Agenda 10/13/2015 Item # 9C Proposed Agenda Changes
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
October 13, 2015
Continue Item 9C to the October 27,2015 BCC Meeting: This item requires that ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item,all
participants are required to be sworn in. Kathleen Riley requests an appeal to the Board of County
Commissioners of a final decision by the Collier County Planning Commission to approve Petition
BDE-PL20150000487 for an 18-foot boat dock extension over the maximum 20-foot limit allowed
by Section 5.03.06 of the Land Development Code for a total protrusion of 24 to 38 feet to
accommodate a 26 slip multi-family docking facility for the benefit of a 15.61 ±acre project to be
known as Haldeman Creek Docks in Sections 11 and 14,Township 50 South,Range 25 East,Collier
County,Florida(Petition ADA-PL20150001703) (This item is a companion to Item 11B)
(Petitioner's request)
Continue Item 11B to the October 27,2015 BCC Meeting: This item requires that ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item,all
participants are required to be sworn in. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item,all participants are required to be
sworn in.Recommendation to approve a Resolution approving a Special Treatment development
permit to allow construction of boat dock and dock access improvements on property owned by
Standard Pacific of Florida with a zoning designation of RMF-6(3) and a Special Treatment overlay
located in Sections 11 and 14,Township 50 South,Range 25 East,Collier County,Florida(This
item is a companion to Item 9C). (Staff's request)
Move Item 16D15 to Item 11G: Recommendation to approve Resolution 2015- ,
modifying established procedures relating to emergency repairs of private roads.
(Commissioner Henning's request)
Continue Item 16K3 to the October 27,2015 BCC Meeting: Recommendation that the Board take
no action to amend the Vehicle for Hire Ordinance. (Commissioner Taylor's request)
Continue Item 17D to the November 10,2015 BCC Meeting: Recommendation to adopt an
Ordinance amending Ordinance 97-82,as amended,which created the Bayshore Beautification
Municipal Service Taxing Unit,to expand the district boundary to include County owned right-of-
way identified for the purpose of constructing pedestrian streetscape improvements within the
right-of-way along Thomasson Drive. (Staff's request)
Note:
Item 16E7: Withdraw Item 4 from the Administrative Change Order Report,for further staff
review and subsequent presentation to the Board. This is a proposed Change Order for the
development of the 800 MhZ P25 Radio Communications System. (Staff's request)
10)13/2015 9:09 AM
10/13/2015 9.C.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing
be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Kathleen Riley requests an appeal
to the Board of County Commissioners of a final decision by the Collier County Planning
Commission to approve Petition BDE- PL20150000487 for an 18 -foot boat dock extension over the
maximum 20 -foot limit allowed by Section 5.03.06 of the Land Development Code for a total
protrusion of 24 to 38 feet to accommodate a 26 slip multi- family docking facility for the benefit of
a 15.61 f acre project to be known as Haldeman Creek Docks in Sections 11 and 14, Township 50
South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida (Petition ADA- PL20150001703) (This item is a
companion to Item 11B).
OBJECTIVE: The petitioner has filed an appeal of the decision of the Collier County Planning
Commission (CCPC) to approve a Boat Dock Extension petition which occurred at the properly
noticed public hearing on July 2, 2015. Upon hearing of a requested appeal, the Board of County
Commissioners (BCC) may affirm, affirm with conditions, reverse or reverse with conditions the
action of the Planning Commission.
CONSIDERATIONS: The petitioner requested an 18 -foot boat dock extension from the
maximum permitted protrusion of 20 feet for waterways greater than 100 feet in width, which
would allow construction of a boat docking facility protruding a total of 24 to 38 feet into
Haldeman Creek. The docks are proposed as an amenity to a Site Development Plan (SDP -
PL20130000015 Haldeman's Landing), which has been approved for 16 multi - family buildings,
totaling 64 residential units.
The CCPC voted to approve the 26 slip facility by a vote of 3 — 1 at the public hearing on July
2"d. The petitioner fled for an appeal to the BCC of the CCPC's approval within the required
30 -day appeal period.
Project History: This is the second petition for a Boat Dock Extension for the subject property.
First Petition: In 2013, the Haldeman's Landing project applied for a Boat Dock Extension in
order to construct docks as an amenity to multifamily housing. The petition included a request
for 42 total boat slips, with a total maximum protrusion of 52 feet into the waterway. Petition
BDE- PL20130001765 was originally scheduled for a public hearing before the Hearing
Examiner (HEX). Because of public concern, the petition was rescheduled to the June 19, 2014
CCPC meeting in accordance with Section 2 -87(6) of the Collier County Code of Laws and
Ordinances. Four Commissioners were present and voted on this item. After testimony by the
applicant, staff, the public and discussion among the Commissioners, there was a motion made
for approval by Commissioner Chrzanowski, seconded by Commissioner Homiak. The vote was
called with Commissioners Ebert and Doyle dissenting, resulting in a 2 — 2 vote. The tie vote
meant that the motion failed and the petition was denied.
The Applicant filed an appeal, This appeal was originally scheduled to be heard by the BCC on
October 28, 2014. At that meeting, the BCC remanded the appeal to the HEX for a non - binding
recommendation. The HEX fact - finding hearing occurred on November 20, 2014 and included
Packet Page -233-
10/13/2015 9.C.
eight specific recommendations (please see the attached HEX Recommendations, pg. 5 and 6).
Prior to the appeal being heard by the BCC on December 9, 2014, the Applicant withdrew the
appeal.
Second Petition: On February 27, 2015, the Haldeman's Landing project submitted a new
petition for a Boat Dock Extension. The application contained numerous changes from the
previous boat dock extension request, including a reduction in boat slips from 42 to 27 and
reducing the total protrusion from 52 feet to 38 feet. The CCPC heard and approved the petition
on July 2, 2015, subject to reducing the total boat slips from 27 to 26, and five conditions of
approval, as set forth in CCPC Resolution 15 -01. At the hearing, the Applicant claimed they had
satisfied all eight of the previous recommendations provided in the Hearing Examiner's non-
binding recommendation.
Since the CCPC is the final decision maker on boat dock extensions, this petition for appeal was
subsequently filed on July 27, 2015, and supplemented by application materials on August 28,
2015 and August 31, 2015.
Basis for Appeal: See documents entitled "Submittal Relating to Administrative Appeal
PL20150001703, August 28, 2015, and "Supplement to Appeal dated August 31, 2015 ".
1. At the July 2, 2015 CCPC hearing, the applicant's attorney in a general and non - specific
manner "tendered' various individuals as undefined and undesignated "expert witnesses."
As a result, the testimony of these three (3) individuals cannot be considered to have been
expert testimony. 110'�
Staff has no comment on the tendering of "expert witnesses ".
2. The Staff Report to the CCPC failed to reference, mention or include the HEX Report.
Staff did not include the HEX Report because the second petition was a "stand alone"
application. The HEX Report is included in this appeal because it was mentioned by
witnesses and Petitioner at the CCPC hearing.
3. The Resolution and approval does not limit ownership or control of the docks to upland
unit owners in the proposed Haldeman's Landing development.
Staff recommends adding the word "upland" to Condition #4 since the omission was a
typographical error.
4. (Appellant's #5) The proposed dock facilities will have a major impact on the waterfront
view of a neighboring waterfront property owners, contrary to the secondary criteria 2.d.
Please see Staff Report. Staff believes this is a decision for the BCC based on evidence
presented.
Packet Page -234-
10/13/2015 9.C.
5. (Appellant's #6) The existence of the mangrove shoreline, which is the primary basis for
the requested extension, was a result of acts voluntarily taken by the applicant's
predecessor in title.
Please see Staff Report. Staff believes this is a decision for the BCC based on evidence
presented.
6. (Appellant's 47) The applicant will be dredging along the mangrove shoreline to a depth
of 4 feet. The dredging of the waterway to a depth of 4 feet along the shoreline will
result in a need for a shorter and less extensive boat dock extension than that requested
and approved.
Please see Staff Report. Staff believes this is a decision for the BCC based on evidence
presented.
7. (Appellant's #8) The "evidence ", "testimony" and "discussion" as to the original
construction / "excavation" / "dredging" of the canal was based only upon a set of plans and
an "assumption" and not by any record drawings and thus did not qualify as competent,
substantial evidence and could not form a basis for any action by the CCPC.
No Staff comment. Staff believes this is a decision for the BCC based on evidence
presented.
8. (Appellant's #9) The manner in which the CCPC addressed the "reconsideration" request
precluded concerned and /or affected residents and /or property owners, including the
parties appealing the CCPC decision, from further addressing the CCPC.
This is not a Staff issue — no comments.
9. (Appellant's supplemental letter) The application that was approved by the CCPC and the
CCPC approval did not address the following:
A. The Collier County Land Development Code ( "LDC ") addresses dock extensions but
does not provide conditions for docks specifically within drainage easements and the
issues raised by the HEX Report as to impact on drainage and flood control were not
properly or completely addressed.
B. No hydraulic modeling was performed or provided to ensure that the flows within the
waterway would not be impacted by the new dock facilities.
Please see discussion in CCPC minutes (attached).
Staff Evaluation: Staff continues to recommend approval of the Boat Dock Extension as
proposed based on the reasons outlined in the Staff Report for the Boat Dock Extension petition
heard on July 2, 2015 (attached).
Packet Page -235-
10/13/2015 9.C.
As noted in the Staff Report, analysis indicates that this request meets five of the five primary n
criteria. Regarding the six secondary criteria, criterion 3 is not applicable, and the request meets
five of the remaining five secondary criteria.
This petition requires a companion Special Treatment (ST) permit, which will be heard at the
same Board meeting. If this appeal reverses the decision of the CCPC, it will not be necessary
for the ST petition to be heard.
FISCAL IMPACT: The Appeal request by and of itself will have no fiscal impact on Collier
County.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) IMPACT: There is no Growth Management
Plan impact. It is anticipated that approval or denial of this appeal will not affect the growth
management plan.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: The BCC hears appeals of final actions taken by the Planning
Commission pursuant to Section 2 -1163 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances.
Section 5.03.06.H of the LDC outlines the criteria to be considered for a Boat Dock Extension
petition. In order to approve a boat dock extension, at least four out of five of the primary
criteria and at least four of the six secondary criteria must be met.
Primary Criteria
1. Whether the number of dock facilities and /or boat slips proposed is appropriate in
relation to the waterfront length, location, upland land use and zoning of the subject
property. Consideration should be made of property on unbridged barrier islands, where
vessels are the primary means of transportation to and from the property. (The number
should be appropriate; typical single - family use should be no more than two slips; typical
multi- family use should be one slip per dwelling unit; in the case of unbridged barrier
island docks, additional slips may be appropriate.)
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.)
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.)
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.)
5. Whether the proposed location and design of the dock facility is such that the facility
would not interfere with the use of neighboring docks. (The facility should not interfere
with the use of legally permitted neighboring docks.)
Packet Page -236-
10/13/2015 9.C.
Secondary Criteria
I. 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.)
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 the length of the vessel, or vessels in
combination, described by the petitioner, exceeds 50 percent of the subject property's
linear waterfront footage. (The applicable maximum percentage should be maintained.)
4. Whether 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.)
5. Whether seagrass beds are located within 200 feet of the proposed dock facility. (If
seagrass beds are present, compliance with subsection 5.03.06(I) of the LDC must be
demonstrated.)
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.)
Based upon its review of the record of the CCPC hearing, and the testimony and other materials
presented as part of the hearing on the appeal, the BCC may affirm, affirm with conditions,
reverse or reverse with conditions the actions of the CCPC. This item has been approved as to
form and legality and requires a majority vote for Board approval. (SAS)
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the BCC affirm with conditions the action of
the Planning Commission's approval of BDE- PL20150000487 (Haldeman's Landing) as set forth
in CCPC Resolution 15 -01 with amended Condition 44 (below), and adopt a resolution reflecting
the Board's decision. The resolution will be prepared subsequent to the Board's action.
