HEX Final Decision #2026-11 HEX NO. 2026-11
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
DATE OF HEARING.
INSTR 6795046 OR 6561 PG 2804
February 26, 2026 RECORDED 3/10/2026 11:00 AM PAGES 10
CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT AND COMPTROLLER
PETITION. COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA
REC$86.50
PDI-PL20250013644- The applicant requests that the Hearing Examiner
change to the Hacienda Lakes MPUD, Ordinance No. 11-41, for (1) the addition of a footnote to
Table II — Commercial, Including Mixed Use Buildings, Public Safety, and Senior Housing
Development Standards, adding that the minimum yards for the principal use may be reduced to
15 feet on the east and west sides of the Commercial Tract identified as Tracts A and B of the
Cadenza at Hacienda Lakes of Naples Plat as recorded in Plat Book 74, Pages 16 through 20 of
the Public Records of Collier County, Florida; and (2) the addition of a utilities note to Table II—
Commercial, Including Mixed Use Buildings, Public Safety, and Senior Housing Development
Standards, that setbacks must comply with the required separation between utility infrastructure
and buildings or structures provided in the Utility Standards and Procedures Ordinance, Chapter
134, Article III of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances.
GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION.
The petitioner requests an insubstantial change (PDI) to Ordinance No. 11-41 adding that the
minimum yards for the principal use may be reduced to 15 feet on the east and west sides of the
Commercial Tract identified as Tracts A and B of the Cadenza at Hacienda Lakes of Naples Plat
as recorded in Plat Book 74, Pages 16 through 20 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida.
This is to facilitate the construction of the Naples College of Osteopathic Medicine - a proposed
108,000-square-foot facility that can accommodate a maximum of 400 students on campus.
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.
Page 1 of 5
4. The Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) was advertised and held The NIM was
scheduled for Tuesday, December 30,2025,at 5:30 pm at the South Regional Library,Meeting
Room A, located at 8065 Lely Cultural Pkwy,Naples, FL 34113.
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 objection from
Evelyn Currier regarding pool privacy for adjacent structure along with the desire for a buffer
area and landscaping.
6. The Hearing Examiner disclosed having reviewed the record for the petition and not having
any ex parte communications.
7. 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.2.1
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 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
increase in the total number of dwelling units or intensity of land use or 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 No, there is no
proposed decrease in preservation, 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?
1 The Hearing Examiner's findings are italicized.
Page 2 of 5
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that there would be no
increase to the size of areas used for non-residential uses and no relocation of non-
residential areas.
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 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 there are no higher
level of vehicular traffic 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 from the public hearing reflects that 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 there will be no
incompatible relationships with abutting 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 County,
Comprehensive Planning staff determined the proposed changes to the PUD Document
would be consistent with the FLUE of the GMP. Both environmental and transportation
planning staff have reviewed this petition, and no changes to the PUD Document are
proposed that would be deemed inconsistent with the Conservation and Coastal
Management Element (CCME) or the Transportation Element of the GMP. This petition
does not propose any increase in density or intensity of the permitted land uses.
Page 3 of 5
LDC Sec. 10.02.13.E.2 Criterion:
Insubstantial change determination. An insubstantial change includes any change that is
not considered a substantial or minor change. An insubstantial change to an approved PUD
ordinance shall be based upon an evaluation of LDC subsection 10.02.13 E.1. 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 the proposed
change does not affect the original analysis and findings of the original zoning action in
Petition PUDZ-2006-AR-10146.
DEVIATION DISCUSSION.
The petitioner is not seeking any deviations.
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-PL20250013644, filed by D. Wayne
Arnold, representing the applicant Pape-Dawson Engineering Consultants, LLC, with respect to
the subject Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC, Collier County, Florida, for the following:
• An insubstantial change (PDI) to Ordinance No. 11-41 to allow for the construction of the
Naples College of Osteopathic Medicine.
Said changes are fully described in the Revised Table II - Commercial, Including Mixed Use
Buildings,Public Safety,and Senior Housing Development Standards attached as Exhibit"A",the
proposed site development plan attached as Exhibit"B"and are subject to the condition(s)set forth
below.
ATTACHMENTS.
Exhibit A—Revised Table II - Commercial, Including Mixed Use Buildings, Public Safety, and
Senior Housing Development Standards.
Exhibit B—Proposed Site Development Plan.
Page 4 of 5
LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
The subject parcel is in the Commercial Tract of the MPUD and is located approximately±1,280
feet east of the intersection of Collier Boulevard and Rattlesnake Hammock Road on the south
side of Rattlesnake Hammock Road in Section 23, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier
County, Florida, consisting of±5.09 acres of the±2,262 acre MPUD
CONDITIONS.
