Loading...
Agenda 10/28/2014 Item # 9Bn n 10/28/2014 9. B. 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 f 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- PL00008% Haldeman's Landing Special Treatment Permit). 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 affirm, 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 is currently under review, for 16 multi- family buildings, totaling 64 residential units. 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. 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 -95- 10/28/2014 9.B. 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 -96- 10/28/2014 9.B. property; these may include type of shoreline reinforcement, shoreline configuration, mangrove growth, or seagrass beds.) 2. Whether the proposed dock facility would allow reasonable, safe access to the vessel for loading /unloading and routine maintenance, without the use of excessive deck area not directly related to these functions. (The facility should not use excessive deck area.) 3. For single - family dock facilities, whether the length of the vessel, or vessels in combination, described by the petitioner, exceeds 50 percent of the subject property's linear waterfront footage. (The applicable maximum percentage should be maintained.) 4. Whether the proposed facility would have a major impact on the waterfront view of neighboring property owners. (The facility should not have a major impact on the view of a neighboring property owner.) 5. Whether seagrass beds are located, within 200 feet of the proposed dock facility. (If seagrass beds are present, compliance with subsection 5.03.06(I) of the LDC must be demonstrated.) 6. Whether the proposed dock facility is subject to the manatee protection requirements of subsection 5.03.06(E)(11) of this Code. (If applicable, compliance with section 5.03.06(E)(11) must be demonstrated.) The BCC shall hold a de novo hearing. Based upon its review of the record of the CCPC hearing, and the testimony and other materials presented as part of the hearing on the appeal, the BCC may affirm, affirm with conditions, reverse or reverse with conditions the actions of the CCPC. This item has been approved as to form and legality and requires a majority vote for Board approval. (SAS) COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The CCPC does not hear appeals; that is only a function of the BCC. 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 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. Prepared by: Fred Reischl, AICP, Principal Planner, Zoning Dept. /Growth Management Division Packet Page -97- 10/28/2014 9.B. Attachments: 1) Minutes of CCPC hearing (hearing begins on page 7) 2) Staff Report 3) Appeal Application 4) CCPC Resolution Number 12 -03 5) ACOE Permit - due to the size of the document, it is accessible at: http: / /www.coIIiergov. net/ ftp /AgendaOct2814 /GrowthMamt /ACOE Permit.pdf 6) DEP Permit - due to the size of the document, it is accessible at: http: / /www.colliergov. net /ftp /AgendaOct2814 /GrowthMamt /DEP Permit pdf 7) SFWMD Permit - due to the size of the document, it is accessible at: http: / /www.colliergov. net/ ftp /AgendaOct2814 /GrowthMgmt /SFWMr) Permit pdf Resolution to be prepared after BCC meeting and discussion Packet Page -98- COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 9.9.B. 10/28/2014 9.B. 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- PL0000896 Haldeman's Landing Special Treatment Permit). Meeting Date: 10/28/2014 Prepared By Name: ReischlFred Title: Planner, Principal, Operations and Regulatory Management 9/25/2014 10:34:39 AM Approved By Name: BosiMichael Title: Director - Planning and Zoning, Comprehensive Planning Date: 10/8/2014 4:22:08 PM Name: BosiMichael Title: Director - Planning and Zoning, Comprehensive Planning Date: 10/8/2014 4:24:37 PM Name: MarcellaJeanne Title: Executive Secretary, Transportation Planning Date: 10/13/2014 9:44:40 AM Name: PuigJudy Title: Operations Analyst, Community Development & Environmental Services Date: 10/14/2014 3:13:59 PM Packet Page -99- 10/28/2014 9.B. Name: StoneScott A-N, Title: Assistant County Attorney, CAO Land Use/Transportation Date: 10/20/2014 10:24:59 AM Name: IsacksonMark Title: Director -Corp Financial and Mngmt Svs, Office of Management & Budget Date: 10/20/2014 11:10:07 AM Name: FinnEd Title: Management/Budget Analyst, Senior, Transportation Engineering & Construction Management Date: 10/20/2014 3:02:03 PM Name: KlatzkowJeff Title: County Attorney, Date: 10/22/2014 8:34:25 AM Name: OchsLeo Title: County Manager, County Managers Office Date: 10/22/2014 9:48:51 AM Packet Page -100- 10/28/2014 9.B. 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, Fast Naples, Florida, with the following members present: n ALSO PRESENT: Mark Strain, Chairman (Absent) Stan Chrzanowski Brian Doyle Diane Ebert Karen Homiak Charlette Roman (Absent) Mike Rosen 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 -101- 10/28/2014 9.B. June 19, 2014 VICE -CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay, good morning. Could you please be quiet, please, the meeting is n 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. n VICE -CHAIR HOMIAK: Second by Stan. All those in favor? COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Aye. VICE -CHAIR HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROSEN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKl: 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'lI all be here? COMMISSIONER DOYLE: I'll 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: IT 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: Ave. VICE -CHAIR HOMIAK: Opposed like sign. n (No response.) Page 2 of 37 Packet Page -102- 10/28/2014 9.B. June 19, 201.4 n VICE -CHAIR HOMIAK: And the May 19th? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOW SKI: 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. COMMISSIONERROSEN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONEREBERT: 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 GMT amendment under consent, but there was no — for the Rattlesnake Hammock/Collier Boulevard P1,20130002249, 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 -- And ou don't need MS. ASHTON- CICKO: That one, the 8.A, you can remove from your agenda. y 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. IT 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, its 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 its 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 -103- 10/28/2014 93. 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. It's 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 n 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, lam. 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, its 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 n 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 -104- 10/28/2014 9.B. 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-1 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. M S. 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 its confusing, Heidi. Just look at number nine, because it's a really simple one. Animal specialty services except veterinary without outside kenneling. If you look at the way the additionally following C-4 uses are prohibited, l 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 -105- 10/28/2014 9. B. June 19, 2014 MS. ASHTON- CICKO: No, rm 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. It's 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 properly 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 HOMUK: 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 -106- 10/28/2014 93. 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. Sorry 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 8.13, 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 -- it's 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 therm. 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 -- its 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 -107- 10/28/2014 9. B. 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. rm 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 1101N, 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 I'd 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 trade 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 — Pm 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. n We believe and staff has agreed that the project meets all of the applicable BDE criteria Page 8 of 37 Packet Page -108- 10/28/2014 9.B. 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 93 8 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 — its 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 Iast 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 -109- 10/28/2014 9.B. June 19, 2014 some photos of that. AIong the waterway itself when this project was permitted back in the Nineties, part of n 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 finger piers, which is kind of standard in terms of access. It does provide safe access and going a lot smaller than that with the finger 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 its 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 I'd 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 1 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 -110- 10/28/2014 9.B. June 19, 2014 n And I have -- I kind of question that because fi-om 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, Pd 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. Its 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 -111- 10/28/2014 9.B. June 19, 2014 know, 15 or 18 -foot boat, you could fit a lot more in than what we are showing. n 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 comer, 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 backside 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 -- its 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. COMMIS SIONER EBERT: There is something permitted across from this dock that you're proposing. You don't have a drawing of that? MR. HALL: 1 bad 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 -112- 10/28/2014 9. B. June 19, 2014 n 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. MIL HALL: Well, I mean, thafs 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: I 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 its 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. It's 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 1 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 -113- 10/28/2014 9.B. June 19, 2014 MR. HALL: Well, it's put under a conservation — n COMMISSIONER EBERT: An easement. MR. HALL: -- easement. Its 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. n COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: All the way out, both sides, even through the mangroves? MR. HALL: Yes, COMMISSIONER 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, rd hear them corning, 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 Iegitimately. 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 1 did look 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 -114- 10/28/2014 9.B. June 19, 2014 n 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 I 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. hi 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 -115- 10/28/2014 9. B. June 19, 2014 (No response.) n VICE -CHAR 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. n VICE -CHAIR HOMIAK: And so that would need to be changed? MR. REISCHL: Well, I said a building permit. COMMIS SIONER HOMIAK: So that means one. MR. REISCHL: That was my intention, and we're clarifying it on the record. CONB41SSIONER 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 othenvise 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 its 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. COMMSSIONER 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 its 45. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. VICE -CHAIR HOMIAK: Anybody have anything else? n (No response.) Page 16 of 37 Packet Page -116- 10/28/2014 9.B. 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. SUMNMRS: 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? n 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 its actually an improvement. VICE -CHAIR HOMIAK: Anybody else? Do you have — no? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Those photos Tun 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 -- its 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. Its — 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 — COMM1SSIONER EBERT: To a third party. Page 17 of 37 Packet Page -117- 10/28/2014 9.B. 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 its not permissible or if it's 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 its within the code that's -- county code that's going to govern that anyway. n 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 Iong. 