HEX Final Decision #2025-31 HEX NO. 2025-31
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
DATE OF HEARING.
INSTR 6715727 OR 6496 PG 3009
Jul 10 2025 RECORDED 8/7/2025 2:12 PM PAGES 9
Y CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT AND COMPTROLLER
COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA
PETITION. REC$78.00
Petition No.PDI-PL20240008957—West side of Collier Blvd,south of the existing Oak Ridge
Middle School - Request for an insubstantial change to Ordinance No. 01-53, as amended,
the Indigo Lake Planned Unit Development (PUD), by amending Section III, subsection C,
by removing the existing PUD Street Tree Requirement.The subject PUD consists of±181.37
acres and is located on the west side of Collier Blvd, south of the existing Oak Ridge Middle
School,in Section 27, Township 48 South,Range 26 East, Collier County,Florida.
GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION.
The petitioner requests an insubstantial change (PDI) to Ordinance No. 01-53, as amended, the
Indigo Lake Planned Unit Development (PUD), by amending Section III, subsection C, by
removing the existing PUD Street Tree Requirement to legalize removal of street trees that are
damaging sidewalks in the community.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
Approval with conditions.
FINDINGS.
1. The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction over this Petitioner pursuant to Sec. 2-87 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 Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) was advertised and held on Wednesday,May
14,2025, at 5:30 pm, at the Indigo Lakes Clubhouse at 14875 Indigo Lakes Circle,Naples,FL
34119. There were twenty (20) members of the public present, and twenty-five (25) who
participated remotely on Zoom. A copy of the summary drafted by the applicant includes the
applicant's presentation, and the questions from the attending public are included in the
Backup Package. There were questions and concerns from the attending public over whether
all trees fall under this request,and concerns that the trees on their property are to be removed.
Page 1 of 7
The HOA assured them and committed to only removing the street trees that cause damage,
are problematic,and are beyond manageability and will be replaced. They also guaranteed that
a list of the trees that are selected to be removed will be released to the community. Aside from
that, no other commitments were made outside the request for the insubstantial change.
5. 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 was one public speaker in
opposition at the hearing, Robert Weesner, of 14830 Fripp Island Court, a 10 year resident of
the community who had several concerns regarding negative effects the change may have on
property value, debris and shavings left from the trees that had already been removed, and
questioned whether this is deemed a substantial or insubstantial change.
6. The County's Land Development Code Sections 10.02.13.E.1. and 10.02.13.E.2 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. and
10.02.13.E.2.'
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 no, the request
doesn't include a change in the 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 there is no
proposed increase in dwelling units, land use, or building heights. The proposed changes
are only to remove the existing PUD street tree requirement from Section III of the PUD
document.
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 there is no
proposed decrease in the existing preservation, conservation, recreation, or open space
areas in relation to the development.
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?
1 The Hearing Examiner's findings are italicized.
Page 2 of 7
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that there is no
proposed increase in the size of nonresidential use areas or proposed relocation of any
nonresidential land uses.
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 request will
not increase traffic generation or change traffic circulation; no impact is proposed on
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•om the public hearing reflects that no vehicular traffic
will be impacted by the request to remove the existing PUD street tree requirement.
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 no such change is
proposed that will result in a need for increased stormwater retention or increased
stormwater discharges.
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 will
• not bring about a relationship to an abutting land use that would be incompatible with an
adjacent land use.
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 request is
consistent with the FLUE and does not increase 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 F.S. §380.06,where such change requires a determination
and public hearing by Collier County pursuant to F.S. § 380.06(19). Any change that meets
Page 3 of 7
the criterion of F.S. §380.06(19)(e)2, and any changes to a DRI/PUD master plan that
clearly do not create a substantial deviation shall be reviewed and approved by Collier
County under this LDC section 10.02.13.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that this criterion is
not applicable to the petition request.
11. Any modification in 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 this LDC Section 10.02.13.E.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the request will
not create a substantial modification per LDC section 10.02.13.
LDC Sec. 10.02.13.E.2 Criterion:
a. 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 petition's
proposed change in removing the existing PUD street tree requirement from Section III of
the PUD document is not considered substantial (see above responses) or minor (no
realignment, added uses, or relocation proposed). The proposed changes do not change
the analysis offindings and criteria used in the original application.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY.
Transportation Element:
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that Transportation Planning
staff has evaluated the proposed changes. The changes present no transportation—related issues
for consistency. There are no additional uses proposed, no changes to the PUD trip impacts, and
no additional impacts on the adjacent roadways. Therefore, Transportation Planning staff finds
the petition consistent with the GMP.
