Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
HEX Agenda 02/11/2016
COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER HEARINGS AGENDA FEBRUARY 11, 2016 AGENDA THE COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER WILL HOLD A HEARING AT 9:00 AM ON THURSDAY,FEBRUARY 11,2016 IN CONFERENCE ROOM 610 AT THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT/PLANNING®ULATION BUILDING,2800 N. HORSESHOE DRIVE,NAPLES,FLORIDA INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES UNLESS OTHERWISE WANED 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: 4. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. PETITION NO. BD-PL20150001119—Beth Murphy and John Morrissey-Pumo request a 67-foot boat dock extension over the maximum 20 feet allowed by Section 5.03.06 of the Land Development Code, for a total protrusion of 87 feet to accommodate a docking facility with two boat lifts for the benefit of Lot 73, Isles of Capri No. 1, in Section 32, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,Florida. [Coordinator:Eric L Johnson,AICP, CFM,Principal Planner] 5. OTHER BUSINESS 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS 7. ADJOURN AGENDA ITEM 4-A Co er County MEMORANDUM TO: COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER FROM: ZONING DIVISION—ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: FEBRUARY 11, 2016 SUBJECT: BD-PL20150001 1 19 23 W Pelican Street PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT: Beth Murphy& John Morrissey-Pumo Jeff Rogers 23 Pelican Street West Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. Naples, FL 34113 3584 Exchange Avenue Naples, FL 34104 REQUESTED ACTION: Beth Murphy and John Morrissey-Pump are requesting a 67-foot boat dock extension over the maximum 20 feet allowed by Section 5.03.06 of the Land Development Code, for a total protrusion of 87 feet to accommodate a docking facility with two boat lifts. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject site is zoned Residential Single-Family (RSF-4) and located at 23 W Pelican Street and is further described as Lot 73, Isles of Capri No. 1, in Section 32, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. The boat dock would installed in Pompano Bay, which is zoned Rural Agricultural Special Treatment Overlay (A-ST). PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The purpose of the request is to allow a boat dock extension that would accommodate two (2) boat lifts in Pompano Bay. The drawing labeled Proposed Site with Dimensions shows the proposed mooring for the two(2) vessels. The larger vessel would be 28 feet in length; the smaller would be 22 feet in length. BD-PL20150001119 23 W Pelican Street Page 1 of 11 January 29,2016 ,4► , haLi i 4 , X44,, m allZ It tY 137 tiitkAdaf 4444,740 04;444„i".- ,Atit' alo U � n r . AV*OM S C� � CF)_ z i � �I ® a :1_, 14 F � ®,UY _0 z i l+® ` : g Ci ® 0 ® MN' G � Lam' i N Ear 41111115, ra MK .n t- �Q0 Rya I .(!t C? 4.A1P 4,04t>.# ;;Atil g lir#AtAp‘kollia, t'' 54 E. CV a 3,ni 6,ON m I z' 0 A' - 1 ii 1 '2, ‘-'2() 1 ‘ 8 4 -..- iii _ /AI I (:(--- -- ‘1 i ' \‘th 1 .,.. 0. )ihi ie.,/ 44r, it )0\4,- . , il ir L. vilEh. - _ .;..., ' ) n , , 1 row •ionlievax, ir _, ii, "\..>1 •re---'-- i P. 1 n ilik ( ,6 Z r- 'S e--t' le i x 0 P 0 0 0 I . 04t),._ --1.0v11 0 . . ___, . . , ALL g 1111 _ Mi A g R - Pail porn Pt '' AWE- gi. .44 .Wile SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: This section of the staff report identifies the land uses and zoning classifications for properties surrounding the subject site. North: Pompano Bay, zoned A-ST. East: Vacant residential (Lot 72), zoned RSF-4. South: Right-of-way for Pelican Street, farther south are vacant/developed lots (single-family residential), zoned RSF-4. West: Single-family residential (Lot 74). zoned RSF-4 (with boat dock extension. BD-2006-AR-10118). :I ...4': :'-'16:1 ,7 ' i`-.. ' '*** t evil ... _ & *.--T-1 ' &i - '4 ? t • - r l'i • i d siIT r • iifi'r . 41 - . u .sl l f ti < Mir;� s .., E t -4 ' i I\ L'l1 . ..I / V .41141 '" Subject Property " BD-PL20150001119 _, -i ft Aerial(County GIS) BD-PL20150001119 23 W Pelican Street Page 3 of I 1 January 29,2016 /jj) �f/ ' ��_ .„, to F y , 1 ,,, ,, r 1 ■ . .. a yP X. f : , K ,..._ ,:....„ It. it i"..x tr at23 VV Pe'liGail L.,t ,.ate: ._ x. ,. � _ - - °.7 / I, rr / , t r :1; P � errrae.rrr.sr.e.w Lrrrw. C;�7�)�;1�' earth Aerial of rear yard(north elevation)- 12/9/2014(Google Earth) See next page BD-PL20150001119 23 W Pelican Street Page 4 of 11 January 29,2016 Rear water view-Jan 2016(staff digital photo) ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION: According to the environmental data provided with the application, a continuous bed of seagrass exist off the shore of the property. Where a continuous bed of seagrass exists off site, provisions pursuant to OMP Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) Policy 10.6.1 and LDC sections 5.03.06 J.3 & 4 apply (the applicable provisions in CCME Policy 10.6.1 mirroring that of the LDC). These provisions are as follows: LDC sections 5.03.06 1.3 & 4 3. Where a continuous bed of seagrasses exists off the shore of the property and adjacent to the property, the applicant shall be allowed to build a dock across the seagrass beds, or a docking facility within 10 feet of seagrass beds. Such docking facilities shall comply with the following conditions: a. The dock shall be at a height of at least 3.5 feet NGVD. BD-PL20150001119 23 W Pelican Street Page 5 of 11 January 29,2016 b. The terminal platform area of the dock shall not exceed 160 square feet. c. The access dock shall not exceed a width of 4 feet. d. The access dock and terminal platform shall be sited to impact the smallest area of seagrass beds possible. 4. The petitioner shall be required to demonstrate how negative impacts to seagrass beds and other native shoreline vegetation and hard bottom communities have been minimized prior to any project approval or permit issuance. Seagrasses off the shore of the subject property are located predominantly on the 1-4 foot MLW contour lines and continue to the east in the bay adjacent to the adjacent property. The proposed project is also located within the Rookery Bay Aquatic Preserve which requires an additional set of rules pursuant to Chapter 18-21 FAC. Specifically Aquatic Preserve rules do not allow docking facilities to extend past the minus 4 foot MLW contour line. This restriction along with required setbacks for the County, leave little room in avoiding impacts to the seagrass bed. Since impacts to seagrasses cannot be avoided, impacts have been minimized by adhering to the criteria in LDC section 5.03.06 J.3. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that this petition complies with Section 5.03.06.J.3 and 4. The proposed dock is also located within a Special Treatment (ST) Overlay, which occurs over the waters around Isles of Capri. A Special Treatment permit will be required prior to approval of the building permit for the boat dock(see Conditions of Approval). ANALYSIS: 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, at least four (4) of the five (5) primary criteria and four (4) of the six (6) 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 BD-PL20150001119 23 W Pelican Street Page 6 of 11 January 29,2016 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 two (2) boat slips, which is appropriate in relation to the approximately 59.99 (measured)/60 feet (platted) 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 met. The LDC allows a dock facility to protrude 20 feet. At this threshold, the applicant argues, "the water depth is 0.5 MLW which does not warrant enough depth to moor a vessel." The drawing labeled Cross Section 2 illustrates the proposed location of the vessel in relation to the water depth at the mean low water line. 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 application, the total width of the water way is 1,025 feet (visual estimate). The drawing labeled BDE does not indicate the distance between the outermost edges of the proposed dock (on the subject property) from the outermost edges of the dock facility on the opposite side of Pompano Bay. However, the applicant justifies the request by indicating, "The proposed dock facility will not have adverse impacts on navigation as it will only protrude 10% the width of waterway." The Official Zoning Map indicates that a boat dock extension (BD-2002-AR-3544) had been granted to Lots 142 and 143 of Isle of Capri No. 2 (138 Tahiti Circle). The total protrusion approved for this boat dock was 50 feet. Staff concurs that navigability will not be adversely impacted by this request. 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. As previously mentioned, the applicant's visual estimate of the width of Pompano Bay is 1,025 feet. The applicant states, "The proposed dock facility will only protrude 10% width of the waterway therefore leaving more than 50% width of waterway (between docks on either side of the waterway will be maintained for navigability." This meets both tests of this criterion. BD-PL20150001119 23 W Pelican Street Page 7 of 11 January 29,2016 S. 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. The drawing labeled Proposed Site on Dimensions shows that the proposed dock facility, including the moored vessels, would be located 15 feet from both riparian property lines,which complies with the minimum required by the LDC. 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 presence of seagrass is a special condition not involving water depth that justify the proposed dimensions and location of the proposed dock facility. The Submerged Resources Survey revealed that seagrasses (shoal and paddle grass) were present within the subject water. Their location is depicted on the drawing labeled Submerged Resource Survey. The Submerged Resources Survey concludes the following: "Overall the observed seagrass bed is large in nature and covers most of the project and extends offsite to adjacent neighboring properties. The seagrasses within the bed appear to be in good condition and are growing in and around the existing surrounding dock facilities. Water clarity was good and the proximity to Capri Pass ensures that good flushing occurs within this area. Where seagrasses were observed the percent coverage ranged from 5%to 60%. The seagrasses were found predominately on the 1-4' MLW contour lines and to the eastern limits of the proposed project. It is clear that seagrasses can and do grow in association with the current surrounding activities. The proposed project is located within the Rookery Bay Aquatic Preserve which requires an additional set of rules (18-21 FAC), be considered when designing a dock. Due to aquatic preserve rules not allowing a docking facility to extend past the -4 MLW contour line and required setbacks the required proposed docking facility has little to no room to avoid impacting the documented seagrass bed within this area." The Submerged Resources Survey later concludes, "It is Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. opinion that the proposed dock configuration has minimized impacts to the fullest extent possible to the surrounding seagrass bed." 