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 its — 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 1S of 37 Packet Page -118- 10/28/2014 9.B. 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 properly 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. It's 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 it's herein 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? I'm 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 ul 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 -119- 10/28/2014 93. 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, foIIowed 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 Iooks 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. n MR. WILSON: Good morning. I'm Roy Wilson, chairman of the Haldeman Creek Maintenance Page 20 of 37 Packet Page -120- 10/28/2014 9.B. 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 fast 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 its been read, so I did not plan to go through that point by point. But I will try to summarize where Pm 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, its 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 -121- 10/28/2014 9.B. June 19, 2014 might be affecting the dredge that we did — or the comity did -- the next one will be on our dollars -- about n 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 Iayman'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, blah, we're within 25 percent. Blah, 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. T hank you. MR. RE, ISCHL: 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 -122- 10/28/2014 9.B. 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 Tin 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; its 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 mane 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 -123- 10/28/2014 9.B. 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, its 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 — Iike 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, Commissioners. Maurice Gutierrez. I've been on the creek for over 30 years. There's a Iot 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 its 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 length 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 its 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 looping 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 n issues that is a safety problem for the creek. Page 24 of 37 Packet Page -124- 10/28/2014 9.B. 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, Pm 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 its got to fit the neighborhood. Development's 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 Pm 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. GUTIERREZ: 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 -125- 10/28/2014 9.B. June 19, 2014 Bay. This will set the precedent -- imagine Land Yacht Harbor taming 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 I 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 least 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, n 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 Pm 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. REISCHL: Thank you. Next speaker, Kevin Sieg, followed by Joe Bucemi. Kevin Sieg's not here? MR. SIEG: rm here, but I have nothing to say. MR. REISCHL: Joe Bucemi, followed by Tom Briscoe. You don't want to speak? TYUL BUCEMI: No. MR. REISCHL: Okay, Tom Briscoe, followed by Vicki Tracy. MR. BRISCOE: Hi, I'm Tom Briscoe. I live on Shore View. And my only problem with this is is that during low tide its very hard to navigate out. I had a boat that bad 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 Iot 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 tunes of the day, we're going to have a Iot of stuck boats and all the rest of us are going to have to suffer because of it. Thank you. n MR. REISCHL: And for the record, to answer Mr. Briscoe's question, the code states that the Page 26 of 37 Packet Page -126- 10/28/2014 9.B. June 14, 2014 n 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? MR. 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 CHRZANOWSKI: 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 CHRZANOW SKI: 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 Iow 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 property 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 -127- 10/28/2014 9.B. June 1.9, 2014 COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. So his property line on submerged lands is what you're saying. M.R. 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 its 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. COMMIS SIONER 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 — COMNIISSIONER 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 its 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. COMNHSSIONER 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. COMMIS SIONER 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 vtrill 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 -128- 10/28/2014 9.B. June 19, 2014 Lakeview. Its 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 its Sandpiper or something, I heard somebody say, where its 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. COMMLMIONER 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 its 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 its 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 live 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 Iess 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 -129- 10/28/2014 9. B. 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. Its 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 left 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 n 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, thats 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 line 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 n 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 -130- 10/28/2014 9.B. 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, its 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 HOML K: 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 youve 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, its 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. 1 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 -131- 10/28/2014 9. B. June 19, 2014 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Ready for a motion? VICE -CHAIR HOMIAK: Yep. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I move to approve boat dock extension PL2013000 — COMMIS SIONER 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 HON4 AK: 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 1 pretty much saw were in the fingers of this. So I cannot support this at all. I just feel it's the safety, its 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 I cannot support this. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Can I ask a question, Heidi? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah. n COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKl: 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 -132- 10/28/2014 9.B. June 19, 2014 VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: The conditions in the fast -- 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. 1 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, I'm 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 CHRZANOW SKI: 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'll second it. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. VICE -CHAIR HOMIAK: Aye. Opposed? Page 33 of 37 Packet Page -133- 10/28/2014 9.B. 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 HOMLAK: 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. It's — Heidi, I'm sorry, I just -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Are you saying that they actually have to list 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 n 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 let 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 n 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 -134- 10/28/2014 93. June 1.9, 2014 n 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: rm 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, lets 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 its 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: Weil, 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 -135- 10/28/2014 9.B. June 19,2014 COMMISSIONER DOYLE: 1 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 -- its 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 blah 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: Thankyou. 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.) COMMISSIONERROSEN: I'm exhausted. Motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. VICE -CHAIR HOMIAK: All those in favor? COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Aye, COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ave. 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 -136- 10/28/2014 9.B. 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 KAREN HOAAK, Vice - Chairman These minutes approved by the board on i 7 o/ as presented _ or as corrected V Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 37 of 37 Packet Page -137- 10/28/2014 9.B. Cofkr 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 Rea 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- PL20130000015), 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 (1vI14tV) line to MHW line. The total length of the dock is approximately 473 Iinear feet with a width of 6 feet. BDE- PL20130001765. Page I of 9 Haldeman's Landin_ Boat Dock Extension, June 19, 2014 CCPC Packet Page -138- v n 77 D) dQ N W 1p I a PORT HELL VILLAS VILLA a 1 1 a RMF-6' R w s g wnR r MN .A,, LAM YACH HARBOR +n Y � i .. ' :'RMF -B.Si �D ..�• :_.... OOIF OaR!Ja B E OUR TA / ME 1A+41N6 AT )w B ulc YNu BF.NYg PM NI g fBVEII � TT�� �� Qco1rM YNIACdQIf � 9iMrIOW „� onlea'n 3B -pp 31 o NAPLes - Rsaa°ri a J q AIR-. U C RADIO ROAD $ANON Q MiAE• (C.R. A%1 NMgi it aEmrcr AuTauus Ai80RT I vurw FOK1aE fi.. vic 2 ABITAM �/ �++A0."T' BROBt90E /NCDC, CITY OF r DAMS .- LEVARO J 111R $ mk 4) o ,.,, ne "XR PAR. cnuuw ERTATB B ++ Mr1 oRl1N¢ 10 12 7 PROJECT gwM` LOCATION 2 q t'fT; YVflABO q3 w 1AW RQmE C O 'xR NInOSTM n A ? RIVER IB 15 It a 13 0 to INR FITAlE9 g1. PEW, C G111Q1C OAiRaI aa3aa Ll p AiTLESNAI<E y. NMtE9 E NM P2{ NA8iHAIELTCH gABAL A .ARBOR BAT ZB 27 26 25 USA. BAY 34 35 a 31 a PORT HELL VILLAS VILLA a 1 1 a RMF-6' R w s g wnR r MN .A,, LAM YACH HARBOR +n Y � i .. ' :'RMF -B.Si �D ..�• :_.... OOIF OaR!Ja B E OUR TA COURSE )w B ulc YNu LOCATION MAP PETITION # BD -PL- 2013 -1765 -R1 C- 4- GTMUD -MXD ." ?) ICf s � Lma wn _ Ou - rl � IT I 11 w • • ZONING MAP m 0 N co N O I_ n 10/28/2014 9.B. SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING: SUBJECT PARCEL: Vacant multi - family parcels, with a zoning designation of RMF -6 & RMF -b(3) SURROUNDING: North: Vacant land & single- family homes, zoned RMF- 6- BMUD -R1 East: Single family homes, zoned RSF4- 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) Aerial — detail of parcel in the area of the proposed docks (Collier County Property Appraiser) BDE- PL20130001765, Page 3 of 4 Haldeman'- Landing Boat Dock Extension. June 19. 2014 CCPC Packet Page -140- � � � /< �� Y : � � 2 »a ��� ? \�� \���. \ \� ` \� \ \� \ \ % >��� :_�� a , 10/28/2014,9.B. 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 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 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.) BDE- PL20130001765, Paue 5 of 9 Haldeman's Landing Boat Dock Extension. June 19, 2014 CCPC Packet Page -142- 10/28/2014 9.B. n 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 MEW 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 -143- 10/28/2014 9.B. 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 loadinglunloading and routine maintenance, without the use of excessive deck area not directly related to these functions. (The facility should not use excessive deck area.) Criterion met. As shown on the drawing submitted by the petitioner, the dock area is not excessive, maintaining a 6 -foot walkway. 3. For single -family dock facilities, whether the length of the vessel, or vessels in combination, described by the petitioner, exceeds 50 percent of the subject property's linear waterfront footage. (The applicable maximum percentage should be maintained.) Not applicable. This is a multi - family project. 