HEX Final Decision #2025-29HEX NO. 2025-29
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
DATE OF HEARING.
July 10, 2025
PETITION.
Petition No. SV-PL20230001017 — 15285 Collier Boulevard -Request for a variance from
Land Development Code Section 5.06.04.F.4 that allows one wall, mansard, canopy or
awning sign for each single -occupancy parcel, or for each unit of a multiple -occupancy
parcel, within nonresidential districts, to instead allow two such signs on property located at
15285 Collier Boulevard, in the Shoppes of Pebblebrooke, in Section 27, Township 48 South,
Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION.
This is a request for a Sign Variance to allow two wall, mansard, canopy, or awning signs on the
subject property when Land Development Code (LDC) Sections 5.06.04.F.4 allows only one such
sign for each single -occupancy parcel, or for each unit of a multiple -occupancy parcel, within
nonresidential districts.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
Approval with conditions.
FINDINGS.
1. The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction over this Petitioner pursuant to Sec. 2-87(2) of the
Collier County Code 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 public hearing was conducted in the following manner: 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.
Page 1 of 5
5. The County's Land Development Sections 5.06.08.B. l lists the criteria for sign variances. The
Hearing Examiner having the same authority as the Board of Zoning Appeals may grant, deny
or modify any request for a variance from the regulations or restrictions of the Collier County
Land Development Code using the following standard:'
1. That special conditions and circumstances exist that are peculiar to the land,
structure, or building involved and are not applicable to other lands, structures, or
buildings in the same district.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the subject
building and its drive -through are platted as part of a multiple -occupancy shopping center,
the Shoppes of Pebblebrooke, yet stand alone, much like an outparcel. The building's
location on the property, combined with the existing permitted exposure, rakes it difficult
to see from Collier Boulevard; instead, it is situated to provide visibiliofrom ivithin the
shopping center^. The applicant further° indicated that the Coum)J 's sign code, being applied
to this building, is more attuned to an in -line parcel and not a standalone building. County
staff concurred.
2. That literal interpretation of the sign code's provisions would deprive the applicant
of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district. It would
cause unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the applicant's
expert stated, "The sign code provisions deprive the applicant of any visibility from the
adjacent roads. Other similar structures (Platted as Outparcels) are set back from the
Collier Boulevard, and each have 2 illuminated signs large enough to be visible from the
main road. Please see the marked -up site plan for reference (Exhibit A). There are three
other banking institutions along Collier Blvd, and all three have monument signs on the
main road for additional visibility). This provides undue hardship as this location is
afforded no visibility from the main road. " County staff is of the opinion that the existing
sign could have been better positioned; holvever, they also agree lvith the applicant's
argument.
3. That the special conditions and circumstances which are peculiar to the land,
structure, or building do not result from the actions of the applicant.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the applicant is
the lessee of the subject proper°ty� and leased an existing building. Both the building crud
the development were constructed before the applicant leased the building; therefore, the
site's peculiarities are not the result of actions taken by the applicant.
4. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special
privilege that is denied by this sign code to other lands, structures, or buildings in the
same zoning district.
1 The Hearing Examiner's findings are italicized.
Page 2 of 5
The record evidence and testimony fi4onz the public hearing reflects that a Sign Variance,
by definition, confers some dimensional relieffrom the zoning regulations specific to a site.
LDC Section 5.06 08 alloWS others relief through the same Sign Variance process that has
been undertaken by the applicant. Each Sign Variance project is reviewed individually
based on its own merits. Coumy staff believes the applicant has justified their need to
engage in the Sign Variance process.
5. The variance granted is the minimum relief that will make possible the reasonable
use of the land, building, or structure.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the applicant's
expert stated, "The variance will afford the applicant relief to place a second sign on the
building fagade, the same is being used by all other similar structures in the development. "
County staff noted that the requested sign size is by no means objectionable and concurred
that a second sign will allow for the desired visibility from Collier Boulevard
6. That the granting of the variance will be consistent with the general intent and
purpose of the Collier County Sign Code and the Growth Management Plan and will
not be injurious to adjacent properties or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that Section 5.06.OLA.
of the LDC states that the purpose and intent of the sign code is to provide minimum control
of signs necessary to promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of
Collier County, Florida, by:
1. Lessening hazards to pedestrians and vehicular tr•aff c;
2. Preserving properij; values;
3. Preventing unsightly and detrimental signs that detract from the aesthetic appeal of the
county and lead to economic decline and blight.
4. Preventing signs from reaching such excessive size and numbers that they obscure one
another to the detriment of the county.
S Assuring good and attractive design that ivill strengthen the county's appearance and
economic base.
6. Preserving the right off]ee speech and expression in the display of signs.
Count3) staff finds that the srtbject Var°fiance request satisfies established criteria and is
consistent with the general intent and purpose of the LDC and GMP.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY:
The record evidence and testimony ji°om the public hearing reflects that the subject propert�� is in
the Urban Mixed -Use District/Urban Residential Subdistrict and the Activity Center• Mixed Use
District/Activity Center Subdistrict as identified on the Fit tur4e Land Use Map (FLUM) of the
Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP. The GMP does not address individual Variance
requests butfocuses on the larger issue of the actual use. The Richland PUD is consistent with the
GMP.
Page 3 of 5
ANALYSIS.
