HEX Final Decision #2025-51 HEX NO. 2025-51
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
DATE OF HEARING.
INSTR 6772452 OR 6543 PG 3835
December 11,2025 RECORDED 1/9/2026 2:14 PM PAGES 12
CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT AND COMPTROLLER
COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA
PETITION. REC$103.50
Petition No. PDI-PL20250001275 —1766 Workman Way- Shoppes at Orange Blossom, LLC
- Requests an insubstantial change to Ordinance Number 04-74, as amended, the Orange
Blossom Ranch MPUD,for(1) a deviation from LDC Section 5.03.02.H to provide enhanced
plantings instead of a four foot wall along Workman Way; (2)a deviation from LDC Section
5.05.05.D.2.b to allow a 4-foot wall with enhanced plantings instead of an 8-foot wall where
Facilities with Fuel Pumps are within 250 feet of residential property. The subject property
consists of 7.55 +/-acres out of the 616 +/-acre PUD located at the northwest quadrant of Oil
Well Road (C.R.858)and Hawthorn Road in Section 13,Township 48 South,Range 27 East,
Collier County,Florida.
GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION.
The Petitioner requests an insubstantial change(PDI)to Ordinance No. 04-74,the Orange Blossom
Ranch MPUD, for two deviations from the Land Development Code (LDC) as follows:
• Deviation#1 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.03.02.H. "Fences and Walls",which requires
a 4-foot-tall wall between the commercial outparcels and the adjacent residential to the
north of Workman Way, to allow for no wall in the Type D buffer along Workman Way.
To offset the request, the required double staggered hedge row within the Type D buffer
shall be planted and maintained at 48".
• Deviation #2 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.05.05.D.2.b, "Facilities with Fuel Pumps",
which requires a 30-foot-wide landscape buffer with an 8-foot-tall wall, 3 canopy trees
per100 1.f., and a single hedgerow planted at 4' and maintained at 5' on both sides of the
wall, where facilities with fuel pumps are located within 250 feet of residentially zoned or
residentially developed properties, to allow for no wall, and plantings consisting of 4
canopy trees per 100 l.f. planted at 14' in height, 2 understory trees per 100 l.f. planted at
8' in height, and a double hedgerow, planted at 36" and maintained at 60" on a 3-foot tall
berm.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
Approval with conditions.
Page 1 of 7
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, April
30,2025, 5:30 pm at the Collier County OF/IFAS Extension, located at 14700 Immokalee Rd,
Naples, FL 34120. Patty Kulak of RVI Planning + Landscape Architecture gave an overview
of the petition, then opened the meeting to the public. There were questions about the traffic,
egress onto Workman Way, wall with landscaping, and switching from a wall to a landscape
buffer. Ms. Kulak answered all questions.No commitments were made at this meeting.
{
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 at
the hearing, Michael Stein, Vice President and Treasurer of the Estates at Orange Blossom,
who submitted an email with photographs and spoke at the public hearing in opposition to this
petition.
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, there is no
proposed change in the boundary of the PUD.
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 no, there is no
proposed increase in the number of dwelling units, intensity of land use, or height of
buildings within the development.
'The Hearing Examiner's findings are italicized.
Page 2 of 7
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 no, there is no
proposed decrease in preservation, conservation, recreation, or open space areas within
the development as designated on the approved Master Plan. The Petition adds more
enhanced landscaping in lieu of the wall requirements.
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 there would be no
increase in the size of areas used for non-residential uses and no relocation of the non-
residential regions.
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 no, there are no
substantial impacts resulting from•om this amendment.
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 no, there are no
• substantial impacts resulting from this amendment.
7. Will the change result in a requirement for increased stormwater retention, or otherwise
increase stormwater discharge?
