Loading...
Agenda 12/09/2014 Item # 9A Proposed Agenda Changes Board of County Commissioners Meeting December 9,2014 Withdraw Item 8A: 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 relating to Petition Number ASW-PL20140000797,granting a waiver from the minimum required separation of 500 feet between automobile service stations pursuant to Section 5.05.05.B of the Land Development Code, for property located on the south side of U.S. 41 between Frederick Street and Palm Street in Section 11,Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Petitioner's request) Withdraw Item 9A: 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. Standard Pacific of Florida GP, Inc. requests an appeal to the Board of County Commissioners of a final decision by the Collier County Planning Commission to deny Petition I3DE- PL20130001765 for a 32-foot boat clock extension over the maximum 20-foot limit allowed by Section 5.03.06 of the Land Development Code for a total protrusion of 52 feet to accommodate a 42 slip multi-family docking facility for the benefit of a 19.06 ± acre project to be known as Haldeman's Landing in Sections 11 and 14, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. [Petition ADA-PL20140001454] (Companion to Petition ST- PL20140000896). (Petitioner's request) Move Item 16A18 to Item 11G: Recommendation to approve the 2015 schedule for submittals to amend the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP), as aligned with the Florida Statutes, and to approve an exemption from the schedule to expedite an amendment related to the environmental review of oil wells, and allow for future exemptions, as determined by the Board. (Staff's request) Continue Item 16A28 to the January 13,2015 BCC Meeting: Recommendation to award ITB No. 14- 6346, "Traffic Operations Signal Components", to the following vendors: Multicom Inc.,Transportation Control Systems, Peek Traffic Corporation, Express Supply,Temple Inc.,Traffic Signal Inc. (Staff's request) Continue Item 16F5 to the January 13,2015 BCC Meeting: Recommendation to approve the Clam Bay Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) Management Plan (Plan) and authorize Pelican Bay Services Division to administer the Plan and submit it with the 10 Year Permit Application to the required Federal and State Agencies. (Commissioner Taylor and Commissioner Fiala's separate requests) Time Certain Items: Item 11C to be heard at 10:45 a.m. 12P923 L1%:43,\44 12/9/2014 9.A. 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. Standard Pacific of Florida GP, Inc. requests an appeal to the Board of County Commissioners of a final decision by the Collier County Planning Commission to deny Petition BDE-PL20130001765 for a 32-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 52 feet to accommodate a 42 slip multi-family docking facility for the benefit of a 19.06 ± acre project to be known as Haldeman's Landing in Sections 11 and 14, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. [Petition ADA-PL20140001454] (Companion to Petition ST-PL20140000896). OBJECTIVE: The petitioner has filed an appeal to the decision of the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) to deny the petitioner's Boat Dock Extension petition which occurred at the properly noticed public hearing on June 19, 2014. Upon hearing of a requested appeal, the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) may affinn, affirm with conditions, reverse or reverse with conditions the action of the Planning Commission. CONSIDERATIONS: The petitioner requested a 32-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 52 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, no docks are shown on the SDP. The CCPC's motion for approval failed for lack of a majority vote, with a vote of 2 in favor and 2 opposed, resulting in denial of the Boat Dock Extension petition. The petitioner filed for an appeal to the BCC of the CCPC's denial within the required 30-day appeal period. CCPC Action: 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. Commissioner Roman and Commissioner Strain were absent and Commissioner Rosen had a conflict of interest and abstained from voting on this item. As a result, four Commissioners were present and voted on this item. After testimony by the applicant, staff and 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. 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 original Boat Dock Extension petition (attached). Packet Page -108- 12/9/2014 9.A. As noted in the Staff Report (attached) 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. 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.) 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 Packet Page-109- 12/9/2014 9.A. 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(1) 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, the HEX special hearing, 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. The item has been approved as to form and legality and requires a majority vote for Board approval. - SAS COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The CCPC does not hear appeals; that is only a function of the BCC. However, 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 Hearing Examiner held a special public hearing on November 20, 2014 for the purpose of gathering information in order to make a recommendation to the BCC. The HEX recommendation and supporting materials are included as back-up attachments to this agenda item. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners reverse with conditions the action of the Planning Commission's denial of BDE-PL20130001765 (Haldeman's Landing) thereby granting the boat dock extension, and adopt a resolution reflecting the Board's decision. The resolution will be prepared subsequent to the Board's action. The conditions recommended by Staff are: 1. Construction of the docks shall not commence until approval of a Site Development Plan Amendment (SDPA) 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. A Special Treatment (ST) Permit is required prior to approval of an SDPA for the boat docks. Packet Page-110- 12/9/2014 9.A. 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 and shall not be sold, leased or rented to any other parties. Prepared by: Fred Reischl, AICP, Principal Planner, Zoning Department/Growth Management Division Attachments: 1) Appeal Application 2) Staff Report - CCPC 3) Resolution of Denial 4) Staff Report-HEX 5) Emails 6) Minutes of CCPC hearing (hearing begins on page 7 7) ACOE Permit- due to the size of the document, it is accessible at: http://www.colliergov.net/ftp/AgendaDec0914/GrowthMgmt/ACOE Permit.pdf 8)DEP Permit- due to the size of the document, it is accessible at: http://www.colliergov.net/ftp/Agendabec0914/GrowthMgmt/DEP Permit.pdf 9) SFWMD Permit - due to the size of the document, it is accessible at: http://www.colliergov.net/ftp/Agendabec0914/GrowthMgmt/SFWMD Permit.pdf 1 0) Meeting Transcript (unsigned) http://www.colliergov.net/ftp/AgendaDec0914/GrowthMgmt/Meeting Transcript %28unsigned%29 11.20.14HEX%20%281%29.pdf 11)HEX recommendation http://www.colliergov.net/ftp/Agendabec0914/GrowthMgmt/HEX recommendatio n.pdf Resolution to be prepared after BCC meeting and discussion Packet Page-111- 12/9/2014 9.A. COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 9.9.A. 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. Standard Pacific of Florida GP, Inc. requests an appeal to the Board of County Commissioners of a final decision by the Collier County Planning Commission to deny Petition BDE- PL20130001765 for a 32-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 52 feet to accommodate a 42 slip multi-family docking facility for the benefit of a 19.06 ± acre project to be known as Haldeman's Landing in Sections 11 and 14,Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. [Petition ADA-PL20140001454] (Companion to Petition ST- PL20140000896). Meeting Date: 12/9/2014 Prepared By Name: ReischlFred Title: Planner, Principal, Operations and Regulatory Management 11/13/2014 12:16:06 PM Approved By Name: BellowsRay Title: Manager-Planning, Comprehensive Planning Date: 11/14/2014 1 1:31:43 AM Name: PuigJudy Title: Operations Analyst, Community Development&Environmental Services Date: 11/17/2014 3:21:05 PM Name: BosiMichael Title: Director-Planning and Zoning, Comprehensive Planning Date: 11/19/2014 4:47:30 PM Name: CasalanguidaNick Title: Administrator-Growth Management Div, Business Management&Budget Office Date: 11/23/2014 10:31:41 PM Packet Page-112- 12/9/2014 9.A. Name: StoneScott Title: Assistant County Attorney, CAO Land Use/Transportation Date: 12/1/2014 11:44:28 AM Name: FinnEd Title: Management/Budget Analyst, Senior, Transportation Engineering&Construction Management Date: 12/1/2014 2:57:58 PM Name: KlatzkowJeff Title: County Attorney, Date: 12/1/2014 3:53:07 PM Name: IsacksonMark Title: Director-Corp Financial and Mngmt Svs, Office of Management&Budget Date: 12/1/2014 4:35:29 PM Name: OchsLeo Title: County Manager, County Managers Office Date: 12/2/2014 11:22:54 AM Packet Page-113- 12/9/2014 9.A. TURRELL, HALL & ASSOCIATES, INC. MARINE & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING 3584 Exchange Avenue, Suite B •Naples, Florida 34104-3732• (239) 643-0166 • Fax(239) 643-6632 October 9, 2014 Collier County Government Growth Management Division Planning and Regulation 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 RE: Haldeman's Landing BDE—CCPC Appeal BDE-PL20130001765 Commissioners, On behalf of Standard Pacific of Florida, G.P, we have appealed the denial from the Collier County Planning Commission(CCPC)of BDE-PL20130001765 from the June 19,2014 Planning Commission Hearing. In order to aid your review and in support of our appeal,I have provided the actual language of the BDE criteria along with our reasoning on why we believe that the proposed project is consistent with all of those criteria. I have also included pertinent exhibits that illustrate the proposed project and that also show the project components that are relevant to the individual BDE criteria. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Regards, Timothy Hall Senior Ecologist Packet Page -114- 12/9/2014 9.A. Description of Project Haldeman's Landing is an approved SDP for 64 dwelling units which is proposing to construct 42 boat slips in a new docking facility that will protrude between 26 and 45 feet from the MHW line. See Exhibit la for general Project Location. The proposed project has a history whereby boat slips had been agreed to by Collier County. As a condition of the settlement of an eminent domain proceeding for the dredging of Haldeman Creek, the County granted approval for the developer to construct 51 boat slips to serve the prior project. Since the original approval, the plans for the project have been modified and the number of boat slips has been reduced to 42. The size of the vessels remains the same as the size of the vessels originally agreed to by the county. The project has gone through both State and Federal review and permits from the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection have been issued for the proposed docks. In addition, the South Florida Water Management Distict has issued their permit for upland development of the property. The applicant is requesting a 25 foot extension past the 20 foot allowance as outlined in the Collier County Land Development Code("LDC"). The proposed docking facility includes approximately 8,070 square feet of over water structure and provides 42 slips and a canoe/kayak launch for the residents of the subdivision. In the area of the proposed docks, the applicant owns the shoreline on the south side of the creek as well as the bottomlands of Haldeman Creek. The applicant also owns most of the shoreline on the creek immediately north of the proposed docks. The dock facilities are being constructed solely within the boundaries of the property owned by the applicant. See Exhibit 2 which is a survey of the applicant's property. The proposed layout will consist of 6-foot-wide shore-parallel docking for twelve (12) vessels up to 30-ft-long and fifteen (15) perpendicular 4-ft-wide finger piers providing slips mooring for 30 vessels of 25 and 30 foot lengths. The docks are located on property owned by the applicant within a man-altered channel which connects Haldeman Creek to Naples Bay and further out to Gordon's Pass. Section 5.03.06 of the Collier County Land Development Code outlines five primary and six secondary criteria that the County uses to determine if a Boat Dock Extension (BDE) request is permissible. An application must meet at least four of the five primary and at least four of the six secondary criteria in order to gain approval. Below are listed the Primary and Secondary criteria as well as the information pertinent to the proposed project which shows that it is consistent with these criteria. PRIMARY CRITERIA 1. Whether or not the number of dock facilities and/or boat slips proposed is appropriate in relation to the waterfront length, location, upland land use and zoning of the subject property; consideration should be made of property on unbridged barrier islands, where vessels are the primary means of transportation to and from the property. (The number should be appropriate; typical, single-family use should be no more than two slips; typical multi-family use should be Packet Page-115- 12/9/2014 9.A. one slip per dwelling unit; in the case of unbridged barrier island docks, additional slips may be appropriate) Under the Collier County Manatee Protection Plan, the project is considered a "moderate" property and would be allowed up to 10 slips per 100 feet of shoreline. The applicant owns 3,432 feet of shoreline which would equate to 343 slips. If we only consider the shoreline along the south side of the creek then we would base the slip count on approximately 973 feet which would equate to 97 slips. The County LDC also provides that one boat slip per unit is permitted for multi-family use. The project is an approved SDP for 64 upland dwelling units which would equate to 64 slips. The project also has a prior agreement with the County which allowed up to 51 slips on the project lands. The project is proposing 42 slips which is less than allowed by County Code and less than previously agreed to by the County. Location and placement of the proposed docks is also consistent with other multi-family projects in the area in that the docks are placed all along the water frontage of the project. Harmony Shores Mobile Home Park and Sandpiper Bay docking facilities are two multi- family examples which are located along or adjacent to Haldeman Creek. The project is also consistent with the commercial projects located immediately to the east in terms of dock placement and orientation. See Exhibit 3 for the locations of these similar structures. The proposed docks will support vessels up to 25 and 30 feet in length overall (including the motor and bow pulpits). This is consistent with other vessels utilizing this waterway and moored in the surrounding communities. Drafts of the vessels will be appropriate to the waterway and the dredging proposed at the docks will allow for safe mooring without vessels sitting on the bottom at lower tides. 2. Whether or not the water depth at the proposed site is so shallow that a vessel of the general length, type, and draft as that described in the petitioner's application is unable to launch or moor at mean low tide (MLT). (The petitioner's application and survey should show that the water depth is too shallow to allow launch and mooring of the vessel (s) described without an extension) The attached surveys and accompanying aerial exhibits show that water depths are not adequate to moor the vessels without the extension and associated dredging proposed. The entire shoreline of the project contains a mangrove fringe that varies in width from 18 to 40+ feet wide. See Exhibit 4 for water depths with mangrove fringe widths. The western portion of the fringe is man-made while the eastern side is natural. There is no way to moor a vessel along this shoreline(either parallel or perpendicular) and keep the mangroves in place without the need for a BDE. The applicant is preserving all of the mangrove shoreline and dredging along the mangrove fringe in order to minimize the protrusion necessary for safe mooriag but the total extension is still more than the 20 feet allowed without a BDE. Packet Page-116- 12/9/2014 9.A. 3. Whether or not the proposed dock facility may have an adverse impact on navigation within an adjacent marked or charted navigable channel. (The facility should not intrude into any marked or charted navigable channel thus impeding vessel traffic in the channel) The proposed docking facility will not impede navigation within the adjacent waterway. The docking facility does not protrude into the deeper water area of the creek, as shown on the attached exhibit(See Exhibit 5). The applicant initially had the waterway associated with the proposed docks surveyed by a professional survey company (Stantec). When the results of this survey were questioned at a public meeting by members of the public, the applicant had another professional survey company Agnoli Barber and Brundage (ABB)provide a survey. Both surveys showed very similar results. Exhibits 5 and 6 show the location of the portions of the channel that are more than 4 feet deep at low tide. As shown on Exhibits 5, 6, 10, and 11, the proposed docks do not protrude into the deepest portion of the waterway; which is where navigation occurs. In fact, as a result of the proposed dredging, Exhibits 6 and 7, some portions of the waterway will be deeper than current conditions and the navigable width of the waterway will increase as a result of the proposed project. This portion of Haldeman Creek is identified as an idle speed zone; so vessels maneuvering into and out of the proposed slips will not be interfering with any speeding vessels. While the proposed facility does protrude into the waterway, the survey evidence presented confirms that the proposed dock improvements will not protrude into the portion of the waterway in which navigation occurs. 4. Whether or not the proposed dock facility protrudes no more than 25 percent of the width of the waterway, and whether or not a minimum of 50 percent of the waterway width between dock facilities on either side of the waterway is maintained for navigability. (The facility should maintain the required percentages). Exhibit 8 shows the waterway with the 25%, 50%, and 75% widths depicted as calculated from MHW to MHW. It also shows that the proposed docking facility does not protrude more than 25% of the width of the waterway. This exhibit includes boat dock facilities that have been approved but not yet constructed. The waterway in the area of the proposed docks varies from 134 to 180 feet wide (from MHW to MHW). With the proposed facility in place, the waterway will be approximately 97 feet to over 120 feet in width after the boat docks are constructed. Therefore more than 50% of the width of the waterway will remain open as required. 5. Whether or not the proposed location and design of the dock facility is such that the facility would not interfere with the use of neighboring docks. (The facility should not interfere with the use of legally permitted neighboring docks) Packet Page -117- 12/9/2014 9.A. As seen on aerials of the property(see Exhibit lb), there are no existing neighboring docks. The applicant recognized that there is a 6-slip facility permitted but not constructed on the Sanctuary at Demere Landing property; across the waterway from the proposed docks. In fact, the Sanctuary docks are permitted over lands owned by the applicant through an agreement with a previous owner of the Haldeman's Landing property. The Sanctuary docks were granted a 49-foot BDE (29 feet over the 20 allowed) by the Planning Commission in January 2006 (CCPC Resolution 06-01). Exhibits 9 and 10 show the proposed docking facility and the permitted Sanctuary facility in relation to the Creek width and depth at that location. The exhibits clearly show that at their most restrictive point, the Sanctuary docks protruded out 41 feet; 25% of the width of the waterway. The Haldeman's Landing proposed dock protrudes out 35 feet; 22% of the width of the waterway, and more than 50% of the width of the waterway (83 feet) is left open for navigation. This exhibit also showed that the 83+ feet left open is the deepest portion of the waterway. The area for maneuvering into and out of the slips is more than recommended for vessels of the sizes proposed so neither facility will be adversely affected by the other. There are no other neighboring docks that would be affected by the proposed facility. The applicant owns the remaining northern shoreline across from the proposed docks and has agreed to place it under a conservation easement so there will not be any docks placed there in the future. SECONDARY CRITERIA 1. Whether or not there are special conditions, not involving water depth, related to the subject property or waterway, which justify the proposed dimensions and location of the proposed dock facility. ((There must be at least one special condition related to the property; these may include type of shoreline reinforcement, shoreline configuration, mangrove growth, or seagrass beds)) The proposed docking facility will be constructed on a shoreline with mangrove vegetation and very shallow water. The MHWL is located a substantial distance from the navigable waterway, behind the mangrove fringe, which creates the need for the BDE in order to be able to moor vessels at the property. It is also important to remember that the applicant owns the submerged bottomlands in the area proposed for the docks (see Exhibit 4). 2. Whether the proposed dock facility would allow reasonable, safe, access to the vessel for loading/unloading and routine maintenance, without the use of excessive deck area not directly related to these functions. (The facility should not use excessive deck area) The proposed dock will be constructed with a six foot wide, shore-parallel, main access way and dock for parallel mooring with four foot wide finger piers for perpendicular mooring. These are minimum dimensions for safe mooring and pedestrian travel on docks designed for vessels in the 25 to 30 ft. range. This allows for proper safe access for loading, unloading, and routine maintenance, while minimizing overwater decking area. Packet Page -118- 12/9/2014 9.A. 3. For single-family dock facilities, whether or not the length of the vessel, or vessels in combination, described by the petitioner exceeds 50 percent of the subject property's linear waterfront footage. (The applicable maximum percentage should be maintained) This criterion is not applicable as this is a multi-family project. 4. Whether or not the proposed facility would have a major impact on the waterfront view of neighboring waterfront property owners. (The facility should not have a major impact on the view of either property owner.) This criteria is usually applied to the neighboring property owner's on either side of the proposed project(hence the reference to "either property owner" in the description). In that context, there are no adjacent views to be impacted. To the east of the property is a canal providing boat access to many residences in the neighborhood. To the west of the property is the mangrove forest and golf course associated with the Windstar community but no neighboring residences. The proposed docking facility will not interfere with any neighboring property owners' views of the waterway. The applicant owns most of the shoreline opposite of the project which will be placed into a Conservation Easement and upon which no development will occur. There are only a couple of residences across the creek to the east that would have a direct view of the proposed docking facility and that view is from across the waterway. The docks will not block their view of the waterway. 5. Whether or not seagrass beds are located within 200 feet of the proposed dock facility. (If seagrass beds are present, compliance with subsection 5.03.06.I of this code must be demonstrated) A submerged resource survey was conducted in the waterway associated with the proposed docks as well as upstream and downstream 200 feet. No seagrasses were observed. A copy of the submerged resource survey summary is included for review (Exhibit 13). 6. Whether or not the proposed dock facility is subject to the manatee protection requirements of subsection 5.03.06.E.11 of this code. (If applicable, compliance with Section 5.03.06.E.ii must be demonstrated) According to the Collier County Manatee Protection Plan, the proposed project qualifies as a moderate ranking but would quailfy as a preferred ranking once the maintenance dredging is complete. Proposed water depths are 4-feet Mean Low Water(MLW). No impacts to any native marine habitat is being proposed. Additionally,the manatee mortality rate is less than 20% within a 5-mile radius of the proposed project site. With this ranking and the overall owned shoreline the proposed dock design meets the necessary criteria for approval. Packet Page-119- „,: 4 ., , „,.: ,5,.-, ,, . ,,,,,..**,.,1 12/9/2014 9.A. ..„.„... . ":',',,--4grif,*!t0';'*''CW::;;..P7.•'"4- ':g%"I'''' [1.1 -, Lti, L:,---.: , ,,,—,,), <, Li,-- 1 a P!swiel ' Hai alpHsAtial m , <a!,-• : --, ...: ss g',6‘,.8 gi6.,,,.:8 '': cyple >st ro 02-2i -5.-:, .,,,,. ill .6.).1 af -1:31L-53•L',"i-c ,,i; ,,,,,7: .*•„,„ZW-It,,,--0,--41#-,-"",1*-Z,- ,-'_,•-lr,tf4 Ffi,-..: .. ,4-•1 ,.--''-,,,--•,c•-rir.i.."::••.,,-47'4,74''i!--•=-.-.-!7-..,--.c.,:i.11'-4,1•7'44,:t.,',, .:;1.,--,1•-•,*,••;,,r-b.1'",,,,.,,„,4114'4,:rr,;-f,,:ei.-.it-:!,i.„:„.-..r--... ,,,-.., .*:...,-,,, s'•'=.44,-.4i t.-.1U•., -... * L' ,,,7_,., .,-.7.1.. ...rien,!4;,-":-, ,1-4i..,.., dr ' 0 z <lc -'''''''''' -: ;',1f, I-'=--V•V'''''',--• ''.71''•V-='i-:''"'''k; ' 0 ";-0:1' .F:1; 21 "El 0.-`2'`,Z '''.- -.,-,4 U:,.-:#i''--,”' '1,,,---,.;;*",-,*'-•:11.4`.,"",:. f.....44,...^",7::,, ••■• 'Lf, 0 t;autle.101, ' co ", & ' 0 \ a_ ', -::74s..„...,r,,,,,:tei3t....f..-v,I.;47.,..',--.4t.., ,-..i4;,- pppiar ti . ...t 0.1 i ';' :,"-r.;•','' -az , i,,,.,,*-,.,, -s•:,'-fi',,,g,.,..lt-,1-t....v,,,,.,,,.,,,,,e,r,r., ...-, , .:, ..,„e ---:1,7-.°.;'1,;,*-`,<V:.14""fci..-e, ,''''',...,er. 4:3T.,'41' ' . • ' ' " I ._,..,._, .`..1: $t it --rd-M4iXari .„. i • -... ' ,"at St :',-i,.i.0.r-,...',iiii.:K:-;,,..;•;,-..17,:,,- ..,..;,...i, ,-...,.....„,•;,,,,, uj , w . .,; ... ,, ...,........ \_ -Lt„,„.•61_-_-_6---tr'll„ -, , . '>.: nciltii:' I = r :-.7.-4,,,ifif4‘.'2•.'ti. ....,,:•*.,..7;...Flpzi.,,,La,y44.*.Le.; .'.'-' .',,,'.i: ' Pier E t ,...'•,c1/4,,,, ii-- •,, ,...0 ....~:::D _ 1,7,,,or.,,iti4i. ..i.::,, •- . ...amiz-- .---;--,-.7i^:. ' Na - ..------- JO ,......ca „,,,, I.... 1,-,;.s... :,;?7,. te4 7.7:7'.- , ci ci- z cv`.--12 — H H i g t 757s1 :5 ..'N.%\;":‘ ' 4'''''''‘. , - -, :,-;;1-1:''7't! '„,::,,,I' '',4-', T ' 0 7.,,,,".....•-•:t,''‘,'•:,`-', 77.'fft.,,,t1-0,-°,,,,,:,.,•.,-rik4,0,,i1114-4)*:ii,;,,, ,,,:-...;:...7.,_:„., ,'0 __a LP --C.. ' 1,•;,,I, :' [ ''-.-----'" 1:3 -4•V JO j '‘::::' ;`;!..,-;: l...=-.,'.--A,ok30-407,1c7,•;,-,,,,•••,.',- t'''',.. i].. i 2 ,1,- b . i , -° •-•• _.5 ii-4-• .. •,,,,----, . V.i'l.:',!'*"4. ., %,,,;‘,:,.-.,:-., i "3:: 0 aCi:•=1 4, E-1 ,.r:c t ) ' ,, -=', mg '> '34..04 ' ' ',' '%,1,zi.'444 0,i ,.;Aiii'N..4,1,,,tiv....4,...16. 0 0 ii)ne.„a..-" •• i •waidiSues - 4tt.,!;-,rsk-1.0.1P4,,A,n7,4-7,v,7,-'10.,,,liz,,t4,4,2,04.-444 .... -.,,,„:Zi;..41-ei-7,': .7,,,t1,•-•,==:-.047.1.Nvs**Vv5:161Ato:, `- ,,,,,,„ .-.,-.,,::-:c„,';41.;,,J,L.;,1,-i4i,',4g.',■!+,;.:;y:',',,,N4-,44,,,,‘;',,t,,,*v:,-- , -.-".--7:6- 7 q.'"''' '"):1:i'•-:g.!itticiOik-,.,,,i,:.,;.4 :,,,-:::::,,,,,,:-,:2).;:f.„-..,::.,.:-::, , --- Z ,..... , 0. .u., H co 0 D fy CD _ W LLI oa ; CD 0 M ry U)a_ e . 0 i Z c7cr, z c e c.) cn u - Z 2 w 0 !'' U- >- w x H w z II 0 , I-- 0z _ r in c' _. ,t _ g r—) . • ,... ze, . 0 ct'-' Ct 2 o I— i.i.i ct in < CO Cf) z Z z 1..1 'T": 0 0 < 0 i- LL 0 LL 1111 /.■ D ..--- v V •—■ = .4. ,- ^Ei; ,=. •=, •c7.>-Tt' "„,-- --i 0 \ 0 Ili 0111111IMia. 4,g'E 11 (.i ,,D , 4... H .-. .. .. CC `- ‘1- •- •—• = , < 4 r 1111 •• LLI LL L. ° A.:0•111 , W „U-I LL.1 —cr,•7_-. g s--. (I) I. ,',..• : '•;,!,, '[.f; 0 =< 0_ _1 < CD 0 .et co •cr ima . g ,,Q c4 .• 0'Orli/. P vv.,300„, ,; ,.. (.14 hilym,-:- 0 0 z 4f) V 1 CY ,,,,;1.D.4.•‘. ziliwir- --......w. < u., To - ,'. t' _ .. „AvY, oe , _-,, \-. _ , r_.. > H z Ti ..> ci Ez Lu Li, -,,,,, an 0 0 x w, t'" lo 2i"Packet Page -120- P\9002 5-Fishermang VillagelCAD\SHEETIPERMIT-COUNTY\9002 5-ODE awg Loge . �. y � 12/9/2014 9.A.Ziltill to r ;k i\ I� 'Y'' t ,,,...r.-4 :.• 'We-:_ >�' f.4 . , -*Ii*--r§` t°- ? 13 `- =-..-01'.-7:1' ,...�.*s f7 s Y•^_ .4 'mow •i-yt' %' {' `A''�, t' tA, �! =i ,aa � € R , ° ,I fv��.: YiL r. fig, t a V �d x 4 '''',44,'",..-. F a .?'.'fi+. g y Y 1 `++,� s"',4"'..', s. rLa gym. •t,} v` ��i #"� ,,,,,. i fi ,W` :To 'rk,, _ ..V a 4 +e. k' d� `,rY � }? � ." Syr „� s$F a a {k � '�` +�t `3-.�y ,r.,s � 1 -ENV =��� to � , 'I v fi : ie �1$ t '. A . -U R d ' q� 3� ,..,,,,,.,-„,-4,— ....' y. * >a "�* ��!t a.w;`. ,p. : "'" ,e. x '�r ; a."`� ,, cd �,... t 4!",- N e >� „ '44'.+a awl r k ''n' �" ? "' '' i fit f« *`"-.,•, .? -` d M h .t 4 k Jp f" c2 a�G .�' �: � �'� � '4 N '� ,-e,.>*" 6 w.p.� rik,ry'.'y.6"".e. +ter y- -; - - '' ..-, � r,.'+'. `.P 4 4� Y ,t' _ '� Afiamra t�s � a .' --a p` .. s.- .,� ` k z z�.��A'+�kss P'�'R 4�e"'-' �r ,it � � � � -"..� � �� ,p�:, N W o z U ,3.�... s ?. t.a "A V a c.. .2 - ,„i.,,,„,i a��'r+% a mt! t <A r p c !a _ t• , r n k w �, .vF' std *a 14 0 ,,,:4-4.474 .7„..,,-,-- ,' *"�' �• 3 '.,x ar3n s ..r ,71:' ' ewe.— d v r `-a--- ,... m;-.- _ , ; - ,,,t,,..-qµ���� ' ice. �C A H}^{ .: '�F � 7 .. gtp ' 'i's4'W 4�a 3HOHSA V�.1 .#'x..-- ktF 3` b� �Ry,'i'„ is Z ''' Js rM1 C K '�% ...e a v i 0, , .' i `* tai c -. " � + a ""-l` �k^;�r «k�.° •f 4,...v $`krs 4� is -.F ^+wb �' ^'ts fi-',-..4. +�.. r,. d ,�" LV. :1>�"s• `: r�\ s�Ti• m ,'•� '' i• Y�i r'�; '" 1 4 +2' ,..` ..: y isE.:.i fir^.._.,. f '�, 2 ..... 's °w . °{ ��' �N 4k ,-r cs,,.', ��Q• .?* s ,Y°.i �;. u y : r_ It 's ,- ,,, wk- w < :.m rt a -- r , ,.. „y+^ e .*w, ,a— 1-4 fit' ▪ a` s - �.rd ,, ..-,:m:...mr ,am.a<.r a.'''`-'41: -'F k� �✓. 3'$' S i} -- i^ { d e"t '''' z Ay � \ +F .� ,� °`.'4 x 'wu�"�'ak'mo-s^ `taT`y�..- + -�� F gym'-.M- ,,1 r, "� �`'� F " a '� a `� �---M ^�, s :. L o +4L s'31 �} ➢� S+ € L 3" -. K ,f' 5a4�/' : t R - s e .r .�a ,q+sa�`:$ '� • i 'k.. 4tm *'``",�w; r x „u d s<¢ , ?- �w ,. ,,,,H, —� y i w x 3 r h3a "' E "'G"TS # a kt w "i ,kpp'`�2bs� eX`.. Ya "t -� .,a s„,,-*m' r-- `.,- -.{3 J +F,, t '� r+,r, . ' tp ta, #'Kn S k� +$ 1-1,4",' r ,,�+- a1„ - # it a i' *r: x aim ` ,..,i y.., `+ .^ .r=r s 1 x ' k,. .. Gs �n ` ,„,'„r .4s,„"" d`., p't" +.f'� u X. S,k' i W - p , a , 7 H v t i, ' '�c� '� ,.+ v` ---`,-t ft �.- "",AV,..,/+`sk`a " ":t a. a .ra.. • a .--4e4 6 f rth`7- P 1,1,L.---,t 4 ' ' ' • ` '' , x ` i 3 . r cn $ m'� T �$ E ': xn � " V �5� "r I„�` � f J Ts E S, ,t ` t+ "`4 .ae c e k",5s t r ' F_' �S ,' .' a ,-wr 1 ) ,. •5„e. � �,�. 7` 3 �� � ""� N* i�,}"-. ;, '" °{"^^-�-„!#°8i v�a �� a �5 `z��,�,}�� s9: '�&` �rse -, ,, m i r.y - ',4"42-'-',.-4r. y<Yw , , Z � `MSnnL 'a`f`!d° N y' _s'Y' 1` T ,''ik: ' -� '� • +te =a!@ ` ' .1' X f Y .K ` -7' l'A'Z �,k -,1444”. ✓ `1 i-., bA`,---'3, N q's..,. -�, 'S ,i;55 s a "-.6 xz r,,' i ' i ge e -7, 3a# o-In J * Lt, > .>5 '� 13. F s � r W� � 7- ^ o CO O s O oz o ii 4-i t M a2C , "r4"3 ,`, &d F .: - 'f 2 ;"F ' z'-Q i-Z0 WQ J CCU , 444,',;;,,,,4.7�� .� ,�li� ..' dOCWJXX •VO > v UO b L-t/..,-;,'-' .. �i . W i7,` �7 Z O Q II Q W •��- Z w -'W ,.�+ ; 0 Fzwwzwm WNZ o ° r F-OLLxza L ZNJ o'�.� ca o r. .mot ! 9.` i 5 ° " '° a"° D:D'.U. OJ W Lilo 0_ ._-� ❑ Fi e �`"-f.,4o.,.., ry.��^-_ `'x*�" 1,7::#71,„:,-w -',,'-'-'`,“ .�' �. v�wx'� .,� � W O(n O .J V� �W Q � I�-c�C-Y� W �c ! �� W��J W 0 Ei v + ' �+'. , �' 2'F- >Z000ti Op< : w < N //, At - �s' ee` "..° ,.,' O0WI,V00 .5lvZ> Ow s �.c ,i.11..„ .. ,,.,. \ ak v a W Z W W O^LL'D U LL O� W Z 7. C s , .,,..e„ '�`�: � . W +a� _ `xxkk, s �z '"''.x ° Z Z.�.�O Z �ui.H a € -- _ Z> OLQ� ZW Q ��f O ate , fza 65Wtn08Ow�F")J r �,,7 1Q toQLLLL..W Z _ :.'' r , +"".T_". -R`^�"'�'""^''"-" . ;.'-',c 1Y S �s� W Z Q O v J J O W W W O J A yt,: s; 4,. , 4i ,y, ,� � r. T. .yx b `"Y 2 � .: ts"k' r ' Up QOQF-Q WQ' J!- a, - o ` } � ! � � ' w r Homo'»u):O -. a� Hl=JQal=F mommrn_ F O A Z A A Ann A A A A �� • " � ZvOvvvvvvv v V _ w P:\9002.5-Flshertnen's Village\CAD\SHEET\PERMIT-COUNTY\9002.5-BDE.tlwg AERIAL LOCATI(Packet Page—121- 12/9/2014 9.A. F: , �e �, o a 0 1 ,, 1 I IwW ,D\ /'6 w,.wt a�/ES.12PUD C pe `` // 1,_ COLLIER Q a RR a°ve z e, " y, 3nv�'JD3B I •�-OU, 5 real 3fIN3�t YJD3B nl, 0 Y0OIE �� {� R p .1 t 39tld 'S 'Bd a n ".' - Z 2 1 1V7- d3tl S.1Stll1H31IHM m I r -g 39tld Z NCCB yid I 12, 1 53A O a I. inns sHi�o iwd ION ' NOCIAIaenS g3nla Nvw3oidH A., c �.. \ ` \1 KE \\� Q �� 1 3^bD5 SMi!0 111tld ,,, 'l ¢¢ 4_ Z u� Dw ° , ° d Y a: n r / wwDjo =j,3 U g o d i Q gEqqc far tw �i° 1 O sj ,a°° ,., A am, .o N ;Vq„ <�b_ J r1m 8� WYp n / lE ao'Xg 5 Ir! »,,,, /La'»�.` ; / €ifil_°S HE '';i iSi ff .u,NP I Dt.IMO V)/ � 1 __ - i tiv' 1-_,� '/ aer.. «K•.. nip rl 'r.�eA64 J t _ 14 W j ° ;l I p __ _ e � -�- '1�^` a y p5 e 'e "`"`‘ csg ,.., i($q II: ,ww�«,.�. •ReaI Gee 6�5p �I ,» '°w ma ,, hvIla511g qA l -RE <g ..1 ',,7--ag #1 ,'gE E _-1 ' — — 11 �a gga 1¢ oK< a gib ;� § EC 91 P N Bg§ v 8 g' e B lir €i 6 g 4 1!,--t I;L''' g 6° o .. bR -,-,,,-, ; ° s oil = 1 x l "'y\ F.,, is ' 4s -w / 1 € �ca��� �.. b� / HEOp 4�f/ ^��IYi 3 g y tl'N tl J u d 6 f L,5 'M'1!12 •/d oc 1 G:: ,,, \ eig z 155 7 / Wiii g ' 4- a e ,i'V, S I I 1 0 g o°-. w 1 o w ., �3' 1!,.' "5 w h h O 1 § I i Ot< _b O i,'Y v G. `i 1 § 0 3s I 04 a m �` I a ill 5 1 / �`� / t y/ ggg I a 1 //' ii - / $ 888 �' S 1 �If'i i1 \ —� / YE 6 Bb � n 1 I 1 V . II - ._ `mo '% 3g � I� j I m 3 .=.1 �\\\_ ' 'Y vi a a el: bq § m ; s S `3 `°` W {i1 Sgg - 1 '-/ .�Y �a W:�- %E- E gel e S "4 i � zY x31 l: .Z _ 0 :� ; I` 0. alp b"� i2ai- �4€ a3V `. a ° $ ,5-' ° 5`e: I 9 -�'lI� �� i _ €•_°8� ;nom y-acct tt. "g I '. 3 II o �\ - �iw 'g " q€�4 ;,Lgri�G°€ 9¢; L e q o' z� 3as 'e s I m - m <' ;G .xg.vg=i€'3 g Vg 5b Wig 11 ii ° n g�°�eea8`eat" �i @€d°'€s'e 4-F�t so @W bE, vg 2 �s1 1i u, c �,�g=:„ g�ba.Bo E ce�F o� z n 3 q 1 ppg g g@ r� I I I k q '. ry !Pli sine 810�ee�5€•E€ � 11 € 6E €ps 1 i yy mo7"°.a Y4 - n S3 bh. 36. 5; FLaiR 11 N e 4��.,.o�. a�000x f d d // // _ .°.R 1, ilp a - P ��eV k /1 1" Ali 1 1 1` 1.1 e s / / TA,,,.,.F-3RN'C _.-- j t,'. a 5455:°d:§°1 �gy- e `i p "I a g' Y e ep $& Chi U.7 =.k2,2 c P' _ $ --, 1 g i @ I o W „ 89.". a �V 18 RR Wg tl F 9:`. G I UC7 - -e a s V ,3„aq , . ” tE. DPl.0,,i, g19 d d 'Arl =1 `s„ g '; •ag n I'm s 1 !I :'s N a an , „_§ E 1 e3, �w� .\ ef i g 111 s! ! i g 9 l,va�- Packet Page -122- -. 12/9/2014 9.A. E V K 7. g�aj 8 O lq w5 "5 S S 0 noo4 ° ° o ' U een N S eE6 1 E E.: R U II 82 16 - € r - u y FY :3[S ] e d < 5F s 6 @ aE '°°1 6 : ; i a - 6 c o a •„ e t •5 3� € 3a P t o S c ems'" - yff r ¢ < ° g 1,1€E B € vl a 1 i I N 6°00 6 k . e o P.r a h 'd C 8 € 'E N adi ° j¢€ a yye _ Y U"9 1 ,,N is.b j5{ _ - - . E 6 81ft srl = 4 8 8 e y 6+ gs o '„ Em;el':e 3 2 a a ,8• 1' s2 ;I t E a 1 44, 4$ $ a '! : 1 ° i @4 e 253r 1,2 w e sg$?. b 6 e 8. €6 46 - 6 '€ s 9,.! $ 2 . '7.--.' F a �5=ia 1.i zs°8 f:=!% ° ➢t o E ry Es€ Ny c s 4 1 o� E =Eel 1Eg n�pa e e 5 4 R€kg a _ 6 € 3 8 6t E 4 e °A !II e Z' F E` F ,�- 4 ',1 :4 a j, oe z I CE °e o F g i s t;1'.,1 ae ,n $ g,k)4e9g agJ i vlp - ° 6"6f5 ,ai R6 _ e N N 5 :xf 'Mo" ' € s a =sI U4i 1 g - Xg°- o -z.6 °. n x� _d i „d o• '6d sM{ `_ - $E fuYF ¢6 � : C8: ,ji5 m p!a a� :, yy66 m% as A5 €8 'E66m e¢ E p u 3 \,Y, g m &z2 v` 'S'" yix� �€€ 8 ao^ £t� dab 0° €� €n� a ° g� �xgGA� oe6 @tt v $t ~6� ep _q. 02! ° de _4 oz of _sd .1 "-$ .6 es°3p 11Z iii - hi e . e_yEyEp a15 0 °i 60i f°Y a� mi. °Y fi Pi E f,S 'gl:i 'III o! a 1 3 a 6 i 14 di 6p ray 96` z i Y § 'a o N� o bs j 1 I 5 =n SSE 4 888 4• �L8 .6 a 5 w8 par ? n _p s ` 6.'it 66 31 b °? - g 0 Lti _ t a I l a g r- o w w _ O S a m sg g s6w o K - U .o a_ s .o o _ $ B o¢ - ;R- -=o r "652° .c v2° _ ` w ` __ _ °-74^„x° �S m lea: ° '0';''. .5= 4,ppm _ 29 mov'w oN .° _ r _ W a o d w7 :Y_mF o 5°oaeLL = 5 41,:,,=, Co ~ :era ow - Ve gE"a"' w �=` 03 -;:'fob= a 5 5„ y`= a o w. -o o7Y_w :,616:7,3., ==g Pp 4„7,,,,q o _ of .g ;oo€, wa._ _a _� ° c� 0 7. L : o ° �Rg �k 211 m Fl °'0F8 8•21q Wg 45 ",, -g „�,:a °gos; o - _moo` ' _ a< Fow m =�a a gN a 3� 5a7 aa --- 7o pt a_ rt za aW`-' i Packet Page -123- -- • ` f .: A• /2014 -- '—'7" ,� 3 N.,: .y W s. " � ""r Q i5•i:'T :-Y*- �a�"•,"' t �,t� r'.a Y,cyx fk,�fi+ b'i i ,'$""'h-g'+"X Y m.a_�',` , .-.:..ce x a-..y•v r# � .q M13 . C'." A b a {*° y i„ ., T' ,,:� ' y s -1" �. ▪ u am, - � r r . � y mob ,` -g nr.a . ue € a , m • a�¢ s #' 4 a --•. Z�. `. p , mh 4 ' - a ' 7 , a-C:k • .;;' �- i " »c t " - t ' 'z` � ((2 s T` ; kk "F C, r}-u ,r " - fi 14,,;,_" . } my � � � . N, vS 4a x-4 ' 9 - t : @ , x ' ' '' ,; ` 4 �, r «p ''_e.c t r ` { .:s �1 � z i i lx_„� , F * � A',� � �' ' • +1 o m-i- 1 , r ' �-• t, k 1,,,, ,40,t,,. ,..!..„.. ;•t 0 ` ,{r A 4'-''''-fl' - t . ''e '1`rs-.. r. --'5,isr" \ ie S,, � +. tx i. t_; � } - *ca o= w Y 1 ^ 1 *r` _ � i 8 N iv. fi . "W s s H �{ w .. 4 Z y g u ° N' * r _a ,S t; . f �it ' ! r• r�� -§ , ,* ...,,7'.•'-,..,. �K o• ^ (n t " _ " � '4.;;t%,,,:,-.,- � t �. � $ .'.*m - ', r'E ,. � K. 6 s ' ,,,.: ,ty ' tu s, x v"tr T ° � f. p� sue. f S "'. `‘,.''''.,*':i.,-`'.;`:','..-_,.:-, -•••,?- (� � . "'rrr .fi . a 0r," e ' ,i0N 6 �• � Q �J tr , , y " i � r --1,t,:‘, y"., 4 p .. ,�- .� Y.-r y o • ., �.u. . g. � * �i � ` � h vey x t ° i � �r ? p , fir �r 4 h "i2 .v ,�, �` �. J V s t ,,,, .--- g i r i " Y, • ' � : 4IIy s.^ � a - ' - y, ,waf + ' � w F 4 J V Y s < b a r ` - a , �' " : , ,: 2�1 ; 41" :,....,;,t,:,--,;, i s "»h 'R �;. , ," �cd vt KR . : y ',,+e "!*w v 7 a a.. b i -Sw -.7,. .- + < O €� O VH . ,4a � -41,,:x', t a r , # W�1 ,.: .w.. o"tom } y V'1S,N M k 1 -_� 5 L -,�, i R•,,-,c az 1.N , �v , f'y "'v ', r'C m v ' 'Q 414141, $ SN ���y ‘,,..4.,,,i- °�z t h % .c +� r!!r* i1 t. w X's E ! = Z A '5- '< . - M1= ,2 xL' � 1 A 4`3 r t9 to� r-In,( 1 a �; w _dY . " t ° T L ,_i'r. r n �m 17 4r ,"`R w s , : t I ' M«3F:'4 r .t w— '¢r s n r' dr O -• - .� ES N C ..)W A r a . d`� g � n> 1" $ g � O W t bt• l � ;k � � i.R • ",�F L• t d - . y a �4, a - �" 'JV >x k Lh . 2 N y ' � j f ' t G S 2 � j y'e Y _°"2 - x . w 1>j c a* ����' 5- - z r y a R s i .w w W t o; �� r t ' ,....,,,,,%„..,.,,,,, p ,. ' �,f 1 ' r k' s , L' , - p W v k°i4 4 ',,, :" r`+� �f k x: F a p W O c Na �.t W � ry :"'-`,•...,. �' ' � • { r * " w W W W i� 0 0 0 i 4 ': i'qr t . s r Z W F U W w w m .1�� x t" , O p N W W • O o N 1� R� A f z w , 4 U co ,0 m N 'r te�; � � � a s �,l,' v .w W W • o m j� rj, ` .+--°« � •- Y 2 a 6 `k W Q w } r` v r• ^ o a 1 +` r a i1 � r w ,,VV s Y N N '▪F , L I/n om + rk ,s zx, N LO ro i 6 X y O „ y m o r h a m ,11 a v -a rn } ". k (Y g r a ' w-• - .• « ,t .Sa € : 0 2 a. k . a � « •y �- )" s r � � t * , �c k L.T. e �. t 4� 4 4' p W: �., *w. -. r �z *r x U' r- L u _.;:.--.1' t w+ • -t"°' ✓ Q dr � W x k( - " 2 !4 W c: A 4 �X,.': U �' a �°r. � O *A: x a.•,1 4-t e 1 e-12/ ,1,,,........ Pag� i cket z MMRCI Par , • r A CO W� -BDEdwg`. ' _can' q' TY\9002.5d ERMIT HEETIPsherman'P\9002.5-Fi s V \CAD\SL9 El,• 12/9/2014 9.A. CO� CO F-= w �. IL �.O* • m' N N *,,p...'1-;‘, `�s Y 41' a p o D ti W ...- .-. 00 Z X W J Ur F in N a�U 4�� �. m Zl +n' O of Tr- - � ED Et`w¢ m cf),-s, zs;&<`nrr®F\ ,4-1,.4.4., Z Z >>u a o- ui t, Z W W o : W N Z . • • • • O V-1. � Z z:.1( Z N J. .WC 0 > W wog o O,j = Z 0,0 N Z0:515:1 0' °xo0(n . , , , a r22 rBY PrFP�.F F`• •s�es` � :!I Z O' M a paap e�Z � n m e �r+ F- 00. jWW I-C3W�t-�,J-� N \ pp deQ=WFOeFQO0O�a a � LL \1I ' wO<O_iQwwwO - Como Z `\ ss s� `rs'$Fs` £os�' CO2} 0DOO�»>-1p omwoo 0 C A Z A A A A A A A n A c,, z w U Z V O V V V V V V V V v t E 0 0 ev V/ flP2` Oi PPS\°'s CY yF``. sY Q W fiF, SAC O y o Q Q I f M ill 0 Q S C 2 Iry W CL v in CL rr �� 0 W za, ?s: s Q Q m_ w I _ W Z X Z W J • ac,N N J '-. s, I I.-. 5 v 2 i ° W N = M -1 z v Y cC en o 0 LL N W f: Q p_ 2 n. _ 0 R1 .o : W E\ (i- a d Z f2, 'W 4,- sy W 2 .�:cC d a o � . ,• •r. o Z ' —t Z .1 z<yXP� 0 wfl U . 111.1 T� 2 2 un 0 V fi �� Z d` C-C a• z Q P\90025-Fishermans VOe9e\CAD\SHEET\PERMIT-COUNTY\90025-ODE.dwg Depths \021201 Packet Page-125- i _l .',0,4V1,1, - `... 7.7 12/ /2014 9. . ds,'S: x - 0 di •' -rtw•,- ::;',1.!.., rs :5 ; Z �a:!t: O y� x � 1• ci �, . .>, ,� : 0000• : . W x ,0000 • ��X- I ° ` ryas®®S u, I- i,..y .t.. I y o yam ,,,, o \1yO W- 1 . 4 'Ti / :4,..:,.1-1- 0 L�Ir Z ILLI q w *.Ali"< o `yti . W 9. , ,�' wi�x , nay's ; x:. .N Z r ek�•f �,,11. i ytiH Ur i::.4.;:•..:,‘'.....-..t.;:''.4.i::%■'' k ,� ,�� ", CC 2 W L ` �- t I =in .ullrf:: , . : . . . )t:. .!.,..:....e......1:..i.iw ,, ,...,. ,..' ,..]:' :,-,::::z... ..."4.',..:.,,.lc,;..,21...I: .1 i I. ,I. zip„ • /1. .;:'"? , : , ,- - ' ' 't �v °�I ' r 7 o, ..6. 03_ Mks- ' ) 1..N...,r6i.h...i.• ,J, , ...• ' • ^`?,-,. '.. .1 ,• r ;',.,1'. %''•.‘, J1 ,11.v., I tr: ' o- :'' �Y. t� i ' �{t� '',,\ �x`� Eo• i sr S a 9 0 Ki x P.\9002.5-Fisherma n Village\CAD\SHEET\PERMIT-COUNTY\9002.5-DEPTHS-EXHIBIT.dwg DE Packet Page -126- 3 � tL i f »„ Z y • q _._.. h.144g:''w 4 A•11101111111. ''., ,••.4:1A`.:',:.:•';'.• . • 4 _ ''' ,•'4j4 '_ W a •• .!C0.r 3 to 0 •• . n. 0 t do � 4, (1 t. w < T,,�= 0 J � r 2.r .•7 d' •• P ,ti w‘..fh+' _ .. r N 1 ^ C o.• .., . . , -...„- ;• • ..• • ' •-!"..:-.11;?•24',:•.-'••••-::•-•'''''-:-CL.-rt.D.. 0,,,.. •. . . .. . _ . . • •• . -F,A kr a. •I'' �4 yy��s// q,��I J� fs� • 1:,:!-I f0 ,...,ayi VJ Q. - S .+� t y,x N�r„rr t "..y 0 A--t---i v x � ,y,. o '�� 3, _ *fit+a rd 4•Ca F F :+t. •" ± ., I ./.,• �� . \\ L;cr_ `Att. -. w az J op• l x' M �t .: fir' w \ 2 7yNcfi .. • -t 1{Frs a'- 4* � t7.'rM' '' N r.r"7!r• Wi,-.. f if r.:..:....}.,i..:. vy f l :. b.r rj te,•s;y'f,'.y' k Uj �O A J' . fy',Ai' 1 O �. 4{4 ..,� fi4 ' 5 t•x, :'yyf'•.��F ((..1 • V C: f A i e•g V : yt t. c.)_. C Cp y 4 \ 1" , '� R `3 t. _ '4'o •% -••-• L! k R '''.,'"...'!4` +>'m R• r kk Y 7' i «, r V d,a ,.. V. 1 V "?' o, • ! S .' O b\l'..1'1'..3,:. aT... S k 1.:.. k '' •r �'1 _Oo." f" � 1 'Yi•! •4+f r f•y { ..t '--••• ".•- y M-` x .} i 5 n V to.. gi4 ; . E a $ E' § `......t.1l'' x ` ep 4'::! 1:-• c . • a '} 1}° - S e'- r ;s' '1c c .„ S.Y' I/•,n Jc .. w M• L'• • xrxdwxf ...a�'2 �ar1 £ tM2 �'{ 1..*:s } � + P:\9002.5-Fisherman's Village\CAD\SHEET\PERMIT-COUNTY\9002.5-DEPTHS-EXHIBIT.dwg DE Packet Page-127- . . .. ,r ,4 „-•-ra^ »,r; Yk., ' _�, ., 1 • ., ,.:, 12/9/2014 9.A. 9/2 . r f tVr �• 00 a Z. s' w• . fd 4:4l'1,1:;:44.' V :�: tit N ILL LLI - �` >,, „' .. 111110• �. DwW N . 0 lil • Z• 14''c 4 r :'.KI J •ref�, ` g 't.-.7:4';;...::::64: V if fl 1 It.4,.• t...• ....1:-..1....,:i..••••ffio.::.,.••..-1:....,..--, ••:.....' ..:;:-:. ::-...,,.. . .L:1 •...;.,:::,........,..'...:„.•,.1--:.,.-:'.......,.,.'. u)'-- „Ot ` I i ` d k t F I— 0 t 4r a '‘i.:1..".; 'S w CL. L.a.,,r : .-, — ....:..:',..-.4,1?,, w .... . . .. w .. .. ......a ... ,,, w ,•,..L464,,,k, , , --- ::-..,... • • . •••%,;•„-..,,,k., :,.,-- ., 74,- i ;••••,• •-:'''''.. ',-,,,1-4?-"• • cc• • • '. • ' . ;.• o • 41 ,i_ §K ' 1" . - is d.. , ....,. ... ...; ' {: T =•?F�4 ,'..�. '.1"Y. 'T.. pp cu ca ., ... • } Ij JHMH • "*.\\\:\."2,,. • '• • •,. 1111 4 P _. _... r •,eJ 1. �+ �.l` ; con 2 3 i o• z{ i' �r a 'gy " mow' ,' - {..w,, 1 ,' .0. Ate .— N iti 1. 4'I d4 TY ' 1.7 I. ! .11 { ,-- . -.- Tt yG: o • •I�x ++ �yTy:"t yj f'.},�. yY^'�• t..!.!.',.'.''' I '... T i'J V '4+f^ ASrA�q" } ryJh i J*i' :` `�If° 's'�l--,, #• 'Y�7 Y •.�•. •{. f'Sr i ..•_: " 41 \. i ` <_ TT I• L ��• 1 y ...... ... ._',.,..,..•t ..:qtr.. P:\90025-Fisherman's Village\CAD\SHEET\PERMIT-COUNTY\9002,5-DEPTHS-EXHIBIT.dwg DE Packet Page-128- n., . . 12/9/2014 9.A. ,,k `▪ ; - . a,r LU 5 1- w ' . e't .'�� �� EL roZX aw W ,,- ■s...V ro { T�, � H C9 A ? -iq,.y>•` ':'-i;•-,,,.:_:fir• LY' .'._ - I l_r -. j j'p a N > c- '• a' _•r y Iry W Q li Q o ^. � ;tr � x �zww�uicn wNz .• i.„,� r fir' c g O W— —i U �o�j n•r > ”'v �Tj I.,i�W. d.. If` ,2'ce U p>y Vim+ W p : : ' p ° W a ce ; H ?P4 r wT$ 'S•-. ROWHZ�Q>� v=Q(A . 6.. C �-' � �,9-.a. � ,17r.-.:4 ,'.i-77.� �w y ; ek , Q w• Z'' s` � " W Z W w o W J�IL � Z'N. � 4,t' � I: ,. <w=.H i _.C.301-r' .}r.� � r \ / .: -i��� k Z z �111 �Q� 0� H I H Z" Y4 .,:v.: . r, W _,: T A- O .• S L ` ¢wg0OOnQO<OJO a y . .q..., ± F l \ - \ ! I 1r ,, _ W Qp wHxH<OO tL a 2 o o A K r *erlortvi1/4- - .. . p Hcnoo w>->->-z< ^• • w Q O JW W W O J :,,- ~. °. Z r#1, „y1,...'---,,,,,,,, x Q ` I, •� n z p aJQ,0»><n Q ,� rV . w¢�O a H Q w R d J F 1 aez - ,' a , i 0H 0 0� n»O H O � mw o z U�. +”rs y .. � z :: A Z , . A� ► E ZvO i v t v v v v o oro °.vst .i... KiJ k r •4' " � � 2 � -fly 1 f °' m , u . y #.,,,, 7 w ` - ' l yit: "a V ..g r: ° ' .r' r.: t 'f . :r;,a !''-•...,,,,, t - Sri . 2 '+'s }wnrs. ,s ; \- :.� .- 4 .S!p *y.••t L a\ ;G,.`,s < w 8 .. �4 A 4 •Er t 1' ... S .1 w._'d,)'.Y ..1f. 4 ' 1 O _ rk'-'.4t.....!. •7'.::;'''..; '•-•'''''*,''' 'r!- r - '42.••.'":--- ! ,'',. 1::::11t1.;: i 77:i°',..,,,,,-.1�^ tf ty�•e�,. �"'+'E.xO i f.�:'.%�.5'I �:� ��'� a - F� � , ; F � Y.•W..• =4• ? ...tr. 7, f n Y:,,� - .�'iiis' � t- - Z'' y, . ' a, • ; '-•� 1 '..;•'' Q o� h.Af ,�bl T;,' _ �'T 'co i• r ,rte 7t Q € ,;•. �__,-rte`'' .i �1-7'.ti �.y F - .4i; ---,e + s -n o a H a .aw . t- : . ..7z-..- ' - i„. _°.te v , i' .7. g , : _ s'1;,-1,..:,..L.: . .} T �. r sa 7_ eo :,,i, : s o- V h� im:ivy a- o i 1 4....-'': ':-.:' .'•.*4.14-'";''',1Z..% '•- :1 ,2'''.7' •''• .4'14- .„,',4-,--: ••'•- _ X -+ M , -ia''°;-'' ''" ••••• l i o cW A � � J J R . -..� .Wv.Z Q 77 7 M j o .;. * \Y 0.1— t W •t o:Q r ,3 p P:\9002.5-Fishermen's Villege\CAD\SHEET\PERMIT-COUNTY\9002.5-BDE.dwg Proposed 10/9/2 Packet Page -129- 12/9/2014 9.A. s: I w.. sn _ rs-�xz•. tom'". , .,,..i,.. - -; F, ,#> .. . \ c p Z A ��4 F I I I +y �� /��\`� �y �y. >'/' 'I 'ti'1;R.• .: _ X111 ,• t• K 6� + 3 ti ft' • �+ i µ# Q" z e ' !!L S u - y• tit. tr��• • •', ?" v N 3 {f 77 L 7 61v, t • Y . .FRf ` 3.� •�y w'r " -"i.- '' •''..' "" i .. . :•tli' ' . ' .z'.. ,'''-.1k4...,1_0,--,,,„‘'4,4•44., '' :.- ' - 7.,. 4.'s-c.'"1.u.1...,„,-,--.,„,;"&.,I Y7.,.-',.4-•"4 ;.„,,, ,,,,,.....,, .i, !..r.., .,,,....„,....,, .,.„,,,,,.:,....v ....„...... ...... , :. . _. , .:. . M 7;�.� t:10, y.�'. r4y S 1— �}}� rI 1 .:f2.1,-1_1.1.11,:;-.:.K.. ', • w , "*".":''fr* ..„.'. S if.., i G• } W l f...—::. 1.!...F ' � t Q W &ci` i r � 1 w it l•ry {� ..14e_ r4aavae^.• LLJ r .�� �9N „�[}11,- z - 'D V. : I ` ( 'I _:1 �i aA, .I-- LLJ s L.S .-t O ' € 'bid°s�, .�}_ � ..r - T 2.it'i -,- � kl� i: 401 • ` i III I `y_ GC U J N' ) I I T I I I I , o a 6 J . o- I I I I I "' z,� a I I I i I I rf a _ = • f ,..%, o ..,�� 3, A wt�. I y q'O" tb.iw.a . a,n „D .1.e,-._.: a� d Y y I Y �i '�-{1 H•.•r Cr = t-T t 1•< S �y✓✓ t' y ywy' •w f ' r ;, sc� ' ; E " ; I: ra �' :' � .„4 ;i < ; " , � Ii rNa4wlle rr P:\9002.5-Flsherma Ws Village\CAD\SHEET PERMIT-COUNTY\9002.5-DEPTHS-EXHIBIT.dwg DE Packet Page-130- 4 .. - 12/9/2014 9.A. a . w O N W p N Z F W LL U z t a O d 0 Q O CC IMHW 0 k _ .. F0�a.Lu v; �a�� m wOWa 0 trW in Ha..E_.to d g I N - \ . rO N b - et co 0 0 o O I w 'mw .. a F ( w d U N z § w 0 o v � m Luu) AVMLI31VM 3O—Q— _, H1OIM%SL'Xddtl a 0 I Z 1 0 0 r. 6 G E O QQ —1 F _J z cq 0 a L O US W �s o w (Dui 7 = a N W Cn AVM631VM,JO d T^ H10 W,%05'XddV O VD v l a W o € a. cip o W U !^l Ij ,6.Q W X W W g N N AVM2131VM JO > •�' i,_=,. 4--.•- M HLOIM%A XddV —„OE- w W CO_I ,�Q U_ } ��0 o '4 OzOoU' `� O O 44-, o. W(n .�� �� o�Q co-Z O WQ J CC C..� L... WY 00� D0w X�� co N U re o z O = a.I- zm� 0 dvui Q ,^ z ui <� m N _HOtWi�SZR w NZ - Lo a' Z W a O w x g-J_I U 7j o w =L.T. .cc is 00 C ap CO Mj=” 2 Wwp -C-'/t `rc �W o. 0 4 CCoo�Z�QO� Oxicxn = O3' '-'f: N ct uw2 in �,,.. OwQ W�)OO}H V Z}w w o� —a —� wizww0Ct Mu_0cc jz - .0 L o u o x T' QVOvw�3 =Z K Er) m y QZZ a zzowoll- E a /fy ti cn-3„IsOO wow�i- i� cc WHIN I 1\ r Z O j a m F Ci Q M o QWm 2wO OQOJE Z 0 0. _ LL �w¢_oQr¢wxrx or-i`-- �1: OY Wx}_JCa000mx» O Q O I- Q a f-F-m O O) A V)e F- 1-:' o 4--- O — n Z A Co A A A A A A- -n A r H to ,Z v O v v v v v v v -v v P'\9002.5-Fshe rmans Village\CAD\SHEET\PERMI T-COUNTY\9002.5-BDE.dwg Section A 10/2/ Packet Page-131- 12/9/2014 9.A. IMHW w N N W O Z Q a Co N \O — o 2 i 0 r m < F CI N 4 lVM?J31VM d0 F N o ° L H101M% 'XddV \ - S ` Z �, 0 Uhi N 1 rn �a Z Z Q gym : O L. Q - w E-� 3 F o 2 AVMN31VM dO w I [i ///�� U _ H101M%09 XddV d I U u l �- W Q m z IA oc ��-//�� CO U a a s Ct V1 Q I n v Q _ CL Z ; W . � 0 2 U 0 Q co IL I X Et W o " LL 3>%AVM231VM JO p H1pM%SZ XddV U 0.1/M � 'y M 0 O i O W� po rn m ^cn p 'I- CY pZ000.v 0 U- _CD p M ER Q O~O C6 Z X° 1.11 J C' U J =O w X.ui c 5 co U a=V awn_ h Y Z�w Q Q d . "' E Z L a ��w " �z d Y t-Otis=z d z NI 2! 0 m O z °� • rXt n J ow0° wp = .-"c-Cs LU- c75 '2 i F- wo U-00fl '00 .0 zWOw y ° A co Oa0 wW LFW U-U-or 0 Z ..� Ct EL 10 I f <H <1.1 -7 -=O � .- Q 2 r r N _r x i ; Z~O°w�7~�~u° Q t■ M o a K w z w izCOO2�OlIi =rCt�V ��2p�p�aO�Od IMHW1 h �zQpa�QrHHb FI--JQ CL F=F-03 I 1, �: - C A Z A A A A A A A A A Z v O v v v v v v v v v g � u� P'.\9002.5-Fisherman's Village\CAD\SHEET\PERMIT-COUNTY\9002.5-BDEdwg Section B 10/2/2 Packet Page -132- IMHW i 12/9/2014 9.A. w N N ( W Z Q \ E., L N 0 I N AVMa31VM dO � 0 HIOIM%UL'XddV �' ' F- M N R o 0 o Q m - Z 0 . -o m w d 1 o 0'c' F.73 o i V f a U o, p ` a� I OM �� O 2 s Q • o AVM2i31VM-IQ z Z o � H H101M%OS'XddV wa H v-, U o I1 U ii a s �� z U J X Q p W ° CI W U �- Z C7 °, Z cn En Z CO (N U V C./) 2 C0 W " 1 O i p 1 ql- 4 TQ AVML731VM JO , I X HlGIM%9Z XddV - i W i _ O U r o o W O�.o00, >- . �, v, o co C p O Up Z O o° • 0 U: � ""� °, d_~m ZX W c_GU ,J c`J'" Oj U°WX- 0 0 N U cG vi .yd a > co O w cn Z ¢II ¢ d v 111 � - Z Z w Y a I-Z W w W fn W [J Z O C]„,c, 1.0E_ 7..)o U UO -u j O W!S Z - z N J 21 K 20 a. aLz�0�Qu5Q.. °¢1 � '''3 -' o. o N aoa T WOONZ �o� �o JO 1 OWW - >-Cnv 0 = n � 1 W0wco.0� : 7z >W a�'~ R N Sa WZWW oCC 0U_ 2WZ �r as `o Q: f ¢ZZ5 a ZZ0�U) 0FsW,00�WOov,Z d� a z _ Zoo�.rx QWo wQ IMHW Z z.0 0 1O W 7 H Et J U 7% �-, Igj Z tom.` ,r? m ¢w2OOOcnO¢OJa z t(4-5 °¢I—U)Qa�Wr>-rz¢ _ - a Z QD O�J J U` W W w OJ 1 ill 0 u]W¢JO¢t-¢Wdcc --,F '�� m W2}J00oOOI 000 O al Zw FHJ¢ahh-m000(n tq .1- �n (-' �' I Z v O v v v v v v v A A i P 190025-Fisherman s Village\CAD,SHEET\PERMIT-COUNTY\9002.5-BCE.dwg Seawn C 10/212 Packet Page-133- 12/9/2014 9.A. ROUTING SHEET GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT Staff Report for Petition Number: BDE-PL20130001765 Petition Name: Haldeman's Landing Boat Dock Planner: Fred Reischl Hearing Dates: HEX N/A CCPC 6/19/2014 BCC N/A Reviewer Initials Date Ray Mike Nick Packet Page -134- 12/9/2014 9.A. C✓C7� ler County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION HEARING DATE: JUNE 19, 2014 SUBJECT: BDE-PL20130001765, HALDEMAN'S LANDING BOAT DOCKS [COMPANION TO ST-PL20140000896] 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, Fl 34104 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner requests a 32-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 facility protruding a total of 52 feet into a waterway that varies from approximately 97 to 120 feet wide. The docks are proposed as an amenity to a Site Development Plan (SDP-PL201300000]5), which is currently under review, for 16 multi-family buildings,totaling 64 residential units. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject site is within Sections 11 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 Windstar PUD. The folio numbers are 61835520008, 00388360006, 00394880004, 00395320000 & 61835840005. The project boundary of the proposed multifamily development is highlighted in grey on the location map on the following page. The dock is proposed along the south shore of Haldeman Creek. PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The purpose of the petition is to request a 32-foot boat dock extension beyond the maximum 20-foot limit for the subject multi-family residential development. The boat dock facility will contain 42 slips. The total overwater dock structure proposed is approximately 8,070 square feet and protrudes a total of 52 feet into a waterway that varies from approximately 97 feet to 120 feet from Mean High Water (MHW) line to MHW line. The total length of the dock is approximately 473 linear feet with a width of 6 feet. BDE-PL20130001765, Page 1 of 9 Haldeman's Landing Boat Dock Extension. June 19,2014 CCPC Packet Page -135- 12/9/2014 9.A. ,7,—_4-, asrrt�> _A v .0,,Arms)wac Sao n51.V9 ! ., a -ark�'S Ca"�'-M'-3 (avow A-3 o 31r n 3101.6.411® Ea IIE; as o 113 � N �� 111 eelIa I ! _ ! I �' ri' am oa °C i s o l �: 5 Iiiilli v D pm J iaC > min © � 1131111111111 o nii- k�� o�3 Q©7 [©�a KO=C©l7 BA r7 0® a c; i w mac mi tI. ® � [oBia• a s opal a x Ej� MI E14� CIO) wm ©med mm se cm 1E140111 113 CM i : .3.1110 MEE , MEOW _ ® ® 08:11 a ^ u IE-- j1jjll g : : -1.EN riV: i;i1 • ,,1. 1 PIA1,10" r4416., 1_ 11101111EINN MN 1(( 1I'44 3nld , :;:::::::::::.:1:::,:i_ I 1: 1 l.- . t .t, 1 I I I I■I■I I i 1 ... - V i;"1X_:1-1 3_Ip.I;1.1.{ g -1,-"IQI 1 ;';;s;' 'f!":4C;5 4. 0 ir �g \\ d � _ � � N CD ..133ws n-Ird - 1\�w. rl,''Ra pl 17,--; iiim=II izzcoN--N-\5-„,„ 0, J 0. YVa5 of ton o CO ? _ oK3ai_ 3lNDd Ntaw' z �i�' 0 y� V O swan aoo.NY31 iii 71— ^ `6_ -cft R F - �-I " aoorA3ldrn I` .... lm C=o W. " $a �� s Ewa- i a g e 3g ), m I I-01100 NO150NIM1y 7� O = Y1 OW Rs 3 g n Ogg a h a_ g ,. gW is� _, g\ F , iec aDl '.� ,s/ _i 3 cur �\\ � :' L,1- dd oVOa aNmnrmcal., iI .e.yj ____r--H� ■■ d6.. I [:...._„ 1 at iI g s ,. agl�1 tl ie S .II� '. a 1 $a anao aaoNo.�ve B I At 6 o-d- m Rm .�> ,,,„141 0 z A C,, 31/1 1'OS,,, .:,..,niumnak 411 ii � �ial_. ailicdoo--op le 5 (158'Y'0i MO!, NN0.'Mj311310D09 U O l r L 10 ¢U :�0 ge1 612111,4.‘,NUN winimiwswo 3 J 4 GULF OF MEXICO i Packet Page -136- 12/9/2014 9.A. SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING: SUBJECT PARCEL: Vacant multi-family parcels, with a zoning designation of RMF-6 & RMF-6(3) SURROUNDING: North: Vacant land & single-family homes, zoned RMF-6-BMUD-R1 East: Single family homes, zoned RSF-4-BMUD-R4 & RMF-6-BMUD-R2 South: Single-family homes, zoned RMF-6-BMUD-R1 & golf course, zoned PUD (Windstar PUD) West: Golf course, zoned PUD (Windstar PUD) so 7 r v '. — ' ,fin 1,,,,,,,,,,,,ricrH,: .1:1',.:!0:„,,,,,,,tt4T,P., i„.6;;;;:..,,:::,*e.',"1"C:‘--4"ii.47"t'LL...1:,41';`)‘,',:„, t:--tr3rit3,, , , 0 , ',,,.J.4.1), , :::, a7.,, iiiiign,", L.,..,PZ .,414 V'';''''' ' it. 4.11' It -' . , ''';'''',i *?? 4,,,,,Atip, „,99v r' ' ,,,,,,„.;.-tg...• '-'t4 '' , .,4-',' % ,' „.;',:;4‘ __,.'",-.01 „!-A7+e-te' , 'i:or.:,,i,'' ..:1 ..2 1;... „a ;.',/.1 „,..,,.. , 4,;;,..,,,,,i,,,,f,..,., , ., , r, , k , ' .;,• , '',” '140 jkil •11/ilk, .r1 • 5 b d c, uir,., '''' ,lr,-�4 i , , '¢r ,,, ''''d�i4i. ".‹..t r+`M, x, 'M 9 t# �' -.f I - . a3,rkq 1. F s� _I ,,,,,,,:if,:*— ,1' ,cx° 8vil 1,E L.. .m-+e °',',•1' &a a isM ,�,'.t 7'P+',, M 3" #"s"#$' ¢,!, k"'..xi '�tiCt"� °q « 7 . am � r $y �� � . t y > aH.a,A ' - v 4^ '7:,--„P y,. liT d u ,c,. 1 44,t,9?,k fly€ _' "'`. ',-11..; ,' ' Fri .;' ,''' '.N.'` i.,r iM�; "44 - . s w , ' r.:4 -' d ,4.3' 4 r . - 1, �-..; -, 4:xv +F ,w 'M ' 1 ', ,"ice E "t N' "4 C' ` yam',,.r 6 Aerial—detail of parcel in the area of the proposed docks(Collier County Property Appraiser) BDE-PL20130001765, Page 3 of 9 Haldeman's Landing Boat Dock Extension. June 19.2014 CCPC Packet Page -137- f f3IIfC 12/9/2014 9.A. � ' . 4 ' ' ''-'4°°'''''''' '"4' k �� i 'At '� t .' 4,4,4 s i z C A a Google h Wirer Aerial-detail of parcel in the area of the proposed docks(Google) '' t# M 3 ,`' �+,.a. AJ r f Ufa .p .,';� a + - x� ,, , �' ,� i «:lr. bi a 3 TFv.s.. ‘,"",,,,v!r vn fyµ'— ifol'':, ..1--;.•‘:''- .''''''''-1-',..Ait-,-. NPR. T N. ''''14-"4" t a l � d Y t-. ��': xj x.,- ittii,.2.-'.' r', ' ,"''--Y---2" ='.741 ' Aerial-detail of parcel in the area of the proposed docks(Bing) BDE-PL20130©01765, Page 4 of 9 Haldeman's Landing Boat Dock Extension. June 19. '014 CCPC Packet Page -138- 12/9/2014 9.A. ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION: 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 Creek (including the subject portion) has an ST Zoning Overlay. The site qualifies as a moderate ranking under the Manatee Protection Plan, which translates to 10 slips per 100 feet of shoreline, or 93 slips. This request is for 42 slips and is therefore consistent with the Manatee Protection Plan. STAFF COMMENTS: 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: Primary Criteria 1. Whether the number of dock facilities and/or boat slips proposed is appropriate in relation to the waterfront length, location, upland land use and zoning of the subject property. Consideration should be made of property on unbridged barrier islands, where vessels are the primary means of transportation to and from the property. (The number should be appropriate; typical single-family use should be no more than two slips; typical multi-family use should be one slip per dwelling unit; in the case of unbridged barrier island docks, additional slips may be appropriate.) Criterion met. The proposed dock facility consists of 42 boat slips, which is appropriate in relation to the over 938 linear feet of water frontage of the subject multi-family lot. 2. Whether the water depth at the proposed site is so shallow that a vessel of the general Iength, 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.) BDE-PL20130001765, Page 5 of 9 Haldeman's Landing Boat Dock Extension. June 19,2014 CCPC Packet Page -139- 12/9/2014 9.A. Criterion met. According to the petitioner's application the water depth 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. 3. Whether the proposed dock facility may have an adverse impact on navigation within an adjacent marked or charted navigable channel. (The facility should not intrude into any marked or charted navigable channel thus impeding vessel traffic in the channel.) Criterion met. According to the information submitted by the petitioner, the proposed facility will not adversely impact navigation due to the width of the existing waterway (varying from approximately 97 feet to 120 feet 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 facility should maintain the required percentages.) Criterion met. Information provided in the application indicates that the proposed dock will protrude 52 feet into the waterway, as measured from MHW line. In this case, however, the MHW line extends into the mangrove fringe. The applicant states that, of the non-mangrove-impeded portion of Haldeman Creek, this dock facility will maintain a minimum of 50 percent of the waterway as open. 5. Whether the proposed location and design of the dock facility is such that the facility would not interfere with the use of neighboring docks. (The facility should not interfere with the use of legally permitted neighboring docks.) Criterion met. The applicant owns a major portion of the shoreline on the north side of Haldeman Creek and will place it under a Conservation Easement which prohibits dock construction. 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.) BDE-PL20130001765, Page 6 of 9 Haldeman's Landing Boat Dock Extension. June 19,2014 CCPC Packet Page -140- 12/9/2014 9.A. Criterion met. The subject shoreline is natural, not hardened, and it 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.) Nnt 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.) 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. BDE-PL20130001765, Page 7 of 9 Haldeman's Landing Boat Dock Extension. June 19, 2014 CCPC Packet Page -141- 12/9/2014 9.A. 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. 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 Division 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: The Office of the County Attorney reviewed the Staff Report for BDE_AT 20130001765 on June 2, 2014. - SAS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the above findings, Staff recommends that the CCPC approve Petition BDE- PL20130001765, subject to the following conditions: 1. Construction of the docks shall not commence until the approval of 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. BDE-PL20130001765, Page 8 of 9 Haldeman's Landing Boat Dock Extension. June 19,2014 CCPC Packet Page-142- 12/9/2014 9.A. PREPARED BY: 3C) - FREOZEISCHL, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE • PLANNING &ZONING DEPARTMENT REVIEWED BY: _ --- RAYMOND V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER DATE PLANNING &ZONING DEPARTMENT 7 MIKE BOSI, AICP, DIRECTOR DATE PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT APPROVED BY: , NICK CASALANGUIDA--• DATE ADMINISTRATOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION BDE-PL20130001765, Page 9 of 9 Haldeman's Landing Boat Dock Extension. June 19, 2014 CCPC Packet Page -143- 12/9/2014 9.A. CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 14- A RESOLUTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BDE- PL20130001765 FOR A 32-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 52 FEET TO ACCOMMODATE A 42 SLIP MULTI- FAMILY DOCKING FACILITY FOR THE BENEFIT OF A 19.06 +/- ACRE PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS HALDEMAN'S LANDING IN SECTIONS 11 AND 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (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 32-foot extension over the maximum 20-foot limit provided in LDC Section 5.03.06 to allow for a total protrusion of 52 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 BDE-PL20130001765, filed on behalf of Standard Pacific of Florida, G.P., Inc. by Timothy Hall of Turrell, Hall & Associates, with respect to the property described in the Attached Exhibit "A", be and the same is hereby approved for a 32-foot extension of a boat dock over the maximum 20-foot limit to allow for a 52-foot 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". I[aldeman's Landing fka Fishermen's Village BDE-PL20130001765—4/22114 Page I of 2 Packet Page -144- 12/9/2014 9.A. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this Commission and filed with the County Clerk's Office. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. Done this day of , 2014. ATTEST: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Nick Casalanguida,Administrator Mark P. Strain, Chairman Growth Management Division Approved as to form and legality: Scott A. Stone Assistant County Attorney Attachments: Exhibit A—Legal Description Exhibit B—Proposed Site Plan Exhibit C—Conditions of Approval (if any) 13-CPS-01277/18 Haldeman's Landing fka Fishermen's Village BDE-PL20130001765—4/22/14 Page 2 of 2 Packet Page -145- Detail by Entity Name 12/9/2014 9.A. DEPARTMENT FLORIDA n 'r OF STATE L, 4701.tyrz, DIVISION OF CORPORATIONS Detail by Entity Name Foreign Profit Corporation STANDARD PACIFIC OF FLORID A GP, INC. Filing Information Document Number F09000001377 FEI/EIN Number 204356126 Date Filed 04/06/2009 State DE ACTIVE CTIVE Last Event AMENDMENT Event Date Filed 11/17/2009 Event Effective Date NONE Principal Address 405 N. REO ST., STE 330 TAMPA, FL 33609 Changed: 02/08/2010 Mailing Address 36 BARRANCA PARKWAY I1R5VIN0E, CA 92618 Changed: 04/02/2012 Registered Agent Name &Address NRAI SERVICES, INC. 1200 South Pine Islan d Road Plantation, FL 33324 Address Changed: 02/11/2011 Officer/Director Detail Name &Address Title SR KEATING, GARY TAMPA,405N. REO FL 3S3T 6.0,9STE 330 R Title President Packet Page -146- 4/10/2014 Detail by Entity Name 12/9/2014 9.A. PELLETZ, DAVID 405 N. REO ST., STE 330 TAMPA, FL 33609 • Title VP MUNGER, HARMONY M 405 N. REO ST., STE 330 TAMPA, FL 33609 Annual Reports Report Year Filed Date 2012 04/02/2012 2013 02/06/2013 2014 03/08/2014 Document Images 03/OG/2014 —ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format O2/OS/2O13 —ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 12/18/2O12 —ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 04/02/2012 --ANNUAL REPORT View ima e in PDF forma D308/2D11 — ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 02/08/2O1O—ADDRESS CHANGE View image in PDF forma O2/D4/2O1D —ADDRESS CHANGE View image in PDF format O1/12/2O1O— ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 11/17/2OO9 — Amendment View image in PDF forma 04/00/2009 -- Foreion Profit View image in PDF format Copyright mand Privacy Policies State w Florida,Department mState Packe� Pa 147' �m:��n�.o�iz' o���a�m� sultDetaiDEnti tp-f.. 4/10/2014 12/9/2014 9.A. = U ' ' LL, HALL & ASSOCIATFS, >7'- MARINE & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING 3584 Exchange Avenue, Suite B • Naples, Florida 34104-3732 • (239) 643-0166 • Fax (239) 643-6632 February 12, 2014 BDE-PL20130001765 REV: 2 FISHERMAN'S VILLAGE Fred Reischl, AICP DATE: 2/19/14 Principal Planner DUE: 3/5/14 Collier County Government Department of Zoning& Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 RE: BD-PL20130001765 FKA: Fisherman's Village now Haldeman's Landing BDE Fred, Per the request of county staff please see attached copy of our response to all questions and concerns in regards to the above subject BDE application's first review process. First off please notice the name change for the proposed project from Fisherman's Village to Haldeman's Landing. I have attached the updated BDE application with all requested changes, with the updated exhibits, and a Unanimous Written Consent of the Board of Directors of Standard Pacific of Florida. Upon your review of these revisions please let me know if there is anything else that you may need for your review. If you have any more questions or concerns please feel free to contact me at the above letterhead phone number or email Tin ca Turrell-Associatres.con1 or Jeff(a!Turreli-Associates.com Regards, illd Jeff Rogers Project Manager Tun-ell, Hall &Associates, Inc. Packet Page -148- 12/9/2014 9.A. AT J AN s S LANDINGS 2 13 1765 FEBRUARY 12, 2014 2 Turrell, ssoc HallPrepared Liz A by: iates, Inc. 3584 Exchange Ave., Suite B Naples, FE 34104 (239) 643-0166 149- Packet Page - 12/9/2014 9.A. Co#er COcnty 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 DOCK FACILITY EXTENSION OR BOATHOUSE ESTABLISHMENT PETITION APPLICATION AND SUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS The following information is intended to guide you through the process of a Dock Facility Extension or Boathouse Establishment Petition, from completing the application packet to the final determination by the Collier County Planning Commission. Prior to submittal of the attached Dock Facility Extension or Boathouse Establishment Petition application, you must attend a pre-application meeting to determine if, pursuant to Land Development Code Section 5.03.06, the option of a dock facility extension or boathouse establishment is available to you and to discuss the location, length/protrusion and configuration of the proposed boat dock facility. The pre-application fee is $500.00 (to be credited toward application fee upon submittal.) In order to process your request, all accompanying materials must be completed and submitted with the application (SEE ATTACHED CHECKLIST). The application fee for a Dock Facility Extension or Boathouse Establishment is currently $1500.00 plus $925.00 for required legal advertising. An additional amount for property owner notifications will be billed to the applicant prior to the hearing date. Within ten (10) days of the submission of your application, you will receive notification that your petition is being processed. Accompanying that response will be a receipt for your check and the number assigned to your petition. This petition number should be noted on all future correspondence regarding your petition. The Department of Zoning and Land Development Review will provide for legal notification of surrounding property owners within 500 feet of the subject property and newspaper advertising (required fifteen (15) days prior to the Planning Commission Hearing date). You will be notified by mail of your hearing date and will receive a copy of the Staff Report. It is recommended, but not required,that you or your agent attend the Planning Commission meeting. If you have any further questions or need assistance completing this application, contact the Growth Management Division/Planning and Regulation at 252-2400. Packet Page -150- 12/9/2014 9.A. Cote), 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 DOCK FACILITY EXTENSION / BOATHOUSE PETITION THIS PETITION IS FOR (check one): ❑ DOCK EXTENSION ❑ BOATHOUSE PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME To be completed by staff DATE PROCESSED APPLICANT INFORMATION NAME OF APPLICANT(S) STANDARD PACIFIC OF FLORIDA ADDRESS 405 NORTH REO STREET CITY Tampa STATE Florida Zip 33609 TELEPHONE # CELL# FAX # E-MAIL MDEBOCK @STANPAC.COM NAME OF AGENT Timothy Hall FIRM Turreil, Hall & Associates ADDRESS 3584 Exchange Ave CITY Naples STATE FL zip 34104 TELEPHONE # 239-643-0166 CELL# 239-253-9137 FAX# 239-643-6632 E-MAIL THALL @TURRELL-ASSOCIATES.COM BE AWARE THAT COLLIER COUNTY HAS LOBBYIST REGULATIONS. GUIDE YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY AND ENSURE THAT YOU ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THESE REGULATIONS. Packet Page-151- 12/9/2014 9.A. Coffer 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 PROPERTY LOCATION Address of Subject Property Lakeview Drive Section/Township/Range 118.14/50 S 25 E Property I.D.# : 61835520008, 00388360006 00394880004, 00395320000, & 61835840005 Subdivision Haldeman's LandingVillage Unit Lot(s) Block(s) Current Zoning and Land use of Subject Property RMF-6(3) & RMF-6 ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE Zoning Land Use N RMF-6-BMUD-R1 & RSF-4-BMUD-R4 Haldeman Creek/Single Family Residential S PUD,RSF-4-BMUD-R4,RMF-6-BMUD-R1 Golf Course & Single-Family Residential E RMF-6-BMUD-R1,RSF-4-BMUD-R4,RMF-6-BMUD-R2 Canal borders Entire East Side w/Single Family Residential W PUD & MH Windstar Subdivision DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Narrative description of project (indicate extent of work, new dock, replacement, addition to existing facility, any other pertinent information): The following must be accompanying this application: 1) A signed, sealed survey depicting mean high water (MHW) and mean low water (MLW), and relevant water depths measured at no less than 5-foot increments 2) A chart, drawn to scale, of the waterway at the site, depicting the waterway width, the proximity of the proposed facility to any adjacent navigable channel, the proximity of the proposed facility to docks, if any, on the adjacent lots, and the unobstructed waterway between the proposed facility and the opposite bank or any dock facility on the opposite bank Packet Page -152- 12/9/2014 9.A. COLUER 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 3) A site plan to scale showing dimensions and location of existing and proposed dock structures, as well as a cross section showing the facility in relation to MHW/MLW and shoreline (bunk, seawall or rip-rap revetment). I '' . � _ _�`_ SITE INFORMATION � Width of waterway: attached ft.; Aerial YNwasuremnentfronmElplat El survey �lvisual esdmmatw [� other(ape�fy) _____ Total property water frontage: ft. Setbacks: provided 36 ft. required 15 ft. 52' Total protrusion of proposed facility into xxator: 52ft. 20x25 zzxsu Numnber mnd �mn��hofveas�ietqusatmoi1it�� 1. ft.. 2. ft., 3. ft. List any additional dock facilities in close proximity to the subject property and indicate the total protrusion into the waterway of each: See attached Sheet For all petitions, in the case of signs located on properties 1 acres or more in size, the applicant shall be responsible for erecting the required sign(s). what is the size of the property? 20.51 Acres Official Interpretations or Zoninci Verifications: To your knowledge, has there been an official interpretation or zoning verification rendered on this property within the last year? E Yes ID No If so, please provide copies. The following criteria, (pursuant to Section 5.03.08 of the Land Development Code) shall be used as a guide by staff in determining its recommendation to the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), and by the CCPC in its decision to approve or deny a particular Dock Extension request. In order for the CCPC to approve the vaquent, it must be determined that at least 4 of the 5 primary criteria, and at least 4 of the 6 secondary oriteria, must be met. Please provide a narrative response to the listed criteria and/or questions. Attach additional pages if necessary. Packet Page -153- 12/9/2014 9.A. Cot'1 my 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 PRIMARY CRITERIA 1. Whether or not the number of dock facilities and/or boat slips proposed is appropriate in relation to the waterfront length, location, upland land use and zoning of the subject property; consideration should be made of property on unbridged barrier islands, where vessels are the primary means of transportation to and from the property. ((The number should be appropriate; typical, single-family use should be no more than two slips; typical multi-family use should be one slip per dwelling unit; in the case of unbridged barrier island docks, additional slips may be appropriate)) See attached sheet 2. Whether or not the water depth at the proposed site is so shallow that a vessel of the general length, type, and draft as that described in the petitioner's application is unable to launch or moor at mean low tide (MLT). ((The petitioner's application and survey should show that the water depth is too shallow to allow launch and mooring of the vessel (s) described without an extension)) See attached sheet 3. Whether or not the proposed dock facility may have an adverse impact on navigation within an adjacent marked or charted navigable channel. ((The facility should not intrude into any marked or charted navigable channel thus impeding vessel traffic in the channel)) See attached sheet 4. Whether or not the proposed dock facility protrudes no more than 25 percent of the width of the waterway, and whether or not a minimum of 50 percent of the waterway width between dock facilities on either side of the waterway is maintained for navigability. ((The facility should maintain the required percentages)). See attached sheet 5. Whether or not the proposed location and design of the dock facility is such that the facility would not interfere with the use of neighboring docks. ((The facility should not interfere with the use of legally permitted neighboring docks)) See attached sheet Packet Page -154- 12/9/2014 9.A. Co 1er 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 SECONDARY CRITERIA 1. Whether or not there are special conditions, not involving water depth, related to the subject property or waterway, which justify the proposed dimensions and location of the proposed dock facility. ((There must be at least one special condition related to the property; these may include type of shoreline reinforcement, shoreline configuration, mangrove growth, or seagrass beds)) See attached sheet 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)) See attached sheet 3. For single-family dock facilities, whether or not the length of the vessel, or vessels in combination, described by the petitioner exceeds 50 percent of the subject property's linear waterfront footage. ((The applicable maximum percentage should be maintained)) See attached sheet 4. Whether or not the proposed facility would have a major impact on the waterfront view of neighboring waterfront property owners. ((The facility should not have a major impact on the view of either property owner.)) See attached sheet 5. Whether or not seagrass beds are located within 200 feet of the proposed dock facility. ((If seagrass beds are present, compliance with subsection 5.03.06.1 of this code must be demonstrated)) See attached sheet 6. Whether or not the proposed dock facility is subject to the manatee protection requirements of subsection 5.03.06.E.11 of this code. ((If applicable, compliance with Section 5.03.06.E.ii must be demonstrated)) See attached sheet Packet Page -155- 12/9/2014 9.A. Cox ** 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 I HEREBY ATTEST THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS APPLICATION IS TRUE AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. I UNDERSTAND THAT, IN ADDITION TO APPROVAL OF THIS DOCK EXTENSION, A BUILDING PERMIT IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION. I UNDERSTAND THAT IF THIS DOCK EXTENSION PETITION IS APPROVED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, AN AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNER MAY FILE AN APPEAL WITHIN 14 DAYS OF THE HEARING. IF I PROCEED WITH CONSTRUCTION DURING THIS TIME, I DO SO AT MY OWN RISK. Signature of Petitioner or Agent Packet Page -156- 12/9/2014 9.A. Cofer Comity COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2300 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 PLANNING AND REGULATION (239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-6358 www.colliergov.net BOAT DOCK FACILITY EXTENSION (BD) APPLICATION SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST THIS COMPLETED CHECKLIST IS TO BE SUBMITTED WITH APPLICATION PACKET iN THE EXACT ORDER LISTED BELOW W/COVER SHEETS ATTACHED TO EACH SECTION. NOTE: INCOMPLETE SUMBITTALS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. REQUIREMENTS # OF SUBMITTED NOT COPIES REQUIRED Completed Application 6 ❑ ❑ Owner/Agent Affidavits, signed & notarized 1 ❑ ❑ Addressing Checklist 1 ❑ ❑ Conceptual Site Plan illustrating the following: 6 ❑ ❑ a. The lot and dimensions where proposed docking facility is to be located. b. All yard setbacks c. Required setbacks for the dock facility d. The total number and configuration of the proposed facilities, etc. (include all dimensions to scale). e. The water depth where the proposed dock facility is to be located and the distance to the navigate channel. (Water depth at mean low tide should be shown at approximately every five(5)feet of length for the total length of the proposed facility. f. Illustrate the land contour of the property on which the dock facility is proposed. g. The dock facility should be illustrated from an aerial view, as well as side view. Electronic copy of documents and plans on CDROM 2 ❑ ❑ Application and Review fees: $1500 Review Fee; $925 Legal Advertising Fee (estimated). Check payable to Board of County Commissioners ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: At the completion of the review process, the applicant shall submit 16 additional copies of the application and 16 additional copies of the Conceptual Site Plan for the CCPC agenda packets. Packet Page -157- 12/9/2014 9.A. C ier ray COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 PLANNING AND REGULATION (239)252-2400 FAX (239)252-8358 www.colliergov.net As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package. I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this petition. A/ AFFIDAVIT' Well, kit.!,i44-i L -MO(1f being first duly sworn, depose and say that we/I am/are the owners of the property described herein and which is the subject matter of the proposed hearing; that all the answers to the questions in this application, including the disclosure of interest information, all sketches, data, and other supplementary matter attached to and made a part of this application, are honest and true to the best of our knowledge and belief. We/l understand that the information requested on this application must be complete and accurate and that the content of this form, whether computer generated or County printed shall not be altered. Public hearings will not be advertised until this application is deemed complete, and all required information has been submitted. As property owner Well further authorize r,.:P67,1; cA<-t,,.?No act as our/my representative in any matters regarding this Petition. Signature of Property Owner Signature of Property Owner ``It(4 'i-N E L Typed or Printed Name of Owner Typed or Printed Name of Owner The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 1.1j4'-\ day of I ,D,.s t-, —r 20 t 5., by 1111 CA-F\--C-'1.- 1 - -- who is personally known to me or has produced as identification. r State of Florida (Signature of Notary Public-State of Florida) County of Collier JJ2 'H- f;-&,,,f l r (Print, Type, or Stamp Commissioned Name of Notary Public) .-4',: _._ r�4 E.:,H ^ EEN tom` I it _ MY COMMISSION r EEF41603 1 EXPIRES October 08.2:n6 I4G 34 0153 IoridaNnlarvScr ire,corn Packet Page-158- 12/9/2014 9.A. Description of Project Haldeman's Landing is proposing to construct a new docking facility that will protrude approximately 52 feet from the MHW line, including approximately 8,070 square feet of over water structure and consists of 42 slips, for the residents of the proposed subdivision. In the area of the proposed docks, the applicant owns the shoreline on both sides of the creek and the bottomlands of Haldeman Creek. The layout will consist of a 473-ft-long by 6-foot-wide shore-parallel dock that includes twelve 30-ft-long marginal slips and 22-ft-long, 27-ft-long, and 30-ft-long by 4-ft-wide finger piers allowing perpendicular mooring for 30 of the 42 proposed mooring slips. The docks are located within a man-altered channel which connects Haldeman Creek to Naples Bay and further out to Gordon's Pass. List any additional dock facilities in close proximity to the subject property and indicate the total protrusion into the waterway of each. Directly across the creek at the proposed development, Sanctuary at Demere Landing, a BDE was granted for docks protruding 49-feet from the MHWL. At Royal Yacht Services, a commercial marina east of Haldeman's Landing; existing docks protrude approximately 46-feet from the MHWL. Primary Criteria 1) The proposed multi-family dock facilitates the mooring of 42 vessels. The property has 938 linear feet of shoreline along the southern portion of Haldeman Creek, which is the location of the proposed docking facility. The remainder of the shoreline will not have docks built on it. The project site qualifies as a moderate ranking under the MPP. This equates to 10 slips per 100 feet of shoreline or a total of 93 slips. The 42 slips proposed is well under what is allowed by the MPP and is also well under the one slip per unit guidelines. Collier County staff has determined that the proposed docking facility is consistent with the Collier County Manatee Protection Plan. The number of slips proposed is appropriate for the proposed facility in relation to length of shoreline, location, and the number of dwelling units proposed on the upland. The lengths of the vessels are also congruent with neighboring properties and appropriate for the size of the waterway. 2) The attached survey indicates water depths are not adequate to moor the vessels in the proposed slips. Dredging will be performed in order to moor the vessels closer to the shoreline and keep the protrusion into the navigable waterway to a minimum. This Packet Page-159- 12/9/2014 9.A. waterway has been dredged in the past so this will be a maintenance dredge and not new dredging. An extension is still required due to the width of the waterway in relation to the meandering MHWL. 3) The proposed docking facility will not impede navigation of the waterway. It does not protrude into the designated channel, as shown on the attached exhibits. The width of the waterway along the proposed docks will vary from approximately 97 feet to over 120 feet in width after the construction of the proposed docks. Therefore 50% of the width of the waterway will remain open and no adverse impacts to navigation are anticipated. 4) There are portions of the proposed docking facility that exceed the 25% width of the waterway when measured from the MHWL to MHWL, but this does not represent the width of the navigable waterway. The MHWL extends upland into the mangroves, far beyond the navigable boundaries of the waterway. When measured from the navigable width of the waterway, there is more than 50% of the width maintained for navigation. The applicant owns the creek bottom lands and the land on the opposite side of Haldeman Creek across from the proposed docking facility. That shoreline has been placed into a Conservation Easement which does not allow docks to be built on it. 5) The proposed docking facility will not interfere with the use of any neighboring docks. There is only one set of proposed docks near the applicant's proposed facility, and in this area, 50% of the waterway width is maintained. The shoreline of Haldeman Creek directly across from the proposed facility is owned by the applicant and was placed into a Conservation Easement, meaning no docks can ever be built on this portion of the creek. This makes the navigable width as large or larger than any other devloped area of Haldeman Creek. Secondary Criteria 1) The proposed docking facility would be constructed on a shoreline with mangrove vegetation and very shallow water. The MHWL is located a substantial distance from the navigable channel, creating a greater distance for the BDE. Also the applicant owns the submerged bottomlands of the creek and the opposite shoreline in the area of the proposed prolect. 2) The proposed dock would be constructed with a six foot wide main access parallel dock and four foot wide finger piers. These are minimum dimensions for safe mooring and pedestrian travel on dock Packet Page -160- 12/9/2014 9.A. designed for vessels in the 25 to 30 ft range. This allows for proper safe access for loading, unloading, and routine maintenance, while minimizing overwater decking area. 3) This criterion is not applicable as this is a multi-family project. 4) The proposed docking facility will not interfere with any neighboring property owners' views of the waterway. The applicant owns the opposite shoreline, most of which has been placed into a Conservation Easement which does not allow docks to be constructed on. There are only a couple of residences across the creek to the east that would have a view of the proposed docking facility. 5) To our knowledge, there are no known seagrass beds within 200-feet of the proposed docking facility. A copy of the SRS is attached for review. 6) According to the Collier County Manatee Protection Plan, the applicant believes that the proposed project qualifies as a moderate ranking but would qualify as a preferred ranking once the maintenance dredging is complete. Proposed water depths are 4- feet Mean Low Water (MLW). No impacts to any native marine habitat is being proposed. Additionally, the manatee mortality rate is less than 20% within a 5-mile radius of the proposed project site. With this ranking and the overall owned shoreline the proposed dock design meets the necessary criteria for approval. Packet Page -161- 12/9/2014 9.A. ENVIRONMENTAL EXHIBITS Packet Page -162- ,.., 12/9/2014 9.A. ,,.-.-g,,,,,. 1 alilso)1011 ,,,,-' . , ,.. -. , .I.,., . ,,.. '.,... ,,..! .• , HT 38014SAVG- i CI . - * -,t)'....." .f..- ....''•4'' 1.1:I• 3 1-,''., --.1 0 ' 5, 63,5L c'.."itz : ' i ' i: <?. - .,,,....,...1 ," ,,,,,,, — .,t,-,_.,,,:i. .4 1-r; '• z < 6Oel 1, Popar .,f?A W Cc, a. ?itw'.iitfg''Iig'e''Jt!'"'-t'-..1.':T t.,-t-i..l.l.'Ii•--•....:--'..,,t 4*4i,1v-1+1,'4'."-.;4,.'—1. 9 .7 •`-*-'.1.,r Aihi„'-i,l..5,'l.7 i1.4-r..'7','".i....."...Tf.'4.C,,,. .<..I 7A,' . . . • 'c':,' , frq,,.^5.".,, Ilr.C' ..g."..11:!...,',...7,1,-,7,, _, •-• ,,-,',or , ,,, 'TM, rt„,tv.,, . LO 'Llid cs‘ 1 Zs?,:.-..- -. i 2 .„, ..y.,."...11•'''' ••,:i.,,,'•'4' ,"AA'fir.."111,-, ''',.•'* ,.•,...i W . U) ' I r".* •"f i(•- .0,...7',•,'„.,,..,11.;....,, 4 •.''t.'',''''.7,' ' ]••••,.•.., '.-,:i`"ktrt z iiiii. ,b.\ =, - s.z. 1 th)f. i 1,,,,,,,...„..,. ,,,..m s,-,*„.k...:.4-r.,v.,1744.4..1.1":"• < i 11 ■tt\r'', < ,•-t•''' ''' . 'Z 0 Pier E i . ,'t,) .- *....- •-i; .)-_, ,..„-' ::::1. ,t c ' tat;11-,-;ef. ....:—,:.2"?. .1- - - .,, . - -.5.- — ix .,,,, Q.. zz, '''''' * 1,...,4:* -.,- t., 4.=„......„-_,,,,, ,ttt,„ 7.. .0 <, I2 • 7 In T• ,,...., - -,.......,_ , - - . -1' I -• rri Z'','' 7.ri- 0 y....e 4,kz . ;.„-.7-. ..... ....., v 1; ..! MEW.% '''. ' .Vag 0 , ,CC <f> 0■ a' ,,., ,..,,,-, .,,,,i,--4, ,-,4 s,A .. ...., JD ne El•• ' 1 . '. ' • 404? :■4,,V:A ... 1 4' '-'■,'": il ididfioeS I ,' • ... . i _____.__ , 1'fr A ' •-p1Sa*Att I Al YA•itsi. 1 1.11 -j - "---,:','_'..)'' -' ao, .,---,,,Pii i.,.P',nr , ;.-4,,,I,'-',. - , .••99,,,...4 ,••-• I , -,,,• , -•- '',-`, ''':•.'''1,••-',",(P:ksg,TAMP,It l'''''''',;9''''.0,2'1''`.t.,Th-•,, ,'•'.t44•09. 10' ullrAfpiri,4,‘A.,,,,. — ,,,, In ..WripAls..4 IP,45 P,.4.', ",..:PPPS,p.s"•',t.Y.5141..,f ,ir'''''AP.,.•)',A.A'or<-IA,.4 , ‘,,,_ ...„ ,_ .,,,,,arisf,:,(f,,:-.1„;c,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,a.,,i,,,* --:,'z- ,...,, 1 ;.... I- 0 -'4 o a P al 1111 ,u... a_ L.,,, .0 u.,,, _ < ' , .c_ .0 <0 -.., (f) c.,),a, t, Z ° ; c7u) 0 CC 1,.•`"••••J'' 1.._ eor I.— '..•; Z 0 I. W < :. a < ,J• I= z t...., : cl...... 0 0 . 1 U-1 L Li Z o_ — 1- LIJ ..... < , . . ,.• ._ 0—,i), ,cc 0 — z in c) tt 2 o ., ......-- , ii.1 • F, a, 0 \ < D Zr:, ,-. 0 U) Z Z c•I ,c.C) (9 st( 0 Z > ..J ...I z — Ili < IL .1. 1.-- 0 Cii C3 0 u) rji a 1- Z W rnlil Z 1.-• 0 LL I • 0 \ D w6.' 2,.a_s6 8 17--< 7) , — ..4. -. c.,5-'., a •0 0 -',4c vA Dn_OLL.0 ./ (n . 1 Lill' f.-- ., 4,,I=5), 0- -,--,-, = z 0 - -.1w 111 Et '- •-,0•,7:-. ,■.> '5 ■ < Al 0 A --. 6-- gv - 7 ,..:63 Lu> Y,„, 1.- .. . —I ._, •• LIJ LL. -c73 CI-) '''' "7: ■Li a =',...'e ' °. • 0 EA - -9C '7.1 • c J . >-- co —a) ,,,, — ., , , „.,. MI k 4.-. 1.... 0 <EL 4 --= 3 = -j = >1 a- , = :; Ali:4;Z*-- ; 0 < co W litlin =I 107.0, 5' w -, .1 ...H- A can v 41 , 1 4, E3 ,-. ,44„ t. G111' ,- ' :',.,. ,. 0 T Lii Ill • ca cp / ----'-i Packet Page -163- p 1B002 5-fisherman s vaagelCADASHEETIPE MASAI-COUNT-1118002 5-BDE DWG Locatton 2'12 , v 006,...siccTotilizkc 1,,. 12/9/2014 9.A. w W (W LLI Z Z N In Q a.- a w < U Ili Z a0e 6 Q W 0 h cc o rt O w Z co IQ W - N(n0 �o, ZO 000 i WOO 5 ' N Q Q CF) Q ' d N m a5 co �p"�+1 q l�� hl � O W 5 0 I Q ion 4i rt +a u- o o3 U-o CO Z ❑ H QZ}� w� 0 a. 0 Z 0 ZOW0 D < . ' W v In -§Z,Fw,O m m N ®..r,�r�w� 1 O ,c(U pZ f p i.r�aye esR_sw .. �...• _tea a >-n< - c d 0 'Zr co: �y1 -w (.2}>> m ❑ z W w H Q �. * I Z v 0 v v ET, o h ,, co 0 2 LL W 0 0 U N.1 W-49><G-E 2 n U r 1 °� D LL .E.1 I 1 O ` l % J F 6 n o k W cam'- o in EC 4 Q a (co N. = N 0 N U CD - _ w �.5 , ❑ 0 0 0 co Ni- 1__I M .o 'A 5O 7 i �)V] .p M n.-- Q �. U cC w Q.W O c:: c) n."" p Ua O c Q t Z Li�- LC w O ri Q ❑ aw pww - -> °> q C Z _JZ a Paz a (. - O W Q -Z Qa d.� J.. CCSw ', :n V 0Q = wz F- F¢-- = 556 � o a 0 O _ ¢ U 0D a J � 0. Z m Q s-. `a 2 °c co W r Q m I- N H ¢ co Q w E Q• ° Q ¢ c.,) CO d � a 2 _1 a 1-= 00 0 0 - a X I rn w r, w 1 a O N 0 M. N N. (N 0' �• ro'� d0 h N- V' V. (Q.((j i`` .Z �— �y E / \ w Packet Page-164- (((002.5-fishennan'svIllege(CAD\SHEET I°ERMIT-COUNT 9002.5-6DE.DWG Flucc 21121201., 12/9/2014 9.A. , . ....,:u. ;t... ,,,,,, z•:.,-• ' Lu,cn 1—: . ti, 0 LO Lii D Z1 0 cr, it N / ...._....... 7, ,! , :9,1 t.\''' ''''' .161.1:‘:',1.,:'' _ [-', 4,-, , ,n z . + . di —H w a—,,:c z 9 , u)f,iii.1.1 - a-.,-w ,. LI w111:1 g Z:31.j. ,L 1. _ZW 64"r I iiK 1 1- ili,cr ,, LEL'.—(1) g g nt3 lu-.1i '.4 in d. ecc.101-,3z2xcaca „„cnv) 0 UJ al 4., 0 S- 0 >..P i 2 1 U.0wIt .OLL .. P,Z,..u. cn uiZajtUo2 1..L.9CL>,Z ! ... Z III m..1-,,.._.u- 0 m 14.1 rx , •,^. , . . , , alt (o- ge,_ ,Tomtni-r (t6i)-1-:...,gc!"Irt uj-n-Z°ilik(.1Z- I el • ' VIE:P.,4: l' -- ■:'wl I. '1" §Z(1),..,,a,.._,....,..21._ct__I--, k- z..0 . iiirX!`,0.=t uj 0<0•-•._j-- C.S L.I.1111 Lli 0_I ; 0 - . RE.60,,,..1 2>••_icc...-JoomnmDoi F,,, m 2 g I- '1 < A A ;1 , ItSfgt„: LSAZAAAAAAA A IN C-, -- 1 ,7, LLTi U1 ZvOvvvvvvv v v ER32, ,T, 0 I Es;;,• ! ,rskirzi , ..., ..,,,,, 1.1.1 ,..--_....,,,., L. , ,L, ,, I , im,,, LL1 Lu ,. ■ CZ> ' eC Ct ,, . , .c - , Z o , 0 rz- ,::,,;- ! '1: "• . 2 0_ , ' f=D,,t ''' ,Tz fr t- co ■:' N. I- d_ tu (f) C) Z 0 N: o ..7° U) o 0 LL.1 ''' 0 N01.1.025 r.. .u2 0 - 0 rt, co LiJ 00 < t2 w u) : 1----,_ L1J , Cpit I C.) I 0 • , 1:4] , 1 ° 4 t zr.r, r ••'• ,, , ,-....,_,,IP 1 1 • • I — tr-, - - .__ , U) ___, ___ CV 0 i 7-+' tN ... : w . = c11 t 03 _.. 0 z . .. - 5 Z . .. ,,, NI , : ', ,,,,, :-.. , o - f--.,%. ,. CC , = Z \■ (---„ , .) , _ z , t . .....c., ...„ .44., —, L..,,—__—r.- [ -' 1 Cr) -.. ,, L1.1 Z Lu Z :J. —I < '': cd 2 0 7 -4.W : ,_. r /— ui -21 01 C) 0 '"" 1 I At I, 2 0 :73 p. I— F.... 2 ' ; - IN, r) Z i 0 in b 4 VI E L) '' 1 '-- Lti " CC —J 2 Z (NI cn 4 •-•-, e Ili ,4 -' - ----\ ''' 2 LI iu , .,. ..v,..,., ,-,„, t L% Ia 4 __. V.,. , CI 5' < 0 < co o ,5, < p19002 5-0r.hermans villagelCAD1SHEE11PERMIT-COUNTY%)002.5-13DE DWG Proposed 2/12_Packet Page -165— 12/9/2014 9 A I -------7--"/ : 31411HO!VIN re Kr riesr) , . 4-- 2)1- - t, ...„., f 111.1_,..41111:211:Sst,re3N11 HOIVRI g-) :1 4•1 c\1 sr w In N I.11 4.114,a I 34 *---sN.,.. :1:-='' ':..::'7:4.-:NN7°°b- --- -- 1 (D 1 Z < I ff 1 , , _ In -f-41 rn --.) , "LI —...../ 4. +I — , b -1 I < ' 0 , ■ i < >4 . 04 ILI ol V I o -i w , 0 1 ' , 4 < )',...• PtiVi'Ar*.,-c= c0 § 0 0 . 216 2P t. 0 = 0 I 1 ‘ LIJ 1 i if -FP (11 1 z , v tin Lu A i V/ P, -2 ...„ 4^ 1 2- Cj.--; \ 1 L w a : 1 '41 z v I :1 Lii M .... , •,,,,,,,: EL r_ 1 _1 , f , ' < ‹ ' I 0 H e 0 ' < 0 a00 X z t 1 m 1=o o • o . ',•,L_;' Z t1 E V 4 .., 1 t- M 7.1.7.1 =, d u) u) ul 0 M ---'cs 4' w 2 ujo(„2,>,_, ,, ccwo -.'k- 1 ' k , c:< CC 0 U-I LU ,c)0 0›-9 >- 75-E-.: •E' ,,, z =0 E—, „,..cC >,"-' _c'l ..= 2 4,•EGX4''.cn F, - ., z - (r)Kc00-=',.0 col- +11 s 0. -(7) ',.',' F, V 20° 2DIE .12dzcc< 7-I ,-', s,..,._ L) .'' -§zFr.)025,0 =Iiii=L_Lig ,. Lt.; <11J,2 L)DOC/4(40<0-0_ 1 wo<0,--,_, tii 0 I . ....fc*Z0a.--,<1--n>» , F- ••••' A Z A A A A A A A A A ZVOVV V VV VV v v \' E. _CI I 2 ..:--. Lv p\9002 5 fisherman s mliagelCADISHEETTERVIT COUNTA9002 5 BM DWG Prop A 2/1212C Packet Page -166- -, 12/9/2014 9.A. , . .u: . ‹, v)CO-J •LL LD LA 0 U-) LUD221,(0,, l■- ,r) CV U)ZOts>",r ' d, .c.D . C) U- ■ I 0 DUtuxtqce o...nocLr...n. 7.F I . , 1 Zwc •• 1, .. .- 0-st.41 t)' 1--Zu.IWU) t ti1c;AZ g , Zo4=3 ILIOw=c>Tri v) mK".1° ' `r) I , N. ccooknznceoz 650 0 — . , . . E z z„,,w 9.,.„cc u-_,ca u..0 9 uirx,Lu z LU ,,c -=•tc-i-rz +1 0= o --zoz >-,,,o--- _ , 0 cn o ,Th ;;Lucoce \ ■ 1..... , ' Oi•••••02SP.: ..F_Ei(DEt< ZO Q.....r w...Zw..... §-Z XU)0 Z..HC 0 0 D 1--..”'M•--1,alLi 0) N W}>.5-Z•et ' 1.11 C"CO"'...1:3CDUJEJ.ILIJO,..1 ' ''' '' ''' ' Z ■ WZIOC"<F*'0>»,-0< 0 f , I , ... ••• W=>._JMOCDOWD O- CO S . . 2 1- ?..,, 1 E-H--i<o.=-1-coomcnv). I- z z wg u , C, AZAAAAAA A A A iT33l L11 / i < )'-r zvovvvvvvv v v , •,1- i <-) P 1 l'c' 11 '''14:11i':11'li '- ^7----7—H" 111 11.1 Et 00 ° Oz „ H -1. CO 0 U-I k C ) < 1 . Oa \ " 1+ 7'c: i , " < ft [ .7,,, p o ! . II +. 2 ..„ : I :7- EL , , ---,--, EM72 1 t4F,. • , ui i < -5 ,,,e 2-,r,,,,,, ,_ ., M 0 , z "- ''''' ''''' - ' 1-61 El : FIM...-25.1tte .1 '..... 1 ,. , .. r < 2 11.1 ,:lr4,7f.0.7.1,77-.'"-- I CD , ---—---0: ii _, ,...., E..- . — - 1?-c, • 2 < 6 4' 1 2 o '-' VD ,.., ' . ,—, C l* ■• -_ ''''''L, 'X,. 0 1,Ida`..A-'.,7.,'; ..‘,. C 1/1 ,(1. ‹t` )1 . i < -)''' ' ' .. ,— CD.. ...." 2 ,,,•—• . = CI •T ...,.) , CD oDi s,2, • > < Z.V.:7:17'-7-;,;41k4:-' t = • Ntri,-4;' ''' , - --J12 r4 -., ,--• eL, •--, A ,__, = clo -• ...1 <L>•7_, c 2 4' u ---e--- ' ' N i I nEl•NOLLOBS i 0 0 1 e 3NI1 HOLM IME EM mg ME Ong MIE .11:1116E NO ME EU 9 NI1 1-101V141 8 0 I 03 ---„r .,,..N 01102S ,....---' ' , ' - 't,, p 18002 5-fisherman s viltagetCAD1SHEETIPERMIT-COUNTY10002 5-BDE DWG Prop B 2/12/20 Packet Page -167- 12/9/2014 9 A 1 , , ?: ..: (1)Z r--• .st `"I • 0 . 0 LL w I tO N di , \ ...---\ b 1c7-----------00 I I I 1 \ I i r0 • I,■ - ' '1 1 A III ■ ll'I ' IV 1 11; , Il I ' ie. EL-- r'•pi Z X . w _j E c,n c)Cl-:C.7.,CL `•-• ."7, [• 0 • 0 p5 6.,c zt,„,, 0, fx c, 1 cd - •a a-4 iii 1 3 Z cc --'`5 til 2..J .,,' 7-7-juj rjz (-)w I— c,cc 0 -3 co 65 w Ca EL ; r.i CL LL re c 2 7,z'0.4 0 I-I w 0 • ID 5 c) , .ctzceLoo zujuigtxu- t.L9cc>z 1 .. Lc, , 1 cn Z LI 0, F- <r z -.• ..L.1 9 1 I I z z In 0 Cv)1. .. (/)—,, ....•N-•0 co 0 fr m t.-. , . 0- , , .0. 0, 1- () m(1)1- F- Ec i;i . .....P 0 ie rt a 5 Z . , I 1 u)02r OW ni....[[-I-= ' N 1 y , _, pt,, N 0 ,..• , 7 6 8 4 alL21.:(0`"r,_1--.011.111.1L140j ll C' L11< <1--•<Lir W CC•-•I °•wi>-_ImmoorcDD= c) : ,9 ,-,L . 2 r: 0AZAtt AAAA A A A ' 9. G .,-czalii) 4v0vvvvvvv v v 1 rARrs `e,,T 0 \ ,,, ,,., 1, , -,,";i LIJ 1 ,,, \ ,, , ,, , ,„,, LI 1 , i- , , ,,,,1 ■ , , I ''';•., 0 i - I , k t . • Z aim VA t , 1 , , p -13 Nouoas H al ma imms ase Imam 9 N11 14 31`011 . ■ 1 .tl NO11335 < 0 n =0 •-• LIJ =,. , . EL ; 3 0 LI 0 ( 1- r ■ _„1 z r ',,,,,, , UJ 2: , . , 1 3> ..... ..„ — .. , W ---. ..._. = o , . z ..,- 7, L1,1 Z - , , Li] u j Z LI i•—• czt .2 . ' ,,_,‘ _. E4.7,\el■rn C) , '• -g",?' '....,-,kr'', ii DO u.1 Iti E I . , ° I I 1 o E . Z 0 . < 't t.. .■ ii. ■ 1 p\9002 5-fisherman s Wlage1CADSSHEETIPERMIT-COUNTYWDO2 5 BDE DWG Depths 2/12/2,Packet Page -168- 12/9/2014 9.A. 1 , LU CI) I- : III 3Nri H31.I ars ow* Moe mos Nom atill I4,1,171 ■ , ,, I .V.NOIngS U)CO..-1 4, •U. >. . LO .--III-• UJ0000., . N .,., qj di i 1■ , , > MI . C4 I-0 •- 0 ci 0 r‘j , 0 g, , ,to I I i a..D t)CL 7-=.•CL ''' 0 •7. Ce Z 13- + 11 tin' w Cb 0, ! I . I 1 I 0 I--w<—.2 ° -• . 1 I 1 1 I I I, Z(1)re ,.• " s FZ -- un W.-.,....-LIJ-CO it UJ cs1, Z i 1.-C)LL li:D:Z CL } Z C4:3 ' . 1 I -(..)LI)-'2E:3:3 ■••• i fl 2 1- 0 ill 0 ct ' 0 cc 0 6 0 ,ui,..., r.., to / 1 1 1 1 a 1 I 1 ' ',it, C)LU uj 1,,()c)›- z›-tij lil Li-0 cc Ct . u_ •' ,I.:,- uj LuzujwoCC W>Z Z ' t `.■ i( i i 1 0 P CC W 1-1--.1 C.)0 Ill w ",,•• 'i, l■ / •1 i -zz5 ,,.. 0 ,-,1-- 0 It 1 -Z= ••CCoM LU 0 II 1 I lit■ • I ' <1.Up0OU)Ce0<0=11-Ea. , •7 ... E 4 c, 0 i I cc tic. , , I • c•=5 ; i , : 1 nr i C)''1.-0 0_.2:,LU>-)->-Z,ec 'A " • t , ,„.iit/ . 1 Luc),c, —J cD w.w c)_.., 0 1 CAZA A A A A AA 0 A I I, , I ■-r) ! 1,1 U t ) °x 0 0 0 0 0 0''0 0 v ' ■ LIJ ! \ . , (:) , . 0 , . . , , s . . , . , z . , ,, , 1 . . 2 . ■ , . , ■ , 111 a = F P 0 , i UJ , •7r- ' i i , , UJ Z , E , f ,I LL 1 ' •, , i UJ i p 1 ' [• > i •. 0 , I '0 , ' 04 CD ' z F 1 .,, , r--) s':=2 ••••2 . I — — 1-:-)' '''llc' :: i a con 6 s., a , . Lu CID p I ” . 1 ' ' 1 ill Z = W 2! :3 P- - El ;z:r w Z :3 ,...,co C■f) ..-r L . , Z 1 Lu --- g,t1 ff...e. .- 11, ,?, -I i . . Z-4,-,9Xc7-!,' , w ■ 'T." i-- Z (.D ZO b ,',.; — c), ,. f.s?. ''''",......,...--7-.... ,.., . , LC)I- -I '' I , 0 '. • '''' . , < (NJ •i ...4. I , ; , •,, . , LLI Is • 0 '••■ . o < CLI IR . C) . ---- . ,..w p 19002 5-fishemlen's vfflageVGADISHEETTERMIT-COUNTY19002.5-5DE DWG Depths-Sect A'Packet Page -169- 12/9/2014 9.A. ! , I . -1. *I (1) C) g 9.0 . m u, a_,- co z x t W ...., . CV th I ' 5 co Z ; 1 • [i 1 i , 1 • rt Z a- +a. - a, 0) I li 1 1 ''., II z 0 t ..r_ • 0-4 CLI i I i I CCCCW0c; (1) (!) WOW ; " * * * C \1 \ I 0 ' uj 0 LO=>z-.! 0 CC 111 0 , M \ \ CC5I i' i z 0 M C-L C/j* CC 0 c)1;5 cii crwz .._, L.L._,,,oc)n-Jw-f22". 7: • • . . , ri • 0 w aj. - —c)>-CO >„ I 1 tLinceCt.410, .. BsZwill uj Z ,. c) o —CC;- v,., ,. ,..! ..J ei !.- --00 11/ 0' 2!c)C) ..I--ii 2E W.0 I, — ZI "CC 6CtIJJ U-10 \ I i 1 1 1 • I H ll 1, - ,1 i ! r±. -..2 a' i ; ' I i I I ' • 1 L I 1 I r Lu C3 <c)Cl...,__I CO LIJ LU LIJ C)_J &x3 i>--1 cc000ce=z= o z ,t,,,F._I<a_ co co r-t- , .? L' cJ , () I I `' 1 1 AZ'AAAAA AA A A _ w ZVOVV vVVVV v V ,„,...- I ; ■ , 1 , rr■ U, V) .......-...-,...........-, . , . . . • . , Ill , . . 1 , ..__. W , I , . . . , ,•,, , i 0 P cyi 7 . _ . , (f) 17---- . . 0 :., ,, : ? LIJ ' . . . 1, . , c , , , i . ,I , , ,„,1 1, I , ,, , ._ .... • , . .,,, uJ : Il i i] L1J I - • , . : ,. , , c.., ., ..- , . 6 i 0 . . 7N;;■,,....,,) 0 '/'; I,'• 2 „ . ' I • q• • 'I 1', . ...I ',. t • < . Z ,,," i Fc _ i , , , _., i -: ! . '' ■ F CLO s's+ Bs! • • 0 1 ' 1 I ._. r• N c, N , C.) 0 7.7-,1- •87-, . < ,1 • , i • . 11 Cs4 (N V . Ca C-) -a , 2 . cn . ,,, ,,., , ; o i , - • ----- 6 , 0 •,. . . . (1? 1 , 1,. ..,.. , -•,= Z . . , . . . , . „ - . J , 1, - I-- . ,. . . . . • . 1. 1 p 7,71- in '.--, ,._> •-, ,.,,, __ ,,.- ,- . ., , I i 1 r , r , ! . .,' --''',....."1 ''Ir, I-. ' , r, :' =0.3 P.--5 67'• • ¢ , ' , • , 1! , - - ,....) ,-,, , . . , , .• c..,-. a ..L.5. .„... r, i40,. — . : z• Z-'1.9 '.'-c4 c ••' ' i i , , ! ; 11 • , \',, . i . • ., • 'cik-cf-,4,,,, • 'V- - . , -,. N ,I 1 ' ! ,H,..•o i . , ('....g) C) I gN11146W1 ip■mem.wali al ,. _,/, ...._,.._______ , I i , .V Notia3s 3M1 HD1VVq i 0 < CD - E • ,— :JJ _ 08002,5-fisher man's villageICAD l SHEETIPERMIT-COUNTIB002 5-BDE.DWG Depths-Sed B Packet Page -170- 12/9/2014 9.A. to r �` ,, (3go0c, m , aP. p ..�..,.e. , a22-mzrk o L � = 0• � ; QUO ,O CS o Z• a ., n=.�Ua�a >O Q sy { } C7�ZQ is Ci �o ? ,t ff w j. § zz Ekii ¢ qvz 5, III to 4 11 I} ," +� w40-C170 tai TWO ;- O. •!� }a �'. '�a.�r °a' tx '�' :WZ WW O.�.W�lLpjZ. Z Q A , 3' a1zQ i zz+°gi�o ,,0000 ' 3 ;_ • zoo ��'' ' �oZW� rE • "--'�E t ; 1 �w(n pn C,0 01—� — m N Q J J dl m'\f w� "-�"dyr t g. D-'.ix<,(80_,-(2>›>--3,-.----,W F- f-u.W 4}�a}O n, �-,;" - o y. ' .. ... Cix '§ - a i! W O Q Q 4 ti w W O Q,,L` klJ'r t 4» ` �"'l 'J 4 O. Q 0]0 fV'to fv . .� - 0 OvOv v v v v v n' n r w W yn 1 g C•� „ V O U v v v v v v v v N 4< �j � , UJ L)`4 I. a i i. Ili ,",.: ��` Diu is „1 W t o a< c. . ':::.., .L' -. tt Li JCD ,„-;'.N' !x A .a- b.:tea •+ JT 5;'I •r O 661 fX 'Aer :-:::-.,' •4=:),,,i1 " ,,-;.',"; '7'_:'.'"'S'..,),:?",,t.--',7„;.,-1-2.-..,,:::','''''--,"'"',--,-7, ,- ''"-,.-,,„.--.7,,-;,"".y...„,!!.;4.-':::7t4-7j et.1-17.471e, — ..- .: ... , -, ;,.-,•-,•415,,.., Oil i--;:•" ;;;-•., ' ,6-4-;;•;---' -- ' .; ,. v O ,-=',ccn rG1� -- u� , y�2 2 �`,5--.'� �� --',::,..•,:41., � O �-� c v 4, °? �' 3 r '> ." IN , cW nrya � mi r o> ~' .• ' ' i , 0 Y 'wr rte ' * r{ 1 ' 1 ` 27 N t ! w' -" r , ; x" ` r "f i lt. O e vv n : ',', s • 03 -1 • ,,t O 4,Z:� 1C] t`al w X e r Ei-171Pket Page -o ial 2/t 21201 acOlNT1000p0002.5 fi hermais vilege(cAD1 SNEETPERMIT-C 25-9DE.DWG 12/9/2014 9.A. E W>5 : I W W... -2,10,,,,, m . N �t 0 o o 0 0 , ❑ L F W �.1=❑mZ0 a W❑ J (.. Ur 1., aDva � > v Q CC.?_2w,.,, ..Wa±¢ E a9Wl CC s. IOLLW Za °�' ZNz f WOco_❑xJ N co aOO1 N e a..WZr[0r2QC• 0Q=., a o Qlla'ZZ+?°ez=0 y (J)— i OO�w0CrnZ .- . ,., o Lo 0 zOO2�a ..8tWZWU f7 Q ��?o�oo�oQO�ai e, Da a u,wZ a-+ ° 0 a❑oaia-a❑WItCL�NI H=� �WoOO�»> o mo g S f--JQn.PF-[o❑cnu)co_ F z d U I 4: O A Z A A A A A A A A A � � w W I Z V O V v V V V v v v v o 6 ° L to i Qi" L I ' in HUt LLI V t; l W t. ® a L z b o . n 41 - — m �¢ 1 L!J ' 4,, c...) ..: z 0 ! 4., U Li.1- V CID <11 GO LLI W U 4 . i o ■ U Q I 1 4 v , ry V tiH_CA CCs C> ...a r x O m 3 0 o= On = cc ES c �sW � 'I a�v g" 5z ra E—+ w / ,„ z -ti 7,13 p'.18002.5-fisn 1 Yl9 erman's villagelCADSHEETPERMFT-COUNT002.5-8DE.DWG Section A 2112 Packet Page -172- 12/9/2014 9.A. le F NIT' 1 N W 5A 0 '- U) i ,siir DI - U) f Z i > � 0 m cv el. moo • S ~ d o v z a 0 m o °z z z ui ¢ w w Y I .f t W PP .c W V C 1 � '� Ema z u o Cii °° a W e V U CO `., con c ''!!II ; coo 0 O I oI U.I U 0 Et o a n_ v m 's LLi 1 LL 5-�,.. e •o x o rn v� ( O o h v. m N O m 'o u- LS. °-lla+a 063M ewe] m • z V r .. ti¢'' S a.y.w Q a z FOW�=za w wNz �r o c� �! 2 UWhZE JJ j. JCDw �. ^� 4 4 { W� �Up'CO Cl) ' � �� C€ W '�' 'tc OOW'4-2O�mB. 0 >o = = W.Z W.WRX.�.7wQcC WZ '�-+ cam _2 o . , cc g PJF � � i o9.¢OOaJCDwwwOa o Za Z V O v v v v v v v v v p190025-fishemians village\CADISHEE1\PERMIT-COUNTY19002.5-BDE.DWG Section B 2112 Packet Page -173- 12/9/2014 9.A. w , J in o a, m W LLN di 0 e J 0 Z Z W W ¢ W Z iii. zW 0:Z 0- a O u a S Z O d W e Z Z.od U W�.�.,_!.J J C7 W rn i ' a.L.Z�.rCDMQV1J O=Q.S. 0. _ __ W 41 O 6op�z2�om . I I wFolw =oMw 3 i = iJc s z Q Z2ct>-°S=O OWE I= 1- OK zO2> SaQQ�OZW¢ M >zv.O�HOui=F-zJV N g d W a W a 00 0 2_ ^ � a a ' 2 o o �rn a_W> >�z¢ d cD W�QO�J.-�C9 W W WOJ Z z a� WS}_i�COOSD»JF o o D �p O m w H F.1--I Q a I-F-.co O 0 0 0 I- z z 5 o CD ILI zvOv vOvv vv' v v aoo ° X N W U X W O o 11.1 U O z z W I Q QW in ❑ ¢ -` z U F. U U❑ (4)�.q UF' U s 0 10 H JZa Z ii CD ` wo I ❑ wa (n I- T� ❑ - z IW U zO r n Q J d JO o b U N . .= r p O M P C0 L) .2 r Jz C? c5 _ W O r ❑w E z so o =N I- U) -C73w v ! ..1' C) v .. U G d H_ M ui / < CO p:\90025-fisherman*villageLCAO\SHEETPERMIT-COUNTY19002-5-FL0EDWG Sector,C 2112 Packet Page -174- 12/9/2014 9.A. , w u, ,N w , r 0 sf' i I Z ' , < ) .s, No 41E. el 1 o 1 tn . . . 0 •I ,, , . . d.. ' I A U) ) , ) 0 V) 1, ..',.. ) J 01 r• ...; , ., , t , 0 co C.::::1 ,2:, .,. , , 1 / ; 1,1J t :) , (7, i .. rf 17Z . .i-- 0 cr6) I t 6..., E..."1 '1....14 Z ,, 6 _-© . — II co) _ Lii 4, 0 z Z 0 — W :7 .,4 I -■ .0 U 0 < C 1 0 - a .. ...I .▪ I fl i ,r 'i J , U , , . i 14 I i MIME . 1 i . I I •—■ 47., •-•-1 ''.' " tit U-1 It 1— co to_1 1.1. , ..., • 1 Cl-—1—co-Z›C : W _.:1 • La. —' cci-0 .- 0 6 a „,, c--.403 - ., 0 w>On ct — 4 z + )..1- cI 17:z u j til di co , w r';)Z i—Ou_SIZCL > ZNT) > '= 1 2 OW U H M:1 7.-1 66, _—i Lu Woe cn1 1J.. L'-' 7.1 •1-Li 0 Cn Z>1"Ii 01 i Z CD Z<U) ..1 ■ I<U) ..-.<L> < 0 W 1 Cr00(1)1-"Z 2 iInal 0 * 0 " — w - 0>-CO (l) 0 ^, tur 0 LI_C 1 Lt Lo 0 u. r z?,-,11.11 w Z u d W 6 CC U.'',?CL 5,-'Z t•—■ , i EeLuii-1-1-1---loocowx =. P'- 1 ZZ5,. 0Z o eni-- j, a ZO°>2Z ' I—OZW‹ c, l'',..° I O 1 w0<0°_JMOW11.111.10_) /.44 :7-- cnU.1<_JO<F-<WZMX—IH .-E1 W 1>- OOtZDDO 1— .1 . CAZA A AAA A A A A 4v0vvvvvvv v v p 19002 5 fisherman s vtilege1CAMSHEETIPERMIT-COUNTY19002 5-BDE DWG Section 0 2,0 Packet Page -175- 12/9/2014 9.A. UNANIMOUS WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF STANDARD PACIFIC OF FLORIDA GP, INC Packet Page-176- 12/9/2014 9.A. UNANIMOUS WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF STANDARD PACIFIC OF FLORIDA GP,INC. The undersigned,constituting all of the directors of Standard Pacific of Florida GP, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Corporation"),take the following action by written consent in lieu of a meeting of the Board of Directors pursuant to Section 141(f)of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware: ELECTION OF OFFICERS, RESOLVED, that the following persons hereby are elected as officers of this Corporation, to such office as appears opposite their respective names, their terms of office to commence immediately and to continue until their successors shall be duly chosen and qualified or until their earlier resignation or removal: Scott D. Stowell Chief Executive Officer David Pelletz President-Southeast Region Jeffrey J. McCall Principal Financial &Accounting Officer&Treasurer Daniel A. Grosswald Division President Jay Lewis Division President Raymond James Birkholz Division President Frank Messina Division President Jerry Tomberlin Jr. Vice President- Finance Alexis K. McIntyre Vice President- Finance Michael Metzkes Vice President-Finance John P. Babel Secretary Denise Adams Vice President Michelle Bogarin Vice President Michael C. Debock Vice President- Land Acquisition Bradley Wightman Vice President -Construction Michael T. Collins Vice President-Construction Robert Perry Smithwick II Vice President-Construction Charles Bolen Vice President- Construction Barry Karpay Vice President - Land Operations Maurice Rudolph Vice President- Land Operations Carolyn Morrison Vice President- Sales & Marketing Harmony Michelle Munger Vice President- Sales& Marketing Peter Winter Vice President- Sales & Marketing Gary Keating Sales Representative Michael S. Miller Director of Construction Andrew Abel Director of Land Development Dana Solomon Director of Purchasing Olaf Nillies Director of Purchasing Steven Dassa Director of Purchasing Thomas Russell Spence Director of Master Plan Operations Nathan Lambert Purchasing Manager David Vazquez Assistant Treasurer RESOLVED FURTHER,that the above-listed persons he, and each of them hereby is, authorized to negotiate, approve, execute and deliver, as designated officers of the Corporation, land purchase and option agreements,joint venture agreements, financing agreements,development, land use and other entitlement applications and agreements, and all other agreements and documents relating to the real estate development and construction business conducted by this Corporation(including in its capacity as a partner in a partnership or member of a limited liability company),and f308011JLK Packet Page -177- 12/9/2014 9.A. RESOLVED FURTHER, that the foregoing persons and positions are the only officers of the Corporation at this time and any other officers of the Corporation are hereby removed from office. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Unanimous Written Consent as of the 14th day of August,2013. Scott D. Stowell 7'� I � a Jeffjy J cCall 1308011JLK Packet Page -178- 12/9/2014 9.A. RESIDENTIAL BOAT DOCK EXTENSION (EDE) PRE-APPLICATION MEETING NOTES & SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST PL# 2013-1765 Date: 9-11-13 Time: 10:30 Conference Room: C Project Name: Fishermen's Village Boat Docks Site Address 2480 Lakeview Dr Applicant: Jeff Rogers,Turrell-Hall Phone: 643-0166 Assigned Planner Fred Reischl Meeting Attendees: (Attach Sign-in Sheet) Submittal Checklist is attached to Boat Dock Extension Application Notes: 2k) Ytnty 176- 'g60€2 R. "A Wir4 1 J 4- Coutyr y tai A- tAtof GI,6- SC---11 pco,o0E.5 F vt.k aiticti, Inc\ Pt pror 1-D otel-cA,-0 atJ'Iti;1114/16 (6_11AA -(e9 er? ra_f1 S — S /0/.