HEX Final Decision 2023-28Page 1 of 11
HEX NO. 2023-28
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
DATE OF HEARING.
August 10, 2023
PETITION.
Petition No. PDI-PL20220006949- Request for an insubstantial change to the I-75/Collier
Boulevard Commercial Center Planned Unit Development (PUD) by adding a deviation
from LDC Section 5.06.04 to allow one pole or ground sign up to 18 feet and six inches in
height and 132 square feet in size facing Davis Boulevard for Parcel ID No. 34690080008.
The subject PUD is within Activity Center #9 and comprises 19.54± acres located at the
southwest corner of Davis Boulevard and Collier Boulevard in Section 3, Township 50 South,
Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION.
The applicant is requesting to allow the existing directory sign be re-permitted as a pole sign, in
its current location, at its present height with no change to the existing sign area, up to 18.5 feet in
height and 132 square feet in size.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
Approval with conditions.
FINDINGS.
1. The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction over this Petitioner pursuant to Sec. 2-87 of the Collier
County of Ordinances, Sec. 8.10.00 of the Land Development Code, and Chapter 9 of the
County Administrative Code.
2. The public hearing for this Petition was properly noticed and conducted in accordance with all
County and state requirements.
3. The public hearing was conducted electronically and in-person in accordance with
Emergency/Executive Order 2020-04.
4. The Petitioner and/or Petitioner’s representative executed the Hybrid Virtual Quasi-Judicial
Public Hearing Waiver related to conducting the public hearing electronically and in-person.
5. The NIM was held on May 18, 2023, at the South Regional Library, Meeting Room A, 5065
Lely Cultural Parkway, in Naples, Florida. The meeting was scheduled to begin at 6:00 PM;
however, the meeting was terminated at 6:15 PM as no members of the public arrived to
Page 2 of 11
participate. In attendance were Todd Mathes, Director of Development for Benderson
Development, and John Kelly, Planner III, representing the County. There were thirteen (13)
members of the public present and one (1) participated remotely via Zoom.
6. The County Staff presented the Petition followed by the Petitioner and/or Petitioner’s
representative, public comment and then rebuttal by the Petitioner and/or Petitioner’s
representative. There were no objections at the public hearing.
7. The County’s Land Development Code Section 10.02.13.E.1., 10.02.13.E.2, 10.02.13.B.5 and
10.02.08.F lists the criteria for an insubstantial change to an approved PUD ordinance. The
Hearing Examiner acting in the capacity of the Planning Commission shall make findings as
to the original application with the criteria in Land Development Code Sections 10.02.13.E.1,
10.02.13.E.2, 10.02.13.B.5 and 10.02.08.F.1
LDC Section 10.02.13.E.1 Criteria:
1. Is there a proposed change in the boundary of the Planned Unit Development (PUD)?
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that there is no change
to the existing PUD boundary.
2. Is there a proposed increase in the total number of dwelling units or intensity of land use
or height of buildings within the development?
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the request will
not increase the number of dwelling units, density or intensity of land use, or the height of
buildings within the development.
3. Is there a proposed decrease in preservation, conservation, recreation, or open space areas
within the development in excess of five (5) percent of the total acreage previously
designated as such, or five (5) acres in area?
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the request will
not result in a decrease in the preserve, conservation, recreation, or open space areas
within the development as designated on the approved Master Plan.
4. Is there a proposed increase in the size of areas used for non-residential uses, to include
institutional, commercial, and industrial land uses (excluding preservation, conservation,
or open space), or a proposed relocation of nonresidential land uses?
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the request does
not increase the size of non-residential areas and no relocation of non-residential uses
proposed.
1 The Hearing Examiner’s findings are italicized.
Page 3 of 11
5. Is there a substantial increase in the impacts of the development which may include, but
are not limited to increases in traffic generation; changes in traffic circulation; or impacts
on other public facilities?
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that this amendment
does not increase impacts of development, such as traffic generation, circulation, or
impacts on other public facilities.
6. Will the change result in land use activities that generate a higher level of vehicular traffic
based upon the Trip Generation Manual published by the Institute of Transportation
Engineers?
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that this request does
not change land use activities and will not generate a higher level of vehicular trips.
7. Will the change result in a requirement for increased stormwater retention, or otherwise
increase stormwater discharge?
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the request does
not result in a requirement for increased stormwater retention or increased stormwater
discharge.
8. Will the proposed change bring about a relationship to an abutting land use that would be
incompatible with an adjacent land use?
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the request does
not change the relationship between abutting land uses and is compatible with those land
uses.
