oxceed 32 squ3ro foot
19
1:\08 Amend the LDC\Sign Code\CAO's Ordinance\Sign Code Revision per cepe (060509).doc
eepe recommended changes are indicated by dark redlmerlot typeface.
13. Mobile billboard. It shall be unlawful for any person to display or construct
any mobile billboard.
14. See section 5.05.05 of this Code for signage regulations for automobile
service stations.
G. Off-premises directional signs. Off-premises directional signs are permitted if
the following requirements are met:
1. Off-premises directional signs shall be permitted only in nonresidential
zoning districts, agricultural districts and designated nonresidential
components of PUDs.
2. No more than 2 one-sided or 1 double-sided off-premise directional signs
shall be permitted for a building, structure, or use which is not visible from
the roadway serving such building, structure, or use, provided:
a. Each sign shall not be more than 12 square feet in area.
b. The sign shall not be more than 8 feet in height above the lowest
center grade of the roadway adjacent to the sign location.
c. The sign shall not be located closer than 10 feet to any property
line.
d. The applicant must submit with the permit application, a notarized
written letter of permission from the property owner where the off-
premises directional sign is to be located.
e. The sign shall be located no more than 1,000 feet from the
building, structure, or use for which the sign is displayed.
3. Off-premises directional signs shall be located a minimum of 50 feet
from a residential zoning district.
4. Off-premises directional signs shall be located a minimum of 100 feet
from another off-premise directional sign.
5.06.05 Exemptions from These Regulations
A. The following signs and actions are exempt from the permit requirements of this
Code, and shall be permitted in all districts subject to the limitations set forth
below:
1. Signs authorized to be displayed by law or by governmental order, rule or
regulation.
a. Prohibitory signs (e.g., no dumping, no trespassing) 3 square feet
in size or less may be allowed without a permit.
2. Reasonable repairs and maintenance.
5.06.06 Prohibited Signs
20
1:\08 Amend the LDC\Sign Code\CAQ's Ordinance\Sign Code Revision per cepe (060509),doc
eepe recommended changes are indicated by dark red/merlot typeface.
A. Prohibited. Any sign not specifically permitted by this sign code shall be
prohibited.
1. Snipe signs.
2. Permanent signs located within County rights-of-way without a right-of-
way permit.
3. Portable signs.
4. Roof signs.
5. Any description or representation, in whatever form, of nudity, sexual
conduct, or sexual excitement, when it:
a. is patently offensive to contemporary standards in the adult
community as a whole with respect to what is suitable sexual
material for minors; and
b. taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or
scientific value.
6. Animatedlactivated signs.
7. Clear or uncovered neon signs.
8. Any sign not in conformance with the requirements in sections 5.06.00
through 5.06.05 and 5.06.09.
5.06.07 Enforcement
A. General. No sign shall be erected, placed, altered or moved unless in conformity
with this Code. All signs located within Collier County shall comply with the
following requirements:
1. The issuance of a sign permit pursuant to the requirements of this Code
shall not permit the construction or maintenance of a sign or structure in
violation of an existing county, state or federal law or regulation.
2. All signs for which a permit is required shall be subject to inspections by
the County Manager or J:1.is designee. The County Manager or J:1.is
designee is hereby authorized to enter upon any property or premises to
ascertain whether the provisions of this Code are being adhered to. Such
entrance shall be made during business hours, unless an emergency
exists. The County Manager or his designee may order the removal of
any sign that is not in compliance with the provisions of this Code, is
improperly maintained, or which would constitute a hazard to the public
health, safety, and welfare.
3. The County Manager or his designee shall be charged with interpretation
and enforcement of this Code.
B. Enforcement procedures. Whenever, by the provisions of this Code, the
performance of an act is required or the performance of an act is prohibited, a
failure to comply with such provisions shall constitute a violation of this Code.
1. The owner, tenant, andlor occupant of any land or structure, or part
thereof, and an architect, builder, contractor agent, or other person who
21
1:\08 Amend the LDC\Sign Code\CAO's Ordinance\Sign Code Revision per cepe (060509).doc
eepe recommended changes are indicated by dark red/merlot typeface.
knowingly participates in, assists, directs, creates or maintains any
situation that is contrary to the requirements of this Code may be held
responsible for the violation and be subject to the penalties and remedies
provided herein.
2 Where any sign or part thereof violates this Code, the County Manager or
his designee may institute any appropriate action or proceedings to
prevent, restrain, correct, or abate a violation of this Code, as provided by
law, including prosecution before the Collier County Code Enforcement
Board against the owner, agent, lessee, or other persons maintaining the
sign, or owner, or lessee of the land where the sign is located.
3. If a sign is in such condition as to be in danger of falling, or is a menace
to the safety of persons or property, or found to be an immediate and
serious danger to the public because of its unsafe condition, the
provisions of section 2301.6 of the Standard Building Code, as adopted
by Collier County shall govern.
4. Code enforcement shall immediately remove all signs in violation of this
Section that are located in or upon public rights-of-way or public property.
5. Penalties. If any person, firm or corporation, whether public or private, or
other entity fails or refuses to obey or comply with or violates any of the
provisions of this Code, such person, firm, corporation, or other entity,
upon conviction of such offense, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and
shall be punished by a fine not to exceed $1,000.00 or by imprisonment
not to exceed 60 days in the county jail, or both, in the discretion of the
court Each violation or noncompliance shall be considered a separate
and distinct offense. Further, each day of continued violation or
noncompliance shall be considered as a separate offense.
a. Nothing herein contained shall prevent or restrict the county from
taking such other lawful action in any court of competent
jurisdiction as is necessary to prevent or remedy any violation or
noncompliance. Such other lawful actions shall include, but shall
not be limited to, an equitable action for injunctive relief or an
action at law for damages.
b. Further, nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the
county from prosecuting any violation of this Code by means of a
code enforcement board established pursuant to the subsidiary of
F.S. Chapter 162.
B.
Sign Variances
Applicability. A variance may be authorized by the Board of Zoning
Appeals for any required dimensional standard for a sign, including the
following: height, area, and location; maximum number of, and minimum
setback for signs.
Variances for signs. The Board of Zoning Appeals may authorize a
variance from the terms of the sign code, based upon the evidence given
in public hearing; the findings of the Planning Commission; and the
submittal of a completed variance application.
22
5.06.08
A
1:\08 Amend the LDC\Sign Code\CAO's Ordinance\Sign Code Revision per cepe (060509).doc
eepe recommended changes are indicated by dark red/merlot typeface.
1. Variance criteria. A variance from the terms of this sign code shall
not be granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals unless and until a
written application for a variance is submitted demonstrating:
a. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are
peculiar to the land, structure or building involved and
which are not applicable to other lands, structures or
buildings in the same district.
b. That literal interpretation of the provisions of the sign code
would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by
other properties in the same zoning district and would work
unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant.
c. That the special conditions and circumstances which are
peculiar to the land, structure or building do not result from
the actions of the applicant.
d. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the
applicant any special privilege that is denied by this sign
code to other lands, structures or buildings in the same
zoning district.
e. That the variance granted is the minimum relief that will
make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or
structure.
f. That the granting of the variance will be consistent with the
general intent and purpose of the Sign Code and the
Growth Management Plan, and will not be injurious to
adjacent properties or otherwise detrimental to the public
welfare.
2. No non-conforming use of neighboring lands, structures or
buildings in the same zoning district and no permitted use of
lands, structures and buildings in other districts shall be
considered grounds for the issuance of a sign variance.
C. The Board of Zoning Appeals shall adopt regulations for the review of
applications for variances under this section, including regulations for
variance applications and notice and hearing procedures. The Board of
Zoning Appeals shall make a decision on an application for a variance
within 60 days after the Planning Commission has rendered a
recommendation to the Board.
5.06.09 Nonconforming Signs
A. A nonconforming sign shall not be enlarged or altered in a way that increases its
degree of nonconformity. If any sign or portion thereof is to be altered, then the
signlsign structure is to be brought into compliance with all current provisions of
the LDC
23
1:\08 Amend the LDC\Sign Code\CAQ's Ordinance\Sign Code Revision per cepe (060509).doc
-----~.______,..~_.,..._.___._._"_,._________..o..__ __ ~"__"_'~'''''''"'''.___'~________'~'~''''~_'_~''
eepe recommended changes are indicated by dark red/merlot typeface.
B. A nonconforming sign shall not be structurally altered to prolong the life of the
sign. Reasonable repair and maintenance of nonconforming signs, is
permitted.
C. Should a nonconforming sign be damaged or destroyed by any means to an
extent of more than 50 percent of its replacement value, it shall not be
reconstructed except in conformance with the Sign Code.
D. Subject to the provisions of Section 70.20, Florida Statutes, a nonconforming
sign, that has not displayed an on-premises message for a period of 90
consecutive calendar days shall be presumed to be abandoned by its owner.
This presumption can be overcome by clear and convincing evidence of non-
abandonment.
E. Nothing contained in this sign code shall be construed to relieve any person of
the obligation to remove a sign which was required to be removed under prior
law or ordinance.
5.06.10 Removal of Prohibited or Abandoned Signs.
A. Prohibited signs on public property or in the right-of-way shall be removed
immediately, and may be removed by the County without notice.
B. The owner, agent or person in charge of the premises shall remove all
nonconforming abandoned signs and sign structures within 30 days after receipt
of written notification If the sign is not removed in a timely manner, then the
violation shall be referred to the Code Enforcement Board.
C. A conforming sign or sign structure shall be considered a conforming abandoned
sign or sign structure 90 days after a business ceases operation at that location.
The owner, agent or person in charge of the premises shall replace the sign face
with a blank panel on all conforming abandoned signs and sign structures within
30 days after receipt of written notification by County Manager or designee. If
the sign face is not replaced with a blank panel in a timely manner, the violation
shall be referred to the Code Enforcement Board.
1. All conforming abandoned signs and sign structures shall remain with the
blank panels for no more than 3 years after a business ceases operation
at that location. The owner, agent or person in charge of the premises
shall remove all signs and sign structures within 30 days after receipt of
written notification by County Manager or designee. If the sign or sign
structure are not timely removed, the violation shall be referred to the
Code Enforcement Board
D. When all buildings on a site are being demolished, all signs and sign structures
must be removed from the site at the same time. The owner, agent or person in
charge of the premises shall be required to include all signs being removed on
the demolition permit. However, if the site is under consideration for a site plan
24
1:\08 Amend the LDC\Sign Code\CAO's Ordinance\Sign Code Revision per cepe (060509).doc
eepe recommended changes are indicated by dark red/merlot typeface.
and has a conforming sign and sign structure, the County Manager or designee
may allow the owner, agent or person in charge of the premises to maintain the
sign andlor the sign structure while under site plan consideration for a maximum
of 1 year.
E. The owner, agent or person in charge of a vacant property (no buildings) that has
a sign or sign structure shall be required to remove all signs and sign structures
within 30 days after notice by the County Manager or designee. If the signs and
sign structures are not timely removed, the violation shall be referred to the Code
Enforcement Board.
5.06.11 Permit Application and Review Process
A. Building Permit applications for signs.
a. General. Any person who wishes to construct, install, rebuild, reconstruct,
relocate, alter, or change the message of any sign shall apply for and
receive a building permit in accordance with the Florida Building Code as
adopted by Collier County prior to the commencement of any work. A
building permit will be issued by the County Manager or designee,
provided that all permit requirements of the Code and all other applicable
provisions of the Collier County ordinances and regulations have been
met.
b. Permit fees. A building permit fee shall be collected pursuant to the fee
schedule set forth by resolution.
c. Form. Every application for a building permit shall be in writing upon
forms to be furnished by the County Manager or his designee.
d. Application contents. In order to obtain a permit to erect, place construct,
install, rebuild, reconstruct, relocate, alter or change the sign copy of any
sign under the provision of this Code, an applicant shall submit a
complete application provided by the building official which shall set forth
in writing a complete description of the proposed sign including:
i. The name, address and telephone number of the: (a) owner and
lessee of the sign and (b) sign contractor or erector of the sign.
ii. The legal description and the street address of the property upon
which the sign is to be erected.
ili. The dimensions of the sign including height.
iv. The copy to be placed on the face of the sign.
v. Other information required in the permit application forms provided
by the County Manager or designee; including two copies of the
site plan, elevation drawings of the proposed sign and
identification of the type, height, area and location of all existing
pole signs, ground signs and directory signs on the subject parcel.
vi. Two drawings, certified by a Florida registered engineer or a
Florida registered architect, of the plans and specifications and
method of construction and attachment to the building or the
ground for all pole signs and all projecting signs; and any ground
25
1:\08 Amend the lDC\Sign Code\CAQ's Ordinance\Sign Code Revision per cepe (060509).doc
eepe recommended changes are indicated by dark red/merlot typeface
sign over 32 square feet or over 8 feet in height..
vii. Wall signs, or any separate part thereof, which is to be affixed to a
wall shall be fastened flush with the surface with fasteners which
shall have the capacity to carry the full load of the sign or separate
part thereof under wind load conditions of the approved Collier
County Building Code Ordinance [Code ~ 22-106 et seq.], Flood
Ordinance [Code ch. 62. art. II], and the Coastal Building Zone
Ordinance [Code ch. 22, art. VIII]. Any such sign or separate part
thereof which is not mounted flush with the surface and which
weighs more than 20 pounds shall have a Florida registered
engineer design the mounting or fastening system and depict the
system on signed and sealed drawings which shall accompany
the permit application.
viii. If the sign or sign copy is to be illuminated or electronically
operated, the technical means by which this is to be
accomplished.
ix. The permit number shall be displayed or affixed at the base of the
sign structure and shall have the same life expectancy as the sign.
Such permit number shall be clearly legible to a person standing
five feet in front of the base of the sign and in no case shall the
permit number be less than one-half inch in size.
e. Expiration of permit. Building permits shall expire and become null and
void if the work authorized by such permit is not commenced and
inspected within six months from the date of issuance of the permit.
B. Permit Application Review and Time Limits
Upon receipt of a completed permit application and upon payment of the
appropriate permit fee by the applicant, the County Manager or designee shall
promptly conduct a review of the application and the proposed sign. The County
Manager or designee shall grant or deny the permit application within 30 days
from the date that the completed application was determined to be sufficient.
C. Issuance or Denial of Permit
1. The County Manager or designee shall issue the permit if it is determined
that the application meets the requirements contained in this sign
ordinance and it is determined that the proposed sign will not violate any
building, electrical or other code adopted by Collier County.
2. The County Manager or designee shall deny the permit if it is determined
that one or more reasons for denial exists, including noncompliance with
this Sign Code and any building, electrical or other adopted code of
Collier County. The County Manager or designee shall make a written
report of the denial and the reasons therefore. A copy of the report shall
be sent by mail or other method to the designated return address of the
applicant.
26
1:\08 Amend the LDC\Sign Code\CAO's Ordinance\Sign Code Revision per cepe (060509).doc
eepe recommended changes are indicated by dark red/merlot typeface.
D. Appeal to Board of Zoning Appeals or Building Board of Adjustments and
Appeals.
1. Within 30 days of the date of the written denial, the applicant denial sent
by certified mail return receipt requested by the County Manager or M;
designee, the applicant, may appeal the permit denial to the building
board of adjustments.
2. A request for appeal shall be filed in writing. Such request shall state the
basis for the appeal and shall include any pertinent information, exhibits
and other backup information in support of the appeal. A fee for the
application and processing of an appeal shall be established at a rate set
by the Board of County Commissioners from time to time and shall be
charged to and paid by the applicant. The building board of adjustments
and appeals, shall hold an advertised public hearing on the appeal and
shall consider the denial of the County Manager or M; designee or chief
building official, whichever is applicable,
3. Time limitations on appeals. The Board of Zoning Adjustment and the
building board of adjustment shall make their decision on an appeal within
60 days after a request for an appeal has been filed in writing. Any appeal
that has not been acted upon by the applicant within 6 months of the
applicant filing the appeal will be determined to be withdrawn and
cancelled unless extended by the BCC. Further review and action on the
appeal will require a new application subject to the then current code.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
At present, the following subsections contain extensive sign requirements with possible first
amendment concerns, e.g. prior restraint and content/speaker-based issues. At this time, staff
recommends that the following be substituted for existing requirements.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2.03.06 Planned Unit Development Districts
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
G. Residential Mixed Use Neighborhood Center PUD Design Criteria.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8. Sign Types & Definitions shall be as provided for in section 5.06.00 the
Collier County Sign Code.
*
*
*
.
*
.
.
*
.
.
*
*
2.03.07 Overlay Districts
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
F. Golden Gate Parkway Professional Office Commercial Overlay "GGPPOCO".
27
1:\08 Amend the LDC\Sign Code\CAO's Ordinance\Sign Code Revision per cepe (060509).doc
eepe recommended changes are Indicated by dark red/merlot typeface.
3. For signage to be located along the Golden Gate Parkway, see section
5.06.00 the Collier County Sign Code and the Golden Gate Master Plan.
*
*
*
*
*
.
*
*
*
*
*
.
*
4.02.26 Golden Gate Parkway Professional Office Commercial Overlay District
(GGPPOCO)--Special Conditions for the Properties Abutting Golden Gate Parkway
East of Santa Barbara Boulevard as Referenced in the Golden Gate Parkway
Professional Office Commercial District Map (Map 2) of the Golden Gate Area
Master Plan
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
H
Signage permitted in this overlay shall be restricted
under section 5.06.00 the Collier County Sign Code.
* * * * * * * *
to those signs permitted
*
*
*
*
4.02.37 Design Standards for Development in the Golden Gate Downtown Center
Commercial Overlay District (GGDCCO)
.
*
*
.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
A. Development criteria The following standards shall apply to all uses in this
overlay district. Where specific development criteria and standards also exist in
the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, or the Future Land Use Element of the
Growth Management Plan, these standards shall supersede any less stringent
requirement or place additional requirements on development.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
19. Signage. As required, allowed, or prohibited in section 5.06.00 of the
Code.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
4.02.38 Specific Design Criteria for Mixed Use Development within C-1 through C-3 Zoning
Districts
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
J. Sign Types & Definitions shall be as provided for in section 5.06.00 the
Collier County Sign Code.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
4.06.05 General Landscaping Requirements
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
.
I. Location requirements for signage adjacent to landscape buffer.
1. Signage located withinladjacent to landscape buffer area. All trees and
shrubs located within landscape buffer shall be located so as not to
28
1:\08 Amend the LDC\Sign Code\CAQ's Ordinance\Sign Code Revision per cepe (060509).doc
eepe recommended changes are indicated by dark redlmerlot typeface.
block the view of signage as shown in Figure 4.06.05 H. below, Signage
adjacent to landscape buffer. Sign locations shall be shown on the
landscape plan and 100 square feet of landscaping shall be provided as
required by section 5.06.01.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
4.07.04 Special Requirements for Mixed Use Planned Unit Developments Containing a
Commercial Component
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
7. Signs. The neighborhood village center shall adhere to section 5.06.00
of this LDC, the Collier County Sign Code.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
4.08.07 SRA Designation
*
*
*
*
*
*
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
J. Design Criteria. Criteria are hereby established to guide the design and
development of SRAs to include innovative planning and development strategies
as set forth in ~~ 163.3177 (11), F.S. and Chapter 9J-5.006(5)(1), FAC.. The
size and base density of each form of SRA shall be consistent with the
standards set forth below. The maximum base residential density as specified
herein for each form of SRA may only be exceeded through the density blending
process as set forth in density and intensity blending provision of the Immokalee
Area Master Plan or through the affordable housing density Bonus as referenced
in the density Rating System of the FLUE. The base residential density is
calculated by dividing the total number of residential units in an SRA by the
acreage therein that is entitled through Stewardship Credits. The base
residential density does not restrict net residential density of parcels within an
SRA. The location, size and density of each SRA will be determined on an
individual basis, subject to the regulations below, during the SRA designation
review and approval process.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
2. Town Design Criteria.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
d. Context Zones. Context Zones are intended to guide the location
of uses and their intensity and diversity within a Town, and provide
for the establishment of the urban to rural continuum.
i. Town Core.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
29
1:\08 Amend the LDC\Sign Code\CAO's Ordinance\Sign Code Revision per cepe (060509).doc
eepe recommended changes are indicated by dark red/merlot typeface.
q) General signage standards. Signage requirements
shall be as provided for in section 5.06.00, the
"Collier County Sign Code."
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5.04.04 Model Homes and Model Sales Centers
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4. Model home signs. One on-premise sign for model homes, approved in
conjunction with a temporary use permit in any zoning district not to
exceed 8 feet in height and 32 square feet in size. Model home sign copy
shall be limited to the model name, builder's name, name and address,
phone number, price, logo, and model home. Model home signs shall not
be illuminated in any manner. No building permit is required for the sign.
. . . . . . . . . . . .
5.04.05 Temporary Events
A. Temporary &ales Use Permits.
. . . . . . . . . . . .
C [Reserved for 4-H Hogs]
D. Temoorarv use oermits for soeclal events.
1. SiQns permitted durinq elections and referendums. are subiect to the
followinq permittinq and locational requirements:
a. A bulk temporary permit shall be obtained prior to the erection.
installation. placement. or displav of siqnaqe before such special
event The fee for the bulk permit shall be as set forth in the fee
schedule for the services performed by the Community
Development and Environmental Services Division.
b The bulk permit number shall appear on everv siQn or on the pole
supportinq the siqn.
c. All siqns for which the permit was issued shall be removed within
7 days after the event Each siQn not removed within the required
time shall constitute a separate violation of this Code. The
permittee will be subiect to issuance of a citation for each violation
from Collier County Code Enforcement.
d. Siqns erected within residentiallv zoned or used property shall not
exceed 4 square feet in area and 3 feet in heiqht, and shall not be
located closer than 5 feet to any property line. Politic31 signs
pl3Ged within rosidenti31 districts sh311 roquiro written permission
30
1:\08 Amend the LDC\Sign Code\CAO's Ordinance\Sign Code Revision per cepe (060509).doc
eepe recommended changes are indicated by dark red/merlot typeface.
from the property owner.
e. Political camp3ian siQns or postors will be permitted i In all other
zoninQ districts. signs shall not exceed a maximum sign area of
32 SQuare feet per siqn. and shall be located no closer than 10
feet to any property line. The number of such signs shall be
limited to 1 sign for each lot or parcel per bulk permit issued.
i. All supports shall be securelv built. constructed and
erected to conform to the reQuirements of the Florida
BuildinQ Code.
II. The maximum heiQht of any sign or poster shall be limited
to 8 feet. except for those that mav be affixed to the
surface of a wall.
2. Signs shall be permitted durinQ special events such as Qrand openinqs.
subiect to the followinq requirements.
a. An on-site qrand openinq siQn shall not exceed 32 square feet of
sign area and shall be displaved on site for a period not to exceed
14 days within the first 3 months that the occupant is open for
business.
b. Banner siQns shall be securelv anchored.
3. SiQns shall be permitted durinq special events such as fairs. carnivals.
circuses, revivals, sportinq events. or anv public, charitable. educational
event, subiect to the followinq requirements.
a. A temporarv siQn for such events shall not exceed 32 square feet
in size shall be displaved to announce or advertise such
temporary uses. Such siqn shall be located no closer than 10 feet
to any property line
b. Such signs shall require a buildinq permit and shall be displaved
not more than 15 calendar days prior to the advertised event and
shall be removed within 7 calendar days after the event has taken
place.
c. Banner signs shall be securelv anchored.
4. A temporarv use permit shall be qranted, for a "cominq soon" siqn located
within a non-residential district. subiect to the followinq requirements.
a. A temporarv use permit will not be issued until the applicant has
applied for a buildinq permit for the principal structure.
b. As applied in this section. a "cominq soon" siqn is defined as a
qround siqn used to inform the public of the entrv of a new
business: however, such siqn shall not be located within anv
public riqht-of-wav or easement.
c The siqn shall not exceed 32 square feet in size and the
temporarv use permit number must be placed at the base of the
siqn not less than 1/2-half inch from the bottom.
31
1:\08 Amend the LDC\Sign Code\CAO's Ordinance\Sign Code Revision per cepe (060509).doc
eepe recommended changes are indicated by dark red/merlot typeface.
d. The siqn shall not be displaved for a period of more than 6 months
from the issuance of temporarv use permit or until the issuance of
a permit for the permanent siqn. whichever occurs first. The non-
refundable fee for this temporarv use permit shall be as set forth in
the fee schedule for the services performed bv the Communitv
Development and Environmental Services Division.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5.05.05 Automobile Service Stations
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
C. Building architecture and signage requirements.
1. Building architecture shall meet the requirements of section 5.05.08.
2. Signage for automobile service stations. The following are the only signs
allowed in automobile service stations and convenience stores with gas
pumps.
a. Window, Wall, and other signs: As allowed in Section 5.06.00 of
this Code.
b All canopies may have an illuminated corporate logo with a
maximum area of 12 square feet shall be allowed on a canopy
face which is adjacent to a dedicated street or highway.
Otherwise, accent lighting, back lighting and accent striping are
prohibited on canopy structures.
c. One ground sign shall be permitted for each site and shall be
placed within a 200 square foot landscaped area. Height is limited
so that the top edge of the sign face is less than eight feet above
grade. Maximum permitted area 60 square feet.
d. Signage is prohibited above gas pumps.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5.05.08 Architectural and Site Design Standards
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
C. Building design standards
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
13. Materials and colors.
a. Purpose and intent. Exterior building colors and materials
contribute significantly to the visual impact of buildings on
the cornrnunity. The colors and materials rnust be well
designed and integrated into a comprehensive design style
for the project.
b. Exterior building colors.
32
1:\08 Amend the LDC\Sign Code\CAO's Ordinance\Sign Code Revision per cepe (060509).doc
eepe recommended changes are indicated by dark red/merlot typeface.
I. The use of color materials or finish paint above level 8
saturation (chroma) or below lightness level 3 on the
Collier County Architectural Color Charts is limited to no
more than 10 percent of a facade or the total roof area.
ii. The use of naturally occurring materials are permissible,
such as marble, granite, and slate and the following man-
made materials: silver unpainted metal roofs.
iii. The use of florescent colors is prohibited.
c Exterior building materials (excluding roofs). The following building
finish materials are limited to no more than 33 percent of the
facade area:
i. Corrugated, or metal panels, and
ii. Smooth concrete block.
d. Neon tubing. The use of neon or neon type tubing is prohibited on
the exterior and the roof of a building. This includes exterior
siQnaQe.
14. Barber Poles. All traditional size (not more than 54 inches in heiQht and
not more than 6 inches in diameter) and style barber poles which contain
any illuminated movinQ or rotatinQ part may be permitted if the followinQ
and all other applicable requirements are met:
a. The barber pole is attached to the exterior wall of an
establishment providinQ the services of a licensed barber;
b. Each such establishment (barbershop. salon. etc.) is limited to
only one barber pole;
c. No barber pole may move or rotate except when the
establishment is open and providinQ the services of a licensed
barber: and
d. All barber poles that are illuminated. whether or not they rotate.
shall obtain a buildinQ permit.
D. Design Standards for specific building uses.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
9.03.03 Types of Nonconformities
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
D. Nonconforming signs. See LDC section 5.06.09 for Nonconforming Sign
Requirements.
*
*
*
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
33
1:\08 Amend the LDC\Sign Code\CAO's Ordinance\Sign Code Revision per cepe (060509).doc
eepe recommended changes are indicated by dark red/merlot typeface.
9.04.02 Variances Authorized
A. Variances for signs. The variance procedure for signs is provided in section
5.06.00, the Collier County Sign Code.
.
.
.
*
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
10.02.03 Submittal Requirements for Site Development Plans
. . .. . . . . . . . . .
A Generally
. . . . . . . . . . . .
h. Signage proposed for the project in conformity with section
5.06.00, the Collier County Sign Code," for the site development
or site improvement plan.
. . . . . . . . * . . .
10.02.06 Submittal Requirements for Permits
. . . . . . . . . . . .
B. Building or Land Alteration Permits
. . . . . . . . . . . .
2. Building permit submittal requirements for signs is provided in section
5.06.11 of the Collier County Sign Code.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
34
1:\08 Amend the LDC\Sign Code\CAO's Ordinance\Sign Code Revision per cepe (060509).doc
AGENDA ITE~
ere,
Co~r County
-- '-- - ----
STAFF REPORT
TO:
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
HEARING DATE: JUNE 4, 2009
SUBJECT: BD-2009-AR-14192, MONTE CARLO CLUB BOAT DOCK EXTENSION
PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT:
Owner: Monte Carlo Club Condominium Association, Inc.
P.O. Box 7622
Naples, Florida 34101
Agent: Miles L. "Rocky" Scofield
Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.
3584 Exchange Avenue
Naples, Florida 34104
REOUESTED ACTION:
To have the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPe) consider an application for a IO-foot
boat dock extension over the maximum 20-foot protrusion limit as provided in Section 5.03.06 of
the Land Development Code (LDC). The extension (if approved) will allow a 30-foot boat dock
facility that will accommodate 20 additional boat slips.
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The subject property is located at 10684 Gulf Shore Drive, further described as Baker-Carroll
Point Subdivision, Unit 2, Block B, Lots I and 2, as recorded in Plat Book 8, Page 62, Monte
Carlo Club Condominium, Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County
Florida. (See Location Map on following page).
Monte Carlo Club, BD-2009-AR-14l92
5!l4/09
> '
,
.
,
,
~
.
,
,
,
,
~@
,
.
, >
€>
-0
.
:1", ~
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
, .
. .
<-::
,
,
~
<
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
~
,
,
,
,
,
"
::> o..:!'
~
< ,
,
,
~
~
,
<
,
z
:3 ~
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
ffi
~ 1'l
,
,
z
a
w -
0--';;0
..0
o
~
,
,
,
,
,
,
~
~
,
,
,
,
,
" >
,
,
,
,
.
"
,
o
,.
.
.
o
z
~
,
,
,
,
.
\'J
~
~
"
,
, >
o
,f-
e I- Q:'
"''''
>.
f w.OICO
GULl' 0
:JlY;)S(U1ON /
-
z-
>-
>-
z
co
o
u
,
:~
,I
:1 I
ii
'"
Ii ~e
:~ ~:'S
lJ'o'O>j~.t.\IOd>I'"
{,t-,,-:>l
'Ii
5<:;.
!!p
I.
ii
!l
1,,'Knl
--,
!jl !
Iii <i I
.!
I '.
1'1 I .'
J "
~-
'"'- ~-
(I....-"'''I'''''''~
II" ....
I'
(.....'nl...Y>U'_l
j,! .
GULF
OF
MEXICO
,
0..
<(
~
,
C>
z
z
o
N
,
N
m
.,.
'"
-<
m
o
o
N
o
<II
..
Z
o
f-'
-,
~I
,
0..
<(
~
z
o
I-
<(
o
o
....J
PURPOSEIDESCRIPTlON OF PROJECT:
The purpose of the project is to add 20 additional boat slips to a 54-unit multi-family
development where 14 boat slips currently exist. The facility will protrude a total of 30 feet into
Vanderbilt Lagoon which is 189 feet wide at the closest point. The facility will consist of 10
additional finger piers that are 30 feet long and four feet wide to facilitate the mooring of 20
additional boats. The 14 existing slips were built in accordance with Collier County Building
Permit No. 88-3222.
At its August 7, 2008 meeting, the CCPC heard petition BD-2006-AR-9061, the Monte Carlo
Club Condominium Association Boat Dock Extension request. The request was for a IS-foot
dock extension as described in the attached staff report. That petition was denied by a vote of 6-
3. The petitioner subsequently appealed the decision of denial to the Board of Zoning Appeals
(BZA) as described in Resolution No. 08-03.
This appeal (ADA-2008-AR-13731) was heard and considered by the BZA on December 2, 200S.
At that hearing they remanded the petition for the boat dock extension back to the CCPC for
reconsideration because they believed there was confusion by the CCPC concerning the
application of the Land Development Code and that the stated reasons for denial by the CCPC
were not clear. (Please see attached meeting minutes).
The BZA also indicated that they would like the CCPC to reconsider (reevaluate) the petition; if
the CCPC still decides to deny the petition; they need to clearly state their reasons for denial and
any other areas of concern they have. The CCPC's explanation shall be a process whereby they
identify the specific criteria in the primary and secondary list of criteria they feel the applicant
has not met and clearly state why the application does not meet the criteria in their opinion.
As a result of the BZA remanding the subject boat dock extension back to the CCPC for
reconsideration, the petitioner has filed a new petition and reduced their request to a lO-foot dock
extension which would allow a total protrusion into the waterway of 35-feet. It should be noted
that the two previous boat dock extension petitions had requested a IS-foot dock extension with a
total protrusion into the waterway of35-feet.
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
SUBJECT PARCEL: This site is currently a Multi-family development, zoned RMF-16
SURROUNDING: North - Existing Vanderbilt Yacht & Racquet Club zoned RMF-16
South - Existing Vanderbilt Beachcomber Condo zoned RT-VBRTO
East - Vanderbilt Lagoon waterway
West - Gulf Shore Drive right-of-way
Monte Carlo Club, BD-2009-AR-14l92
5/7/09
3
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION:
Environmental Services staff has reviewed this petition and has no objection to the granting of
this request. Section 5.03.06.E.11 (Manatee Protection) of the LDC is applicable to all multi-slip
docking facilities with 10 or more slips. The proposed facility consists of 34 boat slips and is
therefore subject to the provisions of this section.
STAFF COMMENTS:
The Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) shall approve, approve with conditions, or
deny, a dock facility extension request based on the following criteria. In order for the CCPC to
approve this request, it must be determined that at least four of the five primary criteria and four
of the six secondary criteria have been met.
Staff has reviewed this petition in accordance with Section 5.03.06 and finds the following:
Primary Criteria
I. Whether the number of dock facilities and/or boat slips proposed is appropriate in
relation to the waterfront length, location, upland land use and zoning of the subject
property. Consideration should be made of property on unbridged barrier islands,
where vessels are the primary means of transportation to and from the property.
(The number should be appropriate; typical single-family use should be no more
than two (2) slips; typical multi-family use should be one (1) slip per dwelling unit; in
the case of un bridged barrier island docks, additional slips may be appropriate).
Criterion met. The site currently consists of 14 boat slips and 20 new boat slips are
proposed for a total of 34 boat slips. The subject property is zoned RMF-16 and 54 multi-
family residential units exist on site. The number of existing and proposed boat slips in
co~unction with the number of multi-family residential units is appropriate in relation to
the 712-foot waterfront length of the property and is in compliance with the provisions of
the Manatee Protection Plan.
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 (ML T). The petitioner's application and
survey should establish that the water depth is too shallow to allow launching and
mooring ofthe vessel(s) described without an extension).
Criterion met. According to the survey submitted by the petitioner, the water depth at the
site is too shallow to accommodate the 20 additional vessels with a maximum length of 30
feet as described in the petitioner's application at mean low tide. The site will be dredged
to help accommodate the mooring of the vessels and minimize the protrusion into the
waterway.