4. Boat slips shall be owned and used by residents of the Haldeman's Landing multi- family
development or its property owners' association or condominium association for the 64
upland dwelling units and shall not be sold, leased or rented to any other parties.
Prepared by: Fred Reischl, AICP, Principal Planner, Zoning Division, Growth Management
Department
Attachments:
1) Staff Report
2) Boat Dock Extension Application:
http:,,"/,wT%ATxv .collieraov.net/ftp/2015BCCMeetinys/AvendaOctl 3 151/GrmN--tl1Mg
mt/ Application% 20Haldeman% 27s %20Landin�z° /a20Boat %20Dock.pdf
Packet Page -237-
10/13/2015 9.C.
3) CCPC Resolution 15 -01
4) July 28, 2015 Petition for Appeal
5) August 28, 2015 Appeal Cover Letter
6) Submittal Relating to Administrative Appeal, PL20150001703, August 28,
2015
http: / /w-w v.collierL,ov. net/ ftp /2015BCCMeetin2s /Ap-endaOet1315 /GrowthMg
mt/Application Haldeman.pdf
7) Supplement to appeal dated August 31, 2015
http: / /wwr.colliergov. net/ ftp /2015BCCMeetin2s /A2endaOetI315 /GrowthMg
mt/Supplement to appeal dated August 31- 2015.pdf
8) November 20, 2014 HEX minutes
http://-,AAN,w.collieraov.net/ftp/2015BCCMeetiiiL's/A2enda0et] ' 15/Grow-thMg
mt/November 20-2014 HEX Minutes.pdf
9) July 2, 2015 CCPC minutes
http: / /ww-xv.collieriaov. net /ftp /2015BCCMeetings /A�ZendaOetl 315 /GrowthMg
mt /Julv_2- 2015_ CCPC _minutes.pdf
10) HEX Report:
http: / /www.colIier«ov. net /ftp /2015BCCMeetinas /AaendaOctI 315 /GrowthMg
mt /HEX Recommendation_complete.ndf
1 ])Permits:
littp: / /www.collierL,ov. net /ftp /2015BCCMeetin�s /A2endaOctl 315 /GrowthMg
mt /9A -Hal deman %27s Landin4 Perinits.pdf
12) Correspondence
13) Legal Ad n
Packet Page -238-
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Item Number: 9.9.C.
10/13/2015 9.C.
Item Summary: This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission
members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in.
Kathleen Riley requests an appeal to the Board of County Commissioners of a final decision by
the Collier County Planning Commission to approve Petition BDE- PL20150000487 for an 18 -foot
boat dock extension over the maximum 20 -foot limit allowed by Section 5.03.06 of the Land
Development Code for a total protrusion of 24 to 38 feet to accommodate a 26 slip multi - family
docking facility for the benefit of a 15.61 ± acre project to be known as Haldeman Creek Docks
in Sections 11 and 14, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida [Petition ADA-
PL20150001703] [Companion Item: 11A].
Meeting Date: 10/13/2015
Prepared By
Name: ReischlFred
Title: Planner, Principal, Growth Management Department
9/14/2015 10:22:25 AM
Approved By
Name: BellowsRay
Title: Manager - Planning, Growth Management Department
Date: 9/17/2015 5:10:07 PM
Name: PuigJudy
Title: Operations Analyst, Growth Management Department
Date: 9/21/2015 2:53:23 PM
Name: PuigJudy
Title: Operations Analyst, Growth Management Department
Date: 9/21/2015 2:54:09 PM
Name: BosiMichael
Title: Division Director - Planning and Zoning, Growth Management Department
Date: 9/22/2015 8:29:30 AM
Packet Page -239-
10/13/2015 9.C.
Name: MarcellaJeanne
Title: Executive Secretary, Growth Management Department
Date: 9/23/2015 8:35:19 AM
Name: StoneScott
Title: Assistant County Attorney, CAO Land Use /Transportation
Date: 9/30/2015 4:46:47 PM
Name: IsacksonMark
Title: Division Director - Corp Fin & Mgmt Svc, Office of Management & Budget
Date: 10/1/2015 9:46:19 AM
Name: KlatzkowJeff
Title: County Attorney,
Date: 10 /1/2015 3:24:56 PM
Name: CasalanguidaNick
Title: Deputy County Manager, County Managers Office
Date: 10/2/2015 10:24:12 AM
Packet Page -240-
10/13/2015 9.C.
ATNIeT C0141nty
STAFF REPORT
TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: ZONING DIVISION
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
HEARING DATE: JULY 2, 2015
SUBJECT: BDE-PL20150000487, HALDEMAMS LANDING BOAT DOCKS
[COMPANION TO ST-PL201500005001
PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT:
Owner. Standard Pacific of Florida, G.P., Inc. Agent: Timothy Hall
405 North Reo Street Turrell, Hall and Associates
Tampa, FL 33609 3584 Exchange Avenue
Naples, FL3 )4104
REQUESTED ACTION:
The petitioner requests an 18-foot boat dock extension from the maximum permitted protrusion of 20
feet for waterways greater than 100 feet in width, which will allow construction of a boat docking
zn
facility protruding a total of 38 feet into a waterway that varies in width and is approximately 134 feet
wide at its narrowest point.
The docks are proposed as an amenity to a Site Development Plan (SDP-PL20130000015), which has
been approved for 16 multi-family buildings, totaling 64 residential units.
Z__
The subject site is within Sections 1I and 14, Township 50 South, Range 25 East. The site is accessed
via Lakeview Drive with a proposed access via Haldeman Creek Drive in the abutting Windstar PUD.
The folio numbers are 61835520008, 003883160006, 00394880004, 00395320000 & 61835840005. The
project boundary of the proposed multifamily development is highlighted on the location map on the
following page. The dock is proposed along the south shore of Haldeman Creek.
Z:�
The purpose of the petition is to request an 18-foot boat dock extension beyond the maximum 20-foot
limit for the subject multi-family residential development. The boat dock facility will contain 27 slips.
The total overwater dock structure proposed is approximately 5,820 square feet and protrudes a total of
38 feet into a waterway that varies in width and is approximately 134 feet wide at its narrowest point.
The total length of the dock is approximately 613 linear feet with a width of 6 feet.
BDE-PL20150000487, Page I of 9
Haldernan's Landing Boat Dock Extension.
July 2, 2015 CCPC
Packet Page -241-
10/13/2015 9.C.
3 os o1 Im /
GULF OF MEXICO
Packet Page -242-
lli
i
'CY
tf>
0
N
J
it 01
� � 1
m
Z
0
LLI
N
CL
n
s3m QOWMY31 8
C:C
.... � p
s
m
_y
N
p
QyQ
n a
'Oa t,018JNAll
��
o
aeoa �mm�a- iaoawr
� f
IN
gg
t
n
n
q
Ap
iisnN'�1 oroa
low)
�lV--t
®
GULF OF MEXICO
Packet Page -242-
lli
i
'CY
tf>
0
N
J
it 01
� � 1
m
Z
0
LLI
N
CL
10/13/2015 9.C.
SUBJECT PARCEL: Vacant multi-family parcels, with a zoning designation of RMF-6 &
RMF-6(3); there is a Special Treatment (ST) overlay over a portion
of Haldeman Creek
SURROUNDING:
North: Vacant land & single-family homes, zoned RMF-6-BMUD-Rl
East: Single family homes, zoned RSF-4-BMUD-R4 & RMF-6-BMUD-R2
South: Single-family homes, zoned RMF-6-B1V1UD-RI & golf course, zoned PUD
(Windstar PUD)
West: Golf course, zoned PUD (Windstar PUD)
Aerial — detail of parcel in the area of the proposed docks (Collier County Property Appraiser)
BDE-PL20150000487, Page 3 of 9
Haldeman's Landing Boat Dock Extension.
July 2, 2015 CCPC
Packet Page -243-
10/13/2015 9.C.
Aerial - detail of parcel in the area of the proposed docks (Google)
Environmental Planning Staff has reviewed this petition and has no objection to the
granting of this request, with the provision that a Special Treatment (ST) Permit is required ^
prior to approval of an SDP which includes the boat docks. A portion of Haldeman Creel:
(including the subject portion) has an ST Zoning Overlay.
The site qualifies as a moderate ranking under the Manatee Protection Plan and is therefore
consistent with the Manatee Protection Plan for 27 slips.
In accordance with Section 2 -87 of the Code of Laws and Ordinances, this matter will be
heard by the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) instead of the Hearing
Examiner. The CCPC shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny, a dock facility
extension request based on certain criteria. In order for the CCPC to approve this request, it
must find that at least four of the five primary criteria and four of the six secondary criteria
have been met.
Staff has reviewed this petition in accordance with Section 5.03.06 and recommends the
following findings to the CCPC:
BDE- PL20150000487, Page 4 of 9
Haldeman's Landing Boat Dock Extension.
July 2, 2015 CCPC
Packet Page -244-
10/13/2015 9.C.
n Prirrmary Criteria
1. Whether the number of dock facilities and /or boat slips proposed is
appropriate in relation to the waterfront length, location, upland land use and
zoning of the subject property. Consideration should be made of property on
unbridged barrier islands, where vessels are the primary means of
transportation to and from the property. (The number should be appropriate;
typical single - family use should be no more than two slips; typical multi- family
use should be one slip per dwelling unit; in the case of unbridged barrier island
docks, additional slips may be appropriate.)
Criterion met. The proposed dock facility consists of 27 boat slips, which is
appropriate in relation to the over 600 linear feet of water frontage of the subject
multi - family lot along Haldeman Creek.
2. Whether the water depth at the proposed site is so shallow that a vessel of the
general length, type and draft as that described in the petitioner's application
is unable to launch or moor at mean low tide (MLT). (The petitioner's
application and survey should establish that the water depth is too shallow to
allow launching and mooring of the vessel(s) described without an extension.)
Criterion met. According to the petitioner's application the water depth
(approximately 3.3 feet) for the proposed dock facility is inadequate to gain safe
access to water depths sufficient for the proposed vessels. In addition, the applicant
has proposed maintenance dredging to minimize the proposed protrusion.
Whether the proposed dock facility may have an adverse impact on navigation
within an adjacent marked or charted navigable channel. (The facility should
not intrude into any marked or charted navigable channel thus impeding vessel
traffic in the channel.)
Criterion met. According to the information submitted by the petitioner, the
proposed facility will not adversely impact navigation due to the width of the
existing waterway (varying in width and is approximately 134 feet wide at its
narrowest point MHW line to MHW line). The applicant notes that the facility has
been designed so that it does not impede navigation.
4. Whether the proposed dock facility protrudes no more than 25 percent of the
width of the waterway, and whether a minimum of 50 percent of the waterway
width between dock facilities on either side is maintained for navigability. (The
In
facility should maintain the required percentages.)
Criterion met. As indicated on Exhibit 4, no portion of the proposed dock protrudes
more than 25 percent of the width of the waterway.
5. Whether the proposed location and design of the dock facility is such that the
facility would not interfere with the use of neighboring docks. (The facility
n should not interfere with the use of legally permitted neighboring docks.)
BDE- PL20150000487, Page 5 of 9
Haldeman's Landing Boat Dock Extension.
July 2, 2015 CCPC
Packet Page -245-
10/13/2015 9.C.
Criterion met. The applicant owns a major portion of the shoreline on the north side
of Haldeman Creek and will place it under a Conservation Easement dedicated to
the State which prohibits dock construction. Exhibit 5 indicates a permitted but not
constructed dock facility on the north shore of the waterway (Sanctuary at Demere
Landing). The two dock facilities will be separated by 97 feet of water.
Secondary Criteria
1. Whether there are special conditions not involving water depth, related to the
subject property or waterway, which justify the proposed dimensions and
location of the proposed dock facility. (There must be at least one special
condition related to the property; these may include type of shoreline
reinforcement, shoreline configuration, mangrove growth, or seagrass beds.)