The record evidence and testimony f rom the public hearing reflects that no, the proposed
changes will not impact or increase stormwater retention or increase 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 no, there will be
no incompatible relationships with abutting land uses. The change is to enhance the
pedestrian experience with greater landscaping and trees in lieu of walls. The subject
property where the deviations are proposed is not directly abutting an existing
Page 3 of 7
neighborhood. There is an existing residential neighborhood to the east across Hawthorn
Road and then a pond, and the existing residential neighborhood to the north is separated
by a significant parcel of undeveloped land.
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 no, the request
does not impact the project's compliance with the Growth Management Plan. (GMP).
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
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 the applicant
stated that no, the MPUD is not within a Development of Regional Impact.
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.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the request is not
a substantial modification to the MPUD and may be processed as a PDI pursuant to the
LDC and Administrative Code.
LDC Sec. 10.02.13.E.2 Criterion:
Insubstantial change determination.
Does this petition change the analysis of the findings and criteria used for the original
application?
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that no, the proposed
change does not affect the original analysis and findings for the most recent zoning action
in Petition PUDA-PL20210001860.
DEVIATION DISCUSSION.
The petitioner is seeking two deviations from the LDC's requirements. The petitioner's rationale
and staff analysis/recommendation are outlined below.
Page 4 of 7
Proposed Deviation #1 (Fences and Walls):
Deviation#1 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.03.02.H. "Fences and Walls", which requires a 4-
foot tall wall between the commercial outparcels and the adjacent residential to the north of
Workman Way, to allow for no wall in the Type D buffer along Workman Way. To offset the
request, the required double staggered hedge row within the Type D buffer shall be planted and
maintained at 48.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the Applicant requests
removal of the required 4-foot wall within the 10-foot-wide Type D bzffer along the internal right-
of-way separating the commercial outparcels from the residential uses north of Workman Way. A
45-foot-wide right-of-way already provides substantial separation between the two uses, and the
adjacent residential development includes its own 10 footwide Type D buffer. The relationship
with the abutting high-density residential is that of a mixed use project that was intended for a
cohesive and integrated form of development. The uses are screened from each other by two (2)
10' wide Type D buffers and separated by a 45-foot-wide right-of-way. Eliminating the wall
promotes pedestrian connectivity and avoids creating a visual barrier within this integrated,
mixed-use development. To maintain compatibility and meet the intent of the Land Development
Code, the Applicant will enhance the buffer by planting the required double staggered hedge row
at four feet in height to ensure consistent and effective visual screening along the corridor. This is
a context-sensitive adjustment that maintains the intent of the Land Development Code by
providing visual and functional separation without introducing adverse impact, while
acknowledging these uses are within the same M1/1PUD and are separated by an internal right-of-
way. The deviation represents a minimal, site-specific adjustment that supports the design intent
of the MPUD and does not negatively impact public health, safety, or welfare.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that County staff recommends
approval of this deviation,finding it in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.24.3, 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 literal application of such regulations. "
Proposed Deviation #2 (Facilities with Fuel Pumps):
Deviation #2 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.05.05.D.2.b, "Facilities with Fuel Pumps", which
requires a 30-foot-wide landscape buffer with an 8-foot-tall wall, three canopy trees per 100 l.f.,
and a single hedge row planted at 4' and maintained at 5' on both sides of the wall,where facilities
with fuel pumps are located within 250 feet of residentially zoned or residentially developed
properties, to allow for no wall, and plantings consisting of four canopy trees per 100 l.f. planted
at 14' in height, two understory trees per 100 l.f. planted at 8' in height, and a double hedgerow,
planted at 36"and maintained at 60"on a 3-foot tall berm.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the Applicant is requesting
to mods the 8-foot wall requirement for facilities with fuel pumps located within 250 feet of
residentially zoned or developed property, as outlined in LDC Section 5.05.05.D.2.b. The subject
Page 5 of 7
parcel is separated from the residential development by an internal roadway and is situated across
from a parking lot and Building 12 within the apartment complex,providing meaningful physical
and visual separation between uses. Constructing an 8-foot masonry wall along this frontage
would create a harsh visual edge at the gateway to the commercial center and conflict with the
cohesive, integrated design of the overall development. To maintain compatibility and meet the
intent of the Land Development Code, the Applicant will plant an alternative fully opaque buffer
to include a mixture of canopy trees (planted at an enhanced 14'in height), understory trees, and
a double hedge row planted on a 3-foot-tall berm. The combination of these plantings and berm
features will ensure an effective visual screening along the corridor in lieu of the wall. This is a
context-sensitive adjustment that maintains the intent of the Land Development Code by providing
visual and functional separation without introducing adverse impact, while acknowledging these
uses are within the same MPUD and are separated by an internal right-of-way. The deviation will
not affect public health, safety, or welfare and supports the cohesive, mixed-use character
envisioned by the Orange Blossom Ranch MPUD.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that County staff recommends
approval of this deviation,finding it 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 literal application of such regulations. "
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 and 10.02.13.E.2 of the Land Development Code to approve the Petition.