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
Monte Carlo Club, BD-2009-AR- I 4192 4
517109
intrude into any marked or charted navigable channel thus impeding vessel traffic in
the channel).
Criterion met. According to the drawing and information submitted by the petitioner, the
site has been approved by the state to dredge, minimizing the protrusion into the
waterway. The waterway width measures 189 feet and the channel is not marked. The
Monte Carlo Club has an existing Department of Environmental Protection sovereign
submerged land lease that permits structures out to 40 feet, which determined this distance
does not impact navigation within the waterway, Therefore, the facility will not have an
adverse impact on navigation.
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).
Criterion met. According to the information provided by the petitioner, the waterway is
189 feet wide at the closest point as measured by aerial photography. The proposed
facility will occupy about 16 percent of the waterway width, and according to the
petitioner the existing dock across the waterway to the east protrudes about 16 percent,
leaving about 68 percent open for navigability.
5. Whether the proposed location and design of the dock facility is such that the facility
would not interfere with the use of neighboring docks. (The facility should not
interfere with the use of legally permitted neighboring docks).
Criterion met. According to the drawings submitted by the petitioner, the proposed
facility will not interfere with the use of neighboring docks. The subject property has
existing docks to the north of the proposed docks and the 25-foot setback from the south
riparian line is such that the proposed facility will not interfere with the use of the docks
located to the south on the Vanderbilt Beachcomber Condominium site.
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 (1) special condition related
to the property; these may include type of shoreline reinforcement, shoreline
configuration, mangrove growth, or seagrass beds).
Criterion met. An existing seawall exists and the proposed docks have been designed to
run perpendicular to the existing docks on the site.
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).
Monte Carlo Club, BD-2009-AR-14192
5/7/09
5
Criterion met. As shown on the drawings submitted by the petitioner, the deck area is not
excessive. A four-foot-wide finger pier is proposed to accommodate a boat slip on each
side, which will allow reasonable, safe access to the vessels for loading/unloading and
routine maintenance without the use of excessive decking.
3. For single-family dock facilities, whether the length of the vessel, or vessels in
combination, described by the petitioner exceeds 50 percent ofthe subject property's
linear waterfront footage. (The applicable maximum percentage should be
maintained).
Not applicable to this multi-family facility.
4. Whether the proposed facility would have a major impact on the waterfront view of
neighboring property owners. (The facility should not have a major impact on the
view of a neighboring property owner).
Criterion met. As previously stated, there are existing docks on the subject property to the
north of the proposed docks. The property line for the subject site is approximately 10
feet seaward of the seawall. Because of the 25-foot setback from the south riparian line
and the location of the development to the south, the proposed docks will not have a major
impact on the waterfront view of neighboring property owners.
5. Whether seagrass beds will be impacted by the proposed dock facility. (If seagrass
beds are present, compliance with subs<<tion 5.03.06(1) of this LDC must be
demonstrated).
Criterion met. According to the applicant, there are no known seagrass beds within 200
feet of the proposed dock facility.
6. Whether the proposed dock facility is subject to the manatee protection
requirements of subsection 5.03.06.E.ll of this Code. (If applicable, compliance with
section 5.03.06.E.1l must be demonstrated).
Criterion met. The proposed facility consists of 20 new boat slips and 14 existing boat
slips and is therefore subject to the provisions of subs<<tion 5.03,06.E.ll. A Site
Development Plan Insubstantial Change (SDPI-200S-AR-12222) has been submitted and
reviewed by the Environmental Services Department and has demonstrated compliance
with manatee construction standards.
Staff analysis indicates that the request meets all of the five primary criteria and all of the six
(applicable) secondary criteria.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the CCPC approve Petition BD-2009-AR-14192 subject to the following
conditions of approval:
Monte Carlo Club, BD-2009-AR-14 ] 92
5/7/09
6
1. Corresponding permits, or letters of exemption, from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection shall be provided
to Collier County prior to the issuance of a building permit;
2. Reflectors and dock numbers of no less than four (4) inches in height must be installed
at the outermost end on both sides of all docks or mooring pilings, whichever
protrudes the furthest into the waterway, in accordance with the provisions of
Ordinance 07-62 prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Completion;
3 At least one (l) "Manatee Area" sign must be posted in a conspicuous manner
as close as possible to the furthest protrusion of the dock into the waterway, prior to
the issuance of a Certificate of Completion;
4. All prohibited exotic species, as such term may now or hereinafter be established in
the LDC, must be removed from the subject property prior to issuance of the required
Certificate of Completion and the property must be maintained free from all
prohibited exotic species in perpetuity;
5. A Site Development Plan Insubstantial Change shall be submitted and approved prior
to the issuance of the building permits for the proposed docks.
Monte Carlo Club, BD-2009-AR-14192
517109
7
...~_....>_-.~-----~_..-_..~,.~_.--'.~.._",_.._" ~.-.~-~._-----'-'---'-
PREPARED BY:
7\~ \. ~" " ~
ASHLEY CASERTA, SENIOR PLANNER
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
b'/110'1
DATE
REVIEWED BY:
~~'Y/J~
RAYMO V, BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
s ,So 01
DATE
~ --/rn. \ S~I)
sUSAN M. ISTENES, AICP, DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
) ffiLO '1
AT
APPROVED BY:
-s-jyj, 1
EPH K. SCHMIIT AD ISTRATOR / DATE
MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION:
MARK P, STRAIN, CHAIRMAN
DATE
Attachments: Staff Report prepared for the August 7, 2008 Planning Commission meeting.
Meeting minutes from the December 2, 2008 BZA hearing.
Monte Carlo Club, BD-2009-AR-14192
517109
8
bonham_
Page I of2
.
o9,cfJS..()o937
From:
Wednesday, May 13, 2009 11 :27 AM
ashton_h; bonham_g
CasertaAshley
FW: 09-CPS-00937 Monte Carlo Club Condominium Assn - BD-2009-AR-14192:
Doc_9_ 459B.PDF; BD-2009-AR-14192_ staff report.doc
hltp:/lbccex01 0 1/publiclClient%20Profiles/CPSQUMatter%20Info/17819/Messages/
{9B3ADAA5-682D-4916-92CO-726C325E9A 1 A}.eml
CaseSK: 17619
DatabaseName: CPSQL
IblNumAttach: 2
Maller: 09-CPS-00937
MallerStyle: 09-CPS-00937 Monte Carlo Club Condominium Assn - BD-2009-AR-14192 _
MessageGUID: {751 DB49A-08E1-467 4-6CC8-0B248CB 1 C46F}
MsgHeaderlD: <C318AODD37943143AADB8DA 1362D6400152A2E46@bccex01 01.bcc.colliergov.net>
OriginalDate: None
ProfileName: CPSQL
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Allachments:
AssocURL:
Style:
Monte Carlo Club Condominium Assn - BD-2009-AR-14192-
Heidi,
{\'f
l! ~,
CI\ t Iv;:/
\\) rPV
\--\ rJ- ~
0\ r"0y'f\
Q.,-O 'i ~
~ ~:'r~~Q" ~
::':\~:~:~~~~\2, 2009 6:43 AM if 0 0 \(~
To: SawyerMichael ~
Subject: FW: 09-CPS-00937 Monte Carlo Club Condominium Assn - BD-2009-AR-14192 :
Ashley is out today on jury duty and will be starting her furlough tomorrow. I'm forwarding the Monte Carlo
staff report as she outlined below. Susan made changes and signed off the routing sheet this morning.
Please let me know if you need anything else.
Thanks,
Mike Sawyer, AP A
Interim Planning Manager
Zoning and Land Development Review
2800 N. Horseshoe Orive
Naples, FI34104
Phone: 239-252-2926
!Ylike. here is the email to send to Heidi Ashtlln,Just add the most recent copy of the staff report, with most
recent revised date in footer,
Location of [JD..2C1C19..AR..14192 file is: G:lAshley CaserraJBD,2(1C19..AR..14192
5/14/2009
CCPC RESOLUTION 09-
A RESOLUTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING
COMMISSION RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2oo9-
AR-14192 FOR A TEN FOOT BOAT DOCK EXTENSION
OVER THE MAXIMUM TWENTY FOOT LIMIT PROVIDED
IN SECTION 5.03.06.E.l OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ALLOW A 30-FooT BOAT
DOCK FACILITY TO ACCOMMODATE TWENTY
ADDITIONAL BOAT SLIPS ON PROPERTY HEREINAFTER
DESCRIBED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has
conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and
such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and
WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (We)
(Ordinance 2004-041, as amended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular
geographic divisions of the County, among which are provisions for granting extensions for boat
docks; and
WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPe), being duly appointed,
has held a properly noticed public hearing and considered the advisability of a 10-foot boat dock
extension from the 20-foot length otherwise allowed by Section 5.03.06.E.I of the Collier
County Land Development Code to allow a 30-foot boat dock facility that will accommodate 20
additional boat slips in a RMF-16 Zoning District for the property hereinafter described; and
WHEREAS, the CCPC has found that this petitioner has met the criteria required by
LDC Section 5.03.06 of the Collier County Land Development Code; and
WHEREAS, the CCPC has given all interested parties the opportunity to be heard, and
considered all matters presented.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING
COMMISSION OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
lof2
Petition Number BD-2009-AR-14192, filed on behalf of Monte Carlo Club Condominium
Association, Inc. by Turrell, Hall and Associates, Inc. for the property hereinafter described as:
Lots I and 2, Block B, of the Baker-Carroll Point Unit 2 Subdivision, as
described in Plat Book 8, Page 62, of the Public Records of Collier
County, Florida (part of the Monte Carlo Club Condominium)
be and the same is hereby approved.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this
Commission and filed with the County Clerk's Office.
This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote.
Done this
day of
,2009.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
MARK P. STRAIN, Chairman
ATIEST:
Joseph 1(. Schmitt
Community Development and Environmental
Services Administrator
Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency:
\-\(1"\ I:l C'\
r\v">
Heidi Ashton-Cicko
Assistant County Attorney
CP\09.cPS.00937\4
2of2
Conditions of approval:
1. Corresponding permits, or letters of exemption, from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection shall be provided
to Collier County prior to the issuance of a building permit;
2. Reflectors and dock numbers of no less than four (4) inches in height must be
installed at the outermost end on both sides of all docks or mooring pilings,
whichever protrudes the furthest into the waterway, in accordance with the provisions
of Ordinance 07-62 prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Completion;
3 At least one (l) "Manatee Area" sign must be posted in a conspicuous manner as
close as possible to the furthest protrusion of the dock into the waterway, prior to the
issuance of a Certificate of Completion;
4. All prohibited exotic species, a~ such term may now or hereinafter be established in
the LDC, must be removed from the subject property prior to issuance of the required
Certificate of Completion and the property must be maintained free from all
prohibited exotic species in perpetuity;
5. A Site Development Plan Insubstantial Change shall be submitted and approved prior
to the issuance of the building permits for the proposed docks.
AGENDA ITE~
t.t&
Co1Nt.,. County
-- - ~--
STAFF REPORT
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
HEARING DATE: AUGUST 7, 2008
SUBJECT:
PETITION BD-2006-AR-9061
AGENT/APPLICANT:
Agent:
Jeff Rogers
Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.
3584 Exchange Avenue
Naples, FL 34104
Owner:
Monte Carlo Club Condominium Association, Inc.
P.O. Box 7622
Naples, FL 34101
REQUESTED ACTION:
The petitioner is requesting a 15-foot boat dock extension from the maximum permitted
protrusion of 20 feet for waterways greater than 100 feet in width, which will allow
expansion of a multi-slip boat docking facility. The completed facility will protrude a total
of 35 feet into a waterway which is 189 feet wide at the most restrictive point. The
requested protrusion will apply to the new construction of 20 additional boat slips for a
multi-family development.
GEOGRAPIDC LOCATION:
The subject property is located at 10684 Gulf Shore Drive, further described as Baker-
Carroll Point Subdivision, Unit 2, Block B, Lots I and 2, as recorded in Plat Book 8, Page
62, Monte Carlo Club Condominium, Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East,
Collier County Florida. (See Location Map on following page).
I
w
~
3
>
<
w
~
~
<
w
~
z
'"
<
w
~
z
~
<
~
oc
w
z
z
o
u
z
o
o
~
~
r
~
.
ei
o
z
<
>
a.
z
w~
!::!<
",0
o
~
C')
,
u.
(J)
c::
B
~
'lI.
'IA
>
z
o
~
W
I
w
o
z
~
<
':>i
toll
O"'~
7.~'"
,.
"
.
w
3
m
>
~i;~
>"
,<
f-'
c::
!!~~
,o'Y
0'
'"
,"
Of 't,J.t'f...\CO
G\.\\..f
nr.l$tll.lCN /
-
'E-
- -
,
1= ,
z > ! !
6 M! !
u !~" 0 1
,"
W !i'io.
'OJ "j
I! II,
i!
I'
E !itl_
!l!
~
1.....T1!l'1WJ._J.
!>-
,'~
GULF
OF MEXICO
a.
<(
~
(!)
Z
Z
o
N
'"
o
'"
D:
<(
,
'"
o
o
'"
cO
m
..
z
2
l-
I-
W
0..
a.
<(
~
~
z
o
I-
<(
U
o
--l
PURPOSEillESCRIPTlON OF PROJECT:
The purpose of the project is to add 20 additional boat slips to a 54-unit multi-family
development where 14 boat slips exist. The facility will protrude a total of 35 feet into
Vanderbilt Lagoon which is 189 feet wide at the closest point, and consist of 10 additional
finger piers that are 35 feet long and four feet wide to facilitate the mooring of 20 additional
boats. The 14 existing slips were built in accordance with Collier County Building Permit
No. 88-3222.
LAND USE & ZONING:
Existing: Multi-family development, zoned RMF-16
Surrounding: North - Existing Vanderbilt Yacht & Racquet Club zoned RMF-16
South - Existing Vanderbilt Beachcomber Condo zoned RT-VBRTO
East - Vanderbilt Lagoon waterway
West - Gulf Shore Drive right-of-way
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION:
Environmental Services staff has reviewed this petition and has no objection to the granting
of this request. Section 5.03.06.E.ll (Manatee Protection) of the Collier County Land
Development Code (LDC) is applicable to all multi-slip docking facilities with ten (10) or
more slips. The proposed facility consists of 34 boat slips and is therefore subject to the
provisions of this section.
STAFF COMMENTS:
The Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) shall approve, approve with conditions,
or deny, a dock facility extension request based on the following criteria. In order for the
CCPC to approve this request, it must be determined that at least four of the five primary
criteria and four of the six secondary criteria have been met.
Staff has reviewed this petition in accordance with Section 5.03.06 and fmds the following:
Primary Criteria
Q) Whether the number of dock facilities amI/or boat slips proposed is
appropriate in relation to the waterfront length, location, upland land use and
zoning of the subject property. Consideration should be made of property on
unbridged barrier islands, where vessels are the primary means of
transportation to and from the property. (The number should be appropriate;
typical single-family use should be no more than two (2) slips; typical multi-
family use should be one (1) slip per dwelling unit; in the case of unbridged
barrier island docks, additional slips may be appropriate).
Criterion met. The site currently consists of 14 boat slips and 20 new boat slips are
proposed for a total of 34 boat slips. The subject property is zoned RMF -16 and 54
2
multi-family residential units exist on site. The number of existing and proposed
boat slips in conjunction with the nwnber of multi-family residential units is
appropriate in relation to the 712-foot waterfront length of the property and is in
compliance with the provisions of the Manatee Protection Plan.
Standing on the seawall of the subject site looking north at the existing boat slips.
Standing on the seawall of the subject site looking south at the location of the
proposed boat slips and the seawall that wraps around the property to the west.
3
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 (ML T). The petitioner's
application and survey should establish that the water depth is too shallow to
f allow launching and mooring of the vessel(s) described without an extension).
Criterion met. According to the survey submitted by the petitioner, the water depth
at the site is too shallow to accommodate the 20 additional vessels with a maximum
length of 35 feet as described in the petitioner's application at mean low tide. The
site will be dredged to help accommodate the mooring of the vessels and minimize
the protrusion into the waterway.
Standing on the seawall of the subject site looking across Vanderbilt Lagoon at
approximately the most restrictive point.
3. Whether the proposed dock facility may have an adverse impact on
navigation within an adjacent marked or charted navigable channel. (The
facility should not intrude into any marked or charted navigable channel thus
impeding vessel traffic in the channel).
Criterion met. According to the drawing and information submitted by the
petitioner, the site has been approved by the state to dredge, minimizing the
protrusion into the waterway. The waterway width measures 189 feet and the
channel is not marked. The Monte Carlo Club has an existing Department of
Environmental Protection sovereign submerged land lease that permits structures
out to 40 feet, which determined this distance does not impact navigation within the
waterway. Therefore, the facility will not have an adverse impact on navigation.
4
Standing on the seawall of the subject site where it wraps around the property to the
west and looking to the south.
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 eithcr side is maintained for navigability. (The
facility should maintain the required percentages).
Criterion met. According to the information provided by the petitioner, the
waterway is 189 feet wide at the closest point as measured by aerial photography.
The proposed facility will occupy about 19 percent of the waterway width, and
according to the petitioner thc existing dock across the waterway to the east
protrudes about 16 percent, leaving about 65 percent open for navigability.
5. Whether the proposed location and design of the dock facility is such that the
facility would not interfere with the use of neighboring docks. (The facility
should not interfere with the use of IcgalIy permitted neighboring docks).
Criterion met. According to the drawings submitted by the petitioner, the proposed
facility will not interfere with the use of neighboring docks. The subject property
has existing docks to the north of the proposed docks and the 25-foot setback from
the south riparian line is such that the proposed facility will not interfere with the
use of the docks located to the south on the Vanderbilt Beachcomber Condominium
site.
5
Standing on the seawall of the subject site looking west at the adjacent property.
Standing on the seawall of the subject site looking at the adjacent docks to the south.
6
Secondarv 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 (1) special
condition related to the property; these may include type of shoreline
reinforcement, shoreline configuration, mangrove growth, or seagrass beds).
Criterion met. An existing seawall skirts the shoreline with oyster debris seaward of
the seawall which could cause damage to moored vessels. State permits have been
obtained to dredge which will minimize the protrusion into the waterway.
~ Whether the proposed dock facility would allow reasonable, safe access to the
vessel for loading/unloading and routine maintenance, without the use of
excessive deck area not directly related to these functions. (The facility should
not use excessive deck area).
Criterion met. As shown on the drawings submitted by the petitioner, the deck area
is not excessive. A 4-foot-wide finger pier is proposed to accommodate a boat slip
on each side, which will allow reasonable, safe access to the vessels for
loading/unloading and routine maintenance without the use of excessive decking.
~For single-family,..rlQc.k facilities, whether the length of the vessel, or vessels in
~ co~escribed by the petitioner exceeds 50 percent of the subject
property's linear waterfront footage. (The applicable maximum percentage
should be maintained).
Not applicable to this multi-family facility.
8~hether t~e pro~osed facility would have a ma.j~r impact on the waterfr~nt
., VIew of neIghbonng property owners. (The facIlIty should not have a major
impact on the view of a neighboring property owner).
Criterion met. As previously stated, there are existing docks on the subject property
to the north of the proposed docks. The property line for the subject site is
approximately 10 feet seaward of the seawall. Because of the 25-foot setback from
the south riparian line and the location of the development to the south, the
proposed docks will not have a major impact on the waterfront view of neighboring
property owners.
5. Whether seagrass beds will be impacted by the proposed dock facility. (If
seagrass beds are present, compliance with subsection 5.03.06(1). Of this LDC
must be demonstrated).
Criterion met. According to the applicant, there are no known seagrass beds within
200 feet of the proposed dock facility.
7
.
.
6. Whether the proposed dock facility is subject to the manatee protection
requirements of subsection 5.03.06.E.ll of this Code. (If applicable,
compliance with section 5.03.06.E.ll must be demonstrated).
Criterion met. The proposed facility consists of 20 new boat slips and 14 existing
boat slips and is therefore subject to the provisions of subsection 5.03.06.E.ll. A
Site Development Plan Insubstantial Change (SDPI-200S-AR-12222) has been
submitted and reviewed by the Environmental Services Department and has
demonstrated compliance with manatee construction standards.
Staff analysis indicates that the request meets all of the five primary criteria and all of the
six (applicable) secondary criteria.
APPEAL OF BOAT DOCK EXTENSION TO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS:
As to any boat dock extension petition upon which the CCPC takes action, an aggrieved
petitioner or adversely affected property owner may appeal such final action to the Board of
Zoning Appeals. Such appeal shall be filed with the Community Development &
Environmental Services Administrator within 30 days of the action by the CCPC. In the
event that the petition has been approved by the CCPC, the applicant shall be advised that
he/she proceeds with construction at his/her own risk during this 30-day period.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the above findings, staff recommends that the CCPC approve Petition BD-2006-
AR-906l subject to following stipulations:
1. Corresponding permits, or letters of exemption, from the U.S, Army Corps of
Engineers and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection shall be
provided to Collier County prior to the issuance of a building permit;
2. Reflectors and dock numbers of no less than four (4) inches in height must be
installed at the outermost end on both sides of all docks or mooring pilings,
whichever protrudes the furthest into the waterway, in accordance with the
provisions of Ordinance 07-62 prior to the issuance of a Certificate of
Completion;
3 At least one (I) "Manatee Area" sign must be posted in a conspicuous manner
as close as possible to the furthest protrusion of the dock into the waterway,
prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Completion;
4. All prohibited exotic species, as such term may now or hereinafter be
established in the LDC, must be removed from the subject property prior to
issuance of the required Certificate of Completion and the property must be
maintained free from all prohibited exotic species in perpetuity;
5. A Site Development Plan Insubstantial Change shall be submitted and approved
prior to the issuance of the building permits for the proposed docks.
8
PREPARED BY:
~ .y\ ~ 0-- --
ASHL'EY CASERTA, SENIOR PLANNER
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
RE~WEV BY,
j A- (J(O
JE :-~ I--I<(IQI ASH/1JiV- [.iLk.tJ
ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY
REVIEWED BY:
~LfY>.~
~ISTENES, AICP, DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
APPROVED BY:
EPH K. SCHMITT, ADMINISTRATOR
MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
Petition Number: BD-2006-AR-9061
Staff Report for meeting ofCCPC on August 7, 2008.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION:
MARK P. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN
. ,
lfll (DY
DATE
':j-f (1-lo(
DATE
~~~3
DATE
-00/08
DATE
7/17~6'
DATE/
DATE
9
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
and
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD (CRAB)
~.
~
Jf ,,\
AGENDA
December 2, 2008
9:00 AM
Tom Henning, BCC Chairman Commissioner, District 3
Donna Fiala, BCC Vice-Chairman Commissioner, District 1; CRAB Chairman
Jim Coletta, BCC Commissioner, District 5; CRAB Vice-Chairman
Frank Halas, BCC Commissioner, District 2
Fred W. Coyle, BCC Commissioner, District 4
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM
MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER
WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENT A TION OF THE
AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. ALL REGISTERED SPEAKERS WILL
RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY
THE CHAIRMAN.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY
ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS
SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES
(INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE
BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON
THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION
TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS."
December 2, 2008
Page 1
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO,
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBA TIM RECORD
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH mE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY
ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING,
YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF
CERT AIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT mE COLLIER COUNTY
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST
T AMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 252-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMP AIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. Pastor J. R. Pagan, International Worship Center
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval oftoday's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended. (Ex
Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for consent and
summary agenda.)
B, October 22,2008 - Value Adjustment Board Hearing Meeting with Special
Magistrate Scott Watson
C. October 24,2008 - Value Adjustment Board Hearing Meeting with Special
Magistrate Mark Pelletier
D. October 28, 2008 - BCC/Regular Meeting
E. October 30, 2008 - BCC/LDC Meeting
F. November 3,2008 - BCC/AUIR Meeting
December 2, 2008
Page 2
G. November 5, 2008 - Value Adjustment Board Special Meeting with Special
Magistrate Mark Pelletier
H. November 7, 2008 - Value Adjustment Board Hearing Meeting with Special
Magistrate Davia Mazur
l. November 10,2008 - Value Adjustment Board Meeting
3. SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS)
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation endorsing and supporting the activities of the Economic
Development Council's Project Innovation. To be accepted by Tammie
Nemecek, Bill O'Neill, Chris Doyle, Dolph Von Arx and Representative
Tom Grady.
5. PRESENTATIONS
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Public petition request by David Schimmel to discuss donation of County
Property at 425 1st Street North, Immokalee, FL.
B. Public petition request by Jim Dishinger to discuss main gate access at
Forest Glen.
C. Public petition request by Juan Barrera to discuss After The Fact Fee on
Permit #2008060365.
D. This item continued from the November 18,2008 BCC Meeting. Public
petition request by Jamesdon Stevens to discuss bid process for Solicitation
Number 08-5123.
E. Public petition request by Aisling Swift to discuss vegetation buffer between
New Hope Ministries, Briar Landings, Lake Pointe Condominiums and The
Enclave.
December 2, 2008
Page 3
F. Public petition request by Antonia Soto to discuss migrant worker transport
bus parking.
Item 7 and 8 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 p.m.. unless otherwise noted.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
A. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. SY-2008-AR-13374
Naples Grande Beach Resort, represented by Hunter Hansen, requesting
seven variances, The first six Yariances are from the Land Development
Code (LDC) Section 5.06.04 C.l., which requires a minimum separation of
1,000 lineal feet between signs, to allow a sign separation of 66 feet, 40 feet,
156 feet, 66 feet,71 feet, and 96 feet. The seventh Yariance is from LDC
Section 5.06.04 C.l., which permits a maximum of two pole signs per street
frontage, to permit a maximum offoUT signs along a street frontage. The
subject property is located at 475 Seagate Drive, in Section 9, Township 49
South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. CTS
B. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. SY-2008-AR-13395
Immokalee-Wood, LLC, represented by Michael R. Fernandez of Planning
Development, Inc., is requesting a variance from the Land Development
Code (LDC) Section 5.06.04 C.I. to reduce the minimum separation of
1,000 lineal feet between signs to allow a sign separation of276 feet. The
subject property is located at 2600 Immokalee Road, Section 25, Township
48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (CTS)
C. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided bv Commission
Members. Should a hearinl! be held on this item. all participants are
required to be sworn in. ADA-2008-AR-13731 (AC) Monte Carlo Club
Condominium Association, Inc., represented by Quin L. Kurth of Turrell,
HaIJ and Associates, Inc., requesting an appeal to the Board of Zoning
Appeals ofa decision of the ColJier County Planning Commission in
Resolution No. 08-03 denying Petition BD-2006-AR-9061 that requested a
IS-foot boat dock extension over the maximum 20-foot protrusion limit as
provided in Section 5.03.06 of the Land Development Code to allow a 35-
foot boat dock facility accommodating 20 additional boat slips for property
described as Lots I and 2, Block B of Baker-CarrolJ Point Unit 2
Subdivision in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier
December 2, 2008
Page 4
County, Florida (part of the Monte Carlo Club Condominium).
S, ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of members to the Development Services Advisory
Committee.
B. Appointment of members to the Isles of Capri Fire Control District Advisory
Committee.
C. This item to be heard at 11 :30 a.m. To reconsider the Board of County
Commissioners direction for the EAC and the CCPC to hold a joint
workshop to hear the RLSA Phase II report.
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. This item continued from the November IS. 200S BCC Meetinl!:.
Presentation to the Board of County Commissioners to provide an annual
update and comparison of the local area housing market and the status of
current affordable housing programs, funding amounts and assistance
strategies. (Marcy Krumbine, Housing and Human Services Director)
B. Recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing the condemnation of land
and easements necessary for the construction of roadway, drainage and
utility improvements required for the expansion of Collier Boulevard from
four lanes to six lanes from Green Boulevard to Golden Gate Boulevard,
including portions east on White Boulevard and west on Pine Ridge Road
(Project No. 68056). Estimated fiscal impact: $13,052,361, (Norman Feder,
Transportation Services Administrator)
C. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve the
proposal regarding the Executive Manager to the BCe. (Jim Mudd, County
Manager)
D. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners determine the
Fiscal Year 2009 capital projects to be programmed based on the $1,803,392
turn back revenue allocated to the Landscape Beautification Master Plan and
the three projects scheduled for landscaping. (Norman Feder, Transportation
December 2, 2008
Page 5
December 2-3, 2008
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, December 2-3,2008
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as
the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such
special district as has been created according to law and having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in
REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex,
East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN:
Tom Henning
Donna Fiala
Jim Coletta
Fred Coy Ie
Frank. Halas (absent on 12/3/08)
ALSO PRESENT:
Jim Mudd, County Manager
Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney
Sue Filson, BCC Executive Manager
Page ]
December 2-3, 2008
PLANNING COMMISSION IN RESOLUTION NO. 08-03
DENYING PETITION BD-2006-AR-906I THAT REQUESTED A
I5-FOOT BOAT DOCK EXTENSION OVER THE MAXIMUM
20-FOOT PROTRUSION LIMIT AS PROVIDED IN SECTION
5.03.06 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ALLOW A
35-FOOT BOAT DOCK FACILITY ACCOMMODATING 20
ADDITIONAL BOAT SLIPS FOR PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS
LOTS I AND 2, BLOCK B OF BAKER-CARROLL POINT UNIT 2
SUBDIVISION IN SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE
25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA (PART OF THE
MONTE CARLO CLUB CONDOMINIUM) - MOTION TO
UPHOLD PLANNING COMMISSION'S FINDINGS - FAILS;
MOTION TO REMAND THIS ITEM BACK TO THE PLANNING
COMMISSION WITH A REQUEST FOR FORMAL
INTERPRETATION AND REASONS FOR INITIAL DENIAL IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE LDC - APPROVED
Brings us to 7C. This Item requires that ex parte disclosure be
provided by commission members. Should a hearing be held on this
Item, all participants are required to be sworn in.
ADA-2008-AR-13731, (AC), Monte Carlo Club Condominium
Association, Inc., represented by Quin L. Kurth of Turrell, Hall &
Associates, Inc., requesting an appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals
of a decision of the Collier County Planning Commission in resolution
number 08-03 denying petition BD-2006-AR-906I that requested a
15-foot boat dock extension over the maximum 20-foot protrusion
limit as provided in Section 5.03.06 of the Land Development Code to
allow a 35-foot boat dock facility accommodating 20 additional boat
slips for property described as Lots 1 and 2, Block B of Baker-Carroll
Point Unit 2 Subdivision in Section 29, Township 48 south, Range 25
east, Collier County, Florida, and it's part of the Monte Carlo Club
Condominium.
Page ] 10
December 2-3,2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, did you want to
say something?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. I just wanted to ask a question
of the County Attorney in an attempt to maybe clarifY and expedite
disposition of this Item.
County Attorney, the concern in my mind is that you advised the
CCPC that they did not have to adhere to the criteria established in the
ordinance for the approval or disapproval of this request for extension.
If you could enlighten us as to what actually transpired and why that is
the case, it would be helpful for me.
MR. KLA TZKOW: Okay. This will take about two minutes to
go through my analysis, and I'll use the visualizer with Mr. Mudd's
help.
The first piece of the ordinance that's relevant is that you're only
allowed a 20-foot dock or boat protrusion into the canal, okay. So we
have ourselves an LDC requirement that if you're on a lot that is 100
feet or greater -- now, this could be 200 feet, 400 feet, 1,000 feet, it
doesn't make any difference, okay -- what we said is that your dock
and boat combination cannot protrude more than 20 feet into the
waterway, okay.
We then give an ability for a form, of what is really a variance to
this. If Mr. Mudd could put this on.
MR. MUDD: Absolutely.
MR. KLATZKOW: And it's really in two parts. Now, if all we
wanted the Planning Commission to look at was the primary criteria
and the second criteria, there'd be one sentence, and that sentence
would read, if an applicant can demonstrate at least four of the five
primary criteria or four of the secondary criteria would be met, then he
would be entitled to an extension, but we don't say that.
What the ordinance says is something different. It breaks it down
into two parts. It says, an additional protrusion of a dock facility into
any waterway beyond the limits established in subsection 5.05.06.E,
Page 11 ]
December 2-3, 2008
which is the 20 feet, may be considered appropriate under certain
circumstances. So it's the exception rather than the rule, and there's a
period there, okay.
It then goes on to say, in order for the Planning Commission to
approve the boat dock extension, then you've got to at least meet these
criteria, four out of five or -- of the primary, and four out of six -- at
least four out of six of the secondary.
So the Planning Commission really looks at two things. They
say, is this boat dock extension request appropriate given the
circumstances? And these circumstances could be many and varied.
And again, the general rule is you only get 20 feet irrespective of the
size of the canal, all right, but you are entitled to a form of a variance
if there are certain circumstances you can demonstrate.
These circumstances conclude, for example, that it's too shallow
near shore, so you have to go out in order to put your boat down,
okay. But in order for the Planning Commission now, once they've
found the special circumstances exist to actually give it to you, then
these criteria kick in and they have to say, well, okay, we think you're
allowed to do that.
In addition to that, you meet at least four of the six primary and
you meet at least four of the six -- four of the five, four of the six
secondary, all right. So it's a two-part analysis by the Planning
Commission.
And again, if you wanted to limit the Planning Commission to
just the one- analysis where all they looked at was the criteria, then
you'd have one sentence and you tell the Planning Commission, if the
applicant meets four out of five or four out of six, then he gets. But
we don't say that. We broke it down into two different steps.
Now, this particular provision in some form goes back to at least
1965. And we've gone through the legislative history, and I cannot
tell you why we even have this, okay. It goes back to at least an outfit
called NAZAC (phonetic), which we're assuming is Naples zoning--
Page 112
December 2-3, 2008
some sort of Naples zoning group, who recommended this be the
standard through the county. But the report wasn't -- isn't in our
record.
So I don't know what the public purpose of limiting 20 feet is. I
don't know if we want smaller boats in the waterways, which is why
we had this 20 feet, or if we simply wanted to be able to increase the
navigation throughout the canals. But since we don't differentiate
between 100 feet and 200 feet and 400 feet and 800 feet, all right, my
inclination is that what we're really trying to do is keep the size of the
boats down. That's just hazarding a guess though.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
That's very helpful. And here's my -- I don't think it's a dilemma, but
it leads me to at least a recommendation, but I am going to let the
position of the commissioner in whose district this lies really take the
lead on this, but I just want to get this out so it can be considered.
If you are correct in this interpretation, then there is no basis for
this appeal that we have before us today because the appeal presumes
that the Planning Commission had to use the criteria that were
established in the ordinance. But if your guidance is that they do not
have to use that criteria, then the appeal is baseless because a majority
of the Planning Commission members voted against it.
Now, if we assume that the criteria in the ordinance should have
been used, your guidance to them resulted in them not naming,
perhaps, all the criteria that they otherwise would have named had
they believed that they had to use that criteria.