4. Whether the proposed facility would have a major impact on the waterfront view of neighboring property owners. (The facility should not have a major impact on the view of a neighboring property owner.) rMONO 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 4 Haldeman's Landing Boat Dock Extension, June 19, 2014 CCPC Packet Page -144- 10/28/2014 9.B. n 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- PL20130001765 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: 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 4 Haldeman's Landing Boat Dock Extension. June 19, 2014 CCPC Packet Page -145- PREPARED BY: FRED EISCHL, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT REVIEWED BY: r RAYMOND V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT i,f MIKE BOSI, AICP, DIRECTOR PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT APPROVED BY: . r ,NICKICASALANGUIDA..`� ADMINISTRATOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION BDE- PL20130001765, Page 9 of 9 Haldenan's Landing Boat Dock Extension. ,tune 19, 2014 CCPC Packet Page -146- DATE DATE DATE DATE 10/28/2014 9.B. - 10/28/2014 9.B. 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 1.9.06 +/- 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 I25, 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 ". Haldeman's Landing fka Fishermen's Village BDGPL20130001765 — 4122114 Page 1 of 2 Packet Page -147- 10!28/2014 93. 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 ATTEST: Nick Casalanguida, Administrator Growth Management Division Approved as to form and legality: Scott A. Stone Assistant County Attorney day of , 2014. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Mark P. Strain, Chairman 4 /.Z1 /}LI Attachments: Exhibit A — Legal Description Exhibit B — Proposed Site Plan Exhibit C — Conditions of Approval (if any) 13 -CPS- 01277/1 S Haldeman's Landing fka Fishermen's Village BDE- PL20130001765 — 4122/14 Page 2 of 2 Packet Page -148- Detail by Entity Name Detail by Entity Name Foreign Profit Corporation STANDARD PACIFIC OF FLORIDA GP, INC. Filina Information Document Number F09000001377 FEI /EIN Number 204356126 Date Filed 04/06/2009 State DE Status ACTIVE 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 15360 BARRANCA PARKWAY IRVINE, CA 92618 Changed: 04 /02/2012 Registered Agent Name & Address NRAI SERVICES, INC. 1200 South Pine Island Road Plantation, FL 33324 Address Changed: 02111/2011 Officer /Director Detail Name & Address Title SR KEATING, GARY 405 N. REO ST., STE 330 TAMPA, FL 33609 Title President Packet Page -149 http: / /search.sunbiz.org /inquiry /Corporatio,ioc, �;,- u.3Ctuiu-, ,usultDetaii/EntityName /forp -f. 10/28/2014 9.B. 4/10/2014 Detail by Entity Name 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 03/06/2014 Document Images 10/28/2014 9.B. 03/06,12014 ANNUAL REPORT F —View image in PDF fo-�—a—t--� 02/06/2013 ANNUAL REPORT F —View image in PDF format 12/18/2012 ANNUAL REPORT I View image in PDF for�:t 04/02/2012 — ANNUAL REPORT r —View image in PDF format 03108/2011 ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 02/08/2010 ADDRESS CHANGE - View image in PDF format 02/0412010 — ADDRESS CHANGE LView image in PDF format 01/12/2010 -- ANNUAL REPORT View 'image in PDF format 11/17/2009 — Arnendmeiit View image in PDF format 04/0612009 --, Forei -qn Profit view image in PDF format Conyrigh 0 and Privacy Policies State of Florida, Department of State http://s--a,rch.sunbiz.or Packet Page -150- tN ? .sunbiz.org /Fnqui:n,ICOI COI-Poration,-�earcn/ ---�earcnf,�esultDetail/Enti ame/forp-f.. 4/10/20 14 �rN 10/28/2014 9.B. ReischlFred From: ReischlFred Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2014 12:53 PM To: CasalanguidaNick; Vicki Tracy; AnnMarieS@Napies.com Cc: OchsLeo; annmarie .shimer @sothebysrealty.com; ChesneyBarbara; ScottChds; DeaneConnie; BellowsRay; BosiMichael; JourdanJean; CasertaAshley; RevayStacy Subject: RE: VVE NEED YOUR HELP - Haldeman's Landing - Lakeview Drive Vickie & Ann Marie- Thanks for your input. As Nick stated, there will be a Bayshore CRA meeting tonight, at which the applicant will discuss the proposed docks for Haldeman's Landing. The docks will also be heard by the Planning Commission on June 19th. From reading your email, it sounds like your concern is the lack of sidewalks along Lakeview causing a safety issue during construction and after construction by the new residents using Lakeview. The residential portion of Haldeman's Landing is a Site Development Plan (SDP) being reviewed by Chris Scott (I copied Chris on this email). The land is currently zoned to allow for residences - no public hearing is required. I have also copied our Pathways reviewer, Stacy Revay. She may have some ideas to help you with your concerns. Stacy - the project is SDP- PL20130000015. Please don't think I am "passing the buck" - but it sounds like your concerns are with the residences and not my project (the docks). The residences can be built without the docks, but the docks cannot be built without the residences. Best of luck! -Fred Fred Reischl, AICP Principal Planner Planning & Zoning Department Phone: 239 - 252 -4211 Fax: 239- 252 -2834 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: CasalanguidaNick Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2014 12:11 PM To: HillerGeorgia; Vicki Tracy; AnnMarieS @Naples.com Cc: OchsLeo; annmarie.shimer @sothebysrealty.com; ReischlFred; ChesneyBarbara Subject: RE: WE NEED YOUR HELP - Haldeman's Landing - Lakeview Drive Importance: High Hello Vicki and AnnMarie, Let me coordinate a discussion with the planner running the project and the CRA representative so that we make sure all of your questions are answered and that you have a 1 Packet Page -151- 10/28/2014 9.B. clear and understandable path identified. This will allow you to make comments and track the application. .-� There is a meeting tonight with the CRA and our planner will be there. This is also scheduled for the Planning Commission on the 19th. The entitlement and traffic issue is a little complicated because they have an already entitled right to the density that does not require approval. If you have any concerns after you review this with Mr. Reischl, do not hesitate to reach out to me or back to him. Fred, Please work with Vicki and AnnMarie to let them know where the petition stands and their opportunity to participate and be heard. Thank -you, Nick - - - -- original Message---- - From: HillerGeorgia Sent: Tuesday, .June 03, 2014 11:32 AM To: Vicki Tracy; CasalanguidaNick Cc: OchsLeo Subject: Re: WE NEED YOUR HELP - Haldeman's Landing - Lakeview Drive Nick, Can you please help Vicky with her questions. With thanks, Commissioner Georgia Hiller > On Jun 2, 2014, at 10 :17 PM, "Vicki Tracy` <missvickit@earthlink.net> wrote: > Georgia - I'm forwarding this to you because I don't think our commissioner (Fred) is listening to us - at all. Ann Marie (below - and 95% of the street Lakeview Drive) are INVOLVED community people. Ann Marie is the wife of the Olympic medalist Brian Shimer. > We are very concerned - and once again - as you and I spoke of - things are getting done WITHOUT the voice of the people that live on this street!!! Its making us crazy!! > PLEASE HELP!! ALL WE ARE CONTINUING TO ASK IS THAT SOMEONE LISTEN - who do you suggest that is? > Vicki Tracy > From: Ann Marie Shimer [ mailto: annmarie .shimer�@sothebysrealty.comj > Sent: Monday, June 02, 2014 9:34 PM > To: Fred Coyle; Donna Fiala > Cc: kevin and penny; Vicki Tracy; David and Lucy Woodworth; John and Julie Simoldoni; Elmerssl@comcast.net Wheeler; sito herrera > Subject: WE NEED YOUR HELP - Haldeman's Landing - Lakeview Drive 2 Packet Page -152- 10/28/2014 9.B. > Dear Commissioners, > > I am a residence of Lakeview Drive and I'm desperately seeking answers to questions about how the project of Haldeman's Landing additional traffic that will impact Lakeview Drive is going to be handled. > My Concern is the children who live on this street, the families that walk their dogs and our property values. > Currently the road is not wide enough for our current traffic, we have no sidewalks to escape to when vehicles are driving down the road at if there is two regular size vehicles passing each other, one stops to let the other go by.. > The new community is going to increase traffic by 64 residences, that will be large residences around 3Oee square feet of living area which typically would accommodate a minimum of 3 residence in each house hold and two or more cars. > I've attended the CRA meetings, MSTU meetings, spoke to the developer and currently there are no plans in place to do any improvements. The owners on Lakeview Drive are not happy with this and feel our neighborhood is going to become a very unsafe place for our children to play, ride bikes, walk the dogs or simply go for an evening stroll. > Lakeview Drive is in the shape of an "L" the entrance off of Bayshore Drive well label as side "A" and the side that turns and ends with col -de -sac we'll call side "B ". > Side "A" specifically is interested in sidewalks for safety . We are in the process of gathering 51% of the owners on Side "A" asking for sidewalk, we also feel it imperative to have lights -For safety and would like to consider "speed reducing effects" on the road to slow the traffic down. > We feel this matter is urgent as construction on the new projects is said to begin the the fall and because of the overside construction vehicles that will be going up and down the road we are asking everyone to consider putting the sidewalks in BEFORE construction begins. This will insure as much safety for the residences as possible. > How do we get something like this accomplished? > Just a couple of streets down from us, BAYVIEW is a street that recently had their street improved with curbs and sidewalks which is a HUGE improvement. Their street is 1/3 the size (just guessing) and is NOT faced with adding an additional 64 units and over 120 vehicles on the road. We want our street to be next! We have more of an urgent need than any other street, we don't know how our street was overlooked and want to make sure it doesn't happen again. > The MSTU /CRA said the developer may have plans to do something, in speaking with the developer who was willing to share information, they said they do NOT have plans, but is willing to listen, discuss and possibly participate in making this happen. > The MSTU /CRA also said if we get 51% of the owners to vote they could put it on the list of things to do but funds won't be available for several years... > The MSTU /CRA has several million dollars planned to use on the a beautification project on Thomasson Drive, is there anyway we can have some of those funds used in this URGENT situation. 3 Packet Page -153- 10/28/2014 9.B. > As residence of Lakeview Drive, we need some direction on how to secure our streets. How can we get sidewalks BEFORE construction? Can any funds be allocated? Can any and all parties participate in making this happen? > The MSTU and CRA and taking the month of July and August off of public meetings... If we wait any longer there will be no one in the local agency to talk and construction will begin and our children will be in danger with the heavy, overside construction vehicles traveling on the road. > Please note this is not to stop progress of the development but to keep our streets safe (almost unsafe as it is currently) and stop the depreciation of our property due to the increase traffic and vehicles on our road. > There MUST be a way. > I am not sure of how all the agencies intermingle with each other so I am asking for everyone's support in making it happen, so far, I have NOT had any success on finding out how to make this happen and this is why I am writing your for your support, consideration and HELP. > Please let us know what we can do... > I'm not sure if you have received photos of how tight our street currently is but I would like to encourage a visit on Monday mornings or Sunday evenings... it's quite a busy tight street. > Should I send the over 519 of side A owners signatures to you stating this is what we want? > Thanks. > P.S. Attached is the site map for Haldeman's Landing > Ann Marie Shimer > Broker Associate > Premier Sotheby's International Realty > 4300 Gulf Shore Blvd. N Suite #100 > Naples FL 34103 > AnnMarieS@ Naples. com <mailto:AnnMarieS @Naples.com> > 239 -430 -5179 direct fax > 239.825.9020 direct phone > www.WeKnc)wNaples. com <bttp: / /www.WeKnowNaples.com> > <PL2013O000015 - Site plan.pdf> 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. 4 Packet Page -154- 10/28/2014 9.B. Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. Packet Page -155- 10/28/2014 9.B. ReischlFred To: nfarmilo@comcastnet Subject: RE: Doc extension to 52 feet No. The entrance to the property is at the end of Lakeview. The property extends north to Haldeman Creek. The docks are proposed for the south side of Haldeman Creek, next to Windstar. From: nfarmilot tcomcast net (mailto•nfarmiioC&comcast netl Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2014 8:26 AM To: ReischlFred Subject: Re: Doc extension to 52 feet I received them in the mail but can't be sure where the location is. Tipsy Seagull was right by Bayshore on the Haldeman River next to the boat yard. Is that where it is? Norma From: "ReischlFred" <FredReischIl colliergov.net> To: "Farmilo, Norma" <nfarmilo(a)comcast.net> Sent.: Tuesday, ,tune 3, 2014 8:22:35 AM Subject: RE: Doc extension to 52 feet I have attached the exhibits provided by the applicant to show the location. From: nf-rrni afa>comcast.ne rsfarmiloy omcast.neY1 Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2014 8:20 AM To: ReischlFred Subject: Doc extension to 52 feet Exactly where is this? Is this where the old Tipsy Seagull was? Norma Farmilo nfarrnilo(a),comcast. net 239 -300 -7718 Under Florida Law, a -^gal! addresses are plib4lic records. If You danal wan ou- e- ..;ail eddress released i' response to a public records request, do ro; send electronic rnau to this entity. Instead, contact this of5cq by telephone or in w,.ting. Packet Page -156- 10/28/2014 9.B. April 13, 2014 Mr. Fred Reischi 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 We 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, I 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 waif 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 -157- 10/28/2014 9.B. 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 certainty 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 111 NOTE I believe all of these photographs are taken from 2998 Poplar Street which is located due north of the proposed docks. Packet Page -158- n 10/28/2014 9.B. Packet Page -159- 10/28/2014 9.B. Packet Page -160- n 10/28/2014 9.B. Packet Page -161- 10/28/2014 9.B. Packet Page -162- VOW 10/28/2014 93. Page 1 of 2 Crum: ReischIFI, -d Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2014 1:39 PM To: 'Mescatem @aol.com' 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:Mesmtem @aol.coml Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2014 1:20 PM To: ReischlFred Subject: HAIDEMAN LANDING PLIiIlON Dear Mr. Reischi, 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 cannot be issued until the Site Development Plan and Special Treatment permit are approved. And that a building permit for a residence is issued. 2. in 2007, the previous owner of the subject property proposed building docks for 20 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 Dock Extension at this location, so if an application was submitted, it was never heard and therefore 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 FAEAN HIGH and LOW WATER LINES, and the width of the remaining waterway with of course boats occupying those slips. The applicant: states that a Conservation Easement was placed on this property and no docks may be constructed. file:/ /bcc.collieraov.net/data'GA4ID- LDS /CDES %20PIanninP-?,o20Servie-es. /Cur- ent /ReischL "... 6/3/2014 Packet Page -164- 10/28/2014 9.B. Page 2 of 2 5. given the Tact that this proposal will narrow the navigabie 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 file:libcc.colliergov. net / data /G1vID -LDS /ODES %20P tanning °ro20 ServicesICurrent/Reischli... 6/3/2014 Packet Page -165- 10/28/2014 SIR Page l of 2 From: ReischiFred Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2014 1:39 PM To: 'Mescatem @aol.com' 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 [mailtmMescatem @aol.coml Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2014 1:20 PM To: Reischifted Subject: HALDEMAN LANDING PETITION 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 cannot be issued until the Site Development Plan and Special Treatment permit are approved. And that a building permit 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 Dock Extension at this location, so if an application Was submitted, it was never heard and therefore 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. The applicant states that a Conservation Easement was placed on this property and no docks may be constructed. file : /'bcc.colhergov.aet /data/GMD- LDS/ CDES%-I OPlanning %20Services /Current1ReischL/... 611x/2014 Packet Page -166- 10/28/2014 9.B. Page 2 of 2 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 file: I !bec.colEi- igov.nctldata/G'.N4D- LDS /ODES %20Planning %20 Services /CurrentlReischli ... 6113/2014 Packet Page -167- 10/28/2014 9.B. Page 1 of 2 Subj: RE: HALDEMAN LANDING PETITION Date: 4!9/2014 1:39:08 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time From: FredReischl9kolliergov.net To: MesOta _ ol.com CC: MarkStrain0cotGeraov.net Mr. Messmer- Thanks for your input. I have copied Mark Strain, the Chief Hearing Examiner, so your input will be provided to him. My response: are belay. -Fred From: Mescatem@aol.com [malito:Mescabem @aol.eom] Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2014 1:20 PM To: ReischlFred Subject: HALDEMAN LANDING PETITION 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. 9. Has the petitioner submitted any information regarding the entire project, i.e. dwellings, platted 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 !'Pest 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 petitioners including the MEAN HIGH and LOW WATER LIKES, and the width of the remaining waterway with of course boats occupying those slips, 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 compromissc' ? Thursday, April 17, 2014 AOL: Idtescatem Packet Page -168- 10/28/2014 9.B. Page 2 of 2 Thanking you in advance, Robert F. Messmer 2978 Orange St. Naples, Fl. 34112 239 -775 -3493 u dr,e FW, MA Law,, u snit tl addrense!,. WE: ysatfilfe rRrnwl,._ V vau, do teat "tit paear e - toll Aftr u-, cmlowaT# at m:gwmt *sa (nalftest, do tMt zolle ?�••.it.rnac tmd in l -evnl{ig.. irtava; «), t:nt a c; cur, rrFfr. gay ivAephe'wp ". ii Atfi j. Thursday, April 17, 2014 AOL: Mescatepr Packet Page -169- 10/28/2014 9.B. MAR17VE & ENMONA ENTAL CONSULTING 3584 Exchange A.v+enuq, Suite g ® Naples, Florida 34104 -3732 a (239) 643 -0166 o Fax (239) 643 -6632 February 12, 2014 13DE- PL20130001765 Fred Reischl, AICP FISHERMAN'S i/1LLAGE Principal Planner DATE 2/19/14 Collier County Government DUE: 3/5114 Department of Zoning & Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 lam`: i3D- PL2- 0130001765 1 : Fhshermauls Iriliage DOW Kaldemanss Landing nding RDE�, Fred, . REV 2 Per the west of county staff please sec attached copy of our response to all quostians and concerns in regards to the above subject l'DL, application's first revicw process. First Off please notice the name change for theprropos; d Project from Fishwmzn's 'grillage to Haldenm,s Landing. I have attached the updated BDE application with all requested changes, with the updated ehibrts, and a Unaninmus VVgiften Cons of the Bo of Directors of Standard Pacific of Florida. Upon your reviem, of these revisions please let me know if there is anything else that you may new �r yourreview. If you have anymore gxtiestions a; Qonrezes Please fbel free to contact me at the above letterhead hone number or email ' irn a�Turrel� -A nMates cflm or lefffa�'furre ➢l- 4ssoeiates cflm p Regards, 1.7 .l ®�1�ogers Project Manager TMM14 Halt & Associates, Inc., Packet Page -170- 10/28/2014 93. Co . eir coic:nty COLDER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ _ NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 PLANNING AND REGULATION (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 252 -6358 www.col liergov.nat The foilowing 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 $50D.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 $I500.00 plus $925.00 for required legal advertising. _ An additional amount for properly 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 (I5) days prior to the Planning Commission Hearing date). You will be notified by mail of your bearing date and will receive a copy of the Staff RePDq, it IS recommended, but riot required, that you or-your agent attend the Planning Commission meeting. if you have any further questions or need assistance compieting.this application, contact the Growth Management Division /Planning and Regulation at 252 -2400. Packet Page -171- l i 10/28/2014 9. B. C,rn lr County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ NAPLES, FLORIDA 34404 PLANNING AND REGULATION (239) 252.2400 FAX (239) 252.635.8 www.colliergov.net PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME To be complefed by staff DATE PROCESSED q. MOP t 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 ! ^ 1 NAME OF AGENT FiMo►Y Hall FIRM Turr6fl, (tall & Associates _ ADDRESS 3584 Exchange Ave CITY Naples STATE FL ZIP 34104 TELEPHONE # 239- 643 -0166 CELL # 239- 253 -9137 FAX # 239 - 643-6632 E -MAfL ?�Al- L@T�RRELL ASSOCIATES.COM BE AWARE THAT COLLIER COUNTY HAS LOBBYIST REGULATIONS. GUIDE YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY AND ENSURE THAT YOU ARE IN COMPLIANCE VAT H THESE REGULATIONS. Packet Page -172- 10/28/2014 9. B. . Co er county COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 PLANNING AND REGULATION (239) 252.2400 FAX (239) 252 -6358 www.colliergov.not Address of Subject Property Lakeview Drive. Sectlon/Township /Range 11 & s4 /50 S ! 25 f Property I.D.# - 61635520008.00388360 ©06 00394880004,00395320000,& 61635840005 Subdivision Haldeman's LandingVillage Unit Lots) Block(s) Current Zoning and Land use of Subject; .P roperty, RMF -6(3) & RMF -6 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 (MHVtt) and mean low water (MLW), and relevant water depths measured at no Jess :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 unabstructed waterway between the proposed faeliity and the opposite bank or any dock facility on the opposite bank Packet Page -173- Zoning Land Use N RM]` -6- BMU1)-R1 & RSF -4-BM' UD -R4 Haldeman Creek/ Single Family Residential S PUD ,RSF- 4- BMUi3- R4,RMF- 6- P,MUD -R1 Goff Course & Single-Family Residential E RMF- B- BMUD.RI.R5F-4- BMUD- R4.RMF.&-B,MUb-R2 Canal bowlers HnGrr- East Side 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 (MHVtt) and mean low water (MLW), and relevant water depths measured at no Jess :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 unabstructed waterway between the proposed faeliity and the opposite bank or any dock facility on the opposite bank Packet Page -173- Coo er aunty COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ PLANNING AND REGULATION 10/28/2014 9.B. 2846 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 252.6358 www.colliergov,net 3) A site plan to scale showing dimensions and location of existing and j well as a Cross section showing the facility in relation to MHW /MLW and shoreline (bank, seawall or rip -rap revetment), ! 4'Z. .i: �u.! i!f;Y•�'�` "^ff"`: f� "54' <.! .it yt`T:. {{ rr-. a. `: T�Ti�tTA.:",w �i }.i+�. �I. v: �.'.••. e.-E 77j Width of waterway: Bfatl1ed ft.; Measurement from ❑ plat ❑ surv® y ❑ visual estimate ® other (specify) Aerial Total property water frontage: i Setbacks: provided 36 ft. required 15 ft. Total protrusion of proposed facility into water: 52 ft. i Plumber and langith of vessels to use facility: 1. 20x25 ft., 2. 22x30 ft,, 3, ft. t Last any additional clock facilities in close proximity to the sub)ect property and indicate the total protrusion Into the wafsrway of each: See attaohed Sheet A 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? 20.57 Acres 0-ti- al in atati s or Z nln Verifications: To your knowledge, has there bean an official Interpretation or zoning verification rendered on this ProPertY within the last year? [] Yes p 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 (C*rl7C), 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 of least 4 of the 6 secondary criteria, must be met. Please provide a nantive .response to the listed criteria and /or questions. Attach additional pages if necessary. Packet Page -174- 10/28/2014 9.B. r� COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 ' PLANNING AND REGULATION (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 252 =6358 vrww,colliergov.net k�: *.-ti r: ,�,2`?:- !3µ.+'S ..VyY�... . ^ • •:. t}_ °. "'aLr:'� _ - ��j . fJ.r,.;'•�.i. ci - .,.._y., . i vii'•Lr..?�; ._7�:. .�r' `' }: ^�:cr)_':'�,� i;(,';— •fit.: �i�! pp^.L'►,�.�• .{.{�,j�-�'"'fSi.,,�- �,`;w."• _ :.,�,p:::F.i.� � �% , 1. Whether or not the number of dock facilities andfor 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 add frorn the property. ((The number should be appropriate; typical, single4amlly use should be no more than two slips; typical multi - family use should be one slip per dwelling unit; in the case of u. abridged 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 petitioners application is unable to launch or moor at mean low tide (ML-0. ((The petitioner's application and survey should show that the crater depth is too shalfaw to allow launch and mooring of the vessel (s) described without an extension)) See attached sheet 3. Whether or not the proposed dock facilitjr may have an adverse impact on navigati on within an - adjacent marked or charted navlgable;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 S. 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 facihty should not interfere with the use of legally permitted neighboring docks)) See attached sheet Packet Page -175- Cotr minty COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ PLANNING AND REGULATION 10/28/2014 9.B. 