DECISION.
The Hearing Examiner hereby APPROVES Petition No. PDI-PL20250001275, filed by Patty
Kulak,of RVI Planning and Landscape Architecture,representing the owner/applicant Shoppes at
Orange Blossom,LLC,with respect to the subject property that consists of 7.55+/-acres out of the
616+/- acre PUD located at the northwest quadrant of Oil Well Road (C.R. 858) and Hawthorn
Road in Section 13,Township 48 South,Range 27 East,Collier County,Florida,for the following:
• An insubstantial change(PDI)to Ordinance No.04-74,the Orange Blossom Ranch MPUD,
for (1)a deviation from LDC Section 5.03.02.H to allow for no wall in the Type D buffer
along Workman Way. To offset the request, the required double staggered hedge row
within the Type D buffer shall be planted and maintained at 48";(2)a deviation from LDC
Section 5.05.05.D.2.b to allow for no wall, and plantings consisting of four canopy trees
per 100 l.f. planted at 14' in height,two understory trees per 10011 planted at 8' in height,
and a double hedge row,planted at 36" and maintained at 60" on a 3-foot tall berm.
Page 6of7
Said changes are fully described in the Revised PUD Text—To be adopted with HEX decision
attached as Exhibit"A"and the Revised Master Plan—To be adopted with HEX decision attached
as Exhibit"B",and are subject to the condition(s) set forth below.
ATTACHMENTS.
Exhibit A—Revised PUD Text—To be adopted with HEX decision
Exhibit B—Revised Master Plan—To be adopted with HEX decision
LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
The subject property consists of 7.55+/-acres out of the 616+/-acre PUD located at the northwest
quadrant of Oil Well Road (C.R. 858) and Hawthorn Road in Section 13, Township 48 South,
Range 27 East,Collier County,Florida.
CONDITIONS.
1. For deviation#1,to offset the request,the required double staggered hedge row within the
Type D buffer shall be planted and maintained at 48".
2. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the
development.
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.
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.
January 9,2026
Date Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP
Hearing Examiner
Page 7 of 7
EXHIBIT "A"
INDEX PAGE
List of Exhibits ii
Statement of Compliance iii
SECTION I Legal 1-1
General Description and Short Title
SECTION II Project Development 2-1
SECTION III Residential/Golf Development Areas 3-1
SECTION IV Mixed Use Area 4-1
SECTION V Community Facility 5-1
SECTION VI General Development Commitments 6-1
SECTION VII Deviations 7-1
Words added are underlined,words deleted are ii
SECTION VH
DEVIATIONS
1. Deviation #1 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.03.02.H. "Fences and Walls", which
requires a 4-foot-tall wall between the commercial outparcels and the adjacent residential
to the north of Workman Way, to allow for no wall in the Type D buffer along Workman
Way. To offset the request, the required double staggered hedge row within the Type D
buffer shall be planted and maintained at 48".