9. Are there any modifications to the PUD Master Plan or PUD document or amendment to a
PUD ordinance which is inconsistent with the Future Land Use Element or other elements
of the Growth Management Plan or which modification would increase the density of
intensity of the permitted land uses?
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the proposed
changes to the PUD Document would be consistent with the FLUE of the GMP. Both
environmental and Transportation Planning staff reviewed this petition, and no changes
to the PUD Document are proposed that would be deemed inconsistent with the CCME or
the Transportation Element of the GMP. This petition does not propose any increase in
density or intensity of the permitted land uses.
10. The proposed change is to a PUD District designated as a Development of Regional Impact
(DRI) and approved pursuant to Chapter 380.06, Florida Statues, where such change
requires a determination and public hearing by Collier County pursuant to Sec. 380.06 (19),
F.S. Any change that meets the criterion of Sec. 380.06 (19)(e)2., F.S., and any changes to
Page 4 of 11
a DRI/PUD Master Plan that clearly do not create a substantial deviation shall be reviewed
and approved by Collier County under Section 10.02.13 of the LDC.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that this project is not
a DRI.
11. Are there any modifications to the PUD Master Plan or PUD document or amendment to a
PUD ordinance which impact(s) any consideration deemed to be a substantial modification
as described under Section(s) 10.02.13 E.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the proposed
change is not considered substantial.
LDC Sec. 10.02.13.E.2 Criterion:
1. Does this petition change the analysis of findings and criteria used for the original
application?
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the proposed
change does not affect the original analysis and findings for the original application.
PUD Findings: LDC Subsection 10.02.13.B.5 requires an analysis of the following criteria:
LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5 states, “In support of its recommendation, the CCPC shall make
findings as to the PUD Master Plan’s compliance with the following criteria in addition to the
findings in LDC Section 10.02.08.” The original PUD Findings are listed below or summarized.
1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to
the physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage,
sewer, water, and other utilities.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the proposed
insubstantial change and believes the proposed uses and property development regulations
are compatible with the development approved in the area.
2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements,
contracts, or other instruments or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they
may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and
maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public
expense.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the documents
submitted with the application demonstrate unified property control.
3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and
policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP).
Page 5 of 11
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects this petition is in
conformity with the GMP's relevant goals, objectives, and policies within the GMP.
4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include
restrictions on the location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and
screening requirements.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the proposed
changes to the PUD do not affect the landscaping standards of the PUD.
5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the
development.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the usable open
space areas stay the same; therefore, no deviation from the required usable open space is
requested.
6. The timing or sequence of development to ensure the adequacy of available improvements
and facilities, both public and private.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the roadway
infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project at this time.
7. The ability of the subject property and surrounding areas to accommodate expansion.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the area has
adequate supporting infrastructure such as road capacity, wastewater disposal system, and
potable water to accommodate this project.
8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in
the particular case, based on a determination that such modifications are justified as
meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to the literal applicati on of such
regulations.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the petitioner is
seeking one deviation to allow design flexibility in compliance with the purpose and intent
of the Planned Unit Development Districts (LDC Section 2.03.06.A).
Rezone Findings:
LDC Subsection 10.02.08.F states, “When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and
recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners…shall show
that the planning commission has studied and considered a proposed change in relation to the
following when applicable”:
Page 6 of 11
1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of
the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the GMP.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the subject petition
is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the (FLUM) and other elements of
the GMP.
2. The existing land use pattern.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the proposed use
would not change the existing land use patterns of the surrounding properties.
3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the property is
currently zoned PUD and would remain as such.
4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions
on the property proposed for change.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that this petition does
not propose any change to the boundaries of the PUD. The Master Plan would be updated
by relabeling the subject property.
5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning
necessary.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the proposed
change is not necessary; however, it is being requested to comply with the LDC provisions
to seek such changes because the petitioner wishes to include the proposed uses and
development standards specific to the subject parcel.
6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the
neighborhood.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the proposed PUD
change is not anticipated to influence living conditions in the neighborhood adversely.
7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or
create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses because of peak
volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction
phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the roadway
infrastructure is sufficient to serve the proposed project, as noted in the Transportation
Element consistency review. Operational impacts will be addressed at the time of the first
Page 7 of 11
development order (SDP or Plat) when a new TIS will be required to demonstrate turning
movements for all site access points. Finally, the project’s development must comply with
all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals,
including but not limited to any plats and or site development plans, are sought.