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34904 (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 252 -6358 www.c.dUargownet 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, shareMe 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 sing ie-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 feat 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 5. Whether or not the proposed dock facility is subject to the manatee protection requirements of subsection 5.03.06.E 11 of this code. (Of applicable, compliance with Section ioh re uire must of demonstrated)) See attached sheet Packet Page -176- �1 10/28/2014 9. B. ��er county COLLIER COUNTY Y GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 PLANNING AND REGULATION (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 252 -6388 www.colliergmv.net i I HEREBY ATTEST. THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS APPLICATION IS TRUE AND ACCURATE TO THE SEST,10F 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 I UNDERSTAND THAT IF THIS DOCK EXTENSION PETITION IS APPROVED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, API. AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNER MAY FILE AN APPEAL WITHIN 14 DAYS. OF THE HEARING, IF I PROCEED WITH CONSTRUCTION DURING f THIS TIME, I DO SO AT MY OWN RISK. Signature of Petitioner or Agent Packet Page -177- 10/28/2014 93. Coo . e ccft ty COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ NAPLES, FLORIDA 3¢404 PLANNING AND REGtJLATIOtJ (239) 282 -2400 FAX (239) 252 -6368 www.colliorgov.net THIS COMPLETED CHECKLIST IS TO BE SUBMITTED WITH APPLICATION PACKET IM THE EXACT ORDER LISTED BELOW W /COVER SHEETS ATTACHED TO EACH SECTION.' NOTE: INCOMPLETE SUMBITTALS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. Co COPIES REQUIRED E mpleted Application 5 � , Owner/Agent Affidavits, signed & notarized -� El Addressing Checklist 1 ❑ Conceptual Site flan illustrating the following: a. The lot and dimensions where proposed docking facility is to be ^ located. b. All yard setbacks c. Required Setbacks for the dockfacl['ty 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 fide should be shown et 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 doouments and plans on CDROM 2 Application end Review fees: $i5G0 Review Free; $925 Legal Advertising !Fee (estimated). Check a able to Board of Coup Commissioners ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: At the completion of the review process, the applicant shall submit 46 additional copies of the application and 96 additional copies of the Conceptual Site Flan for the CCPC agenda packets. Packet Page -178- - er 6u ty COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MA14AGEMENT DftgSIOW PLANNING AND REGULATION 2880 NORTH HaRsEsHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (230) 252-2460 FAX (238) 252 -8588 WWW.00tfierpoitmet 10/28/2014 9.B. As the.authorized agentiappitcant for this petition, I attest that all of the Inforrrration lndioated an thle checklist is included to this $011ni ttai package. I -understand that failure to include all necessary submittal 11160Miabon may result in the delay of prooeming this petition. AFFIDAVFT Weli; AU being ftt duly sworn, depose and say that well am/am the oWflam Of the property described heroin and which is the subject matter of the proposers hearing; that all the answers to the questions /n this application, Including the disdosure of Intersst i rrnatfon, a0 slcetcfres, dais, and other supplementary matter attached to and -Wade a pert of this application are honest and true to the ,best of our Anowtedge and ballet. WeA understand that the lrtformatinn requested on this application must be complete and accurate and that the content of this lbrrn, Whether computer generated or County printed stieff not be altered. advertised ublic hearings Of not be rtised anti! this application Is deemed complete, and all ari required Information has been submlaed As property owner Weli Further authorize �, �� � , act as our /m -hatters regarding this Peflbon. Y representative in arty Signature ofipnVertyowner Typed or Printed Name of Owner S(9naturs of proper#yQwner Typed or Printed Nerve of Owner The forogoing instrument was acknowledged before me this l es �_ day tMl1 2011 Per 4L sr nalfy koum io me or has produced Stele of Fforlde (Signature ofNOtary Pub!!c -State —0f Florida) County of Collier h`t� 1A..c,.t l r= (PE""n4 TYPa, or Stamp Commissfonad /dame of*MvyPubllc) �'�'`°'�. lt��i�l•� l3E�tttllr � NY OOA7[J,lSSION fF EE641553 ,��%:Fe. EXPIRES Oelaber 06.2016 1107/398.0165. Flmidalloln ^.���,pq� Packet Page -179- W 10/28/2014 9.B. LIV MY &OdMomal do'cip, foeffifies io done proximalty to the subject pMpeM and Indlemb the ww proem or inw. time watp-rT.Ty of each, Domers Lnn-g*nrr 5- mmm, 2200oled )i� Sancbiwv St M Xed foi rJm.RmftU d94"t-ftm dw NNW& . Af Rnvonr Y.'rf, c-t-ruices F. commomw marina ocat ako-m -r-EfteEfe zi 21) Packet Page -180- 4) Lo 10/28/2014 9.B. T f.4 li T,-" ri C,:� C- Lz I C L h5offloom 11, jq 7), Packet Page -181- C M, minimizing overwater dec n area 3) This criterion is not aaAlicable as this is a muifi- farm_ ly- oroject 4) 5) ��_istsrva[�oa casement Which does not allow docks to be feel {i rev, iew. 6) AccOTdlh9 to the Calker County.Manatee Protection Pian the Packet Page -182- 10/28/2014 9.B. • i i 1 10/28/2014 9. B. Page 1 of 2 From: RelschlFred Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2014 2:00 PM To: CasertaAshley Cc: JourdanJean Subject: RE: Haldeman's Landing Attachments: a p p. pdf Here you go. From: CasertaAshley Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2014 11:22 AM To: ReischlFred Car: JourdanJean Subject: FW: Haldeman's Landing Hi Fred: Can you please send me a copy of the application that Turrell filled out for the BDE? Thanks. Ashley Caserta Bayshore Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment, Agency Bayshore Beautification IVISTU and Haldeman Greek MSTU Phone: 239x6431 i 15 From: JourdanJean Seen: Wednesday, April 09, 2014 11:19 AM To: CasertaAshley Subject: FW: Haldeman's Landing Frond: ReischlFred Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2014 3:32 PM To: JourdanJean Subject: RE: Haldeman's Landing Jean - Here's the letter. I believe i sent you the exhibits. if you didn't get them, please let me know and I will re -send: -Fred Front: JourdanJean Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2014 9:56 AM To: ReischlFred Subject: RE: Haldeman's Landing Hi Fred: i`m stlil receiving numerous questions regarding this proiect that I'm unable to answer. I have asked they contact you, but some of my Advisory- Board members has requested I obtain the information and forward to them, file:i/"occ.colliergo -,r. net!' data /Cll 1. DS/ CDES%20Plannin,,%2QSen,icesICur reni/Re sclrl /... 6/2/2014 Packet Page -183- 10/28/2014 9.B. Wage 2 of 2 The major concern is the letter refers to 52 foot extension and they waterway is very narrow. I don't have a copy of the letter that was mailed out, so if you can forward it to me it would be greatly appreciated. According to the exhibits the boat slips will range from 25 feet to 30 feet, but the residents are interpreting the letter to state the boat slips and boats will be up to 52 feet. Would you be so kind as to clarify and address these concerns? Thank you. Cordially, �x�r i nurr�air Jean Jourdan, AICP, Interim Director Bayshore /Gateway Triangle CRA Bayshore Beautification hASTU Haldeman Creek MSTU 3570 Bayshore Drive Unit #102 Naples, Fl 34112 239 - 643 -1115 Website: BGTCRA.com From: ReischlFred Sent: Monday, April 07, 2014 11:55 AM To: ]ourdanlean Subject: Haldeman's Landing Jean - Here are the exhibits provided by the applicant. -Fred Fred Reischl, AICP Senior Planner Planning & Zoning Department Phone: 239- 252 -4211 Fax: 23.9- 252 -2834 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. 10\ tee: / /bec.col icraov. net / data /Gls -LDS/ ODES %20PIantline` /`2OSenricts /� uur.cnt/Reischl /... 6/2%2014 Packet Page -184- 10/28/2014 9.B. Page 1 of 1 From: Roy Wilson [roy.wilson @gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, April 20, 201411:53 AM To: ReischlFred Cc: CasertaAshley Subject: fwd: Public Notice Attachments: 20140419_162003. j pg I took this picture Saturday..... what happens if people go to the posted meeting ?? Do they get turned away ?? Roy Wilson --- --- - -- Forwarded message ---- - - - - -- From: Roy Wilson <roy.wilsone- mail.com> Date: Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 8:52 AM Subject: Public Notice To: Roy Wilson <roti,.wilsonfagrnail.com> Roy Wilson @NLYH in Naples, FL file:libcc.colliergo .netldata/GIvM-LDSI CITES% 20PlanninL Y %20Senices /Current/P,�eischl /.. Packet Page -185- 6/2/2014 10/28/2014 9.B. Iq F � p -- � -i_.. �. � `: r.,,•,, f ' : ";.: '6 -`Lief .. %. i_- r;."`- ..fie :. } i �' .. ✓ � �,.� r �. i e f � r. `r C R � _ .yam'^_.. � •_ >JI R�`.,�... �. 3 `s � . °�•. —sr�.� �... t k "� � /�G'' t f r'e• L 1 Packet Page -186- 10/28/2014 9.B. Page l of 1 From: Mescatem @aol.com Sent: Friday, April 11, 2014 12:17 PM To: Reisch (Fred 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 file : / /bee.colliergov.netidata/GMD- LDS /CT)F.'�° ninPlann;ncj %20Services /Current /Reischl. /... 6/2/2014 Packet Page -187- 10/28/2014 9.B. Page 1 of 2 From: Kate Riley [kjbnapies74 @gmaii.comj Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2014 9:31 PM To: ReischlFred Subject: Haldeman Creek, objection to dock extension. From: Robert Buelow [ rnailto •rdbuel centurylink.Lietl Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2014 9:12 PM To: 'Kate R[ley 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 1 I 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. fiie: //bcc.colliergoN'.nst/ data /Gl�O-LDS/ ODES %20PIannine°/a20Services /Current, Reischl/... 6/2/2014 Packet Page -188- 10/28/2014 9.B. Page 2 of 2 Finally, I believe that both marinas in the area along with the 360 Market/Cafd 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. Kate Riley Agape Island Services, Inc. 2998 Poplar Street Naples, FL 34112 239 - 774 -4411 file:llbcc.colliergov. net / data /GMB- LDS /CDP�°i�2OPlannin el o20Services /Current/Reischb'... 6/2/2014 Packet Page -189- 10/28/2014 9.B. Page 1 of 1 From: Kate Riley jkjbnapies74 @gmail.comj 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 Iow 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/Cafd have NOT received this notice and their businesses willicould 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. Kate Riley Agape Island Services, Inc. 2998 Poplar Street Naples; FL 34112 239 - 774 -4411 file : /Ibcc.colliergov.net/data /GMD- LDS /CDES %20Plannine %20SerN ices /Current/Reischl /... 6/2/2014 Packet Page -190- 10/28/2014 9.B. Page 1 of 1 From: ReischlFred Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2014 9:43 AM To: 'ash37 @comcast.net' Subject: Haldeman's Landing Attachments: Exhibits - Revised 2- 25- 14.pdf Attached are the plans you requested. Please let me know if you have any questions. -Fred Tila:( t -bcc.coilier!zoi,.n.°tldataIGMD- LDS /CDES°lotOPiannir a% 2QSen!ieeslCurrent/keisciaii... 6/2/2014 Packet Page -191- From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Fred: 10/28/2014 9.B. Page I of 2 Kla zkowJeff Wednesday, April 23, 2014 9:10 AM ReischlFred BosiMichael; BellowsRay; StrainMark; AshtonHeidi; CasertaAshley; IsacksonMark Haldeman's Landing You have advised us that "Last night the Haldeman Creek MSTU Advisory Board voted to pay for mail notification to the property owners within the MSTU." Such payment is outside the scope of their powers. The BCC is the governing body of this (and all) MSTU. In order to implement this advisory board request, my recommendation would be to take a budget amendment to the Board for approval, noting the Advisory Board vote, and setting forth a brief background of the issue in the Considerations section of the Executive Summary. You can get it on the next BCC meeting (Consent should be fine). I am copying Mark Isackson on this as a head's up. Jeffrey A. Klatzlcow County Attorney (239) 252 -2614 Frond: AshtonHeidi Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 8:21 AM To: KlatzkowlefF Cc: TeachScott Subject: FW: Haldeman's Landing FYI Heidi Ashton -Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 800 Naples, FL 34112 (239) 252 -8400 From: ReischlFred Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 7:25 AM To: BosiMichael; BellowsRay; StrainMark; AshtonHeidi; BonhamGall Subject: Haldeman's Landing Last night the Haldeman Creek MSTU Advisory Board voted to pay for mail notification to the property owners within the MSTU. Fred Reischf, AlCP Senior Ranner Punning & Zoning Department n file: /[Dcc.colii --,ov .net /data/ClviD- LDS /CDES %2OPlanninc %20Ser-, -ices /Cur ent /Rcischl /... 