Agenda 11/12/2019 Item # 9C (Orange Blosson Ranch PUD)11/12/2019
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This item requires ex parte disclosure be provided by the Commission members. Should a hearing
be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve an
Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 04-74, the Orange Blossom Ranch Planned Unit Development
(PUD), to increase the maximum number of dwelling units from 1600 to 1950; and providing an
effective date. The subject property is located on the north and south sides of Oil Well Road (C.R.
858) approximately one mile east of Immokalee Road (C.R. 846) in Sections 13, 14 and 24,
Township 48 South, Range 27 East, and Section 19, Township 48 South, Range 28 East, Collier
County, Florida consisting of 616+/- acres. (PL20180003155)
OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of County Commissioners (Board) review staff’s findings and
recommendations along with the recommendations of the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC)
regarding the above-referenced petition, render a decision regarding this PUD amendment petition, and
ensure the project is in harmony with all the applicable codes and regulations in order to ensure that the
community's interests are maintained.
CONSIDERATIONS: The subject property consists of +/-616 acres and is located along Oil Well Road
near the intersection of Hawthorn Road and Oil Well Road in Section 13,14, 19, 24 Township 48 South,
Range 27, 28 East, Collier County. The petitioners are requesting that the Board of Collier County
Commissioners consider an application to amend Ordinance Number 2016-31 the Orange Blossom Ranch
Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD). The applicant proposes to amend the +/-616 acre
Orange Blossom Ranch MPUD to increase the denisty from a maximum of 1,600 dwelling units to a
maximum of 1,950 dwelling units.
The Orange Blossom Ranch MPUD was established by Ordinance 2004-74. The PUD was later amended
by Ordinance 2016-31 to allow for removal of excess excavation material and to amend the master plan to
change the landscape buffers to the current LDC requirements. Th e applicant proposes to increase the
density of the residential PUD by adding 350 dwelling units and increasing the maximum number of
dwelling units from 1,600 to 1,950 units. The current density for Orange Blossom Ranch PUD is 2.8
DU/A. The applicant states that by increasing density, they seek to provide lower cost options for
residential home purchasers in Collier County by adding attached villas and townhomes. To clarify, the
applicant request does not propose affordable housing or workforce housing. Th ey are proposing lower
cost options for their market rate housing products.
The surrounding PUD projects with approved acreage, dwellings units and densities are listed here:
Orange Tree - 2,137 acres - 3,150 units - 1.36 DU/A
Estates - residential - 0.44 DU/A
Orange Blossom Ranch - 616 acres - 1,950 units - 3.4 DU/A
A density map of the surrounding PUD projects has been included for review.
FISCAL IMPACT: The County collects impact fees prior to the issuance of building permits to help
offset the impacts of each new development on public facilities. These impact fees are used to fund
projects identified in the Capital Improvement Element (CIE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) as
needed to maintain an adopted Level of Service (LOS) for public facilities. Additionally, in order to meet
the requirements of concurrency management, the developer of every local development order approved
by Collier County is required to pay a portion of the estimated Transportation Impact Fees associated with
the project in accordance with Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. Other fees
9.C
Packet Pg. 138
11/12/2019
collected prior to issuance of a building permit include building permit review fees. Finally, additional
revenue is generated by application of ad valorem tax rates, and that revenue is directly related to the
value of the improvements. Please note that impact fees and taxes collected were not included in the
criteria used by staff and the CCPC to analyze this petition.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: The subject property is ±616-acres and is designated
Agricultural/Rural - Settlement Area District, as identified on the Future Land Use Map in the Golden
Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) of the Growth Management Plan. The Settlement Area District is
described in the GGAMP as follows:
“This area consists of Sections 13, 14, 23 and 24, and a portion of 22, Township 48 South, Range 27 East
(the former North Golden Gate Subdivision), which was zoned and platted between 1967 and 1970. In
settlement of a lawsuit pertaining to the permitted uses of this property, this property has been "vested"
for the types of land uses specified in that certain "PUD" by Settlement Zoning granted by the County as
referenced in that certain SETTLEMENT AND ZONING AGREEMENT dated the 27th day of Janua ry
1986. Twenty-one hundred (2,100) dwelling units and twenty-two (22) acres of neighborhood commercial
uses and hotel/motel use are “vested.” This area is now known as the Orange Tree PUD and the types of
uses permitted include residential, earth mining, commercial, agricultural, community facility, community
uses, education facilities, religious facilities, golf course, open space and recreational uses, and essential
service uses. By designation in the GMP’s Golden Gate Area Master Plan as Settlement Area, the Plan
recognizes the property as an area which, while outside of the Urban Designation, is appropriate for the
following types of uses: residential, earth mining, commercial, agricultural, community facility,
community uses, education facilities, religious facilities, golf course, open space and recreational, and
essential services.