‘=;emi /2 /)/.1. fox )1-,r2 704?,4( P / - /21 & KJ J // ) Fe=1,? .71-1e,4* t(2 C,1 19- I /1/(:- /E72 1-(77K /6 (>it ,I2) 4/2", ) ( -j 12 t- C11 1°- ,4 1? .24/3-I &nit PO 3 Cb5 : u);7(tc_JcF, ${- , , ■„; - Packet Page -179- 12/9/2014 9.A. FIRE CODE GENERAL COMMENTS: Ensure compliance with ALL applicable sections of Chapter 18 of the currently adopted edition of the Florida Fire Prevention Code (FFPC) regarding fire department access and water supply. Pursuant to FFPC 1:section 18.2.3.4.1.1,fire department access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20-feet. On the SDP Cover Sheet, please provide the following information for the proposed structure: (1)the type of Construction per the 2010 FBC; (2)the total square footage under roof(conditioned and non- conditioned) and (3)the sprinkler intention for new structure. NOTE:this specific information shall match what is depicted on the architectural drawings that will be submitted under a subsequent building permit, as both the building permit drawings and the SDP Cover sheet will be scrutinized to ensure the information listed above is consistent on both sets of documents. Please provide a current flow test(i.e.within 6-months of submittal date)and hydraulic modeling (if necessary) demonstrating that the Minimum Required Fire Flow and Flow Duration pursuant to FFPC 1: section 18.4.5.2 and Table 18.4.5.1.2 can be achieved for the proposed structure. The hydraulic modeling shall be provided from the flow hydrant (i.e.wherever this happens to be located)throughout the run of fire line and to the various nodes up to or past the proposed structure and shall include pipe friction losses based on the Hazen-Williams formula. if the New Model Sales Center does not exceed 5000 square feet, then please provide a current flow test and hydraulic modeling (if no hydrants are close to structure) demonstrating that the Minimum Required Fire Flow and Flow Duration pursuant to FFPC 1: section 18.4.5.1.1 can be achieved for the proposed structure. The hydraulic modeling (if necessary)shall be provided from the flow hydrant(i.e. wherever this happens to be located)throughout the run of fire line and to the various nodes up to or past the New Model Sales Center structure and shall include pipe friction losses based on the Hazen- Williams formula. If the New Model Sales Center does, in fact, exceed 5000 square feet,then please provide a current flow test and hydraulic modeling (if no hydrants are close to structure) demonstrating that the Minimum Required Fire Flow and Flow Duration pursuant to FFPC 1: section 18.4.5.2 and Table 18.4.5.1.2. The hydraulic modeling (if necessary)shall be provided from the flow hydrant (i.e. wherever this happens to be located) throughout the run of fire line and to the various nodes up to or past the New Model Sales Center structure and shall include pipe friction losses based on the Hazen-Williams formula. in addition, provide on the Cover Sheet the type of construction per the 2010 FBC,the total square footage under roof(conditioned and non-conditioned) and the sprinkler intention for the New Model Sales Center. Show existing and proposed fire hydrant locations. Packet Page-180- 12/9/2014 9.A. Please identify on the ICP Cover Sheet the total square footage under roof of the largest proposed single-family structure. if any of the new proposed single-family structures do not exceed 5000 square feet of fire flow area,then please provide hydraulic modeling(if no hydrants are close to structure) demonstrating that the Minimum Required Fire Flow and Flow Duration pursuant to FFPC 1:section 18.4.5.1.1 can be achieved for the proposed structure. The hydraulic modeling shall be provided from the flow hydrant (i.e.wherever this happens to be located)throughout the run of fire line and to the various nodes up to or past the newly proposed single-family structures and shall include pipe friction losses based on the Hazen-Williams formula. If any of the newly proposed single-family structures do, in fact, exceed 5000 square feet of fire flow area,then please identify (if possible)where or on which lots these larger structures can be built as fire hydrant spacing is limited to a maximum of 300-feet. Also, provide hydraulic modeling(if no hydrants are close to structure)demonstrating that the Minimum Required Fire Flow and Flow Duration pursuant to FFPC 1:section 18.4.5.2 and Table 18.4.5.1.2. The hydraulic modeling shall be provided from the flow hydrant(i.e. wherever this happens to be located) throughout the run of fire line and to the various nodes up to or past the newly proposed single-family structures and shall include pipe friction losses based on the Hazen-Williams formula. If these larger single-family homes can be built on any of the lots, then the fire hydrant locations will need to be changed to a maximum of 300-feet throughout the areas being permitted. Additionally, provide on the Cover Sheet the type of construction per the 2010 FBC, the total square footage under roof(conditioned and non-conditioned) and the sprinkler intention for each of the structures that will exceed 5000 square feet in fire area. The maximum distance between fire hydrants shall be 500-feet in exclusive one and two-family areas with buildings not exceeding 5000 square feet and 300-feet in all other areas. Hydrant placement shall be started so fire apparatus is not forced to pass a potential hazard to get to the first hydrant. The turning radii throughout a fire access lane serving a building is required to be a concentric and concurrent 25-feet inside and 49-feet outside radii throughout the 90-degree turns in accordance with Collier County Fire Prevention and Protection Code Policy and Procedure Manual Article Number ACC 09-4. The ingress turn from Chipley Run Lane onto Glenforest Drive and the egress turn from Glenforest Drive onto Chipley Run Lane do not meet the required turning radii. If there is a dead-end fire access road that is in excess of 150-feet, then an approved fire district turn- around is required. The angle of approach and departure for any means of fire district access shall not exceed 1-foot in 20- feet and shall not exceed the design limitations of the fire apparatus for the respective fire district. SPRIT KLERED BUILDINGS AND NEW FIRE HYDRANT INSTALLATION: Please identify and delineate on the SDP drawings the point-of-service location as defined in 633.021(19) and 633.021(9) F.S. Packet Page-181- 12/9/2014 9.A. Once the point-of-service location is established, it is from this juncture that a separate permit is required for the installation of underground fire lines in accordance with NFPA 24 (2007 ed.) by an appropriately certified fire sprinkler contractor or a Type V underground contractor as defined and • outlined in 633.021, 633.521 and 633.539 F.S. The SDP drawings must contain the following statements on the drawings: 1) "A separate permit is required prior to installation of any fire line." 2) "Installation of all underground fire lines shall comply with the 2007 Edition of NFPA 24." 3) "Underground fire lines shall be installed by an appropriately certified fire sprinkler contractor or a Type V underground contractor as defined and outlined in 633.021,633.521 and 633.539 F.S." 4) "Piping used for fire protection service (i.e.for fire hydrants and fire sprinkler service)that is run under driveways shall be buried at a minimum depth of 36-inches." Please delineate on the plan drawings locations of ALL fire protection appurtenances such as PIV(post indicator valve), DDCV(double detector check valve) or fire system detector check assembly, check valve,fire department connection (FDC), There shall be a fire hydrant within 50-feet of an FDC and on the same side of the roadway. FDC's shall not be placed between buildings. Per NFPA 24 (2007 ed.)section 6.3.3.1, post indicator valves shall be located not less than 40-feet from the building. Per NFPA 24(2007 ed.)section 7.2.3, hydrants shall be located not less than 40-feet from the building to be protected. • STIPULATIONS: Please note that prior to the accumulation of combustible building materials on site, proposed fire hydrants must be operable and be able to provide the minimum required fire flows,and improved stabilized emergency apparatus access ways (min. 20-feet wide) must be available to within 100-feet of structures. All fire hydrants, fire department connections (FDC) and post-indicating valves (PIV) shall be visible and accessible; they shall not be obstructed visually or functionally by trees, landscaping or parking spaces. INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS: Packet Page -182- 12/9/2014 9.A. Installation of a water line that is used to supply fire hydrants and that is also used for domestic use or that is a precursor to domestic use, is not considered to be used exclusively for a fire protection system and therefore,will not be subject to the application of NFPA 24 requirements,separate UG fire line permitting requirements or limited to Category V fire protection system licensed contractor. EXCEPTION: where there is a fire system detector check valve assembly installed on the fire line serving a hydrant, in which case the Utility Department's purview will stop at the gate valve upstream of the fire system detector check valve assembly and it will be at this gate valve that the point-of-service will be delineated and where a separate fire alarm permit will be required for the underground fire line and fire protection appurtenances to be installed per NFPA 24 and by an appropriately licensed Type V Underground contractor or Fire Sprinkler contractor. The term "domestic use"as referenced above is any use other than when used exclusively for fire protection and can include, but not be limited to, irrigation, potable and non-potable use. A separate permit is required for the installation of any fencing and gates(i.e. sliding, manual rolling, motorized or other)that prevent access by fire apparatus, where it will be reviewed for code compliance with the 2010 Florida Fire Prevention Code: NFPA 1 and 101 (2009 Florida-specific editions)and,where access boxes for manual gates and EVAC systems for electronic gates will be required. A separate permit is required for the installation of a generator,where it will be reviewed for code compliance with the 2010 Florida Fire Prevention Code: NFPA 1 and 101 (2009 Florida-specific editions) and, where applicable, shall meet the provisions contained in NFPA 110 (2005 ed.) A separate building permit is required for the canvas awning, where it will be reviewed for code compliance with the 2010 Florida Fire Prevention Code: NFPA 1 and 101 (2009 Florida-specific editions)) and shall meet the flame propagation performance criteria contained in NFPA 701 (2004 edition). Approval is limited to the Site Plan only. All architectural design changes shall also be submitted for review under a commercial Building Permit,where it will be reviewed for code compliance with the 2010 Florida Fire Prevention Code: NFPA 1 and 101(2009 Florida-specific editions). All new LPG installations shall require a separate building permit and shall be in compliance with the requirements of NFPA 58 (2008 ed.). NOTE:Typically, underground containers with 2000-gallon or less water capacity shall have a 10' separation distance from ignition sources, overhead power lines, building & building property line. All laboratories using chemicals shall be in compliance with the requirements of NFPA 45 (2004 ed.). All recreation vehicle parks and campgrounds shall be in compliance with the requirements of NFPA 1194 (2008 eci.)Standard for Recreation Vehicle Parks and Campgrounds. Packet Page-183- 12/9/2014 9.A. The removal, relocation and/or installation of underground or above-ground fuel tanks shall require a separate permit and be in compliance with the requirements of NFPA 30(2008 ed.) Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code and NFPA 30A (2008 ed.) Code for Motor Fuel Dispensing Facilities and Repair Garages. Typically, any type of floating or fixed docks or piers and associated structures require a separate permit and shall be in compliance with the requirements of NFPA 303 (2006 ed.) Fire Protection Standards for Marinas and Boatyards. It is understood that the proposed development outlined in the PUDZ documents is conceptual in nature. And as there is not enough information at this time to offer specific comment regarding compliance with currently adopted Fire Codes, please note that throughout all subsequent progression of the site development, all permits will be subject to compliance with all Fire Codes, Standards, Ordinances and local FCO Policy& Procedures adopted and in place at the time of the respective permit. This shall include, but not be limited to, fire lane widths,turning radii and dead-end requirements, hydrant locations, fire flow requirements, etc. The Fire Code Office has no objections to the proposed use outlined in the Conditional Use (CU) request as it relates to zoning. However, all new and/or existing structures will be subject to compliance with all applicable Fire Codes,Standards, Ordinances and local FCO Policy& Procedures adopted and in place at the time of the CU permit. As the Fire Code office has not performed a site visit and verified that existing structures comply with applicable Fire Codes relative to the proposed use, it is understood that a final fire inspection is required and is the responsibility of the applicant to schedule such inspection with the appropriate local jurisdictional fire district. • Packet Page -184- 12/9/2014 9.A. CAr Canty COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ NAPLES. FLORIDA 34104 PLANNING AND REGULATION (239)252-2400 FAX (239) 252-5724 WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET ADDRESSING CHECKLIST Please complete the following and fax to the Operations Department at 239-252-5724 or submit in person to the Addressing Department at the above address. Form must be signed by Addressing personnel prior to pre- application meeting,please allow 3 days for processing. Not all items will apply to every project. Items in bold type are required. FOLIO NUMBERS MUST BE PROVIDED. Forms older than 6 months will require additional review and approval by the Addressing Department. PETITION TYPE (Indicate type below, complete a separate Addressing Checklist for each Petition type) FE BL (Blasting Permit) ❑ SDP (Site Development Plan) BD(Boat Dock Extension) ❑ SDPA(SDP Amendment) ❑ Camivai/Circus Permit ❑ SDPI (Insubstantial Change to SDP) ❑ CU (Conditional Use) ❑ SIP(Site Improvement Plan) ❑ EXP (Excavation Permit) ❑ SIPI(Insubstantial Change to SIP) ❑ FP (Final Plat ❑ SNR (Street Name Change) ❑ LLA(Lot Line Adjustment) ❑ SNC (Street Name Change —Unplatted) ❑ PNC(Project Name Change) ❑ TDR (Transfer of Development Rights) ❑ PPL(Plans & Plat Review) ❑ VA(Variance) ❑ PSP (Preliminary Subdivision Plat) ❑ VRP (Vegetation Removal Permit) ❑ PUD Rezone ❑ VRSFP(Vegetation Removal&Site Fill Permit) ❑ RZ(Standard Rezone) ❑ OTHER LEGAL DESCRIPTION of subject property or properties (copy of lengthy description may be attached) ,-K 4 c�-,° r .4 ?- 11 _ ti - So—15 ' `r c--L Z FOLIO(Property ID)NUMBER(s) of above (attach to, or associate with. legal description if more than one) f'°4 t-4'Z' 9 00375 6 000 60 6 i g355 Z000g, STREET ADDRESS or ADDRESSES (as applicable, if already assigned) "2 ' &: L V;eL l�\-2,ve e LOCATION MAP must be attached showing exact location of project/site in relation to nearest public road right- of-way E SURVEY(copy -needed only for unplatted properties) PROPOSED PROJECT NAME (if applicable) PROPOSED STREET NAMES (if applicable) SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN NUMBER (for existing projects/sites only) SDP - or AR orPL# Packet Page-185- 12/9/2014 9.A. .a1 > ct) I 0 I ..I ... C • a°) 21 8 4— .a) (&) c i) > cm ri) 75 TZ a) a) c — ,_ Cs! = = 46 • 5 c055 545 — • -,•-• 5 2 o o c C CO 0 = a) 0 ET 2) 0 = 0 [32 5 5 ,-- o C) a) cl) Ei.):= .5" .12 2.7., -- — 5 .a) -5 tz‘ >, 2 Lt... f). .0 E -9 r.) @.). 2) -6 -(5 0 .22 0 _ 0 0 00 © 0 ,--- (Dc00 — @TD a,- 2 — © cts -5a ,... "c5 0 - i ©13 © 2 = -c . " 0 ° 75 C) @ c o ca c ©-- Ts E m 0 EP c) 0 C 4-- 1E ° ,-- c--; , ■ a) >s t) ..G c 8 2 .= .° z ,... i.... 0 -0 _c000) a) . > ..t C a) NE .— Cca ._- -5- ,1., ' ..._ CO = CO C _CI a.) 0 a) = 0 0 .... ._ e 0 L 46 0 a) c E -0 C.) c.) I- 0:1 lii - CU -CD _cl 0 0 4= as -.7; >4 0c/ c/) = EL2 V E ,-C6 C al _e 0) E7). 4-',„ CL1 t>.?_,-... Ii3 al & o E ,,,L, P ( 0- >-. >,.2 — -0 6 43 t-- D 5 E -5 < 2 _LE 0 •= Ca CA3 CD cNi 0 4- "CD Ct) ..0 -CT1 a. E c.) o) 0 a. c El_) 'Cr5 E L-7._ o...ct E _o E .6 c.) "0 TS c6cNi c■J > 0 2 L1J Z 0 CM 5- LIIN 1 = w ,— r•--- CD C3 \--- Lo to cc) r-- .cfr `I- 03 LC) CO CD LO t- CO C) LO CD •:1" CN CO CO CO UJI- 4.) N- 0) 0) N 0 CO C) 'q" 0) N CO ‘71. N.." CO LC) CO N.. CO LO .- C) et CO 4■1- 0) CD LiJ 0 W N .4° N CO N't c— C) V) Cr 0) 'tt 000) N CO N C) 'Tr CO CO CO 03 CO 'cr •1- CO = M i -t c\II ct? _._ a? ej. r.. c'f i-o_.. . (NJ! "1- Lc) c:_. tp, ,••1 Lt? (-'1 u? '1" co c'l c.:,i N N CNNENNNNNNNNNNIN-- CNINNCNNNNCVNC■IN u) ..- '5 CO Lr, Li-, LC) LO LC) LC) LO LC) to to to LO LO LO LEO co to to to to to to to 1f) LO LO LO N N N N N N N CN CN N N N CN N N CO CNI N N N N N CN N N N N Z CD = LT) Z cy) --.- ... EMCEE C '."" zCIL , 'cua. > 0 c c < (D a) 0) C 03 73 CI) . 4-a cci C/3 0 c.17 C:5) 1:7) CD C 4 C 0 CC -- -- C •C = CI:i > = CES CC a) as E o c -t c -t = C uS .E.L 5, --=_ c -5 as o -c m o ca CC a_ ...L 0 , » < a) .._„ (i) a) = a) co as a) ,_ fi. FT to ir. Cul) CL a: 1 0 f:.) •S W Ct Z7'**6 cy, _.. C c = c ft .. . a: ft (D 0 c 3- a) c a.) a) Et2 o Ta "Fa = Lij ._;_—, 0 .."C 5 0 g ,._,C73 CD > 23_ -E.• > C s. » `5 ra N E" "5 o E '-= -5 0)''a• If) NI -t-!.— = E .S '67) 1__ 2 'ul 'u)-- 'Lr)-- 0) C -i-' C X C CD o 06 a) a) 0 t6 CTS E a) = 0 1) 0 cu a) as a) c Cl.) CD i'I1 0 CD w 0 CD 02 cm E E E ILD 0-) '—'-- E 0 -0 11.1 -c > co 't -c ? — -C -= 1.3°' (1) C C C cCS I— CL ce) .C5 C ,,...„, C 8. c F— 0 0 > L s. art 0 a E) rii -1-.,.... a) a) c 1E 'a 'al co 4: ., - m fr,` rts" .5 CO a) — = E0comcEct- 0 ‘.../P7, EE 0.) 0 0 ÷-° I. ,1: — a o ciww < c.o .EctDDLu .E57_ }-- w .ELTD0 (....) ,T“..7 }- 0 - .) 00 1 la o_ C a) Luu) t! ca C) 6° , a. ca 0 a. 5 Er. 0 11! .<7 Ili 0 >,-,°- .--. c.) cl.. th ,... C r-- „: 13 co — 0: 7=c- 0 < o 0 0_ 0 O 1.... 2 ":-C 11, W. . ,- - 0 i5 73- C) 0 Cei 0W2't'i as- ci .L.-, .4,- " D c •- E as . 1 2 0 <7 57- Cr 0 ag ..= C.) ,....., 0_ 11) cr) CC-) 01-13rn < 03 0 ( ..r . 0 (1) 5 -c -0 .....- ...., 0 .- (15 cf) C •- M Ci) ,c a) a) (.) Z c ..c -,— --,- -2E' F2 2 -t — 0 " .— = a) >hE 4-' 0 0 -C 0 •— > 0 c v (") T. Cl) o ,cf) co ....., CtS E ad) >, E 0_ 0 .c „, _,_, 0 It) ._ ,... as ,.., 0.) ,_ 0 Ct5 0 -0 CD ,,,, 0 0 L-..;4 0 c? 5 E 70 cLi.), -5 %/ 0 = IS — CC 0 .a) -0 CCS = (T) - al Ca 1... aL) .0 CO CU ‘V .41 •- -,(-) CV3 al -- 1.._ aS 0 0 •c Ca CU CCS o 07 EV I\2 (I) = GC- 0- 2 'gC (Da. z1m,402bro_ --) 2c02 --) (..) F— e..) es g a_ D- L.L. DI CZ 0 CI Cl 1E5 0 El El D C:1 Eg El II E3C3E1 CI 0 E El El 211 Cr 0 .a, :.:-.. Packet Page -186- 12/9/2014 9.A. v r) co leej J en 6 CV 0 4 co it ± Y -Ei KO) a X C.J 0 N co T c.4_ r W LGJ p z o T `g ec w Z :7 I a -r\ z CD en a. a a. :$17 L9 0. U (1.21 U y o E 4 co w o 0 co cC; a 2 u c `J° m V/ P v I Packet Page -187- 12/9/2014 9.A. 1517'fix. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY �4` ,7';fi\b JACKSONVILLE DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS p s 1`\ 611A 1520 Royal Palm Square BLVD.SUITE 310 QA4_III!tM Fort Myers,FLORIDA 33919 e4%;oa`1-4 w 19 August 2013 45-° REPLY TO ATTENTION OF Regulatory Division South Permits Branch Fort Myers Permits Section SAJ-2007-02042 (IP-CJW) Terrell, Hall &Associates,Inc. 3584 Exchange Avenue Naples,FL. 33919 Cc; Michael DeBock 405 N. Reo St., Suite 300 Tampa,FL. 33609 Ladies and Gentlemen/Dear Marielle Kitchener: This is in reference to your letter dated 14 August 2013, regarding the transfer of Department of the Army permit number SAJ-2007-02042(IP-CJW). The permit was originally issued to James Kearley on 6 November 2009. The project is located at Latitude 26.12514, Longitude -81.77455, in Section 11,Township 50 south,Range 25 east,Naples, Collier County, Florida. The 19 August 2013, notification is now part of the official permit and reflects the following: Transfer From: James Kearley 525 Okeechobee Blvd., Suite 700 West Palm Beach,FL. 33401 Transfer To: Michael DeBock, Standard Pacific and Florida GP,Inc. 405 N. Reo St., Suite 300 Tampa,FL. 33609 Please be aware that all general and specific permit conditions remain in effect and as the Permittee you are required adhere to all conditions and limitations of the permit. Although all works authorized must be completed within a specific time limit,the permit itself with its limitations does not expire. You should attach this letter to the permit. Enclosed is a blank transfer form to be used should the permit be transferred again. General Condition 4 requires the permit be transferred to the new owner if the property is sold. Upon Packet Page-188- 12/9/2014 9.A. -2- completion of ownership transfer,please have the transferee sign,date and send the enclosed notification to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,Regulatory Division,Special Projects and Enforcement Branch, 1520 Royal Palm Square BLVD. sun E 310 Fort Myers,Florida 33919. Thank you for your cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory program. If you have any questions concerning this matter please contact Russell Rouan at the letterhead address or by telephone at 239-334-1975 x26, Sincerely, Russell Rouan Project Manager Enclosure Copy Furnished: 19 August 2013 Packet Page -189- 12/9/2014 9.A. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT TRANSFER REQUEST PERMIT NUMBER: SAJ- - ( - ) When the structures or work authorized by this permit arc still in existence at the time the property is transferred, the terms and conditions of this permit will continue to be binding on the new owner(s)of the property. Although the construction period for works authorized by Department of the Army permits is finite,the permit itself, with its limitations. does not expire. To validate the transfer of this permit and the associated responsibilities associated with compliance with its terms and conditions,have the transferee sign and date below and mail to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Special Projects and Enforcement Branch,Post Office Box 4970, Jacksonville,Florida 32232-0019. (TRANSFEREE-SIGNATURE) (SUBDIVISION) (DATE) (LOT) (BLOCK) (NAME-PRINTED) (STREET A)DRE sS) (MAILING ADDRESS) - (CITY, STATE,ZIP CODE) Packet Page -190- z -,yG r_aCtM @{�ti_{�@ uC @61CFt�l�'tF . 'AI 1', ` , JACKSONVILLE DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS 12/9/2014 9.A. r.' , .p- II, TAMPA REGULATORY SECTION to I(If� 10117 PRINCESS PALM AVENUE, STE 120 . 1,,f.s f 4 ,,,1 i .� " TAMPA FLORIDA 33610-8302 6rirtskD REPLY TO ATTENTION OF April 21, 2011 Tampa Regulatory Section SAJ-2007-02042 (IP-CFW) Mr. Jack Antaramian Lakeview Drive of Naples, LLC 265 5th Avenue Naples, Florida 34104 Dear Mr. Antaramian: The U. S . Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is pleased to enclose, the Department of the Army permit, which should be available at the construction site. Work may begin immediately but the Corps must be notified of: a . The date of commencement of the work, b. The dates of work suspensions and resumptions of work, if suspended over a week, and c. The date of final completion. This information should be mailed to the Special Projects and Enforcement Branch of the Regulatory Division of the Jacksonville District at the Fcrt Myers Regulatory Office, 1520 Royal Palm Square Blvd. Suite 310, Fort Myers, Florida 33919. The Special Projects and Enforcement Branch is also responsible for inspections to determine whether Permittees have strictly adhered to permit conditions . IT IS NOT LAWFUL TO DEVIATE FROM THE APPROVED PLANS ENCLOSED. Sincerely, • Donald W. Kinard e.(___ Chief, Regulatory Div Sion Enclosures Packet Page -191- 12/9/2014 9.A. CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 14 - A RESOLUTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RELATING TO THE DENIAL OF PETITION NUMBER BDE-PL20130001765 FOR A 32-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 52 FEET TO ACCOMMODATE A 42 SLIP MULTI- FAMILY DOCKING FACILITY FOR THE BENEFIT OF A 19.06 +/- ACRE PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS HALDEMAN'S LANDING IN SECTIONS 11 AND 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (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 32-foot extension over the maximum 20-foot limit provided in LDC Section 5.03.06 to allow for a total protrusion of 52 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 not 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 BDE-PL20130001765, filed on behalf of Standard Pacific of Florida, G.P., Inc. by Timothy Hall of Tun-ell, Hall & Associates, with respect to the property described in the Attached Exhibit "A", be and the same is hereby denied in accordance with the recordof the public hearing before the CCPC on June 19, 2014. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this Commission and filed with the County Clerk's Office. l laldeman's Landing fka Fishermen's Village BDE-PL20130001765—6/24/14 Page 1 of 2 Packet Page -192- 12/9/2014 9.A. The motion for approval failed for lack of a majority vote, with a vote of 2 in favor and 2 opposed. O day of 'y �" 2014. Done this y , vi 04 w , ATT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION , COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA-,--27,------""/ --) ____,,/ ? 2/52: // ,,,, Nick Casalanguii,d/a`✓;! ministrator Karen Homiak, Vice-Chairwoman Growth Management Division Approved as to1 oorm and legality: 'fit i r Scott A. Stone Assistant County Attorney Attachments: Exhibit A— Legal Description 13-CPS-01277/31 Haldeman's Landing 11:a Fishermen's Village BDE-PL20130001765—6/24/14 Page 2 of 2 Packet Page -193- 12/9/2014 9.A. OR 4938 PG 1563 EXHIBIT"A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF COLLIER, STATE OF FLORIDA,AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL I: A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 14,TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, AND A PORTION OF THE 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 I, 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 SECTION 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, THE SAME BEING THE NORTH-SOUTH QUARTER SECTION LINE OF SAID SECTION 14 TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF WINDSTAR, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 14, PAGES 11 THROUGH 15 OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE ALONG THE BOUNDARY OF SAID WINDSTAR THE FOLLOWING COURSES: SOUTH 89° 35' 14" WEST, 330.45 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00° 13' 07" WEST, 462.39 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89° 35' 11" EAST, 30,47 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00° 13' 07" WEST, 1389.23 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89° 34' 18" \VEST, 314.39 FEET;THENCE SOUTH 68°04'16" WEST, 50.12 FEET; THENCE LEAVING THE BOUNDARY OF SAID WINDSTAR, NORTH 00° 17'06" WEST, 197 FEET, MORE OR LESS, ALONG THE \VEST BOUNDARY OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION II 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 \VEST 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 THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID DEMERE LANDING AND THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 42 OF SAID NAPLES GROVES AND TRUCK CO.'S LITTLE FARMS NO, 2; THENCE NORTH 89° 30' 34" EAST, 330.00 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF SAID DEMERE LANDING AND THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF SAID LOT 42;THENCE SOUTH 00° 18' 15" EAST, 337,30 FEET, 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' 15" EAST, 334.79 FEET ALONG SAID QUARTER SECTION LINE AND THE WEST BOUNDARY OF SAID GULF SHORES TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. 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 -3- ORLDOCS 129%704 1 29259.0001 Description; Collier,FL Document - Book.Page 4938.1560 Page: 4 of 6 Order: WSC NAPLES Comment: Packet Page -194- 12/9/2014 9.A. oR 4938 PG 1564 SECTION LINE OF SAID SECTION 14,SOUTH 00°13'07" 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°13'07" EAST 329,53 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89°35'14" WEST 330.47 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00°13'07" WEST 329.53 FEET;THENCE NORTH 89°35'14"EAST 330.47 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, LESS AND EXCEPT THEREFROM THE PRESENT OR FORMER BEDS OR BOTTOMS OF LAKES, RIVERS, CANALS, OR OTHER BODIES OF WATER LOCATED ON OR WITHIN THE LANDS DESCRIBED HEREIN, PARCEL 2: A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTH 114 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° 13'02" 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 89°35' 14" EAST,330.47 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL 3: THE WEST 140 FEET OF LOT 47 OF NAPLES GROVE AND TRUCK COMPANY'S LITTLE FARMS NO. 2, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK I, PAGE 27, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; EXCEPTING THE NORTH 30 FEET THEREOF AS CONVEYED JUNE 20, 1957 BY DEED IN BOOK 11, PAGE 120 FOR EASEMENT FOR RIGHT OF WAY AND ROAD PURPOSES. -4- ORLDOCS 12976704 1 29259.0004 Description: Collier,FL Document - Book.Page 4938.1560 Page: 5 of 6 Order: WSC NAPLES Comment: Packet Page -195- 12/9/2014 9.A. Co e-T County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER FROM: PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION HEARING DATE: NOVEMBER 20, 2014 SUBJECT: ADA-PL20140001454, HALDEMAN'S LANDING DOCK APPEAL 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,Fl 34104 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner appealed a decision of the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) denying a Boat Dock Extension request (BDE-PL20130001765). The appeal was scheduled to be heard by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) on October 28, 2014. At that meeting, the BCC remanded the appeal to the Hearing Examiner (HEX) for a recommendation based on findings of fact. The BCC is scheduled to hear the appeal at its December 9, 2014 meeting with recommendations from Staff and the HEX. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject site is accessed via Lakeview Drive in Sections 11 and 14, Township 50 South, Range 25 East. There is also a proposed access via Haldeman Creek Drive in the Windstar subdivision. The folio numbers are 61 835520008, 00388360006, 00394880004, 00395320000 & 61835840005. PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The applicant requested a 32-foot Boat Dock Extension beyond the maximum 20 feet required by the Land Development Code (LDC). The boat dock facility was proposed to contain 42 slips. The total overwater dock structure proposed was approximately 8,070 square feet and it protruded a total of 52 feet into the waterway (Haldeman Creek). The total length of the dock was approximately 473 linear feet with a width of 6 feet. The applicant has since reduced the maximum protrusion to 45 feet from the Mean High Water Line. ADA-PL20140001454, Page 1 of 11 Haldeman's Landing Dock Appeal. November 20,2014 HEX Packet Page-196- 12/9/2014 9.A. ZONING MAP ADA-PL20140001454, Page 2 of 11 Haldeman's Landing Dock Appeal. November 20,2014 HEX Packet Page -197- 12/9/2014 9.A. SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING: SUBJECT PARCEL: Vacant multi-family parcels, with a zoning designation of RMF-6 & RMF-6(3) SURROUNDING: North: Vacant land & si`ngle-family homes, zoned RMF-6-BMUD-R1 East: Single family homes, zoned RSF-4-BMUD-R4 & RMF-6-BMUD-R2 South: Single-family homes, zoned RMF-6-BMUD-R1 & golf course, zoned PUD (Windstar PUD) West: Golf course, zoned PUD (Windstar PUD) i' It "„-,:.!,,,,,;:E: X aF fir” i.w r� M 1—' a "" '. '17,b- ^C.c I.-i , � " ads ' tr � �. r 4 31 6 d r .F .p - tax ct 1 � � .,, t0 ¢ k PV - * {4 A Y t s t ��qx.a # Sy.� c �� d r1 b- � �� �k`,° t"•-� _ t a{ff.,°,,t R era a. -. re t. wR �,.,, w '', a '�l`...¢ , r F • L � a ,� -�. � �{j.K ;�Ei�; �+ �� 414 'F,::..::;,_.. .F_,...,:„.‘:, ��� �€ �n "�`��f" .. a Z( t �d£.. We�' S .{Y,�y ��' � ,.1LL zi *.:,,, - Aerial—detail of parcel in the area of the proposed docks(Collier County Property Appraiser) ADA PL20140001454, Page 3 of 11 Haldeman's Landing Dock Appeal. November 20,2014 HEX Packet Page -198- 12/9/2014 9.A. i rame A / ,Ifs '+�".+' j ::751 . c� } � z �� ogle Aerial-detail of parcel in the area of the proposed docks(Google) - r te s5 ,*:4"" r'" ffiC dye ' �F ',„:,17.7, .. ,• ., ,- ..,, , , ._.., ..•..,.,i "'y,+� ` ^.ate .. a� WtS'" f4�^'^Svc 's }fit, �E . ,� 45 'E" 3 4� f ,wp . r t �..e [ s Jim , Aerial-detail of parcel in the area of the proposed docks(Bing) ADA-PL20140001454, Page 4 of 11 Haldeman's Landing Dock Appeal. November 20,2014 HEX Packet Page-199- 12/9/2014 9.A. ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION: 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 Creek (including the subject portion)has an ST Zoning Overlay. The site qualifies as a moderate ranking under the Manatee Protection Plan, which translates to 10 slips per 100 feet of shoreline, or 93 slips. This request is for 42 slips and is therefore consistent with the Manatee Protection Plan. STAFF COMMENTS: HISTORY The subject Boat Dock Extension petition was submitted to Collier County on December 3, 2013. After Staff review, the petition was scheduled for a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner on April 24, 2014. After advertising the petition through a 32 square-foot sign on the property, quarter-page newspaper ad and mail-notice to property owners within 500 feet of the property, Staff and the HEX began receiving phone calls and emails with concerns about the proposed dock. Section 2-87(6) of the Code of Laws states "the Hearing Examiner shall disqualify himself from a particular case when he reasonably perceives that he has a real or perceived conflict of interest, or that the case is one of great public interest or concern." The HEX reasonably perceived that this case was one of great public interest or concern and recused himself. As Section 2-87(6) states, the case would then be heard by the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC). The petition was then scheduled for the June 19, 2014 CCPC meeting. The meeting was again noticed with a 32 square-foot sign on the property, quarter-page newspaper ad and mail-notice to property owners within 500 feet of the property. In addition, the Haldeman Creek Municipal Services Taxing Unit (MSTU) requested from the BCC, and was granted, permission to expend funds to send a mail-notice to property owners within the MSTU. There was no culling of the list of property owners, so some may have received duplicate mailings. At the CCPC meeting, Chairman Strain was not at the hearing. Commissioner Roman had an excused absence. The remaining five commissioners attended and constituted a quorum. Commissioner Rosen stated that he and his firm represent an entity that is in contract with the petitioner, he filled out form 8B and recused himself. As a result, four Commissioners were present and voted on this item. A written transcript of this hearing is attached to this Staff Report, and the video is available at colliergov.net. After testimony by the applicant, Staff, and 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. ADA-PL20140001454, Page 5 of 11 Haldeman's Landing Dock Appeal. November 20,2014 HEX Packet Page-200- 12/9/2014 9.A. The petitioner filed for an appeal to the BCC of the CCPC's denial within the required 30- day appeal period. The petitioner requested a hearing date of October 14, 2014. Members of the public contacted Staff and requested that the hearing be held on October 28, 2014. The petitioner agreed to the change in date. At the October 28, 2014 BCC meeting, during Item 2, Agenda and Minutes, a motion was made and approved by a 3 —2 vote, to remand the appeal to the HEX for a recommendation and findings of fact. Staff was directed to advertise the BCC hearing of the appeal for the December 9, 2014 meeting. ANALYSIS For a waterway that is 100 feet or greater in width, the LDC limits the protrusion to 20 feet. The protrusion includes the entire dock facility, including pilings, and the entire moored vessel, including outboard motors, swim platforms and other accessories. Measurement of the dock/vessel protrusion is made from the most restrictive of the following: property line, bulkhead line, shoreline, seawall, rip-rap line, control elevation contour, or mean high water line (MHWL). In this case, the most restrictive point is the MHWL. Additional protrusion of a dock facility into any waterway beyond the limits established in the LDC may be considered appropriate under certain circumstances. These criteria are established in Section 5.03.06.H of the LDC. A dock may extend into a 100-plus-foot waterway 20 feet. In the illustration below (which does not show the maximum protrusion — it is shown as an example of how a protrusion is determined), measured from the MHWL, an additional 15 feet of dock is proposed for a total protrusion of 35 feet (20 feet by right+ 15-foot extension request= 35 feet): 78.5'CONSERVATION rEASEMENT HALDEt.+.4N'3 CREEK PROPOSED DOCKS [7f. ,- 7.8' 35'PROTRUSION G∎" w� `.,-, 20 i�o �r�^q IE',TI, ;:4 1` 1 ; --. c®� '-�. o Mt MHtA, W 7 I�1.5'1.S NG NDVDyk7D70 TOP OF ,. I - � BANK 3y ?p PROPOSED DREDGE TO-4 MCW ADA-PL20140001454, Page 6 of 11 Haldeman's Landing Dock Appeal. November 20,2014 HEX Packet Page-201- 12/9/2014 9.A. Simultaneous with the review of the Boat Dock Extension request was the review of a Site Development Plan (SDP) for 64 multi-family dwelling units on the upland portion of the property. That SDP was approved on September 30, 2014. If the appeal to the BCC overturns the CCPC's denial,the SDP will be amended to show the docks. A Special Treatment (ST) permit is also required, because there is an ST Overlay over much of Haldeman Creek. The ST permit is a separate item to be heard at the same BCC meeting as this item. Questions have been raised about ownership of the proposed docks. The subject property is zoned Residential Multi-Family [RMF-6 and RMF-6(3)]. Residential zoning does not permit commercial uses. Rental or sale of a dock to a person who is not an owner/renter of a residential unit at Haldeman's Landing is a commercial use and is prohibited. Staff reviewed this Boat Dock Extension request for approval by the HEX, the CCPC and as an appeal to the BCC. In all reviews, Staff found that the application met the required criteria in the LDC. The applicant has modified the original request. The 52-foot requested maximum protrusion has been reduced to a 45-foot maximum protrusion (20 feet by right + 25-foot extension request=45-foot maximum protrusion). Before approval of a Boat Dock Extension request, it must be determined that at least 4 of the 5 primary criteria, and at least 4 of the 6 secondary criteria, have been met. Staff has reviewed this petition in accordance with Section 5.03.06(F) and finds the following: Primary Criteria 1. Whether the number of dock facilities and/or boat slips proposed is appropriate in relation to the waterfront length, location, upland land use and zoning of the subject property. Consideration should be made of property on unbridged barrier islands, where vessels are the primary means of transportation to and from the property. (The number should be appropriate; typical single-family use should be no more than two slips; typical multi-family use should be one slip per dwelling unit; in the case of unbridged barrier island docks, additional slips may be appropriate.) Criterion met. The proposed dock facility consists of 42 boat slips, which is appropriate in relation to the over 938 linear feet of water frontage of the subject multi-family lot. In addition, the 42 slips are appropriate because the upland property is approved for 64 residential units. 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 ADA-PL20140001454, Page 7 of 11 Haldeman's Landing Dock Appeal. November 20,2014 HEX Packet Page -202- 12/9/2014 9.A. application and survey should establish that the water depth is too shallow to allow launching and mooring of the vessel(s) described without an extension.) Criterion met. According to the petitioner's application the water depth for the proposed dock facility 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. 3. Whether the proposed dock facility may have an adverse impact on navigation within an adjacent marked or charted navigable channel. (The facility should not intrude into any marked or charted navigable channel thus impeding vessel traffic in the channel.) Criterion met. According to the information submitted by the petitioner, the proposed facility will not adversely impact navigation due to the width of the existing waterway (varying from approximately 134 feet to 180 feet MHWL to MHWL). There is no marked or charted navigable channel. Please refer to the cross- sections in the application to confirm that the creek bottom is essentially flat. 4. Whether the proposed dock facility protrudes no more than 25 percent of the width of the waterway, and whether a minimum of 50 percent of the waterway width between dock facilities on either side is maintained for navigability. (The facility should maintain the required percentages.) Criterion met. Information provided in the application indicates that the proposed dock will protrude a maximum of 45 feet into the waterway, as measured from MHW line. Cross section A-A indicates that a minimum of 50 percent of the waterway will remain navigable even at the location opposite the approved, but unbuilt, Sanctuary docks on the north shore of Haldeman Creek. Therefore, this dock facility will maintain a minimum of 50 percent of the waterway as open. 5. Whether the proposed location and design of the dock facility is such that the facility would not interfere with the use of neighboring docks. (The facility should not interfere with the use of legally permitted neighboring docks.) Criterion met. The applicant owns most of the shoreline on the north side of Haldeman Creek and has placed it under a Conservation Easement which prohibits dock construction. The approved, but unbuilt, Sanctuary docks would be the closest docks to the subject docks and the waterway would be 83 feet wide at this location. 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 ADA-PL20140001454, Page 8 of 11 Haldeman's Landing Dock Appeal. November 20,2014 HEX Packet Page-203- 12/9/2014 9.A. 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 and dredging 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. The finger piers are proposed as 4 feet wide. 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 5.03.06M of the LDC must be demonstrated.) Criterion niet. 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.) ADA-PL20140001454, Page 9 of 11 Haldeman's Landing Dock Appeal. November 20,2014 HEX Packet Page -204- 12/9/2014 9.A. Criterion met. The property qualifies as a moderate ranking under the Manatee Protection Plan and the ranking may change to preferred, once maintenance dredging is complete. Staff analysis indicates that this request meets five of the five primary criteria; the LDC requires that four of the five criteria are met. Regarding the six secondary criteria, criterion 3 is not applicable, and the request meets five of the remaining five secondary criteria; the LDC requires that four of six criteria be met. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The Office of the County Attorney reviewed the Staff Report for ADA-PL20140001454 on November 4, 2014. - SAS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the above findings, Staff recommends that the HEX recommends approval of Petition ADA-PL20140001454 to the BCC, reversing the CCPC's denial of petition BDE- PL20130001765, Haldeman's Landing Docks, subject to the following conditions: 1. Construction of the docks shall not commence until approval of a Site Development Plan Amendment (SDPA) 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 SDPA 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 and shall not be sold, leased or rented to any other parties. ADA-PL20140001454, Page 10 of 11 Haldeman's Landing Dock Appeal. November 20,2014 HEX Packet Page-205- 12/9/2014 9.A. PREPARED BY: FRED REISCHL, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT REVIEWED BY: RAYMOND V. BELLOWS,ZONING MANAGER DATE PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT APPROVED BY: MIKE BOSI, AICP, DIRECTOR DATE PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT ADA-PL20140001454, Page 11 of 11 Haldeman's Landing Dock Appeal. November 20,2014 HEX Packet Page -206- 12/9/2014 9.A. ;• ; • , • APP .10 SO, - w 100 it Regatta Landing at Windstar is a new gated coach home community featuring a maintenance free lifestyle enjoying that Southwest Florida's Paradise Coast has to offer. Locate within the 320fo-acre at r on Naples Bay master-planned hcot munitgya,IRageegaat,taahLdawnditihng will offer 3 bedroom and 3s Windstar plus loft designs, all with two-car garages, away, This upscale boat dockage available for sale, direct ocean access is mere minutes neighborhood is the perfect close-t -town location that provides convenient access to a Southwest variety of shopping and dining, t Florida's boating and outdoor amenities. The Community: • Private gated enclave of only 64 upscale coach homes • Separate boat dockage available ble for sale offering direct ocean access • Community pool • Golf and social memberships available at The Windstar Golf Club • Prime location close to downtown Naples, a unique variety of shopping, dining and entertainment venues, pristine Southwest Florida beaches and parks, and easy access to points north and east via 1-75 The Homes: • Innovative coach homes, all with two car garages • 3 bedroom designs, some with loft/optional 4th bedroom • Exceptional level of luxurious.standard features • Unique selection of design options like home offices, media rooms, wet bars, master bedroom sitting areas and additional garage spaces for golf carts and other hobbies Packet Page-207- 12/9/2014 9.A. Co i .,_4 N a 7. W ° a . .. In C a oN �p7 B .4 el A- N m , G N G VI, J 3 N11,0 - 3 1 a 11! M pp.C'C a E`� `g3 c �n o c c 3 m dm NNN eo , ro & a13x a a a N W .. 't�CN C cW a \QI N ig2 Rn � F 6 9 F. 4w0 C }ryt0 J g co ul .-1 O -0 ,7, 0 C 3 D G .0 o jfl III p� m I- EC M..40311Z•�'1� M 413c00. 5 L to .q >. a c t....„6-3 ,c, C >4 w w �, W° E c EE °, a° a �� `=' -� o �va 1.: °° °$ T'!E § C 1it1A 'v Q0. x 'Ill maw-. 9 0.C' 9 3 tcry¢ K �y aN5 o I 0. ll d te 0.0 E a v QBBa 4. 6 O w-0 0 G Ha ot�t/�� E s2.5 0-5 he C �.. a CI .0 m tT._ ca roann3 R3 ° 0.L o ° arow. poi c ` 8nbj] ea t7 d' Wua .°.s7�J v. °so'E� a..m.c £rt. r , .. ro rr t 4 b2 '%tc ki 1 a,4 71 ® a w c � rf �=t,,.. ( ants` o c V,.,...° ] 1r }�ii�ld+Slt `" C V `� E= S�+m� 'x S f0 0 s a . .. ® aaEarnNa m� oo `Mpoa "�# 4 � i , 1, 1vs.ot� m orvnz uro,ez..a +��erN„ci. it Y ICI i� 4, c+� (” vw w � � . .,1 „„r 6® C a a E® f , _J ...-3 Q- a, anN .. EE .. p °sE0. x is tipl , aG C - a m a 5fl=gE: rofiw °` Eorhr: uo° Packet Page -208- 12/9/2014 9.A. co 0ooro in rq=2 en EZc.-5 y M7 U) UWig M a .1 II. Z ■m $mom,. ..,a o O V° III Oro IV 61 O.Y 1� a 1111 m N jR � {r� Q Eap0p p� J r+ E Ix 20 ro 0 0®v, L N�'�y �j O p pia $ycsvv�m o m81{{ I�.Q{,0sto° n f�.. W C ply 3 S In o tIN r E ° 0 SS 1- za2iwc eE/m -1 W M m — oa a oG m a 7 O 00u�y � `" ° gym cotS8EE82 a�l9 jQ' �. Zug-� pdCmi i` 0mc 0. 2g ma z ° " Q o r�vg^ z9nan :I tif,Et 4 tp{ 0 JD: v in m ki C {°.alit a .i.i Syr �.0 ® lu E s a It �oam ,. m$s ...g. • Lid, a1i IA w G°+.. a+ LP- °�. 651 O E 19�i®, ' �5:e wc5m co x; A �� fir am m '� i. 1:!:. g:� x ., � 0z m ' eo r� 4 , 'kw f ■ C e 99 t' I. } 41 M1f°: 8 1 �, m C r ffa W& C .. C m ,f Y �,4 Q Vi T— v O Q C j� r� it4�i }, i=P °N ° IAA L'a.� t{ o h 4 p+ un CE a •m�c�"W'�o ma c Gm MCHA- 0BN 1••• ..1. r 7 C r, i rte , e $ IA :: a7 a° n -aEE c aL ° E t wcpEle Villa s � x h46`i M( hvey3FEEMt m0. Packet Page -209- 12/9/2014 9.A. 1, March 21,2013 ' Mr.Donald Krog 4029 Lighthouse Lane Naples,Fl 34112 RE:Haldeman's Landing Annexation Proposal Dear Mr.Krog, Thank you for attending our Annual Meeting and for taking the time to actively participate in this important decision for Windstar.I know that you,as well as all of our Board,feel that Windstar On Naples Bay is a real gem,and we all share the desire to preserve and enhance our lifestyle and property values. In your letter of March 15,which is posted on our website,you request that answers to your questions be made in writing and state that town hall meetings are not sufficient,Your concerns are appreciated,but the Board has wanted to develop a plan that they found acceptable before sharing preliminary details with the community.Now that we are close to being ready with a proposal that we feel warrants the consideration of residents,much more detail about the project will be distributed. In this letter I will attempt to address the specific concerns contained in your letter.Separately,we will provide written answers to the questions raised at our March 18 Annual Meeting.As requested,we will share this information with all of the community. At our Annual Meeting,I stated that the Board believes that the property in question will be developed in the relatively near future and that the basic question is:"Should this property be developed as part of Windstar,or not?"I outlined what the Board sees as the positives of the annexation proposal as well as some of the concerns,and concluded that the Board felt the positives were strong enough to warrant presenting the matter to the Unit Owners for their decision--a copy of the slides used in my presentation is attached and also available on our website. Following the format of your March 15 open letter to Windstar homeowners,1 assure you that the process we are following is nothing like that followed in the Antaramian Fisherman's Village proposal First of all,our governing documents have been amended so that approval of any property annexation clearly requires the approval of two-thirds of eligible unit owners—no more delegate system.And secondly,the Board is committed to the principle that what you vote on,if approved,is what you will get- -so the contract will be very specific about what can be built,where it can be built,what it will look like,as well as other matters, 1. FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENT:The developer is offering to pay the Master Association $700,000 cash as part of the proposed annexation.However,as pointed out in our Annual Meeting presentation,this is not all that the developer is paying and the cash is not what we Packet Page -210- 12/9/2014 9.A. consider to be the most important factor in this deal. If WSC Naples,LLC(the developer)were not part of Windstar,they would not be building these same units.lithe only access was via • Lakeview,the developer would likely build something more like the plan that Antaramian had approved by the County after our agreement with him was terminated--72 smaller units in three story buildings.The selling price would be less,but the building costs would also be less and the developer wouldn't have the other expenses of dealing with us.In addition to the$700,000,the developer has agreed that:they will pay our expenses of bringing the matter to a vote(up to $100,000);they will be making significant landscape improvements on our(the Club's) property;they will be building a wall and gates securing our north-eastern border;and they will be giving us access to Haldeman Creek with a kayak launch and storage facility.All of this represents the payment of real money from the developer,and we encourage residents to consider these along with all of the non-monetary benefits of the proposal.The majority ($500,000)of the cash payments will be received within 9 months of approval of the annexation, and the payments are guaranteed bykCenterline;In judging the adequacy of the benefits received,it is also important to rememliafll`iat the developer is taking the lion's share of the financial risk in this project.The developer would not contemplate this project with Windstar unless he had the prospect of making a return significantly superior to his"without Windstar" option. hat is the history and financial tams of Centerline.Homes and WSC Naples LLC? Centerline has prepared a presentation regarding their company that we just received and distributed to residents(it's also on our website).As explained in that presentation and described at the Annual Meeting,WSC Naples,LLC, is a single purpose entity that has not produced any past projects and whose only asset at this point is the land purchased with cash contributed by the partners. Another Centerline affiliate is beginning a new project on Irnmokalee Road,and there are no completed Centerline projects near Naples,However,our consultants are familiar with Centerline and have assured us they are a quality builder with a good reputation.A group from our Board and Architectural Review Committee is going to visit Centerline projects in the Orlando area on Friday.You're welcome to join us,The company has a website, www.centerlinehomes.com,which has a wealth of information about their current projects. What will the Master Association do with the$700,000? As explained at our recent meetings, the Board in place when the money is received will decide how it is applied,but it must be applied to the benefit of Windstar owners,One possible use is to hold it as a reserve to pay off the existing debt incurred in connection with the renovation of our front entrance(the loan cannot be prepaid without a substantial penalty).This would allow us to immediately reduce the annual assessment by approximately$212 annually per unit rather than waiting until the loan is repaid.Other considerations are mentioned in the presentation from the Annual Meeting.The $700,000 works out to a little more than$1,250 per existing owner,so in essence we are getting Packet Page-211- 12/9/2014 9.A. paid back for previous assessments. Until we use any of the monies,they will be invested in accordance with the Master documents. 2. GOLF MEMBERSHIPS:The Master Association was not involved in the negotiation of the agreement between the developer and the Club and these questions are being answered by the Club.I would note,however,that the Board feels the proposed annexation has merit even without any consideration of the Club's deal 3. TRAFFIC:,As you noted,all of the construction will access the property only via Lakeview Drive.That is a key point in the proposed contract and the developer knows that any change in the contract would require a new community vote. The Haldeman's Landing neighborhood will have two gates—one on Lakeview Drive and a second vehicle gate at the point where Haldeman Creek Drive enters their property.Residents of Haldeman's Landing will have transponders programmed to open both gates—the transponders for existing Windstar residents will not open those gates(this is a requirement of the County). The Lakeview Gate will have the ability to allow remote access(like the Southpoint gate),and residents in that neighborhood will be encouraged to direct vendors and trades traffic to that gate. This gate will not be manned,but there will be remote video surveillance at the gate and along the whole eastern border. It is tentatively proposed that the sales office will be in the Club.The Club feels that this will help sell the Club to all visitors,not just those who eventually buy units in Haldeman's Landing. We feel the front gate is equipped to handle the anticipated additional traffic from the approximately 11%increase in homes. 