6,2/2014 Packet Page -192- 10/28/2014 9.B. Page 2 of 2 Phone: 239-252-4211 Fax: 239-252-2834 W k Under Florida Low, e-mall addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-Mall address released in response to a public records request do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this ofte by telephone or in writing. fii--:Ilbcc.colliergov.netldataIGMD-LDSICD'—PS'lo2OPlanning%2OServicesICurrentlReischtI... 6/2/2014 Packet Page -193- 10/28/2014 9.B. Page 1 of 1 From- ReicrhlFred Sent: Monday, April 07, 2014 11:54 AM To: 'bowein @usa.net' Subject: Haldeman's Landing Attachments: Exhibits - Revised 2- 25- 14.pdf Mr. Bowein- Attached are the exhibits provided by the applicant. Please let me know if you have any other questions. -Fred Fred Reischt, AICP Senior Planner Planning & Zoning Department Phone: 239- 252 -4211 Fax: 239 - 252 -2834 cr fi1v/�e go€- Mv.�eData /G?V- LDS/ �Dn q%F 2bptan ninQ- %2OSe,vzdes!Current/� r�ei s ch1l.. . Packet Page -194- 6/2/2014 10/28/2014 9.B. Page 1 of 1 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, A1CP Senior Planner Planning & Zoning Department Phone: 239 - 252 -4211 Fax: 239- 252 -2834 From: Francisco Flgueiredo [mail :ft`1 0�?hotrnai4.corrl Sent: Monday, April 67, 2014 2:00 Pal To: ReischlFred Subjeat: 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, :.ie:llbec.coiliergoi!. netlda. a/ GNU)- LDSll✓D-PS %20Plai ira%205en icesICurrentR-- ischil... 6/2/2014 Packet Page -195- 10/28/2014 9.B. Page 1 of 2 From: ReischlFred Sent.: Tuesday, April 15, 201411:06: 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 r-I From: george atkinson [. Zi�ilto :c�7atF;rasorriclouci.cxaml Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 11:00 AM To: ReischlFred Subject: Re: Haldeman Landing FE 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 Maples Boat Yard On Apr 11, 2014, at 11:09 AIvF, ReischlFred wrote: George - f le: //bcc.colHergcv. net / data/ GlvM- LDSICDES% 20I' lannina° ib20Services /CuiTent/Reischll... 6/2/2014 Packet Page -196- 10/28/2014 9.B. Page 2 of 2 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 Fax: 239-252-2834 - - -- Original Message---- - From: george atkinson [ mailto:gbatkinson(a),icload.coml 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. n1eJCbec.colliergov.netl data /GI,AD- LDS / ODES% 20P1anninz %20Services /CurrentfRcischlI... 6/2/2014 Packet Page -197- 10/28/2014 9.B. Page I of 1 From: ReischlFred Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2014 10:00 AM To: 'Mescatem @aol.com' Cc: StrainMark Subject: RE: HALDEMAN LANDING PETITION Thanks again for your input. Section 5.03.061 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: MescatemCa%aol.com [mailto:MescatemCabaol coml Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2014 6:02 PM To: ReischlFred Subject: HALDEMAN LANDING PETITION 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 it 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, 1 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 ether work boats often serviced by the new Naples Boat Ward. Respectfully submitted, Robert F. Messmer file:!, hce.cofhergov. net / data /GlvfD- LDS/ CDES ° %20Pianni,-ig' /o2OServices /Cu rent/Reischl/... 5/2/2014 Packet Page -198- 10/28/2014 SIR Page I of 2 From: Re I.s ch lffrej d Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2014 1:39 PM To: 'Mescatem@aol.com' 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.corn [rnaiIto:Mescatern(0-ao1.com1 Sent. Wednesday, April 09, 2014 1:20 PM To: ReischlFred Subject: HALDEMAN LANDING PETITION 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 cannot be issued until tne Site Development 'Plan and Special Treatmert permit are approved. And that a building permit 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 CGPC ? What decision if any was made ? T he 7 1 in Q "C a.' 4BS mi-4i�;ate app� &I o" a Boa` Don-V Exte-sicxn at this- r � 5�, K ar -0 - �A I _011 application was submitted, It was neve,, neard- and therefore 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. Vie appiican� siat9c, zha� F C�onseva%nr -_asemeni ,*vas Diaced v;r, this P ­7V arl' r)C, 00�>%F 1^ mav, be; constructeCl file:llb--c.c--Ilierizov.netldata,IG]vM-LDSICDES%20PIanning%2OSe-rN,icesICur,rent,fRt;.schl!'... 6/2/2014 Packet Page -199- 10/28/2014 9.B. Page 2 of 2 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 require: that 50% of she navigable waterway remain unobstructed. The applicant's exhibits, and the fact that no docks will be constructed along the north shoreline, support this requirernert. Thanking you in advance, Robert F. Messmer 2978 Orange St. Naples, Fl. 34112 239- 775 -3493 i'zie. / /bec - ccolliergov.net /data/GNM- LDS /C)DES %2 0Flanning° .o2OServices /Current/Reischl/... 6/2/2014 Packet Page -200- 10/28/2014 9.B. TURRELL, HALL & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1fMPINE &EA1111PONMENTAL COATS UL TING 3584 Exchange Avenue, Suite B • Naples, Florida 34104 -3732 • (239) 643 -0166 • Fax (239) 643 -6632 June 20, 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, ADA- PL20140001454 Rev:1 HALDEMAN'S LANDING AKA FISHERMAN'S VILLAGE Date: 719114 DUE: 7/23/14 On behalf of Standard Pacific of Florida, G-P, we are appealing the denial from the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) of BDE- PL20130001765 from the June 19, 2014 Planning Commission Hearing. The CCPC denial was based on a tie vote with two members voting for approval and two voting against approval. The denial votes from the two Commissioners were based on their opinions that the project did not comply with certain of the Primary and Secondary Criteria associated with the BDE. Both Mrs. Ebert and Mr. Doyle disagreed with County staff s and the applicant's assertion that the project met Primary Criteria 3 and 5 and Secondary Criterion 4. Mrs. Ebert also opined that the project did not meet Primary Criteria 1 and 2. We respectfully disagree with the two Commissioner's position with regards to these Criteria and have explained below how the proposed plan meets the Criteria necessary for approval ofthe BDE petition. I have provided the actual language of the Criteria in italics with our responses following in bold. Primary Condition 1: (Mrs. Ebert disagreed) ffrlaether or not the number of dockjacilities and /or boat slips proposed is appropriate in relation to th.e 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 ttao 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.,) 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 the then we would base the slip count on approximately 973 feet which ^ would equate to 97 slips. The County LDC also identifies typical multi- family use as one slip per dwelling unit. The project is proposing 64 upland dwelling units which would equate to 64 slips. Packet Page -201- 10/28/2014 9.B. Haldeman's Landing BDE — CCPC Appeal BDE- PL20130001765 Page 2 of 4 The project is proposing 42 slips which is less than allowed by County Code. 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 were the two multi - family examples shown during the hearing. The project is also consistent with the commercial projects located immediately to the east in terms of dock placement and orientation. For all of these reasons, we believe, and staff concurred, that the project as presented met this criterion. Primary Condition 2: (Mrs. Ebert disagreed) Whether or not the water depth at the proposed site is so shallow that a vessel of the general length, i)pe, 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 entire shoreline of the project contains a mangrove fringe that varies in width from 18 to 40+ feet wide. There is no way to moor a vessel along this shoreline (either parallel or perpendicular) without the need for a BDE. The applicant is proposing dredging along the shore in order to minimize the protrusion necessary for safe mooring but the total extension is still more than the 20 feet allowed without a BDE. For this reason, we believe, and staff concurred, that the project as presented met this criterion. Primary Condition 3: (Mr. Doyle and Mrs. Ebert disagreed) Jf7hether 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 applicant had the waterway associated with the proposed docks surveyed. The results of this survey were presented at the BDE hearing and they showed that the proposed docks did not protrude into the deepest portion of the waterway; which is where navigation occurs. 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 will protrude into the waterway, the survey evidence presented during the hearing showed that it will not protrude into the portion of the waterway in which navigation occurs. For this reason we believe, and staff concurred, that the project as presented met this criterion. Primary Condition 5: (Mr. Doyle and Mrs. Ebert disagreed) Rgzether 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) As seen on aerials of the property, presented during the BDE hearing, 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 Packet Page -202- 10/28/2014 9.B. Haldeman's Landing BDE — CCPC Appeal BDE- PL20130001765 Page 3 of 4 Commission in January 2006 (CCPC Resolution 06 -01). The applicant presented a cross - sectional exhibit which showed the proposed docking facility and the Sanctuary facility in relation to the Creek width and depth at that location. The exhibit clearly showed 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. As such we believe, and staff concurred, that the project as presented met this criterion. Secondary Condition 4: (Mr. Doyle and Mrs. Ebert disagreed) 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.) As this criterion is written, it would appear to apply only to the two immediately adjacent properties on either side of the project. The docking facility proposed is adjacent to mangrove preserve on the west side and an open canal on the east side. In this regard there are no adjacent residents whose view would be impacted. The two Commissioners opined that the project would �. affect the view of the neighbors across the waterway by obstructing their view of the applicant's mangrove shoreline. The applicant's understanding of this criterion is that it is not intended to allow for unobstructed views to the horizon, or in this case to the opposite shore, but is instead intended to protect views of the neighbors waterfront out into the water. This project will change the view of the neighbors across the waterway, but does not block, or change, their view of the water riparian to their properties. As with all of the preceding criteria, we agree with Staffs position that the project is consistent with this criterion. As submitted in the BDE application and then presented at the CCPC hearing, the project is consistent with all of the Primary and Secondary Criteria associated with a BDE approval. We concur with staff's determination related to this consistency and ask that you reverse the CCPC denial of the application and instead support Staff's recommendation for approval. For your review I have included the following exhibits: A. BDE application and exhibits, showing the requested docking facility. B. Staff Report for BDE- PL20130001765, recommending approval for the BDE. C. Special Treatment application and exhibits, showing the requested dock in association with the ST overlay. D. Staff Report for ST- PL- 20140000896, recommending approval for the reduced side setback. E. DEP Permit 11 -0274817 -001, State approval for the requested docks. F. DEP Permit Modification extending expiration date to October 17, 2018. G. ACOE Permit SAJ- 2007 -2042 (IP -CJW) Federal approval for the requested docks. H. Existing water depth survey. Packet Page -203- Please contact me if you have any questions. Regards, Timothy Hall Senior Ecologist Enclosures 10/28/2014 9.B. Haldeman's banding BDE — CCPC Appeal BDE- PL20130001765 Page 4 of 4 Packet Page -204- 10128/2014 9.B. TURRELL, HALL & ASSOCIATES, INC. �y 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 (CCPQ 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 -205- 10/28/2014 9.B. 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 -206- 10/28/2014 9.B. 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 mooring but the total extension is still more than the 20 feet allowed without a BDE. Packet Page -207- 10/28/2014 9.B. 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, 69 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 -208- 10/28/2014 9.B. ^ 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 -209- 10/28/2014 9.B. 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. I I 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 -210- C N W E S r� SUBJ —EC T m PROPERTY f N NAPLE C (D rh N U�l (D N N N STATE C)F 1 =I (DRIDA V SUBJECT PROPERTY CITY COLLIE' COUNTY D KEY WEST o ,.ee'714 SITE ADDRESS: NOTES: <> 2480 LAKEVIEW DR <> THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING NAPLES, FL 34112 PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE. <> LATITUDE: N26'07'15" <> LONGITUDE: W81'46'40" E ��ROMSL ee v Becca Av, tr VIL cr . JPNI Dr Dr Sa Gulfvttw Ct "Its- Qj Riverview U J 7r An x cg Cri g` daj StorterAv ae WIND5TAR Van Buren Av y+ C poet i7Vincc, tar 6n-, k IStarpoint Naphe Bay OORENEAI? Aooreheo Mnr... t < �nrst tryQ MANOR Kel K� r VI -- CINITY MAP COUNTY AERIAL T ... _ DESIGNED TTT relHall &Associates, Inc. H A L D E M A N' S LA N D I N G Marine Environmental Consulting change 3584 Eux Ave. _ Suite B. Naples, FL 34104 -3732 LOCATION MAP Email: tunaGturrell- associates.com Phone: (239) 643 -0166 Fax: (239) 643 -6632 EXHIBIT: 1A SECTION-14,23 TOWNSHIP -50S RANGE -25E I O N C0 N 0 IN a W k , , ro 0 N I Ww ' ! ' ' L V 7 " ' % } " . S J. t} n /�/� pp O 2Vl/ 4�� O�O, a SCALE IN FEET y. # t �� N ' r ✓5r s o Tea • ;�.,. r" � .. f - : r #!t,. '�"z�,,,t,. ,, '" +• ..t p �.e' $ �� i .::. ,�`... I F cA - it� 2'} ' s4 w ' � r'°" ' .n3 �,.,�I r, !� f.°fj` 'As�� T i m :r, PROPOSED DOCKS .ter , y t T i z T c tg, d 4 I E •4 'i.! >f.. 1..' I r I� ELF ",f ,'' °•.�` " -_ A Jd NOTES: .4 9" <> THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES�ie i ONLY AND ARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE ' <> ALL DATUM SHOWN HEREON IS REFERENCED TO MLW ,; <> PROPOSED OVERWATER STRUCTURE: APPX. 8,070 ± SF. r" <> TIDAL DATUM: MLW =( -)0.5' NGVD, MHW =( +)1,5' NGVD.' / r ' <> TOTAL PROTRUSION FROM MHW LINE: APPROX. 49 FTr <> BOAT LIFTS OPTIONAL FOR ALL SLIPS <> DREDGE AREA: 810± CU. YDS. <> SURVEY COURTESY OF 11 STANTEC" 1 SURVEY DATED.` 05-14-014 # <> SURVEY FOR NORTHERN SHORELINE PROVIDED BY O "WILSONMILLER" SURVEY DATED 02- 24 r x - rp� tar= <> TOTAL APPLICANT OWNED SHORELINE: 3,432 L.F. `��^ a- , • �� � r � `�, I OD rJ • .ti" ` nc DESIGNED TT.T. DRAW BY RMJ 2. a o Turrell Hall &Associates I. H A L D E M A N S LANDING Marine cab Environmental Consulting CREATED: 0"9-13 3. � JOB NO.: 9002.5 1. 3584 Exchange Ave. Suite B. Naples, FL 34104 -3732 AERIAL LOCATION MAP SHEET NO. 02 5. Emall:hl0a(N TeII-associates.com Phone: (239) 643-0166 Fax: (239) 643-6632 EXHIBIT: 1B. SECTION -94.23 TOWNSHIP -50S RANGE -25E CU J ) ) TRACT "A" _ — — HALDEMAN CREEK DRIVE WIN TAR PLAT BOOK 14, PAGES 11 -15 TRACT 6 TEPYNNRS ACCE65 1NP000N D'm1ER: WRNfiiPP ClUO. RTC. ' GOLf CWPSE t DPNwW:E EA$EA1DR \ OwPER. vnPO51.R CtUP, iPC. 1RACf "A -. HµOEYW CREEP OP 10 1PE PwRCFl SURKYEO OWNER: —DS]AR CLUB. . ovvm+,u�v ARL C x Yoca ".0 PARCEL 2 _... i — LESS AND EXCEPT FROM PARCEL 1 i _ PARCEL 1 ( \\ 6= STREET n► -- -------- - - - - -- 'v u m, �3]mwnRrt'aa °nmm �m,en .�- C A N At L u.: iD i s PARCEL 9� P-F Yy_ DEMERE LANDING. g" I3 4 R PLAT BOOK 44 PACE 14 17 16 15 1a t7 t2 tt GULF SHORES t 19 BLOCK SEVEN 10 PLAT BOOK 44. PAGE 50 "u r ap L A K E 2 hM - 11 CAlI,L VT 4 1B N .� UKC`/IEW MINE 3 ' i F !!�dGL W I"'� 1 nm m - �••_• \ \ - 6 7 ♦ \ / \\ ow3ut V 32 33 34 35 m 2 3 4 5 6 6 5 x 17 BLOCK SIX 7 `` -.� BLOCK SEVEN ' �/ - m'°.,R H H Pv R5 % B - .�� _ 16 w� A L (SPRUCE SiP PER° PUT) LAKEVI EW DRIVE 15 m q 14 ,a I a 1' 10 BLOCK SIX 29 14 BLOCN40N� •e° m. �m'P1c. rvL°a i"rui -,I,� 30 LOCATION PR 11 13 26 27 26 12) ]0 TDµ ©..PE wP . \ ©. ,°, wP 1 E \ NAPLES LAND YACHT NOT PUTTED CLUB CANAL Asa .r Y°x ra I �t y Y -iirf r r3 � F � vi Tf e x �D 7 °WP — a kzx 4 PARCEL 1 vI4q o z$ 3 ��Y 6= STREET n► -- -------- - - - - -- 'v u m, �3]mwnRrt'aa °nmm �m,en .�- C A N At L u.: iD i s PARCEL 9� P-F Yy_ DEMERE LANDING. g" I3 4 R PLAT BOOK 44 PACE 14 17 16 15 1a t7 t2 tt GULF SHORES t 19 BLOCK SEVEN 10 PLAT BOOK 44. PAGE 50 "u r ap L A K E 2 hM - 11 CAlI,L VT 4 1B N .� UKC`/IEW MINE 3 ' i F !!�dGL W I"'� 1 nm m - �••_• \ \ - 6 7 ♦ \ / \\ ow3ut V 32 33 34 35 m 2 3 4 5 6 6 5 x 17 BLOCK SIX 7 `` -.� BLOCK SEVEN ' �/ - m'°.,R H H Pv R5 % B - .�� _ 16 w� A L (SPRUCE SiP PER° PUT) LAKEVI EW DRIVE 15 m q 14 ,a I a 1' 10 BLOCK SIX 29 14 BLOCN40N� •e° m. �m'P1c. rvL°a i"rui -,I,� 30 LOCATION PR 11 13 26 27 26 12) ]0 TDµ ©..PE wP . 17 ©. ,°, wP 1 REWVHOER LOT 42 POT PART DP 1iR SUR1iY ON1FA:.gSEPP A 915CE4, Disc ur rw ux mfl .rR[ uor C A N A L r "m" �'^° "'°. 1 REWVHOER LOT 42 POT PART DP 1iR SUR1iY ON1FA:.gSEPP A 915CE4, Asa .r Y°x I �t y Y -iirf O N Cb N O I sort pallto�,wo. ws vP°s gym« °no'" ")mrt SEE PAGE 2 FOR CERTIFICATION AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOCATION MAP Qp �YnNSPww,t may. °- �)Y,- �- K)A°.R oPSn�11D1t atND . '"wt °°-1°1° "" "PPRO`� ^AaTM /AGSM IAND TITLE SURVEY 1,. w�13 �ANDARD PACIFIC OF FLORIDA GP, IF 44 1>e o1R 32) DD 1Y. >>¢IVne10 >m! /6 u':ro" 1•_P0• v, m 14 n6 06 W 1Y rwi_um YUy, "rriy lb�A°��p ,PRm°a'°)io'ourt .A� 60-53 6114°- 21SR1,41e �sD -1]7A o- - NAA 32) m DI 12 3�I - - _ I oESCRpII.=A /AGSM LAND TITLE SURVEY a5 /IS STANDARD T PACIFlC OF FLORIDA GP. INC WM UI ro d 12 yap /• w•. 1 . , sv 2P3 m a 12 UU1011EY I J sFAra a.TH I I S NaI11n Z 1D -ITL1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION PER EXHIBIT A OF TITLE COMMITMENT TIE LAND REFERRED 10 HERE. BELOW R SRUAIEO N THE COUNry OF COWER, STATE OF R A.. AND T0: STANDARD PACIFIC OF PIONN OR, INC. IS DESCRIBED AS FULLOWS: SHUNTS k BOWEN LTP FWST wE1M' RR£ _UN_ COYPINY pARt[L t: I`URIIUN OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 'TOWNSHp IIBA IS IO CER16Y R+AT THIS NAP Av61 THE $UMBER ON WHICH R NI BASED WERE U1ADE M ACCORONICE W,,, THE 11 b SOUTH. RANGE 25 EAST. AND A PORIKR! OF THE SOUTHWESI OUGHTEN 01 SECININ 11, TOWNSHIP NET ­M. RANGE 25 EAST NID 111E WEST 330.00 FEET 2011 YMIMUY STANDARD OETAR REOURNENENTS FOR ALTA/ACSJ UND TRUE 511TH . J'NX, ESTABDSHED ANO A00PTTED OF LOT 42, WRLES GEOVES LAID TRUGN O'S FARMS HO. 2 P RREECON� IN PUAT BOON( 1, PACE 21. OF ME PUBM REC-S BY ALTA NSPS, AND INCLUIDES 11E1A ; , B. II(D), 13. 11. 8 ( Wb WrANT), IT( w -A IN 6 ( AND 21 TABLE gUTRE OF COWER CN1,, FLO N, BENZ, RE A ESCMBEO AS FOLLOWS. emweed) OF A IHENEOf. THE FIE REIEU DN WY 2 3p1S BEGIN THE NORTH -AR- GOPHER OF SAID 11 E - 1 1 -HO THENCE SOUTH 00' 13 0}" FAST, TJSI.IB FEET ALONG THE WEST BMIIWWY OF GUI SNORES. AS RECORDED M PUt BARN 1, PAGE "'✓" M1E OF SURVEY: WT O2. 201] 30 OF SAID xM DTWE5 NN IR v GO. NINE FLANS x0. 2. THE SAY.. KENO HIE HORN,- S,WR11 WARIER 9ECINJN tltw OF SAP SEGO N 11 i0 THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF WNDSTAR, AS RECORDED N PUT BCOK ,PROF SURVEYOR AND Y•PpEp 4TSIERED 1191 THEIIICE EALUING ITHE ROUND 15 OF Pr -1 SAND N DSTAR THE FO10- COURSES: SNIT B9' 35' 14- WEST. 3y, 5 FEET: "NORM THENCE 00 I3' 01' WEST. 132.39 FEET; - THENCE PER SCHEDULE BAN OF RILE COMrIYEM PER -1 NIERIGN TIRE NSUNANCt GGAIPANF NORIN B9' 35' I" EAST, 30.1) FEET, THENCE NORTH 00' 13' 0>" AGENT FLE HUUREF: FSHERUWI'S wU-E WEST, IJBR23 FEET; NILNI:E SUIIII 69 .11' IN' WEST. 311.39 FEET: MF.NGE .SOUTH BUT 0416" WEST. 50.12 FEET; FILE NURSER. 203)- 29J6B111 -0 FAST FAST FILE 011E ARbI 01. 2011 O 6:00 AM. THENCE IENiNNIG THE BOUI,MaY OF SAP WRIDSTOR, RORTH O0 17' O6' WEST, 197 FEET. NDRE OR UESS. HONG THE 9. Rwy;anow, rdke . ad UNW.e! -- reWAWWle WAT o,lWr molyn arlwn r IN, Ref of 1,egr Wwr INN WF51 "N OARS OF Mt SOUIHEA51 gMRIER OF 111E SOUTHEAST WARIER OF THE SOUMN,,1 OUARKp OF SAID BEG IN I I TO THE SOUTH BANK OF HALOEMN! CREFX; oM Co's UNDA FPnw Iro. a r «« FM boa 27 , e„1 rktlnq w) ewemnl, wpW,len or ro,rklkn ;r,dcel;np W prelerenw. IlmnakW w d'� «rinim0an 9ard Wa, FACE M IDER EASTERN ALONG .0 50'JN+ BNM O ITS INTERSECT- WITH THE NORTH -SOUTH NARTER SECTION LILAC vT SaD SECTION 1 AND HIT Wf BOUrNIARY OF OfNU2 UNDNG AS RECORDED N PUAI BOON r � Mlgon, en, M1wgwp. foma�q rrua « mliond M9y la •IBan, wWn vorvnenl conEgbro or rsaHCnoW . (c. IN° ANeeb M Prr, •vrF•!. IbUm a M 12 { 14. OF SAID UeUC RECONGS; ' IHENCE SOUTH C0 IB 15' EAST. 164 FEET. NOR[ OR LESS, NONG SAID GUMTER BECTON AND WEST BOUNDARY OF SAID orr t) b - m 11A, ry. TD Eorine.l q•a„Me M NoHae Peea rI 10t CWppoW, Wrt N R,Wp 16 1919 Ovaenaw 11 19191, OIfcM DUNE DEI.IEPE UN-C 70 THE SOUTHWEST CORNEP OF SAID CENERE LANDNIG AND HE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 12 r SAID NAMES GPOVES AND iRUCN CO.'S III IL.. FLAN^ 1N). 2: =. Beef N), R,TA 312' eeb M ANNA .-it avid 4 &N. m - WI W,, THENCE NORM 69' 30' 34' FAST, 330.00 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH BOUNDARY DF SAID DENERE U•NDNG AND THE NORTH BNNpNtY OR SAA) ., 2: IT. Reed M OF m -20 ngvd..p d.Uk1 1 ,n Herr B.,.- Seri Slelem RW A, ON— R uNOn �. Y -25o n -Ewl eM Sw THENCE SNJTH 00 6' 15' EAST, 337.30 FEET. PARNLEL WITH THE WEST NOUNGARr OF SAID LOT 12. TO THE SOUTH 510. ABr1eaM PWar N Sams a TAW_ 'A""R1' OF " L01 13 AND IIF NORTH FOUND- OF SAID OULI SHORES: THENCE SOUTH B9' 27' 51' WEST. 330.°0 FEET, ALONG THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF SAID LOT 12 AND THE NORTH ; 1 RnoMi n W. 92 -316 aM CWS 92 -11 _TA, DW,Na 1 -fort a.J ..N ueelr SoWll«y.5lv,vm RNa N NUU_ OF SAN NLF SHORES 10 THE SOUTHF,ASI CORNER OF SA,D LOI 12, 111E Nd2IHWEYI CORNER a SND GUV SxppES AxD THE NORTH -SgJTH OVARTER SECRONI LNE OF WD SECTION 1 Baa I]J0, p9e 1111' ONT_ Rvo «es ARW M AweW WN•4M RAN mrel M RNLNd. NIfNt'E Fx %IIH OR IOU 13" FAST, 3N.TR FEET -1. SAD OUIRIER BECMR! LNE AND THE WE51 BO,NOvpY 0< SAND ELITE AN .ES t0 T,E PINNI OF BEG,NMNG. F OTDH R «err Boa 1665, 23. 73. AWevb M b 4 pogo t2 dpuperv, LESS N!p E%CCPi: FAAWN PM waSlvpr r Dr3N�3 `ON1'E�ICING AT THE IpRTN 1/1 GOPHER OF BECTON 11. 1rwR15HP SD SOUTH. RANGE 25 EAST. COWER COVIlT. 11. Onkew Ewemea le SMH e1 Fr,ir for aav ,rd depwtmvm r« «rI IAaY S, 1953 y IOM BeeK 20. Fep° 113. NIW M prow Ileasled N Y pblbd m UUS Wwr). THE E MONO THE T O RN -$O RH OWRTUR SECTION LNE OF S SEENOR it, SOUTH 0013'01' EAST 1001.71 FEET NO n1 ,e S,ele of id,r Ica Nav rmd wvw,m M RIE RD If OF SWATHING M THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PARCEL; IT NICE CONIINUNG. &GNG THE NORTH -SOUTH OWRTER SECTION LIME. SOUTH 0013'DT' EAST -S3 FEET; THENCE ;cam p ryeees, rvedr! N S. 193! In p l B a 26, Fa9r 3. Mry M peel Wmgel and 4 PyWI At br WWI'rw. iU SOUTH 69' ]5'11" WEST 330.17 FEET; • ° NOTE: M WERN.L lEON ABOVE FONH PARCEL 1 DSTANGf S )]U.15 ler. 1HERICE NTININ 00'1]'0)' WEST 329.53 FEET; 16. �mm• o� 0200 0l „a cW1e;. ,A.«..detl NmWre oM Rrlrve brvWneM la ,Mrmr RHEHCE IIORiH 89'3511" FAY! 5]0.1] FEET IO THE POINT OF BEGIN,AHO. 125. CrM OWeoad IeHM 1NY rvavJM rc+nnvnl j LESS AND EACEPT THEREFROM THE PRESEHN OR FOR BEDS OR BOTTOMS OF UNIES. RNERS. CANALS, OR OTHER ew rl W WANNI' eM rope! WrWmMe R R eflee4 M Yep sweeFtl. , M 7 F�Wnp oEER ICON, OF WATER LOCATED ION OR WR1nN f LANDS SCRIBtp. •• •• NOTE: EXIStRlG URI, CAN45. CREEKS ARID wATEA BOONES AS THEY -EJOSI Ai PATE R 41RVEY. P.HI o1 1., Ae wd� IM SPw1 1 M OluerrTHIAH 9 � H New MO Try xeUw r E..+.Wm..eWld R..w ��tA esprewe TMra,n aMo, .Wt w RraMe PARCEL 2: A4 TWY 11A D Kyr Nycb M ro•1 rvvvJ•,I s.d mnrl M pk1y1 A PARE N THE NORTHWEST WMTER OF BECTON 11. IOWIJSHP b SOV1H. RANGE 25 USE, r e la ma HaonN,9, C-- -I, ONe mow N., 2p3 61 16 (2) • 'dpW�9.r.,ca aewr'I W, FLORIIA AND BE CONLIER CNINY, q BEIHO DESCR6Ep AS FOLLOWS: udMnn ,,. apveA 9 Yovd WAM eeA 'M T°'aM o« M Cow C-1, art e• purpose e�IF and COMNERNYHO AT THE NORTH 1/1 CORNER OT SECI,GH 11, TOWNSINP SO SOUTH, apD OW,Ca,^4F4'P«wr gm° a ml. AAmi pH se.. :. B«rmlll Unll svr.%v ga.1e, Ho. t Yp«iW AewrmAV. •MeeWeel M (p TRANCE 25 USI. COUIEN COUNTY, FLORIDA; - AW_ M MeN rnW/r 1121. M pylbd 1 THENCE ALONG, E NORN� S DINRTER SECTION - BND SECNON ,1, SOUTH GTF 15' 02" UST, 1001.]1 FEEL TO THE POINT OF BEGIHMMG OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBEO PARCEL 1 9 w rollemv d IO•.a. raven O. aver eeWn a .a «bee1M m « AUlu N 10 THE Nq gHRTA SECINR! UNL. SgIRI ON, 13' 01' UST, ]29.5] FEET; NOTE: IN ObERNL WGAL ABOV[ .OR PARCEL 1 O51AMS IS 1)0.15 Irl. THENCE SCUR NlOBT • B9 THEIR, _ r1 ,aMS r«need InitScneaMr Ane weler Saar m sheen w M) evM a BIw d •Vr+1. rd I•ynMrn 35' 11" WEST. 3311.1) FEET: S: 30.4 FEE NORTH THENCE NORTH 00' 15' O)' WEST, fEEN: ml IOITW MwlbW a eaW SeJu 330.47 THENCE NORTH 69' 35' II' UST, 330.1] FEET TO ME PENT OF BEOXIHIXC. 20. WWerknarI0/ ord rbnly an cal mmmeW. Rarer M 11Aerlmr 1 PARtEE 3: I. AwoeaM_ •^ 10 w m um or rM ,md vNa nw liven Omo1M ly orl,,e.d noon° « Im «oral M on.' s« pHron Iran NMI e1..011Ww camel MWrrWw sv tlM Are b•nI Wryd IIF A. THE WEST 110 FEET OF LOT 17 OF NAPLES GROPE AND TRUCK COMPANY'S UTRE FLANS NO. 2, ACCORDING TO ME PUI PEC(TROCO IN PLAt ECUK 1 AGE 21, OF 111E WBLK: -ACTS O COWER NUNTTY, TIOETNN; C,AG ING THE 1Ner NIA° eMa,yq WvrvcwWel ,rsv(e). aM os ppNM el Nrr(a) oM ep porxeA cAmmlrp 1MrgN A. ORTH 50 FEET HEREOF AS CDNEYFD JUNE 20. 1957 BY DEED N BOON 11, PAGE 20 FOR EASEMENT FOR NIGHT OF WAY NID ROAD PHEREOFS. (e) rOWa GSM y PMLIwT M yr paeU� ED I.N.N. 20.52 ACRES MORE N LESS. SUBJLCI TO USEUENiS AND RESIRICIIONS OF RECORD. BENUMB ARE BASED ON TINE U51 UNE OF TRACT 'B", OF THE PUT OF SAND WNNSTAN, BEING NORTH 00.13'07' WEST. NAA 32) m DI 12 3�I - - _ I oESCRpII.=A /AGSM LAND TITLE SURVEY a5 /IS STANDARD T PACIFlC OF FLORIDA GP. INC WM UI ro d 12 yap /• w•. 