Agenda 12/02/2008 Item # 7A
Agenda Item No. 7A
December 2, 2008
Page 1 0147
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SV-2008-AR-13374, Naples Grande Beach Resort, represented by Hunter Hansen,
requesting seven variances. The first six Variances are from the Land Development
Code (LDC) Section 5.06.04 c.l., which requires a minimum separation of 1,000
lineal feet between signs, to allow a sign separation of approximately 660i feet, 650i
feet, 400i feet, 13H feet, 650i feet, and 860i feet. The seventh Variance is from LDC
Section 5.06.04 c.l., which permits a maximum of two pole signs per street frontage,
to permit a maximum of four signs along a street frontage. The subject property is
located at 475 Seagate Drive, in Section 9, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier
County, Florida. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members.
OBJECTIVE:
To have the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) consider the above-referenced Sign Variance
petition and render a decision pursuant to Subsection 5.06.04.C. I. of the Land
Development Code (LDC) in order to ensure that the project is in harmony with all
applicable codes and regulations and that the community's interests are maintained.
CONSIDERATIONS:
The applicant is seeking to legitimize two, eXlstmg, four square-foot logo medallions
mounted on two, approximately 14-foot columns flanking either side of the entrance to the
Naples Grande Beach Resort (fonnerly known as the Registry Resort Hotel) (see graphic in
Appendix 1). These medallions, considered signage by the LDC, replaced two similar
medallions used by the prior tenant which, according to County records, never had permits.
According to LDC Subsection 5.06.04.C.1, the site is only pennitted to have a maximum of
two pole or ground signs, provided that these signs are separated by 1,000 feet. As depicted
on the site plan contained in Exhibit B to the Ordinance, the site presently has a total of
three signs, and the applicant is proposing one more. The existing, permitted, principle
sign, labeled as "A" on the site plan, is a ground sign located within the landscaped island
at the main entrance of the hotel. The two, four square-foot logo medallions, labeled as "B"
and "C," are mounted on the aforementioned columns flanking either side of the driveway
entrance into the hotel. The proposed fourth sign, labeled as "D," would be an
approximately eight foot-wide and five foot-tall pole sign advertising the hotel's
steakhouse (see graphic in Appendix 2).
If the signs are approved, the following Variances would be needed for the distances
between the four signs:
I. 65.85 feet between A and B;
2. 65.40 feet between A and C;
3. 40.17 feet between B and C;
Agenda Item No. 7 A
December 2, 2008
Page 2 of 47
4. 130.85 feet between A and D;
5. 65 feet between Band D;
6. 85.7 feet between C and D.
A seventh Variance is also required in order to permit a total of four signs along a street
frontage instead of the LDC permitted maximum of two.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Approval of this Sign Variance petition would have no fiscal impact on Collier County.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) IMPACT:
Approval of this Sign Variance would not affect or change the requirements of the Growth
Management Plan.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IMPACT:
Approval of this Sign Variance would have no affordable housing impact.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:
There are no environmental issues associated with this Sign Variance.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION:
The EAC did not review this petition as they do not normally hear Sign Variance petitions.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION:
The CCPC heard petition SV-2008-AR-13374 on November 6, 2008, and voted 5-4 to
forward this petition to the BZA with a recommendation of approval, subject to staffs
conditions of approval, which prohibit sign D. Three dissenting members felt that in light
of the economic hardship now facing local restaurants, sign D (the restaurant sign) should
also be granted a Variance. The only other dissenting commissioner, in contrast, felt that
none of the requested Variances should be approved.
Because the CCPC recommendation was not unanimous and staff has received one letter of
objection from the community, this petition could not be placed on the Summary Agenda.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS:
The petitioner is requesting seven sign variances relating to the number of signs and the
distance between signs permitted by the Land Development Code. The granting of such a
variance is permitted under LDC Section 9.04.02.
Agenda Item No. 7A
December 2. 2008
Page 3 0147
The attached staff report and recommendations of the Planning Commission are advisory
only and are not binding on you. Decisions regarding variances are quasi-judicial, and all
testimony given must be under oath. The petitioner has the burden to prove that the
proposed Variance is consistent with all the criteria set forth below, and you may question
the petitioner, or staff, to satisfy yourself that the necessary criteria have been satisfied.
LDC Section 9.04.02.A requires that "based upon the evidence given in public hearing; and
the findings of the Planning Commission" you "should determine to the maximum extent
possible if the granting of the Variance will diminish or otherwise have a detrimental effect
on the public interest, safety or welfare." Should you consider denying the Variance, to
assure that your decision is not later found to be arbitrary, discriminatory or unreasonable,
the denial must be based upon competent, substantial evidence that the proposal does not
meet one or more of the listed criteria below. Approval of this request requires three
affirmative votes of the Board.
In granting a Sign Variance, the Board of Zoning Appeals may prescribe the following:
1. Appropriate conditions and safeguards in conformity with this Code or other applicable
County ordinances. Violation of such conditions and safeguards, when made a part of the
terms under which the variance is granted, shall be deemed a violation of this Code.
2. A reasonable time limit within which the action for which the variance required shall be
begun or completed or both.
Criteria for Si!!n Variances
1. There are special conditions and circumstances existing which are peculiar to the
location, size, and characteristics of the land, structure, or building involved.
2. There are special conditions and circumstances which do not result from the action of
the applicant, such as pre-existing conditions relative to the property, which are the subject
of the Variance request.
3. A literal interpretation of the provisions of the LDC work unnecessary and undue
hardship on the applicant or create practical difficulties on the applicant.
4. The Variance, if granted, will be the minimum variance that will make possible the
reasonable use of the land, building, or structure and which promote standards of health,
safety, or welfare.
5. Granting the Variance requested will not confer on the petitioner any special privilege
that is denied by these zoning regulations to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same
zoning district.
6. Granting the Variance will be in hannony with the intent and purpose of the LDC, and
not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare.
Agenda Item NO.7 A
December 2. 2008
Page 4 0147
7. There are natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals
and objectives of the regulation, such as natural preserves, lakes, golf courses, etc.
8. Granting the Variance will be consistent with the GMP.
The proposed Resolution was prepared by the County Attorney's Office and is sufficient
for Board action. -STW
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the BZA approve Petition SV-2008-AR-13374 in part. While staff
recommends approval of signs A, B, C and their respective separation Variances; staff
recommends denial of sign D, as described in the conditions of approval contained in the
attached resolution.
PREPARED BY:
John-David Moss, AICP, Principal Planner
Department of Zoning and Land Development Review
Item Number:
Item Summary:
Meeting Date:
Page \ of2
Agenda Item No. 7A
December 2, 2008
Page 5 of 47
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
7A
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. SV-2008-AR-13374 Naples Grande Beach Resort, represented by
Hunter Hansen, requesting seven variances. The first six Vanances are from the land
Development Code (LDC) Section 5.06.04 C, 1., which requires a minimum separation of
1,000 lineal feet between signs, to allow a sign separation of 66 feet, 40 feet. 156 feet, 66
feet,71 feet, and 96 feet. The seventh Variance is from LDC Section 5.06.04 C.1., which
permits a maximum of two pole signs per street frontage, to permit a maximum of four signs
along a street frontage. The subject property is located at 475 Seagate Drive. in Section 9,
Township 49 South, Range 25 East. Collier County, Florida. CTS
12/2/20089.00:00 AM
Prepared By
John-David Moss
Community Development &
Environmental Services
Senior Planner
Date
Zoning & Land Development
9/22/20089:32:01 AM
Approved By
Judy Puig
Community Development &
Environmental Services
Operations Analyst
Community Development &
Environmental Services Admin.
Date
Approved By
11/7/20082:57 PM
Steven Williams
Attorney's Office
Assistant County Attorney
Date
Attorney's Office
11/13/20081:03 PM
Approved By
Ray Bellows
Community Development &
Environmental Services
Chief Planner
Date
Approved By
Zoning & Land Development Review
11/13/20082:39 PM
Susan Istenes, AICP
Community Development &
Environmental Services
Zoning & Land Development Director
Date
Zoning & Land Development Review
11/13/20083:55 PM
Approved By
Joseph K. Schmitt
Community Development &
Environmental Services
Community Development &
Environmental Services Adminstrator
Date
Community Development &
Environmental Services Admin.