MR. KLATZKOW: No. They listed their reasons.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: They did not list all of them,
perhaps. Some listed four reasons, some in category one, or criteria
one and criteria two, some only listed one reason in one of the criteria,
but they voted against it.
So in order for us to make a decision today about what should
have been done there, we would have to be reading the minds of the
Page ] 13
December 2-3, 2008
people at the Planning Commission.
Did your guidance encourage them to ignore the ordinance, or
did they really name all of the reasons that they felt were appropriate
when they denied it?
So, I guess I've come to this conclusion, either we conclude that
your guidance is correct and there, therefore, is no basis for this
appeal, or, secondly, we remand it to the Planning Commission with
instructions to use the ordinance and to specify all of their reasons for
refusing this boat dock extension request.
MR. KLA TZKOW: That is certainly within your purview to do.
I do think you have enough of a record before you as to the entirety of
the situation that you can make your own determination of whether or
not the permit should be -- or the extension should be granted.
It's not a recommendation by the CCPC, and it's simply their
decision. It's been appealed. It now comes to you. If you look at the
evidence that was presented and whatever additional evidence may be
presented here and you believe that the extension is warranted, you
can certainly go in that direction. You're not bound by the Planning
Commission. Or you can send it back to the Planning Commission for
further guidance.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. That's all I'm going to say
on this issue because this is something that's in someone else's district,
and I just wanted to get that thought on the record, okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I have some questions about the
process, if you can put that back up. But first of all I want to go to
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Thank you very much,
Chairman. I feel that we charged the Planning Commission to sit
down and make some good judgments because we rely heavily on
them. I believe that from what has been in my agenda package, that
this was very well vented (sic) at the Planning Commission, and I
believe that they did a lot of soul searching on this, and I have to agree
Page] 14
December 2-3,2008
with the outcome of the Planning Commission, and so, therefore, I'd
like to make a motion that --
MR. KLATZKOW: You really should listen to the appellate
here, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, all right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Hang on. Jeff?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You're saying that the Planning
Commission could base their decision upon the established primary
and secondary conditions under the ordinance?
MR. KLA TZKOW: What I'm saying is that you look at the
circumstances surrounding that area where you want the dock
extension, and if you think it's appropriate, okay, they can grant that
extension; but in order for them to do it, it has to meet those criteria, at
least four out of the five and four of the six.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right.
MR. KLA TZKOW: So it's a two-step analysis. First they say,
yes, we think it's appropriate that you get this extension.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Based upon the criteria?
MR. KLA TZKOW: No. Based upon the circumstances
surrounding where your dock is.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well, with that said, it's my
understanding we cannot delegate our authority unless we have
specific criteria -- these damn braces, boy, they can really kill you on
some of these words -- otherwise, the action is null and void.
MR. KLA TZKOW: I think you can delegate this type of
inaction towards the Planning Commission. It's not legislative. Just
like you could, if you wanted to, appoint hearing officers for all of
your zoning matters. You could -- you don't necessarily have to hear
them as the BZA. You could appoint the special hearing examiner to
do that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: But it's based upon legislation, and
Page I ] 5
December 2-3, 2008
the criteria is the legislation.
MR. KLATZKOW: But it's like a variance though, sir. It's--
you look at things, but there's always -- whether or not there's a
hardship, for example, which there's no real criteria there, but it's a
feel for a body that's done something for a while.
I mean, should we allow, you know, somebody not to have to put
a fence over here? And after a while you get people with the feel that,
yes, it's appropriate here but it's not appropriate there.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So we can delegate our
authority based upon feelings?
MR. KLATZKOW: No. You can delegate your authority on
these quasi-judicial matters to the Planning Commission or anyone
else you wish.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I just wanted to ask, weren't we
supposed to swear in and --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. We're supposed to do all that.
We haven't even got to that point yet. And, you know, based upon
that, I had a conversation with Mr. Klatzkow about the -- today's
proceedings, and it's his understanding that we're not limited to just
the discussion at the Planning Commission, this appeal, that we can
listen to public speakers and any other evidence that is introduced.
MR. KLA TZKOW: That's the board's policy on -- that's the
board's written policy on this, that you will listen to public speakers.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So with that, at this time ifthere's
anybody wanting to speak on this that hasn't signed a speaker slip,
please do so. But in the meantime, we're going to ask the court
reporter for everybody to rise that wants to speak on this Item, raise
your right hand, and she will swear you in.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ex parte communications, starting out
with Commissioner Coletta.
Page 116
December 2-3,2008
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. 1 met with Mr.
Yovanovich, Mr. Kurth, Mr. Scofield on 1211. On Sunday, in order to
get a clearer idea of where the Planning Commission was coming, I
took it upon myself to call Mark Strain, the Chairperson of the Collier
County Planning Commission, talked to him, and I also talked to staff
and the County Attorney,
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I also met with Rich
Y ovanovich, Quin Kurth, Rocky Scofield, and I also called Mark
Strain and I also talked to staff members about this.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I spoke to Rocky Scofield on this
Item.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I've had correspondence,
emails, and 1 have phone calls, and I've talked to a couple of people
that are on the Planning Commission and those are Mark Strain and
Donna Caron.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have received cOITespondence
concerning this Item, and I also had a meeting with Rich Y ovanovich
where we discussed this briefly.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And Commissioner Henning, I have
four piece of correspondence as well.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Mr. Yovanovich?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good afternoon. For the record, Rich
Y ovanovich on behalf of the petitioner. With me today I have Rocky
Scofield of Turrell, Hall & Associates and Quin Kurth of Turrell, Hall
& Associates, as well as some of the unit owners within the Monte
Carlo Club Condominium Association, or condominium.
I think I'll go first to the issue that Commissioner Coyle raised
regarding what are the boat dock extension rules.
And 1 will tell you that your staff, and in particular Susan Istenes,
Page 1 ] 7
December 2-3, 2008
has issued her opinion and interpretation of what the Land
Development Code says_ And her interpretation -- and I'm sure she
can correct me if I don't get it accurately -- is that the criteria in that --
in the section that Mr. Klatzkow referred you to -- and I believe is still
on the visualizer -- is that you look at the listed criteria, the primary
and the secondary criteria. And then if you meet four out of the five
primary and four out of the six secondary, you are entitled to a boat
dock extension.
I believe under the Land Development Code, it is Ms. Murray's
job to provide that interpretation and that someone can apply for an
official interpretation if they agree with that interpretation, and I
believe you availed yourselves of that in the past, and most recently it
involved provisions in the Land Development Code.
And I don't recall any official interpretation being requested or
rendered by -- or any interpretation being provided or requested of
Ms. Murray of which that can then be appealed.
But be that as it may, I've read a lot of law cases, I've discussed
this with many colleagues and been to many seminars, and I have
never seen a case that says that you got to pass a does-it-feel-right test
before you get into the actual criteria.
And I think what that language -- the reference language that Mr.
Klatzkow was saying is the first part of the test is simply to send you
to which section you are to request an extension from, and it sends
you to the section that says, you get 20 feet, and if you want more,
you've got to meet the following criteria.
And I think I'm right in that interpretation, and I provided you all
of the backup in the appeal that takes you through the legislative
history of these criteria. And in particular, the legislative history
specifically says that when the ordinance was adopted in 2002, it says
that the Planning Commission is to base its decision for approval or --
approval with conditions or denial on an evaluation of the following
primary and secondary criteria.
Page 118
December 2-3, 2008
And then again in '06 there was another revision to the Land
Development Code, and the staff explained why we were making this
revision to the Land Development Code. And it says under the
reason, it says, the language provides a necessary tool in evaluating
criteria submitted for a boat dock extension, will assist staff and the
Planning Commission in determining approval or denial of boat dock
petitions.
So that criteria is there to determine whether you should get one
or whether you should be denied a boat dock extension; otherwise,
you have no rules. It's essentially whatever the Planning Commission
feels is right, that will be upheld. It would be arbitrary. There would
be -- I could never advise a client as to what they have to satisfy in
order to be given a boat dock extension.
I'd have to say, you've got to pass the feel-good test first, and if I
can get you past the feel-good test -- and I don't know what those rules
are to get past the feel-good test -- then if you can meet the four out of
five and the four out of six, you'd be entitled to it. The law doesn't
support that interpretation.
Your regulations have to be clear and property owners have to
know what the rules of the game are to be entitled to get either a boat
dock extension or any other petition that comes before you. There
have to be specific rules, It cannot be arbitrary.
And I believe what the County Attorney is advising at this point
is an arbitrary application of the boat dock extension.
I also disagree that this is not a variance. This is a different
petition. It's an extension. It doesn't say anywhere in this document
that you have to show some kind of a hardship to get it. You meet
different -- if you meet certain criteria, you can go beyond the 20 feet
that the code automatically gives you. The code automatically gives
you 20 feet. And if you want to go beyond that, you've got to satisfy
certain criteria.
So we believe that we have satisfied that criteria and that based
Page 119
December 2-3,2008
upon the information in front of the Planning Commission and in front
of you today, that the only interpretation can be to grant the boat dock
extension.
The Monte Carlo is a 54-unit condominium project. There are 14
existing boats on seven piers that exist. The request before the
Planning Commission and before you today is for an additional 20
boats on 10 finger piers. The request is for a 15-foot extension, and
Rocky will get into greater detail as to how we meet all the criteria.
And if! understand --I'm going to show you stuff that's in the
record. But if I understand the direction is that we can introduce new
evidence today, and I want to make sure that that's okay, because I
wasn't prepared to do that, but I certainly would do that if that's going
to be allowed.
This is -- this is the existing situation of the property. The blue
line that I'm showing you is the actual property line. When the
original 14 boats were approved --
MR. MUDD: Did you say the blue line?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The blue line. It is blue, isn't it?
MR. MUDD: I'm tracing it with my pen right now because it's
hard to see.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And you have a non-colorized version in
your backup.
The blue line is the existing property line for the property. When
those 14 boats or the slips for those boats were approved in 1988, the
code read that you measured the 20 feet from the property line. So
there was no -- those are 30-foot piers. So there was no requirement
to get a boat dock extension back when these were approved. They
were approved simply by a building permit because that was the code
requirement.
In 1991, there was a change to the code that said, we now
measure from the more restrictive. And in this case, the more -- it's
either going to be the property line, mean high-water line, or a
Page 120
December 2-3, 2008
seawall. In this case the more restrictive would be the seawall.
So you lost 10 feet because the property line is where the
property line is. And we used to use that as a measuring point. So
prior to 1991, you could go -- on this particular case you could go 30
feet out on the water. Now you can only go 20 feet out on the water.
So from a practical standpoint, you're only talking about a
five-foot extension from what's already there.
Turrell, Hall & associates, through Quin and others in the firm,
prepared the petition to request an additional -- the boat dock
extension. Hopefully this shows up a little bit better because it's white.
This was the request for 10 additional finger piers that would
extend a total of35 feet out into the water. As Rocky, who will -- in
the petition says, the property to the north extends 35 feet out into the
water. So we're certainly not inconsistent with the property to the
north, as the petition indicates.
So we're requesting to go out a total of35 feet, which under the
new rules is a 15-foot extension.
The information in your packet and in your backup and as agreed
to by your staff indicates that we satisfy the primary criteria as well as
the secondary criteria.
There was one person who spoke at the Planning Commission
hearing, and that individual said -- and this is also in your backup
material from me. I don't want to repeat myself too much -- but it was
a Mr. Schmidt who testified that -- and this was a quote, we're not so
much concerned about how far the dock goes out in the water. It's
what size boat can be put on a 35-foot dock. And then he made
references that we were going to put a 40-foot boat out there, which is
not the case because it can only go 35 feet.
And then he started talking about the actual boat draft. And
when we got into the draft, the Manatee Protection Plan says, you can
only have a boat draft of 3 feet. We're subject to the Manatee
Protection Plan, so whatever the length of the boat is, it cannot have
Page 121
December 2-3,2008
more than a 3- foot draft. So we meet that criteria. So as far as the
draft issue goes, we satisfy that requirement under the Manatee
Protection Plan.
And he started getting into, you know, well, that's not a true draft.
You know, the draft changes depending on whether you've got people
onboard, you've got fuel onboard. But the boat draft is 3 feet, and
that's the requirement. And we will meet that, just like everybody
who has to meet that requirement.
He was then asked -- and there was some talk about, hey, you
know, the waterways are getting crowded. Kind of like streets. You
know, you've got too many boats out there yet there's no study to
support that, and he advocates a study to determine whether or not
there are too many boats out there, but we don't have such a study to
say there are too many boats out there.
And what I found interesting in response to a question that he
was asked was, would you prefer to have more -- because he was
asked a question, if we were limited to the 20-foot, we could have
more than the 34 boats that we're requesting. And he said he preferred
to have more boats versus the 34 boats. So I don't think it's really an
issue of the waterways are too clogged with too many boats. So I think
that argument's got to go away.
We meet the draft requirements of the Manatee Protection Plan,
and we meet all the other requirements of the Land Development
Code.
Then he was asked, did he do any of this research himself, and he
said, no, I didn't do any of the research. I was just reporting what
others had done. So he really didn't provide any testimony based upon
his own individual knowledge. And I don't know whoever provided
the information, whether they're qualified to provide that information
or not. I guess if they speak today we'll find out if they're actually
qualified to provide that information.
But the whole information dealt with too many boats and the
Page 122
December 2-3, 2008
draft of the boat. Didn't really get into any of the primary or
secondary criteria that you find in your code that we are -- we believe
are the only criteria you're supposed to look at in determining whether
to approve or deny.
I think that the Planning Commission, if you look at what they
stated their reasons to be, stated their reasons -- because there was a
lot of discussion -- if you read the transcript, there was a lot of
discussion about what should we say, should we state our reasons, and
they were -- said, yes, state your reasons, all of your reasons. So I
think they stated all of their reasons. But if you don't want to look at
that, you can weigh the evidence yourself.
But if they've stated all their reasons, you will find that the vote
should have been flip-flopped because only, I believe, two of them
found that the requisite number of primary or secondary criteria were
not satisfied. The remainder either didn't support the motion to deny
or didn't state reasons based on the criteria or enough reasons based on
the criteria to support a denial under the rules.
I'm going to ask Rocky to come up here and go through the
extension petition and show you how we meet the criteria in the Land
Development Code. After he does that, I think you'll agree, or I hope
you'll agree, because your staff agreed, that we satisfied the criteria
under the boat -- under the Land Development Code.
Your staff agrees, and we agree with your staff, as far as the
application of the Land Development Code, and I think the legislative
history supports that interpretation.
After that, we're available to answer any questions you might
have regarding our appeal, the basis of our appeal or the petition itself
for the boat dock extension, unless you want to ask questions now.
That's certainly your purview. But I propose to turn it over to Rocky
to have him take you through the boat dock petition and go from there.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Anybody have any questions for Mr.
Y ovanovich?
Page 123
December 2-3,2008
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Scofield?
MR. SCOFIELD: Good afternoon. Rocky Scofield, representing
Monte Carlo Club. I'm with Turrell, Hall & Associates.
What I'll do is I'll briefly go through some of the things. If you
have questions -- you have the packet in front of you and staffs
comments, recommendations on all the criteria, so that is there.
There's no sense in me reading all through those. If you have a
question about any of the particular criteria, I'll be glad to answer that.
This drawing is the overview of the whole project. To the north
you have the existing seven boat slips -- excuse me -- finger piers, 14
slips that are there. Below that to the south are the proposed 10-,
30-foot, 35-foot finger piers.
Again, Rich said, we are here today, what we proposed, a 15-foot
extension to the 20-foot allowed. This is 35 feet. Thirty-five feet is
absolute as far as extending out. You can't tie up anything longer than
the protrusion of that dock.
And what a lot of people don't understand is that basically if
we're in here for a 35-foot total protrusion, 15-foot extension, boats
are sold and footages -- whatever that footage is, is you buy a 30-foot
boat, it may have an overall length of 34 feet. I know there's some
28-foot boats that have an additional 5 feet, up to 33 feet of overall
length.
So you cannot put a 35-foot boat at a 35-foot dock without being
out of compliance and in violation of the code and the boat dock
extension.
So the owners are aware of -- the owners are aware of these
things, and they put into -- all the ones that I've represented of the
condominiums, they've put into their bylaws the draft of the boat.
We're not allowed to have a draft of over 3 feet. So ifthat goes in
there, the people who have boats have to comply with what the boat
dock extension was granted for. If their boats are longer, they have to
Page 124
December 2-3,2008
go, but they have to comply to that, and they're made aware of that.
So I just want to -- you know, you can't put anything bigger than
-- you know, if it's a pontoon boat and it's squared off at each end,
maybe you could put a 33-foot boat in there, but you've got to stay a
foot to a foot and a half off of the seawall. There's some play in there
from the tides if it's not on a lift.
But basically you're pretty much restricted in the -- in the
extreme case to a 30-foot boat at a 35-foot extension for a total
protrusion.
And if you look at the drawing that's on the overhead, the n the
criteria from the state and the county requires that you keep 50 percent
of the navigable waterway open to navigation. As you can see in here,
that there is -- the waterway at the narrowest point is 214 feet wide.
That's from seawall to seawall.
When you come out with our proposed docks and the dock across
the waterway, which protrudes out almost 40 feet into the waterway
on the residential lot on the east side of the canal -- of the waterway,
then your -- we're down to 139 feet of open navigable waterway,
which exceeds the 50 percent that's required at a minimum. So there's
plenty of space to navigate through this area.
We are -- we are proposing to do dredging in here, the area that
the new docks are proposed. It's very shoaled in. We have to dredge
in order to get any boats in there, no matter what configuration it is.
So -- and these boats are shown, you know, as -- on the overhead
as bow in, and we will -- we usually dredge down at an angle from the
seawall. And so it's a little bit shallower at the seawall, then it goes
down. So there's -- there's no problem, but that area has to be dredged
in order for the boats to get in there.
The -- the bridge. The bridge is just north of this property, the
Vanderbilt -- the Bluebill Bridge, and the open channel underneath
that bridge is 60 feet wide. That's what people have to navigate
through there. And again, we're back to 139 feet at this point at the
Page] 25
December 2-3,2008
narrowest spot.
That's just an overview of the dredged area which is also in your
packet, and we have -- the cross-sections are also in your packets of
that. It has to be taken out of there.
At this point usually -- usually the questions that come up from
people that are opposed to these is the navigation problem, which I
just went through with you. That's probably the biggest thing. And
there is just -- there's no -- there's no reason for that, as I've shown
you.
And if there's -- the other thing is the length of the boats, which
we just went through. So ifthere's any -- if you have questions, I
mean, I can go through these criteria, but you have it in front of you in
the staff recommendations, so if! can answer any questions, I will.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You stated that the boats have
3-foot drafts. What's a 40-foot boat have?
MR. SCOFIELD: I just happen to have that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good.
MR. SCOFIELD: According to the powerboat guide, the 2007
summary, a 40-foot boat, boats -- this is an average. Boats size 31 to
40 feet draw 3 feet of water.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. You put 10 people in the
boat, how much is the draft then, how much water does it draft then?
MR. SCOFIELD: I'm sorry? Say it again.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: If you have 10 people aboard a
40-foot boat, what's draft at that point?
MR. SCOFIELD: I don't know the displacement figures. Each
boat's different, but it does displace more.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And you have to agree that the
manufacturer, when he tells you it's got a 3-foot draft, that's dry
weight. That's not fully loaded with --
MR. SCOFIELD: Well, no. When they do that, that's usually
Page 126
December 2-3,2008
fuel, and the boat in the water in the idle speed.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: With two people onboard.
MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So here we are. You have a
holding tank on there and you've probably got 50 gallons of water, and
that's about 8 pounds, and then you've got the 3- or 400 -- maybe 200
gallons of fuel onboard, that's about six points a gallon, so therefore --
and I think one of the big concerns is is that there's a waterway just
north of that bridge, and I believe that channel is 3 feet or less,
especially at low tide. At high tide, you're just a little over 3 feet.
MR. SCOFIELD: Right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have a 21-foot boat, and it has a
draft of 3 feet, and I have to be careful going through there. So I think
that's one ofthe big concerns. And then that waterway actually is part
of the outstanding water -- Florida waterways.
MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So I think that's some of the
concerns that the people up there in North Naples area have is the
regards that they're trying to make sure that those outstanding Florida
waters are protected.
MR. SCOFIELD: Right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I think that's one of the big
concerns in regards to the length of the boats or the length of the dock.
Let's take the length of the boat right out of it. Let's just -- the length
of the docks.
I think in most of the cases where the Planning Commission has
made variances or allowed dock extensions has to deal with the
surrounding waters, such as shoaling, mangroves. And basically --
you basically said that. You plan to do some dredging. So that means
that there's no reason to extend those docks out because of hazards to
navigation or anything, that you've pretty much taken care of that and
that you did say that there was a slope from the seawall down.
Page 127
December 2-3, 2008
I have -- my boat is parked the same way, and it's -- it was --
there was soil removed underneath it so that it would -- I could lower
it or raise it, whatever, at any particular tide.
But I think that's the big concern is, when you start looking at
larger docks, it automatically has a reflection, and I think that's the
concern that a lot of people have in regards to, why do we need to
extend these docks when there's really no need for it, and I think that's
why the Planning Commission came up with the scenario that they
did.
Thank you.
MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. I'd -- okay. I'd like to respond to that.
The -- a 30-foot boat is average of about two-and-a-half feet of draft.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Three foot.
MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. So there -- and these boats that are
going in there, that would be the largest boat. There's many boats in
the Vanderbilt area that are of 30 feet, and the ones that go through
these areas all the way to the very southern end is the commercial
boats, which are even bigger boats, so there's --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Which ones are those?
MR. SCOFIELD: Pardon me?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What commercial boats are you
talking about that go through there?
MR. SCOFIELD: The boats, the fishing boats that take people
out fishing at the southern end.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Most of those are about 24 to 26
foot.
MR. SCOFIELD: Well, there's -- they're up to 30 feet also, the
open fishing boats.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The ones I saw were only 26 foot.
And I live on that waterway, and I use it quite a bit.
MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. But anyway, the -- you know, the boats
that they're proposing for this are the standard boats that are most of
Page 128
."__......."'.",___._>__~~~ ._, _ ".....__,~~,,<____~__.. ....~~._m.~.~___~__,._,__
December 2-3,2008
them in there. They're between 20 and 30 feet. They can't be any
longer than 30 feet --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, then 30-foot dock.
MR. SCOFIELD: Because I explained that. A 30-foot -- a
28-foot boat may be 33 feet in overall length, and the overall length is
what we're concerned about here. You have to stay a foot or foot and
a half off of the seawall, and that places us out, and then we'd need the
extra 5 feet for the boat.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Most boats that I've seen at the
present time, the overall length is measured from the bow pulpit all the
way to the swim platform. Used to be they were measured from the
bow --
MR. SCOFIELD: Right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- to the stem.
MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Now with the boats being
an integral part, the whole shell, the actual overall length is -- the inter
dimensions of the boat are shorter, but the overall length is longer.
MR. SCOFIELD: Well, if you look at boat specs, it will tell you
the LAO. It says it right in there. It says, this is a 20 -- a Wellcraft 22,
LOA is 24 or 25 feet that this -- that is still the specs in the boats and
how they're sold. And I've got several gentlemen here today that can
attest that their boats are 3 to 4 feet longer than what the boat is sold at
as a 21 or 22- foot boat.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Not necessarily. But most of the
boats now, when they're sold, they basically -- that's the overall length
from the bow pulpit or the bow to the very end of the swim platform.
MR. SCOFIELD: Then it will list that as the LOA in there, but
the boats are -- they are sold as the 22s or 25s, not including that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any other questions?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Not now.
Page 129
December 2-3,2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. The -- Rich, let's go over the
Planning Commission's individual commissioners that voted for the
motion to deny, I guess, in the minutes. And let's go over each one of
them, because I mean, I have a problem not using the criteria.
So I want to give the planning commissioners the benefit of the
doubt. And Mr. Kolflat -- Commissioner Kolflat voted for the motion
to deny; is that correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Actually I should turn on that last
page.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, if you want to save
some time, I have those votes tabulated by name and by criteria if you
want like for me to provide a summary of those.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: If you could, and if you could
reference the pages to help me move along, I would appreciate that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's go to Page 5 and 6 of the
executive summary, start with primary criteria. We'll start with
primary criteria number A, and Tor Kolflat and Mr. Adelstein said that
was one of the reasons that they cited. And for IB, Tor Kolflat, Mr.
Midney, Commissioner Caron, Commissioner Strain, and
Commissioner Adelstein cited that one as reasons they voted against
it. And for primary criteria 1, paragraph C, Commissioner Strain cited
that as a reason for voting against it.
And then if we'll go to secondary criteria, Commissioners
Midney, Caron, and Strain cited 2A as a reason for voting against it.
And under secondary criteria number B, Commissioner Caron cited
that as a reason for voting against it.
And then under -- on Page 6 under subparagraph D, Tor Kolflat
identified that as a reason he voted against it. So that's the complete
compilation of all of the votes against the petition.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And I know that Mr.
Yovanovich says, no, we don't agree with that, but I'd like to hear
Page 1 30
December 2-3, 2008
from our staff just on those one, two, three primary and three
secondary on why they don't agree with staff, okay.
Do we want to start out with a staff presentation or just go to
questions to staff?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have some questions of staff, if
you wanted to go that way.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Before you get into it, maybe you
could just listen to my questions and then you could respond --
respond to those votes.
But just as an introductory comment, there are a number of
statements in the executive summary by staff that I believe are
incorrect, and so I'd like for you to listen to what I have to say about
those, and then if you can clarifY that issue, go through your
description of why you disagree with them, then that would be helpful.
There's a statement that says there are no provisions in the code
to limit the maximum protrusion that they can be granted for a boat
dock extension petition. That is untrue. There are maximum
protrusions specified with respect to a percentage of the waterway, the
width of the waterway.
The applicant does not need to prove a hardship exists in order to
be granted an extension. That is not true because if we look under
primary criteria B, IB, it cites water depth as an issue, that someone
would have to justifY that it is too shallow for the docks that are
available.
We can also go to secondary criteria A which says that there are
special conditions that the petitioner must specifY, so there are
hardship requirements that must be met in order to get approval.
So as you -- as you go through that process, I would appreciate it
if you'd try to explain why your conclusions in the executive summary
are in variance to the criteria listed in our ordinance.
MS. CASERTA: Okay. For the record, Ashley Caserta,
Page 13 1
December 2-3, 2008
Department of Zoning and Land Development Review.
Primary criteria B, or number two, and secondary criteria 1, or A,
as you just listed are not seen to be hardships. They're seen to be
cri teria that are to be met.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, ifthe water is too shallow to
moor the boat that you have in mind and you're asking for an
extension of a boat dock so you can put the boat there, that is a
hardship. The water isn't deep enough to let me put my boat there so,
thereby, I have to get a longer dock, and I'm asking for the longer
dock because the water is too shallow. That's a physical condition that
is, in fact, a hardship.
And the -- but in this particular condition, this particular
situation, that hardship is being mitigated by dredging. So alleging
that you need a longer dock because the water is too shallow is not an
acceptable justification because you have a dredging permit to make
the water deep enough.
So I hope that explains why I believe that that is a hardship. And
it's also repeated under special conditions. If you have special
conditions that prohibit you from using your property the way you'd
like to use it, you know, that's hardship.
And so I just want to make sure that in -- that we have a good
understanding of the arguments against the Planning Commission's
decision.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm not sure if that requires a
response.
MS. CASERTA: Staff has no further presentation. I'm here to
try and answer any of the questions that you have.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The question, according to
Commissioner Coyle, about why the Planning Commission members
denied it, on the primary criteria A, some members denied it based
upon that criteria. And you disagree with that. Can you tell us why?
MS. CASERTA: You're asking about primary criteria letter A?
Page 132
December 2-3,2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct.
MS. CASERTA: Okay. Primary criteria 1 has to do with the
number of slips and whether it's appropriate in relation to waterfront
length, and also it should be appropriate and use no more than two
slips -- excuse me -- one slip per dwelling unit in multifamily cases.
We have 54 units here, so 34 would be appropriate according to the
criteria.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. That's criteria lA; is that
correct?
MS. CASERTA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That you're citing?
MS. CASERTA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Then 1 B, whether the water depth as
proposed is too shallow for the vessel to n for the generallength and
type of draft described by the petitioner's application.
MS. CASERTA: Okay. IB n excuse me. IB, the criteria states
that the vessel of a general length, type, and draft as described in the
petitioner's application should be able to launch at mean low tide.
And in the petitioner's application, they stated that they would need to
dredge and to be able to protrude out in able n for their vessels to be
able to moor at this site.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: When they do an application, do they
say the average size of vessels?
MS. CASERTA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And Mr. Scofield testified it
was 30 foot; is that what was on the application?
MS. CASERTA: The application states that there would be 34
vessels up to 35 feet in length.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thirty-five feet?
MR. SCOFIELD: Overall length.
MS. CASERTA: Length overall, Rocky's saying.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. That goes back to
Page 133
December 2-3, 2008
Commissioner Halas' measurement. So you could get a 35-foot
pontoon boat out there. Whether the proposed -- 1 C, some of the
planning commissioners determined that it didn't fit the primary
criteria 1 C, and you disagree with that?
MR. MUDD: The question was, did you -- some of the planning
commissioners basically disagreed with criteria 1 C or used 1 C as a
reason for denial, and the commissioner just asked you, and you don't
believe that 1 C is a reason to deny, and he was looking for some kind
of an explanation.
MS. CASERTA: Okay. It was staffs opinion that although it
does protrude 35 feet out into the water, that the proposed facility
would not have an adverse impact on navigation since there would be
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Two hundred feet of waterway in
between.
MS. CASERTA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Now, they have to meet all the
pnmary --
MS. CASERTA: No. It would be four out of five that they
would need to meet.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And they have to -- on the
secondary criteria, they'd have to meet how many out of the secondary
criteria?
MS. CASERTA: Four out of six applicable. In this case, the
single-family letter 2C was not applicable for the multifamily facility.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Then I'd have to, I guess, go to
criteria 2A. Why do you disagree with the Planning Commission's
findings on 2A?
MS. ISTENES: Commissioner, Susan Istenes for the record.
We're looking -- we're basically talking right from the staff report that
was provided to the Planning Commission. So I mean -- and all I'm
asking Ashley to do is just basically explain her analysis. Is that
Page 134
December 2-3, 2008
basically covering your question? Because I --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, this particular question is very
important because --
MS. ISTENES: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- because Mr. Scofield says they are
going to dredge around there, and this criteria is whether the special
conditions involving the depth of water is related to the subject
property or waterway.
MS. ISTENES: Correct. The applicant -- depending on the type
of boat the applicant plans on putting there and depending on the
conditions of the site will determine whether or not he has to dredge.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And they said they're going to dredge.
MS. ISTENES: Right, because the site conditions are too
shallow to accommodate the types of boats they want.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. But if a -- and it was said by
one of my colleagues that you're going to dredge anyways so, you
know, why do you need the boat extension? That doesn't -- I think
what they're saying is, it doesn't meet that criteria, but you disagreed
with it, and I just want to find out why.
MS. ISTENES: Essentially we rely on what -- Rocky's going to
have to explain his side of that. We rely on what the petitioner tells us.
In other words, they're saying, according to the surveys that they
submit to us, the water depth is too shallow to accommodate the
vessels, and they're going to have to dredge to do that.
We rely on data that they provide to us, depending on the type of
boat they want and the survey they did. And according to the data
they provided, we agreed with them.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, Commissioner Coyle?
MS. ISTENES: Am I getting there?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I -- could I interject something
here? It says in secondary criteria A, there must be at least one special
condition related to the property not involving water depth, okay.
Page 135
December 2-3,2008
These may include the type of shoreline reinforcement, the shoreline
configuration, the mangrove growth, or seagrass beds.
There is no evidence that there is a special condition related to
this property not associated with water depth that was presented to the
Planning Commission nor has it been presented to us.
Let's go back to primary criteria number 1 which deals with
water depth, lB. The petitioner's application and survey should
establish that the water depth is too shallow to allow launching and
mooring of the vessels described without an extension. They want to
have a vessel with a draft of 3 feet. They have provided you a
dredging chart that shows they're going to dredge it to 4 feet. So they
have plenty of water to launch or to moor a 30-foot vessel or 35-foot
vessel with a draft of 3 foot.
So they're -- they have not established that the water depth is too
shallow. They have actually provided you with a dredging chart that
shows there's plenty of water there for the size of vessel that they
intend to moor.
So these are the reasons we're confused about why you took such
a strong position against the decision of the Planning Commission
because it flies in the face of the criteria themselves. And I don't want
to belabor it and I'm not being critical. I know that these are difficult
things to evaluate. But, you know, we've got to sort this out some
way.
MS. ISTENES: I understand. And Commissioner, I just -- I
want to make it clear that this is an appeal of the Planning
Commission decision. We provided our professional recommendation
to the Planning Commission, and they denied the petition. The
executive summary before you is essentially a summary of the
applicant's arguments against the Planning Commission's decision.
I apologize if that came across as staff's position. Our position
and our analysis is outlaid in the staff report that was present to the
Planning Commission.
Page 136
December 2-3,2008
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, you actually have a
point-by-point rebuttal of the --
MS. ISTENES: Understand.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- staff's response here to the
Planning Commission. When you've got a point-by-point rebuttal of
their decisions, it's important to us to be able to decide, how did you
make those determinations?
When you go to primary criteria lA, that's a very general -- that's
a judgment call, whether the dock facilities are appropriate in relation
to the location.
MS. ISTENES: You're exactly right, and those are -- and some
of the criteria in primary and secondary are pretty straightforward. I
mean, you either retain 50 percent of the waterway width or you don't.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MS. ISTENES: There is the subjectivity that is in this process is
the evaluation of the criteria itself, not whether you met four out of the
five. I mean, that's just a straight fact.
So I mean, our analysis was presented to the Planning
Commission and they obviously didn't agree with that.
But I just wanted to point out, that's wherein the subjectivity lies,
not -- you know, I respectfully disagree with Jeff's opening statement
about the interpretation of how to apply the code. Subjectivity lies
within the criteria itself.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. Well, I want to get back to my
questions.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I agree that the criteria of depth
is in question in my mind, but getting to the last one, whether the
proposed facility would have a major impact on water views of
neighboring waterfront property owners. I don't agree with whoever
on the Planning Commission feels that way based upon what's in front
Page 13 7
December 2-3, 2008
of us today. So really the only thing in my mind that's a question is, is
about the water depth.
And I know that the petitioner wants to extend the dock so he can
get a larger boat there. I understand that. But is that really part of the
criteria?
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, I was -- one of the questions
I want to ask the County Attorney. I believe that when this was before
the Planning Commission, they were wrestling with this because they
understood that there was not any real hardship, and so I believe you
gave them some guidance in regards to how they could address this.