1 . , sv 2P3 m a 12 UU1011EY I J sFAra a.TH I I S NaI11n Z 1D -ITL1 QJ CrQ rD to CCPC REGISTERED SPEAKERS: NEIGHBORING PROPERTY LOCATION A 2998 POPULAR STREET B 3150 LAKEVIEW DRIVE C 2675 BAYVIEW DRIVE D 2978 ORANGE STREET E 336 PIER C F 2736 RIVERVIEW G 2957 ORANGE STREET H 2736 SHOREVIEW DR 1 3266 LAKEVIEW DRIVE J 3305 LAKEVIEW DRIVE N 3300 LAKEVIEW DRIVE L 2651 BAYVIEW DRIVE M 2841 SHOREVIEW DR �S riT 1 47 01" 40" f X"fmt"� r% mg 4- oi it m GRI I VTR 00 Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. HALE LANDING DESIGNED T.T.T. w ;�z DRAWN aY: R11 2. W z CREATED: Ma NO.: < W 3584Exchange Ave. Suite B. Naples, FL 34104-3732 NEARBY MULTI FAMILY & COMMERCIAL LIKE FACILITIES MEET 140, mg 4- oi it m GRI I VTR 00 Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. HALE LANDING DESIGNED T.T.T. DRAWN aY: R11 2. Marine & Environmental Consulting CREATED: Ma NO.: 9OD2 5 3584Exchange Ave. Suite B. Naples, FL 34104-3732 NEARBY MULTI FAMILY & COMMERCIAL LIKE FACILITIES MEET 140, 1'. Email: tunaQtulrell- associates.com Phone: (239) 643-0166 Fax: (239) 643-6632 EXHIBIT: 3 SECTIQN- 14. 23 TOWNSHIP-50S RANGE-25E 6 0 C rD 0 m E 0 � '4l 1� r4 (TQ T fV N m N A.. W - �x E : 0 50 100 2C SCALE IN FEET ' y1 MANGROVE OF MHW LIP MANGROVE FRINGE + wi `y^g' 1 . e pF + -pu 56' 33' MHW LIN MLW LIN 1 r q i 1 i *• E • yy1 + t57�p 1^ ' yp • �� k1 1 y 6ry � 1 46' 42' 47' 35 —'TIDAL DATUM: MLW= ( -)0.5' NGVD; MH1W�( +)1.5' -NGVD —TOTAL PROTRUSION FROM MHW UNE: APPROX. 49 Et <> BOAT LIFTS OPTIONAL FOR ALL SLIPS >; DREDGE AREA: B10t CU: YDS: <s SURVEY COURTESY OF "StAkTEC SURVEY DATED: 05-14 -014 <> SURVEY FOR NORTHERN SHORELINE PROVIDED BY "WILSONMILLER" SURVEY DATED 02-24-0-0 - O <> TOTAL A0P'L10ANT OWNED SHbkELINE 3; 32 L.F. I j OD Tutlell, Hall &Associates, Inc. DESIGNED T.T.T. 1. � O ` . H A L D E M A N S LANDING DRAWN BY RMJ 2. Marine & Environmental Consulting CREATED: J. JOB NO.. 90025 4, 3584 Exchange Ave. Suite B. Naples, FL 34104 -3732 WATER DEPTHS AND MANGROVES SHEET NO. Oa OF„ cfl Email :luna(nturrell•associates.com Phone: (239)643 -0166 Fax: (239)643 -6632 EXHIBIT:4 SECTION -94,23 TOWNSHIP -50S RANGE -25E • 'A mair }� ;1 ty i I k PROPERTY �k - BOUNDARY _ x s q 28' 52' 69' 71' 73' , PRC)�OSED HALDEMAN CREEK DOCKS R� '4 r tpp a ✓ u } L FYI -,q ' s ., ^ 9* y�i Rey -,,�$ q� {T ov, y a i R, A�4 PROPERTY- BOUNDARY 79' 8 48 r ' �w _ PROPOSED HALDEMAN CREEK DOCKS { Aka r , T % N 5" An z r+ 0 50 100 200 I FIBy A SCALE IN FEET ' ., '�L' r�kr t c �1i+9�LiN _ .. f • N X O LJ v1LW LINE_ - � « a o - , x10" ° APPX.50 °ID 137' -- - B WIDTH OF - N WATERWAY d "u r) D B a- (D MLWLIN M4V LINE , TOB LINE i• �: ; t CODE LENGTH WIDTH SIIpS A 25' 14' 22 B 30' 15' 20 Aft 5 a °5 a 11y�i gut ; ..v• n J •ys- NOTES: - THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE. — ALL DATUM SHOWN HEREON IS REFERENCED TO MLW. e o PROPOSED OVERWATER STRUCTURE: APPX. 8,070± SF. — TIDAL DATUM: MLW =( -)0.5' NGVD, MHW --( +)1.5' NGVD- -c> TOTAL PROTRUSION FROM MHW LINE: APPROX. 49 FT. <> BOAT LIFTS OPTIONAL FOR ALL SLIPS <> DREDGE AREA: 810± CU. YDS. - SURVEY COURTESY OF "STANTEC" SURVEY DATED: 05-14 -014 - SURVEY FOR NORTHERN SHORELINE PROVIDED BY TOTAL 42 F t x H A L D E M A N' S LAN DI N G PROPOSED DOCK IMPROVEMENTS EXHIBIT: $ "WILSONMILLER" SURVEY DATED 02- 24 -09. — TOTAL APPLICANT OWNED SHORELINE: 3,432 L.F. O lV " ` O ♦/1 �TL! W • Terrell, Hall & Associates , Inc. Marine & Environmental Consulting 3584 Exchange Ave. Suite B. Naples, FL 34104 -3732 Email: tLlna�NlUR¢II- aS50Clat¢S.COnI Phone: (239)643 -0166 Pax: (239) 643 -6632 DESIGNED- T.T.T. 1 c"K v crw •. DRAWN BY RMJ 2 _ _ CREATED: 05 -14 -14 3 Joe No.: 900Z5 4 _ _ SHEET NO.: 05 OF 11 5 SECTION -14,23 TOWNSHIP -50S RANGE -25E ��� 1 �y r PR'ERTY wiz fF a te:- d tg r �V� °sy 74" } `I- •,, BOUN7ARY a a f t i `t -HE SANCTUARY FUTURE PROPOSED DOCKS (PREVIOUSLY PERMITTED FOR A� SEPARATE PROJECT) r 4 � 65' � r 71, sir 33� ,3, 70' /6V 71' 69 __ Jam.. -•� �:',;� __,.__ >v�,��.- ��.�„�...........M ._.��.�. s� ._�'a.�:.. _ _ _- s �.r HAI_DEMAN r , PROPOSEi�� CREEK- ,DOCKS - -- - OR GREATER WATER DEPTHS (STANTEC); -4'MLW PROPOSED � �' i i F � ♦ �+ �p� Y, a.. sari .: .�"' '`�.g,, ��. v� J S 18.5' CONSERVATION EASEMENT PROPOSED DOCKS E — 7.6' o 7.6' ° 3 i 35' PROTRUSION I I- a r 20" .0 a 6�1}-i -- 25' `- v I (D TOP OF rr+ BANK QJ (D N N N PROPOSED DREDGE ' TO -4' MLW NOTES: <> THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE. <> ALL DATUM SHOWN HEREON IS REFERENCED TO'MLW. <> PROPOSED OVERWATER STRUCTURE: APPX. 8,070± SF. <> TIDAL DATUM: MLW =( -)0.5' NGVD, MHW= ( +)1.5' NGVD. - <> TOTAL PROTRUSION FROM MHW LINE: APPROX. 49 FT. <> BOAT LIFTS OPTIONAL FOR ALL SLIPS <> DREDGE AREA: 810± CU. YDS. <> SURVEY COURTESY OF "STANTEC" SURVEY DATED: 05-14 -014 <> SURVEY FOR NORTHERN SHORELINE PROVIDED BY "WILSONMILLER "SURVEY DATED 02- 24 -09, <> TOTAL APPLICANT OWNED SHORELINE'. 3,432 L.F. CROSS SECTION A -A SCALE:1 " =20' APPX. 163' MHWL TO MHWL rQ i 3 � a ow 3 ao APPX. ST OPEN WATERWAY MHW ( +1.5' NGVD),i, ALW -0( 5'NGV� A0.0. 5? A• 0 10 20 40 SCALE IN FEET Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. H A L D E M A N' S LA N D I N O Marine & Environmental Consulting 3584 Exchange Ave. Suite B. Naples, FL 34104 -3732 CROSS SECTION A -A Email: tuna(aturrell- associates.com Phone: (239) 643 -0166 Fax: (239) 643 -6632 s=ymIRIT• in 2 41' 30' 1 5' THE SANCTUARY FUTURE PROPOSED DOCKS (PREVIOUSLY PERMITTED FOR A SEPARATE PROJECT) T.T.T. SECTION-14,23 TOWNSHIP -50S O N OD N 0 RANGE -25E rn W N n 77 (D 1-h N 0q (D N N W CROSS SECTION B -B 3 x SCALE: l " =15' NOTES: <> THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE. <> ALL DATUM SHOWN HEREON IS REFERENCED TO MLW. <> PROPOSED OVERWATER STRUCTURE: APPX. 8,070± SF. <> TIDAL DATUM: MLW= ( -)0.5' NGVD, MHW =( +)1.5' NGVD. <> TOTAL PROTRUSION FROM MHW LINE: APPROX, 49 FT.` <> BOAT LIFTS OPTIONAL FOR ALL SLIPS <> DREDGE AREA: 810 ±£U. YDS. <> SURVEY COURTESY OF "STANTEC" SURVEY DATED: 05 -14 -014 A6 o_ 3 X a a o- <> SURVEY FOR NORTHERN SHORELINE PROVIDED BY "WILSONMILLER" SURVEY DATED 02- 24 -09. <> TOTAL APPLICANT OWNED SHORELINE: 3,432 L.F. " 0 7.5 15 30 SCALE IN FEET APPX. 186.7' MHWL TO MHWL Turylell, Hall &Associates, ltlC. Marine & Environmental Consulting 3584 Exchange Ave. Suite B. Naples, FL 34104 -3732 Email :tuna@1umell- associates.com Phone: (239) 643-0166 Fax: (239) 643-6632 H A L D E M A N S LA N D I N O CROSS SECTION B -B EXHIBIT: 11 DESIGNED: T.T.T. 33 3� N 24.5' PROTRUSION w 2 N Q Q CREATED: HALDEMAN'S CREEK L .. PROPOSED DOCKS (L (L a JOB NO.: �... < s T r --{� -- 6' 13' APPX. 93.3' OPEN WATERWAY s. ftlJlT� SECTION -14,23 TOWNSHIP -50S MHW ( +1.5' NGVD) ' 2 t MLW ( -0.5' NGVD) I °. TOP OF BANK 3 - -- 1 I1 PROPOSED DREDGE TO -0' SS MLW NOTES: <> THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE. <> ALL DATUM SHOWN HEREON IS REFERENCED TO MLW. <> PROPOSED OVERWATER STRUCTURE: APPX. 8,070± SF. <> TIDAL DATUM: MLW= ( -)0.5' NGVD, MHW =( +)1.5' NGVD. <> TOTAL PROTRUSION FROM MHW LINE: APPROX, 49 FT.` <> BOAT LIFTS OPTIONAL FOR ALL SLIPS <> DREDGE AREA: 810 ±£U. YDS. <> SURVEY COURTESY OF "STANTEC" SURVEY DATED: 05 -14 -014 A6 o_ 3 X a a o- <> SURVEY FOR NORTHERN SHORELINE PROVIDED BY "WILSONMILLER" SURVEY DATED 02- 24 -09. <> TOTAL APPLICANT OWNED SHORELINE: 3,432 L.F. " 0 7.5 15 30 SCALE IN FEET O N 00 Turylell, Hall &Associates, ltlC. Marine & Environmental Consulting 3584 Exchange Ave. Suite B. Naples, FL 34104 -3732 Email :tuna@1umell- associates.com Phone: (239) 643-0166 Fax: (239) 643-6632 H A L D E M A N S LA N D I N O CROSS SECTION B -B EXHIBIT: 11 DESIGNED: T.T.T. N DRAWN BY: RMJ 2 O CREATED: 05-14-14 JOB NO.: 80025 4. SHEET NO.: 10OF11 s. SECTION -14,23 TOWNSHIP -50S RANGE -25E T 3 n fD d 0q (D N N J S CONSERVATION EASEMENT ) 43. TOP OF BANK 24' PROTRUSION HALDEMAN'S CREEK PROPOSED DOCKS 6' –� �- 13' I 3:3 PROPOSED DREDGE TO -4' MLW <> THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE. <> ALL DATUM SHOWN HEREON IS REFERENCED TO MLW. <> PROPOSED OVERWATER STRUCTURE: APPX: 8,070± SF. <> TIDAL DATUM: MLW= ( -)0.5' NGVD, MHW= ( +)1.5' NGVD. <> TOTAL PROTRUSION FROM MHW LINE: APPROX. 49 FT. <> BOAT LIFTS OPTIONAL FOR ALL SLIPS <> DREDGE AREA: 810± CU. YDS. <> SURVEY COURTESY OF "STANTEC" SURVEY DATED: 05 -14 -014 <> SURVEY FOR NORTHERN SHORELINE PROVIDED BY "WILSONMILLER" SURVEY DATED 02- 24 -09. <> TOTAL APPLICANT OWNED SHORELINE: 3,432 L.F. CROSS SECTION C -C SCALE:l ' =I5' APPX. 135' MHWL TO MHWL — 3 tt o F � ¢ o 3 0 U- 0 X a APPX. 74' OPEN WATERWAY MHW ( +1.5' NGVD) MLW ( -0.5' NGVD) Y i AP h'-L A 0 7.5 15 30 SCAI,E IN FEET 0 0- D_ O N OD N �l ur rell, Hall &Associates, II1c. � DESIGNED: TLT. O H A L D E M A N S LANDING DRAWN BY RMJ 2. Marine & Environmental Consulting CREATED: 05 -14 -14 JOB NO.: 9002.5 4. GxchangeAve.SuiteB. Naples, FL 34104 -3732 CROSS SECTION C -C SHEET OF 11 5. IN Finall: tnnn(�.ttlrrell-a550elate5.e0n1 phone: (239) 643 -0166 Fax: (239) 643 -6632 EXHIBIT. 12 SECTION - 14, 23 TOWNSHIP - 50S RANGE-25E �� 10/28/2014 9. B. 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 Turrell, 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 Count`, Clerk's Office. Haldeman's Landing fka Fishermen's village BDE- 11L20130001765 — 6/24/14 Page 1 of—" Packet Page -225- 10/28/2014 9.B. The motion f r approval failed for lack of a majority vote, with a vote of 2 in favor and 2 opposed. Done this day of U yk-c , 2014. ATT Nick Casalangui Growth Manaize: A COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA . ministrator Karen Homiak, Vi Chairwoman Division as to.fornr and legality: Scott A. Stone Assistant County, Attachments: ExI 13- CPS - 01277/31 fit A — Legal Description Haldeman's Landing fka fishermen's Village BDE- PL20130001765 — 6.24/14 Page 2 of 2 Packet Page -226- ral W 10/28/2014 9.B. 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 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 1 I 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 000 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° 0416" WEST, 50.12 FEET; THENCE LEAVING THE BOUNDARY OF SAID WINDSTAR, NORTH 00° 17'06" WEST, 197 FEET, MORE OR LESS, ALONG THE WEST BOUNDARY OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 11 TO THIS 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 I I 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 890 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 'Flit: NORTH BOUNDARY OF SAID GULF SHORES; THENCE SOUTH 890 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 114 CORNER OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA: *mI:NC1i ALONG THE NORTH -SOUTH QUARTER -3- ORMOCS 12976704 129259.0004 Description: Collier,Fy Document - Dook.Page 4938.1560 Page: 4 of 6 Order: wsC NAPLES Comment: Packet Page -227- 10/28/2014 9.B. OR 4938 PG 1564 SECTION LINE OF AID SECTION 14, SOUTH 00 °13'07" EAST 1001.74 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OFT E HEREIN DESCRIBED PARCEL; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG THE NORTH -SOUTH QUARTER SECTION LINE, SOUTH 00 013'07" EAST 329.53 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 890 35'14" N EST 330.47 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00 °13'07" NEST 329.53 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89 035'14" E ST 330.47 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. LESS AND EXC£P THEREFROM THE PRESENT OR FORMER BEDS OR BOTTOMS OF LAKES, RIVERS, C NALS, OR OTHER BODIES OF WATER LOCATED ON OR WITHIN THE LANDS DESCRIBE HEREIN, PARCEL2: A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 2 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT HE 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 3AID SECTION 14, SOUTH 00° IT 02" EAST, 1001.74 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGIN rNG OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PARCEL; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG THE NORTH -SOUTH QUARTER SECTION LINE, SOUTH 000 13' 02" EAST, 329.53 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 890 35' 14" WEST, 330.47 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00° 13' 07" WEST, 329.53 FEET, THENCE NORTH 89 35' 14" EAST, 330.47 FEETTO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCELS: THE WEST 140 FE T 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 AS CON EYED JUNE 20, 1957 BY DEED IN BOOK 11, PAGE 120 FOR EASEMENT FOR RIGHT OF WAY AND ROAD PURPOSES. -4- 11—N, ORLDOCS 12976704 1 Description: CoZZier,Fb Do ent - Book.Page 4938.1560 Page; 5 of 6 order: WSC xAP=,5 C ent; Packet Page -228- N A r L E s D A I LY N E w s (( Wednesday, October 8, 2014 K 23D NOTICE OF MEETING 0 NOTICE OF MEETING l Notice is hereby given that on Tuesday, October 28, 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) as the Board of Zoning Appeals, 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- PL20120001428 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- PL201400014541 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 ani individual to speak on behalf of an organization or group is encouraged. 11 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 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA TOM HENNING, CHAIRMAN DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK By: Teresa Cannon, Deputy Clerk (SEAL) October 8, 2014 No 2036895 I Packet Page -229- 10/28/2014 9. B.