Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
HEX Agenda 04/09/2015
COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER HEARINGS AGENDA APRIL 9, 2015 AGENDA THE COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER WILL HOLD A HEARING AT 9:00 AM ON THURSDAY,APRIL 9,2015 IN CONFERENCE ROOM 610 AT THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION BUILDING,2800 N.HORSESHOE DRIVE,NAPLES, FLORIDA. INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES UNLESS OTHERWISE WAIVED BY THE HEARING EXAMINER. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE HEARING REPORT PACKETS MUST HAVE THAT MATERIAL SUBMITTED TO COUNTY STAFF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING. ALL MATERIALS USED DURING PRESENTATION AT THE HEARING WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE 'HEARING EXAMINER 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. DECISIONS OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ARE FINAL UNLESS APPEALED TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. HEARING PROCEDURES WILL PROVIDE FOR PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT, PRESENTATION BY STAFF, PUBLIC COMMENT AND APPLICANT REBUTTAL. THE HEARING EXAMINER WILL RENDER A DECISION WITHIN 30 DAYS. PERSONS WISHING TO RECEIVE A COPY OF THE DECISION BY MAIL MAY SUPPLY COUNTY STAFF WITH THEIR NAME, ADDRESS, AND A STAMPED, SELF-ADDRESSED ENVELOPE FOR THAT PURPOSE. PERSONS WISHING TO RECEIVE AN ELECTRONIC COPY OF THE DECISION MAY SUPPLY THEIR EMAIL ADDRESS. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. REVIEW OF AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF PRIOR MEETING MINUTES:March 12,2015 4. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. PETITION VA-PL20150000385—Petitioner, Capri Christian Church, Inc., requests a variance pursuant to LDC Section 9.04.00 and seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02 C.4, to allow a 7-foot wide Type "D" landscape buffer instead of the required 10 —foot wide buffer for developments adjacent to a road right-of-way; from LDC Section 4.06.02 C, Table 2.4, to allow a 7.5-foot wide rear yard and 8-foot wide side yard Type `B" landscape buffer instead of the required 15-foot wide buffer for residential single-family properties adjacent to residential single-family properties; from LDC Section 5.03.02 H, to remove the requirement for a wall to be constructed on a nonresidential development that is contiguous to a residential development; from LDC Section 4.05.02.L.,to allow one-way aisle in parking lots with 90 degree parking to have a minimum 20-foot aisle width instead of the required 22-foot aisle width; from LDC Section 4.05.02 B.1, to allow grass parking access aisles to be made of shell instead of paved; from LDC Section 4.05.02 G,to remove the requirement that off-street parking spaces must be striped or marked; and from LDC Section 4.05.02 I.,to remove the requirement that one-way off-street parking aisles must have painted arrows,for a church off-site parking lot consisting of 0.30± acres in a Residential Single-Family(RSF-4) zoning district, located on Lots 429 and 430 of Isles of Capri No. 2 subdivision in Section 32, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,Florida. [Coordinator: Fred Reischl,AICP,Principal Planner] B. PETITION NO. BD-PL20130002460 — Robert Barbarossa requests a 36.1-foot boat dock extension over the maximum 20 feet limit in Section 5.03.06 of the Collier County Land Development Code for a total protrusion of 56.1 feet to replace and expand the existing docking facility and add a boat lift for the benefit of Lot 2, Bayfront Gardens subdivision, located within the Lely Barefoot Beach PUD, Ordinance No. 85-21, in Section 6, Township 48 South, Range 25 East,Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Fred Reischl,AICP,Principal Planner] C. PETITION NO. BD-PL20140002207—Real Estate Technology Corporation of Naples requests a 10-foot boat dock extension over the maximum 20 feet limit in Section 5.03.06 of the Collier County Land Development Code for a total protrusion of 30 feet to accommodate a 9-slip boat dock for the benefit of Dockside Residential Planned Unit Development, Ordinance No. 14-16, located east of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) on Henderson Creek Drive in Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 6± acres. [Coordinator: Fred Reischl, AICP, Principal Planner] D. PETITION NO.PDI-PL20140002611 —My Other Place,LLC requests an insubstantial change to Ordinance No. 03-26, the North Naples Research and Technology Park Planned Unit Development ("PUD") to increase the maximum number of permitted workforce housing dwelling units,to reduce the acreage for the non-target use area,to increase the acreage for the target use area, and to amend the PUD Master Plan to accurately reflect the current lot configuration. The subject property consists of 19.3± acres of land located on the west side of Old U.S. 41,just south of the Lee/Collier County line in Section 10, Township 48 South, Range 25 East,Collier County,Florida. [Coordinator: Fred Reischl,AICP,Principal Planner] 5. OTHER BUSINESS 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS 7. ADJOURN March 12, 2015 HEX Meeting TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER Naples,Florida March 12,2015 LET IT BE REMEMBERED,that the Collier County Hearing Examiner, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive,Room 609/610,Naples,Florida,with the following people present: HEARING EXAMINER MARK STRAIN Also Present: Scott Stone,Assistant County Attorney Ray Bellows,Zoning Manager Page 1 of 15 March 12, 2015 HEX Meeting EXHIBITS : Petition PDI-PL20140002103 CDC Land Investments,Inc. A Staff Report Page 5 B Legal Advertisement, 5 Petition CU-PL20140002403,CC Dept.of Facilities Mgt. A....Staff Report 14 B....Legal Advertisement 14 PROCEEDINGS: HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Good morning,everyone. We have new microphones up here today,so if you don't hear someone,just shout out,it's a small enough room. But hopefully these are working. We haven't quite learned how to use them yet. If everybody will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Thank you.Welcome to the Thursday,March 12th meeting of the Collier County Hearing Examiner's Office. We have some housekeeping announcements to make. Individual speakers will be limited to five minutes unless otherwise waived. All decisions are final unless appealed to the Board of County Commissioners. And a decision will be rendered within 30 days. Review of the agenda. There's two items on the agenda today. I don't know of any--there are no changes. We'll be hearing just those two items today. The approval of prior minutes. The February 12th,2015 minutes have been reviewed.There's one correction needed on those minutes. Second page,about the middle of the page there's a reference to Chairman Henning. It should be Hearing Examiner Strain. So if that correction could be made. Other than that,those minutes are fine to be posted. And with that,we'll move right to the advertised public hearings. The first item up is Petition No. PDI-PL20140002103. It's CDC Land Investments,Inc.,Collier County Land Development,Inc.and Fifth/Third Bank for the Sable Bay Mixed Use Planned Unit Development.As many of us know,it's changed its name to Isles of Collier. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item,please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay,disclosures. On my part I've spoke with staff,I've reviewed all the files on this one because it has gone through a long history in Collier County. There were a lot. I've also talked to the applicant. And one member of the public came in when this was first scheduled, asked a couple of questions,he didn't state his name,but then left. And I advised him about today's meeting, so I'm not sure he's here now or not,but we'll find out in a minute. There are two exhibits so far for the record. Exhibit A will be the staff report,and Exhibit B will be the legal advertisement. (Exhibits A and B were marked for identification.) HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Now with that is there anybody here,any member of the public here involved in this particular item? (No response.) HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Bruce,are you making the presentation on behalf of the client? MR.ANDERSON: Yes,sir. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. I have read the staff report and everything else associated with it,so I don't need a formal presentation. Since there are no members of the public here,the only thing,I'd like to ask you if you want to add anything to the record. MR.ANDERSON: I just want to make sure that the ordinance itself includes the amended master Page 2 of 15 March 12,2015 HEX Meeting plan that is made one of the exhibits to the approval resolution,along with the PUD change. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: The amended master plan change that you're concerned about is this particular one that's on the screen? MR.ANDERSON: Yes,sir. That's a new access point on Thomasson Lane. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: That will be attached to the decision,the final decision when it comes out. So hopefully that is what you were asking for. MR.ANDERSON: Yes,sir. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Is there anything else? MR.ANDERSON: No,sir,unless you have any questions. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: I have a couple. First of all,I need John Podczerwinsky just to address the spacing criteria for that entry and if it should be both in and out.Then I'll need to talk to you about staff recommendations to see if you have any objections there,or you could just tell me now. MR.ANDERSON: I'll tell you now. We are in agreement with all staff stipulations. I do want to get one clarification from Mr. Podczerwinsky on the record,that in lieu of a bond the bank could post a letter of credit or other surety pursuant to stipulation number two. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Well,that's why he's coming up. Thank you. John? MR.PODCZERWINSKY: Good morning, sir. With regard to stipulation number two,a bond or letter of credit would be acceptable. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Now,I have--this mic is going on and off,so--in this particular detail they've got an entrance that was standard that was in the parcel to the west. Then they have U.S.41 to the east and in between they're fitting this new driveway entrance,for lack of a better description. MR.PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Is that considered or could that be a two-way in and out,or is it just considered an entry,and an exit right only,or how did you see that? MR.PODCZERWINSKY: At this point it would be a two-way access point,enter and exit. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: But there would be a left turn possibility onto Thommason? MR.PODCZERWINSKY: Yes,that's correct. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. The other entrance next to it is the same way? MR.PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. The other entrance next to it actually goes to a--it's actually a private roadway. It's outside the site. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: I didn't realize that. That's why they're asking for this.Okay, that's all I needed to know,John. Thank you. Are there any other comments or questions from anybody in the audience? (No response.) HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay,with that,we will close the hearing on this matter. A decision will be rendered within 30 days.Well,before that I want to make sure staff doesn't have any final comments. Nancy? MS.GUNDLACH: Staff recommends approval. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. So with that,a decision will be rendered within 30 days. It's usually a lot less,so you should expect it within 10 days. Thank you all for attending today,we appreciate it. Next item up is Petition No.CU-PL20140002403. It's the Collier County Department of Facilities Management for an EMS station at the southeast corner of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Logan Boulevard. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item,please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. Any members of the public that wish to speak on this,please rise. Okay,thank you. Page 3 of 15 March 12, 2015 HEX Meeting (All speakers were duly sworn.) HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: I know the answer to part of this question but I'm going to ask it again for the sake of anybody else that may have come in. Are there any members of the public here to address this item? If so,please raise your hand. (No response.) HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay,thank you. Before we move directly into the project for the sake of the--for the benefit of the presenter,Mr. Arnold,I did put some of the information on slides. It's a little awkward to get into our system if you're not here, so I try to do these ahead of time if no members of the public are in attendance. The particular station in question is noted here on the subject property. It was a subject of a prior Conditional Use from several years back. The time frame for the Conditional Use expired. The applicant's here to renew the Conditional Use. This is its proximity in relationship to an aerial and the neighborhood surrounding it. That's a little bit higher detail. Some of the details on here are not consistent with the master plan,but it's pretty close. This is also a black-and-white of that.And there was some question about buffers. I noticed in the minutes of the neighborhood information meeting there's a Type B buffer on the south side. The resident nearby asked not to have a wall. That will need to be confirmed today. But that's the type of buffer that we normally have. And a wall is an item that can or cannot be added. And then there are conditions of approval from staff that I will be asking the applicant specifically to address to make sure there's no differences of opinion there. And with that,Wayne,since there are members of the public here,I'm going to ask that you provide a presentation on this particular one. MR.ARNOLD: Thank you. Good morning,Mr. Strain. For the record,I'm Wayne Arnold with Grady Minor. With us today I have Mike Delate who is the project engineer from my office. I have Hank Jones and Robert Fuentes from Facilities Management,and we have Captain Walter Kopka from EMS. And as you mentioned,this project was previously approved as a Conditional Use by the Board. It had several conditions of approval that were approved as part of that. Due to some of the budgetary constraints the project did not move forward in a timely manner and the Conditional Use and Site Development Plan that were previously approved have expired. So we are coming back through the public process to reestablish what was originally EMS Station 73 is now EMS Station 76. And this is not a joint facility for EMS and fire,it is an EMS only facility. We did have our neighborhood information meeting. It was attended by a handful of nearby residents. A couple of them are in attendance today. We did discuss at that meeting the proximity of the EMS building to the adjacent home to the south. We also discussed buffers,what happens in the preserve when we remove exotics,et cetera. One of the issues that came up with staff,and it's a recommendation that is sort of consistent and inconsistent with the prior approval,our original Conditional Use Plan had an egress only point onto Vanderbilt Beach Road. And the approval of the Site Development Plan approved a right in and right out access point onto Vanderbilt Beach Road. Staff has conditioned that we restrict the access road point Vanderbilt Beach Road that you've highlighted to an egress only point. And while we probably can live with that condition,I think Captain Kopka would like to address why EMS felt that there was merit in having that ingress and egress point. I know it was meant for the emergency vehicle only.It's an ambulance only facility,designed to have only one vehicle at the station,so the trips associated are limited. I know staff is concerned about the proximity because it doesn't meet your access spacing policy. But it's not for general traffic circulation,it's for the EMS emergency vehicle only use. So I'd like him to at least address why we think that's a functional component. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Before he does,I have some questions. Page 4 of 15 March 12,2015 HEX Meeting MR.ARNOLD: Okay, sure. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. And I spoke--and by the way,for my disclosures I did have conversations with staff. I've reviewed all the files going back as far as I could find. I've talked to Wayne and the applicant's representative. I've done a site visit at the site;in fact,I've found that their sign was illegally posted--improperly posted originally. It got moved to--within the time frame required to be in the right location. I've also discussed this with Commissioner Henning. Exhibit A will be the staff report,Exhibit B will be the legal ad. (Exhibits A and B were marked for identification.) Wayne,I had conversations with you about your position on this egress and--ingress and egress. The plan that was submitted as the SDP I don't believe ever was fmalized. Even if it was,I notice that on this plan you have a 12-foot wide driveway entering from Vanderbilt Beach Road which is only a single lane. And the entryway that you've got going to the facility obviously is 24. I don't know why, if you believe this was ingress and egress, 12 foot was an indication of that. But especially if you notice the second larger circle,it says two emergency exit only signs. I would find it hard to believe that staff didn't see this as an exit only. So to hang your hat on the fact that that is not--it's an SDP that would have allowed an ingress as well as an egress,I'm not sure that's as viable of an argument as I would have expected for such an approval, especially with the exit signs there. And with that,I'll certainly like to hear the Chief and then-- MR.ARNOLD: And we have Mike Delate from our office,the professional engineer who's worked on the Site Development Plan previously and currently,so if you have some specific questions,he's here to answer those. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: This project was approved in 2007. And Ray,or staff,please correct me if I'm wrong,I believe Conditional Uses are for five years? MR.BELLOWS: That's correct. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: We've had a series during the economic downturn of legislative acts that allowed for extensions by simply requesting them. Have you--did you exercise and exhaust all of those extensions to get past the date so that you lost the CU? MR.ARNOLD: I'll let Mr.Jones answer that. He was handling that. MR.JONES: For the record,Hank Jones with Facilities. I believe we did extend--I don't recall the five-year part of it,but I saw in the file that we had extended this for maybe two consecutive two-year periods or something like that,through 2010 I believe we had extended it. And then the last time when we came up for extension we were in the heart of the recession,and I was told don't bother at this time. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: That's what I was curious about. Because the number of extensions were--there's a number of them available. And I notice you did request some.I didn't know if you had requested all that might have been available to you at-- MR.JONES: I'm pretty sure we requested it twice and then gave up. This station and two other stations were already permitted and ready to go when we got the word to stop everything. So we had postponed the--we had extended those a number of times and then fmally the fees and everything,the County Manager said let's hold off. But we did extend it a number of times. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Thank you. Wayne,on your master plan--and this probably isn't a good enough picture. I don't know if I actually--I don't have one on here. On your master plan you have a couple of notations. One in particular it says a 15-foot wide Type B buffer per LDC as amended. And I questioned that,and I just want to make sure for the record. As amended,you don't mean you've amended through any kind of request what the LDC is saying, you just mean as the LDC is amended as it goes forward you'll abide by whatever the amendments are. MR.ARNOLD: That's correct,the latter.It was meant to be as the LDC may be amended.And certainly we'll remove that language if it makes it clearer. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: I would just as soon--well,I'd just as soon you remove it before Page 5 of 15 March 12, 2015 HEX Meeting we get to any decisions on this case. MR.ARNOLD: While you have the exhibit up there the other thing I would reference,this exhibit is a slight variation of the original approval. The preserve area has grown in size-- HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Yes,it has. MR.ARNOLD: --and we added the generator that was shown on the original site plan approval as part of this,just to make it clear that there was going to be a generator building for emergency generator services for the facility. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: That was wise to put it toward Vanderbilt Beach Road. They don't make a lot of noise and they don't carry too far,but at least the farther they're away from any residents,the better. The other item on this particular plan that doesn't show up on this overhead,it begins to on the bottom left side where it says note,clearing will be. That notice,a duplication of the notes that you have on number three. So I would suggest for sake of clarity,that be removed from the plan. MR.ARNOLD: Okay. We can do that. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Now,I know that you wanted to have a discussion further about the staff recommendation concerning the ingress/egress. And I'm--we're willing to go forward and have that discussion now. But is there any other items of the staff recommendations that are of a concern? MR.ARNOLD: No,sir. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Did you want to then have Chief Kopka come up and discuss this ingress/egress? MR.ARNOLD: I think just to tell you why it was a thought for them to have both ingress and egress. And as I mentioned,we can live with an egress only,but the preference certainly was to have it as a functional ingress/egress point for the vehicle. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Well,one of the issues that you have to deal with that doesn't happen all the time is I drive by that location multiple times every day because I don't live too far from there, and that's the road I use to come to this office. And I can tell you,coming through that intersection to have to slow down behind an ambulance would compound problems that already exist. That whole roadway segment is not being traveled at the rate of speed that's posted.It's much higher than that. And it seems typical,because I don't see anybody slowing down. And I would be very concerned as staff was in regards to having large vehicles slow down as they cross the intersection to get into that entry. Now,I did talk with staff. They said if you want to move the entry down further,that could be done, it could still fit on-site. But I know that may take some rerouting or you could come back at a future date and consider that. But right now it seems impractical to go that far,but I'm certainly willing to listen to the Chief. MR.ARNOLD: Thank you. CHIEF KOPKA: Good morning. For the record,Chief Walter Kopka with EMS. I certainly understand the concerns and it certainly is more of a convenience for us to be able to enter on that side as well. But we understand the concerns and we can certainly live with that option as well. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: I think,Chief, if you wanted to pursue it from a point down further at some time in the future,it would be a minor change to make. It might be something you consider in that regard instead of where it's located now. Because staff--and I'll have John Pod come up and talk about it for just a minute,but they didn't see a problem if you had it further down. Because you could decel at a rate that would be acceptable,not through that intersection. So thank you. CHIEF KOPKA: Thank you,sir,for your time. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Thank you. John,do you want to address your position on this? MR.PODCZERWINSKY: Yes,sir,thank you. Our position on this is that staff really is opposed to the right-in turning movement at the location that is shown on the master plan,and that the position--we hold the same position on the previously submitted SDP that came in,you know,that they've referenced during this meeting. During staffs approval on that one back in 2000--I think it was 2007 or so,there was a stipulation Page 6 of 15 March 12,2015 HEX Meeting entered on that that they required signage to preclude entrance at that location. If it were moved further down Vanderbilt Beach Road,we could certainly consider the right-in allowance there. If we could get it spaced further away from the intersection,more in line with our access management policy. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: You and I talked about this at one point. There we go. These go off and on automatically, so I'm not quite used to them yet. And I believe the access management plan talked about 660. But in this particular roadway 440 may have been a consideration that could have been thought out because of the lack of clarity in the way of access management plan dictated the spacing. And I believe at 440 they could make that entrance probably much more acceptable to the whole process. Is that your concurrence too? MR.PODCZERWINSKY: Yes,I agree with that. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Thank you very much. MR.ARNOLD: May I address-- HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Sure. MR.ARNOLD: --one thought? Mr. Strain,if that is a consideration,then I guess I would hope that we could craft a stipulation that wouldn't require us to come back in a public hearing process if we could successfully move that access point to meet the spacing criteria,that that could be an ingress/egress point for the emergency vehicles,subject to meeting that spacing criteria. I would just hate to come back through the public hearing process if we're all in agreement that if not for the spacing that would be an acceptable condition. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Well,we need to talk about that then,because your master plan wouldn't reflect it. Your master plan is going to be attached to the decision. If the master plan were to reflect it,I've got to make sure from staffs perspective and the County Attorney's Office that adding that as an item now would not be something that would rise to the level of another hearing in the future. MR.ARNOLD: Well,I was thinking your first--typically adding an access point is unacceptable, but moving them is something that is handled administratively. So I would suggest that if you're leaning toward removal of the ingress point at the location shown, that a condition that was written that says that egress points will be coordinated during the SDP,we could add language that says it may also function as an ingress point,as long as it meets the 440-foot space,or something to that effect. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And Ray,do you see the possibility of crafting language that would--well, let's see what John's got to say first,since he rushed up,and then I'll ask you what you-- MR.PODCZERWINSKY: I would recommend this,to say ingress is prohibited within 440 feet spacing of the intersection. Just ingress. And then if they have an access point that's beyond that 440 feet, then ingress would be a possibility. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Ray,comments? MR.BELLOWS: For the record,Ray Bellows. The condition as proposed I think is typical. We can do it that way. It would require a public hearing if no access was provided and they wanted it in the future. But if it is listed as a potential access point subject to meeting locational criteria in the future,then that's an appropriate condition. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And how would you address the preserve areas that may have to be slightly modified in regards to that? Since these--I mean,these preserve areas that are in excess of what was originally provided in the original Conditional Use,would that require any levels of threshold that couldn't be handled administratively? MR.BELLOWS: The Land Development Code has a provision that during Site Development Plan approval,if there's a slight modification to a preserve area,it can be done administratively through that process. But if it was a significant impact,you would have to go through the process. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. And John,during a decision process that's going to occur within the 30-day time frame,would you as soon as possible send me what language you think is reasonable so that when we talk this over with the applicant today and he sends his responses that I have something to compare it to? Page 7 of 15 March 12,2015 HEX Meeting MR.PODCZERWINSKY: Absolutely. I'll be glad to. I'd also like to put one more thing on the record too,is that an ingress point at this location would typically trigger a right turn lane requirement per the right-of-way ordinance. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And I would concur with that. The right turn lane is what's causing--the lack of right turn lane through that intersection is one of the big problems,so I think that's a good point.Thank you. County Attorney Scott Stone,do you see any problems with the process if this were to go forward? MR. STONE: As long as the right-in access isn't vested and it's only crafted in a way that makes it clear that it's potential,if it's consistent with the SDP process. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. That would get the ambulances off of Logan where they have to make turns that are maybe more difficult to get into their entry. So that might be a positive thing for the site down the road. MR.ARNOLD: Mr. Strain,I don't stand here wishing to make too many modifications to what's before you,but with regard to the preserve comment you made,I think we have about an acre more preserve than what is required by the code. So maybe we could craft language that either we modify the preserves to maybe reduce the number shown so it gives us the flexibility in the future if we're able to negotiate an ingress point. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And I--that might be a good idea,but you'd have to make sure that the manner in which you craft that language provides a minimum width of the preserve. Because obviously the reaction from those living near this area,they're relying on the fact that the preserve has got a heavier width to it. You're proposing more than you had before,so that's a good thing. So I'd carefully want to craft that language not to reduce it to a threshold that's not acceptable. MR.ARNOLD: Let me see,while we're hearing from members of the public,Mike Delate can probably scale the plan and we could tell you a minimum today that we could make sure the preserve would remain. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Thank you.Appreciate it. Before we go to the public,is there a staff report? Is that--Nancy, is it your staff report? MS.GUNDLACH: Yes. Good morning,Commissioner. Were you asking me for my recommendation? HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: I was asking you for your staff report to whatever extent you have it. MS.GUNDLACH: Thank you. Sony,we were thinking about what you just said. Staff is recommending approval,and we do have the stipulation and it sounds like we are in the process of addressing the stipulation about the access off of Vanderbilt Road. And we have six conditions of approval. And if you would like,I could read those into the record or we can find them on Page 10 of 11 of the staff report. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: They're already in the record by the exceptions of the Exhibit A and they're on the overhead,so we're good. As far as the discussion about the turn problems,does that have any issues with staff with your report in regards to number one?We'd have to modify number one slightly to accept the possibility of it being greater than 440 feet from the intersection. MS.GUNDLACH: That would be acceptable. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Thank you. And with that,I'll ask for the members of the public that wish to speak,please come on up and use the mic, identify yourself first and we'll be glad to hear from you. Ma'am,why don't you--ladies first.Come on up. MS.MACK: Good morning. I'm a homeowner.My name is Connie Mack. I am not running for Congress,nor am I in the senate. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: What a coincidence. MS.MACK: But my name is Connie Mack and I live at 5716 Drummond in Island Walk,which our neighborhood is going to be impacted by this EMS station. And particularly our street.Because our street Page 8 of 15 March 12,2015 HEX Meeting comes right to the end,right across from where you're going to build this. So of course we're interested in this. I represent our street. Nobody else wanted to get up at this hour and come here,so here I am. One of the things,and I'm interested to hear you discussing the driveways in and out,because as you know that intersection is a very busy intersection. My concern is,is when,in addition to the--are we going to have flashing yellow lights there all the time and the sirens going in the middle of the night when you pull out? That's not-- HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: That's a very good question. And they do have an operations standard for that. I have it here. It's a lot to read,but I'll ask the EMS people to address that question after you finish speaking. MS.MACK: Okay. Well,that is a concern. Another big concern,and you addressed this because you apparently drive that way also,that intersection is a busy intersection.And from where I'm seeing where the sign is and the property is going to be built,you're not going to have much space between where the intersection is for the traffic light and where they would be entering. Or coming out into the flow of traffic. And to me that's more of a concern as I'm coming out into the flow of traffic,because people go through that intersection many times at over 50 miles an hour. Especially if they're seeing a yellow light. Because they're trying to beat that light to get through there. And then to have all of a sudden somebody pull out on them like that I think is going to be difficult. It's sandwiched in between two traffic lights. The next traffic light is the entrance to Island Walk. The other concern that I have as I was looking at the whole thing is that's an esplanaded(sic)road there,and are you anticipating cutting through so that if you come out of this EMS station and need to head south are you going to come up to our light and make a U-turn? This is I think all the things that need to be looked at as how this is actually going to live. And that is my concern about it. To have an exit on Logan Road to me,what I was hearing this morning is not necessarily beneficial to you,but to me that's more beneficial when I look at that,because it allows any vehicle who is answering a call to either go west--east,north or south from there without impacting traffic that's going 50 miles an hour. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Thank you for your input. We'll get a response to that. Before you sit down,real quick,one of the things the EMS have in all of our emergency responders,I believe,is a way to control the lighting. If they were exiting on an emergency,they could actually have that light stopped in the east-west direction, so that would make it a little safer for people traveling through. I've asked for one of those units for myself,but they won't provide me with one. MS.MACK: When you get one,could you get two? I'm at 5716 Drummond. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: I'll have to remember that. Thank you. And we'll have the next speaker,then the I'll ask the responses to be done collectively. Sir? MR.KUTZ: Thank you for the opportunity to speak this morning. First I want to commend the process.Again,my name is Tim Kutz,my address is 786 Logan. I am the only house you can see in the picture on the screen at the current time. So the process of notification,the process of the neighborhood meeting has been excellent. I really feel like I've had the opportunity to talk through some concerns. The previous speaker had some questions at the neighborhood meeting;I felt like those were answered. They addressed a lot of that issue at that time,and so I have those answers and understand that. I came this morning really to discuss two things and ask for two things,or consideration of two things. But before I get to that,I'd like to speak to what we're discussing,which is the egress,because it really plays into one of the things I'd like to bring up as well. It seems most logical,as we discussed at the meeting,that the only time they're really going to egress that way is if they're headed to the east. So in theory I don't know what percentage of the calls that will be,but those setting to the east,and again the ability to control the traffic light,allows them to stop the traffic and pull out. Reference the design of a 12-foot,that made perfect sense to me as I looked through that,because it's an emergency entrance and exit only,so it does only need to be one car width wide. So in the concept of needing to be--there shouldn't be--if there's only one vehicle,which is what we're permitting it for,there Page 9 of 15 March 12, 2015 HEX Meeting should only ever be one vehicle coming or going through that drive entrance. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Good point. MR.KUTZ: So my only concern with moving it down, in theory it's a 660-foot lot somewhere. So if we have to be 440 feet,what we're going to do is create an access road.Because unless we move the entire site down,which of course I would hope that would cause for more conversation and a new hearing. But if we move just the driveway down,then they're going to have to turn around and come back 200 and some feet. So by moving that drive down,putting in a turn lane,allowing them to do that,then they're really creating their own access road,which is--and that's something that the decision would have to be made,it would just be interesting. So on to my two points that I came to speak of The one I never had a chance to address. I really didn't discuss it until after--find it until after the neighborhood meeting. The plans call for a monument sign for this site at the Logan entrance. I would really ask that we consider not doing that.And I've done a little thinking about why--I can't figure out why we need a monument sign,because I'm pretty sure anyone that passes this building will know exactly what it is. I can't find anywhere where it's a training site,a training facility,a place that's going to hold meetings,that it's going to--would need great signage for people to be able to find it.So I'm simply asking that if indeed there's a need for a monument sign,which I've gone out and found other ones in the county for EMS.And quite honestly,it's interesting how we set a monument sign right in front of what it is and they say EMS number 76. So I would ask if indeed that sign that is important,could it be moved onto Vanderbilt so that as I come down Logan,or anyone else does,that it continues with that residential look on the Logan side. So that would be my first request,that we either eliminate the monument sign altogether as there's not a need for it. I'm sure the building will have numbers,et cetera. Or that we move the monument sign onto the Vanderbilt side. My second,and it's really--I think they've addressed this. I'll again just reiterate. I would just ask that consideration be given for the maximum amount of buffer between my property and that of the new station. I did,after the neighborhood meeting,do some research with their recommendation on other sites. I've gone throughout the county,I've looked at many sites. There are very few that actually share a property line like mine will. Interestingly enough,of those very few using the County's Property Appraiser website and the aerials, I couldn't fmd one where the home was there before the station. The station was always there first and then the homeowner chose to built adjacent to that property. In this case it's not that way. The homes were there first. So I would just simply ask that the buffer be as maximum as possible.It's going to be a--I'm sure a--I would assume a four to six-month building project,which is going to completely expose. I would just ask that again we do the biggest,the widest,most full buffer that we possibly can in effort to minimize that amount of time that--again my entire property would be exposed to a whole different road,et cetera. So-- HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: A couple things I want to ask. First of all,you bought your house after this station was already zoned for that location,if I'm not mistaken. MR.KUTZ: That's correct,sir. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. So you knew the station was going in. MR.KUTZ: I did. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. MR.KUTZ: I was aware of that. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And I understand from the minutes of the neighborhood information meeting that you would prefer not to have a wall there? MR.KUTZ: I would prefer not to have a wall. I think the natural buffer in the preserve is of course--again,I've went around and looked at what does the natural preserve look like versus what does an artificial buffer look like. And obviously the natural preserve in the back is absolutely the best. I think if I go out and look at 10 walls where there's a wall separating two things,two of them look okay. Actually,the one at Island Walk has done a great job. If we could recreate Island Walk's wall. It's not Page 10 of 15 March 12,2015 HEX Meeting bad.They've got ivy that covers the wall and you really can't--it almost looks like a landscape buffer,but it is a wall in there. That would be acceptable to me. I just think the landscape buffer is more natural.And so I think if we do that,it's wide enough,it's full and tall enough,I think it shields,you know,my property the best. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Have you seen this detail that I have up there before? MR.KUTZ: I have not. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: It is 80 percent opacity requirement,which means it's going to be pretty solid within a year. The six-foot height could include the wall or fence. If you don't want a wall or fence then the trees and the hedge will still have to reach to that 80 percent opacity. With a wall there it's a lot easier for them to say you've got the opacity automatically. We will delve into the hedge issue and the vegetation a bit more before this meeting is over then and see what we can fmd out for you. MR.KUTZ: Yeah,I would prefer not to have a wall,if that's possible. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And we'll ask the question. I'll get an answer on your sign location for you. Great,thank you very much. I appreciate your help today. And with that,Wayne,do you want to respond to a couple more questions? Are there any other members of the public here to speak on this item today? (No response.) HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. First of all, let's talk about the sign. Where did you anticipate locating the monument sign at this point? MR.ARNOLD: The monument sign that's proposed,Mr. Strain,is located near the entrance on Logan Boulevard. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Is there a reason you couldn't put that sign more towards the corner of Vanderbilt and Logan? MR.ARNOLD: No,I-- HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: I mean,that's on the intersection. It's about as intense of an intersection as you could have. I think you'll get the same identification and it will be further away from the residences and Logan and more--and you get a view from both angles. MR.ARNOLD: I haven't looked at that issue,but I'm pretty confident we can meet the spacing criteria on the setbacks for moving the sign closer to the intersection. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: What I'd like to do is work that up as part of an indication on the master plan that's going to be attached to this plan here so that the approximate location is shown on the plan for where your monument sign's going to go. Or we could write it up in a direction that works. MR.ARNOLD: Maybe I could have Mr.Jones mark on our plan. I know you don't have visualizer capability,but-- HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: No,that's why I've put these slides up there. CHIEF KOPKA: We don't care. Doesn't matter. MR.ARNOLD: Mr. Strain? HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: I've just been advised with these new microphones you've got to--you've got to make sure you talk into them. They don't always record everything unless you do. MR.ARNOLD: Okay. I can't see the little light from here. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Well,there's a light on the back and it's now on but-- MR.ARNOLD: I think certainly a condition may work. I just don't have any capability to physically show you the location on that plan. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: I understand. I think that can be worked out. MR.ARNOLD: I think we're fine with moving it to the intersection. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: That's the acknowledgment I needed. MR.ARNOLD: Okay. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And the other question I have is you know well that through this process a wall could be requested,and it could be expensive. In lieu of that,I want to ask the county staff,and Page 11 of 15 March 12, 2015 HEX Meeting Nancy happens to be one of our landscape specialists on staff,and with you here,to fmd out if there's some way of enhancing that buffer in a practical method that would assure adequate coverage as quick as possible for the neighbor next door. Nancy,do you have any ideas on trees that would be more acceptable or species that would be better planted or spacing criteria that might be better than what's suggested on the standard buffer? MS.GUNDLACH: Possibilities to increase the screening more immediately would be to plant a double row of hedges. We could also increase the height of the hedge material. I recall at the neighborhood information meeting that it was stated that there could be up to a three-foot change in elevation. We could add three feet to the height of the hedge material to mitigate for that. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And Wayne,from those--say those couple of options,adding either more hedge material or adding greater height to the material that's being proposed,do you have--any of those issues acceptable to your situation? MR.ARNOLD: I think we're happy to try to work with the neighbor to do something that's adequate. And I know one of the things we talked about too was the maintenance of that hedge at a higher height. I think the county requires it,what does it say,six feet in there. But I think,you know,certainly if it's a cocoplum hedge or something that gets a lot of width and height pretty fast,we could agree to maintain that a higher height than six feet,something like eight feet. I know that that was one of the issues of walking out your garage door and are you going to see over the hedge into a building. And I think the thought was we can certainly control that by allowing the hedge to be maintained at a higher height. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. So your position in regards to the standard hedge material and a type B buffer as shown on this plan,you're willing to enhance that to some degree in the area that this hedge would be applicable. Which I-- MR.ARNOLD: It would be west of our preserve. It's on the south boundary west of our preserve to the Logan Boulevard. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And I think that's something that between your discussions and Nancy,I'm going to be needing some information from you in regards to these buffers. We need to get that worked out. We can do that between now and the time the decision's issued. But at least we've got the acknowledgment that the buffer can be enhanced and the side will be moved, and I think we've addressed some of the issues. Now,as far as the operations of the emergency exiting and entering through the intersection that the first speaker brought up,I'd like those addressed if we could. MR.ARNOLD: I think I'll let our fine folks from EMS tell you what their procedures are for activating the sirens. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Thank you. And by the way,this is kind of like the shakedown cruise for this speaker system. I think we're the first ones to get to use it.It just went in yesterday. And thankfully John's here and I think we'll have some adjustments made before the next meeting,so-- CHIEF KOPKA: Good morning. Once again,Chief Kopka from EMS. I'll address a couple issues. One is the device we have available to turn our signal green and all other signals red. And that's the Opticon device. And all of our ambulances are equipped with that device. It's very similar--this station is very similar to our Station 75 which is on Santa Barbara,which also has a light, and it activities that signal at the time they're pulling out of the bay. So it allows us to have that access to the light at that intersection. The other question that Ms.Mack brought up was the traffic that may back up on Logan Boulevard going north. Station 70 in Golden Gate City is a similar example where we have our station right next to the intersection of Coronado and Golden Gate Parkway,and that's clearly marked with markings on the road,as well as signage there not to block that intersection. And we have very good success there that cars don't block that intersection when they're waiting for the light to turn. I'd also like to read into the record,if you don't mind,sir,the protocol. The one you have is a little bit outdated. It's been updated since then. And I'll just read you the line that refers to audible devices. And it states,audible devices are only to be utilized only when will reasonably necessary. Use of audible devices Page 12 of 15 March 12, 2015 HEX Meeting during late night/early morning hours is discouraged on empty roads or within neighborhood communities. We are good neighbors. We have several stations in very residential areas from the City of Naples all throughout the county and we don't get complaints because people do follow this policy. They only use the audible devices when needed. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: I'd like to walk through a couple of examples with you. If you had an emergency vehicle responding to a call,coming out to the Logan Boulevard entry you'd come out of the site. If you're going left you'd--and obviously you end up going left on Logan. If you're going right,you'd go north and take a--I'm assuming go west on Vanderbilt Beach Road if you have an egress east-way from another direction. Your device would then trigger that light at Vanderbilt and Logan to turn in a color that protects your vehicles from oncoming cars,meaning it would be red east and west but green going north,so you-- CHIEF KOPKA: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: --could make a left. And if you were going left on Logan,you'd trigger the light to stop cars going to Logan until you got through the left,or is that part of your operation? CHIEF KOPKA: No,it wouldn't need to trigger that light in that circumstance.Although it may,but it wouldn't affect how we were egressing going south on Logan,if that's what you're asking. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: That's what I'm asking. And when you go on Vanderbilt Beach Road you would only be able to go east from the egress point that's going to be added. CHIEF KOPKA: Yes,sir. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. And at that point you could also trigger the light to turn red so that there's no traffic coming towards you; is that a fair statement? CHIEF KOPKA: That I would have to get with transportation to fmd out if they could put an Opticon receiver on to Logan to do that.That wasn't an initial plan to do that. That would have to be a question for transportation if we could get a receiving device in that area. Because generally the receiving device is at the intersection. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Well,what I was getting at is if you were to come out at the location that you have the egress right now,shown on this plan,would you be able to trigger that light so that cars coming through the intersection towards the east would get a red light and let you exit cleanly? CHIEF KOPKA: Again,I don't know. If we were on Logan,yes, it would turn that light green for us going northbound or east or westbound. Because it turns all other lights red. But if we were egressing on Vanderbilt Beach Road,I don't think there's a plan to put a receiving device there for our Opticon. And again, I don't know if we would be able to do that or not. But if we were egressing onto Logan,it would turn that light green for us and all other lights red. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. As far as the directional exit,though,onto Vanderbilt Beach from--is there--who would you have to get together with to get that answer? And how long would it take,do you think? CHIEF KOPKA: I can get with someone in transportation to fmd out if that's available.Jay Ahmad I think would be the person I would talk to. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Wayne,if we could make sure that that happens,I'll hold any decision until we get that comment. I'd like to understand if that's a possibility and to what extent it would take to get that to happen. I think that would add a level of safety to that road system. Like I said,I drive that intersection. We fly--we. I'm not going to admit to anything. Everybody but me goes through that intersection too fast,and it does get rough,because coming up to it some of the people making the rights there try to squeeze in from a two-lane onto a six-lane road. And it's not a--it's a concerning intersection.So any safety we could add would be helpful. Thank you,I believe that's the only other issues I have. Wayne,did you have anything you want to wrap up with? MR.ARNOLD: No,I'm not exactly sure where you're headed with a couple of the conditions. Page 13 of 15 March 12, 2015 HEX Meeting We're going to hold the hearing open for further information and we'll certainly get you that information as soon as possible. And if Jay Ahmad's the appropriate person in transportation,we can certainly reach out to him and try to get an answer on whether or not the Opticon can be added to that side of the traffic signal. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: I can tell you where I'm going. So I don't want any confusion on your part. MR.ARNOLD: I don't want any confusion either. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. So why don't we just go right straight to the fact. First of all,in the discussion today you have agreed to move the monument sign closer to Vanderbilt Beach Road. And we're going to provide a location on that that will be incorporated as part of a--either a stipulation or on the master plan. We were going to discuss enhancing the landscape buffer. We don't know exactly how yet until you confer with Nancy and yourself going back and forth. But the agreement is that the buffer will be enhanced above and beyond what's the minimum in the code. And in lieu of that,you're not going to have a wall required. And last,we're going to explore the Opticon option. And if it's viable and reasonable,and reasonable meaning it's not going to take the taxpayers an excessive amount to get that accomplished,then we will take a look at that as a possibility as well,and that will be part of the fmal decision. So until those issues are resolved, the decision wouldn't come out. But those issues will be part and parcel to the decision. Is there any other piece of that that you're not clear where I'm going on? MR.ARNOLD: No. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. I just want to make sure. I think I talked to you yesterday about clarity on another project,so I will try to be as clear as possible. MR.ARNOLD: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Do you have anything else you want to add,Wayne? MR.ARNOLD: No,simply that this is an important station for EMS in maintaining their service times for this part of the county. So hopefully we can reach consensus that this is an approvable project with the conditions as you're recommending. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And with the other conditions of course will be the staff stipulations that you have previously lived with,and we'll discuss also the--we'll have some language suggested by--between you and John Pod and Ray regarding the distance,that the possibility of another egress and ingress could occur. And that could occur hopefully through an SDP process. MR.ARNOLD: And with that,if we could just make sure that we may have the option to reduce the preserve. You asked me to check on the preserve width. And it would always be maintained at a minimum 100-foot wide width. So if there's something that we can craft into that that talks about the potential ingress point as long as the preserve can be maintained at that 100-foot width. Which is the minimum width of the preserve that we have right now,as it's closer to the station. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: All I want to make sure is that whatever we craft it's consistent with the code and it's something that isn't going to trigger some unforeseen event. So we'll take a little bit of time between now and the time the decision's written to get that language crafted properly. MR.ARNOLD: We'll do our best to get it done. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody else have any other issues or concerns? (No response.) HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay,with that we will close this public hearing and a decision will be rendered within 30 days. I can't tell you how much less than that,it will depend on how fast the responses come from the parties that still have to respond and you confer with transportation. So that takes us to the--that ends that portion of our hearing today. We have no other business. Or any other public comments for today? (No response.) Page 14 of 15 March 12, 2015 HEX Meeting HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay,with that,this meeting is adjourned. Thank you all for attending. ********************* There being no further business for the good of the County,the meeting was adjourned by order of the Hearing Examiner at 9:50 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER MARK STRAIN,HEARING EXAMINER ATTEST: DWIGHT E.BROCK,CLERK These minutes approved by the Hearing Examiner on ,as presented or as corrected . TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE,INC. BY CHERIE' R.NOTTINGHAM,CSR,COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC Page 15 of 15 AGENDA ITEM 4-A CO*r Coanty STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER FROM: ZONING DIVISION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING: APRIL 9, 2015 SUBJECT: PETITION VA-PL20150000385, CAPRI CHRISTIAN CHURCH VARIANCE PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT: Owners: Thomas J. & Sharon L. Austin Capri Christian Church, Inc. 836 Corn Planters Circle 111 East Hilo Street Carolina Shores,NC 28467 Naples,FL 34113 Contract Capri Christian Church, Inc. Purchaser: 111 East Hilo Street Naples, FL 34113 Agent: Blair A. Foley,P.E. 120 Edgemere Way South Naples, FL 34105 REQUESTED ACTION: The Applicant wishes to have the Collier County Hearing Examiner (HEX) consider an application for seven Variances associated with a previously approved Parking Exemption to permit additional parking for a church on a lot that is not contiguous to the church. Each variance request is described in the Purpose/Description section of this Staff Report. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject site is 0.30± acres, platted as Lots 429 and 430 Isle of Capri No. 2. It is located on Pago Pago Drive East on Isles of Capri . The proposed parking lot is separated from the existing church parking lot by a single family home on Lot 428. VA-PL20150000385 Page 1 of 8 Capri Christian Church Variance H b 11111!!!!!!!IlliM A-ST :!:: d,�. -ee5eq o s o A-3T 01i�/ /;/ .1/ irk- ....--EN 11— ' r I -- MI ,44), s"s,s‘s. 4PN / L .•., i FIA1 1,3t.Al lb 4;C:::1%,;;*0 pi -irdAe, • . C��� ,► ��� r �1G+�-,��� 817E Maas 11111114r. ;7 `' ^- w LOCATION-1 � "'"���F�y�����`®��c ..S.---' I`r►�yaC�`�`4 e�.���r`_',„,.41,... � �Q� :Cm �� - �„ " .v I I�' t t v�*A+�`rq`1���+ `fir 'ill PROJECT ' !I - t k,N ' . %-., Ike aii'"Nrulr rue,,,,.......„ 1 t a _ '..... `1:14fire-A-1:-..--..;:*-1:,...ii:::!:::::-.43, ,,„%,_ Ar. ink_r2,_....., ',..--e-- ! /,.* --itt..*„ -4.-4,7:_, -No A.ST \ io `� ""P��II LOCATION ttt7 � �°1� .r� El Tr •m r. 1� ��nyQ 4 < Yiti Fs.,_ _ 4Q 11?54ua► LOCATION MAP ZONING MAP PETITION VA-PL-2015-385 SURROUNDING LAND USE &ZONING: Northeast: Pago Pago Drive East ROW, across which are single family homes; zoned RSF-4 Southeast: Single family home; zoned RSF-4 Southwest: Single family homes;zoned RSF-4 Northwest: Single family home;zoned RSF-4 33 222 1 42 234 424 Q,, 44' 1 t O r°�4n P ' 1u/ 4' : .,0 � /4a. 4t !: 4;« 416 o1 1_ 415 44 \ t: 5,,90 - 39 t 432►, BBD{). 394 383 395 1 412 396 i i 411 380 397 1 410 379 �.99 /8 III Existing Church Proposed Parking r. Nit te Lot 429 VA-PL20150000385 Page 3 of 8 Capri Christian Church Variance .t Lot 430 . v .,;-, 4 . P 16.' 3 \_ fi 4 S So. it r_ . !*g M G it �. otA r , ,a .4,.. *Alt, , -„. , 4 . r.1:41keit- •,,,\::. Icie Ili• . _ ,r Aerial VA-PL20150000385 Page 4 of 8 Capri Christian Church Variance PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The Petitioner was approved for a Parking Exemption to permit overflow parking for an existing church (HEX Decision 2015-08). Capri Christian Church was permitted through a Provisional Use (Resolution 82-30 and was expanded through a Conditional Use (Resolution 99-411). The zoning of the existing church and the overflow parking is Residential Single Family(RSF-4). The requested variance would permit more cars to be parked in the overflow lot. The design of the lot, with the dimensions as requested, was displayed at the NIM for the Parking Exemption and was supported by the neighbors. The requested variance seeks relief from: • LDC Section 4.06.02 C.4, to allow a 7-foot wide Type "D" landscape buffer instead of the required 10—foot wide buffer for developments adjacent to a road right-of- way; • from LDC Section 4.06.02 C, Table 2.4, to allow a 7.5-foot wide rear yard and 8- foot wide side yard Type `B" landscape buffer instead of the required 15-foot wide buffer for residential single-family properties adjacent to residential single-family properties; • from LDC Section 5.03.02 H, to remove the requirement for a wall to be constructed on a nonresidential development that is contiguous to a residential development; • from LDC Section 4.05.02.L., to allow one-way aisle in parking lots with 90 degree parking to have a minimum 20-foot aisle width instead of the required 22-foot aisle width; • from LDC Section 4.05.02 B.1, to allow grass parking access aisles to be made of shell instead of paved; • from LDC Section 4.05.02 G, to remove the requirement that off-street parking spaces must be striped or marked; • and from LDC Section 4.05.02 I.,to remove the requirement that one-way off-street parking aisles must have painted arrows. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN(GMP) CONSISTENCY: Comprehensive Planning Staff does not review Variances since they have no impact on the GMP. ANALYSIS: The decision to grant a variance is based on the criteria in LDC Section 9.04.03. Staff has analyzed this petition relative to these provisions and offers the following responses: a. Are there special conditions and circumstances existing, which are peculiar to the location,size and characteristics of the land,structure or building involved? VA-PL20150000385 Page 5 of 8 Capri Christian Church Variance Yes. The applicant has been approved to use the subject site as overflow parking for Capri Christian Church. The proposed Variances are necessary in order to provide the proposed 27 parking spaces as depicted on the landscape Plan(Exhibit A). b. Are there special conditions and circumstances, which do not result from the action of the applicant such as pre-existing conditions relative to the property, which are the subject of the Variance request? No. It is the decision of the applicant to use the subject lots for parking. However, the lots are close to the existing church — separated by one single-family home on a single-family lot— and the variance is supported by neighbors. County Staff spoke to the owner/resident of that house and he fully supports the variance. c. Will a literal interpretation of the provisions of this zoning code work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant or create practical difficulties for the applicant? Yes. Without the variance, the applicant would be able to park fewer cars in the approved overflow parking lot in order to meet the seasonal demand. d. Will the Variance, if granted, be the minimum Variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure and which promote standards of health,safety and welfare? No. The overflow parking lot could be designed to meet Code, and would allow automobile parking, although for fewer cars. However, since the lot is so close to the existing church and the neighbors support the variance, the applicant wishes to maximize the number of cars which can be parked in the lot. e. Will granting the Variance confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by these zoning regulations to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning district? Yes. The applicant will be able to park more vehicles in the overflow lot than if the dimensions followed Code. However, the design dimensions, as requested in the variance, are supported by the neighbors. f. Will granting the Variance be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Land Development Code, and not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare? Yes. The parking lot, with a central landscape island, was designed to emphasize the plantings and to give the parking lot a more residential feel. VA-PL20150000385 Page 6 of 8 Capri Christian Church Variance g. Are there natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals and objectives of the regulation such as natural preserves, lakes, golf courses,etc.? Yes. There is a hedge that screens the lot from the neighbor to the east. h. Will granting the Variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan? Approval of this Variance will not affect or change the requirements of the Growth Management Plan. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): A Neighborhood Information Meeting is not required for a Variance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Hearing Examiner approve Petition VA- PL20150000385, subject to the following conditions: 1. The plant material in the buffers shall include trees that are a minimum of 3-inch caliper,having a 12-14-foot height at planting, and spaced 20-feet on center. 2. In addition to the perimeter landscape buffers, the parking lot shall have a central landscape island as depicted on the Landscape Plan (Exhibit A). Exhibit A: Parking and Landscape Plan VA-PL20150000385 Page 7 of 8 Capri Christian Church Variance PREPARED BY: 3 - d210- /S FRE ;ISCHL,AICP,PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: 3 -Z6. RAYM D V. ELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER DATE 27- �� MIKE BOSI,AICP,DIRECTOR DATE ZONING DIVISION VA-PL20150000385 Page 8 of 8 Capri Christian Church Variance . _ TYPE D 151FFER I % TYPE P DI R TYPED tt E o.. 6r-e4 iir-pose �moo...P1 PAOr DARRER6 ?'��.i.�or.vareour. poor 6ARRiEP_s +,0.0�A0.0.IlIi•V. 0 Olin f VI ce Al 1 • .,1� 1 11 I Olt i lir .1 2 II Ig ' * io(11,Va • AI qv 1 Fa LOT 429 LOT 4 O • , q `'E ei4 1 -i ( pf I • I 0 • ■ t- tg .01 QV Wmiroll■E b FER • E ���� /� sod ���.r 4 wow . a�1IIIPP4; ea/.....04!•�0•0.0•110•_❖•00000.❖0/ - LANDSCAPE PLAN • EXHIBIT A /` Z- 4 OF 15 0 X60 SCALE IN FEET qrt /2 NO ' .: "i O Vi s ri / / r -,i. ) 0 e f t.. , ..•':\ a ` �J •�i''� � ,--, __ 0E • 4%* ' r . 54'2 • ''• 1415--.,'- .k 4' - --- 4:3,41.140/ e, . �' a (r".'', / ti,.. r4 i N. .....,N (; ter /cf.412i.N. ♦ iii iii 'SIN a` / li lit(ti4 \... / a) ., , A '"--■ 1 • . ---. ii / /51))),,,/ -..,„. .6.6. 6 0. � 4)-NE/ _ , / / ire \i ; g'm _ 4 A1 O 2 i W z� F • VW W=ce U ■ 1 ) 120 Edgemere Way South Capri Christian Church Naples,Fl 34105 Variance Request Parking Lot Phone(239)263-1222 Collier County,Florida • Blair A. Foley, P.E., LLC Cell(239)289-4900 Fax(239)263-0472 HATE 'PROAIDT NO. (NUE NO. (!COLE Civil Engineer/Development Consultant E-mail fo1s000 taol corn 3-12-2015 PROJNO F1LENO As Noted 17.f 1 • HEX NO.2015—08 HEARING EXAMINER DECISION PETITION PE-PL20140000538 —Capri Christian Church, Inc., requests approval of a parking exemption pursuant to LDC Section 41:15;021C.3 to allow an off-site parking lotto be separated from the church property it serves by a 60-foot lot under separate ownership, within a Residential Single-Family(RSF-4) zoning district. The proposed off-site parking is located on Lots 429 and 430 of Isles of Capri No. 2, in Section 32, Township 51 South, Range 26 East,Collier County,Florida. DATE OF HEARING: February 26,2015. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval. FINDINGS: Based on the applicant's written petition, testimony at the hearing of the applicant and the recommendation of staff, the Hearing Examiner finds that the criteria set forth in Section 4.05.02 K.3.b of the Land Development Code has been met and the petition is approved. ANALYSIS: The staff report includes 27 letters from the Isle of Capri neighborhood supporting the parking exemption. At a neighborhood information meeting held on February 3, 2015, six members of the public attended with no opposition or questions noted. Two members of the public attended this Parking Exemption hearing and did not express opposition. DECISION: The Hearing Examiner hereby approves Petition PE-PL20140000538 filed by Blair Foley, P.E., representing Capri Christian Church, Inc., to allow an off-site parking lot within a Residential Single-Family (RSF-4) zoning district, as more particularly described herein, to be separated from the church property it serves, located at 111 East Hilo Street, by a 60-foot lot under separate ownership. The off-site parking lot shall be located as depicted in Exhibit A, and shall be subject to the conditions set forth below. This Parking Exemption decision does not constitute approval of a site plan. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A—Off-Site Parking Location LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 429 and 430, Isles of Capri, No. 2, according to the plat • thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 46, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. [14-CPS-01376/1151165/1)37 I oft • I CONDITIONS: 1. The applicant shall obtain a ROW permit and construct a sidewalk,6 feet in width, from the lot to the church property prior to the final inspection. 2. The subject site is to be used for parking, water management, landscaping and directional and safety signage only. Other structures,including dumpsters,are not permitted. 3. The plant material in the buffers shall include trees that are a minimum of 3-inch caliper, having a 12-14 foot height at planting, and spaced 20 feet on center. 4. This Parking Exemption is for a maximum of 27 parking spaces. APPEALS: This decision becomes effective on the date it is rendered. Pursuant to Ordinance 2013-25, as amended, a Hearing Examiner Decision may be appealed to the Board of County Commissioners, Collier County. Appeals must be filed within 30 days of the date the Hearing Examiner Decision is rendered. • RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AND EXHIBITS: SEE CLERK OF COURT, MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. DECISIONS OF THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR VARIANCES, CONDITIONAL USES, AND BOAT DOCK EXTENSIONS SHALL BE NOTED ON THE ZONING MAP FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES. 3 - - CO.JA t Date Mark Strain, Hearing Examiner App ed as form and legality: Scott A.Stone Assistant County Attorney • [14-CPS-01376/1151165/1)37 2 oft Exhibit A • Capri Christian Church Off-Site Parking Location 222 V422 _- 734 . . _ 41,1 A 47C 'BCD 41 y pg \ Jo 41E ' ®• Bo P' m' 436 I , 41, r 8C 435 411 ' �__ 17 S91 yj 414 l , 4'4 352 <O 433 '..5,,`-7'3 94 39� $r 437\ r 11 383 I 417 5132 39519 ;� 411 397 I 4tC 36G 379 19 ••g sly ■ Existing Church Proposed Parking • ^ ::,:,_-..k...,.,,(i.:.,,,i.-:, 1.,:jilliff.,4,,„'-. ,,, , ,N.,_..,,. .-... .H-A--- --'1";','. : ,/ . II -•■ _444* M 4 i CoItler County COWER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 VARIANCE PETITION APPLICATION - Variance from Setbacks Required for a Particular Zoning District LDC section 9.04.00&Code of Laws section 2-83=2-90 Chapter 3 J.of the Administrative Code PROJECT NUMBER To be completed by staff PROJECT NAME • DATE PROCESSED APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION Name of Applicant(s): Capri Christian Church Address: 111 E. Hilo St. city: Naples State: FL • ZIP: 34113 Telephone: 239.289.4900 Cell: NA Fax: NA E-Mail Address: nedwok@frontier.com Name of Agent: Blair A. Foley, PE Firm: Blair A. Foley, PE, LLC Address: 120 Edgemere Way S. city: Naples State: FL ZIP: 34105 Telephone: 239.263.1222 Cell: NA Fax: 239.263.0472 E-Mail Address: fols000 @aol.com BE AWARE THAT COLLIER COUNTY HAS LOBBYIST REGULATIONS. GUIDE YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY AND ENSURE THAT YOU ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THESE REGULATIONS. 6/4/2014 Page 1 of 6 Cv or County . COWER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 - PROPERTY INFORMATION Provide a detailed legal description of the property covered by the application: (If space is inadequate,attach on separate page) Property 1.D.Number: 52401245001,52401246000 Section/Township/Range: S321 T51 S/R26E Subdivision: Isle of Capri No. 2 unit Lot: 429'430 Block: Metes&Bounds Description: See Survey Total Acreage: +/..3 ac. 1 Address/General Location of Subject Property: 1 and 120 Pago Pago Dr. E. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE • Zoning Land Use • N I ROAD ROW Pago Pago Dr.E 5 RSF-4 Residential E RSF-4 Residential W I RSF-4 Residential Minimum Yard Requirements for Subject Property: Front 25' Corner Lot: Yes ❑ No Side: 7.5' Waterfront Lot: Yes n No ❑ Rear: 25' • Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code requires that the applicant must remove their public hearing advertising sign(s)after final action is taken by the Board of County Commissioners. Based on the Board's final action on this item, please remove all public bearing advertising sign(s)immediately. 0 6/4/2014 Page 2 of 6 Co tr County COWER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.collieraov.net (239)252-2400 FAX (239)252-6358 ASSOC,`,T:OPIL. Complete the following for all registered Association(s) that could be affected by this petition. Provide additional sheets if necessary. Information can be found on the Board of County Commissioner's website at http://www.colliergov.net/Index.aspx?page=774. Name of Homeowner Association: Mailing Address: City: State: ZIP: Name of Homeowner Association: Mailing Address:_ City: State: ZIP: Name of Homeowner Association: Mailing Address: City: State: ZIP: Name of Homeowner Association: Mailing Address: City: State: ZIP: Name of Homeowner Association: • Mailing Address: City: State: ZIP: NATURE OF PETITION On a separate sheet,attached to the application,please provide the following: 1. A detailed explanation of the request including what structures are existing and what is proposed; the amount of encroachment proposed using numbers,i.e.reduce front setback from 25 ft.to 18 ft.; when property owner purchased property; when existing principal structure was built (include building permit number(s) if possible);why encroachment is necessary,how existing encroachment came to be;etc. 2. For projects authorized under LDC Section 9.04.02,provide a detailed description of site alterations, including any dredging and filling. 3. Pursuant to LDC section 9.04.00, staff shall be guided in their recommendation to the Hearing Examiner, and the Hearing Examiner shall be guided in the determination to approve or deny a variance petition by the criteria(a-h)listed below.Please address the following criteria: a) Are there special conditions and circumstances existing which are peculiar to the location,size and characteristics of the land,structure,or building involved. • 6/4/2014 Page 3 of 6 f .. • Caltegr County COLLER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 21300 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.cofiereov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 _ b): Are there special conditions and circumstances which do not result from the action of the — ~-- ---applicant such as pre-existing conditions relative to the property which is the subject of the variance request. c) Will a literal interpretation of the provisions of this zoning code work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant or create practical difficulties on the applicant. d) Will the variance, if granted, be the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land,building or structure and which promote standards of health,safety or welfare. e) Will granting the variance requested confer on the petitioner any special privilege that is denied by these zoning regulations to other lands,buildings,or structures in the same zoning district. f) Will granting the variance be in harmony with the intent and purpose of this zoning code, and not be injurious to the neighborhood,or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. g) Are there natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals and objectives of the regulation such as natural preserves,lakes,golf course,etc. • h) Will granting the variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan? 4. Official Interpretations or Zoning Verifications: To your knowledge, has there been-an official interpretation or zoning verification rendered on this property within the last year? []Yes X1 No If yes,please provide copies. • 6/4/2014 Page 4 of 6 Colter County • COWER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX: (239)252-6358 I Pre Application Meeting.aod.1%nal-SubmittaLRequirement Checklist for: _ Variance Chapter 3 J.of the Administrative Code • The following Submittal Requirement Checklist is to be utilized during the Pre-Application Meeting and at time of application submittal. At time of submittal,the checklist is to be completed•and submitted with the application packet. Please provide the submittal items in the exact order listed below with cover sheets attached to each section. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted. REQUIREMENTS FOR REVIEW #OF COPIES REQUIRED NOT REQUIRED Completed Application(download current form from County website) ❑ ❑ ❑ Pre-Application Meeting Notes 1 ❑ ❑ Project Narrative ❑ ❑ Completed Addressing Checklist 1 El • Conceptual Site Plan 24"x 36"and one 834'x 11"copy DI El Survey of property showing the encroachment(measured in feet) — 2 ❑ ❑ _ _Affidavit of Authorization,signed and notarized 2 ❑ E.]Deeds/Legal's 3 ❑ ❑ Location map 1 ❑ ❑ Current aerial photographs(available from Property Appraiser)with project boundary and,if vegetated,FLUCFCS Codes with legend 5 ❑ ❑ included on aerial Historical Survey or waiver request 1 ❑ [1 Environmental Data Requirements or exemption justification 3 • 0 u Once the first set of review comments are posted,provide the assigned 1 ❑ El planner the Property Owner Advisory Letter and Certification Electronic copy of all documents and plans 'Please advise:The Office of the Hearing Examiner requires all 1 ❑ ❑ materials to be submitted electronically in PDF format. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS: • Following the completion of the review process by County review staff,the applicant shall sul mit all materials electronically to the designated project manager. • Please contact the project manager to confirm the number of additional copies required. • • 6/4/2014 Page 5 of 6 • cote minty COWER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 Planners:Indicate if the petition_needs_to be routed to the following reviewers: ❑ Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment: ❑ Environmental Review.See Pre-Application Executive Director Meeting Sign-In Sheet ❑ Addressing:Annis Moxam [] Graphics:Mariam Ochettree ❑ City of Naples:Robin Singer,Planning Director ❑ Historical Review ❑ Comprehensive Planning:See Pre-Application ❑ Immokalee Water/Sewer District: Meeting Sign-In Sheet L ❑ Conservancy of SWFL:Nichole Ryan L] Parks and Recreation:Vicky Ahmad ❑ County Attorney's Office:Heidi Ashton-Cicko ❑ Transportation Pathways:Stacey Revay ❑ Emergency Management:Dan Summers;and/or 1--1 School District(Residential Components):Amy EMS:Artie Bay Heartlock ❑ Engineering:Alison Bradford ❑ Transportation Planning:John Podczerwinsky ❑ Other: ❑ , Utilities Engineering:Kris VanLengen FEE REQUIREMENTS O Pre Application Meeting:$500.00 411 ❑ Variance Petition: o Residential-$2,000.00 o Non-Residential-$5,000.00 o 5th and Subsequent Review-20%of original fee ❑ Estimated Legal Advertising Fee for the Office of the Hearing Examiner:$925.00 O After The Fact Zoning/Land Use Petitions:2x the normal petition fee O Listed Species Survey(if EIS is not required):$1,000.00 All checks payable to:Board of County Commissioners The completed application,all required submittal materials,and the permit fee shall be submitted to: Growth Management Division/Planning and Regulation ATTN:Business Center 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34104 / 2,/! n5- Applicant Si: -ture Date t14-C/1- "r0- • Printed Name • 6/4/2014 Page 6 of 6 ..ogh • Blair A. Foley, P.E. Civil Engineer/Development Consultant NATURE OF PETITION— VARIANCE FOR OFFSITE PARKING February 18,2015 1. The existing 2 lots are vacant,with no significant vegetation. The re-development of the existing platted lots 429 and 430,Isles of Capri,Collier County,is consistent with the LDC Section 10.02. The proposed shell parking lot will act as an over-flow for the Church during the winter months. The project improvements consist of+1-27 parking spaces location on a pervious shell and No. 57 stone lot. Appropriate access from Pago Pago Drive E. is included along with a storm water retention area. No structures or utilities are proposed. The proposed encroachment numbers are also listed below along with support of the same: • First Deviation Request: A. LDC 4.06.02.C1-4. B. Proposed Deviation: Reduction of the landscape buffers on three sides from the required 15' to a proposed 8' wide side yard buffer—a 7.5' wide rear buffer,and a reduction in the ROW buffer from the required 10' to 7' wide. C.Justification We are proposing the same amount of plant and vegetative material that would be required in the existing LDC Buffers. Additionally,the LDC allows for us to utilize 50%of the buffers for water management purposes. We are using 0%for water management. The design provides water management in the center of the lot,thus allowing a full buffer for landscape and irrigation. The buffer meets the Church's objective for compatible screening enhancement to the local neighborhood. . The following landscape design components represent compensation for the reduction: a. All proposed landscape planting is with native tropical trees,shrubs,and wetland grass. b. The size of the proposed trees are increased to 12'-14' high,3"caliber to enhance buffer screening. c. The spacing of the trees has been reduced to 20' for enhanced screening. d. Wetland grasses are proposed in the bottom of the retention area. • Blair A.Foley, P.E. • 120 Edgeanere Way South•Naples, Florida 34105 239.263.1222 • Fax 239.263.0472•Cellular 239.289.4900•email: fols000@aol.com • • • Second Deviation Request: A.LDC 5.03.02.11. B.Proposed Deviation:The propel i Devia.goa-istu not-provide a wall between :. _ residential and nonresidential development. LDC 5.03.02.H.4.a allows for a Deviation. C.Justification: The proposed project included several support letters from the neighbors. The Church represented that the project would be natural in its design without a wall,and would complement the"island"style of the community. An existing 6'high fence is located along the South property line. An existing 4-5' fichus hedge is existing along the East property line. We have increased the size and number of the required trees in the perimeter buffers. Specifically,the trees have been increased from a 2"caliber to a 3"caliber, and spaced every 20'. These trees will be approximately 12-14' high when • planted. In combination with these larger trees, additional plant material,and 0%of the buffer being used for water management,we feel the project's buffer design precludes the need for a 6' wall. Third Deviation Request: A.LDC 4.05.02.L B.Proposed Deviation:Reduction in the one-way drive isle width with.90 degree • parking from 22'to 20'. C.Justification: The proposed project is an overflow lot for the Church which will have minimal use during the majority of the year. In order to safely navigate the reduced width the Church will have employees directing and assisting drivers in the ingress and egress of the lot. The development of these 2 lots into a shell parking area would not provide enough parking to justify the purchase,without the requested reductions in buffers and drive widths. We have provided a measure of water management treatment even thought this lot is pervious and none is required,thus providing an added benefit. Fourth Deviation Request: A.LDC 4.05.02.B.1 B.Proposed Deviation: Provided a shell access isle,instead of the required paving. • C.Justification: The look and feel of this overflow lot will fit into the island community utilizing the shell versus the pavement. Additionally,the shell lot has been designed as a pervious drive,which will provide filtering and removal of dirt and debris. Paved isles will create untreated runoff. Fifth Deviation Request: A.LDC 4.05.02.G B.Proposed Deviation:No striping of parking spaces will be provided. C.Justification: The parking lot and drive isles will be shell, so no sufficient markings are possible. The parking lot will utilize appropriate signage and car wheel stops,which will designate the parking space. The use of paint is avoided,which may be classified as • a volatile organic compound(VOC). Deviation R Sixth Devia Request: A.LDC 4.05.02.I B.Proposed Deviation:No painted arrows will be provided on one way drives. C.Justification:,The parking lot and drive isles will be shell,so no sufficient markings are possible. The parking lot will utilize appropriate signage and car wheel stops,which will-desj.gnate,Id-parting space. The use of paint is avoided,which may be classified-as a volatile organic compound(VOC). The Church has recently closed on one of the lots and the second is still under contract. Copies of the Sales Agreements are attached. 2. The site alterations consist of a+/-27 space overflow shell pervious parking lot,along with landscape and irrigation improvements. 3a. The special conditions/circumstances include the fact that the church has been successful and is in need of additional over flow parking during season. Additionally,the lot under contract(and purchased)are narrow in configuration,minimizing the ability to provide full dimensioning for the parking improvements. Full community support exists for this project 3b. The lot configurations on Isle of Capri are platted and narrow. No other pre-existing conditions exist. • 3c. Yes. The Church owns one of these lots and will soon close on the other. Without consideration of the dimensional reductions,the parking lot could not be constructed using the current LDC dimensional standards. 3d. Yes,we are asking for the minimum variance. 3e. The Zoning Regulations,and in particular,the Variance Process,is open and • available to all other property owners. This does not constitute a special privilege. 3f. Yes. The granting of the variance will be in harmony with the intent and purpose of the zoning code. 3g. No. No natural conditions such as those described exist on the subject 2 lots. 3h. Yes. The granting of the variance is consistent with the GMP. S • • a o a o too SCALE N 1W Awww�taawaas cWtltiiNOWWINt PPM ^ ✓- 1v WO '� ° wow .,,_ . M�� w 0010 mow ,s ...*e t aN.a.aoe fcenrt • t � '-�� W0011101., � .: -,,..., .A4t47,4,-4,-, -. ,,,,, -_. 11+..7,'I J1 .1l,..4r., � y um woo oawaseaoulk 4 �W ":::::477: """1 .Naaeea®wsw mmoomos se ..ofd 0' 11111,4 z..c. G_r —r wnese fssac/Il P • i - — GLUZItrANOMMILZ MAW. 0..,PE r �' -� L T y i 1 y iiiiiL re I �C'n �� ;cam rs-...f-,_ 1 14., ,,, ,r--- ,if n , l tea 6 1 . jrnar aas i�ms°{'.r. R.+ 1 may- '' 1 \15: lI 1l as zo Edgm.oxe way Saab Capri Christian Church • ice Naples,a Soros Second Site Improvement Plan- Parking Layout �`' Phone(239)263-1222 Collier County,Florida Blair A. Foley, P.E., LLC Coll(239)289-4900 Fax(239)263-0472 ME NO. IRE N0: IMU! Civil Engineer/Development Consultant E-mail fo1s000@aot-com 2-.g-2015 PRO.4O FUND Al Noted rof 1 AFFIDAVfT OF AUTHORIZATION 4 III name),as. 6/,1-,a ( if I, Dries /_s m_ ( ( ,Ifap (e), rorafcam . applicable)of ci=—` ' r • , E► arid der oath. tear the Goose one)o�aPP .....�.r- t_ 1 nave la r secure the approval(s)refit d and m P' . the.m.a=.a __ _ of prO bN the.,C�__ m?_ referenced p�P��� apploafion and the Land Development or other s�pt �q!mLeF ,. .. . ?a aid any ,data attached hereto and made a pelt offhls aloft are Band trite; 3. I have au homed the std of Coffer Corte to enter upon the property during.normal working trouts for the purpose of kivestigating and evaluaffng the request made through this app r,aid that . 4. The propertY wd be =skied, corpreyed, salt a' subdivided subject to the c ondllane and restricans apposed by the approved ate. to 8a as aurkr►y representative 5. �authorize eavargkr.PS in any masters regardirg this petifion inclucfing 1 through 2 above. • • lite app&ant is a corporation,Men I is use*ex�d r d C.), the shexdd • tf the app t is a Limited i any(LL .j typioaLty be signed by the Company's Viafigigkig Memtee . • If Me appkairt is a par rershi),then typioalry a partner can sign Oft bahaf t t e perre till • if the appfcanf is a limited partnership, then the general partner tltesf sign and be ids as the`general paitnat of the named partnership. • If the egoaant is a trust then they most inciade the trustees name and the words'as ' . and than • In each 'ante, first d9Imine the app5csr#.'s sfakrs,e.g., Incurs va! trr4$ use the appropriate kamat for That ownership- Under pen&fQeg of•::.• ■ ,I declare that I have read the foregoing Affidavit of Aft on and that 0 the::r.. r. .fa : o .. .� _,_,041.. e1 1 sat STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLUER • i'h insburn-.,was - •• to(or�}and subscribed before me on 2 (date}by a r s . f i neme of person providing oath or affirmation),2s • - Z,�- who Is nagy known me or Who has produced (type)as Ida ficaflon. s* I/ �i3t.�= _ - � Stamm of Notary Public . 02Randal Mt= .4,,taimattett 111361152 - REV YAM • • 0 �. � Q T{FBI.. . • ... . ::•7.:•:...2;t:,.: .• ..- , la . ,... ...,lam,. It.: ,r Y=t,:A'. • .• ,��.iaa� ;, ' '.3`C 341 7,1$ 4 c 111OFiit .01: , wed 5 seB'a�f' b?s d'•�a NY! 1 IHE . � iauvaz ( • •.A,. �(a?,- •,.„,. .1' :;:ter •,.Y•, _ • ` shi '4: tEa i.g_-... 7 mnotilsabd c°enn'-2seast° hSi:IER'ftasa . 5 tameba:N -6910o -`: • ,•; , ` 4_ t... 114 _AGAP.A00. : ...- R.;.1VAPLA. R.:$4 13. ..' ....• • .4,!'i 1. • '";':':' • T`.�f: F•` lro a &a astlibe 5.,-:--..._ ---.. - •�_.:.:.�,-i-. ` . • to amaiiipabies offer CJ is ikteonte Ewe,Date a II isetlue notiker • ?' days att i Ef f Da - • ' Depose.a.bere .in etab ititei: tfa "aferthe 13 't uaE , lf.amditdgf : $: • . . . ; , .�• e 14 ot .L.an Pd4 44i 483'>."• 'x`;ti.. ,,. •;,.,;-:'�s..: ::: ..S• 'F: t.;•0 00 15• Di.Pfoa s ofS.EJ.6t lF " x _ :`*--:LOU' sti ,amtsk , :2 P1 .= .pftigg Ea 7iv :`tills oraD ti` rAoloediFrrot':a �endtidAoed? grace' ,la -. 72, ` ;°i.t Wit= F)�.o ,• �.' ;: 4 .: > } si t app(y�• :! :. "•ilt and'.�∎4 :` S'�ed.The'�. • :�• fbeE dada.��i�}-�'.Q�c&E l t1r•.fis c,�n .1rmrl 4�s. [BE OTF WAR 1* ' er FORM ON Th16 cOtNr :�i E It 7. a. X5'.;3: U. rz-. DATft ,EL 16 LOCAT1O?& motel. ;;,_ AG tt• ' 10&• .005019- sitaf ;oncai( an:. s` ''.SEE OTHER TERMS t.. Gr Pdao. ettYIErtlllaa ob60 Pa; asif' `27 'hoe..6je Propestiis Located;at anxibie dekriated by U eeibsiii Me shall besdec ell by.1)§ .Y,Hi.`uyekstsaDethe legal awl r ,as;•pFi � -oftlhe ?a Arid Salim shall vacate and g'nie 90 'g tthe•Pmpe�at 6hedasing.S!IJ!R si ate kare lie mite :' ' ghee otdeis G ► .aoaaaf 5%1 aml+ istbriiRe4g fo 16,i ,Arl r sa ,ter sQvu r) • a abye ,i as oRS.::finala>leccaa,lyee Pagel 01 .4.- ; . , • .-:r - . • . . ...i' • 33..4.. gEr1012PF PAragg-AarFimm:IFIOSEIX7GEPti 006pk A.sOLudnui Mk cAsH-:EiltY1fR viMparml),or may • , (2 ii*: :, ' *‘*- -1.' ::'''': : . 31 *bin 111024WAc /0 of.Fig.?1001*tawaVor•Pereins$21:01119,,O . D It Fitic."4P c9KNOY:*iblect-tate. . ..'' -• • .:. 1 , . 32 PRoils* aiiriTaiagFt a.tW.0`4,otti*to**we the PrOpixi‘omrinOryt ppoir FILIYEit*taOlag a keit,akies,aiiiimo 0 suyaz. 33 an sOrth YAK .0 at leastt a adolikidpinjo 1.C...above0obe-seour0 by a.110i19 Oge:411-1101017,t11,PiE.LEGT ONE. F W° ,... . 3-.V-SlaglipillINADE,f11L4M an kald gra2111;0.4 ralCtat#030*10.e:0419 - ';',.. 1.'' ",i:-A.I. ": ;;t., ' ,7 ,::' - i,.:•, lk,t• ' .': . .. . 35 totgrongtoch ____:*.....parkpo yes itS bianK oat:A:6'45**i* _____Pars„ItitS10#0110#thebitri not 36 4opt _;÷_;epaitar.iliapectivA*ricktilettaft:blitaki0od,silar.itpadalinOitigliopqaiklikdOgailetk4 to.this3/ ioilliktiTER4Olo'tkleie 1120.00TotAaiklfklyaftr-Of this*PncitiaoPilinieVatiOr before.. .0-.7'...-*-....4-1• ' '--'4,,,,:.•;.i.,-k ;:.E...'.t.' .,.4,.-..: -it.,e"t-At'er'it:',e, -;,-%•,i-t'..L'''',, - ..t--t:;!.,' 4;,",'::• :-,k?- a .. . . i•e:- . .- : . ifao05- ysiielo 07 WA W14.biat EgWVAre *R irtsnii*0*C9ntaf at any mu. mo • • . ''' "" • ;.' ' .Ii.-',: . 11 1/.0103111:10ellkit0410364.417111*ateCOe'd1P11.gq1.111106. f. :PPX*IPAY. VA sla*Ottif sitiorso 5ailladtoo isu3diiy art ....;;,7i.' ‘...... . ..:." -.:: • ; -.v...--... -.'. , • • .-. ...:,• ,. 40 tiOailtfiiidai#taltOiti1..1600$4**aafte*g#111io la)a-41*Wa0Olea'on•91010 ItifettierThetWO*A - - ..f. • ' ...4- '. ;.,j .-el . .:';'• •. 'F tP! - • *. F.-.F 41 tit4bble.t611201itider Or giltilat-imaii Wray.kre 6itiniiiik.*niar;ofrier-ovidmot 4tintria titSictoilka i43' 42.itildr10171ti4rPt!*006ess bfli*•.036-ad nO4r1*4/F0*norII:en del#1forMitOlixii*.sexpeopoierniviBoog #3..iEsitl"111A.e, 1 D41*t°,- 414*BUY 11as wci:Ivid.thi1180e1167 PrOrto 4tagitotiouYE)3 oce of, ' 0:-';''''"11:.#r""tis4:07 * *114'm5".-.1"44**ran#4shall.4ife a**00.140049' , • 45.4it404:4:::most,iiiimodiOiRts .03,3thi*;afivei.iitisgiti0intfialigive*:)3riER4.441gooros , ..: ': 'e..---,,,..:.:7:-:- ,: ':- ..4,4.::-." •'': • - !'1.., 17t.-,.: - V' ...": • •• ■.- ' 7'2.:•%. 7 .- .:46, 0_610.4ible uil OF this,PaRgtsgii 4. C...tatiA RNAtiOda:The Atidetaingligks40-4*-EgrOncirtgis410;idierehand :* litie i:pithOot •,..:•;:', '.1..--. _ . , . . . .. • a:fi copply SPOOL#01:40**fecoparty-1iisElt3 not loctifidAthin:agammularDe9PIPPeriPisOtigae • *"•!' .;;:•737. * -.:.s. .*: * .'_1;4- ' :*.. ? '0.* . ';'• -,* ''.'."".*.••' 'i • . '• : . 46 6igibica!**1006.6 Tax09 Q4(P3114.00133 41046si.4****/4**eilg CaPlia(". ssaMPerittakiiilk PhiNied7 is locat:od,0111000Q or td511/,tititq0 to..giy bitOitiloil'sOitital tiiiitaO*ISP(Pi should not ccoGutifitiis Goatra#44 ID St EIVIE1 )11034121Ad.'." 04.0P0111 .4111140i,li-4401401":#5sessmr.. . ;ids Dts*Psuri'or.sifidi-*;a0 c000taNe- '_:.'. • , -_,....:, . ..-,..r, • :.:-.... ,.:-:.:. "i= , ..,:...., .....-.. 52 t.,;# ■,.- .1.1.:•',,-.4,'7R itittinff RIO* 0,..'1E":r•:tre ;';':.: ' :t•.:' : '-e i-`!..O..40`at0- .1 nad. atotA• 4.::.0,.:.::.:_: •',,:.: i':-: wh i sh*.A-u*di aii-.-o nk a i 40:.1 ne . . ,i 'i 84:#001akftz ; 04.IF NO 13.00P ilir0.4#01-011414j001:NiA DUFA1UK4*.ellYiE16 -..!.51,..,..:4':. ' .V::: . .!:.,.. 1::: : •''' . ;' .-i'.' ' ' ..,'.'C 1'1"' . '.k ' .? i%;'. . '-' '. 641Nitalkiii;ltiSPOCOMPPitiOtr-L.'" -dthi4 eaftr4-iolttiertflitii *,.piptim-afigwatetIod.gysifidiT4304 :: ...1(..,...?;..,:... • ...•._r- .• .irt.. ,....,:!...v!...r: ...•:::4,,,......;.k . . Iti_..._,...„, • .::. .-. . . .-.1::;-.:. ,...i. .: wtotoggfagenperatter)- ..,_--?, .:v:hipeethe,f1.0010,stgitgliA.10.13p.stile*tad*for liciNget.inteackeayskat -.......!.:.t,Ia.:::..'., . s., •. .;..tr.1..m:07t:,,,,,.;,4;45,.- .... ,,..„,......„,k , -.1,... ••,7 '.. •:::7; ..,. " : , ;•, ,y•A •.,.`,':',•,,, • 54:,„Aat€54yAiyaz-.00:1mousaft:tilvtp,is:.gipailyinsOctea,theliipity.anthieterniiied.tliiitsa*16-saffigiakliVYM4ottita • y...g......?..F.: ... " - ..`70:.,f .. 1 1-S'I-;-.; • ..• fd-r-, It; .1e• t-i •• . --• ' .1:. ...f. 4:14.0**-41047 mlit860"tegge*Valei rOttilheqii*61$ 0 in 5-inni4ani P4*or 111.1*21-Th 7.:60nets .. $1,490*,.._ tot-pOpoath011040_,, ..014.00:s22#1cfcrOgtcroPtiot,- . •.''.f..tV.?''' 4:;''.: ,1U •f•P.:r.1/4?.A.'.1-1e:;::: • ..;' -46 4' --i,'': - : .. . - $.-..•., , :-.,- ' .•.:41,01.:'kw lat1010motis::.001278-**40141414:;*10;# 1eilionPiiilif-46'000,Nt -' -- ''' '1,krf :':-..•c;ri-'I.'•••••• .; 27 ' . " tT,i: . •4',•-• :?•,' - * q• . r. -... ..ti:'..! '• ..Tli• . . ;* ' "ablaltDria-Diligi4ade coinPari4iikicieti f 0 diit itriarilialiPsaitiiir ika4440ce --, - .. , ..... , .u. __4:. . . •'. . ..! 02 dPeurM02$04110..Of Mitt Ole ifilidente-Pedixt.(4) ;...! 'r shag , :..,71,. r•.. - . •:::::., -;.-6*---.;:r.p.:.•.":7'.'' .-;i.. . . : . , ,,._, , , ;.,,,,, ...;,_ --,.. .,..---.,•=-'• ft ..-.shaft : S,olli!-O:,-' '-t,', •:,' -•.-;, . bn'EPee4- .;i..,!..5,y... :.-..•!. r': 0.3 : : ...4.4-___L.:______________,..77,4_4:.-t...„_.= . - • . . 64 B.AppOiDui :tamprial!erfu ate.kcorpp*ti.ri,at.15-.14witalict by 3cpaustA adoendurn...rattach r.-woo..ccurttroctuiD two: p Tv tho 66 atit such Addaixtum toons,uOitliot*Ittiiii tom*Or thts CoRtrOtilkAddenlotii tortm.shzkoortOol- / ..,.. sAtEsucaii4A0 otsiDOMAL vACAIIT LAND)NABOR 4111201**0.2.1s1 8 ,;r:.2. 0 ai faingikilic.ity . '(I A .a.k.i.i.#.#i^..-.. . . • .SB.[fR �!T HA1.. 'CEVED AD S. .. ..[ p flOi STA�ARS AD f r ' i "t HU . ,;• .. ..•-!.,s AND SRAtt NOT BE REVISED •i •p ;q 'AiiE•CORP0RAn i AJID MA D ANi fART OF iifS 69 Ol 'E lIP 1CF' C 'TR ,F.1% :F a .• r ., i •' ! �, , - f ai - - of / = -' • , •• r' w :, L t Y :� ,•�•• ,.1: •. '.....::::".1:::jj "`,y, 4. OW &SBUYI!8IIfeL..S 9d h e o.Ta roo$•ftio - -.. - r'�lt• . Sr or# lean o•r ter..g:.•P. - _ :•qi- :✓. • • 74 str1c Hrt War ps _ - 4.2', 7: •- ', z �' •• • • A� HiGa 9 ^7738 {• 7 :. •• = • 81-00"4"510151E.: Naples,. • v;� • 83 Escrow Agentietifione 239490-2575 .Fax .883'594r-72-66 'Erna • SALES.CONTRACT ,IflAE,Y�CANT1(NAB(NABORA 2)Pagq 3 of 8 . ; ti - '1 •.: -t: . ••(•4:-.: •• F: ..� . k.' r d . .•` to `tom y,.y,.r:w• - • •• ' r: :A,..r ..:. ••L,err• �?• , w,' •i•,.,::Y.yq•i�::,1,,..± ..ai i;..,• 7:,...- � 1 .,,+t- '•a'.•:r'": '''i.• .:,., •t 4 'r - . 7. •.`. _':,'Wa r iv .!; •- •*,....•.•.• .�r�r p . ,,-: • 1• .%„? r 4 'S 4.,.. ;• -, "t} •114 :,`:ftt• r,-T„t.•-•-...,..-...1.e•;;,.. ti 4 •••7.,,%,.,i' e'} T •:4-'_,`,(!-;;;'• ' !.rs !,5• :,..i•1:P. '!' r• 't'f' ..• 4SrJ•i� r • •"••'.., , : I,,•F"'c�. a,•"t :s•. • ~ }:' ..1•''l^ ,'ir • • .. • ._ r;. ,„,••:'-'a t,•••••• �{r�, 't '`.r-Y>f\ _... .4„ 4 1,•.w�;••' •.t,:ki -ri;• :.A .f�:'G�•rT�l •c•..-,.' • _..—....� .....-.• ,f �{ ,••.`4Y+. S: ?ti• +R• .�■• •+'!.Y_v..✓d•.41-•:..• .•,';'`.:'!..1:1•1”•... •,�%_r..• a:rt,•.r `. .•• -. �' ,••: •' • :• '^ •Acs(: ?y'!{ 47. . r'... a{; per• • •v `.. .g,1 ,.JA .=ar 1.1..' .tiY• •T4-•i •i•.• •.,y.�.�, ••J•,t•. .:". ?'"'t- ,s .1. -Ni:o-a.' �•t1,•�. t•',fi-:%; •Trw• ,• lit, if°5,�+,�., .14 x>t7A�riK�.�•yid"t- ,..5.7 e,,i,,y, tsl .° r , +r }.•_ ••}.• 4 "L f ,•• � •t!, ty.:r!. fi :• •tT C.'C .. J. . i•7i� w•Fi-.:s•:,4! 4 •lLr'.:-!_ s !•:',..'...!:••••7!::„..-::-.Z.,•.....:. •' . a`4. :Ca . I : 24'{'lr .' 7�..?h$.' :i{!Fy�l:,∎-,7%tir'7• ic:i: ,£}1..z . •� F^ 1.!...;..;::.;,..7.61;:•,'_Y•;' ... • -, ' ...45�-tGv^a:,,. f_y;. ":7;•2.,5 'i.i•S�'.rr •.'�. ::.' • ' : -• _ r •� _ ' ' ' • -V- 1•.e:: � 'l*b. i..- ; . .. ,.,,{x .. ;:a s ./.! 4 ,h. It . . i '.yf.1: _j4•.t•I ,m~' •. rW rt f.:7'. ::.-W#.1•:•.:.',.!....,—••` • . -0. ;1 k,:•- ,,+�z, .. ., /-1'•1� •i..., .i-:stir ;r,�1rz, .. .,y7:Ye-���".;_�.:....."•.:•<+r,. _.•"^ - _.s.. . -;; ' :a:�C,bi••'.•1•••s• ';: •••`•" iY••• -'"1.,1':••••:.•... .Y.',.. ,VP•',..•�_;'•,..)n �'-f ,•... 5 �•:-_::,.' .•: •¢•1 i•-r'�+ '•.h'.}••,• �'i` iLf••'•••. ;1J 1.•��* •-•.-•^ 'v:,:R c' : ' ;t.:S.n ';0.1.{;.'+;011 'C1 "- .;ft#:; `mi :'!• :�_ •,••� }t ff ~.yC�k1 • .+' . .?_ i, :i w: : ii . ,• • f ti. +Q � ,•. y :", ,, _i- I- s.',• 1,� t+ , `' � L; ';sY '4,....k - '•. :r ;,' Kr=cam_ ; �. t ; :......,,,,--t .++.- ..yc:"R4 }, • % �`s \.4 :•;.a• , .. 4,%=, ; ••' ti' ' 1r`: _• '•o � • wis }•, d ' ., J ,,-.% + r^. .T .•: rs,,,._; t ' �'f :'.n%:,. as : , �c .°' r:. Y{:.a . ..f;...,-...N. : • t• '4] ;:4r• a.-' ^•,,c, < •,-i'. _•,'"- • •p � ' .• wnn- _ -,. r s. �ry% 'T• .. ••,.t " .l `rPAI :� Rt S qwc,I`I..••"! �∎••+ ''ct;." r � ,• r •w;y r+.• . .T'e--�• * Fr. � 1 rt, y4!� �" , •',.. " i� •1iF ) _..e :• •'• `t I , Z ` •r ry. J< 1.h t.,A•'• ' 'f '...;7...0;.....'� , 4C s ,F n • . i 1 � . f �iv P J ;� er• ••• v, te" •+i•a:i'r}C : ' is • . ' '• .1{;r�.�..,.r-i�j:ti":?iv s'1w ..qYs�..M.�• .i,._• �• J: t�; •fit•' �L`i t: :r • ° = 4 : : } ? _4411 _!R ' • r •. (..)-1.21-- 30 4. IPETHOD OF PAYMENT[SELECT ONE.IF NO SELECTION IS MADE,A.SHALL APPLY]CjA.CASH:BUYER wil pay sash,or may • 31 °Mtn a bas,for the purchase of the Roped!,however,there is no tillarting contingency; 0,&FINANCING CONTINGENCY:Sullied b file 32 provtstorm of this paragraph,BUYER's of b punk the Property is apofingent upon BUYER obtaining a ban,Unless waived by BUYER 33 as set forth below, in at least the amount shown in 1.C.above,to be secured by a mortgage on the Property at [SELECT ONE.IF NO 34 SECTION IS MADE,(1)SHALL APPLY):p(1)an ktribal or p((foxed rate of interestrat exceeding %per year,for an and 35 beam of not less than years[3(l.Lears If let biankjwilh ababoon notsoorier than :.-.Y----Yflers.BUYER shat apply tai the bean not 36 to r than - days aft he rla days if left Maack),and shell cake o f faith arddifigerd effort to obtain said' _' __ 37 loan.If BUYER fags to give note to SELLER of waiver of thus taming confmgetcy on or before 38 (Insert Date)(45 days after the Effective Date if left blank,alt ter SELLER or BUYER may terminate this Contract at any time_BUYERS 39 termination under this continency must be accompanied by an Equal Credit Opport rhdy Act Oatement of adverse cred(artort issued by an 40 institutional lender confirming that mortgage financbg on the terms set forth in this Contra was denied on grounds that either The Property was 41 macceptabie to the lender or the BUYER fly failed to qualify for said financing tents,ur other evidence that BUYER has comtaed rash 42 and completed the application process but has received neither ban approval nor ban denial t m the lender.SELLER's right to terminate shalt 43 cease to exist if BUYER gives notice to SELLER that BUYER has waived this financing contingency prior to SELLER giving BUYER notice of 44 termieation. Delivery of documentation evidencing loan commitment er loan approval shall not constitute a waiver of the financing 45 contingency.BUYER acknowledges that once BUYER waives this financing contingency.BUYER'S deposit monies are no longer 46 refundable under this Paragraph 4. C.SELLER FINANCI9NG.The Addendum to Sales Conner:SELLER Fnsaneug is attadsed hem and 47 made a part hereof_ 1 48 5. CDDJMSTU SPECIAL TAX DISTRICTS: The Property CI is 0 is not located within a Community Development District(C.DD)or • 49 Municipal Service or Benett Taxing Unit(MSTU').BUYER 4 of closing assume any outstanding capital assessment balance. t the Property . 50 is located within a CDD or MSTU,and if there is any outstanding capital balance,BUYER should not execute this Contract until 51 BUYER has received and signed the'Addendum to Sales Contract COI:01SM A.ssassments Disclosure"or similuvvritten disclosure 52 from SELLER setting forth the approximate amount of the capital assessment balance,which BUYER will assume at closing. • 53 6. DUE DiLUGENCE;WAIVER [SELECT ONE.IP ND SELECITON IS mADE,A.SHALLAPPLYp©A.DUE DILIGENCE:BUYER elects to 54 conduct the Inspections provided for in Standard 0.1.4 of leis Contract not later than 150 days air the Effective Dale[60 days if ieftblaNkj 55 (the'Due Diligence Period') to determine whether the Property is suitable,in BUYER's sole discretion,for BUYER'S intended use;or 56 0 B.WAIVER OF DUE DILIGENCE:BUYER has visually inspected the Property and determined that same is sellable for BUYER'S intended 57 use,in fts current as is condition as of the Effective Date,including the caodifions&closed in Standard D.ta or in Paragraph 7.BUYER'S 58 obination to purchase the Property is not contingent upon any inspections,tests or studies. 59 7. A.OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS (1)This offer is contingent upon Me successful closing by Boyer on 60 116 Pago Pago Dr.E,Naples,FL xrithin 180 days of Effective Date. (2)Closing on this transaction. out shell b`1 61 occur within 5 days closing on 116 Pago Pago Dr.E. p)Buyer shall compensate Ree+altorper separate !�1 1 vb, -9f-� 62 a g r e e m e n t ! /) 11:� i s,2 r c i'h a cf. A- .., a 5\C i r f.3 c C.,!?Erb r ii t.._E_C nca fl J( ••-f-5, 63 4 T i t:t R. ?iE'l r r: 5, t=1-0(.1.1b e boc.k re E,./i_:'sxs1 r ee t\3. QN IE, 'D AN M+S .riPE0115 64 B.ADDENDUM:If additional terms are i corporated into this Contract by separate Addendum,attach same and indicate hem. 0 To the 55 extent such Addendum terms cxnfllct with the leans of Ns Contract,the Addendum terms shag control. �.`a,G :I it SALES CONTRACT(RESIDENTIAL VACANT LAID){NABOR 41112412)Page 2 of 8 I/ • . At ri v, . 66 REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION STANDARDS.SELLER AND BUYER ACIOdOWLEDOE THAT THEY HAVE EACH RECEIVED AND 67 REVIEWED PAGES 1,2,AND 3 AND REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION STANDARDS A THROUGH TON PAGSS 4 THROUGH II OF THIS 11111 68 CONTRACT,MUCH ARE INCORPORATED IN AND MADE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THIS CONTRACT AND SHALL NOT BE REVISED 69 OR MODIFIED EXCEPT*/PARAGRAPH 7 OF THIS CONTRACT. (2.• 2 :7-&-= 2_ 7 .;adclk 471e-imsgsa jp?keVi,y JAMES A EIJASON CAPRI CHRISTIAN CHURCH (Seier's Printed Name) (Burs Printed Name) • t rv, ••• - • (Sew's Swaim) (Date) (BuYers Mitee) (Date) JEANNE L ELIASON (Saes Printed time) • ..* -?" - .• 1 (Sures Printed Name) 70 71 WSEL.LER counters BUYER'S offer as noted herein.To accept the counter-offer,BUYER must sign or Initial the counter-offer , 72 terms and deliver a copy of the acceptance to SELLER by DAM:X1 PM on 73 fl) s posed Date). • 74 0 SELLER rejects BUYER'S offer on {insert Date}. • • (Seilees Ssitture) Pellet's Sip** 75 IDENTIFICATION OF BROKERS AND SELLING LICENSEES • n Laing Broker. NA Seffng Btoker Christopher Realty Inc. 77 Listing Licensee: NA ° Licensee Jeri Neuhaus 78 DEPOSIT RECEIPT 79 halal Deposti by Ej cash Dwire org check received on {Insert Dad 80 tel be held in escrow in accordance with the terms end=Moos of this Contact. • 81 Escrow Agent's Warne Christopher Really Inc 82 Escrow Agent Address: 365 Capri Blvd.,Naples,FL 34113 83 Escmyr Agent Telephone: 239-394-2575 Fax 856-596-7256 Ernat jetfaisiEffisfeapitCain ••• SALES CONTRACT(RESIDENTIAL VACANT LAND)(NABOB 41112012)Page 3 OS . • formsimplicity AGENDA ITEM 4-B Co er County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER FROM: ZONING DIVISION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING: APRIL 9, 2015 SUBJECT: BD-PL20130002460, BARBAROSSA BOAT DOCK EXTENSION PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT: Owner: Robert R. & Suzanne Barbarossa Agent: David Turley 222 Barefoot Beach Boulevard ADK Permitting Solutions, LLC Bonita Springs, FL 34134 PO Box 111385 Naples, FL 34108 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner requests a 36.1-foot boat dock extension from the maximum permitted protrusion of 20 feet, which will allow construction of a boat docking facility protruding a total of 56.1 feet into a waterway that is 275 feet wide. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject site is located at 222 Barefoot Beach Boulevard in Bonita Springs and is further described as Lot 2, Bayfront Gardens. The folio number is 23095000209. (See attached Location Map.) PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The purpose of the project is a request for a 36.1-foot boat dock extension beyond the maximum 20 feet for the subject lot. The boat dock facility will contain one slip. The total overwater dock structure proposed is approximately 518 square feet and will protrude a total of 56.1 feet into a waterway that is approximately 275 feet from Mean High Water (MHW) line to the opposite shore. There is no dredging proposed for this project and the total length shoreline is approximately 81.14 linear feet. A single-family house exists on the site. BD-PL20130002460 Page 1 of 8 Barbarossa Boat Dock Extension. LEE �C7O,UN:; PgOJECT �'OKI 17,1�41 4 ©4 itai f�f �� LOCATION Cf " Wow uir ewvmr RACK 3, �- '� � � LEE COUNTY �Ay�� p e r �,�IV — ---W ..."' - /Wan 0404 PEAV liviii _, oi Iwo ittioriliti .in �S 131-115.. . ice�'} ....� 441" , „, ., , IOWA All _ ;'C /� W � '© BITE .y �, �AAA�S® m LOCATION . �, �..� �®, ass, @ z ���� v� ear --Y r Dues/lit 11 waNanili SO re ,. II I- GULF OF ME)000 acL �� ` , W ,%QeA�T��� CO. �� OWIEVIS , s � ...a, ' 407 LOCATION MAP ZONING MAP PETITION BD-PL-2013-2460 SURROUNDING LAND USE&ZONING: SUBJECT PARCEL: Single-family house,zoned Lely Barefoot Beach PUD SURROUNDING: North: Single-family house with a boat dock,zoned PUD East: Little Hickory Bay,across which are single-family houses,zoned PUD South: Single-family house with a boat dock, zoned PUD West: Barefoot Beach Boulevard, across which are single-family houses, zoned PUD \ w..44 ' `, q P. r t 'd Jf, I ... l._.. - . . - \a _ 1 `- . _ '......:11141k, ,...? `ik 1t . `' `o Aerial of subject 'ro' Goo:le is a Illkoi . ---f, ,, I y -. 3, � k l • &1F i• Bird's eye view of subject property(Bing) BD-PL20130002460 Page 3 of 8 Barbarossa Boat Dock Extension. ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION: Environmental Planning Staff has reviewed this petition and has no objection to the granting of this request. Section 5.03.06(E)(11), of the Land Development Code (LDC), Manatee Protection, is applicable to multi-slip docking facilities with ten(10)or more slips. The proposed facility consists of one boat slip and is therefore not subject to the provisions of this section. STAFF COMMENTS: The Collier County Hearing Examiner (HEX) shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny, a dock facility extension request based on certain criteria. In order for the HEX to approve this request, it must find 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 recommends the following findings to the HEX: Primary Criteria 1. Whether the number of dock facilities and/or boat slips proposed is appropriate in relation to the waterfront length, location, upland land use and zoning of the subject property. Consideration should be made of property on unbridged barrier islands, where vessels are the primary means of transportation to and from the property. (The number should be appropriate; typical single-family use should be no more than two slips; typical multi-family use should be one slip per dwelling unit; in the case of unbridged barrier island docks,additional slips may be appropriate.) Criterion met. The proposed dock facility consists of one boat slip, which is appropriate in relation to the 81.14 linear feet of water frontage of the subject lot. 2. Whether the water depth at the proposed site is so shallow that a vessel of the general length, type and draft as that described in the petitioner's application is unable to launch or moor at mean low tide (MLT). (The petitioner's application and survey should establish that the water depth is too shallow to allow launching and mooring of the vessel(s)described without an extension.) Criterion not met. According to the petitioner's application the water depth for the proposed dock facility is not a factor in the request. 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.) BD-PL20130002460 Page 4 of 8 Barbarossa Boat Dock Extension. Criterion met. According to the information submitted by the petitioner, the proposed facility will not adversely impact navigation due to the width of the existing waterway and the fact that the water depth is greater than 7 feet at mean low water. The applicant notes that the facility has been designed similar to neighboring docks, so that it does not impede 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. Information provided in the application indicates that the proposed dock will protrude 56.1 feet(20.4 percent) into a waterway that is 275 feet in width. The dock on the opposite shoreline protrudes 35 feet (12.7 percent). Therefore, the dock facility will maintain more (66.9 percent) than the required minimum of 50 percent of the waterway as open. 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 and noted by the petitioner, the proposed facility has been designed to fall within the subject riparian lines (with a required side-yard of 15 feet) and does not interfere with adjacent neighboring docks or access. Secondary Criteria 1. Whether there are special conditions not involving water depth, related to the subject property or waterway, which justify the proposed dimensions and location of the proposed dock facility. (There must be at least one special condition related to the property; these may include type of shoreline reinforcement,shoreline configuration,mangrove growth,or seagrass beds.) Criterion met. The subject shoreline is natural, not hardened, and it supports a mangrove fringe. Florida Statutes permit minimal trimming, however the dock protrusion permits the preservation of the majority of the mangrove fringe. 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.) BD-PL20130002460 Page 5 of 8 Barbarossa Boat Dock Extension. Criterion met. As shown on the drawing submitted by the petitioner, the dock area is not excessive, permitting the docking of one vessel and also permitting launching of a kayak. 3. For single-family dock facilities, whether the length of the vessel, or vessels in combination, described by the petitioner, exceeds 50 percent of the subject property's linear waterfront footage. (The applicable maximum percentage should be maintained.) Criterion met. As indicated on the application, the width of the dock and vessel combination is 33 feet; therefore, the proposed dock is less than 50 percent of the property's 81.14 feet of shoreline. 4. Whether the proposed facility would have a major impact on the waterfront view of neighboring property owners. (The facility should not have a major impact on the view of a neighboring property owner.) Criterion met. The existing mangrove fringe obstructs the view of Little Hickory Bay from the first floor of residences. The view shed of neighboring properties will not be impacted. 5. Whether seagrass beds will be impacted by the proposed dock facility. (If seagrass beds are present, compliance with subsection 5.03.06(I) of the LDC must be demonstrated.) Criterion met. According to the information submitted by the petitioner's consultant (Turrell, Hall & Associates), no seagrass beds were found within 200 feet of the proposed dock facility. Therefore,there will be no impact to seagrass beds. 6. Whether the proposed dock facility is subject to the manatee protection requirements of subsection 5.03.06(E)(11) of this Code. (If applicable, compliance with section 5.03.06(E)(11) must be demonstrated.) Criterion not applicable. The petitioner's property is a single-family lot with one slip and is not subject to the provisions of the Manatee Protection Plan. Staff analysis indicates that this request meets four of the five primary criteria. Regarding the six secondary criteria, criterion 6 is not applicable, and the request meets five of the remaining five secondary criteria. A Boat Dock Extension (CCPC Resolution 06-03 - attached) was approved for this site in 2006. It was constructed and the applicant wishes to demolish it and replace it with the proposed dock. The conditions of approval included items that are no longer required by a BDE; they are now required by building code or are"boilerplate"requirements of the LDC. BD-PL20130002460 Page 6 of 8 Barbarossa Boat Dock Extension. APPEAL OF BOAT DOCK EXTENSION TO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS: As to any boat dock extension petition upon which the HEX takes action, an aggrieved petitioner, or adversely affected property owner, may appeal such final action to the Board of County Commissioners. Such appeal shall be filed with the Growth Management Department Administrator within 30 days of the Decision by the HEX. In the event that the petition has been approved by the HEX, the applicant shall be advised that he/she proceeds with construction at his/her own risk during this 30-day period. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW The Office of the County Attorney reviewed the Staff Report for BD-PL20130002460 on March 30, 2015. SAS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the above findings, Staff recommends that the Hearing Examiner approve Petition BD-PL20130002460. BD-PL20130002460 Page 7 of 8 Barbarossa Boat Dock Extension. PREPARED BY: ar Vhf: 3 a� /s FRED REISCHL, AICP,PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: �// •Z5--15 - RAY N!V. BELLOWS, ZONING MAR DATE ZON # DIVISION APPROVED BY: MIKE BOSI,AICP, DIRECTOR DATE ZONING DIVISION BD-PL20130002460 Page 8 of 8 Barbarossa Boat Dock Extension. Coer County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 DOCK FACILITY EXTENSION OR BOATHOUSE ESTABLISHMENT PETITION APPLICATION AND SUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS ,,.• 1.0C Section 5.03.06 Chapter 38.of the Administrative Code The following information is intended to guide the applicant through the application and public hearing process for a Dock Facility Extension or Boathouse Establishment Petition. Prior to submitting the Dock Facility Extension or Boathouse Establishment Petition application, the applicant shall attend a pre-application meeting to determine if a dock facility extension or boathouse establishment is available and to discuss the location, length/protrusion, and configuration of the proposed boat dock facility. The pre-application fee is$500.00 and will be credited toward application fee upon submittal. If the application is not submitted within 9 months of the pre-application meeting the pre-app fee will be forfeited and will not be credited toward the application fee. In order for the application to be processed, all accompanying materials (see attached submittal checklist)shall be completed and submitted with the application.The application fee for a Dock 40 Facility Extension or Boathouse Establishment is $1,500.00, plus $925.00 for required legal advertising. After submission of the completed application packet, accompanied with the required fees,the applicant will receive a response notifying that the petition is being processed. Accompanying that response will be a receipt for the payment and the tracking number (i.e., BDE- P120120000000) assigned to the petition. This petition tracking number should be noted on all future correspondence regarding the petition. Pursuant to the LDC and the Administrative Code, several public notice requirements shall be completed within the required time frames. The Planning and Zoning Department will provide, at the cost of the applicant, legal notification to surrounding property owners within 500 feet of the subject property and newspaper advertisement (required 15 days prior to the advertised Hearing Examiner hearing date). The applicant will be notified by email of the hearing date and will receive a copy of the Staff Report. It is recommended, but not required,that the applicant or the agent attend the Hearing Examiner hearing. Please contact the Growth Management Division at 252-2400 for further assistance completing this application. BD-PL20130002460 Rev: 1 i . 