Was the guidance proper? Because obviously there's some great
differences here between the information that obviously you gave to
the Planning Commission and then what staff says, because it says
here, it is staffs opinion that the boat dock extension petition meets
the required minimum criteria for the approval set forth by the CCP
(sic) staff report.
And then it goes on to say in this appeal application, therefore
staff recommends the Board of Zoning Adjustments and Appeals
overturn the Planning Commission denial.
So I'm trying to weigh where the information -- when they asked
you for your opinion, being you're the County Attorney -- and the
direction that they could go on this, and why is staff now saying that
they were totally in error?
MR. KLA TZKOW: 1 don't know why staff is saying the
Planning Commission's totally in error. To me there's a lot of
judgment that goes into these things, and there's a lot of close calls
going into these things.
Now, I've just read the transcript, so I know exactly what I told
the Planning Commission. What I told the Planning Commission is,
just concentrate on the criteria but it's not a scoring system, all right.
What I also told the Planning Commission, when you make your
Page 138
December 2-3, 2008
motion, give the reasons, which criteria you're relying on, your
motion, if you're going to vote or deny.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And they did that.
MR. KLATZKOW: And they did that. That's what I told them.
Now what I'm telling you is -- and I didn't tell them this -- because I
just read through this, okay. I didn't tell them that you can go beyond
the criteria. I think you can. I think this is a form of a variance. I
think this is very similar to 9.04.03A where it requires special
conditions and circumstances before you go in for a variance, all right;
otherwise, if you want n if you want this as of right, the LDC should
say, if you meet four out of five, you get this as of right, period, all
right. It doesn't say that, all right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MS.ISTENES: Mr. Chairman, interestingly enough, we've had
many discussions with the Planning Commission in the past where
they wondered why they were even hearing boat dock petitions
because they felt that the Items were just a checklist.
And ifthe petitioner met each of the four out of the five of the
primary and four out of the six of the secondary, that they get
approval. And many -- many times we have talked about it just being
simply an administrative approval, but they never asked us to do it
that, and neither did you, so we have this same process. And that's the
way we've been operating since this was amended.
MR. KLATZKOW: And I, frankly, agree with Susan on this. If
you want this as of right, if you just meet four out of five or four out of
six, make this an administrative approval because the Planning
Commission's not doing very much. And if anybody wants to appeal
it, then it can come to you anyway.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas, let me go first.
The other variances still come to the Board of Commissioners.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: This is the only one that doesn't come
Page 139
December 2-3, 2008
to the board unless it's denied.
MR. KLATZKOW: Because sometime in the past you decided
that, for whatever reason, it's just not important enough to come to the
board initially.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We made that decision about four
years ago.
MR. KLATZKOW: Now, if the reason was because it's mostly
administrative, well, keep it administrative. lust say that if you make
four out of six, or whatever the criteria is, you get it as of right. And
then if you don't get it from an administrative standpoint, they could
appeal it to you. We can do that way.
But the Planning Commission has expressed many times its
dismay having to go through one of these after the other because most
of these are based on the fact that you're too shallow and you have to
go out; otherwise you'll never get launched.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's the point I was going to
make is that most generally when those come before the Planning
Commission, it's very clear that there's some impediments that they
can't make it work at 20 feet. There's either mangroves or there's
underwater sea life that they're going to disturb or seagrasses or
whatever else.
This one here is pretty clear that there's none of those particular
problems, but the real problem is that they're going to do the dredging,
so I don't see why there should be any doubt in anybody's mind. I feel
that the Planning Commission did the right thing.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Does anybody have any
further questions of staff or the petitioner?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If! could, just a couple of
things. Explain to me once again what the issue is with dredging.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: There is no issue.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There is no issue. What the petitioner
Page 140
December 2-3,2008
said is, they were going to dredge.
COMMISSIONER COLETT A: Yeah. But is that one of the
things you're not supposed to do under our rules and regulations?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Then, I kind of lost that.
And I think. we brought up one good point here that I found very
interesting. We took something that could have been administratively
done that was supposed to deal just with the rules and regulations that
took place and we turned it over to the Planning Commission.
Now the Planning Commission is supposed to go in there and
decipher whether those particular criterias enter into it. But if that's
the only thing they're supposed to do, we should just keep it
administratively (sic) in the future. I mean, I'm just looking at this
objectively trying to see how we can avoid these kind of --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Maybe I can help the
COmnllSSlOner.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yep.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: In regards to -- they got the permit
to dredge which means that there is no hardship for bringing the vessel
in to the seawall so they can use -- accommodate a 20- foot dock,
okay.
So they've got that provision already to dredge because it is
shallow. That was brought up in the testimony.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I see what you're saying.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It removes the hardship.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It removes that hardship.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I understand. Thank you
very much for clarifYing that.
MR. SCOFIELD: May I comment on that?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure.
Page 141
December 2-3, 2008
MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. The dredging has nothing to -- you
know, this was brought up at the Planning Commission, and I just -- I,
for the life of me, cannot follow this line of logic.
IfI wanted -- if we wanted to put a 12-foot boat in front of this
seawall, we would have to dredge. You have a cross-section. There's
a cross-section showing it -- 10 to 12 feet out from the seawall or
further you have a half a foot of water at low tide. You have to dredge
here. If it's a 12-foot boat, if it's a 20-foot, if it's a 30-foot boat we
have to dredge in order to put boats in here.
The dredging has nothing to do with this -- the extension that's
requesting. You're mixing up apples and oranges here. Yeah, we
come before the Planning Commission lots of times and because we're
in mangrove area or areas in -- they're in OFW that are not allowed
dredging or aquatic preserves. Then we have -- if we have a big
enough waterway, we go way out into the waterway.
If we weren't allowed to dredge here, we'd be in here requesting
for the maximum protrusion, which may be 50 feet that we could get
into this waterway. But we're not.
We're dredging. And it says in your packets, we're dredging in
order to keep this in further. Because some people want to have a 27-,
a 28-, a 29 foot, maybe even a 30. But -- and again, that's not the LO
-- the LOA is based on the 35.
When you take a foot off that you have to keep your boat away
from the seawall, now you're down to a 34-foot length overall, so it's a
30-foot boat. But the dredging is mixed up. 1 don't care if you wanted
to put a rowboat in here, you would have to dredge or it would be
sitting on the bottom, or if it's in a lift, we couldn't launch on a lift. So
did I clear that up on the dredging?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand fine. I don't have a
problem. I -- do we have speakers, too, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
MS. FILSON: We have eight.
Page 142
December 2-3, 2008
MR. YOV ANOVICH: One quick comment. Let's just assume
that we have adequate water depth, for purposes of argument, so we
don't meet that criteria. Your code says I have to meet four out of the
five. So I'm not -- I don't -- I think we meet the criteria, but let's just
say we didn't. We have to meet the four out of the other five, and I
don't think there's any question on the four out of the other five from
your -- from your staffs perspective as far as, you know, what Rocky
-- what I'm hearing you say is, you know, protrude further out, and
then you've met number -- you've met the first criteria about water
depth, but you're going to be punished for dredging to minimize the
length you need to protrude out, but that's okay.
But let's just say I missed that criteria. As long as I meet four out
of the five others I get to go forward, and I meet four out of the six
secondary, I get to go forward. So that's why I said, you don't have to
meet a hardship because you can -- that one criteria, I would agree, is
a hardship criteria. But I don't have to meet that criteria to get
approval. I could fail that one and pass the others.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I totally agree with that. That
wasn't why I was having my question.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand. I just wanted to --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: While -- the response was contrary to
why I was asking the question. I just wanted to find out what the
Planning Commission -- and why staff feels, you know, they were
wrong. I find that it doesn't meet one of the criteria, okay?
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Before we leave that issue, I think
it's important to understand it under criteria -- the secondary criteria.
If we're going to continue to use this for anybody's good purpose, we
can't continue to use it the way it's set up there. You have one criteria
there that is applicable only to single-family dock facilities.
So when you're talking about meeting four of the six criteria,
does that mean a multifamily development automatically meets that
Page] 43
December 2-3,2008
particular criteria, or is that criteria to be ignored? So you really have
to clean that process up because it doesn't make sense to include that
in there.
So it's -- for multifamily dock facilities, we should either say,
you've got to meet three of the five or four of the five; and for
single-family dock facilities, you've got to meet four of the six. But,
you know, this is not a good criteria to use.
And let me very briefly state that I disagree very strongly with
the fact that this has nothing to do with the dredging. Of course it has
something to do with the dredging. It clearly states here that the
petition's application and survey should establish that the water depth
is too shallow to allow launching and mooring ofthe vessel described
without a dock extension, okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Where you at so I can follow you?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's on Page 5. It's primary
criteria IB. It's the last sentence of that paragraph lB. I'll read it
again. The petitioner's application and survey should establish that the
water depth is too shallow to allow launching and mooring of the
vessels described without an extension.
Now, your vessel draft is 3 feet. You're already dredging to 4
feet. You cannot demonstrate that the water depth is too shallow. So
it is a very appropriate criteria for making this decision. So whether
you agree with it or not, it is there, and it's very clear. So I've beaten
this horse to death.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. Let's see if we can get some
public to help us.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeab.
MS. FILSON: The first speaker is John Boyer.
MR. BOYER: I would like to cede my time to my colleague,
Mr. Burton. Oh, I'm sony. Lou Schmidt.
MS. FILSON: The second speaker is Lew Schmidt. Did he say
he wanted him to go first?
Page 144
December 2-3, 2008
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wanted to cede his time.
MS. FILSON: Oh, okay. After Mr. Schmidt is William Eline.
MR. SCHMIDT: Good afternoon, Commissioners, Mr. Mudd,
Mr. Y ovanovich. I'm Lew Schmidt, and I did testifY at the Planning
Commission hearings. And I have to first tell you that Mr.
Y ovanovich's characterization of my presentation was not very
flattering and I don't think it was accurate and I'm not sure he was
there.
That aside, to address the question of my qualifications to talk to
this subject. I'm the former owner and operator of a marine
transportation company that was based in the port of Chicago. We
operated tug boats and barges on the connecting waters and the Great
Lakes.
I am very familiar with restricted waters because we operated
these vessels on the Chicago sanitary and ship canal and county Met
Sag. (phonetic) channel.
I could go into further details, but I also owned a 38-foot Chris
Craft cabin cruiser. I think I am qualified to talk to boat operations in
restricted waters, and that's exactly what I did with the Planning
Commission.
Commissioner Halas has made the point, and I would emphasize
it. The waterway from Bluebill Bridge to Wiggins Pass is marked as
having a 3-foot depth at the low mean tide. We know, in fact, that the
depth in parts of it is less because the cut through Turkey Water Bay,
by observation of people that were there and a measurement by Fish
and Wildlife, Florida Fish and Wildlife some two years ago -- and I
can't give you the exact date, But some two years ago they found
Water Turkey Bay, the cut-through there was something between 18
and 24 inches.
So 3-foot draft is important. We -- I did talk about draft. Draft is
shown in a book, the draft of a boat, and we talked about the average
draft on a 3 1- to 40- foot boat as being 3 foot, but the draft does vary,
Page 145
December 2-3, 2008
The draft -- the operating draft also is different. The operating
draft depends upon how much weight you put in and the displacement
of the vessel which was mentioned by the engineer.
Passing through that channel with a boat of the size we're talking
about, because of draft, is challenging, and seasoned operators are able
to handle it. But when we have a proliferation of35-foot vessels, are
all those operators going to be seasoned? I suggest they will not.
And you will have serious problems. You will also be called
upon to dredge and maintain that channel. If you respond to that,
who's going to pay for it? How often is it going to happen? These are
problems you are going to be faced with.
I think the Planning Commission -- and thanks to your County
Attorney -- used good judgment, and it wasn't just how they felt -- in
denying this application. And their judgment was, in measuring the
overall effect of putting these docks and big boats into that small area
and setting a precedent for others to come in was going to create a
hazard in that waterway -- restricted waterway.
I asked them and encouraged them to support the Land
Development Code, and I did say to them that I felt there was a reason
for the Land Development Code restricting the dock length to 20 feet,
and the reason has to be apparent to us now, It's to prevent people
from putting boats that are too big for the waterway on those docks
and attempting to operate them on the waterway.
There was an intention, and thankfully there's an option for the
commissioners, per our County Attorney, to see that and to deny the
permit to extend them to that length.
That was what I said. That's what I stand by. I think it is
important for you to also consider the overall concerns. I don't think
that this decision can be made administratively, because
administratively, I'm not sure that our staff is familiar with the
waterways.
We would be glad -- and we invite staff to come visit with us and
Page ] 46
December 2-3, 2008
talk with us anytime and we will give them a ride on the waterway,
but the criteria, if you go strictly to these 11, I think, different ideas or
concerns that are expressed as criteria, would have to be amended to
take into consideration all of the practical problems of navigating that
restricted waterway and the dangers and hazards of allowing too many
big boats to exist and operate on that waterway.
I thank you for your attention, and I would be glad to answer any
questions you may have.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is William Eline. He'll be
followed by Kathleen Robbins.
MR. ELINE: My name is William Eline. I live in the
condominium north of the property we're talking about. We put our
additional slips in in 1995, approximately. I don't know who
measured them at 30 feet because they're 20.
At the time when we went for our permit to the state, they asked
us to keep it at 20 and not to have boats more than 30 feet, and we
went along with this because we have the state park next to us, and
people bring their little boats in, and they go out into Turkey Bay.
And if you have big boats out there, you know, you've got families in
these little boats. So we went along. We said, we understand.
And I don't understand why anybody wouldn't support that. We
shouldn't have longer docks and bigger boats. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Kathleen Robbins?
MS. ROBBINS: I cede my time to Bruce Burkhard.
MS. FILSON: Gina Downs.
MS. DOWNS: I cede my time to Bruce Burkhard.
MS. FILSON: Bruce Burkhard. He'll be followed by Joseph
Sivo.
MR. BURKHARD: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name
is Bruce Burkhard, and I represent the Vanderbilt Beach Residents
Association. And with all the ceded time, I guess we can stay here till
about six o'clock, if that's okay.
Page 147
December 2-3,2008
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You might be here till six.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. We're going to take a break, so
just go ahead and talk, and we're going to --
MR. BURKHARD: Gotcha, okay.
On August the 7th of this year, the CCPC, as you well know, was
deg. -- is the designated final authority on all matters relating to docks.
And they heard and considered the application, and they made a solid
decision 6-3 to deny the application.
They're experienced, they know what they're doing, they spent a
lot of time wrestling with the issue, and that was their considered
opinion, and I think we, as an association, value and agree with that
opmlOn.
In the LDC, 5.03.05 El, it clearly states that on a canal or
waterway 100 feet or greater in width, no dock facility boat
combination shall protrude more than 20 feet into the waterway.
E2 of the same section goes on to address narrower waterways
and is more restrictive into setting the 25 percent or 20-foot standard.
It couldn't be clearer that the standard dock protrusion contemplated in
the LDC is 20 feet.
Section H talks about dock facility extensions. It says, they may
be considered appropriate under certain circumstances. In order for
the CCPC to approve the extension request, it must be determined that
four out of the five primary criteria and at least four out of the six
secondary criteria have been met.
I see no place in the code where the CCPC is required to approve
extensions. In fact, there's a very strict requirement that virtually all
of the criteria be met before the CCPC can even consider approving.
The LDC most assuredly does not say that these so-called criteria
must be used in the same manner in order to deny an extension. And
Mr. Klatzkow stated that during the CCPC hearing.
He indicated that Chairman Strain's approach for denying is the
proper approach, that, quote, if you're going to be voting in the
Page 148
December 2-3,2008
negative, that you should state your reasons for the record why you're
voting in the negative and then take your vote, and that's what
happened.
The VBRA believed that the CCPC did make the right call in a
strong decision to deny the extensions. The first and foremost
conclusion from the testimony given by personal observation by
driving my boat right up to the seawall is that there really is no
compelling reason to grant an extension.
And I'll emphasize that again. I've had my boat right up to that
seawall. So the assertion that there's extremely shallow water here, in
my opinion, doesn't fly.
This is merely a case of a landowner group saying that we want
35 feet. No doubt they have reasons such as increasing their property
value by offering out-sized docks or, perhaps, making their condo
units easier to sell as competition with people who followed the code
and built 20-foot docks, fOf example.
In 5.03.06 E, standards for dock facilities, the LDC says that a
criteria for lots on waterways 100 feet or greater in width is that the
dock and boat combination shall not protrude more than 20 feet into
the waterway.
A standard applies to any definite rule, a principle or a measure
established by authority, and that's what we have. It's a desired
configuration.
Common sense says that all this standard -- that this standard
should be adhered to unless there's a valid reason, then an exception
should be made, i.e., the granting of an extension.
We completely disagree with appellant and staffs tortious
reasons fOf appeal, the most egregious of which is to malign Lew
Schmidt who is a citizen living in the area who is expressing his
opinions. It was quite clear from reading the transcript that Mr.
Schmidt's words were not used to justify the denial.
By discrediting citizen witnesses by name, we are on a slippery
Page 149
December 2-3,2008
slope of putting a chill or a damper on well-meaning input from local
citizens. It's a very bad precedent.
By granting a batch of 10 dock extensions, permitting 20 to
35-foot boats sets a new, quote, standard in the county and in our
neighborhood. There's no demonstrated need for an extension. After
all, the Monte Carlo has a dredging permit, as has been alluded to, and
we don't think that shallow water is that serious a problem, and that
certainly can be overcome, as Commissioner Coyle indicated, with the
dredging.
We ask you to uphold the extension denial by your CCCP (sic)
and reasonably interpret your own LDC. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Joseph Sivo?
MR. SIVa: Sivo.
MS. FILSON: Sivo. He'll be followed by Donald Koman.
MR. SIVa: My name is Joe Sivo. I reside at Monte Carlo. I'm a
boat owner. I have a boat slip. Currently I have a 20 -- what is called
a 23-foot hurricane, which is about 25 and a half feet long because of
the forward protrusions and the aft protrusions. And I sit on a dock
that's 30 feet long. In fact, there are right now 14 slips all 30 feet long
at the Monte Carlo. So we are already protruding into the waterway
30 feet.
The additional docks that are being proposed follow the same
pattern that we currently have with a request for 5 feet longer than we
currently have, which does not violate the waterway in any way. And
unfortunately, the issue of how deep the water is at low tide has been
misconstrued.
I happen to have -- my condo overlooks the comer of the -- at
that comer of the waterway. And this morning, there was ground
showing all the way along that up to about halfway to my boat. There
was actually ground showing at the -- at the seawall. So there is a
problem with shallow water, but that's really not the issue.
We keep talking about all these big boats that we're going to have
Page 150
"."__..__..,_..._.___"'_,,.__,_____~____,~...~,.__,.,,_.~..~_.___,~~.m_~.,="'......_..,,,,"'-.,,~,___'""""'"'_"_..,""_,~__ .' -.._,---,-~
December 2-3, 2008
traversing Turkey Bay. And Turkey Bay has only got a 3-foot
allowance. If you sit in that waterway and watch the boats that come
from the canals along the waterway where there are no restrictions on
boat size and you see a 50-foot cruiser go by, you say, gee, ifhe can
make it through Turkey Bay, I should not have a problem with a
30-foot boat. And that, in fact, is the case.
Turkey Bay depth is not an issue with the boats we're talking
about because the boats require that we stay within the 3-foot draft.
That's a requirement that we're obliged to meet. Ifwe fail to meet that
requirement, they will make us take the boat offthe water.
So why is everyone making such an issue about boat depths
through the waterway? It just -- it puzzles me. I listen to all the talk
that we've had and I listen to the requirements that you impose on
people who want to make petitions to this board, and it seems to me
that we jumped through all the hoops that were required. We met the
criteria that were required to be met and yet the petition was denied.
And I hear all the discussion about all of n I'll be done in a
second -- of all the things that have been brought up, but never once
have we sat down and said, did we meet the requirements that are
obliged to be met to get an extension? And I contend, in fact, we did.
609Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Donald Koman.
MR. KOMAN: I defer to my partner here.
MR. sIva: I've had enough.
MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker, sir.
MR. KOMAN: He covered my ground.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Y ovanovich?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: On the visualizer is your staff report for
the LDC amendment that added that last sentence to the Land
Development Code because it was omitted. And if you read what it
says regarding the reasons why that language was added back in, both
under the reasons and the fiscal impact, it clearly says that that
Page 151
December 2-3, 2008
language was added back in to address the approval or denial of a boat
dock extension.
So that's what that language means because that's what you saw
when you voted to put that language back in. So that's the legislative
history of what that last sentence means. It's for both approval or
denial.
Now -- so we go back to, do we meet four out of the five primary
criteria and four out of six of the secondary criteria? So if you want to
-- if you -- again, the water depth issue, if you want to say, you don't
meet the water depth issue because you're going to dredge, do we
meet four of the other five primary criteria? And I think we meet all
of the four remaining criteria.
And if you go -- and then the issue was, okay -- and I don't think
the -- there's any subjectivity on, is it an appropriate amount of boat
docks, boats there because the Manatee Protection Plan says we would
be eligible for 71 boat slips on this property based upon the length of
the waterfront. We have 54 units.
And your code says that it's acceptable to have one slip per unit
so we -- it would be acceptable to ask for 54. We're asking for 34. So
I don't think there's any subjectivity in meeting that criteria. And the
other ones, I don't think there was any argument about meeting those
criteria.
And you go over to the secondary criteria, and we have to meet
four out of six. If you want to throwaway the one that deals with
special circumstances other than water, we meet the remaining ones.
So we would satisfY that as well.
What the speakers are talking about, this proliferation of 35- foot
vessels -- and I don't know what they mean by proliferation. There
was no number. They didn't say that 20's okay, I5's okay, IO's okay.
I don't know the answer to that, because who knows what proliferation
is, and there's been no study done to show that any more -- what the
limits should be. And I think that they've agreed that there needs to be
Page 152
December 2-3, 2008
a study done to determine those issues.
The -- they're ignoring -- right now we could parallel park. Ifwe
dredge, we can parallel park and meet the 20 foot, so that would get
10 more 35-footers if we parallel park versus perpendicular. So we're
really just talking about 10 extra strips related to this extension from a
numbers standpoint.
1 think I heard -- and I could be cOITected -- the concern was with
31 feet and above boats would be a draft potentially greater than the 3
feet. So if it was 30 feet or less, I don't think there was an issue about
that. And the testimony from the one public speaker all dealt with 35-
to 40-foot boats.
And I think, Commissioner Halas, you said early on, how about
limiting it to 30 feet. That's what's there today. It has not been a
problem for the community to have 30 foot -- a total protrusion of 30
feet. I think that would provide the assurance regarding draft. It's
consistent with what's there today. It's consistent with what's around
us, and it's consistent with how the rules were originally applied to this
property.
So if it would be -- if it would give additional assurance to the
community to reduce the request to a protrusion of30 feet, we would
do that. And we would -- hopefully at that point people would say,
that's what's out there today. There have been no issues with boats on
that 30 feet right now, so 30-foot total protrusion, as Rocky has
explained, you won't get the full 30-foot boat because you've got to be
a little bit away from the seawall.
But assuming you got a 30-foot boat in there, that's the total you
could have, whether -- however you measure it. The 23 feet really is
25 feet, you know. Whatever it is, we would agree to limit the boat
dock extension request to what's already out there for a total of30
feet, which is how it used to be applied to this property in the first
place, and consistent with what's around us at this point.
We think we've met all the criteria. We are -- I guess we'll make'
Page 153
December 2-3, 2008
that revision here on the floor if that's acceptable to Commissioner
Halas. I believe it was consistent with an earlier statement that you
made about limiting it to 30 feet.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No. I didn't make that statement. I
didn't make that statement that I was going to limit it to 30 feet.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. You said, how about 30 feet.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, I did not.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We can go back, but --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't think I did.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Our request would be to be consistent
with what's already out there and consistent with how the rules are
already applied.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll make a motion --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Don't pick on my commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion that the findings
by the Planning Commission stand as such. Do I have a second?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second to Commissioner Halas'
motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I never got to speak yet, but --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well, let's--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second it for discussion, okay?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second for discussion. Commissioner
Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. I'm sorry I've waited all
this time.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We've got a second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I know you do, and that's
good.
And I was acting -- I was just going to act upon what
Commissioner Halas had said earlier in the meeting, and I thought,
let's go for a compromise because it seemed that the 30-foot dock
Page 154
December 2-3, 2008
would -- they can build 20 foot as it is, they can build 20 foot, and
their property line is 10 foot out into the water. And so it would make
all of the docks on that one side equal, which would be all 30 feet, and
so I was just going to follow Commissioner Halas' suggestion, and
offer that.
And then I was to add a second thing. As long as this becomes a
real problem -- and it is. It seems that boat traffic and boat congestion
and boat size and so forth has really become a problem, and my
goodness, it will further be a problem -- that we ought to do something
-- and this is more to staff than anything else.
From here on in, anytime there's something like this that comes
along, we should have some kind of a study about the impact on the
waterway and the impact on the congestion in that waterway and what
size boats could do to that, you know, just so that we can go in there
with more information to support whatever -- whatever issue we are
talking about at the time.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Before we go to Commissioner Halas.
We have done that through the Manatee Protection Plan, and that lays
out the criteria for it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: For the impact?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, for the different waterways.
They study all of -- all the way -- well, from the Lee County line all
the way down to Everglades City, I believe.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was talking about congestion.
They were talking about boats and the bigger boats and the congestion
on the waterway. Does that address the congestion in the waterway? I
don't know that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, it does not.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: A specific waterway where you've
got a narrow channel.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Go ahead, Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Could you -- maybe it's time to
Page 155
December 2-3, 2008
take a break and our court reporter could go back and find that where I
made that statement. I would like to have it. I know I'm getting old
and there's a possibility that I did say that statement, but I -- I'd like to
have clarification on that, if you could for me, where I said I would
compromise with 30 feet.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You didn't use the word
compromise. I put that word in.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, you didn't.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, that I said I was going to --
that I was willing to give them 30 feet, okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think what you said was, how about 30
feet.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Would you find that statement for
me? Okay, thanks.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let's take 15 minutes, and then
hopefully Terri can get a little bit of time to do it.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike.
I believe you're still on Item 7C, which has to do with the boat
dock extension.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: 7C, and we have a motion and second
to uphold the Planning Commission's findings, but we asked the court
reporter to find something in the record, and from what I understand,
the statement alleged to be made by Commissioner Halas was not
made.
THE COURT REPORTER: It was not found. I didn't find it
anywhere.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You didn't find it, could not find it,
so.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I swear I'm not going nuts, honest to
Page 156
December 2-3,2008
goodness.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Anyway, I'd like to say a few
words before we take our vote. I'm sure that's what we're at at the
present time -- is obviously we have a Land Development Code that
most of the residents up there adhere to, and that is that the docks
should stay at 20-foot or -- yeah, 20-foot length unless, of course,
there's some impediment whereby they can't have that.
I would hope that my fellow commissioners would realize that
the area up there is very confining in the sense with all the docks that
are on the canals. There's going to be more development up in that
area, and that also we have to the north of where these docks are going
to be located is an outstanding Florida waterways.
And I think that we, as citizens, have to respect not only the
ability for people to have boats -- I don't think that's even -- has been
questioned. The Planning Commission made it very clear that they
had nothing -- they didn't find anything confining about the boats.
The -- there was an issue brought up about the number of boats.
To me the real issue is making sure that we don't set a precedent
whereby everybody can come in and say I want to extend everything
another 5 feet or, in this case, 10 feet, that the code is there unless
there is some type of hardship or impediment in regards to addressing
this issue.
So I would just hope that as there was testimony by Mr. Schmitt
in regards to the drafts that -- or the depth of water that is to the north
of us, north of Bluebill Bridge -- and I think that's our biggest concern,
that we want to make sure that we protect that and also protect smaller
people or young kids that are out in kayaks into that particular
waterway.
So we're not here to take away the ability of anybody having
boats. It's the idea of encouraging larger docks which then encourages
other conditions that will cause a problem for the public and for
people in -- and the county in the future, so that's all I have to say.
Page 157
December 2-3, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala and then
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to ask Commissioner
Halas a question. The seven docks that are there that are already 30
feet, are there many -- are there a lot of others, or are those the only
seven that are 30 feet long protruding into the water?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You know, Commissioner Fiala, I
can't answer that. But as was brought up in the testimony, that
originally when those docks were put in, there was 10 feet that was
basically given because there were -- that was where the property line
had extended out into the water.
So actually from that 10 feet they were out 20 feet. Well, then of
course they move the property line not from in -- not in the waterway
but back to where it should be, and that's the seawall. So those people
are grandfathered in because those docks were put in prior to the code
being what it is today.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And my last question is, so what the
-- one of the things that -- you just want to protect the integrity of
20-foot docks according to the Land Development Code; is that
correct?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's exactly right, Ms. Fiala; yes,
it is.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I, as the seconder of the
motion, I would like to say that I would feel more comfortable
remanding this to the Planning Commission. I don't know that the
result will be any different. But for the integrity of the process, I
cannot -- still cannot reconcile the differences in position between the
County Manager (sic), our county staff, and the Planning
Commission. And I would like to bring all that together and get it
resolved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did you mean County Attorney?
Page 158
December 2-3,2008
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I meant County Attorney, yes. Did
I say something -- County Manager?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: County Manager.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, County Attorney. Ijust
can't rationalize all those. There's too much confusion and
misunderstanding about what criteria should be used. And if we don't
clear that up, I know there are going to be questions raised about
fairness.
And I just would feel more comfortable if we took that step and
ran it back through the Planning Commission with a very clear
statement of guidance that they should specifY all of their reasons for
voting against this petition in accordance with our ordinance and then
to specifY any other criteria which they think should have been
applied and influenced their decision making, and that they've covered
both bases.
The County Attorney did advise them to do that. But reading the
transcripts, I can easily see how they took his advice and said, I don't
have to abide by this criteria so I'm not going to list everything. I'm
not even going to try. And so -- then they went ahead and voted.
So I would like to clarifY that. I would like to get it cleaned up.
But I do respect Commissioner Halas' position to do whatever he
thinks is necessary to protect his constituents, but I would ask that we
consider that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: County Attorney, once again, do
you believe that the criteria that the Planning Commission asked you
-- this is in regards to some of the questions that Commissioner Coyle
has in regards to this.
Do you believe that the Planning Commission acted based on the
information you gave them, and do you think that the information that
was given to them and their judgment clearly identified what their
concerns were, and did they, do you feel, list everything as far as the
Page 159
December 2-3,2008
primary and secondary criteria?
MR. KLATZKOW: I think the Planning Commission's decision
is legally justifiable in every respect. If, however, it's the view of this
board to send this back to the Planning Commission, I would ask that
you ask Susan to render an official interpretation on this so we can put
this issue to bed.
If there's an official interpretation on this issue, then we'll know
exactly what this provision's meant for, and we'll be done for it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Are you saying the criteria, the
provisions?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The criteria under --
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- under the Land Development Code
for asking for a boat dock extension?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. If we're going to send it back to the
Planning Commission, we may as well sent it back with a firm
decision by Susan on, you know, this is what you look at, you know,
this is how it's done. This is what it means.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I really think we're just
putting more work into this whole project for no reason. We've done
this before on other things. It just went back and they just emphasized
on their original vote, They just gave it a little more, what do you
want to call it, put a little more English spin on the ball, and then send
it back to us. There was never really a change of the whole thing. So
do we really want to put everybody through this another time? Food
for thought.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I think what's being suggested
is probably try to be fair to everybody and get the official
interpretation on the request for a boat dock extension. I could tell
Page 160
December 2-3, 2008
you, my opinion is, you got the criteria there and you can't deviate
from the criteria.
And from what Commissioner Coyle said, the reasons for, you
know, denying it, was based upon the criteria. And of course, again,
he's reading in -- something into it. Myself, I can't -- I could only find
one reason that it doesn't meet the criteria, and that is on the primary,
IB, and then the secondary, just one ofthem and the same thing is,
you know, the depth of the waterway.
So, you know, I find personally that the Planning Commission
was in error for turning it down. I can't support the motion, although
the reprimanding (sic) it down again to the Planning Commission
would be fair to all with an official interpretation.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I -- I don't know how that's -- the
official interpretation is going to resolve the problem. Clearly the
planning department feels that the criteria are locked in concrete and
you just merely go down the checklist and decide. That's completely
at variance with the advice of the County Attorney.
So if we -- if we approach it that way and we're merely going to
have an official interpretation, then that means that the staff really is
making a decision. And ifthat's the way it should go, that's the way it
should go, I guess.
But I believe that, particularly in the case of Commissioner
Schiffer, he gave no reason that is consistent with the ordinance and
any of the criteria but yet he voted against it. A number of the others
voted against it but didn't give enough reasons to comply with the
ordinance.
The only reason I can think that they did that was they were
influenced by the County Attorney's advice, which was, you don't
have to do that. Ifwe send it back to them, they'll have to do that, and
then they can specifY reasons, it will clean it all up, and hopefully we
can get this process cleaned up afterwards. I mean, get the ordinance
Page 161
December 2-3,2008
and these criteria cleaned up because they certainly are not proper
criteria.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, he makes a really good
point. Because we're talking now about setting a precedent. And if
we vote one way, then we're going to change the way we read the law.
If we vote the other, we will not. And -- but we've got to decide now
which way the law really reads.
So I -- you know, I -- I believe -- I agree with Commissioner
Coyle about sending it back.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well, we have a motion and a
second on the floor.
Do you have any further discussion on the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signifY by
saymg aye.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion fails unanimously.
Is there a subsequent motion by the board? Reprimand (sic) it
down to the Planning Commission?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll give Commissioner Halas the
first shot at that, if you'd like to do it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. Let's send this back to the
Planning Commission with guidance so that we can get this thing
taken care of once and for all.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I'll second it and ask that it be
Page 162
December 2-3,2008
made clear to them that they should not only list the criteria they used
in accordance with our ordinance, but list any other criteria which they
think is -- was important in their decision; is that okay?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep. And I'd like to -- that vote,
that last vote we took, I'm in n I was in favor of that. I was just
sleeping at the switch, okay. So that's a positive vote for me in
regards to holding up the findings of the Planning Commission.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Now, you're saying based
upon other criteria besides what's in the Land Development Code?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. And I'm not suggesting that
that has to be prevailing, but that would be consistent not only with
the advice of the County Attorney, but it would be consistent with the
position of our staff. So -- and then if -- having spelled that out, if the
petitioner wants to take issue with it, then they come back in and
appeal it, and that way you'll have a complete set of reasons why the
decision was made. Right now we don't have it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I -- that isn't my understanding
on staffs interpretation of why you should deny or approve a boat
dock extension. It's -- my understanding is, use the criteria within the
Land Development Code.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I understand that. But the
County Attorney has opined that if you have a good reason -- I mean,
they're not potted plants. If you have a good reason for voting against
something, then specify it. If there is a reason for appealing that
decision because their logic is flawed, then you can come back and
we'll have something to deal with.