• 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.
l5)d 9;ir---
March 9, 2026
Date Andrew Dickman, Esq.,AICP
Hearing Examiner
Page 5 of 5
EXHIBIT "A"
PAPE - DAWSON
HACIENDA LAKES MPUD(PL20250013644)
ORDINANCE 2011-41
Revised December 29, 2025
3800 Via Del Rey,Bonita Springs,Florida 34134 239-947-1144 PAPE-DAWSON.COM
Florida Engineering Firm#39101 Florida Surveying&Mapping License#L68694
TABLE II
COMMERCIAL, INCLUDING MIXED USE BUILDINGS,PUBLIC FACILITY,AND SENIOR
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
DEVELOPMENT STANDARD PRINCIPAL USES ACCESSORY USES
MINIMUM LOT AREA 10,000 SQUARE FEET N/A
MINIMUM LOT WIDTH 100 FEET N/A
MINIMUM YARDS(MEASURED FROM LOT 25 FEET OR V THE 10 FEET
BOUNDARY) (1) BUILDING HEIGHT,
WHICHEVER IS GREATER*"
MINIMUM YARDS(MEASURED FROM MPUD 25 FEET 10 FEET
BOUNDARIES****
PRESERVE SETBACK 25 FEET 10 FEET
MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN 15 FT.OR '/:THE SUM OF 10 FEET
STRUCTURES BUILDING HEIGHTS*
MAXIMUM ZONED HEIGHT 50 FEET ( 25 FEET
MAXIMUM ACTUAL HEIGHT 60 FEET 30 FEET
MINIMUM FLOOR AREA-COMMERCIAL 600 SQUARE FEET" N/A
MINIMUM FLOOR AREA-SENIOR HOUSING 350 SQUARE FEET N/A
MINIMUM FLOOR AREA-PUBLIC FACILITY 1,500 SQUARE FEET N/A
MIN.GROSS FLOOR AREA PER UNIT 600 SQUARE FEET" 80 SQUARE FEET"
* Whichever is greater
** Not applicable to kiosks
*** General application for setbacks: Front yard setbacks shall comply with the following:
i. If the parcel is served by a public or private road right-of-way,the setback is measured
from the adjacent right-of-way line.
ii. If the parcel is served by a non-platted private drive, the setback is measured from the
back of curb or edge of pavement.
**** Principal and Accessory Structures shall not protrude or encroach into any required landscape
buffer.
***** except that a hotel, destination resort, senior housing or mixed use building may be up to 75 feet
in zoned height and 85 feet in actual height.
Note: Any independent living unit proposed for development in a single-family type of configuration shall
comply with the development standards for single-family land uses set forth in Table I.
Note(utilities):Setbacks must comply with the required separation between utility infrastructure and buildings or
structures provided in the Utility Standards and Procedures Ordinance,Chapter 134,Article III of the Collier County
Code of Laws and Ordinances
(1)The minimum yards for the principal use may be reduced to 15 Feet on the east and west sides of the Commercial
Tract identified as Tracts A and B of the Cadenza at Hacienda Lakes of Naples Plat as recorded in Plat Book 74 Pages
16 through 20 of the Public Records of Collier County,Florida.
Hacienda Lakes,PUDZ-2006-AR-10146
BCC Approved 10/25/I 1,Revised 12/29/2025(PL20250013644) Page 25 of 51
EXHIBIT " B "
Z W
0
N _
a 1_— I 1 1
Ill - .
a •
' 1 I I
4 I I I 1
a i Ii I II .
I I DI
till 4' f il + fir' t 1
11 1 111 I
L 11 1 II
I
— JIT1
Z III 1
II
II I 1
Q I i= i l— Ili r
II NI I.
II NI
I 1
1 I 11a. I I
t II__ ,
II T
_ -- - -I+ t 4t4t
I I_ I
II T
•
i 1
W 1 1
Cl.E ,,,i,...., _
„:,.,:,,,...,,,.,,,I, -...: : I il
E :i ;'
,`1rLI LI i 1-
4 :r.'' s Lu i..
W , . . . _ . ` . . . . .
0-� I
I
ILIL1 Wt.
ITT '- d
•
CI . i I.. e a a ------
. III-�
1 _�_ i^ _r
I ES - 11, II
W -`
i tiI -=�t f
a. I_LI_L_W_u_I iI-I -I1-UI
0 ----