222 BAREFOOT BEACH BLVD Date: 8/29/14 12/20/2013 DUE. 9/15/14 Page 1 of 7 Coker CioM11ty COWER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 DOCK FACILITY EXTENSION OR BOATHOUSE ESTABLISHMENT PETITION LDC Section 5.03.06 Ch.3 B. of the Ate ini trative Code THIS PETITION IS FOR(check one): , DOCK EXTENSION 0 BOATHOUSE BD-PL20130002460 Rev: 1 PROJECT NUMBER 222 BAREFOOT BEACH BLVD PROJECT NAME Date: 8/29/14 DATE PROCESSED DUE: 9/15/14 APPLICANT INFORMATION Applicant(s): Robert R. Barbarossa Address: 222 Barefoot Beach Blvd City: Bonita SprsState: Florida ZIP: 34134 Telephone: n/a Cell: (763)442-9091 Fax: n/a E-Mail Address: sbarbarossaAmchsi Name of Agent: David Turley I Firm: ADK Permitting Solutions, LLC Address: PO Box 111385 City: Naples State: Florida ZIP: 34108 Telephone: n/a Cell: (239) 273-9846 Fax: (239)431-5040 E-Mail Address: d.turley07 @gmail.com PROPERTY LOCATION j Section/Township/Range: 06 / 48 / 25 Property I.D.Number: 23095000209 Subdivision: Bayfront Gardens Unit: Lot: 2 Block: Address/General Location of Subject Property: 222 Barefoot Beach Blvd, Bonita Springs/Lely Barefoot Beach Development Current Zoning and Land use of Subject Property: PUD/ BD-05-AR-8828 Single Family Residence BE AWARE THAT COLLIER COUNTY HAS LOBBYIST REGULATIONS.GUIDE YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY AND ENSURE THAT YOU ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THESE REGULATIONS. 12/20/2013 Page 2 of 7 4111 Co-frier County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE 1 Zoning Land Use PUD SingleFamily Residence PUD/BD-PL20130001460 Single Family Residence E Waterway/PUD Little Hickory Bay W Barefoot Bch Blvd/ROW/PUD Single Family Residence DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Narrative description of project(indicate extent of work,new dock,replacement,addition to existing facility,any other pertinent information): REMOVE EXISTING(504)SQ.FT.DOCK,(BD-05-AR-88280 AND REQUEST A 36 FOOT EXTENSION BEYOND THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED 20 FEET TO BE ABLE TO ROTATE THE BOAT SLIP TO ACCOMMODATE A 33'VESSEL AND ADD LIFT PILINGS FOR A FUTURE PWC LIFT.TOTAL OVER WATER STRUCTURE IS(518)SQ.FT.DOCK TO BE IN SAME LOCATION.(SEE DRAWINGS() SITE INFORMATION 1. Waterway Width: 275 ft. Measurement from I f plat ❑ survey n visual estimate ❑ other(specify) 2. Total Property Water Frontage: 81.14 ft. 3. Setbacks: Provided: 25L/22R ft. Required: 15 ft. 4. Total Protrusion of Proposed Facility into Water: 56 ft. 5. Number and Length of Vessels to use Facility: 1. 33 ft. 2. <16 ft. 3. ft. 6. List any additional dock facilities in close proximity to the subject property and indicate the total protrusion into the waterway of each: DOCKS AT 218 BAREFOOT BCN BLVD ARE 52',DOCKS IN BAYFRONT GARDENS AT LOT 1 IS 30',LOT 3 IS 50.9,LOT 4 IS 34' AND THE DOCKS DIRECTLY ACROSS THE BAY ARE LOT 22 IS 35',AND LOT 23 IS 30.4'. 7. Signs are required to be posted for all petitions. On properties that are 1 acre or larger in size, the applicant shall be responsible for erecting the required sign. What is the size of the petitioned property? 0.21 Acres 8. Official Interpretations or Zoning Verifications: • To your knowledge,has there been an official interpretation or zoning verification rendered on this property within the last year? n Yes ❑ No If yes,please provide copies. 12/20/2013 Page 3 of 7 Collier County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 PRIMARY CRITERIA The follpwin&criteria pursuant to LDC section 5.03.06, shall be used as a guide-by-staff in determining its recommendation to the Office of the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner will utilize the following criteria as a guide in the decision to approve or deny a particular Dock Extension request. In order for the Hearing Examiner 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. On separate sheets, please provide a narrative response to the listed criteria and/or questions. 1. Whether or not the number of dock facilities and/or boat slips proposed is appropriate in relation to the waterfront length, location, upland land use, and zoning of the subject property;consideration should be made of property on unbridged barrier islands, where vessels are the primary means of transportation to and from the property. (The number should be appropriate;typical,single-family use should be no more than two slips;typical multi-family use should be one slip per dwelling unit; in the case of unbridged barrier island docks,additional slips may be appropriate.) 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(MLT). (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.) • 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.) 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.) 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 of legally permitted neighboring docks.) • 12/20/2013 Page 4 of 7 Co et County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 SECONDARY CRITERIA 1. Whether or not there are speda! 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.) 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.) 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.) 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.) 5. Whether or not seagrass beds are located within 200 feet of the proposed dock facility. (If seagrass beds are present,compliance with LDC subsection 5.03.06 I must be demonstrated.) • 6. Whether or not the proposed dock facility is subject to the manatee protection requirements of LDC subsection 5.03.06 E.11. (If applicable, compliance with subsection 5.03.06.E.11 must be demonstrated.) • 12/20/2013 Page 5 of 7 Coder County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS CHECKLIST See Chapter 3 B. of the Administrative Code for submittal requirements. This completed checklist is to be submitted with application packet in the exact order listed below, with cover sheets attached to each section. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted. REQUIREMENTS FOR REVIEW #OF COPIES REQUIRED NOT REQUIRED Completed Application(download current form from County 6 ❑ ❑ website) Signed and Sealed Survey [� ❑ ❑ Chart of Site Waterway Site Plan Illustration with the following: • Lot dimensions; • Required setbacks for the dock facility; • Cross section showing relation to MHW/MLW and shoreline (bank,seawall,or rip-rap revetment); • Configuration,location,and dimensions of existing and 6 ❑ ❑ proposed facility; • Water depth where proposed dock facility is to be located; • Distance of navigable channel; • Illustration of the contour of the property;and • Illustration of dock facility from both an aerial and side view. Notarized and completed Owner/Agent Affidavits' 1 n ❑ Completed Addressing Checklist 1 ❑ U Electronic copy of all required documents *Please advise:The Office of the Hearing Examiner requires all 1 ❑ ❑ materials to be submitted electronically in PDF format. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS: • Following the completion of the review process by County review staff, the applicant shall submit all materials electronically to the designated project manager. • Please contact the project manager to confirm the number of additional copies required. FEE REQUIREMENTS: Li Boat Dock Extension Petition:$1,500.00 ❑ Estimated Legal Advertising fee for the Office of the Hearing Examiner:$925.00 rl An additional fee for property owner notifications will be billed to the applicant prior to the Hearing Examiner hearing date. As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package.I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information ma result in the delay of processing this petition. Signature of Petitioner or Agent Date • 12/20/2013 Page 6 of 7 BD-PL20130002460 Rev: 1 222 BAREFOOT BEACH BLVD Date: 8/29/14 er County, DUE: 9/15/14 • COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 �, / _ AFFIDAVIT We,1„a^7-ie., VstiaNgfirst__duly sworn, depose and say that well arz/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, I 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/Ifurther authorize David Turley to act as our/my representative in any matter •.ard'ng this Petition. Aa°11"... Signature of Property Owner Signature of Properly Owner • ,/',ZP"7- ,e. 2/�0,Y,r Typed or Printed Name of Owner Typed or Printed Name of Owner The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this if 122 day of Al►t 20 1/ by C & -BA a p,.4.4.04,54 who is personally known to me or has produced F L.0x-- as identification. dO State of Florida (Signature of Notary Public-State of Florida) CountyofGoliiir ie.— (Print, Type,or Stamp Commissioned Name ofNotaryPublic) I Llama veoaSPAVeataSSKN SEEMS SW MU* kiket wdi tt gotr ill 12/20/2013 Page 7 of 7 I 1 BD-PL20130002460 Rev: 1 222 BAREFOOT BEACH BLVD BDE-PL20130002460 DUE: 9/15/14 Barbarossa Boat Dock Extension Petition • Primary Criteria and Response 1. Whether or not the number of dock facilities and/or boat slips proposed is appropriate in relation to the waterfront length, location, upland land use, and zoning of the subject..,_ ___.. property; consideration should be made of property on unbridged barrier islands, where vessels are the primary means of transportation to and from the property. (The number should be appropriate;typical, single-family use should be no more than two slips; typical multi-family use should be one slip per dwelling unit; in case of unbridged barrier island docks,additional slips may be appropriate.) The proposed project is to construct a private single family dock to facilitate the mooring of two motor vessels each with a boat lift which is appropriate in relation to the 81.14 linear feet of water frontage,which is typical for a single family residence and zoned PUD. 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(MLT). (The petitioner's application and survey should show that the water depth is to shallow to allow launch and mooring of the vessel (s) described without an extension) The water depth at this location is not a factor (please refer to the attached drawings) hence this criteria would not be met. 3. Whether or not the proposed dock facility may have 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 dock facility will not adversely impact navigation due to the width of the existing waterway that does not have any marked navigable channels and has ample water depth > 7-feet at Mean Low Water.The dock facility has been designed similar to neighboring docks, so that it does not impede navigation. 4. Whether or not the proposed dock facility protrudes no more than 25% of the width of the waterway, and whether or not a minimum of 50% of the waterway width between dock facilities on either side of the waterway is maintained of navigability. (The facility should maintain the required percentages.) The proposed dock protrudes a total of 56-feet (20.4 percent) into a waterway that is 275 feet in width. The dock on the opposite shoreline protrudes 35 feet (12.7 percent). Therefore, the dock facility will maintain (66.9 percent) which is more than the required (50 percent)or 184 feet of navigable waterway. Page 1of3 • 5. Whether or not the proposed locron and design of the dock facility is such that the facility would not interfere with the use of neighboring docks. (The facility should not interfere with the use of legally permitted neighboring docks.) The proposed dock has a side setback of 25 feet (left) or approximately 100-feet from the adjacent dock to the north and a 22 foot (risht) setback or a distant of 47-feet from the dock to the south which is also perpendicular to the shore line which is well within the required (15 foot side-yard setbacks). The proposed dock will not interfere with the use of the neighboring docks. Secondary Criteria and Response 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 shoreline is natural, not hardened, and supports a mangrove fringe. The proposed dock will be constructed within the footprint of the existing dock that is to be replaced. The boat slips and finger piers will be perpendicular, to the new 6' x 23' dock reducing any impact to the existing mangroves, as depicted on the drawings. 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.) Utilization of the available waterfront for the mooring of two vessels, routine maintenance and limited recreational use, kayak/canoe launching and retrieval, could not be achieved without this type of dock design. 3. For single-family dock facilities, whether or not the length of the vessel or vessels in combination, described by the petitioner exceeds 50% of the subject property's linear waterfront footage.The applicable maximum percentage should be maintained. The width of the dock and vessel combination, perpendicular to the shore line is 33 feet; therefore, the proposed dock is less than 50 percent of the property's 81.14 feet of shoreline. II Page 2 of 3 • Secondary Criteria and Response (continued) 4. Whether or not the proposed facility would have a major impact on the waterfront view of the neighboring waterfront property owners. (The facility should not have a major impact on the view of either property owner.) The existing mangrove fringe obscures the view of Little Hickory Bay from the first floor of the neighboring residences and would not have an impact of their view. (Please refer to attached photographs) 5. Whether or not seagrass beds are located within 200 feet of the proposed dock facility. (If seagrass beds are present, compliance with LDC subsection 5.03.06 I of this code must be demonstrated.) No seagrass beds were noted within the immediate area. (please refer to the Submerged Resource Survey provided by Turrell, Hall and Associates) 1110 6. Whether or not the proposed dock facility is subject to the manatee protection requirements LDC subsection 5.03.06 E.11. (If applicable, compliance with the subsection 5.03.06.E.11 must be demonstrated.) This is a single family dock facility with two slips and is not subject to the requirements of the Manatee Protection Plan as stated in the above referenced code. Page 3 of 3 Page 1 of 1 Collier County Property Appraiser • Property Summary Parcel No. 23095000209 Site Adr. 222 BAREFOOT BEACH BLVD Name/Address BARBAROSSA, ROBERT R SUZANNE-BARBAROSSA 222 BAREFOOT BEACH BLVD City BONITA SPRINGS State FL Zip 34134-8505 Map No Strap No Section Township Range Acres *Estimated 3A06 180400 23A06 6 48 25 0.21 Legal BAYFRONT GARDENS LOT 2 Millage Area 0 3 Millage Rates O *Calculations Sub./Condo 180400 - BAYFRONT GARDENS School Other Total Use Code A 1 - SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 5.58 5.6697 11.2497 Latest Sales History Certified 2014 Cert�fled Tax Roll (Not all Sales are listed due to Confidentiality) (Subject to Change) Date Book-Page Amount Land Value $ 760,320 10/28/13 4978-3696 $ 2,100,000 (+) Improved Value $ 717 376 01/22/07 4172-656 $ 0 ' 06/10/05 3818-2155 $ 1,945,000 (-) Market Value $ 1,477,696 07/14/00 2698-1693 $ 1,410,000 (_) Assessed Value $ 1,477,696 08/22/89 1459-2191 $ 147,500 (-) Homestead $ 25,000 (=) School Taxable Value $ 1,452,696 (-) Additional Homestead $ 25,000 (=) Taxable Value $ 1,427,696 If all Values shown above equal 0 this parcel was created after the Final Tax Roll S http://www.collierapprai ser.com/Mai n_Search/RecordDetail.htm l?FoliolD=... 3/24/2015 BD-PL20130002460 Rev: 1 222 BAREFOOT BEACH BLVD Co*eT Col4nt Date: 8/29/14 y DUE: 9/15/14 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 PLANNING AND REGULATION (239)252-2400 FAX (239)252-5724 WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET ADDRESSING CHECKLIST Please complete the following and fax to the Operations Department at 239-252-5724 or submit in person to the Addressing Department at the above address. Form must be signed by Addressing personnel prior to pre- application meeting, please allow 3 days for processing. Not all items will apply to every project. Items in bold type are required. FOLIO NUMBERS MUST BE PROVIDED. Forms older than 6 months will require additional review and approval by the Addressing Department. PETITION TYPE(Indicate type below, complete a separate Addressing Checklist for each Petition type) ❑ BL(Blasting Permit) ❑ SDP(Site Development Plan) ❑ BD (Boat Dock Extension) ❑ SDPA(SDP Amendment) ❑ CarnivaUCircus Permit ❑ SDPI (Insubstantial Change to SDP) ❑ CU (Conditional Use) ❑ SIP(Site Improvement Plan) ❑ EXP(Excavation Permit) ❑ SIPI (Insubstantial Change to SIP) ❑ FP(Final Plat ❑ SNR(Street Name Change) ❑ LLA(Lot Line Adjustment) ❑ SNC (Street Name Change—Unplatted) ❑ PNC(Project Name Change) ❑ TDR(Transfer of Development Rights) ❑ PPL(Plans& Plat Review) ❑ VA(Variance) ❑ PSP(Preliminary Subdivision Plat) ❑ VRP (Vegetation Removal Permit) ❑ PUD Rezone ❑ VRSFP(Vegetation Removal&Site Fill Permit) • ❑ RZ(Standard Rezone) ❑ OTHER LEGAL DESCRIPTION of subject property or properties(copy of lengthy description may be attached) Bayfront Gardens Lot 2 S 6, T 48S, R 25E FOLIO(Property ID) NUMBER(s)of above(attach to, or associate with, legal description if more than one) 23095000209 STREET ADDRESS or ADDRESSES (as applicable, if already assigned) 222 Barefoot Beach Blvd. • LOCATION MAP must be attached showing exact location of project/site in relation to nearest public road right- of-way • SURVEY(copy -needed only for unplatted properties) PROPOSED PROJECT NAME (if applicable) • • PROPOSED STREET NAMES (if applicable) • SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN NUMBER(for existing projects/sites only) • SDP - or AR or PL# Co er County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 PLANNING AND REGULATION (239)252-2400 FAX (239)252-5724 WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET Project or development names proposed for, or already appearing in,condominium documents(if application; indicate whether proposed or existing) Please Check One: El Checklist is to be Faxed back ® Personally Picked Up APPLICANT NAME: Robert R. Barbarossa PHONE (763) 442-9091 FAX email: sbarbarossa @mchsi.com Signature on Addressing Checklist does not constitute Project and/or Street Name approval • and is subject to further review by the Operations Department. FOR STAFF USE ONLY 9_50)26 FLN Number(Primary) ,73O 9 Folio Number Folio Number Folio Number Approved by .41fit . . .� �✓ Date: Updated by: Date: IF OLDER THAN 6 MONTHS, FORM MUST BE UPDATED OR NEW FORM SUBMITTED • Print Map Page 1 of 2 T_ .,0 •�\ at MAP LEGEND 1 "•3... •"� Wild NaNes .: @. .; Parcels • lt' D Subdivisions r � Aerials MU Ii Inch Urban] n T�, �_ Aerials 201212 FEET] ` _A . ,.. ED Building footprints ` a y N 1. Coiner County 4 s C N Folio Number:23095000209 l r Name:BARBAROSSA,ROBERT R 4*-■l a 1 + Street#8 Name:222 BAREFOOT 1 i BEACH BLVD �. Legal Description:BAYFRONT 1 ._=4Pv.6“.'.!•-•.—'''..--t 414' A I I GARDENS LOT 2 a= ilk d:...'\ ' <. D...lift co 2004.Collier County Property Appraiser While the Collier County Property Appraisers comrrdtted to providing the most aaurate and up-to-date information no warranties expressed pr implied are provided for the data herein,Its use,or Its interpretation III http://www.collierappraiser.com/webmap/mapprint.aspx?title=&orienANDSCAPE&paper=LETTER&minX=380328.82187... 312014 • • • STATE OF FLORIDA 9 SUBJECT I NX*E + O o ,r..i' d igx ".. .,S n.,.. n. i ! - Springs g SUBJECT o T MPA 4 PROPERTY ° : ,J _5 , � ..,... • NAPLES 111111 ..• y l`k -all M 1 c FT.MYERS `� MIA I ^,, o�^ )C VICINITY MAP MARCO r, swND • rrrzrOFALEXx:U KEY WEST . u •_EVERGLADES .... 4 •TIT'/ rR` 'a- '",`'i '\ . ;, .4. COLLIER COUNTY SUBJECT r PROPERTY '' �! SITE ADDRESS: . '''M '. R <>222 BAREFOOT BEACH RD ; NAPLES,FL 34134 A» c - • NOTES: T BD-PL20130002460 Rev: 1 <>THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY M ..,/ 222 BAREFOOT BEACH BLVD AND ARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE. '. " - Date. 8/29/14 <>LATITUDE: N 26°19'25.642" DUE. 9/15/14 <>LONGITUDE' W81°50'28.444" COUNTY AERIAL ) T1Hall&AsS0Ci B A R B A R O S S A DOCK IMAM" , ',.,, _NM W NM NA } t 3584 Exchange Ave.SBrteB.Naples.FL34104.3732 LOCATION MAP ..EErNO 0,PM 4' w. �" N. PJrel:w.p.,.1FiROCBLOWm Phme(239)643-0I66 Fax'(2I9)6436632 .. .., ..., . .. ,.... SECT ON-XX TOWNSH XJ IP- 3 RANGE-70,E N', ,5 ry„ v o BD PL20130002460 Rev:1 OVHDPE I o/ 48+ 222 BAREFOOT BEACH BLVD PPE s AuTFI HOR CL 24 FT t 0 Date: 8/29/14 . .3 {vER1 CL Fr r 1 FIXED BRIDGES '1/4 DUE; 9/15/14 -\` -% N \HOR CI.el Fr ,'! \VERr CL11 ,r�� , 1 �'%• I i I r i1 Q . s•— ■_ il i .. Q�,� 3 ,_ era �F ana��i, f 46 / 1 OD NOTE H ' �, r �/� r�i CABS The channels are marked by numerous private 1 c t_.,4o., o 5 daybeacons and should be used with caution.+ ■ i :',......../..,.s.ON, ./ i '"' " 1 ■ ...- ''' 4 - 1 1ve V' i _ FIXED eR�eE g( GR A e PA 2 i.• \ '' '�—� `� . ri0�CL 3B FT g ',1� (+� `/sh r,aP 'A"y ��a�i Lithe 1 ~2 . `` `�_- ————— vERT CL 138Ff 2l/�'1 G Qr�j fR M s�pv►�a 1 Hickory 8a 2= �. Marsh'.__1 _ .- GoCOPtebe 4, ,..„,,,,,,,„.,.....,q, n. Pilk• 1 ti.2. 1 .` — �,• ` 7•'•• ntls,R t t:1E , p i i 1 `—— .a; ■ '� CVI IO TEL& S. E ooRncr- Y p 1 Mangrove ;... e, TVCAes 2•,•. 8 AuTHCLZ2Fr �� HOR CI_18 FT •' °Y` $ `•' ' 2 y .._.0„, —•••-1•., W ens PA UVHO PWR "���,..r� 1 VERT CL 13 Fr 1 ` . 6 pR •• o ao oQ� PfN CABLE on( I ! r"„'. .rla +� G %-r. . �3 n ,8 /3,. Mangrove - OBI �� Wiggins Island IV..ri 2°/os 13 �, .,._A 5.r - 10 g 12 j --___ ..._.__-- L,,,,;�..\6 R°�.J t)J- Mangrove h S 15 -_iS__ `_ 9 6•;~ '•G• •.2' _ 1, 14 15 14 I4`• \\ 3 '1 otiv;;,�•3 i n �- i6 16 16 16 ` �*„.� $ �; 17 17 17 18 So MitA}_12tt- ..- -,.__,12 _`12ero`SG _ _- - "WP”Priv T 17•__~'__-2-- Joins page 27 • 21 19 �`Q,\ ,7 ,6 7,\ 72_ (/ SHEET 1 OF 3 � li . SKETCH OF SURVEY N • w "T' E �- f�� S � � z F.ot G �- imi4seirs■ NOG 0 :C' 2C.' 30' 40' \ O u. — tr as \ / 9�\ . p I \Q°. F.1 R Fart / 32.73' (P) �. N N 35'28'40" W \'`.,....,.....,in X 11:7,9 SURVEY TIE NE/ 32.73' (N�0 \ LOT 1 \ N 35'51'56" W A c_ Co / �J / A ,0 4p51FP�M1 \ / • 20'ME 6:JC. \ 59 W �O,. . / S ‘,..s..3 5s. W SCRCC 1 S 6 6614�3" / POOL g PgCOSEb �� ,io ro $ LOT 2 ., `°0.) F1R. 9 F-1-, Noe w 6°C l'"p rl- 3 ti r POOL '� \ P 0 THREE STORY RESIDENCE g° ti 48.41' (P&H) �v4,1.0. O� S 26'00'35' E 1W 1� tt\ ` SURVEY 0' LINE �'� w *TG pN L } yZF ` ' \1. v a i • `' o. r MEAN HIGH "I1 .. 'IS P.E. FIR. RATER LINE 0 a 3g.i� 1.,15. Pl No D \ LOCATED3/c7/13 0 � �" \ . °o_ PAVER DRIVE \ ✓ �ti16p3 kg) \ x/' q� \ S 6836 35 aA t°6 \ LOTS \� G S \ \'5 FIR" LEGEND FOOL 0 FOUIO \ NO D CONCRETE MONUMENT(PAX) FAR, 0 FOUND 5/e-Om Rai \ 7- FN. FOUND NAIL BD-PL20130002460 Rev: 1 ti.Nom' (P) MEASURED �. U.S. MANIENANCE EASEMENT 222 BAREFOOT BEACH BLVD \'.a, °� °R""A0E EASEMENT Date: 8/29/14 U.S. UTILITY EASEMENT DUE: 9/15/14 \*f P E P00.EO{0PA1ENT \ CR RS PROFESSIONAL LICENSED SURVEYOR O .� PK PARKER KALON _ LB LICENSED BUSINESS S• PC POINT OF CURVATURE (I) LABEL CERTIFICATION; � -� LT UNE LABEL Robert R. Bnrlwrossn and Suzanne Hnrb"arossa, F CENTERLINE and Vlfe, TIM .. WATER METER Roetzel L Andress,a legal pro(essOAp1,L *IN • uTDERCR°UND TANK Old Republic National Title Insurance Co'pYRK EL ELEVADOI ,.-..)...• 4 : /1 BR I BACK FLOW PREItr•1TOR ,G, , 4 — CBN 0 CABLE 1ELENSI0N BOX F.I R. IR 6 TELEPHONE ODOR L • NC IC �.._ _ ; .REAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION; Bnw s..PL2.: Certlflc to Number 4526' . '_ LOT 2,_BAYFRONT GARDENS,A SUBDIVISION ACCORDING TO THE �= PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 14 PAGE 114 THROUGH 117 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER CEIUNIT.FLORIDA. DATE OF SURVEY, SEPTEMBER 27,2013 1• NOT VALID WITHOUT THE SIGNATURE AND THE ORIGINAL•'RAISED ` ,NOTEST SEAL OF A FLORIDA LICENSED SURVEYOR AND MAIIPER T ., L) BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON REFER TO THE CENTERLINE OF BAREFOOT //r BEACH BLVD., BEING N 21'26'09' Al. ! •/°"Robert R. Borbarossa & Suzanne Barborossa 1111, 2.) THIS PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS,RESERVATIONS OR p RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD, BOUNDARY 3) DIMENSIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE IN FEET AND DECIMALS THEREOF. 4.) IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN THOSE SHOWN HAVE NOT BEEN LOCATED. SURVEY 5.) LEGAL DESCRIPTION SUPPLIED BY CLIENT. • 6.) ELEVATION BASED ON NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM (NAM 1988. t>ra.I .ee' rob_ I OWL loEO DjJ �.s`. 7.) HOUSE IS IN FLOOD ZONE VE14 DATED 5/16/12 59,441,8. & � AVE,, rar W. `✓n.w.0.1. d; Ye..1 5,1....,41 •P r SA GARLOT2 fort 6I./..•...x..— A"5S IVN, \\ ADDRESS, 222 BAREFOOT BEACH BLVD,/ ,yam 544,,,1 31102 (tlP14t61 — 5963 J i SKETCH OF SURVEY +/_ -r,..; %WIDTH OF BAY 275 I ,/ WATER WAY ,AD, LINE cv SHEET 2 OF 3 Y B H��K -B � E • -1 1.ITf L" -� 4. I 56' FROM SNORE LINE TO END OF DOCK \ q 0 10- 20 9D' 40' 55.1 M.H.W.L. TO END CF DOCK PROPOSED DOCK DOCK \ FUTURE BOAT LIFT PILES a3 ` ` `p,�,� �\ p i ___.7 E DDE OF MANGROVE 34 �`�� h� �� \ \ W KR 0,1 HI R ( 3121. ti'h el-D./Est, ii Mf�ø:t : 7'e�' _ N. .�.RDXIMAIE TOP Oc BANK Su6'QO JS^ E SERE yC_ ^3 T1F LINE �OxSMpSE A Ek- 6? EDGE of MANGROVE' 4i NI LEGEND L?A \1 i3 F.C.M. O moo CONCRETE uCINUNENT jP R.N.) �' FAR 0 IgjND 5/6'siON ROD 5, 6 FN. FOUND Nut vi PLAT ti ti _ UNDER RODE NE ANRNM+C[EASENENT = v +■ DE. DRAINAGE EASEMENT 50.3' u.E. %MLITT EAYsMENI + Cy V. h To 4/C MR-CDN1Wr ~ 4 O • PE POOL COLON/NT O OO L. _ b c„s Poc1FESSIONA.LICENSED SLRYIYDrr O C0 5 — - PK PARKER A AXI1 L9 LCE11SED 6J9IIL$5 • PC PONT OF TU6N41LAE # 3i CV IW � N 0) CuP:(L 2C. • , i of t. [ WATE RJNE r X710 O ' L. IC :.L .r RAT0I NE ER yy+.. M) • UNDERGROUND TAME V t 7eb f IC U EVAT.DI. 18 3 IA Br? 4 6401 ELOW PREVENTOR IA N� 4 7'• ~ <.7'' V CAM •CARE TELIM904 BOA c 13.1' ' ^ 14 5' .nn 13.2 46 TR A TELE►K➢NE RISER y 1 Mw,Ml MEN N.G.MATER LINE STAIRS N.LM4. 41E4N LOW MAR►LINE — T 1 — Ore T \_ ,v S 2136'46" E 1+9.77 (N) •` a‘r N 2r45'52" W 80,11' (AE) 5 21.26'06" E 120.00_(P) A N 21' 26'06` W 80.00' (P) N 21'26_06" W 80.00' (P) 0 21'235'2•" W 80.01' (W e g l- o A -; 8rg ;19 :=a ' _ CURB BAREFOOT BEACH BLVD. — _ //',l Da.ld D. Bruns.PLS PEAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION; Ce.tHicat.Numb..4520 DATE CIF SURVEY SEPTEMBER 27.2013 LOT 2 BATFR0,T GARDENS. A SUBDIVISION ACCORDING TD THE ADDED PROPOSED DOCK I WATER DEPTHS:NOVEMBER 14, 2013 P17 Dr THE�PUBL C RECORDS 1F ACOL IC PAGE FL l0.R, REVISED BOAT DOCK SIZE HAREM 6,2014 NOT VALID VITHOUT THE SIGNATURE AND THE ORIGINAL RAISED VOTES; SEAL Or A FLORIDA LICENSED SURVEYOR AND MAPPER. J 1.1 BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON REFER TO THE CENTERLINE Or BAREFOOT BEACH BLVD., BEING N. 21'2609' V. (1;rn.Robert R. Barbarossa & Suzanne Barbarossa 2) THIS PROPERTY IS SLIME? IC EASEMENTS. RESERVATIONS DR RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD 3.1 DIMENSIONS 21.0v0 HEREON ARE IN FEET AND DECIMALS THEREOF BOUNDARY 4.) INPROvEMENTs OTHER 11-141 11 OV 0SE SHN HAVE NOT BEEN LOCATED SURVEY 411 5.)LEGAL DESCRIPTION SUPPLIED BY CLIENT. Il.r a.a e,Ar.EP Im.. •S 6.1 ELEVATION BASED ON NATIONAL GECKOGICAL VERTICAL DATUM(NGVD1 1929 iLLI• 2r I MU I ➢-61 IrAU 6D 7.) HOUSE IS IN ROW ZORE VEIN SATED 0/lb/I2. $ &. E� 6 .�'nG TI.T b Y.....y,:..y & Y...4 .'Pa.....44.y .t.E 6�.SGARLOT2 (071 66, 4N....X..O. R l`-IO"t ADDRESS 2c"2 BAREFOOT BEACH• IiL� 1404r SR..W 24/02 (239)_26t - 5965 / 94.41. d.FP...t�4 Ma 3141 J /� SKETCH OF SURVEY WIDTH OF BAY 275+/_ 1 __25% WATER WIDTH LINE • SHEET 3 OF 3 Cl -BAY �� xao.a C'� x -105 x-105 x 105 x-10.8 4 "� L�,��,E N ,4 x 1D6 C 10.7 -i0.4 56' FROM SHORE LINE TO END OF DOCK 0, , 103 x-10.3 6 m' 2O' 30' 40' 55,1 M.H W.L. TO END OF DOCK x ` - \'102 -10.0 PROPOSED DOCK W 1-9.6 & BOAT LIFT y a H *N -B. FUTURE BOAT. LIFT S• x s 1 lid"' i1- C - 9 46 EDGE OF MANGROVE - v.,'$ IGµ; I `iN_4 . -1,3 Q E P 1i� s1$ N`L ")y \ �T�/ � ' �g 1- 4.02 2J�'h -09 ks` _ op _� _2 teiOtt.-..9/63 �-a�—:_.__ :� 334-'1' (P504) ,1AS ATO , •-OXIMATE TOP OF HANK SURTs�JLW� tL��ON' % •� NA•ic S - ' APPROXI _� 't;�. 4.9 C o3 4"7.91-1 ti1 1 O P EDGE OF MANGROVE 4C Si LEGEND �2 v it in F.CAt 0 FOUND CONCRETE MONUMENT(F R M) �. F.I.R. 0 FOUND 5/B"IRON ROO 5` F.N. FOUND NAIL -. (M) MEASURED ■ (P) PLAT LINDER ROOF I ME MANIENANCE EASEMENT C DRAMAGE EASEMENT .,E 50 3 + U E UTILITY EASEMENT N, <U C O lill A/C AIR-CONDITION U) . FE POOL EQUIPMENT O 00 PL5 PROFESSIONAL LICENSED SURVEYCR ID Q-, ,, PK PARKER KALON (� ; LB LICENSED BUSINESS F 1 3 • PC PANT OF CURVATURE ; ;; F�� pJ A, A (I) CURLS LABEL tt y -Y I'1 MI LI LINE LABEL ^ N1m UN In n E CENIERLNE O n n WM h WATER METER O Iy R- UNDERGROUND TANK V Ee Tn m• I A' N EL ELEVATION Ib 3, - 4.7'1..~i' 4.7'._ N BFP I RACK ROW PREVENTOR V) h DBry a CABLE TELEVISION SOX h 13 1' n 4 14.5' of ,.') 13.2' ttJ TR •3-TELEPHONE RISER �. —. MN W.L MEAN HIGH WATER LINE STAIRS M L W L MEAN LOW WATER LINE — _v — �.L �- -_ 1_`74 Y �j ti 4 n �w� a' S 2"36'46" E 119.77' (M) ~1 - Qe N 21'45'52' W 80 11' (M) 5 21'26'06" E 120.00_(P)A \ h`b N 21'126'06" W 80.00' (P) r N 21'26.06" .L.219, xU _ — f 21'235'24" W 80 OI' (M 2 9 a' Zp 1 CLRB BAREFOOT BEACH BLVD. _ — ,/7/� David B.Bruns, PLS REAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION; Certificate Number 4520 DATE OF SURVEY SEPTEMBER 27, 2013 LOT 2, BAYFRONT GARDENS, A SUBDIVISION ACCORDING TO THE ADDEO PROPOSED DOCK I WATER DEPTHS NOVEMBER 14,2013 PLAT THEREOF,RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 14 PAGE 114 THROUGH 117 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA. REVISED BOAT DOCK SIZE.MARCH 6, 2014 NOT VALID WITHOUT THE SIGNATURE AND THE ORIGINAL RAISED NOTES: SEAL OF A FLORIDA LICENSED SURVEYOR AND MAPPER 1)BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON REFER TO THE CENTERLINE OF BAREFOOT BEACH BLVD, BEING N 21.26'09' IS 1.°'Robert R. Barbarossa & Suzanne Barborossa 2)THIS PROPERTY fS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESERVATIONS OR RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD BOUNDARY , 3) DIMENSIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE IN FEET AND DECIMALS THEREOF. SURVEY • 4)IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN THOSE SHOWN HAVE NOT BEEN LOCATED 5)LEGAL DESCRIPTION SUPPLIED BY CLIENT y 6.)ELEVATION BASED ON NATIONAL GEOLOGICAL VERTICAL DATUM (NGVD) 1929 w9.1.BB. '9Frt �IA... D'AA. � "R LI 1221 60 7.)HOUSE IS IN FLOOD ZONE VE14 DATED 5/16/12. ,/J•rNane. & �TWnb ,/'ILO _ ` Aoroavalt & , .PlawmA.,�. " i iXYucRL C''i 1076 6A. A...,.,..'..K Tt�I_ima \\` ADDRESS: 222 BAREFOOT BEACH BLVD I/W.. Y1..AJ� 0.0.2.6(2;9/324116,- 5965 / 3Y.nM. J — BD-PL20130002460 Rev:1 222 BAREFOOT BEACH BLVD Cross Section A----A Date: 8/29/14 DUE: 9/15/14 • FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES i BD-PL20130002460 ONLY • DIMENSIONS ONL?f(N.T.S.) 56'OVERALL por , 55'PROTRUSION FROM MHWL -_._ EXISTING MANGROVES ¢ ■ . IS 36'BOAT SLIP g r` 12' ■N 14'WALK 6' PROPOSED i. BOAT LIFT 1 -7.r.'"iiii - . II 11:0111 USW(.1.21'NDY0) _I I i-I i .._ 0MLW(•Ob7NGYD) 1 1=11 h ,1=-- =--111----111; 1117-----111= _ -3.0 ALL PILINGS WILL BE WRAPPED 11=-111 I I-111-I 1 I-I I = IN PVC FROM 1 FT ABOVE MHW TO 0.5 FT BELOW SUBSTRATE ----111 1 I I I 111 I� I I I 11 111 I�I--i _ _ 11=1II 11-111-111—I 1 -111-11 -1 11-1 I - -111-111 111-111-111 111 1 I 1..--1.1 1--111-1 11=-1 11= — � 10z i t=1 I I � II 11 1 11 III 1'°- --I _ ' __ - _ �'I II-III- I I-III Iii — i — 11-- , =1 11-1 I I I I I-I 11=I 1 I '111-111-1 11_1 11_1 11-1 I I-1 11-1 11-1 I HI 11 111 11 -1 I I I 11 1 I I- -1 I I 1 1 111 11 I-1[1 111-11 -111-111- 11-111-III= 11=111=111=111 11 =III=111=111_ -1 I I 1 I I III-1 11 1 I I 1 I I I I 1 I I-1 I I-1 1=11 I 1 f 1=1 1 1- 1 1-1 1 1 1-1 I II 1 11= _- 1 = . - ! - 1=1 _., ___ Terrell,Hall&Associates,Inc. ^° ^ 1t BARBAROSSA 'DOCK cm.. W I, _ - -' Marine&Environmental Consulting ,w,o. - 0 i% — ' 3Sg4Exduage Ave.SmkB.Nepks,FL34104-3732 CROSS SECTION 1N0 3°• - Pa•Limaillanclksmeacteom Phone:(239)643-0166 Fn.(239)643.6632 ... ....... ..... .... S E C T I O N- TOWNSHIP-488 RANGE-25E `1, • • .161.L.-fikc,L, 173)6,9\:::.0,0 t'.>45`73peebr.,c_..4. BD-PL20130002460 • Coe.-. 0-v \\■ivlI■IY\Q1‘.4". \t)r C5.-\\LI SPIze..Qt .,es:-- 3'-- t 33' 4---- .--- .-- - ----- _._--- 1 0 1 14-- LI ' -7t 1 I F ktj C. L. -)+ ■ .........] Fl ---,1 1 1 —Pt II ncs .._ —____ . .. _. . .._.........______ s, tocatt. a fl ' 5,dize_. - . .. .. ,51,bt r-, \,0 e- 'll' :5,1 N6'rt)--- A i'i ,, 1 • '..--1 - 1--I — _- -.!.. ?..L,' — — V\"L44 +144 Af4VD i'..:.d — L::.: — 7 - - 1 ."'- - ‘-- - -- - *.'''. - - - .*'!'••• - - - - - - ifit ..•,:.■ ,i.4 • i.!••;.- IAL.Vi 40-1,2 Ne1/3) i•'::. 4 . .. ::,..., 7,:: ; i ,...„.. .-.;-:.. ._,.... ...q, .... T, '..! , -.--, ,.......4.- !. ,... '..e s.„.. i .A 1-.....:. .:.. Of. i.:-... .•l' Fis.4; !.;:F.;. ...,".' 1,.,... 1..:.. k.',Y): ;,:-.•,....' ■ ..,' ...V' ...4 • n. I ;.:1' .- :-. • .1 j:::Y.., ....';',' -.:2:;,i - !...:7..f 1 •i':' 1:.;:4, :,....:- . .. ,:..P..' '.':- 'i- ' . 1','‘. BD-PL20130002460 Rev:1 • eg,g,,..).... \1%,6•L 12. 4- tJ„ BIJJ- i 222 BAREFOOT BEACH BLVD Date: 8/29/14 DUE: 9/15/14 ] Pursuit Boats- OS 315 OFFSHORE Page 1 of 1 `--,- OFFSHORE CENTER CONSOLE DUAL CONSOLE SPORT COUPE SPORT TENDER 1 • Lewitt Cater I� Request Infeeewatlon ! ca Build A seat ( EXPLORE Mlaseetee Specifications • _ • LO.A w/Pulpit 32'8'(9.98 m) - Beam 10'8'(325 m) ,u - HuII Drag F r .��A�•• (motors up) '.'9'(0 53 m) •3 -1 �! � (motors down) 3'0'(0 91 m) 7-,-- Glearanrs wMardtcp w, _ (from waterline) 9'3'(2.75 m) - • ' Approx.Dry Weight --. , '? /� (twin 300 engines) 11.015 lba(4,989 kg) / i.4 ' / Fuel Capacity 284 U.S.gallons(1.0751 U „` Fresh Water apacity 30 U S.gallons(113 6L) _ '5"- C Holding Tank Capacity 18 U S.gallons(68.1 l)Livewell Capacity 32 U.S.gallons(121 1) . - Fishbox Capacity 2 39 US.gal(2 148 U •��,,.,,,� Max Horsepower 600 hp(447.4 kw) '�• .. _. Sleeping Capacity 4 Deadrise 20' For yacht-caliber comfort in a manageable size,the OS instant access to the ceiling mounted rod storage in the :r• es � 315 fits the bill.Its enclosed helm,integral hardtop and mid-cabin berth. JJJ vented windshield afford unobstructed visibility,optimal \\ e I I weather protection and comfort during those long,relaxing The OS 315's 284-gallon fuel capac ty ensures you'll have • -- days on the water the range to get to blue water or to the out islands:the hardest part will be deciding where you want to go. 'Net tank capacity Ample companion seating in the helm area ensures the The usable fuel opacity will be affected by several factors, captain can enjoy camaraderie while he or she is at the The mid-cabin berth also affords cabinet storage and a including EPA-required fuel system components,temperature helm or while relaxing at the dock convenient location where the kids can nap or guests can and loading of the boat These radars will reduce the usable sleep during overnight stays.Additional sleeping fuel capacity by apprwematey 10% The expansive cockpit with Its plush cushioned stem seat arrangements are afforded by the forward V-berth that affords additional space for entertaining guests or for easily converts to an expansive dinette.The galley Specifications as well as standard end optional equipment are lounging in the sun in a remote spot.Anglers and cruisers simplifies meal preparation on board with a single burner subject to change without notice All measurements alike will appreciate the dose proximity of the 38-gallon stove,Conanee countertop,stainless steel refrigerator,sink approximate For more information and pricing,please comas insulated cooler in the stem seat base. with hot and cold pressurized water,microwave and ample yourPunsuk dealer. For fishing,the OS 315 features a 32-gallon recirculating cabinet storage.The head compartment Includes a stylish g ng glass•vessel sink with pressurized hot and cold water,a and livewell,tackle drawers an storage in the helm Performance Reports g vanity mirror,Vacu Flush head,towel bar and a convenient Twin 300 HP Yamaha Four-Stroke companionway and a conveniently-located hatch for shower sprayer. Twin 250 HP varnana Four-Stroke Brochure-View Online Gallery Show Standard Equipment Shorn, Optional Equipment • S,,,M, BD-PL20130002460 Rev: 1 222 BAREFOOT BEACH BLVD Date: 8/29/14 DUE: 9/15/14 • Dealer Locator News/Events Press Room Store About Us Owners Contact G 2014 PURSUR BOATS All rights reserved htto://www.nursuitboats.com/OS315.nho 5/5/2014 0 , . l{ 1 It 4 , , e y t f, \tie +.,, Pe')1'� � ' G. „ . Yom. - " 4 {''V'l_y - _ i 5� r�' -,t.-=.';_-,214., ' `` i X t , , ' .--•' 4*,,f.tpaVr..9',,c._-_/-47---,i i i___71 i r r r M 1 ----"1 di - . i ? III; g t Perpendicular boat slips at 218 Barefoot Bch. Blvd. • <. a 4'� if s. 1007177 . f 1 Ike 1 Milt , 'P , • �y �.3 _" �a _ ■ 3 ` e �m7 elm= ,. . _ _ ,_. .4 ' _ Ii.ima l Wil 4 ISO irW' . _ 1 i— t' el.,�sue. ° v - - Perpendicular boat slips at 224 Barefoot Bch. Blvd. • BD-PL20130002460 Rev: 1 222 BAREFOOT BEACH BLVD Date: 8/29/14 DUE: 9/15/14 CCPC RESOLUTION 06-...113_ A RESOLUTION OF THE COI.I.IFR COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RELATING TO PE ITTION NUMBER BD-2005-AR-8828 FOR AN EXTENSION OF A BOAT DOCK ON PROPERTY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN COT.I.TFR ._COUNTY FIORIDA.. „ _ 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 (LDC) (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 (CCPC), being duly appointed, has held a properly noticed public hearing and considered the advisability of an I8-foot boat dock extension from the 20-foot length otherwise allowed by LDC Section 5.03.06. to authorize a new 38-foot boat docking facility located in a PUD Zoning District for the property hereinafter described; and . WHEREAS, the CCPC has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by LDC Section 5.03.06.;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: Petition Number BD-2005-AR-8828,filed on behalf of Ruediger&Barbara Brunsberg by Ben Nelson Jr.of Nelson Marine Construction,for the property hereinafter described as: Lot 2, Bayfront Gardens, as described in Plat Book 14, Page 114-117,of the Public Records of Collier County,Florida, be,and the same is hereby approved for, an 18-foot boat dock extension from the 20-foot protrusion allowed by Section 5.03.06. for a protrusion of 38 feet into the waterway for a new boat docking facility in a PUD Zoning District wherein said property is located,subject to the following conditions: 1. Corresponding permits,or letters of exemption,from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection shall be provided to Collier County prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. Reflectors and house numbers of no less than four(4)inches in height shall be installed at the outermost end on both sides of all docks or mooring pilings,whichever protrudes the furthest into the waterway,prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Completion. Page 1 of 2 ill 3. At least one(1) "Manatee Area" sign shall be posted in a conspicuous manner as close as possible to the furthest protrusion of the dock into the waterway, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Completion. 4. All prohibited exotic species,as such term may now or hereinafter be defined by the LDC,shall be removed from the subject property prior to issuance of the required Certificate of Completion and the property shall be maintained free from all prohibited exotic species in - -- perpetuity.- . . - _- ... - .. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this Commission and filed with the County Clerk's Office. This Resolution adopted after motion,second and majority vote. Done this 16 day of 1'i CIA GL ,2006. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COL'IF CO FL'' n A BY: (\i COI'L ,� �: P.STRAIN,Chairman ATTEST: • Jo•ep K.Schmitt C unity Development and Environmental Juices Administrator Approved as to F iiv •. d`.e•a .. -.cy: Jeffrey A klaakow . Assistant County A :or. BD-2005-AR-8628/JE/p 1110 Page 2 of 2 BARBAROSSA RESIDENCE 222 BAREFOOT BEACH BLVD NAPLES, FL-34134 SUBMERGED RESOURCE SURVEY JANUARY 22,2014 PREPARED BY: TURRELL,HALL&ASSOCIATES,INC 3584 EXCHANGE AVENUE,STE B NAPLES,FL 34104 BD-PL20130002460 Rev: 1 Ai 222 BAREFOOT BEACH BLVD gip Date: 8/29/14 • DUE: 9/15/14 BARBAROSSA RESLDENCE SUBMERGED RESOURCE SURVEY JANUARY 22,2014 • 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Barbarossa residence and associated proposed docking facility is located at 222 ...A3arefont Beach. Blvd,-.identified by._ParceLNumber. 23095000209. The--:pry is �_ ._.._�. .. located off Barefoot Beach Blvd just south of Bonita Beach Road, bound to the west by Barefoot Beach Blvd, bound to the east by a Little Hickory Bay, and bound to the south by a single-family residence. The property is located in Section 06, Township 48 South, and Range 25 East. The upland portion of the property is a single-family residence. Turrell, Hall & Associates was contracted to provide environmental permitting services and one aspect is the associated Submerged Resource Survey (SRS). This survey will provide planning and review assistance to both owners and agency reviewers in regards to proposed project. The proposed project consists of constructing a single-family dock within Vanderbilt Bay. The SRS survey was conducted on January 17, 2014. Light north winds, mostly clear skies, and a low full moon tide resulted in visible access to the entire project area. Surface water conditions on this day were calm which also helped to provide fair environmental conditions for the survey. The water temperature was 62°F. Low tide occurred at 8:01 A.M (-0.4')and high tide occurred at 2:05 P.M (1.8') on the date of the • survey. 2.0 OBJECTIVE The objective of the submerged resource survey was to identify and locate any existing submerged resources within the limits of the proposed project. The survey provided onsite environmental information to help determine if the proposed project would impact any existing submerged resources and if so would assist in reconfiguring the proposed dock in order to minimize any impacts. The general scope of work performed at the site is summarized below. • Turrell,Hall &Associates personnel conducted a site visit and I snorkeled these transects within the proposed project basin and verified the location of any submerged resources. * Turrell, Hall &Associates personnel identified submerged resources at the site, estimated the % of coverage, and delineated the approximate limits of any submerged resources observed. • Turrell, Hall & Associates personnel delineated limits via a handheld GPS (Garmin Model 76csx). Page 1 of 3 BARBAROSSA RESIDENCE SUBMERGED RESOURCE SURVEY JANUARY 22,2014 • 3.0 METHODOLOGY Turrell, Hall & Associates biologists intentionally designed the methodology of the SRS to cover the entire property shoreline_for-thepr.,pos dock installation. The components -.. for this survey included: • Review of aerial photography of survey area •Establish survey transects lines overlaid onto aerials • Physically swim transects, GPS locate limits of submerged resources, and determine approximate percent of coverage • Document and photograph all findings The surveyed area was evaluated systematically by following the established transects spaced approximately 10-feet apart as shown on the attached exhibit. The neighboring properties have existing docks which provided easily identifiable reference markers, such as dock piles which assisted in locating transects and keeping them consistent throughout most of the survey area. One biologist walked/swam these transects using snorkel equipment where needed within • the surveyed area. The other individual assisted with compiling notes and documenting findings on aerials. Located submerged resources were photographed, the approximate percent of coverage was quantified, and the location was delineated on an aerial photo as well as confirmed via handheld GPS (Gannin Model 72H). The biologists used a half meter square quadrant further broken into sections by cordage to make coverage estimates easier. 4.0 RESULTS The substrate found within the surveyed area included two distinct classifications; silt sand with shell debris and just silt/muck material scattered throughout. These substrates were found scattered throughout the surveyed area. There was also scattered shell debris along the property shoreline. The shoreline consisted of red mangroves and scattered rip-rap both of which provide habitat for numerous fish,crabs, and barnacles,growing on and around the mangrove roots. The majority of the survey area exhibited a silt/muck bottom that was devoid of any aquatic vegetation growth or any types of submerged resources. The lack of any submerged resources is most likely due to the overall water quality within Little Hickory Bay as well as the water clarity not allowing much sunlight penetration. This was most evident in the deeper water depths. Page 2 of 3 BARBAROSSA RESIDENCE SUBMERGED RESOURCE SURVEY JANUARY 22,2014 • Various filamentous algae and macro algae were observed and documented growing along the bottom sediments throughout the survey area. Also observed were numerous fish species during the survey and a list of these species has been prepared and is provided below as Table 1. Table 1 —Observed Fish Species Common Name Scientific Name mangrove snapper Lutjanus griseus sheepshead Archosargus probatocephalus striped mullet Mugil cephalus snook Centrompus undecimalis jack crevalle Caranx hippos 5.0 CONCLUSIONS The submerged resource survey at the site yielded few findin y:. Barnacles were observed growing on the mangrove roots and existing dock piles. The subject property shoreline consists of mangroves which provide natural cover. This mangrove area was • where all the observed fish species were located including: Gray Snapper (Lutjanus griseus), Sbeepshead (Archosargus probatocephalus), Stripped Mullet (Mugil cephalus), and a few Common Snooks(Centropomus undecimalis). Negative impacts to submerged resources are not expected with the proposed docking facility installation. • Page 3 of 3 pr a 6\• !I,Xit lu;vXt4r,Z ilikli. .1' \ 4 r r 3,7 Co. SCAL:c 7N'ITV i \ P•, ,. \ \ \ \ 1 _____/_____,...--ic,„,\....,- a , \ \\\\ \\ \ ----..."'-..---".- ,,,kir .. • 4 ' \ ''',■ \ 4111\\ ttirk\ '.....--- . SITE ADDRESS. \ \ 222 BAREFOOT BEACH BLVD 3413.1 \\` \ \ \ \ NAPLES FL 341 e t .k J t, \ ®TYPICAL DIVE TRANSFCT I-��r /, ill' H • .•.{ i - C DMNYg8 M1E iS#PERM'•1W ONLY AMU PURPOSES ON AMU` ARE MOT"MOM v'N COMbfRUCIW WE • NJ DATUM IMOM,HEREON III REii-At71t60 TO MLW •r RJRSEVCOURTbiY Cc NO SIDNEY DATA A,AU, W' • 3 bCRKY NSTND YY-06YYR 4 r a Tutrell,Halt&Associates,Inc, '"� Mame&EnvironmentalConsulting BARBAROSSA RESIDENCE ••Im A ,., NR „A MY _a MD NO •,A. A MR MY Mir MA c s584 Exchange Ave.Site B.NpleE,FL 34104-3732 SUBMERGED RESOURCE SURVEY MEET NO i, A CC NA WA MA 1 I Email .," ,. yip hone(239)W3-0166 Far(7J�N36632 9ECTON-OD TOWNSHIP-485 23E _ . �� t. • g-,-,,,,T. 4,j, '.`a a •pt- •1► . y ..,. t, k Ya.F I' t- •i.a, sr - -. , if a i • 1 .+• ,w. _ a ■ • • Existing Dock walkway through mangrove shoreline • crf �a s• sap : ,' iii • Looking north on existing dock along mangrove shoreline • .41;174,.21:v _. s.� "}�' A'-' '`J' t t .ti.e •t",',,,-t, •i . r v l • p • .ast N!' Typical oyster debris • '"S va.. '041 I ! ••• ' ' A, xA r \INif • I '! �, r • Typical shell and oyster debris • AGENDA ITEM 4-C 54Lcouty STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER FROM: ZONING DIVISION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING: APRIL 9, 2015 SUBJECT: BD-PL20140002207, HENDERSON CREEK BOAT DOCK EXTENSION PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT: Owner: Real Estate Technology Corporation Agent: Kris W. Thoemke of Naples Coastal Engineering Consultants,Inc 900 Broad Avenue South, Unit 2C 3106 South Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34102 Naples,FL 34104 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner requests a 10-foot boat dock extension over the maximum permitted protrusion of 20 feet to allow construction of a boat docking facility protruding a total of 30 feet into a waterway that is 90 feet wide. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject site is located at 952 Henderson Creek Drive on the south side of Henderson Creek Drive and on the north shore of Henderson Creek. The folio numbers are 00725080004 and 00725720005. (See attached Location Map.) • PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The purpose of the project is a request for a 10-foot boat dock extension beyond the maximum 20 feet for the subject lot. The boat dock facility will contain nine slips. The total overwater dock structure proposed is approximately 1,865 square feet and will protrude a total of 30 feet into a waterway that is approximately 90 feet from Mean High Water (MHW) line to the opposite shore. There is no dredging proposed for this project and the total length shoreline is approximately 319 linear feet. The upland site has been approved for a maximum of 44 dwelling units(Dockside RPUD). BD-PL20140002207 Page 1 of 7 Henderson Creek Boat Dock Extension. M:'C'''''i'rn"cst n 1 f rll NM 0.,\mr III miens _.� ..... L—_i i 'I'! Vi•�. • I =` ,S•s PUD of MH SITE 1 r'� L n x s .u. LOCATION e'er eua `� I -.:. .� MH t_RIL . o 1 1 _ \LOCATION �/� III 1 aril 2-44'11 iln1 u1°pppGGGGD IIM1 lao ter. =no \ "'e vr 'ry : ' : oaoo�o�vo o °Wle . R 7 11111 Q�G9Soo °� g 0, III..r rezniiaiii. --'�_._ r _ A ii 1 I -I"� �iQOQQQQE �a�' a " I/r. „ � C-4 C,. I RMF-12 a RMF-1818/ a I� 1 �: tiN ¢ LOCATION MAP ZONING MAP PETITION BD-PL-2014-2207 ■ SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING: SUBJECT PARCEL: Undeveloped parcel,zoned Dockside Residences RPUD SURROUNDING: North: Henderson Creek Drive ROW, across which are mobile home residences, zoned MH East: Mobile home residences,zoned MH South: Henderson Creek, across which are mobile home residences,zoned MH West: Multifamily residences, zoned RMF-6 t #1 II I Aerial of subject shoreline(Google) ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION: Environmental Planning Staff has reviewed this petition and has no objection to the granting of this request. Section 5.03.06(E)(11), of the Land Development Code (LDC), Manatee Protection, is applicable to multi-slip docking facilities with ten(10) or more slips. The proposed facility consists of nine boat slips and is therefore not subject to the provisions of this section. STAFF ANALYSIS: Section 5.03.06.E.2 of the LDC, Standards for Dock Facilities, states that for lots on a canal or waterway that is less than 100 feet in width, dock facilities may occupy no more than 25 percent of the width of the waterway or protrude greater than 20 feet into the waterway, whichever is less. Twenty five percent of a 90-foot waterway is 22.5 feet, making 20 feet the lesser number;therefore,the request is for a 10-foot extension over the required 20 feet. BD-PL20140002207 Page 3 of 7 Henderson Creek Boat Dock Extension. The Collier County Hearing Examiner (HEX) shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny, a dock facility extension request based on certain criteria. In order for the HEX to approve this request, it must find 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 recommends the following findings to the HEX: Primary Criteria 1. Whether the number of dock facilities and/or boat slips proposed is appropriate in relation to the waterfront length, location, upland land use and zoning of the subject property. Consideration should be made of property on unbridged barrier islands, where vessels are the primary means of transportation to and from the property. (The number should be appropriate; typical single-family use should be no more than two slips; typical multi-family use should be one slip per dwelling unit; in the case of unbridged barrier island docks,additional slips may be appropriate.) Criterion met. The proposed dock facility consists of 9 boat slips, which is appropriate in relation to the 319 linear feet of water frontage of the subject lot. The proposed residential component of this project has been approved for a maximum of 44 units, so 9 slips is appropriate. 2. Whether the water depth at the proposed site is so shallow that a vessel of the general length, type and draft as that described in the petitioner's application is unable to launch or moor at mean low tide (MLT). (The petitioner's application and survey should establish that the water depth is too shallow to allow launching and mooring of the vessel(s) described without an extension.) Criterion met. According to the petitioner's application the water depth for the proposed dock facility will be 2.77 feet at MLW,and the proposed draft of the boats is 2 feet. 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 information submitted by the petitioner, the proposed facility will not adversely impact navigation and shall leave 50 percent of the creek unobstructed. 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.) BD-PL20140002207 Page 4 of 7 Henderson Creek Boat Dock Extension. Criterion not met. Information provided in the application indicates that the proposed dock will protrude 30 feet(33.3 percent) into a waterway that is 90 feet in width. The docks on the opposite shoreline protrude 15 feet (16.7 percent). Therefore,the dock facility will maintain the required minimum of 50 percent of the waterway as open. However, since the dock facility protrudes more than 25 percent (33.3 percent)this criterion is not met. 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. Since neighboring docks are on the opposite shoreline, the proposed dock should not cause any interference. Secondary Criteria 1. Whether there are special conditions not involving water depth, related to the subject property or waterway, which justify the proposed dimensions and location of the proposed dock facility. (There must be at least one special condition related to the property; these may include type of shoreline reinforcement,shoreline configuration,mangrove growth,or seagrass beds.) Criterion met. The subject shoreline is stabilized with rip-rap. The applicant states that the angle of the rip-rap prevents a dock facility within 20 feet. 2. Whether the proposed dock facility would allow reasonable, safe access to the vessel for loading/unloading and routine maintenance, without the use of excessive deck area not directly related to these functions. (The facility should not use excessive deck area.) Criterion met. The dock is proposed at 6 feet in width,which is not excessinve. 3. For single-family dock facilities, whether the length of the vessel, or vessels in combination, described by the petitioner, exceeds 50 percent of the subject property's linear waterfront footage. (The applicable maximum percentage should be maintained.) Criterion not applicable. The proposed dock would be in support of a multifamily development. 4. Whether the proposed facility would have a major impact on the waterfront view of neighboring property owners. (The facility should not have a major impact on the view of a neighboring property owner.) Criterion met. The view shed of neighboring properties will not be impacted. BD-PL20140002207 Page 5 of 7 Henderson Creek Boat Dock Extension. 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 the LDC must be demonstrated.) Criterion met. According to the information submitted by the applicant,no seagrass beds were found within 200 feet of the proposed dock facility. Therefore, there will be no impact to seagrass beds. 6. Whether the proposed dock facility is subject to the manatee protection requirements of subsection 5.03.06(E)(11) of this Code. (If applicable, compliance with section 5.03.06(E)(11) must be demonstrated.) Criterion not applicable. The petitioner's property is a nine slip facility and is not subject to the provisions of the Manatee Protection Plan. Staff analysis indicates that this request meets four of the five primary criteria. Regarding the six secondary criteria, criteria 3 and 6 are not applicable, and the request meets all of the remaining four secondary criteria. APPEAL OF BOAT DOCK EXTENSION TO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS: As to any boat dock extension petition upon which the HEX takes action, an aggrieved petitioner, or adversely affected property owner, may appeal such final action to the Board of County Commissioners. Such appeal shall be filed with the Growth Management Department Administrator within 30 days of the Decision by the HEX. In the event that the petition has been approved by the HEX, the applicant shall be advised that he/she proceeds with construction at his/her own risk during this 30-day period. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The Office of the County Attiorney reviewed the Staff Report for BD-PL20140002207 on March 30, 2015. SAS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the above findings, Staff recommends that the Hearing Examiner approve Petition BD-PL20140002207 subject to the following condition: 1. Construction of the docks shall not commence until the approval of a Site Development Plan for the upland housing development and the subject docks and the issuance of a building permit for the upland housing development, as well as the docks. A Certificate of Occupancy(CO) shall not be issued for the docks until a CO has been issued for the upland housing development. BD-PL20140002207 Page 6 of 7 Henderson Creek Boat Dock Extension. PREPARED BY: FRED. : 'ISCHL,A1CP,PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: . L 3• 26•Ir,/ RAY I ND V. BELLOWS,ZONING MANAGER DATE ZONI 'G DIVISION APPROVED BY:MIKE BOSI,AICP,DIRECTOR DATE ZONING DIVISION BD-PL20140002207 Henderson Creek Boat Dock Extension. I HENDERSON CREEK DOCK BOAT DOCK EXEMPTION PREPARED FOR: REAL ESTATE TECHNOLOGY CORP. OF NAPLES INDEX 1. COVER SHEET 2 PROPOSED DOCK PLAN VIEW 0 i I 3. PROPOSED DOCK CROSS SECTION C TIDAL INFORMATION .p 7 mi{ ' T ilk IDAL DATUMS AT HENDERSON CREEK ARE BASED ON TIDE INTERPOLATION POINT ID'100755(FROM LABINS) '.M'it, -?:?T TIDAL EPOCH = 1963-2001 ' ELEVATIONS OF TIDAL DATUMS ARE REFERENCED IN } NAVD 1988. `\ c_- -- MEAN HIGH WATER(MHW) = +0.40 FT NAVD I MEAN LOW WATER(MLW) =-1.73 FT NAVD LOCATION MAP N.T.S. a I COASTAL GNU.ENGINEERING ENGINEERING WWI '"T` WOLF €? ENGINEERING COASTAL ENGINEERING REAL ESTATE TECH.CORP.OF NAPLES cp.. " F6 ovr CONSULTANTS ENVIRONMENTAL ,I,LF a -INC. PLANN1NO3""CES HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTY c.NNNO '"""°` EG FAX cow., 9EC. I1W p1o. X. FAX Foxe MT) PHONE-IMMO-2324 COVER SHEET __ 3106 SOUTH HORSESHOE DRIVE wN.M F „^ �� 11/06�EPETRpNAq _.. __ NAPLES.FLORIDA 34101 Eyv one®ya6 corn w.NO 13 MR no DATE w NMbN OMMITON w O Z 0 20 40 80 O m SCALE:1"=40' �� 0. f NS,,. _lb 1 5w (PROPOSED MANATEE EDUCATIONAL SIGN _— �'//� —` 0 a y � I I EXISTING UOUK / o PROPOSED DOCK i f'` i � -.. G. o [FOOTPRINT -- \---j �j, . O i o. APPROX. _ '0 ���a; MHW LINE lfB i // `:�,`,,' 118.00' ,4/40 L•A _ 30 i m w. _,4a 25 viiiiii...,. ..._ , , _ b i, ik 1 A 4 F NOTES: PROJECT INFO: 1. INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON REFLECTS CONDITIONS AS • SHORELINE LENGTH:319 FT '1°' THEY EXISTED ON THE SURVEY DATE SHOWN AND CAN ONLY • DOCK AREA CREEKWARD OF BE CONSIDERED INDICATIVE OF CONDITIONS AT THAT TIME. MHW 1.865 SF 2 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY OBTAINED FROM COWER COUNTY, • SLIP DIMENSIONS:30 FT x 10 FT 4 r DATED DECEMBER 2013. TOTAL SLIPS:9 '4 COASTAL CML GINEERI6 ..NT at s�GVr ENGINEERING SURVEY{6uPPINO REAL ESTATE TECH.CORP.OF NAPLES "'"" A8"1°Tn COASTAL ENGINEERING _..... plow F6 CONSULTANTS AL ENGINEERING Ime g N INC. PLANNING SERVICES HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTY `�"� 'w'"ro "Woo,F .`° •9n •4°NE Iz"'3-"" PROPOSED DOCK PLAN VIEW �� /MP 1603 3100 SOUTH HORSESHOE DRIVE .n<•tl (a1•n Mn}p 1143 Acb ho 1310680E PETITION e•p NAPLES.FLORIDA 33101 Eil. •.0044.1 a. NWT NO v .0044.1 13106 NO DATE 6 a[h51oN otsc•wiori I ■ I 30.0' BLACK POLYETHYLENE -- PILE CAP PROPOSED r DIA. PILE RUBRPJL---., — .... TIMBER PILE(TYP) )T s 10 FT ALLOWANCE FOR DOCKED VESSELS 10.0' ' DECK SPACING 5.0' 1/8"TYP. 71E IN WITH 5/8'0 THRU BOLTS EXISTING GRADE W/WASHERS BOTH ENDS 3"X 8" r 6.0'--------- STRINGER ELEV.+2.3'(NAND) L 8'TYP. AMMIIIIIIIK T 7' MHW ELEV.=+0.40'(NAVD1 •�• 3•x 10" CLAMP I PILE WRAP FROM MLW ELEV._"1.73'(NAVD) CLAMP TO 1FT PJTPROX BELOWMUDLINE PILE WRAP CREEK BED I `+-__- FROM CLAMP fff"��� TO MUDUNE I 1.11 L I 1 I I I k a 1 k a 1 aJ a/ ka! SECTION A-A SCALE•1"=4' S COASTAL CNIL ENGINEERING NieAT. -ses ,.. E ENGINEERING SURVEY"UPPING REAL ESTATE TECH.CORP.OF NAPLES 14'A AS NOM . COASTAL ENGINEERING prom ENT s6 CONSULTANTS ENVIRONMENTAL m a INC. _ PLANNING SERVICES HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTY PoicAE° Much4 ,�. T PROPOSED DOCK CROSS-SECTIONS �1 Svd.N Flwm Sane+3n PHONE.(734)6N}3.711 3105 SOUTH IORSESNOE DRIVE FAX fy1114Nngnynns.cpn3 y"�� f11666OE PETRFN My NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 qWw NAM'V�caoR-mm Acs No 11106 ,.p ...n IP WARM OFJP•710.1 • . .- • AMU am 1 o � r _�d \i a a o 0 o a o o it -\\ .\ , iii i + o i I.. ...• .. ''.I .. ... . . I _ tk ii` .C%LII1 .171 i ^ 1Iji 1luQ�1�C j-Ir�-a l-iiiJIl 11 r�r� i ;'f \\ , , _` 4 1 IIA11"AIl4 ii i i ' itsR1 ■i ELft ( L_— �illnin f ® m ® ■ ■ . ........_ ,,.1 ;i s _. .. '9'4.1 i 2. _. _. .. .. _. _. _, .I.... _. _• _ _. �`^�; __] fD ® m \'mac ;' I n o 0 o �~ p—_��� q_o_}_ o 0 0 o c o a A ; I I I 1 SOW MIA B % NN lad .. 14N - I ■I i � I�� r n ttcieo _ .7.... s. .,.. ,,,,.,,..,.,•,�,,,• DOCKS/DB RSSW NCtS ®CradyMinor ti....w. SITE LAYOUT PUN. ca riow.. • Lopl Po m • Rom. • r..r.....a..N SF` • • • 1 -=-.- fit.v). .L, , - : , 1 "` .�,_'+ *' TURBIDITY CONTROLS AND MONITORING SHALL BE 710 R All 1 ' �" I IMPLEMENTED DURING ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES �y/J/ ' { - IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PERMITTED TURBIDITY PLAN 1, fy� • i�s., F .• '' .. r"�71 :. i .4 sM t• q ''tti.�a '1i J ' A � r .. A _ '""� r_ e i r ' . _ 100 VIDE DRAINAGE if - . i. +.��'aa1;. e7 '. ..1 t ..:+t.. EASEMENTA �" ^`` '� y -(O.R BOOK 76.PAGES 127-129) - _ ,�TURBIDITY SAMPLING • R .*.7 „ `+ ..ai •- t # K. -.. t'•1/MI • ; _i S fAT10N 200 FROM DOCK •.. i -1 - s PROPOSED MANATEE s r'I I. • '" ti - FDUCA TIONAL SIGN.a ,�y J Ax *r. ' + a' J EXISTING DOCK •- l ' ' z - PROPOSED DOCK ..si /'' //,./ - 4.�..�s • A FOO IPRINT r ,{G ���// .k• - A r .,r -.fit f.1P-- : /, _ .� 5 • .., �% e'er,. %, �� �jj�% 1 M a ice* ,`�A ». .a Y .�' N i,G%/// w ` MH JNE i� T // P5 \ - _ // /U//; ^ \ tER ymot .1\P N _ A.......- .`(•• 1 .COAST - ISUL TAN NO INC. T �}� FLOR+ .o SINE HORIrATION NO.LH 2464 ji• i'1 TURBIDITY MARK A KINCAID,PE SAMPLING is . 100'VIDE DRAINAGE STA ITON 200 . ` -' - EASEMENT "ROIDALIENENGI -. F RnM->nrK + ,;._ - -- '- - ti ` .ATE OF LICENSE Na 5':C.. T 77 - v' ;,,.. (O.R.BOOK 76.PAGES 127.129) ATE OF SIGNATURE: 1 !, NOTES: PROJECT INFO: _ 1. BATHYMETRIC SURVEY COMPLETED BY COASTAL ▪ SHORELINE LENGTH:319 FT » * - ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS,INC.,ON JULY 24,2013. • 2. CONTOURS SHOWN HEREON ARE IN FEET BELOW THE E... t NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988(NAVE)1988). • DOCK AREA CREEKWARD OF 3. INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON REFLECTS CONDITIONS AS MHW:1.885 SF 41*. �. A THEY EXISTED ON THE SURVEY DATE SHOWN AND CAN ONLY SLIP DIMENSIONS:30 FT z 10 F i BE CONSIDERED INDICATIVE OF CONDITIONS AT THAT TIME. f 4. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY OBTAINED FROM COLLIER COUNTY. ▪ TOTAL SLIPS.9 '♦ DATED JANUARY 2012. • COASTAL :• �,TR ENGINEERING SURVEY'MAFRINO REAL ESTATE TECH.CORP ORP.OF NAPLES COASTAL ENGINE_RING CONSULTANTS ENVIRONMENTAL nRt INC. PLANNING SERVICES HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTY . GEOONpa• r CS SOUTH PNGNE(23gp.3-v2. PROPOSED DOCK PLAN VIEW Ng ©�=M_� FAX 039)643-I Ida IF:: 15 SOUTH HORSEE 04 DRIVE E414 gn,eenng�,wn IAIMDOCK INVEST.DWG=®m M ES EL.IRIOA 34104 EyNI myOmeotown Coiner County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE • GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 DOCK FACILITY EXTENSION OR BOATHOUSE ESTABLISHMENT PETITION APPLICATION AND SUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS__ LDC Section 5.03.06 Chapter 3 B.of the Administrative Code The following information is intended to guide the applicant through the application and public hearing process for a Dock Facility Extension or Boathouse Establishment Petition. Prior to submitting the Dock Facility Extension or Boathouse Establishment Petition application, the applicant shall attend a pre-application meeting to determine if a dock facility extension or boathouse establishment is available and to discuss the location, length/protrusion, and configuration of the proposed boat dock facility. The pre-application fee is $500.00 and will be credited toward application fee upon submittal. If the application is not submitted within 9 months of the pre-application meeting the pre-app fee will be forfeited and will not be credited toward the application fee. In order for the application to be processed,all accompanying materials(see attached submittal checklist) shall be completed and submitted with the application. The application fee for a Dock Facility Extension or Boathouse Establishment is $1,500.00, plus $925.00 for required legal advertising. After submission of the completed application packet, accompanied with the required fees, the applicant will receive a response notifying that the petition is being processed. Accompanying that response will be a receipt for the payment and the tracking number (i.e., BDE- PL20120000000) assigned to the petition. This petition tracking number should be noted on all future correspondence regarding the petition. Pursuant to the LDC and the Administrative Code, several public notice requirements shall be completed within the required time frames. The Planning and Zoning Department will provide, at the cost of the applicant, legal notification to surrounding property owners within 500 feet of the subject property and newspaper advertisement (required 15 days prior to the advertised Hearing Examiner hearing date). The applicant will be notified by email of the hearing date and will receive a copy of the Staff Report. It is recommended, but not required, that the applicant or the agent attend the Hearing Examiner hearing. Please contact the Growth Management Division at 252-2400 for further assistance completing this application. 6/3/2014 Page 1 of 7 Collier County • COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 DOCK FACILITY EXTENSION OR BOATHOUSE ESTABLISHMENT PETITION LDC Section 5.03.06 --M.3 B.of the Administrative Code THIS PETITION IS FOR(check one): � DOCK EXTENSION I BOATHOUSE PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME To be completed by staff DATE PROCESSED APPLICANT INFORMATION Applicant(s): REAL ESTATE TECHNOLOGY ATTN: CARL KUEHNER Address: 900 BROAD AVENUE SOUTH#2C City: Naples State: Florida Zlp: 34102 Telephone: Cell:Cell: Fax: • E-Mail Address: RETCJK @AOL.COM Name of Agent: KRIS W. THOEMKE Firm: COASTAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. Address: 3106 S. HORSESHOE DRIVE City: NAPLES State: FLORIDA ZIP: 34104 Telephone: 239-643-2324 EXT. 156 Cell: Fax: 239-643-1143 E-Mail Address: KTHOEMKE @CECIFL.COM PROPERTY LOCATION Section/Township/Range: 03 /51S/26E Property I.D. Number: 00725720005 and 00725080004 Subdivision: Unit: Lot: Block: Address/General Location of Subject Property: 952 Henderson Creek Drive Current Zoning and Land use of Subject Property: VACANT RESIDENTIAL, DOCKSIDE RPUD BE AWARE THAT COLLIER COUNTY HAS LOBBYIST REGULATIONS.GUIDE YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY AND ENSURE THAT YOU ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THESE REGULATIONS. 6/3/2014 Page 2 of 7 Co Iftr y 1 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE • GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE Zoning __._____ ._ —_ Land Use- _ N MH MOBILE HOME COMMUNITY S MH MOBILE HOME COMMUNITY E MH TRAILER PARK W RMF-6 MULTIFAMILY DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Narrative description of project(indicate extent of work,new dock, replacement,addition to existing facility,any other pertinent information): The purpose of the proposed activity is to construct a new shore-parallel docking facility that will accommodate up to nine small vessels(20 feet of less) with a draft of two feet or less.The dock is for the private use of residents of the residents. No live-aboard slips,fueling facilities,sewage pump-outs or other boating related services are proposed.Construction will be with plastic-wrapped wood pilings and plastic/composite decking. SITE INFORMATION 1. Waterway Width: 93 ft. Measurement from❑plat ❑survey ❑ visual estimate ❑ other(specify) 2. Total Property Water Frontage: 320 ft, 3. Setbacks: Provided: 25 ft. Required: t5 ft. 4. Total Protrusion of Proposed Facility into Water: 30 ft. 5. Number and Length of Vessels to use Facility: 1. 9 @ 10-20 ft. 2. ft. 3. ft. 6. List any additional dock facilities in close proximity to the subject property and indicate the total protrusion into the waterway of each: Docks on the opposite(south side)of the Henderson Creek extend 15+/-feet into Henderson Creek however water depths are greater on the south side of the Creek. 7. Signs are required to be posted for all petitions. On properties that are 1 acre or larger in size, the applicant shall be responsible for erecting the required sign. What is the size of the petitioned property? 6.0 Acres 8. Official Interpretations or Zoning Verifications: To your knowledge, has there been an official interpretation or zoning verification rendered on this property within the last year? ❑Yes ❑ No If yes,please provide copies. 6/3/2014 Page 3 of 7 CoIkr County • COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 IPRIMARY CRITERIA The following criteria, pursuant to LOC'section 5.03.06, shall be used as a guide by staff-in--- --- determining its recommendation to the Office of the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner will utilize the following criteria as a guide in the decision to approve or deny a particular Dock Extension request. In order for the Hearing Examiner 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. On separate sheets, please provide a narrative response to the listed criteria and/or questions. 1. Whether or not the number of dock facilities and/or boat slips proposed is appropriate in relation to the waterfront length, location, upland land use, and zoning of the subject property; consideration should be made of property on unbridged barrier islands, where vessels are the primary means of transportation to and from the property. (The number should be appropriate;typical,single-family use should be no more than two slips;typical multi-family use should be one slip per dwelling unit; in the case of unbridged barrier island docks,additional slips may be appropriate.) 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 (MLT). (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.) 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.) 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.) 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 of legally permitted neighboring docks.) , . 6/3/2014 Page 4 of 7 • 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 unbridged barrier islands, where vessels are the primary means of transportation to and from the property. (The number should be appropriate; typical, single-family use should be no more than two slips; typical multi-family use should be one slip per dwelling unit; in the case of unbridged barrier island docks, additional slips may be appropriate) .w Nine (9) slips proposed for a multifamily project of 40 units, meets County and state requirements for the number of slips allowed. 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 (MLT). (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) Proposed location of dock places vessels in at the 4.5 foot NAVD contour. In terms of MLW (-1.73 feet NAVD), the depth at MLW will be 2.77 feet. The proposed draft of vessels using the dock is 2 feet or less. Allowing for a 2 foot draft, there will be .77 feet of water at MLW beneath the vessels. Moving the docking facility with the 20 limit will reduce water depth at MLW to less than 2.27 feet. Boats with a 2 foot draft would have 0.27 feet or less of clearance from the bottom. 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) No marked or charted navigable channel exists in the project area or vicinity. 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). Approximate minimum width is 90 feet. Proposed dock extends 30 feet into waterway (approximately 33.3%), On the other side of Henderson Creek there are three (3) single family docks that extend approximately 15 feet from the MHW line, leaving approximately 45 feet(50%) of waterway for navigability. 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 of legally permitted neighboring docks) Nearby docks are on the opposite side of Henderson Creek. The proposed docking facility will not interfere with neighboring docks. i _ 1 _ 9ouny COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 SECONDARY CRITERIA 1. Wh.iith;;r of not there ar-e—special conditions, not -involving water depth, related to--therstibjeer y -- 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.) 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.) 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.) 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.) 5. Whether or not seagrass beds are located within 200 feet of the proposed dock facility. (If seagrass beds are present,compliance with LDC subsection 5.03.06 I must be demonstrated.) 410 6. Whether or not the proposed dock facility is subject to the manatee protection requirements of LDC subsection 5.03.06 E.11. (If applicable, compliance with subsection 5.03.06.E.11 must be demonstrated.) S 6/3/2014 Page 5 of 7 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 shoreline of the subject property is stabilized with rock riprap that extends to below MHW. Due to the slope of the riprap, the docking facility must extend further than 20 feet from the MHW line. 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) As a shore parallel structure, the docking facility is designed with six (6) foot wide access-ways and a six (6) foot wide main dock to allow for safe ingress/egress to the main dock and vessels using the dock. 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) The proposed dock is a multi-family dock 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.) The proposed dock has 25-foot setbacks from the adjacent properties and will not impact the view of neighboring waterfront property owners. 5. Whether or not seagrass beds are located within 200 feet of the proposed dock facility. (If seagrass beds are present, compliance with subsection 5.03.06.1 of this code must be demonstrated) There are no seagrasses in the proposed project area or within 200 feet of the proposed dock. This part of Henderson Creek is not suitable seagrass habitat. 6. Whether or not the proposed dock facility is subject to the manatee protection requirements of subsection 5.03.06.E.11 of this code. (If applicable, compliance with Section 5.03.06.E.ii must be demonstrated) The proposed docking facility is for nine docks and thus is not subject to the manatee protection requirements of subsection 5.03.06.E.11. - 2 • • • • I HEREBY ATTEST THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS APPLICATION IS TRUE AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. • I UNDERSTAND THAT, IN ADDITION TO APPROVAL OF THIS DOCK EXTENSION, A 1 BUILDING PERMIT IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION. I UNDERSTAND THAT IF THIS DOCK EXTENSION PETITION IS APPROVED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, AN AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNER MAY FILE AN APPEAL WITHIN 14 DAYS OF THE HEARING. IF I PROCEED WITH CONSTRUCTION DURING THIS TIME, I DO SO AT MY OWN RISK. Signature of •etitioner or Agent • 3 COIf?76Y County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE • GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 Pre-Application Meeting and Final Submittal Requirement Checklist for: [Ul Dock Extension ❑ Boathouse Chapter 3 B. of the Administrative Code The following Submittal Requirement Checklist is to be utilized during the Pre-Application Meeting, and at time of application submittal. At time of submittal,the checklist is to be completed and submitted with the application packet. Please provide the submittal items in the exact order listed below, with cover sheets attached to each section. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted. REQUIREMENTS FOR REVIEW #OF REQUIRED NOT COPIES REQUIRED Completed Application (download current form from County website) 6 Signed and Sealed Survey ❑ ❑ ❑ Chart of Site Waterway Q ❑ ❑ Site Plan Illustration with the following: • Lot dimensions; • Required setbacks for the dock facility; • Cross section showing relation to MHW/MLW and shoreline (bank,seawall, or rip-rap revetment); • Configuration, location,and dimensions of existing and proposed 6 ❑ ❑ facility; • Water depth where proposed dock facility is to be located; • Distance of navigable channel; • Illustration of the contour of the property;and • Illustration of dock facility from both an aerial and side view. Affidavit of Authorization,signed and notarized 1 ❑ ❑ Completed Addressing Checklist 1 ❑ ❑ Electronic copy of all required documents *Please advise:The Office of the Hearing Examiner requires all materials 1 ❑ Li to be submitted electronically in PDF format. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS: • Following the completion of the review process by County review staff, the applicant shall submit all materials electronically to the designated project manager. • Please contact the project manager to confirm the number of additional copies required. • 6/3/2014 Page 6 of 7 • Co er County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 PLANNERS—INDICATE IF THE PETITION NEEDS TO BE ROUTED TO THE FOLLOWING REVIEWERS: g Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment: ❑ Environmental Review:See Pre-Application Executive Director Meeting Sign-In Sheet Addressing:Annis Moxam ❑ Graphics:Mariam Ocheltree 8 City Naples: Singer,Planning ❑ Historical Review Ci of Na les:Robin Sin er,Plannin Director Comprehensive Planning:See Pre-Application Meeting Sign-In Sheet ❑ Immokalee Water/Sewer District: MI Conservancy of SWFL:Nichole Ryan Parks and Recreation:Vicky Ahmad MI County Attorney's Office:Heidi Ashton-Cicko Transportation Pathways:Stacey Revay n Emergency Management:Dan Summers;and/or a School District(Residential Components):Amy EMS:Artie Bay Heartlock Engineering:Alison Bradford ❑ Transportation Planning:John Podczerwinsky ❑ Other: ❑ Utilities Engineering:Kris VanLengen FEE REQUIREMENTS: Boat Dock Extension Petition:$1,500.00 it Estimated Legal Advertising fee for the Office of the Hearing Examiner:$925.00 U An additional fee for property owner notifications will be billed to the applicant prior to the Hearing Examiner hearing date. i ii As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this sub.• :.ackage.I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal inforrnati' ••. result in .i� . ^.f ..cessing this petition. ',,, .r `:r4.er - Ill z Si:nature of Petits ner or Agent Date I l 6/3/2014 Page 7 of 7 • AFFIDAVIT OF AUTHORIZATION • FOR PETITION NUMBERS(S) I. l: .i J Kummer (print name),as pnru•ml ,(title,if applicable)of ii iiivakt rtri,nnugycagor;won ulwple, (company,If applicable),swear or affirm under oath.that I am the.