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 drawing labeled Proposed Site with Dimensions shows that the dock would be 7.2 feet at its widest point. It is staff's opinion the design is reasonable, does not use excessive deck area, and meets the intent of this criterion. BD-PL20150001119 23 W Pelican Street Page 8 of ill January 29,2016 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 met. Both vessels combined (28 feet and 22 feet) equal 50 feet, which exceeds 50% of the subject property's linear waterfront footage. However, it should be noted that according to the drawing labeled Proposed Site with Dimensions, the total width of the two (2) vessels, in combination with the docking facility would account for 29.9 feet. This width would be slightly less than half the linear water frontage of the platted lot. 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 drawing labeled Cross Section shows the elevation of the MHW to be 0.42 feet NAVD. While the drawing does not indicate the height of the dock at its highest point beyond the 20-foot threshold, the applicant has informed staff the highest point of the dock would be five (5) feet above the mean high water line, which equates to 5.42 feet NAVD. It is staff's opinion the view shed of neighboring properties will not be impacted to the extent that this criterion would not be met. 5. Whether seagrass beds will be impacted by the proposed dock facility. (If seagrass beds are present,compliance with subsection 5.03.06.J of the LDC must be demonstrated.) Criterion met. Environmental staff reviewed the petition and determined it to be compliant with Subsection 5.03.06.J of the LDC. The applicant states, "Seagrass beds exist within 200 feet of the proposed dock facility. The proposed design minimizes negative impacts to seagrasses to the fullest extent possible while following guidelines for side setbacks, terminal platform size and total protrusion (4ft contour). Following these design guidelines to minimize impacts, structures to be built directly in or over seagrass were kept to a minimum. Please see attached Submerged Resource Survey drawing." It should be noted, however, that staff disagrees with the applicant's assertion about minimizing negative impacts to the fullest extent possible, because at minimum, one (1) vessel could be eliminated from the scope of work. 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 two (2) slips and are not subject to the provisions of the Manatee Protection Plan. BD-PL20150001119 23 W Pelican Street Page 9 of 11 January 29,2016 Staff analysis finds this request complies with all five of the primary criteria and four (4) of the six secondary criteria. APPEAL OF BOAT DOCK EXTENSION TO BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS: 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 County Attorney's Office reviewed this staff report on January 22,2016. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the above findings, Staff recommends that the HEX approve Petition BD-PL20150001119, subject to the following conditions to be incorporated into the final HEX Decision: 1. A Special Treatment permit will be required prior to approval of the building permit for the boat dock. 2. Issuance of a development permit by a county does not in any way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. 3. All other applicable state or federal permits be obtained before commencement of the development. Attachments: 1) Photographs 2) Application& Support Material See next page BD-PL20150001119 23 W Pelican Street Page 10 of 11 January 29,2018 PREPARED BY: t ERIC L. JOHNSON,i CP, CFM PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: RAYM• D V. BELLOWS,ZONING MANAGER DATE ZONIN bIVISION .. ,2?- MICHAEL BOSI,AICP, DIRECTOR DATE ZONING DIVISION BD-PL20150001119 23 W Pelican Street Page 11 of 11 44 1 16]15 ill 3E F 3 A ait '54 id 10 i i —9 i Ili iii A ®eARJ g ' n till vt4 irk all_ On MUM G BEZIIIMIIIIII elj NIP ;" cfj 11;111 awns MICXwAV `; A •1 1,,c Y "O'swirt' ''44° Velip14106. $ to IP fp.A,,,,iii ii h*ar 43,4 r 411V 1 '1Yt t4* CV IF /01 a' # © t <Y l ``0 a ac� v K s • .alli 4,,„..k., rye.**. :z z. I Z.ter " r eAkt eltr 416 162111alt ,.0 4 44 ft 0" al ir *7' d r 46 0 4 VD 47 }] )at �� �0 Q M € 4? W M . N t i 4 A Qa g I B o A g 1 S s m el o c n C 44 ,5 F z z n A" a - g a m , 0 iil N R p u a 8 z ,eaax ` $ D r ; F ��� qa� � : e z > ila li -- a ;,-it,.. I. ." � 2.4 Z, -• • aL8 . u v ^a.i .V = j = k • l m 1' � 4 B9 i; krmm�r p / ` 1 ° , fg• , y a t- o g; n• . 11/.t# ; -.%., ,,,,, ,..,0 4' 1 !% i 11! 1 I L- ti7/..„' - it F. v2' us S " <, z _'gwt�.s-r �, �; I W y 1 e.l C `l n ,..ice F- .tl.:-S a a� i`az Z "I 8 1 / -R 1 i� / XIII1 li W 1`o31�t a1 3Y i ,. s- . / /,®i I ZO ai ° . 2 -P ill 10 a I farist/ yril .1 i4f tk..tx - „, '. . , ' /4„...iikar)omisii/ - 0 jq.ti Z 1..1411 ,–. ,, 6 g N ,,,,, ---� xo 3xh I i1m Z z, of lat i WO °,'4 NE xE 3 3 . %, fxr 4 I. . Si xes®QI 1 E se 3 'pct i . 8% _ \ ;',y z, Km i I r e `3 I �'s �� `� 11 0 J-- t7 —1 1� 1 r Of 4.NQQ> II N M I ) 1 p- 1 1 jj " I I I l I{•iii t 0.)'"4 6iy I `� \ x1,.R p IZ IZ Z; { S fN F Zia / `b I ;@. _ ' ,Z l" a4% = ei a ® ' �'1, gc\�� Ir „�d� W tip° a CIU AQT/ �. 9_M.R,—'7 I „j _ 1 d_ i( Fll j 1 � S ° q6 U W� k by f woilsK r 3 �''la G°J R tkit 1114- I" © ' ' 0'ii 1 1 hi 41.A a u-1. `' -L- -['iv--,...-<,,itiiir4s#4,-N.,:wdtT4 ;0-vs' Qt ci`6'" .444fiti6(fro a Z -�i .e' is d I n a� 5 ] ILI Q - 03-1! h'Ill f Zh ` �\ P a i3 3 3'�3 44 i30; ' a ttil U) 9) - --- A.,-;, .,.,, j x i A I I I I I I �; vigil vt IA � x� 3$ � �' €l€ a c 11‘; i ly ;y e 1 1 ct )1; 6 V " II' -4 4111,1 ...-j -zji 11 ,iii ,, $,,..is d ' �; " "c ' l -I 1 i ° , 4 � 1 s "'i A € id eC� F� u d 4c 21 4141 ° I, k S "0). ) ' ilk-zit 0h\d 2 • k t o). 4 V ' eg.1 ,1S\l 't F' ,Ilk H 11,11 yid 4,/t1 i)Tirtri) v • ' I ATTACHMENT #1 Photographs • • -„„ A t 't•.''.. .,' , : i ill ..,, ,.'s, :• . . : . , •= -... -. ,- .,4 I .- ...., = . -.. ._. • .i =,';:?,• --='. . 4. ,--. . . . • , • • • MINEIMIII0 N . 111•111111Mini 4 '' r.:. .,. . 111111111=11110 !Ne,: $NM I , . a -114$1 ti .,,,:,7 •,,., .,--.- 2, . • ,. ....,,.. , ,, .. 1,1,„,,,,s 1 — ..... - - ' 3 • . . , • , • .. .. . . • . . , • * .. . , . • .. ... ,. . , . . . „._„. ...,.. • .. ..• • .1.l'itP1 • 1,... - - i • ,, ! , , !,b . . . ., ., ' • • . 1/2 • - •-• -,,,, • • . . . .. . . , ., . , --!--- , . , A 5- 1 .ti i. :,.... , • _ _ .., ,... .. ._ . _ --..--.- . 4 ' - I f II 1 • , • i ....1%4 ...- -....,\ I , . , ..... sp, 1111111\ ' ' 4 ' . { f at '. - a '6' ,- i ,.i,`,!' ,it •1,.. xy at • \ \ tlik` , y —. T' RRA , e l';'''':-. ''''.'?'.'*f..'...-,..', ',,,*.. ..t.',.,.,4 .' \ \ \ * • % , :i, ' , . ,,.,, ,, , •: ., _ ...,,.. . .. ,,,. ..... ,.. ..,.. . ‘...taideir.,_7(//_ k- -j'. 1.; ;k411=„... .. . „ ,. r . • . . ..... ... . ,. , . . L , .• ___. ,, ,.. ____________ -..--_, ,. . . f i , .,.._ . .. . $$fir d � i.�_, ,..-4, ( ti-47r i 4 .. A.DF y y 's ; 1 ern .....,„ , ' -..-7-'4=....W.'s os.41..r. - 0 i µ I & c 0„ sy § '`. a f m §icy S Syr ' ,..I _ • # - cam,. 1 ti ` Safi '. .! ' 2 a i yy y'i' hs }egg . t -----..."-‘:••'.,-_••,- -4.??...--c4it.:„:- •."---,4-0.V'''•••• ' :- r•-•-:-'"•"••--,t-'4114•d'ii:-...----7`'-I-44::°'' '-'-°°..- ---•-'''''--:',--1'.- --i5.-7:.-..:t-7,-..".*A.,,,.------:-'',,,':i - '. 0_ - ,i::-.-:::' ..:---?:_._,:i-i,',:---•r.T',-.'h,-,-.:4-ii,k-'''''',' _._ •..-„.,,,,,,-_,,;,-:-,:?;--,,t,--:.:44-..:,:_:=7,;vi----: , ' - ' :',:-..---..,;,- '','.:4;.'?,,,'.:-='•',:lti--:(4,./!4.11,i',„' , -••=•!iiti.:t'--,41.1.•!ftiti .;--..,....4:,;„,..- , _.....___, -_,- ..-..„---. - ......„..... . ,_ ' .:::,„;.:,,:f4,::,.,:,,A • •• ..... .t..,...a......."...,..... .- '' •'. i..S.',.1.:7-.''''4:_‘,!'llil-S.1-,} -- - ___-'';'.. , - • ,,-,7,.--4',::::,':?,.,.-3.: ,ic-it.,:i;',":',11.11- , _ •.1 0 .. 7 ' II ' ., • rm,v> i r1 .‘. • ; • . , -....:- „,„..... - , - . I ' • , ,. .. . , • 44 :1 '•-•-. .:-I 1 . :, • , . . . ',-"-.' .. _ f t ., . 1 i li . . '• , . • e- ,. . ..... 1 t a ' . Y; , fiyl.,. • , f , k 1 t A F ' A j s p i N. ti p x I. • 461111011011111111 . ., 1 f it a al i 0 ..,---„,,,,-- ,-,,,,-„,,,,h • ATTACHMENT #2 Application & Support Material • • 041URP BDE APPLICATION P1,20150001119 November 30, 2015 # El, � lc PREPARED By: •( *may (j 41 TURRELL HALL&ASSOCIATES,INC 3584 ExcIIA:NGE AVENUE NAPI.ES„FL 34104 fi ;r UPDATED • BDE APPLICTION • • i F j • r County • COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2806 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.coNiergov.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 11111 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 Co County 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 Administrative Code THIS PETITION IS FOR(check one): J DOCK EXTENSION [] BOATHOUSE PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME To be completed by staff DATE PROCESSED APPLICANT INFORMATION Applcant(s): Beth Murphy & John Pumo-Morrissey Address: 23 Pelican Street West aty: Naples state: FL ZIP: 34113 Telephone: Cell: Fax: E-Mail Address: bethmurphy@firsttitlemarco.com Name of Agent: Jeff Rogers • Firm: Turret!, Hall & Associates, Inc. Address: 3584 Exchange Ave aty. Naples State: FL ZIP: 341°4 Telephone: 239-643-0166 Cell: Fax: E-Mail Address: Jeff @turrell-associates.com PROPERTY LOCATION Section/Township/Range: 32 /51S/26E Property 1.0.Number: 52342720009 Subdivision: Isles of Capri Unit: 1 Lot: 73 Block Address/General Location of Subject Property: 23 Pelican Street West Current Zoning and Land use of Subject Property: Residential Single-Family RSF-4 and A-ST BE AWARE THAT COLLIER COUNTY HAS LOBBYIST REGULATIONS.GUIDE YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY AND ENSURE THAT YOU ARE IN COMPUANCE WITH THESE REGULATIONS. 6/3/2014 Page 2 of 7 County • COWER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.conlergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE 1 Zoning Land Use N AS-T Pompano Bay S RSF-4 Rlaht.of-way for Pelican St;farther south are Lots 536(RSF) E RSF-4 Lot 72(Single Family Residential) W RSF-4 Lot 74 (Single Family Residential) DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Narrative description of project(indicate extent of work,new dock,replacement,addition to existing facility,any other pertinent information): The proposed work encase oonstruc bn of s new Axed wooden finger dock approximately 450 squats feet The proposed dock has two boat lib on either skis of the terminal plat form. The new dock will coned D1290 bet dame=walkway,160 square feet at terminal platform and at not protrude pest the 48 MLW sne. SITE INFORMATION 1. Waterway Width: 411 1026 ft. Measurement from 0 plat 0 survey ®visual estimate 0 other(specify) 2. Total Property Water Frontage: 59.9 ft. 3. Setbacks: Provided: l5&15 ft. Required: 15 ft. 4. Total Protrusion of Proposed Facility Into Water: 87 ft. S. Number and Length of Vessels to use Facility: 1. 