Criterion met. The subject shoreline supports a mangrove fringe. The MHW line —
the baseline for this extension request — extends into the mangroves, requiring an
extension to reach adequate water depth.
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. As shown on the drawing submitted by the petitioner, the dock area
is not excessive, maintaining a 6 -foot walkway.
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.)
Not applicable. This is a multi- family project.
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. According to the applicant, the dock facility is designed to have a
minimal impact on the neighboring property owners. The view shed of neighboring
properties will not be impacted.
5. Whether seagrass beds will be impacted by the proposed dock facility. (If
seagrass beds are present, compliance with subsection 5.03.06(I) of the LDC
must be demonstrated.)
BDE- PL20150000487, Page 6 of 9
Haldeman's Landing Boat Dock Extension.
July 2, 20I5 CCPC
Packet Page -246-
10/13/2015 9.C.
110� Criterion met. According to the Submerged Resource Survey submitted by the
petitioner, no seagrass beds are known to be located within 200 feet of the proposed
dock facility. Therefore, there will be no impact to seagrass beds.
6. Whether the proposed dock facility is subject to the manatee protection
requirements of subsection 5.03.06(E)(11) of this Code. (If applicable,
compliance with section 5.03.06(E)(11) must be demonstrated.)
Criterion met. The petitioner states that the property qualifies as a moderate ranking
under the Manatee Protection Plan and believes that the ranking will change to
preferred, once maintenance dredging is complete.
Staff analysis indicates that this request meets five of the five primary criteria. Regarding
the six secondary criteria, criterion 3 is not applicable, and the request meets five of the
remaining five secondary criteria.
ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS:
On June 19, 2014, the CCPC heard a Boat Dock Extension petition for the subject property.
After testimony by the Applicant, Staff and the public, and discussion among the Planning
Commissioners, a motion was made for approval. The vote resulted in a 2 — 2 tie, meaning
that the motion failed.
The current petition is new and not a resubmittal of the previous petition. It should be
evaluated on its own merits. However, since the old and new petitions are on the same site,
Staff has provided a comparison of some dimensions.
DIMENSION
2014
2015
Maximum protrusion
52 feet
38 feet
Number of slips
42
27
Over -water dock area
8,070 SF
5,820 SF
APPEAL OF BOAT DOCK EXTENSION TO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS:
As to any boat dock extension petition upon which the CCPC takes final action, an
aggrieved petitioner, applicant, 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 date of final action by the
CCPC. In the event that the petition has been approved by the CCPC, the applicant shall be
advised that he /she proceeds with construction at his/her own risk during this 30 -day
period.
COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW:
This Staff Report was submitted to the Office of the County Attorney for review on June
12, 2015.
BDE- PL20150000487, Page 7 of 9
Haldeman's Landing Boat Dock Extension.
July 2, 2015 CCPC
Packet Page -247-
10/13/2015 9.C.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the above findings, Staff recommends that the CCPC approve Petition BDE-
PL20150000487, subject to the following conditions:
1. Construction of the docks shall not commence until the approval of an Amendment
to SDP- PL20130000015 for the upland housing development and the subject docks,
and the issuance of a building permit for the upland housing development, as well as
the docks.
2. An ST Permit is required prior to approval of an SDP for the boat docks.
A Certificate of Occupancy (CO) shall not be issued for the docks until a CO has
been issued for the upland housing development.
4. Boat slips shall be owned and used by residents of the Haldeman's Landing multi-
family development or its property owners association and shall not be sold, leased
or rented to any other parties.
Attachments:
1. Correspondence
2. Resolution
3. Application
4. State and Federal permits will be sent via email or will be printed at the n
Commissioner's request
BDE- PL20150000487, Page 8 of 9
Haldeman's Landing Boat Dock Extension,
July 2, 2015 CCPC
Packet Page -248-
PREPARED BY:
FRED REISCHL, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
ZONING DIVISION
[RAIV I sklivi'm
RAYM",' V"BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER
ZONIN6,61VISION
MIKE BOSI, AICP, DIRECTOR
ZONING DIVISION
APPROVED BY:
AIAES FRENCH, DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
NICr, CASALANO'UIDA, DEPUTY COUNTY MANAGER
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
BDE-PL20150000487, Page 9 of 9
Haldernan's Landing Boat Dock Extension.
July 2., 2015 CCPC
Packet Page -249-
1 0/1 3/201 5 9.C.
DATE
DATE
G- I S- ;.sue.
DATE
DATE
ff-Im
10/13/2015 9.C.
CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 15
A RESOLUTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING
COMMISSION RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD- PL20150000487
FOR AN 18 -FOOT BOAT DOCK EXTENSION OVER THE MAXIMUM
20 -FOOT LIMIT ALLOWED BY SECTION 5.03.06 OF THE COLLIER
COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR A TOTAL PROTRUSION
OF 24 TO 38 FEET TO ACCOMMODATE A 27 -SLIP MULTI - FAMILY
DOCKING FACILITY FOR THE BENEFIT OF A 15.61 +/- ACRE
PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS HALDEMAN CREEK DOCKS IN
SECTIONS 11 AND 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. (PETITION BD- PL201500004871
WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has
conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and
such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and
WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (LDC)
(Ordinance 04 -41, as amended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular
geographic divisions of the County, among which are provisions for granting extensions for boat
docks; and
WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), being duly appointed,
has held a properly noticed public hearing and has considered the advisability of a 18 -foot
extension over the maximum 20 -foot limit provided in LDC Section 5.03.06 to allow for a total
protrusion of 38 feet into the waterway for a boat dock facility in a Residential Multi - Family
(RMF -6(3)) zoning district for the property hereinafter described; and
WHEREAS, the CCPC has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and
arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by LDC Section
5.03.06; and
WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given the opportunity to be heard by this
Commission at a public hearing, and the Commission has considered all matters presented.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING
COMMISSION OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
Petition Number BD- PL20150000487, filed on behalf of Standard Pacific of Florida,
G.P., Inc. by Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc., with respect to the property described in the
Attached Exhibit "A ", be and the same is hereby approved for an 18 -foot extension of a boat
dock over the maximum 20 -foot limit to allow for a total protrusion of 24 to 38 feet into the
waterway for a boat dock facility, as shown on the Proposed Site Plan attached as Exhibit B ", in
the Residential Multi - Family (RMF -6(3)) zoning district wherein said property is located, subject
to the Conditions of Approval attached as Exhibit "C ".
[15- CPS- 01431/1191495/1] 72
Rev. 7/10/15 Page 1 of 2
Packet Page -250-
10/13/2015 9.C.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this
Commission and filed with the County Clerks Office.
This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote.
Done this Q--� day of July, 2015.
ATTEST:
James French, Deputy Department Head
Growth Management Department
Appr ved as to form and legality:
Scott A. Stone
Assistant County Attorney
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
r
Al- �zr Karen Homiak, ice - Chairman
Attachments: Exhibit A - Legal Description
Exhibit B - Proposed Site Plan
Exhibit C - Conditions of Approval (if any)
[15-CPS-01431/1191495/11 72
Rev. 7110/15 Page 2 of 2
Packet Page -251-
OR 5037 PG 1652
10/13/2015 9.C.I
U-243 BIT "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF COLLIER,
STATE OF FLORIDA, AND IS bESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
AR E
A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE
25 EAST, AND A PORTION OF THT; SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 50
SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST AND THE WEST 330.00 FEET OF LOT 42, NAPLES GROVES AND
TRUCK CO.'S LITTLE FARMS NO. 2 AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 1, PAGE 27, OF THE
PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS BEING MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGIN AT THE NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SEC77ON 14; THENCE SOUTH 00' 13'02"
EAST, 1331.46 FEET ALONG THE WEST BOUNDARY OF GULF SHORES, AS RECORDED IN
PLAT BOOK 4, PAGE 50 OF SAID NAPLES GROVES AND TRUCK CO.'S LITTLE FARMS NO. 2,
TIIE SAME BEING THE NORTH- SOUTH QUARTER SECTION LJNE OF SAID SECTION 14 70
THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF WINDSTAR, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 14, PAGES I I
THROUGH 15 OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE ALONG THE BOUNDARY OF SAID
WTNDSTAR THE FOLLOWING COURSES: SOUTH 89' 35' 14" WEST, 330.45 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 00' IT 07" WEST, 462.39 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89° 35' 1 V EAST, 30.47 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 00' 13'07" WEST, 1389.23 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89' 34' 18" WEST, 314.39
FEET; THENCE SOUTH 68' 04'16' WEST, 50.12 FEET; THENCE LEAVING THE BOUNDARY OF
SAID WJNDSTAR, NORTH 00' IT 06" WEST, 197 FEET, MORE OR LESS, ALONG THE WEST
BOUNDARY OF THE SOUT7HEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION i l TO THE SOUTH BANK OF HALDEMAN
CREEK; THENCE. MEANDER EASTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTH BANK TO ITS INTERSECTION
WITH THE NORTH -SOUTH QUARTER SECTION LINE OF SAID SECTION 11 AND THE WEST
BOUNDARY OF DEMERE LANDING AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 4, PAGE 14, OF SAID
PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE SOUTH 00' 18' 15" EAST, 164 FEET, MORE OR LESS, ALONG
SAID QUARTER SECTION LINE AND WEST BOUNDARY OF SAID DEMERE LANDING, TO
TffiE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID DEMERE LANDING AND THE NORTIIWF.ST CORNER
OF LOT 42 OF SAID NAPLES GROVES AND TRUCK CO.'S LITTLE FARMS NO, 2; THENCE
NORTI4 89' 30'34" EAST, 330.00 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF SAID DEMERE
LANDING AND THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF SAID I.OT 42; THENCE SOUTH 00' 18' 15" EAST,
337.30 FELT, PARALLEL WITH THE WEST BOUNDARY OF SAID LOT 42, TO THE SOUTH
BOUNDARY OF SAID LOT 42 AND THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF SAID GULF SHORES;
THENCE SOUTH 89' 27'51" WEST, 330.00 FEET, ALONG THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF SAID
LOT 42 AND THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF SAID GULF SHORES TO THE SOUTHEAST
CORNER OF SAID LOT 42, THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID GULF SHORES AND THE
NORTH -SOUTH QUARTER SECTION LINE OF SAID SECTION 11; THENCE SOUTH 00' 18' IS'
EAST, 334.79 FEET ALONG SAID QUARTER SECTION LINE AND T 14E WEST BOUNDARY OF
SAID GULF S14ORFZ TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
Corr —J- Special W-a'4 Dad - WSCNgdm UC:13423W 1RLD= 134236901 2M9.M
Packet Page -252-
10/13/2015 9.C.,
iOR 5037 PC 14553
LESS AND EXCEPT.
COMMENCING AT THE NORTH 1/4 CORNER OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE
25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE: ALONG THE NORTH -SOUTH QUARTER
SECTION LINE OF SAID SECTION 14, SOUTH 00 013'07" EAST 1001.74 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PARCEL; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG THE
NORTH -SOUTH QUARTER SECTION LINE, SOUTH 00'1307" EAST 329.53 FEET'; THENCE
SOUTH 89° 35'14" WEST 330.47 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00 °13117" WEST 329.53 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 89'35'14" EAST 330.47 FE E7 TO THE POINT OF BEGTNNING.