But right now we're trying to read minds here because I don't
think we got a complete download from them.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, the problem that I still have is,
if they go beyond the criteria in the Land Development Code, the
primary and the secondary, we have delegated our authority.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We delegate our authority all the
December 2-3, 2008
time to the Planning Commission and other boards to make decisions.
I mean, this is not a big issue.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It is because by law we're not allowed
to do so.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, the point is, we do it and we
have to do it to get our job done. We delegate authority to the County
Manager to make decisions. He makes emergency decisions in our
absence and we ratify them after the fact. We, all the time, do these
things and it is not a variance from our normal practice.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can I --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't know. You have to ask the
chairman.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Chairman, can I ask a question just
to understand the motion so I know the framework of, if there's --
going to come back in front of the commission or not.
Commissioner Coyle, are you -- I hate to give hypotheticals, but I
think that's the only way I can explain it. Let's just say they come
back with the very same reasons that they gave, okay, which, if you
added up the numbers on each ofthem, would not be enough under
the applying the criteria, and they just said, you know, we feel that
there's too much boat traffic out there. Do I get an approval at the
Planning Commission or do I get a denial at the Planning Commission
based upon n what's the standard that they're supposed to apply is the
only thing I'm trying to figure -- I'm trying to figure out when we go
back and we -- and I agree with you, J think there was confusion. I
didn't make the presentation but J was in the room. J did listen to it.
And I could see how they could maybe have not listed all the reasons
or listed all the reasons. So remanding it, I think, would be a good
idea to find out.
But let's just say it comes back in the same way. Do they have to
apply the four out of five and the four out of six, or do they apply the
four out of five, four out of six and then any circumstances when they
Page 164
December 2-3,2008
hypothetical, Planning Commissioner says, J think they meet all five
out of five of primary and all six out of six, but I think there's this
overriding concern, so I vote no anyway.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Is that --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And ifthat overriding concern is
important to the neighborhood and important to boating safety, I might
very well be inclined to accept that.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. That's -- I just wanted to
understand what I -- what the -- okay. I think I understand what your
direction is.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So there's a motion and a second to
reprimand (sic) it down to the Planning Commission.
Discussion on the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor ofthe motion, signify by
saymg aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries unanimously.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 8A, which used to
be 17 -- excuse me.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We have a time certain that was
supposed to be at 2:30.
Item #lOF
Page 166
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
DOCK FACILITY EXTENSION / BOATHOUSE PETITION
PETITION NO (AR)
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT NUMBER
DATE PROCESSED
ASSIGNED PLANNER
BD-2009-AR-14192 REV: 1
MONTE CARLO CLUB
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
PROJECT: 2006010084
Date: 2/5/09 DUE: 2/20/09
ABOVE TO BE COMPLETED BY STAFF
THIS PETITION IS FOR (check one):
BOATHOUSE
~ DOCK EXTENSION D
APPLICANT INFORMATION
NAME OF APPLlCANT(S) MONTE CARLO CLUB CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
ADDRESS P.O. BOX 7622 CITY NAPLES STATE FL ZIP 34101
TELEPHONE #
CELL #
FAX #
E-MAIL
ADDRESS:
NAME OF AGENT MILES L. 'ROCKY' SCOFIELD
FIRM TURRELL. HALL & ASSOCIATES. INC.
ADDRESS 3584 EXCHANGE AVE. CITY NAPLES
STATE FLORIDA
ZIP 34104
CELL # (239) 825-3034
FAX # (239) 643-
Page 2 of 9
BE AWARE THAT COLLIER COUNTY HAS LOBBYIST REGULATIONS. GUIDE
YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY AND ENSURE THAT YOU ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH
THESE REGULATIONS.
PROPERTY LOCATION
Address of Subject Property 10684 Gulfshore Drive Naples. FL 34108
Sectionrrownship/Range 29 / 48 S / 25 E Property 1.0.#: 22870240007
Subdivision: Baker-Carroll Point Unit..L Lot(s) I & 2 Block(s ~
Current Zoning and Land use of Subject Property: RMF-16
ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE I
Zoning Land use
N RMF-16 Vanderbilt Yacht & Racquet Club
S RT-VBRTO Vanderbilt Beachcomber Condo
E RSF-3 Vanderbilt Laeoon
W RMF-16 Vanderbilt Shores Condo
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Narrative description of project (indicate extent of work, new dock, replacement. addition
to existing facility. any other pertinent information):
The proposed plan is to construct 10 finl!er docks with optional boatlifts to facilitate 20
slips with vessels UP to 30 feet in lenl!th. The total proposed overwater structure is
approximately 1.440 square feet that will be constructed out of pressure treated wood
and the dock piles will be driven in place and wrapped with pvc. Work will be done by
barl!e. The dock will protrude a distance 30 feet from the Mean Hil!h Water (MHW)
line into a waterway that is approximately 213 feet wide from MHW to MHW.
Dredl!inl! is proposed/required in order to provide safe moorinl! of vessels. The
proposed dredl!inl! consists of approximately 1,500 cubic yards to a depth of -4.0 Mean
Low Water.
Page 3 of 9
Accompanying this application must be 1) a signed, sealed survey depicting mean high water
(MHW) and mean low water (MlW), and relevant water depths measured at no less than 5-foot
increments; 2) a chart, drawn to scale, of the waterway at the site, depicting the waterway width,
the proximity of the proposed facility to any adjacent navigable channel, the proximity of the
proposed facility to docks, if any, on the adjacent lots, and the unobstructed waterway between
the proposed facility and the opposite bank or any dock facility on the opposite bank; and 3) a
site plan to scale showing dimensions and location of existing and proposed dock structures, as
well as a cross section showing the facility in relation to MHW /MlW and shoreline (bank, seawall
or rip-rap revetment).
SITE INFORMATION
Width of waterway: 213 ft.; measurement from 0 plat
[gJ other (specify) Aerial Photo
o survey 0 visual estimate
Total property water frontage: 712 ft.
Setbacks: provided 15 & 25
ft. required _1~ft.
Total protrusion of proposed facility into water 30 ft.
Number and length of vessels to use facility: 1. 34 Vessels up to 30 ft. in lenath (20 proposed
slips and 14 existinql
List any additional dock facilities in close proximity to the subject property and indicate the total
protrusion into the waterway of each:
Adiacent docks and moorinq piles to the north protrude 35 feet into the waterway, sinale
family dock to the east protrudes approximatelv 38 feet into the waterwav and docks with
vessels to the south protrude approximatelv 32 feet into the waterwav.
The following criteria, (pursuant to Section 5.03.06 of the land Development Code) shall be used
as a guide by staff in determining its recommendation to the Collier County Planning Commission
(CCPC), and by the CCPC in its decision to approve or deny a particular Dock Extension request.
In order for the CCPC to approve the request, it must be determined that at least 4 of the 5
primary criteria, and at least 4 of the 6 secondary criteria, must be met. Please provide a
narrative response to the listed criteria and/or questions. Attach additional pages if necessary.
Page 4 of 9
PRIMARY CRITERIA
1. Whether or not the number of dock facilities and/or boat slips proposed is appropriate in
relation to the waterfront length, location, upland land use and zoning of the subject property;
consideration should be made of property on un bridged 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 upland facilitv consists of 54 residential units and 14 existinCl boat slips. The applicant
owns approximatelv 712 linear feet of shoreline and is proposina to construct 10 additional
finCler docks with 20 slips. The proposed number of slips is appropriate in relation to the
shoreline frontaae and upland units. We are requestina 10 additional feet from the allowed
20 feet.
2. Whether or not the water depth at the proposed site is so shallow that a vessel of the
general length, type, and draft as that described in the petitioner's application is unable to
launch or moor at mean low tide (Ml T). ((The petitioner's application and survey should show that
the water depth is too shallow to allow launch and mooring of the vessel (s) described without an
extension))
The existinCl water depths are insufficient to moor the proposed vessels at the subiect
propertv. We have received State and Federal permits to dredae in order to moor the vessels
closer to the shoreline and minimize the protrusion into the waterway.
3. Whether or not 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 Monte Carlo Condominium has an existina DEP (State) sovereiqn submerqed lands lease
that permits structures and vessels out to 40 feet. The DEP & COE has determined this
distance does not impact naviqation within the waterway. The existinq docks are out 30 ft.
and present no impact to naviqation.
4. Whether or not the proposed dock facility protrudes no more than 25 percent of the width
of the waterway, and whether or not a minimum of 50 percent of the waterway width between
dock facilities on either side of the waterway is maintained for navigability. ((The facility should
maintain the required percentages)).
The proposed docks will protrude q distance of 30 feet into a waterwav that is 213 feet wide.
The proposed docks will protrude 14% into the waterway. The dock across the waterway to
the east protrudes 17.8% leavinCl 68.2% the width of the waterway open to naviaation. The
proposed protrusion is less than 25 percent of the width of the waterwav, therefore, leaving
more than 50 percent of the naviaable waterwav open.
Page 5 of 9
5. Whether or not the proposed location and design of the dock facility is such that the
facility would not interfere with the use of neighboring docks. ((The facility should not interfere
with the use oflegally permitted neighboring docks))
The proposed additional slips have been desianed in order to prevent any potential
interference with neiClhborina docks. The onlv area the proposed docks are near neiClhborinCl
docks are at the south property line; here the setback is 45 ft. from the property line and 25 ft.
from the riparian line.
SECONDARY CRITERIA
1. Whether or not 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 previouslv permitted docks are perpendicular to the shoreline. We are proposinq to
construct additional docks within the desian of the oriainal permitted docks.
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 proposed docks are 4 ft. wide finCler piers as are the existinq. The deck area has been
minimized to the extent possible and still provide access to the vessels for unloadinCl and
maintenance.
3. For single-family dock facilities, whether or not 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))
N/A
4. Whether or not the proposed facility would have a major impact on the waterfront view
of neighboring waterfront property owners. ((The facility should not have a major impact on the
view of either property owner.))
Residents of the Monte Carlo Condominium Club Association will be the onlv residents
affected bv the proposed docks. It is hiahly unlikelv neiqhborina waterfront propertv owners'
view will be altered bv the expansion of the existinCl dock svstem.
Page 6 of 9
5. Whether or not seogross beds are located within 200 feet of the proposed dock facility.
((If seagrass beds are present, compliance whh subsectlon 5.03.06.1 of this code must be
demonstrated))
The Collier County Seao...ss P_lon Plan was revi_ee1 for the location of known &eaa.....
....... To our kno~. there are no known _..... ...... within 200 foe! of the DrDDOud
dock facllitv.
6. Whether or not the proposed dock facility is subject to the mana_ protection
requirements of subsection 5.03.06.E.l t of this code. {(If applicable, compliance with Section
5.03.06.E.ii must be demonstrated))
Wa"'r deolh. are .... tIlan 4 foe! MIlan Low W_r IMLWl out to o,.n wo"'n of the Gulf. No
imoac:ts to anv native marine habitat are bein, DropoHd. Manatee mortalitv cau.ee1 bv
watercNlft i. t.ss than 20% within a five mile ...diu. of the DroDOHd prolact .Ite. A. .uch.
the ora,..Hd focilitv _ the Marina Sltlna en"'rla with a Mod....te ...nklna. WIth this
ranklna and the ov....1I owned .horeline of 712 It.. th.'Ite i. alloweel to accommod_ 70
vessel. and the DroDOud dock do.lan m_ the naca..ary criteria for a.Dval.
I HEREBY ATTEST THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS APPliCATION IS TRUE AND
ACCURATE TO THE lEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE.
I UNDERSTAND THAT, IN ADDITION TO APPROVAL OF THIS DOCK EXTENSION, A
BUILDING PERMIT IS REQUtRED eJUQJl TO COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION.
t UNDERSTAND THAT IF THIS DOCK EXTENSION PElmON IS APPROVED BY THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, AN AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNER MAY FILE AN
APPEAL WITHIN 14 DAYS OF THE HEARING. IF I PROCEED WITH CONSTRUCTION DURING
THIS TIME,' DO SO AT MY OWN RISK.
Page 7 of 9
BOAT DOCK FACILITY EXTENSION
(BD) APPLICATION
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST
THIS COMPLETED CHECKLIST IS TO BE SUBMITTED WITH APPLICATION PACKET
IN THE EXACT ORDER LISTED BELOW W/COVER SHEETS ATTACHED TO EACH
SECTION.
NOTE: INCOMPLETE SUMBITTALS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED.
REQUIREMENTS #OF NOT
COPIES SUBMITTED REQUIRED
tI Comoleted Applicatjon 15
r/ Owner/Aqent Affidavits, siqned & notarized 1
v IAddressinq Checklist 1
v Conceptual Site Plan illustrating the following: 15
a. The lot and dimensions where proposed docking
facility is to be located.
b. All yard setbacks
c. Required setbacks for the dock facility
d. The total number and configuration of the proposed
facilities, etc. (include all dimensions to scale).
e. The water depth where the proposed dock facility is
to be located and the distance to the navigate
channel.
(Water depth at mean low tide should be shown at
approximately every five (5) feet of length for the total
length of the proposed facility.
f. Illustrate the land contour of the property on which
the dock facility is proposed.
g. The dock facility should be illustrated from an aerial
view, as well as side view.
/Fee: $1,500.00
Check shall be made payable to Board of County Commissioners
As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information
indicated on this checklist js included in this submittal package. I understand that
failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of
pro:ssing this petitiJ,on;. n .
t: J~. 1- /4-0'1
Date
BD-2009-AR-14192 REV: 1
MONTE CARLO CLUB
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
PROJECT: 2006010084
Date: 2/5/09 DUE: 2/20/09
Page 8 of 9
(i)
BD-2009-AR-14192 REV: 1
MONTE CARLO CLUB
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
PROJECT: 2006010084
Date: 2/5/09 DUE: 2/20/09
AFFIDAVIT
We/I, being first duly sworn, depose and say that we/I am/are the owners
of the property described herein and which is the subject matter of the
proposed hearing; that all the answers to the questions in this application,
including the disclosure of interest information, all sketches, data, and other
supplementary matter attached to and made a part of this application, are
honest and true to the best of our knowledge and belief We/I understand that
the information requested on this application must be complete and accurate
and that the content of this form, whether computer generated or County
printed shall not be altered. Public hearings will not be advertised until this
application is deemed complete, and all required information has been
submitted.
As property owner We/I further authorize
in a~y/mat:1 re7;1rdi~s Petition.
'i~ h"/I 1L__l~.
~-)?--tu. / t;{/!/I____At1.
, Signa~ b 'i;{;~erty Owner
Owner
to act as our/my representative
l!k!!.i'!_[i1:{:,-gd_IlsJ.{l~bL
Signature of Property
~ {(I1) ~ ()
(:70.) iC c e.. --t, I (( C u.:n /l../ (Ie Es
Typed orTPrinted Name of Owner
Typed or Printed Name of Owner
, The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this !-.""~:."- day of
~~l-"'-"':!.::'l--' 20_~,:\ by~-'\",,-,c"'t-"-\~~_ko,."'''Y'':'I,-3-_ who is personally known to
me or has produced __~':-~~':~'_'~-:.___________as identification.
State of H&Nt:fa
rlor/,iai N '1
County of Cel/.ier
~,,~~, c..."" <:",,~-y-;
~'';I:f:;f:li~;~~H~--St;;t~-;f N'-", 't c> ~<..
,--"""-",, ",....."i? '" ","'LO\"
PAGF 10 of, "
[.
I
I.
~~
~
",!l'~~
~ I ~.(l)
_0 s----
IV;> G--
3~ ~~
~(" trj~
~~. ~.=
~~oRo
i:\dl>
"rj"d G ~
l!: JF ~ ~
;.:...,!!'-<">
~t"'"' nS'
\0....... 0 ....-+-
i;!:::~~
..... :F c:: ""
"'~ -,...,..
e~ g'i=I
N ~oc. r:>
r
o
E
o
z
s:
:r>
'U
~
o
z
..,
m
()
)>
;u
r
o
()
r
C
OJ
rJJ 600 C
m tII ~ ~ m
() ~ m '$ *
-I. Z Z
6 gj
~
"
.
~ 0
~ ~
~
~ ~
" ~
'<
~
~
z
00
I
~
.
~
o
~
~ :p ~
~ ~ ~
" ~ Z
~
Z
Q
~
"
~
m
~ 0 ~
~ iii ~
m ~ ~
m
~ ~
o ~
^ ^
V V 0 Z
5> >...,0
z"" z:z:;l
Q=i OrnCr.l
-c >rn"
~o :tIm
om mO
~.. z~
~:<
:<z -20
Q)I\,) ~C>
~ a:l men
,:........ z)>
Ci?~ ~~
~p~ 0"
"'.0" .,,0
~~
()m
0;0
z;;:
"'-
...,:j
~z
()G>
::J"
OC
z;o
C"
",0
rnffi
'"
o
z
r
-<
~
.,..,t".
.,:o;m~,
c..,..~XEli-~
~JJ).$;
T'
hl
i!'-"
,"00
J;;h
,""m
. c:n
'Or..
r"j!!
~~o
oOn
CDfgE
cO>
;0
"0
~c
\l~
mm
~o
:;1-<
n
o
r
r
rrI
;0
n
o
r'
-;I
j
.....~' ....~.-.,;--
~~r---
~ G~ ""- . ""( 0 .'
t:r:O~<. ':" "1' . -..-~-
"'" \~~. -- ~ .../
~af8, ~ .....- -,'
,,,;'> IIIr !;..
,-,;'" :-t- i >;-/1:
~./.... Ii;'".
-a~ ~.t. .: ~- ?~
t.., :.~" ,~"1-:- ....
~ lo _ ~-~ ::TS' ,..
1:" _.._ '.:; ....... r..at'i
t.." ,\:,' r'<.J~
-fi:g ~.....," ",' ...-'-.;:
t; '<1' 'j.:.!~ ~.~ .:~~~
i:' ,&;1 --e' 1."'1 I .;:., ,,;j(, ....J,.-~
i1 ,:.~,: ~:-.. .~;;;' \.)
11; ~.., ;'".t; t";:, l~ '/
..... .- _'". ""!l' . t ~ II
ik.&---' ~ "i"!.~j~~ ....' ....2.(:..'Y..
:t....J." . '~E;1li("'l~~
-:r-:-~... ...... ,-:~
P-
r
llo,.I'l5u~
3OlJDTt'llIWSnSOSE>MQOqnl:> II\.IlI'
:;l8JUOWOlMlO:d
,,,,,,.V"~"""".""'nT..'""..
~ ~ ri, N
i 1,,~1>it'l ,'...........
!' " (l ~
t -1 0-
w
z
>
_~:lo;\WJ ~
o:>"'~- 0>
"0>
:Oc
!6~
mm
:00
i=<!~
/
~i_
);~1-~ -
,J---lt..__.'t CD CD
I -.~~.m_---tl-
~I
j
J
^
m
-<
q,;;
b~
,
---
(f-
~
;;:
0>
.-
u
./
......
..~ ..".e'."'- -yo
1\ /PI t
Ja~I"",1\0 0: ~ ~
\ \- ~
1 i !~ ; ;
, ~. !
~ ? r
...~...........,:i.,.~:'"
)
.t i T
;
f ~
(')
-;I
j
~
,
"jOI'l"-Iltt,,^
"/
:::0.,
P-
-I]
_"-S'U
.
,
,.
.
~ ; ~ g ,~ s <>
). )" )> !t ~ Q. ~
~;~~r~l
;c z z '"
"2
3
if
11
.
~ -S _D,
~ ~
"r t
. .
2 2
t.1S~B
N,l~lU'
o 0
~ :;
~ ?
. .
, ,
~~')~q
['l."1-""~!J
.
.
j ~
e . ~
~ c..,
~ ',~
0 ~
~ ,
> ~
,
, uM"-'1P'#1
, ~
i "
0
!II
!ir
,
;
Z
.
..
o
,
~
Z
.
.
E" r:pJ.fC'V!\"~l
"0>
:Oc
!6~
mm
:00
:;1-<
~:
;. ~
tj)
-I
P
-I
rrl
(]
-rJ
-rJ
I
(]
;d
~
lJ
p
~~ns:tD
'""'"0000
ro~2ZN
.. f'Tl 0
N~O~g
~ .. S n If
.........N-)>)>
~g~~::;o
g:c:O~
....Snl-'
O)>r-lO
~~~N
"'0
o (')
C i>
~ -I
o
2
"
m
~
....
.,
,
.
~
f
N
'.' "~dJv.,
1fJ~X~1:
'iI<;ffi"'"
"T'"
oS
tOO \
I ,
=9N'FErr\
I
o '"
~
i
I
I
MHW1.S'
MANGROVE
FRINGE
\
.J
BD-2009-AR-14192
MONTE CARLO CLUB
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
PROJECT: 2006010084
Date: 2/5/09 DUE: 2/20/09
REV: 1
21JO
I
RIPARIAN LI E \
EXISTING 30' x 4'
~ FIXED FINGER DOCK
./ TYPICAL
EXISTING
SUBMERGED LAND
LEASE AREA
(O.R. 2654 PGS.
2B68-2B77)
(8873 sa. FT. +-)
/EXISTING BOAT LIFTS
EXISTING SLIP COUNT: 14
I
/
I
i
I
MLW-O.S'/Y
VEGETATION"/I
LINE !
i
I
I
\
MHW1.S'
MONTE CARLO CLUB
10684 GULF SHORE DR
NAPLES. FL 34108
,
\
I
VANDERBILT
LAGOON
;;>I/>
~/""i:'""l!;>q.".
NOTES:
<> THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ON Y AND ARE NOT
INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE.
<> AlL DATUM SHOWN HEREON IS REFERENCED TO MLW.
<> APPLICANT OWNS APPROX. 712 L.F. OF SHORELINE.
<> EXISTING OVERWATER STRUCTURE: APPROX 1,145 SQ. FT.
<> WIDTH OF WATERWAY AT NARROWEST POINT: APPROX 213' MHW TO MHW)
<> TOTAL PROTRUSION FROM MHWL: 30 FT.
<> TIDAl DATUM: MLW=-O.S' NGVD, MHW=+1.5' NGVD.
<> SURVEY COURTESY OF ~ COURT GREGORY SURVEYING- SURV Y DATED:
10~28-04
~~urrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.
. '. . Marine & Environmental Consulting
" . 3584 Exchange Ave. Suite B. Naples, FL 34104.3732
Email: tuna@1urreI1-associales.com Phone: (239) 643.Q166 Fax: (239) 643-6632
MONTE CARLO CLUB
EXISTING CONDITIONS
DESIGNED T.T.T. REVISION TAB NAME
DRAWN 'Ml '"""" SHEET 20FB
DATE 11-Q5-<l4 07-11.{J7 SCAlE 1"=100'
JOB NO. <>120
SECTIDN-29 TOWNSHIP-4BS
RANGE-25E
EXISTING SLIP COUNT
SLIPS LENGTH
14 30'
S OPTIONAL FOR ALL SLIPS
AND PROPOSED)
N
......
m""
')()...'ip'g,f#r
*.m,~
...,;c.o
S.
PROPOSED ADDITIONAL
SL1PS LENGTH
20 30'
34 TOTAL SLIPS
o 70
200
EXISTING LEASE AREA:
PROPOSED LEASE ADDITION
TOTAL LEASE AREA
8,873 SO FT
16.076 SO FT
24,949 SQ FT
RIPARIAN LI E\
f~~'5'
SC7f1::E'J "F'E'PT
!
PROPOSED
ADDITIONAL
LEASE AREA
(335 SO.FT. i)
SEAWALL
I
EXISTING
SUBMERGED LAND
"'- LEASE AREA
(O.R. 2B54 PGS.
2B68-2677)
(8873 SO. FT. +-)
I
T-l
,33'MIN.
L-.1
I
/
I
VANDERBILT i
LAGOON
MLW-O.5'~
VEGETATION'/ ;
LINE I
!
MHW1.5'
A
MONTE CARLO CLUB
10884 GULF SHORE DR.
NAPLES, FL 34108
.
I
I
I
,
T
,
.
I,
. ~
"-1\
II
\,
213'
i TYPICAL 30' X 4'
YFIXED FINGER
-! A
LEGEND
. 'CAUTION MANATEE AREA. SIGN
.. -MANATEE BASICS FOR BOATERS. SIGN
......
I
I
A ,..1_
~';-
/
MHW1.5'
-"
/ -,>\;;:.:.:\:<,,.,.
PROPOSED
~ ADDITIONAL
LEASE AREA
(16,076 SO.FT. i)
'11'1.0 '- /
~/1\o~ "111'~tV ~
'(
NOTES:
<> THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONL
INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE.
<> ALL DATUM SHOWN HEREON IS REFERENCED TO MLW.
<> APPLICANT OWNS APPROX. 712 LF. OF SHORELINE.
<> EXISTING OVERWATER STRUCTURE: APPROX 1,145 SQ.
<> PROPOSED OVERWATER STRUCTURE: APPROX 1,440 SQ.
o TOTAL QVERWATER STRUCTURE: APPROX 2,5855Q. FT.
<> WIDTH OF WATERWAY AT NARROWEST POINT: APPROX 213
<> TOTAL PROTRUSION FROM MHWl: 30 FT.
o TIDAl DATUM: MLW=-O.5' NGVD, MHW=+1.5' NGVD.
o SURVEY COURTESY OF. COURT GREGORY SURVEYING" SURV Y DATED:
10-28-04
\
.--I
~urrell, Hall & Associates, Ine,
. .'. Marine & Environmental Consulting
. 3584 ExcbangeAve. SuileB. Naples,FL34104-3732
Email:tuna@turrell-associates.C<JlIl Phone: (239) 643-0166 Pox: (239) 643-6632
PROPOSED DESIGN
DESIGNED T.T.T. REVISION TAB NAME
DRAWN JML 12.19-{1S SHEET 'OF8
DATE 11-0&-04 07.11-07 SCALE 1"=100'
JOB NO. 0420
MONTE CARLO CLUB
SECTION-29 TOWNSHIP-48S
RANGE-25E
\
i
MHW1.5'
MANGROVE
FRINGE
\
.J
N
.-,,"-
?f)..tllg~~
'*-(I!-~'
....,;>-.
S.
BOAT LIFTS OPTIONAL OR ALL SLIPS
(EXISTING AND PROPO ED)
RIPARIAN LI
MONTE CARLO CLUB
10684 GULF SHORE OR.
NAPLES. FL 34108
o
50
200
:~r
II
\ .
\
\
\
s=, 'F"E"E7'
I
I
('-
-5
-5
-3
i
\
I
I
\
I
I
,
I
I
.
\,
1\
II
"
I, .3
VANDERBILT
LAGOON
I
I
r
I
I
I
213'
-5
I
I
I
,
,
f
I
,j -5
I
I
r
...
/
/
)/~
.-
---~..;/
~,~._...-,..-\
/~ .;~-'\\-
. 'i'r,o ..... J
(r",,,..'1'i'~.. '-(
,- ""V 25'
l-
~urrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.
, Marine & Environmental Consulting
- 3584 ExcbangeAve. SuiteB. Naples,FL34104-3732
Email: lunB@turrell-associates.oom Phone: (239) 643-0166 Fox: (239) 643-6632
NOTES:
<> THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT
INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE.
<> ALL DATUM SHOWN HEREON IS REFERENCED TO MLW.
<> APPLICANT OWNS APPROX. 712l.F. OF SHORELINE.
<> EXISTING OVERWATER STRUCTURE: APPROX 1,145 sa, FT.
<> PROPOSED OVERWATER STRUCTURE: APPROX 1,440 sa. FT.
<> TOTAL OVERWATER STRUCTURE: APPROX 2,58580. FT.
<> WIDTH OF WATERWAY AT NARROWEST POINT: APPROX 213' (MHWTO MHW)
<> TOTAL PROTRUSION FROM MHWL: 30 FT.
<> TIDAl DATUM: MLW=-O.5' NGVD. MHW=+1.5' NGVD.
<> SURVEY COURTESY OF ~ COURT GREGORY SURVEYING" SURVEY DATED:
10-28-04
MONTE CARLO CLUB
PROJECT BATHYMETRY
DESIGNED T.T.T. REVISION TAB NAME
DRAWN JML 09-26-05 SHEET 4 OF 8
DATE 11-05-04 07-11-07 SCALE 1"" 100
JOB NO. 0420
SECTIDN-29 TDWNSHIP-48S RANGE-25E
\
!
RIPARIAN LI
E\ 32'
r
MONTE CARLO CLUB
10684 GULF SHORE DR.
NAPLES, FL 34108
~urrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.
, . '. , Marine & Environmental Consulting
, 3584ExchangeAve.SuileB. Naples,FL34104-3732
EmaiI: tuna@tmreU-8SlOCiates.com Phone: (239) 643-0166 Fax: (239) 643-1i632
MHW1.S'
MANGROVE
FRINGE
t
I'
I'
it
I I
SPOIL CONTAINMENT II
APPROX: 12SCUYDS~ . .',
CAPACITY ~~/",'I/J'
<ll /:J;.,
__ ~/';?///"' ~i~
r .-J':',/
MLW -0 5' L , ,;,'':
. <\i .---1~"'''''''
-~~'
-:;.;;........,,\
i I PROPOSED DREDGE TO -4.0 MLW: 1,500 CU YDS
N
~*\
?f) "'"f3'X~~
1t.$,;\li
s.
o
50 (0
200
I
I
\
~
S=9'F"f:E'1
VANDERBILT
LAGOON
VEGETATION
LINE
PROPOSED
rDREDGE
AREA
MHW1.S'
MLW-O.5'
I
I
I
I
\
-4.0' MLW CONTOUR
NOTES:
<> THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT
INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE.
<> All DATUM SHOWN HEREON IS REFERENCED TO MLW.
<> APPLICANT OWNS APPROX. 712 LF. OF SHORELINE.
<> EXISTING OVERWATER STRUCTURE: APPROX 1,145 SQ.
<> PROPOSED OVERWATER STRUCTURE: APPROX 1,440 SQ.
o TOTAL OVERWATER STRUCTURE: APPROX 2,58550. FT.
<> WIDTH OF WATERWAY AT NARROWEST POINT: APPROX 213 (MHW TO MHW)
<> TOTAL PROTRUSION FROM MHWl: 30 FT.
<> TIDAL DATUM: MLW=-O.5' NGVD, MHW=+1.5' NGVD.
<> DREDGE VOLUME TO -4.0 FT. MLW: APPROX. 1,500 CU. YDS.
<> SURVEY COURTESY OF . COURT GREGORY SURVEYING- SURV DATED:
10-28-04
-1'/,0 '-- /
~~~ "I-I'~ ;;:
r
MONTE CARLO CLUB
PROPOSED DREDGE AREA
DESIGNED T.T.T. REVISION TAB NAME
DRAWN JML llll-'l><l5 SHEET SOF8
DATE 11-o~ 07-11-07 SCALE 1''0100'
JOB NO. 0420
SECT10N-29 TOWNSHIP_48S
RANGE-25E
N
../0..,
?V ..f~~}. 1:
iIt$'iY
.s
o ;;0
~
(00
I
SC7U:E'lN'PE'E'T
200
I
~urrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.
. '. . Marine & Environmental Consulting
. 3584ExcbangeAve.SuiteB. Naples,FL34104-3732
Email; Iuna@tunen.~sociates.oom Phone (239) 643-0166 p",; (239) 643-6632
MONTE CARLO CLUB
SOFa
1"=100'
PROPOSED DESIGN AERIAL
SECTION-29 TOWNSHIP-48S
RANGE-25E
II ~
:;:m
i!=h;
" r<
ill 4~g
! ir ~~z
t- - : I. :;: ~ ~
_ ------rl .
/UJ
~--~ i--Fl
Ul I / I I I
~ II I i
;4-~ ~~I!:
o ," 'II I !
ill I' i
g I I II I i
~ I I II I I
;n ~ I II I I
!l) ~___ I 11_ I I
c-t---1~L T-.-jJ.
ill I III-i-r[-
e;; ! , II I '
~ I" .-t;/' II I i
~ " II I I
gill I I
j \~= -~~:':'L3--""-J""
,. I II r"
~ I II I
~ / II I
II I
, I II I
'II' II I
II I
II II I
II ~ b Is:
~fl ~ ~ ~
II iF [i
il 51: ~
I, II I
11 II I
II I
II I
II I
II I
[
I
~ ~ ,~
~
~~ ~~
~.r g. <T>
B>.C'llF
$~~~
iO. .......
~!r. ~e:...
-('t ;s-
g: ~ a. R:o
z ~:>>-
'"%j-&.. C'll C'-:l
~ !}J t=l en
.._ orO
't::>'">"l-("":l
....t"'"< nS'
:E~O-
~- ~ ~
....:E. ~ '"
~~g:~
l-J tvOCl ~
s:
o
Z
-i
m
(f)
~ ()
~ )
~ IJ
)> r
o
()
r
C
OJ
... ."J
._m__.
C/.I ace C
m GI ~ ~ m
~ ~ ~ ~
6 ~
~2.""
t:l ~ ;::; ~ ~
~ ;-t
-i",,:;:
o;n;n
~o)>
q$:"'tI
)>?>
Ill",r
o -r
<Ill."
mP:!;=
,;:om
::c:;:Ul
:;:Ill:;:
co~
ilia;'!
';:0
~
z
m
I
~
~
o
o 0 ~
~ ~ ~
6 b ~
, ~ z
~
Q
~
~
m
!? (Il -I
~ ill ~
m ~ e
m
~ ~
.<
\>
to>
q
OJ
~
....
r-
a
~
:::J
o
~
r-
? 0 0 ^ ^ ^ ^
~C/.l-l~vvvOOOZ^
'iI~a!::~d:ll~lO/,iil~~
iii/'/,-i~OCi;"l"...ZI'"
-<C"tJ;:[r-~:::!co~rn~
C1 ~ ;::0 0 0 en Z ~ )> 0 m ..
oco.,,<mGlz-l c
C?;~~~OO-l~C3s;!
~~~rTt~~~~~~~
cn~5;;C ;;o=EZOOZ
-< II z~!:B:E>Cf):EZG)
OOTl> >-l>Z~C/)
~U:l;:o-<~~~r:g:::t;;O>
oz~~~;::ocn~~5~
~~;:~~~~?<PJgCl
...," :r~c~(')~ZZ;;U
G)S::~O~O-lNWC-o
::0:1:'. =E" --lCr- cnm
.,",1f~",m~~~~."fiP"~
+"'11 "tlm 0 -
g,..,..:rie:;;lO.,,!ll :j
-(u:! ox'O"tlWm Z
cnZ ZI\) "tlO::tlIti G)
c:G'l -i"::tI 0 "tl
;:0< .. g:OX::tl!:9 C
~!=l ~m~::~-i ~
:s "tIO-""'.J>.ZO 0
~ ::tI' .J>.u1fn~ w
(i) O~ow r- m
;, ~"lIlP '" ~
C ~ ~~ ~
~ ~. -<
~ I 1,:
,,::;; "
~ b ~
S ~ ~
~ S
z~'"
t5:o
In:~
...,m
- e:
;!!~~
~~6
000
..:0....
me:
"ar
..