28 ft. 2. 22 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: West-Dock with MN(5411) East-Old covered dock(6711) 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? 0.16 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. II) 6/3/2014 Page 3 of 7 . er Caroni ► COWER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 urww.coitiergay.net (239)252-7400 FAX:(239)252-6358 L.. PRIMARY CRITERIA The following 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 at 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 • The following 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 ps 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.) Response: The total waterfront length for this property is 59.9ft. The zoning and upland land use is single family residential which warrants no more than Z slips per CC-LDC;the current proposed dock design has 2 boat slips. 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(MIT). (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.) Response: See attached survey/drawing illustrating the existing water depths. At 20 foot protrusion the water depth is 0.5 MLW which does not warrant enough depth to moor a vessel. • 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) Response: The proposed dock fadlity will not have adverse Impacts on navigation as it will only protrude 10% width of waterway. The proposed dock facility is located in the southeast comer of Pompano Bay where minimal to no navigation occurs. 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.) Response: The proposed dock facility will only protrude 10% width of waterway therefore leaving more than 50%width of waterway(between docks on either side of the waterway)will be maintained 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.) Response: The proposed dock facility will provide 40'+clearance to the neighboring dock on the west and 60'+clearance to the neighboring dock on the east. Both provide adequate clearance for the size vessels of the neighboring properties. • • COWER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVtS$ON NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 • www.colltergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6353 SECONDARY CRITERIA 1 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.) 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 to 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 5.03.061 must be demonstrated.) 6. Whether or not the proposed dock facility Is subject to the manatee protection requirements of • LDC subsection 5.113.06 E.11. (If applicable, compliance with subsection 5.03.06.E.11 must be demonstrated.) 6/3/2014 Page 5 of 7 • • 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.) Response: The proposed dock facility was primarily governed by the Aquatic Preserve guidelines but seagrasses were also present as illustrated in the attached drawing. 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.) Response: The proposed dock facility has been minimized to the fullest extent possible to meet the Aquatic Preserve dock building guidelines while still providing adequate and safe access to and from the vessels. 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.) Response: Individually each vessel Is less than 50%the subject property's linear waterfront footage, and combined the vessels are approximately 84%of the subject property's linear waterfront footage. 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.) • Response: The p proposed dock facility will provide two boat lifts that will not have a major Impact on the waterfront view of either neighboring waterfront property owners. The proposed dock facility is consistent with others on this bay and will not affect neighboring properties view of the waterway. 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.) Response: Seagrass beds exist within 200 feet of the proposed dock facility. The proposed design minimizes negative impacts to seagrasses to the fullest extent possible while following guidelines for side setbacks, terminal platform size and total protrusion (4ft contour). Following these design guidelines to minimize impacts,structures to be built directly in or over seagrass beds were kept to a minimum. Please see attached Submerged Resource Survey drawing. 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.) Response: The proposed work Is a single-family dock facility and therefore not subject to Manatee Protection Requirements. • AFFIDAVIT OF A UTHORIZA TION • 1 { AFFIDAVIT OF AUTHORIZATION FOR PETITION NUMBERS(S)_f L�_ ,2 1;ck • 1,applicable)of (Print nand),as (title,If under oath,that f am the (company,if a iicable),swear or storm (choose one)owneranappgcantOcontract purchaser and that: . 1. Move 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 1 by the approved action. 5. Well authorize , L.t. : . ' ; ,Gl in any matters regarding this petition including 1 through-2 above. to ad as ourlmy representative `Notes: • If the applicant is a corporation,then it is usually executed by the corp.pie&or v.plea. • if the applicant is a Limited liability Company(L.LC)or Limited Company(LC.), then the documents should typically be signed by the Cavrrpenys*Managing Member.• • • if the applicant is a partnership,then typically a partner can sign on behalf of the pennons*. partner �i�ed� then the genera/partner must sign and be identified as the garters! • If the applinant is a trust then they must Include the trustee's name and the words'as trustee' • In each>rastance, first determine the applicant's status, e.g., individual, 4a, use the appropriate format for that ownership. corporate, trust; laartYreuBh and then III tinder •-A;), a of perjury d —I have read the foregoing Affidavit of Authorization and that the f . r• • to it . s. de/ - ..........- to STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing Instrument was to(or affirmed)and subscribed before me on G a- rS R �/al i- 1h �� date)as {{ / (name of perso • • •, oath or._= •n),as who Is personally known to m- • has . .. —. 4I / (type of identification)as identification,STIWPr8EAt ti 11/ t + f 1111•Lat� I+ Notary . t , ta'�i- i t , ,_ � ' I` •CP108.00 .aoH$UsS • REV 2!24/14 i III , , . _ _ AFFIDAVIT OF AUTHORIZATION FOR PETITION NUMBERS(S) 1, D, /I't oct (print name),as • applicable)of (title,if under oath,that 1 am the(choose one)a (company,If applicable),swear or affirm ( ) wner�applicantEcontred purchaserDend that: 1. I have full authority to secure the epproval(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.date or other supplementary matter attached hereto and made a part of this application are honed and true; 3. I have authorized the staff of Colter 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 sction. 5. We/i authorize-1174-0,11, Z.ehr sn ct ,Inc. to act as our/my representative in any matters regarding ihis petition including 1 through 2 above. `Notes: • if the applicant Is a corporetYon,then it is usually executed by the carp.Ares or v.pres. • If the applicant is a Limited Liability Company(L.L.C.).or Limited Company(LC.), then the documents should h+pkcally be signed by the Company's'Managing Member" • If the applicant lea partnership,then typically a partner can sign on behalf of the partnership.• • if the applicant Is a linked partnership, then the general partner must sign and be identified as the *general partner'of the named partnership. • if the applicant Is a trust,then they must Include the trustee's name end the words as trustee. • in each instance, first determine the applicant's status, e.g-, individual, corporate, trust:partnersh/p, and ihon use the appropriate formet for that owners*. Under penalties of perjury,I declare that i have read the foregoing Affidavit of Authorization and that • the facts stated in f are r/e1/1 STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing instrument was sworn to(or affirmed)and subscribed before me on rr/t/`Ic (date)by • ,. . !,I • s' — "ILO" ,.„: of person providing • motion), as who - •ersonaly known to me • .i (type of identification)as identification. Atfj;• STADAPMEAL S .n •r" • *taryi 747 r i WrtIeaott ms -1 EXPiti6S Ali!1a 5118 ere�dlruNolayMrekMlrMlJ coos-coe-oor hsuss — REV 3/I4/I4 ? • , • ADDRESSING CHECKLIST • . , • COWER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2,1•NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE- GROWTH MANAtiMM ENTD t AP ,FIORtHA S4104 ttnyvt.oltio .r 2S2-7, PAX ( -5 ADDRESSittiO CliECKLiSt PI ...= x:: the .,f6_ GMD_Addreesing er ov.net or fax to the tor* 1 w _reran*at 2X0-252-6724 &wai tin paoon to ttte ... . Depsttrr nt at the „*, r oddities.Farm OSA Not a i bons to every project Some h betel type cro regt*ed. POL.I0 NUM; MUST OE P • =• • Forms okier than I me to itAl requite ;. , ,.nai review and ;,. .eel by Ole Addressing a=�€ meet, PETITION r,r r s a. joefl.msi'.tow) 1 Parrot) 0 SDP(Sas. rx. (tent! ) El ?(Boat tit Eadens ) s°-A(SEP Amendment) C G1C ioue Pet i k 0 RCP (f su .s del Charge in SDP) a C (Condibrtri Use) St (8ke imosovenierd EXP(E2MaratkiriPstinfti $PIOS. tS CI FP at (LA(Arial i ... Nam C (Lof Lies AIN.F INM i A i�Ct -tJG t . (Project , ..,; IN TOR - 111 VA _ W PUD Rezone VRASFP bn Rsmowd&tax FS Perrob RZ( I OTHEit Lit.M!BCRIPTION of suit property or p (copy of f,,` dei*&n:rimy b.ofiNtotioci) Nies of Co No above(*item to,or assocbte wtir, clasettltbn 1 mote then one) Street LOCAT e E .; must be tt# 1'k; ;$ _' #'""' •... Ei$$i <• of p. in Mattel to rosiest public _ht d SURLY(.« ".' ,r,., r Ilx.. p .::. s=__'.) P *'•,E D PROJECT NAtttE(V sylpikirrirki Purnq-Mulpfly PRO.•- STREET S(f. ;1,.•� l tin '°• SITE DEVELOPMENT P NU #...,. ;.Pv SDP or AR Pi AA:ANA A AAA AKA. ri If-.R C.OUNlYGOVERNMEhl 2800 NOfrili HORSESHOE DRIVE efiCiVrtiMANAGEMENR DIVISION NAPLES',FLORIDA 341.04 wo.n.v.wilitAgadLo (239)252-2400 FAX (239)zs7-5724 Projector development names proposed for,or already appearing In,oondominium documents(it application; Indicate whether proposed or existing) eielme Please Return Approvad Chaeldiat By 0 Ernst! 0 Fax 0 Personally picked up Applicant Name: Kabieii Phone: 239-843-0168 EmatiThou kastentpturrelt-associates.com Signature on Addressing Checklist does not constitute Project and/or Street Name approval and is subject to further review by the Operations Department. 