PARCEL2:
A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECT70N 14, TOWNSHIP 50
SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST COLLIER
FOLLOWS: COUNTY, FLORIDA AND BENG DESCRIBED AS
COMMENCING AT THE NORTH 114 CORNER OF SECTION 14, TO*WNSHfi' 50 SOUTH, RANGE
25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH -SOUTH QUARTER
SECTION LINE OF SAID SECTION 14, SOUTH or IT 02" EAST, 1001.74 FEET TO THE POINT
OF BEGINNING OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PARCEL; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG THE
NORTH -SOUTH QUARTER SECTION LINE, SOUTH 00° 13'02- EAST, 329.53 FEET; THENCE
SOUTH 89° 35' 14^ WEST, 330.47 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00° 13' 07" WEST, 329.53 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 890 35' 14° EAST, 330.47 FEET 7.0 THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
PA_ R CEL 3:
THE WEST 140 FEET OF LOT 47 OF NAPLES GROVE AND TRUCK COMPANY'S LITTI.H
FARMS NO. 2, ACCORDTNG TO THE PLAT RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 1, PAGE 27, OF THE
PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; EXCEPTfNG 771E NORTH 30 FEET
T11YERE0F AS CONVEYED JUNE 20, 1957 BY DEED IN BOOK 11, PAGE 120 FOR EASEMENT
FOR RIGHT OF WAY AND ROAD PURPOSES.
c`C"%hr Special Wvmty Peed - WSC NAPkk LLC:I342369C IRLDoCS 13423696 1 29254.0044
Packet Page -253-
10/13/2015 9.C.
Packet Page -254-
40
4
•
�5
j1 N
7 w
W�
4
T ^ V
Z
w o
QN
W
za
Oo_
`o
0
L 0
111
z
Z
OLL
U �
ai
'MHW
W 1n
UO
O
QN
pa
. O
=a
T
t--
OLU
�oL
w
o��
wiz
CL 0
a.
HiGIM %SL -XddV
a
= 3
O W
AVM2131VM. j0 W
HtOIM S XddV a
o
x
IL a
Q
AVA1,631VM y0
H101M %SL'XddV
ti
1
n
_O
N
E-
O
X
N
+o ,
3 a.
O y.
o <=
F m
0
WLu
7 C
r I
E0 W
Qga�
n.
U�jQw
La >C
I wa
I-aaZn
LLI
O
O}�
O�
aq
aQ
CROSS SECTION PA 71102015
Packet Page -255-
IL .,,u a
10/13/2015 9.C.
Igl Ln
0
' O
O
d
N
0
raj, z
0
V
Z
o
Q
O
Wy
�A f
N
U I
U
4
W
L
z U)
Cn
o
CA
W
J r
Qm
I x
w
S
Q � �
cC W vT -r
ti
u G
44C�4
�C 0.
x
H W
.r
00 0 M
� I
I
� Iw
10/13/2015 9.C.
p:L9002.5-fishermaNsviDagelCAD\SHEET\PERMrr--OUNTY19=.5-SDE.DWG CROSS SECTIDN B-B YMOM015
Packet Page -256-
__'N I
ul D jj
Z
w
2 x
OS 15 C', L�
w
z
>4 10
IL >
U,'
U., wz "Z
2, UZI
TOLL. � Lu
Ix mw
'
0" o
_-7
L.
0 n
, ,0 0
-, . 4
Z ' >
—
— —
U_
r z
-0
*YddV
<
N
HICIM
%GL
i"10:308,
D �- W � :5
w 2 n = b w 2
K Z'Lu �=L <O<o-,,L
< 0 LL rt
4
ui Lu Lu uj 0
0 Z 0 > > > l<
) < < uj w it 0�
uj 0 r 0 0� =) =)
=> 0,
0
_JCg:pOm 000
< I Cl
A A A A A
Z A A
RIP
w
U)
0.
v 0 v v v , v
JE
Z
O M
z
o
�
Qr_
42 K.LOM%09'XddV
�
_j z
C)
LU
>
Z
>
UJ
CO
z
LU
En.
z
&n
rn
CO
<
IL
Cl)
0
0
C)
C*4
J
< Im
lkvmNjlvm JO
HiGIM %9Z')(ddV
x
rk �f
0
W
U)
0
z
Z U,
0
US
D to
DE
—
-z7z- 4
<w
Z. U)
= d -!
w
Oj
7F
WHA
z
z
W
0
>g0;
LLI 0
0
UJ Ch
<
z
0 w
p:L9002.5-fishermaNsviDagelCAD\SHEET\PERMrr--OUNTY19=.5-SDE.DWG CROSS SECTIDN B-B YMOM015
Packet Page -256-
__'N I
WHW
U
I
U
O
Ho
U N
W W
U
rV^1
V
V
A"MU31VM d0
H iCW %9Z XddV
w
p
W
N
00
is vilWgelCAD\ 51- EET\PERMIT- COUNTY490025- BDE.tlwg CROSS SECTION,-
Packet Page -257-
10/13/2015 9.C.
CD
a
r
N
C v
O
W
N
Ill
U
z
Q
d, N
O
d
N
3
0
0
V
Z
0
Z
Z
J p
U) 8
W
ZCo
Co
U)
W
I
dD CJ N
y w �
C 2
� o m
c W
M
^ w c>
o-
!t
00
`dt
r �
W to
�gU
z
ZO
qW
Z r
O
W
W0
0rn p
�
!1
cc
<
LU
Sa
z°
00
0 N
x
a
zo
M
Cr 0
Ld
0
Z
OLL
I AM
U p
Co
WHW
w
p
W
N
00
is vilWgelCAD\ 51- EET\PERMIT- COUNTY490025- BDE.tlwg CROSS SECTION,-
Packet Page -257-
10/13/2015 9.C.
CD
a
r
N
C v
O
W
N
Ill
U
z
Q
d, N
O
d
N
3
0
0
V
Z
0
Z
Z
J p
U) 8
W
ZCo
Co
U)
W
I
dD CJ N
y w �
C 2
� o m
c W
M
^ w c>
o-
!t
00
`dt
r �
10/13/2015 9.C.
Conditions of Approval
1. Construction of the docks shall not commence until the approval of an Amendment to
SDP- PL20130000015 for the upland housing development and the subject docks, and the
issuance of a building permit for the upland housing development, as well as the docks.
2. An ST Permit is required prior to approval of an SDP for the boat docks.
3. A Certificate of Occupancy (CO) shall not be issued for the docks until a CO has been
issued for the upland housing development.
4. Boat slips shall be owned and used by residents of the Haldeman's Landing multi - family
development or its property owners association or condominium association for the 64
dwelling units and shall not be sold, leased or rented to any other parties.
5. The use of Dark Sky standards for all lighting used on the dock facility is required.
EXHIBIT C
Packet Page -258-
10/13/2015 9.C.
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Vicki Tracy (Kathleen Riley, Kevin Sieg, Maurice Guiteriez)
DATE: July 27, 2015
RE: Appeal of Administrative Decision
Attached please find;
1. Appeal of Administrative Decision of Administrative Official — BDE- 20150000487 — requesting an
appeal in reference to the Haldeman Creek "Haldeman's Landing" proposed dock expansion
2. Petitions from various homeowner's and landowners in the affected area, opposing the dock
expansion for Haldeman Landing. (16 pages)
3. Legal description of the Land referenced above
4. Check for $1000 to BCC for Appeal processing.
It is our desire to have this petition heard before the BCC.
Packet Page -259-
o e�fi.; r County 10/13/2015 9.C.
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104
PLANNING AND REGULATION (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 252 -6358
www.colliergov.net
PROJECT NUMBER ADA - PL20150001703
PROJECT NAME Haldeman's Landing
DATE PROCESSED Date: 7/28/2015
_ . -4' �� ;"x`; ?6 �.�' �. :.;.: i�P� •Ll�i,�`ii'I,�iVF4R��"fOl1t �..- &,N... � t, =p ��':..,. r,,,��:..$i,_
NAME OF OWNER t� l��>1 '71 le
ADDRESS o' q'76' C;r. CITY Yia.- !es STATE rG- ZIP / /�--
TELEPHONE # A31 - '77Y -Y(l CELL #A31-A96-7446 FAX #
E -MAIL ADDRESS _./«° t3 I10.P (eS '7 `( p� a,•v� A C. . C or�-�
NAME OF AGENT /APPLICANT
FIRM
ADDRESS CITY
TELEPHONE # CELL #
E -MAIL ADDRESS
STATE ZIP
FAX #
QIIEST'QET IL.
Appeal of Application No. AR/PL- 2 o I S 0000 4/8'7
(Please reference the application number that is being appealed)
Attach a statement for the basis of the appeal including any pertinent information,
exhibits and other backup information in support of the appeal.
Submit required application fee in the amount of $1,000.00 made payable to the Board
of County Commissioners."`
Packet Page -260-
ad�. Sy f
10/13/2015 9.C.
16� County
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104
PLANNING AND REGULATION (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 252 -6358
www.colliergov.net
Sec. 250 -58. Appeal from decision of administrative official.
(a) Appeals to a board of zoning appeals or the governing body, as the case may be, may be taken
by any person aggrieved or by any officer, department, board, or bureau of the governing body or
bodies in the area affected by the decision, determination or requirement made by the administrative
official. Such appeals shall be taken within 30 days by filing with the administrative official a written
notice specifying the grounds thereof. The administrative official shall forthwith transmit to the board
all papers, documents, and maps constituting the record of the action from which an appeal is taken.
Due public notice of the hearing on the appeal shall be given. Upon the hearing, any party may
appear in person or by attorney. A decision shall be reached by the appellate body within 30 days of
the hearing; otherwise, the action appealed from shall be deemed affirmed.
An affected property owner is defined as an owner of property located within 300 feet of the
property lines of the land for which the interpretation is effective.
_ An aggrieved or affected party is defined as any person or group of persons which will suffer an
adverse effect to an interest protected or furthered by the Collier County Growth Management Plan,
Land Development Code, or Building Code(s). The alleged adverse interest may be shared in
common with other members of the community at large, but shall exceed in degree the general
interest in community good shared by all persons.
A request for appeal shall be filed in writing. Such request shall state the basis for the appeal and
shall include any pertinent information, exhibits and other backup information in support of the
appeal. In accordance with Resolution No. 2007 -160, the fee for the application and processing of an
appeal is $1,000.00 and shall be paid by the applicant at the time the request is submitted.
The Board of Zoning Appeals shall hold an advertised public hearing on the appeal and shall
consider the administrative decision and any public testimony in light of the growth management
plan, the future land use map, the Land Development Code or the official zoning atlas. The Board of
Zoning Appeals shall adopt the County official's administrative decision, with or without modifications
or conditions, or reject the administrative decision. The Board of Zoning Appeals shall not be
authorized to modify or reject the County official's administrative decision unless such Board finds
that the decision is not supported by substantial competent evidence or that the decision is contrary
to the growth management plan, the future land use map, the Land Development Code or the official
zoning atlas.
Requests for Appeal of Administrative Decision should be addressed to:
OR 5037 PG 1652
10/13/2015 9.C.
M-IlMrr "A
LEGAL DESCRI[PI70N
THE LAND REFERRED TO HERETN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF COLLIER,
STATE OF FLORIDA, AND IS DESCFBED AS FOLLOWS:
AR E ;
A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 14, TOWNSIi11) S4 SOUTH, RANC>x
25 EAST. AND A PORTION Or THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 11, TOWNSH[P 50
SOUTH, RANGM 25 EAST ANID 713E WEST 330.D0 FEET OF LOT 42, NAPLES (TROVES AND
TRUCK CO.'S LITTLE FARMS NO. 2 AS RECOMED IN PLAT BOOK 1, PAGE 27, OF THE
PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA., AS BEING MORE PARTICULARLY
DIESCRI.BED AS FOLLOWS.
BF-Cl IN AT THE. NORTFI QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 14; THENCE SOUTFI 00' 13' OZ.'