11/15/20086:18 PM
Approved By
OMB Coordinator
OMB Coordinator
Date
file://C:\AgendaTest\Export\\ \ 7-December%202.%202008\07.%20BOARD%200F%20Z... 11/25/2008
Page 2 of2
Agenda Item NO.7 A
December 2. 2008
Page 6 0147
County Manager's Office
Office of Management & Budget
11/17/20081:01 PM
Approved By
Mark Isackson
Budget Analyst
Date
County Manager's Office
Office of Management & Budget
11/19/20085:13 PM
Approved By
Leo E. Ochs, Jr.
Deputy County Manager
Date
Board of County
Commissioners
County Manager's Office
11/19/20086:02 PM
file://C:IAgendaTestIExportII17-December%202,%202008107.%20BOARD%200F%20Z... 11/25/2008
AGEJlrqjll\J<ffBMr9bl!P. 7 A
December 2, 2008
Page 7 of 47
.Co~Y County
~ ---
--- - ~
SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT
TO:
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COl\.1MISSION
FROM:
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
DIVISION
HEARING DATE: NOVEMBER 6, 2008
SUBJECT: SV-2008-AR-13374, NAPLES GRANDE BEACH RESORT
PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT:
Owner/Agent: Mr. Hunter Hansen
LehilI Partners, L.P.
475 Seagate Drive
Naples, FL 34103
REOUESTED ACTION:
To have the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPe) consider a revised Site Plan
depicting the seven requested Variances from Subsection 5.06.04.C.I of the Land
Development Code (LDC) to permit four signs instead of two per street frontage; and to
permit each of these signs to have less than the required 1,000-foot separation from each
other.
-1
PROJECT STATUS:
The cepe originally heard this petition on October 2, 2008. At that meeting, the petitioner
requested a continuance so that he could submit a scaled site plan or an actual boundary
survey that accurately depicted the location of the existing and proposed signage. The
applicant prepared and submitted the survey, entitled ''Naples Grande Site Plan" by Charles
Tolton & Associates, Inc., dated October 20, 2008, attached as Exhibit B to the Resolution.
" On October 15, 2008, staff received a letter of objection to the petition, attached to this
supplemental report as Appendix I.
Supplemental Report
Naples Grande Beach Resort, SV-2008-AR-J3374
Page 1 00
<l:CO,...
....0""
O~
ON 0
ZN-CO
E ~ Q)
Q)(])~
-.DeL
-E
t1l",
"DU
C Q)
~O
<l:
!I
,
"
<
~~
&~
~.
_toQ.l_W1
.
~
-
I l~
i I.
~!i:' !l
I
-~
Ii! ·
l~ll';>l
:! ~!1
11
. .
(M)Ij-,.~
lltTl'll -...... .....,l'tI'~
I.L
.
GULF
OF
MEXICO
..
...
'"
M
.
0:
<;
'"
0
0
N
>-
'"
..
z
0
J-
;::
W
. a.
0..
<(
~
f~ Z
0
-
I-
<(
()
. 0
-l
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
~ I
~ I
" i
~m_ I ""E-
-
.
1.
ia
I
I -.
!~; ,
i . ~
0..
<(
~
(9
Z
Z
o
N
Agenda Item No. 7 A
December 2. 2008
Page 9 of 47
It was also brought to staff s attention that the required on-site public hearing notification
sign, as required pursuant to LDC Section 10.03.0S, had not been posted. As such, the
applicant had the requisite signage installed, as evidenced by the photograph in Appendix 2
of this supplemental staff report.
SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS:
As shown on the new Site Plan, if all four of the requested signs are approved, the following
Variances would be needed for the distances between the signs:
1. 6S.&S feet between A and B;
2. 65.40 feet between A and C;
3. 40.17feetbetweenBandC;
4_ 130.&S feet between A and D;
S. 6S feet between B and D;
6. &S.7 feet between C and D.
A seventh Variance would also still be required in order to permit four signs along a street
frontage instead of the LDC permitted maximum of two.
Staff has reviewed the revised Site Plan depicting the new distances among the signs, and has
determined that it does not warrant a change in staff's original findings. Therefore, staff's
recommendation remains the same as noted in the CCPC Staff Report dated October 16,
200&.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the CCPC forward Petition SV-200&-AR-13374 to the Board of
Zoning Appeals with a recommendation of approval, subject to the following conditions, as
incorporated into the attached Resolution: '
I. Irrespective of that depicted on the Master Plan entitled "Naples Grande," by
Charles Tolton and Associates, Inc, dated October 20, 200& and included as
Exhibit B, the number of signs on the site shall be limited to only three, which
are those identified as "A," "B" and "C."
2. The separation Variances granted shall be limited to the following: 6S.&S feet
between signs A and B; 6S.40 feet between signs A and C; and 40.17 feet
between signs B and C.
However, staff does not recommend approval of the proposed "Striphouse" steakhouse
restaurant sign (shown in Appendix 3), labeled as "D" on the attached Site Plan (Exhibit B to
the Resolution).
Supplemental Repart
Naples Grande Beach Resort, SV-2008-AR-13374
Page 2 01 3
Agenda Item No. 7 A
December 2, 2008
Page 100147
PREPARED BY:
-~~
JO~VID MOSS, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
!D~t-#(;t
DA E
REVIEWED BY:
10- 2..'f-01,
DATE
RA YI\ ND V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER
DEP TMENT OF ZONING AND LAND
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
~~-~
St:1SAN M. ISTENES, AlCP, DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
IO/2'f1()f
'DA
~t._7 wjj
STEVE WILLIAMS
ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY
10(.27/0 If
DATE
APPROVED BY:
""r1c....lt~
J PH K. SCHMI
ITY DEVELOP!lffiNT & ENVIRONMENTAL
S RVICES DIVISION ADMINISTRATOR
/,bid
/ D TE
Tentatively scheduled for the December 2, 2008 Board of County Commissioners Meeting
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION:
MARK P. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN
Supplemental Report
Naples Grande Beach Resort, SV-2008-AR-13374
Page 3 013
RECEIVED
_..Each comm. Rec'd Copy OCT I 5 2008
Agenda Item No. 7A
December 2, 2008
Page 11 of 47
Collier CoWl!)' Commissioners:
Frank Halas
Donna Fiala/
Tom Henning
Fred Coyle
Jim Coletta
,\; I ~
October 11, 2008 yV . Y JI1. cJT1.
!. rf" I /P ~I
~r ' ,V f~' \l
;1;, ~ vTy~
Y..~ vP", \
'V' l;"'" I:}
l\o 1 Y Jvf(
I am a perrmment resident of St. Tropez Condominium in PeliCan :Bay. whose property /~.
adjoins The Naples Grande Hotel. I am aware that The Naples Grande Hotel is petitioning
the Collier COWl!)' P1anning Commission for seven (7) variances pertaining to the
placement of signs on Seagate Drive. These signs would be advertising The Strip House
Restaurant located at the Grande. I object to these signs, sight Wlseen, for the following
reasons:
Board of County Commissroru:!rs
5501 Heron Point Drive ~02
Naples, FL 34108
Dear Commissioners,
1. The words advertising a restaurant called The Strip House are not considered
appropriate with two churches and a Collier County Public School, Seagate
Elementary, located on the same street and in close proximity to the hotel. Advertising
the restaurant name with signs on that small street may wen be accepted in New York
but certainly not in Naples.
2. If variances are approved by the Commissioners, what is to prohibit other restaurants
located in Waterside Shops from also putting up signs on Seagate as well? Will
additional signs have a negative or positive impact upon that area?
3. What will prohibit the two churches, St. William Church and The First Church of
Christ, the U S Trust Bank, a Real Estate business, Hertz Car Rental, from putting up
signs of advertisement? Do we want this short street to replicate some of the streets in
.!,o+! Myers otMi!!JIli? I hardly think so. Management of the. Grande, or its reJltaur@t
lessee, may feel that the restaurant needs signs to be successful. There are other media
in which advertising may take place without some of the negative implications
mentioned above.
Please review aU the possible negatives before you determine whether an approval of the
variances may be made, even if the restaurant name changes. I have been a resident of
Naples and Collier County for 39 years, having raised my five children in this wonderful
community. Plesse be very cautious of the decision you may make. rm sure you will.
~~e;~, L--
~.~so~
Appendix 1
, ,
"~f,l:'.;;"'\"l.;>..;.:;:J;.