410 1110•111111111111111V 1•1111111111111•111 FOR STAFF USE ONLY Folio Number 52342720009 Number Folio Number Folio Number Folio Nurriblir._ Folio Number Apprznrod by: Data:.5-13-2015 Updated by__ Oats: 11. OLDER 111Alq. 0 litiC)WIEIS, tow li4US1 tE O1 friFW romto sin-WAIT-1'ED • • PRE-APPLICATION MEETING NOTES • Co'fifer 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 nal Submittal Requirement Checklist for: Dock Extension n Boathouse Chapter 3 8. 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. OF NOT REQUIREMENTS FOR REVIEW COPIES REQUIRED REQUIRED Completed Application(download current form from Count website) Signed and Sealed Survey fp, V ❑ Chart of Site Waterwa (♦ I C 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 rkY ❑ Completed Addressing Checklist 1 FY ❑ Electronic copy of all required documents *Please advise:The Office of the Hearing Examiner requires all materials 1 g ❑ to be submitted electronically in PDF format. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR 771E 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 I Co ev County COWER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.coltiergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358' • PLANNERS_INDICATE IF THE PETITION NEEDS TO BE ROUTED TO THE FOLLOWING REVIEWERS: r) Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment: Environmental Review:See Pre-Application Executive Director Mestin:S';n•In Sheet ill Addressi ::Annis Moxam J Gra.hies:Mariam Oeheltree IVCity of Naples:Robin Singer,Planning Director nil Historical Review Comprehensive Planning:See Pre-Application Meets :< -In Sheet lmnwkalee Water/Sewer District: I Conservan of SWFL•Nithole R an lid Parks and Recreation:Vi Ahmad Coun .Attorney's Office:Heidi Ashton-C eko MI Trans.ortation Pathways:Stacey Revay Emergency Management Dan Summers;and/or r School€istrict(Residential Components):Amy EMS:Artie Bay Heartlocic IgorEn:ineerin::Alison Bradford III Transportation PIanni John Podtzerwinsky Other. ® Utilities Engineering:Kris VanLengen FEE REQUIREMENTS: [ Boat Dock Extension Petition:$1,500.00 0 Estimated Legal Advertising fee for the Office of the Hearing Examiner.$925.03 © An additional fee for property owner notifications will be billed to the applicant prior to the Hearing Examiner hearing date. III 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 may result in the delay of processing this petition. .......... S re P t1 •ner or Agent 0 t 6/3/2014 Page 7 of 7 IP) i I 9& nty • COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE j. GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 PLANNERS—INDICATE IF THE PEI 1TION NEEDS TO BE ROUTED TO THE FOLLOWING REVIEWERS: ❑ Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Environmental Review:See Pre-Application Executive Director Meeting Sign-In Sheet [i Addressing:Annis Moxam Qr Graphics:Mariam Ocheltree ❑ City of Naples:Robin Singer,Planning Director ❑ Historical Review Comprehensive Planning:See Pre-Application Meeting Sign-In Sheet ❑ Immokalee Water/Sewer District: UConservancy of SWFL•Nichole Ryan E Parks and Recreation:Vicky Ahmed 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 Headlock Engineering:Alison Bradford 0 Transportation Planning;John Podc erwinsky ❑ Other: 0 Utilities Engineering:(Cris VanLengen FEE REQUIREMENTS: ❑ Boat Dock Extension Petition:$1,500.00 ❑ Estimated Legal Advertising fee for the Office of the Hearing Examiner.$925.00 ❑ 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 induded in this submittal package.I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this petition. Signature of Petitioner or Agent Date 6/3/2014 Page 7 of 7 Co .Ie'r County O Brandi Pollard Utility impact fees 252-6237 brandipollard@colliergov,net V Fred Reischl,MCP Zoning Services 252-4211 fredreischl@colliergov.net I=1 Brett Rosenblum,P.E. Stormwater Plan Review 252-2905 brettrosenblum@colliergov.net O Michael Sawyer Zoning_Services 252-2926 michaelsawyer@coiliergov.net O Corby Schmidt,AICP Comprehensive Planning 252-2944 corbyschmidt@colliergov.net O Chris Scott,AICP Planning and Zoning 252-2460 chrisscott@colliergov.net 0 Daniel Smith,AICP Landscape Review 252-4312 danielsmith@colliergov.net O Scott Stone Assistant County Attorney 252-8400 scot stone@colliergov.net 0. Mark Strain Hearing Examiner/CCPC 252-4446 markstrain®colliergov.net 0 Carolina Valera Comprehensive Planning .252-8498 carolinavalera@colliergov.net O Kris VanLengen Utility Planning 252-5366 icrisvaniengen@colliergov.net O Jon Walsh Building Review 252-2962 jonathanwalsh@colliergov.net O David Weeks,AICP Future Land Use Consistency 252-2306 davidweeksgacolliergov.net O IGrsten Wilkie Environmental Review 252-5518 kirstenwilkie@colliergov•net CI Christine Willoughby Planning and Zoning 252-5748 ChristineWilloughlay@cotliergownet • ,Anhi Additional Attendee Contact Information: 1111, Name Representing Phone Email ERIC grie.Vr I , • • Rev 411/15 Cofer County Pre-Application Meeting Notes Petition Type: Boat Dock Extension Date and Time: Tuesday.May 26,201.5 9:00 AM-10:00 AM Assigned Planner: Eric Johnson Engineering Manager(for PPL's and FP's): Project Information Project Name: Isles of Capri at 23 West Pelican St (BDE) PL#: PL20150001119 (BDE) property ID#: 52342720009 Current zoning: RSF-4 Project Address: 23 West Pelican St. City: Naples State: FL Zip: 34113 Applicant: Turrell, Hall & Associates Agent Name: Nik Kasten Phone: (239) 643-0166 • Agent/Firm Address: 3584 Exchange Ave# B city. Naples State: FL Zip: 34104 Property Owner: Beth L. Murphy and John D. Morrissey-Pumo Please provide the following,if applicable: i. Total Acreage:, 16 ii. Proposed#of Residential Units: Ilia iii. Proposed Commercial Square Footage: n/a iv. For Amendments,indicate the original petition number: n/a v. If there Is an Ordinance or Resolution associated with this project,please indicate the type and number: n/a vi. If the project is within a Plat, provide the name and AR#/PL#: isles of Capri No 1,Lot 73 Plat Book 3, Page 41 • t Rev 4/1115 Coiner County . 1 Meeting Notes t44., - ' ',:y J Id •�[!..!...f I A• ' ' �.'.r_��•'_4_' • �.i .. .1:_, ` L !iJ" __ . ..„,.. .. 'i //4./. f 6 -.l►l/1 I_.,.,.._ . A./ . r f. .:! ii.. 4. .■,'� A. . r !i a ..-.72.4....' _... .,?,. ri:c 4 s Gds 711. Pi ` . , 1 be to / ' lriom ]he r .; ' ' ,0( l7.o jct l 1.o 2D,ted r 0 , / 11 ST /�:f/r_ I`. LI /..-ri'l., ?_1.. L'. ` �1e.♦ • i. �� . L.d4 i .:; JI '" A.' - t'4 � .. /_ r i /l...Js,1a: ..-.. 4 (i1... .. . ...4-.1..,...— _ . At.. , ''./f./ • .j:.,/..A�r wit .Ii .i /rs... /..I a �y - / / I . . 1 • i Rev 4!1/15 I Coii;er County , 0 Pre-Application Meeting Sign-In St let Pi.#: 2o1500otlrq (PP&I Coll ier County Contact Information: r- - Name Review Discipline Phone Email ,.< Richard Anderson Environmental Review 252-2483 richardanderson @ colliergov.net ❑ David Anthony Environmental Review 252-2497 davidanthony@colllergov.net ❑ Summer Araque Environmental Review 252-6290 summerbrownaraque @colliergov.net ❑ Steve Baluch Transportation Planning 252-2361 StephenBaluch@colliergov.net ❑ Madelin Bunster Architectural Review 252-852$ madelinbunster @colliergov.net ❑ Mark Burtchin ROW Permitting 252-5165 markburtchin @coliiergov.net ❑ George Casco Utility Billing 252-5543 georgecascio@colliergov.net ❑ Heidi Ashton Gcko Managing Asst.County Attorney 252-8773 heidiashton@colliergov.net ❑ Sue Faulkner Comprehensive Planning 252-5715 suefaulkner @coillergov.net ❑ Eric Fey,P.E. Utility Plan Review 252-2434 ericfey @colliergov.net ❑ Paula Fleishman Impact Fee Administration 252-2924 paulafleishman@colllergov.net ❑ Michael Gibbons , Structural/Residential Plan Review 252-2426 michaelgibbons @colliergov.net ❑ Nancy Gundlach,AICP,PLA Zoning Services 252-2484 nancygundlach @colhergov.net • ❑ Shar Hingson East Naples Fire District 687-5650 shingson@ccfco.org ❑ John Houldsworth Engineering Services 252-5757 johnhouldsworth@colliergov.net ❑ Jodi Hughes Transportation Pathways 252-5744 jodihughes@colliergov.net ❑ AlldaHumphries _ Right-Of-Way Permitting 252-2326 aliciahumphries@colliergov.net ❑ Marcia Kendall Comprehensive Planning 252-2387 marciakendall @colliergov.net ❑ Reed Jarvl,P.E. Transportation Planning 252-5849 reedjarvi@colliergov.net ❑ Stephen Lenberger Environmental Review 252-2915 steveienberger @coliiergov.net ❑ Paulo Martins Utilities 252-4285 paulomartins@colliergov.net ❑ Thomas Mastroberto Fire Safety 252-7348 Thomasmastroberto@coiliergov.net ❑ Jack McKenna,P.E. Engineerinj Services 252-2911 jadcmckenna@colliergov.net _ j ❑ Matt McLean,P.E. Principal Project Manager 252-8279 rnatthewmclean @colliergov.net ■ 1 ❑ Gilbert Moncivaiz Utility Impact Fees 252-4215 gilbertmoncivaiz@colllergov.net I ❑ Michele Mosca,AICP Impact Fee Administration 252-2466 michelemosca @colllergov.net ❑ Annis Moxam Addressing 252-5519 annlsmoxam@coiliergov.net ❑ Mariam Ocheltree Graphics 252-2315 mariamocheltree@colliergov.net ❑ Brandy Otero Transit , 252-5859 brandyotero@colliergov.net ❑ SIN Pancake North Naples Fire District 252-2310 biilpancake @colliergov.net 0 John Podcterwinsky Transportation Planning 252-5890 johnpodczerwinsky @colliergov.net I • Rev a/1(15 Cosier County T ❑ Brandi Pollard Utility Impact fees 252-6237 brandipollard @colliergov.net ❑ Fred Reischl,AICP Zoning Services 252-4211 fredreischl@colliergov.net 0 Brett Rosenblum,P.E. Stormwater Plan Review 252-2905 brettrosenblum @colliergov.net ❑ Michael Sawyer Zoning Services 252-2926 michaelsawyer @ colliergov.net -a ❑ Corby_Schmidt,AICP Comprehensive Planning 252-2944 corbyschmidt@cofliergov.net ❑ Chris Scott,AICP Planning and Zoning 252-2460 chrisscott@colliergov.net ❑ Daniel Smith,AICP Landscape Review 2524312 danielsmith @colliergov.net ❑ Scott Stone Assistant County Attorney 252-8400 scottstone @colliergov.n et ❑ Mark Strain Hearing Examiner/CCPC 252-4446 markstrain @colliergov.net ❑ Carolina Valera Comprehensive Planning 252-8498 carolinavalera@colliergov.net ❑ Kris VanLengen Utility Planning 252-5366 krisvanlencen @cofliergov.net ❑ Jon Walsh Building Review 252-2962 jonathanwalsh@colliergov.net ❑ David Weeks,AICP Future Land Use Consistency 252-2306 davidweeks @colliergov.net ❑ Kirsten Wilkie Environmental Review 252-5518 kirstenwilkle@colllergov.net 0 Christine Willoughby Planning and Zoning 252-5748 , ChristineWilloughby @colliergov.net Additional Attendee Contact Information: Name Representing Phone _^T Email • f Rev 4/1/15 ST PERMIT APPROVAL LETTER • • COLLIER COUNTY Growth Management Department August 14,2015 Jeff Rogers-Turrell,Hall&Associates,Inc. 3584 Exchange Ave. Naples,FL 34101 EMAIL-jeffftu:rell-associates.com RE: Special Treatment Overlay Permit P120150001639 Pumo-Murphy Dock-23 W.Pelican Street Dear Applicant The following comments are provided to you regarding the above referenced project. If you have questions,please contact the appropriate staff member who conducted the review. The project will retain a"HOLD"status until all comments are satisfied. The followhdss comments need to be addressed as rooted • Rejected Review:Environmental Review Reviewed By Stephen Lenberger Email:Steveknberger®colilergov.net Phone#:(239)252-2915 Correction Comment 1: On hold pending approval of boat dock extension request for property(BD-PL20150001119). When addressing review comments,please provide a cover letter outlining your response to each comment. Include a response to completed reviews with stipulations. If you have any questions,please contact me at(239)252-2915. Sincerely, Stephen Lenberger Environmental Specialist Growth Management Department • UPDATED DOCK EXHIBITS w m __} , N 3 W A n r - At , ,, • . ' *. k .. . . . . n( ►, J om y m ,t, fi/ S% U y. �_ ,; W ,o g• t'3 0 4 w w U u imiNtit ' S'. Y U J,. o I-2 W W h 2 V) p W T d.cr 5 �o N& fn 0) 1 . ■ 0 i M Z Q W . • D o I ~ z 0 4 t.0 x o -J Ct d ) W a re V t N ILI 41.1 0 in v O 2 N 1-- N rA u. M z Z Z Z F 2U vi g Li; (� p4W� DC ph O. 0 D P H W 1..,F^ Q N 0 1n V Z V !ieP Fa CV 0 el 1-11 7 :: .J !when (I) Ait■/ 8 J x s P Nilo INJ. W !