LAST, 1331.46 I:EFT AIDNG THE,: WCST BOUNDARY OF GIXF SHORES, AS RECORD -D IN
PLAT 13t?OIC 4, PAGE .50 Ol' SAID NAPLES GROVES, AND MUCK CO.'S LITTLE FARMS NO. 2,
TIM SAME BErNG ,rfiE NORT]H-SOUTH QUARTER S�'TION 11NE OF SAID SECTION 14 TO
THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF WINDSTAR, AS RECORDED FN PLAT BOOK 14, PAGES I I
11JROUGH 15 OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE ALONG THE BOarDARY OF SAID
WINDSTAR THE FOLLOtiv1NG COURSES, SOUTH 89° 35' 14" AFST, 330.45 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 00° 13' 07" Wi:ST, 46239 FEET; THENCE NoRTIi S9° 35, 11" EAST, 30,47 FEET;
71;E1VC13 NOR711 00° 13' 07" WEST, 1389.23 FEET; THFNCE SOUTH 89° 34'19' WEST, 314.39
VEE T.- 'THENCE= SOUTH 68° 04-16' WEST, 50.12 FF T; 7IiiNCE LlrAVING TI ifi BOUNDARY4' OF
SAID WINDSTAR, NORTH 00° IT 06" WEST, 197 FE CT, MOTM DR LrSS, ALONG THE WEST
BOUNDARY OF THE SOM)EAST QUARTER OF TH17, SOUTHF,A.ST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION I1 TO THE SOUTH BANK OF HALD>rMAN
CREEK; THENCE; MI dN4ER 14AM.RLY ALONG SA1.D SOUTH BANK TO ITS IN7TRSECTION
1'VITT3 AP NC7R'FN.S{3UTPt QU/4R'}ER SP LINE OF SAID SECTION I I AND TIiF WFST
BOLI)r(SAT,Y OF DEMERE� LANDING AS RBCORDED IN PLAT BOOK 4, PAGE 14, OF SAID
PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE SOUTH 00° 13' 15" EAST, 164 FEET, MORE OR LESS, ALONG
SAID QUARTER SECTION LTn- AND WEST BOUNDARY OF SAID DEMERE LANDING TO
THE SOUTHWEST CORNER or SAID DCMERC LANDING AND THE NOItI1FWEST CORNER
OF LOT 42 Or. SAID NAPLES GROVES AND TRUCK CO.'S 'IT7Lj', FARMS NO, 2, THEhIC>t
NORTH 89° 3D' 34" EAST, 330.00 FEET ALONG 7'1JE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF SAID DE --(ERE
LAN4DING AND THE NORTH ROMDARY OF SAID LOT 42; I- IJENCE SOUTH DD' 14'15" EAST,
337.30 FEET, PARALLEL WITH II111 1VEST BOUNDARY OF SAID LOT 42, TO THE SOUT1i
BOUNDARY OF SAID LOT 42 AND 7TM NORTH I30UNI)AIYY OF SAID GULF SI40RBS;
THENCE- SOUT }1 694 27'S 1 " WEST, 330.00 FEFr, ALONG THE SOUTII BO DARY C3F SAIL)
LOT 42 AND T}i.L NORTH l3OI13YDARY OF SAID GULF SHORES TO THE SOUTHEAST
CORNFR OF SAIV LOT 42, THE NCIRTHWE:ST CORJwI R OI SAID GULF SHOALS AIdA THE
NORTH-SOUTH QUAJZTER SEC LIVE OT- SAID SECTION 11, TftE1�CE SOt1 TN 00° 18' 15"
EAST, 334.79 FEET ALONG SAID QUARTER SECTION LINE AN I} THE cr BOUNDARY OF
SAID GULF 5NOR1;51 "O 1Ti1. POrWI' OF BrGIN'NIh'G"
�htcilrr fiaczisl W6rrmty pecd- WSCNapki, L1C:z3a13640 iRLT3RCx 13tZi694 t Z4z39.00W
Packet Page -262-
1
OR 5037 PG 1653
LESS AILD EXCEPT:
COMMENCING AT THE NORM 114 CORNER OF SECTION 14, rowNSHtP S0 SOUTE1, F'ANUE
25 EAST. COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; TNFNCB ALONG r1iE NORTH -SOUTH QUARTER.
SEX.-110N LP.NE OF SAID SECTION 14, SOUTH 00 013'07" EAST 1001.74 FF-Er TO THE POINT OF
BEG1NNrN'G CIF' THP HEREFN DESCRIBED PARCEL; THENCE CO)NI NUING ALOArG THE
NORTH - SOUTH QUARTER SECTION LINE, SOUTH 00^ 13'07* EAST 329.53 FEE!'; THENCE
SOUTTi 89° 35'14" iWFY t 330.47 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00 °13'07" NEST 329,53 PRET; THENCE
NOR 711999Y)4" VAST 330,47 FU, 7 TO THE POM OF BEG)-WI-Na.
PARCEL .
A PARCEL OF LAND LYTNG IN THE NORTHWEST QUA?RTH& OF SECTION 14, TO%NSHZP 50
SOUTH, RANGE 2$ EAST, COLI,MR COUNTY, PLOkMA AND SEIiNG DESCR1I3ED AS
FOLLOWS-
COMMENCING AT THE NORTH 114 COkNEA OF SECTION 14, T'OWNSPUP 50 SOUTH, RANG1:
25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCF ALONG THE NORTH- SOUI -n QUARTER
SECTION LINE OF SArD SECTION 14, SOUTH 00° 13'0' EAST, 1001,74 FEET TO THE POINT
OF B'EGMIN(3 OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PARCEL; THENCE CON'ITNUING ALONG T1iF
NORT14- SC3UT14 QUARTER SErIlON LINE, SOIJTTt 00° 13' OZ" EAST, 329.53 FF%'F'; '1HF tNGE
50UT1i 89° 35' 14 WEST, 33 {).47 MET; THENCE FNO)ITI{ 00° 13'07" WEST', 329.53 FEET;
TCMNCE NORTH $q° 3S 14 "E.AST, 330,47 FEET 7'0 T't3E POINT OF BCG)NINING.
1'AI2CFI,3:
THE WEST 140 FEET OF LOT 47 OF ]NAPLES GROVE AND TRUCK
F:4.RJ ,S NO. 2, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT
PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY
T14BREOF AS CONVE'1`LD 1UNE 20, 1957 Ei Y
FDR RIGHT OF WAY AND ROA D PURPOSES
RECO -RDLD IN PLAT BOOK
FLORIDA; EXCEPTING
DE£17 IN 130tH, 11, PAGE
Co�hY �'mcrntY Uad - WSC Nepka, LLC:13e21690 I RLDO�CS I34X369D 1 292S4.ODOi
Packet Page -263-
COMPANY'S L1TCL8
1, PAGE F7, OF THc-
THE NOR714 30 FEET
120 FOR EASEMENT
10/13/2015 9.C.
con
H
W -
U
O�
_o
U
W!� O
H
Q
L-0U
O
C/IU
�OO
z
W
H
x
1-�
U
a�
c�
a�
0
0
a
U
b
ri
9.2
U
0
m
3
o �
o
a0b �'
0
�
W
6 0
Q
10/13/2015 9.C.
Packet Page -264-
J
Q
17
Oo
pn
w
�
t
A4
��r
T C'1`
Q
�
�
V4
r
b
tit
n�
V
�d
Packet Page -264-
m
Wl%
O
z
U
9Z u
u
0
on
00
v La
1 0/1 3/201 5 9.C.
Packet Page -265-
S-
IS
4z
Packet Page -265-
t`r'
0
W
U
O�
W�
O
WO
Q U
zzH
QO
U
O
Coo
O
W
H
R
u
U
b
x
0
Cd
:r
avi
U
'C3
Jo
a� a�
U �
3
2-9
s3, ,rs
o
ti
�W
U
�Q
10/13/2015 9.C.
Packet Page -266-
i
v
CIO
1
W
.T
1-0
r
r
�
rf
VI
v
0
z
Packet Page -266-
I-WI,
ffil
,�J—
I
W
W
A
W�
O
U �
U7
A�
O
OU
O�
�U
�o
H
H
U
b
GE
U
to
0
0
^d
U
U
N
rl
9.0
U
zn
O ,
%ll
o
aoo
�
�W
U
Q
10/13/2015 9.C.
Packet Page -267-
C!1
k
1
a
�
1r,
I
_y
L
C"
v
CJO
tl
z
,r
Packet Page -267-
O
z
w
h
w
U
A�
�O
U�
wo
A�
OU
a, a
Ln o
�o
w
H
x
v
U
-d
0
0 COO
b
a
-o
� o
o�
tm
0
�Q
10/13/2015 9.C.
Packet Page -268-
e'1
w
�
O
x
a
Q
v
Packet Page -268-
e'1
U
a�
O
z
H
W U
U
Q �
A�
� bo
oU
CO P
o�
b�A
coo
O
b
bA �
p
sn O
k
O W
� U
�A
Packet Page -269-
10/13/2015 9.C.
H
r~n
,t
w
�
�
i
z
C-�
J
L
t
\v
y
'r
Packet Page -269-
10/13/2015 9.C.
WE
m
O
w
H
w
U
O�
Q�
WW�
U
v�
wO
QU
QC
O U
zU
Qo
H
H
H coo
x
U
RS
J�1
°J
U
lz
oj
b
a�
o
tr
.pq
"C1 �
O �
o�
�~ o
b
�W
U
�Q
Packet Page -270-
10/13/2015 9.C.
W
V
O
o
y
�
�
Ld
e
R$
c�
Packet Page -270-
10/13/2015 9.C.
U
b
z °
Z a.
W U
U
U
W �
U �
b �
wo �•°
Q U C4 ni
aaug
o� g
Zo
H
Z
o It
O
N W
4]
�A
Packet Page -271-
10/13/2015 9.C.
C S
4
C6
x
"
M
,A
zi,`,$•.
Z
Packet Page -271-
10/13/2015 9.C.
wz
;4 0
QU
u
04 �4
E-4 0
un U
ai
0
cd&-4
1�4
o
1 0/1 3/201 5 9.C.
Packet Page -272-
Cr-
-j-
� j
z�z
ry
71
Sz
Packet Page -272-
O
71
U
U Cun)
Cu
u
U
DC
"\I t
Packet Page -273-
1 0/1 3/201 5 9.C.
LAO
llylt
ri
Cu
j,
J TT
�j
Packet Page -273-
1 0/1 3/201 5 9.C.
m
z
O
W
H
W
U
o�
O
U�
Q O
TWO
OU
O�
as
�O
U
0
H
W
H
U
v
v
0
a
r%1
'C3
N
U
U
v
a �
.VA
U
x
v
en
0
y
n� W
U
A
10/13/2015 9.C.
Packet Page -274-
--N
IVY
W
Q
C_z7
J
W
C
U
a
T
x�
W
I�
Packet Page -274-
--N
w
W
U
�
O
A�
Wo
uV)
Z
"'
�wo
U
x�
Q�
OU
a�
a�
�o
M +
U
a�
0
0
U
x
L�
0
0 ^�
� `u
Q
CU 6
a� W
� U
�A
10/13/20159.C.
!.
Packet Page -275-
ke-
Ts
4
�a
z
M
W
q
Qt,
�
`tD
��
D1
00
N
L
C
oll
yV
NJ°v
Packet Page -275-
z
0
w
H
w
U
0
Q�
w�
Q
WO
T �
Qo
oU
w
�a
04a
o
�O
h
Q
H
w
r
h
N
N
U
b
b
a�
0
Cd
4-
to
v
w
U
U
9.0
N N
�W
x �
y
o4
"
O
O
ao �
� O
vW
� U
Q
I
10/13/2015 9.C.
Packet Page -276-
el�*N
V
H
ro
o
ItH
C
J ..
W
Packet Page -276-
el�*N
0,
A
0
PLO
7j
0
t
CC
O
Cd
79
lb
1 0/1 3/201 5 9.C.
Packet Page -277-
TI
r
ro
--I
%)
-:t-
V)
�3
-j—
(-16-
C 6
�l
Packet Page -277-
6
wW
z
0
>1
uo U
C)
P-�
F--� 0
Cn U
z
0
7:$
0
M.
0
Cd
i
Cu
0
2 1
Cd
E 0j)
oCd
01)
0
10/13/2015 9.C.