14. DOCKS:The previous owner of the parcel obtained approval and permits for up to 42 docks, There is no provision for a boat launch,but the developer will provide a space for launching and storing kayaks,The County requires that the mangroves surrounding the property be maintained and will only allow a few openings for ramps to reach the docks.The docks were originally permitted to be fixed docks,but Centerline proposes to change those to floating docks,if possible,The docks will be organized into a separate association which,like the Southpoint Marina,will be subject to the Master Association Declaration,the same as other neighborhoods. Initially,the developer plans to restrict sale of the docks to residents of Haldeman's Landing,but Packet Page-212- 12/9/2014 9.A. eventually will open purchase to other Windstar residents.The Developer williot be allowed to sell a dock to a non-resident until 12 months after the last residential unit has been sold.Should there be any non-resident owners in the future,they would pay 25%of the standard Master Association annual assessment(same provision as Southpoint).Transponders issued to non- resident dock owners will be programmed to open the Lakeview gate.The Haldeman's Landing Marina Association will be responsible for all expenses of the docks,including maintenance, water,power,insurance,security,etc.We are concerned about the amount of parking available to service the docks and are reviewing this matter with the developer. Please feel free to call me if you have additional questions or would like to meet to discuss anything regarding the proposal.Again,we appreciate your input and concerns, Sincerely. Tom Melvin,for the Directors Windstar On Naples Bay Master Association Packet Page -213- 12/9/2014 9.A. nn 4512 Pe 2581 Association's affairs, Board members and the Association's officers are subject to, and their actions shall be judged in accordance with,the standards set forth in Florida law. Section 1.4.Neighborhood Associations. Within the Property there exist certain associations of homeowners or condominium owners which provide varying levels of services to the Unit Owners. Most,but not alt,of the Units within Windstar are members of a Neighborhood Association and subject to its unique covenants and restrictions which are separate and distinct from those of the Association, but which must conform with the covenants and restrictions outlined in this Declaration. All residents of Windstar,whether members of a Neighborhood Association or not,are subject to the covenants and restrictions put forward In this Declaration as well as any rules and regulations that may be promulgated In their implementation. The Neighborhood Associations are subject to all of the covenants and restrictions of the Association. They are charged with certain responsibilities, but are granted no rights of action under this Declaration. They are bound by the terms of the Declaration and can be called upon by the Board of Directors to assist In its administration. Neighborhood covenants shall be supplemental to this Declaration and shall in no way be construed to supersede or override the Documents. Section 1,5.Recreational Associations. �,�-R— CO Recreational Associations existin' ill. he Property - • s Club and the Marina are created and approved by the Associati• • ray for the benefit an• ent of participating Unit Owners. Recreational Associations h e ?II ess to he C• m Areas and the Recreational Associations often share or a cha ge lih •=a:••fac li:s such s eting rooms,security facilities, parking and offices for which her: -•- •• r .1= Although created primarily for the entertainment and enjo me • • e • w= 1j soc tions are not restricted from soliciting non-residents of nds . :a •=m�•_ - •as: let ons may be subject to certain a i , ,•. •. , •i em - /1• et forth In the Bylaws. Association r charges by the A a � Recreational Associations est •,- and manage their• .je,• :, --, re responsible for staffing their own facilities,and are indepen.: i, their day-today op' •• . e Recreational Associations are subject to all of the covenants, ctions of the Asso - o . he Recreational Associations are granted certain rights in this Decl- - ••bershi• ,i,.46., ss to any Recreational Association, Is strictly subject to the rules and pro :• r •tslit C j ,governing body.No Owner or occupant gains any right to enter or to use the : II • - ecreatlonal Association simply by virtue of ownership or occupancy of a Unit ARTICLE 2 VOTING AND VOTING RIGHTS The right to vote on Association matters is inherent in ownership of a Unit within the Property. The right to vote is appurtenant to,runs with,and may not be separated from,ownership of legal title to ownership of a Unit. Section 2.1 Voting Rights. The Unit Owners of the Association are entitled to one(1)vote for each Unit owned.The total number of votes shall equal the total number of Units subject to the Amended and Restated Master Declaration of Covenants,Conditions and Restrictions for VViindstar.The vote of a Unit is not divisible. (a)Suspension of Rights.The Association may suspend the voting rights of a Unit Owner for the nonpayment of any approved assessment that is delinquent in excess of ninety(90)days. (b)Joint Ownership. if a Unit is owned jointly by two or more Persons, that Unit's vote may be cast by any one of the recorded Owners.If two or more Owners cast ballots,or if the Owners cannot agree among themselves on how their one vote shall be cast on any Issue,that vote shall not be counted in that election and the Unit shall not be included in computing the total vote required. March 24,2009—Declaration of Page 5 of 23 Packet Page -214- 12/9/2014 9.A. OR 4512 PG 2580 (restoration,mprovement,t renovation,alteration,maintenance,cementtend reconstruction. Section remodeling, Section 12.Construction of Windstar Documents. (a)Captions.The captions are Inserted only as a matter of convenience and for reference,and in no way define,limit or describe the scope of the document In which used or any provision thereof. (b) Pronouns. genders.and the use of r of he singular shall be deemed to include the plural and vice versa, g sa, neuter whenever the context so requires. (c) Severabilty. Each provision of any Windstar Document is severable from every other provision, and the invalidity of any one or more provisions shall not change the meaning of or otherwise affect any other provision.To the extent that any provision of the Windstar Documents is found to be overly broad or unenforceable and a narrower or partially enforceable construction may be given to such provision,then the narrower or partially enforceable construction shall be applied and,to the extent practicable,the provision shall be enforced. indstar Documents, the Declaration shall aInterpretation. If there is any Wrrnr rules,regulations or other resolutions dopte then the t Articles oo 0 star Demme!,r' ' i r,�t suction consistent with Florida law adopted In pursuant to any of ,'' onstructlon in onsiste +[he :with, shall In ail cases control av- (e) Construction of ds ent an. •rpora.on •y Reference. The Windstar Documents shall be co star -• • -•d • • - to Incorporate one another. Any requirements as to the ont ";� I • tile• if e deficiency can be cured by l u•c ant referenced In any other reference to any of th=oth � p• ID •f � �1 r • • i : i•Lee't• ,,., ..' �-the • •i �r f the Windstar Document into Windstar Document wit (ih the other Windstar Docu' shall be deemed In -1 •orat d t t- ,as if set forth In full.' Section 1.3.The Association. reif,, Windstar on Naples Bay Mast p•. - on, Inc 'W' ri known as The Windstar Master •rganized and existing under the laws of tAssociation.e State Florida,, charged and the -u• - ,. with the powers prescribed by law and set the Ste of Fod ,charged with the du t- forth In the Articles of incorporation and the Bylaws. All Unit Owners, Recreational Associations and Neighborhood Associations located within the Property shall be members of the Association. The Association shall have all powers and duties under Chapters 720 and 617, Florida Statutes,and the power and duty to enforce against Its members the covenants,conditions,easements,restrictions and other provisions imposed by this Declaration and Its recorded exhibits by any proceeding at law or in equity against any person or entity violating or attempting to violate such provisions, to require performance of such provisions and to recover damages for violations of such provisions created by this Declaration. Failure by the Association to enforce any such provisions shell In no avant be deemed a waiver of its right to do so thereafter.In the event of an action by the Association to enforce any such provision,the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover the costs and legal fees incurred by such party. The Association may exercise any right, power, or privilege given to it expressly or by reasonable implication by the Windstar Documents,and may take action reasonably necessary to effectuate any the VVindster Documents or by law, privilege.such Except t s all of the Assciai on s r g iand powers may be exercised by the Board as provided in the Bylaws. The Board may Institute,defend,settle or intervene on the Association's behalf in mediation,binding or non-binding arbitration,litigation or administrative proceedings in matters pertaining to the Common Area enforcement of the Windstar Documents, or any other civil claim or action. In exercising the limitation, deciding ng whether®to file making lawsuit under the any circumstances,Association's behalf,and including,cond tingththe March 24,2009—Declaration of Page 4of23 Packet Page -215- 12/9/2014 9.A. THIS INSTRUMENT PREPARED BY AND UPON RECORDATION RETURN tic: • l ' AGREEMENT KBOARDfl4O ANNEXATION A■17 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION EQR. W)NDSTAR . THIS AGREEMENT REGARDING ANNEXATION -AND •'SUPPLEMENTAL DECLA' T-ON FOR WINDISTAR("Supplemental Declaration")is made and entered into as of the ay of .�2013,..by and between Windstar on Naples Bay Master Association, Inc,, a Florida not-for-profit corporation (the "Windstar Association") and WSC • Naples,•LLO•a Florida limited liabilitycompany,audits successors-and assigns(`'WSC"). WHEREAS,in accordance with Section 14.3(a)(2)of the Second Amended and Restated Master Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Windstar,dated October 30, 2009, recorded at Official Records Book 4512, Page 2575, of the Public Records of.Collier County,Florida(the"DCCR"),the Windstar Association may upon a vote of at least two-thirds of the Unit Owners(as defined in the DCCR)entitled to vote(the"Required Membership Vote") may expand the real property governed by the DCCR by annexation into the Windstar Association; WHEREAS, WSC is the owner of certain real property adjacent to and contiguous with the Windstar community ("Windstar Community"), which is more particularly described on Exhibit"A"attached hereto(the"WSC Property");and WHEREAS,the Windstar Association and WSC desire to annex the WSC Property into the Windstar Community in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Supplemental Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants,• conditions and obligations of this Supplemental Declaration, as more fully set forth below, the Windstar Association hereby adopts the following Supplemental Declaration effective as of the date upon which the Windstar Association successfully obtains the Required Membership Vote and records this Supplemental Declaration in the Public Records of Collier County ("Public Records") in accordance with the DCCR,as follows: 1. The WSC Properly Assessments. WSC shall pay an initial assessment("Initial Assessment") to the Windstar Association in the amount of $700,000.00, with the first installment of $250,000.00 ("First Installment") being due within two (2) business days following (a) the Windstar Association obtaining the Required Membership Vote; and (b) the 1 Packet Page-216- 12/9/2014 9.A. • • • recordation of this Supplemental Declaration(such recordation shall hereafter be referred to as "Annexation"). Thereafter,WSC shall pay$250,000.00("Second Installment")nine(9)months • after the.First Installment is due. The balance of the Initial Assessment shall be paid in the • amount of$3,125.00 ("Individual Unit Assessment Payment") at the time each "Residential • Unit"(as hereinafter defined)is conveyed to someone other than WSC or at the time WSC rents a Residential Unit to a third party. A Residential Unit owner shall not hays the right to use the existing Windstar roads and other facilities until the First Installment,the Second Installment and the Individual Unit Assessment Payment have been paidto the Windstar Association,except that WSC may use such roads and other facilities for purposes of marketing and sales, When the First Installment,the Second Installment and the Individual Unit Assessment Payment have been paid, the Windstar Association shall give a certificate in recordable form ("Unit Release") acknowledging the First Installment,the Second Installment and the Individual Unit Assessment Payment have been paid and that Residential Unit thereafter,subject to the other conditions of • this Supplemental Declaration and the PCCR,shall have the right to use the existing roads,gates and other Windstar Association facilities. If the amount of$700,000.00 has not been paid in full upon the expiration of thirty-six(36)months from the date the First Installment is due,then at • such.time the unpaid balance shall be paid in full such that the total of$700,000.00 shall be paid to the Windstar Association. 'Upon sea payment'the Windstar AtsocIatiiii'shall proi)ide all remaining Unit Releases for those Residential Units which have not received a Unit Release, If such amount is not paid, the Windstar Association shall have the right to pursue all available legal and/or equitable remedies including,but not limited to,filing a lien against all or any part of the WSC Property including,but not limited to, all of the Residential Units which have not received a Unit Release and the unsold Marina Units, and to foreclose that lien in the same manner as a mortgage may be foreclosed in addition to all other legal and equitable rights. in addition to paying the Initial Unit Assessment Payment upon the transfer of units from WSC or • the rental of a Residential Unit,that Residential Unit shall be obligated to pay assessments at the same rate as the existing residences within the Windstar Community, which is presently $2,212.00 annually. 2. Maximum Number of Units Within the WSC Property. Upon Annexation, WSC agrees to limit the total number of units to be constructed within the WSC Property to 64 residential units(which may be in the foam of condominium or fee simple in accordance with the requirements of applicable law and Collier County regulations, hereafter the "Residential Unit[s]") and a maximum of 42 docks and related facilities as approved by the governing authorities,(hereafter the "Marina Units"). The Residential Units shall,be not less than 2,0.00 square feet of air conditioned space. WSC may structure the Marina Units as a separate condominium, or such other form of recreational association as mutually agreed upon with the Windstar Association, The Association understands and agrees that as WSC goes through the approval and permitting process it is possible that the governing authorities may approve less than the 64 Residential Units and less than 42 Marina Units(particularly in light of the need to accommodate space for the ICeewaydin Queen as set forth in Section 32(40 below), and WS( - shall pot be in violation of thi0 Supplemental Declaration should it be entitled to less han the maximum number of Residential Units and/or Marina.Units. A decrease In the number of Residential Units and/or the number of Marina Units shall not reduce the Initial Assessment. 3, Plan Review. For purposes of plan and architectural review for the initial Residential Units and initial Marina Units to be constructed on the WSC Property,the Windstar 2 Packet Page -217- 12/9/2014 9.A. • • Association has agreed that the Board of Directors for the Windstar Association(the"Board") shall be the Architectural Review Committee; and the Board'shall be the sole body within the Windstar Association to review and approve such plans in accordance with the terms and conditions as set forth in this Supplemental Declaration. 'WSC.shall be required to obtain the Board's approval of the WSC Property's site plan, landscape plan, and building plans and elevations,as well as for the extension of Haldeman Creek Drive. The site plan,landscape plan, and the extension of Haldeman Creek Drive must also be approved by the Windstar Golf Club (the"Windatar Club")as to any elements necessary to retain the golf course's designation as a Tom Fazio signature course.It is further understood that WSC must negotiate directly with the Windstar Club as to any agreement to enhance or retain views of the golf course from the WSC Property where it concerns plantings on adjacent Windstar Club property. 3.1 As part of the process to obtain the Required Membership Vote, WSC has submitted to the Windstar Association for presentation to its membership the following proposed plans: (a) site plan; . • (b) laridst;aps plats; ' (c) the extension of Haldeman Creek Drive; (d) residential building elevations and color schemes; (e) elevations and color schemes for the cabana and site plan for the pool;and (f) cloak facility,kayak storage and launch, and emergency mooring for the Keewaydin Queen. It is expressly understood and agreed that provided that the final site plan, building plans, elevations, color schemes, and amenity facility plans do not substantially and materially deviate from those proposed plans submitted for review and approval in connection with seeking the Required Membership Vote, WSC shall be entitled to final approval from the Board at such time as such final plans are presented to the Board for approval. The Windstar Association understands and agrees that the governing authorities may comment upon and propose changes to the plans submitted for approval prior to the Required Membership Vote and that WSC shall be required to work with the governing • authorities in obtaining its final approvals and permits. In the event of any changes to the proposed plans as may be required by the governing authorities, the Windstar Association agrees that it shall not unreasonably withhold approval of any such changes if such.changes are reasonable and necessary under the circumstances as required by the governing authorities. 3.2 Building Height Limitatioxu. WSC agrees that the building height of the buildings/units of the WSC Property shall be a maximum of two (2) story buildings with a maximum mean roof height of thirty-five (35) feet above the finished floor of the building. 3.3 )gxq k Faoilities and Er�acraenc I3y ockin for Keewa in 4ueen. • 3 • Packet Page-218- 12/9/2014 9.A. • (a) WSC shall include in the site plan a location for kayak storage (of at least twenty(20)kayaks)and an area to launch such kayaks into Haldeman Creek. Such proposed amenity shall be sub eet to the appoLvak and pe;mittin of a xo rCte governing bodies. • WS cannot m any representation or warrant-7W- c vv a allowed. The kayak facility, if it can be constructed, shall be designed by WSC subject to the requirements of the permitting authority and provided to the Windstar Association for review and approval, which approval may not be unreasonably withheld. The kayak facility shall be constructed at the expense of WSC and appropriate easements shall be provided to the Windstar Association for its use, or to such other, entity as directed by the Windstar Association. Such facility shall be constructed simultaneously with the construction of the Marina Units,with the understanding that WSC may construct the Marina Units in phases as it • determines in its sole discretion provided that the kayak facilities are included within the first phase of such construction. (b)'WSC shall also provide a looatign,wlthin the 'o•is facilitiesjotr docking of the • iCeewaydrtl Queen iolely for use in the ev=n o a hurricane or other storm emergencies. This requirement shall be subject to WSC obtaining the approval and permitting of appropriate governmental bodies for such use. Neither WSC nor any successor association for the marina facility makes any representation or warranty concerning the fitness or suitability of such docking space for the Keewaydin Queen,and the Windstar Association agrees to accept such accommodation in an"as-is,where-is"condition. Further,the Windstar Association shall be solely responsible for any damage to the Keewaydin Queen and for any damage which the Keewaydin Queen may cause to the Marina Units and related dock structure or facilities,as well as for any damage or environmental concerns in the event the Keewaydin Queen may sink or become partially submerged while docked in such location. The Windstar Association shall provide proof of adequate insurance for the vessel and any such potential damages to the dock and related facilities. 3.4 )3oat Dock Facilities, WSC acknowledges that the boat dock facilities shall be created as a separate marina association ("Marina Association") and shall be a recreation association pursuant to the Master Documents and not governed by and not part of the residential association("Residential Association")to be created for the 64 Residential Units. However, because the Marina Association facilities shall be integrated in the same location as the cabana and pool to be constructed as part of the Residential Association, there may be an agreement between the Marina Association and the Residential Association for the Marina Association to • • pay certain assessments in connection with the operation,maintenance and repair of the cabana and pool facilities. The Marina Association will be responsible for maintaining and operating the Marina Units and related facilities, including• maintaining same in a neat and clean manner and controlling noise and other typical covenants that would be applicable to a marina. Among other covenants, the Marina Association would not allow live-aboards, The area of the boat dock facilities,on Haldeman Creek and any access decks,bridges or pathways shall be 4 Packet Page-219- 12/9/2014 9.A. • • • owned and maintained by the Marina Association, and the area north of Haldeman Creek which is a conservation area shall all be owned and maintained by'either or both of the Residential Association or the Marina Association, as WSC determines in its sole discretion. The Marina Units will be first made available to the Residential Unit owners in the WSC Property and then to other owners within the Windstar Community and shall only be sold to outside third parties who do not own within the WSC Property or the greater Windstar Community starting one(1)year after all of the Residential Units have been sold to third parties. The Marina Units which are not owned by owners within the overall Windstar Community, or are rented to persons not residents of the Windstar Community, shall pay the assessment designated by the Master Documents as the percentage of the standard assessment allocable to such units, which percentage is currently 25% of the standard association assessment to residents to the Windstar Association. The documents for the Marina Association shall provide that there will be an approval process for at least the sale of Marina Units to individuals or other entities who do not also own a residence within the Windstar Community. Owners of Marina Units who do not live in the Windstar Community may be required to'have their printery seams through the unmanned gate onto Lakeview Drive but their guests would be allowed through the main gate for security purposes. WSC shall provide for surveillance cameras to reasonably cover the boat docks, areas adjacent to the boat docks and other perimeter areas of the WSC Property, which cameras shall be linked to the existing surveillance system of the Windstar Community suoh that they can be monitored by the existing entry gate security personal,as well as set up to be able to have surveillance video available to be reviewed at a later time. The cost to operate, maintain and repair the video surveillance and related equipment installed by WSC shall become the obligation of the Windstar Association as such will be integrated into its overall surveillance system. Other than providing for such surveillance, absent its own gross negligence or intentional misconduct, if any, WSC shall not be responsible for third parties who may enter the WSC Property or,the Windstar Community for the purpose of or in connection with the commission of criminal,mischievous or other inappropriate conduct. 3.5 Bu e tie •,• tar Communit ,_:,d t e s e: • ..:e .r I the W C ' •p ert and Maintaining the Existing Vegetation Along the Wipd,9tar Community 4rrd the WSC Property's Border as Long as.Possible During Constructioq, The landscape in the WSC Property bordering the Windstar Community shall be designed to prevent undesirable views from the Windstar Community and the golf course while working to create.desirable views from the Residential Units in the WSC Property of the golf course and water. No trees within 10' of the border between the Windstar Community and the WSC Property over 15' In height • xcept • ' invasive exotics) shall be removed until the plans for the landso:'ing have been approved as required by Section 3.1 and same shall not be removed sooner than necessary in order to continue to provide a visual buffer to the degree reasonably possible between the Windstar- Community and the WSC Property prior to completion. Notwithstanding the foregoing,it is expressly understood and agreed to between WSC and the Windstar Association that once the landscaping plans 5 Packet Page -220- 12/9/2014 9.A. 4 • • . have been approved as required, WSC shall be permitted to implement such approved landscape plan within a tithe frame that also allows for such work to be cost effective in connection with the ordinary progress of the horizontal and/or • • vertical construction of the WSC Property, 4. gxtension of Road. In order to obtain access to the WSC Property,WSC shall,at its sole cost and expense,extend the existing 1lalderuan Creek Drive pursuant to the existing right-of-way in accordance with the plans, including landscaping on both sides, which are approved through the approval process referenced in Section 3 and remove the existing turning • circle. The road extension shall be built to the degree possible during the offseason, meaning • May 15 through November 15;provided,however,if that is not praetioally achievable due to the timing of the Required Membership Vote or otherwise,the parties agree that construction may take place other than during the offseason. During this phase of construction,WSC shall take all reasonable efforts to minimize the impact to the surrounding golf course and residents; and access of the golf cart path shall be maintained:through the area for the construction of the road extension, The WSC Property shall not have access over the existing Windstar Community, including existing roads and the Windstar Community entrance gates except for marketing and sales purposes until Residential Units)th the WSC Property have been completed and then only as to the Residential Unit(s) that have obtained a Unit Release and completed and sold Marina Units. The construction of the extension of Haldeman Creek Drive shall be completed within three(3)months after it is started subject to force m.ajeure;provided,however,prior to the actual construction of the road WSC shall be provided access to the area hi and around the proposed road construction for purposes of root pruning,tree removal and/or relocation as may be required in accordance with the approved plans,and the time required for this purpose shall be in addition to the 3 month time period. If a claim of lien is filed against Windstar Association's property because of work undertaken by WSC or at its direction, WSC shall cause such lien to be removed by payment-or by bonding of such lien within ten(10)business days of notice from the Windstar Association. If construction of the extension of the road is abandoned or otherwise is not maintained in accordance with this Supplemental Declaration and all governmental. requirements,atter ten(10)day's notice to WSC the Windstar Association shall have the right to seek specific performance against WSC or any subsequent owner of the WSC Property to require such actions to be taken, and if the actions are not taken within ten (10) days,the Windstar Association shall have the right,in its sole discretion,to undertake such activities and will have the right to pursue any available legal and/or equitable remedies including,but not limited to, filing a lien against any part of the WSC Property, except for Residential Units that have received a Unit Release,for such costs. 5. Road Within the WSC Property and Gate to Lakeview Drive, WSC shall construct the road(s)within the WSC Property and same shall be maintained by the Residential Association. All maintenance and liability for such road will remain with the obligation of the Residential Association. WSC will construct at its sole cost an access gate and entry wall for the entrance on Lakeview Drive("Lakeview'Gate"),which shall be aesthetically compatible with the main entrance to the Windstar Community and such that it impedes unauthorized pedestrian access. The Lakeview Gate shall be constructed prior to the closing on the first Residential Unit to a third party purchaser. Windstar residents,other than the residents in the Residential Units or the owner of Marina Units,may,not use the Lakeview Gate for vehicular access but may use the Lakeview Gate for pedestrian or bicycle access. Similar to the boat dock facilities, WSC shall 6 Packet Page -221- 12/9/2014 9.A. • • 7 r 6'. • I provide for appropriate cameras tied into the surveillance equipment at main gate for surveillance and with the capability of later review of video. The cost to operate,maintain and repair the video surveillance and related equipment installed by WSC shall become the obligation of the Windstar Association as such will be integrated into its overall surveillance 4, system. • 6, Gate Between Existing Windstar Community and Elie WSC Property. Collier - County has advised WSC that pursuant to the existing zoning and impacts of the WSC Property, that it shall be a requirement that only the 64 Residential Units on the WSC Property and the dock owners in the Marina Association, their service providers and their visitors shall be permitted to have use of the community gated entrance at Lakeview Drive for vehicular ingress and egress into and from Windstar or to the gate leading from Haldeman Creek Drive into the Haldeman's Landing neighborhood. Accordingly,WSC shall be required to design and install a gated access,("Connection Gate") at the connection from the existing Haldeman Creek Drive into the WSC Property,which access shall limit vehicular entry at such point by any resident of Windstar who is not an owner of a Residential Unit or a Marina Unit,or who Is not an authorized visitor of an owner of a Residential Unit or a Marina Unit, The Connection Gate shall not prohibit pedestrian or bicyble access to the roadways and walkways Within the WSC Property. The Connection Gate will be substantially constructed inside the WSC Property and not on property within the existing Windstar Community. The cost of construction of the Connection Gate and all related facilities will be at the solo cost of WSC. There will be constructed a round- a-bout at the Connection Gate,Which will allow residents of the Windstar Community to access the kayaks and boat dock facilities. The parking area will also provide access to the cabana and pool facility of the Residential Association;however,such facilities(the pool and cabanas) axe only available for use by the residents of the 64 Residential Units on the WSC Property and the dock owners in the Marina Association,and are not available foir use by the other residents of the Windstar Community. The parking area shall be within the WSC Property. 7. utilities. WSC represents to the Windstar Association that there is adequate capacity for all utilities for the WSC Property without doing any construction for electric,water • or sewer within the Windstar Community; provided, however, that the Windstar Association , understands and agrees that WSC shall be permitted to make connections to existing utilities within the Windstar Community as determined appropriate by the governing authorities, in accordance with existing utility easements in favor of Collier County and the City of Naples. 8. prainage. The Windstar Association agrees that the WSC Property may be subject to various governmental requirements, Any plan submitted by WSC for governmental approval which places an unreasonable burden on the infrastructure of the Windstar Community shall not be approved by the Windstar Association. WSC shall construct such pretreatment facilities within the WSC Property as dictated by the South Florida Water Management District as a condition of any drainage permit,which shall treat the water front the WSC Property prior to discharge into the existing Windstar Community drainage system. The Windstar Association • shall have the right to review and reasonably approve the drainage system for the WSC Property as such connects to the existing drainage system,which shall also be subject to the requirements of the permitting authority. Drainage and utility connections are infrastructure systems, All costs to connect to and/ox alter the Windstar Community infrastructure systems will be paid by WSC. The Windstar Association shall provide such legal documentation as may be required to • 7 Packet Page -222- 12/9/2014 9.A. permit the WSC Property to connect to the existing drainage system and flow through the . Windstar Community. 9. onsttuotion Traffic. WSC agrees that all construction traffic for the WSC Property shall access the WSC Property through an entrance off Lakeview Drive, and such tr,affic shall not be permitted to access the WSC Property through the main or any ancillary ntrances to the Windstar Community. i 10. Security During Construction of WSC Property. WSC shall take all reasonable • j actions to maintain the security of the Windstar Community during construction of the WSC Property. Such actions shall include appropriate fencing around the WSC Property but shall not be deemed to include the obligation to hire security or surveillance personnel for the WSC Property. • • . 11. Maintenance el WSc Property During Construction, WSC agrees that once it starts construction of any building or other facility in the WSC Property that such construction of any such building or specific structure shall be completed within not more than six(6)months . • subject to force majeure, which force majeure shall not include market conditions, During construction, the remaining portion of the WSC Property which is not completed, shall be • maintained in a neat and orderly manner to minimize any negative impact on the surrounding Windstar Community and if copstcuotion is abandoned, or otherwise not maintained in accordance with this Supplemental Declaration and all governmental requirements, then the Windstar Association shall provide fifteen(15)days'notice to WSC of its failure to perform and requiring that WSC correct any such deficiencies or failures. If WSC fails to remedy such deficiencies or non-perfonnence within the 15 day period, then the Windstar Association shall have the right to seek specific performance against WSC or any subsequent owner of the WSC Property or to enforce the other rights contemplated by this Supplemental Declaration,including the right of the Windstar Association,if it so desires in its sole discretion,to undertake such activities. The foregoing notwithstanding, the Windstar.Association may pursue all available legal and/or equitable remedies including, but not limited to, the right to lien any part of the WSC Property for the costs to remedy same, except for Residential Units that have received a Unit Release or Marina Units which have been sold. This provision notwithstanding, in the • event WSC or its successor is diligently pursuing compliance as contemplated herein but such compliance shall reasonably take longer than the contemplated 15 days, then the Windstar Association shall not have the right to undertake any such activities on its own or seek such other relief unless and except WSC abandons its efforts to maintain compliance or fails to reasonably and diligently pursue same. 12, WSC Payment of Windstar Association Cost. 'MC agrees to pay the ,amount of $100,000.00 toward the costs, fees and expenses incurred by the Windstar Association in connection with the preparation and completion of a letter of intent, this Supplemental Declaration,the notice for the meeting of the membership concerning Annexation, and such other documents as may be necessary to complete Annexation, Such costs, fees and expenses will include attorney's fees, consulting fees for Special District Services, Inc., engineering fees, costs of mailing of the notice and printing of materials for the membership meeting, recording fees, architectural review of plans and such other similar and reasonably • incurred costs associated with annexation and the implementation of same(the"Reimbursable 8 Packet Page -223- 12/9/2014 9.A. •• i • Expenses"). 'In the event the Windstar Association incurs Reimbursable Expenses In excess of $100,000.00,the Windstar Association shall be responsible for any such excess Reimbursable ; Expenses. WSC agrees that it shall be obligated to pay, subject to the $100,000,00 cap, the Reimbursable Expenses even if Annexation.is not successful. The Windater Association agrees • to provide supporting documentation to WSC in connection with a request to pay Reimbursable Expenses, including, all proposals, invoices (text may be redacted from Invoices for legal services), bills, statements, and purchase orders for such Reimbursable Expenses (the "Supporting Reimbursement Documents"),that the Reimbursable Expenses shall be reasonable and necessary for the Windstar Association to reach an agreement with WSC and obtain the Required Membership Vote end, thereafter, to achieve Annexation and completion of both WSC's and the Windstar Association's obligations with respect to Annexation and completion of the WSC Property. WSC agrees that it will make such payments as directed by the Windstar Association or to reimburse Windstar Association for snob Reimbursable Expenses that it has paid for. In the event Windstar requests monies to pay for things such as mailings, and other items of this nature, prior to the activity, WSC shall provide the funds for undertaking such actions,all upon Windstar Associations provision of the Supporting Reimbursement Documents as are appropriate. If the Required Membership Vote is obtained and Annexation occurs, all Reimbursable Expenses above the $100,000.00 cap incurred by the Windstar Association following suoh Annexation shall be shared equally between the Windstar Association and WSC, with each being responsible for fifty percent(50%)of such Reimbursable Expenses. In addition, WSC shall be solely responsible for any and all costs of permitting,impact fees or other costs that are paid for physical improvements or governmental fees due in connection with the approval, permitting and construction of any and all improvements as contemplated in this agreement, In the event Windstar Association is required to pay any such costs,"WSC shall reimburse Windstar Association in full for same notwithstanding the cap on Reimbursable expenses. The Windstar Association and WSC shall cooperate to ensure that the Windstar Association and WSC do not incur duplicative costs following a successful Required Membership Vote and Annexation. WSC agrees that this Section.12 is an agreement and binding even if Annexation is not successful. If the costs contemplated to be paid as provided herein are not paid within thirty(30)days after notice from Windstar Association to WSC then the Windstar Association shall,in addition to all their equitable and le.}:1 rights,have the right to place a lien on the WSC Property for the amount not paid pursuant to this Section 12 up to the • $100,000.00 cap set forth above;and,if it is necessary for the Windstar Association to take legal . or equitable action to collect the items contemplated by this Section 12,the prevailing party in any such action shall be entitled to attorneys'and paralegals'fees and costs at all trial,appellate and post judgment proceedings. • 13. Required Membership yore, 'WSC acknowledges the failure to obtain the Required Membership Vote shall not oreate any liability for the Windstar Association and WSC . shall not seek any damages or costs from Windstar Association,or the members of the Board,its employees and agents for thilure of Annexation. WSC agrees that the provisions of this Section 13 are an agreement and binding even if Annexation is not approved by the Required Membership Vote. 14. The Windstat Club. WSC acknowledges that any failure of the Windstar Club to perform on any agreement which it may or may not enter into with WSC is not the responsibility of the Windstar Association and the Windstar Association shall have no liability.for same. WSC • 9 Packet Page-224- 12/9/2014 9.A. • • agrees that upon execution of this Supplemental Declaration, the provisions of this Section 14 are an agreement and binding even if Annexation is not approved by the Regtdred Membership Vote. - 15, The DC Governing agrees that C�,axAC�_Qther Governin Documents, WSC understands and } the WSC Property,which includes both the Residential Units and the Marina Units, will each be subject to separate governing association documents as provided above,the documentation and related matters of which shall be subject to and subordinate to the DCCR and other related documents governing the Windstar Association. 16. kimi on of Transfer of WSC Pronexty. WSC acknowledges that it shall not have the right to transfer the WSC Property other than the sale of individual Residential Units or Marina Units without obtaining the Windstar Association's approval, Upon any such transfer the terms and conditions of this Supplemental Deelaration shall, upon obtaining the Required Membership Vote and Annexation, run with the WSC Property and be binding upon any such successors or assigns of WSC, This condition notwithstanding,the Windstar Association shall ' • not unreasonably withhold its approval of such a sale or transfer in the event WSC shall sell or transfer the WSC Property to another developer/homebuilder who shall be of an equal or greater size and fmaricial strength of WSC and its existing Centerline Homes©l affiliates,and an equal or better development and home construction quality and•experience to that of WSC and its existing Centerline Homes© affiliates, Absent satisfaction of the above criteria, the Windstar Association shall have the right in its reasonable discretion to approve or disapprove such assignment or transfer and any transfers without approval shall be void and of no effect. It is understood by WSC that in agreeing to this Supplemental Declaration the Windstar Association is not only relying upon the experience and reputation of WSC which is understood to be an entity which is a single purpose entity, but also the overall experience, expertise and reputation of the affiliated entities which are generally referred to as Centerline Homasis;accordingly,the Windstar Association has no obligation to approve the transfer unless it is to an entity which - meets the criteria set forth herein. A decision to grant this approval by the Windstar Association shall be made using its remittable discretion and the above-referenced standards and the fact that - the Centerline Homes,Inc,guaranty provided in Section 18 would be released. 17. Insurance and Indemnification. WSC shall provide insurance-and indemnification in form and amount reasonably acceptable to the Windstar Association to protect the Windstar Association,its property,its board members,members,employees and agents. Por purposes of this requirement and establishing the level of insurance acceptable to the Windstar Association, the Wi 12/9/2014 9.A. • • • ft 11 18, Limited Joinder by Centerlips Homes.Inc. Centerline Homes,Inc,,an affiliate of WSC through substantial common ownership,joins in this Supplemental Declaration solely and for the limited purpose of guaranteeing the payment by WSC of the Initial Assessment and such • other monies as may become due and awing by WSC to the Windstar Association as specifically provided for herein. Centerline Homes,Inc. is not providing a guaranty of performance, and Centerline Homes,Inc. shall not be obligated to perform any of the obligations of WSC other than payment of monies following an uncured event of default by WSC, The Windstar Association, in accepting this guaranty, understands and agrees that Centerline Homes, Inc. is not a parent company or owner of WSC and that Centerline Homes,Inc. is not a contractor or developer and has no direct or indirect interest in the WSC Property other than the licensing of the Centerline Homes name to WSC, lathe event of the sale or transfer of the WSC Property, as approved by the Windstar Association in accordance with this Supplemental Declaration, Centerline Homes,Inc.'s guaranty shall be of no further force and effeot,and Centerline Homes, • Inc.shall be relieved of any further obligation or liability under such guaranty from and after the date of such formal approval,which release can be a factor in considering the approval of such sale or transfer of the WSC Property. • 19. Survival of Certain Pro' Loris Regardless of Annextatiol. The Windstar Association and WSC intend that the provisions of Sections 12, 13, 14 and 18(with respect to the guaranty of WSC's obligations as provided in Section 12 herein)create binding obligations between the parties. Except for these provisions,this Supplemental Declaration shall not create any binding obligation upon either party hereto. The Annexation and the other terms and conditions set forth in this Supplement Declaration will not become effective unless and until the Required Membership Vote is obtained and this Supplemental Declaration is recorded in the Public Records in a000rclance with the requirements of the DCCR.Neither Windstar Association nor WSC shall be bound to by the other provisions of this Supplemental Declaration until the Required Membership Vote is obtained and this Supplemental Declaration is recorded in the Public Records in accordance with the requirements of the DCCR, Either party may terminate this Supplemental Declaration gat any time for any reason prior to recordation without liability or obligation to the other party except for WSC's obligations to the Windstar Association pursuant to Sections 12, 13,14 and 18 with respect to the guaranty of WSC's obligations as provided In Section.12. This provision notwithstanding,the Windstar Association is obligated only to bring - this matter to a vote of its membership at a meeting properly noticed to take place on or before May 15,2013,and any adjournments or other continuations of such meeting as authorized by the DCCR or other governing documents of'Windstar,and agrees to proceed with and exercise good faith in the pursuit of the Required Membership Vote, 20. Annexation, The WSC Property, as described on Exhibit"A" attached hereto, shall, upon obtaining •the Required Membership Vote and thereafter recordation of this Supplemental Declaration in accordance with the DCCR,shall thereafter be held and conveyed, hypothecated, encumbered, used, occupied and improved subject to the DCCR and this Supplemental Declaration,both of which shalt be deemed to and are intended to run with the land and shall be a burden and benefit to the WSC Property,WSC and its successors and assigns and any person acquiring and owning an interest in the real property and improvements thereon, their grantees, successors, heirs, administrators, devisees, and assigns in perpetuity, Every grantee of any interest in such property,by the acceptance of a deed or other interest,whether or not such person shall otherwise consent in writing, shall be subject to the provisions of the • 11 Packet Page -226- 12/9/2014 9.A. • - d pp4: DCCR and this Supplemental Declaration, as both may be amended from time to time. The • owners of all such property shall be Members of the Windstar Association in accordance with the DCCR and this Supplemental Declaration, Except as expressly modified herein,the DCCR is hereby ratified and affirmed and shall remain in ill force effect. The Windstar Association executes this Supplemental Declaration to indicate Its assent hereto. 21. Prevailing Party Attorneys Fees. The parties further agree that in the event it becomes necessary for any party to litigate in order to enforce its rights under the terms of this Supplemental Declaration,then,and in that event,the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys'and paralegals'fees and the costs of such litigation,including appellate and post-judgment litigation. 22. Governing Law. This Supplemental Declaration shall be construed and interpreted according to the laws of the State of Florida without consideration of conflicts of law and venue with respect to any litigation shall be exclusively in Collier County,Florida. 23. Notices. Any notice required or permitted to be given by the terms of this Supplemental Declaration or under any applicable.law by any party shall be in writing and shall be hand delivered, sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt•requested, sent by Federal Express (or other recognized courier service)or sent via facsimile with confirmation. Such written notice shall be addressed to the parties as set forth in the below unless the address or fax number is changed by the party by like notice given to the other parties. Notice shall be in writing, mailed certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid and shall be deemed delivered three(3)days after mailing,upon hand delivery to the address indicated,next business day if Federal Express or other overnight courier or when sent by facsimile when received as evidenced by confirmation if during a Business Day prior to 5:00 p.m. otherwise on the next Business Day. Notices sent by legal counsel for any party shell constitute the notice of the party for which such legal counsel is acting. • If to Windstar Association: • Windstar On Naples Bay Master Association,Inc. 1700 Windstar Boulevard Naples,FL 34112 Attention: President Telephone; (239)775-3400,ext.202 • Facsimile: (239)775-9771 With a copy to: American Property Management Services Attn:Windstar Master Association Manager 8825 Tamianu TrailE Naples,FL 34113 Telephone: (239)774-0105 Facsimile: (239)774-0112 • 12 Packet Page -227- 12/9/2014 9.A. 1, is 1 With a copy to: Greenspoon Murder,P,A. 5150 North Tamiami Trail- Newgate Tower—Suite 502 ' Naples,Florida 34103 Attention: JohnL.Farquhar,Esquire • Telephone: (239)659-1104 Facsimile; (954)333.4037 If to WSC: WSC Naples,LLC 825 Coral Ridge Drive. Coral Springs,FL 33071 . - Attention: Rob Stiegele,Vice President Telephone: (954)3444040 Facsimile: (954)344.4176 • With.a copy to:. • Centerline Homes,Inc. . 825 Coral Ridge Drive • Coral Springs.FL 3071 - • Attention: Jeff Kronengold,Esq. Telephone: (954)344-8040 jraesimile: (954)827.0198 Notices by any other party affected by this Supplemental Declaration shall give notice in accordance with this Section 23 and notice to any such other party shall be given at its address• filed with the Windstar Assooiatian. 24. Amen 1a. This Supplemental Declaration may be amended in the same manner as the DCCR,except that so Long as WSC or its permitted successors and assigns(which any does not include individual Residential Unit owners h which can be Marina znade into a Residential) �(Jnit or Residential Unit or a Marina Unit,or any property a Marina Unit,any amendment to this Supplemental Declaration shall also require the consent of WSC, or such permitted designated successor or assign; provided however, the obligation to be made obtain WSC°s consent shall no longer ve been required as to any and no new Marina Units h ve been treated Marina Unit if other Marina Units have d for a period of five(5)years, 25. Conflicts. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of ppl mental Declaration and the provisions of the DCCR. as to the WSC Property, this Su Declaration shall control;however,interpretation shall be made to the degree possible to make the two documents consistent. [SIGNATURES ON THE FOLLOWING PAGES] 13 Packet Page -228- 12/9/2014 9.A. • Fi - IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Supplemental a<claration on the date first set forth above. t;. 1/7 4; 4111x 'WSC NAPLES LLC,a f Florida limited liability company,by P nit Name: / 1y1 U� CRS Organization,Inc.,its Manager Print Name, j)0Ki Sen-/U•�•rr 1Pr5� B• . ! r Na iffr Title: STATE OF FLORIDA ) SS: • COUNTY OF BROWARD ) The forgoing ins ent was acknowledged before me this t,4„, day of �Y ug% , 203 by k.p\ r-- - �.l e , as L2,Ce Oireck,(4..o..,A4-• of CRS Organization,Inc.,as Manager of WSC Naples,LLC a Florida limited liability company,who is • i�arso` nal[y 1m toze or who has produced as identification. My commission expires:,114/q `' t c N ARY PUBLIC,State o iarlda at Large • • Print Name: n,r5 o :A()V CiQ v, .' s L DIANE JORDAN � •;, a MY COMMISSION#OD557656 174:44, February 02,2014 ' fdpkoMote onloo,eom {8073• �tC3 • 14 Packet Page -229- 12/9/2014 9.A. M • F. Y "'"� VINDSTAI<t ON NAPLES BAY. Ar...„6,,,,,- MASTER ASSOCIATION,a Florida not- O: e. L`/ y% for-profit corporation ii/ B J . i Marne: •� � 1 0 I i. / A , Title: 'tint Name: . A. ,• - V...:Mss . STATE©F F-1044.1 ) . ) SS. COUNTY OF`n i I t tr ) 9 'I]i-e�f r ing } me was aoknow�r ged�b a me this `; y of !t'L c+_..�" ► 2Q by J n l L. 0 ,as T"r-' `' ofWindstar on Naples'Ray Master Assooiatlon,a F1ortda not-for-profit corporation,who is personally known tom arse"' My commission expires: • �A.nE - N�OT �:kKU:LIO;State of/ g r--- 1 -—JO NL.FARQ HAR Far �, IVCOdL4 MONIEEE080'd4J EXPIREB;J�Y�� ger ik•�?�" gq�prupvdbUndatMY1R 15 Packet Page -230- 12/9/2014 9.A. 4G LIMITED JOINDER BY CENTERLINE HOMES, INC. FOR THE PURPOSES AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 18 OF THIS SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION. O. CENTERLINE HOMES,INC. a Florida corporation • Print Name: By: Name: G Title: 1.4 • 4111.41111- PrintName: 1(. A ii t is STATE OF FLORIDA ) • ) SS: COUNTY OF BROWARD ) The forgoing instrument was acknowledged before me thisrQL. day of V•( ., 20 1,3 by Znlr}eitt C ,Per l ,as vex e r e S l c. .$.r++- of Centerline Homes, Inc., a Florida corporation,, who is ,finally known to me or who has produced as identification. • My commission expires: a J a!i __ r ' , • ARY PUBLIC,y State a‘• 10,E rie..at Large Print Name: C, Chra eq a.AIR; L DIANE JORDAN e `'l 0"±MY COMMISSION R DD987806 EXPIRES February 02,2014 (407)o niss._.. RotMeRom tame Mm 16 Packet Page -231- 12/9/2014 9.A. EXHIBIT A LBO• .D' CRY, 0 OR •ROPER'lY 1 1 • • • 1 - } +. 17 Packet Page -232- 12/9/2014 9.A. fi i • . 3 eXHTBIT"A" • c .Legal Description . - . PARCEL 1: • • , . • 1 . 1 A portion of the Northwest quarter of Section 14,Township 50 South, Range 25 EaSt,and a . portion of the . 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 Section 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,the same being the North-South • quarter section line of said Section 14 to the Northeast corner of Windstar,as recorded in Plat Book 14, Pages 11 through 1.5 of said public records; thence along the boundary of said Windstar the following courses: south 89°35' 14"West, 330.45 feet; thence North 00°13'07"West,462.39 feet;thence North • 89°35' 11" 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 Windstar,North 00° 17' 06"West, 197 feet, more or Jess,along the West boundary of the Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of said Section 11 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 the Southwest corner of said Demere Landing and the Northwest corner of Lot 42 of said Naples Groves and Truck Co.'s Little Farms No. 2; thence North 89°30' 34" East,330.00 feet along the South boundary of said Demere Landing and the North boundary of said Lot 42; thence South 00° 18' 15" East, 337.30 feet,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' 15"East, 334.79 : feet along said quarter section line and the West boundary of said Gulf Shores to the Point of Beginning. 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°13'07" 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°13'07" East 329.53 - feet; thence South 89°35'14"West 330.47 feet;thence North 00°13'07"West 329.53 . feet; thence North 89°35'14" East 330,47 feet to the Point of Beginning. LESS AND EXCEPT THEREFROM the present or former beds or bottoms of lakes,.rivers, canals,or other bodies of water located on or within the lands described herein, Packet Page -233- 12/9/2014 9.A. • • ti PARCEL 2: A parcel of land lying in the Northwest quarter of Section 14,Township 50 South,Range 25 East, collier County, Florida and being described as follows: 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° 13'02"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" West,332 53ffeet;thence North 89°35' 14" East,330.47 feet to thence the Point rtof Beginning. PARCEL 3: • . The West 140 feet of Lot 47,of Naples Grove and Truck Company's Little Farms No. 2, according to the Plat recorded in Plat Book 1,Page 27,of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida,EXCEPTING the North 30 feet thereof, • • • • Packet Page -234- 12/9/2014 9.A. Windstar on Naples Bay is nestled along 2 miles of Naples Bay eastern shore and Haldeman Creek frontage. By land,we are just seven minutes to Old Naples and by sea just one mile across the Bay to Naples Dock and Marina where world class shopping and dining awaits. To the west there is immediate access to Gordon Pass into the Gulf of Mexico along the Port Royal corridor or a southbound inland waterway to Keewaydin and Marco Islands. :it, 4"ii ,chit.