~;g(')~CJ
..... 00 a 0
~ j;; Z z N
(')0-10
N-lamo
~..~(")'f
_N_):oJ:>
gg~;:::~
~ca~
I-'~nl-'
o):or-\.O
OV'lcN
COV>'"
'" 0
o n
C j;
!"'.'1 -l ~
o ~
z
~
N
-
N
o
-
o
<D
~
BD-2009-AR-14192 REV: 1
MONTE CARLO CLUB
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
PROJECT: 2006010084
Date: 2{5{09 DUE: 2/20/09
illli
:II~~
Ii "ri41 :;,:
H'C::1 "~~~ ~
f:lfi~~:~'_,
;:,'
~urrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.
, ", " Marine & Enviromnental Consulting
- '3584 Exchange Ave. Suite B, Naples, FL 34104-3732
Email: tuna@turreU_c;ates,com Phooe: (239) 643-0166 Fox: (239) 643-0632
MONTE CARLO CLUB
ADJACENT PROTRUSION
DATE
JOB NO.
SECTION-29 TOWNSHIP-48S
12-19-05
0711-07
SHEET
SCALE
SOFa
1""60'
RANGE-25E
Cha11 ~4!
N
,~&)r,
'){) "",Jp'Xffr-:E
~'$$"
.s
~ '"I
=9N'F"EET
10 r~dd c(~l/ls"lel1 t c~s jJA{')d~/q.:k
((}{](J
I
p ~Turren & Associates, Inc.
; -.... . Marine & Environmental Consulting
) 3584ExcbangeAve.SuiteB. Naples,FL34104-3732
Fmai1: tuna@luneU...."iaies.com Phone: (239) 643-0166 Fax: (239) 643-6632
MONTE CARLO CLUB
PATH TO CHANNEL
1":500'
0420
SECTION-29 TOWNSHIP-48S
RANGE-25E
"
'"':J'\
t,.;. I..
t,.~
Monte Carlo Club
Boat Related Manatee Mortality Map
SDPI-2007-AR-12222 REV: 2
MONTE CARLO CLUB
CONDOMINIUM ASSOC
Project: 2006010084
Date: 12/19/07 DUE: 12/28/07
_1-- ~ (
( (foOD T. TURRELL
REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER
FLORIDA REGISTRATION NO. 39659
CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION NO. 5875
DATE: Sep 28, 2005 11:18:18
\. ~Turrell & Associates, Inc.
,)~. '( Marine & Environmental Consulting
.' ) 3584 Exchange Ave. Sui~ B. Naples, FL 34104-3732
Emai]: tuna@turrell'8SSociatcs.com Phone: (239) 643-0166 Fax: (239) 643.6632
\
I
I
MHW1.S'
MANGROVE
FRINGE
BOAT LIFTS OPTIONAL FOR ALL SLIPS
(EXISTING AND PROPOSED)
W(tE
S
'o~.></ 56 100
'~\ I,
. SCALE IN F~
200
I
,~ .J
~ ~;,'.!,;.;.~..- j
.
!
RIPARIAN LINe
i
( /
['
! "
II \'\"1
\l(
\
~ '-
f\ "~i' " 'l'll.\ '
'""'\ ~n
(/
"'^, ~
VANlu:Rtf,LT /
LA~O,,!
.
/
-5
/
""""
MONTE CARLO CLUB
10814 GULF SHORE DR.
NAPLES, FL 34108
" \\
\
\ \
.
\ .
'I
{C' -3
~' \
\ -5
/ I \
'0". .
. 1.\ \
,^~'
-5 /
:
/
// <
""- ;'
/ ","'_H""/ '"
/
/ (. r'i
/ NOTFli:
<> THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT
INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE.
<> ALL DATUM SHOWN HEREON IS REFERENCED TO MLW.
<> APPliCANT OWNS APPROX. 712 L.F. OF SHORELINE.
\''- <> EXISTING OVERWATER STRUCTURE: APPROX 1,145 SQ. FT.
<> PROPOSED OVERWATER STRUCTURE: APPROX 1,840 sa. FT.
<> TOTAL OVERWATER STRUCTURE: APPROX 2.785 sa. FT.
<> WIDTH OF WATERWAY AT NARROWEST POINT: APPROX 189' (MHW TO MHW)
<> TOTAL PROTRUSION FROM MHWL: 35 FT.
<> TIDAL DATUM: MlW--O.5' NGVD, MHW=+1.5' NGVO.
<> SURVEY COURTESV OF' COURT GREGORY SURVEYING" SURVEV DATED:
10-2a..o4
MONTE CARLO CLUB
DESIGNED T.T.T. REVISION TAB NAME
DRAWN KO 09-28-05 SHEET
OATE 11.{)S-Q4 SCALE 1"=100'
JeaNO. ,,<2.
PROJECT BATHYMETRY
SECTION-29 TQWNSHIP_ .85
RANGE-25E
N
W.E
S
0 50 100 200
~ I I
SCALE IN FEET
\
RIPARIAN LINE
)
32'
I
.,'L~ , "i
IA t.:..:.. .... .~J J .
I
1, 1. M.?.' R 4 1 111J'1
'""\ ':":'"'l
MONTE CARLO CLUB
10814 GULF SHORE DR.
NAPLES, FL 34108
'"
, '", ,,\.,,'
" " <,<'~ PROPOSED
,'- ......"
",: "rDREDGE
'..'.' "
", .~, <::<" AREA
':. '~~:~.?~>
',' .' ';';'.'
'": "'-.. \,'\ ','"
'. >>:,<:.~;--".
:, ",;'<"" ~...'''~\
,,,'....,'1
" \.,.'~ ><'.~--:I
. l..,., ','-.,
'. "~', . 'J
' '" ',',".,".
>:<:~~<~~y
,<,.:..J
QPROPOSED DREDGE TO -4.0 MLW: 1,500 CU YDS
(
MHW1.5'
-4.0' MLW CONTOUR
MANGROVE
FRINGE
NOTES:
<> THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT
INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE.
<> ALL DATUM SHOWN HEREON IS REFERENCED TO MLW.
<> APPLICANT OWNS APPROX. 712 L.F. OF SHORELINE.
<> EXISTING OVERWATER STRUCTURE: APPROX 1,145 SQ. FT.
<> PROPOSED OVERWATER STRUCTURE: APPROX 1,640 SQ. FT.
<> TOTAL OVERWATER STRUCTURE: APPROX 2.785 SQ. FT.
<> WIDTH OF WATERWAY AT NARROWEST POINT: APPRQX 189' (MHW TO MHW)
<> TOTAL PROTRUSION FROM MHWL: 35 FT.
<> TIDAL DATUM: MLW~,5' NGVD, MHW"+1.S' NGVD.
<> DREDGE VOLUME TO -4.0 FT. MlW: APPROX. 1.500 CU. YDS.
<> SURVEY COURTESY OF N COURT GREGORY SURVEYING- SURVEY DATED:
10-28.04
/ DD T. TURRELL
REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER
FLORIDA REGISTRATION NO. 39659
:ERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION NO, 5875
DATE: S. 28.2005 11:17:28
\, ~Turrell & Associates, Inc. M
.') " , l Marine & Environmental Consulting aNTE CARLO CLUB
. J584Exchang,Ave.Sui~B, Naples,FLl4104-J732 PROPOSED DREDGE AREA
~il: tuna@turrelI-associatcs.com Phone: (239) 643-0166 Fax: (239) 643.6632
DESIGNED T.T.T.
DRAWN KO
DA.TE 11..05-0"
JOB NO. 00420
SECTION_29 TOWNSHIP_411S RANGE-25E
REVISION TAB NAME
09-2l!-<15 SHEET
SCALE 1'_100'
'1"'/
TURRELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.
MARINE & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING
',,,
j7"' . .0
" -~""'''''''+'''''''''''''' .....,..,.,;.,...,
,(/#X' --'~~'\~'.':;\'~" ,':.,., .'....."~...._~...~
" ",(;-\0/ ----r. f
/(. \i
3584 Exchange Avenue, Suite B . Naples, Florida 34104-3732. (239) 643-0166. Fax (239) 643-6632
Submerged Resource Survey
SITE:
DATE OF SURVEY:
WEATHER:
TIDE:
Monte Carlo Club: Section 29, Township 48 S, Range 25 E
August 5, 2005, 12:20 P.M.
900, Sunny, Wind 5-10 SW
8:03 A.M., +1.3 ft. MLL W, Low
1:35 P.M., +3.2 MLL W, High
8:49 P.M., -0.1 MLL W, Low
approximately 1 ft.- 2 ft.
Quin Kurth, Joseph K. Cunningham
VISIBILITY:
PERSONNEL:
1.0 Purpose and Scope.
Turrell and Associates performed a submerged resource survey for the site referenced above on August 5, 2005.
The Monte Carlo Club Condominium project is located in Naples, Florida. The project site is more specifically
located in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East of the Naples North, United States Geological Survey
7.5 minute series quadrangle map. The Monte Carlo Club Condominium project proposes to dredge for ten
additional finger piers, thus facilitating the mooring of20 additional vessels. The dredging will take place south
of the existing docks to -4.0 ML W to provide sufficient depth for vessels up to 35 ft. in length.
The main purpose of this submerged resource survey is to identifY and assess potential impacts to the existing
submerged resources by the proposed project. This survey will provide information to design the proposed
project to limit and/or eliminate the impact to the existing submerged resources. The general scope of work
performed at the site is summarized below.
· Turrell and Associates personnel will make a site visit and dive and/or snorkel the proposed site.
Turrell and Associates will verifY the location of any submerged resources.
· Turrell and Associates personnel will identifY the type of submerged resource at the site, % of coverage,
and approximate limits.
2.0 Submerged Resource Survey Methodology
Quin Kurth, Marine Biologist and Joseph K. Cunningham, ElT of Turrell and Associates performed the
submerged resource survey. Submerged resources were eyaluated using dive equipment and a submersible
flashlight. The project area was evaluated systematically; setting up a series of transects, orientated north to
south, parallel to the concrete seawall. A visual estimation of percent cover for submerged resources was made
for transects and observed resources were indicated on an aerial drawing (please see attached drawing).
3.0 Findings
Surface water conditions at the time of the submerged resource survey were calm. It was high tide at I :35 P.M.
(+3.2 MLL W) and low tide at 8:49 P.M. (-0.1 MLLW). The substrate found at the site ranged from a sandy-silt
to mud. It is estimated that 80% ofthe bottom was a sandy-silt to mud bottom and the remaining 20% was oyster
debris along the seawall.
The submerged resource survey at the site yielded few findings such as oyster debris waterward of the seawall, a
few solitary tunicates attached to oyster debris, and fish such as, Sheepshead, Jack Crevalle, and Grey Snapper.
The oyster debris had been observed in the immediate area of the oysters found on the seawall. Since no seagrass
beds or oyster clumps were observed throughout the survey, it is our opinion that the project will have little to no
negati ve effect on the marine ecosystem.
Regards,
Turrell & Associates, Inc.
Quin Kurth
Marine Biologist
BI)-2U09-.\R-l..U92 RE\-: 2
\IOYI"I< (\RLO (LlIl (0'i1J0\1I'i1l\1 ISSOCl.ITlON
PRO.JE( "1': 2UU6UWUH-I
nail': ,;/13/09 IllE: .,/25/u9
,
I
1
I
I
,
I
I
I
,
I
,
,
I
,
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r
I
J
r
I
J
-" I
~ TYPICAL PROPOSED
~ FINGER PIER & MOORING
, , PILE
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
,
I
,
N
W.E "71
S
0 25 50 100
~ I I
SCALE IN FEET
MONTE CARLO CLUB
loel4 GULF SHORE OR.
NAPLES, FL 34108
~
OYSTER DEBRIS
FROM SEAWALL
..... -~" '"
-, "" ,;
. ..
~ ,
.. .
n1??Bo\1,
'\111
'"""'" ~"""
TYPICAL EXISTING
FINGER PIER AND
LIFT
MLW -0.5'
VANDERBILT
LAGOON
DIVE TRANSECTS
MHW1.5'
,
I
I
'- ,
/'-&110-
, ""~N
~1t~
'-
,\, ~Turrell & Associates, Inc.
P .' . , Marine & Environmental Consulting
,t.) 3584 Exchange Ave, Suite B. Naples, FLl4104.3732
Email: luna@turrcH-&SSOCiales,com Phone: (239) 643-0166 Fax: (2]9) 643.6632
MONTE CARLO CLUB
DESIGNED
ORA"'"
0''''
SUBMERGED RESOURCES
JOB NO.
SECTION-29 TOWNSHIP--48$ RANGE-2SE
,'''50'
//~LL
~EGISTERED PROFESStONAL ENGINEER
FLORIDA REGISTRATION NO. 39659
CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION NO. 5875
DATE: Se 28,2005 11:17:15
T.T.T. REVISION TAB NAME
KO 05-02-05 SHEET
l1-QS.(J-4 09-2&-05 SCALE
'<2,
"
~
\\~ .~..-------"
\
\
\\l\
~ ~~ \
~!~~ \ ~I
~~~I -. \ ~~, d
" ~ ~ ~h \ -b.~ Iji
~
-
~
..,....
~-
".
'~
~
J!!
~
al
~
~
" Illb.~~
~."",,~ 4t
~"iJ~)
~
t>;
"
.....
.....
~el ~!I
~I ~ I
...-,
-
'.
~=
"
~i~iil~~!il~ ~ ~'~U~~~~i~~.~~~~
~Yi~l~a3~i~~i~~:rl'~~mg ~~~~g
,m~1ilil l1l~::tU~"~~;;:'i1 "gH E~';l:j~
h3~~~~~~iiil~;o~~~~ ~!H I~~~;;
nt~~(D0 ~ lifi<'~n1"Q~~ ie ~~~~~i
h~~~~alg ~ Uc~~~illi~~~;I1 i iiI ~ g g
~~m~~r:g.CD II ~::u ~~~~om~!iOo l c ~ m-:O_,
~E~I~I~~~ i ~ ~~;~h~~~i ~ ~ U U~
~~~~~!;!~~5 ~ ~ ~~E~n~~d ~ ~ ~ h ~~
"iSffimf,j!"tI~"''''iiI<~''l:~C'-_:i -,,<5
~ E~~!B~~~ ~~fii~;~mp~~sg~ ~ ~ ~(g~~
,. :Hl"\::FfI'~)< rri ~~1"1'l@~'0~ ~ 15 ~" :!!
g~~i5~n~o,;;' ~!!!imiilill~rriiliL ~ '!i ~I ~
mm8l'Cl;llm"tlizm;lj!Oiliz~~ !jl0<5~
~ "~iIi~S[!Jg ~,,!jl~ hil~c";!J 6 ~ :Hi
):> mR1 cr;t mp!::Dzm c.;;;j.....,.::u II.S:"O
'" ~iIi~i:j:O':'!il m "I hi:O .:...!!!...::: ~ !i!E
m Z - 0 < m -l >lftm o.,,:u.....
~ -l t;)~ 2)0 J;! G) z ~ 1! b
z m)O"tI m-lo~~
-0 !il~ m - ~
--- g
N N N
'" '" '" c:
<0 <0 <0
"'ll :..
;;:l 4' 4' G)
"'........ ~....i O"tlnsCO
....OO~ n ~~Ool?
'::l 8l '" "2.", ,.." tD.....2ZN
~~~ 11 ::;! lJJCI) urnC-to
. _3: NQorn~
'"11 CD D ....... .. s; n ,
as' ~- ~N_l>l>
Ii" o02:;:Q7'
...0> l,l)~c5t:
..~.. . "'~ Os:n....
'"11<-0 ~:lJ en ~l>r-\O
CTg.!! o eN
<..CD ","'co
'P<:il . ..~
'$. 0 "
NaJCi C i> "
"N....
lC8i\l ::I !!' -i rn
c;;~~ G N 0 ~
.. ...... 2 ...
N
- 0
::I ......
0
n '"
.
II
i
;0 0> ;0 0>
IT1 m
<-i <-i
(ijm(ijm
momo
0'"110'"11
";0 r- ;0
em ~m
1Jl< CIl<
Coo men
~O r-O
mZ zZ ;;0
Co m.....a. m<
1Jl.... -
mrl>> ;.. en
z,/, ";" 0
ON N
~~ ~ tJj
;0
;><
m
r-
m
~
o
Z
~~
I,
II
li~ i1i12i111!li
II "!i!'!
~ h = .
iii mml! --r-
IiI BUill!
,
~i~ ~ ~U~2 II
; uuu~
......
---- .8.. ----
.~
~
..
Il'"
Id 6 II~
!~ ~ U ...
'" n h
~
) ;~ al hi ofw
~ iii ~
a ~~~ ~II
~ III i I is
"sl .. . ~-
..- . .
--y ~ iiE
""..... I ii
~
~!lil~1 i ~i
.t~ il ~ i ~"
'"
"
.
~
g
i
I
-0
~
------...
II ~di
:~II
~
~i!jj~~~~ ~i~~ ~~~ rffi:<
~~"~~m3 a~~~ mlll~ Js~
~2~~~z~ ~~~ @~~ ~8~~
!il90~~~~ !!l~~ ~;lrri z;og:
:i:li:O~;!; wZoli <iii~ Cl......",
m~~u; 2 :....:0 ~"Ve ~~ill!il
1!"'!llC!:~0 i!!~~.:o~ ~:O~~;l
J!!~-Zl~:O \!!;o'" ftl!Jl Hi
;~~~~~ ~g~ ~~ -o~~
"mli:;lillS: ~NiiI ,.1; nmm
i~A\$>~ ~oo ~m il;o
~-1~-t-l-t ~~z ~t m"~
;J:ffiUl:i~O <5"'... ~~ :OOz
G;",:il!ll;J::i ~'li2 z~ !i:F"
m~ai;G;~i o~~ @~ ~~~
zoc;m ~ p:lO ~:z: .'tJCtl~
;e-omiil m ..ili :liUl m!!lc;l
lil~~~~i o~~ ~i ~!"
~ ~ ~o ,..... ~ ~ z!il
"':< i!l~ ~i: ~o m~
II; :< a::; .
"'I'l%. ...."ccno-
;;00 ~oz~i5o
m..., o~ozmm
~> ~6C1lon~
i:1ri :"~:ij~~::!
!il~ ~l~~~~
~Sl ~"'Q~o....
g:::l cn!lCii.,,:;l:i!
i:if i!>~~~u; 0
~i;l ~~~~~~ ~
~~ "'~~~~~ ~
~ ~~~d~ if
- ;;oo~:c
z (I)~c-
s;> Ii:..o"'m
~ z......i:c
in -Im-vi2:
m -1:::0;;0 0
i: O<>Oiilm
m rnGi;;lo::O
~ ~~~2~
~ if- ~~
~ODiZOl O"UO):):"" .. ;:U;uw ~N 0)1>0-
~:Of~i' "'~"'i!li!l:;' ~ 15~~ Il!~ ;;"'z:;. ~
~~lil~ ~iilill~~u; iiI ~\:o Z:o of!!"m -i
~~"~i !!!I~~;llml!~!il ~g~ ~~ ~~~~ fJl
... ilil; ~Ul:oo ;;; ~",g "Viii ",,~z
:i om o'"tm ~ ,,1";;; ~z o"tlmp.
mO :t-<csik C -<;Qm -4~ !>~....
~~~~~ ~~~BIl~ ~ !ilm~!il~ :<;;:ili~
~i~~~ oo~~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ m~~~
a;um....~ :2)~~O~-i )0 O:jCl) U)~ ~CD@::t
~~~!ill ~~~~~~ @ ~~~ i~ ~~<;;~
5ciili~ iilS~In~o!!l :Om <:;I;Ii f!!!j!
~m~~~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~9. i ~~~~
~~!il~~ ~i"'h ~ g~ 'l! ~ lil~
~"T'Ic~a i:5d Or olij m
:i~~ ~B i~~;~ ~~ ~!l 0
u;Ci!!!!l~ "':<~~[g NO ~
~~!lJ~~ ~O<i~ ~~ !!1
~~gu :o~ c;I ~~
~-l~~ rn ~ ~
c!
:0
"
m
....
....0
U
>6
;;t
!1>
r- en
o ;:
ID ~ n
S~" = en :;
r- -i > III... n
ffiffi~>C:P
~~8~ n AD ,. I:
olJl;><m!" C.
~6OOS "':'o~!il:llll,.
":0 Z:'""'1 "
-::;1~~lilOO III 00
'"I1S.!!!O. r- r- ....
5;o~z Nr- 0 1'/1
~&ll?l ,. n en
>~ I ~ ;
... . <
II! =
z
o
~-i
~~
GlO
cz
r--i
'"11m
CIlo
5?U
;Or-
mo
00
;or-
-c
;1j1Jl
PAGE 2
LOT 3
BLOCK "8.
x = DENOTES ELEVATION (N.G.Y.D. '29)(ON SOFT BOTTOM)
N88"52'2O"W
208.88' (P)
...
X..
Xu X-U
)(-11.1 X )(4A X.a.o )(..u
X..JC~ )(-10.1 X.'1.OX_..x_ X.... XU X-7.1 Xoo .... X., X<4.' X.4A
-U ~~ )C-w )( ,x~1I1" )( ,..X.7.lX....x-U X.u X"" X.... X_ )(-4_1
'oU>r,.uX.U ...,,)(....)(..., -;.u X.... X-&I ~....)(..u XoUX.u X-'" X..... X.... x.d(.u .z.,
X""X-7.IX"'1 .... X.... X.... X...,X-U X....)(...1 X....X.u X"'1 X-U X..... )(4.1)(., 4-1
X....'X.J.lX.... X X..u X......)(...,X....)(..IX....)(- X"" X..... X.... X-4.aX-IJI -a.l
X~~X....)(U ~~~)(~~~~~)(..u~~
., ~_ X..... X-u X-1..a Xft X.&J X.... X"" X.... X., X-U X..... )(~)(.u ...,
)(~)(-U)(....)(.... X.u X....)(4.lX'-'O)(...,)(.... X"1 X..... X..... X-UX..u ..u
..... ~~~~~)(.u)(....~~~l)(.....~~)(~~
X'" X..... )C.,.. )("""<~~--:)(~-::.... X"'1 X-U X-U :K_X.u 4.2
X.... --"""'''x.ux ..., X"" X-U X..... X..u X..u .u
X.... X.... )(-1.1 X....)(....)(...,)(....)(~.u X"" )(.... X..... x_ X4.1 ..u
X.... X"'" X.... X'" )(....)(...'X.....)(...'X.....)(.... ..u
)C..lA X"" X..., X.... )(4.4 .v
X...,X....)(...,)(....)(....)( x...., X..... ..a.2
X-U )C-U )(..J.I X.... )(4JI X.... X.... X.... XoU )(:~ X.... X...., )(-4.1 X.u ..u
X'A
X"'1 X.Ux..7.lX.uK....X...JX....X.....X.uX...,1)(-4..X-4.1X..u
X-1..)(-UX...,)(....X..., X1t.... x_ X.u)(.u X-4..1 X..U X" X.u X
X-11 X.... X.... X.... X....1 X_ X-U X..I.1
X""X-U .... X4.4 X"'1)(-4..II(-4..1)("" X.u X.... X_ X.... X.... X..... X_ X-U
:: X"'I X..... X.... X-&fX_X....X... X_ X..... X.... X.... X.... X..... X-U X-u Xd
X..U X-UX...X.... X.... X....X4AX.....X-UX......X.... X..l.I
X.... X.&.4 X_ X.... X.u X...... X.u X.... X..u X.....)(-4.2 X"" X4.1 XU
X-U XU X..... X.u X.... X...... X....D X.... X4.'
X.f,.3 X..... X_ X.u X....
X.... X...... X_ X....X....X4.1 X-U X...... X..u X-Ul X..z.1
X..... X..... Xo6A X.....X4.lX.... JJ..u X"" X-4.I X..u X.... X..U
~-:. X.... X.... X..... X..;c:"'S><X.u X.u X..., X..... X....1 X.4..l! X-u
X.... X-u X.&.4 X.... X.... X.... X.... X., X-U X....' X-4JI X-
X"
X_ X.... X_ X.... X.u X.... X X'" )(.... X..... )(-IJI X....
X"" X.... X_ X.... ..., X..... X..., X.... X~
X....., X.... X.... X...
X"" X.... X.... X.u X.... X.u X.... X-U X...... X-4.J X.u X..I.r
1 X"" X--6.4 X..... X.u X-6.J X4JI X.... X". X..u X...o )(..a., X~
X.... X..... X..a.2 XoI.I X.... X....r X..... X...... X-U X-4.ll X..z..
-UX.... .u X..u X.a.2
.. X X...... )(..... X..... X~ X"" X.... X.... X".4 X..... X.... X4.'
..... .... X.... X.... X.u X.u XoUI X-1
..u X )(...r X.u)(-U X..., X-6.0 x...r X..U X-4.1 X.&A X4-' X..
X- X...., x_
X4<<.... X-U X-6.2: X..u X.e.2 X..... X.... X X-
X..... X...u X..:I.1 .a.2
....X X.... X.... X-U X.u X.-6,2 X.fI.lI X....l X-U X.a.1 _ X-u
1:x....X X..... X.fl.ll X.u X X-IJI X".D X
...X......., X" X.u X-&2 X..u X..u X-U X..U -4., X..:I.r X-2.D
~ X-U X...o X-u
....X-<U X..u X.u X.u X-&2 X..u X..u x-U X.... X.u X~l
X..... ... X..... X..... X.... X"'-.2 X..u X.... X-U X...., X-u XU X.,
...... X_ X..2.-
...... X.u X.... X"'-4 X.... X.... X.... X.u X.u X...... X...., X".I X..:I.I X-U
X"" X.;l.I
X.... X.u X.... X...... X.,tA X-IA
X-.... X....r X.... X...rX"U
BENCHW..Rt(
SET CRCM'8 FOOT
a-4.D6'
X
X.
X.
X.,
NOTE: DtMENSKlNS TO 1ME POCK ARE
MEASURED FROM THE SEAWALl. CN'.
BOUNDARY INFORMATION FURNISHED BY CliENT.
LOT 2 BLOCK "B"
,.,
...
.u
-1.4
...
CONNER'S VANDERBILT
BEACH ESTATES
UNIT NO.3
... (P.B. 3, PG. 18)
1.3" WIDE
COHC_
-1.2 x-u)(.u x..... x.... x.u
X-fA
X-I.I
X_,
x-,..
X-u
x-,..
U .u)(-'A
x-u
X~
X"
X~
X"
X"
X.....X-4JlX-&.aXUX_IA
x., X...., x..., X., X-1
X.u X-u X..a.1 X-a.o X
x-u x...u X-U X.U XoG
X
x...... X.... X-u X-1.Ix....
APf'RO)(.
","""""",UHE
LOT 1 & 2 BLOCK "B. CONTAIN 4.11 ACRES TOTAL
OF LAND MORE OR LESS.
(IMPROVEMENTS NOT SHOWN)
LOT 1 &2
BLOCK .B.
~ x... Xo6.3 x.... X~.J x~.s
x.... x-u x..... ~H ~ X.u x.u X..u X"" x....
VANoERBIL T LAGOON x..
X.UX..l.7X.... x..u X_ X"" x..u x....-)f"~ X4.4
X>,
X..
X~, X.....I x.. x.. X" X" x..
X.. X.. X.. x~ X~ X" X'"
x.. x.. x.. X.. X" x.. X'"
X" X" X" X~ X" X"
X..
X<A
X'"
X..
X..
x..
u ....x.u
X_ x...., x....., x.... X4A x.... X....
x....., x.u x~ x_ X_
x.u ~1; x-u x..u x~ X_ x....
X..
x..
x...
x..
x_x..... X-4.tX..Ux-ux_
x-ux......x....X-lAXUX-U
x....x.....'x....x.ux-ux-u
x....x....rX....x-ux-uX-t
x.,
x.... x..... X-4.1 X-l.l X-1
1.3'WIDE
CONe 8EAWAU.
A
,
u
APPROx.
II.H.W.
ELEV. -1.5"
u
X.u x...... X-6.1 x.... X.1.7
X"
u
APPROX
II.L.W.
ELEV. - ..0.5'
..
..
SEAWALl.
UNE PER
PlAT.
(P.B.8, PG.82)
wooo DOCK
METAl. LIFT
(m'.)
LOT 1 BLOCK "B"
8' WIDE D.E.,
U.E & WAU<
EASEMENT
(O.R. 1365 PG1333)
GlCl
THE ATTACHED~JAFF REPORT FOR ST.
MONICA'S (ITE~ SHOULD REPLACE THE
STAFF REPORT THAT WAS PROVIDED FOR THE
JUNE 4TH MEETING.
PLEASE BE ADVISED THE BACK UP MATERIAL IS
ACCURATE.
THERE WERE COLlATING ISSUES WITH THE STAFF REPORT THAT WAS
PROVIDED FOR THE JUNE 4TH MEETING.
. .
AGENDA ITEM 9-B
.
Cotn:r County
~~~ -
STAFF REPORT
TO:
. ,-
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
HEARING DATE: JUNE 4,2009
SUBJECT: CU-2009-AR-14137, ST. MONICA'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH
PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT:
Owner:
St. Monica's Episcopal Church, Inc.
7070 Immokalee Road
Naples, FL 34119
Agent:
Heidi K. Williams, AICP, Senior Planner
Q. Grady Minor, Inc
3800 Via Del Rey
Bonita Springs, FL 34134
REQUESTED ACTION:
To have the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an application for
Conditional Use No.3 and Conditional Use No.4, of the Estates (E) Zoning District, as provided
in Section 2.03.0J .B.l.c, of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC), to allow for the
addition of a weekday child care center and/or a private school within the existing church
facility.
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The subject 5-acre site is located on the south side ofImmokalee Road (CR-846) and west of the
Logan Boulevard Extension, adjacent to the east of North Naples Fire Control District Station in
Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (See location map on
theIollowing page)
PURPOSEIDESCRIPTlON OF PROJECT:
The petitioner seeks a new Conditional Use for an expansion to the church use by adding a
private school and/or a weekday child care center within the existing facilities. The proposed
Conditional Use petition is intended to supplement the previous conditional use approval
GU-2009-AR-14137 Page 1 of 12
Revised: 5/20/09
"
~
c. i
::>G
...~
~ <(
i ;; ~
~ .
N
Z ~
w2 ! ! 0...
~'<
<nO <(
0
~ ~
<.9
.... z
w m -
- ::l Z
. , 0
~
" N
- .
- <
- 0
. .
j 0 . . i
, ,
" ~
~
,
~ . ~
0
~ ,
, . . ~
, g ~ '"
~ , , , ~ :;:
, , T
:' , , ~
-. 0:
-. " , , , . . <(
'"
0
0
N
~m_ / Z-- =>
- ()
"
,
Z
, 0
. . , I , f-
"- i,
0 ,. , ,. " "~i , f-
r r ~~ ::: UJ
I ! I 0..
i
IDrownnoe 1I3mO::> '!lO-lI::>
ftw.D11
I j , , 0...
, ,
I. . ~ ~ ." ,
0 -, ~i ~ <(
"
_,.J--"..1 ....z I'
00 I :::2:
w-
'!i'
00
i'! I ::g
" z
-I ,
I!. i - .iIO_! . I l 'I' ~!;!~ 0
r= ,- IP 'Ii. Ii. .
z "I i -
" I
0 l-
CY ! OW^OYlOll N~OOl
W 11 <(
w
~ ! , 0
. " i. i- i
.1 " -----~ ~ ~!i ~ ~~ i! " I!' 0
~i " r
~- ,- r
," .....J
_.~ i ./-3.lY!!lli31N1
"'"'......00"<l0..,rn(J.00Q0l~ I' 11
"-"'Y.l'~3.LNI .1 II
IlJ~_ - 1',. .I! ,
, .r ==::fj I! ,-
I'. - I!
I! 1l'.lilOo .!
_m II Ii ;li
I! -
-, i ii
Ii ,.. UW.G.STON RO.<.D I-
. . I!
-. ~~ . ,
, ' ." ' ,
,'!.,',
,'ii,',
'Ii'
, "
,',;:I,',
II I
1! I
i ,
,
i
ZOHH<<:.......AlES..""(R..~
~""'"'S1."""
. , . .
, , ,
.- -.- _._.~-~.- -.- - -.- -.-
-.,-..--.-..... --,
. _.-.-._. -. -.-: i
G1HEIBJ
[
1..
.! .
:l"
.<~:::.,
,
::f:::
~
ilt~~
q~
I
:r !:.'
.,
I I
I I
I
l'-""'t,ESl.rr~
lISE"'AU,...,
\1iWW,OR,ADYMINOR_COM
OWNER/DF.VEI.QPER
51. Monico's
Episcopol Church
1010 lmn'IoIcolH Rood
Nopl... Fl. 34119
(239) ~9t-4~50
Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOCIATES P A
OVlL alGLNURS . LANDSlJRVEYORS . PLANNERS . I..ANDSCAPE_U~!U"';;C1~
~~:-..~~c:s . ~~~~~ '::~';':~
Attachment "B"
"
I
I
I
,
I
,
I
,
I
,
I
,
I
,
I
,
I
,
I
I
,
I
,
I
,
I
,
I
,
I
,
II
~ I
i I
,
I '
I
,
I
,
I
,
I
,
I
,
I
,
I
,
I
"
SITE DATA
lOT......Sfl[ARE. - ti.09tACII[:5
.r"'~Drn __"",,,,,.
INDICOIWSVE(;EU.TION lll.l:>.R(OUlREDPII[SERY[
6.OfJO.l!>_O."1oCIIES
z .
'I
I,
j<
!
CONDITIONAL USE
CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
~~
,'.,00'
.101 con
~
..ft
--
r1a"/JI'l
~
SHEET 1 or 1
ST. MONICA' S EPISCOPAL CHURCH
(Resolution No. 94-711) and limits the total square footage to 21,189 square feet for the entire
site which is depicted on the approved site plan (SDPA-08-AR-13077). As depicted on the
conceptual site plan (see attached) for the Conditional Use, the ingress/egress is from Immokalee
Road (CR-846) and the buffering, water management and native vegetation preserve areas
depicted is consistent with the approved site plan (SDPA-08-AR-13077) for the church.
The conditional use petition shall only apply to 5 acres of the 6.09 * acre site. If approved the
conditional use should not result in any greater physical development than what was approved
for this site and as depicted on SDPA-08-AR-13077. This SDP indicates that the existing
structure will become the church offices and Sunday school. The project narrative in the
application states the following: "If this request is approved, the existing building will be used
for either a private pre-kindergarten to 12th grade school or a day care." The applicant intends to
utilize the existing Sunday school area as the location for the private school.