'~'"^;.. .
.:...,.
Agenda Item No. 7 A
December 2, 2008
Page 12 0147
Appendix 2
j ::! fiH'!U
!i I- .1'~
<(cor-- m I J ~.;qJ-
,,-0"" ~ i
,0_ I
,._N 0 i IHWill'
'C') I ~
~~ I ~ ~I r II ·
~
"",,,, ~J I " ! ~I ~ ' .-
m -'f 'll
~.D0l I Ilii~!ril
-E'" ~ ~
'" '" 0. !l ~
'Ou ~ l!i~~ II ih
c OJ
gj,o
<(
.
11'
i
..
]l.
en 5~
,,~
cc: .,8
w -~'!
S z h
2: '" it
"'
=a ..... '" ~.
.... " E.
en I- u; ~ '!i
t::l :c z 11-
0 '" ~f
2: 3: ~ m
i= 1l.
~ <> -ei
en ii: ~
>< lil u
.... 2: a. ~ Ji:!
... lor..
~ "' H
.. zz
W ~ ':'=N
Z H
w
<!l l)&
~
"
;"
w
~
'"
b b ..
.; .; z
0
~
~
W
I-
Z
0
IE
R
~
'<1 .Il-.~
I. .V.-6~ .1
.~I..v
APPENDIX 3
AG~&~~o6~ .
Page 14 of 47
co18tr County
. ~ ,- ..- -
STAFF REPORT
TO:
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
HEARING DATE: OCTOBER 2, 2007
SUBJECT: PETITION SV-200S-AR-13374, NAPLES GRANDE BEACH RESORT
PROPERTY OWNERI APPLICANT:
Mr. Hunter Hansen
LehiIJ Partners, L.P.
475 Seagate Drive
Naples, FL 34103
REOUESTED ACTION:
The applicant is requesting a total of seven Variances from Subsection 5.06.04.C.I of the Land
Development Code (LDC) for on-premises signs, as allowed in Section 5.06.00 of the LDC, to
permit four signs instead of two per street frontage; and to permit each of these signs to have less
than the required I,OOO-foot separation from each other.
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The subject site is located west of the Tamiami Trail North (US 41) and Pine Ridge Road (CR
896) intersection, at 475 Seagate Drive, located in the Pelican Bay PUD, in Section 9, Township
49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida (see location map on the following page).
PURPOSEIDESCRIPTIONOF PROJECT:
The applicant is seeking to legitimize two, existing, four square-foot logo medallions mounted
on two, approximately 14-foot columns flanking either side of the entrance to the Naples Grande
Beach Resort (formerly known as the Registry Resort Hotel) (see graphic in Appendix 1). These
medallions, considered signage by the LDC, replaced two similar medallions used by the prior
tenant which, according to County records, never had pennits. According to LDC Subsection
5.06.04.C.1, the site is only permitted to have a maximum of two pole or ground signs, provided
that these signs are separated by 1,000 feet. As depicted on the magnified partial site plan on the
following page, entitled "Naples Grande Beach Hotel, 475 Seagate Drive-Naples, Fla. 34103,
Sign Variance Plans and Elevations," dated July 8, 2008, as revised tluough July 10,2008, the
SV-2008-AR-13374
Page 1 of8
I
<tOOl'- !I i
1'-0..,. I
0_
-:-N 0
-'" I
"~ I
~Ql
QlQlOl I a.
_.0",
~Eo. ~ ! <(
",Ql
C " I 2
Ql Ql . .
OlO t I
<t . .
I C>
: i
z
I ~ -
- . Z
I.
I 0
1 N
i
I
I
I
I
I ...
~ i ~
f "
!i I "
~i I "'
I ..
~ ,
I ~
0
0
N
nr:GOI.tllll I Z- :>
(J)
- ..
z
0
f-
--~ >=
it w
~ . "-
. . i
lJI'O'll:.lIIOoftW I ~.tl a.
III <(
.i! II" i I 2
I i~ i I il
Z
~ll" !j - 0
I -
. . I-
0
--- <(
~ t)
bo'lt'lll"IWt_J. . 0
....J
.
.
IiI.
CULF
OF
MEXICO
+
...
+
+
+
Agenda Item No. 7A
December 2, 2008
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ,. +~~6 0:<47
\10' ~ 'h' ." ~ '"
'l" V' ... ~ .... '"
+""
>
+
.. >lo' .... '"
.... .. . -+
...
+
EXISTING ENTRY AND
EXIT DRIVEWAY
\
\ \\ '" .y
\ \": : : : :: : .. . . . . " . " . .
\~.:. . . . .'::::::::
\\~\b .jI ~ "'_ ~..v ~ ... .v 'f" \II .... '" *' .... .... ..... ....
\%. <to '*' *' '" .... .... .... .... ....
,\<1:. ~...."""~++"'++
~~ : : : : : :: + + + + + :
~
+
.
+
. EXISTING LANDSCAPE
AREA
+
+
+
>
~
~
~ . ...
...
+
+
+ +
'"' W -v \l'
EXISTING LANDSCAPE
AREA
.'
>
+
+
>
+
+
...
>
+
+
>
...
...
.
+
~
,..'"
/'
...--/
,-
..
SIGN"S'
EXISTING CDLUMN-
W / LETTER SIGN
SIGN 'D' +
PROPOSED FREE
, S;ANDI~G SI~Nl+
,.
',).. ? '" ~
o. ,
'. ...
./ ...
.>
----- ~
------ SIDEWALK -......-............... '?
--.0:....._ ~ Iv""
,. ... -~"""~ '" .,&
~~...+.................~~~'-.'" c,"
w ""..:,r SIGN 'C' , ..'
'" -.:,. '" ~ .,:. '" , EXISTING COLUMN .... 6 "
: ... : ... : ... : ... ... ... : ... ... ... W: ~E~...R :I~~.~ ~
'" >$. W EXISTING LANDSCAPE ....... - ~ ... #!. ~
'" AREA '" '" oJ. . C' ,J/
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : . :f" . : )
,.. .. ..,. ,,~_ .1 .-.....v--==-nol....~ "'__ -:.. '~
----.-----'"
,.
... ...
-----'V-
...
...
..
,
.... I v 'V
... ...
.
..
...
...
>
...
...
...
~:
~,~
"
...
...
...
SCALE:
~
SEAGA IT DRIVE
5
o
5
10
20
EB
o Partial Site Plan
1949 Central Ave.
Naples, Florida 34102
License #M COO1863
Phone: 239-643--3103
Fax:: 239-643-7435
i I 1500 Jackson Street Suite 200
I ! Fort Myers, 1=19r1dll 33901
IllIcense#AACOO1863
l..J Phone: 239~278-3838
Fax: 239-27&-5356
NAPLES GRANDE BEACH HOTEL
475 SEAGATE DRIVE - NAPLES, FLA. 34103
SIGN VARIANCE PLANS AND ELEVATIONS
. Date: July 8, 08 PROJ. NO.: Sketch
Rev.: July 10, 08 0509 Number:
SK-1
Copyright@ 2008. BSSW Archltec(s, Inc. reserves
copyright eod other rlgl1~ restricting these documents to
the orIginal slle or purpose for which they were prepC'lred.
Roproductions. Ch01~gEiS or assignments are prohibited.
Agenda Item No. 7 A
December 2, 2008
Page 17 of 47
site presently has a total of three signs, and the applicant is proposing,one more. The existing.
permitted, principle sign, labeled as "Sign A" on the site plan, is a ground sign located within the
landscaped island at the main entrance of the hotel. The two, four sqUllIe-foot logo medallions,
labeled as "Sign B" and "Sign C," are mounted on the aforementioned columns flanking either
side of the driveway entrance into the hotel. These column signs are approximately 66 feet
forward of the monument sign, and are only separated from each other by only 40. The proposed
fourth sign, labeled as "Sign D," would be an approximately eight foot-wide and five foot-tall
pole sign advertising the hotel's steakhouse (see graphic in Appendix 2). This sign would be only
ten feet forward of Sign B, and approximately 96 feet and 156 feet from signs C and A,
respectively.
If the signs are approved, the following Variances would be needed for the distances between the
four signs: '
1. 66 feet between A and B;
2. 66 feet between A and C;
3. 40 feet between B and C;
4. 156 feet between A and D;
5. 71 feet between B and D;
6. 96 feet between C and D.