-•I Y Windstar on Naples Bay is Naples' only gated golf community with its own private deep-water marina with direct access to Naples Bay and the Gulf.Naturally boating is an important part of "Windstar Living". Southpointe Marina has 72 slips and can accommodate yachts up to 70 feet. Approximately one-in-seven Windstar on Naples Bay residents moor their boats at Southpointe. Boating enthusiasts enjoy Southpointe's direct water access to cruise and fish in Naples Bay,Gulf of Mexico and for many, the Bahamas. The yacht club has its' own clubhouse with a large decked swimming pool where social mixers and events are held for members. �,9 .“t r../ )1.1.5117)- r; �t•r t, teF,,._.,�..' �D�A'+ (Nt l\ irte, Britt - PRIVATE MARINA MEEVIDERSHII' An as owner of a heat otlp at thy'Yacht harbor Marino ynu can eltaa..0 to be n.nontbur or the Private Marina and Yacht Hann located within Won:War on Noptua nay.Tlbb.Ia.avanabto o..rluravely to awnarn of n boot nllp,hoot stipn ranbu In w.txe frarn 2a feet to 72 fit with a F.haat moan tow tido.A ayuorlurly maintenance km af apprawtn.atoty Sn3O w.rayulrod with mombur.hle. Par more information phrase contact Southpolnt Marina at 334-774-Ole or a onthp a tntyoahtcl ubnircan ntryli nk.n ct Packet Page -235- 12/9/2014 9.A. Admirals Watch 116 Naples Bayfront Condominium Residences 1/. Admirals Watch is magnificently located directly on Naples Bay near the new Windstar Clubhouse,providing stunning panoramic views of Naples Bay,the grand estates of Port Royal and the Tom Fazio designed Windstar Club golf course.Residents in the sixteen luxury condominium residences enjoy an amenity-filled lifestyle that only a privileged few can attain. During the day,nature and marine life entertain,giving way to spectacular sunsets at dusk and a romantic view of the twinkling lights of Olde Naples and Port Royal at night. Each residence has at least 3 bedrooms, 3 1/2 baths, large living spaces and screened terraces with 10-12 foot ceiling heights. No two homes are alike.Each has been designed to impress and deliver luxury to its owners.Private direct elevator service and 2 to 3 car garages allow easy coming and going. Admirals Watch also has eight deep-water privately owned boat slips directly located on Naples Bay,which include Q rt-.o-. atPt docking Iifts. The private community pool is spectacular,with natural boulders and lush landscaping and a generous patio area. Its proximity to the Windstar Clubhouse also brings immediate walking access to the tennis facility, new fitness center and, of course,the club's water-view dining and cocktail lounges and terraces. Packet Page -236- 12/9/2014 9.A. June 13,2014 Fred Reischl Collier County Planning Commission Naples, FL 34109 Dear Mr. Reischl: As a property owner on Halderman Creek,a taxpaying member of Halderman Creek Municipal Service Taxing Unit(MSTU) and a boater on Halderman Creek, t would ask you one simple question, "Have you ever sailed a boat down Halderman Creek at low tide facing an oncoming vessel?" if the answer yes,you would see the folly of extending docks further into the waterway. It currently can be difficult under the above circumstances, if you allow 42 docks to protrude an additional 32 feet into the Creek,it could create a potentially dangerous situation. I strongly encourage you to vote NO on Halderman Landing Petition#BDE-PL20130001765 for the following reasons: 1. Safety issues. 2, Natural beauty issues, 3. Not a matter of right. 4. Existing zoning does not permit. 5. it would set a bad precedent for other waterfront owners. 6. A yes vote will only benefit the developers to the detriment of all other parties. Thank you for your consideration. William D.Marsh 2772 Riverview 2831/41 Gulfview Packet Page -237- 12/9/2014 9.A. pC g . June 11, 2014 Dear Chairman and Members of the Collier County Planning Commission, I am writing in response to the petition for the boat dock extension along Haldeman Creek. I do not support the petition on behalf of Standard Pacific of Florida GP,Inc.to allow over the maximum 20 feet. I live directly across from the subject property and have for 11 years. Having viewed the waterway every day,these are my concerns: -. . 1) The navigational hazard will be atrocious. • 2) The increased noise levels produced by boats and boaters from 42 boat docks so close to my home will most assuredly be unacceptable. 3) While Haldeman Creek may appear to be 120 to 150 feet wide,it is very shallow. It is so shallow that it required extensive dredging about six years ago.But since the dredging took the depth to 4 feet at mean high water for only the center 15-20 feet of the creek, the actual navigable waterway is very narrow.Extending dockage beyond the 20 feet allowed by an additional 32 feet (that's 160%over the current allowable)will further strangle the waterway. 4) The addition of so many new boat slips that extend so far into Haldeman Creek will also seriously compromise my scenic view of the canal and severely lower my property value. The waterfront property that I purchased 11 years ago will become the equivalent of a parking lot jammed with 42 more boats extending nearly 1,000 feet long. I know of no assemblage of docks this large in all of Collier County. 5) If it is petitioner's intent to become part of Windstar, I believe they have other options including enlarging the current Windstar dock facilities closer to Naples Bay. Also,with the 64 homes that are planned to be built on the property, I doubt that 42 of the 64 homes owners will be boaters. That community is more of a golfing and tennis community. Additionally,I have been told that unsold docks will be deeded to others either in or out of Windstar making the docks more of a"city docks" environment than a private owner's dock. Packet Page -238- 12/9/2014 9.A. ' 11 6) Because Haldeman Creek is so shallow and so narrow, I have to plan my boating activities. I have a boat lift which is not usable during 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 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 up their boats toward the rear of their docks farther into the main channel. I fear that this will make a bad situation worse. We have been told that this will be a code violation which will put me in the unenviable position (since I am closest and most negatively affected by the entire project) of having to call Collier County Code Enforcement to correct the problem. This will be true for every dock whether it has a lift or not. • I appeal to each CCPC member on the board to be very mindful while making a decision to disrupt the last"Old Florida"area in a Naples boating commnnity that has not been overdeveloped. Thank you for taking time to read my concerns. Kate Riley 2998 Poplar Street Naples,FL 34112 239-774-4411 • Packet Page -239- 12/9/2014 9.A. June 13,2014 Mark P.Strain (Chair) Collier County Planning Commission 3675 3'd Ave. NW Naples,FL 34120 Dear MrStrain: As a property owner on Halderman Creek,a taxpaying member of Halderman Creek Municipal Service Taxing Unit(MSTU) and a boater on Halderman Creek, I would ask you one simple question, "Have you ever sailed a boat down Halderman Creek at low tide facing an oncoming vessel?" If the answer yes,you would see the folly of extending docks further into the waterway. It currently can be difficult under the above circumstances. If you allow 42 docks to protrude an additional 32 feet into the Creek,it could create a potentially dangerous situation. I strongly encourage you to vote NO on Halderman Landing Petition#BDE-PL20130001765 for the following reasons: 1. Safety issues. 2. Natural beauty issues. 3. Not a matter of right. 4. Existing zoning does not permit. 5. It would set a bad precedent for other waterfront owners. 6. A yes vote will only benefit the developers to the detriment of all other parties. Thank you for your consideration. William D. Marsh 2772 Riverview 2831/41 Gulfview Packet Page -240- 12/9/2014 9.A. ReisehiFred From: Kate Riley[kjbnaples74©gmail.corn] Sent: Thursday,June 12,2014 9:53 PM To: ReischiFred Subject: Re: Haldeman Creek boat dock extension petition Dear Chairman and Members of the Collier County Planning Commission, I am writing in response to the petition for the boat dock extension along Haldeman Creek. I do not support the petition on behalf of Standard Pacific of Florida GP,Inc.to allow over the maximum.20 feet. I live directly across from the subject property and have for 11 years. Having viewed the waterway every day,these are my concerns: 1) The navigational hazard will be atrocious. 2) The increased noise levels produced by boats and boaters from 42 boat docks so close to my home will most assuredly be unacceptable. 3) While Haldeman Creek may appear to be 120 to 150 feet wide, it is very shallow. It is so shallow that it required extensive dredging about six years ago. But since the dredging took the depth to 4 feet at mean high water for only the center 15-20 feet of the creek, the actual navigable waterway is very narrow.Extending dockage beyond the 20 feet allowed by an additional 32 feet(that's 160%over the current allowable)will further strangle the waterway. 4) The addition of so many new boat slips that extend so far into Haldeman Creek will also seriously compromise my scenic view of the canal and severely lower my property value. The waterfront property that I purchased 11 years ago will become the equivalent of a parking lot jammed with 42 more boats extending nearly 1,000 feet long. I know of no assemblage of docks this large in all of Collier County. 5) If it is petitioner's intent to become part of Windstar, I believe they have other options including enlarging the current Windstar dock facilities closer to Naples Bay. Also, with the 64 homes that are planned to be built on the property,I doubt that 42 of the 64 homes owners will be boaters. That community is more of a golfing and tennis community. Additionally, I have been told that unsold docks will be deeded to others either in or out of Windstar making the docks more of a"city docks" environment than a private owner's dock. 6) Because Haldeman Creek is so shallow and so narrow, I have to plan my boating activities. I have a boat lift which is not usable during low tides. I am fortunate to have a 1 Packet Page -241- 12/9/2014 9.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 P urchasers of the proposed docks discover the bows of their boats in the muck they along the bank(even after dredging) the will more than likely tie up their boats toward the rear of their docks farther into the main channel. I fear that this will make a bad • situation worse. We have been told that this will be a code violation which will put me in the unenviable position(since I am closest and most negatively affected by the entire project)of having to call Collier County Code Enforcement to correct the problem. This will be true for every dock whether it has a lift or not. I appeal to each CCPC member on the board to be very mindful while making a decision to disru.pt the last"Old Florida" area in a Naples boating community that has not been overdeveloped. Thank you for taking time to read my concerns. Kate Riley 2998 Poplar Street Naples,FL 34112 239-774-4411 2 Packet Page-242- 12/9/2014 9.A. ReischlFred From: Roy Wilson[roy.wilson @grnaii.coml Sent: Monday,June 09,2014 2:07 PM To: StrainMark; HomiakKaren;EbertDiane;Doylearian;RosenMike;ChrzanowskiStan; RomanChartette;eastmath@collier.kl2.fl.us Cc: ReischiFred;CasertaAshley;JourdanJean Subject: Dock Facility Extension Petition-Haldeman's Landing Attachments: DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT with integrated responses 6-8-2014.docx Dear Collier County Planning Commission Members: I am Roy Wilson,Chair of the Haldeman Creek Dredging MSTU,writing directly to you at the suggestion of Fred Reischl,Principal(County)Planner for the Haldeman's Landing Dock Extension Petition. Our MSTU became aware of this petition because of questions being raised by local residents. After gaining a copy of the petition(through Mr.Reischl)we invited him to attend our MSTU meeting. Our MSTU meetings do not normally attract attendees,however this one did. There were many questions and statements made by these attendees,including a request that we get involved. The attached is my summary of input and observations related to this proposal. I have taken the County's "Criteria",and by"Cut&Paste",have presented 1)the Criteria Statement"2)The Developer's Response[heavy underlined material]3)My comments related to the Developer's Response[these are highlighted in Yellow]. Hopefully,the attachment format will aid you in understanding the petition from the Developer and my comments,all for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, Roy Wilson Chair,Haldeman Creek MSTU Packet Page -243- 12/9/2014 9.A. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Narrative desorption of project(indicate extent of work, new dock, replacement, addition to existing facility,any other pertinent information): Description of Project Haldeman's Landing is proposing to construct a new docking facility that will Protrude approximately 52 feet from the MHW line. including anoroximately 8.070 square feet of over water structure and consists of 42 plies.for the residents of the proposed subdivision. h the area of the proposed docks.the applicant owns the shoreline on both sides of the creek and the bottomlancjj of Haldeman Creek. The layout will consist of a 473-ft- Jong by 6-foot-wide shore-parallel dock that includes twelve 3Q-ft-long marginal slips and 22-ft-long.27-ft-long. and,0-ft-long by4-ft-wide finger piers allowing perpendicular moorina for 30 of the 42 proposed mooring Bli•-. The docks are located within a man-altered channel i . •1 +=•1ti Haldeman Creek to Naples Bay and further out to Gordon's Pass. The following must be accompanying this application: 1)A signed, sealed survey depicting mean high water (MHW) and mean low water (MLW), and relevant water depths measured at no less than 5-foot increments 2)A chart, drawn to scale, of the waterway at the site, depicting the waterway width, the proximity of the proposed facility to any adjacent navigable channel, the proximity of the proposed facility to docks, if any, on the adjacent lots, and the unobstructed waterway between the proposed facility and the opposite bank or any dock facility on the opposite bank List any additional dock facilities in close proximity to the subject property and indicate the total protrusion into the waterway of each. Directly across the creek at.the prooa ed development. Sanctuary a Demere J,andina.a BOE was granted for docks orotrudina 49-feet from the MHWL.(The Sanctuary at Demere Landing development plan escaped local scrutiny, we cannot find any neighbors aware that docks were permitted for Sanctuary at Demere Landing) AtRomal Yacht Service& a commercial marinaeast of Haldeman's Landing:existina docks protrude aooroximately 46-feet from the MHWL.(Not comparable as these docks are extending from cement seawalls built many years ago and in one case recess into the landowners property), Packet Page -244- 12/9/2014 9.A. PRIMARY CRITERIA 1. Whether or not the number of dock facilities and/or boat slips proposed is appropriate in relation to the waterfront length, location, upland land use and zoning of the subject property; consideration should be made of property on unbridged barrier islands, where vessels are the primary means of transportation to and from the property. ((The number should be appropriate; typical, single-family use should be no more than two slips; typical multi-family use should be one slip per dwelling unit; in the case of unbridged barrier island docks, additional slips may be appropriate)) The or000sed multi-family dock facilitates the moorina of 42 vessels. The orooertv has , 9381inearfeetofshorelinealorgthesouthemoortionot Haldeman Creek.which(stheI °cation ofthe proposed dockingfacility.The remainder of the shoreline will not have docksbuiltonit. ( Misleading as the dlagrahm indicates they want to use ALL of their frontage on Haldeman Creek plus frontage on a portion of Windstar oropertv) . . The project site aualifies as a moderate rankina under the MPP. This eauates to 1Oslios Per 1 OOfeetof shoreline oratotal of 93 slios.(10 slips Per 100 feet would not accommodate 25'and 30' boats)(Mpst boats of these lengths are 9 to 10 feet wide...needing 11 to 12 foot wide docking space.) The 42 slips proposed i;welt under what is allowed by fJte MPP and is alsowell under the one slip Per unitoid llnes. (How many living units are proposed?)Collier County staff has determined that the proposed dockina facility is consistent with the Collier County Manatee Protection Plan. The number of silos proposed is aoororari ate for the Proposed facility i n relation to length of shoreline. bastion.and the number of dwelling units proposed_on the upland.(This does not tell the whole story, whereas you can make this work with the'numbers'. It does. not consider the impact on the area and use of Haldeman Creek by other boaters. Their desired design creates of'bottleneck'on the waterway which is both a safely and astetic concern.) The lengths of the vessels are also conaruent with neighborina properties and appropriate for the size of the waterway.(If approved(which we do not support]. will the developer certify that the docked boats will not extend beyond the outer pilings shown on the diagrams? 2. Whether or not the water depth at the proposed site is so shallow that a vessel of the general length, type, and draft as that described in the petitioner's application s unable to launch or moor at mean low tide (MLT). ((The petitioner's application and survey should show that the water depth is too shallow to allow launch and mooring of the vessel (s) described without an extension)) The attached survey indicates water depths are notadeauateto, moorthe vessels in the proposed slips. Dredgingwill be performed irtorderto moorthe vessels closertotheshorelineand keePthe.protrusion into the navigable waterway to a minimum. Thig waterway has been dredged lithe oastsothiswlll bea maintenancedredgeandnotnewdredaing.( The dredged channel Is the center 40 feet of Haldeman Creek the area they propose to dredge fa NEW DREDGE1 will not connect with the dredged channel, therefore a`sandbar effect' will exist between the dredged channel and the developers proposed NEW dredale) An extensk nbstill required due to the width ofthewaterway it relaationtothe_meanderi naMHWL.(The extension is ONLY required because the Packet Page-245- 12/9/2014 9.A. developer has requested docking perpendicular to the shoreline) (Additionally,the effect of the extension is to narrow the channel bringing arrival and departure safety, into auestion. 3. Whether or not the proposed dock facility may have an adverse impact on navigation within an adjacent marked or charted navigable channel. ((The facility should not intrude into any marked or charted navigable channel thus impeding vessel traffic in the channel)) The proposed dockina facility will not impede navigation ofthe waterway. tdoes notorotrude iitothedesianatedchannel.as shown on the attached exhibits.The width ofthewaterway along the, 1y000sed docks will vary from approximately 97 feet to over 120 feet inwidth after the construction of the proposed docks. Therefore 50%of the width of the waterway will remainooen and no adverse mpacts to navigation are anticipated. ( Do not agree with their measurements and description. Their measurements overstate the width of the waterway. First.the manarove overgrowth narrows the waterway. Second, deaths at low tide make. much of the creek unnavigatible. The docks, if built,would create a bottleneck where two passing boats would be dangerously close. Further, boats leaving their docks would blindly enter the channel and then block the channel till their maneuver is complete. And, arriving boats would create similar blockina as the swing out to align to the dock before completing their arrival.)Boats making these maneuvers will need to use portions of the waterway that are very shallow with danger of running aground. There is a big safety concern. 4. Whether or not the proposed dock facility protrudes no more than 25 percent of the width of the waterway, and whether or not a minimum of 50 percent of the waterway width between dock facilities on either side of the waterway is maintained for navigability. ((The facility should maintain the required percentages)). There are Portions of the proposed docking facility that exceed the p5%width of the waterway when measured from the MHWLto MHW_but this does not represent the width of the navigable, waterway. The M HWL extends upland into the. mangroves.far beyond the naviaable boundaries ofthe waterway. When measurers) from the navigable width of the waterway,there is more than 50%of the width maintainedfor navigation. The applicant owns the creep bottom lands and theiond on the onoosite side of Haldeman Creek across from the proposed docking facility. That shoreline has been placed into a Conservation Easement which does notallowdocksto be built on t (The above statement by the developer shows that the plan exceeds the code e.g.25%). We contend that the proposed docks create an unacceptable narrowing of Haldeman Creek at this location, especially after Santuary at Demere Landing is built. ( Do not see where ownership of the creek bottoms gives the owner any special priviledges.) 5. Whether or not the proposed location and design of the dock facility is such that the facility would not interfere with the use of neighboring docks. ((The facility should not interfere with the use of legally permitted neighboring docks)) r .s.-. •• �,. •, - t i t! t `! r, y;l1 1 - 4; - f gieigh onngl Packet Page-246- 12/9/2014 9.A. docks.(Other than the bottleneck created, boats arriving to and leaving from the neighboring docks at Sanctuary at Demere Landing will be dangerously close to proposed docks)There onIyqnesetofproposeddocks near the applicant's or000sedfacy.and hthisarea.50%ofthe waterway width is main -ined. Percents(%)are of little significance vs actual measurements of the open waterway. Additionally, when boats are arriving and departing from the perpendicular docks, It again shows how the 50% is not sufficient safe separation) The shoreline of Haldeman Creek directlyacrossfrom the proposed facility c owned bythe applicant end was placed Into a Conservation Easement. meaning no docks can everlae built onfhis oortioaof_the creek. (Most of the opposite shoreline is owned by the applicant, but not ALL, as stated)This makes the naviaablewidthas brae orhrgerthananyother devlopedareaof Haldeman Creek.(Just not true. Check width measurements at NLYH) SECONDARY CRITERIA 1. Whether or not there are special conditions, not involving water depth, related to the subject property or waterway, which justify the proposed dimensions and location of the proposed dock facility. ((There must be at least one special condition related to the property; these may include type of shoreline reinforcement,shoreline configuration, mangrove growth,orseagrass beds)) 1' . ••t- -� ••, .. n•.f::.i - w_ • ■= 1-,.1 -6 • A = - '• 1:=. 1 mangrove vegetation and very shallow water. The MHWL is located a substantial distance from the navigable channel.creatina at greater dIstapge for the BQE. Also the applicant owns the submerged bottomlands of the creek and the opposite shoreline in the area of the proposed proiect.(There are no. special conditions that force the current design other than the developer wanting to maximize the number of docks he can sell)( Don't see the significance of ownership of the submerged bottomlands other than not having to pay rent to the County or State i.e. sounds impressive, but'so what')) 2. Whether the proposed dock facility would allow reasonable, safe, access to the vessel for loading/unloading and routine maintenance, without the use of excessive deck area not directly related to these functions. ((The facility should not use excessive deck area)) The proposed dock would be constructed with a six foot wide main access garallel dock n&four foot wide finger piers. These are minimum dimensions jar safe mooring and pedestrian travel on dock designed for vessels in the 25 to30, ft range. This allows for proper safe access for badina.unloadina.and routine maintenance.while minimizing.pvetwaterdeckingarea. (Is it enforceable that no part of a vessel can extend oast the end pilings of the finger piers as they extend into north Haldeman Creek ??) Packet Page-247- 12/9/2014 9.A. 3. For single-family dock facilities,whether or not the length of the vessel, or vessels in combination, described by the petitioner exceeds 50 percent of the subject property's linear waterfront footage. ((The applicable maximum percentage should be maintained)) This criterion is not apoli cable as this is a multi-family project. (Technically correct. but shows that there was an intent in the code that docks should only, cover a Portion of one's waterfront property vs 100+% covered in this application.) 4. Whether or not the proposed facility would have a major impact on the waterfront view of neighboring waterfront property owners. ((The facility should not have a major impact on the view of either property owner.)) The proposed dockino facility will not' terfere with any neiyhborina p p.perty owners'views of the waterway. The applicant owns the gpoosite shoreline.. most of which has been pla -d into Conservation Easementwhich does not ajlow docks to be constructed on.(Again, states that they own all of the opposite shoreline when that is not true? There are only a couple of residences, across the creek to the east that would pave a view of the proposed docking faci_ ilitv_(Appnt states that the Project will not Interfere with any neighbors views, yet they mention that'couple of residences would have a view... confusing point] 5. Whether or not seagrass beds are located within 200 feet of the proposed dock facility. ((If seagrass beds are present, compliance with subsection 5.03.06.1 of this code must be demonstrated))None known 6. Whether or not the proposed dock facility is subject to the manatee protection requirements of subsection 5.03.06.E.11 of this code. ((If applicable, compliance with Packet Page -248- 12/9/2014 9.A. Section 5.03.06.E.1i must be demonstrated)) According to the Collier County Manatee Protection Plan.the applicant believes that the proposed project aualifles as arnoderate ranking butwould gut:tJt/as g preferred rankina once the maintenance dredging is complete. Proposed water depths are 4- feet Mean Low Water(MLW1. No impacts to any native marine habitat is being proposed. Additionally.the manatee mortality rate is less than 2 % within a 5-mile radius of the proposed project site. With this rankina and the overall owned shoreline the proposed dock design meets the necessary criteriafor Approval.{If the dredge plan creates a sandbar...manatee and/or dolphin could become trapped between the shoreline and deeper center of Haldeman Creek) In summary, First, We do not believe that the Planning Commission should grant the requested extension. Casual interpretation of their submitted drawings indicate that they would be able provide approximately 26 dock spaces (30' boats) with all boats docking parallel to the waterway(even more slips are possible should they allocate based on 25'length boats). Therefore, 'Code' without an extension, allows them to build a significant number of docks parallel to the shoreline and this would be more consistent with the majority of docks in the Haldeman Creek area. There will be less impact on the recently dredged channel in Haldeman Creek and less erosion of the North bank of HC. Safety issues will be minimized with a wider channel and there will be better aesthetics. Less docks would mean fewer"cuts through the mangroves" and therefore less impact on the environment. Their dredge plan still needs more review to avoid trapping(as mentioned above). We respectfully suggest that the Planning Commission deny the current application. Roy A.Wilson Packet Page -249- 12/9/2014 9.A. fi iLg ReischlFred From: igotideat aol.com Sent: Friday,June 06,2014 1:55 PM To: ReischlFred Cc: BartiettKristi Subject Petition BDE-PL20130001765 opposition Attachments: Petition_BDE-PL20130001765.docx To: Collier County Senior Planner Fred Reischl Collier County Planning and Zoning Collier County Commissioner District 4 Fred W.Coyle Re:Petition#BDE-PL20130001765 I am strongly opposed to the 32 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 52 feet to accommodate a 42 slip multi-family docking facility for the benefit of a 19.06+1-acre project to be known as Haldeman's Landing in sections 11 and 14,township 50 south,range 25 east,Collier County,Florida: I am strongly opposed to the plan to extend the dock space beyond the maximum allowed in order to accommodate additional dock space. The Bayshore area is s simply growing too rapidly,and soon to endanger the protected and preserved area of our beautiful Naples.Haldeman Creek is a narrow passage and restrictions have been put in place to prevent damage to the area and to protect the mangroves.The proposed dock extension would allow the complex to be entirely disfigured,and ruin its integrity.As it stands now,Bayshore is a vital economic engine for Collier County,but a well-preserved link to the"old Florida living"of our city.Please don't allow this to be ruined. Please do not allow an unnecessary special treatment to ruin this beautiful area. Sincerely, Debora Brandt,Collier County Resident 1 Packet Page-250- 12/9/2014 9.A. June 9, 2014 Mr. Fred Reischl Senior Planner Planning&Zoning 2800 North Horeshoe Drive Naples,Florida 34104 Subject : HALDEMAN CREEK DOCK EXTENSION PETITION Dear Mr. Reeschl, Thank you for the information and guidance regarding this Petition process. Enclosed my letter to the CCPC.Would you please forward it on to them. Sincerely, , J4(771.— Robert F. Messmer 2878 Orange St. Naples, Fl.34112 775-3493 Packet Page -251- 12/9/2014 9.A. if ' c June 4,2014 Subject:HALDEMAN CREEK DOCK EXTENTION PETITION Chairman and Members of the Collier County Planning Commission, Last night at the regularly scheduled meeting of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle CRA Advisory Board,this project was presented for information only,and no vote was called for.The meeting was attended by all 7 Board members,Comity staff,representatives for the Petitioner,and over 40 property owners who will be negatively effected should this project be approved.There was not a single voice of support for the project and many chose the opportunity to articulate their reasons for their opposition.This portion of the Ong was recorded,and I urge this Board listen to the discussion. It is a poorly conceived plan and the Petitioner has several other alternatives for the design and locations for the 42 slips. Let me first point out some misleading statements and errors in the Applicants Petition. The Applicant repeatedly mentions these slips will accommodate 25 and 30 foot long vessels.In the boating industry,a boat's length is measured from the outermost surface of it's structural bow to the outermost service of it's structural stern.Importantly,these 25 and 30 foot lengths do not include bow sprits,bow pulpit protrusions,bow anchors, rudders,outboard motors,stern swim ladders and steps.These protrusions can easily add 2 to 3 feet or more,to the overall length'of a boat.County staff has stated,that any portion of boat protruding beyond the Northerly dock pilling will be a violation of code and the owner of the slip will be cited by Collier County Code Enforcement.It will be interesting to bear the Real Estate agent's response when asked by a potential buyer, will this slip accommodate my Carver 30 with three 250 HP motors?" The applicant states the area to be dredged has been dredged before,hence this will be a maintenance dredge.The proposed area is along the South shore line which has never been dredged cinre Haldeman Creek was fast created by the initial dredging. The Applicant states that only 2 residences will have views of the docks.At least 6 residences to the Northeast and at least six residences in Land Yacht Harbor will have views of the docks. The Applicant makes several misleading statements regarding its ownership of the property on the North shore.The Applicant attempts to conceal the fact that the owner of a parcel on the North shore already has permits to construct 6 slips which will.protrude South,beyond the allowed 20 feet.See Exhibit`°A".I am told by County staff that a drawing,the same as,or similar to Exhibit"A"will not be provided by the Applicant for inclusion In your informational packet,but will be mentioned June 19.This is the most dangerous location,with boats backing out of their slips on.both the North and South Packet Page -252- 12/9/2014 9.A. sides of the Creek. Poorly conceived because: The docks restrict safe passage,especially for large wide beamed work boats,catamarans and trimarans which can have beams of 30 feet or more,and especially at the location shown in Exhibit"A". The docks negatively effect the nearly 400 property owners upstremn of the docks, especially the four commercial property owners,three of which depend solely on easy and safe passage in Haldeman Creek. The 30 slips perpendicular to the Creek are the most dangerous.The boat backing out of her slip,is the give-way vessel,and will not be able to see a boat traveling in the Creek, which is the stand-on vessel,until it's stem is well into the Creek.A 30 foot boat will completely block the waterway until it is able to turn and proceed East or West. Other alternatives: Change the 30 slips perpendicular to the shore,to slips parallel to the shore.To still accommodate 42 boats,extend the dock further West or build docks at one or more of the following locations. Build some of the 42 slips along the east shoreline of the Applicants property.This segment of canal is not used by boaters proceeding further South since they use another canal just to the East.'s Since this development will be a part of Windstar,expand one or both of Windstar's docks located in the large bay Northeast of channel marker"24". Respectfully submitted, / 7 a�µ-ew-''ter a w✓.""'.,—.l.r Robert F.Messmer 2978 Orange St. Naples,FL 34112 �P�e-M rte, is r_ Packet Page -253- 12/9/2014 9.A. , i y 3 YT �' h gt m x E r bg t ~ I F0.9Kin,� a OS el Z k ill. b • i m,� � Zo�iO�+� tr�i �t g# 4• • I �'a�uQ�B� rdy � � • m s $m�O� . p..�au1 111' 1 z pyk• %.�r W a O I �'O417�-m gZ 't' m tY �;.':: -n ,. Kittlag= O 0.I `o C Om 4 —411.n- r P... 4 PR2ami5g 11 1 9 „.:, / 6 . :'4. ...W......A o�00000 � o a o . ,..„ ' LLf 1 Lii m m i o wam-Logi o fA , 1111 „mil. . 1. a. III cci' • J ,/ ►----- i < J1• Q 1 II I �_ �1 zii. . 4• r rub 1 ,...,_, r.E. ` Q ,6: =T�7 i- i f gip, ' '''r i < At L 1 wr NA p '3 yg N 1 Hri• b i i• aye IMO _: ° \I NOEI.�3S n � O 3Nl Bait/ #an® :am mg ail ME a•3NIl HOLVW . m .'s NOL.O3s 1_i I- i 11 t . �_ II - i \ F••2.5f••,...v..00A9•146ENERkarrCOW7'l :•-dq VroR®4/19t61i _. Packet Page-254- 12/9/2014 9.A. April 13,2014 Mr. Fred Reischl Collier County Government Dear Mr. Reischl: My name is Robert Buelow and I live on Poplar Street on the east side of Naples. Our home is located on Haldeman Creek and we are directly across from the canal finger that meanders into the pond and finger canals going down Bayshore Drive. My wife and I are both opposed to the dock extension request being made by Standard-Pacific, Inc.There are a number of reasons. First and most important is that the canal simply isn't wide enough or deep enough to accommodate that level of intrusion into the main canal. I have attached several photographs taken in 2012 or 2013 showing how a low storm tide drastically limits the width of the navigable waterway.The canal is so shallow that it required a massive dredging project about six or seven years ago. The end product of that dredging accomplished a minimum depth of only four feet at mean tide but only for the center 15 to 20 feet of the waterway.Anytime opposing boat traffic forces another boat to steer toward the bank,that boat is in jeopardy of having to clear areas that are too shallow to pass.This forces boats to pass each other way too closely. Secondly,the addition of more than 40 slips will invariably create additional noise throughout the days and evenings that are frequently above acceptable levels already. Partying boaters seldom have a full appreciation for how easily noise travels on water. Also, I have heard that a property owner on the north side of the proposed development has previously requested permits for six docks to extend up to 42 feet(or 22 feet beyond the current code restriction.) At a mean tide, t measure about 140 feet from bank to bank. If one developer is allowed a 32-foot extension totaling 52 feet(20 plus 32)and the other docks are built to 42 feet,the total intrusion into what will become a massive bottle neck would be 94 of just 140 total feet.This is not adequate for a busy waterway that feeds so many homes and businesses upstream. As it is,the boat works down the canal from us has daily traffic including huge cabin cruisers in excess of 40 or 50 feet in length. My understanding is that these boats have to wait for a higher tide to get to their destination even after the dredging of several years ago. Yet another reason for our objection to the petition is that it will seriously change the view that we have from our property of a mangrove-lined waterway. Packet Page-255- 12/9/2014 9.A. And since the property is adjacent to if not part of the Windstar development,it seems that the developers have an alternative option to construct docks out closer to Naples Bay where the current Windstar docks are located. If not there, there are more limited but still usable dock possibilities around the"pond'located south and east of the proposed additions. Finally, I have serious concerns about two operational elements of the petition. 1. The timeline to react and research the petition is way too short and too late in the "winter season"for many affected people to respond raising questions about the petitioner's intention to rush the process through without adequate community input. 2. Including only those within 500 feet of the proposed project excludes many other homeowners and businesses that will definitely be affected by the final decision on the project. I certainly hope you will carry our concerns forward to the appropriate individuals. Thank you for taking the time to read my letter and look at our photographs. Robert D. Buelow Suzanne R.Buelow 2997 Poplar Street Naples FL 34112 239-774 7462 NOTE: I believe all of these photographs are taken from 2998 Poplar Street which is located due north of the proposed docks. Packet Page -256- 12/9/2014 9.A. ' 1 , tli d ,.,7-71 r, r .7 / i t :if d 1y #..ip ,04, w +kR S .""uy�+mr+rir -257- Packet Page 12/9/2014 9.A. ;,- irt ! 'T. - ) , . , ;,, . , . t 4 I ,-/ . , -A',,1-'' , H 5 � '',� r t t+ ' > I --=;,"::::". T ;"74,5;:,4., ,,I -;4 3 . i�1 ,• „,7%r, r t'`S r_ Packet Page -258- 12/9/2014 9.A. I ; �.p + Al . its;V . \ I r , *It ' , d:,t , , ! s" - 1 ' '....„,,,artil -- -- , ,, i,.. .„. -14.,"iet---:NT `fir ?M?a� Packet Page -259- 12/9/2014 9.A. j s s aq ;te r-�zzmw f g�rd",,, —, ,-k s , 4 4� - t J,•'" `i ;k uA ,fu } ",r 4,1k0":,4 a. �xx F+;. i'c X r:4 a'rc;.s 5 F ,. e x A..1,41.'-',,,:-; 2 r+ p { .:44 T -r Packet Page-260- 12/9/2014 9.A. y �� °, ,tl. . Y p7 t �G Oyu , 'T i �; Sii,e-k t 9a�ia 1f■1 l' ,0,i c4 i - (; 3F Packet Page -261- 12/9/2014 9.A. Page 1 of 2 Subj: RE: HALDEMAN LANDING PETITION Date: 4/9/2014 1:39:08 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time From: FredRelschlecollieroov.net To: Iiinattmatidsza CC: MarkStrainebcollieroov.nat Mr. Messmer- Thanks for your input I have copied Mark Strain, the Chief Hearing Examiner,so your input will be provided to him. My responses are below. -Fred From: Mescatem@aol.com[mallto:Mescatem@aol.00m] Sent:Wednesday,April 09,2014 1:20 PM To: ReischlFred Subject:HALDEMAN LANDING PE I ION Dear Mr. Reischl, Thank you for our phone conversation and the 14 page EXHIBITS. In order for me to determine If to support or object to the subject PETITION, your response to the following questions would help. I do wish that this and all future communications, including your responses become a part of the record and be included in the CCPC agenda packets. 1. Has the petitioner submitted any information regarding the entire project, i.e. dwellings, planed for the property ? 2. In 2007, the previous owner of the subject property proposed building docks for 26 boats at this approximate location. Was a variance requested for that proposal, and if so,was it heard by the CCPC?What decision if any was made? 4. The rectangular property, its North boundary being Becca, its South boundary Haldeman Creek, and East boundary the canal West of Poplar St. Is my understanding correct, that this property is already "permitted"for 6 dwellings, and docks located along the Creek? If this is correct, it would be helpful to view drawings of those docks in relationship to the petitioner's including the MEAN HIGH and LOW WATER LINES, and the width of the remaining waterway with of course boats occupying those slips. f 5. Given the fact that this proposal will narrow the navigable waterway, will the riparian rights of the owners "up stream", especially the 2 marinas be compromised ? Thursday,April 17,2014 AOL:Mescatem Packet Page -262- 12/9/2014 9.A. Page 2 of 2 Thanking you in advance, Robert F. Messmer 2978 Orange St. Naples, FL 34112 239-775-3493 Lfitilot rtatidti Law,r,-rmi1 atictrc..ow ate tedtlie ttxcotdG.Ilyou tin unttiaront yaw rs mail addto:u mart Dina HI to poIIou to:1 uttbiir,tvnotd rectum'.r1n not sand Ouch tom trail in lair;sadly.htclekd,contact thl:oliice Yr}trlegtttonc:or in with gt. Thursday,April 17,2014 AOL:Meseatem Packet Page -263- 12/9/2014 9.A. -- - TURRELL, HALL 4 ASSOCIATES, INC. . MARINE&ENYIRONMENTA+L CONSULTING 3584 Exchange Avenue,Suite B•Naples,Florida 34104-3732•(239)643-0166•Fax(239)643-6632 February 12,2014 BDE-PL20130001765 REV:2 • FISHERMAN'S VILLAGE Fred Reischl,AICP DATE: 2/19/14 Principal Planner DUE: 315/14 Collier County Government Department of Zoning&Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive . Naples,FL 34104 RE: • BD-PL20130001765 FICA:Fisherman's Village now Haldeman's Landing BDE Fred, . Per the request of county staff please see attached copy of our response to all questions and concerns in regards to the above subject BDE application's first review process. First off please notice the name change for the proposed project from Fisherman's Village to Haldeman's Landing. I have attached the updated BDE application with all requested changes, with the updated exhibits, and a Unanimous Written Consent of the Board of Directors of Standard Pacific of Florida. Upon your review of these revisions please let me know if there is anything else that you may need for your review. If you have anymore questions or concerns please feel free to contact me at the above letterhead phone number or email Tim(a1Turrell-Associates.com or Jeff(Turre)l-Associates.com RegarJs, 111( Jeff Rogers Project Manager Turrell,Hall&Associates,Inc. Packet Page -264- 12/9/2014 9.A. p, Co itr 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.coiliereov.net • � y: X 5 �i - �� ^'�-r('"yi-� ■���`��yr.�/�'a/(.�(3 t f /may i. f Y""�`yS Y■� � .� r:.,.«i v� .,,• >l 1 -4-e }r t 7 y , :.xi}a!l F}y��.. .4m.,'L ,.R rrr I r i v K,,•G„�r gf iii ty,,( } ,,,,, �` 1 t� K�' '1 4, �4.r�-:0{`'. cNL4�.,'�'M 1 ,, ,;F,.L, � r; �4,. W . -1 1,1...1', ,• �•" 1e?.- W,K i, t f• 1 LR., 6. p The following Information is intended to guide you through the process of a Dock Facility Extension or Boathouse Establishment Petition, from completing the application packet to the final determination by the Collier County Planning,Commission. . ,I Prior to submittal of the attached Dock:Facility Extension or Boathouse Establishment Petition.. application, you must attend a pre-application meeting to determine if, pursuant to Land. Development Code Section 5.03.06. the:option of a dock facility extension or boathouse establishment is available to you and to discuss the location,length/protrusion and configuration of- the proposed boat dock facility,The pre-application fee is$500.00(to be credited toward application - fee upon submittal.) In order to process your request,all accompanying Materials must be completed and submitted with the application (SEE ATTACHED CHECKLIST). The application fee for a Dock 'Facility Extension or Boathouse Establishment is currently $1500.00 plus $925.00 for required legal advertising. . An additional amount for property owner notifications will be billed to the applicant prior to the hearing date. ' Within ten (10) days of the submission of:your application, you will receive notification that your petition is being processed. Accompanying that response will be a receipt for your check and the number assigned to your petition. This petition number should be noted on all future correspondence regarding your petition. The Department of Zoning and Land Development Review will provide for legal notification of surrounding property owners within SOD feet of the subject property and newspaper advertising -(required fifteen (15)days prior to the Planning Commission Hearing date). You will be notified by mail of your hearing date and will receive a copy of the Staff Report. It is recommended,but not - required,that you or your agent attend the Planning Commission meeting. - If you have any further questions or need assistance completing this application,contact the Growth Management Division/Planning and Regulation at 252-2400. Packet Page -265- 12/9/2014 9.A. 4 -Co er Cramty i is COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE I'; GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ NAPLES,FLORIDA'34104 • I If (239)252-2400 FAX (239)252.6358 PLANNING AND REGULATION - www.00lliergov.net II t ;DOCK`SKO.11 YE W$IQN1 O&TH IUSgPraTfliON '. iF itIS,PETiC7014$ tIcheckr�ne? .,®. # tSEX=TEN$IN: . .; DATHUSE s 1 • PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME To be completed by staff DATE PROCESSED II t AP 10ANT INhfJFM IT10. .`k : NAME OF APPLICANT(S) STANDARD PACIFIC OF FLORIDA ADDRESS 405 NORTH REO STREET CITY Tampa STATE Florida zip 33609 TELEPHONE# • CELLO FAX# • E-MAIL MDEBOCK@STANPAC.COM ' NAME OF AGENT Timothy Hall FIRM Turret!,Hall&Associates . • ADDRESS 3584 Exchange Ave CITY Naples STATE FL ZIP 34104 • TELEPHONE# 239-643-0166 CELLO 239-253-9137 FAX# 239-643-6632 E-MAIL THALL(aTURRELL-ASSOCiATES.COM • BE AWARE THAT COLLIER COUNTY HAS LOBBYIST REGULATIONS.GUIDE YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY AND ENSURE THAT YOU ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THESE REGULATIONS. . • Packet Page -266- 12/9/2014 9.A. $Acouny • COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT • 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ • NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 PLANNING AND REGULATION (239)252-2400 FAX (239)252-6358 www.coiliergov.net Lakeview Drive. • Address of Subject Property Section/Township/Range t1&14/50 S 125,E Property IA.#: 61835520008,00388360008 00394880004,00395320000,&61835840005 - Subdivision Haldeman's LandingVillage Unit Lot(s) Block(s) Current Zoning and Land use of Subject;Property RMF-6(3)&RMF-6 ADJACENTgotioNG fAND' 1ND t1St . Zoning Land Use N RMF-6-®MUD-R1 &RSF-4-BMIJD-R4 Haldeman Creek/Single Family Residential S PUD,RSF-4-BMUD-R4,RMF-6-BMUD-R1 Golf Course&Single-Family Residential E . RMF-13-BMUD-R1.RSF-4-13141D•R4,RMF.BMUD-R2 Canal borders Entire East Bide w/Single Family Residential W PUD&MH Windstar Subdivision Narrative description of project(Indicate extent of work,new dock, replacement,addition to existing facility,any other pertinent information): The following must be accompanying this application: 1) A signed, seated survey depicting mean,high water (MHW) and mean low water (MLW), and relevant water depths measured at no less;than 5-foot increments 2)A chart;drawn to scale, of the waterway at the site,depicting the waterway width,the proximity of the proposed facility to any adjacent navigable channel, the proximity of the proposed facility to docks, if any,on the adjacent lots;and the Unobstructed waterway between the proposed facility and the opposite bank or any dock facility on the opposite bank Packet Page -267- 12/9/2014 9.A. • • Goer 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 3)A site plan to scale showing dimensions and location of existing and proposed dock structures,as • well as across section showing the facility.in relation to MHW(MLW and shoreline (bank, seawall or rip-rap revetment). � - f r f �i��+�1���11Yf��iO�n e � i f r ,.•1 Width of waterway: ft.; - Measurement from 0 plat ❑survey []visual estimate© other(specify) Aerial Total property water frontage: "5 ft. - Setbacks: provided 36 ft.required 15 ft. Total protrusion of proposed facility into.water: 52' ft. Number and length.Of vessels to use facility: 1. 2az25 ft.,2. 22430 ft.,3. ft. • List any additional dock facilities In.close proximity to the subject property and indicate the total protrusion into the waterway of each: See attached Sheet • For all petitions, in the case ot signs located on properties 1 acres or more In size, the applicant shall be responsible for erecting the required sign(s). what Is the size of the •property? 20.51 Acres- Official lnteroretations or Zoning.Verifications: To your knowledge,has there been an official interpretation or zoning verification rendered on this property within the last year? ❑Yes IP No if so,please provide copies. • The following criteria,(pursuant to Section 5.03.06 of the Land Development Code)shall be used as a guide by staff in determining its recommendation to the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC),and by the CCPC in its decision to approve or deny a particular Dock Extension request. In •order for the CCPC to approve the request, it must be determined that at least 4 of the 5 primary criteria,and at least 4 of the 6 secondary criteria,must be met. Please provide a narrative response to the listed criteria and/or questions. Attach additional pages if necessary. • • • • Packet Page -268- 12/9/2014 9.A. • _ r Co e County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 21300 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 PLANNING AND REGULATION (239)252-2400 FAX (239)252-6358 www.colliergov.net ( r •� 1. Whether or not the number of dock facilities and/or boat slips proposed is appropriate in relation to the waterfront length, location, ,upland land use and zoning of the subject property; consideration should be made of property on unbridged barrier islands, where vessels are the • primary means of transportation to and from the property. ((The number should be appropriate; typical,single-family use should be no more than two slips;typical multi-family use should be one !, slip per dwelling unit; in the case of unbridged barrier island docks, additional slips may be appropriate)) See attached sheet 2. Whether or not the water depth at the proposed site is so shallow that a vessel of the general length,type,and draft as that described in the petitioner's application is unable to launch or moor at mean low tide (MUT). ((The petitioner's application and survey should show that the water depth Is too shallow to allow launch and mooring of the vessel (s) described without an . extension)) See attached sheet 3. Whether or not the proposed dock facility may have an adverse impact on navigation within art 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)) See attached sheet 4. Whether or not the proposed dock facility protrudes no more than 25 percent of the width of the waterway, and whether or not a minimum of SO percent of the waterway width between dock facilities on either side of the waterway:is maintained for navigability.((The facility should maintain the required percentages)). See attached sheet • 5. Whether or not the proposed location arid 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)) See attached sheet Packet Page -269- 12/9/2014 9.A. li. - W Co or county COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2600 NORTH.HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION! NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 PLANNING AND REGULATION (239)252-2400 FAX (239)252-6358 • www.colliergov.net e£ T�' 3l • 1. Whether or not there are special conditions, not Involving water depth, related to the subject property or waterway, which justify the proposed dimensions and location of the proposed dock facility. ((There must be at least one special condition related to the property;these may include type of shoreline reinforcement,shoreline configuration,Mangrove growth,or seagrass reds)) See attached sheet 2. Whether the proposed cloak 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)) See attached sheet 3. For single-family dock facilities,whether or not the length of the vessel,or vessels in combination, described by the petitioner exceeds 50 percent of the subject property's linear waterfront footage. ((The applicable maximum percentage should be maintained)) See attached sheet 4. Whether or not the proposed facility would have a major impact on the waterfront view of neighboring waterfront property owners. ((The facility should not have a major Impact on the view of either property owner.)) See attached sheet 5. Whether or not seagress beds are located within 200 feet of the proposed dock facility. ((if seagrass beds are present, compliance with subsection 5.03.06.1 of this code must be demonstrated)) See attached sheet • 6. Whether or not the proposed dock facility is subject to the manatee protection requirements of subsection 5.O3.O6. .11 of this code. ((If applicable,compliance with Section 5.03.06.E.0 must be demonstrated)) See attached sheet • Packet Page-270- 12/9/2014 9.A. er County COWER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION! NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 PLANNING AND REGULATION (239j 252.2400 FAX (239)262-6358 www.colllergov.net I HEREBY ATTEST.THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS APPLICATION IS TRUE AND ACCURATE TO THE GEST:OF MY KNOWLEDGE. . i I UNDERSTAND THAT,IN ADDITION TO APPROVAL OF THIS DOCK EXTENSION,A BUILDING PERMIT IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION. I UNDERSTAND THAT IF THIS DOCK EXTENSION PETITION IS APPROVED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, AN AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNER MAY FILE AN ' APPEAL WITHIN 14 DAYS.OF THE HEARING. IF I PROCEED WITH CONSTRUCTION DURING THIS TIME,I'DO SO AT MY OWN RISK. • Signature of Petitioner or Agent • • • • • Packet Page -271- 12/9/2014 9.A. It iv county COWER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 PLANNING AND REGULATION (239)252-2400 FAX (239)252-6358 wwW.coMergov.net = • ;' -000 • , ; • .§P130.0014;00.E0KOLW): ;. 