St. Monica's Episcopal Church is currently used for religious services on Saturday evenings and
on Sundays. The membership is about 500 congregants and provides seating for 275 people. The
church office is open Monday through Friday from 8:30 AM to 4:30 PM and six (6) other
Church Ministries use St. Monica's facility from 7:00 PM to 9:00 PM Monday through Thursday
for community service activities. The applicant anticipates opening the school and/or child care
center about an hour earlier than current uses, which would be 7:30 AM and after-school
programs will run until 7:00 PM. The project narrative asserts the requested conditional use for
the kindergarten to 12th grade school will have a maximum enrollment of 100 students and has
agreed to limit the capacity to 20 new students per year until the maximum 100 students is
achieved. If the school does not come to fruition, the church would convert to a child day care
center, and reduce the enrollment to 90 children.
Originally, a Provisional Use for a 300 seat church was approved for Tract 130 and the East 165
feet of Tract 111 in 1991 (Resolution No. 91-14). Subsequently, the petitioner applied for a
Conditional Use (CU-94-l2) to accommodate a 500 seat church, administrative offices, and
Sunday school classrooms. To accommodate the proposed expansion, the petitioner acquired the
adjacent parcel (Tract 131) to be u~ed for the additional parking. At that time, St. Monica's
deeded to Collier County, fifty (50) feet of right-of-way (ROW) along CR-846 from the East 165
feet of Tract 111, Tract 130 and 131 (0.947 acres), which was required by the original
Provisional Use. The applicant reserved the east 80 feet of Tract 131 as a buffer to maintain their
use on 5 acres or less and the BZA approved it as a condition of approval - the entire east 80 feet
of Tract 131 shall remain undeveloped in perpetuity as a natural vegetated landscape buffer.
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
SUBJECT PARCEL: The site is currently developed with a church, zoned Estates (E).
SURROUNDING:
North:
East:
South:
West:
Immokalee Road (CR-846) Single-Family residential; zoned
Longshore Lakes PUD.
Conservation property and vacant property; zoned Estates (E).
Autumn Oaks Lane and Single-Family residential; zoned Estates (E).
North Naples Fire Control District station; zoned Estates (E).
CU-2009-AR-14137
Revised: 5/20/09
Page 4 of 12
AERIAL PHOTO
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY:
Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject property is designated on the Future Land Use
Map of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) as Estates/Estates - Mixed Use
District/Residential Estates Subdistrict. Relevant to this petition, the designation allows certain
non-residential uses-including conditional uses listed in the E, Estates, zoning district-subject
to locational restrictions. The site is zoned E, Estates, which allows daycare center and private
school uses (and church), subject to conditional use approval.
The "Conditional Uses Subdistrict" in the Estates ~ Mixed Use District contains specific
provisions for conditional uses (CUs) in Golden Gate Estates, including Transitional Conditional
Uses as follows (see below):
d) Transitional Conditional Uses.
Conditional uses may be granted in Transitional Areas. A Transitional Area is defined
as an area located between existing non-residential and residential areas. The
purpose oI this provision is to allow conditional uses in areas that are adjacent to
existing non-residential uses and are thereIore generally not appropriate Ior
residential use. The conditional use will act as a buffer between non-residential and
residential areas.
CU-2009-AR-14137
Revjsed: 5/20109
Page 5 of 12
The Iollowing criteria shall apply Ior Transitional Conditional Use requests:
. Site shall be directly adjacent to a non-residential use (zoned or developed);
· Site shall be 2.25 acres, or more, in size or be at least 150 Ieet in width and
shall not exceed 5 acres;
. Conditional uses shall be located on the allowable acreage adjacent
to the non-residential use;
· Site shall not be adjacent to a church or other place oI worship, school,
social or fraternal organization, child care center, convalescent home,
hospice, rest home, homeIor the aged, adultIoster home, children's home,
rehabilitation centers; and
. Site shall not be adjacent to parks or open space and recreational uses;
· Site shall not be adjacent to permitted Essential Service, as identified in
Section 2.6.9 oIthe Land Development Code, exceptIor libraries and
museums; and
· Project shall provide adequate bulferingfrom adjacent properties allowing
residential uses.
The subject property complies with all of the above criteria except the size limitation - the site
comprises 5.50 acres thus exceeds the 5-acre maximum. This issue is discussed in more detail
below and includes the history of the previous approvals for this site.
Project History: On January 8, ] 991, prior to adoption of the GGAMP, a provisional use (now
known as conditional use) for a church was approved for this site (PU-90-24, Resolution Number
91-14). At that time, there was no limitation on provisional/conditional uses in Golden Gate
Estates. The site comprised 4.24 acres and was described as Tract 130 and the East 'is of Tract
111, Golden Gate Estates Unit 97. Conditions of approval included provision of the north 50
feet of the site for right-of-way to accommodate the future widening of Immokalee Road;
retention of a 55 feet wide strip of native vegetation along the south property line as a buffer;
and, retention of a 40 feet wide strip of native vegetation along the east property line as a buffer.
Subsequently, two] -year extensions were granted for this site, both occurring after the GGAMP
was adopted (February, 1991) and in effect.
On September 27,1994, petition CU-94-l4 (Resolution Number 94-711) was approved to allow
expansion of both the facilities (increase parking area to accommodate the full seating capacity
of 500 persons) and the site. At that time, the GGAMP was in effect; it included locational
criteria essentially the same as presently exists and as listed above. The site was described as
Tract 130, 131, and the East y, of Tract 111, Golden Gate Estates Unit 97, less the north 50 feet
of all Tracts, and less the East 80 feet of Tract 13], comprising 5.50 acres. The applicant
eXplained in the CU petition narrative that: (1) Tract 131 had been purchased in 1993 to allow
for the proposed expansion; (2) the north 50 feet of the site had already been deeded to the
County for lmmokalee Road right-of-way; (3) the 24th Avenue NW right-of-way (the southern
30 feet of the site) comprised 0.568 acres [this erroneously includes the east 80 feet of Tract 131,
the correct figure is 0.513 acres]; and, (4) "the church is willing to reserve the east 80 feet of
Tract 131 as a buffer/open space through this conditional use process or as an additional deed
restriction to maintain their use on five acres or less" because "the County's master plan for
Golden Gate Estates allows only a maximum of five (5) acres be developed under a conditional
use." It should be noted that the legal description for the CU petition lessed-out the referenced
GU-2009-AR-14137
Revised: 5/20109
Page 6 of 12
East 80 feet offered as a buffer, thus the applicant was offering not to develop off-site property;
staff views this as an incentive ("carrot") offered to the County, presumably to increase or assure
compatibility, to gain petition approval. The Board included this offer as a stipulation in the
approving resolution - "the entire east 80 feet of Tract 131 shall remain undeveloped in
perpetuity as a natural vegetated landscape buffer." (Staff has found nothing in the record to
indicate this 80 feet wide strip was in lieu of any LDC or GMP requirements for native
vegetation retention or open space, rather was in addition to any such requirements.) Another
condition of approval was retention of a 55 feet wide strip of native vegetation along the south
property line as a buffer, with some exception for where a caretaker's residence is to be located.
As to the 5-acre size limitation in the GGAMP, though the applicant in 1994 explained how the
site complied, the petition legal description failed to exclude the south 30 feet which is
comprised of right-of-way for 24th A venue NW, thus the actual site acreage approved was 5.50
acres. Research has revealed that the] 994 Staff Report and Executive Summary both stated the
site size was five acres without explanation, nor was there any explanation in the minutes, all of
which suggests the Board approved that CU in belief that the site comprised five acres thus was
consistent with the GGAMP size limitation.
For the present 2009 CU petition, the applicant originally submitted the petition to include (add)
the East 80 feet of Tract 131 resulting in total site acreage of 6.09 acres. More recently, the
applicant submitted a revised boundary survey and legal description (dated May 7, 2009) that is
identical to the legal description of the 1994 CU petition - for 5.50 acres. As noted previously,
the south 30 feet of the site is road right-ot:way, comprising 0.513 acres. Components of the
project development - buildings, water management, parking, landscape buffers, required native
vegetation retention, etc. - cannot be located in the right-of-way; the right-of-way is unusable for
the project. Therefore, exclusion of the right-of-way area would have no adverse impacts upon
the project, and would result in consistency with the 5-acre size limitation in the GGAMP (5.50
acres - 0.5] acres ~ 4.99 acres).
FLUE Policy 5.4 states: "New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary
to, the surrounding lands uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code." Please see the
Zoning and Land Development Review staff analysis that was done as part of their review of the
petition in its entirety
FLUE Obiective 7 and relevant policies are listed below, each policy followed by staff analysis
in bold print.
Objective 7:
"]n an effort to support the Dover, Kohl & Partners publication, Toward Better Places: The
Community Character Plan for Collier County, Florida, promote smart growth policies, and
adhere to the existing development character of Collier County, the following policies shall be
implemented for new development and redevelopment projects, where applicable."
Policy 7.1: "The County shall encourage developers and property owners to eonnect their
properties to fronting colleetor and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be
made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code."
As depicted on the Conceptual Site Plan, this project has one existing ingress/egress direct
CU-2009-AR-14137
Revised: 5/20/09
Page 7 of 12
access onto lmmokalee Road, an arterial road, which is the only vehicular access to the property
and may be Iound consistent with this policy
Policy 7.2: "The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help
reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for
traffic signals." No internal roads are proposed as both the small size oI the site and type oI
project make a loop road not Ieasible. This project may be Iound consistent with this policy
Policy 7.3: "All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local
streets and their interconnection point with adjoining neighborhoods or other
developments regardless of land use type." The Conceptual Site Plan does not show access to
the adjoining fire station or the undeveloped tract to the east which is limited to a single Iamily
dwelling and is separated by an on-site preserve. The application addresses this policy by stating
that the residents in the area have expressed the desire to prevent any interconnection to Autumn
Oaks Lane. The subject property has no local streets, having just internal private driveways and
parking. Due to the small size oI this project, the absence oI local streets, the nature oI abutting
property, the preserve along the east boundary and the alleged wishes oI the neighborhood to
not have interconnections with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments, this project may
be Iound consistent with this policy
Policy 7.4: "The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkabIe
communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of
housing prices and types." The amended site development plan indicates sidewalks will be
provided as required by County regulations and the side is bordered on the north by Immokalee
Road which has sidewalks. As this is a non-residential use, this policy is mostly not applicable
and this project may be found consistent with this policy.
Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes that the proposed conditional use may be deemed
consistent with the Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) - the oetitioner shall revise the
lezal descriotion to exclude the south 30 feet of the site. Alternatively, the Board of Zoning
Appeals could determine that the past Board knowingly approved the 1994 CU petition at 5.5
acres and found it consistent with the GGAMP at that time, and determine that the present
petition utilizing the same legal description as in 1994 is also consistent with the GGAMP.
Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petitioner's Traffic
Impact Statement (nS) and has determined that this project can be found consistent with policies
5.1 and 5.2 of the Transportation element of the Growth Management Plan.
Policy 5.1: The mitigation proposed by the petitioner will satisfY the requirements of Policy 5.1.
The petitioner has agreed to 'phase' the onset of student attendance by limiting to a maximum
number of 20 new students during the first year of the project, and will continue until the six-lane
capacity becomes available on Immokalee Road.
Policy 5.2: The volume/capacity (V/C) ratio is currently 1.095, and the project's phased impact
creates impacts below 1 percent, which allows this project to proceed under Policy 5.2 of the
Transportation Element of the GMP. The phased onset of students, limited to 20 per year until
capacity is fully available, is below 1 percent of the current four lane adopted volume.
CU-2009-AR-14137
Revised: 5/20/09
Page 8 of 12
Immokalee Road Impacts: The first concurrency link that is impacted by this project is Link
43.1, Immokalee Road (CR-846) between Interstate 75 (I-75) and Logan Boulevard. The project
generates 34 PM peak hour, peak direction trip on this link, which represents a 1.47 percent
impact on Immokalee Road (CR-846) upon reaching build-out condition.
This concurrency link reflects a negative capacity of a negative 221 trips in the adopted 2008
Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) (adopted late 2008) and is at Level of Service "F",
and reflects a Volume/Capacity ratio of 1.095 (109.5 percent). The roadway capacity is currently
reflective of a Four-lane divided facility, and upon completion of the I-75 interchange
improvements at this location in 2010 is anticipated to return to a six-lane divided capacity. At
such time that capacity becomes available, this project is anticipated to have a positive remaining
capacity of approximately 1,000 trips*.
*For this statement, the 2008 AUIR background volume was used, and then compared to the
2007 adopted six-lane volume. Variation to the number of remaining trips is possible, as the
annually recorded background traffic has shown a negative trend throughout the County and the
trip bank has been adjusted as projects are approved or completed for construction.
Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME): The Environmental Review staff
has supplied the following analysis of the petition. The subject site was reviewed based on the
application and survey that was provided by the applicant and depicted on the recently approved
site plan, SDPA-08-AR-13077. This SDP supplies the minimum requirement of 15 percent
native vegetation preservation based on a 6.09 acre project boundary. As part of the consistency
review of this CU, Environmental staff was informed of the GGAMP limitation of five (5) acres
for a conditional use application. Since the CU conceptual site plan does not depict the minimum
required 15 percent native vegetation retention for a project of five (5) acres or more, staff does
not find the CU to be consistent with LDC 3.05.07 B which requires native vegetation to be
preserved on site. Since the site does not have the required on-site preserves, staff is requesting
the applicant to amend the Church's SDP to provide the required on-site preserves for a five (5)
acre site in order to be found consistent with the GGAMP and LDC.
ANALYSIS:
Before any Conditional Use recommendation can be offered to the Board of Zoning Appeals
(BZA), the Planning Commission must make findings that: 1) approval of the Conditional Use
will not adversely affect the public interest; and 2) all specific requirements for the individual
Conditional Use will be met; and 3) satisfactory provisions have been made concerning the
following matters, where applicable:
1. Consistency with the Land Development Code and the Growth Management Plan.
This request is not consistent with the CCME or LDC. However, if the BZA approves the
conditions proposed by staff; this project will be in compliance with the applicable
provisions of the LDC and GMP.
2. Ingress and egress to the property and proposed structures thereon, with particular
reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control,
and access in case of fire or catastrophe.
GU-2009-AR-14137 Page g of 12
Revised: 5/20/09
As depicted on the conceptual site plan, the ingress and egress to the subject property is
limited to Immokalee Road. The minimum parking requirements for a child care center
contained in LDC Section 4.05.04, Table 17, Parking Space Requirements, is 1 space per
employee of the largest work shift plus 1 space for every 10 children; minimum parking
requirements for Church is 3 for each 7 seats in chapel or assembly area, and for an Pre-
kindergarten to 12th grade school 5 spaces per 4 staff/faculty members, and the site plan
provides 150 parking spaces. Although, the recently approved site plan, SDPA-08-AR-130n
does not provide adequate drop off and pickup areas for the proposed school or child care
center. Staff is recommending as a condition of approval that the applicant amend the site
plan to include safe and adequate drop off and pickup area for the proposed pre-kindergarten
to 12th grade school or child care center to ensure the safety of the children.
3. The effect the Conditional Use would have on neighboring properties in relation to
noise, glare, economic or odor effects.
As previously mentioned, the subject site was recently approved for a larger sanctuary and
supporting facilities to an existing church and the private school or weekday child care
facility will be located in the existing church offices. The total square footage of the facility
will be approximately 21, 189 square feet and a maximum zoned height of 30 feet and the
actual shall not exceed 44 feet. The establishment of the height limit at 30 feet accommodates
Section 4.02.01 Table 2, of the LDC for dimensional standards for principle uses in the E
zoning district. The subject site has to adhere to all the applicable regulations of the LDC
regarding, preserves, height restrictions, setbacks, and buffer requirements by ensuring the
surrounding area has a certain degree of access to light and air.
4. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district.
The proposed project complies with all applicable provisions of the LDC except for Section
3.05.07 B which requires on-site preserves. Although, the approval of this request will result
in a greater physical development than what was approved for the original CU, the
development being proposed is compatible with the surrounding area.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION:
The EAC did not review this petition because the site is under the size threshold (10 acres) to
require and Environmental Impact Statement.
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM):
The meeting was duly noticed by the applicant and held on May 4, 2009 at 5:30 p.m. at the St.
Monica's Church. Three people from the public attended, as well as the applicant's team (Heidi
Williams ofQ. Grady Minor) and county staff.
Ms. Williams presented an overview of the two requested Condition Uses to the LDC; 1) to
allow a child care center; or 2) to allow a private school, which would be housed in the existing
Sunday School rooms. St. Monica's has a lease agreement with The Classical Academy of
Naples who will be managing the private school and will be starting classes August 10,2009 for
pre-kindergarten to 12th grade students. The applicant informed those in attendance that the
CU-2009-AR-14137 Page 10 of 12
Revised: 5/20/09
approved conditional use for the church and the proposed expansion development intensity will
remain. There was no opposition from those in attendance; however the following comments
were expressed:
1. Would there be a connection road onto Autumn Oaks Lane, which the applicant answered
no; the church doesn't want to see a connector road so there is no plan to build one. The
representative of the Oakes Association stated they support the project as long as there is no
connection to Autumn Oaks Lane.
2. What would the traffic impact be with school buses dropping off children; the applicant
replied that there are no impacts based on the Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) that was
submitted with the application. There will also be a turn lane added off of Immokalee
Boulevard onto the church parcel. It was also mentioned at this time, that the Classical
Academy of Naples will open August 10, 2009 for the 2009-2010 Academic Year and will be
limited the first year to 20 students and the maximum 100 students.
COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW:
The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report for CU-2009-AR-14137 revised on
5/20/09.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) forward Petition CU-
2009-AR-14137, to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) with a recommendation of approval,
subject to the following conditions:
1. The Conditional Use shall apply only the portion of the site that excludes the 0.91 acres
conservation easement to the east (less 80 feet of Tract 131).
2. The petitioner shall revise the legal description to exclude the south 30 feet of the site to
reflect a 5 acre site or, the Board of Zoning Appeals could determine that the past Board
knowingly approved the 1994 CU petition at 5.5 acres and found it consistent with the
GGAMP at that time, and determine that the present petition utilizing the same legal
description as in 1994 is also consistent with the GGAMP.
3. The applicant has agreed to phase the enrollment of students by limiting attendance to a
maximum number of 20 new students during the first year of the project, and subsequent
years at 20 students until the six-lane capacity becomes available on Immokalee Road.
4. Maximum enrollment for the small private school shall be 100 students or 90 students for
the weekday child center.
5. The owner shall amend the Church's SDP to provide the required on-site preserves for a
5 acre site in order to be found consistent with the GMP and LDC or, the BZA could
determine that the past Board knowingly approved the 1994 CU petition with the 0.91
acres to the east (less 80 feet of Tract 131) as an off-site preserve, and determine that the
present conditional use is also consistent with the GGAMP.
6. The applicant shall amend the site plan prior to the commencement of school to include
safe and adequate drop off and pickup area for the pre-kindergarten to 12th grade school
or child care center to ensure the safety of the children.
7. After-school programs are limited to the pre-kindergarten to 12th grade school functions
and register students only.
GU-2009-AR-14137 Page 11 of 12
Revised: 5/20/09
~ - /,2" "CJ9
MELISSA ZO E, P C AL P ANNER DATE
DEP AR TMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
REVIEWED BY:
5/zo/ () f-
RAYMO V. BELL S, ONING MANAGER DAtE I
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
Ift~ . ~L Lp_ 5;;_0/01>
SUS M. ISTENES, AICP, DIRECTOR 1 ' DATE /
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
APPROVED BY:
.rb/~9
EPH K. SC ITT, AD ISTRATOR DATE I
MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
Collier County Planning Commission:
MARK STRAIN, CHAIRMAN
DATE
Staff report for the June 4, 2009 Collier County Planning Commission Meeting
Tentatively scheduled for the July 28,2009 Board of County Commissioners Meeting
Attachments: A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
CU Findings of Fact (Exhibit "A")
Conceptual Master Plan
Resolution (Exhibit "B")
Res No 94-711
SDPA-08-AR-13077 site plan
CU-2009-AR-14137
Revised: 5/20109
Page 12 of 12
MEMORANDUM
Community Development & Environmental Services Division
Department of Zoning & Land Development Review
To: Collier County Planning Commission
From: Melissa Zone, Principal Planner
Date: June 4, 2009
Subject: CU-2008-AR-14137, St. Monica's Episcopal Church
Staff has received two (2) letters from nearby property owners who requested that I
submit their concerns regarding this petition. Attached to this memo are both letter's and
the aerial below depicts their property in proximity to St. Monica's Church.
ZoneMelissa
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
debbie 12355@aol.com
Thursday, June 04, 2009 3:26 PM
ZoneMelissa
Re: S1. Monica's request for school
Melissa,
I am very concerned about having an additional school on Immokalee Road along Autumn Oaks Lane. My
preference would be to not have the school approved.
If approved, please have the school follow the rules to have everything on a 5 acre parcel, including water
management and vegetation buffer, and not be allowed to put anything on additional acreage.
I'm also concerned about the drop-off and pick- up plan. It does not seem safe for the children, and I think it
will cause traffic problems on Immokalee, and possibly on Autumn Oaks Lane, as parents may need to park on
Autumn Oaks Lane, waiting for school to get out.
We live in an estate area, and should not feel like we are in a commercial area, by having to look at parking lots,
large buildings, and Immokalee Road. It is extremely important to me that if the school is approved, it needs to
have everything on the 5 acres, so that we can maintain a landscaping buffer. I think it would be an unwise
precedent to make an exception.
Thank you for your consideration to my views.
Sincerely,
David and Debra Myers
5710 Autumn Oaks Lane
Naples, FL
Phone: 941-764-8558
Limited Time Offers: Save biq on popular laptops at Dell
1
Alison Anderson
5720 Autumn Oaks Lane
Naples, FL 34119
Melissa Zone, Principal Planner
Collier County Development & Environmental Services Division
Zoning and Land Development Review
June 2, 2009
Dear Melissa,
I am a property owner within 500 ft of St. Monica's Church, which is scheduled or a hearing on June 18,
2009, which may allow a child care center and a private school related to the existing religious facility.
I have been a resident of Collier County since 1991.
I will not be able to attend the meeting on June 18, since I will be returning from Germany with my
daughter. Please accept this letter in my absence as comments for consideration in approval and
developemnet of the proposed project.
My concerns are as follows:
1. According to the Golden Gate Master Plan, there is a limit for churches and schools to 5 acres.
If the proposed plan is approved to 6 acres with preserves off-site, we are now setting a new
precedent for future development which changes the master plan.
2. The proposed construction site holds water to the point of flooding during the rainy season. I
believe the current vegetation and trees absorbs some of this water. If trees are removed, there
will be additional standing water, or water that will have to drain to another location with
possible flooding of the existing residential areas.
3. There is already a school/daycare at Eagles Nest Church, located North of 5t Monica's between
Immokalee Rd and Autumn Oaks Lane. Presently, at drop off and pick up from this school, there
are several cars that access using Autumn Oaks Lane, which increases our neighborhood traffic.
My concern is the same will hold true for St. Monica's. Is there adequate drop off and pick up
access at Immokalee Road? Is that a potential danger to children since the traffic has increased
significantly and speed is allowed up to 55 mph? Will the additional traffic in and out of the
proposed facility impair emergency service vehicles trying to exit the nearby fire station? These
are safety issues that should concern the county and its residents as well as parents of potential
students.
4. Since my property would be directly affected by additional exposure to Immokalee Road and
the activity of a proposed day care/school, I would like to request that a barrier in the way of a
solid fence, of at least 8', be constructed at the rear of the property and maintained accordingly.
Thank you for hearing my concerns.
Sincerely,
Alison Anderson
239-877-8080
c.o~-y c.ou:nty
...... ...,-
Memorandum
From:
Melissa Zone, AICP, Principal Planner, Zoning and Land Development Review
Department
Thomas Greenwood, AlCP, Principal Planner, and David Weeks, AICP, Planning
Manager, Comprehensive Planning Department
To:
Subject:
May 15,2009
Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) Consistency Review #2
Date:
PETITION NUMBER: CU-2009-AR-14137
PETITION NAME: St. Monica's Episcopal Church, lnc. Conditional Use Application
REQUEST: Conditional use to allow for the addition of a weekday daycare and/or small
private school within the existing church use facilities. The approval of this request will not
result in any greater physical development than that already approved for this site.
LOCATION: The subject property contains ",5.50 acres and is located on the south side of
Immokalee Road, west of the Logan Boulevard Extension, immediately east of a North Naples
Fire Control District station, in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, having a physical
address of 7070 Immokalee Road.
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS:
The subject property, as identified on the Future Land Use Map of the Golden Gate Area Master
Plan (GGAMP), is designated Estates/Estates - Mixed Use District/Residential Estates
Subdistrict. Relevant to this petition, the designation allows certain non-residential uses -
including conditional uses listed in the E, Estates, zoning district - subject to locational
restrictions. The site is zoned E, Estates, which allows daycare center and private school uses
(and church), subject to conditional use approval.
The "Conditional Uses Subdistrict" in the Estates - Mixed Use District contains specific
provisions for conditional uses (CUs) in Golden Gate Estates, including Transitional Conditional
Uses as follows (see below):
d) Transitional Conditional Uses:
Conditional uses may be granted in Transitional Areas A Transitional Area is defined as
an area located between existing non-residential and residential areas. The purpose of
this provision is to allow conditional uses in areas that are adjacent to existing non-
residential uses and are therefore generally not appropriate for residential use. The
conditional use will act as a buffer between non-residential and residential areas.
The following criteria shall apply for Transitional Conditional Use requests.
. Site shall be directly adjacent to a non-residential use (zoned or developed);
. Site shall be 2.25 acres, or more, in size or be at least 150 feet in width and
shall not exceed 5 acres;
. Conditional uses shall be located on the allowable acreage adjacent
to the non-residential use;
. Site shall not be adjacent to a church or other place of worship, school,
social or fraternal organization, child care center, convalescent home,
hospice, rest home, home for the aged, adult foster home, children's home,
rehabilitation centers; and
. Site shall not be adjacent to parks or open space and recreational uses;
. Site shall not be adjacent to permitted Essential Service, as identified in
Section 2.6.9 of the Land Development Code, except for libraries and
museums; and
. Project shall provide adequate buffering from adjacent properties allowing
residential uses.
The subject property complies with all of the above criteria except the size limitation - the site
comprises 5.50 acres thus exceeds the 5-acre maximum. This is discussed further below,
following some history of the approvals for this site.
Site History
On January 8, 1991, prior to adoption of the GGAMP, a provisional use (now known as
conditional use) for a church was approved for this site (PU-90-24, Resolution Number 91-14).
At that time, there was no limitation on provisional/conditional uses in Golden Gate Estates. The
site comprised 4.24 acres and was described as Tract 130 and the East Yz of Tract Ill, Golden
Gate Estates Unit 97. Conditions of approval included provision of the north 50 feet of the site
for right-of-way to accommodate the future widening of Immokalee Road; retention of a 55 feet
wide strip of native vegetation along the south property line as a buffer; and, retention of a 40
feet wide strip of native vegetation along the east property line as a buffer. Subsequently, two 1-
year extensions were granted for this site, both occurring after the GGAMP was adopted
(February, 1991) and in effect.
On September 27,1994, petition CU-94-l4 (Resolution Number 94-711) was approved to both
allow expansion of the facilities (increase parking area to accommodate the full seating capacity
of 500 persons) and the site. At that time, the GGAMP was in effect; it included locational
criteria essentially the same as presently exists and as listed above. The site was described as
Tract 130,131, and the East Yz of Tract 111, Golden Gate Estates Unit 97, less the north 50 feet
of all Tracts, and less the East 80 feet of Tract 131, comprising 5.50 acres. The applicant
explained in the CU petition narrative that: (1) Tract 131 had been purchased in 1993 to allow
for the proposed expansion; (2) the north 50 feet of the site had already been deeded to the
County for Immokalee Road right-of-way; (3) the 24th Avenue NW right-of-way (the southern
30 feet of the site) comprised 0.568 acres [this erroneously includes the east 80 feet of Tract 131,
the correct figure is 0.513 acres]; and, (4) "the church is willing to reserve the east 80 feet of
Tract 131 as a buffer/open space through this conditional use process or as an additional deed
restriction to maintain their use on five acres or less" because "the County's master plan for
Golden Gate Estates allows only a maximum of five (5) acres be developed under a conditional
use." It should be noted that the legal description for the CU petition lessed-out the referenced
East 80 feet offered as a buffer, thus the applicant was offering not to develop off-site property;
2
staff views this as an incentive ("carrot") offered to the County, presumably to increase or assure
compatibility, to gain petition approval. The Board included this offer as a stipulation in the
approving resolution - "the entire east 80 feet of Tract 131 shall remain undeveloped in
perpetuity as a natural vegetated landscape buffer." (Staff has found nothing in the record to
indicate this 80 feet wide strip was in lieu of any LDC or GMP requirements for native
vegetation retention or open space, rather was in addition to any such requirements.) Another
condition of approval was retention of a 55 feet wide strip of native vegetation along the south
property line as a buffer, with some exception for where a caretaker's residence is to be located.
As to the 5-acre size limitation in the GGAMP, though the applicant in 1994 explained how the
site complied, the petition legal description failed to exclude the south 30 feet which is
comprised of right-of-way for 24th A venue NW, thus the actual site acreage approved was 5.50
acres. Research has revealed that the 1994 Staff Report and Executive Summary both stated the
site size was five acres without explanation, nor was there any explanation in the minutes, all of
which suggests the Board approved that CU in belief that the site comprised five acres thus was
consistent with the GGAMP size limitation.
For the present 2009 CU petition, the applicant originally submitted the petition to include (add)
the East 80 feet of Tract 131 resulting in total site acreage of 6.09 acres. More recently, the
applicant submitted a revised boundary survey and legal description (dated May 7, 2009) that is
identical to the legal description of the 1994 CU petition - for 5.50 acres. As noted previously,
the south 30 feet of the site is road right-of-way, comprising 0.513 acres. Components of the
project development - buildings, water management, parking, landscape buffers, required native
vegetation retention, etc. - cannot be located in the right-of-way; the right-of-way is unusable for
the project. Therefore, exclusion of the right-of-way area would have no adverse impacts upon
the project, and would result in consistency with the 5-acre size limitation in the GGAMP (5.50
acres - 0.51 acres = 4.99 acres).
FLUE Policv 5.4 states: "New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to,
the surrounding lands uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code. " It is the responsibility
of the Zoning and Land Development Review staff, as part oftheir review of the petition in
its entirety, to perform the compatibility analysis.
FLUE Obiective 7 and relevant policies are listed below, each policy followed by staff analysis
in bold print.
Objective 7:
"In an effort to support the Dover, Kohl & Partners publication, Toward Better Places: The
Community Character Plan Ior Collier County, Florida, promote smart growth policies, and
adhere to the existing development character ()( Collier County, the Iollowing policies shall be
implementedIor new development and redevelopment projects, where applicable. "
Policy 7.1
"The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to
Ironting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without
violating intersection spacing requirements oI the Land Development Code. " As depicted on
3
the Conceptual Site Plan, this project has one existing ingress/egress direct access onto
Immokalee Road, an arterial road, which is the only vehicular access to the property and
may be found consistent with this policy.
Policy 7.2
"The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle
congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the needIor traffic signals. " No
internal roads are proposed as both the small size oI the site and type oI project make a loop
road not Ieasible. This project may be Iound consistent with this policy.
Policy 7.3
"All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and their
interconnection point with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless oI land
use type." The Conceptual Site Plan does not show access to the adjoining fire station or
the undeveloped tract to the east which is limited to a single family dwelliug and is
separated by an on-site preserve. The application addresses this policy by stating that the
residents in the area have expressed the desire to prevent any interconnection to Autumn
Oaks Lane. The subject property has no local streets, having just internal private
driveways and parking. Due to the small size of this project, the absence of local streets, the
nature of abutting property, the preserve along the east boundary and the alleged wishes of
the neighborhood to not have interconnections with adjoining neighborhoods or other
developments, this project may be found consistent with this policy.
Policy 7.4
"The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend
oI densities, common open spaces, civic Iacilities and a range oI housing prices and types. " The
amended site development plan indicates sidewalks will be provided as required by County
regulations and the side is bordered on the north by Immokalee Road which has sidewalks.
As this is a non-residential use, this policy is mostly not applicable and this project may be
found consistent with this policy.
Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes that the proposed conditional use may be
deemed consistent with the Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) - subiect to u revision
to the lel!ul description to exclude the south 30 feet of the site. Alternatively, the Board of
Zoning Appeals could determine that the past Board knowingly approved the 1994 CU
petition at 5.5 acres and found it consistent with the GGAMP at that time, and determine
that the present petition utilizing the same legal description as in 1994 is also consistent
with the GGAMP.
(ON CD PLUS)
cc: Susan Istenes, AICP, Director, Department of Zoning and Land Development Review
Ray Bellows, Manager, Department of Zoning and Land Development Review
Randy Cohen, AICP, Director, Comprehensive Planning Department
CU-2009-AR-14137 St. Monica's Episcopal Church #2
G:\Consistency Reviews\2009
tg-dw/5~15~9
4
RESOLUTION NO. 09-___
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF A CONDITIONAL USE TO ALLOW A
PRIVATE SCHOOL AND/OR DAY CARE RELATING TO THE
EXISTING RELIGIOUS FACILITY WITHIN THE ESTATES (E)
ZONING DISTRICT PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION 2.03.01.B.1.C
OF THE COLLIER COUNTY lAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 28 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 67-1246, Laws of Florida, and
Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on Collier County the power to establish, coordinate and
enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and
WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (Ordinance No.
2004-41, as amended) which includes a Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance establishing regulations for the
zoning of particular geographic dIviSIOns of the County, among which is the granting of Conditional
Uses; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Appeals (Board), bemg thc duly appointed and constituted
planning board for the area hereby affected, has held a public hearing after notice as in said regulations
made and provided, and has considered the advisability of a Conditional Use of a private school and/or a
day care related to the existing religious facility within the Estates (E) Zoning District pursuant to
Subsection 2.03.01.B.1.c of the Collier County Land Development Code on the property hereinafter
described, and the Collier County Planning Commission has made findings as described in Exhibit "A"
that the granting of the Conditional Use will not adversely affect the public interest and the specific
requirements governing the Conditional Use have been met and that satisfactory provision and
arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in
accordance with Subsection 10.08.00.D. of the Land Development Code; and
WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportumty to be heard by this Board in a
public meeting assembled and the Board havmg conSIdered all matters presented.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that:
Petition Number CU-2009-AR-14137 filed by Heidi K. Williams, AICP, of Grady Minor &
Associates, P.A., representing St. Monica's Episcopal Church, Inc, with respect to 111e property
hereinafter described in Exhibit "B", be and the same is hereby approved for a Conditional Use for a
private school and/or day care related to the existing religious facility within the Estates (E) Zoning
District pursuant to Subsection 2.03.01.B.1.c of the Collier County Land Development Code, in
accordance with the Conceptual Site Plan described in Exhibit "C" and subject to the conditions found in
Exhibit "D". Exhibits "B", "C" and "D" are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this
Board.