(choose one)owner®appticantjjcontract purchaser and that: • 1 I have full authority to secure the approval(s)requested and to impose covenants and restrictions on the referenced property as a result of any action approved by the County in accordance with this application and the Land Development Code. 2. All answers to the questions in this application and any sketches.data or other supplementary matter attached hereto and made a part of this application are honest and true; 3. I have authorized the staff of Collier County to enter upon the property during normal working hours for the purpose of investigating and evaluating the request made through this application;and that 4. The property will be transferred, conveyed, sold or subdivided subject to the conditions and restrictions imposed by the approved action 5. Well authorize COASTAL EuG"EEltvU;Cc ..I, N41s mnc to act as our/my representative in any matters regarding this petition including 1 through 2 above. 'Notes. • 1f the applicant is a corporation,then it is usually executed by the corp.pros or v pros. • If the applicant is a Limited Liability Company(L L.C)or Limited Company(L C.). then the documents should typically be signed by the Company's'Managing Member.' • If the applicant is a partnership, then typically a partner can sign on behalf of the partnership. • if the applicant is a limited partnership, then the general partner must sign and he identified as the "general partner"of the Haired partnership. • If the applicant is a trust. then they must include the trustee's name and the words as trustee' • In each instance, first determine the applicant's status. e q, individual. corporate, trust, partnership. and then use the appropriate format for that ownership. 410 Under penalties o • y,;. • , that I have read the foregoing Affidavit of Authorization and that the facts sta - i .t.Kt W Signal i re Date STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing instrument was sworn to(or affirmed)and subscribed before me on ='i r^'» -tf- (date)by C.iJ K Tho.' z ly ire of person providing oath or affirmation), as Ptrr.irIettl of Re.1 E.i, ,TeAu•iojy Cop of ICIrk•: wry is personally known to or who has produced (type of identification)as identification. > STAMP/SEAL —Abaft Sign. • of Notary Public NOTARY PUBLIC.:: CE OF FLORIDA : ,.0.4,1% Jeanre i Couture Cl)tY11Tt: 4 EE0 110062 nn.M1`r Ex�lr.:r>. .'..A L OS 2015 2 soND. min•T.A n\'DNGco.,Iric. • t P111$-('(2.%•1111i 151155 iu:% .11:4/14 CEO Group Services • COASTAL Civil Engineering ENGINEERING Planning Services CONSULTANTS Survey&Mapping N C Coastal Engineering Environmental Services A CECI GROUP COMPANY Website:www.coastalengineering.com November 7,2014 Fred Reischl,AICP Principal Planner Growth Management Division Collier County Planning&Zoning Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34104 RE: Boat Dock Extension; PL20140002207 952 Henderson Creek Drive Dear Fred, In response to your October 22, 2914 letter requesting additional information concering the Boat Dock Extension resquest for 952 Henderson Creek Drive,please accept the responses(in bold type) in this this letter. We trust that the information provided will be sufficient for this request to proceed to the Heraring Examiner. Graphics-GIS Review Please provide written legal description for entire parcels for the boat docks. PARCEL 1: LOT 4, HENDERSON CREEK ESTATES, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS,FROM THE INTERSECTION OF THE EAST LINE OF STATE ROAD S-951 WITH A LINE LYING 501.493 FEET SOUTH OF THE ESTABLISHED NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH Y,OF THE SOUTH Y,OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH,RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA, RUN SOUTH 89 DEGREES 23' 55" EAST 498.02 FEET PARALLEL WITH THE SAID ESTABLISHED NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH Y, OF THE SOUTH Y, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING CONTINUE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 23' 55" EAST 150.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 38' 35" WEST 915 FEET, MORE OR LESS TO THE CENTERLINE OF A COUNTY DRAINAGE EASEMENT ACCORDING TO AN INSTRUMENT IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 76, PAGE 127, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA;'THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY 159 FEET MORE OR LESS,ALONG SAID CENTERLINE TO A LINE BEARING SOUTH 00 DEGREES 36' 05" WEST AND PASSING THROUGH THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 00 1 3106 So.Horseshoe Drive,Naples,Florida 34104 r Phone(239)643-2324 Fax(239)643-1143•E-mail:infonceciFl.com SERVING FLORIDA SINCE_1977 mow Dockside BDE RA1 Response COASTAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC November 5,2014 Page 2 of 4 DEGREES 36' 05" EAST 957 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. AND PARCEL 2: FROM THE INTERSECTION OF THE EAST LINE OF STATE ROAD S- 951 WITH A LINE LYING 501.493 FEET SOUTH OF THE ESTABLISHED NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH Y, OF THE SOUTH Y, OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, RUN SOUTH 89 DEGREES 23' 55" EAST 649.02 FEET,PARALLEL WITH THE SAID NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH Y, OF THE SOUTH Y, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING CONTINUE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 23' 55" EAST 150.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 38' 05" WEST 864 FEET MORE OR LESS, TO THE CENTER LINE OF A COUNTY DRAINAGE EASEMENT, ACCORDING TO AN INSTRUMENT RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 67,PAGE 351 AND OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 76,PAGE 127,PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY 159 FEET MORE OR LESS ALONG SAID CENTER LINE TO A LINE BEARING SOUTH OODEGREES 36' 05" WEST PASSING THROUG THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 36' OS" EAST 915 FEET,MORE OR LESS TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SUBJECT TO A ROAD RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT OVER AND ACROSS THE NORTH 30 FEET THEREOF ANT) 15 FOOT UTILITY • EASEMENT ABUTTING AND LYING SOUTH OF THE AFOREMENTIONED RIGHT OF WAY Include all folio numbers,application only list one folio. There are two folio numbers,00725080004 and 00725720005 Application is for 3.06 ac. the Dockside RPUD is 6 ac. Total water frontage is 320 ft which is for the entire RPUD. On the application under"Current zoning"add Dockside RPUD. See the attached revised BDE application. Under"Adjacent zoning" add MH to the east zoning and remove the word unknown. See the attached revised BDE application Environmental Review Show site plan in relation to Site Development Plan. See the attached revised BDE application • 3106 S.Horseshoe Drive,Naples,Florida 34104•Phone(239)643-2324 Fax(239)643-I 143•E-mail:info @cccitl.com SERVING FLORIDA SINCE 1977 Dockside BDE RAI Response November 5,2014 COASTAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC Page 3 of 4 Are there any mangrove impacts? There a few large mangrove trees and several smaller mangrove along the shoreline.The dock was designed to avoid mangrove impacts. Thus, no mangroves will be removed.A DEP mangrove trimming permit may be required. This will be determined when the dock layout is staked out. If a permit is needed,it will be obtained prior to trimming any mangroves. Zoning Review Since the dock facility includes the boat, please revise Section A-A (or create a new exhibit) measuring the total protrusion of the dock with a boat moored. See the attached revised BDE application County Attorney Review 1)Provide a signed and notarized Affidavit of Authorization See the attached revised BDE application 2)A separate Right of Way permit may be required because there is a public drainage easement in favor of Collier County (OR 67, PG 351, corrected by OR 76, PG 127) over that portion of Henderson Creek where the proposed boat docks will be located. Acknowledged. A ROW permit will be needed prior to any dock-related construction activities. 3)Provide a site plan,to scale,illustrating the configuration,location and dimensions of the existing and proposed dock facility (including the proposed boats); the location and total protrusion of the existing dock on the opposite side of the waterway;and the distance between the farthest protrusion of the proposed dock and the farthest protrusion of the existing dock on the opposite side of the waterway. See the attached revised BDE application. The existing dock, which is in a deteriotated condition,will be removed and will not be replaced. Dimensions of the existing dock are 10.4 feet in lenght as measured from the MHW line by 13.6 feet wide The lengths of the boats using the slips will be variable and limited by the 30-foot length of each slip. 4) Please indicate the total dock protrusion measured from each the following (if applicable): property line,rip-rap line,seawall,shoreline,bulkhead line 3106 S.I Iorseshoe Drive,Naples,Florida 34104•Phone(239)643-2324 Fax(239)643-1143•E-mail:info@cecill.com SERVING FLORIDA SINCE 1977 Dockside BDE RAI Response COASTAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC November 5,2014 • Page 4 of 4 See the attached revised BDE application. Note, the applicant owns the submerged land to the middle of the waterway. The docking facility is entirely within the owner's property. 5) Please indicate how you determined the total protrusion of the boat dock on the opposite side of the waterway The total protrusions of boat docks on the opposite side of Henderson Creek are measured from a visually determined (from aerial photography) estimated mean high water line. Respectfully submitted, COASTAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS,INC. Kris W.Thoemke,Ph„D,CEP Senior Scientist 3106 S.Horseshoe Drive,Naples,Florida 34104•Phone(239)643-2324 Fax(239)643-1143•E-mail:info nscreifl.com SERVING FLORIDA SINCE 1977 Page 1 of %.oilier %a-futurity rruperiy t►pWrdiser Property Summary • Parcel No. 00725720005 Site Adr. 952 HENDERSON CREEK DR Name/Address REAL ESTATE TECHNOLOGY CORP OF NAPLES 1 900 BROAD AVE S # 2C City NAPLES State FL Zip 34102 Map No. Strap No. Section Township Range Acres *Estimated 6B03 000100 041 6B03 3 51 26 3.06 3 51 26 10 51 26 BEG AT INTERSECTION OF S LINE A COUNTY ROAD WITH E LINE OF Legal SR 951, RUN E 650FT FOR POB, CONT. E./CTD 15OFT, S 864FT, SWLY ALG SHORE OF DRAINAGE CANAL 158.59FT, N 915FT TO POB, AKA LOT 5 HENDERSON CREEK EST Millage Area 0 144 Millage Rates 0 *Calculations Sub./Condo 100 - ACREAGE HEADER School Other Total Use Code 0 0 - VACANT RESIDENTIAL 5.58 6.4197 11.9997 Latest Sales History 2014 Certified Tax Roll (Not all Sales are listed due to Confidentiality) (Subject to Change) Date Book-Page Amount Land Value $ 110,415 06/14/13 4935-282 $ 0 (+) Improved Value $ 0 05/30/13 4930-351 $ 200,000 09/10/09 4493-3253 $ 100 (_) Market Value $ 110,415 (=) Assessed Value $ 110,415 (_) School Taxable Value $ 110,415 (=) Taxable Value $ 110,415 If all Values shown above equal 0 this parcel was created after the Final Tax Roll • i t hp://www.collierappraiser.com/main search/Recorddetail.html?Map=No&FolioNum=00... 3/26/201 Page 1 of '.uiuirr ',uunzy rruperiy HpprdlSCr Property Summary Parcel No. 00725080004 Site Adr. 946 HENDERSON CREEK DR • Name/Address REAL ESTATE TECHNOLOGY CORP OF NAPLES 900 BROAD AVE 5 #2C City NAPLES State FL Zip 34102 Map No. Strap No. Section Township Range Acres *Estimated 6B03 000100 023 6603 3 51 26 3.23 3 51 26 FROM INTERSECTION OF E U. SR S-951 WITH UNE LYING 501.493FT S OF N U. Legal OF S1/2 OF S1/2, E 499.02FT TO POB, CONT E 150FT, S 915FT TO C/L OF DRAINAGE EASEM, SWLY 159FT ALONG SAID C/L N967 FT TO POB Millage Area 0 144 Millage Rates O *Calculations Sub./Condo 100 - ACREAGE HEADER School Other Total Use Code 0 0 - VACANT RESIDENTIAL 5.58 6.4197 11.9997 Latest Sales History 2014 Certified Tax Roll (Not all Sales are listed due to Confidentiality) (Subject to Change) 0 Date Book-Page Amount Land Value $ 117,215 06/14/13 4935-282 $ 0 (+) Improved Value $0 05/30/13 4930-351 $ 200,000 09/10/09 4493-3253 $ 100 (_) Market Value $ 117,215 07/21/05 3849-3766 $ 735,000 (=) Assessed Value $ 117,215 05/22/68 274-578 $ 0 (=) School Taxable Value $ 117,215 (=) Taxable Value $ 117,215 If all Values shown above equal 0 this parcel was created after the Final Tax Roll I }tp://www.collierappraiser.comlmain search/Recorddetail.html?Map=No&FolioNum=00... 3/26/201 Detail by Entity Name Page 1 of 2 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE Di ISiUy OF CORPOR aims )74(nbz Detail by Entity Name Florida Profit Corporation REAL ESTATE TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION OF NAPLES Filing Information Document Number L16590 FEI/EIN Number 650148916 Date Filed 09/18/1989 State FL Status ACTIVE Principal Address 900 BROAD AVE S UNIT 2C NAPLES, FL 34102 Changed: 04!04/1997 Mailing Address 900 BROAD AVE S UNIT 2C NAPLES, FL 34102 Changed: 04/04/1997 Registered Agent Name & Address KUEHNER, CARL J 900 BROAD AVE S UNITT 2C NAPLES, FL 34102 Name Changed: 04/04/1997 Address Changed: 04/04/1997 Officer/Director Detail Name&Address Title DP KUEHNER, CARL J. 900 BROAD AVE S UNIT 2C NAPLES, FL http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/SearchResultDetail?inq... 3/26/2015 Detail by Entity Name Page 2 of 2 Title DS KUEHNER, JOANNE M. 900 BROAD AVE S UNIT 2C NAPLES, FL Annual Reports Report Year Filed Date 2012 02/29/2012 2013 04/03/2013 2014 03/05/2014 Document Images 03/05/2014--ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 04/03/2013--ANNUAL REPORT I View image in PDF format 02/29/2012--ANNUAL REPORT, View image in PDF format 01/05/2011 --ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 01/05/2010--ANNUAL REPORT I View image in PDF format 03/24/2009--ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 02/12/2008--ANNUAL REPORTI View image in PDF format 01/10/2007--ANNUAL REPORT I View image in PDF format I 03/02/2006--ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 04/06/2005--ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 03/03/2004 ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 05/02/2003--ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 05/02/2002--ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 01/18/2001 --ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 04/12/2000--ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format I 01/21/1999--ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 01/28/1998--ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 04/04/1997--ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format I 01/23/1996--ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 07/10/1995--ANNUAL REPORT I View image in PDF format Coovrkoht s and Privacy Policle4 State of Florida,Department of State http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/SearchResultDetail?inq... 3/26/2015 AGENDA ITEM 4-D Co er County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER FROM: ZONING DIVISION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: APRIL 9, 2015 SUBJECT: PDI-PL20140002611 NORTH NAPLES R&T PARK PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT INSUBSTANTIAL CHANGE PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT: APPLICANT: AGENT: North Naples Golf Range,Inc. Steven L. Darby,P.E. 15 8th Street,Unit A Darby Engineering,Inc. Bonita Springs,FL 34134 1216 SW 4th Street, Suite 4 Cape Coral,FL 33991 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner requests that the Hearing Examiner approve an insubstantial amendment to the North Naples Research & Technology Park Planned Unit Development (NNR&T Park PUD) to allow the following changes: o to increase the maximum number of permitted workforce housing dwelling units, o to reduce the acreage for the Non-Target Use area, o to increase the acreage for the Target Use area, and o to amend the PUD Master Plan to accurately reflect the current lot configuration. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property, consisting of 19.3± acres, is located at the Lee County line on the west side of Old U.S. 41 in Section 10, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Please see location map on the following page.) PDI-PL20140002611: North Naples Research&Technology Park PDI Page 1 of 10 April 9,2015 LEE COUNTY a•,. ,,no M...,, .. WW2 817E �, -- ...r. LOCATION •e.e ��' a°�.. 1Q'r e^ ' PROJECT LEE u.wi.n WE 'la LOCATION COUNTY MOAN '°•' a m -�? P1 .7111 S _ 'K............,..,... .......,:4 --1:WM* 1` e.—� I , l - e ma �uwe.�` —I r . I .� t - t '� . (y i..l 0• '2 4•+200.. r f 0 12.011. MA 10 AIM 1210 010 ii PUo 111 1 .A.eee. .e.. • i •- f2. _ — J y3......1 i Q' ae , !•� _a o.nu. e.sn.. A a7 • • PIM 1,11 iii t--,v — ,,--ti -, E—..�' • ems." ��i ARNO OM °9 22 ' . ", MI ■ • ..1 M.e e.. Y.6 M.11e = ., p - am a 1 . PRIM 00001 0010 • mewl, C ,....ma -, I\ MOP I i '. , . , ., 2 120 A I lin" 1 rilli ,N,„ -Ira, torus t CAS___ IP 1111.11. .' 1 01101111 012 AINIIIIMIll LOCATION MAP ZONING MAP PETITION #POI-PL-2014-2611 fl • a-1 '-, --- i . , .' r's ' - - -.4. . air 4x ' .t', ,r 4• yt zy T. c . u' , ;IL �y,n,,R.,c r.A'. i t -r jolt AR I 4 , t.ft r !lit-r YoP.1.1 a , �'_ 4 i. "P ) ! 01....".tJ . L At.� f 4-z Aerial Photo(Collier County Property Appraiser) PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF MAP AND TEXT CHANGES: The applicant requests an amendment to the North Naples Research & Technology Park PUD to relocate the "Target or Non-Target Use Area A"designation from Lot 1 to Lot 7 and make associated acreage changes and Master Plan changes in order to move the location of the Workforce Housing requirement. ANALYSIS: The proposed change will not affect abutting properties, since Workforce Housing is already a requirement. This PDI proposes to relocate the Workforce Housing from Lot 1 to Lot 7, as depicted on the PUD Master Plan(Exhibit B). PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPENT INSUBSTANTIAL CHANGE CRITERIA: Sections 10.02.13.E.1 and 10.02.13.E.2 of the Land Development Code set forth the criteria by which insubstantial amendments to a PUD Master Plan and/or minor text changes to a PUD document are to be reviewed before they can be approved. The criteria and a response to each criterion have been listed as follows: 10.02.13.E.1 a. Is there a proposed change in the boundary of the Planned Unit Development(PUD)? No,there is no proposed change in the boundary of the PUD. b. Is there a proposed increase in the total number of dwelling units or intensity of land use or height of buildings within the development? PDI-PL20140002611: North Naples Research&Technology Park PDI April 9,2015 Page 3 of 10 No, there is no proposed increase in the number of dwelling units or intensity of land use or height of buildings within the development. c. Is there a proposed decrease in preservation, conservation, recreation, or open space areas within the development in excess of five (5) percent of the total acreage previously designated as such,or five(5)acres in area? No, there is no proposed decrease in preservation, conservation, recreation, or open space areas within the development as designated on the approved Master Plan. d. Is there a proposed increase in the size of areas used for non-residential uses, to include institutional, commercial and industrial land uses (excluding preservation, conservation or open space), or a proposed relocation of nonresidential land uses? No, the proposed amendment will not increase the size of institutional, commercial, or industrial uses. e. Is there a substantial increase in the impacts of the development which may include, but are not limited to increases in traffic generation; changes in traffic circulation; or impacts on other public facilities? No,there are no substantial impacts resulting from this amendment. f. Will the change result in land use activities that generate a higher level of vehicular traffic based upon the Trip Generation Manual published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers? The proposed change will not create any additional vehicular generated trips based upon the ITE Trip Generation Manual. g. Will the change result in a requirement for increased stormwater retention,or otherwise increase stormwater discharge? No, the proposed changes will not impact or increase stormwater retention or increase stormwater discharge. h. Will the proposed change bring about a relationship to an abutting land use that would be incompatible with an adjacent land use? No. The proposed change will move the location of a required use(Workforce Housing)from one lot to another, internal to the PUD. Are there any modifications to the PUD Master Plan or PUD document or amendment to a PUD ordinance which is inconsistent with the Future Land Use Element or other elements of the Growth Management Plan or which modification would increase the density of intensity of the permitted land uses? The subject property is designated Urban (Urban Mixed-Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict), as identified on the Future Land Use Map and in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan. Also, the site is within the Northwest PDI-PL20140002611: North Naples Research&Technology Park PDI Page 4 of 10 April 9,2015 Transportation Concurrency Management Area (TCMA) as identified in the Transportation Element. Relevant to this petition, the Research and Technology Park Subdistrict is a text- based provision in the Urban Mixed-Use District. The existing North Naples Research & Technology Park PUD was established in 2003 (Ord. No. 03-26) consistent with this Subdistrict. Infrastructure is in place, 3 of the 13 lots are developed, and a site development plan application is pending for a 4th lot. The Research and Technology Park Subdistrict text is listed below, followed by staff analysis of the proposed Planned Unit Development amendment(PUDA)in bold text within brackets. 11. Research and Technology Park Subdistrict The Research and Technology Park Subdistrict is intended to provide for a mix of targeted industry uses — aviation/aerospace industry, health technology industry, information technology industry, and light, low environmental impact manufacturing industry and non- industrial uses, designed in an attractive park-like environment where landscaped areas, outdoor spaces and internal interconnectivity provide for buffering, usable open space, and a network of pathways for the enjoyment of the employees, residents and patrons of the park. Research and Technology Parks shall be allowed as a Subdistrict in the Urban-Mixed Use District, Urban Commercial District and Urban Industrial District, and may include the general uses allowed within each District, the specific uses set forth below, and shall comply with the following general conditions: a. Research and Technology Parks shall be permitted to include up to 20% of the total acreage for non-target industry uses of the type identified in paragraph "d" below; and, up to 20% of the total acreage for affordable-workforce housing, except as provided in paragraph j below. Similarly, up to 20% of the total building square footage, exclusive of square footage for residential development, may contain non-target industry uses of the type identified in Paragraph d below. At a minimum, 60% of the total park acreage must be devoted to target industry uses identified in paragraph c below. Similarly, a minimum of 60% of the total building square footage, exclusive of square footage for residential development, shall be devoted to target industry uses identified in Paragraph c below. The specific percentage and mix of each category of use shall be determined at the time of rezoning in accordance with the criteria specified in the Land Development Code. The acreage and building square footage figures and percentages shall be included in the PUD ordinance so as to demonstrate compliance with this requirement. [The 60% minimum requirement equals 8.23 acres; this PUDA results in 10.77 acres. The maximum of 20% equals 2.74 acres; this PUDA proposes 1.66 acres.] b. Access to arterial and collector road systems shall be in accordance with the Collier County Access Control Policy and consistent with Objective 7 and Policy 7.1 of the Transportation Element. [The access road (Performance Way)is in existence.] c. The target industries identified by the Economic Development Council of Collier County are aviation/aerospace industry, health technology industry, and information technology industry, and include the following uses: software development and programming; interne technologies and electronic commerce; multimedia activities and CD-ROM development; data and information processing; call center and customer support activities; professional services that are export based such as laboratory research or testing activities; light manufacturing in the high tech target sectors of aviation/aerospace and health and information technologies; office uses in connection with on-site research; development PDI-PL20140002611: North Naples Research&Technology Park PDI Page 5 of 10 April 9,2015 testing and related manufacturing; general administrative offices of a research and development firm; educational, scientific and research organizations; production facilities and operations. [The existing PUD was deemed consistent with this criterion and the approved uses are unaffected by this PUDA.] d. Non-target industry uses may include hotels at a density consistent with the Land Development Code, and those uses in the C-1 through C-3 Zoning Districts that provide support services to the target industries such as general office, banks, fitness centers, personal and professional services, medical, financial and convenience sales and services, computer related businesses and services, employee training, technical conferencing, day care center, restaurants and corporate and government offices. [The existing PUD was deemed consistent with this criterion and the approved uses are unaffected by this PUPA.] e. When the Research and Technology Park is located within the Urban Industrial District or includes industrially zoned land, those uses allowed in the Industrial Zoning District shall be permitted provided that the total industrial acreage is not greater than the amount previously zoned or designated industrial. When a Research and Technology Park is located in the Urban Commercial District or Urban-Mixed Use District, the industrial uses shall be limited to those target industry uses. The Planned Unit Development Ordinance or Rezoning Ordinance for a Research and Technology Park project shall list specifically all permitted uses and development standards consistent with the criteria identified in this provision. [The existing PUD was deemed consistent with this criterion and the approved uses are unaffected by this PUDA.] f. Research and Technology Parks must be a minimum of 19 acres in size. [The existing PUD comprises+19.3 acres and the size is unaffected by this PUDA.] g. Research and Technology Parks located within Interchange Activity Center quadrants that permit Industrial Uses shall also be required to meet the standards as stated under the Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict for commercial and industrial land uses. [N/A] h. Standards for Research and Technology Parks shall be adopted for the development of individual building parcels and general standards shall be adopted for pedestrian and vehicular interconnections, buffering, landscaping, open spaces, signage, lighting, screening of outdoor storage, parking and access management. [PUD standards are unaffected by this PUPA.] i. When located in a District other than the Urban Industrial District, the Research and Technology Park must be abutting, and have direct principal access to, a road classified as an arterial or collector in the Transportation Element. Direct principal access is defined as a local roadway connection to the arterial or collector road, provided the portion of the local roadway intended to provide access to the Research and Technology Park is not within a residential neighborhood and does not service a predominately residential area. [Direct access is provided to Old 41, an arterial road as identified in the Transportation Element,and access is unaffected by this PUDA.] j. Research and Technology Parks shall only be allowed on land abutting residentially zoned property if the Park provides affordable-workforce-housing. When abutting residentially zoned land, up to 40%of the Park's total acreage may be devoted to affordable-workforce housing; all, or a portion, of the affordable-workforce housing is encouraged to be located proximate to such abutting land where feasible. [This PUD does abut residential zoning to the north (Spanish Wells in Bonita Springs in Lee County) and west (Sterling PDI-PL20140002611: North Naples Research&Technology Park PDI Page 6 of 10 April 9,2015 Oaks); is presently approved for a maximum of 12 affordable-workforce housing units; those units are approved for either or both of two lots that abut residential zoning to the north (Lots 1 and 2, designated in the PUD as "Target or Non-Target Use Area"); and, a maximum of 2.54 acres - 13% - may contain these units. Lot 2 is already developed and does not include affordable-workforce housing. This PUDA proposes to shift the "Target or Non-Target Use Area" designation in the PUD from Lot 1 (1.07 acres) to Lot 7 (0.59 acres), thus shifting the allowance/requirement for affordable-workforce housing from Lot 1 to Lot 7.] k. Whenever affordable-workforce housing is provided, it shall be fully integrated with other compatible uses in the park through mixed use buildings and/or through pedestrian and vehicular interconnections. [The existing PUD allows and limits the affordable- workforce housing to the "Target or Non-Target Use Area" designation and this PUDA continues that allowance and limitation.] 1. Whenever affordable-workforce housing is provided, it is allowed at a density consistent with the Density Rating System. [When this PUD was approved in 2003, this location was eligible for a maximum density of 3 dwelling units per acre (DU/A). This location is now eligible for 4 DU/A. This PUDA proposes to reflect that change in density eligibility,which results in an increase from 12 to 16 of the maximum number of affordable-workforce housing units allowed.] m. Building permits for non-target industry uses identified in paragraph "d" above shall not be issued for more than 10,000 square feet of building area prior to issuance of the first building permit for a target industry use. [PUD Sec. 6.5H contains this limitation and is unaffected by this PUDA. Further, the PUD is already developed with target industry uses.] n. Research and Technology Parks must be compatible with surrounding land uses. [This PUD was deemed to be compatible when approved in 2003. The primary impact of this PUDA is to shift the allowance of non-target industry uses from Lot 1 to Lot 7 which is located in the interior of the PUD. Staff defers the compatibility determination to the Zoning Services staff as part of their review of this petition in its entirety.] o. Research and Technology Parks must utilize PUD zoning. [The subject site is zoned PUD.] The maximum additional acreage eligible to be utilized for a Research and Technology Park Subdistrict within the Urban-Mixed Use District is 1,000 acres, exclusive of open space and conservation areas. [The North Naples Research & Technology Park PUD is the only property thus far rezoned utilizing this Subdistrict.] FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with, and complementary to, surrounding land uses. Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to the Zoning Services Section's staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety. FLUE Objective 7 and relevant policies are stated below; each is followed by staff analysis in bold text within brackets. PDI-PL20140002611: North Naples Research&Technology Park PDI Page 7 of 10 April 9,2015 Objective 7: In an effort to support the Dover, Kohl & Partners publication, Toward Better Places: The Community Character Plan for Collier County, Florida, promote smart growth policies, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, 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 connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. [The project's entrance is provided from Old 41, an arterial roadway as identified in the Transportation Element.] 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. [The PUD does not have a loop road but contains only one entrance, a cul-de-sac. Due to the nature of the proposed uses and the site dimensions, a loop road may not be feasible. All parcels have internal access via the single entrance road.] Policy 7.3 All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and/or interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. The interconnection of local streets between developments is also addressed in Policy 9.3 of the Transportation Element. [Due to the nature of the approved uses, interconnection to the residential projects to the north and west are considered inappropriate. Further,on-site water management and preserve area are at the western edge of the site,and the property to the south is developed.] Based upon the above analysis, Comprehensive Planning staff finds the proposed PUD insubstantial change(amendment) petition to be consistent with the FLUE. j. The proposed change is to a PUD District designated as a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) and approved pursuant to Chapter 380.06, Florida Statues, where such change requires a determination and public hearing by Collier County pursuant to Sec. 380.06 (19), F.S. Any change that meets the criterion of Sec. 380.06 (19)9e)2., F.S., and any changes to a DRUPUD Master Plan that clearly do not create a substantial deviation shall be reviewed and approved by Collier County under Sec. 2.7.3.5.4 or Sec. 2.7.3.5.6 of this Code. NNR&T Park PUD is not a DRI, so this criterion is not applicable. PDI-PL20140002611: North Naples Research&Technology Park PDI Page 8 of 10 April 9,2015 4 k. Are there any modifications to the PUD Master Plan or PUD document or amendment to a PUD ordinance which impact(s) any consideration deemed to be a substantial modification as described under Section(s) 10.02.13 E.? Based upon the analysis provide above,the proposed change is not deemed to be substantial. Section 10.02.13.E.2 Does this petition change the analysis of the findings and criteria used for the original application? No, the proposed change does not change the original analysis, rezone findings, or PUD findings. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The applicant requested a waiver of the NIM and it was granted by the HEX. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office has reviewed the Staff Report for PDI-PL2014-0002611 on March 30, 2015. SAS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Hearing Examiner approve Petition PDI-PL20140002611. Attachments: A. Application B. NNR.&T Park PUD (Ordinance 03-26) PDI-PL20140002611: North Naples Research&Technology Park PDI Page 9 of 10 April 9,2015 PREPARED BY: FR ISCHL,AICP,PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: RAYZeri. D V. BELLOWS,ZONING MANAGER DATE ZONI DIVISION MIKE BOSI,AICP,DIRECTOR DATE ZONING DIVISION PDI-PL20140002611: North Naples Research&Technology Park PDI April 9,2015 Page 10 of 10 • Section I,"Statement of Compliance",of the PUD Document attached to Ordinance 03-26,as amended,The"North Naples Research and Technology Park PUD",is hereby amended as follows: SECTION I STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE The development of±193 acres of property in Section 10,Township 48 South, Range 25 East Collier County,Florida,as a Planned Unit Development to be known as the North Naples Research and Technology Park PUD,will be in compliance with the goals,objectives,and policies of Collier County as set forth in the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The proposed Research and Technology Park PUD will be consistent with the growth policies,land development regulations and applicable comprehensive planning objectives of each of the elements of the GMP for the following reasons: 1. The property is located in the Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict as depicted on the Future Land Use Map of the Collier County GMP. The Future Land Use Element("FLUE")of the Collier County GMP allows for the Research and Technology Park Subdistrict on sites greater than nineteen (19) acres in the Urban Mixed Use District in which the subject property is located. Therefore, because of the property size(19.3 acres) and its location it may be found consistent with these FLUE location requirements for the Research and Technology Park Subdistrict. 2. The Research and Technology Park Subdistrict is also required according to the FLUE to be located on arterial or collector roadways. Old US 41,which provides access to the subject property, is classified as a collector road way according to the Transportation Element of the Collier County GMP. Therefore,consistency can be established with this provision of the FLUE. 3. The Research and Technology Park Subdistrict also requires provision for workforce housing up to a maximum of forty (40) percent of the park's acreage as the site abuts residential zoning to the west. 4. The total number Of workforce housing units will not exceed twelve (12) sixteen j16) dwelling units total and shall be provided on Target or Non-Target Use Areas"A"or'B" as depicted on the PUD Master Plan. The actual number of dwelling units to be provided will be based on the underlying size of the gross leasable floor area of the first floor for either Target orNon-Target Use Areas"A" or '8". This floor area shall constitute the amount of leasable residential area to be provided. The residential area may be developed into efficiency apartments, one (1) bedroom units, two(2)bedroom or 3 bedroom units at the option of the developer. The provision of work force housing in accordance with this standard is consistent with the requirement to provide workforce housing within the Research and Technology Park Subdistrict ofthe FLUE. Words underlined are added;Words are deleted 5. The Research and Technology Park Sub district requires that density be consistent with the Density Rating System of the FLUE for workforce housing. The subject property is • located in the Urban Mixed Use District: _ _-• -- • - - -- - Bear3dary according to the FLUE. Therefore,a density of up to 3 4 dwelling units per acre is permitted without density bonuses for workforce housing. Based on the 3.96 acres of upland and wetland preserve area and Florida Power and Light easement area located within the subject property,a maximum of 4 16 dwelling units are permitted. Based on the formula provided in Paragraph Four above, up to 3�16 dwelling units can be found consistent with the Density Rating System of the FLUE. 6. The Research and Technology Park Subdistrict also requires that a minimum of sixty (60) percent of the park area shall be devoted to Target Use Areas or 823 acres and a maximum of twenty (20)percent of the area shall be devoted to Non-Target Use Areas or 2.74 acres. Therefore, this FLUE requirement can be met to establish consistency with the Collier County GMP because more than 8.23 acres of Target Use Areas are proposed and 2.51 1.66 acres of Non-Target Use Area is provided for on the PUD Master Plan. 7. The Future Land Use Designation Description Section ofthe FLUE defines Target Industries identified by the Economic Development Council of Collier County which are aviation/aerospace industry,health technology industry and information technology industry, and include the following uses: software development and programming; internet technologies and electronic commerce; multimedia activities and CD-ROM development; data and information processing;call center and customer support activities; professional services that are export-based such as laboratory research or testing activities; light manufacturing in the high tech target sectors of aviation/aerospace and health and information technologies; office uses in connection with on-site research; development • testing and related manufacturing; general administrative offices of a research and development firm;educational,scientific and research organizations; production facilities and operations. Section 6.4 of the PUD Document provides for the Target Use Areas listed above including other uses contained in Section 2.2.20.4.8 of the LDC in effect as of the date of approval of the PUD for research and technology parks. Therefore,consistency can be established with this provision of the FLUE. 8. The Future Land Use Designation Description Section of the FLUE defines when Non- Target Industry Uses may include hotels at a floor area ratio consistent with Section 2.2.15.4.7 of the LDC,and these uses in the C-1 through C-3 Zoning Districts that provide support services to the Target Industries such as general office, banks, fitness centers, personal and professional services, computer related businesses and services, employee training, technical conferencing, day care center and restaurants, and corporate and government offices. Section 6.4 of the PUD Document provides for the Non-Target Industries listed above including other uses contained in Section 2220.4.8 of the LDC in effect as of the date-of approval of the PUD for research and technology parks. Therefore,the proposed uses for Non-Target Industries may be found consistent with the FLUE. Words underlined are added;Words struck are deleted • 9. The Future Land Use Designation Description Section of the FLUE provides that building permits for Non-Target Industry Uses shall not be issued for more than 10,000 square feet of gross leasable area prior to the issuance of the first building permit for a Target Industry Use. This requirement is included in Section 6.5H of this PUD Document. Therefore, consistency can be established with this provision of the FLUE. 10 The subject property's location in relation to the existing or proposed community facilities and services supports the proposed development intensities as required in Objective 2 of the FLUE. 11. The proposed development is compatible with and complementary to existing and future surrounding land uses as required in Policy 5.4 of the FLUE. 12. Improvements are planned to be in compliance with applicable land development regulations as set forth in Objective 3 of the FLUE. 13. The proposed development will result in an efficient and economical extension of -I-§-13. The project as planned may be found consistent with Objective 7 of the Transportation Element that requires that the County shall develop and adopt standards for safe and efficient ingress and egress to adjoining properties,as well as encourage safe and convenient on-site circulation. 