8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the proposed PUD
change request is not anticipated to create drainage problems in the area, provided this
project's stormwater best management practices, treatment, and storage will be addressed
through Environmental Resource Permitting (ERP) with the South Florida Water
Management District (SFWMD). County staff will evaluate the project’s stormwater
management system, calculations, and design criteria at the time of SDP and/or PPL.
9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that it is not anticipated
that the changes proposed to this PUD would seriously reduce light or air to the adjacent
areas.
10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent areas.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that this is a subjective
determination based on anticipated results, which may be internal or external to the subject
property. Property valuation is affected by various factors, including zoning; however,
zoning by itself may or may not affect values since value determination is driven by market
value.
11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of
adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that it is not anticipated
this amendment serving as a deterrent to its improvement.
12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual
owner, contrasting with the public welfare.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that if the proposed
development complies with the GMP, then that constitutes a public policy statement
supporting zoning actions when they are consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In light
of this fact, the proposed change does not constitute a grant of special privilege.
Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship
because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest.
Page 8 of 11
13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with
existing zoning.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the subject
property can be used per existing zoning; however, the proposed uses can only be achieved
by amending the PUD.
14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the neighborhood's or the County's
needs.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the proposed uses,
associated development standards, and developer commitments will ensure that the project
is not out of scale with the community's needs.
15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in
districts already permitting such use.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the petition was
reviewed for compliance with the GMP and the LDC, and a specific review of other sites
is not conducted in conjunction with a specific petition.
16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration would be
required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the
proposed zoning classification.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that any development
anticipated by the PUD Document would require considerable site alteration, and this
project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local
development regulations during the SDP and/or platting processes and again later as part
of the building permit process.
17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services is
consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management
Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public
Facilities Ordinance, as amended.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the project will
have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in LDC Section 6.02.00 regarding Adequate
Public Facilities (APF), and the project will need to be consistent with all applicable goals
and objectives of the GMP regarding adequate public facilities, except as may be exempt
by federal regulations. This petition has been reviewed and it is concluded that no Level of
Service will be adversely impacted by the commitments contained in the PUD Document.
The concurrency review for APF is determined at the time of SDP review. The activity
proposed by this amendment will not impact public facility adequacy regarding utilities.
Page 9 of 11
18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners shall
deem important in protecting public health, safety, and welfare.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that there are no other
factors, standard or criteria deemed important in protecting public health, safety and
welfare.
REQUESTED DEVIATIONS:
The petitioner is seeking two deviations culminating into a single revision from the requirements
of the LDC. The deviations are directly extracted from the PUD change document. The
analysis/recommendation are each outlined below.
Proposed Deviation/Revision 3.4.k.2
One pole or ground sign shall be allowed up to 15 feet and six inches in height and 132 square feet
in size facing Davis Boulevard for Parcel ID No. 34690080008.
Deviation from LDC Section 5.06.04.F.1.a:
LDC Section 5.06.04.F.1.a limits pole or ground signs for single-occupancy or multiple occupancy
parcels within nonresidential zoning districts and as applicable to designated nonresidential
portions of PUD-zoned properties to 15 feet when located along an arterial or collector road.
Deviation from LDC Section 5.06.04.F.1.c:
LDC Section 5.06.04.F.1.c limits pole or ground signs for single-occupancy or multiple occupancy
parcels within nonresidential zoning districts and as applicable to designated nonresidential
portions of PUD-zoned properties to 80 square feet when located along an arterial or collector
road.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the existing sign was
initially permitted and constructed as a directory sign when the project was approved for
development as a multiple-occupancy shopping center with three out parcels. Were the subject
sign to be still classed as a directory sign, LDC Section 5.06.04.F.3.a would allow for the sign to
be 20 feet in height, and LDC Section 5.06.04.F.3.c would allow the sign area to be 200 square
feet. Were the site to have remained multiple occupancy, the existing 15.6-foot high sign with 132
square feet of sign area would still be allowable absent the requested deviations. Finding that, in
compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that “the element may
be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety, and welfare of the community” and
LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is “justified as
meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to the literal application of such
regulations.”
Page 10 of 11
ANALYSIS.
Based on a review of the record including the Petition, application, exhibits, the County’s staff
report, and hearing comments and testimony from the Petitioner and/or the Petitioner’s
representative(s), County staff and any given by the public, the Hearing Examiner finds that there
is enough competent, substantial evidence as applied to the criteria set forth in Sections
10.02.13.E.1, 10.02.13.E.2, 10.02.13.B.5 and 10.02.08.F of the Land Development Code to
approve the Petition.
DECISION.