Based on a review of the record including the Petition, application, exhibits, the Countys 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 Section 5.06.08.B.1
of the Land Development Code to approve the sign variance Petition.
DECISION.
The Hearing Examiner hereby APPROVES Petition No. SV-PL20230001017, filed by Jeff
Gammill, representing the applicant TD Bank, N.A. and the owner Twinwood Pebblebrooke, LLC,
with respect to the property described as located at 15285 Collier Boulevard, in the Shoppes of
Pebblebrooke, in Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, for the
following:
• A Sign Variance from Land Development Code (LDC) Sections 5.06.04.F.4 that allows
one wall, mansard, canopy, or awning sign for each single -occupancy parcel, or for each
unit of a multiple -occupancy parcel, within nonresidential districts, to instead allow two
such signs on the subject property.
Said changes are fully described in the Zoning Map attached as Exhibit "A" and the Site and Sign
Plan attached as Exhibit "B", and are subject to the condition(s) set forth below.
ATTACHMENTS.
Exhibit A —Zoning Map
Exhibit B — Site and Sign Plan
LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
The subject leased parcel is located at 15285 Collier Boulevard, in the Shopper of Pebblebrooke,
in Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
CONDITIONS.
• All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained.
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 fi•om 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
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.
Page 4 of 5
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,
August 7, 2025
Date
Page 5 of 5
Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP
Hearing Examiner
J
11;Wk
(It
r�
fit?
�i
i PRQJECT
LQCATIQN
Location Map
Petition Number: PL20230001017
Zoning Map
SV-PL20230001017 — 15285 Collier Blvd / TD Bank
June 19, 2025
Page 2 of 8
Q
O
m
L6
N
00
I
O `o� S
d i§c$$
�5Y
�9a=Fn��A
OQOO�00
L
N
LL
'vN
D
y
D
4Ci
ry
Q
Tim^
ry
y
N
�
oQ
etl
N
Z
c
m
o
IZJ
N
S
Y
N
N
r
0
O
P
d
m
�}
V
y
�
m
CO
CN
N
z
ZI
#
N
�
U
v1v
v
Q
c
m
j
\
§
§
B
\
\
�
B\
►
\
)
m
\
:
\/j\\
/\
§o,r
,In
{)} k;,||
b Sin r,
3#!!3!!
#
)e\
�+2
!�!
§�
§2)�
Lu
j\\5c
§Ifm
gRGGG)G
ke§§a0
�\
�(]a!
!
§2U;
eeez
\kk
un,
■
�
�
�
�
\
\
\
/
M
00
N
n
N
ry
O
a
0
Z
3
LL
O
0
0
Z
C7
LL
O
O
a
Z
J
Q
09£
o
O
n
V
�
M
m
0
c
E
O
�
W
�
E
co
a c d
E 0
c o)
L) L O a)
7 O_) J
c
- 0
f 0 E
O c
t
d �
CD
o� E mLL(L
O
o a3 z
m
m N E
to co E c
d d 3 ,u in o
m(D mo 4 F(D F 12
M d o 0
O ca d Z) o mc
12 v c w> p 0
M CO CL
= a a a
c m Q oto o yU
•o0 3 o E 0 3 o a °'
� ad
fn O Z.Vm.. `�O m .0 �) N N y 7 O
o u a) ci a c CO v o 0
a c a~ LL U p U 2 Q
m E m W N •E O C CM d) j
U E a) vi € a 'E c d m (D
a3 ut E U o_= E a)
O O [L L
m� my 33LL n.rn > o_'c in
d �U �Na33y I �tjCL
3 0 %v
C 0) C M c U a 5 0 U
U U U Chi m m a) U 0 N °U' o 00 d)
m > O a c M m
F° m m E E o m Z o o c
m �Nro pU o
P m °� c� o 1S (n ' m w 0) m
y(Uv m aO t X rn
m Z� � LL� Q� J U7 U a (D
c
o o co c c 3% x o
LL �k It C; CD � COL
� �
O � N M
� CV M V N (D 1� CD 0)'-
cp �a
00
W
J
p
o a) r U
M p^ >
O
m a�
a
— E
a 3 `g m
O fOD N
S
CO
� Q
o
U o 0
N N to d
_ c U a) 0)
Q V W V .0
?soa Z_ �_ >
mooW r 3 MQ (L))
d
�(Oc oc�wa�m a
—�Oj •O (o a O.O CD p w
qaZ W'amUU.n a�i
m m Z O N Z W c G O
U O n.0 6m 0 aa)i
�'_ as a
WO m=xd'�O mL
Z? C (D O y m
c 0 W .pa = J N 0) 0) N
d'�= so c 0 C= NCO
• O N ti � 2 Vim a 0 d�
EN o o
N j m w E
Fpp''0 p y U c D'5 c
M M x W �J o• m o o
�` cDWZ<nZ)EELLa
y LL
�$ca
9
7ld
cs{{
208 ,O C�
oQ000�o
a
2F
oo
c
�
D
N
ova
y
m
N
�
W
C
(A
myyw�
H
V
3
o
;r
0
d=
o
�
c
U
N
c
4
a
Bi
m
�
�
w
m
»>a»
NNNNNNN
O
0
0
0
o
0
O
v
ca
O
�
CO
N
a
M
0
LL
m
c�
m
¢
a
y�
m
m
U
y
Q
M
M