1.' THIS COMPLETED CHECKLIST IS TO BE SUBMITTED WITH APPLICATION PACKET IN THE EXACT ORDER LISTED BELOW w/cOVER SHEETS ATTACHED TO EACH SECTION: NOTE:INCOMPLETE SUMBITTALS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. REQUIREMENTS #OF SUBMITTED NOT COPIES REQUIRED Completed Application 6 0 0 Owner/Agent Affidavits,signed&notarized 1 0 D Addressing Checklist 1 0 Li Conceptual Site Plan illustrating the following: 6 0 0 a. The lot and dimensions where proposed docking facility is to be • located. b. All yard setbacks c. Required setbacks for the dock facility d. The total number and configuration of the proposed facilities,etc. • (include all dimensions to scale). e. The water depth where the proposed dock facility is to be located and the distance to the navigate channel. (Water depth at mean low tide should be shown at approximately every five(5)feat of length for the total length of the proposed facility. 1. Illustrate the land contour of the property on which the dock facility is proposed. g. The dock facility should.be Illustrated from an aerial view,as well as side view. Electronic copy of documents and plans on CDROM 2 Application and Review fees:$15130 Review Fee;§5825 Legal Advertising Fee(estimated). Check payable to Board of Calmly Commissioners ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: At the completion of the review process, the applicant shall submit 16 additional copies of the application and 16 additional copies of the Conceptual Site Plan for the CCPC agenda packets. . , Packet Page-272- 12/9/2014 9.A. • ti fi Colt, or County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ NAPLES.NORM HORSESHOE D1i1YE NAPLES,FLORIDA•34'104 • PLANNING AND REGULATION ( )252-2400 FAX (239)2524858 www.collIergov net As the authorized agentfappiicant for this petition, i attest that all of the Information Indicated on-this checklist is Included In this submittal package, I understand that failure to Include all necessary submittal Information may result in the delay of processing this petition, • • AFFIDAVIT Wail,,41(44-6Y- Aile2Pdf being first duly sworn,depose and say that wen am/are the owners of the property described herein and which is the subject matter of the proposed hearing;that all the • answers to the questions in this application, Including the disclosure of Interest information, all sketches, data,and other supplementary matter attached to and made a pmt of this application,are honest and true to the best of our knowledge and belief. Well understand that the Information requested on this application must be complete end accurate and that the content of this form, whether computer generated or County printed shall not be altered. Public hearings will not be - advertised until this application is deemed complete,and all required Information has been submitted. • As property owner We/i further authorize nit,4t U{rAss,c,Ao act ee our/my representative in any matters regarding this Petition. • Signature of P Jg Property Owner , Signature of Property Owner PeliattivEL • Typed or Printed Name of Owner Typed or Printed Name of Owner • • The foregoing Instrument was acknowledged before me this t f day of Gn,&=e,201 IS by I ll G fit7�4 f'L c-t e- who is •personally ! own to me or has produced - - as identification. - Stale of Florida (Signature of Notary PubWS-State of Florida) County of Collier • (Print;Type,or Stamp Commissioned Name of Notary Public) - 591k, MESHA BENNIE ='' _� MY COMMISSION S M841653 1 R1' EXPIRES October 08,2046 . j407,7981019"!. P10,10 allotary8etvice or • • Packet Page -273- 12/9/2014 9.A. • 110 , peurintion of Project Haldeman's Landlnq is propsina to construct a new docking facIlitV that will protrude approximately S feet from the MHW line including approximately 8.070 square feet of over water structure and consists of 42 silos,for the residents of the parjoiedluhdlylsion. In the area of the proposed docks.the apoliceint owns th ehpreline on bpth sides of the creek and the bottomiands Of-Haldeman Creek. The layout will ' consist of a 473-ft-long by 6-foot-wide shore-parallel dock thatkoludes twelve 30-ft-long morainal slips and 22-ft-long.27-ft-longamd 5041-Iona by Mt-wide Sneer piers allowing nemendiculor mpodrip for 30 of the 42 proposed mooring slips. The docks are located within a man-altered • channel which connects Haldeman Creek to Naples Bay and further out to Gordon's Pass. List any additional dock facilities in close proximity to the subject property and Indicate the total protrusion into the waterway of each 1)17. - ( r"---) 14, • / Directly across the creek at the proposed deyelopmfint,Sanctuary at N.;',• Comore Landing.a BDE was granted for docks protruding 49-feet from the MHWL. At Royal Yacht Services,a commercial marina east of Haldeman% Landing;existing docks orotrude approximately 46-feet from the MHWL Primary Criteria 1) The proposed multRamliv dock facilitates the mooring of 42 vessels. The property has 930 linear feet of shoreline along the southern portion of Haldeman Creek;which is the location of the proposed docking facility. • • The remainder of the shoreline will not have docks hulk on it. The Probed site qualifies as a moderate rinkina under the PJIPP. This sonatas to 10 silos oar 100 felt of Shoreline or a total of 93 slips. The 42 silos proposed Is well underWhatie allowed by the MPP and is also well under the one alio per unit cuildelinee.Collier County staff has determined that the Proposed docklno facility is Gonadal:sal/41th the Collier County Manatee Protection' Plan, Tine number of slips proposed Is appropriate or the proposed facility In relation to lenath of shoreline.location.and the number of dwelling units proposed on the upland. The lengths of the vessels are also congruent with neighboring properties and appropriate for the size of the waterway. 2) The attached survey Indicates water deaths are not adequate to moor he vessels In the proposed alba. Dredging will be performed in order to moor the veseele,closer to the shoreline and keep the Protrusion Into the navigable waterway to a minimum. This Packet Page -274- 12/9/2014 9.A. ■ t - - , , , A r: ? - P.: 17iL /n f ) C • t f• - / lc I t`•`11L I • * L. waterway has been dredged in the past so this will be a maintenance • dredge and not new dredging. An extension is still marked due to the width of the waterway In relation to the meandering • . 3) The proposed docking facility will not impede navigation of the • . . waterway. It does not protrude into the designated channel.as shown on the attached exhibits. The width of*,waterway along the proposed docks AD vary from annmximktelv 97 feat to over 120 feet In width after the construction of the proposed docks. Therefore 50%of the kith of the waterway will remain amen and no adverse impacts to navigation are anticipated. 4) There are portions of the proposed docking facility that exceed the ;5%width of the walerway when measured from the MIIWL to • MHWL.but this does not represent the width of the navigable • waterway. The WV&extends'upland into the mangroves.far • beyond the navigable boundaries of the waterway. When measured from the naviaable width of the waterway.there is more than 50%of the width maintained for navigation. The applicant owns the creek • bottom lands and the land on the opposite aide of Haldeman Creek 1' ; • across from the proposed docking facility. That shoreline has been placed into a Conservation Easement which does not allow docks to be built on • 5) The proposed docking facility will not interfere with the use of any neighboring docks. There is only one set of proposed docks near 7. r the applicants proposed facility,and in this area.50%of the waterway width is maintained. The shoreline of Haldeman Creak 7 F%:1 I- T 1 directly across from the proposed facility is owned by the applicant I-lc=f?' • and was placed into.a Conservation Easement.meaning no docks can ever be built on this portion of the creek. This makes the navigable width as large or tamer than any other deeloped area of Haldeman Creek. • Secondary Criteria 1) The proposed docking facility would be constructed on a shoreline with mangrove vegetation and vary shallow water: The MHWL is located a substantial distance from the navigable channel,creating a preater distance for the BDE. Also the applicant owns the submerged bottomiands of the creek and the opposite shoreline in the area of the proposed project. • • 2) The proposed dock would be constructed with a six foot wide main access parallel dock and four foot wide finer piers. These am minimum dimensions for safe mooring and pedestrian travel on dock • Packet Page -275- 12/9/2014 9.A. _ F designed for vessels in the 25 to 30 ft rang. This allows for Prover safe access for loading.unloadina,and routine maintenance,while minimizing overwater decking area. 3) This criterion is not applicable as this is a multi-family project. • 4) The proposed docking facility will not interfere with any neighboring property owners'views ofthe waterway: The.anplicant owns the . opposite shoreline.most of which has been placed into a Conservation Easement which does not allow docks to be constructed on. There are only a couple of residences across the creek to the east that would have a view of the proposed docking acuity. 5) To our knowledge,there are no known seaarass beds within 200 feet of the proposed dockingiacility. A copy of the SRS is attached for review. 6) According to the Collier County Manatee Protection Plan,the applicant believes that the proposed project qualities as a moderate ranking but woj ld Qualify as a preferred ranking once the maintenance dredging is complete. Proposed water depths are 4- feet Mean Low Water fMLWl. No Impacts to any native marine habitat Is belna proposed.- Additionally,the manatee mortality rate is less than 20%within a 5-mile radius of the proposed protect site. With this ranking and the overall owned shoreline the proposed dock design-meets the necessary criteria for approval. • Packet Page -276- 12/9/2014 9.A. 3 _ 3 _ j).. / ,c--- 4 ' N I ' ":::-.14.'- CL,..'j\-). c iJ _ _ / 1: r „ ._„/ Z Oi, ,„ -11 . .. / i - - . i:/4 7- -1” i' A t';',-!----- I'5 Ai.,.... 47)(--it. J / ,..:‘ ki C.14 ..f.:,' ,.:r,,,it,„,,,.-•I- .....- i Ljj ■ 1 - - _ . 1 ___ 4, _ . -/„ -;-.t,c3.3 A: 3, , ,.-f -„32,. I. , '1 I 2:- 1.33.),3)c fl.r; I c f . . 7- -.1,1,(32.30,..z_33 ; -, i --) .3.:1_,I...., r 6.N 1 t;,. , 4 333. )1‘,-: ,1 Vwf,11‘. / bei - -;b.,.._- Ic( ____ L _ --- / . . tr... 1 i- - ' - (4 6: , 11,,,,„. A. L.'+- ,11 L L CA.., •i A _ ._. - 1-1 #.4 L v)(...--_ell Is ;.,., (--. (1.16—C-: k i 5 6,1:.i-1/ /v il. -1 0 3,,Lc.4,. _ tc /1 / / c (.,. 'rn7 ii f k,,. 77,,,1,.,.'C.( 4_1 c ,( 14_). 1 n 7 N, _ _--- --- .. 1 (.• Packet Page -277- 12/9/2014 9.A. Page 1 of 2 From: ReischlFred Sent: Wednesday,April 09, 2014 1:39 PM To: iMescatem@aol.comt Cc: StrainMark Subject: RE: HALDEMAN LANDING PETITION Mr.Messmer- Thanks for your input. I have copied Mark Strain,the Chief Hearing Examiner,so your input will be provided to him. My responses are below. -Fred From: Mescatem*aol.com [mailto:Mescatem(aaol.com] Sent:Wednesday,April 09, 2014 1:20 PM To: ReischlFred Subject: HALDEMAN LANDING Pt ii ION - Dear Mr. Reischl, Thank you for our phone conversation and the 14 page EXHIBITS. In order for me to determine if to support or object to the subject PETITION, your response to the following questions would help. I do wish that this and all future communications, including your responses become a part of the record and be included in the CCPC agenda packets. 1. Has the petitioner submitted any information regarding the entire project, i.e. dwellings, planed for the property? Nothing has been submitted yet The proposed conditions state that a building permit for the docks 7)annot be issued until the Site Development Plan and Special Treatment permit are approved_ And that a bEdinc.:( pei-mit for a residence is issued, 2. In 2007, the previous owner of the subject property proposed building docks for 26 boats at this approximate location. Was a variance requested for that proposal, and if so,was it heard by the CCPC ?What decision if any was made ? The zoning map does not indicate approval of:a Boat Doch EKtension at this location, so if an application was submitte , it was never heat and thereEore was not approved. 4. The rectangular property, its North boundary being Becca, its South boundary Haldeman Creek, and East boundary the canal West of Poplar St. Is my understanding correct, that this property is already " permitted "for 6 dwellings, and docks located along the Creek ? If this is correct, it would be helpful to view drawings of those docks in relationship to the petitioner's including the MEAN HIGH and LOW WATER LINES, and the width of the remaining waterway with of course boats occupying those slips. '11-g IGIVITI-T.17 Packet Page -278-ig%20Services/Current/Reisch... 10/30/2014 12/9/2014 9.A. Page 2 of 2 The applicant states that a Conservation Easement was placed on this property and no docks may be constructed. 5. Given the fact that this proposal will narrow the navigable waterway, will the riparian rights of the owners" up stream", especially the 2 marinas be compromised ? The Code requires that 50% of the navigable waterway remain unobstructed. The applicant's exhibits, and the fact that no docks will be constructed along the north shoreline, support this requirement. Thanking you in advance, Robert F. Messmer 2978 Orange St. Naples, Fl. 34112 239-775-3493 I/L sn,11;tarrtnl,IlPt/Astg/CIMD-T Packet Page -279- g%20Services/Current/Reisch... 10/30/2014 " 12/9/2014 9.A. Page 1 of 1 Mescatem @aol.com From: Sent: Friday,April 11, 2014 12:17 PM To: ReischlFred Cc: FialaDonna; HillerGeorgia;TomHenning @coliergov.net;CoyleFred; NanceTim Subject: HALDAMEN'S LANDING PETITION Mr. Fred Reischl AICP Senior Planner Subject : HALDEMEN'S LANDING PETITION No. BDE -PL 20130001765 Your notice dated April 4, 2014 regarding the subject states, " This is to advise you that you may have interest in the proceedings or you own property located within 500 ft. of the following property to consider." It is my understanding that only those property owners within 500 ft. of the proposed project received your notice. It is also my understanding that owners of properties fronting on waterways, up stream on Haldeman Creek and some of the properties along Bayview Dr., Shoreview Dr., Gulfview Dr., Riverview Dr.,and Lakeview Dr., that are beyond 500 ft. of the proposed project did not receive your notice.All of these properties are effected by this project since they front on waterways, " up stream ", most notably the new Naples Boat Yard, Gulf Shore Marina and the Three 60 Market, commercial properties that are directly and economically impacted by this project. I am requesting that you postpone the April 24, 2014 HEARING until after you are able to notify all owners of the above described properties. I understand that the wording in your notice, " may" have interest, could be construed as not requiring those owners to be notified. However, I hope you agree, they all should have been, The reason I am copying the County Commissioners is because they may feel a change in the wording in the Code governing this issue is needed. Thank you for your continued attention to this mater. Robert F. Messmer 2978 Orange St. Naples, Fl. 34112 239-775-3493 ,rd 1,P,-Rnir,-,Ptkiata/GMI)-1 DS Packet Page -280-%208ervices/Current/Reisch... 10/30/2014 12/9/2014 9.A. Page 1 of 2 i From: Kate Riley jkjbnaples74 @gmail.com] Sent: Sunday,April 13,2014 9:31 PM To: ReischlFred Subject: Haldeman Creek,objection to dock extension. ti • From: Robert Buelow[mailto:rdbuelow@ centurYlink.netj Sent: Sunday,April 13,2014 9:12 PM To: 'Kate Riley' Subject: RE: Haldeman Creek,objection to dock extension. Kate, I'm not sure your last paragraph makes sense.I've made a few suggestions. My letter and pix from Gary will go out tomorrow a.m. Bob Dear Mr.Reischl: In response to your letter dated April 4,2014 on behalf of Standard Pacific of Florida GP,Inc.,I do not support the petition for extensions over the maximum 20 feet allowed. I live directly across from the subject property and have for 11 years. Having viewed the waterway every day,these are my concerns: 1) Boats will not be able to navigate safely down this waterway with docks extended beyond the 20 feet allowed. 2) The noise coming from the docks being further than 20 feet will be extremely obtrusive. 3) There currently is a 49 foot BDE (boat dock extension) granted to the bank on the north shore of Haldeman Creek(project location: Section 11,Township 50 South,and Range 25 East). This information was provided to me by the Department of Army which I would be happy to make available to you. 4) While Haldeman Creek may appear to be 120 to 150 feet wide,it is very shallow.It is so shallow that it required extensive dredging about six years ago.But since the dredging took the depth to 4 feet for only the center 15-20 feet of the creek,the actual navigable waterway is very narrow. Extending dockage beyond the 20 feet allowed by an additional 32 feet(that's 160% over the current allowable)will further strangle the waterway. 5) It is my understanding that the canal is so narrow and shallow at low tide that large boats heading to retail establishments closer to Bayshore Drive will often delay their entry for a higher tide. 6) The addition of so many new boat slips that extend so far into Haldeman Creek will also seriously compromise my view of the canal,one of the main features for which I purchased my home. r;1a•in,,., ,-rd r[7fllt fi1P.t/d t il�T t l-I,DS Packet Page -281-%20Services/Current/Reisch... 10/30/2014 12/9/2014 9.A. Page 2 of 2 7) If it is petitioner's intent to become part of Windstar,I believe they have other options including enlarging the current Windstar dock facilities closer to the Naples Bay or locate additional slips in the pond south and east of the property. Finally,I believe that both marinas in the area along with the 360 Market/Cafe have NOT received this notice and their businesses will/could be greatly impacted. While they may not be within 500 feet of the subject property I think they should be entitled to have input given the hundreds of thousands of dollars they have invested in their businesses so close to this property. qE Thank you for taking time to read my concerns. Kate Riley Agape Island Services,Inc. 2998 Poplar Street Naples,FL 34112 239-774-4411 ,..11;..r[rnt 11 Pt/duty/CrVI I,TIS;packet Page -282-%20Services/Current/Reisch... 10/30/2014 12/9/2014 9.A. Page 1 of 2 From: Kate Riley(kjbnaples74 @gmail.com] Sent: Sunday,April 13, 2014 9:33 PM To: ReischlFred Subject: Haldeman Creek, objection to dock extension. Dear Mr.Reischl: In response to your letter dated April 4,2014 on behalf of Standard Pacific of Florida GP,Inc.,I do not support the petition for extensions over the maximum 20 feet allowed. I live directly across from the subject property and have for 11 years. Having viewed the waterway every day,these are my concerns: 1) Boats will not be able to navigate safely down this waterway with docks extended beyond the 20 feet allowed. 2) The noise coming from the docks being further than 20 feet will be extremely obtrusive. 3) There currently is a 49 foot BDE(boat dock extension)granted to the bank on the north shore of Haldeman Creek(project location: Section 11,Township 50 South, and Range 25 East). This information was provided to me by the Department of Army which I would be happy to make available to you. 4) While Haldeman Creek may appear to be 120 to 150 feet wide,it is very shallow. It is so shallow that it required extensive dredging about six years ago.But since the dredging took the depth to 4 feet for only the center 15-20 feet of the creek,the actual navigable waterway is very narrow. Extending dockage beyond the 20 feet allowed by an additional 32 feet(that's 160% over the current allowable)will further strangle the waterway. 5) It is my understanding that the canal is so narrow and shallow at low tide that large boats heading to retail establishments closer to Bayshore Drive will often delay their entry for a higher tide. 6) The addition of so many new boat slips that extend so far into Haldeman Creek will also seriously compromise my view of the canal,one of the main features for which I purchased my home. 7) If it is petitioner's intent to become part of Windstar,I believe they have other options including enlarging the current Windstar dock facilities closer to the Naples Bay or locate additional slips in the pond south and east of the property. Finally, I believe that both marinas in the area along with the 360 Market/Cafe have NOT received this notice and their businesses will/could be greatly impacted. While they may not be within 500 feet of the subject property I think they should be entitled to have input given the hundreds of thousands of dollars they have invested in their businesses so close to this property. Thank you for taking time to read my concerns. a, •in, r.nllinrrrnt7 nPt/r1aiA/GMT)-T.DS Packet Page-283-%20Services/Current/Reisch... 10/30/2014 12/9/2014 9.A. Page 2 of 2 Kate Riley Agape Island Services,Inc. 2998 Poplar Street Naples,FL 34112 239-7744411 • • k Ci �;�o•rra,�� rnllrercrnv not/riata/CTMt�-T.T)S,packet Page 284-lo2QServiceslCurrent/Reisch... 10/30/2014 12/9/2014 9.A. Page 1 of 1 r From: ReischlFred k Sent: Tuesday,April 08,2014 9:43 AM 1 To: 'ash37 @comcast.net' Y Subject: Haldeman's Landing Attachments: Exhibits-Revised 2-25-14.pdf g F . u Attached are the plans you requested. Please let me know if you have any questions. li -Fred i Fred Reischl, AICP i Senior Planner Planning&Zoning Department Phone:239-252-4211 Fax: 239-252-2834 41-.rn,,.,.'.nl1iArany nPtirlata/CrMD-I;DS _ . r0 20Services/Current/Reisch... 10/30/2014 Packet Page -285-' 12/9/2014 9.A. Page 1of1 From: ReischlFred Sent Monday,April 07,2014 11:54 AM To 'bowein @usa.net' Subject: Haldeman's Landing a_ Attachments: Exhibits- Revised 2-25-14.pdf Mr.Bowein- Attached fi are the exhibits provided by the applicant.Please let me know if you have any other questions. -Fred Fred Reischl, AICP Senior Planner Planning &Zoning Department Phone: 239-252-4211 Fax: 239-252-2834 „P+/r3ara/PTM l-t.DS Packet Page 286 %20Services/Current/Reisch... 10/30/2014 12/9/2014 9.A. Page l of l [ i From ReischlFred Sent Monday,April 07, 2014 2:12 PM To: 'Francisco Figueiredo' Subject: RE: haldeman landing Attachments: Exhibits-Revised 2-25-14.pdf I have attached the plans submitted by the applicant.The docks will be for a multifamily development on the parcel. Please let me know if you have any other questions. Fred Reischl, AICP Senior Planner Planning & Zoning Department Phone: 239-252-4211 Fax: 239-252-2834 From: Francisco Figueiredo [mailto:ftf1220(ahotmail.com] Sent: Monday,April 07, 2014 2:00 PM To: ReischlFred Subject: haideman landing dear Fred Reischl I received a letter from Collier county planning zoning about HALDEMAN LANDING-PETITION NO.BDE-PL20130001765, I have question, do this project will be only slip docking or multifamily and slip docking? thank you, F;,,,.//h. „.-.11 ,-,.,,,,rt Mid ata/(Th ll-1-DS:Packet Page 287 %20Services/Cuurent/Reisch... 10/30/2014 12/9/2014 9.A. Page 1 of 2 From: ReischlFred Sent: Tuesday,April 15, 2014 11:06 AM To: 'george atkinson' Cc: StrainMark Subject: RE: Haldeman Landing George- You are correct.The state permit requires that a conservation easement—no docks permitted—will be placed along the north shore, once docks are permitted along the south shore. -Fred Fred Reischl, AICP Senior Planner Planning &Zoning Department Phone: 239-252-4211 Fax: 239-252-2834 From:george atkinson f mailto:obatkinson@icloud.corn] Sent:Tuesday, April 15, 2014 11:00 AM To: ReischlFred Subject: Re: Haldeman Landing Hi Fred, I have been told,although I find it hard to believe,that the property on the North side of Hardeman Creek(across from the subject docks)has been permitted for docks. This would be the parcel of land at the southerly end of Pine Street,which I understand is proposed for development. However,in looking at the plans that you have provided to me,it appears that the creek frontage is owned by the subject applicant? So,I am assuming there are no other plans for docks on the north side of the creek...correct? Would approval of the subject dock plan be contingent on there being NO docks on the north side of the creek directly across from the subject docks? My concern is that the creek not be pinched down to a point where my customers cannot comfortably get large(60 foot)vessels up and down the creek. Sincerely, George Atkinson, Owner Naples Boat Yard On Apr 11, 2014, at 11:08 AM,ReischlFred<FredReischl(&,colliergov.net>wrote: rniiiprrrnv net/riata/CTMf-T.T)S Packet Page -288-%20Services/Current/Reisch... 10/30/2014 12/9/2014 9.A. Page 2 of 2 George- Attached are the exhibits provided by the applicant.Please let me know if you have any questions. -Fred Fred Reischl,AICP Senior Planner Planning&Zoning Department Phone: 239-252-4211 ti Fax:239-252-2834 Original Message From: george atkinson[mailto:gbatkinson @ icloud.com] Sent:Friday, April 11,2014 11:01 AM To: ReischlFred Subject:Haldeman Landing Hello Fred, My name is George Atkinson and I am the owner of Naples Boat Yard,just east of the subject project,Until now,I was unaware of the project and i am in hopes that you can provide me with the plans and any concerns that any neighbors have put forth? Sincerely, George Sent from my iPhone George B. Atkinson 239.572.0189 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. �1�•!n, ,il;P,•R,,.r,pffriat /flMT7-T,T)S;Packet Page -289-%20 Service s/Current,Reisch... 10/30/2014 12/9/2014 9.A. Page loft From: ReischlFred Sent: Thursday,April 10, 2014 10:00 AM fi To: 'M escatem @aol.co m' Cc: StrainMark fr; Subject: RE: HALDEMAN LANDING PETITION Thanks again for your input. Section 5.03.06.E of the Land Development Code states that the criterion for the measurement of the extension includes "...the total protrusion of the dock facility plus the total protrusion of the moored vessel." Therefore,the vessel may not protrude farther than the outermost edge of the piling(as indicated on the cross-sections of the exhibits previously sent), I hope this helps. -Fred From: Mescatem(aaol.com [mailto:Mescatem @aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 09,2014 6:02 PM To: ReischlFred Subject: HALDEMAN LANDING PE I i i ION Dear Mr. Reischl, Thank you for your very prompt responses to my 5 questions. I have an additional question and concern, and most likely will have a couple more prior to the " cut off date " of April 14. Referencing the EXHIBITS, it is shown that docks are 25 ft. in length to accommodate " A" boats, no longer than 25 ft., and docks 30 ft. in length, to accommodate " B " boats no longer than 30 ft. in length. Based on the detailed drawings and measurements on pages 4 and 5, I interpret these boat lengths to include bow sprits, bow anchor carrying platforms, swim platforms, swim steps, engines and any other stern protrusions. It should be noted, that a 30 ft. long catamaran or trimaran will have a beam of 25 ft. or more. The 3 spaces at the East end, and the 9 spaces at the West end are the only slips which could accommodate those vessels. If one or more of those vessels were to be berthed at or near the location indicated by" section B-B " on page 3, what would be the width of the navigable waterway at low, mean and high tides ? I fear it will be too narrow to safely accommodate the large barges and other work boats often serviced by the new Naples Boat Yard. Respectfully submitted, Robert F. Messmer rnllieranv net/rlata/CTM1 LDS/Packet Page -290-/"20Services/Current/Reisch... 10/30/2014 12/9/2014 9.A. June 19,2014 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples,Florida June 19,2014 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein,met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building"F"of the Government Complex,East Naples,Florida,with the following members present: Mark Strain, Chairman(Absent) Stan Chrzanowski Brian Doyle Diane Ebert Karen Homiak Charlette Roman(Absent) Mike Rosen ALSO PRESENT: Heidi Ashton-Cicko,Assistant County Attorney Ray Bellows,Zoning Manager Thomas Eastman,Real Property Director,Collier County School District Page 1 of 37 Packet Page -291- 12/9/2014 9.A. June 19,2014 VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay, good morning.Could you please be quiet,please,the meeting is going to begin now. It's Thursday,June 19th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. And would you all please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay,Diane,would you do roll call,please. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. Good morning. Tom Eastman? MR.EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Stan Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mike Rosen? COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms.Ebert is here. Mr. Strain is absent. Ms.Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr.Doyle? COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And Ms. Roman is absent. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay,thank you. And we have an addenda to the agenda. The RMC-Enclave MPUD,PUDZ-PL201210001981,be continued from this meeting to our next meeting,which is July 17th. And we need a motion to continue that. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I make a motion to continue. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Diane. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Second by Stan. All those in favor? COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Aye. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: That's unanimous. And Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting is July 17th. We will have no July 3rd meeting. Anybody going to be absent that day or you'll all be here? COMMISSIONER DOYLE: I'Il be here. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Everyone? Okay. And approval of the minutes. May 15th minutes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Move to approve the minutes,May 15th. COMMISSIONER EBERT: 1'11 second. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Second. All those in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Aye. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Opposed like sign. (No response.) Page 2 of 37 Packet Page-292- 12/9/2014 9.A. June 19,2014. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: And the May 19th? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Move to approve the minutes of May 19th. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Stan. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Diane. All those in favor? COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Aye. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Unanimous. Okay,BCC report recaps. Are there any,Ray? MR.BELLOWS: Yes. On June 10th,the Board of County Commissioners heard the Buckley PUD amendment. That was approved by the BCC by a vote of 5-0, subject to the CCPC conditions. On the Board of County Commissioners summary agenda,they heard and approved the Walgreen's PUD rezone and the PUD for the Golf Club of the Everglades,and those were approved on their summary agenda. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay,thank you. Chairman's report. I don't have a report. We'll move on to the consent agenda items.And on our agenda we have listed the GMP amendment under consent,but there was no--for the Rattlesnake Hammock/Collier Boulevard PL20130002249,but there was no consent on that,so do we have to have a motion to remove that or-- MS.ASHTON-CICKO: No. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: It's just-- MS.ASHTON-CICKO: That one,the 8.A,you can remove from your agenda. And you don't need to vote on it because you didn't vote that it go to consent agenda at your last hearing. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay,we'll remove that and we'll go on to consent agenda Item B,which is RZ-PL20130001652. And this is the LDC amendment. And I guess,Nancy,you have some-- MS.GUNDLACH: Yes. Good morning,Commissioners. We do--can you hear me? VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Yes. MS.GUNDLACH: We do have some changes to Collier Boulevard commercial properties rezone and conditional use. I will begin this morning with the revisions to the rezone. And that is the document that I placed on the visualizer. Staff has some changes,and there may be some changes on behalf of the agent as well. And that's Bob Mulhere. So we'll share them with you together this morning. And the first change is to the conditions of approval for the rezone. And it's regarding item number one, sexually oriented businesses.And these are the edits that have been recommended by the Collier County attorney.Oops,sorry,I'll keep that still. If there's any questions or comments about that. MR MULHERE: I do have one, if I could.For the record,Bob Mulhere. I don't have a problem with the change. Heidi and I spoke about it and I understand that there's some legal issues with the county prohibiting this use because it's like other uses,constitutionally protected. I'll let Heidi speak to that issue. But I just think it would(sic)be clear. The way it's written,the way I look at it,I can't sell,I don't know,Huckleberry Finn,it's an adult oriented--it could be argued to be an adult oriented book. I think if we use the word sexual adult,sexually oriented, sexually oriented,then I think it's a little bit clearer of what the intent is. Now,I don't know if that—I mean,that word was struck through in the change. So it seems to me that it might be a little bit clearer if we said—if we said the sale or rental of adult sexually oriented. And I don't know if that's okay, but it seems a little bit clearer to me. We're not trying to prohibit what might otherwise be an adult oriented book,tape or whatever. Page 3 of 37 Packet Page-293- 12/9/2014 9.A. June 19,2014 MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Okay,the reason the language that was originally proposed,we cannot have a flatout prohibition in our PUD because of Constitutional issues. And we have a sexually oriented business ordinance that addresses where in the county these types of businesses can go. They cannot go within 500 feet of a residential development. So you have one limitation there. They can't go within 1,000 feet of a church. But I think the church may exceed the distance for this particular site. What we've typically done in PUDs is when there's a sale of books or video tapes,we've used the language adult oriented sales or rentals are excluded. So I'd prefer to stick to what we've done— MR.MULHERE: That's fine. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: --in the past,and that's why you have the language here. MR.MULHERE: Is that term defined in--I don't think so--in the ordinance, sexually oriented? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: No, it is not defined,but we use it typically in PUDs. The only thing that could be done to fully exclude these types of businesses would be if the owner of the property filed a restrictive covenant against the property stating that those things could not be,you know, operated from the site. So that would be done privately by the owner who would then record a restrictive covenant in the public land records. MR.MULHERE: I think we're okay. I mean,we know what the intent is,we've stated the intent on the public record here. If anybody was to challenge that,I think we could successfully argue what the intent of that restriction is. Its okay. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: So we can leave this overall language and not--previously we used to do it in specific SIC codes. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: We did-- VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: And that's how I had started to--that's what I mentioned last time. But then I also questioned whether we could do it overall and that's why this is-- MR. MULHERE: I wrote it so that it was overall. But,I mean,we're okay with the changes. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: I think the reason that Nancy and the other attorney that was handling this developed it this way is because you're listing prohibited uses. So now you'd have to list now the permitted uses and restrict them and encapsulate them all,which would have been a significant change from what you saw last time. That would be my guess. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay. So this is the language that you're suggesting is all right to the new language? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah,the strike-through language is acceptable to have--as struck through. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: And that's acceptable.And the board--is it acceptable to the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well,this is just a consent item for us, so-- VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Right. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Well,there was directions to make certain changes to the language and bring it back. So this is your language. COMMISSIONER EBERT: The County Attorney is doing so. COMMISSIONER ROSEN: If the County Attorney is okay with it and the petitioner is okay with it, I am. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: All right. MS. GUNDLACH: The next change that we have is item number three in that same conditions of approval. And under item number three it was previously land use number six. We've added in land use number five. Because it always was there,it's just the way the condition is constructed. Same meaning,just constructed better. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: So the way it was listed under the C-4 category is amusement and recreation services indoors,and that related to number six. So if you didn't limit it with number six,it would be open to anything. But then physical fitness facilities are defined under 7991,which is rather broad,so they Page 4 of 37 Packet Page-294- 12/9/2014 9.A. June 19,2014 combined the two sections and clarified it. So the only thing that is permitted under 6 and 105 are physical fitness facilities, gyms,yoga,karate, dance instruction and similar indoor fitness facilities. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay. MS.GUNDLACH: Thank you, Heidi. And then on the very last page of that--these conditions of approval,actually,second to last under notice of proximity to Florida Sports Park,the first paragraph has been added. MR MULHERE: And that was--that actually was part of your motion. Remember Corby had talked about adding that paragraph because it dealt with residential uses? And I thought why,we're not residential,and he correctly pointed out,well,an ALF is residential,so we did add that. MS.GUNDLACH: Thanks,Bob. And now we're moving along to the conditions of approval for the conditional use.And conditional use condition of approval number two-- MR.MULHERE: I have one--let me ask a question. I do have one additional comment on the zoning conditions. And before we move on,maybe I should call that to your attention. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay. MR.MULHERE: And this was brought to my attention by the folks at Naples Lakes Country Club, and I think it's a really good catch and I probably should have realized it myself and I didn't. When we changed our conditions from permitted uses,a list of permitted uses to a list of prohibited uses,some of those uses--and we list them verbatim the way they are in the C-4 district. And that was done by intent. But some of those uses have an exception. So they're--if you think about it,they're listed in the C-4 district. And let's look at number nine,animal specialty services,except veterinary. Well,we're saying it's prohibited except veterinary,which would mean veterinary was permitted,and we don't want that. So there are a number of use here that have that term except,but the unintended consequences,we're actually saying that those exceptions are now permitted. So we do have to go in and strike through all the excepted language and just list the use in the SIC code that's prohibited. We'll strike out all that extemporaneous language that doesn't have to be there. It's not substantive. The intent is exactly the same. It's just that we had an unintended consequence, that the way we left it with that exception is the opposite. We're actually permitting those uses,and we don't want to do that. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Well,keep in mind that your numbers that are listed, 7,8, 9, 13,each of those are verbatim-- MR.MULHERE: Yes. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: --from what's in the LDC. MR.MULHERE: Yes. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: So now you're going to tinker with that language when they're just trying to say each of these categories,and if go to the LDC in number seven,that's prohibited. MR.MULHERE: I know. But it's confusing,Heidi. Just look at number nine,because it's a really simple one. Animal specialty services except veterinary without outside kenneling.If you Iook at the way the additionally following C-4 uses are prohibited,I know that it's intended to prohibit the entire uses that's listed in the C-4,but I think it's a little bit confusing. We would be accomplishing the same thing by striking through that except veterinary and just listing animal specialty services 0752,period,that's prohibited. And that would be much clearer.It's still the same number,we'll still need the same numbering system,but otherwise I think someone could be confused to say what's prohibited is that use except kenneling or veterinary services. You know, it's a little bit confusing,but it will be much cleaner if we strike through that exception language and it will be clear what's prohibited. I mean,Pm just— MS.ASHTON-CICKO: So you want to just strike through except or do you want to put including? MR.MULHERE: No,I want to strike—well,I guess what we could do is make it clear--we can make it clear I guess where we say additionally the following C-4 uses are prohibited,including any accepted uses,we could do that,and that would cover everything. Page 5 of 37 Packet Page-295- 12/9/2014 9.A. June 19,2014 MS.ASHTON-CICKO: No,I'm just asking,are you proposing to just strike through except or are you proposing-- MR. MULHERE: I'm proposing to-- MS.ASHTON-CICKO: --to change except to the word including? MR.MULHERE: We could do that too. We could do that. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Okay, so it's— VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Just change except everywhere to including. MR.MULHERE: Yeah,that would work. That would be clean. Yeah,that's a good suggestion. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: It makes sense to me. MR.MULHERE: Thank you. MS.GUNDLACH: We're ready to move along to the conditions of approval for the conditional use. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Are we ready to take a vote on the rezone? MS.GUNDLACH: Thank you,Heidi. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay,is there a vote to approve consent on the— COMMISSIONER ROSEN: I make a motion to approve consent with the changes that were stipulated. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: And is there a second? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Pll second. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: By Diane. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Aye. Opposed, like sign. (No response.) VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay,conditional use. MS.GUNDLACH: Moving along to the conditional use. We've made a change to conditional use condition number two as shown on the visualizer. Language still means the same,it's just stated more clearly. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: And this is--we were emailed a different-- MS. GUNDLACH: This is an update from the email. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay,all right. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Bob,you are making this very difficult. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Do you have a comment? MR.MULHERE: I do. I guess I felt that the indoor air conditioning self-storage height restriction-- or excuse me, setback restriction,indoor air conditioned self-storage building shall not be located closer than 100 feet from the property line,or if closer than 100 feet,the self-storage building shall not be visible from Collier Boulevard. That was my language. Its been changed I presume to try an simplify it to read: Indoor air conditioning self-storages may only be permitted within 100 feet of the property line adjacent to Collier Boulevard if the building is not visible from Collier Boulevard. I'm going to leave it up to you,your choice. I thought mine was clearer. It's the same thing, so-- VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Is this changed by the attorney or— MR.MULHERE: Yes. MS. GUNDLACH: Yes. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: I think this language makes more sense. MR.MULHERE: Touche'. Page 6 of 37 Packet Page-296- 12/9/2014 9.A. June 19,2014 MS.ASHTON-CICKO: No offense. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: We have two different attorneys. MR.MULHERE: The other issue, I just want to put it on the record,this would be a substantive change. There was some discussion between Naples Lakes Country Club in our meetings and myself regarding height for indoor self-storage.There was discussion about limiting it to two stories. My client didn't agree to that. And so I don't think you can change that here,but we will have some continued discussion with them between now and the Board of County Commissioner meeting. So I just--you know,we think that the setback and the location of the doors and the architectural standards,any self-storage building will look like an office building anyway. But it doesn't matter,this is a consent item. I just told them I'd mention it and that we would have some discussions between now and the board. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So the 50 feet you want kept in. MR.MULHERE: Well,I think it would have to be. That would be a substantive change.You approved it that way, so-- VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay. Is that all you-- MR.MULHERE: That was it. I just-- VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Is there a motion to approve on consent the conditional use? COMMISSIONER ROSEN: I propose a motion to approve this item. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: And second? COMMISSIONER DOYLE: I'll second. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Brian. All those in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Aye. Opposed,Iike sign. (No response.) MR.MULHERE: Thank you very much. Sony about the confusion. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: All right,Bob. All right,now with the advertised public hearings of Haldeman's Landing. Can we—Heidi,can we do these two together,or do they have to be-- MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah,you can hear them together,just a separate motion of approval or disapproval. COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Mr.Chairman,I and my firm represent an entity that is in contract with the petitioner, and therefore I have to recuse myself. I filled out Form 8.B,and I'm going to step down from the podium and I'll hand this into the court reporter. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay,thank you. Okay,Haldeman's Landing P-- its a boat dock extension. It's PDE-PL20130001765. And the special treatment ST permit--ST-PL20140000896. And we can hear these two together,vote on them separately. And on the ST permit we would have to vote as the AC also. So any--all those that are going to testify or speak on this item,would you please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay,disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah,I had about a dozen--ifs a combination of letters to my house,emails through the county and emails through my county email address from people that live along Haldeman Creek. And I've talked to the petitioner and I've talked to his engineer. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay. Diane? Page 7 of 37 Packet Page -297- 12/9/2014 9.A. June 19,2014 COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes,I've spoke with Tim Hall,Mr. Cook. I have spoke with several county staff,Nicole Johnson,several constituents that live in the area,and there's just too many to mention in the area with the constituents from that area. And I have had emails until this morning. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: And I spoke to Mr. Cook,and I've had emails and letters and a conversation with Commissioner Fiala. Brian? COMMISSIONER DOYLE: I've met with Mr.Cook myself of Coastal Enterprises,and have received various emails as well. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I do want to mention,I did make a site visit and went on a boat. I was invited to go on a boat to see it from the Creek's perspective. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay, so we'll hear from the petitioner first,then the staff report,and then we'll take the public speakers. MR.HOOD: Madam Chair,Commissioners,good thinker no. For the record,Frederick Hood with Davidson Engineering,representing the applicant Standard Pacific. With me today are Tim Hall with Turrell Hall and Associates;Charles Cook with Coastal Enterprise Services;Andrew Rath with Davidson Engineering;and John Longergan with Standard Pacific. I'm going to give a brief description of the boat dock extension application and then allow Mr. Hall to provide you with more specifics related to the application. The request that we are seeking will provide 42 boat docks on the south side of Haldeman Creek that will be associated with the Haldeman's Landing residential project. We're here before you today to discuss the location of the mean high water line as it relates to the location of the proposed docks. The boat docks associated with Haldeman's Landing project have been previously permitted at the state and federal level. Approval of the boat dock extension application by this body,contingent upon final approval by the ST application in front of the Board of County Commissioners,is the final step before the placement of the dock as presently designed can occur. As you may have noticed in the packets before you,the dock design at the western side of the proposed extension area has been revised to make the docks hug the shorelines and existing mangroves more closely and therefore lessen the extension in the Haldeman Creek. With that,Tim Hall will continue the discussion and answer any specific questions you may have. MR.HALL: Good morning,Commissioners. For the record,Tim Hall with Turrell,Hall and Associates. Since we're hearing both of these together,I figured Pd start with the BDE and go through the criteria of the boat dock extension that's in the Land Development Code,show how the project meets those criteria and then have a brief discussion about the ST application as well. I'll start with the staff report. As Fred had told you,as a result of some discussions,a public meeting that we had with the residents in the area,there was a modification made--a modification made to the west side of the docks. The original application had the docks further out into the creek. And the 52-foot extension that was noticed was at this point of the docks right here from the mean high water line out to the outside edge of the boat. The changes made brought that portion of the dock in closer to the mangroves. It will involve more dredging associated with that,but it brings those docks within the 25 percent width of waterway line,and it reduces the extension from the 52 feet that was measured here to 45 feet,which is now measured down at this end of the docks. A general overview of the area shows the project site located just west of Kelly—I'm sorry, Bayshore Road. I still have problems with that. It's a mix of parallel and perpendicular mooring, and it kind of follows the perpendicular mooring that starts over here on the east side of the bridge,on the north side,then continues on on the south side of the canal and then into this multi-family project. Going through the actual criteria,as you all know there are five primary and six secondary criteria. We believe and staff has agreed that the project meets all of the applicable BDE criteria. Page 8 of 37 Packet Page -298- 12/9/2014 9.A. June 19,2014 The first one is whether or not the docks are appropriate in relationship to the waterfront location and the zoning. From a waterfront standpoint,the county has a Manatee Protection Plan which outlines how many slips should be allowed on certain properties. There are three different categories,from a protected ranking, which is the least amount of slips to a moderate ranking to a preferred ranking. In its current condition,this site qualifies as a moderate ranking,which allows up to 10 slips per 100 feet of shoreline. The project has 938 feet of shoreline there,which would equate to 93 slips. There is a further restriction in the Land Development Code about appropriateness,which limits multi-family facility,or which recommends that multi-family facilities only have one slip per unit on this site. The current land plan is proposing 64 upland units,which would equate to 64 slips. And the application that's before you is for 42 slips. So given all of that information,we believe that the proposed plan is appropriate and does meet that first primary criteria. The second criteria has to do with whether or not the site is shallow; if there are shoreline issues which necessitate an extension in this case. There are mangroves along the entire shoreline which take up the majority of that 20 feet. If we did only parallel mooring without any perpendicular slips,we would still have an extension out to 41 feet at the western end of the application because of where the mean high water line is and the mangroves and then the outside edge of the docks. So regardless of anything that we had to do here, a BDE is going to be required. And so the extensions that we are proposing due to the mangroves make us meet that secondary--second primary criteria also. Third criteria has to do with navigation,whether or not there is an impact to navigation. Generally navigation has to do with appropriate water depths and where boats can move through there. When we were at the public meeting,a couple,or at least one,of the boat captains said that he needs four feet of water to be able to appropriately navigate through there. We had the creek bottom surveyed from shoreline to shoreline as part of that,and showed that the-4 contour is what is hatched in blue there. And you can see that the location of the docks is actually south of that-4 contour. The dredging that will be done in conjunction with this will move that-4 contour up into the slips themselves. But in terms of what is out there right now existing,we're not--the docks are not impeding or going into that navigation area. So because of that we believe we meet the third primary criteria as well. Fourth criteria has to do with maintaining the open waterway. It limits you to no more than 25 percent--or protrusion of no more than 25 percent the width of the waterway. And the slips that we have proposed,we've estimated that 25 percent width,which is these red lines,the 25,50, 75. And basically what that is,is a--it's the mean high water line on both sides,and then the distance between that and then you kind of connect the dots. But we show that the facility as proposed is within that 25 percent width of waterway, so we meet that criteria also. And then the last criteria,last primary criteria,is that the docks should not interfere with any of the neighboring docks. In terms of adjacency to the east and west,there are no neighboring docks immediately adjacent to either side. As you go across the waterway,and I`ll use this exhibit,if you will,the applicant actually owns this portion of the northern shoreline and has committed to the put that under a conservation easement,so there will be no docks placed on that northern part of the shoreline. There is a small privately held parcel right here. It was permitted as the Sanctuary de Mer Landing,I believe was the full name of it. They did go through the BDE process and had a boat dock extension approved for 49 feet,which went out to 25 percent of the waterway on the north side. A cross section of the facility from that shows that the 25 percent width of the waterway of our facility is a couple of feet short of the 25 percent. The de Mer landing docks,as previously proposed,went right out to the 25 percent,and the criteria of 50 percent of the remaining width being left open for navigation is still met. So from that information we believe we meet the last primary criteria as well. As you go into the secondary criteria,as I said,there are six of those. First being if there's any special conditions other than water depths that create the need for the extension. As I said,the mangrove shoreline,which was actually created back in the mid Nineties--I have Page 9 of 37 Packet Page-299- 12/9/2014 9.A. June 19,2014 some photos of that. Along the waterway itself when this project was permitted back in the Nineties,part of the approvals required them to build this mangrove plant or shelf,which extended the width of the canal in terms of the mean high water line,but it restricted it in terms of the Land Development Code by then making any docks that were proposed there be further out from that actual mean high water line. So because of the mangroves,as I said before,the extension is a requirement,it is a special condition,and it makes this consistent with that first secondary criteria. Second one,second secondary criteria,whether or not the docks provide safe access.As proposed, the docks currently have eight-foot access walkways to a six-foot marginal wharf and four-foot forger piers, which is kind of standard in terms of access. It does provide safe access and going a lot smaller than that with the forger piers would we believe be contrary to that. So I'll talk about those access points later on in conjunction with the ST application. I know the staff had made a recommendation to eliminate some of the walkways,and we've discussed that and we have a counterproposal,but I think it meets what staff was looking for. The third criteria has to do with the amount of shoreline taken up by the facility,but it's only applicable to single-family residences,so it's not applicable to this petition. The next criteria is whether the facility has a major impact on the waterfront view of the neighboring properties. The boat docks are associated,as I said,with this property. It will have--the view of the neighbors across the waterway will change. They will be looking at docks in front of mangroves. But it has not impacted their waterfront view,because their view of the water in front of their properties is the same as it always has been. So across the waterway,that view will change. But we're not blocking anybody's views of the waterway and we are not--well,basically we're not blocking anybody's views of the waterway. We're changing them but not blocking them. The fifth criteria,will any seagrasses be impacted. We've done a couple of submerged resource surveys on this project,and no seagrasses were located,so the project will not have any impacts on those. And last is whether or not the project is subject to the Manatee Protection Plan. I alluded to that when I was going through the primary criteria. It is subject to the Manatee Protection Plan,but under that plan this project would be allowed up to 93 slips. We're only proposing 42. So going through the criteria,we appreciate all of the time that the staff and the Commissioners themselves have put into reviewing this. I do have a couple of modifications or corrections to the staff report that rd like to address. The boat dock facility protrusion,due to the changes that we made,has been reduced from 52 to 45 feet. And in that first paragraph it says into a waterway that varies from approximately 97 to 120 feet wide. The waterway itself actually varies from 134 feet to 180 feet from mean high water to mean high water. That 97 to 120 came out of our application response to primary criteria three where we said that 97 to over 125 feet would remain after the construction of the docks. So that's the width of the waterway that is going to be there after the docks are built. What's there right now is actually 134 to 180. And that will be in that first paragraph and then in the last paragraph on Page I as well where the--where it says the waterway varies from 97 to 120. Moving on from the staff report of the BDE into the--oh,wait,no, I needed—I'm sorry,I forgot I needed to clarify. There were three conditions to approval that the staff had recommended,and I want to make sure I clarify a couple of those. The first one about construction of docks shall not commence until the approval of the SDP and the issuance of a building permit for the upland housing development as well as the docks has been issued. And we want to clarify that that's the issuance of a single building permit,not all 16 building permits before we can start construction of the docks. I mean,I know that because the docks are an accessory use we need to have upland construction going,but we don't want to have to have the entire site built before we're allowed to start the docks. So we just wanted to clarify that that means we need to have the issuance of a single building permit before we can pull the dock building permit. And the same with condition number three,that that applies to a single certificate of occupancy,not the certificate of occupancies for the entire development. Page 10 of 37 Packet Page-300- 12/9/2014 9.A. June 19,2014 And I have--I kind of question that because from a logistical standpoint,if the docks are completed before the building is,it would be beneficial to be able to get those docks C.O.'d while the contractor is still there on site. If there is a lag between when the building gets C.O.'d and when the docks get C.O.'d,if there's an issue with the C.O.and the contractor has to come back,that could be a substantial cost,as well as,you know,more impacts to bring barges and all up in there to make any changes that may be required if for some reason the C.O.is not authorized or if there are changes that have to be made. So I would like to get that third—if staff is okay,I'd like to get that third condition changed to the C.O.shall not be issued,you know,until the upland building is substantially completed,rather than C.O.'d. MR.REISCHL: Fred Reischl,Planning and Zoning. A suggestion might be to include it as a temporary C.O.until the C.O.is given to the building, because by issuing a C.O.you're saying that the use is okay and the use is not okay until there is the use of their housing on the site. So I think we could work with a temporary C.O. MR.HALL: I could live with that. You guys okay? Yeah,that would be fine. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: So on number three it would be a temporary? MR.REISCHL: A C.O.or temporary C.O. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay,temporary C.O. MR.HALL: Okay,moving on to the ST application. It's much shorter,we really don't have any issues with that. I will show you the--the area in pink shown on this exhibit is the ST overlay area.It runs basically consistent with the canal,the creek itself. A portion of the access walkways and the docks lie within it. As I had said,those mangroves were put in place as part of the previous development authorization for the property. The impacts to those mangroves are associated with some of the retaining structures on the upland and then the access walkways out to the docks. The staff recommendation for approval,and they're--one of the conditions or the condition that they put in was to eliminate two of those walkways. And what we would propose right now,as I said,those walkways are eight feet wide. And in talking with the applicant,with the petitioner,what we would like to counter propose is we will eliminate one of those walkways and three of the four will reduce down to six feet wide instead of eight feet wide. I would like to keep the eight feet wide one there for the canoe launch facility and all. It's just a lot easier to maneuver a canoe or a kayak through a little wider access than a narrower one. So the reduction of the two access walkways would have been 16 feet of reduction. We will eliminate one,modify the locations of the other three to fit within the buildings themselves,and reducing the width would be a 14-foot reduction in the overall impacts through that ST area. So I'm—that's the--we hope that you would agree with us and with staff that the project is consistent with the BDE criteria.We'd like to get your approval contingent upon the Board of County Commissioners final approval of the ST application with the hopes that you would forward that ST application to them with a recommendation for approval as well. We'd be happy to answer any questions. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay,any questions? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Oh,boy,yes. Tim,where would you put these 93 slips that you keep saying that they could have in here? MR. HALL: If you were going to do 93 slips? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah. MR.HALL: You could--previous plans that were done back in the mid Nineties actually had part of that L portion of the project part of this piece of the project right here,actually dug out and a marina basin created in there. From a logistical standpoint,fitting boats of the sizes that most people want to own nowadays,I don't think you could fit 93 on there,but 93 is what is allowed under the code. If you went to a much smaller,you Page 11 of 37 Packet Page -301- 12/9/2014 9.A. June 19,2014 know, 15 or 18-foot boat,you could fit a lot more in than what we are showing. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. So you would have wrapped it around the corner? MR.HALL: I would not wrap it around the corner. There's two reasons. If you look at the width of this canal going around the corner,it's only about 45 or 50 feet wide. So if you try to put boats along that canal,you'd be really restricting that waterway even more. The county Property Appraiser's site also shows that the property owner across that canal actually owns that canal bottom. Whether that's accurate or not,I don't know. But in order to do that,we'd have to have outside permission,given the way that the Property Appraiser shows the property lines. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. What about to the back side of this, it looks like there's a little bay in there? MR.HALL: This area right here? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. MR.HALL: That's--it's very shallow. It would require a lot of dredging,a lot more mangrove impacts to be able to get to it. And if you look at that,that configuration would limit the amount of slips that you could put in,more than what you have along the waterway. I will say that that configuration was looked at when we went through the state and federal permitting,and the state's response was that they would prefer to see the docks on the manmade portion of the waterway,not in those natural water bodies that would entail more impacts to put them there. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Because I understand previously that the previous owner was planning and that's where he was planning on putting them. MR.HALL: No,not the previous owner. At least the last two owners of this property,these docks have always been located where they are. But back in the Nineties,when I showed you those old--some of the older site plans and all did show some docks in there,as well as along the river. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah,we were seeing that for the first time today. I told you I was going to ask you,how many boats could you put on a parallel dock?The same dock area that you propose,how many boats could you put in there parallel and what size? MR.HALL: Of the same sizes as we have with a mix of 25 and 30-foot boats,you could probably put about 29. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And can you show us all the approved neighboring docks on this tidal creek? MR.HALL: I had mentioned the other perpendicular docks. Is that what you mean?Or,I mean,I-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. MR.HALL: In terms of going through on the east-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: No,no,not those.Hu-uh. That's on the other side of Bayshore. That's —you have to have a tinier boat just to even get under that bridge. MR.HALL: Correct. COMMISSIONER EBERT: There is something permitted across from this dock that you're proposing. You don't have a drawing of that? MR.HALL: I had a cross-section drawing. I don't have a plan view drawing of it. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Tim? VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: It's in the ST permit cross-section. MR. HALL: If you go to this-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: I know it's in the cross-section,but just a minute. MR.HALL: I was going to say,if you go to this exhibit,it's this property right here that's partially cleared. And their docks would go out to that red line. So from--from here to about here those docks would go out to this red line. And on the cross-section view, again,that's the docks on that side,these are-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah,I thought you'd show us this. Fred,could you come and get this so he can put this on the--on the viewer. MR.HALL: Okay,is it-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well,I mean,I thought you'd be showing us that,because I had kind of Page 12 of 37 Packet Page -302- 12/9/2014 9.A. June 19,2014 asked you. And also, in this on the property boundary it also said that they got the information from Turrell-Hall. So I thought,well,Tim will bring that. MR.HALL: Well,I mean,that's why I showed it. And we put it on that--to me the cross-sectional view shows you what the actual widths are there in conjunction with the docks themselves,so that's why-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: And by the way,that is the Army Corps of Eng--that's their permit from the Army Corps. What is the width of this canal at low tide; do you know? MR.HALL: From mean low water to mean low water,it can come in probably as much as 30 feet less than what it is. Or from the mangrove shore to mangrove shore, if you consider that the open waterway, at the lower low tides you can lose maybe 30 or 40 feet. UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: On each side. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: You can't speak from the audience,please. MR. HALL: 1 mean, given the survey elevations. But the drawings that we show and the permitting that's done is based on what the water level elevations are at low tide. So we have to be consistent with the state,you know,standards and that's why we're-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: But that is quite a bit of distance that it shrinks. MR.HALL: Again,but I showed you the exhibit based on the survey that we had done that shows that we're not impacting that waterway that would still be open. We're going to be dredging under our docks, not putting our docks out into where it's already deep. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Can you show us the dredge area? It was kind of confusing to me in reading this in the staff report on Page 6 and 7. You just keep saying a maintenance dredge. This is-- you're going to be dredging a new dredge,correct? MR.HALL: No,ma'am. The dredging--those photos that I showed you when that mangrove shelf was done,here,there was dredging done outside to help fill in that shelf. So what's being done here right now is another maintenance dredge. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You call that a--okay,where is the rip-rap on this? MR.HALL: The rip-rap is here on the outer edge. And when this was built,this rip-rap was placed, material from outside of the rip-rap was dug and placed inside of that. So this is-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: When were those photos taken? MR.HALL: 1994. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. So you consider that a maintenance dredge,even though you're going to--you're going to go close to the mangroves. And how far down are you going to go on this dredge? MR. HALL: The depth under the boats will be four feet,and then as you get closer to the rip-rap and the shore it will come up and tie into what the existing elevations are. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So there will be no sand bar? MR.HALL: No,ma'am. Its not just me that considers it maintenance. The state has reviewed it as well and they classified it as a maintenance dredge also. COMMISSIONER EBERT: But this developer will be paying for all of that;is that correct? MR.HALL: Yes,ma'am. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You mentioned that on the north side of this is going to be planting. You're going to be taking some things out because of overgrowth,removing the exotics and planting some more red mangroves; is that correct? MR.HALL: From here to here,this section of the shoreline and this piece of property up here, they'll be doing removal of exotic vegetation. And where the areas are denuded as a result of that exotic removal,we'll be replanting with either mangroves or with a more uplands species like sea grape or something,whichever is appropriate for the elevation. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Yeah,because in reading the material that you sent--and I notice a lot of this stuff goes back to 2008,most of the drawings and everything—that was with the previous owner. And for them even to come with these docks,they had to put that in--give it to the state;is that correct? Page 13 of 37 Packet Page -303- 12/9/2014 9.A. June 19,2014 MR HALL: Well,it's put under a conservation— COMMISSIONER EBERT: An easement. MR.HALL: --easement. It's not given to the state but it's put under a conservation easement-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: In favor of the state. MR.HALL: --in favor of the state,which gives the state then enforcement in terms of making sure that the docks and the construction and the dredging and everything is compliant with the permits that were issued. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. That's all I have for right now. There will be more though,Tim. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Stan,do you have something? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah,just two comments. When I looked at this project I looked at Google Earth,I looked at the Appraiser's website,I looked up and down Haldeman Creek,and it seems Iike most of the docks that I saw are perpendicular docks? MR HALL: Most of them going towards Bayshore,as you go out the other direction,there's some T-docks and some others,but there are a lot of perpendicular docks in the area. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. The view,I--some of the letters I got said that you're going to destroy their view of the canal,and you said you wouldn't even interfere with their view of the canal. So I assume the difference is they're talking about their view of the mangroves on the other side of the canal,they will no longer see the mangroves on the other side of the canal because of your boat docks. Your opinion is they're going to still see the canal and the boats going up and down it? MR HALL: Yes,sir. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. What's the speed on Haldeman Creek? How fast can you go? Because the reason I ask is there's a picture posted on Google Earth and that guy looks like he's doing 30 knots. MR.HALL: The signs that are there say no wake. Whether or not they are officially there under the auspices of the Conservation Commission and all,I didn't follow up on that.But we've been under the assumption that this is an idle speed,no wake creek. Or at least this area. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: All the way out,both sides,even through the mangroves? MR.HALL: Yes. COMIVIISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'm curious,because I do kayak a lot and there's a lot of blind turns on here,and I'd hate to run into somebody coming the other--well,I'd hear them coming,you usually do. And then you start hugging the shore and grabbing a mangrove so they don't flip you over. MR. HALL: As I said,I know that this area is posted that way and there have been no—as far as I know,no issues with the Conservation Commission to remove that signage, so we're assuming that it's there legitimately. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. Even though the rest of the bay might not be a no wake zone anymore'? MR.HALL: Correct. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay,thanks. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: You're staying within the 25 percent for the whole length of the docks? MR.HALL: Yes,ma'am. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: You're all staying just as the people across got approved for and everybody else? I noticed when I did Iook on the Property Appraiser's site and measured some of the docks down further,I think some of them might be--where the boats extend,they might be a little over. MR.HALL: They might be. Some of the ones in the canals definitely are,but there are different rules for the canals which allow up to a third rather than the 25 percent on narrow canals. But for the most part,I mean,the ones even further up the way are--I don't know whether they're grandfathered or not,but there's still been plenty of room for the people to navigate by them. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: And so the extension--how many feet are you asking for for the extension? MR. HALL: 25 feet over the allowed 20 for a total of 45. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: And all the time it will stay within the 25 percent,though?Because some Page 14 of 37 Packet Page-304- 12/9/2014 9.A. June 19, 2014 of them are parallel and they're not--they don't go out but 25 feet. MR.HALL: Correct. Well,like on-- VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: The protrusion intrusion is 25 feet,right? MR.HALL: What's that? VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: The intrusion into the waterway is 25 feet for some of the— MR.HALL: Well,the intrusion into the waterway itself is probably 30 feet. I mean,the boat itself and the boat dock is 30 feet.You have the six-foot width of the walkway and then the location of the mean high water line behind the walkway which at the furthest point is nine feet. So that gives us—that's where the 45 comes from. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: But the ones that are parallel are-- MR. HALL: The ones that are parallel aren't--like right here is the closest we get,because the mean high water line is so far behind the docks. So the 25 percent is actually closer to the mangroves. But those parallel slips are still within the 25 percent.And that's a result of the change we made.When I first started 1 said that these docks originally went out further. And we did that knowing that the 50 percent width of waterway criteria would still be adhered to in this point because this shoreline will be under conservation easement and no docks put on there. But because of some of the community issues and so forth,we decided to go ahead and straighten that out,so the entire facility is consistent with the 25 percent on the south side. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay. And this is part of the Haldeman Creek MSTU? MR.HALL: Yes,ma'am. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay. Do you have anything? COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Yes. Tim,with the changes made and knowing the opposition from some of the community members and some of the reductions you've addressed,have we gotten to any common ground as far as what's acceptable to the community or to the opposition? And do we need some more mediation to reach a place where we can see both sides? MR.HALL: I don't know. I mean, I know a lot of the emails that I saw that we got from the staff were based on the April submittal that went out that said a 50-foot two-foot protrusion into the waterway. I think a lot of people took that to mean from the edge of the mangroves we were going out 52 feet. That's not the way the BDE criteria works. You have to go from the mean high water line which in some cases is 15 or 20 feet into the mangroves themselves. So the protrusion--as I said,the furthest protrusion into the waterway itself from the edge of the mangroves is going to be about 35 feet,36 feet. So that's where the outside edge of the dock to the longest dock that we have,the 3 0 and the six. And the way that these will be built,they're actually going to--the marginal wharf itself will be over the top of the rip-rap,again to try to bring everything in closer to the shoreline,as close to the shoreline as we can. COMMISSIONER DOYLE: So perhaps some of our opposition is leaning a little more softly towards this project? MR.HALL: I know that there are--I don't know. I would assume that you're going to hear from some speakers that may not be satisfied yet. COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Tim,I have one question here. In speaking with the developer yesterday--or with Mr.Cook,he said that there was a mistake and he only wanted—the 20-foot extension,he only wanted 15 feet for a total of 35 feet for the mean high water line. He says we're only asking really for a 15-foot extension. MR.HALL: Yeah,I think there was some confusion on a couple of our earlier cross-sections in terms of where some of the lines were,and he misread one of those cross-sections. But the 25 feet extension is what we need for the facility we have proposed. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay,thank you. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Anything else? Page 15 of 37 Packet Page -305- 12/9/2014 9.A. June 19, 2014 (No response.) VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay,we'll go on to the staff report then. MR.REISCHL: Thank you,Commissioners.Fred Reischl with Planning and Zoning. Give you a little background of why you're hearing this. Because since last October,boat dock extensions go to the Hearing Examiner. However,the Hearing Examiner's ordinance says that if there's public concern,great public concern,that it will go to the Planning Commission. So you are the body that's charged with decision-making on this. Also,so we had scheduled this for the Hearing Examiner last April. There was a sign;Naples Daily News and the mail notice that was sent out for that. In fact,at that Hearing Examiner meeting,even though we tried to get word out to everybody, I think there was two folks that showed up at the meeting and it was announced that it was continued'til a date when the Planning Commission could hear it. And in addition to the regular advertising for the Planning Commission,I was invited to the Haldeman Creek MSTU to answer questions,which I did. And the room was filled. As you probably know, it's not a really big room,but probably 30 people were there. And then the applicant asked to speak to the Bayshore CRA and they did,and I was in attendance at that meeting and answered some procedural county questions on that too. So just to give you a little bit of how you're getting to hear this. As Tim said in the--and you read in the staff report,I looked at all the criteria of the applicable criteria according to what was presented to me. The application meets those criteria so we're recommending approval. And I'll be happy to answer any questions. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: The conditions that you have here of approval-- MR. REISCHL: Yes. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: And after Tim will the first one remain the same or is that going to be a-- MR.REISCHL: I can confirm, it's for the--I think your question was for-- MR.HALL: Just one. MR.REISCHL: One,yes. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: And so that would need to be changed? MR.REISCHL: Well,I said a building permit. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So that means one. MR.REISCHL: That was my intention,and we're clarifying it on the record. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You want to change it to the first? MR. REISCHL: That works. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: At least it's a lot clearer. M.R.REISCHL: Okay. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: And the third one would be changed to single C.O.or temporary C.O.? MR.REISCHL: C.O.or temporary C.O.,right. As long as we have that protection for the temporary,because otherwise you're authorizing a use that the code doesn't authorize. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay. But then this whole--then this would need to--the request is for a 25-foot extension,not 30-- MR. REISCHL: You can check with Heidi on this,but because it was advertised at a greater extent, I believe it's okay to hear it.And my staff report still reflects that, because our time lag in preparing staff reports and advertising and everything is almost 30 days. So this change was made after the staff report was written and signed_ VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Yes. So if it's reduce from 32 to 25,then that's permissible. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Originally it said 52 feet. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Well,it's the extension is over the 20 feet that's allowed,so you would add the--so it's 45. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Anybody have anything else? (No response.) Page 16 of 37 Packet Page -306- 12/9/2014 9.A. June 19, 2014 VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: No? Okay,for the ST, Summer? MS.ARAQUE: Good morning. Summer Araque,Natural Resources Department,for the record. And essentially as described by Tim,you're looking at the special treatment permit.There's an ST overlay,and staff reviewed the impacts. And we are recommending the reduction of the accesses. And I think we're acceptable to what's been proposed. Do you have any questions for me? VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: So you're acceptable with what they're proposing-- MR SUMMERS: Yes. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: --to knock it down to four and three at six feet and one at eight feet wide? MS.ARAQUE: Yes. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Anybody? (No response.) VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: No? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Summer,I have a question for you. In talking to you,you said the county no longer does mangroves,that this is a state.You have no control over this anymore; is that correct? MS.ARAQUE: The state--I don't know about-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: The state regulates it? MS.ARAQUE: I don't know about anymore or how long that's been,but for quite a while the state has had jurisdiction over the mangroves. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. And Tim told me these--one of the first owners of this property completely pulled everything off from it,that it made it barren and that these were all hand-planted mangroves. I mean,do you know that? MS.ARAQUE: I don't personally know. I wasn't-- I didn't live here in the Nineties. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I didn't either. Okay,I'll ask Tim that Iater then,thank you. MS.ARAQUE: I believe there were Australian pine there. So it's actually an improvement. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Anybody else? Do you have—no? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Those photos Tim had was from'94 and Windstar was done about in'83 or'84,right? And that area was all Australian pine. MR.REISCHL: It was the early Eighties.Because in response to some questions,I looked at the Windstar PUD,and it was'80 something. So it was in the Eighties when it was approved and I would assume that the first building was done in the Eighties then also. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah,and you can look at the archived Property Appraiser's website photos. And you can go back on Google Earth now and look at the old photos and see what's there. But at this point,it doesn't matter. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay,I think-- it's almost a quarter past 10:00 now,I think we'll take a 15-minute break and then we'll take the public speakers. (Recess.) VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay,could you please be seated. Fred,did you have something you wanted to-- MR.REISCHL: Thanks. Yes,I wanted to put something on the record that I heard during the break. Someone told me that there were plans to--if the docks didn't sell.to the residents of the project that they would be sold to outside persons. And the code prohibits that.This is residential zoning. It's--if they were sold to an outside source,that would be a commercial marina and this is not zoned for a commercial marina. So it would have to be the owners of the residents. Thank you. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: You heard that from--is that the--I thought they were going to be owned by the owners in this development and in Windstar. MR.REISCHL: Yes,that's what would have to be--they can't be sold— COMMISSIONER EBERT: To a third party. Page 17 of 37 Packet Page -307- 12/9/2014 9.A. June 19,2014 MR.REISCHL: Well,that would be a question to County Attorney. Can an adjacent development own these? VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: They can't extend to Windstar,so they are--they're part of Windstar. Is that--is there someone from the applicant's side that the can speak to that? MR.REISCHL: Someone had told Ashley from the CRA and talked to me,so-- MR.HALL: I know that the permits,the state and federal permits that have been issued,as well as the county code,like Fred said,has to be a residential component. I'm not a planning or zoning expert, so I don't know whether their annexation into Windstar is reciprocal and allows the ownership that way. The agreement that they have right now, if it's permissible this project,the Landings,or Haldeman's Landing and Windstar would have access to those docks. But if it's not permissible or if its determined not to be permissible under the county code then it would be limited to the owners of the Haldeman's Landing. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Could you clarify that? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: I can't answer the second question. The first question,you know,clearly the owners in the uplands,you know,can use the docks. Whether or not the people across the way or in a different development can use the docks,I would think not. But we'd have to see the specific facts. MR.BELLOWS: For the record,Ray Bellows. The docks are accessory to the residential community that's under the property ownership interest. Now,if there's a change in ownership interest where the property's incorporated into a larger development, there may be a possibility that those owners within the larger ownership interest could utilize those docks. But I think we need to verify what's shown on the SDP for the multi-family and how those docks are related to that. Then what happens when subsequent purchases take place. Normally adjacent residential communities would not be allowed to utilize docks for another development. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay. So it's within the code that's--county code that's going to govern that anyway. MR.BELLOWS: Yeah,definitely it will.And a lot depends on how they configure their site development plans for the residential and how it's incorporated within a larger part.Projects are zoned differently. Windstar's a planned unit development. This is straight zoning. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Can I get something on the record? VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Sure. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I totally forgot. In the Eighties I worked for Coastal Engineering up until about'91,and then I worked 20 years for Collier County. I was one of the engineers on the Windstar project.Coastal was the firm that designed Windstar.And I have--the people I dealt with were Bernard Johnson and Charlie Schowing. I haven't heard their name in so long. I have no monetary interest in this. But I guess maybe I should just put it on the record. I'm familiar with the property. We had looked at it back then. But I--there's no other ties. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay. Okay,thanks. Okay,we're going to start with public speakers. And if there's anybody who hasn't signed up on a sign-up sheet,could you please do that so that the court reporter can have your name spelled correctly. MR.REISCHL: And please feel free to use either of the podiums. If you do have something that you want,photos or anything like that,this is the one that has it. If you're just going to speak,you're free to use the other podium also. First registered speaker is Richard Sawicki. Followed by Kate Riley. MR. SAWICKI: Richard Sawicki. I reside at 3150 Lakeview Drive. I was always under the understanding that when you do a dock it is either in this case 20 feet from the property line or 25 percent of the canal,whichever is more restrictive. I guess maybe someone can answer that question. And also,I think it's--it appears to be somewhat subjective as to what the actual mean high water line is of that canal. The canals within the--off of Bayshore,the one I reside on,those are all 50 feet wide. And using that as a scale,I would say that this canal is probably closer to 100 feet wide. And to me it just Page 18 of 37 Packet Page -308- 12/9/2014 9.A. June 19,2014 seems like it's a variance that they're asking for that other people in our neighborhood have been denied where they have to put their boat dock even inside that lake that you were referring to where at one time they were going to have a basin there,they're even required to do their dock parallel to their property,even though they were on a probably 100 foot wide lake. Thank you. MR.REISCHL: Did you want me to answer that? VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Yeah,please. MR.REISCHL: There are different regulations for different widths of waterways.This waterway is greater than 100 feet,and that does allow for the boat dock extension, if you meet the criteria. Canals that are less--or waterways that are less than 100 feet are limited to a certain protrusion, depending on the width of the waterway. So there are different rules for different widths of waterway. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay. MR.REISCHL: Next speaker,Kate Riley,followed by Jack Hale. MS. RILEY: Hello,members of the Planning Commission. My name is Kate Riley. I live closer to the subject property than anyone else on the creek. These photos were taken from my property.I'm sure everyone in this room has seen these pictures. This was taken from my dock. This is what low tide looks like. This is where the six docks are proposed to be that go out 49 feet. This is the subject property at low tide.This was just taken in 2012. These boats are no longer there,but they were last year. And this is what the boats look like at low tide. I guess I'll use both. I know you have read my letter and are aware of how this impacts me personally,so rather than repeat myself,I will propose some things to consider. Where else in Collier County is there a 1,000 foot long boat dock?Let me give you a visual of 1,000 feet. Its the Naples Pier. Can you imagine boats bow to stern,bumper to bumper,along the Naples Pier? I don't know if you can see this,but this is what the Naples Pier looks like with boats all along--all the way up to the bath house.From here to there. All the way to the bath house are boats. That's what's going to be down Haldeman Creek. Let me ask you a question: Are we going to allow this just because its here in East Naples? We know it would never happen in old Naples,Wiggins Pass or Doctors Pass. If Windstar wants to tuck their boats into the shoreline as designed,they will have to cut mangroves. Why would we remove a natural filtering system on a shallow narrow manmade creek just to accommodate 1,000 feet of boat docks? Pm going to show you another image. This is from Google Maps,2014,pulled off the Internet just last night. A picture of the property that we're speaking about. Of course we've already seen that picture once today. So let me give you a--let's see. There is my house. So let me give you another picture of what it will look like with what they are proposing. Where's the boat now? Now,remember--let me put that back up.From here to here,the Naples Pier,down Haldeman Creek. Here to here. And here are the six docks that are placed 49 feet out. So the little—the boats are going to go back and forth. What happens when the boats come out and the boats come out? We've seen this picture a lot. This is Turrell and Associates--Turrell,Hall and Associates'aerial view of the proposed dock dated 2009. If you were to compare it with the 2014 aerial view that was just shown of the creek,it looks--it certainly looks like the waterway has become narrower in the last five years. What's going to happen in another five years? Someone said to me just yesterday,would you be happy if all the boat slips ran parallel to the shoreline all the way down the creek?My answer: No. No. We wouldn't want the choochoo train strung along the entire Haldeman Creek. So what do we want? We want the integrity of the creek in its natural state. We want what's fair. We want what's been extended to those of us who have lived on the creek for years and years,paying taxes Page 19 of 37 Packet Page -309- 12/9/2014 9.A. June 19, 2014 and maintaining the creek. It is my understanding that there are three separate pieces of property being developed on the petitioner's application.What happened to having no more than two boats per property on this creek as it has been granted to the rest of us? If you give the developer this variance,it will set precedence for the creek. What will happen after that? It disturbs me when I was asked--when I asked a person who has a vested interest in these docks getting approved what's going to happen to the wildlife. The response was: They're just going to have to find someplace else to live. I want to show you a few photos taken of the last couple of years. Trust me,I have many of them. But I'm going to show you a few. This is a very familiar friend in Haldeman Creek. This is right at the said property.This is taken from my porch. This is the property that we're talking about at low tide. Most of the photos that we've seen are all at high tide where one would say,what's the problem here? That's the problem right there. This is a great blue heron,strutting along the shoreline where boats are proposed to be placed. And this last one,it's my favorite. It was taken just after Turrell,Hall and Associates placed their buoys along the shoreline to supposedly mark their outer dock limits. So there's the manatee right there. I often see manatees in the creek,sometimes two or three. But this little feIIow right here,he decided to just show us the real deal on Haldeman Creek with what's going to be happening here. I've always been a believer in when it doesn't sound right, 1,000 feet of dock, and it certainly doesn't look right,then it isn't right. There is nothing right about this. Thank you for listening. MR. REISCHL: Next speaker is Jack Hale.Followed by Jean Van Arsdale. UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: Jack ain't here. MR.REISCHL: Okay. Jean Van Arsdale,followed by Roy Wilson. MS.VAN ARSDALE: Good morning. I have some questions for you. I wonder,has an impact study been conducted? Has the developer conducted a plan of how it will affect the waterways? This waterway goes from Naples Bay all the way under 41 near Wal-Mart close to where we're standing. Do we know what the impact is of building a 1,000 foot dock? My next question is,if the new dock plan,the second dock plan,brings the dock seven feet closer to the shore, doesn't that mean that we will have to give up seven feet of filtering mangrove that are valuable to this manmade creek? Already the mangroves are no longer extending into the water. Manmade rip-rap has choked the mangrove. It doesn't need to be cut further to accommodate boats. I'd like to see a visual of this proposed project as it would be seen from the waterway,not from the way a flying hawk sees it. A birdseye view is deceiving. If views are not going to be blocked,then show us. I want to see pictures from the water of what a 1,000 foot dock looks like. And because when I stand on the shore and look now,I need my binoculars. The Naples Pier looks very different from the air than it does when you're standing at the shore. Stand on the shore,look to the end of the pier and picture boats all along that.Wouldn't you need binoculars to see the end? My next question: Will these docks have water? Will the boats be washed at their docks? Where will the runoff go? Will there be boat lifts and electricity? Will there be lights on the dock? Will 1,000 feet of dock be lit at night? As a boater I know that there is mean low tide and there is dead low tide. The boater is concerned with dead low tide. Haldeman Creek already has a problem. Please don't add to it.Thank you. MR REISCHL: Next speaker is Roy Wilson,followed by Robert Messmer. MR.WILSON: Good morning. I'm Roy Wilson,chairman of the Haldeman Creek Maintenance Page 20 of 37 Packet Page -310- 12/9/2014 9.A. June 19,2014 Dredge MSTU. We first became aware of this proposal through questions brought up by local residents. While we had knowledge of the previous plan for Fisherman's Village,we did not know that there was a current proposal. Through staff contact with county planning organization,we were able to obtain copies of the questionnaire document and arrange for Fred from the planning department to attend our MSTU meeting and brief us on a proposal. He mentioned the turnout that ended up at that meeting,which was all people just picking up just by word of mouth that there was an opportunity to find out more information about this plan. A Lot of people attending were--well,I say all of them—were members of--property owners that were members of the MSTU. Lots of questions voicing both specific and general opposition to the plan. It was at that meeting that everybody first became aware of the Sanctuary at De Mer Landing development plan. I had no knowledge of it,and nobody there seemed to have any knowledge that that plan even went through and was approved. As a side note,I think it tells you something about the notification process and how it's not keeping with the times. Taking Mr.Reischl's explanations,the residents'comments and our committee members in the discussion,I formulated that detailed document that I emailed to each one of you that I'm presuming that you read. I know there's evidence that it's been read,so I did not plan to go through that point by point. But I will try to summarize where I'm coming from. Incidentally, I would note that a lot of the documents that were referred to by the previous presenters are documents that are not in our hands. Okay? I didn't even know to ask for them. So I've never read Fred's recommendation and documents like that that we've heard mention today. Just the questionnaire and the attachments to that questionnaire. But to me,when I look at it, it's easy for me to see and I think others that the answers to the planning questionnaire were carefully designed to figure out the maximum amount of docks that could possibly be put in the proposed area. I mean,when you look at that--the dock plan and where all of a sudden there's a recommendation for six or seven 25-foot docks and then five 30-foot docks,only because on the far side of the creek there's a little irregularity. You know,this is to me working backwards from--and I guess if I was a developer I probably would have asked them to do the same thing,give me a plan that can maximize my revenue and income. How many docks can we possibly get on there? Including down at the west end. For the life of me,I can't figure out a rationale for extending past the side property line just because the previous deed showed that they owned under water before that dock was--before the canal was dug. Again,back to what's the real objective here? I would make a comment kind of out of order in my context here. But the statement about selling docks to outside people,I think the people that are saying that have read the Windstar website that has documents that are allegedly agreements between the developer and Windstar. And there is an item on there that says first priority is people who live in this new development. If they don't sell all the docks there,then Windstar residents. And if they don't sell them there,they can sell them outside. Now,that might be against code. Maybe the Windstar people aren't aware of that. In fact, occasionally there's ads in the newspaper for an owner of a Windstar dock in Windstar selling their dock. So there's just a question there of clarification that was made. But that's probably where somebody's picked up that point. It's not just,you know,frivolous. The proposal to dredge near the shoreline may or may not impact the currently dredged channel. I originally was worried about it creating what I call a sand bar. But taking what the developer said,they will grade that down so that there isn't,you know,20 feet of their four-foot deep dredge to a level that doesn't meet up with the current dredge. I thought it was a very interesting picture that the last presenter put up. One of the things that happens if you're a boater when these--when docks are built. Her original picture where you saw the boat navigating to center channel. If you're not in a marked channel,you always go center channel. This takes and moves that center channel north. And where we had a 40-foot dredged channel,you now have boats that will be on the hairy edge of deep enough water. So I'm coming here of the opinion that it Page 21 of 37 Packet Page -311- 12/9/2014 9.A. June 19,2014 might be affecting the dredge that we did--or the county did--the next one will be on our dollars--about seven years ago. From a practical matter building out from the shoreline,we all have to agree,narrows the channel. No doubt about it. I mean,you've got building coming out from both sides.How that affects safety,I developed in my notes in my other paper that I sent you. But with these docks the way they're proposed,you've got people backing out. If the you're the 20th boat down,you're backing out blind'til you get half of your boat out of that. Now you've got boats coming up and down. With the exception of east of this development there are no docks on Haldeman Creek. They're all on channels. And if you go on Haldeman Creek and you look east of this development,it gets into a commercial area and some widening. There's no--well,there are very few boats that go past the Bayshore bridge. Because as mentioned,it's so shallow up there, and the bridge height restriction makes it be very small boats. And they're only people who are very familiar with Haldeman Creek. So the rationale that there are some other docks east of there to me just doesn't hold water as a rationale of why this should be there. When I look at the whole proposal,in fact when I listened to the presentations today,I had the feeling that there were--in a development plan there's a basic guideline,the 20 feet. And you could file,you could file for an extension. In layman's term, I call that a variance. It may not be the same. But for an extension. The people talking today seem to be saying--oh,and there's some restriction on that extension that you can ask for. The people talking today from the developer's standpoint act like if we can show that we're inside those restrictions you've got to give us a permit. I don't think that's true. But the tone of the thing, blah,blab,blab,we're within 25 percent. Blab,blah,blab,we're within 25 percent. I don't think that's the way it should be looked at. They're looking for an exception to the basic rule. I think we ought to look very carefully at what that is. Now, I must admit,when I came here today,before I heard some of the public comments already,I was willing to suggest that a reasonable compromise might be to take and just make all these docks parallel, you get a bunch of docks,less impact. I certainly think it helps the safety issue that I'm concerned about with boats backing in and out of dock space day and night. And if you live on the creek you know you've got boats coming by at 11:00, 12:00, 1:00,2:00 in the morning. But after listening to a couple of the presentations today,I must admit,I did not in my prepared and --preparation for today think become the impacts on the wildlife and the natural things that go on. As one person said to me,we've got--whether it's 900 or 1,000 feet there of places where those little things live that feed the bigger things that feed the bigger things that will all be knocked off balance with this. And as I said earlier,I can't find any rationalization for that westward extension at the end of their property line. It just--it befuddles me. I'll probably find out from somebody in zoning or legal if possible. But just because you owned land that was somehow taken by the county to create a new canal that you have rights over that land. Thank you. MR.REISCHL: Thank you. Next speaker,Robert Messmer,followed by two people on the same slip,Debbie Strand and Sean Lutz. MR.MESSMER: Members of the Collier County Planning Commission,good morning. My name is Bob Messmer,and I have been a property owner on a canal on the north side of Haldeman Creek for 21 years. Mr.Wilson's questioning about proper notification of this project reminds me to make another point. I believe there's been only one sign erected by the petitioner informing interested parties. And that is on a dead-end spur of Lakeview Drive just as Lakeview goes from east to west to north to south. To see that sign,you'd have to be a resident driving home and not make your turn to go home but keep going straight for a few hundred feet,get out of your car and read the sign. There has never been a sign erected where it really should be,on Haldeman Creek,to notify the boaters of what this might become. So it's very possible this hearing has not been by code properly noticed. Page 22 of 37 Packet Page-312- 12/9/2014 9.A. June 19,2014 Your informational packet contains my letter of June 4th,outlining my concerns,including suggested alternatives to the currently planned docks'configuration and location. Since I now