The Hearing Examiner hereby APPROVES Petition Number PDI-PL2020006949, filed by Todd
Mathes, Director of Development at Benderson Development Company, LLC, representing the
Naples-Davis Blvd., LLC. with respect to the property as described in the I-75/Collier Boulevard
Commercial Center Planned Unit Development (PUD), Ordinance No. 2000-89, for the following:
• An insubstantial change to Ordinance No. 2000-89, the I-75/Collier Boulevard
Commercial Center Planned Unit Development (PUD), by adding a deviation from LDC
Section 5.06.04 to allow one pole or ground sign up to 18 feet and six inches in height and
132 square feet in size facing Davis Boulevard for Parcel ID No. 34690080008.
Said changes are fully described in the PUD Deviation and Sign Plan attached as Exhibit “A”, and
the Survey with Sign Setbacks attached as Exhibit “B” and are subject to the conditions below.
ATTACHMENTS.
Exhibit A – PUD Deviation and Sign Plan
Exhibit B – Survey with Sign Setbacks
LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
See Ordinance No. 2000-89
CONDITIONS.
1. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the
development.
2. A building permit must be applied for and obtained, and a Certificate of Completion must
be issued for the subject existing pole sign on Parcel No. 34690080008.
DISCLAIMER.
Pursuant to Section 125.022(5) F.S., issuance of a development permit by a county does not in any
way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency
and does not create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the applicant
Page 11 of 11
fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or
undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law.
APPEALS.
This decision becomes effective on the date it is rendered. An appeal of this decision shall be done
in accordance with applicable ordinances, codes and law.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AND EXHIBITS: SEE CLERK OF COURT, MINUTES
AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. DECISIONS OF THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR
VARIANCES, CONDITIONAL USES, AND BOAT DOCK EXTENSIONS SHALL BE
NOTED ON THE ZONING MAP FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES.
________________________ ____________________________________
Date Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP
Hearing Examiner
EXHIBIT “A”
I-75 Collier Boulevard Commercial Center
A
Planned Unit Development
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
SECTION III
COMMERCIAL AREAS PLAN
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
3.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
a. Minimum Lot Area: 10,000 square feet
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
k. Signs: As required in Division 2.5 of the Land Development Code.
1. As required in section 5.06.04 of the Land Development Code.
2. One pole or ground sign shall be allowed up to 18 feet and six inches in height and 132
square feet in size facing Davis Boulevard for Parcel ID No. 34690080008.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Words stricken are deletions;
words underlined are additions
Deliver y
PROPERTY
BY DATE REVISION
DRWG. # PROP.#
EXHIBIT “B”
XX
XXTELTEL
TEL
TELTEL
TEL
TEL
TEL
TV
TVTV
TV
TV
TV
OHU OHU OHU OHU OHU OHU OHU OHU OHU OHU OHU OHU OHU OHU OHU OHU OHU OHU OHU OHU OHU OHU OHU OHU OHU OHU OHU OHU OHU
OHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUTCB
TCB
TCB
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
X
XS89°42'19"E 1012.98'(D)
S89°43'35"E 1012.98'(S)S00°28'36"W 900.00'(D)S00°27'44"W 900.09'(S)N89°42'19"W 618.76'(D)
N89°43'11"W 618.76'(S)N00°50'42"E 500.04'(D)N00°50'34"E 499.61'(S)N89°42'45"W 627.95'(S)
S89°42'19"E 200.00'(D)
S89°43'11"E 200.00'(S)S00°28'36"W(D)50.00'(D)S00°27'44"W(S)50.00'(S)DETENTION AREADETENTIONAREA
DETENTION AREA
DETENTION AREA
DETENTIONAREA
DETENTION AREA
DETENTION AREA
ASPHALTPARKING
ASPHALTPARKING
ASPHALT
PARKINGCB1 CB2 CB3 CB4 CB5 CB6 CB7
CB8 CB9 CB10 CB11 CB14CB12CB13
CB15 CB16 CB17 CB18 CB21CB19CB20
CB22 CB23 CB24
CB25
CB26
CB27
CB28
CB29
CB30
CB31
WCS
WCS
WCS WCS
WCS
WCS
WCS
CI1
CI2
CI3
CI4
CI5
CI6
CI7
CI8
CI9
CI10
CI11
CI14
CI15
CI16
CI17
CI18
CI19
CI20
CI21
CI22
CI23 CI24
SMH1
SMH2
SMH3
SMH4
SMH6
SMH5
SMH7
SMH8
70.35'5.11'111.33'5.00'131.85'4.14'161.69'4.98'58.81'220.10'24.95'
35.38'18.67'13.27'
19.73'
14.00'29.62'58.63'
3.05'
100.08'53.12'98.89'21.52'24
.
5
0
'
43.44'47.16'3.04'81.05'14.03'
24.02'
96.06'
CONCRETE WALL(DIMENSIONS AREEXTERIOR)
APPROXIMATEOVERHANGOF STEEL BEAMS
BUILDING UNDER CONSTRUCTION
CONCRETE SLAB ELEVATION = 15.20
CONCRETE PADLOADING BAY
CONCRET
E
P
A
D
LOADING
B
A
Y
CONCRET
E
P
A
D
LOADING
B
A
Y
LS
213.28'
213.29'133.66'133.35'263.30'
262.51'
POINT OF COMMENCEMENT
POINT OF BEGINNING
BENCHMARK
X-CUT IN NORTH RIM
ELEVATION = 14.43 NAVD
BENCHMARK
X-CUT IN NORTH WEST CORNER
OF CONTROL STRUCTURE
ELEVATION = 11.88 NAVD
CB32
CB33
CI12
CI1350.00'(D)50.00'(S)850.00'(D)850.09'(S)NORTH 50'96.68'(S)402.93'(S)OVERHEAD ROADSIGNS
OVERHEAD TRAFFICSIGNAL ARM
TOE OFSLOPE
TOP OF
SLOPE
TOE OFSLOPE
TOP OFSLOPE
SIGNTOP OFSLOPE
TOE OFSLOPE
TOP OFSLOPE
TOE OFSLOPE
TOP OFSLOPE
TOE OFSLOPE
5'± CONCRETE SIDEWALKSIGN5.8'± CONCRETE SIDEWALK5'± CONCRETE SIDEWALK6'± CONCRETE SIDEWALK
6'± CONCRETE SIDEWALK
6'
±
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
S
I
D
E
W
A
L
K
TOE OFSLOPE
TOP OFSLOPE
TOE OFSLOPE
TOP OFSLOPE
TOE OFSLOPE
TOP OFSLOPE
TOE OFSLOPE
TOE OFSLOPE
TOP OF
SLOPE
DAVIS BOULEVARD
COLLIER BOULEVARD(SOUTH BOUND LANES)8760 DAVIS BOULEVARD
CONSERVATION EASEMENT(O.R. BOOK 4098, PAGE 2160)(O.R. BOOK 4298, PAGE 842)
CONSERVATION EASEMENT(O.R. BOOK 4098, PAGE 2160)(O.R. BOOK 4298, PAGE 842)
CONSERVATION EASEMENT(O.R. BOOK 4098, PAGE 2160)(O.R. BOOK 4298, PAGE 842)
TRACT 2, GATOR GATE
PLAT BOOK 7 PAGE 54
C
1
C
2
76.80'(D)
76.63'(S)
DETENTION AREA
PLATTED 50'
W
I
D
E
ACCESS EASE
M
E
N
T
L
E
S
S
A
N
D
E
X
C
E
P
T
(
O
.
R
.
B
O
O
K
4
3
6
0
,
P
A
G
E
2
6
5
3
)PERMANENT UTILITY EASEMENT(O.R. BOOK 4013, PAGE 81)15'X25' C.U.E
(O.R. BOOK 4546,
PAGE 928)
10' FPL EASEMENT
(O.R. BOOK 4212, PAGE 1810)
TRACT 1, GATOR GATE
PLAT BOOK 7 PAGE 2
TRACT 1, GATOR GATE
PLAT BOOK 7 PAGE 2
PART OF TRACT 1, GATOR GATE
PLAT BOOK 7 PAGE 2
WATERLINESTUB OUT
WCS
RIM = 12.48WINDOW = 10.5458" CPP SOUTH = 9.38
CB32RIM = 10.0118" CPP SOUTH = 2.40
WCSRIM = 11.71
WINDOW = 9.68
42" CPP WEST = 9.01
WCSRIM = 11.35WINDOW = 9.9724" CPP WEST = 6.05
CB28 (CURB INLET)RIM = 13.7424" CPP EAST = 8.3224" CPP WEST = 8.34
CB29RIM = 13.5724" CPP EAST = 7.98
24" CPP NORTH = 7.95
12" INVERT SOUTH = 5.89
CB30RIM = 13.54
24" CPP NORTHWEST = 7.8724" CPP SOUTH = 7.85
DRAINAGE MANHOLE
RIM = 13.56WINDOW = 12.3324" CPP WEST = 7.6324" CPP SOUTHEAST = 7.61
DRAINAGE MANHOLERIM = 13.66WINDOW = 12.4024" CPP EAST = 7.5524" CPP SOUTHWEST = 7.53
DRAINAGE MANHOLERIM = 13.63WINDOW = 12.3524" CPP NORTHEAST = 7.29
17" CPP NORTHWEST = 7.30
CB31RIM = 9.9218" CPP E. = 3.4217" CPP SE. = 3.4915" CPP INVERT W.= 3.47
135
10.72
TOP FL
10.86
90
9.85
90
10.42
TOP FL
10.44 TOP 10 INCH PIPE FL UNDER
10.95
ASPHALTROAD
GRAVELAREA
GRAVELAREA
GRAVELAREA
GRAVELAREA
GRAVELAREA25.96'24.66'
CLIENT:TITLE:FILE NO.:
SHEET OF NO.REVISION DESCRIPTIONDATE BY3106 SOUTH HORSESHOE DRIVECIVIL ENGINEERINGSURVEY & MAPPINGCOASTAL ENGINEERINGENVIRONMENTALPLANNING SERVICESNAPLES, FLORIDA 34104PHONE: (239)643-2324 FAX: (239)643-1143www.coastalengineering.comE-Mail: info@cecifl.comServing Florida Since 1977THIS DOCUMENT, AND THE CONCEPTS AND DESIGNS PRESENTED HEREIN, AS AN INSTRUMENT OFSERVICE, IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND CLIENT FOR WHICH IT WAS PREPARED.REUSE OF AND IMPROPER RELIANCE ON THIS DOCUMENT WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION ANDADAPTATION BY COASTAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. (CECI) OR ITS SUBSIDIARIES SHALL BEWITHOUT LIABILITY TO CECI OR ITS SUBSIDIARIES.FLORIDA BUSINESS AUTHORIZATION NO. LB 2464
COASTAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC.
DATE OF FIELD SURVEY: 09/25/18
FLORIDA CERTIFICATE NO. 5295
PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR AND MAPPER
THE ORIGINAL RAISED SEAL OF A FLORIDA
NOT VALID WITHOUT THE SIGNATURE AND
LICENSED SURVEYOR AND MAPPER
DATE OF SIGNATURE:
RICHARD J. EWING, VP CHECKED:F.B.ACAD NO.PG.DRAWN:DATE:REF. NO.SCALE:SEC. TWP. RNG.
16.189
31RECORD SURVEYBENDERSON DEVELOPMENT CO., LLC1" = 50'G6417026E50S161891618909/25/18MMWRJE3SCALE: 1" = 50'
50 250 50 100
GENERAL NOTES
1. = FOUND 5/8" IRON PIN AND CAP STAMPED FDOT DRMP LB 2468.
2. = FOUND 5/8" IRON PIN AND CAP STAMPED ABB INC LB 3664.
3. = FOUND CONCRETE (ILLEGIBLE).
4. = FOUND PK NAIL AND DISC STAMPED FDOT DRMP LB 2468.
5. DESCRIBED PROPERTY LIES WITHIN FLOOD ZONE AH, ELEVATION =
11.00' NAVD PER F.I.R.M. COMMUNITY PANEL NO. 120067 MAP NOS.
12021C 0414H AND 12021C 0418H DATED MAY 16, 2012.
6. ELEVATIONS HEREON ARE REFERENCE TO NORTH AMERICAN
VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988. (NAVD88) BENCHMARK USED = NGS V526
(PID AJ6598).
7. THIS SURVEY IS CERTIFIED TO THE DATE OF THE FIELD SURVEY, NOT
THE DATE OF SIGNATURE.
SMH #1
RIM ELEVATION = 14.53
8" PVC INVERT NORTH = 7.23
8" PVC INVERT WEST = 7.13
SMH #2
RIM ELEVATION = 14.44
8" PVC INVERT SOUTH = 8.22
SMH #3
RIM ELEVATION = 14.54
8" PVC INVERT EAST = 6.18
8" PVC INVERT WEST = 6.06
SMH #4
RIM ELEVATION = 14.17
8" PVC INVERT EAST = 5.24
8" PVC INVERT NORTHWEST = 5.14
SMH #5
RIM ELEVATION = 13.91
8" PVC INVERT WEST = 4.24
8" PVC INVERT SOUTHEAST = 4.52
8" PVC INVERT NORTH = 4.82
SMH #6
RIM ELEVATION = 14.08
8" PVC INVERT NORTH = 5.29
8" PVC INVERT SOUTH = 5.18
SMH #7
RIM ELEVATION = 14.43
8" PVC INVERT SOUTH = 6.71
8" PVC INVERT EAST = 7.53
SMH #8
RIM ELEVATION = 14.11
8" PVC INVERT WEST = 9.05
8" PVC INVERT NORTHEAST = 9.10
SANITARY SEWER
MANHOLE TABLE
CB #1 (CATCH BASIN)
GRATE ELEVATION = 12.78
CB #2 (CATCH BASIN)
GRATE ELEVATION = 12.80
CB #3 (CATCH BASIN)
GRATE ELEVATION = 12.80
CB #4 (CATCH BASIN)
GRATE ELEVATION = 12.80
CB #5 (CATCH BASIN)
GRATE ELEVATION = 12.84
CB #6 (CATCH BASIN)
GRATE ELEVATION = 12.76
CB #7 (CATCH BASIN)
GRATE ELEVATION = 12.81
CB #8 (CATCH BASIN)
GRATE ELEVATION = 12.83
CB #9 (CATCH BASIN)
GRATE ELEVATION = 12.87
CB #10 (CATCH BASIN)
GRATE ELEVATION = 12.84
CB #11 (CATCH BASIN)
GRATE ELEVATION = 12.83
CB #12 (CATCH BASIN)
GRATE ELEVATION = 12.81
CB #13 (CATCH BASIN)
GRATE ELEVATION = 12.83
CB #14 (CATCH BASIN)
GRATE ELEVATION = 12.78
CB #15 (CATCH BASIN)
GRATE ELEVATION = 13.10
CB #16 (CATCH BASIN)
GRATE ELEVATION = 13.10
CATCH BASIN
DRAINAGE TABLE
CB #17 (CATCH BASIN)
GRATE ELEVATION = 13.12
CB #18 (CATCH BASIN)
GRATE ELEVATION = 13.14
CB #19 (CATCH BASIN)
GRATE ELEVATION = 13.13
CB #20 (CATCH BASIN)
GRATE ELEVATION = 13.13
CB #21 (CATCH BASIN)
GRATE ELEVATION = 13.10
CB #22 (CATCH BASIN)
GRATE ELEVATION = 13.11
CB #23 (CATCH BASIN)
GRATE ELEVATION = 13.12
CB #24 (CATCH BASIN)
GRATE ELEVATION = 13.16
CB #25 (CATCH BASIN)
GRATE ELEVATION = 13.46
CB #26 (CATCH BASIN)
GRATE ELEVATION = 14.87
CB #27 (CATCH BASIN)
GRATE ELEVATION = 10.03
CB #28 (CATCH BASIN)
GRATE ELEVATION = 13.74
CB #29 (CATCH BASIN)
GRATE ELEVATION = 13.57
CB #30 (CATCH BASIN)
GRATE ELEVATION = 13.54
CB #31 (CATCH BASIN)
GRATE ELEVATION = 9.92
CB #32 (CATCH BASIN)
GRATE ELEVATION = 10.01
CB #33 (CATCH BASIN)
GRATE ELEVATION = 14.80
CATCH BASIN
DRAINAGE TABLE
CI #1 (CURB INLET)
GRATE ELEVATION = 12.00
CI #2 (CURB INLET)
GRATE ELEVATION = 11.44
CI #3 (CURB INLET)
GRATE ELEVATION = 11.90
CI #4 (CURB INLET)
GRATE ELEVATION = 12.17
CI #5 (CURB INLET)
GRATE ELEVATION = 12.47
CI #6 (CURB INLET)
GRATE ELEVATION = 12.80
CI #7 (CURB INLET)
GRATE ELEVATION = 13.12
CI #8 (CURB INLET)
GRATE ELEVATION = 12.77
CI #9 (CURB INLET)
GRATE ELEVATION = 12.40
CI #10 (CURB INLET)
GRATE ELEVATION = 12.07
CI #11 (CURB INLET)
GRATE ELEVATION = 12.07
CI #12 (CURB INLET)
GRATE ELEVATION = 12.76
CURB INLET
DRAINAGE TABLE
CI #13 (CURB INLET)
GRATE ELEVATION = 12.62
CI #14 (CURB INLET)
GRATE ELEVATION = 12.82
CI #15 (CURB INLET)
GRATE ELEVATION = 13.95
CI #16 (CURB INLET)
GRATE ELEVATION = 13.81
CI #17 (CURB INLET)
GRATE ELEVATION = 13.81
CI #18 (CURB INLET)
GRATE ELEVATION = 13.80
CI #19 (CURB INLET)
GRATE ELEVATION = 13.91
CI #20 (CURB INLET)
GRATE ELEVATION = 14.23
CI #21 (CURB INLET)
GRATE ELEVATION = 14.23
CI #22 (CURB INLET)
GRATE ELEVATION = 14.39
CI #23 (CURB INLET)
GRATE ELEVATION = 14.36
CI #24 (CURB INLET)
GRATE ELEVATION = 14.37
CURB INLET
DRAINAGE TABLE
OF A TRACT OR PARCEL OF LANDLYING IN THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 3,TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COUNTY OF COLLIER,FLORIDA.CXX - CURVE TABLE
CURVE
C1(D)
C2
RADIUS
905.71'
865.71'
DELTA
36°12'47"
39°54'04"
LENGTH
572.44'
602.93'
CHORD BEARING
N40°33'22"W
C1(S)905.71' 36°14'14" 572.83' 563.33' N44°25'22"W
C2(S)865.71' 39°54'04" 602.88' 590.78' N40°33'15"W
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF COLLIER, LYING IN
THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, BEING
PART OF TRACT 1, GATOR GATE, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 7, PAGE 2, PUBLIC RECORDS OF SAID
COLLIER COUNTY, AND A PART OF TRACT 2, GATOR GATE, UNIT 2, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 7,
PAGE 54, OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS BEING FURTHER BOUND AND DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID
SECTION 3; THENCE S00°28'36"W ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 50.00 FEET TO THE
SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF STATE ROAD 84; THENCE S89°42'19"E ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE FOR
200.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE S00°28'36"W ALONG A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND
200.00 FEET EAST OF (AS MEASURED ON A PERPENDICULAR) SAID WEST LINE OF THE EAST 1/2 OF
THE NORTHEAST 1/4 FOR 900.00 FEET; THENCE S89°42'19"E ALONG A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 900.00
FEET SOUTH OF (AS MEASURED ON A PERPENDICULAR) SAID SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF STATE
ROAD 84 FOR 1012.98 FEET TO THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF COUNTY ROAD 951; THENCE
N00°50'42"E ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE FOR 500.04 FEET TO A POINT OF INTERSECTION
WITH A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHWEST HAVING A RADIUS OF 905.71 FEET AND TO WHICH
POINT A RADIAL LINE BEARS N63°40'35"E; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH
A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 36°12'47" FOR 572.44 FEET TO SAID SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF STATE
ROAD 84; THENCE N89°42'19"W RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE FOR 618.76 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
LESS AND EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE NORTH 50 FEET
ALSO LESS AND EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION DESCRIBED IN DEED TO COLLIER COUNTY
RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4360, PAGE 2653, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA.NO.1 ADDED ADDITIONAL TOPO AND ASBUILTS04/13/20 MMW
TCB
TEL
WMB
TV
LEGEND
(D) - DESCRIPTION DATA
(P) - PLAT DATA
(S) - SURVEY DATA
- DENOTES FIRE HYDRANT
- DENOTES IRRIGATION VALVE
- DENOTES ELECTRIC SERVICE
- DENOTES WATER METER BOX
- DENOTES WATER VALVE
- DENOTES CATCH BASIN
- DENOTES CABLE SERVICE
- DENOTES SEWER MANHOLE
- DENOTES TELEPHONE SERVICE
- DENOTES LIGHT POLE
- DENOTES POWER POLE
- DENOTED UNDERGROUND GAS LINE MARKER
- DENOTES FIRE DEPARTMENT VALVE
- DENOTES AIR RELEASE VALVE
- DENOTES CLEANOUT
- DENOTES PVC PIPE
- DENOTES FIRE DEPARTMENT RISER
- DENOTES TRAFFIC CONTROL BOX
- DENOTES BURIED FIBER OPTIC MARKER
UG
LPG
LEGEND
- DENOTES CONCRETE LIGHT POLE
- DENOTES CONCRETE POWER POLE
- DENOTES DRAINAGE MANHOLE
- DENOTES PEDESTRIAN CROSSING SIGNAL
- DENOTES TRAFFIC SIGNAL VAULT
- CONSERVATION EASEMENT
- 10' FPL EASEMENT
- PERMANENT UTILITY EASEMENT
Digitally signed by Richard J Ewing
DN: c=US, o=Florida,
dnQualifier=A01410C00000184C4
118C310004E891, cn=Richard J
Ewing
Date: 2023.05.01 06:35:13 -04'00'