7. A seventh Variance is required in order to permit a total of four signs along a street
frontage instead ofthe LDC maximum of two.
AERIAL PHOTO OF SITE
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North: Multi-family housing, zoned Pelican Bay POO
South: Single-family housing, City of Naples
East: Multi-family housing, zoned Pelican Bay POO
West: Conservation land, zoned Pelican Bay POO
SV-2008-AR-13374
Page 4 of 8
Agenda Item No. 7 A
December 2, 2008
Page 18 of 47
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY:
The subject property is located in the Urban Designation, Mixed Use District, Urban Residential
Subdistrict of the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the GMP, The GMP does not address
individual Variance requests but focuses on the larger issue of the actual use. The Pelican Bay
PUD is consistent with the FLUM.
Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes that the proposed use for the subject site is
consistent with the Future Land Use Element, although the Variance request is not specifically
addressed.
ANALYSIS:
Section 9.04.00 of the LDC gives the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) the authority to grant
Variances. The Planning Commission is advisory to the BZA and utilizes the provisions of
Section 9.04.03.A through 9.04.03.H as general guidelines to assist in making a
recommendation. Staff has analyzed this petition relative to the evaluative criteria, and offers the
following responses:
a. Are there special conditions and circumstances existing which are peculiar to the
location, size and characteristics of the land, structure or building involved?
No. Although the mid-rise hotel that the signs would serve is set back a considerable
distance from Seagate Drive, it is still visible from the roadway. Therefore, additional
signage is not essential for guests' locational pwposes. Nevertheless, the logo signs do
indeed make it easier to see the entrance to the hotel from a much greater distance on
Seagate Drive, as the hotel building is situated behind a bend in the road. With respect to
the steakhouse sign, although the restaurant is not visible from the roadway, the existing,
permitted sign within the hotel main entrance's landscaped island is permitted a 60 square-
foot area, which is sufficient to advertise both the hotel and its on-site steakhouse.
b. Are there special conditions and circumstances which do not result from the action of
the applicant, such as pre-existing conditions relative to the property, which is the
subject of the variance request?
Yes. The applicants were nof aware that the former hotel tenant had installed the original
medallion signs on the 14-foot columns illegally. It was not until after they replaced the
former tenant's logos with lheir own that they learned that the previous signs had never
been permitted. The applicants would, therefore, like to legitimize the two, small signs
with this Variance request rather than leaving the columns bare. However, the proposed
fourth sign (a pole sign advertising the hotel's steakhouse) is not a pre-existing condition
and is a result of the applicant's action.
Co Will a literal interpretation of the provisions of the LDC work unnecessary and
undue hardship on the applicant or create practical difficulties for the applicant?
No. The hotel building would not suffer undue hardship since a literal interpretation of the
LDC would allow the applicants to keep the existing, principal sign in its present location,
and even include text advertising the on-site steakhouse. However, the applicant contends
SV-200B~R-13374
Page 5 of8
Agenda Item No. 7A
December 2. 2008
Page 19 0147
that this would create a hardship since this sign already exists without space for the
steakhouse, so that sign would have to be replaced in order to add the restaurant name.
With respect to the four square- foot logo signs, they are replacing the existing logo signs
on the two entry column. If this variance were denied, then the applicant would be left with
two, bare 14-foot columns flanking its entrance.
d. Will the variance, if granted, be the minimum variance that will make possible the
reasonable use of the land, building or structure and which promote standards of
health, safety and welfare?
No, the hotel already displays one monument sign, which makes reasonable use of the
hotel building possible; and as previously noted, this sign could accommodate additional
text advertising the steakhouse. However, the petitioner contends that if the two small logo
signs are not permitted, the hotel would be left with two square columnar structures at its'
. entrance, which (in staffs opinion) would become rather odd-looking and unattractive
without the logo signs they were intended to display.
e. Will granting the variance confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied
by these zoning regulations to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning
district?
Yes, a Variance by definition confers some dimensional relief from the zoning regulations
specific to a site. The granting of this Variance request would allow three more signs that
would be much closer together than that prescribed by the LOC, thereby conferring on the
applicants a special privilege.
f. wm granting the variance be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this
Land Development Code, and not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise
detrimental to the public welfare?
Section S.06.01.A. of the LOC states that the purpose and intent of the LOC relative to
signage is to ensure that all signs are:
1. Compatible with their surroundings.
2. Designed, constructed, installed and maintained in a manner that does not
endanger public safety or unduly distract motorists.
3. Appropriate to the type of activity to which they pertain.
4. Large enough to convey sufficient information about the owner or occupants
of a particular property, the products or services available on the property, or
the activities conducted on the property and small enough to satisfy t~ needs
for regulation.
5. Reflective of the identity and creativity of the individual occupants.
In staffs opinion, the requested logo signs advance all of these objectives. Therefore,
approval of the Variance for these signs would be consistent with the purpose and intent of
the LDC. However, it is staffs opinion that the proposed eight-foot by five-foot steakhouse
sign would not only be incompatible with its surroundings and much larger than necessary
SV-2008-AR-13374
Page6of8
Agenda Item No. 7 A
December 2, 2008
Page 20 of 47
(since its information could be conveyed on the existing permitted 60-foot area ground
sign), it is also inconsistent with the provisions of the LDC.
g. Are there natural conditions or physically indnced conditions that ameliorate the
goals and objectives of the regulation such as natnral preserves, lakes, golf courses,
etc.?
No. As illustrated in the graphic in Appendix 2, the multi-story hotel could still be viewed
by travelers from Seagate Drive, even if the requested signage was not permitted. However,
because of the bend in the entrance from Seagate Drive, the logo medallions would assist
travelers to locate the access point to the hotel from a much greater distance.
h. Will granting the variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan?
Yes. Approval of this Variance petition would be consistent with the GMP since it would
not affect or change any of the GMP's requirements.
EACRECOMMENDATlON:
The Environmental Advisory Council does not normally hear Variance petitions and did not hear
this one.
SUMMARY FINDINGS:
Staff has analyzed the guidelines associated with this Variance and has determined that the
request for the two logo medallions is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the signage
provisions of the LDC due to special conditions peculiar to the hotel, circumstances that do not
result from the action of the applicant, physically induced conditions of the site, and the fact that
the Variance for the logo medallions is consistent with both the GMP and the purpose and intent
of the LDC. However, staff is opposed to the proposed steakhouse sign (sign D) due to the fact
that it is inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the LDC, and because its text could be
included on the site's approved ground sign.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition SV-2008-AR-
13374 to the Board of Zoning Appeals with a recommendation of approval for a Variance to
approve three signs per road frontage instead of two; and to permit these three signs to have the
following separation distances: 66 feet between A and B; 66 feet between A and C; and 40 feet
between B and C. Staff does not recommend approval of the proposed steakhouse sign, labeled
as D on the attached site plan.
APPENDICES:
Appendix I: Sign B and C Elevation
Appendix 2: Strip House Sign Photo Overlay
SV.200B-AR-13374
Page 7 of 8
PREPARED BY:
JOHN AVID MOSS, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
PRINCIPAL PLANNER
REVIEWED BY:
~~~7.wl~
HEIDI ASHTON-CICKO
ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY
~ <r /?1
RA ND V. BELLOWS, MANAGER -
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
~ "--1Yl. Is~
..JfuSAN M ISlh'NES, AICP, DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
APPROVED BY:
JO E H K. SCHMITT, ADMINISTRATOR
C ITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL
S ICES DIVISION
Agenda Item No. 7A
December 2, 2008
Page 21 0147
2/1/dt
ATE I
9 -/b -Oif'
DATE
"1~ (O-o'({
. DATE
7' Ill/fit?
I DATE
9fi:~
ATE
Tentatively scheduled for the December 2, 2008 Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION:
14~t~N
SV-20DB-AR-13374
Page8of8
1
.(
j
10- 16 r 0 [{
DATE
.0)
Proposed Sign
11II0 Scale
PROPOSED LETTER SIGN
EXISTING STUCCO CLAD
. MASONRY COLUMN
1949 Central AVe.
Naples, Florida. 34102
LIcense #M CO01863
Phone: 239-643--3103
Fax: 23g..643~7435
~ 1500 JaCkson street Suite 200
Fort Myers, Florida 3$901
License #M CO01863
Phone: 239-278.3638
Fax: 239~275.5356
Copyright @2008. BSSW Architects, Inc. reserves
. copyright and other rtghts restricting these documents to
the original site or purpose for which they were prepared,
Reproductions, changes or assignments are prohibited.
2'-0.
.
o
I
N
o
~
.~!!,t;'.~~4~~Ii~~fi .
.< '. '. ',;'.-;:" '.'." ".. '.." . :-.:';.;":.:;:.\~.:. ;.,,\
;,_",.','; :':.'i, ",'
.:' .....",
'.
..J
<(
::>
a
w
+l
.
'"
.
...
I
-...
. 2'-1 5/8"' 2'-1 1/2"" ,
J
4'-3" :J:
SQUARE
..J
<(
::>
a
w
J
8
Sign. "8" & 'C. Elevation
Scale: 1/2n = 1'_on
NAPLES GRANDE BEACH HOTEL
475 SEAGATE DRIVE - NAPLES, FLA. 34103
SIGN VARIANCE PLANS AND ELEVATIONS
Date: July 8,08 PROJ, NO.: Sketch
Rev.: 0509 Number: $K-2
<(CO..... Ij 0
.....0<1' ~
~,~o
"'" !!l i I
'N I
Q)C.la.> . 1 l;; (g
--" '" ! i
-E'" la ~I
"'",0- I~!j ~ I ~I
"u
c: '" f!! i!!
1i,o 1!i 1l 1l
<(
~
~
~
Q)
1ij
b3
o
-
-
o
Z
~
~
o
b
:x:
10..
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
WWW.COLLlERGOV.NET
(i)
2800 NORTH HORSESHaaEfil~m No. 7A
NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 December 2, 2008
(239) 252-2400 FAX (239) ~'t~~f 47
SIGN VARIANCE PETITION
LDC Section 9.04.00
. .
PETITION NUMBER (AR)
PROJECT NAME
. PROJECT NUMBER
DATE PROCESSED
COORDINATING PLANNER
SV-2008-AR-13374 REV: 2
[NAPLES GRANDE BEACH RESORT
Project: 19990422
Date: 8/1/08 DUE; 8/] 5/08
]
ABOVE TO BE COMPLETED BY STAFF
APPLICANT / OWNER INFORMATION
PETITIONER'S NAME: Lehill Partners L.P.
ADDRESS 475 Seagate Drive, Naples, FL 34103
PHONE# 239-597-3232 CELL# FAX #
E-MAIL ADDRESS:hhansen@luxuryresorts.com
AGENT: FIRM:
ADDRESS
PHONE# CELL#
E-MAIL ADDRESS:
FAX #
Be aware that Collier County has lobbyist regulations. Guide yourself
accordingly
and ensure that you are in compliance with these regulations.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY
Agenda Item No. 7 A
Pa e250147
SECTION/TOWNSHIP/RANGE: 9/49/25 See Attached Exhibit "A" PROPERTY 1.0.#
SUBDIVISION NAME: UNIT BLOCK LOT
METES & BOUNDS DESCRIPTION:
ADDRESS OF SIGN LOCATION:
CURRENT ZONING: LAND USE OF SUBJECT PARCEL:
Length & Height of wall upon which the Sign will be secured: (If Wall Sign)
Width of Subject Property:
Road Frontage)
NATURE OF PETITION
Provide a detailed explanation of the variance request including what signs are
existing and what is proposed; the amount of encroachment proposed using
numbers, I.e. reduce setback from 15' to 10'; why encroachment is necessary; how
existing encroachment came to be; etc.
Please note that staff and the Collier County Planning Commission shall be guided in their
recommendation to the Board of zoning Appeals, and that the Board of zoning appeals shall
be guided in its determination to approve or deny a variance petition by the below listed
criteria (1-6). (Please address the following criteria using additional pages if necessary.)
1. Are there special conditions and circumstances existing which are peculiar to the
location, size and characteristics of the iand, structure, or building involved.
None
2. Are there special conditions and circumstances which do not result from the action of
the applicant such as pre-existing conditions relative to the property which is the
subject of the variance request.
Yes, under our previous name, "Registry Resorl" the "R" logo ws displayed on the same pillars.
3. Will a literal interpretation of the provisions of this zoning code work unnecessary and
undue hardship on the applicant or create practical difficulties on the
applfcant.
No
4. Will the variance, if granted, be the minimum variance that will make possible the
reasonable use of the land, building or structure and which promote standards df
health, safety or welfare.
Yes
5. Will granting the variance requested confer on the petitioner any speciat-(plI1lfflegElltllmt7A
is denied by . ~he~e zoning regulations to other lands, buildings, b'r~~if6~~~
In the same zoning district.
Yes
6. Will granting the variance be in harmony with the intent and purpose of this zoning
code, and not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public
welfare.
Yes
7. Are there natural conditions or phYSically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals
and objectives of the regulation such as natural preserves, lakes, golf course, ete.
No
8. Will granting the variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan?
Yes
AFFIDAVIT
Agenda Item No. 7A
December 2, 2008
Page 27 0147
We/I, LeHill Partners L.P. being first duly sworn, depose and say that we/I am/are the
owners of the property described herein and which is the subject matter of the.
proposed hearing; that all the answers to the questions in this application, including
the disclosure of interest information, all sketches, data, and other supplementary
matter attached to and made a part of this application, are honest and true to the best
of our knowledge and belief. We/I understand that the information requested on this
application must be compiete and accurate and that the content of this form, whether
computer generated or County printed shall not be altered. Public hearings will not be
advertised until this application is deemed complete, and all required information has
been submitted.
As property owner We/I further authorize Hunter H. Hansen
representative in any matters regarding this Petition.
---------~-----------
Signature of Property Owner
Hunter H. Hansen
Typed or Printed Name of Owner
to act as our/my
Signature of Property Owner
Typed or Printed Name of Owner
Bf foregoing instrumen~as acknowledged before me this ;;? '7 davof
___Idl~____, 2rJ;;B_, by __~!:___\jQ.ll~___who!!Jlefsonally known to /i19r
has p" duced ________________________as identification.
SV_2008-AR-13374 REV: 2
NAPLES GRANDE BEACH RESORT
Project: 19990422
Date: 8/1/08 DUE: 8/15/08
(Signature of Notary Public - State of Florida)
o'~l>P-Y """\. tWta, I}' Public State 01 Florida
~ . Melinda A Masl
'\ # My Comm~sion DD4Q45ll8
OF" EXplI"es 0510112009
(Print, Type, or Stamp Commissioned
Name of Notary PubliC) .
fY\.eAi!\citL A . m Clli I
Agenda Item No. 7 A
December 2, 2008
Page.2Bof47
SY-2008-AR-13374 KEY; 2
NAPLES GRANDE BEACH RESORT
Project; 19990422
Date; 8/1/08 DUE: 8/15/08
SIGN VARIANCE PETITION
(SV) APPLICATION
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST
THIS COMPLETED CHECKLIST IS TO BE SUBMITTED WITH APPLICATION PACKET IN THE
EXACT ORDER LISTED BELOW W/COVER SHEETS ATTACHED TO EACH SECTION.
NOTE: INCOMPLETE SUMBJTTALS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED.
REQUIREMENTS #OF NOT
COPIES REQUIRED REQUIRED
Completed Application 12 X U
Completed Owner/Agent Affidavit, Notarized 1 ~ 0
Pre-application notes/minutes 12 l2SI U
Surveyor Site Plan of property depicting the 12 ~ 0
following:
a) All property boundaries & dimensions
b) North arrow, date and scale of drawing
c) All existing and proposed signs-(Iabeled as
such)
d) Existing sign setbacks & proposed sign
setbacks
Location map depicting major streets in area for 1 ~ 0
reference
Fees:
Application Fee = $2000.00
Legal Advertising Fee for BCC = $363.00
Legal Advertising Fee for CCPC = $760.00
Checks shall be made payable to: "Collier County Board of County Commissioners"
As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this
checklist is incfuded iu this submittal package. I uuderstand that failure to include all necessary submittal
infonnation may;z:e delay ofproeess this ~on.