�yl�5f 2 4.. ` Z 0.‘„,v,... f ■ j ....... w¢ Da A L^41516.purm++supIN m*,CAD45NEE71PERM IT-COUNTr1516.COUNTT dwti LOCATION MAI,UW2010 e e t ,W 00 11111111 W° ,,,, , %0i,,,:110.11, 6,9 LL 3 #�2i 95 fa 01 n Y fis o U a 4 co w r - c Cl.I ci N� .c (,) , Ll. D ,.... (,) 0 . F. i kr= 77t as �' L1 1 0 t!7 p N cl t&3 Ct it7 C `- r 1 r- a i w 4 CI V ° '°�`? .- -` , ,a£•,. x .:�.> .,.ter �r 0 2 _ r it) 0 p i#004. r,, „-10,-:-,.,,,;-;:- 0 - ' ,,,,-,:‘, , ,.........--, .--,,r, -'-- , --- - - (9 �' ca I, esa W < - w r 7.-:.A°I :I:16 i 1:' lit I L _ n 15 lc oum1lMY deck C AMS HEETIPERMR•COUNM1616COUNPV.tlw•Ex w-=m 19flN611ERIAL ilk2010 1 1 't - t4 C3I ,t , 0 ? z .'-.. g -1 5 i k 144 0 , tift z 5 g'k4 t ii, - '11111 u) _ .„ ;7 4.ar 4 qi._,Ti fiE till , a — .40 ti41,,,- ; I II I (1) 7 it 2 7?gWi ;1111111111 i 1 irirk NR011it W Irr 4 4, , 8§4 iel '''ri _:111111111 19 0 44r4 .,L, g „,§ir0 ,91! ,t4lex ,e i i 1 ii 1111 : VI A e oz'‘?4 . - , I- tu 0 Z ,- - ' *- _ .' -_ - - , irJ 0 1 _ . tr . . ..i.. r i CNi 9 - ,- -- < Li: '7 )" N---i ' '7 , , , C1:L L ii , - I- 76 ()7 4 li .... :C ' 44. t) LLI - , tn - 111111 11111 I 11111111111111 il I IIII 11151111111111111111111IMIIIIIIIIIIHIIIMIII litIllillil 11111111i111111111!ilh111111!1111111111!1111111111111111111 2 ' 1 < ,L, • ,- - - --- . Ce i 0 -1 o , 9 rt,,i Z 4 0 ,, 5R tii i tr) / it) Lri 'I). vr Lc) c444, 6 ' .1.— 44.. , I— c0 ■ ( ,, I. C9 III U, Z 1- Ill 0 '-' % ;;;;''. 4--'---- ' LT. z LLI C U, ;t 6 0) 0 LU --1,1• LU - * ,, "4, .04 '- , f . , . :° , 1 ; .9 .44 4 i 1 T o VI61 morohr dodttCAIREHEETWERMIT.COIRETNI6IIILCOUtErY dreg 1111109CIREO St E ON AERIAL Iterzoie 1 mg a i - E -''i !--i 3'40, CAM I a V� 'g r P "saaaaa it;44 0. ' 686; hbidfl! a g 111111111 I tt O i. . . . . 1 : . . . - U. x, , ®! {�� [ F— 0 E` V ,, 4 ac U z < 0 _ F m paw ; t 69 4. ll .64 '?. 11111 111 11111111111111ohnsolenTommullogglummuhamil ° 0o 111 a. ,44.' . x i z < 2W � = J V - w � w 1 1 . t u: < y 1 *r 0 f - � o ai — P �jU t cam ^ Ems. ,_.-_ „� 1 4/5 " ... ...._. = ..., ,,- 1, X .-° � h I a n . ,C 6 t. 3 o1+51e pump-mmphy a+nCAO EnKRMrt.COU ITY 1515 COUNTY awe MEhboctO WE WITH DIUENS ra 1ror4oie J.4.5 W N W 0 Z • eii __, _ .. 44 { 3 In J /ts 11 d a g LL IL i 1 h � o0 1 Li W i -25•.. NO F.- a r r I J 1 I' Ia _: a o N el N . a t *n v r N .�_ III 2 ,��,. 0 1 1 II-2.2 W °W fr- 9t 0 aO iF N ! U Y Ia2W i ,` it V m � 0 O > 4 .I1.... �_ _..... . Jr D• '" Z Z z• z� -1.3 < a ° N • M I— Q ©. t� < < CO i.1 In �1 (� N + 4.. i1 _, J Sao LL W• ago -1.0? ` t in + 1.5 0 Yt.—s- 1■ ,.� - D J Li f U) , :.__: 4 w ( v, o V a cc': m:.. +0.6 „„;42z �. 4tl 14 2. E N CI ='C y Z 4. 1 l am' 1.2 E 1 I +1.6 0 I I I I 1 /\ of t5i6ourno murphv&d4CAULSNEETPERMIT C AUNT Y t 5,aC.OUNtY Own CROSS SECTICIN 1/1V*O18 -4.5 . w N N W 0 z r--------41— i i -3.6 rn -i Lift. Ifil < 1-1-- ' lii 1 = ZO 00 � 1- W }- NO 1 ■■ Na � 4$ (Ni a i a= E Z II -2.2 w © 6i <Yt. w 4 :_._ ".ii = Y iI( $/ I W w wH -1.5 w O 0 Q m 1 O a 4 1 I s:� _ _ .- 0 n -1.3 ¢ h Z hi M 2 LI. Allil • -1.0 O Dad F 2 D O. I .0 11E y i eycei g,...-. l 1 4 :l +0.6 Q.J E z z € :s rn co ua 2 cr N 0 i n11516aaro Imo"d r.W.A OISREETIPERMIT=COUNTY11516000NTY tlwc,CROSS SECTION 2 1/tlr ibis \ N N N 0 0 0 Q Q W , 0 0 • FF rr a ' < !IuIuI azi 111 rn t'�J N �^ to F ~ Y f o � :" • ,. ►. . 41 411111 3 W I a w w St•__,, I 1!®!! P I V o o a 1 N - o 0 o ! n 0 .: C. i L U � J e so Ir` i Y -) 00Cj00C) C:, . Cii () () C W 1! � f, X---,`, fQ () C } , 1 0 0 0 0 C0 ...D 0 C.. , L, '--t.'''-...,_:,_,1°. .. - / *,:-1'.3 Q:0 t)S).L'j - .. , . .6 S' u ! I a Ot $ 1 sr 1 1 I I I I o I 0 W 111111111 1111111111111111111111111 111111 1111111111111181 111IIIIIII1IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIii1I lii1111filll1i1111111111 1111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIfJIIIII11111 I w. . . .o- IlEllll�� 0 8 - o � . I rt Q. C'. C'. a4 r� rr at u7 r U, v•c rn t 'f5 sfi O ^, : n.,.,. ,,..., , 4 Y i 4�1 C u. is..i c .a' 4 ;` g Y " W L' Ey r. , I S 1- t i C D met6num-munoNO acu::AasHerro arart-,otkrtm,sietouMrr owo suetERaeo RE$OvRCE SURVEY lav?6fe �. .t F S. , ' r, " N IL a .¢ t i:1 iii .;'. 4 t o,. , , . 4` Od .r c3XF► n t - m v n ',.. a '. .2b5u t d _ '--.) i ,,,illitt yF rci' AGO YY W Q W C T yt�'ti s ba „w2 o' e44 , .� @ 0 Wa to r Z . . . _ . . . • ' s 0 w Ci �' YCl) . • 1 `a 11. ® '" U atLd I-- .49 4fi a Al I .. 0 Ili,. 1 ,;.; I . .: ,... , , (!t 4 , + v, *4 x ''' .30,,,....„,,-.. ''': i5 ., Iv 10Z f Vs. . . ,« ..,,,-,.--L4',"silri \tl 1 -4cr) -`44" , A : Iiii r a { r"- x y 5:674 4-C-711:`,4-- 40 `L } v ar.�.. w� S y . yan T + r`._ i, ff. - ,J + ... Y:;,....,,,,,,,,40.* t s � r 4:4 -' ' - a t 1 r ' .44,,, 4044 .r, 4 15-''f p.1151-PutW-MutphW D0■141BAD1SMEf T\PEMMIT'COUNTYY 1516®DE dwa SIBON7O16 SUBMERGED RESOURCE SURVEY • • PO-MURPHY DOCK 23 PELICAN STREET WEST NAPLES, FL 34145 SUBMERGED RESOURCE SURVEY Jou 2015 • PREPARED BY: ) 115414:1$. TURRELL,HALL&ASSOCIATES,INC 3584 EXCHANGE AvENVE,STE B NAPLES,FL 34104 • PUMO-MURPHY DOCK SUBMERGED RESOURCE SURVEY JUNE 2015 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Pumo-Murphy dock project is located at 23 Pelican Street West in Naples,FL and is identified by Collier County as Parcel Number 52342720009. The property is located on Isle of Capri just west of Capri Drive within Section 5, Township 52 South,and Range 26 East. The upland portion of the property is currently occupied by a single-family residence with an existing concrete seawall shoreline. The neighboring property to the west has a single family residence and the property to the east is vacant land. Turrell,Hall&Associates,Inc. was contracted to provide a Submerged Resource Survey (SRS) for the proposed docking facility. This survey will provide planning and review assistance to both the owners and the agency reviewers, in regards to the proposed project The proposed project consists of designing and constructing a single-family dock with two(2)associated boatlifts. The field visit for the SRS was conducted on May 29, 2015 at 2:30 P.M. An outgoing tide with light southeast winds and clear skies resulted in good underwater visibility that ranged from 2-6 feet. Surface water conditions on this day were relatively calm which also helped to provide good environmental conditions for the survey. The water temperature was 79°F. High tide occurred at 10:13 A.M (2.9') and low tide occurred at 4:52 P.M(0.3')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 dock project or within 200-feet of the project area. 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 ozder to minimize any impacts. If seagrasses are present within the project area it needs to be determined if the seagrass beds are small in size or if they are part of a large seagrass bed. The general scope of work performed at the site is summarized below. • Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. personnel conducted a site visit and snorkeled within the proposed project footprint and documented the location of any submerged resources. • Turrell,Hall &Associates, Inc.personnel identified submerged resources at the site, estimated the % of coverage, and delineated the approximate limits of any submerged resources observed. • Turrell,Hall &Associates, Inc.personnel delineated limits via a handheld GPS (Garmin Model 72H). Page 1 of 7 • PUMO-MURPHY DOCK SUBMERGED RESOURCE SURVEY TUNE 20]5 3.0 METHODOLOGY • TurreIl, Hall &Associates, Inc. biologists intentionally designed the methodology of the SRS to cover the entire property shoreline and extend out past the proposed dock footprint. The components for this survey included: •Review of past aerials and past surveys completed near or adjacent to the subject property *Review of aerial photography of survey area *Physically snorkel sites, GPS locate limits of submerged resources, and determine approximate percent of coverage •Document and photograph all findings The surveyed area was evaluated by wading within the shallow area along the shoreline and by snorkeling in the deeper areas. Surveying the proposed project area was relatively easy due to shallow water depths and the existing neighboring docks providing easily identifiable reference markers, such as dock piles, which assisted in locating any resources observed. Two biologists from Turrell,Hall&Associates, Inc. surveyed the site wading and using snorkel equipment throughout the entire surveyed area. Located submerged resources • were photographed, the approximate percent of coverage was quantified, and their approximate location was delineated on an aerial photo and then confirmed via handheld GPS(Gamin Model 72 H). A half meter square quadrant,further broken into sections to make coverage estimates more measureable was used on site. Random placements of the quadrate were done within observed seagrass beds and the individual results were compiled into an average estimated coverage for the seagrass beds. The findings are shown on the attached exhibit. 4.0 RESULTS The survey was completed on May 29, 2015, during an outgoing tide which resulted in observed seagrasses within the riparian rights of the subject property. Further investigation into documenting the overall footprint of the seagrass bed resulted in observed seagrasses extending well offsite to the adjacent neighboring properties, as shown on the attached exhibit. The survey revealed live blades of mostly shoal grass (Halodule beaudettei) and a few small areas of paddle grass(Halophila dectptens). The shoal grass observed was from the substrate level to approximately 3-5 inches in length and were covered in moderate to heavy epiphytic growth. The observed seagrasses were all part of one large continuous seagrass bed which was quantified by percent of coverage which ranged from 5-60%within each distinct bed. Page 2 of 7 �k PUMo-MURPHY DOCK SUBMERGED RESOURCE SURVEY JUNE 2015 The substrate found within the surveyed area included two similar classifications; sand and a silt/sand material. The existing shallow area from the seawall waterward was • j identified as being made up of the sand material with shell/oyster debris and the remaining area consisted of the silt/sand material. Both of these substrates seemed to provide optimal habitat for the observed seagrasses, fish,crabs,and other marine life. In addition to seagrass, various algaes particularly green feather algae (Caulerpa sertularoides), filamentous algae, and other macro algae were observed and documented growing throughout the surveyed area. The feather algae was found growing as an isolated specimens in the shallow sand flats. The remaining observed filamentous and macro algaes were observed growing in small mats scattered along the bottom throughout the survey area. Numerous marine species were also observed during the survey. A list of these species has been prepared and is provided below as Table 1. Table 1—Observed Marine Species Common Name Scientific Name Mangrove Snapper Lu jams Griseus Sheepshead Archosargus Probatocephalus Striped Mullet Mugil Cepltalus Snook Centronrpus Undecimalis GIass Minnow Anchva Mitchilli • Cownose Ray Rhinoptera Bonasus 5.0 CONCLUSIONS Overall the observed seagrass bed is large in nature and covers most of the project area and extends offsite to adjacent neighboring properties. The seagrasses within the bed appear to be in good condition and are growing in and around the existing surrounding docking facilities. Water clarity was good and the proximity to Capri Pass ensures that y good flushing occurs within this area. Where seagrasses were observed the percent coverage ranged from 5%to 60%. The seagrasses were found predominantly on the 1-4' MLW contour lines and to the eastern limits of the proposed project. It is clear that seagrasses can and do grow in association with the current surrounding activities. The proposed project is located within the Rookery Bay Aquatic Preserve which requires an additional set of rules(18-21 FAC),be considered when designing a dock. Due to the aquatic preserve rules not allowing a docking facility to extend past the-4'MLW contour line and required setbacks the proposed docking facility has little to no room to avoid impacting the documented seagrass bed within this area. The seagrasses have been determined to be all part of one large bed therefore minor impacts are allowed which would not result in additional die off than what occurs during installation. Page 3 of 7 •' i - I PuMo-MURPHY DOCK SUBMERGED RESOURCE SURVEY JUNE 2015 • It is Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. opinion that the proposed dock configuration has minimized impacts to the fullest extent possible to the surrounding seagrass bed. Additionally based on our observations the seagrasses will continue to thrive in this area based on their presence today and no real additional changes to this area will occur due to the proposed project. • Page 4 of 7 • PUMO M URPHY DOCK SUBMERGED RESOURCE SURVEY JUNE 2015 0 . 4 .= c rA ` i h t ! r �}. .) A Oyster Debris 0 K ..tom :4t* � I* : 'ir ' 1 3 e ' s 8. - — `ssa .3 a 3. A4Y t rT F'r ,. ...: f a xf L y =S Y, ...— r Shoal ..» ..,, :'1...''-, ,s . , . -- s. grass-Haladute beaudettei Page5of7 • PUMO-MURPHY DOCK SUBMERGED RESOURCE SURVEY JuNE 2015 • Sho'=' grass=Halodule beaudeuei • Shoal grass Halodule beaudettei Page 6 of 7 • PUMO- MURPHY DOCK SUBMEROEI)RESOURCE SURVEY JUNE 2015 • Paddle grass—Halophila dectpieas • Page 7 of 7 • i • SIGNED & SEALED • SURVEY I . • • } 31 e I !A 30 $ 3 H w S8 p a a zg - o I3 1 ; C-1>. i W 4 0 a Q.2- C, �U 4. w F� u� w Q liN O t W N nLLpB S� • a J U mif l 1 F.. a LL �gfii a . g ��� o ill 1 U i ig in go 3 k 9. � iQyb i 3is i W 9 e R i �4 hire s c z i ij i hi IP ii- 1 1- 11 10. E lits i m� i r w: P Ns l- •il i ii t�k W� 'k _: Zi _ ilt its a1 ° i 51; Bye 1 E AhritIgii; 11111/ ilig11H 1 1 IL 1$ 1 `4= 1 311 €n e �gd8 .Inge 11/g :Yd $/t ��..�� 64i o4601110Elte ja 1 li 11 LI LL it 5 ,§ 1 1 4 Ti b ja 1 i 1 , a ir ¢ 11:11 3 1 W � x �,.m H x-x x - Ale! 300.14.00N it W re x - - ix * a ; 0 x xxxx x x q te CD Cu' ,S' x I eta ? g P 6 9 c ppw �Z ° 3 M .� 4 Q I� pR1 • 4 r (�� alb$ IFJ O 2 x x x x x x x x ( x k8! �J w Y c arr `` ��o aon�►ooN 341%00 us Q el Is h 11 O II INSTR 4782057 OR 4871 PG 2002 RECORDED 12/31/2012 2:52 PM PAGES 2 DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA DOC @.70 53,325.00 REC 518.50 CONS $475,000.00 • . J WARWTY This Indenture made this l l day of December, 2012, by Waiter Weickert,Individually as a single person, and as Trustee of the Waiter Weickert Revocable Trust dated October 9, 2012, whose post office address is: 1750 Tye Road, New Hamburg, Ontario, CANADA N3A 4K5, GRANTOR, and John D. Morrissey-Pumo, a single man and Beth L. Murphy, a single woman,, as joint tenants with full rights of survivorship, whose post office address is: 249 Sunflower CL, Marco Island,FL 34145,GRANTEE: • W1TNESSETH, that the Grantor, f a i ER ett� a sum of TEN DOLLARS, and other good and valuable consi •:"R• to said Granto •d paid by said Grantee, the receipt whereof is hereby ackn• _••ed, has granted, barga •ed . d sold to the said Grantee, and Grantee's heirs and assig s f• - ; ,_ e • • •_ crib-• Ian• situate,lying and being in the County of Collier, State o Flo, •a, o w oa Lot 73, is/es of C. • ' r1fli 'V : rI •' o th a• .r •lat thereof, as recorded in Plat :4o , Page •1, o ?.e rc - ords of Collier N County,Florida. Subject to restrictions, -Sia�l& and ea • , = • •f record and taxes for cr- the year 2012 andsubseque"Z''•trpr'`• . • = yet due and payable.. W y CC Tax Folio Number:52342720009 TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the same in fee simple forever. Together with all tenements, hereditament, and appurtenances thereto belonging or in anywise appertaining. The property described herein is not now, nor has it ever been, the homestead of the grantor, the grantor's spouse or grantor's minor children, if any, nor is the property contiguous to their homestead. AND the Grantor does hereby fully warrant the title to the land and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. • *** OR 4871 PG 2003 *** • • • • • I Warranty Deed Page 2 of 2 . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has hereunto set Grantor's hand and seal the day and year first above written. Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of: Wit • ��� �r ��U �4` • Signature of Witness No. 1 alter Weickert, •ivi..ally as a single person, u _ _ a •• : of the alt. Weickert Revocable ,� t!�� sated�•toter9, '01, Printed Name of Witness N.M� U fP • „ , Signature of Witness No. 2 .J • O •� r�oe�r� Q, 'bI~- G Printed Name of Witness No. 2 • . `N II[E Ci\Cpl Pr `' OF 0 c,4. -v')v � � COUNTY OF G-30-.e.,t-lo, I The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this . 9 day of December, 2012,by Wafter Weickert, Individually as a single person, and as Trustee of the Walter Weickert Revocable Trust dated October 9, 2012, who is personally known to me or presented ezw.u14:c& . (z s _.1;✓4 as identification and did take an oath. \\\10VAFEj1.0 i Ali . •\\\\_:- . �.• , , Notary Public Print T. c--. viSMI .f 1Ot��rySe Qc • ` G0� ...y., My commission es ecip■,re,, ~D . 'A� r-s <_ 5_., . This InslC�nent without opinion by -.,'..1 Yitaig R woodrd�ri, Ike • '",..•UD a Pita 4)2mbardo.P.A. ./law aid Eagl4 9.71,e,Suite 500 7(/rt w Istantb Yorids 34145 • (239)394-5161 JohnsonEric From: Arielle Poulos <Arielle @turrell-associates.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 4:40 PM To: JohnsonEric Subject: RE: PUMO dock height Eric, The dock extends a total of 87' from the seawall. For approximately 39.6' of this distance the dock will be at 5.0 feet above MHW(which is 0.42' NAVD). At 39.6' from the seawall the dock begins to ramp down to its final elevation at the terminal platform of 2.9'NAVD. At the terminus of the facility there will be boatlifts for which the pilings and mechanical works will be at approximately 12' above the MHW line. I hope this helps and please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions. Thank you! Sincerely, Arielle Poulos Turrell,Hall&Associates,Inc. 3584 Exchange Avenue Naples,Florida 34104 Phone:(239)643-0166 Email:Arielle@Turrell-Associates.com www.turrell-associates.com 4 THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS EMAIL IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED,CONFIDENTIAL,WORK PRODUCT AND/OR EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT,YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION,DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING THE CONTENT OR ATTACHMENTS IS PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS EMAIL IN ERROR,PLEASE NOTIFY US OR DELETE. From:JohnsonEric[mailto:EricJohnson @colliergov.net] Sent:Wednesday,January 20,2016 3:24 PM To:Arielle Poulos<Arielle @turrell-associates.com> Subject:FW:PUMO dock height Noted,but for my edification,what will be the highest point of the dock beyond the 20-foot threshold? I ask,because it isn't labeled on any of the drawings. Thanks! Eric Johnson Principal Planner From:Jeff Rogers[mailto:Jeff@turrell-associates.com] Sent:Wednesday,January 20,2016 2:00 PM To:JohnsonEric<Ericlohnson@colliersov.net> Cc:Lee Russell<Lee @turrell-associates.com> Subject:Re:PUMO dock height The dock is required to be 5'above the MHWL but allowed to slope back down to 30"above the MHWL at the terminal platform.This is required due to the property being located within the rookery bay aquatic preserve. • Let me know if there is anything else,thanks. 