2. Deviation#2 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.05.05.D.2.b, "Facilities with Fuel Pumps",
which requires a 30-foot-wide landscape buffer with an 8-foot-tall wall, 3 canopy trees per
1001.f., and a single hedgerow planted at 4'and maintained at 5'on both sides of the wall,
where facilities with fuel pumps are located within 250 feet of residentially zoned or
residentially developed properties, to allow for no wall, and plantings consisting of 4
canopy trees per 1001.f. planted at 14'in height, 2 understory trees per 1001.f. planted at
8'in height, and a double hedgerow,planted at 36"and maintained at 60" on a 3-foot tall
berm.
Words added are underlined,words deleted are stiruek-th-rtr 7-1
EXHI : IT " B "
n b9 o • .
I " i kS� 33 ���� '� ylg
V�{ f 1 q t �C vY • a, sR Lt17.� s Y g4 a! s S1} 1 z
W Fit dr 0 .- ` O D 31 Si /i oc ,Pl : W' iO I1,1 S , ,1 VW jt < -
Es II ., z v✓ 0 zOV r I L0 y I- IL
5t ro`v C't F Z � cI ,..,..Vain... % a ` uz�i `Ke i g k f'i !i t� ! i'' rW
W 3:i X I' m $ ligf. lei e t, 1 I I N
t ' ;II li I! I' I
M I'! till u i�� " u F „' 1 p 0 a W W -i
riE
t T y. OV R Wt Q 22 ,.. K
Z ryyizW i5 iN rn 0� O
o • ;ia N " P °�pz a aw << Zn
aW c = Ii 'i•
* WrcWiw ewm0 zzrc RQ3ti iw
W 3 ri O n NO }M1 hH R S
�00 N iS ~
Jz z!n10 4 W, ggzaOnn rc
! OK 06 n ' d ? .,,Ip 5 aKm W hO Z
g7Z y_- �.-> > Wi�S� 5 '6uos ?J6u r'noa 'F. �u,'�
F ,o./. N W W< J W 0
< \ \ fie 3U/ c is•i Z 0' Z.
M.Y! F 4 yrj rr r,
W 2 6.r1 i
9 i , Cs Vap~u ui 51
0 • -. 0 (xwgw ¢O Oct
$u YRi p n
9 mi-n p < K�tl5
i - _ m mwOznO 34
O
'• i '
T ; NJI •: t 0 tiWwinn<o 0o z
'I
O�w w ON � a,w
J
A
� - • ' • p ! < u, ,, ,, ', -:_1 -may, O. O.
imIrF
of If , � (LI
- / . LL ,h
I ; I .
R m i ,fQ ' C w- , wQ ' o
, z- ~ Nz (
l R. '.. 1 t_� J rr cn oW _
- balin0.aYeAl St 0Yatl 113M 11a N3din9 a.3d.r,9t ? _ Nitu w
g l. ..— .y L3i1l9 M3idnH a ' 3dA1 02 134 �t 0t
.0 3dAlAIC il -- r " l, .' Ib5, : O
r a® d1.,, Z Nz 3� H .I , uw I ! l II LL Fu 03
7*'ti rc o
' d W \r :'
'1
I' 1ou
n,r1 =< , O 0 W wOfi 12
1 ^ u
9aW 1 W xu t� i -4 xz
O gig'
oTHN
I?ph I _ q w<„ I Iu � ec.P,I
j ' a . . II r.8 x0
• I O a O w
Q I a ..1 / `
N Y' -. -- -. 'C � ' N ww iil
�- � n y< z 2 Z
W'N O I
�''� I; OiN 20
•
T_r , 2 z
/I', �7 u •
� I I ¢ ?
x
r, v x5m t.a t. I „
3
,6 u3ian0 aoIM in! 7 rvnv0 U]ddn3 3WVA.01 • Z.
O P
i e 0 "U n K fWA'
W ,- 00 F.ui O I
FW o< ,,, + a;
Zp n?, adz 22 0:
04
F, F,; 4 6 m z QI
O -' O 4 ' oo '� G
L.
z a:. w s O I OIa ,.f. F}F
N W Wyn,HL e Y.Y.i
z.6,- 6GI 5
ix
aI OF
it �mw