Transportation Review:
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that Transportation Planning
staff has reviewed the petition and recommends approval of this request.
Zoning Review:
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the request to remove
problematic trees that are uprooting and causing property damage and creating a potential hazard
to the public is necessary in order to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public and
requires a text change within the governing Ordinance 01-53. The applicant's request is to remove
Page 4 of 7
the problematic trees. There is no requirement to replace them in the right-of-way; however, there
is a requirement that there needs to be a minimum of one canopy tree per lot and that it complies
with the landscaping requirements in the LDC. Therefore, Zoning Staff recommends approval.
Landscape Review:
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the LDC does not have a
requirement for trees along streets in PUD's. Therefore, the staff recommends approval.
Conservation and Coastal Management Element(CCME):
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that Environmental Planning
staff found this project to be consistent with the Conservation & Coastal Management Element
(CCME). The proposed changes do not affect any of the environmental requirements of the GMP.
Environmental Review:
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that Environmental Planning
staff has reviewed the PUD petition to address environmental concerns. The proposed PUD
changes will not affect any of the environmental requirements of the PUD document (Ordinance
01-53). A minimum of 9.0 acres of native vegetation has been placed under preservation (PB 34
PG 76-84).
This project does not require Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) review, as this project did
not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Section 2-1193 of the
Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances. Environmental Services staff recommends
approval of the proposed petition.
ANALYSIS.
The existing trees that were planted based on the requirement in the original approval have become
mature trees and have root systems that are breaking sidewalks in the community, making those
areas unsafe for pedestrians. Typically, street trees are not only attractive but offer shade on the
sidewalks for pedestrians and help reduce the"heat island"effect overall. That said,if pedestrians
are shaded but risk a slip/trip and fall the trees are counterproductive. The community will be
required to replace the tree canopy albeit in other locations near the sidewalks without risking the
same problem,wherever possible.
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 and 10.02.13.E.2 of the Land Development Code to approve the Petition.
Page 5 of 7
DECISION.
The Hearing Examiner hereby APPROVES Petition No. PDI-PL20240008957, filed by Ellen
Summers, AICP of Hole Montes, a Bowman Company, representing the applicant Indigo Lakes
Master Association, Inc., with respect to the subject PUD consisting of 181.37± acres and located
3,300 feet south of the Immokalee Rd and Collier Blvd intersection, adjacent to the south of the
Oak Ridge Middle School, in Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,
Florida, for the following:
• An insubstantial change (PDI) to Ordinance No. 01-53, as amended, the Indigo Lake
Planned Unit Development (PUD), by amending Section III, subsection C, by removing
the existing PUD Street Tree Requirement.
Said changes are fully described in the PUD Revised Text attached as Exhibit"A"and are subject
to the condition(s) set forth below.
ATTACHMENTS.
Exhibit A—PUD Revised Text
LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
The subject PUD consists of 181.37± acres and is located 3,300 feet south of the Immokalee Rd
and Collier Blvd intersection, adjacent to the south of the Oak Ridge Middle School, in Section
27,Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
CONDITIONS.
1. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the
development.
2. HOA meets with County staff to determine any minimum requirements of street tree
commitment are met in accordance with the original plan.
3. The street trees planted in replacement should be placed in close proximity to the sidewalk
when feasible to provide shade and with adequate spacing for roots so not to recreate the
save problems of cracking the sidewalks.
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
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 6 of 7
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 EXHIBTTS: 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 Andrew Dickman,Esq.,AICP
Hearing Examiner
Page 7 of 7
EXHIBIT "A"
SECTION III
LOW TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREAS PLAN
3.1 PURPOSE
The purpose of this Section is to identify specific development standards for area designated on
Exhibit"A".
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
3.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS(See Table II,for greater specificity)
A. GENERAL:All yards and setbacks shall be in related to the individual parcel boundaries,
except as otherwise provided. Generally whenever the word"setback"is used relative to a
measurement between the buildings and a lot line and/or perimeter boundary of a parcel of
land upon which buildings are to be constructed it shall have the following application:
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
C. STREET TREE REQUIREMENT
DC. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR RECREATIONAL STRUCTURES
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
# # # # # # # # # # # # #
Page 1 of 1
Words st uci ougk are deleted;words underline are added.
Q:1FL-NAPL-HM\ILMIDATA-NP2100 BOWMAN PROJECTS\340784-01-001 INDIGO LAKES PDI\PDNndigo Lakes PDI Text(8-5-
2024).docx