1 Jeff • Sent from my iPhone On Jan 20,2016,at 2:55 PM,JohnsonEric<Ericlohnson @colliergov.net>wrote: Jeff, What is the vertical dimension(height)between the dock(at its highest point beyond the 20-foot threshold)and the MHW? Respectfully, Eric L.Johnson,AICP,CFM Principal Planner Growth Management Department-Planning&Regulation Zoning Division-Zoning Services Section 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34104 phone:239-252-2931 fax:239-252-6503 <image001.png><imageo02.png> I) Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public records.If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity.Instead,contact this office by telephone or in writing. <1516-COUNTY.PDF> • 2 • COLLIER COUNTY Growth Management Department July 24,2015 Nik Kasten-Turrell,Hall&Associates,Inc. 3584 Exchange Ave. Naples,FL 34101 EMAIL-kasten @turrell-associates.com RE: Boat Dock Extension PL20150001119 23 W Pelican St Dear Applicant: The following comments are provided to you regarding the above referenced project. If you have questions,please contact the appropriate staff member who conducted the review. The project will retain a"HOLD"status until all comments are satisfied. The followins comments need to be addressed as noted: Rejected Review: Graphics-GIS Review Reviewed By: Mariam Ocheltree Email: MariamOcheltree @colliergov.net Phone#:(239)252-2315 Correction Comment 1: Legal description is incorrect On the application please correct the Township,Range and Section to Township 51S,Range 26E,and Section 32. Correction Comment 2: Miscellaneous Corrections Please correct the Township,Range and Section on all maps from Turrell,Hall and Assoc. This is also incorrect on the submerged resource survey under 1.0 Introduction Rejected Review:Zoning Review Reviewed By:Eric Johnson Email: EricJohnson @colliergov.net Phone#:(239)252-2931 Correction Comment 3: On the application and on page 1 of the Submerged Resources Survey,indicate the correct Section(32 South''/2),Township(Si S),and Range(26E)(Chapter 3.B.2 of CCAC). Correction Comment 4: On the application,indicate the current zoning as Residential Single-Family RSF-4 and A-ST for the subject parcel(Chapter 3.B.3 of CCAC). Correction Comment 5: On the application,indicate the zoning and land use of the adjacent properties(Chapter 311.3 of CCAC). They are as follows: ZONING LAND USE N AS-T Pompano Bay S RSF-4 Right-of-way for Pelican St.; farther south are Lots 5&6 (Single family residential) E RSF-4 Lot 72(Single family residential) W RSF-4 Lot 74(Single family residential) Correction Comment 6, Provide a signed and sealed survey depicting the mean low water(MLW)(Chapter 3.B.6 of CCAC). Correction Comment 7: On the proposed site on aerial drawing,please illustrate the length of each vessel. Ensure it matches the dimensions indicated on the application. Correction Comment 8: Please provide affidavits of authorization for each of the property owners affected by the application. Correction Comment 9: Pursuant to Chapter 311.9 of CCAC,the site plan shall illustrate the following: 4111) 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 facility; Water depth where proposed dock facility is to be located; Distance of the navigable channel; Illustration of the contour of the property;and Illustration of dock facility from both an aerial and side view. Many of these components have been provided throughout the submitted drawings;however,if possible,it would be good to provide an additional drawing,with the help of the survey,that incorporates all these elements. Correction Comment 10: On the CD and hardcopy,please include my completed version of page 6 of 7 of the pre-application meeting notes,because this is the form that waives the requirement for a Chart of Site Waterway. Please include my completed version of page 7 of 7 of the same pre-application meeting notes,because this is the form that shows the application was routed to Addressing, County Attorney's Office,Engineering,Environmental,and Graphics Correction Comment II • Place a note on site plan that all dock facilities,regardless of length and/or protrusion,shall have reflectors and house numbers,no less than 4 inches in height,installed at the outermost end on both sides. Correction Comment 12: The application indicates the side(east)setback would be 13 feet whereas the drawing, "Proposed site with dimensions"indicates 14 feet.Please correct this discrepancy Correction Comment 13: With respect to the drawing"Proposed site with dimensions,"staff recommends including the distance of the protrusion for those docks located on the abutting properties. Please ensure it matches the application. Correction Comment 14: Demonstrate compliance with LDC Section 5.04.06.J. Correction Comment 15: For information only: If deemed necessary based upon review of the primary and secondary criteria of Section 5.03.06.H,the Planning Commission may impose such conditions upon the approval of an extension request that it deems necessary to accomplish the purposes of this Code and to protect the safety and welfare of the public.Such conditions may include,but shall not be limited to,greater side setback(s),and provision of light(s),additional reflectors,or reflectors larger than four(4)inches. Rejected Review: County Attorney Review Reviewed By: Scott Stone Email: EricJohnson @colliergov.net Phone#:(239)252-2931 Correction Comment 16: The Section,Township and Range information on the application does not match the Property Appraiser's website for this property. Correction Comment 17: Add Petition Number to the top of the Affidavit of Authorization. Correction Comment 18: Is the seagrass a continuous bed of seagrass located off shore and adjacent to the property?If not, the dock facility must stay at least 10 feet from the seagrass,and therefore this proposed dock violates LDC Section 5.03.06 J.2.If yes,then please demonstrate compliance with LDC Section 5.03.06 J.3.a-d. Correction Comment 19: Demonstrate compliance with LDC Section 5.03.06 J.4. Correction Comment 20: The proposed boat dock facility is located within the Special Treatment overlay,so you must obtain an ST Permit. • The following comments are informational and/or may include stipulations: Stipulations: • • A Special Treatment(ST)Permit is required prior to approval of the Building Permit for the dock. Informational Comments: • It is recommended that the BDE and ST permit for the project go as companion items to the CCPC. Stipulations: • All dock facilities are subject to,and shall comply with,all federal and state requirements and permits,including,but not limited,to the requirements and permits of the DEP,the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,and the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency. When addressing review comments,please provide a cover letter outlining your response to each comment. Include a response to completed reviews with stipulations. If you have any questions,please contact me at(239)252-2931 or ericjohnson @collilergov.net. Sincerely, G i V/, • Eric Johnson,AICP,CFM,LEED Green Associate Principal Planner Growth Management Department • • COLLIER COUNTY Growth Management Department 1 September 28,2015 John D.Morrissey-Pumo and Beth L Murphy 23 W Pelican Street Naples,FL 34113 RE: Boat Dock Extension PL20150001119 23 W Pelican St Dear Applicant: The following comments are provided to you regarding the above referenced project. If you have questions,please contact the appropriate staff member who conducted the review. The project will retain a"HOLD"status until all comments are satisfied. The following comments need to be addressed as noted Rejected Review: Zoning Review • Reviewed By: Eric Johnson Email:EricJohnson @colliergov.net Phone#:(239)252-2931 Correction Comment 1: With respect to the south direction in the ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE table on page 3 of 7 of the application,insert the words single-family residential after Lots 5&6.Chapter 3.13.3 of CCAC). They are as follows: Correction Comment 2: Pursuant to Chapter 3.B.9 of CCAC,the site plan shall illustrate 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 facility; Water depth where proposed dock facility is to be located; Distance of the navigable channel; Illustration of the contour of the property;and Illustration of dock facility from both an aerial and side view. Many of these components have been provided throughout the submitted drawings; however, if possible, it would be good to provide an additional drawing,with the help of the survey, which incorporates all these elements. Correction Comment 4: • Please ensure the length of each vessel is consistent between the "Proposed site on aerial drawing"and that which is indicated on the application. Correction Comment 5: Please include my completed version of page 7 of 7 of the same pre-application meeting notes, because this is the form that shows the application was routed to Addressing,County Attorney's Office,Engineering,Environmental,and Graphics(see attached). Correction Comment 6: On the drawing titled 'Submerged Resources Survey," why are the riparian lines labeled "proposed boat! fts?" Correction Comment 7: The required setback for this lot shall be 15 feet rather than 7.5 feet,as determined by the County Attorney's Office. Please revise all documents accordingly. Correction Comment 8: Provide everything new or updated on a CD. Rejected Review:County Attorney Review Reviewed By Scott Stone Email EricJohnson@colliergov.net Phone#:(239)252-2931 Correction Comment 1: There are discrepancies between the Site Plan that our office received and the Site Plan that other staff members received(e.g—the size of the boats are shown as 22 feet and 28 feet,respectively, • on my Site Plan;however,the size of the boats are shown as 19 feet and 27 feet on the Site Plan received by Eric Johnson).Please resubmit the correct,most updated Site Plan. The following comments are informational and/or may include stipulations: Stipulations: • A Special Treatment(ST)Permit is required prior to approval of the Building Permit for the dock. Stipulations: • All dock facilities are subject to and shall comply with,all federal and state requirements and permits,including,but not limited,to the requirements and permits of the DEP,the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Informational Comments • It is recommended that the BDE and ST permit for the project go as companion items to the CCPC. Informational Comments: • If deemed necessary based upon review of the primary and secondary criteria of Section 5.03.06.H, the Planning Commission may impose such conditions upon the approval of an extension request that it deems necessary to accomplish the purposes of this Code and to protect the safety and welfare of the public.Such conditions may include,but shall not • • be limited to, greater side setback(s), and provision of light(s), additional reflectors, or reflectors larger than four(4)inches. When addressing review comments,please provide a cover letter outlining your response to each comment. Include a response to completed reviews with stipulations. If you have any questions,please contact me at(239)252-2931. Sincerely, 1 4 i „ ti/ Eric Johnson Principal Planner,AICP,CFM,LEED Green Associate Growth Management Department 1 I • • COLLIER COUNTY Growth Management Department October 26,2015 MORRISSEY-PUMO,JOHN D BETH L MURPHY 23 W PELICAN ST NAPLES ,FL 34113- RE: Boat Dock Extension PL20150001119 23 W Pelican St Dear Applicant: The following comments are provided to you regarding the above referenced project. If you have questions,please contact the appropriate staff member who conducted the review. The project will retain a"HOLD"status until all comments are satisfied. The following comments need to be addressed as noted: Rejected Review: Zoning Review • Reviewed By: Eric Johnson Email:Eriaohnson @colliergov.net Phone#:(239)252-2931 Correction Comment 1: Pursuant to Chapter 3.B.9 of CCAC,the site plan shall illustrate the following: Required setbacks for the dock facility; Cross section showing relation to MHW/MLW and shoreline(bank,seawall,or rip-rap revetment); Distance of the navigable channel; Illustration of the contour