This Resolution adopted after motion, second, and super-majority vote, this _ day of
,2009.
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By:
, Deputy Clerk
By:
DONNA FIALA, Chairman
Approved as to form
and legal sufficiency:
Steven T. Williams ,-(..J ,.;11.0'1
Assistant County Attorney
Exhibits attached:
A.
B.
e.
D.
Findings of Fact
Legal Description
Conceptual Site Plan
Conditions
2
FINDINGS OF FACT
BY
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FOR
A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION
FOR
CU-2009-AR-I4137
The following facts are found:
I. Section 10.08 of the Land Development Code authorizes the conditional use.
2. Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest and will not
adversely affect other property or uses in the same district or neighborhood because of:
A. Consistency with the Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan:
Yes No
B. Ingress and egress to property and proposed structures thereon with particular
reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow
and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe:
Adequate ingress & egress
Yes No
C. Affects neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic or odor
effects:
No affect or _ Affect mitigated by <text>
__ Affect cannot be mitigated
D. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district:
Compatible use within district
Yes No
Based on the above findings, this conditional use should, with stipulations, (copy attached)
(should not) be recommended for approval.
DATE:
CHA1RMAN:
Exhibit A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
TRACT 130, TRACT 131 LESS THE EAST 80 FEET, AND THE EAST 165 FEET OF
TRACT 111, GOLDEN GATE ESTATES, UNIT No. 97 F AS RECORDED IN PLAT
BOOK 7, PAGES 95 AND 96, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, LESS THE NORTH 50 FEET THEREOF OF ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY.
Exhibit B
,.
:1
,..
(
11
I
. ..t.....~
. . . .
. . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . 'I'. . .
., .
. ~..' .
. . i ~. . .
. t ~ .
. ,'I. .
. , '
. . . .
I
~
i
F
~:
"-: -: ~
...... .
'. :. ~.:.
-'::1::::
~';;,.";';:"''''''''ES~
.=.~:_-..~.#..;.,-,:",_-:-.~:=.~.-_-.~ '
[ffifffi]ffiHJ
~
I I
: "I
II
.~
I !II
:[;1--'1
! I
I
I I
'Ii
I..
III
I
I i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I...
. I
'~l,tlT'TE>
"'.:v.c,....
.J
i
1
I
.1
I
1
I
:
"
I
,
I
,
I
,
I
,
I
,
I
,
,
,
I
,
I
,
I
,
I
,
I
,
I
,
I
I
,
I
,
I I
, ,
I
,
I
,
I
,
I
i
,
I
,
I
,
I
,
I
SITE DATA
TOT.....Sll(AREA _ 6.~j,olCIIE'5
RrntnRmJ>RF"<;nfI/F".
1H0Ii;EHCJJSVE(;ET"'l1OII.O.15_RECUlRED~
'-ll1lXg.'5_0."ACllES
z--
i
;
r
;
EXHIBIT C
ST. MONICA' S EPISCOPAL CHURCH
Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOCIATES P A
CIVlLENGINEf.RS.lA}lD5URYEYORs.rLI.NN[Rs'lANDSCAn_\Jl~1~CT~
~~~~'" . ~;~~.:;' '::~~T
OWNER/DF.VF.IDPRR
51. Monica's
Episcopol Church
7070 Immokaletl Road
NoplllS, n. 34119
(239) 591-4550
WWW.GRAOYMINOR-(OM
CONOITIONAL USE
CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
=
".'IXI'
JO.con
~
"ft
-~
Ml.IJI/JI1I
~
:SHltlIT 1 0,. I
CONDITIONS of APPROVAL
CU-2009-AR-14137
St. Monica's Episcopal Church
1. The Conditional Use shall apply only the portion of the site that excludes the 0.91
acres conservation easement to the east (less 80 feet of Tract 131).
2. The petitioner shall revise the legal description to exclude the south 30 feet of the
site to reflect a 5 acre site or, the Board of Zoning Appeals could determine that
the past Board knowingly approved the 1994 CU petition at 5.5 acres and found it
consistent with the GGAMP at that time, and determine that the present petition
utilizing the same legal description as in 1994 is also consistent with the GGAMP.
3. The applicant has agreed to phase the enrollment of students by limiting
attendance to a maximum number of 20 new students during the first year of the
project, and subsequent years at 20 students until the six-lane capacity becomes
available on Immokalee Road.
4. Maximum enrollment for the small private school shall be 100 students or 90
students for the weekday child center.
5. The owner shall amend the Church's SDP to provide the required on-site
preserves for a 5 acre site in order to be found consistent with the GMP and LDC
or, the BZA could determine that the past Board knowingly approved the 1994
CU petition with the 0.91 acres to the east (less 80 feet of Tract 131) as an off-site
preserve, and determine that the present conditional use is also consistent with the
GGAMP.
6. The applicant shall amend the site plan prior to the commencement of school to
include safe and adequate drop off and pickup area for the pre-kindergarten to
12th grade school or child care center to ensure the safety of the children.
7. After-school programs are limited to the pre-kindergarten to 12th grade school
functions and register students only.
Exhibit D
r
I
i
I
RESOLUTION 94--111
A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
CONDITIONAL USE 111'1 IN THE "E" ESTATES ZONING
DISTRICT PURSUANT TO SECTION 2.2.3.3 OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED IN SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE
26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
WHEREAS, the Legislature of the state of Florida in Chapter
67-1246, Laws of Florida, and Chapter 125, Florida statutes, has
conferred on Collier County the power to establish, coordinate and
enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for
the protection of the public; and
WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land
Development Code (Ordinance No. 91-102) which includes a
Comprehensive Zoning ordinance establishing regulations for the
zoning of particular geographic divisions of the county, among
which is the granting of Conditional Uses; and
WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission, being the
duly appointed and constituted planning board for the area hereby
affected, has held a public hearing after notice as in said
regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability
of Conditional Use "111 of Section 2.2.3.3 in an IIE" Estates zone
for church expansion on the property hereinafter described, and has
found as a matter of fact (Exhibit IlA") that satisfactory provision
and arrangement has been made concerning all applicable matters
required by said regulations and in accordance with Subsection
2.7.4.4 of the Land Development Code for the Collier County
Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportunity to
be heard by this Board in a public meeting assembled and the Board
having considered all matters presented.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
of Collier County, Florida that:
-1-
Attachment "D"
The petition filed by Terrance L. Kepple of Bruce Green and
Associates, representing St. Monica's Episcopal Church, with
respect to the property hereinafter described as:
Exhibit liB" which is attached hereto and incorporated by
reference herein
be and the same is hereby approved for Conditional Use 1/1" of
Section 2.2.3.3 of the "EII Estates zoning district for church
expansion in accordance with the Conceptual Master Plan (Exhibit
lie") and subject to the following conditions:
a. The Current Planning Manager may approve minor changes in the
location, siting, or height of buildings, structures, and
improvements authorized by the conditional use. Expansion of
the uses identified and approved within this conditional use
application, or major changes to the site plan submitted as
part of this application, shall require the submittal of a new
conditional Use application, and shall comply with all
applicable County ordinances in effect at the time of
submittal, including Division 3.3, site Development Plan
Review and approval, of the Collier County Land Development
Code (Ordinance No. 91-102).
b. The entire east 80 feet of Tract 131 shall remain undeveloped
in perpetuity as a natural vegetated landscape buffer as shown
on the Master Plan.
c. U. s. Army Corps of Engineers General Permit SAJ-48 for this
area applies only to residential structures. An individual
permit shall be submitted for Final SDP Approval if required.
d. The petitioner shall retain at least a fiftY-five (55) foot
wide naturally vegetated buffer along the southern property
line, except in front of the caretaker's residence the
developer shall be allowed to clear the underbrush starting at
the west boundary of the SO-foot buffer and proceeding 100
feet in a westerly direction.
e. The developer shall provide left and right turn lanes on
Immokalee Road at the Project entrance. Should a median
opening be required upon the four-laning of Immokalee road,
the developer shall be responsible for the cost of all
intersection improvements necessary to serve the site.
f. Access improve~ents shall not be subject to impact fee credits
and shall he in place before any certificates of OCcupancy are
issued.
g. The road impact fee shall be as set forth in Ordinance 85-55,
as amended, and shall be paid at the time building permits are
issued ~nless otherwise approved by the-Board of County
ca:mmissioners.
-2-
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the
minutes of this Board.
Commissioner
Saunders
offered the foregoing
Resolution and moved for its adoption, seconded by Commissioner
Norris
and upon roll call, the vote was:
AYES: Commissioner Saunoers, Commissioner NocrisI Commissioner volpe,
Commissioner Matthews, and Commissioner Constantine
NAYS,
ABSENT AND NOT VOTING:
ABSTENTION:
Done this
27th
day of September
, 1994.
AT'J'EST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
!Jt/M~s?t-/i)e.
~ - :ROVED ~s TO~'-~ORM AND
LEGAl, "SUFFICiENCY:
L
CHAIRMAN
'mb'8tr~" ii.1f.r~f"JL.d
ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY
CU-94-12 RESOLUTIONj12132
-3-
FINDING OF FACT
BY
COLLIER coONTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FOR
A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION
FOR
CU-94-12
The fo~lowing facts are found:
1. section 2.2.3.3.1 of the Land Devlop~ent
Code authorized the condit~onal use.
2. Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect
the public interest and will not adversely affect other
property or uses in the same district or neighborhood
because of:
A. consistency with the Land Development Code and
Growth Management;Plan:
Yes ~No_
Ingress and egress to property and proposed
.structures thereon with particular reference to
.automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience,
traffic flow and control, and access in case of
fire or catastrophe:
Adequate ingres~egress
Yes'~ No ______
Aff~cts eighboring propert~es in relation to
noise glare, economic or odor effects:
No affect or Affect mitigated by
----- . Affect cannot be mitigated
D. compatibility with adjacent propertie~ and
other property in the dis~r~ct:
Compatible.use~thin district
Yes -LL No
B~sed o~ the ~bove f~ndingsJ this conditional US~;hOUl~, ~
w1th st1pulat1ons, (copy attached) (should not) ~ --
recommended for approval .~. J?
DATE: '1/; h 1- CHAIRMAN: /tU.?Lt2,{j//.., /
I I .
B.
C.
FINDING OF FACT CHAIRMAN/md
Exhibit "A"
"--
,
__f-I_'
FINDING OF FACT
BY
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FOR
A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION
FOR
CU-94-12
The following facts are found:
1. Section 2.2.3.3.1 of the Land Development
Code authorized the conditional use.
2. Granting the conditional Use will not adversely affect
the public interest Bnd will not advarsely affect. other
property or uses in the same d!str1ct or neighborhood
because of:
Consistency with the~and evelopment Code and
Growth Management Plan:
Yes NO._____
Ingress and egress to property and proposed
structures thereon with particular reference to
automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience,
traffic flow and control, and aCCess in case of
fire or catastrophe:
Adequate ingr~~ egress
Yes __ No _
Affe~ts eighboring properties in relation to
nois , glare, econo~ic or odor effects:
No ~ffect or Affect mitigated by
----- Affect cannot be mitigated
D. Co~patibility with adjacent properties and
other property in the district:
Compatible use within district
Yes ~ No __
A.
B.
c.
Based on the above findings, this co~al Use should,
with stipulations, (copy attached) ~not) he .
recommended for approval . ~ .
DATE: '1/1/1'1 MEMBER: ,uf/1-'/4
FINDING OF FACT MEMBER/rod
~
~
"
!
,
.
l
!
,
!
!
'I
!
.
.
,
.i
,
!
i
.!.
III
~
~
c
o
~
Ill! "If
pp I ~I
jl) :1
i/ii
I 1 I' "i
:1: r: IW
, I/I!I"
, I
I
d.!l !l!f
I'll
. i!ij,
Illlf'! l~;,
'rll - nil I
;lli1lf i:1l
I, I ~r~
I !;i'
'1,1
a=
~,
!:i
.a
'j
'\
=
,
,
,
-----
....
II:
, ,
",
ili
, ,
ill!
, ,
, ,
t~ I
:~: i
1.1 i
l~ I
",
'II
, ,
, ,
, ,
ill:
, ,
, ,
[I':
, ,
, ,
II'
ili
, ,
iil
:11
II,
: '
II'
'I:
, 1
"
----~...\
! I,
1 ,
: II
1
,I I
1 :
:,' :
, I
, i,
, "
: 'I:
'I'
: II
: I:
I' !
r r [.
1/,
, ,
, ,
, ,
:1' :
, ,
, ,
, ,
, '
'I:
, 1
, I
: I:
'I!
, ,
ii' :
I ,
, ,
, ,
1,'
, 1
, ,
, ,
, 1
I
I
'!!:~ i
~.
I
r!JIIDJlIlllIl n
w:tEl:lllJlTTIT
BJIIHD....".
. '. .. ..
'. . ..
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
I ,
I .1.__.....
L____ _____________
y
'I
Exhibit "e"
i.
I
I
Tract 130, 131, and the East 165 feet of Tract 111,
Go~den Gate Estates, Unit No. 97 less the North 50
feet of Tracts 130, 131 and the East 165 feet of
Tract 111, Less the East 80 feet of Tract 131, as
recorded in Plat Book 7, Pages 95 and 96, of the
Public Records of Collier County, Florida.
Exhibit lIBII
~
LAST REVISION: ZONING________OTHER________
n,. KI.t<>rie/"'cho.<>Io~;"oI Proboblilty ~op, or. I~. olfiolol
Cou~ly "..m,. d..I~noH~~ ~I.torl< or .r<~o,gIQ~I< r"""r...
r"~
IU
f""""
I[IJ
r
II
,I
I
r--;;:;;.,
">-n1O
........- '"
[.....--
.,......".......
"..-...,.......
".,-............
1.....-
II
t----~
I ! ' , II
- I H:
I ",
~ i ~
ii'
I 1 ,!i
I 1-'
I .1 II ~
1-,
, I 'II
I '._
I I !I
.-=--!! II
-~ 0 Ii.. !
! ~ r t ti I
811. /; ~ ~ ~
I--',~ :.I,_!d:
<H ;:'~E'~~~
CJC D 9 .. ~
IC~.. ~,'"
"'''' Q '" .. ~
> !
i /
I
, - . ~. ~..-=J
I F-f- r IT - y-. ~
n / r--- Jff~
.- ~ ~" ."...LV.... - -=-
.{.. ~ .1, , I J i /
:r , . . , , ,/1, , , ~'I : -I. ,
. -
, . . . / . . I .
- " or----
. . .t:ll , Iy' . .
- . I
,
. . / . , , .
! . , , C -- C-:--i
, , / , . m , w . . X ! . , '
, --~,
, , . . ,,I ! ! r--- .
. , ! . !
; , l , -/ ! , , i , , i . , I r-;-
, . I/, , t~f ~
, , ; I ,
. Ll>i ~- ~.,
, 1/ . i ~
.,1 - l
. . , i , , I ~ ~ ~
---,. "'. "-.,, :/ -
,._" _m , , i i . , i , .
_.....,,<n._
'-".'-' , '--J f----.
H'",_, 'f'
-...'....,_M' , ,
, :;::f , i , ~
~ e
..... "'00
./
,
,
(Jj - ff-/2
~
"
.
~
~
N
~
0
0
c
~
~
c
,
~
~
II.'.'
. ~'~.:1
,..,.;t
. ~~~}
I
!
II ~
,
1
1
1 '
1
1
1
1
8
~
,
1 I
'--"-""'--"
- ,
CUulJuIl
':~":;'<': ';,_:':.:01 I
--effiE' I' ~
j ,
11.J .=1
-'.---1
i;:]
";'r--I
l
. ,
II
';-,;,:'~_liLH1{UiliS: 1
1.:<1.--_.,r____...,rJ1
, ,1'],_-,:: :~,
~-1t--J. .,"1, ,;::lQ
. I :r ,I i-. -1,=11
" J.1' };,-J....-11
I ,,~ I-~ ~ r_..1 '/ll.,-.-J ~
''i~I-_) ';' 'h' '~
:'1'\ jgIV/L....".
1'.1:"/7<1.'
), !i\~~QI,tZ,~;
..~.i 1/ i<l!, .:1 'II
---1.. lll[ m!l~ ,ll!=1' Jj::
."em'-' [J !'-l :1 !,II
,"- U " . Itff-),.:~,I .: ;~I:,I
' , 5. I '~~""I
.~.'.' :,1.=Tr-~um. u'K;' :~- ==f i.' 'ii i
.. ,-'. "., (l.iliUJlJJ., .1
,;=1"1 ' i \JT11 -JTlT -, IT ,II
......, '1 '~,. "
lJ "I "11'.' ,
, -~~ -,J~.l'J I... ,
. il,! LJ;--1
r
= ~ ,
',~7::t' i
."..-"."l
. I
. I
~: ;' i
, ~: ~
,
I '.0
I ,
. !2Cl
. 'c
i 1116
I ~~r~
. .;~
i ~ c5
L ~~ ~ ~
i ii'"
, '>-
!' iw
- . ~ 0
. !:"n
! U~s:
I ~~ ~ ri
! i:.YJ
, l~
! Cl>
, ...,
I ~ i
! I
~
~
0 ~.
~ ,
.
F '"
" "
~ ~
~ ~
> ~
z
~
>
,
;
I
, ,
I I
1
I
I
I
I
I
'II
I
I
>-
~
f
III
~~il~~~:i''l
:! ill! i i
a" ~ij iil~ g a
~~~g!~~~
I.~~~~~~!
' ".
~9 .~ ~.o , _
"I'." ,
~~ ~~ iiI~ ~ ~
j, ',1.1,
., '".'
~~ ~ ';'~ ~ Ii
^' ,", I
~~ ~ \:!II. "
'! ~~:!O
~ ~ ~~ ~
E! '!I,
~~ ~ -~~ ~
~F ~ ~ ~
J'll c ~ ~
~~ ~ p.
,. ;.
M ~ ~
~~ ~ ~
~~ ~.- ~
'I
[~z~
;;, j! ; i ~
'" c""
: ~~ ~ ~
,I", II
~ ~ ~; ~ a
El ;; !~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~I !
'i!I' .
g ~ .~g ~ i
~ ; ~~ s ~
~ ~ ~... ~
? ~ >!!i'
~ ~ ;: '1
", I:
~ ~ j'I
;
BGf,
ENGINEERS. LAND SURVEYORS
ST. MONICA'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH
June 14, 1994
St. Monica's is located on Immokalee Road approximately one
half mile east of Oaks Boulevard and adjacent to the existing
fire station. A conditional use was granted for Tract 130
and the East 165 feet of Tract III in 1991 (Resolution
91-14). The Church has commenced construction in accordance
with that conditional use and expect to complete their first
phase this fall (1994).
St. Monica's long range plans call for a 500 seat church,
administrative offices, Sunday School classrooms, etc. These
uses were shown on the original conditional use. To
accomodate these uses, however, it was necessary for the
church to acqu ir e add i tional property for park ing . They
acquired the adjacent tract (Tract 131) in July 1993 and now
wish to secure a conditional use for the property.
St. Monica's has already deeded, to Collier County, fifty
(50) feet of add i tional R/W along Immok alee Road from Tract
130, 131 and East 165 feet of Tract Ill, as required by the
original conditional use. This area was a total of 0.947
acres. In addition, 0.568 acres of their property consists
of R/W for 24th Avenue N.W.
Of the total 7.041 acres purchased by SL Monica's, only
5.526 acres remain after the R/W is removed. The County's
master plan for Golden Gate Estates allows only a maximum of
five (5) acres be developed under a conditional use. The
church is willing to reserve the east 80 feet of Tract 131 as
a buffer/open space through this conditional use process or
as an additional deed restriction to maintain their use on
five acres 01: less. In addition, the 55 foot buffer along
their south property line (Tl:acts III and 130) uses 0.625
aCl:es, leaving 4.375 acres fOI: the chul:ch out of their
original 7.041 acres (62%).
Attachment "F"
BRUCE GREEN AND ASSOCIATES. INC.
3806 EXCHANGE AVENUE. NAPLES, FLORIDA 33942-3778 . (813) 262-7525
FAX (813) 262-6231
ST. MONICA'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH
Page - 2
EIS - Waiver
The additional Tract (131) is 2.36 acres in size and has
upland slash pine, understory and exotics. Of this portion,
0.9 ac res w ill remain as buffer: 80 feet eas t and 55 feet
south. The remainder of the site will be used for a
caretakers home, play/picnic area and church parking. The
existing trees will be utilized as much as possible and the
buffer areas will be cleared of exotics. The petitioner is
requesting an EIS waiver on this project.
TIS
The original conditional use (Resolution 91-14) anticipated a
500 seat church and the associated traffic. This proposal
only provides the required parking for the use previously
approved and will not generate additional traffic.
PETITION NUMBER
i:u
bI4~1.2-4. P1
DATE
...-A~Q
~,~
r "7' ~
<-. ~
<(\:'7 <, G~
')'Y:,\\ cVJ-'"
- "::>
,~~0
""",
\'-"'"
?"
\
APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING
FOR
REZONE AND CONDITIONAL USE REOUESTS
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REOUESTS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
CURRENT PLANNING
1.
Name of Applicant(s)
St. Monica's
Episcopal Church
Applicant's ~ailing Address 4500 Executive Drive
City
Naples
state
Florida
Zip
33999
Applicant's Telephone Number: Res.:
Bus.: 591-2695
Is the applicant the owner of the subject property?
X Yes No
(a) If applicant is a land trust, so indicate and name
beneficiaries below.
X (b) If applicant is corporation other than a public
corporation, so indicate and name officers and major
stockholders below.
(c) If applicant is a partnership, limited partnership
or other business entity, so indicate and name
principals below.
(d) If applicant is an owner, indicate exactly as
recorded, and list all other owners, if any.
(e) If applicant is a lessee, attach copy of lease, and
indicate actual owners if not indicated on the lease.
(f) If applicant is a contract purchaser, attach copy of
contract, and indicate actual owner(s) name and address
below.
(;C'~ Z ,:,"--,,J-:l'(~&',:t/ ,~)r-~-f)
(If space ~s inadequate, attach on separate page.)
2.
Name of Agent Terrance L. Kepple
Firm BRUCE GREEN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Agents Mailing Address 3806 Exchange Avenue
city
Naples
State
Florida
Zip
33942
Telephone Number: Res.:
Bus. :
(813) 262-7525
1
IF .-.-?~'
-".
u"'-:-""'-:--..
:,,!:"-:-
ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
ST. MONICA'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH, INC.
ARTICLE VII
The names of the officers who are to manage all the affairs
of the corporation, unt~l the next appointment or first election
under these Articles of Incorporation, are:
Vicar:
J"onn S. Adler
5910 14th Street NW
Naples, FL 33999
~. Senior Warden:
Dean R_ Lind
1930 Princess Court
Naples, FL 33942
Junior Warden:
Charles E. Decker
11638 Quail Village Way
Naples, FL 33999
Clerk:
Nancy Helring
262 Mentor Drive
Naples, FL 33942
Treasurer:
Wayne Stickney
9753 Campbell Circle
. Naples, FL 33942
~._i'i.....,_.
-. .,..
. . .:..~-.;.) :60'-'..
c. ";:~c""~~..
The by-laws
inconsistent wi th
ARTICLE VIII
of the corporation
the canons aforesaid nor
(whicn must not
with the Articles
be
of
Incorporation) are to be made, altered, or rescinded by the
Vestry Committee or Vestry.
ARTICLE IX
NO grant shall be made nor shall any charge be imposed Upon
any consecrated church or chapel, Or any church Or chapel which
_i~~~~~s::ce::le:: t~:r co~:e~: o:eraVi::jo::~;n:~ngth:O Wh:~:
e.stry ~C.orrimi'tt-;;" or Vestry at any regular or special meeting, nor
without the consent of the Bishop acting with the advice and
cons~nt o~ the St~nding CC~nitt2e 8f ~~Q ~~~_r,_~
3. DETAILED LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY COVERED BY THE
APPLICATIOn '~: space is inadequate, attach on separate page.
If request in~olves change to more than one zoning district,
include separate legal description for property involved in
each district. If property is odd-shaped, submit copies of
survey (1" to 400' scale).
THE APPLICANT
DESCRIPTION.
Xili ENGINEER'S
IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SUPPLYING THE CORRECT LEGAL
IF QUESTIONS ARISE CONCERNING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION,
CERTIFICATION SHALL BE REQUIRED.
SECTION
29
TOWNSHIP
48
RANGE
26
Tract 130, 131, and the East 165 feet of Tract II I,
Golden Gate
Estates, Unit No. 97 less the North 50 feet of Tracts 130, 131
and the East 165 feet of Tract I] I, Less the East 80 feet of Tract
131 .
4.
Size of property
J.-.J~
~!/r
ft. X
ft.
Acres
5. Address or location of subject property Immokalee Road,
]/4 mile east of Oaks Blvd.
6 .
Existing land elevation
Elevation Zone X
!],7 ~ County Flood criteria
7.
a.
Date subject prope~ty
1--; day of J'u/v
Term of lease
acquired (Y)
19 j-:;
--'---'--
yrs. !mos.
or leased ( )
b_ If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate date of
option: and date option terminates:
8. Does property owner own contiguous property to the subject
property? If so, give complete legal description of entire
contiguous property. (If space is inadequate, attach on
separate page) . Yes - The East 80 feet of Tract
13], Golden Gate Estates, Unit No. 97
9. THIS APPLICATION IS INTENDED TO COVER: (Check which type of
petition your are requesting) :
A. REZONING: PRESENT ZONING
FOR
REQUESTED ZONING
X
B_
CONDITIONAL USE
OF
E
ZONING FOR Church
2
~O. REASON WHY APPLICATION SHOULD BE APPROVED (Attach additional
sheets if Clec2ssary): The existing Church property is too
small to accomodate outside facilities and parking for the
parishioners.
11. IS PROPOSED USE PROHIBITED BY DEED RESTRICTIONS?
Yes X No
IF YES, PROVIDE COpy OF THE DEED RESTICTIONS.
12.
IS THIS REQUEST A RESULT OF A VIOLATION?
WHOM WAS THE NOTICE SERVED?
No
IF SO, TO
13. HAS A PUBLIC HEARING BEEN HELD ON THIS PROPERTY WITHIN THE
LAST YEAR? IF SO, IN WHOSE NF~E? No
14.
ARE THERE EXISTING STRUCTURES ON THE PROPERTY? Yes
CBS X FRAME , MOBILE HOME , OTHER
TYPE:
AFFIDAVIT
I W~, Charles E. Decker being first duly sworn,
depose and say that I am are the owners of the property described
herein and which is the subject matter of the proposed hearing;
that all the answers to the questions in this application, and all
sketches, data, and other supplementary matter attached to and
made a part of this application, are honest and true to the best
of our knowledge and belief. I understand this application must
be completed and accurate berore a hearing can be advertised. I
further permit the undersigned to act as our representative in any
matters regarding this Petition.
SIGNATURE OF OWNER
// f. ..... /7
(:Z~~U~ ~.. ~/~
SIGNATURE OF OWNER Charles E. Decker
~~<~d ...~~----d
. -. / "'2:. - ~-Y.
SIGNATURE OF ~GENT
Terrance L. Kepple
State of Florida
County or Collier
The foregoing Application was acknowledged before me this
'"Charles E. IJecKer &
14th day of June , 1994 bYTorr'tlcg 1.. Kg Ie ' who
lS personally known to me ~~ ~~XM~~X~~~M>>~~~ FF
~X~~~XZX~~Z!~nXand who ~ (did not)
take an oath.
.~".';:;;.~II.. OFF1CIAL SEAL
: ~ ~ ELIZABETH A. METTS
S EA1. : My Commission E::cpfres
.....""" """ 4....... April 13. 1996
..~OFf\.O".... Comm. No. CC 186891
,........
2"b~~/
(Sig ture of Notary Public)
Eli~abeth A. Metts
(Print Name of Notary Public)
NOTARY PUBLIC
Serial/Commission f# CC 186891
My Commission Expires: 4/13/96
REZONE/CU APPLICATION/md/7/27/92
~
"1) ~ q~
PLEASE NOTE:
THESE TWO STAFF REPORTS WERE SENT TO YOU
AS PART OF YOUR PACKET FOR THE JUNE 4TH
MEETING LBAELED AS ITEMS 9.B AND 9.C.
{COMPANION ITEMS)~ DUE TO THEIR CONTINUANCE,
THEIR ITEM NUMBERS HAVE CHANGED.
ATTACHED ARE NEW COVER PAGES TO THESE TWO
STAFF REPORTS, WHICH RELE~JHE NEW AGENDA
ITEM NUMBERS (/TEMS~ AND ~, qE'"
(COMPANION ITEMS)). FOR THE JUNE 18TH MEETING
AGENDA ITEM...
q1>
Co~r County
.. -
-- -............ -
STAFF REPORT
TO:
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
HEARING DATE: JUNE 4,2009
SUBJECT: RZ-2008-AR-13967, MAR-GOOD HARBOR PARK (COMPANION TO V A-2008-
AR-1367l)
PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT:
Owner:
Collier County Parks and
Recreation Department
15000 Livingston Road
Naples, FL 34109
Agent:
Heidi Williams, AICP
Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A.
3800 Via del Ray
Bonita Springs, FL 34134
REQUESTED ACTION:
To have the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an application to rezone 2.62
acres of land from the Residential Single-Family (RSF-4), Village Residential (VR) and Goodland
Zoning Overlay (GZO) zoning districts to the Public Use (P) zoning district for a waterfront
community park.
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The subject property is located on the north side of Pear Tree Avenue; west of Goodland Drive East;
east of Papaya Street and Goodland Bay; and south of Pettit Drive and Goodland Bay, in Section 18,
Township 52 South, Range 27 East, Goodland, Collier County, Florida (see location map on the
following page).
PURPOSEIDESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
The applicants propose to rezone the ] 5 subject parcels for a waterfront community park
notwithstanding the fact that the use is already permitted as a Conditional Use in the aforementioned
zoning districts. The basis for the rezone is that the properties were deeded to the County by the
RZ-2008-AR-12930
May 12,2009
Page 1 of 12
.
\
\
\
\
"
as
00
~ ~
~ @
""s--<,O
o
>-N~
~ <.:l\ ,: --
f--1 ~-- ~( ~~~,
\_"] ~_ II] [':'U
r- j
f-- ,
~-~
c--- I k
~
~
p
"
~
p
o
o
o
,-":>$0"0" /
_ E-
\
t---,"';----- ---
---
o
.
<
c.
l
.
ro
"
"
.
"I
l
> ,
~ ~
o .
~ ~
1_
i~."C
<:;L-I
-~./'cJ;--
;;:--~/-p
,,~_i-,,-Q
"sj ::f
/
--11--
_.__.--1__~--
0...
oe:{
:::2:
<.9
z
z
o
N
~
w
'"
'"
0:,
<(I
~I
o
o
N
N
0:
"
Z
o
;::,
~I
0...
oe:{
:::2:
z
o
f-
oe:{
o
o
.....J
AGENDA ITEM fitItr q!
Coltr County
...~ ~
STAFF REPORT
TO:
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
DIVISION
HEARING DATE: JUNE 4, 2009
SUBJECT:
V A-2008-AR-1367l, MAR-GOOD HARBOR PARK (COMPANION TO
RZ-2008-AR-13967)
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT/AGENT:
Owner:
Collier County Parks and
Recreation Department
15000 Livingston Road
Naples, FL 34109
Agent:
Heidi Williams, AICP
Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A.
3800 Via del Ray
Bonita Springs, FL 3
REQUESTED ACTION:
To have the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider 1 I Variances from Land
Development Code (LDC) Subsection 4.06.02, Buffer Requirements, and one Variance from
Subsection 4.02.03, Specific Standards Ior Location oI Accessory Buildings and Structures,
Table 4, for a community park.
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The subject property is located on the north side of Pear Tree Avenue; west of Goodland Drive
East; east of Papaya Street and Goodland Bay; and south of Pettit Drive and Goodland Bay, in
Section 18, Township 52 South, Range 27 East, Goodland, Collier County, Florida (see
location map on the following page).
PURPOSEIDESCRIPTlON OF REOUEST:
According to LDC Section 9.04.02, Types oIVariances Authorized, a Variance may be requested
for any dimensional development standard, including the dimensional aspects oflandscaping and
buffering. In order to build a waterfront community park that would preserve views of Goodland
Bay, the applicants are requesting Variances from the required 10-foot Type "D" buffers along
adjacent roadways and from the required l5-foot Type "B" buffers along various interfaces with
VA-2008-AR-13671
May 12,2009
Page 1
.....~~ .
.,.-..
<'
<,S
h~:;J
~. g u
o
~
u
o
o
"
Jl~"" 0' ION
/ -E--
I/-t--
f-i
, ! I
( :
0,
I I
l I
.,
I
I
t-
6~dS
< ~
~~ ~-
"' "~
"'\
~
.
,"
"
"
>-z
00
W -
~!i'
00
~g
~I
I
s
.,
,
~
I<;;fi I;f:)
. --~T7"~ \
I .,.!/' 4
/ / c-") ~~/
---, 1/\j,>
'y:-
--~--- ---~/---
~,,--jl.<:J,)
,of
G"'-
~
>;L-I
/
/
~:.:
.~
0...
<(
~
<.9
z
z
o
N
~I
-I
0:
<(
ro
:1
>!
'*I: 'j
z
o
f-
f-
eu
0.
D...
<(
~
z
o
f-
<(
o
o
.....J
r
AGENDA ITEM TITLE:
~ ~ );c ~~e~+
PLEASE I
PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE lEFT OF THE 0
NAME: # Elf td L, i/ 1Y7'7 ADDRESS
REPRES~NTING: PETITIONER: J e~
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE No. 07-24 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOB
(INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF CO
THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT, 4TH FLOOR, W.
You ARE liMITED To THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOl
~
AGENDA ITEM TITLE:
~ ~ );c ~~e~+
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER:
PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY
PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE LEFT OF THE DIAS IN THE BOARD ROOM PROR TO THE SUBJECT BEING HEARD.
NAME: # Elf td L, i/ 1Y7'7 ADDRESS: ~ tl ;130 y
REPRESENTING: PETITIONER: J e ~ OTHER:
77o-f'/~
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE No. 07-24 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE. ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES
(INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD A'
THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT, 4TH FLOOR, W. HARMON TURNER BUILDING, 3301 EAST T AMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, Fl
You ARE liMITED To THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE To ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR.