Agenda 04/08/2014 Item # 11D4/8/2014 11. D.
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. Recommendation to determine
that the proposed Orchid Run Apartments project does not satisfy the criteria for exemption to
allow for a stormwater discharge rate above the .15 cubic feet per second (CFS) limit expressed in
Policy 6.3 of the Stormwater Management Sub - Element of the Growth Management Plan (GMP).
OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) determine that the proposed
Orchid Run Apartments project does not satisfy the criteria for exemption to allow for a
stormwater discharge rate above the .15 cubic feet per second (CFS) limit expressed in Policy
6.3 of the Stormwater Management Sub - Element of the Growth Management Plan.
CONSIDERATIONS: Policy 6.3 of the Stormwater Management Sub - Element limits the
stormwater discharge rate for projects, with the limits of discharge allocated per basin. When
not basin specified, the limit expressed is .15 cfs /acre. Contained in the same policy is a
provision which states, "The County may exempt projects from these allowable off-site discharge
rates if any of the following applies. 1. The project is part of an existing South Florida Water
Management District (SFWMD) permit, which allows discharge rates different than those listed
above. 2. It can be documented that the project currently discharges off -site at a rate higher
than those listed above. " The full policy has been attached within Exhibit "A ".
The Orchid Run project is a proposed multi - family development located on a 20 -acre parcel,
zoned within the Grey Oaks PUD/DRI, at the southwest corner of Livingston Road and Golden
Gate Parkway. Currently, the proposed project does not possess an existing SFWMD permit
that exceeds the policy limits and could not qualify for the exemption as contained in Policy
6.3. On February 11, 2014, the County received a correspondence from Bruce Anderson,
representing the project developer, proposing to merge the proposed Orchid Run water
management system with the County's existing stornwater system serving the adjacent section
of Livingston Road (Exhibit "B "). Within the correspondence, Mr. Anderson states, "The
combined systems would discharge at a rate equivalent to the rate currently approved by South
Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) for Livingston Road plus the County approved
rate of 0.15 CFS for the Orchid Run drainage basin. There is nothing in the GMP or in the
County's Ordinance No. 01 -27 which would prohibit the proposed sharing of drainage
discharge. Additionally, Policy 6.3 allows the County to expressly exempt this project under
Paragraph 92 by adding it to the County's existing permit, which allows a discharge rate of 54.9
CFS. " The proposal to combine the drainage systems would allow for the project to then
qualify for the exemption based upon the County's existing permitted District discharge rate
exceeds the .15 cfs /acre limit of Policy 6.3.
On March 4, 2014 within an e -mail correspondence to County Staff (Exhibit "C "), the applicant
provides an argument to establish that the Orchid Run project is a party to the existing County
District permit that discharges above the limits of Policy 63. In summary, the applicant states,
that the County received a variance for the higher discharge from the District in 1997 and at the
time, the eastern 100 feet of Orchid Run parcel was included or covered by the permit. Because
Packet Page -538-
4/8/2014 11. D.
a portion on the property was included within the District permit, the applicant argues that the
entire parent parcel should be considered part of the existing permit. Subsequently, in 1998
portions of the property was acquired through the eminent domain process as depicted within the
attached Order of Taking (Exhibit "D "). Further the applicant claims, the County maintains a
25 -foot wide non - exclusive easement on the Orchid Run parcel that was part of the area covered
by the County's District permit and therefore the entire Orchid Run Project qualifies for the
policy exemption. The applicant's position concludes that there is precedent for sharing the
approved discharge rate in this location. The Florida Power and Light (FPL) substation at the
northwest corner of the Livingston/Golden Gate intersection was allowed to connect to the
County's system.
Staff has reviewed the arguments contained in the March 4"' correspondence and provides a
number of counterpoints. While a portion of the Orchid Run parcel was part of the 1997 District
permit for the County's Livingston Road project, the percentage of land area was under twenty
percent of the total parcel area. Therefore, a majority of the Orchid Run project parcel was not a
part of the County's District permit. Within the Order of Taking, the County provided the parcel
owner $213,750 and with stated compensation, the claims to being part of the original County
permit are muted. Within the Order of Taking, it is stated that the taking of the property is
"reasonably necessary to serve the public purpose for which the property is being acquired."
The importance of this lies within the fact the existing District permit was issued for the
Livingston Road project, a recognized public purpose. The eventual development of the Orchid
Run project is clearly for a private purpose. Finally addressing the past precedent cited within
the e -mail, the FPL sub - station, which inter - connects to the county's system, is a partnership
between a Public Entity and a Land Development Code recognized Essential Service.
Additionally, the FP &L station has minimal impervious area and thus limited impact on the
County's discharge resources.
Within the correspondence dated February 11, 2014, (Exhibit `B ") the applicant states that the
design of the proposed dual systems would allow the County to address existing inconsistencies
between the design of the current County's system and the existing District permit. The
applicant states that the current design of the County's system results in the stormwater pond at
the southeast corner of the Golden Gate /Livingston intersection reaching elevations higher than
the elevations it was designed to permit. Additionally, the applicant indicates that preliminary
consultation with SFWMD staff over the design of the combined system was favorable.
Staff agrees with the applicant in that there is nothing in the GMP or Ordinance #01 -27, which
would prevent the Orchid Run project from combining with the existing County's District
permit. Staff is not aware of other instances where the County has allowed for the merging of a
private development's stonnwater system to an existing
Zn
County's District permit to expressly
exempt that private development from the discharge rate limits contained in the GMP.
An assessment from the County Engineer, regarding the design difference between the two
alternatives for the Orchid Run project, adhering to the .15 cfs /acre standard or combing the
systems under the existing 54.9 cfs /acre, results in a significant difference in the amount of fill
needed for site preparation and the acreage needed for water management for the developer of
the Orchid Run project. If the project must adhere to the Policy discharge rate of .15 cfs /acre
attainment it will result in a larger volume of fill needed and land area devoted to water
Packet Page -539-
418/2014 11. D.
management for the site. The proposal to utilize the proposed combined system results in a
decrease in the volume of fill and land area dedicated to water management, thus a significant
financial benefit to the Orchid Run project. In regards to the benefit potentially received by the
County, the County Engineer identified the redundancy provided by the proposal as a benefit, but
discounted the benefit stated with the applicant's correspondence, indicating that due to the pond
being larger than the original design, that the effect of the increased peak tailwater elevation is
minimized. In review of this proposal by Transportation staff, it was pointed out that the
additional discharge capability retained by the County might be needed if future improvements
are needed to the Livingston Road /Golden Gate Parkway intersection.
In summary, while there may be minimal benefits that are derived by the public in improvements
to the County's existing water management system with the proposed combined system, Staff
does not believe that this benefit outweighs the potential negative outcome of the proposal. As
noted, Staff is unaware of any previous instances where a private development proposal is
allowed to merge with a public drainage system for specific purpose of exempting that
development from limits of stormwater discharge contained in the GMP. Additionally, the
proposal conveys significant financial benefit to a private development, by exempting the project
from a GMP policy. Finally, based upon potential future transportation improvements needs, the
additional capacity contained within the existing County District permit would be diminished
with the additional volume of discharge associated with the Orchid Run project.
It should be noted, that if the BCC concludes that the Orchid Run project can seek to merge with
the County's existing District pen-nit, then the project would need to obtain all necessary
easements and /or agreements with the County. In addition, the project would need to satisfy the
application requirements of the Water Management District to modify the County's District
permit. In addition, since this involves a public asset, the County Attorney's office has noted a
public bid process may be required. As noted, at the time of this hearing, the project does not
have an existing District permit that exceeds the discharge rate of Policy 6.3 and therefore
would not meet the criteria for an exemption. Only if the BCC directs for a merging of the
systems and subsequently, the applicant successfully modifies the existing County District
permit, could the project qualify for the exemption.
FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impacts for the County associated with this item are the potential
future replacement costs to create additional discharge capacity should the County require such
for any future modifications to this intersection or roadway. This improvement's value has not
been quantified.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been reviewed by the County Attorney, is approved
for form and legality, and requires majority vote for Board approval. It is my understanding that
the Developer is requesting this to lower his costs of fill for development of the project.
Provided that the County may legally do this (and staffs opinion is that at the very least it is
contrary to the GMP), and provided that the County has no present or future need for this
capacity, the surplus capacity of the pond can be treated as surplus property, which the County
can appropriately sell with the proper public notice. -JAK
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: Policy 6.3 of the Stormwater Management Sub - Element
states that the County may exempt projects from the .15 cfs /acre stonnwater discharge rate limit.
Packet Page -540-
4/8/2014 11. D.
The BCC's decision on exempting qualifying projects from the discharge rate limit, is in
compliance with the GMP.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the BCC determine that the Orchid Run project
does not meet the exemption criteria stated in Policy 6.3 of the Stormwater Managment Sub-
Element.
Prepared By: Mike Bosi, AICP, Planning and Zoning Director
Attachments: Exhibit "A" — Policy 6.3 of the Stormwater Management Sub - Element; Exhibit
"B" - February 11. 2014 Applicant Letter and support documents; Exhibit "C" — March 4, 2014
e -mail correspondence; Exhibit "D" — Order of Taking.
Packet Page -541-
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Item Number: 11.11.D.
4/8/2014 11. D.
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.
Recommendation to determine that the proposed Orchid Run Apartments project does not
satisfy the criteria for exemption to allow for a stormwater discharge rate above the .15 cubic
feet per second (CFS) limit expressed in Policy 6.3 of the Stormwater Management Sub - Element
of the Growth Management Plan. (Mike Bosi, Planning & Zoning Director)
Meeting Date: 4/8/2014
Prepared By
Name: BosiMichael
Title: Director - Planning and Zoning, Comprehensive Planning
3/11/2014 9:04:02 AM
Approved By
Name: PuigJudy
Title: Operations Analyst, Community Development & Environmental Services
Date: 3/19/2014 2:58:43 PM
Name: McKennaJack
Title: Manager - Engineering Review Services, Engineering & Environmental Services
Date: 3/19/2014 5:00:48 PM
Name: WeeksDavid
Title: Manager - Planning, Comprehensive Planning
Date: 3 /19/2014 10:28:52 PM
Name: MarcellaJeanne
Title: Executive Secretary, Transportation Planning
Date: 3/25/2014 2:17:41 PM
Name: KlatzkowJeff
Title: County Attorney,
Date: 3/31 /2014 12:08:56 PM
Packet Page -542-
Name: KlatzkowJeff
Title: County Attorney,
Date: 3/31/2014 1:05:06 PM
Name: isacksonMark
4/8/2014 11. D.
Title: Director -Corp Financial and Mngmt Svs, Office of Management & Budget
Date: 3/31/2014 2:28:09 PM
Name: OchsLeo
Title: County Manager, County Managers Office
Date: 3/31/2014 3:11:04 PM
Packet Page -543-
4/8/2014 11. D.
EXHIBIT "A"
PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT
Stormwater Management Sub - Element
Policy 6.3:
Allowable off -site discharge rates shall be computed using a storm event of 3 day duration and
25 year return frequency. The allowable off -site discharge rates are as follows:
a. Airport Road North Sub -Basin 0.04 cfs /acre
(North of Vanderbilt Beach Road)
b. Airport Road South Sub -basin 0.06 cfs /acre
(South of Vanderbilt Beach Road)
c. Cocohatchee Canal Basin 0.04 cfs /acre
d. Lely Canal Basin 0.06 cfs /acre
e. Harvey Basin 0.055 cfs /acre
f. Wiggins Pass Basin 0.13 cfs /acre
g. All other areas 0.15 cfs /acre
(III) The County may exempt projects from these allowable off -site discharge rates if any of the
following applies:
1. The project is part of an existing SFWMD permit, which allows discharge rates different than
those listed above.
2. It can be documented that the project currently discharges off -site at a rate higher than
those listed above. The documentation required for this purpose shall be prepared by a
registered professional engineer, and will consist of an engineering study which utilizes the
applicable criteria in the " SFWMD Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permit
Applications ". The study shall be subject to review and approval by the County and SFWMD
staff. The study shall include the following site - specific information:
a. Topography
b. Soil types and soil storage volume
c. Vegetation types
d. Antecedent conditions
e. Design rainfall hydrograph
f. Depression storage capacity
g. Receiving water hydrograph, and
(III) h. Other relevant, appropriate, and professionally accepted hydrologic and hydraulic data.
Using the above information, a hydrologic and hydraulic model shall be developed which
demonstrates the higher off -site discharge rate.
Packet Page -544-
4/8/2014 11. D.
ROETZEL
850 Park Shore Drive
Trianon Centre
3rd Floor
!Iaples, Ft 341003-
DIRECT DIAL 239.649.2708
PHONE 239.649.6200 FAx 239.261.3659
banderson @ralaw.com
WWW.RALAW.COM
February 11, 2014
VIA EMAIL: JACKMCKENNA(i_PC0LL1ERG0V NET
Jack McKenna, PE
Collier County Engineer
Collier County Planning & Zoning Dept.
Engineering Services Section
2800 North Horseshoe Drive
Naples, Florida 34104
Re: Orchid Run Apartments at Livingston/GoIden Gate Parkway
Dear Jack:
This is to follow up on prior discussions with you on the above project and its drainage
discharge. The subject property is part of the Grey Oaks DRI/PUD originally approved in 1990.
Section 7.04(10) of the current PUD (attached) delegates approval of any control
elevation or discharge rate to agreements between South Florida Water Management District/Big
Cypress Basin (collectively the "District ") and the developer.
The Orchid Run project proposes to merge with the County's stormwater system serving
the adjacent section of Livingston Road. The combined systems would discharge a rate
equivalent to the rate currently approved by SFWN4D for Livingston plus the County approved
rate of 0.15 CFS for the Orchid Run drainage basin. There is nothing in the GMP or in the
County's Ordinance No. 01 -27 which would prohibit the proposed sharing of drainage discharge.
Additionally, Policy 6.3 allows the County to expressly exempt this project under Paragraph #2
by adding it to the County's existing District permit, which allows a discharge rate of 54.9 CFS.
As per the attached memo, the District has indicated conceptual approval of this proposal.
We respectfully request your approval of the proposal outlined above and detailed in the
attached Orchid Run memo prepared by Barry Jones, P.E. Approval will benefit both parties as
detailed in the attached memo.
ROETZEL B ANDRESS CHICAGO WASHINGTON, D.C. CLEVELAND TOLEDO AKRON COLUMBUS CINCINNATI
A LEGAL PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION ORLANDO FORT MYERS NAPLES FORT LAUDERDALE TALLAHASSEE NEW YORK
Packet Page -545-
Jack McKenna, PE
Collier County Engineer
Collier County Planning & Zoning Dept.
February 11, 2014
Page 2
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
RBA/dk
Enclosures
cc: Tom Cavanaugh
Barry Jones, PE
5021437 _1 124065.0001
Sincerely,
ROETZEL & ANDRESS, LPA
R. Bruce Anderson
For the Firm
Packet Page -546-
4/8/2014 11. D.
4/8/2014 11. D.
Projects shall be designed and operated so that off -site discharges will meet State water
quality standards, as set forth in Chapter 62- 302.300, F.A.C., as it existed at the date of
project approval.
(1)(11) Policy 6.2:
Collier County's retention and detention requirements shall be the same as those provided in
the South Florida Water Management District's Basis of Review, as it existed at the time of
project approval.
(1)(1f) Policy 6.3;
Allowable off-site discharge rates shall be computed using a storm event of 3 day duration
and 25 year return frequency. The allowable off-site discharge rates are as follows:
a Airport Road North Sub -Basin 0.04 cfs /acre
(North of Vanderbilt Beach Road)
b Airport Road South Sub -basin 0.06 cfs/acre
(South of Vanderbilt Beach Road)
c. C000hatchee Canal Basin 0.04 cfs /acre
d. Lety Canal Basin 0.06 cfs /acre
e. Harvey Basin 0.055 cfs /acre
f. Wiggins Fuss Basin 0.13 cfs/acre
g. Ali other arc ;as 0.15 cfs /acre
The County may exempt projects from these allowable off -site discharge rates if any of the
following applies:
i . Ths project is e;cernpt from allowable off -site discharge limitations pursuant to Section
4G =- 40,3 315, FAC.
2. The project is part of an existing SFWMD permit, which allows discharge rates
different than those listed above.
3 It can be documented that the project currently discharges off -site at a rate higher
than those listed above. The documentation required for this purpose shall be
prepared by a registered professional engineer, and will consist of an engineering
study which utilizes the applicable criteria in the "SFWMD Basis of Review for
Fnvironrnental Resource Permit Applications ". The study shall be subject to review
and approval by the County and SFWMD staff. The study shall include the following
site - specific information:
a, Topography
Soil types and soil storage volume
Veceiation types
d. Antecedent conditions
e. Design rainfall hydrograph
€i) = Plan Amendment by Ordinance No. 2007-11 on January 25, 2007 8
Packet Page -547-
4/8/2014 11. D.
J � l.� ��t � • i� �' �!1_f
,
ORDINANCE NO.07- 40
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 04-41, AS
AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH INCLUDES THE
COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR
THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE
APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY
CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE
HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM PUD
TO MPUD FOR THE GREY OAKS MPUD FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST, —
NORTHWEST AND SOUTHEAST QUADRANTS OF
THE INTERSECTION OF AIRPORT ROAD (STATE
ROAD 31) AND GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY
(COUNTY ROAD 886), IN SECTIONS 24, 25, AND 26
TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER -
COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 1,601± ACRES;
PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ORDINANCE
NUMBER 00-46, THE FORMER GREY OARS PUD;
AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
VdHEREAS, Bruce Tyson, AICP, RLA, of WiIsonMiIler, Inc., representing Naples
Grande Holdings LLC, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning
classification of the herein described real property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
SECTION ONE:
The zoning classificatioa of the real property described in the MPUD Document located
in Sections, 24, 25 and 26, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, is
changed from Planned Unit Development (PUD) to Mixed Use Planned Unit Development
(MPUD) in accordance with the MPUD Document, attached hereto as Exhibit "A," which is
incorporated herein and by reference made part hereof. The appropriate zoning atlas map or
maps, as described in Ordinance Numbar 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land
Development Code, is /are hereby amended accordingly.
Grey Oaks. PUDA- 2006 -AR- 10157 Page I of2
Packet Page -548-
4/8/2014 11. D.
8) An exotic vegetation eradication, monitoring, and maintenance (exotic free) plan
for the site, with emphasis on conservation /preservation areas, shall be
submitted to the Environmental Staff for review and approval prior to final site
plan /construction plan approval.
9) The developer shall coordinate protected wildlife species issues through the ERP
and Corps Section 404.permit review process and comply with the guidelines
and recommendations of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and Florida
Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (FGFWFC) made part of any ERP or
Section 404 permit issuance. Where protected species occur on site, a Habitat
Management Plan for those protected species shall be submitted to Current
Planning Environmental Staff for review and approval prior to final site
plan /construction plan approval.
7.04 WATER MANAGEMENT
1) Detailed, paving, grading and site drainage plans shall be submitted to
Engineering Review Services for review. No construction permits shall be Issued
unless and until approval of the proposed construction in accordance with the
submitted plans is granted by Engineering Review Services.
2) In accordance with the Rules of the South Florida Water Management District,
(SFWMD) Chapters 40E -4 and 40E -40, this project shall be designed for a storm
event of 3 -day duration and 25 -year . return frequency.
3) An excavation permit shall be required for the proposed lake(s) in accordance
With applicable County ordinances and SFWMD Rules. Several of the fakes
proposed do not meet the minimum setback requirements of County ordinances.
The Master Plan shall be revised to meet the minimum setback requirements or
documentation shall be provided during the subdivision master plan process to
allow a reduction in the setback with appropriate barriers provided.
4) The lake and swale typical cross - sections shall conform to all applicable County
ordinances.
5) Detailed site drainage plans of each drainage sub -basin shall be submitted to the
Environmental Advisory Board, or its successor, for review. No construction
permits shall be Issued unless and until approval of each individual drainage sub -
basin is granted by the Engineering Review Services.
6) An executed agreement between the applicant, Big Cypress Basin and the South
Florida Water Management District, detailed plans and associated documentation
relating to the installation of the new control structure and the relocation of the
existing amll gate structure including back pump facilities shall be submitted to
Engineering Review Services for review prior to construction plan approval.
(Revised 411 1107) 35
Packet Page -549-
4/8/2014 11.D.
7) A copy of the South Florida Water Management District Conceptual Permit or
favorable staff report shall be required prior to subdivision master plan approval.
8) A copy of South Florida Water Management District Permit or Early Work Permit
is required prior to construction plan approval.
9) Documentation from Florida Power and Light allowing use of their right -of -way for
the purposes of water management shall be provided prior to subdivision master
plan approval.
10) This approval does not constitute agreement by the County to any control
elevation or discharge rate. All agreements shall be made with South Florida
Water Management District/Sig Cypress Basin,
7.05 TRANSPORTATION
1) The developer shall provide appropriate left and/or right turn lanes on Airport
Road, Golden Gate Parkway and Livingston Road at all project accesses. This
provision shall be permitted and implemented along with a corresponding site
development plan or plat.
2) The developer shall provide arterial level street lighting at all project accesses.
This provision shall be permitted and implemented a long with a corresponding
site development plan or plat.
3) The developer shall provide a fair share contribution toward the capital cost of
traffic signals, including interconnection where applicable, at any project access
when deemed warranted by the County. The signals will be owned, operated
and maintained by Collier County,
4) Livingston Road Right of Way Dedication:
a) The developer shall dedicate sufficient right of way north of Golden Gate
Parkway to establish a right -of -way corridor 120 feet in width along the entire
length of the developer's property, taking into consideration the existing
Livingston Road right -of -way easement. Additional right -of -way within the
Florida Power and Light easement may be required subject to approval and
releases by Florida Power and Light. The developer shall pay, or may utilize
reduction of existing impact fee credits in the amount of $30,000 in full
satisfaction of the developer's obligation to reimburse the County for the
County's costs in negotiating and obtaining any approval and releases by
Florida Power and Light necessary to fulfill the 120 foot right -of -way width
requirements.
b) The developer shall dedicate 50' feet or road right of `bray south of Golden
Gate Parkway along the length of the developer's property. In addition, for a
(Revisers' 411 f/07) 36
Packet Page -550-
4/8/2014 11. D.
Orchid Run
at the southwest corner of Livingston Road and Golden Gate Parkway. It is a remnant parcel from the
original Grey Oaks DRI that was reduced in width when the Livingston Road and Golden Gate ROW limits
were expanded to their present widths. The property was partially cleared and utilized by the county for
hurricane debris storage during the clean -up for Hurricane Wilma. The property is zoned for multi-
family and is bounded on the north by Golden Gate Parkway, the east by Livingston Road, the south by
Golden Gate Canal, and the west by the Naples Grande Golf Course.
The buildable footprint of the 20 acre property is limited to 14 acres in area due to encumbrances
created by indigenous preserve requirements and easements dedicated to FPL, Collier County
Transportation, Collier County Utilities, and Big Cypress Basin. These perimeter constrictions have
combined to create a challenging piece of property to develop that is strategically located at one of the
premium intersections in Collier County.
One of the primary challenges facing this property is providing for storm water treatment and
attenuation. The development team has worked closely with FPL to craft a consent agreement allowing
for some water treatment to occur within the FPL easement but the available area is limited in size due
to FPL requirements for large diameter clear zones around the base of their transmission lines that
dominate the easement.
The developer tasked the design engineer to determine what alternatives might be available to meet
the SFWMD and Collier County design criteria and not reduce an already limited development footprint.
All practical alternatives involved joining Orchid Run with adjacent storm water systems that may have
additional capacity. The applicant entered into discussions with Naples Grande Golf Course but the new
owner of that property did not want to entertain any joint use of their pond systems. The only
remaining adjacent storm water system is that of Livingston Road.
Livingston Road
The six lane section of Livingston Road that abuts Orchid Run has a drainage system that extends from
the Golden Gate Canal north to a basin divide approximately 7800 feet north of Golden Gate Parkway.
This system also collects storm water runoff from approximately 1200 feet of the six lane section of
Golden Gate Parkway on both sides of the intersection, 24.8 acres of residential property that abuts
Livingston on the east side for 3200 feet north of Golden Gate, and the overflow from the FPL substation
at the NW corner off Livingston and Golden Gate. The entire drainage basin routed through the pond
included 28.4 acres of ROW and 25+ acres of offsite drainage to be collected into the roadway system
that is subsequently routed through an outfall structure and then south to Golden Gate Canal in a single
42" diameter pipe.
The SFWMD permitted design for the Livingston Road drainage system reflected a proposed 2 acre pond
site. Subsequent to the SFWMD permit being issued the entire 5 acre parcel at the SE corner of
Livingston and Golden Gate was acquired by Collier County and a 4 acre pond site was constructed on
the property. The permitted peak tailwater elevation for the project was set at a mean annual elevation
of 6.2 NGVD in the calculations that were submitted to and approved by SFWMD. That peak tailwater
elevation was determined at the time of permitting to be the annual high water elevation of Golden
Gate Canal at the location that the Livingston Road drainage system discharges to. The permitted design
Packet Page -551-
4/8/2014 11. D.
allowed the Livingston Road system to discharge 54.9 cubic feet per second of water to Golden Gate
Canal during the 25 year, 3 day storm event.
Current SFWMD and Collier County design criteria requires any system to use a 25 year, 3 day storm
event to determine the peak elevation of the receiving body (Golden Gate Canal) instead of a mean
annual elevation. The 25 year, 3 day event raises the Golden Gate Canal to an elevation of 9.0 based on
the current modeling provided by the staff at Big Cypress Basin. Hydraulic modeling of the Livingston
Road drainage system utilizing the updated peak tailwater elevation of 9.0 determined that this higher
peak tailwater elevation would prevent the Livingston Road drainage system from achieving its
permitted discharge rate of 54.9 cfs without the pond reaching elevations higher than the elevations it
was designed to accommodate.
Alternative Solutions
When it was determined that there were inconsistencies between the originally permitted conditions
for the Livingston Road system and the current permit criteria and the as -built pond, the applicant
contacted the County to work together to identify an engineering solution that would allow the
proposed Orchid Run development to partner with Collier County in a win -win scenario that would help
facilitate the development of the property and update the county design to meet the current permit
criteria while maintaining their permitted discharge rate and not exceed the permitted peak elevation of
the pond.
The optimal scenario identified by the team after examining many potential solutions would modify the
Livingston Road permit to reflect the true peak tailwater condition and the as -built pond while providing
a secondary outfall through Orchid Run. This proposed design would allow the combined drainage
system to achieve the permitted rate of discharge for Livingston Road plus the 0.15 cfs per acre
allowable for Orchid Run. This proposed combined system design was discussed with SFWMD staff at Big
Cypress Basin and with the administrator of the Lower West Coast branch office in Ft. Myers and was
determined to be an acceptable design scenario that would not be objectionable upon submission of the
appropriate documentation and applications.
Under the proposed design, the Orchid Run project would retain a volume of water to satisfy the
nutrient removal requirement and meet the water quality treatment before allowing water to flow
through the county pond during normal wet season events including the 1, 3, and 5 year, 24 hour storm
events. The more intense 25 year, 3 day storm event would result in a combined discharge equal to the
originally permitted discharge rate plus the Orchid Run allowance of 0.15 cfs /acre. The proposed
improvements would result in the Livingston Road drainage system reaching a peak elevation consistent
with what was originally permitted even though the peak tailwater elevation was raised by 2.8 feet.
During the peak of the 25 year, 3 day storm event, the Livingston Road drainage system would direct
approximately 27 cfs, or 12,000 gallons per minute, through the Orchid Run drainage system before it
would outfall through the Orchid Run control structure to Golden Gate Canal. The combined systems
would discharge from the existing county pond and from a second outfall structure located at the
southwest corner of the Orchid Run property. This design would essentially equalize the total permitted
discharges across two different outfall structures and provide a redundancy safety factor in the event
that either of the structures were blocked or outfall pipes became occluded with debris.
Packet Page -552-
4/8/2014 11. D.
An alternate design that would allow the Livingston Road system to achieve its permitted discharge rate
and keep its peak elevation beneath the originally permitted high water elevation would be to construct
a parallel 42" pipe to Golden Gate Canal and connect it to the existing outfall structure from the county
pond. Both designs would result in approximately the same discharge rates and peak elevations for the
combined systems. It was determined that this mould be a more disruptive, more expensive, and less
effective solution than routing some of the total discharge through a second outfall structure located at
the south end of the Orchid Run project.
The developer is prepared to incur the hard and soft costs associated with designing, permitting, and
constructing the proposed improvements. These improvements will benefit the county by allowing for a
secondary outfall path, lowering the peak stage of the Livingston Road drainage system, and updating
the SFWMD permit to comply with existing permit criteria and the current hydraulic models for the
Golden Gate Canal. The combined system approach will benefit the developer by reducing the high
water elevation for the project during the 25 year, 3 day storm event.
Packet Page -553-
MATCH LINE SEE BOTTOM VIEW
fY r i ■ ■ ; n x '"' < 1
■
■
■
mm
v Syr"
DO-
c �' �ppFN � ■ � t .: ■ . a�.
.. z f p ■ i -� �,
■ O �
f ■ "r V:
■ a a
p a s ■ r .
e e
■ � � p 1 �. a ^'r
c I= ■
(�5 ■ u
9.....r.�..r........rr/ R`c.......8 .....® ..
-ter— GO LO h GAPE PAgY6dA!' (CPo 636),
z15
yiJ,; u ■ 7+4.JP 1
,r0
-BSS- DSed I@Ped
0
�2 1
- ® 0a.
e
00 > o
Or'-
� •�i �j � ® � O S)
U B
q
is
Ir
r "
" ;' l E
xr
�#'- �° R o
R ?
-BSS- DSed I@Ped
r�
r-
IL
Q
=V
lC FJQ-
O_
O!i
CL
W
0
e
a
(L
�m
Z
�p �E
8liy �
y� 0�
o®
PO4
Al
eN
r "
a
S
., fi:.
�y._u� a- +•+r 4 .+nom
�.
"
r.•y-``4 "Cv�f°.� arc ,
_s
■
r
�,. •
s °
7
p °
° e
■
e
e
e
° *s
° e
a
_
�
p
° e
p R
c
v
a e
e °
6 0
e 7
�
e
e rp
e °
■
®
e °
R
� ■
o
e
� .
■ z ■
p ■ .
a p
e
a
x
o a
B �
e a f
b
e
s p
C ■
e
p
R e
e n 7
1 p -
® s
p •
®
s a �
p p t
® e
R � °
e ■
MATCH
LINE SEE TOP VIEW a
r�
r-
IL
Q
=V
lC FJQ-
O_
O!i
CL
W
0
e
a
(L
�m
Z
�p �E
8liy �
y� 0�
o®
PO4
Exhibit `c
BosiMichael
4/8/2014 11. D.
From: Anderson, Bruce [BAnderson @ralaw.com]
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 2:42 PM
To: BosiMichael; WeeksDavid
Subject: FVV: Urchid Run p s: Drainage Discharge Rate Exemption
Attachments: SKMBT_C45214030316200.pdf.pdf; 0784_ 20140224 _13512943308_OOOO.pdf.pdf.pdf
FYI. These 3 staff members are the last ones I met with. Thanks
From: Anderson, Bruce Finailto:BAnderson(cbralaw.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 12:30 PM
To: Mark Strain; Heidi Ashton -Cicko (HeidiAshton(cbcolliergov.net); Jack McKenna
Subject: Orchid Run Apts: Drainage Discharge Rate Exemption
Hello Heidi, Mark & Jack,
My statement below is incorrect. The SFWMD permit I should have been referencing is for Livingston Road, not for Grey
Oaks.
A copy of The County's written approval of their own drainage discharge variance for Livingston Road that was provided
to SFWMD to gain its approval is attached. It is very interesting that the sole ground the County used to approve its own
variance was that it "will not create undue hardship on the abutting property owners ".
It is our position that my client's project qualifies for exemption #2 under Policy 6.3 of the GMP Drainage Sub - element
because the variance was approved a year before the Order of Taking (attached) of a fee simple interest from the
abutting parent parcel, and the taking of a non - exclusive slope, utility and maintenance easement by the County for
Livingston Road, which easement remains on my client's property.
At the time the County variance and SFWMD permit were issued for the future Livingston Road, all of the west 100 feet
of the Livingston Road was then under one ownership and part of my client's parent parcel. The County only has a 25
foot wide non - exclusive easement on my client's parent parcel. Since the Livingston Road easement area remains as a
part my client's property and is covered by the variance, and since at the time of approval of the variance and SFWMD
permit it was all one property, the parent parcel which is subject to the easement is covered for the exemption by the
Livingston Road project variance, which clearly allowed a discharge rate greater than 0.15 cfs /acre.
There is other precedent for sharing of the approved discharge rate in this location, as in the case of the FPL facility on
the N/W corner of Livingston /GDlden Gate Parkway which the County allowed to connect. It is not clear whether FPL
even had the same history of common title, and easement under current title, that serve as the basis for approval of my
client's request.
We ask that you allo.: the developer to proceed based upon the variance and SFWMD approval exemption.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Thank You, Bruce
From: Anderson, Bruce f_mailto:BAnderson(airalaw.coml
Sent: 111onday, February 24, 2014 2:48 PM
To: Mark Strain CCPC
Subject: SF%NMD Permit for Grey Oaks
One additional follow up info item. The client's engineer checked and the SFWMD permit was issued in June 1997. The
Order of Taking is dated July 1998.
R. Bruce Anderson
ROETZEL
Packet Page -555-
4/8/2014 11. D.
Roetzel & Andress, L.P.A.
850 Park Shore Drive
Naples; Florida 34103
Telephone 239 649 2708
Facsimile 239 261 3659
Both R B•.ice Anderson and Roctzcl & Andress .tend tliat this mesa ?c be used exclusively by the addressccts). i!iis rn -sa'c :nat-
contain information trat is privileeed. confidential and exempt frrim disclosure under upplicaible lavr. C!nautiiar zed diSCIOSUre or use
of this informati -on is strictly prohibited. If you have received this comall-ication in error_ please permanently dispose of the original
messane and notify R Bruce Anderson immcdia ±eh- a (2-9) 649-270S. Thank You.
Any federal tax advice contained herein or in any attachment hereto is not intended to be used, and cannot be
used, to (1) avoid penalties imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) support the promotion or marketing
of any transaction or matter. This legend has been affixed to comply with U.S. Treasury Regulations governing
tax practice.
Packet Page -556-
4/8/2014 11. D.
$p Exhibit "D•,
TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, a
political subdivision of the
State of Florida,
i
Petitioner,
vs.
McALPINE BRIARWOOD, INC., a
Florida corporation,
Respondents.
CASE NO. 98 - 1635 CA
CIVIL ACTION
PARCELS: 137 & 937
STIPULATED ORDER OF TAKING
THIS CAUSE coming on to be heard by this Court upon joint motion of Petitioner,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, together with
Respondents, HALSTATT PARTNERSHIP; a Florida general partnership; EDITH COLLIER
SPROUL TRUST; JULIET C. SPROUL, TRUSTEE; LLOYD G. HENDRY, TRUSTEE;
HAROLD S. LYNTON, TRUSTEE; EDITH COLLIER SPROUL, TRUSTEE; LAMAR
GABLE, and it appearing that proper notice was given to all persons having or clainvng any
equity, lien, title, or other interest in or to the real property described as parcels 137 & 937 in the
Petition in Eminent Domain, and the Court being fully advised to the premises, it is therefore,
hereof.
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that:
1. This Court has jurisdiction of this cause, the parties hereto and the subject matter
2. The Petition in Eminent Domain in this cause is sufficient and the Petitioner is
property exercising its delegated authority to acquire parcels 137 & 937.
Dat 7 az ,� 9.f
Clwk of l�
aY __.D
Packet Page -557-
o
ri
c.
a
4/8/2014 11. D.
W
1W
3. That the property is being acquired for a public purpose.
4. That the taking of this property is reasonably necessary to serve the public purpose
for which the property is being acquired.
5. Thal Respondents, HALSTATT PARTNERSHIP; a Florida general partnership;
EDITH COLLIER SPROUL TRUST; JULIET C. SPROUL, TRUSTEE; LLOYD G. HENDRY,
TRUSTEE; HAROLD S. LYNTON, TRUSTEE; EDITH COLLIER SPROUL, TRUSTEE;
LAMAR GABLE, are the owners of parcels 137 dt 937 described in " attached hereto
and made a part hereof.
6. That the Estimate of Value filed in this cause by Petitioner was made in good faith
and based upon a valid appraisal.
7. Upon the payment of the Estimate of Value as contained in the Declaration of
Taking, hereinafter specified into the Registry of this Court, the right, title or intaest descnbcd in
Exhibiit__AA attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference shalt vest in Petitioner,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
S. Within twenty days (20) of this order, Petitioner shall deposit into the Court
Registry the amount of Two Hundred Thirteen Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty and No/100
Dollars (S213,750.00) as the good faith estimate of value as set forth in Petitioner's Declaration ;
of Taking.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Napier, CoUier County, Florida, on this
day of July, 1998.
Circuit Court Judge
C X13 3 f 5 k i'" ' d
.j�.. 2
AAA, lam!
Packet Page -558
4/8/2014 11. D.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnisbed by
United States Mail to Andrew G. Siket, Esquire, Kelly, Prim Passidomo & Siket, 2540 Golden
j Gate Parkway, Suite 315, Naples, Florida 34105; First Union National Bank of Florida, 5801
Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida 34112; Avatar f/k/a Gulf American Land Corporation, clo
Juanita I. Kerrigan, Registered Agent, 255 Alhambra Circle, Coral Gables, Florida 33134;
Kenneth B. Cuyler, Esquire, City of Naples, 735 Eighth Street South, Naples, Florida 34102-
6795; Rodney Wade, Esquire, Assistant County Attorney. Collier County Attonxys Office,
3301 Erse Tamiarni Trail, Napks,, Florida 341124902 and Joe W. Fizek Esquire, Fad &
j Maguire; 211 South Gadsden Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32301, on this day of
July, 1498.
I
Judicial Assistsnt/Attorney
��1 is a'1•� L 1Ls••� s' .4t
COMES NOW, Petitio=, COT I -T 1ER COUNTY, FLORIDA, together with Rat.
HALSTATT PARTNEERSFEP; a Florida ganral partnaship; IDifH COLLIER SPROUL
TRUST; JULIET C. SPROUL, TRUSTEE; LLOYD G. HENDRY, TRUSTEE; HAROLD S.
LYN70N, TRUSTEE; EDP CO►.l-TER SPROLI , TRUSTEE; LAMAR GABLE, w hoot
waiving any rights and respectfi • move for the entry of the foregoing Stipulated Order of
Taking.
3
Packet Page -559-
DATED this �day of July, 1998.
Andrew G. Siket, Esquire
Florida Bar #779415
KELLY, PRICE, PASSIDOMO
& SIFT
2640 Golden Gate Parkway
Suite 315
Naples, Florida 34105
Telephone: (941) 261 -3453
Facsimile: (941) 261 -5711
Attorneys for Respondent
J e . Fixel, Esquire
9nMAGUME ar #0192026
211 South Gadsden Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Telephone: (850) 681 -1800
Facsimile (850) 681 -9017
and
Rodney Wade, Esquire
Florida Bar 4374091
Assistant County Attorney
Collier County Attorney's Office
3301 East Tamiatni Trail
Maples, Florida 34112-4902
Telephone: (941) 774 -8400
Facsimile: (941) 774 -0225
Attorneys for Petitioner
4
Packet Page -560-
4/8/2014 11. D.
4/8/2014 11. D.
w u D 1
OFFICE OF CAPITAL_ PROJECTS
3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL NAPLES, FLORIDA 34112
(941) 774 -8192
PROJECT NO re 001'i
PROJECT PARCEL NO. /37
iTAX PARCEL NO. 00267080004
!GAL DESCRIPTION (JOT A SURVEY)
Ifee simple title
BEGIN AT THE POINT OF WMRSECTION OF TIIE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF
GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY AND THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF
SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST COLLIER COUNTY,FLORMA;
THENCE SOU7110 DEGREES 22 MINUTES 13 SECONDS EAST ALONG THE EAST LINE
OF SAID SECTION 25, A DISTANCE OF 2131.46 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST
CORNER OF SAID SECTION 25; 77-MNCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 37 MINITfES 01
SECOND WEST, A DISTANCE OF 10.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 0 DEOREF_S 02
MINUTES 18 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 160.00 FEETTO THE NORTH LINE
o
OF A 160 FOOT CANAL EASEMENT ; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH ALONG SAID
LINE, A DISTANCE QF 20AS FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES SS MINUTES 45
SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 5,56 FEET, THENCE NORTH 0 DEGREES 22
^'
w.
MINUTES 13 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 96.61 FEET TO THE POINT OF
.cam
CURVATURE OF A TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE TO THE WEST, HAVING A RADIUS OF
b
6905.46 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 6 DEGREES 44 MINUTES 44 SECONDS;
THENCE NORTH ALONG SAID CURVE, A DISTANCE OF 812.99 FEET TO THE POINT
OF CURVATURE OF A REVERSE CURVE, CONCAVE TO THE EAST, HAVING A RADIUS
OF 6905.46 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 6 DEGREES 44 MINUTES 44 SECONDS,
.~A
AND A CHORD OF 812.52 FEET BEARING NORTH 3 DEGREES 44 MTNUTES 35
SECONDS WEST; THENCE NORTH ALONG SAID CURVE, A DISTANCE OF 812.99
FEET; THENCE NORTH 0 DECREES 22 MINUTES 13 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
132.43 FEET; THENCE NORTH 45 DEGREES 16 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST, A
DISTANCE Of 34.49 FEET. THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 30 MINUTES IS SECONDS .
WEST, A DISTANCE OF 700.71 FEET, THENCE NORTH 0 DEGREES 29 MINUTES 42
SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 40.00 FEET TO THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE
OF GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 30 MINUTES I3 SECONDS
EAST, A DISTANCE OF 859.44 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; SAID
DESCRIBED TRACT CONTAINING 140,313 SQUARE FEET (1.22 ACRES), MORE OR
LESS.
BASIS OF BEARINGS IS THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 2S BEING SOUTH 00 DEGREES 22
MINUTES 13 SECONDS EAST.
GE RICHMOND DATE.
OFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR 12406
OFFICE OF CAPITAL PROJECTS
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMPLEX
3301 E TAMIAMI TRAIL NAPLES, FLORIDA 33962
Packet Page -561-
8 B 1
137
4/8/2014 11.D.
i
OFFICE OF CAPITAL PROJECTS
3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL NAPLES, FLORIDA
33962
S.a9'S5'45'E
5.56'
SKETCH OF DESCRIPTION
VW0102'11M.
East iho Southeast
zaa5'
auortc S. L 25.
P.D.B.
N Ol7UZ'18'1K '
Tr. 49 S., RM 25 E
_
GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY _
PARCEL
137
`
—^
N.89'30'ta'E. 859.44'
— _
i
2) P.O.B. Indicates Point of Beginning —�
S.a9'30'16'W. 700.71'
3) Sec: Indicates Section
N.00 29'42'w.
N.4516'00'1Y.
Seuthoost Corn«
Sec 25, Twp, 49 S.,
5) Rge. Indicates Range
40.00'
84.49'
6) R/W Indicates Right -of -way
7) Ali distances are In feet and decImals thereof
N.002z'13'w.
8) Basis of Bearings Is the East line of said Section
11243'
i
Curve number t
seat of the professional land surveyor
Rndlus � 6905.46'
0Ak111t 6r
c CMM W. ,
G ■ 06.44'44'
d
ME No.!
Arc w 812,99'
NOT TO
10_14 -96
PR -137
Chord i 812.52'
er.Ai f
Chord Brp. N43'44'33'v.
Curve nunber 2 .
C -2
Redlvs . 6905.46'
t 06'4444'
_.
Arc - 812.99'
Chord e12.52'
Chord Erg. N.03'44'3S'V, '
¢
.tom
r
w
n N
n w a,
"c1
C.7
W W�
w
O j
.b
Z
$
rn
0
O
C -1
U
96.61'
S.a9'S5'45'E
5.56'
VW0102'11M.
East iho Southeast
zaa5'
auortc S. L 25.
N Ol7UZ'18'1K '
Tr. 49 S., RM 25 E
160.00'
GENERAL NOTES �t6o
—^
cANUeAS»tENr
1) P,O.C. Indicates Point of Commencement
2) P.O.B. Indicates Point of Beginning —�
_ --
3) Sec: Indicates Section
4) Tx Indicates Township Sa9a7o1'1x
P caes ownsF 10.00
Seuthoost Corn«
Sec 25, Twp, 49 S.,
5) Rge. Indicates Range
Rye, 25 E
6) R/W Indicates Right -of -way
7) Ali distances are In feet and decImals thereof
8) Basis of Bearings Is the East line of said Section
2S being S.00.22'13'E.
9) Not valid unless signed and sealed with the embossed
seat of the professional land surveyor
THIS IS ONLY A SKETCH
0Ak111t 6r
c CMM W. ,
SCAL&
OAT[:
ME No.!
NOT TO
10_14 -96
PR -137
SHEET 2 OF 2
er.Ai f
Packet Page -562-
4/8/2014 11. D.
.9 8 8 1 k - -
_ OFFICE_ OF CAPITAL PROJECTS
3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL NAPLES, FLORIDA 34112
(941) 774 -8192
PROJECT NO. 640 6 /
PROJECT PARCEL N6. 937
TAX PARCEL NO.
slope, utility b maintenance easement
COMMENCW G AT THE POINT OF INTERSECTION O—r nM EAST LINE OF SECTION 25
TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH RANGE 25 EAST AND THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF
GC{.DEN GATE PARKWAY. THENCE SOUTH 0 DEGREES 22 MINUTE& 13 SECONDS
EAST ALONG SAID EAST LINE OF SECTION 25 A DISTANCE OF 232.63 FEET.
THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 37 MINUTES 47 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
99.00 FEET TO THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF LIVINGSTON ROAD AND THE
POINT OF BEGINNING; SAID POINT BEING THE BEGINNING OF A NON TANGENT
CURVE, CONCAVE TO THE EAST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 6905.46 FEET, A CENTRAL
ANGLE OF 6 DEGREES 44 MINUTES 44 SECONDS, AND A CHORD OF 812.52 FEET
BEARING SOUTH 3 nEGREES 44 MINUTES 35 SECONDS EAST; THENCE SOUTH ALONG
SAID CURVE AND SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE A DISTANCE OF 812.99 FEET
TO 771E POINT OF CURVATURE OF A REVERSE CURVE, CONCAVE TO THE WEST,
HAVING A RADIUS OF 6905.46 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 6 DEGREES 44
MINUTES 44 SECONDS, AND A CHORD OF 812.52 FEET BEARING SOUTH 3 DEGREES
44 MINUTES 35 SECONDS EAST; THENCE SOUTH ALONG SAID CURVE. A DISTANCE
OF 812.99 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 0 DEGREES 22 MINUTES 13 SECONDS EAST. A
DISTANCE OF 96.61 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 55 MINUTES 45 SECONDS
WEST, A DISTANCE OF 5.56 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 0 DEGREES 02 MINUTES 19
SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 20.05 FEET, THENCE LEAVING SAID WEST RIGHT
OF WAY LINE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 37 NITNUTES 32 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
19.32 FEET; THENCE NORTH 0 DEGREES 22 MINUTES 13 SECONDS WEST, A
DISTANCE OF 49.12 FEET; THENCE NORTH 4 DEGREES 07 MINUTES 04 SECONDS
EAST, A DISTANCE OF 124.76 FEET TO THE POINT OF CURVATURE OF A
NON - TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE TO THE WEST. HAVING A RADIUS OF 6890.46
FEET. A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 6 DEGREES 16 MINUTES 21 SECONDS, AND A CHORD
OF 751.96 FEET BEARING NORTH 3 DEGREES 58 MINU7ES 47 SECONDS WEST;
THENCE NORTH ALONG SAID CURVE, A DISTANCE OF 754.34 FEETTO THE POINT
OF CURVATURE OF A REVERSE CURVE, CONCAVETO THE EAST, IIAVTNG A RADIUS
OF 6921,.46 FEET, A CENTRAL t ANGLE OF 6 DEGREES 44 MINUTES 44 SECONDS,
AND A CHORD OF 914.28 FEET HEARING NORTH'S DEGREES 44 MINUTES 35
SECONDS WEST; THENCE NORTH ALONG SAID CURVE, A DISTANCE OF 814.75
FEET; TITENCE NORTH 0 DEGREES 22 MINUTES 13 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
147.48 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 45 DEGREES 16 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST, A
DISTANCE.OF 21.25 FEET TO THE AFORESAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF
LTVTriGSTON ROAD; THENCE SOUTH 0 DEGREES 22 MINUTES 13 SECONDS
EASI'ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE A DISTANCE OF 132.43 FEETTOTmE
POTN'T OF BEGINNING; SAID DESCRIBED TRACT CONTAINING 0.671 ACRE (29,248
SQUAP.E FEET), MORE OR LESS.
BASIS OF BEARINGS IS 171E EAST LINE OF AFORESAID SECTION 25
BEING SOUTH 00 DEGREES 22 MINUTES U SECONDS EAST.
0
n.a
.s.
.a.
v+
G7
gy_ E-
GE t M DATE: '• �-`
P 6FESS16NAL LAND SURVEYOR J2406 '
OFFICE OF CAPITAL PROJECTS
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMPLEX
3301 E TAMIAMI TRAIL NAPLES, FLORIDA 33962
• i
Packet Page -563-
4/8/2014 11. D.
� r
937. _ 4'
OFFICE OF CAPITAL PROJECTS
3301 EAST T-AWAMI TRAIL NAPLES, Ft0RID1'\ 33962
(813) 774 -8192
4D.00'
Curve number 1
Radlus 6905.46'
A 06'44'44'
Arc 012.99'
Chord • 812.52'
Chord 9rg. N.03'44.35 -W.
Curve number 2
Radlus •6905.46'
A ■ 06'44'44'
Arc • 812.99'
Chord • 91252'
Chord Bra. N.03'44'33'14. '
Curve number -3_
Radius • 692046'
G • 06.44'44'
Arc 814.75'
Chord ■ 81428'
Chord Brp. N.03'44'35'W.
Curve number 4
- --- ----- - - - - --
Radk.s • 6890.46'
� •06'16'21'
Arc • 754.34'
Chord • 753.96'
Chord Br% N.03'59.47'W.
SKETCH
OF - DESCRIPTION
0
,n
_ .
GOLDEN WTE PARKWAY
124.76'
N.89'30'18 "E• 859.44'
.—
S.893018'W. 700.71'
•F
N.4516.00'Y
96.6t'
56.15'
21
7ct
N.0022'13"
5.36'
147.48'
N.0072'13'
East line .Seulheesl
132.45
437
P.a.C,
PARCEL
837
n
io
W
n
H
S.D9'37'47'W.
99.00'
J
W
U A
a
N.04'07'04'r-
s4•
124.76'
1
U U
N.0022.13'W.
•F
96.6t'
Q
589755'45 "E
7ct
5.36'
N.00'02'16'W.
East line .Seulheesl
r Q
4 n
n N
••v
ry W p,
W N
GENERAL NOTES
/%
X160' CANAL EASEMENT
w
1) P.O.C. indicates Paint of Commencement
n < Z
I--
2) P.O.B. Indicates Point of Beginning
_ _ — — — — —�
— — — -
2) Sec. indicates Section
4) Twp. Indicates. Township
$ Li
+�
C -1
^
a4
6) R/W Indicates Right -of -way
O
C -4—
U
8) Basis of Bearings Is the East line of said Section
N.04'07'04'r-
124.76'
N.0022.13'W.
96.6t'
589755'45 "E
5.36'
N.00'02'16'W.
East line .Seulheesl
20.05'
Quarter Sect. 25.
N.D022'13 -*
TvP. 49 S., RqL 25
49.12'
GENERAL NOTES
/%
X160' CANAL EASEMENT
S.89,37'32'W. "
1) P.O.C. indicates Paint of Commencement
19.SY
2) P.O.B. Indicates Point of Beginning
_ _ — — — — —�
— — — -
2) Sec. indicates Section
4) Twp. Indicates. Township
SSm 25. Comer
4 S..
5) Rge. Indicates Range
Rya. 25 E
6) R/W Indicates Right -of -way
7) All distances are in feet and decimals thereof
8) Basis of Bearings Is the East line of said Section
25 being S.00'22'13'E.
9) Not valid unless signed and sealed with the embossed
seal of the professional land surveyor
THIS IS ONLY A
SKETCH
Ot14a11 BY cmccKEO or scut
N4T TO
a41c
IFXCMO.
SHEET 2 OF 2
SOT I r t2 -t7 -9G
PR -837
Packet Page
-564-