----------------------___d::!.iZL___~_~.fcN'
Applicant! Agent Signature
----'tLL{&~_
Date
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
WWW.COLLlERGOV.NET
Agenda Item No. 7 A
December 2, 2008
2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE Page 29 of 47
NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104
(239) 403-2400 FAX (239) 643-6968
~ SV-2008-AR-13374 REV; 1
~ Naples Grande Beach Resort
Project: 19990422
SIGN VARIANCE PETITION Date: 6/10/08 DUE: 6/24/08
Project Addr/locatlon. \
Applicant Name: /.& ",J1! ~ "4-.1.1
Firm: ~~s" /~,",N /1r.A-C,4
Current Zoning: G1!V\ ~ PUvO
Owner Name: lAJ ;./ ~ (.. -CO'
Owner Address: . 'i) :r- . / t ~.A- j ~ J, -' 1/6<
dAti, {,d, r! .It/" <l !
Meeting Allendeesl (allach Sign In Sheet)
PRE-APPLICATION MEETING NOTES
& SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST
Project Name:
HI" ,bK'I
CULbtf
j)(:
~
~11ID
Phone:
Phone:
t? rI- 'DO /
NW\ \b ~ (a OJ 1004
D. 1-;pr )SIP ~
. I
CJC()O 12
SDP.-rn-c&\
\
tl
1
Agenda Item No. 7A
December 2, 2008
Page 30 of 47
. . C6) 01- 61le GtU~. .
~d0v\15ihs ~0w)~'
~ (Jy:' YVIi1t YWt ru~ (1--.
vomf!!!:!!: wwlct ~ot ()L m~~
1YO'iV\ 2 ~~r1z) R4-~
~ ~ .DW\~1A)V\; ~ oA.JA \1')0YI0& 00mv
\j()rv1 0JY\fL~ 9M! rt4 wtvM ::tIv \SV \J'~
<<rvn-cuvOJ\i\tI g) ~ Ols .'
. . uNoH \ 1t
Agenda Item No. 7A
December 2, 2008
p~ne ~1 of 47
SIGN YARIANCEPETITION
(SY) APPLICATION
SUBMITTA~ CHECKLIST
THIS COMPLETED CHECKLIST IS TO BE SUBMITTED WITH APPLICATION PACKET IN THE EXACT ORDER
LISTED 8ELOW W jCOVER SHEETS A TT ACHED TO EACH SECTION.
NOTE: INCOMPLETE SUMBITTALS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED.
#OF NOT
REQUIREMENTS COPIES REQUIRED REQUIRED
~
Completed Application (download from web site for current form) 12 17'/
Pre-Apollcotlon meetina notes 12 f/
Completed Addressinc:l Checklist, Signed ~Addressing Department I 77
Surveyor Site Pion of property depicting the following, 12
~ All property boundaries & dimensions
~ North arrow, date and scoie of drawing 1/
~ All existing ond proposed signs (labeled as such)
.~ Existing sign setbacks and proposed sign setbacks
Owner/Agent Affidavit signed & notarized I T
location map depleting major streets in area for reference I '. l/
~t
Pre-application Fee $500.00 (Applications submilled 9 months or more after the date of the iast.
pre-app meeting shaJl not be credited towards application fees and a new pre-application meeting will
be required.) .
Review Fees:
0.$2000.00 Sign Vorionce .
~After-The-Fad Zoning/Lond Use Petitions 2x the normal petition fee
~ $760.00 Estimoted legal Advertising Fee - CCPC Meeting
ga.1;363.00 Estimated legal Advertising Fee. BCC Meeting
(ony over. or under-payment will be reconciled upon receipt of Invoice from Naples Doily
News).
OTHER REQUIREMENTS,
o
o
o
AfJentlOwner Signature
Date
2
<i '"'
f'o. '"
o a
z '~
E~Q)
Q) Q) 0>
'" co
co a.
-0
c
W
[J)
<i
~.
;i
.
Q
~.
L
'~
o
~
~
u
:=
~
~
<
f
a:>
loil'
~
~,
~
I.,
......
,,'" .
th.
Z
"""'"
Z
~
foiii!I
00
~
">
<II
0::
'E
<II
E
Q.
o
Qj
>
<II
Cl
'll
C
o
...
0/1
01
C
"c.
o
N
....
o
-
C
<II
E
1:
tl
Q.
<II
Cl
u
C
o
c
VI
VI
<I>
....
'll
'll
<(
"0
~
..c
u
J:!
'll
c;
:;)
(!) '<t
co
u '<t
C N
0 I
Z M
0
0:: '1
0-
w M
Z N
Z
<( ....
<I>
... ..0
Q. E
Q :;)
w Z
Z
C> <II
C
1. v; 0
~ ..c
Q.
'lii
c
i-
o
In
.In
w
'0::
Cl
Cl
<(
...
<(
::
I
w
~
~
Q
J
G
~
i
0::
w
Cl:l
::
:;)
z
UI
IZ
10
:I:
Q.
iJ I N
~~e~
k\ ~ 1> "
Ifl N ('l
'-! J
~
'\J
~
~
'"
,;
l!!
N
o
~
'"
-0
"
'"
'S:
e
---
z
0::
V;ll/:
s.;:i:i:
Q ...
>- 0
"""
z
:).
o
u
1
~
l 1
~~
\t 11
~
<>
o
-0
rri
o
~
~
'6
c:
::l
1>'
c:
"'
Z
,
f-
W
uJ
:c
'"
;;;
z
(!)
Ui
u;
1':
"
E
::l
<>
o
o
~
"
c:
"
S2
Ii:
w
~
z
<(CO"-
r--.C>.q-
0_
.......N 0
r "'"
"",
~
",<lJ<D
_.0 OJ
-Ern
"'<DD..
'0,-,
c<D
gj,O
<(
~
(
"'/..,'./J./ /./ ,/'./,/ /,f~' ..//..:',." _,' ,.,,~,".~',
.
r'/',/' "/"",/,:~"/v,. /,',
.- <~..:;~~~..<~~/::~ '~~'~c"'hf,-' &i"~-
~.:.'.. :~t;;~;}:r;:~~' .:.: ,~k;' :.,
.~..j. ...... ~ .<8. :..
~~(~~~:~~-~,~'-~~i~~ ~r~:~_~'~:'~'>::< . >~;":l""1;
:.- /,/"'".'/;-'>'/>,':;:""'- '\S)',':~"'~'.:'~-> ,'.' <
.. ~2.~ <. \0:'<';:1'::'.. .'. : ..':.'
). ~~;~>,. : .~~ :.<< ..:~..t j;':::O~:..:;.:::.:'.::"'~~:<"~,3r<"
<. f ,. ,.. ~ :"-:'/ /' / "".'''... ~ / 0 , . ," . 1-' .' ,
/ ;>)~;)5:~>/1?":~' ~"~' ',:f;~f>
.; ~'>~-~.~~',,>:>).: ~~:~~(':. ::. ~~ -.:;.:.~:~._-.:.~~,'~<~;-..'
.' ,/. //...., /.. ....., ,., '~1""
:,," \>:.',-'\:>'<~:s.:~>> <\, "~...: ':.~'.. .. ::-( "',
.Iv/:'''''':''':'''",''./.,', ,",/.,../. /'/' ,'/' "~'~'"
,~>:<,..::.<,.,~;< ;.1;,: .:';.. ~>~ ~. . :':2~~ ':. ~ ' ,': _ . . . "
-' ~-'-:'-:/'/>/'/'O"'././- .~./ . ,."..., '.' ~, '.
>-- >~',.>,S:-'::":',\; :',.>" ,,:"": ':. 'j'>' ,
~'/is1.~~:(9 :t~5:;~.\.'.. >:::,:.,;~,~:( <I:~~~'.
.,...,,,..,....,.. .. . """~J'J
!.!~.~l.l<<{:' ;',"~i?j~~
" ":>.~," "~~', ,. . . ..:
;' ~ ~2~t::::~~~;~2?:;~~. '. ~>>> ~):, .>.),~',,~.~ ':'~.:':
'.'~: "".; :~._.::.'~:.':<(_~:::.:.,::....'>?~:<<' '/'//. . <,r'(
v. -.. ., v>>>:.
<.If.:,~,r././>>.~</~.<,/> /..','
.; :::'>'>':'''\:<'<'':'<>>>'''''''' '- ,'.
~ i "~~JCf:i,~~,'
. ':" 11:,>"" "'''''' ,. ~ . \
.....1>....