Packet Page -278-
V3
A4
r�
X
111
zs--
-q
NN
Packet Page -278-
s�
O
W
f-�
W
U
O�
Q�
w�
�o
zC/I
up
wo
Qv
H
Q
WO
OU
O
O
H
W
H
H
v
v
b
v
O
O
b
U
U
w
U
1�1
1
a
by
� O
N W
� U
Q
10/13/2015 9.C.
Packet Page -279-
tt.
ZOZ
w
!,;
40
z
�.
a
c�,
_j
�s
b
° V
z
Packet Page -279-
CRAIG R WOODWARD
Board Carised: Ral Estate
MARK J. WOODWARD
Board Cad6ad: Pad Erma
ANTHONY P. PINES, JR.
Board CercSed: City Camg;
and Local Gmerrmv t
J. CHRISTOPHER LOMBARDO
Board Caeaed: Marital
and Fk*Law
ROBERT E- MURRELL
Of Counsel
DAVID E. LEIGH
Of Courml
JENNIFERL DEVRIES
JENNIFER M. TENNEY
LENORE T. BRAKEFIELD
MATTHEW P. FLORES
J. TODD MURRELL
RE PLY TO:
M 3200 TAM[AMI TRAIL N.
SUITE 200
NAPLES, FL 34103
239- 649 -6555
239 -649 -7342 FAX
0 606 BALD EAGLE DRIVE
SUITE 500
P.O. BOX ONE
MARCO ISLAND, FL 34146
239 - 394 -5161
2339- 642 -6402 FAX
WWW.WPL— LEGAL.COM
10/13/2015 9.C.
W 0QDVVtARD, nIAIE c & T0MBARD0, P. A.
August 28, 2015
Honorable Tim Nance, Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
Collier County, Florida
c/o Fred Reischl, AICP
2800 North Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Re: Appeal PL20150001703 (the "Appeal') relating to Boat Dock
Extension Petition BDE- PL20150000487; CCPC Resolution No. 15 -01
Dear Commissioner Tim Nance:
I represent Kathleen Riley (Individually and as Trustee of the Kathleen
J. Riley Revocable Trust u /a /d June 2014 and sole beneficiary of said Trust,
"Riley "), 2998 Poplar Street, Naples, FL. 34112; Vicki Tracy 3266 Lakeview
Drive, Naples, Florida 34112 ('Tracy "); and, Maurice Gutierrez, 2736
Shoreview Drive, Naples, Florida 34112 ( "Gutierrez ") in the above referenced
appeal requesting a reversal of CCPC Resolution No. 15 -01 and the denial
of BDE- PL20150000487.
Enclosed please find the attached original, 2 copies and a flash drive
submittal containing some argument, materials and documents relating to the
Appeal for review and consideration by the County Commission as part of
the Appeal. No rights, concerns, arguments, positions or objections of the
parties appealing the decision or concerning this Appeal are waived by
anything stated herein or omitted herefrom and the right to present, make
and submit additional arguments and materials before the Board of Collier
County Commissioners ( "BCC') as to the Appeal is specifically reserved.
As noted in the attached submittal this filing and submittal of various
argument, documents and materials herein as part of the Appeal is and are
being made and provided while reserving the right to further amend, modify
or supplement this filing and Appeal with additional arguments and materials.
It is respectfully requested that the Appeal should be granted and the
decision of the CCPC and Resolution No. 15 -01 be reversed and that BDE -
PL20150000487 be denied. /I--
APP /Ig
Enclosure(s)
Cc: with enclosure(s):
Heidi Ashton - Cicko, Esq.
Packet Page -280-
10/13/2015 9.C.
From: Kate Riley [kjbnapies74 @gmaii.com]
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 11:48 AM
To: ReischlFred; HomiakKaren; DoyleBrian; ChrzanowskiStan; RomanCharlette;
EbertDiane; StrainMark
Subject: Haldeman Creek BDE Petition
Attachments: boat lift.JPG
Dear Mr. Reischl and Collier County Planning Commissioners,
I live directly across the waterway where Standard Pacific is petitioning for the boat
dock extension along Haldeman Creek. I do not support the petition and would like
this letter with attached photo to be included in the official record to the Collier
County Planning Commission.
Having viewed the waterway every day for the last 12 years, these are my concerns:
1) The navigational issues will present a public safety hazard. When a 25 foot boat
backs out of an angled slip (15 -20 feet wide) toward the NW direction then takes a
180 degree turn heading toward the Gulf of Mexico, there is a large possibility of a
collision. Boats do not have brakes.
2) While Haldeman Creek may appear to be 120 to 150 feet wide, the actual
navigable waterway in the center is only 15 -20 feet.
3) When Haldeman creek was extensively dredged in 2006, l had my boat lift area
dredged as well. Within two years, the silt was back (as the dredgers told me it would
be). Photo attached was taken January 2015. 1 have to plan my boating activities. My
boat lift is not usable during mid to low tides. I am fortunate to have a small wooden
dock near my lift with mooring whips that allow me to tie up in slightly deeper water
until the tide returns and I have enough water to put my boat back on my lift. When
the purchasers of the proposed docks discover the bows of their boats in the muck
along the bank (even after dredging) they will more than likely tie their boats toward
the rear of their docks. This will make a bad situation worse.
4) Sanctuary Docks across from Haldeman's Landing: The Hearing Officer indicated
on page 17 of his report that 'The Sanctuary application was supplied and approved
with numerous errors. The Planning Commission, in approving this application, relied
on the applicant's statements and documentation.' Are you going to approve another
BDE with inconsistent information provided by the applicant as it was with the
Sanctuary docks?
Packet Page -281 -
file: //bcc.colliergov. net / data/ GNM- LDN/UL) LN "�o2urtanning ° /`2OServices /C... 9/21/2015
1 10/13/2015 9.C.
This is a quote from the memorandum Commissioner Henning sent to the residents
on October 26, 2014 after viewing this waterway by boat. 'On Saturday, I viewed
Haldeman Creek from the water with Mark Strain and County Attorney Jeff Klaztkow
gained a different perspective from the boat than the backup material before the
Board at the upcoming meeting on Tuesday, October 28, 2014.'
If anyone on the Planning Commission would be willing to experience the potential
problem with this BDE on Haldeman Creek by water, I would be more than happy to
accommodate you on my boat at your convenience.
Thank you for taking my concerns seriously,
Kathleen Riley
2889 Poplar Street
Naples, FL 34112
239- 774 -4411
Packet Page -282 -
file: //bcc.colliergov. net / data /GMD- LDS/ cD hS� /o2Ut'lanning %20Services /C... 9/21 /2015
10/13/2015 9.C.
email 1 Fw docks on haldermon creek
From: strainmark
sent: Monday, June 22, 2015 9:20 AM
To: ReischlFred
subject: Fw: docks on haldermon creek
Please forward as usual.
Mark
239.252.4446
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.
-- Original message---- -
From: Jack Hail [ mailto:jackhail @embargmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2015 6:11 PM
To: strainmark
subject: docks on haldermon creek
Hi, Iam writing regarding the hearing on the boat dock extension. Please
don't allow this the creek is way to narrow and there is no good reason for
it. if there complaint is there is not enough water please allow them to
dredge it. Again don't allow anyone a boat dock extension it will impede
navigation. Thank You Jack Hail
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.
Page 1
Packet Page -283-
1 10/13/2015 9.C.
From: StrainMark
Sent: Friday Iuine 19 2075 12:46 PM
To: ReischlFred
Subject: FW: Haldeman Creek Docks
Please forward as usual
Ma.Yfv
239.252.4445
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.
From: Klbeatty48O)aol.com (mailto:Klbeatty48C & aol.com]
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 12:33 PM
To: StrainMark; EbertDiane; Karen Hum iakCabcolIiergov. net ; DoyleBrian; ChrzanowskiStan; RomanCharlette
Cc: FredReichl @colliergov.net
Subject: Haldeman Creek Docks
Dear Chairman Strain, Vice Chair Humiak and commissioners Ebert, Roman, Doyle, Chrzanowski and Mr.
Reischl,
In light of the recent articles on the front page of the Naples Daily News on Friday, June 5th regarding data
collected by Corel-ogic about storm surge predictions in Collier County, which would have a major effect on
creeks, rivers and streams, I urge you to take a step back in your considerations of approving ANYTHING at all
to be developed right on Haldeman Creek.
Please take the time to read this article. I truly believe adding these boat docks on Haldeman Creek is a
hazard to the safety of the citizens on or anywhere near the Creek. We've been fortunate to not have a storm
surge, which are massive walls of water that are formed by tropical storms and hurricanes, in recent
years. These walls of water can top 20 feet and take with it everything in sight. We don't need extra boats,
pilings and boat lifts floating easterly along with all that is already in place on Haldeman Creek, Why would
anyone take this chance when these boat docks could be neatly tucked away on a side canal for the
developer's project.
With Naples being a designated "blue zone ", I would think this means more than just health and fitness. This
means thinking globally about our community and preparedness in protecting citizens. Storm surges are life
threatening. Why contribute even one more thing to the mix?
Although I stand aligned with the citizens group who are opposed to the Haldeman Creek docks for other
reasons, such as safety for boaters, extreme congestion in the Creek and the harm to wildlife, particularly
manatees, of which I've seen many this summer while kayaking on Haldeman Creek.
These developers have other options. Please decide to move them in another direction, one that will cause
less impact environmentally and in safe boating on the Creek. Please enlist your higher selves in doing what is
right in this situation.
Thank you for your time. IT see you at the meeting.
Sincerely,
Karen
Packet Page -284 -
file: //bcc. colliergov. net / data /GMD- LDS/ CDES %20PIanning %2OServices /C... 9/21/2015
/0"**"
10/13/2015 9.C.
Karen L. Beatty, ABR, GRI
ar)-owniBYg-Frye rye �\6�b�it�� if ��r�
Direct Cell: 239 269 -7788
Direct Fax: 239 236 -0365
www.karenbeatty.com
NATIVE Floridian, loving Naples since 1977.
Serving Buyers, Investors and Sellers since 1995!
Baysh ore/ Gateway Triangle CRA Advisory Board since 2006
Member of NABOB, FAR, NAR
.Vv
ar
MULTIPLE AWARD WINNER
By the way... the greatest compliment you can give me is the referral of a friend or family member. l
promise to treat them with the same care as 1 would my own.
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.
Packet Page -285 -
file: //bcc.colliergov.neVdata/GNM- LDS /C DES °%zUYlanning %20Services /C... 9/21 /2015
10/13/2015 9.C.
From: StrainMark
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2015 8:21 AM
To: ReischlFred
Subject: FW: AN INVITATION... ON HALDEMAN CREEK
Please distribute as usual.
Ma.Yk.
239.252.4446
Under FLorida Law, e -mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your a -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.
From: Janie Moore [mailto:zanyianieC&hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 7:24 PM
Cc: ROY & NANCY WILSON
Subject: AN INVITATION... ON HALDEMAN CREEK
I am inviting you to stop by any evening to watch the activity on Haldeman Creek.
Nearly every evening you will find a few members of Naples Land Yacht Harbor,
(we have 352 units), gather at 4:30 pm at the deck at the end of Pier A overlooking
Haldeman Creek.
We enjoy watching the birds, dolphins, manatees, and fish!
Once you place docks on the creek, you will destroy the pristine nature of the creek.
If you were to view the creek at low tide, you would realize that the dolphins and
manatees would surely suffer injuries.
Adding docks to Haldeman Creek is not the thing to do, no matter how many docks
or what length.
As of this date, no boat docks are actually on the creek below the commercial section
at the Bayshore Drive Bridge.
If boat docks are approved, it will bring in much more boat traffic to our pristine
area. If approval "a must ", why not in the basin around Haldeman Creek Drive?
This is not an answer to the natural environment on a creek in possibly the only
water way in Naples area with now pristine surroundings.
Once the commissioners have approved the proposed docks, how can the
commissioners then deny Windstar Country Club, Naples Land Yacht Harbor or the
Sandpiper complex, possibly Sandpiper Street, the privilege to place docks on
Haldeman Creek?