14. All final development orders for this project are subject to the Collier County Concurrency Management System,as implemented by the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance(Division 3.15 of the LDC)and further required by Policy 23 of the FLUE. Words underlined are added;Words stRiek-tItRi are deleted 411 Section 3.2,"Project Description",of the PUD Document attached to Ordinance 03-26,as amended,The"North Naples Research and Technology Park PUD",is hereby amended as 40 follows: 3.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project contains± 19.3 acres and includes land area to provide for a mix of Targeted Use Areas — aviation/aerospace industry, health technology industry, information technology industry and other light, low environmental impact uses. Also permitted are Non-Target Use Areas that provide support services to the Target Use Areas such as general office uses, banks, restaurants, personnel and professional services. The maximum amount of Non- Target Use Area permitted by the FLUE is 2.74 acres. The PUD Master Plan (Exhibit A) shows that 2.51. 1.66 acres is being provided for the Non- Target Use Area. The minimum acreage required to be devoted to Target Industries is 8.23 acres and the PUD Master Plan provides 9:59 10.77 acres for this purpose. The North Naples Research and Technology Park PUD will provide up to twelve sixteen workforce housing units in a mixed use structure. Both upland and wetland preserve areas are provided for on the PUD Master Plan and comprise approximately 2.7 acres. Access will be provided from Old U.S.41 by way of the sixty(60)foot wide access road. Section 6.4B,"Permitted Uses and Structures",of the PUD Document attached to Ordinance 03-26,as amended,The"North Naples Research and Technology Park PUD",is hereby amended as follows: B. Non-Target Industry Uses: A maximum of2.54 L66 acres may be used for Non-Target Use Areas.These areas are labeled Target or Non-Target Use Areas"A"and"B"on the PUD Master Plan: • Words underlined are added;Words streek thro are deleted _ I Section 7.4, `Workforce Housing", of the PUD Document attached to Ordinance 03-26, as amended, The "North Naples Research and Technology Park PUD", is hereby amended as follows: 7.4 WORKFORCE HOUSING A. The developer shall provide up to twel-ve(12)sixteen(16)workforce housing units on Target or Non-Target Use Areas "A" or "B" in a mixed use structure as depicted on the PUD Master Plan. The actual number of dwelling units to be provided will be based upon a ratio of gross leasable floor area (first floor commercial/industrial structure) to internal square footage of the residential area. The residential area may be developed as efficiency units, one(1)bedroom units, two (2) bedroom units or three (3) bedroom units at the option of the developer. B. The workforce affordable housing units shall be required to be rented or sold to households with incomes at a rate not to exceed sixty (60)percent of the median income for Collier County for rental units and eighty(80)percent or less for owner occupied units. Rents charged for each unit may not exceed the United States Department ofHousing and Urban Development sixty(60)percent rent limitations. C. The PUD Monitoring Report shall document that the incomes of the occupants of • each work force house unit meet the standards set forth in paragraph 7.8.B of this Document. D. Workforce housing units shall be constructed as set forth in Paragraph 6.5.N.7 of this Document. Exhibit A, "PUD Master Plan", of the PUD Document attached to Ordinance 03-26, as amended, the North Naples Research and Technology Park PUD, is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced by Exhibit A,"PUD Master Plan",attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. • Words underlined are added;Words stivek-thretigh are deleted. -I / ;71.70,n OIMOM11.1.11. e 14.17rwz*, / ..."*'"' ,„,...",."'... 77 77......... .. -1,_..t,-.217.777.7{.7-_,.."--.,..:„...7 .4',t.,-_,...:71r..- F.;_.7.7.f,E._. (-- \ \ ,. :• J........T.1 ( --„,..1,3 t i I 1 \ i 1 m. .. 1U. I Itf. ....... / 1 r. I I 1 1 ... ‘,......../v...-Z-Aor... : itma tar woe -.. 1 I FA, 1. .. 11 1 IsASEMANT 1.:.: , ----------- Ft.,.■ A I I 1 C O. -- .i. „..,..;,('''-----r:--- ■ x moms i -'t• * • • k __,,,, '.,....'-.7. i 4 t••':--tr-f7;=:-.11, ,9 I 1 ■ , i I '.•.•/4•Er,..,•.'II 0 • REMAKE • f-----' ...„: i ■ .... .<,..<,.., i i 1 V 1 t' * '"*.• ••' -,..-:::-.6 t 1 1 r. . I I t--,„_,..„— raf”evcro' ' ' ' ° ' " —P.- wrtle. L .g."'*.d,")• isr.J.,1 '1 tatlz.., 1 .1:91.1 ,, taT.1 L. . . . .1 , __, • .. i ....t.r-r"""_ r '•:..: '••••:....:•`•••:::::-_:.... ,-..._..;.-....-..-.ox,--:-.-1' -....ag---..1...--74rar-----L-:;.ar..,.. ;-:.---mriik=-.. :-•--• • • . , .1y...en 04 PA•■ n/*MM..MAM oft MO..tattAt.MMEAMmetMatt i t nif•E‘ROMM.. —....M1X.,.k2, I gala,:anlm,m. MO....eer SWAM.e 14,0111001111.01.•.11e•IIIIIAVY, e ............OM* 1 ..11...0. 'si ' — ; PIP '1/41114 I kl Ye,In enla.10.0011[Or*,7 MAIO Fe.—•,e,..1' x,- 0 ...` i ,,..,.4.1. •.1,WA.0.10•01“...1•14. A- 0.1,....ta r. i el ^Won,e,eate101 Irmo...ram ma*mem IAM tam i P.n.!Ann '''''' '1411. ee ...f.... vie/ .....,e ,,,,..„N---.. _ Imi SEMEN 9,..A. \ LAND USE SUMMARY ..,—...491,11Lf I• -...-................. REPTRI.• .• I DEVELOPMENT TRACTS 12.43 Ao.vi- KS% -0. .. . MOOT'QV •?...=,,, 1 ROAD RTGST.OF,NAV 1.2S As.41- CY% ‘ 6..t......... t mr 1 F.P.L.EASEMENT SZE Ae N. 6.5% –E. 1 . . _._ ........– ....r......0 . P2AnAt a•VUVR". ,. LA PRESERVE .2.70 As.•••• 140% . ..ANN7 A.RATA i „ow --- • ... .— / I I IATT• OPENSITnt OTTO AA.T.1- 4.1% itstAv.TR –WC- ......_ irl !... TOTAL i S.27 Ac../. 100E% r. i ..t n Aenna COOMINIS In OP THRIVIli art AMA Lon leW ,,,............ i tnn.yr renews.ee.tn.Of sEcnowy•p• .0,..-".... 1 I, :1"T:":"T.1 XT,..V4.^T ---- i.......An..P.M wictooKlor .ac Wile WPM f. 5 . ... MORN NAMES RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY PARK mom........ *emm.,'"••••...''''''S.....2-:=,:,4W tttoMOOMmtf_ NORTH NAPLES RESEARCH 'Ir4":""'''' rtIPEI --.--- ......, g,....t,„„--- _ and TECHNOLOGY PARK –4''="''...""' ..,==..."*":7''',41: Z*4.11 POD MASTER MAX EMMET'A• EXHIBIT'A" ill • • A (r.10111-4481. ORDINANCE NO.03- 26 ip .,, tTM't I ; ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 91-102 THE t ' OLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WHICH ' O't It ,a, CL{JDES THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COWER COUNTY,FLORIDA, • BY AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS MAP NUMBERED ages$ 4 8510N BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF TI-IV Fit,. o HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM THE "PUDr-- " '—i ZONING DISTRICT (GADALETA PUD) TO A PLANNED UNfI ; - DEVELOPMENT(PUD)DISTRICT TO BE KNOWN AS THE NORTH°✓ 1 D, '— NAPLES RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY PARK PH LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF COUNTY ROAD 862(OLD U,S.41)AND- — 72. IMMEDIATELY CONTIGUOUS TO THE LEE/COLLIER COUNTY -"4 ' �... LINE, IN SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, per TI . COWER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 19.3* ACRES; p"+ a+ AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. •rn WHEREAS, Robert Duane,AICP,of Hole Montcs,Inc.,representing North Naples Golf Range, Inc., petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of die herein described se l property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,Florida,that; SECTION ONE: The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 10,Township 48 South,Range 25 East,Collier County,Florida,is changed from the Gadaleta PUD Zoning District to the North Naples Research and Technology Park PUD Zoning District in accordance with the PUD • Document,attached hereto as Exhibit"A"and incorporated by reference herein.The Official Zoning Atlas Map numbered 85ION,as described in Ordinance Number 91-102,the Collier County Land Development Code,is hereby amended accordingly. SECTION TWO: This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida,this oil day of M AN 2003. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY,F KIDA AtttraE as ails p#i#tniitat;�l S1gOPtax'i!< PntT: 4"-- f,t . .. f ATt .yyif L s > , ._ i``tr _ e *. t.1- t t- F3Y:- TOM HENNING,CHAIRMAN �� OW19 -1l I3ROCK-. % r . Appfq b3•aStoY4t-tn ' and Lcistl (rfLeric S? 4,, } This ordinance filed with the �y}} /q .,4-0:G Secretory of Mote's Offic_.e_Lhe /..,L � �T ZW3 hlasior � .Student - do),of Assistant County Attorney ar+d acknowledgement of that filtni,Jecshrtrd this + dal of `u. �yv PI.!U7.-4603-, - It t-'.. it.•, ,1 Vt 3349/Fltisp tAwwr ew e< 1 0 PDI-PL20140002611 REV: 1 NORTH NAPLES RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY PARK DATE: 12/15/14 DUE: 12/31/14 THE NORTH NAPLES RESEACH AND TECHNOLOGY PARK A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PREPARED BY STEVEN L. DARBY, P.E. DARBY ENGINEERING, INC. 1216 S.W. 4th Street, Suite 4 Cape CORAL, FLORJDA 33991 DEI PROJECT 14-141-01 Date Reviewed by CCPC: Approved by BCC: _ Ordinance No. Amendments&Repeals Amends 91-102 EXHIBIT "A" I TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I al SECTION I Statement of Compliance 3 SECTION II Property Ownership,Legal Description,Short Title and StatementofUnified Control 6 SECTION ill Statement of Intent and Project Description 7 SECTION IV General Development Regulations 8 SECTION V Preserve Area Requirements 1 7 SECTION VI Permitted Uses and Dimensional Standards for Research and Technology Park Uses Both Target And Non-Target Use Areas 18 SECTION VII Development Commitments 23 EXHIBITS Exhibit A -PUD Master Plan 2 SECTION I STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE • The development of±19.3 acres of property in Section 10, Township 48 South, Range 25 East Collier County,Florida, as a Planned Unit Development to be known as the North Naples Research and Technology Park PUD,will be in compliance with the goals,objectives,and policies of Collier County as set forth in the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The proposed Research and Technology Park PUD will be consistent with the growth policies,land development regulations and applicable comprehensive planning objectives of each of the elements of the GMP for the following reasons: 1. The property is located in the Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict as depicted on the Future Land Use Map of the Collier County GMP. The Future Land Use Element('FLUE")of the Collier County GMP allows for the Research and Technology Park Subdistrict on sites greater than nineteen (19) acres in the Urban Mixed Use District in which the subject property is located. Therefore, because of the property size(19.3 acres) and its location it may be found consistent with these FLUE location requirements for the Research and Technology Park Subdistrict. 2. The Research and Technology Park Subdistrict is also required according to the FLUE to be located on arterial or collector roadways. Old US 41,which provides access to the subject property, is classified as a collector road way according to the Transportation Element of the Collier County GMP. Therefore,consistency can be established with this provision of the FLUE. 3. The Research and Technology Park Sub district requires that density be consistent with the Density Rating System of the FLUE for workforce housing. The subject property is located in the Urban Mixed Use District and further located within the Traffic Congestion Boundary according to the FLUE. 4. The Research and Technology Park Subdistrict also requires that a minimum of sixty(60) percent of the park area shall be devoted to Target Use Areas or 823 acres and a maximum of twenty (20)percent of the area shall be devoted to Non Target Use Areas or 2.74 acres. Therefore, this FLUE requirement can be met to establish consistency with the Collier County GMP because more than 8.23 acres of Target Use Areas are proposed and 2.54 acres of Non-Target Use Area is provided for on the PUD Master Plan. 5. The Future Land Use Designation Description Section ofthe FLUE defines Target Industries identified by the Economic Development Council of Collier County which are aviation/aerospace industry,health technology industry and information technology industry, and include the following uses: software development and programming; internet technologies and electronic commerce; multimedia activities and CD-ROM development; data and information processing;call center and customer support activities; professional services that are export-based such as laboratory research or testing activities; light manufacturing in the high tech target sectors of aviation/aerospace and health and information technologies; office uses in connection with on-site research; development testing and related manufacturing; general administrative offices of a research and development firm;educational,scientific and research organizations; production facilities and operations. 3 Section 6.4 of the PUD Document provides for the Target Use Areas listed above including other uses contained in Section 2.2.20.4.8 of the LDC in effect as of the date of approval of the PUD for research and technology parks. Therefore,consistency can be established with this provision of the FLUE. 8. The Future Land Use Designation Description Section of the FLUE defines when Non- Target Industry Uses may include hotels at a floor area ratio consistent with Section support services to CthenTarget Industries such asogene al office, Districts anks, fitness provide e s, personal and professional services, computer related businesses and services, employee training, technical conferencing, day care center and restaurants, and corporate and government offices. Section 6.4 of the PUD Document provides for the Non-Target Industries listed above including other uses contained in Section 2220.4.8 of the LDC in effect as of the date-of approval of the PUD for research and technology parks. Therefore,the proposed uses for Non-Target Industries may be found consistent with the FLUE. 9. The Future Land Use Designation Description Section of the FLUE provides that building permits for Non-Target Industry Uses shall not be issued for more than 10,000 square feet of gross leasable area prior to the issuance of the first building permit for a Target Industry Use This requirement is included in Section 6.SH of this PUD Document. Therefore, consistency can be established with this provision of the FLUE. 1 0 The subject property's location in relation to the existing or proposed community facilities and services supports the proposed development intensities as required in Objective 2 of the FLUE. 11. The proposed development is compatible with and complementary to existing and future surrounding land uses as required in Policy 5.4 of the FLUE. 12. Improvements are planned to be in compliance with applicable land development regulations as set forth in Objective 3 of the FLUE. 13. The proposed development will result in an efficient and economical extension of community facilities and services as required in Policy 3.1. G of the FLUE. 14. The project is planned to incorporate natural systems for water management purposes in accordance with their natural functions and capabilities as required by Objective 1.5 of the Drainage Sub-Element of the Public Facilities Element of the Collier County GMP. 15. The project as planned may be found consistent with Objective 7 of the Transportation Element that requires that the County shall develop and adopt standards for safe and efficient ingress and egress to adjoining properties, as well as encourage safe and convenient on-site circulation. 16. All final development orders for this project are subject to the Collier County Concurrency Management System,as implemented by the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance(Division 3.15 of the LDC)and further required by Policy 23 of the FLUE. 4 SECTION II PROPERTY OWNERSHIP, LEGAL DESCRIPTION, SHORT TITLE AND STATEMENT OF UNIFIED CONTROL 2.1 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP North Naples Golf Range, Inc.,as Trustee of the SJG Land Trust Agreement,U/A dated 5/9/97, is the owner of the subject property arthe time of this application for iezonitig 2.2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION The subject property being±19.3 acres is described as: The North 1/2 of the North 1/2 of the North 1/2 of the North East 1/4 of Section 10, Township 48 South.Range 25 East, lying West of Old U.S.41, Collier County, Florida; and The North 200 feet of the South 1/2 of the North 1/2 of the North Yi of the North East 1/4 of Section 10,Township 48 South, Range 25 East, lying West of Old U.S.41, Collier County, Florida 23 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY The project is comprised oft 19.3 acres,more or less,and is located on the west side of Old U.S.41 just south of the Lee/Collier County line. The project permits a range of commercial • and research/technology uses. Physical Description The subject property is currently being used for a golf course driving range. The average elevation of the subject property is approximately twelve (12) feet above mean sea level. Most of the site has been cleared but still contains some xeric scrub. The soil types are substantially composed of various sandy soils. The entire site is located within Flood Zone X. The zoning classification prior to the date of approval of this PUD was a PUD that allowed for a golf course driving range,residential uses and limited commercial uses. 2.4 SHORT TITLE This Ordinance shall be known and cited as the 'North Naples Research and Technology Park Planned Unit Development Ordinance". 2.5 STATEMENT OF UNIFIED CONTROL This statement represents that the current property owner has the lands under unified control for the purpose of obtaining PUD zoning on the subject property. • 5 SECTION III STATEMENT OF INTENT AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 INTRODUCTION It is the intent of this Ordinance to establish a PUD meeting the requirements as set forth in Section 2.2.20 of the Collier County LDC. The purpose of this Document is to set forth regulations for the future development of the project that meet accepted planning principles , . � .... and practices, and to implement the Collier County GMP. 32 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project contains±19.3 acres and includes land area to provide for amix of Targeted Use Areas —aviation/aerospace industry, health technology industry, information technology industry and other light,low environmental impact uses. Also permitted are Non-Target Use Areas that provide support services to the Target Use Areas such as general office uses, banks, restaurants, personnel and professional services. The maximum amount of Non- Target Use Area permitted by the FLUE is 214'acres. The PUD Master Plan (Exhibit A) shows that 2.54 acres is being provided for the Non-Target Use Area The minimum acreage required to be devoted to Target Industries is 8.23 acres and the PUD Master Plan provides 9.89 acres for this purpose. Both upland and wetland preserve areas are provided for on the PUD Master Plan and comprise approximately 2.7 acres. Access will be provided from Old U.S.41 by way of the sixty(60) foot wide access road. 33 LAND USE PLAN AND PROJECT PHASING A. The PUD Master Plan provides for areas of light technology-based uses Target Use Areas and Non-Target Use Areas to provide for commercial support services,as well as rights-of-way, lakes, preservation areas and an FPL easement area The PUD Master Plan is designed to be flexible with regard to the placement of buildings. tracts and related utilities and water management facilities. More specific commitments will be made at the time of site development plan and permitting approval based on compliance with all applicable requirements ofthis Ordinance,the LDC and local, state and federal permitting requirements. All tracts may be combined, or developed separately, subject to compliance with the applicable dimensional requirements contained within this Document. B. The anticipated time of build-out of the project is approximately three(3)years from the time of issuance of the first building permit,or 2006. However,actual build-out will depend on market conditions. I 6 SECTION IV GENERAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS • The purpose of this Section is to set forth the development regulations that may be applied generally to the development of the North Naples Research and Technology Park Planned Unit Development and Master Plan. 4.1 ' GENERAL The following are general provisions applicable to the PUD: A. Regulations for development of the North Naples Research and Technology Park PUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this Document, the PUD Planned Unit Development District and other applicable sections and parts ofthe LDC and the Collier County GMP in effect at the time of issuance of any development order to which said regulations relate which authorizes the construction of improvements. The developer,his successor or assignee, shall follow the PUD Master Plan and the regulations of this PUD Document and any other conditions or modifications as may be agreed to in the rezoning process for the subject property. I n addition, any successor in title or assignee is subject to the commitments within this Document. B. Unless otherwise specified, the definitions of all terms shall be the same as the definitions set forth in the LDC in effect at the time of development order application to which the definition relates. C. All conditions imposed and all graphic material presented depicting restrictions for the development of the North Naples Research and Technology Park PUD shall become part of the regulations that govern the manner in which this site may be developed. D. Development permitted by the approval of this petition will be subject to a concurrency review under the provisions of Division 3.15, Adequate Public Facilities, of the LDC. E. Unless specifically waived through any variance or waiver process,the provisions of those regulations not otherwise provided for within this PUD remain in full force and effect. 4.2 SITE CLEARING AND DRAINAGE Clearing, grading,earthwork, and site drainage work shall be performed in accordance with the Collier County LDC and the standards and commitments ofthis Document in effect at the time of construction plan approval. 4.3 EASEMENTS FOR UTILITIES Easements,where required,shall be provided for water management areas,utilities and other fl purposes as may be required by Collier County. All necessary easements, dedications or 7 ................ other instruments shall be granted to ensure the continued operation and maintenance of all services and utilities. This will be in compliance with the applicable regulations in effect at • the time construction plans and plat approvals are requested. Easements dedicated to Collier County shall be counted toward the County's open space and the retention of native vegetation requirements. 4.4 AMENDMENTS TO THE ORDINANCE The proposed PUD Master Plan is conceptual in nature and subject to change within the context of the development standards contained in this Ordinance. Amendments to this Ordinance and PUD Master Plan shall be made pursuant to Section 2.7.3.5 of the Collier County LDC in effect at the time the amendment is requested. 4.5 PROJECT PLAN APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS Exhibit "A", the PUD Master Plan, constitutes the required PUD development plan. Subsequent to or concurrent with PUD approval, a preliminary subdivision plat(if required) shall be submitted for the entire area covered by the PUD Master Plan. All division of property and the development of the land shall be in compliance with the subdivision regulations set forth in Section 32 of the LDC. Prior to the recording of the final subdivision plat, when required by the subdivision regulations set forth in Section 3.2 of the LDC, final plans of the required improvements • shall receive the approval of all appropriate Collier County governmental agencies to ensure compliance with the PUD Master Plan,the County subdivision regulations and the platting laws of the State of Florida. Prior to the issuance of any building permit or other development order,the provisions of Section 3.3 of the LDC, Site Development Plans, shall be applied to all platted parcels. where applicable. 4.6 PROVISION FOR OFFSITE REMO.VAL OF EARTHEN MATERIAL The excavation of earthen material and its stockpiling in preparation of water management facilities or to otherwise develop water bodies is hereby permitted. lt; after consideration of fill activities on buildable portions of the project site,there is a surplus of earthen material, off-site disposal is also hereby permitted subject to the following conditions: A. Excavation activities shall comply with the definition of a"development excavation" pursuant to Section 35.5.1.3.of the LDC, whereby offsite removal shall not exceed ten (10) percent of the total volume excavated up to a maximum of 20,000 cubic yards. B. A timetable to facilitate said removal shall be submitted to the Development Services Director for approval. Said timetable shall include the length of time it will take to complete said removal, hours of operation and haul routes. C. All other provisions of Section 3.5 of the LDC are applicable. 8 4.7 SUNSET AND MONITORING PROVISIONS The North Naples Research and Technology Park PUD shall be subject to Section 2.7.3.4 of • the LDC, Time Limits for Approved PUD Master Plans, and Section 2.7.3.6, Monitoring Requirements. 4.8 POLLING PLACES Polling places shall be provided in accordance with Section 3.2.8.3.14 of the Collier County Land Development Code. 4.9 NATIVE VEGETATION A minimum of fifteen (15) percent of the site (at least 2.7 acres) shall be provided for retained native vegetation or replanted in accordance with Section 3.9.5.5.4 of the LDC. Areas of retained native vegetation include the 1.5 acre wetland preserve area located on the western portion of the site,the 0.7 acre xeric scrub preserve at the southeast corner of the site and 0.5 acre ofnative vegetation to be retained along the northern property line,for a total of 2.7 acres. 4.10 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES The developer shall be subject to Section 2.225.8.1 of the LDC pertaining to historic or archaeological resources in the event such resources are located on the property. 41111 4.11 COMMON AREA MAINTENANCE Common area maintenance, including the maintenance of common facilities, open spaces, and water management facilities, shall be the responsibility of a property owners' association to be established by the developer. 4.12 OPEN SPACES The Collier County LDC requires that research and technology parks shall maintain open space at a minimum of thirty (30)percent of the project area. The project will be designed in accordance with this standard and open space areas shall be shown on the site development plan and/or subdivision plat, or both as may be required. 4.13 OFF STREET PARKING AND LOADING All off street parking and loading facilities shall be in accordance with Division 2.3 of the Collier County Land Development Code. 4.14 USE OF RIGHTS-OF-WAY Utilization of lands within all project rights-of-way or access easements for landscaping, decorative entrance ways, and signage purposes shall be allowed subject to review and • administrative approval by the Collier County Planning Services Director. This review shall 9 take into account engineering and safety considerations. 4.15 ROADWAYS Roadways within the North Naples Research and Technology Park PUD may be private. Standards for roads and driveways shall be in compliance with the applicable provisions of the LDC regulating subdivisions,unless otherwise modified, waived or exempted by this PUD, or approved during final subdivision plat approval. The developer reserves the right to request substitutions to LDC design standards in aacor'dance with Section 3.2.72 of the LDC. 4.16 GENERAL PERMITTED USES Certain uses shall be considered general permitted uses throughout the North Naples Research and Technology Park PUD. General permitted uses are those uses which generally serve the developer and residents of the North Naples Research and Technology Park PUD and are typically part of the common infrastructure or are considered community facilities A. General Permitted Uses: 1. Essential services as set forth under LDC, Section 2.6.9.1. 2. Water management facilities and related structures. ?. Lakes including lakes with bulkheads or other architectural or structural bank treatments. 4. Temporary construction, sales, and administrative offices for the developer and developer's authorized contractors and consultants, including the necessary accessways, parking areas and related uses to serve such offices subject to the issuance of a temporary use permit pursuant to Section 2.6.33 of the LDC. 5. Landscape features including,but not limited to, landscape buffers, berms, fences and walls. 6. Any other commercial use,which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses.consistent with the permitted uses and purpose and intent statement of this PUD as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals. 4.17 SIGNAGE It is the intent of North Naples Research and Technology Park Design Standards to provide basic controls for signage size,style and color without conflicting with corporate identification symbols required for successful advertisement. All monument and building facades shall meet the following requirements but shall be ultimately governed by Collier County signage requirements. A. General: 1. All Collier County sign regulations.pursuant to LDC,Division 2.5,Signs,in 10 ............ force at the time of sign permit application shall apply unless such regulations are in conflict with the conditions set forth in this Section, in which case the PUD Document shall govern. • 2 Signs shall be permitted in private rights-of-way. 3. All signs shall be located so as not to cause sight line obstructions. -_,_4. Utilizati,91+-44f lands-within--al}project right-of-way or access-easements-for —°~~°- landscaping,decorative entrance ways, and signage purposes shall be allowed subject to review and administrative approval by the Collier County Planning Services Director.This review shall take into account engineering and safety considerations. 5. The only signage permitted within preserve areas shall be directly related to the protection and educational component of the Preserve Area. B. Entrance Signs: 1. Two ground or wall-mounted entrance signs may be located at the entrance to the PUD. Such signs shall only contain the name of the development or the insignia or motto ofthe development. 2. The ground or wall signs shall not exceed a combined total of 64 square feet. The sign face area shall not exceed the height or length of the wall or monument upon which it is located. 3. The setback for the signs from the public right-of-way and any perimeter property line shall be 15 feet. C. Traffic Signs: 1. Traffic signs, such as street signs and speed limit signs,may be designed to reflect a common architectural theme. The placement and size of the signs shall be in accordance with Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) criteria. D. Wall Mounted Signs I. Wall mounted signs shall be individual letter mounted separately or on a continuously wire raceway in a color to blend with the wall. Box type signs are not permitted. 2. Wall signs shall be placed within a 24 inch high horizontal signage band around the building perimeter. 3. Building signs shall be placed within a horizontal signage band around the building perimeter that does not exceed the requirements of Division 2.5 of the LDC. 12 E. Colors • 1. Harmonious color schemes for signs are required but corporate identity variations are acceptable. Signs with multi-color letters are not permitted. 4.18 ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS The North Naples Research and—Technology Park Design Standards have been created by the ,_ developer to promote a visually harmonious framework for all developments within the PUD boundaries. It establishes minimum design standards to enhance compatibility and to assist architects in designing appropriate structures. These standards replace related portions of the Collier County Architectural Standards (LDC Division 2.8) provided for below. All other portions of the Collier County LDC remain in full force and effect. The intent of this standard is to establish requirements that emphasize compatibility and a common architectural theme, landscaping and consistent common streetscape elements for the research/technology portions of the PUD. The Target or Non-Target Use Areas"A"and "B" located along Old U.S. 41 shall meet current LDC,Division 2.8,Architectural and Site Design Standards. Each building shall be designed with an entry element at street side as indicated on the site plan,in order to articulate building massing and visually reduce building heights along the street. A. Landscape and Streetscape Requirements 1. Landscape buffer requirements shall be as indicated in Division 2.4 of the LDC, except as provided within this Document. 2. Trees shall be planted along the street right-of-way at 30 feet on center. uniformly spaced on each site, to provide a continuous tree line along the street. Variations up to ten (10) feet are permitted to accommodate entry drives and other similar improvements. 3. Decorative street lights shall be 20 feet in height and shall be installed at 100 feet on center near the intersection of right-of-way lines and perpendicular property lines to provide a uniform and continuous lighting pattern. 4. A pedestrian walkway shall be provided from each building entry to the street sidewalk. B. Building Design Requirements The following requirements replace Subsection 2.8.3.5.2 ofthe LDC-Building Orientation Standards,Subsection 2.83.5.3 ofthe LDC—Facade/Wall Height Transition,Subsection 2.83.5.4 of the LDC- Facade Standard, Subsection 2.8.3.55 of the -LDC — Massing Standards, Subsection 2.8.3.5.6 of the LDC-Project Standards,Subsection 2.8.3.5.7 ofthe LDC — Detail Features, Subsection 2.8.3.5.8 of the LDC- Additional Facade Design Treatments for Multiple Use Buildings,Subsection 2.835.10ofthe LDC-Roof Treatments • for Buildings over20,000 square feet. The equivalent requirements under Section 2.8.4 of the Land Development Code for buildings under 20,000 square feet are also amended by 13 these standards. 1. Buildings shall be designed with the main entrance feature facing the street or on the front corner adjacent to side yard visitor parking areas in a manner that addresses the street and parking lot. 2. All buildings will have a single story entry feature element adjacent to the street with a mass that steps down from the larger research I technology portion of the building with a minimum of eight feet (vertical dimension) of roofline separation. The entry feature element shall span a minimum of 60% of the horizontal length of the front facade and provide a 3-foot minimum overhang and/or recessed alcove for entry doors at the entry feature element.The front fade of the entry feature element shall be a minimum of 20 feet in front of the larger research/technology portion of the building. Sloped roofs are not permitted at the entry feature element except for mansard treatments so that the building mass step-down is apparent. 3. The entry feature facade facing a street shall have door and window areas not less than 30% of the front elevation of the element. The total facade area is calculated as follows: front element width times the floor to roof line height(not including parapet wall height). Glazed doors and windows shall be grouped together to form horizontal glazing bands with horizontal dimensions at least twice the height of the window opening. <l. Metal wall panels are permitted for the building facade only for the building facades of buildings and structures located on the south side of the access road. As to such buildings, the metal panels are permitted if located behind the entry feature element component of such buildings, and only if the panels are twenty-five (25) feet in height, or less. Semi-concealed fasteners are required. If metal wall panels are used on the entry feature element,they shall be smooth face architectural panels. Wall facades of buildings located north of the access road northerly facing wall facades on buildings on Lot Number 9, and wall facades over twenty-five (25)feet in height shall not be comprised of metal wall panels but may be of any other exterior wall material permitted by Division 2.8 of the LDC. Wall facades over twenty-five (25) feet in height shall be delineated with control joints or scoring that does not exceed twelve (12) feet horizontally and twenty-four (24) feet vertically and emphasizes the horizontal plane. Horizontal banding with wall color variation utilized in conjunction with control joint or scoring patterns is required. 5. Architectural treatment,articulation and material selections shall be utilized on all facades of the building. 6. All mechanical roof top units and condensers shall be screened from view. 7. If any building is constructed on the northern property line west of the Upland Preserve Area and east of Lot Number 9 as depicted on the PUD Master Plan and if the north elevation length exceeds the buildable distance permitted on the • largest of these lots,the north elevation shall be required to meet the 14 Massing Standards of Subsection 2.8.3.5.5 of the LDC (Paragraphs 1 and 2) or Subsection 2.8.4.4.5 of the LDC (Paragraphs 1 and 2) as determined by the • building square footage. The intent of this requirement is to control the north elevation mass in cases where more than one lot is utilized for the construction of an individual building. 