>t~}:
'/ '/,/:-,":.'>:/,<;.. ';--'././ . '.' ~<.,.~ >>..>.':, " ...
.> '::,.:~'~:~;;.:,:'~'~"~,'::'.'::;:.;"~:;> .,:'~;~.;"." '.' .~~.
: ,:',,:'<";'.,>, ..~~,'<.,>->, .t:<...~.,:'.
.r/..:/....<//,..':,....,<<,.. :.~CDE'.:'-.~ ,.'
~';~,':::~~..:-:..:>>::~.:>~:. ,,: . cc " ~ "
~,."",.:",:\-:<<,,,~<""'>' \...;: 's '
<>>'//'.../,.-;. : Q/'~, ....
.". >- :..:';.', .>::::< <'< '. '.:c:. '. l>>
'~:1i;t{i'~i[~f~~:i..~;':: ~~"~ J '" .
.~'.'
,,'!"l:l'
:'.'"
o
..0
d
.0
'..:-II!
.:'.....
>...:.:
. ..
'~::
-<
>
t:D
\J.
o
'...
::'0
d
"-
.~
......~'<
,'''' .....'
'tII..,"'?'~~.
;US~.~toWfYil'
<(OO/'--
/,--0""
..-;,~o
-/'--
':::0")
2~~
-;;;E'"
-0",0-
CU
(ll'"
",0
<(
r--~r
<<JV
<{CO'-
,-0"'"
0_
ON 0
Z 'CO
NO')
ECiiw
2.00>
-E'"
"'",D..
D"
c '"
15,0
<{
'Ij !
51 ~ ~
Ju I i
~
R
8,
~
~
~ ~
~ I
~~ ~
i!!~ !~
1Ol0 30
S:l "j
w
='
~
[;;
'"
..
,:
~
"
;2
'"
ci
uJ
...l
0>. 0>
ii!-: - ~
L:JW s:~~
wz >;26
f2~ ~i===
"'8 ~"li:
~~ ~-f5~
:~1D ~~~~
~~I ';;~~~
oc~ ~~S<j:
<;W(I) I- t::
Ollild ...!->;;;~
~~~ ~~ill~
~;i~>;~ffi&;~
o(l~>-~t,):::!!""'P.::
t')::>/:DwlSw~l:l!l'
<il z ~;;;~~:s~~~
z (!) ~C;%::e-~lX~~
o en ~~~t;~~~:::l
~ ~ ill.~Bfil~~~
c.J i ~5~z~~~~
u: ~ "~~~~l!:,,,i3
[ii ~ i!!~w~II:'!~
a... ~ :.tu~cn ~5i!
~ @ ~~~~ ~~~
~ ~ ~~::i~irlffi:IEo
W LIJ P..~i2~zt5g::r
i5 el i!i~:;~'ll~~"
" ~ rn~lMI=O~~e
~
~
!
~
i
!l;
~
U
J
~
,;
i!!l!
<l '!i
b r:- ,.---
- L::L
~
w~w
z~z
~;;~
-"'-
0:50
ll'",ii!
'!.W-'f"f
-~ "
,
/' \
, ,
~ ",
\ ,'"
, I
'. '
~
;;;:
00
w>-'
U:z
Z
Cl
"'~
.n
.9".1
o 9
cO 00
~ ,I
I "o/~'6~
,
.n'..
z
~
iil
iii
....
z
~
~
"
~
"f
<S
'"
co
"'1: 0
.. 0 :or
> lI) !::!
WQ) to
a: a:
J: W
t.l ::l
....mNo
l:)r:aN
MQ)....
...._0
I "'O'>co
a:CCl)o
<ef!Cl)i3
.O'r'~
co .. __
0'0"(0
::3..!!!~"
I a."cr .s
>1lI...1lI
cnZa.o
'15
;;;:
w
Q
'"
~
"
~
"f
~
,,=cor--
r--O""
,0_
.-N 0
-'"
''"''
QiO;Q)
_.DO>
-E'"
'" ",D..
-0"
c'"
1J,0
"=
~
~
~
~
!fj
I i I
I ~i ~I
I i
Q)
ca
Co)
en
o
-
-
o
z
..
~
0:::
~
o
5
:c
0..
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
ADDRESSING DEPARTMENT
(i)
Agenda Item No. 7A
December 2. 2008
2800 NORTH HORSES~~f~
NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 .
r
ADDRESSING CHECKLIST
Please complete the following and lax to the Addressing Department at 239-252-5724 or submit in person to the
Addressing Department at the above address.
Form must be signed by Addressing personnel prior to pre-application meeting. Not an items will apply to every proj:ct.
Items in bold type are required. Forms older than 6 morrths will require additional review and approval by the AddreSSing
Department.
PETITION TYPE (check petition type below, complete a separate Addressing Checklist for each Petition Type)
o BL (Blasting Permit)
o BD (Boat Dock Extension)
o CamivaVCircus Permit
o CU (Conditional Use)
o EXP (Excavation Permit)
o FP (Final Plat
o LLA (Lot Line Adjustment)
o PNC (Project Name Change)
o PPL (plans & Plat Review)
o PSP (Preliminary Subdivision Plat)
o PUD Rezone
o RZ (Standard Rezone)
o SOP (Site Development Plan)
o SDPA (SOP Amendment)
o SDPI (Insubstarrtial Change to SOP)
o SIP (Site Improvemerrt Plan)
o SIPI (Insubstantial Change to SIP)
o SNR (Street Name Change)
o SNC (Street Name Change - Unplatted)
o TOR (Transfer of Development Rights)
o VA (Variance)
o VRP (Vegetation Removal Permit)
o VRSFP (Vegetation Removal & Sne Fill Permn)
o OTHER .
LE~AL DESCRIPTION 01 subject property or properties (copy of lengthy description may be attaohed) ("1-- '---t '< - '1:':
~\J ~" .' ..... : '-'. L5_~.,.......,.__Lm \......... _; '~-; \ . ~ ....-, ~ ,;\ ,-"7 ., .
. ...,,-' Q , ;:;;:. '....-" ......', , --' '-~ . ,~\ ..,''-..- '\ ';-.9. L f,..., .~t:;:.o~t"l"........ j~:::-... f ,,<"'<~'-'...-\ .-\1"""", ....,. .
,--- \, ~ ,- ; - ----, ~-""""'-' ...-~...._. ~....... "'. "\, ' \,.-.....,..... '-~ '-" '-.' '-"~""', .'---.:...... }"'" -.....,
FOLIO (Property ID) NUMBER(s) of above (attach to, or associate with, legal description if more fhan one)
i~ ...:2, .~ (), r- ....., ,1'""... ~ -., /..... r':'J -;-'~
"-4-" 'I ~ ~ ,--,' '--'L...-_~ ~ ~- __
STREET ADDRESS or ADDRESSES (as applicable, if already assigned)
\_ _I, ~ t. '-..-,) ..,-......"...-" -- .,-., \l." "l..:;'_~. '~.. .
- ~ _ ' . ,_.:...>..J.c..-;...-;",,~:-,,-;,,;< '_',"-- "~i-~,,_ - - -
~.
. LOCATION MAP musl be attached showing exact location of project/sne in relation to nearest public road right-of-way
. SURVEY (copy- needed only for unplatted properties)
PRePesED PROJECT NAME (if applicable)
". . I ,.
:,,:C-LJ'9-.:~:"'<')
- ,
'. " :'.2_._"._..~".,.....;..._ i__
C~-cc:---"\ ,;::..:..;:~___ _ _ _ ~.__
'J
. .
'~;:,:..:S:-~'-~; -\
(.-
~,-"':----,,[' .
. .
~"i'.. _'_'_':::" ,
~'".---,.-
PROPOSED STREET NAMES (if applicable)
SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN NUMBER (forexisling projects/sites only)
SDP orAR#
SV-2008-AR-13374 REV: 1
Naples Grande Beach Resort
Project: 19990422
Date: 6/10/08 DUE: 6/24/08
Page 1 of2
Agenda Item No. 7 A
December 2. 2008
Page 41 of 47
ADDRESSING CHECKLIST - PAGE TWO
Project or development names proposed for, or already appearing in, condominium documents (if application: indicate
whether proposed or existing)
Please Check One:
o Checklist is to be Faxed back "--Wersonany Picked Up
APPLICANT NAME: I f,';;/J f~. ~ rJ 5,1 tI
PHONE ny? ~60/ FAX
Signature on Addressing Checklist does not constitute Project and/or Street Name approval and is
subject to further review by the Addressing Department.
FOR STAFF USE ONLY
Primary Number \ \ Co',,{; q \
Address Number
Address Number
Address Number
;\ . 1,
Approved by: ...\)V:/\.Y-;"..V";
~r',\ /; .---./ r....
!. " ~.I""::' r... ,",,~_..e>,...""'..
Date:
0... -- "2 r ~ {-., V'
'."::>.- .-1.-....: .-- '_~ ().
Updated by:
Date:
IF OLDER THAN 6 MONTHS, FORM MUST BE
UPDATED OR NEW FORM SUBMITTED
Page 2 of2
G:\Current\Application Forms\Addressing Checklist rev 042908,doc
Agenda Item No. 7 A
December 2, 2008
Page 42 of 47
RESOLUTION NO. 08-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, RELATING TO PETITION
NUMBER SV-2008-AR-13374, GRANTING SEVEN
VARIANCES FROM SECTION 5.06.04.C.1. OF THE LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE, CONCERNING THE DISTANCE
BETWEEN SIGNS AND THE NUMBER OF SIGNS PRESENT
ALONG A ROAD FRONTAGE FOR THE NAPLES GRANDE
BEACH RESORT, WHICH SIGNS ARE LOCATED AT 475
SEAGATE DRIVE, IN SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH,
RANGE 25 EAST"CQ.~IER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Fl?rida 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 No. 04-41, as amended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular
geographic divisions ofthe County, among which is the granting of variances; and
WHEREAS, 'Petitioner now owns and operates the property formerly known as the
Registry Resort Hotel, located at 475 Seagate Drive, Naples, Florida and seeks to alter the
signage on the property to conform to the new identity of the Resort; and
WHEREAS, Petitioner wishes to have signs with separations of 130.85010 feet, 65.40010
feet, 85.70010 feet, 65 010 feet, 65.85010 feet and 40.17 010 feet located about its property; and
WHEREAS, without a variance, Petitioner cannot locate signs within 1,000 lineal feet of
one another, as LDC Section 5.06.04.C.1 requires a minimum separation of 1,000 lineal feet
between signs; and
WHEREAS, Petitioner wishes to have a maximum of four signs placed along a street
frontage, including one for an on-premises restaurant; and
Page 1 of3
Agenda Item No. 7A
December 2, 2008
Page 43 of 47
WHEREAS, without a variance, Petitioner can have no more than one sign per street
frontage pursuant to LDC Section 5.06.04.C.1.
. WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Appeals (Board) has held a public hearing with due
notice made, and has considered the advisability of granting these variances; and
WHEREAS, the Board has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and
arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by the Land
Development Code; and
WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this Board
in public meeting assembled and the Board having considered all matters presented.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the Board hereby approve seven variances from LDC
Section 5.06.04.C.1., six of which concern distance between signs and one of which concerns the
number of signs permissible along road frontage, as requested in Petition SV-2008-AR-13374,
filed by Hunter Hansen, on behalf of the Petitioner, Lehill Partners, L.P. d/b/a Naples Grande
Beach Resort, subj ect to the signs being erected in the fashion and at the distances contained in
Exhibit "B", the site plan, and further subject to the Conditions of Approval contained in Exhibit
"C", concerning the subject property described as 475 Seagate Drive, Naples, Collier County,
Florida, as more particularly described in OR Book 1225, Page 7l4, (Legal Description attached
as Exhibit "A") of the Official Public Records of Collier County, Florida.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number SV-
2008-AR-13374 be recorded in the minutes of this Board.
This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote this _ day of
,2008.
Page 2 oB
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
By:
, Deputy Clerk
Approved as to form
and legal sufficiency:
Steven T. Williams yr..]
Assistant County Attorney
Exhibit "A": Legal Description
Exhibit "B"; Site Plan
Exbibit "e"; Conditions of Approval
Agenda Item No. 7A
December 2, 2008
Page 44 of 47
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA
By:
TOM HENNING, CHAIRMAN
Page 3of3
J
Exhibit A
\1~-eii A. No. 7A
I!l:i'l>'\!",;i. . _.' 2, 2008
. 450f47
-~
HOLE, MONTES AND ASSOC.. INC. r.br\llllry Etf 1985
CONSULTING lNGlNI!t:nS ..lAN'D sunvevtms
~~~erl~tion of p~rt of Parcel ~D. of P~llcan Day UnIt OnOt plat nook
12, PA9vB ~1 throuqh 51, Collier cou~ty. FIDrida.
!!2!fk.!.t!!:
~Jj that part of par~cl -D" Df PelJcan Bay Unit One according to the
pl.t.thercof .s recorded In Plat Dook 12, ~a9~s 4' thrDu9h 52. toliier
Countf PublJe Reeord5, Collier County, ~lDrlda and beIng mDre
~~rtleuJarJy described as f~JloV~1
Co~~encln9 at the Bouthvest earner bt the
f 14t:1d,
beJ..n; more
Cont4in1nv 14.95 ~~r~B of
~~E!.=..!:~?r.Lecord..
14nd more or l~J$ ~ubject to eCBe~ent$ end
:SO
:'.1
=!
~
.>
;;')
."
....""'-'-'.....
:;:..~~~.:~t.J,j,'i!.~;...~.,.;..;li.....:.j;;.:.,.l,..:.:;:...:.:.;.;.;':'<:':O....'.~'-
<(OO....
....0""
0_
ON 0
ZN"(O
E ~ ""
lllQ)Q)
_.0 '"
-E'"
"'Q)D-
Uo
CQ)
~o
<(
s: ,!q Jllxg
~
II
~
;-r')D.VJ:I:
/i:i<il:l-F
~I.I..Q(.)5
:::l" !Q en ./- Q...I/l I
Z ioO ZW-!-'
(~fQ"':l.-~~~~W5
o 00/....=:1. i5(J1
'~/Il f5 eN in
wen t-~/::i.t5~o
5~ GJ~ ~a:=d
, g." <.>~~~~...
/ ('I u(f)lij'"""
~F ~ ~~!,):1
~x ~ dum w
,,"<to'
,",0 ZN.
5 5F 0
~ ~~
:>
" lZ
u
"'
W
%
::l
i=
'"
w
"-
o
'"
"-
o
~
"
o
i'!
~
;:i
uo
.... <L>--
~!tl~
:>0",
=>. .
Z"'N
gcjc
w5:2!1
r:;o(,;l
ceUO",
~~2S
0"'''-
<.>"0
~~eJ
5F~
a::~~
k
100
0%
rn5
!:f,,-
'"
.
'"
'"
"
!'l
'"
"
"'
51 f
sO;
't~;
!!h~l
jil;;].!
--,at
.!i!f!
"~.H
it~~gj
..<_"1
;"~;"'-i
H-jJ'
~~ II
~l", .!j
"fi
Ii. hi
lIliiti!
iilMi
1....:1..
.' "<'.
.<.If'.
ffIO";f
:u!~..
iG~t-lm_~_1
1J
N
C
N
g
~ 9
~ ~
e
"
~
Q
~
." .
.~I
."i
:ij
.~
~4'
~~~
III :~: ~
.: .~
~~, .
Gll:6~
~
~
i
~
~
Q
.
!
.
~
~~ ~
~~
g' ot((
~E. i!i= .,
10 ~". "
x
~ ~hgp
::: ~ . ~i~:il
0 ~ : d~'
'" I: giir/I~
0
53 ~j la ~ta
~ . I~i !
"
I~I
" f
' .
.-... fQ
. t.iiS,t i
Ii! ':;1 dl!!
Agenda Item NO.7 A
December 2, 2008
Page 47 of 47
Conditions of Approval
SV-2008-AR-13374
October 20, 2008
1. Irrespective of that depicted on the Master Plan entitled "Naples Grande,"
by Charles Tolton and Associates, Inc, dated October 20, 2008 and
included as Exhibit B, the nunlber of signs on the site shall be limited to
only three, which are those identified as "A," "B" and "C."
2. The separation Variances granted shall be limited to the following: 65.85
feet between signs A and B; 65.40 feet between signs A and C; and 40.l7
feet between signs B and C.