PLEASE .... no docks on Haldeman Creek!
Packet Page -286 -
file://bcc.colliergov.net/data/GMD- LDS / CDES %20PIanning %2OServices /C... 9/21/2015
10/13/2015 9.C.
From:
StrainMark
Sent:
Wednesday, June 17, 2015 10:20 AM
To:
ReischlFred
Subject:
FW: Dock Extension Application - Haldeman Creek Docks
Please forward as usual
M owk,
239.252.4446
Under FLorida Law, e -mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e -MOIL 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.
From: Roy Wilson rmailto:roy.wilsonC6gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 1:31 PM
To: HomiakKaren; EbertDiane; DoyleBrian; ChrzanowskiStan
Cc: StrainMark
Subject: Dock Extension Application - Haldeman Creek Docks
Dear Planning Commission Members,
The following is my list of concerns /objections to approving the Dock Extension
Application:
General and overall:
First, a dock extension application should only be considered AFTER it is
determined that the developer "could" be allowed to place docks, of any type, in
and over a waterway that was created through the owners having granted a legal
easement. I would submit that any action on that area of Haldeman Creek
created by the easement is 'off limits' to the building of docks.
If any new docks are to be allowed; I do not think it is wise to grant this application
as it will encumber Haldeman Creek with several hundred new "pilings' and
decking onto the waterway whose main function is storm water drainage. This
would be further exasperated if the plan allows dock owners to add boat lifts. It is
inconceivable to think that these docks and their moored boats would not have
any effect on water flow or debris capture. While their current application
includes letters of 'subjective opinions' related to the proposed docks not
impacting water flows these should not be acceptable evidence. Additionally,
nobody knows for sure what will happen in a storm situation so why take the
risk.
Further, consider all the recent remarks by Federal, State, and
County officials regarding global warming, rising water levels, and
Packet Page -287 -
file: //bcc.colliergov. net / data /GMD- LDL,�/t.:urr!, io ,Luriamiing %20Services /C... 9/21/2015
10/13/2015 9.C.
managing storm -water flow with weirs like the one feeding Haldeman Creek.
There seems to he more unknown than known about how these issues will impact
Haldeman Creek's performance.
Items from the HEX report not fully answered in the current application:
1- The owners should produce a report on hydraulic impacts as studied using a
2 -D tidal model so as to determine whether the proposed new docks and
launches will impact the flows within the waterway (e.g. Haldeman Creek and it's
connecting canals).
2- Produce expert testimony that studies the impact of sediment transport within
the waterway and how that impacts /products erosion or sediment accumulation on
other parts of the waterway.
3- Require specific language that formalizes that the docks will only be used,
rented and /or owned by residents of Haldeman Landing /Regatta Landing.
Items brought to mind from reading the various reports:
4 -. The developer has never produced rationale to help all understand why they
should be granted an extension rather that creating a "basin" or, creating docks on
other parts of their `owned property' that would not impact the main Haldeman
Creek.
5 -If any dock extension is approved; require a specific plan that states the
extent of mangrove trimming and reduction will take place as a result of
building the docks /walkways. The purpose is to minimize the trimming. If
approved, require a commitment to maintain the mangrove to the stated plan.
Final Thoughts:
I have often wondered why the developer keeps asking for the maximum vs
listening to the objections of the public and has only made modifications after the
HEX wrote his report. For instance, why not place the docks elsewhere.... or why
not submit a plan with all parallel docks (and no lifts) therefore minimizing adding
structure to the Creek that may impede water - flow.... ??
Thank you for your consideration of the above,
Roy Wilson
Chairman, Haldeman Creek MSTU
Roy Wilson
Naples, FL
Packet Page -288 -
file: //bcc.colliergov. net / data /GNM- LDN/uL)LN io /-u.rianning %2OServices /C... 9/21/2015
10/13/2015 9.C.
239 -821 -4995
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.
Packet Page -289 -
file: //bcc.colliergov. net / data /GMD- LL» /ut)t s— /o2Urlanning %20Services /C... 9/21 /2015
10/13/2015 9.C.
email FW Hadleman creek
From: StrainMark
sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 11:24 AM
To: ReischlFred
subject: FW: Hadleman creek
Please forward as usual.
Mark
239.252.4446
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.
- - - -- original Message---- -
From: Jean Mcsherry [mailto:jeanmc2 @hotmail.com]
sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 11:08 AM
To: StrainMark
subject: Hadleman creek
Please vote no on extension of docks on hadleman creek. Jean Mcsherry /john
Mcsherry 9 grouper drive Naples fl 34112. Full time residents. Thank you sent
from my iPhone
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.
Page 1
Packet Page -290-
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Please forward as usual
Mo -t-kl
239.252.4446
StrainMark
Wednesday, June 17, 2015 10:18 AM
ReischlFred
FW: Haldeman Creek Dock Extensions
10/13/2015 9.C.
Under FLorida Law, a -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.
From: William Townsend fmailto:bgtown111(�bgmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 10:00 AM
To: HomiakKaren; EbertDiane; DoyleBrian; StrainMark; ChrzanowskiStan
Subject: Haldeman Creek Dock Extensions
To the Collier County Planning Commission:
I wish to inform you that I am against granting dock extensions on Haldeman Creek. I oppose
extensions for the following reasons:
1. The proposed plan causes problems and congestion in the Creek. The developer would need to
erect about 200+ pilings and associated walkways. This could serve to gather debris in a storm that
.might lead to flooding.
2. Haldeman Creek is a'drainage canal'. The area where dock extensions are proposed is an area that
was created to improve the flow of water to the Gulf. These docks would narrow that area, thus
restrict the flow.
3. There are safety concerns for boaters entering and leaving the Lakeview area where they would
need to make a 90 degree turn and then navigate around the docks.
4. There are other areas on the developers land where docks could be built. There is no reason to give
the developer special consideration for a "dock extension" on Haldeman Creek.
Again, I oppose granting dock extensions on Haldeman Creek
William E To- "msend
111 Pier H
Naples, FL 34112
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.
Packet Page -291 -
file: //bce.colliergov. net / data /GMM- LL�!,it-;lit✓;�, ioz-urianning %o20Services /C... 9/21/2015
10/13/2015 9.C.
From:
StrainMark
Sent:
Wednesday, June 17, 2015 1:50 PM
To:
ReischlFred
Subject:
FW: Haldeman Creek Docks - Against granting of boat dock entensions
Please forward as usual.
M a,rk,
239.252.4446
Under FLorida Law, e -mail addresses are nubLic 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.
From: Richard Jay [mailto:ndiay14((1Qmail.cam]
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 1:46 PM
Subject: Haldeman Creek Docks - Against granting of boat dock entensions
As a resident of Naples Land Yacht Harbor and
registered voter, I want to express my thoughts as to
not granting an extension to boat docks
requested.
I would highly recommend that you take a boat ride
down Haldeman Creek to view the validity of my
thoughts.
blind. 1. Haldeman Creek is a drainage canal. It is narrow
especially on the turns, and the turns are
have met other boats while negotiating a turn, and it
can be very exciting if both boat captains are not
alert. # tide making ''
and more boat traffic being added, I can only see
more accidents occurring.
2. More boat traffic will a! / to the undermining of sea
walls. With many boats not observing the no wake
Packet Page -292 -
file: //bec.colliergov. net / data /GMD- LDS /UI)ES /o20PIanning %2OServices /C... 9/21/2015
1 0/1 3/201 5 9.C.
signage already, I can only foresee damage occurring
I I
to our sea wall and other residents along Haldeman
Creek. Repairs are expensive to the current residents
along the creek, and this expense to us needs to be
considered.
3. There are other areas that can be used on the
developers land for docks. Why does the developers
need extensions for docks in the creek?
4. What is the developers compelling reason for
granting the extension. The developers are just
wanting the least expensive and easiest way to
maximize their docks without any concern for the
residents already on Haldeman Creek.
5. Why is the request coming during the summer
months. I do believe that the developer is looking fol
the time when more concerned residents are not in
Naples who will voice opposition to granting the
extensions. I
Richard D. jay
102 Pier K
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.
Packet Page -293-
file://bec.colliergov.jiet/data/GNM-LD�/t-,L)r,�-/o.�urianning%2OServices/C... 9/211/2015
10/13/2015 9.C.
From:
StrainMark
Sent:
Wednesday, June 17, 2015 10:18 AM
To:
ReischlFred
Subject:
FW: Halderman Creek pier extension request
Please forward as usual.
M o 4-kl
239.252.4446
Under Florida Law, e -maiL addresses are public records. If you do not want your e -maiL address
reLeosed in response to a public records request, do not send electronic maiL to this entity.
Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing.
From: John Flaherty fmailto:2jff533(- Ogmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 10:04 AM
To: StrainMark
Subject: Halderman Creek pier extension request
Mr Strain
I live on Haldeman Creek at 326 Pier E and overlook the project under construction. I think that the
condo addition to the community is a good use of that land area. I am concerned about the dock -age ,..�
and its encroachment into the waterway.The dock -age at the back of the auTort for its marina seems
to adequately work for the size boats that can navigate the Haldeman creek and they do not extend
into the waterway as far as this request is asking. PIease do not approve this request.
Thank You
John F Flaherty
326 Pier E
Naples
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.
Packet Page -294 -
file://bcc.colliergov.net/ data /GN4D- LDS / CDES %20PIanning %2OServices /C... 9/21/2015
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Please forward as usual
Mark/
239.252.4446
StrainMark
Wednesday, June 17, 2015 10:19 AM
ReischlFred
FW: Notification: Haldeman Landing
20150616 _085023.jpg;20150616_084505.jpg
1 10/13/2015 9.C.
0
Under FLorida Low, 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.
From: Roy Wilson [mailto:roy.wilson(&gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 11:08 AM
To: ReischlFred
Cc: McKuenElly; StrainMark
Subject: Fwd: Notification: Haldeman Landing
Fred, After our request to you to ask the developer to place his "notification signs" on the
part of his property that faces Haldeman Creek, I decided to ride my bike to the Lakeview
Drive construction entrance of the development.
Attached are two pictures, one from the end of Lakeview Drive where Lakeview
makes a 90 degree turn to the right (to give perspective as to the readability of the
notification sign). Without driving further down what is effectively a dead end street, it is
as close to the sign as one can get. I did drive all the way to the construction entrance, so
picture 42 is the sign itself.
To bad so few will ever see it. Thanks for whatever effort you made to get them to
place the sign in a reasonable location.
Roy Wilson
Roy Wilson
@ Naples, FL
239 -821 -4995
Packet Page -295 -
file : //bec.colliergov.net/data/GN D- LDS / CDES %20PIanning %2OServices /C... 9/21 /2015
10/13/2015 9.C.
From:
StrainMark
Sent:
Thursday, June 18, 2015 $:22 AM
To:
ReischlFred
Subject:
FW: Proposed Halderman Creek dock extension
Please distribute as usual
Ma,rk.
239.252.4446
Under FLorida Law, e -mail addresses are pubLic records. If you do not want your e -mail address
re Leased in response to a pubLic records request, do not send electronic maiL to this entity.
Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing.
From: jon alberghini [mailto:jhalberghini(a)msn.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 10:05 PM
To: HomiakKaren; EbertDiane; DoyleBrian; StrainMark; ChrzanowskiStan
Subject: Proposed Halderman Creek dock extension
Dear Collier County Planning Commissioners Homiak, Ebert, Doyle, Strain and
Chrzanowski:
I am writing you to state my opposition to the proposed dock extension request on
Haldeiman Creek opposite Becca and the Naples Land Yacht Harbor community.
We have been down this road before with the developer and the evidence presented at
previous hearings and the findings of Mr. Strain clearly pointed out that were no
compelling reasons to grant the previous requests.
None of the facts heard at past hearings have changed;
• Haldeman Creels is still a'drainage canal'
• The area of the docks is still an area that was created to improve the flow of water
to the Gil£
• The docks would narrow that area, thus restrict the flow.