have had more time to study this project,I wish to withdraw two of my previous suggested alternatives. One was build the docks along the west shore of the pond and the adjacent channel running further south.That was a bad suggestion I made. Those homeowners on the east shoreline on Lakeview do not want to look at 42 docks,boats,lifts,when they now have vegetation blocking their view of Windstar buildings to the west. Nor was my suggestion to change the perpendicular docks to parallel docks a viable option. Those homeowners on the north shore of the creek,including the Land and Yacht Harbor homeowners,do not want to look at 930 feet of docks,boats and lifts. Commissioners,this project of 42 slips will be exactly one-half as large as all of Naples City docks. That marina has 84 slips. The developer still has plenty of alternatives at his disposal,some of which will give him an even higher profit. He can sell to golfers,tennis and pickle ball players,wildlife enthusiasts or couch potatoes. Or, seriously,build the 42 docks and even more if he wishes by expanding Windstar's existing two-dock structures located east of channel marker 24,well away from any boat traffic. Please walk out on those two pier walkways and observe this alternative location. Haldeman Creek is the only waterway of its kind in Collier County other than those leading to Goodland and Everglades City. This project will destroy the integrity of Haldeman Creek. If the Commissioners have any questions regarding my letter,your packet or my statements this morning,I will try to address them. Thank you. MR. REISCHL: Thank you. The next speaker,two folks on the same slip,Debi Strand and Sean Lux,followed by Melissa DeSavigny. MR.LUX: Okay,good morning. My name's Sean Lux. I'm speaking for myself and Debi Strand. We're both residents at 2736 River View. And we do navigate this area of Haldeman Creek often,as boat owners,and we're very happy that at least one of you went out there on a boat to actually see this area. And on the overhead I'rn showing the picture that we've all seen a couple times that shows--Google was nice enough to capture a boat going through the area in question. Now,we also saw an overlay of the docks that protruded back over the top of that boat.At the same time, can you imagine a second boat? Boats have to be able to cross and pass each other within the channel as well. So you have docks on the north side,docks on the south side,two boats,but there's no way that's going to happen. If you're not an engineer, if you're not a surveyor,don't have monetary interest in the project,I can't understand how it's even a possibility. That's a tremendous safety hazard; it's going to create a bottleneck on this channel at the very best. I wouldn't be surprised if it completely closed off the channel to the people living back in the Bayshore area. Now,you know that all of the property values,for everyone living back in that area,is completely tied to the use of the waterways,okay. If that gets restricted,everyone's property value goes down. And at the same time,if you look back in the Bayshore area,over here,Lakeview,River View,yes, there is a reason why everyone builds docks parallel to their property,because they are narrow channels, narrow canals. This is also another narrow,shallow canal. It just doesn't make sense. So I really can't understand why this is even open for discussion, seriously. I think they certainly put that 20-foot restriction in the books for a reason. And that's to protect us as property owners,protect the public and keep these safety issues from being a concern. Thank you. MR. REISCHL: Thank you. Melissa DeSavigny,followed by Maurice Gutierrez. MS.DeSAVIGNY: Good morning. My name is Melissa and I've lived on a canal on Bayshore for 16 years. I have a four and a five-year old which I constantly take out on a kayak or a paddleboard,and they see all the nature,all the animals and everything. Page 23 of 37 Packet Page -313- 12/9/2014 9.A. June 19,2014 So like the gentleman said before,this doesn't make any sense whatsoever. The numbers do not add up. Just because it's within the parameters doesn't mean that it could be done.When you are actually in the water and you're actually boating, it's just--I just don't see it. Like they say,we're all going to be to the right, our boats are going to be hitting the other mangroves. It just doesn't make any sense. When were these parameters established?What kind of boats? Maybe it was 20,30 years ago. The gentleman said that the law allows 100-- 10 boats for 100 feet for something like that. That means my 53 wide(sic)lot,I could put five boats in there? It's just—five kayaks,maybe,five jet skis,not five boats. So the fact that they can put 93 slips in there,I just don't see what kind of boats they're putting in there. And this is--like everybody says here,it just doesn't make any sense whatsoever. We need to look at those parameters and see when were they established,what year,what boat they were thinking about. So that's basically--and like the property values are going to go down because they're based on that. I'm not going to be able to go on my boat in low tide. We're going to have to think about it. We're going to have to stop,let the other person come through,because we're not going to fit. They need to go on low tide. The numbers that they got,I really don't see that as being a factor. So that's my word,thank you. MR.REISCHL: Thank you. Maurice Gutierrez,followed by Michael Heiser. MR.GUTIERREZ: Good morning,Conunissioners. Maurice Gutierrez. I've been on the creek for over 30 years. There's a lot of emotions here today,primarily because a lot of us are longtime property owners. I'm on the CRA board and the Bayshore MSTU because I feel that development's important,but development that doesn't impact us negatively is more important. And hopefully we can make that,that input,so that we get the best bang for our buck. After all,there's nothing left to the north,they've got to come in our direction. You know,this is a really colorful piece of property. It's changed with every owner that it's had. And we live on a creek that the state does not even recognize as a navigable waterway. This is a flow way. It does not flush if it does not rain. And all the rains that collect in the basin come out this creek. We're simple people that live there. And if it's a fish and it swims and it smells like a fish,by God, it's a fish. No one's called this a marina. This is a marina. I mean,where else do you get a congregation of 42 boats in a Iength that is less than all the homes combined in Gulfshore subdivision? We have 150 homes. And look at all the waterfront we have. Now,they've taken this and stacked them like a sardine can for the purpose of sales. This particular piece of property originally was four or five single-family homes. Now it's been combined with a multi-family facet. And through legal processes we are here today. Unfortunately the impact that it presents the owners upstream is one of density,and density's not a very good word. If it is,then everybody can go move next to the Holiday Inn. You know,this is a small waterway, congested to the point of this is going to push it over the edge. A marina doesn't need fuel. A marina needs boats and docks. I recall when Jackson Fish Camp was granted permits for dredging to benefit Jackson Fish Camp. Today it's called South Point Yacht Club within Windstar. This is the north end of Windstar's marina operations. It will be subsequent to,oh,partnerships and cozy relationships which will allow both residences to interact while impacting everybody on the creek,specifically those on Lakeview Drive.There's been years of discussions and problems and projects that have failed because of the impact. So now we're looking at a development that isn't really Windstar PUD but it kind of is and all of that smells like fish out of water after about a week. I've got to say it because you've got to call it the way it is. It is a marina operation. Marina operations do not belong on narrow waterways that are one of the last waterways available that are natural,that are non-flushing tidal flow only,and that actually the residences have taxed them to improve. Yet now we're going to have to share a 42-foot boats in the air,because if you buy in this development your boat's not going to float,you're going to put a lift. And in the summer everybody goes home. So we're going to have 42 boats up in the air during hurricanes,during storms,during issues that is a safety problem for the creek. Page 24 of 37 Packet Page-314- 12/9/2014 9.A. June 19,2014 20,24 slips make it not a marina. 42 makes it a marina. You've got to call it what it is. There are no other T-docks on the creek other than the commercial waterfront. The commercial waterfront's been there for 50 years. It was created because the state dug this street. The state won't ever maintain this. Because three-foot minimum depth of low tide is what they consider applicable to allow the water to flow,not for boats to navigate.Congestion is only going to add to the impact of the creek and all the residences who live up here. The LDC has said limited number of boats.I imagine they did that for a reason way above my pay grade. But I understand it. I don't agree with it because originally it was five or four single-family home sites. Single-family homes don't have 42 slips in their backyard. But also,look at the picture we haven't been presented here today. Where are 42 vehicles going to park to access their 42 boats? You know,if you own a boat you've got friends,they want to come with you too. So where are they going to park? So now I can only envision some type of clubhouse up against these docks,with noise,with lights, with people,with garbage falling off the boats,with,as it was mentioned on the creek,how are they going to wash them? Where is all that bleach and water going to go?Everybody who owns a boat uses bleach. Sorry, it's not economically feasible,but they do it because it works. All of these things are just part of the impact that is going to flow right out that canal and into Naples Bay. Allowing this to go in is setting a very bad precedent. The county doesn't let you build anything on the water as a dock unless you have a structure behind it. So how is it that that extended pier on the far west end that is literally looking at one of the greens on Windstar allowed to have a dock? You can't put a house in that little 10 foot of wetlands area,so how can you justify that and complicate it with allowing so much dockage? Yes,this is all emotional,because we all have a vested interest here. But more so,it just doesn't fit the neighborhood. If they want a 20-story building there,I'm sure they're going to get zoning that's going to say you can do it. But is it the right fit? I think most of us here are talking and taking time off of work to make the Commissioners understand it's got to fit the neighborhood. Developments good,but a marina on a creek is not a good idea. I am not a marine scientist,nor do I have any data that can prove this will happen or no,it won't, except for the fact I've lived there for 30 some years and I've seen the changes that have occurred. And those changes will ultimately impact us financially,ecologically. But the whole development as a whole is going to impact Gulf Shore subdivision beyond belief It didn't make it when it was Fisherman's Village because of the access. Yet the relationship between Windstar and this development may have separate pillows but it sure looks like one great big bed. And the impact is going to felt up the creek. I ask that you don't leave us residences up the creek without a paddle and be forced to deal with this for the rest of our lives,because I'm not going to sell my property. Thank you for your time. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question for you, sir. You mentioned the perpendicular docks at the commercial area. I noticed those too. You said they've been there for about 50 years so they're more than grandfathered in? Is this true,they've been there that long?Approximately? MR.GUTIERREZ: I live directly across the creek,the boat yard-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. MR.GU'I'IERREZ: In 1976 they were there.And since then I don't believe any has been built,but I know some have been removed. And it's all been right at the corner where the main creek intersects Gulf Shore's entrance. I don't know why they were removed but recently they have been removed. And the rest of the docks in front of the residential homes are not T-docks. As a matter of fact,at the end of the one dead-end street,which is where our canal comes out,right here,I am under the impression that they tried to get a lift and a T-dock installed and they were denied so they put a floating dock where they drive their boat up on that floating dock.It's currently there,it shows in any aerial photograph. But other than the commercial working waterfront there is no T-docks between Bayshore and Naples Page 25 of 37 Packet Page -315- 12/9/2014 9.A. June 19,2014 Bay. This will set the precedent--imagine Land Yacht Harbor turning around and going wow,hey,why don't we just put 15 T-docks coming out of each one of our three piers in Naples Land Yacht Harbor,because after all,they did it,why can't I? That unfortunately is what 1 fear as a resident. I was raised in Miami as a young man,moved here in the Seventies and stayed here for a reason. I saw all that happen over there.And I will fight and hopefully discourage that from occurring here. Thank you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you. MR.REISCHL: Next speaker is Michael Heiser,followed by Kevin Sieg. MR.HEISER: My name is Mike Heiser. I cut my Achilles tendon,if you're wondering. I've been on the creek for 38 years. My sons both fished on the creek,hunted on the creek, learned to look for arrowheads on the creek and go through the little canals that go back in there where the Calusas used to put their--take their dug out canoes back in there where you follow those creeks back in.And this is definitely going to change a lot of that. Nothing's been said at all about hurricanes today,so that's what I'm going to address. What you're making here is a killer. All the water from Thomasson Road when we have a hurricane comes down and ends up going into Haldeman Creek. Millions of gallons of water. When Donna went through--we have a duplex over across from K-Mart,and it blew the roof off. And when Donna came through,the only thing showing was the top of the cement blocks. It was nine or 10 foot deep there.And if you put five or 600--four or 500,at Ieast 400 pilings in there,what you're doing 50 foot out is when all this water starts flowing through and all the trees and the trash and all these boats sink and go down between the docks,you're making a dam. And the people on the other side with the 50-foot dock and theirs sink, and they're going to sink,when the Donna hurricane comes through,they're all going to be on the bottom and they're going to be between these pilings. And so now you've got a 50-foot dam on this side,a 50-foot dam on this side,and now you have 25 to 30 foot between them with all these millions of gallons of water that's coming from Lakewood,the Glades, all of that area has to go through this little 20-foot area. And you're going to see a lot of dead people. So that's what you've caused by doing this if you continue this on. What else have I got to say? Put these glasses on so I can see what I'm doing. Oh,yeah,there was--I was noticing he was talking about how wide this was. And there seems to being an awful lot of fuzzy math going on today. And that's all I've got to say. MR.REISCI-IL: Thank you. Next speaker,Kevin Sieg,followed by Joe Bucemi. Kevin Sieg's not here? MR. SIEG: I'm here,but I have nothing to say. MR.REISCHL: Joe Bucemi,followed by Torn Briscoe. You don't want to speak? MR.BUCEMI: No. MR.REISCHL: Okay,Tom Briscoe,followed by Vicki Tracy. MR.BRISCOE: Hi,I'm Torn Briscoe. I live on Shore View. And my only problem with this is is that during low tide it's very hard to navigate out.I had a boat that had a draft of 18 inches. At low tide I would get stuck in the S curve. These people are going in here with a 31-foot dock with a boat B on it. Well,how long is that boat? Boats are measured from the bow to the stern. If it's an outboard you have to add the motor to it. So they could be encroaching into the waterway further than what they're talking about. And when you have a 26-foot long boat,same thing happens. So where's the rules and regulations on how long a boat they can put into these slips?And,you know,unfortunately I've seen a lot of sailboats coming in at the wrong tide,they get stuck. They wait for eight hours until they can get enough water to float. So if you get these boats going in and out all times of the day,we're going to have a lot of stuck boats and all the rest of us are going to have to suffer because of it. Thank you. MR. REISCHL: And for the record,to answer Mr.Briscoe's question,the code states that the Page 26 of 37 Packet Page -316- 12/9/2014 9.A. June 19, 2014 measurement is for the boat and dock facility. So it includes the boat. So if there are--and motors. That would have to be to the outermost piling. If it goes beyond that,it's a code enforcement issue. Final speaker is Vicki Tracy. And I notice it says defer my minutes to Maurice. I don't know if you want to keep with your-- UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: She had to go. MR.REISCHL: Oh, she had to go. Okay,that's why it says defer. Thank you. That was the final registered speaker. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: No more speakers? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have some questions for Tim. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Oh,for Tim? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Tim,I have some questions for you. MR.HALL: I thought you might. COMMISSIONER EBERT: This four-foot dredge that you plan on doing as a maintenance dredge, is that from mean high tide or mean low? M.R. HALL: The-4 is to mean low,water. COMMISSIONER EBERT: To mean low water. MR.HALL: So at normal low tide it would be four feet deep. At--I'm sorry,normal low tide it will be four feet deep. At extreme low tides,like what you see in the photos,it will be shallower than four feet. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOW SKI: Do you have numbers for that,elevation numbers? Just rough idea. Like elevation two,elevation three. MR.HALL: The mean low is-.5 NGVD. High is 1.5,positive 1.5. So there's about a two-foot tide swing according to the DEP-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Between mean low and-- MR.HALL: Mean high. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: --mean high. How about low low tide? MR. HALL: Low low goes probably almost another foot and a quarter lower. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And you're still dealing with NGVD? MR.HALL: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Good. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay,I'm not like Stan,not an engineer, or like you. But you're saying that you're going to dredge four feet from low tide;is that correct? MR.HALL: The depth measured— COMMISSIONER EBERT: The depth. MR.HALL: The four-foot depth is from the average low tide. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Low tide. So you're digging up--and yet you're measuring everything from mean high water tide. The measurement across the canal and everything? MR.HALL: That's what the county code says we have to do. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah, I know,but it just-- MR.HALL: If I reference it to mean high tide, I'll be six feet deep at high tide. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. The property line on the south side,many people have asked this: I know you tell me that because he owns the properly on the north side which is going to be off limits anyway,that he owns everything underneath. Why—if the property line on the south side stops,why does he get to go into Windstar property? MR. HALL: He's not. The docks are over property that he owns. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So what you're telling everyone then is he owns--he owns that property where Windstar's golf course is? MR.HALL: No,ma'am,not where the golf course is but along the shoreline. This red line right here is his property line. Page 27 of 37 Packet Page -317- 12/9/2014 9.A. June 19,2014 COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. So his property line on submerged lands is what you're saying. MR.HALL: Well,it's not--he owns some submerged lands. But the property line itself is landward of mean high water in places along here as well. So it's not all submerged. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay, so that's why you originally came out with that dock at that one point there where you brought it-- MR. HALL: Well,I came out with that dock because of this photo. This area right here is shallow and we had the docks originally outside of--or along the outside edge of this shoal to minimize the dredging. But when--we've closed it now. Where our docks are located is dry land in this photo. That's what I'm trying to say,we're not affecting this waterway width. Our docks are going to be-- these mangroves,the edge of these mangroves will be trimmed,the docks will be up against the roots and the boats will actually be sitting here on what's dry land in this photo. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Is this going to be a hard dock or floating dock? MR.HALL: They have to be fixed docks because they don't have the water depths for floating. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay, so you cannot put in floating docks. I was wondering on that. I noticed they said they were going to have a kayak launch and storage,you mentioned? MR.HALL: Yes,ma'am. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Can you tell us about that? MR.HALL: Well,I mean,it's— COMMISSIONER EBERT: I mean, besides these 42 slips they're also going to be able to do kayak, I understand. Stan,you can get out there and kayak. MR. HALL: They kayak storage is all upland. It's part of the upland development.They will just have a place at the--the reason that I wanted to leave this walkway eight feet wide,the kayaks will be stored up here on the upland,but the access to put them in the water will be right here off of this walkway. And it's nothing fancy,it's just a place where they can drop them over the edge of the dock and get in and out of them. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. The developer did tell me yesterday that--and I should probably talk with him,whoever is representing the developer,that he has a site plan that he is willing to show today? MR. HALL: I've got a copy here. MR. COOK: Good morning. Charles Cook.I'm representing Standard Pacific Homes. The color rendering that we have on the overhead is the current site plan for the Haldeman's Landing SDP that's currently being reviewed by Collier County. So that consists of 16 buildings representing 64 home sites. They're carriage homes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: They're carriage homes. Okay,and I think you told me your main entrance is going to be through Windstar; is that correct? MR COOK: Yes,ma'am. The property's been annexed into the Windstar homeowners association, so we'll be paying homeowner association dues through Windstar. The road--that's Haldeman Creek Drive which currently is a cul-de-sac within Windstar. We'll be extending that into the property as the primary means of ingress and egress,into the Haldeman Creek-- Haldeman Landing property. There will be a secondary instance,as you can see on the far right-hand side that will tie into Lakeview Drive. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. And the Lakeview Drive,that's going to be the construction entrance? MR. COOK: Yes,ma'am. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And I think you also told me this is like a gated community within a gated community. MR.COOK: There will be a gate on both ends. On the back side where Lakeview ties in,you can see the roundabout there on the far right-hand side in this area. There will also be a secondary gate in that area,thereby establishing a controlled access into the community itself. So,for example,Windstar residents will not be able to egress or leave the property through Page 28 of 37 Packet Page -318- 12/9/2014 9.A. June 19, 2014 Lakeview. It's intended only for the residents of Haldeman's Landing. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Are you willing to make some compromises on these docks and do these elsewhere where people are mentioning,down towards--I believe it's Sandpiper or something, I heard somebody say,where it's really not on Haldeman Creek? MR. COOK: We don't own or control those properties at all,so I couldn't at all make a commitment to build something on property that we're not involved with,no,ma'am. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well,you were annexed in. Just a question. Will boat lifts be optional? MR. COOK: Yes,ma'am. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So Tim,do you think most people will have boat lifts? Do they on this creek? MR.HALL: There are a lot of boat lifts on the creek,but it's going to be up to the residences and, you know,whether they're seasonal or full-time,you know,how often they use their boat. It's really a user choice. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And I think you told me when I asked you that if you had to put these in there parallel that you could get 29 in? MR.HALL: I think that's the number that we put,yes,ma'am. COMMISSIONER EBERT: A question on the docks again. When I heard Fred say that if the stern sticks out a little bit with the motors and stuff this would then be a code enforcement violation,what size boats can you put in these slips? MR.HALL: Generally if you're talking about a 30-foot slip,which is the biggest slip,then it's a 30-foot length overall,LOA. So if you've got a bow pulpit on the front which is a couple of feet and outboard motors on the back which is another couple of feet,then you're talking about a 26-foot boat with the appurtenances. COMMISSIONER EBERT: For the 30-foot slip. MR.HALL: For a 30-foot slip. But that's very dependent on the boat and how it's tricked out. But,you know,that's the-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Does everybody know that when they buy a boat that it fits in these boat docks? MR.HALL: It's part of the sales documents. A lot of times what the developers will do is they'll provide them with an exhibit of the slip and the box,and it will have a width and a length and a requirement that your vessel has to fit within this box or you will not be compliant with our permits in the county code. COMMISSIONER EBERT: How wide are these?What are you allowing for width on the 30-foot and the 25-foot slip? MR.HALL: I believe the perpendicular slips we allow 11 and a half to 12 feet. And when you put in pilings for those center pilings,you can't always be exact,so it's going to vary between that 11 and a half to 12 feet. And we have a 12-foot allowance for the BDE in terms of the paralleled moored slips and how far out from the dock they could be. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Is there going to be a clubhouse here towards the-- MR. COOK: On the uplands site plan,let me point to it for you,in the area right there,there will be a community clubhouse,pool and cabana for the residents of Haldeman's Landing. COMMISSIONER EBERT: What about parking? MR.COOK: There's adequate parking there.That was addressed during the SDP process. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I was just thinking of the boat docks too. Because even if you Iive back here you're going to drive up,you know,with the car. That's all I have for right now. Thank you. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Do you have anything? COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Yes,the community concern is always a big part of this. And it seems that most of what we've heard is the integrity of what they have there now as far as what's going on. I'm still hoping that there's some type of mediation,you know,where we can get to. How less are you willing to put there? I mean,I thought I heard half a boat dock,half the boat slips. Is that even feasible Page 29 of 37 Packet Page -319- 12/9/2014 9.A. June 19,2014 for you guys? MR. COOK: Commissioner,I don't believe so. We've made adjustments to our design.We're well under what we could technically apply for. We've tried to observe the navigability issues,we've surveyed the bottom to verify where the bottom is. We've expanded our dredging that we're proposing to do. I believe at this point in time the developer has made a number of concessions trying to address these concerns and those we've heard from the public. So no,sir, I don't believe we're prepared to do any further adjustments at this point. COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Thank you. MR. HALL: If I could,I mean,a lot of the comments were how this project is not consistent with the rest of the neighborhood. But the rest of the neighborhood is all single-family residences. This is a multi-family residence which is treated differently under the county code and has different allowances. And if you look at the other multi-family residences that are in the area,this is not inconsistent with those. And I'll show you--I showed you the facility earlier on the other side of the bridge which has the perpendicular docks,okay. That's about a 750 to 800-foot long run of docks. The other multi-family facility down here runs along the creek and they also have a dock that runs the entire length of their shoreline. It's parallel mooring because of the narrowness of the creek there. It's not perpendicular, but it is in keeping with this one in that it does run along the entire length of their shoreline, and in front of mangroves which are,you know,outside of their residences. So in terms of consistency with other like types of projects,you know,I believe that this one is consistent. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Tim,I--I have something that has width of waterways that was in our packet from you. And it shows--just says width of waterways. And it shows 84 feet and 99 feet. What is-- MR.HALL: That's the width Ieft in the area at those points after the construction of the docks. However,this 84 feet is now going to be about 92 or 93 feet because this was based on the old dock plan that was pushed out a little further. So that 84 feet actually becomes more. And we were doing this to show that in terms of constriction,you know,of the waterway, if you look further downstream--and I heard a couple people say that they have problems at the S curve and all,and I believe that's this area down here,that's how they refer to that—that the widths down there are similar or less than what is being--than what's being proposed. And again,these are from shoreline to shoreline,not necessarily the marked channel portion. If you look at where the navigation markers are--I heard one of the gentlemen say that this isn't recognized as a navigable channel,but there are navigation markers in it. And the width between those navigation markers in a lot of places is 50 feet,you know,between 50 and 60 feet. So the channel is already marked and defined as constricted.And Stan,maybe you know,I think you've canoed this area,but the-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No,Rock Creek I've done. I've never done this one. It's too hard to get to. MR.HALL: The waterway that's being left after this facility is designed is sufficient in our opinion and in the Army Corps of Engineers'opinion and in the State of Florida's opinion as sufficient for the navigation that occurs through there. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Is there a definition of navigable waterway? I always thought it was anything you could get a kayak in. MR.HALL: Anything you can get a canoe through,that's correct. That's the federal definition. We did this exhibit showing the four-foot because of the concerns at the public meeting and them saying that this was the depth that they needed. So we had a survey done of the creek over and above what's require by the county processes to try to find out where that water depth was. And,you know,based on the information from a professional licensed surveyor with the docks,that -4 contour Iine is 73,69, 52 and starts getting narrower as you get west on the waterway. And where these docks are,this line is now going to be pulled back to where the dock is. So it will be wider here after the construction than it is right now. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So you're right,navigable—I remember that from The Dunes. I think that's kind of--I could not believe that if you can get a kayak--the only problem is I don't think most of Page 30 of 37 Packet Page -320- 1 2/9/201 4 9.A. June 19,2014 these people living here have--that they travel up and down via their kayak. I think what-- MR.HALL: It was based on--a history lesson. It was based on commerce clauses. And anything that could transport sellable goods through a waterway made it navigable. So people,furriers and-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: You're going back really to the days of the Indians. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Square grouper. COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's all I have right now. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: There was mention by one of the speakers that there will be damage to the mangroves,but that's why you're going out further,because you can't damage the mangroves. MR.HALL: We're not removing any mangroves. There will be trimming. Because along a lot of that waterway where the roots of the mangroves are and where the outside edge of the mangroves,they grow out to light,so they grow out towards the water. So some of them will be trimmed up in order to push the docks in closer to the shore. But that is a trimming operation,it's permitted under the DEP permit,and it's not removal. There will be trimming. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Right,I read the permit. And there's also restrictions on washing. MR.HALL: Yes,in the permit there are. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: And then there was questions about lighting. What kind of lighting would be-- MR.HALL: For safety sake we'll have lights on the docks so that people traveling the waterway can see them. But they will be directional low level lights. They're not going to be shining into anybody's,you know,bedroom windows or anything like that. They'll be directed--either directed down at the water or directed water wayward so that people traveling the waterway could see them if they're coming in or out at night. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay. Okay,is there any other questions from anybody or-- (No response.) VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: No? Okay, do you have anything you want to add or-- MR.HALL: Well,I mean,just that,you know,I mean,I think you've heard a lot of testimony here today. I think that the application that we gave you adequately addresses the criteria that are required to be addressed as part of this application. Our information is based on professional engineers,licensed surveyors,and we have the backup for that in support of the application. So I think we've shown that we meet the criteria, staff has agreed with us, and we hope that you guys agree with them. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Tim,one other quick--two quick questions. This is about 1,000 feet,this dock,if you go from one end to the other? MR. HALL: Yes,ma'am. It's 968,I believe. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, I did get kind of a kick out there when you said we could have, what did you say,93? MR HALL: The Manatee Protection Plan allows 93. There are a lot of properties where the plan allows more than you could ever reasonably fit. And I was not saying that it was ever our intent to do 93,I said that our--the code allows 93. The limitation associated with the units,as you all know,a single-family residence could have two slips per unit. Multi-family,it's reduced to one. So under that, 64 could potentially be allowed. Because of the restrictions which we have tried to work within,42 is what we're proposing. So we're under all of the allowances that are-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: I don't know on whose property you were going to put these 93. I think you'd have to continue down a little ways. MR. HALL: And like I said, as far as I know it was never our intent to do 93,even if we could fit them. Because there's only 64,we couldn't do 93 anyway. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Off the property, code-wise. Okay,thank you. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay,that's it then. Page 31 of 37 Packet Page -321- 12/9/2014 9.A. June 19,2014 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Ready for a motion? VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Yep. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I move to approve boat dock extension PL2013000-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Wait,there is a problem here. We have to close the meeting and see if there's any comments from us first? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Close the public hearing? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Sure,you can close the public hearing and ask for comments. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And then ask--yeah,you want to close the public hearing? VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Yeah,I just did. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay,closing public--I cannot support this. I've been--I have been out there. I see the pictures,it is so narrow. There are way too many docks for this area. I was hoping that we could do a little bit of a compromise. I cannot even see where he will be able to sell these 42. As far as perpendicular,yes,when you ask for an extension you can do so. I don't see any in the canal. As we went up and down the canal,there were no docks really in this tidal canal anyway going from one place down to the Naples Bay to,what,Sandpiper,is that where the bay starts? There were not any docks. The docks that I pretty much saw were in the fingers of this. So I cannot support this at all. I just feel it's the safety,it's low tide. I understand that Mr. Wilson was nice enough to look at the original dredge back in 2007,saying it was supposed to be 40 feet wide.But, you know,silt gets in there,things change. I would really love to see something that's--and you can get two or three different engineers and get many different water depths and widths. So 1 cannot support this. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Can I ask a question,Heidi? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: There's four of us here and there has to be a unanimous vote. I don't think we're going to see a unanimous vote,so what do we do? VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: It doesn't have to be a unanimous vote. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: It doesn't have to be a unanimous vote. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So if we-- if somebody makes a motion for approval,we're going to get so many for and so many against, and if someone makes a motion for denial we'll get so many for and so many against. So is that how it ends up,whoever makes the first motion? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Well,you had already started to make the motion, so I think once everyone finishes speaking,then I think you were in the middle of making a motion. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Do you have any-- COMMISSIONER DOYLE: No,my comments is I'm against this as well as it stands. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Well,then maybe Diane can make the motion. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Have you had a chance to look through the criteria and which ones that you believe it doesn't meet? Could you state that for the record? MR. REISCHL: Should there be a motion on the floor first? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well,there is. He started a motion. I don't know that he's-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay, I'll finish it. I make a motion we approve boat dock extension PL20130001765,HaIdeman's Landing boat docks. And I guess the companion to the ST item would be a separate motion. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So that's my motion. THE COURT: So that's with the conditions-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: With all the conditions— COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Corrected conditions as per the staff report Page 32 of 37 Packet Page -322- 12/9/2014 9.A. June 19, 2014 VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: The conditions in the first-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Right,the corrected conditions-- VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Corrected conditions-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: --from the staff report. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: And that it would be a 25-foot-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Right. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: --extension? Okay. I guess I'll second the motion. All those in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Aye. All those opposed? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Aye. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: So there you go. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: What was it? Is it 2-2? VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Two-to-two. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Two-to-two. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Two-to-two. MR.REISCHL: So it fails. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So it fails? So it—okay. But this--Heidi,Pm going to ask you,this now goes to the Board of Commissioners? MR.REISCHL: No,you are the-- VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: No. MR.REISCHL: --deciding body in this. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So it fails. MR. REISCHL: Correct. (Applause.) MR. BELLOWS: For the record,the ST permit would still go to the Board of County Commissioners and you still need to vote on that. And there's a possibility of an appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay. So we would still do the--vote on the permit. And you just made that motion. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Want me too make a motion on the ST? We'll go through the same drill? VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. I move we approve ST-PL201400000896, Haldeman's Landing boat docks. MR.REISCHL: With the limitation or with the four-- VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Accesses. MR.REISCHL: --or five access? Or three? VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: With the four accesses-- MR.REISCHL: We discussed the possibility of-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: With the four accesses. THE COURT REPORTER: Okay,I have a lot of people talking at the same time. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Four accesses. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay,I'Il second it. All those in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Aye. Opposed? Page 33 of 37 Packet Page -323- 12/9/2014 9.A. June 19,2014 COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Two-to-two. COMMISSIONER EBERT: It's only a recommendation,correct? MR.BELLOWS: Correct. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Yes. We also have to vote on it as the EAC on the special treatment permit? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Just one second. While I'm looking through this to provide you an answer,could you look at your list of primary and secondary criteria so you can articulate on the prior item which ones it fails,for the record? VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Those that voted against it need to— COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: You need to state which criteria that it doesn't meet,or they don't meet. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mine is mainly health,safety and welfare. I mean,this just does not even make sense to me,to be honest with you. Criteria. There was a gentleman here and he spoke,but he has left. In low tide his boat actually is sitting in the muck. So when they were saying that yeah,we have to dredge,that means almost everybody here is going to have to dredge for low tide. And to me it just--no. Besides,we don't need--we don't need a Naples Pier along here. Its--Heidi,I'm sorry,I just-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Are you saying that they actually have to Iist which criteria this doesn't meet in their opinion? UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: No. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: And the answer on the Environmental Advisory Council is that yes,you're sitting as both the CCPC and the EAC and the CRA. So if there's anything you want to add related to the EAC on the ST permit,you can add it or it can be included in what you previously-- VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: There's not another vote that we need to-- MS.ASHTON-CICKO: No,you're just-- VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Leave it the way it is? Okay. COMMISSIONER ROSEN: If this subject is done,I'll take my seat. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: I think they're still--we voted,so-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well,for one thing, some things changed when we came to this meeting. For one thing, it was the 52 feet.The mangroves can be trimmed? I just don't--the proposed maintenance dredge. To me this is not a proposed maintenance dredge,even though--and Tim's probably right,he's just going to take it and go down. I just won't--I will not support this. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: How about if we go through the primary criteria and you can let us know whether you felt that it met that or not?That might help assist in determining which ones. COMMISSIONER EBERT: On the primary? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: We'll go through primary and secondary and then-- MR BELLOWS: Madam Chairman? VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Yes. MR.REISCHL: Did you want us to read it or-- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah,why don't you read it and then they can each Iet you know whether it was met or not met. MR.REISCHL: Okay. 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. And in the Page 34 of 37 Packet Page-324- 12/9/2014 9.A. June 19, 2014 case of unbridged barrier islands,additional slips may be appropriate. COMMISSIONER EBERT: No,it does not meet that for me. MR.REISCHL: Criterion one. COMMISSIONER EBERT: One. COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Met. MR.REISCHL: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER DOYLE: It seems to be met. MR REISCHL: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well,that's what staff is saying. COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Right,according to-- MR.BELLOWS: Then you compare with that assessment. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah,you look at staffs assessment and what you heard from the public as evidence. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Whether the number of boat dock facilities or boat slips proposed is appropriate in relation to the waterfront length? No,I do not agree with that. MR.BELLOWS: Mr.Doyle,do you—since you were voting in opposition to the motion,are you concurring with that? COMMISSIONER DOYLE: With staffs criterion being met,I do concur with that. Do I have to-- MS.ASHTON-CICKO: That's sufficient,let's go to the next one. MR.REISCHL: 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. The petitioners application and survey should establish that the water depth is too shallow to allow launching and mooring of the vessel described without an extension. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Without an extension.And they cannot do that without an extension, so to me it's not met. I had question marks there anyway. COMMISSIONER DOYLE: And according to the petitioner's application, it would be met. So I'll have to concur with staffs recommendation on that. MR.REISCHL: Whether the proposed dock facility may have an adverse impact on navigation within an adjacent marked or chartered navigable channel. The facility should not intrude into any marked or charted navigable channel,thus impeding vessel traffic in the channel. COMMISSIONER EBERT: No,it does not meet that criteria to me. COMMISSIONER DOYLE: I don't believe it meets that criteria either. MR.REISCHL: 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 facilities should maintain the required percentages. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well,I can say I was expecting drawings of all docks that were approved. They did not bring them in. We had one of the people bring it in. And I really don't know whether it is 50 percent of the channel that will be open. COMMISSIONER DOYLE: And it seems that that criteria will be met and maintained as far as I see. MR.REISCHL: 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 facilities should not interfere with the use of legally permitted neighboring docks. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well,the other docks aren't there yet, so I really expected Tim to bring both of this to show. And I had asked that they bring this,because I think it's important to see. COMMISSIONER DOYLE: And I don't believe that criteria will be met,or has been shown to be met. MR.REISCHL: 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 drawing,type of shoreline reinforcement,shoreline configuration,mangrove growth or seagrass beds. Page 35 of 37 Packet Page -325- 12/9/2014 9.A. June 19,2014 COMMISSIONER DOYLE: I believe that will be met. MR. REISCHL: Commissioner Ebert,do you-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well,there is mangroves there. I suppose that will be met. It's just that the state's regulating them and it makes a difference if the county's not in there on this also. MR. REISCHL: 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 facilities should not use excessive deck area. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I think they cut down the deck area some which does help. COMMISSIONER DOYLE: It seems like the criteria can be met. MR. REISCHL: For single--it's not single-family. 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 neighboring property owners. COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's the opinion of the developer. If they put--if you're looking down at the water,that's one thing.If you're looking across the shore and these boat docks haves lifts on it, that's a completely different thing. COMMISSIONER DOYLE: And I'd have to agree. Depending upon what you feel that the view is, I would have to say that's not going to be met. MR. REISCHL: Whether seagrass beds will be impacted by the proposed dock facility. If seagrass beds are present,compliance with subsection blab of the LDC must be demonstrated. COMMISSIONER EBERT: That is met. I believe Tim said they went out and they checked for seagrasses; is that correct,Tim? MR.HALL: Yes,ma'am. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you. COMMISSIONER DOYLE: And it seems that criteria has been met. MR.REISCHL: And the last one,whether the proposed dock facility is subject to the manatee protection requirements of subsection of the code. If applicable,compliance must be demonstrated. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well,as far as manatee protection, its in the,what,moderate at this point? So at that point it does. MR.REISCHL: Moderate range. COMMISSIONER DOYLE: And it seems that that will be met as well. MR.REISCHL: Thank you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Does that satisfy you,Heidi? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Yes, it does. Thank you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay. So that's it.Do we have any old business? (No response.) VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: New business? (No response.) COMMISSIONER ROSEN: I'm exhausted.Motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: All those in favor? COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Did you mention when the next meeting is? VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: At the beginning of the meeting. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: You did. July 17th,thank you. Page 36 of 37 Packet Page -326- 12/9/2014 9.A. June 19,2014 There being no further business for the good of the County,the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:10 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ( bey KAREN HO , ,- Vice-Chairman These minutes approved by the board on 7/17/ /Vas presented _ or as corrected I . Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service,Inc., by Cherie'R.Nottingham. Page 37 of 37 Packet Page -327- 12/9/2014 9.A. • NAPLES DAILY NEWS (( Wednesday, November 19, 2014 « 37D NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that on Tuesday, December 9, 2014, in the Board of County Commissioners Meeting Room, Third Floor, Collier Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples FL., the Board of County Commissioners(BCC),will consider an Appeal Hearing. The meeting will commence at 9:00 A.M. The purpose of the hearing is as follows: STANDARD PACIFIC OF FLORIDA GP,INC. REQUESTS AN APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, OF A FINAL DECISION BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY PETITION BDE-PL20130001765 FOR A 32-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 52 FEET TO ACCOMMODATE A 42 SLIP MULTI-FAMILY DOCKING FACILITY FOR THE BENEFIT OF A 19.06'ACRE PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS HALDEMAN'S LANDING IN SECTIONS 11 AND 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.[PETITION ADA-PL20140001454] A copy of the proposed Resolution 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 register with the County manager prior to presentation of the agenda item to be addressed. Individual speakers will be 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 organization may be allotted 10 minutes to speak on an item. Persons wishing to have written or graphic materials included in the Board agenda packets must submit said material a minimum of 3 weeks prior to the respective public hearing. In any case, written materials intended to be considered by the Board shall 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 of the record. 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 proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Department, 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 COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA TOM HENNING !+CHAIRMAN DWIGHT E.BROCK,CLERK By: Martha Vergara Deputy Clerk(SEAL) November 19,2014 No.2039943 Packet Page -328-