4.19 LANDSCAPING AND WALLS All landscaping shall be in accordance with the requirements of Division 2.4 of the LDL'and Section 4.1 8A of this PUD Ordinance. However, in addition, the following landscape requirements shall be met: 1. A five foot high berm constructed at a 3 to I slope shall be provided to the west of the proposed water management area,with a Type"B"buffer incorporated onto the berm to provide for screening and buffering to the west. (See PUD Master Plan Exhibit "A" for detail.) 2. The Upland Preserve Area located along Old U.S.41 shall be credited towards the requirement for a Type "D"buffer along U.S. 41,and no other type of landscaping shall be introduced into this Area other than restored native vegetation. 3. In addition to the landscaping and buffering requirements otherwise contained herein, additional landscaping shall be required along the north property line and the buffer shall be enhanced by the installation of Cabbage Palms, or similar tree species, ranging in heights from 12 feet to 20 feet tall at time of planting and shall be spaced on an average of 10 feet on center to provide additional screening for residentially zoned land to the north. 4. A Type "B"buffer shall be provided between either the Target or Non-Target Use Areas "A" or'B" and the adjoining residential area to the west. 5. A masonry wall or pre-cast opaque concrete(or similar material) fence/wall shall be constructed along the northern property line to the western boundary of Lot Number 9. Said wall shall be 8 feet in height and shall be constructed at one time at the locations depicted on cross-sections shown on the PUD Master Plan. 6. The landscaping required by this.PUD Document shall be installed or constructed at the time of SDP approval for each individual lot; however, all of the fence/wall treatment and landscaping along the northern property line shall be constructed prior to the commencement of development of lots located north of the access road and to the east of Lot Number 9;construction of the wall treatment and landscaping along the northern property line shall begin upon commencement of site work relating to lots located north of the access road including Lot Number Sand shall be completed prior to obtaining a certificate of occupancy. Once construction of the wall commences,it shall be diligently pursued. 4111 15 SECTION V PRESERVE AREA REQUIREMENTS • 5.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to identify development standards for the Preserve Areas as shown on the PUD Master Plan. 5.2 PERMITTED USES The PUD Master Plan provides for 2.7 acres of upland and wetland preserve areas. Minor adjustments may be made to the boundaries of the wetland preserve area located along the western portion of the property based on South Florida Water Management District permitting considerations. No such adjustments shall be made to the Upland Preserve Area located along Old U.S. 41. No building, structure or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used,or land used, in whole or part, for other than the following: A. Permitted Principal Uses and Structures in accordance with the preservation standards of Section 3.9.5 of the LDC: 1. Passive recreation areas. 2. Biking, hiking, and nature trails,and boardwalks. 3. Water management structures. 4. Native preserves and wildlife sanctuaries. 5. Supplemental landscape planting,screening and buffering within the Preserve Areas, subject to SOP approval. B. Any other use,which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses, consistent with the permitted uses and purpose and intent statement of this PUD, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals. 53 DEVELOPMENT STARDARDS A. Principal structures shall be required to be set back twenty-five (25) feet from the Preserve Areas. B. Accessory structures shall be required to be set back ten (10) feet from Preserve Areas. 16 SECTION VI PERMITTED USES AND DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR RESEARCH AND 'IECBNOLOGY PARK USES -TARGET AND NON-TARGET USE AREAS 6.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to identify permitted uses and development standards for areas within the North'Naples Researcl"i"aiii3-Tec ology-Park PUD and'depicted"on°the PIIIT Master Plan. 6.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION The PUD Master Plan designates the following uses for the general use designations. AREA _ ACRES ± PERCENTAGE I. Development Tracts 12.43 64.4% 2. Preserve Areas 2.70* 14.0% 3. Right-of-Way 1.29 6.5% 4. Lakes 0.90 4.7% 5. FPL Easement Area 1.26 6.5% 6. Open Space 0.69 3.9% 7. Total 19.3 100% The approximate acreage of development areas are depicted on the PUD Master Plan. Actual acreage of all development tracts will be provided at the time of site development plan or final subdivision plat approval in accordance with Division 3.3, and Division 3.2, respectively, of the LDC. Development areas are also designed to accommodate internal roadways,open spaces, recreational amenity areas, water management facilities,and other similar uses typically found in non-residential areas. 6.4 PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or part, for other than the following: A. No less than 8.23 acres will be developed with Target Industry Uses: One hundred (100)percent of the North Naples Research and Technology Park development tracts are allowed to be developed with the following principal uses (group numbers are as utilized in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual 1987): Aircraft and parts(groups 3271-3728 aviation/aerospace industries) 2. Broadcast studio,commercial radio and television 3. Cable and other pay television services(group 4841) • - Preserve areas comprise 15%of the site area less the FPL easement area. 17 4. Call center and customer support activities 5. CD-ROM development 6. Communication (groups 4812-4841) • 7. Computer and data processing services and computer related services 8. Data and information processing 9. Development testing and related manufacturing 10. Drugs and medicine (groups 2833-2836) 11. Dwelling units located above Target or Non-Target Uses 12. Education,scientific and research organization 13. Export based laboratory research or testing activities 14. Information technologies 15. Laboratories (groups 5047, 5048, 5049, 8071, 8731,and 8734) 16. Medical laboratory (groups 8071,8072, 8092, and 8093) 17. Parks 18. Photo finishing laboratory 19. Printing and publishing (group 2752) 20. Production facilities and operations/technology based 21. Indoor storage only 22. Research/development and technology laboratories(groups 8071,8731,and 8734) 23. Telephone communications (group 4813) 24. Any other use, which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses, consistent with the permitted uses and purpose and intent statement of this PUD,as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals. B. Non-Target Industry Uses: A maximum of2.54 acres may be used for Non-Target Use Areas.These areas are labeled Target or Non-Target Use Areas "A"and"B"on the PUD Master Plan: 1. Accounting (groups 8721,7521,7231,7241) 2. ATM (automatic teller machine) 3. Banks and financial establishments (group I 6011 -6062 and group 11 6081 -6173) 4. Barber shops(group 7241) 5. Beauty shops(group 7231) 6. Business services (groups 7311-7352, 7359-7389) 7. Car wash (group 7542)Accessory only 8. Clothing stores,general 9. Convenience food and beverage store with Fuel Pumps 1 10. Day care center,adult and child services 11. Drive-through facility for any permitted use 12. Drugstore, pharmacy (group 5912) 13. Dwelling units located above Target or Non-Target Uses 14. Engineering (groups 0781, 8711-8713, and 8748) 15. Food and beverage service 16. Food stores (groups 5411-5499) 17. General merchandise(groups 5331-5399) 18. General contractors (groups 1521-1542) 18 19. Gift and souvenir shops 20. Hardware store(group 5251) • 21. Health care facilities (groups 8011-8049, 8051-8099) 22. Hobby, toy and game shops 23. Hotel/motel (groups 7011, 7021, 7041) 24. Insurance companies (groups 6311-6399, 6411) 25. Laundry or dry cleaning (group 7215 only) 26. Legal offices (group 8111) 27. Management (groups 8741 5743, 8748) 28. Membership organization (groups 8611-8699) 29. Motion picture production studio(groups 7812-7819) 30. Personal services(groups 7211-7299) 31. Photographic studios(group 7221) 32. Physical fitness (group 7991) 33. Professional offices 34. Research/development and technology laboratories(groups 8071,8731,and 8734) 35. Restaurants, fast food 36. Restaurants and cocktail lounges only in conjunction with restaurants(groups 5812-5813) 37. Schools, commercial (groups 8243-8299) 38. Security and commodity brokers (groups 6211-6289) 39. Travel agency (group 4724) 40. Any other use, which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses, consistent with the permitted uses and purpose and intent statement of this • PUD,as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals. C. Accessory Uses and Structures 1. Accessory uses and structures that are incidental to uses permitted as of right in the PUD. 2. For Target Use Areas, retail sales or display areas accessory to the principal use shall not exceed an .area greater than twenty (20) percent of the gross floor area of the permitted principal use and are further subject to retail standards for parking and landscaping pursuant to Divisions 2.3 and 2.4, respectively, of the LDC. 3. Administrative offices 4. Parking garages 5. Care takers unit 6. Storage,indoor only 7. Any other use, which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses, consistent with the permitted uses and purpose and intent statement of this PUD,as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals. 6.5 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR TARGET AND NON-TARGET USE AREAS • A. Minimum lot area-20,000 square feet B. Minimum lot width-100 feet;however,lots fronting on Old US.41 shall have a minimum 19 1 _ _ lot width of 250 feet of frontage on Old U.S.41 and the northwestern-most lot adjacent to the cul-de-sac shall have a minimum lot width of 42 feet on the interior street front. C. Minimum size ofstructures-1000 square feet • D. Minimum yard requirements: 1. Front yard: 25 feet 2. Side yard: 15 feet except when abutting residentially zoned property, then 25 feet 3. Rear yard: 15 feet 4. Minimum yard requirement from any residentially zoned property:25 feet. 5. Separation between buildings: 15 feet or one-half the building height, whichever is greater. E. Maximum height of structures: Three stories with a maximum height of 35 feet. However, the maximum height of any building to be constructed on the westerly most tract depicted on the PUD Master Plan as Tract or Lot Number 9 is limited to a maximum height of twenty- five (25) feet. F. Outside storage and display —No outside storage and display shall be permitted. All manufacturing,processing andpac shall be conducted wtin a enclose Lighting —Lighting facilities shall king be arranged in a anner ih that fully protects roadways db uilding. G. and neighboring properties from direct glare or interference. Parking lot lighting facilities on the westerly most portion of Tract or Lot Number 9 and along the northern property line shall be limited to a maximum of twelve (12) feet in height. Shielding of these lights shall be provided so that no direct glare impacts any residential structure to the west or north. 1-1. Building permits - Building permits for Non-Target Uses shall be issued for no more than 10,000 square feet of gross leasable area up and until the first building permit is issued for the Target Use Area use. 1. The landscape berm and buffer area located on the western portion of the property, as depicted on the PUD Master Plan,shall be provided within the initial phase of construction. J. A fence or landscaping features designed to deter pedestrian travel shall be provided along the western edge of the westerly most tract of the project. K. Hotel/motel -Hotel/motel units may be developed to a maximum floor area ratio of 0.60, and not to exceed 16 dwelling units per acre. L. For uses located on the north side of the access road, hours of delivery and loading/unloading are only permitted between the hours of 6:00 am. and 9:00 p.m. M. All testing shall be conducted inside enclosed structures. N. Residential Standards-The development standards forNon-TargetUse Areas "A"or"B"for residential/commercial mixed uses are set forth as follows: 1. Residential dwelling units shall be located above principal uses. 2. The number of residential dwelling units shall be controlled by the dimensional 20 standards of the C-3 Zoning District which standards are in effect as of the date of adoption of this Ordinance. • 3. Building height shall not exceed a maximum height of 35 feet. 4. Each residential dwelling unit shall meet the following minimum floor areas: efficiency and one-bedroom, 450 square feet; two-bedroom, 650 square feet;three- bedroom, 900 square feet. 5. Residential units may be provided on the second or third floor and may be mixed with office uses on the same floor. 6. The mixed commercial/residential structure shall be designed to enhance the compatibility of the commercial and residential uses through such measures as,but not limited to, minimizing noise associated with commercial uses; directing commercial lighting away from residential units; and separating pedestrian and vehicular accessways and parking areas from residential units. 7. Should a conflict arise between County Staff and the developer concerning the implementation of any of the above requirements. the interpretation and appeal procedures of Section 1.6.6 of the LDC shall be followed. • I 21 SECTION VII DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS S 7.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the development commitments for the North Naples Research and Technology Park PUD. 7.2 PUD MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN A. All facilities shall be constructed in strict accordance with approved site development plans, final subdivision plat and all applicable State and local laws, codes, and regulations applicable to this PUD. Except where specifically noted or stated otherwise, the standards and specifications of Division 3.2 of the Land Development Code shall apply to this project even if the land within the PUD is not to be platted. The developer, his successor and assigns,shall be responsible for the commitments outlined in this Document. B. The PUD Master Plan ("Exhibit "A") is illustrative in nature. Tracts and boundaries shown on the Plan are conceptual and shall not be considered final. Actual tract boundaries shall be determined at the time of preliminary or final subdivision plat or site development plan approval. C. All necessary easements, dedications,or other instruments shall be granted to insure • the continual operations and maintenance of all service utilities and all common areas of the project. 7.3 ENVIRONMENTAL A. An exotic vegetation removal monitoring and maintenance plan for the site shall be submitted to the Collier County Environmental Services Department prior to final site plan/construction approval. A schedule for exotic vegetation removal shall be submitted with the above-referenced plan. B. A minimum of fifteen (15)percent of the site at least 2.7 acres) shall be provided as retained native vegetation or replanted in accordance with Section 3.9.5.5.4 of the LDC. Areas of retained native vegetation include the 1.5 acre wetland preserve a located on the western portion of the site,the 0.7 acre xeric scrub preserve area at the southeast corner of the site and the 05 acre of native vegetation to be retained along the northern property line. C. Environmental permitting shall be in accordance with the State of Florida Environmental Resource Permit Rules and be subject to review and approval by the Environmental Review Staff. 1. The developer shall comply with the guidelines and recommendations of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS") and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission ("FFWCC")regarding potential impacts to protected wildlife species. 22 .. ........... Where protected species are observed on site,a habitat management plan for these protected species shall be submitted to Environmental Services Staff for review and approval prior to final site plan/construction approval. E. The petitioner shall be subject to all environmental sections of the LDC and GMP in effect at time of final development order approvals. F. The scrub oak preserve area shall he restored in accordance with the approved Unauthorized Vegetation Removal Remediation Plan and Exotic Vegetation Eradication &Maintenance Plan"prepared by Southern Biomes,dated November 1, 2002. The mitigation plantings shall be completed, inspected and approved prior to preliminary acceptance of the subdivision plat or the issuance of first certificate of occupancy,whichever comes first. G. A Gopher Tortoise(GT)Relocation/Management Plan shall be submitted for review and approval at the time of plat/construction plan submittal. 7.4 TRANSPORTATION The development of this PUD shall be subject to and governed by the following conditions: A. All traffic control devices and design criteria used shall be in accordance with the minimum standards, as amended, and as adopted by the FDOT, as required by Chapter 316,Florida Statutes-Uniform Traffic Control Law. • B. All traffic speed limit postings shall be in accordance with the minimum standards as adopted by the FOOT - Speed Zoning Manual, as amended, and as required by Florida Statutes- Chapter 316,Florida Statutes- Uniform Traffic Control Law. C. Arterial level street lighting facilities shall be provided at all development points of ingress and egress. Said lighting facilities must be in place prior to the issuance of the first permanent certificate of occupancy (CO). D. External and internal improvements determined by the Collier County Transportation Staff to be essential to the safe ingress and egress to the development will not be considered for impact fee credits. All such improvements shall be in place prior to the issuance of the first CO. E. Road impact fees will be paid in accordance with appropriate Collier County Ordinances unless otherwise approved by the Board of County Commissioners. F. Any and all points of ingress and/or egress as shown on any and all plan submittal(s) are conceptual in nature and subject to change as determined by the Collier County Transportation Staff The Collier County Transportation Staff reserves the right to modify, or close any ingress and/or egress location(s) determined to have an adverse affect on the health, safety and welfare of the public. These adverse impacts include, • but are not limited to, safety concerns, operational circulation issues, and roadway capacity problems. 23 G. Any and all median opening locations shall be in accordance with the Collier County Access Management Policy, as amended. and the LDC, as amended. Median access and control will remain under the Collier County Transportation Staff authority. Collier County Transportation Staff reserves the right to modify or close any median opening(s) determined to have an adverse affect on the health, safety and welfare of the public. These adverse impacts include, but are not limited to, safety concerns, operational circulation issues,and roadway capacity problems. H. Nothing in any development order will vest the right of access over and above a right in/right out condition. Neither will the existence of nor lack of, a future median opening be the basis for any future cause of action for damages against the County by the developer(s), its successor(s) i n title, or assignee(s). The development shall be designed to promote the safe travel of all users including pedestrians and bicyclists. Pedestrian and bicycle travelways shall be separated from vehicular traffic in accordance with recognized standards and safe practices, as implemented by the Collier County Transportation Staff. J. The developer(s), its successor(s) in title, or assignee(s),will be responsible for the cost of any and all traffic signal(s),at any and all development entrance(s), when determined warranted and approved by the Collier County Transportation Staff. When warranted, upon the completion ofthe installation, inspection, burn-in period, and final approval/acceptance of any and all traffic signal(s), said traffic signal(s) shall be turned over for ownership to Collier County Transportation Services Department, and will then be operated and maintained by Collier County Transportation Operations. Any negotiations relevant to "fair share" payment(s), or 11, reimbursement(s),from any and all other neighboring property owner(s),that directly benefit from said traffic signal(s),will be determined based upon the percentage of usage/im pact. K. The developer(s)shall provide any and all site-related transportation improvement(s) including,but not limited to,any and all necessary turn lane(s)improvement(s)at the development entrance(s) prior to the issuance of the first permanent CO. Said improvements are considered site related, and therefore,do not qualify for impact fee credits. When said turn lane improvement(s),whether left turn lane(s) and/or right turn lane(s),are determined to be necessary, right-of-way and/or compensating right- of-way, when applicable,shall be provided in conjunction with said improvement(s), as determined by Collier County Transportation Staff. The subject development turn lane improvements shall be as follows: 1. On the north approach, a separate right turn lane for southbound to westbound traffic movement shall be provided. 2. On the south approach, a separate left turn lane for northbound to westbound traffic movement shall be provided. 3. On the west approach, a separate right turn lane for southbound traffic movement and dual purpose left tum/through lane for the northbound/eastbound traffic movement shall be provided. 24 All turn lane design criteria used shall be in accordance with the minimum standards as adopted by the FOOT-Design Standards,as amended,and as required by Florida Statutes-Chapter 316,Florida Statutes, Uniform Traffic Control Law. L. All work within Collier County rights-of-way shall meet the requirements of Collier County Ordinance No. 93-64. M. All internal access(es),drive aisle(s),sidewalk(s),not located within County right-of- way, will be privately maintained by an entity created by the developer(s), its successor(s) in title, or assignee(s), for that purpose. N. Joint/shared access(es)may be required by Collier County Transportation Staff as a condition of SDP approval. O. Frontage, midpoint and/or reverse frontage (backside) interconnection(s) may be required by Collier County Transportation Staff as a condition of SDP approval. P. Prior to development of any and all portion(s) of any and all development(s), SDP approval shall be obtained/received from Collier County Transportation Staff through the SDP review process, Division 3.3 of the LDC. Q. If a gate is proposed at any and/or all development entrance(s), the gate shall be • designed so as not to cause vehicles to be backed-up onto any and all adjacent roadways. To meet this requirement, the following shall be the minimum requirements to achieve that purpose: 1. The minimum throat depth from the nearest intersecting roadway edge of pavement shall be no less than 100 feet to the key pad/phone box for the proposed gate(s). 2. A turn around area of sufficient width and with sufficient inside • turning radii shall be provided between the aforementioned key pad/phone box and the proposed gate(s). 7.5 UTILITY REQUIREMENTS A. Water distribution, sewage collection and transmission and interim water and/or sewage treatment facilities to serve the project are to be designed, constructed, conveyed,owned and maintained in accordance with Collier County Ordinance No. 01-57,as amended, and other applicable County rules and regulations. B. All customers connecting to the water distribution and sewage collection facilities to be constructed will be customers of the County and will be billed by the County in accordance with the County's established rates. Should the County not be in a 40 position to provide sewer services to the project, the sewer customers shall be customers of the interim utility established to serve the project until the County's off- site sever facilities are available to serve the project. 25 7.6 ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS A. Detailed paving, grading, site drainage and utility plans shall be submitted to the • Development Services Department for review. No construction permits shall be issued unless detailed paving, grading, site drainage and utility plans are submitted and until approval of the proposed construction, in accordance with the submitted plans, is granted by the Development Services Department. B. A copy of the SFWMD Surface Water Management Permit must be received by the Development Services Staff prior to any construction drawing approvals. C. Subdivision of the site shall require platting in accordance with Section 3.2 of the LDC to define the rights-of-way and tracts shown on the PUD Master Plan. 7.7 WATER MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS A. Design and construction of all improvements shall be subject to compliance with the appropriate provisions of the Collier County LDC,except that excavation for water management features shall be allowed within twenty (20) feet from side, rear or abutting property lines,with side,rear or abutting property lines fenced. B. Land scaping may be placed within the water management area inaccordance with the criteria established within Section 2.4.73 of the LDC. C. The wet season water table elevation shall be established at the time of SFWMD 1110 permitting, which is required for the subject property. D. A drainage easement along the easternmost side of the FPL easement shall be dedicated to Collier County at the time of final subdivision plat approval pursuant to FPL approval. The developer shall coordinate this requirement with the Collier County Stormwater Management Section Staff.No certificate of occupancy shall be issued until this easement is properly obtained and the instrument evidencing the grant of easement is recorded. E. At the time of construction plan review, adequate documentation justifying the proposed enclosure of the ditch on the west side of the FPL easement shall be provided. F. The Collier County Stormwater Management Section will review and approve the stormwater management system and the developer shall obtain a surface water management permit from the South Florida Water Management District. G. The developer shall coordinate with the Sterling Oaks Homeowners' Association in order to plan for the Sterling Oaks stormwater discharge.This requirement is subject to a modification of the Sterling Oaks' South Florida Water Management District permit. 26 Detail by Entity Name Page 1 of 2 • FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE 168 DIVISION of C RPoR t1"I0\S ,', dlbj/ .army Detail by Entity Name Florida Limited Liability Company MY OTHER PLACE, LLC Filing Information Document Number L12000039685 FEI/EIN Number 45-4855141 Date Filed 03/21/2012 Effective Date 03/21/2012 State FL Status ACTIVE Principal Address 15 8TH STREET SUITE A BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134 Mailing Address 4117 WHIPPLE AVENUE NW, SUITE B CANTON, OH 44718 Changed: 02/11/2015 Registered Agent Name & Address Salvatori, Wood & Buckel 9132 Strada Place Fourth Floor Naples, FL 34108 Name Changed: 02/04/2013 Address Changed: 02/04/2013 Authorized Person(s) Detail Name&Address Title Manager GOLDIE, JAMES M 15 8TH STREET SUITE A BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134 Title Vice Manager http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporatianSearch/SearchResultDetail?inq... 3/26/2015 Detail by Entity Name Page 2 of 2 Johnson,Allen W 15 8TH STREET SUITE A BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134 Annual Reports, Report Year Filed Date 2014 03/19/2014 2014 09/24/2014 2015 02/04/2015 Document Images 02/04/2015 --ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 09/24/2014--AMENDED ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 03/19/2014--ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 02/04/2013--ANNUAL REPORT I View image in PDF format 03/21/2012-- Florida Limited Liability View image in PDF format Copyright©and Privacy Policies State of Florida,Department of State http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/SearchResultDetail?inq... 3/26/2015 ° Collier County 1. Z8UOm(]RTHH�n5E5oOs�nm� [O02RCOUNTY GOVERNK0ENT NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 GROyyTHx8AmAG[y�ENTD|V/5|ON (2�g) -Z'luOOR\X�(Z]9)Z52-8��8 u/ww.coUierRov.net �����(����iU ^� ` '/ � '~ �'' 'zs ,, c��� ��cor.emf,A v�sc,,o��m�-- , -1 ,..;.,^;_yumcheAO ; at.,, a. Pursuant to LDC subsection 1002'13 E.2, a PUD insubstantial change includes any change that is not considered a substantial or a minor change. A PUD insubstantial change to an approved of LD[ subsection 10UZ l5 E 1 and shall PUD ordinance shall be based upon an evaluation u su . . — require the review and approval of the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner's approval shall be based on the findings and criteria usedfortheoh8ina| app|ication. PD|'PL201400O28i1 REV: 1 PETITION NO NORTH NAPLES RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY PARK PROJECT NAME DATE. 12/15/14 DATE PROCESSED i � DUE 12/31/14 | ( ' ! \ �99UC���CO%T� � !&��'�/� ' `' I II ' [�n� ��QO�8 Alien Johnson, North Naples Golf Range, Inc. NammepfApp|icant(o): Bonita G nge FL 3|9 34134 15 8th Street, Suite ��t�� uvm�" State: �______ Address: _� 239.253.8236 ��U: Fax: Telephone: ' \\nnd8A�8Ol.COOl �KAa iAddress llgode@aol.com Steven L. Darby, P.E. Nammem6Agent Darby, Firm: Darby Engineering, Inc. 1�15 S.W. 4th Street, �8 4 Cap� Cora FL 33Q A 1 Address: �d�� State: 3]p' Fax: 239.772.0141 239.945.0551 �eU� Telephone: . SteVe��d8\-�a.COMl E-Mail steve@dei-fla.com is the applicant the owner of the subject property? 1111 Yes Li No -- 1. ii applicant is a land trust,so indicate and name the beneficiaries below. Z. |f applicant is corporation other than a public corporz ti on.so in icate an d name officers — kh ideobe\ovx and nnujorstoc » below. Page zof4 9/25/2014 Cott-ier County 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 vywlf ier?ov.net If applicant is a partnership,limited partnership or other business entity,so indicate and name principals below. 4. If a plicant is an owner,indicate exactly as recorded,and list all other owners,if any. n Ell x P 5. If applicant is a lessee,attach copy of lease,and indicate actual owners if not indicated o the lease. 0 6. If applicant is a contract purchaser,attach copy of contract,and indicate actual owner(s) name and address below:(If space is inadequate,attach on separate page) separate sheet, attached to the application,describe the insubstantial change request. Onas e p how the request does not meet the PUD substantial change criteria established in LD C Iden ti fy subsection 10.02.13 E.1. PUD NAME: North Research and Technology Park ORDINANCE NUMBER: a3 2s FOLIO NUMBER(S): 64288000185 1 (if PUD is recorded) or graphic description of area of he P(thi provide be graphic a fega ( I f applying for a portion a graphically illustrated n porteo PUD Master Plan). legal description for Attach on a separate sheet,a written description of the map or text change. Does amendment comply with the Growth Management Plan? a Yes ❑ No If no,please explain: a No Has a public hearing been held on this property within the last year? 0 Yes If yes,in whose name? Has any portion of the PUD been Q SOLD and/or a DEVELOPED? Yes No proposed for the area sold and/or developed? ❑ [] • Are any change s p P If yes, please describe on an attached separate sheet. 9/25/2014 Page 2 of 4 Collier County • COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliereov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 .,e't'rfE,, and Final Submittai Requirement: 'Ci ec€:+}'o 1C., The following Submittal Requirement checklist is to be utilized during the Pre-Application Meeting and at time of application submittal. At final submittal,the checklist is to be completed and submitted with the application packet, Please provide the submittal items in the exact order listed below,with cover sheets attached to each section. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted. Completed Application(download current form from County website) , 16 x H Pre-Application Meeting notes Project Narrative,including a detailed description of proposed changes 16 ® ❑ and why amendment is necessary ® ❑ Detail of request A Current Master Plan&1 Reduced Copy , . Revised Master Plan&1 Reduced Copy ci 40 Revised Text and any exhibits Ea PUD document with changes crossed through&underlined m 0 ^PUD document as revised with amended Title Page with Ordinance# ® © C.1 Warranty Deed Legal Description 2 Boundary survey,if boundary of original PUD is amended I E x If PUD is platted,include plat book pages 2 ❑ El identifying Owner&all parties of corporation 2 x ❑ Affidavit of Authorization,signed¬arized 1 Completed Addressing Checklist 1 Q Copy of 8 Y2 in.x 11 in.graphic location map of site Electronic copy of all documents and plans *Please advise:The Office of the Hearing Examiner requires all materials 0 Q ❑ to be submitted electronically in PDF format. *If located in Immokalee or seeking affordable housing,include an additional set of each submittal requirement. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PUBUC HEARING PROCESS: applicant shall • Following the completion of the review process by County Review staff, the app'U submit all materials electronically to the designated project manager. • Please contact the project manager to confirm the number of additional copies required. • Page 3 of 4 9/25/2014 Cot tier County 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE • COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 PLANNERS—INDICATE IF THE PETITION NEEDS TO BE ROUTED TO THE FOLLOWING REVIEWERS: ❑ Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment: School District(Residential Components):Amy Executive Director Lockheart Parks and Recreation:Vicky Ahmed , a Utilities Engineering:Kris VanLengeM Naples Airport Authority:Ted So liday $� 5-- Emergency Management Dan Summers Other. Conservancy of SWFL:Nichole Ryan Other. $ a of Naples:Robin Sin:er,Planning Director N 6 - 1 ❑ PUD Amendment Insubstantial(PDI):$1,500.00 ❑ Pre-Application Meeting:$500.00 ❑ Estimated Legal Advertising fee for the Office of the Hearing Examiner:$925.00 The completed application,all required submittal materials,and fees shall be submitted to: Growth Management Division/Planning and Regulation ATTN:Business Center 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34104 0.,„----/Zi,„ Sole ,. ,/,fic.../- ...5z, 0 .., .... c.,, k Applicant/Owner Signa ure Date. Allen Johnson Applicant/Owner Name(please print) 0 Page 4 of 4 9/25/2014 .................. EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NORTH 'A OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 10 TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, LYING WEST-OF OLD U.S: 41 (TAMIAMI TRAIL); AND THE NORTH 200 FEET OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, LYING WEST OF OLD U.S. HIGHWAY 41 (TAMIAMI TRAIL), ALL BEING IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. • PDI-PL20140002611 REV: 1 NORTH NAPLES RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY PARK DATE: 12/15/14 DUE: 12/31/14 PDl-PL20140002811 REV:1 NORTH NAPLES RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY PARK __ DATE:42115/14 ....... _.. — DUE 17131/14 w.__..__........ MI?Nr..ap7 a. ,tor �11 tar s a n t tor r Aar r / A l r SNTOW tI ■ NCN.7ANafT -onta M1lT /// •*, e M f1s AIlM,•' 1.11•IKM'A• �, • • t i. IEOA AQMt ! (UY At71Ht 3PSa myrr. .• . •NY. t VW ♦ • i .....•1, t Nr • 11, rte= � = _. :i � a !/ i fo.r.O wr�i .ii cor tr rs.--.� �NI, LOT a ....r y a._ 9 •f�3 UNUAf MOW..�r'PAM0TEC W n !1 i'�UtTtr: �.•!�� �.. t.W.pliEtOVOO MCI IMO M N-TARGET - r L 3 = Sl r '�' .�' .°_ •+•• - ANFM NK Raaran Aar al use uxws,n a. .=....+p••.•.... W !• __.._.._satRfi.�lxEs+n � SGCTHiN J-J' •Na1R OK7 104910 LOOS On PRMCYp TO RE m.._:m._ °`--' a !^+ ~++�� K0.RfHtA170 wro MOO WE SigtiCNRE ON VX C y • af1D Mint K6EnMr to•E MONO-21 AMES S2tL�.�9 ui ` ���I�� .-:.....�.-� `•�W •arc:%%Of rcaaern•e,re Aau:+ ,,� .a 1 - .. 0107 55.41 Cor.no tt N O.carat brt,7,04 ^.l'fY.aaa ...._ auras,rn EASE4titT,we NCI P•EEO ti Ame s. � `^ ONO ne11 SUMMARY ;ISM.e: +`' :.►ly l OSYSLOnLRET TRACT.SUS As.• 94.11• Lis .._.. ROAD f1.Ht- -WAY 129 AGE• a7• ��'_ '"' ..r.1!&:-.._. e ate. E r .1111i911.:31:S •°. °w.a P.L.P EASEMENT E411 AC.a 11A• .SS° __ • f 1.-.I PREsERYE •270 AGE• MO♦ • i 1 +.wtw. ••rM, J I f 1 LAKE 0.110 As• 47 X- ..-.-- wA..om•:..•i.wr 1 p•@4 SPACE 0.49 As•. 911• 1 0'0 t' �•' TOTAL 1097 Asa IMO• . f �C Ka.. f .:::"L —4--'�'a11eat'--wan ... • •MC Aa#J ASR O OE Tod.WE AA[A'1254 It MC rra.FARADS 1+r » a.`3r."�. "---.i-- � MAW/ t ..R.ClaN.'. tT6 1�' a"rte =.1.11=.rtt. 1 www w wW""...=.:".............•••..* a SCCT{g4f ° — r -- ' ....a)._ ,ay�A NORTH NAPLES RESEARCH and IN — _... NORTH NAPLES RESEARCH yvut...._ .w.srq:•4me TECHNOLOGY PARK PUO MASTER PLAN — end TECHNOLOGY PARK t -: - °""""""id _tli6_._._....�'•9•" Ar.•vR.Nn Nan# EXHIBIT*A" •......_... w,7462. 7 a This instrument prepared by and after recording return to: Leo J.Salvatori,Esq, Salvatori,Wood,Bucket,Carmichael&Lottes 9132 Strada Place, Fourth Floor.. Naples, FL 34108-2683 WARRANTY DEED This Indenture, made this 1,17q) day of �-e'p/r/'>/ ,7 , 2014, between, NORTH NAPLES GOLF RANGE, INC., a Florida corporation, as Trustee of the SJG Land Trust Agreement U/A dated 5/29/97, GRANTOR, to MY OTHER PLACE, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, whose post office address is 15 8th Street, Suite A, Bonita Springs, Florida 34134, GRANTEE. Witnesseth that said GRANTOR, for and in consideration of the sum of TEN DOLLARS, and other good and valuable consideration, to said GRANTOR in hand paid by said GRANTEE, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, has granted, bargained and sold to the said GRANTEE and GRANTEE'S heirs and assigns forever, the following described land, situate, lying and being in Collier County, Florida, to-wit: Lot 1, NORTH NAPLES RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY PARK, according to the map or plat thereof as recoded in Plat Book 41, Page 48, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Together with all the easements, tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging or in anywise appertaining; and Subject to easements, restrictions and reservations common to the subdivision, and real estate taxes for the year 2014 and all subsequent years, bearing Parcel No. 64288000185. To have and to hold, the same in fee simple forever. And said Grantor does hereby fully warrant the title to said land, and will defend the same against the lawful claims and demands of all persons claiming by or through Grantor, but against none other. In Witness whereof, the GRANTOR has hereunto set GRANTOR'S hand and seal the day and year first above written. 40 PDI -PL20140002611 REV: 1 NORTH NAPLES RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY PARK DATE: 12/15/14 Prolaw:1 074225 DUE: 12/31/14 Signed, s-- ed a • delivered (Corporate Seal) n our p .sense _ NORTH NAPLES GOLF RANGE, INC., a Florida corporation, as Trustee of the SJG s Land ust-Agreem U/A dat-•5/29/97 s#1 prat na b tow} j} ° r° j Allen W. Johnson, as Vice-President mess#2(print name below) (.--)k-1- 112 IF; C)© STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER c�- The foregoing was acknowledged before me this (e] day of C 6- , 2014 by ALLEN W. JOHNSON, as Vice-President of NORTH NAPLES GOLF RANGE, INC., a Florida corporation, as Trustee of the SJG Land Trust Agreement U/A ted 5/29/97, who is personally known to me or has produced identification. f NC3TARTPU13L 7 TYPED,PRINTED OR STAMPED NAME OF NOTARY MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: 0 re ' ` LEO J.SALVATOHI _.: , .4 MY COMMISSION 1 EE 834941 ,;- ` EXPIRES:November 28,2018 • 4:01.4. Bonded Nu Notary Public Unde,wtibrs 1 10' Prolaw:1074225