Packet Page -296 -
file: //bec.colliergov. net / data /GMD- LDN/c. L) LN 7o2uFianning ° /`2OServices /C... 9/21 /2015
1 10/13/2015 9.C.
�-. The proposed extension will require 200+ pilings and associated walkways
• This could serve to gather debris in a storrn that possibly could lead to flooding.
• The proposed plan will cause congestion in one of the narrowest sections of the
Creels. Photographic evidence was presented at past hearings showing how narrow
the creek is at the proposed dock extension location, especially at 1/2 and low tide.
• There are safety concerns for boaters going to and leaving the Lakeview area as they
would need to malse a 90 degree turn and navigate around the proposed dock
extension.
The developer wants the Commission to grant them an additional 18' extension beyond the
standard 20' allowance for docks. There is no compelling reason to grant
this special treatment of a dock extension.
Very truly yours:
Jon Alberghini
220 Pier E
Naples Land Yacht Harbor"
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.
Packet Page -297-
frle : //bcc.colliergov.net/data/GMD- LDS / CDES %20P]anning %2OServices /C... 9/21/2015
10/13/2015 9.C.
From: William Townsend [bgtown111 @gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2015 8:06 AM
To: ReischlFred
Subject: Fwd: Haldeman Creek Dock Extensions
---- - - - - -- Forwarded message ---- - - - - --
From: William Townsend <bgtownl l 1ij�,gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 10:00 AM
Subject: Haldeman Creek Dock Extensions
To: KarenHomiakncolliergov.net, DianeEbertncollierov.net, BrianDoylencollierov.net,
markstrain2collier og v.net, StanCluzanowskincollier ov.net
To the Collier County Planning Commission:
I wish to inform you that I am against granting dock extensions on Haldeman Creek. I oppose
extensions for the following reasons:
1. The proposed plan causes problems and congestion in the Creek. The developer would need to
erect about 200+ pilings and associated walkways. This could serve to gather debris in a storm that
might lead to flooding.
2. Haldeman Creek is a' drainage canal'. The area where dock extensions are proposed is an area that
was created to improve the flow of water to the Gulf. These docks would narrow that area, thus ^
restrict the flow.
3. There are safety concerns for boaters entering and leaving the Lakeview area where they would
need to make a 90 degree turn and then navigate around the docks.
4. There are other areas on the developers land where docks could be built. There is no reason to give
the developer special consideration for a "dock extension" on Haldeman Creek.
Again, I oppose granting dock extensions on Haldeman Creek
tn
William E Townsend
111 Pier H
Naples, FL 34112
Packet Page -298 -
file: //bec.colliergov.net/ data /GMD- LDS/ CDE S %20PIannirtg %2OServices /C... 9/21/2015
10/13/2015 9.C.
.-. email Haldeman Creek Extended Docks
From: claire link [clairelink7250otmaii.coml
sent: Thursday, June 18, 2015 8:12 AM
To: ReischlFred
subject: Haldeman Creek Extended Docks
I am resident of Naples Land Yacht Harbor and a registered voter. i am
against the extension of the docks on Haldeman Creek. The Creek is already
too narrow and too shallow at low tide. It is dangerous with too many boats
at times. Too much stress on the creek effects the sea walls of all
residences. The builders have other options to build their docks so I am
guessing that this option is the easiest and cheapest for them. The project
should not be allowed on the narrow and shallow Haldeman creek.
Claire Link
29 Grouper
Naples, FL 34112
sent from my iPad
Page 1
Packet Page -299-
10/13/2015 9.C.
June 17, 2015
am a resident of Naples Land Yacht Harbor and I am a registered
voter. I am not in favor of granting an extension to the extended
boat docks that are being requested. My reasons are:
1) Haldeman Creek is a drainage canal. It is narrow and hard to
negotiate.. Low tide makes the creek more narrow and I feel that
more boat traffic will create even more accidents.
2) Boat traffic undermines our sea walls, especially when no wake signs
are ignored. Repairs to sea walls are extremely expensive to all
residents along the creek and this is a serious consideration.
3) Why do the developers need extensions for docks on Haldeman
Creek when there are other options that make more logical sense.
4) What is the main reason for granting the extension? Is it because it is
the least expensive and easiest way to add their docks without any
consideration for all the residents on Haldeman Creek?
5) 1 believe that this request is being made during the summer months
when concerned residents are not in residence to voice their
opposition. This is not fair!
Thank you for your consideration,
Claire Link
29 Grouper
Naples, FL 34112
Packet Page -300-
p 10/13/2015 9.C.
From: mescatem@aol.com
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2015 4:47 PM
To: ReischlFred
Subject: HALDEMAN'S LANDING DOCK
Dear Mr. Reischl,
It is my understanding that the developer's revised Petition will be heard soon by the
Collier County Planning Commission.
You recall last April, I objected to the Public Notice being mailed to only those
property owners within 500 feet of the proposed docks. I brought this to your
attention by my Entail of April 22, 2014, to which you responded, "The Code does not
prohibit notification beyond that which is required. "
Since the County staff did not expand its mailing of those notices beyond the 500 feet,
The Friends of Haldeman Creek and the Haldeman Creek MSTU Advisory Committee
did. A listing of property owners paying their yearly tax to the Haldeman Creek MSTU
was obtained from the County. The hearing notice was then mailed to those
approximately 350 property owners.
The purpose of this communication is to request the County, this time, to notify all
350 property owners of the upcoming hearing. Also, last year, the required sign
notification was posted only at the West end of Lakeview Drive. Would it not be more
appropriate to post this sign at the location of the proposed docks, on the shoreline of
Haldeman Creek, where boaters can see it?
Would this request not be within the intent of our Florida Sunshine Law?
Respectfully,
Bob Messmer
Sent from Windows Mail
Packet Page -301 -
file : //bec.colliergov.net/dataJGN4D- LDS/ CDES %20PIanning %20Services /C... 9/21/2015
10/13/2015 9.C.
June 23, 2015
Fred Reischl, AICP, Principal Planner
Planning & Zoning Department
2800 N. Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
Re: BDE- PL20150000487, HALDEMAN'S LANDING BOAT DOCKS
(COMPANION TO ST PL201500000500)
Dear Mr. Reischl
The Windstar on Naples Bay Master Association, Inc. ( "Windstar Master Association ")
controls the property which is adjacent to the proposed docks and consents and supports the
construction of the proposed 27 docks by Standard Pacific.
The annexation of the docks and the adjacent planned 64 coach home units into the
Windstar community was overwhelmingly approved by the members of the Vindstar community
last year with 76 percent of the 550 residential units voting in favor of the annexation. While we
do not have exact numbers, most of these units are two -adult households and we believe
predominately Florida residents and voters.
We have thoroughly reviewed the plans for the 64 coach homes and the proposed 27
docks and we support both the construction of the docks and the adjacent 64 coach homes which,
under the annexation agreement signed in 2013, became part of the Windstar Community
governed by the Windstar Master Association.
The portion of Haldeman's Creek where the proposed docks are going to be located is
one of the widest portions of the waterway. Our review of the materials provided by the
applicant and others, and from the personal experience of our boating residents, confirm that
there is more than enough room to safely navigate vessels by the proposed dock system once
installed.
These docks will add to the tax base by themselves and by increasing the value of the 64
coach homes. The docks will provide business for the surrounding businesses based on
supplying or repairing the boats which will use the docks.
Packet Page -302-
10/13/2015 9.C.
Fred Reischl, AICP, Principal Planner,
Planning & Zoning Department
June 23, 2015
Page No. 2
While we are dealing with Standard Pacific the developer now, these docks will be
owned by individual tax payers who will contribute not only to the county but to the MTSU
maintaining Haldeman Creek.
We believe that the docks are positive for not only the 64 coach homes but the entire
adjacent Wmdstar Community which is the neighbor most impacted by the docks and we believe
the docks are a favorable and appropriate use of the property.
Please contact us if you have any questions or desire any further input from us.
Sincerely,
Windstar on Naples Bay Master Association, Inc.
James Frost, President
Packet Page -303-
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Please forward as usual
Ma4-kl
239.252.4446
StrainMark
Wednesday, June 17, 2015 10:19 AM
ReischlFred
FW: Notification: Haldeman Landing
20150616_085023.jpg; 20150616_084505.jpg
10/13/2015 9.C.
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.
From: Roy Wilson [mailto:roy.wilsonCabgmaii.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 11:08 AM
To: ReischlFred
Cc: McKuenElly; StrainMark
Subject: Fwd: Notification: Haldeman Landing
Fred, After our request to you to ask the developer to place his "notification signs" on the
pant of his property that faces Haldeman Creek, I decided to ride my bike to the Lakeview
Drive construction entrance of the development.
Attached are two pictures, one from the end of Lakeview Drive where Lakeview
makes a 90 degree turn to the right (to give perspective as to the readability of the
notification sign). Without driving further down what is effectively a dead end street, it is
as close to the sign as one can get. I did drive all the way to the construction entrance, so
picture 42 is the sign itself.
To bad so few will ever see it. Thanks for whatever effort you made to get them to
place the sign in a reasonable location.
Roy Wilson
Roy Wilson
@ Naples, FL
239 -821 -4995
Packet Page -304 -
file: //bec.colliergov. net / data /GMD- LDS/ CDES %20PIanning %2OServices /C... 9/21/2015
4000M��f "Al
tubg
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that on Tuesday, October 13, 2015, in the
Board of County Commissioner's Meeting Room, Third Floor,
Collier Government Center, 3299 Tamiaimi Trail East, Naples
FL, the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), as the Board
of Zoning Appeals, will consider an appeal of a Resolution of
the Collier County Planning Commission. The meeting will
commence at 9:00 A.M.
Packet Page -305-
The purpose of the hearing is as follows:
KATHLEEN RILEY REQUESTS AN APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF A FINAL DECISION BY THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE
PETITION BDE- PL20150000497 FOR AN 18 -FOOT BOAT DOCK
Z
n
EXTENSION OVER,THE MAXIMUM 20 -FOOT LIMB ALLOWED
ra
BY SECTION 5.03.06OFTHE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR
M
A TOTAL PROTRUSION OF 24 TO 38 FEET TO ACCOMMODATE
°v
A 26 SLIP MULTI- FAMILY DOCKING FACILITY FOR THE
BENEFIT OF A 15.61 ± ACRE PROJECT TO BE KNOWN
AS HALDEMAN CREEK DOCKS IN SECTIONS 11 AND 14,
Z
TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
`m�z
FLORIDA. [PETITION ADA- PL201500017033
h
A copy, of the appeal is on file with the Clerk to the Board and
is available for inspection. All interested parties are invited to
attend and be heard.
�-
NOTE: All persons wishing to speak on any agenda item must
CD Lnn
register with the County manager prior to presentation of
the agenda item to be addressed. Individual speakers will be
C-
limited to 3 minutes on any item. The selection of any individual
to speak on behalf of an organization or group is encouraged.
If recognized by the Chairman, a spokesperson for a group or
in
organization may be allotted 10 minutes to speak on an item.
rD
r-
Persons wishing to have written or graphic materials included in
fD
the Board agenda packets must submit said material a minimum
3
of 3 weeks prior to the respective public hearing. In any case,
written materials intended to be considered by the Board shall
LD
r
be submitted to the appropriate County staff a minimum of
seven days prior to the public hearing. All materials used in
presentations before the Board will become a permanent part
N
0
of the record.
Ln
Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Board
will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and
therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the
sas
proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and
®
evidence upon which the appeal is based.
if you area person with adisability who needs any accommodation
in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at
no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please
contact the Collier County Facilities Management Division,
located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 101, Naples, FL 34112-
5356, (239) 252 -8380, at least two days prior to the meeting.
Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available
in the Board of County Commissioners Office.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
TIM NANCE, CHAIRMAN
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
By: Ann Jennejohn
Deputy Clerk (SEAL)
September 23, 2015 No. 700406
Packet Page -305-