of the property;and Regarding the illustration of dock facility from the side view,in addition to showing the vessel floating at MHWL,the drawaing ought to show the vessel floating at MLW as well. Correction Comment 2: For information only: If deemed necessary based upon review of the primary and secondary criteria of Section 5.03.06.H,the Planning Commission may impose such conditions upon the approval of an extension request that it deems necessary to accomplish the purposes of this Code and to protect the safety and welfare of the public. Such conditions may include,but shall not be limited to,greater side setback(s),and provision of light(s),additional reflectors,or reflectors larger than four(4)inches. Correction Comment 3: The required setback for this lot shall be 15 feet rather than 7.5 feet,as determined by the County Attorney's Office. Please revise all documents accordingly. • Correction Comment 4: Provide everything new or updated on a CD. Correction Comment 5: The length of the 22-foot long vessel needs to include the engine. Please revise the drawing(and any other document)and update the application so that both are consistent. Rejected Review:County Attorney Review Reviewed By: Scott Stone Email: EricJohnson®colliergov.net Phone#:(239)252-2931 Correction Comment I: Unless a boundary change is approved via judicial determination,the platted property line is treated as the official legal property line. Therefore,the shoreline lenght is 60 feet,as per the plat,and the required side setback will be 15 feet in accordance with Section 5.03.06.E.5 The folio wine comments are informational and/or mar include stipulations: Stipulations: • A Special Treatment(ST)Permit is required prior to approval of the Building Permit for the dock. Informational Comments: • It is recommended that the BDE and ST permit for the project go as companion items to the CCPC. 111. Stipulations: • All dock facilities are subject to,and shall comply with,all federal and state requirements and permits,including,but not limited,to the requirements and permits of the DEP,the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Informational Comments: • If deemed necessary based upon review of the primary and secondary criteria of Section 5.03.06.H,the Planning Commission may impose such conditions upon the approval of an extension request that it deems necessary to accomplish the purposes of this Code and to protect the safety and welfare of the public.Such conditions may include,but shall not be limited to,greater side setback(s),and provision of light(s),additional reflectors,or reflectors larger than four(4)inches. When addressing review comments,please provide a cover letter outlining your response to each comment Include a response to completed reviews with stipulations. If you have any questions,please contact me at(239)252-2931. Sincerely, 1_„ • Eric Johnson Principal Planner Growth Management Department • 1 1 � I�I 1 P! 20150 00 11 1y REV 2 ` >moot__ TURRELL, HALL & ASSOCIATES, INC. • MARINE&ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING 3584 Exchange Avenue•Naples,Florida 34104-3732.239-643-0166•Fax(239)634-6632 le tuna@turrell-associates.com August 26,2015 Eric Johnson Growth Management Dept. Collier County RE: Boat Dock Extension PL20150001119 23 W Pelican St/Pumo-Murphy Dock Dear Eric: The following is in response to your email dated July 24,2015. Rejected Review:Graphics-GIS Review Reviewed By:Mariam Ocheltree Email: MariamOcheltree®colliergov.net Phone#:(239)252-2315 • Correction Comment 1: Legal description is incorrect On the application please correct the Township,Range and Section to Township 51 S,Range 26E, and Section 32. Please see attached updated BDE application. Correction Comment 2: Miscellaneous Corrections Please correct the Township,Range and Section on all maps from Turrell,Hall and Assoc. This is also incorrect on the submerged resource survey under 1.0 Introduction Please see attached updated dock exhibits as well as the updated submerged resource survey. Rejected Review:Zoning Review Reviewed By:Eric Johnson Email: EricJohnson@colliergov.net Phone#: (239)252-2931 Correction Comment 3: On the application and on page 1 of the Submerged Resources Survey,indicate the correct Section(32 South Y2),Township(51S),and Range(26E)(Chapter 3.B.2 of CCAC). • Please see attached updated dock exhibits as well the associated submerged resource survey reflecting these corrections. Correction Comment 4: On the application,indicate the current zoning as Residential Single-Fatuity RSF-4 and.A-ST for the subject parcel(Chapter 33.3 of CCAC). Please see attached updated application with the correct zoning indicated. On the application,indicate the zoning and land use of the adjacent properties(Chapter 3.83 of CCAC). They are as follows: ZONING LAND USE N AS-T Pompano Bay S RSF-4 Right-of-way for Pelican St.;farther south are Lots 5&6( ') E RSF-4 Lot 72(Single family residential) W RSF-4 Lot 74(Single family residential) Please see attached updated application with the correct zoning. Correction Comment 6: Provide a signed and sealed survey depicting the mean low water(MLW)(Chapter 33.6 of MAC). 410 Please see attached signed and sealed survey. Correction Comment 7: On the proposed site on aerial drawing,please illustrate the length of each vessel. Ensure it matches the dimensions indicated on the application. Please see attached updated exhibits(sheet 3 of 7)itxdIcates the length of vessels to be stored on site. Correction Comment 8: Please provide affidavits of authorization for each of the property owners affected by the application. Please see attached both letters of authorization,one from each owner. Correction Comment 9: Pursuant to Chapter 3.3.9 of CCAC,the site plaza shall illustrate the following: Lot dimensions; uirod'siffticks for the dock taci"iity QOM section showing relation to MHW/MLW and shoreline(bank,seawall,or rip-rap revetment), Configuration,location,and dimensions of existing and proposed facility; • Water depth where proposed dock facility is to be located; Distance of the navigable channel; Illustration of the contour of the property;and Illustration of dock facility from both an aerial and side view. Many of these components have been provided throughout the submitted drawings;however,if possible,it would be good to provide an additional drawing,with the help of the survey that incorporates all these elements. Correction Comment 10: On the CD and hardcopy,please include my completed version of page 6 of 7 of the pre- application meeting notes,because this is the form that waives the requirement for a Chart of Site Waterway. Please include my completed version of page 7 of 7 of the same pre-application meeting notes,because this is the form that shows the application was routed to Addressing, County Attorney's Office,Engineering,Environmental,and Graphics. Please see attached page 6 of 7 of the pre-application meeting notes as well as sheet 7 of 7 of the BDE application package also taken from the pre-application meeting notes. Correction Comment 11: Place a note on site plan that all dock facilities,regardless of length and/or protrusion,shall have reflectors and house numbers,no less than 4 inches in height,installed at the outermost end on • both sides. Please see attached updated dock exhibits(sheet 3 of 7)indicating the proposed vessels sizes. Correction Comment 12: The application indicates the side(east)setback would be 13 feet whereas the drawing, "Proposed site with dimensions"indicates 14 feet.Please correct this discrepancy Please see attached updated BDE application. Correction Comment 13: With respect to the drawing"Proposed site with dimensions,"staff recommends including the distance of the protrusion for those docks located on the abutting properties. Please ensure it matches the application. Please see attached sheet 7 of 7 of the updated dock exhibits. Correction Comment 14: Demonstrate compliance with LDC Section 5.04.06.1. Per..our..review..of.the.LDC.and conversations.with.Steve-Lemberger..with Collier County Environmental Department,the seagrasses on site are part of are larger continuous seagrass bed within the bay. Therefore the proposed design is one of the few available • options the applicant could propose based on all the different permitting agencies criteria. Correction Comment 15: • For information only: If deemed necessary based upon review of the primary and secondary criteria of Section 5.03.06.H,the Planning Commission may impose such conditions upon the approval of an extension request that it deems necessary to accomplish the purposes of this Code and to protect the safety and welfare of the public. Such conditions may include,but shall not be limited to, greater side setback(s), and provision of light(s),additional reflectors,or reflectors larger than four(4)inches. Any reasonable condition request made by the Planning Commission would be incorporated to the proposed plan. Rejected Review: County Attorney Review Reviewed By:Scott Stone Email:EricJohnson @colliergovanet Phone#:(239)252-2931 Correction Comment 16: The Section,Township and Range information on the application does not match the Property Appraiser's website for this property. Please see attached updated BDE application. Correction Comment 17: Add Petition Number to the top of the Affidavit of Authorization. Please see attached updated Affidavit of Authorization. • Correction Comment 18: Is the seagrass a continuous bed of seagrass located off shore and adjacent to the property?If not, the dock facility must stay at least 10 feet from the seagrass,and therefore this proposed dock violates LDC Section 5.03.06 1.2.If yes,then please demonstrate compliance with LDC Section 5.03.06 J.3.a-d. The seagrass bed within the applicant's riparian rights has been determined to be a continuous seagrass bed therefore the proposed dock footprint would be acceptable based on the LDC. Correction Comment 19: Demonstrate compliance with LDC Section 5.03.06 J.4. The seagrass bed within the applicant's riparian rights has been determined to be a continuous seagrass bed therefore the proposed dock footprint would be acceptable based on the LDC. Correction Comment 20; The proposed boaf"dk facility is locatedwitbin the Specie Treatment overlay,so you must obtain an ST Permit. • it An ST Permit has been granted pending the BDE approvaL The applicant has already received State(DEP)and Federal(ACOE)permits for the proposed docking facility and are provided with this RAI response, Upon your review of the above responses to your questions and associated attachments please let me know if you have any additional questions or need further clarification. You can reach me at(239)643-0166 or email leff(d turrell-associates.corn Regards,'44-4c--- Jeff Rog Project Manager Turrell,Hall&Associates,Inc. 1 i 110