Future zoning changes to add dwelling units or commercial acreage within the geographic boundaries of
this District will not be prohibited or discouraged by reason of the above-referenced vested status. The
geographic expansion of the Settlement Area to additional lands outside the areas covered by Sections 13,
14, 23 and 24, and a portion of 22, Township 48 South, Range 27 East (the former North Golden Gate
Subdivision), shall be prohibited. The Settlement Area Land Use District is limited to the area described
above and shall not be available as a land use district for any other property in the County.”
Residential is an allowable use in the Settlement Area District. The Settlement Area District does not
have a maximum number of dwelling units limit; therefore, the proposed amendment to increase density
from 1,600 dwelling units (DUs) (2.80 DU/A) to 1,950 DUs (3.41 DU/A) is consistent with the GGAMP.
Orange Blossom Ranch’s total acreage (616A), minus the proposed total commercial acres (44A) equals
572 Acres; and this is the total acreage used to calculate the density above. The Growth Management Plan
Consistency Review is included for review.
This PUDA petition may be deemed consistent with the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and Future Land
Use Element of the Growth Management Plan.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The CCPC
heard petition PUDR-PL20180003155 on September 19, 2019, and there was a motion to deny by
Commissioner Fry, second by Commissioner Fryer. The motion passed by a vote of 4 -2. Fry, Homiak,
Fryer and Strain voted in favor. Schmitt and Chrzanowski voted against the motion. Commissioner Fryer
stated inadequate parking, internal traffic, density against surrounding neighborhoods and traffic impacts
as his reasons for denial. Chairman Strain explained reasons for his vote to deny, including that the
applicant justified the density claiming the project would provide affordable housing, but applicant should
not receive additional density unless they are committed to provide affordable housing. He noted the
requested density is two and one-half times the density in Orange Tree and 7 times the density in Golden
Gate Estates.
9.C
Packet Pg. 139
11/12/2019
If the CCPC had voted to approve, the motion would have included the following stipulations:
Stipulation 1
One entity (hereinafter the Managing Entity) shall be responsible for PUD monitoring until close-
out of the PUD, and this entity shall also be responsible for satisfying all PUD commitments until
close-out of the PUD. At the time of this PUD approval, the Managing Entity is RP Orange
Blossom Owner; LLC. Should the Managing Entity desire to transfer the monitoring and
commitments to a successor entity, then it must provide a copy of a legally binding document that
needs to be approved for legal sufficiency by the County Attorney. After such approval, the
Managing Entity will be released of its obligations upon written approval of the transfer by
County staff, and the successor entity shall become the Managing Entity. As Owner and
Developer sell off tracts, the Managing Entity shall provide written notice to County that includes
an acknowledgement of the commitments required by the PUD by the new owner and the new
owner’s agreement to comply with the Commitments through the Managing Entity, but the
Managing Entity shall not be relieved of its responsibility under this Section. When the PUD is
closed-out, then the Managing Entity is no longer responsible for the monitoring and fulfillment
of PUD commitments.
Stipulation 2
The maximum total daily trip generation for the PUD shall not exceed 2,149 two-way PM peak
hour net trips based on the use codes in the ITE Manual on trip generation rates in effect at the
time of application for SDP/SDPA or subdivision plat approval.
Stipulation 3
There shall be no master plan changes related to application PL20180003155 Orange Blossom
Ranch PUDA.
As stated, the motion to deny passed and the petition is presented to the Board with a recommendation of
denial from the Planning Commission. The above stipulations have been included in the proposed PUD
ordinance for Orange Blossom. The Zoning Division continues to recommend approval of the proposed
PUD amendment.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This is an amendment to the existing Orange Blossom Ranch
Mixed_Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD). . The burden falls upon the applicant to prove that the
proposed rezone is consistent with all the criteria set forth below. The burden then shifts to the Board of
County Commissioners, should it consider denying the rezone, to determine that such denial would not be
arbitrary, discriminatory or unreasonable. This would be accomplished by finding that the proposal does
not meet one or more of the listed criteria below.
Criteria for MPUD Rezones
Ask yourself the following questions. The answers assist you in making a determination for approval
or not.
1. Consider: The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in
relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage,
sewer, water, and other utilities.
9.C
Packet Pg. 140
11/12/2019
2. Is there an adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of agreements, contract, 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? Findings and
recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the County Attorney.
3. Consider: Conformity of the proposed MPUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the
Growth Management Plan.
4. Consider: The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may
include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and
screening requirements.
5. Is there an adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the
development?
6. Consider: The timing or sequence of development (as proposed) for the purpose of assuring
the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private.
7. Consider: The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate
expansion.
8. Consider: Conformity with MPUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such
regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified
as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such
regulations.
9. Will the proposed change be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and future
land use map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan?
10. Will the proposed MPUD Rezone be appropriate considering the existing land use pattern?
11. Would the requested MPUD Rezone result in the possible creation of an isolated district
unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts?
12. Consider: Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing
conditions on the property proposed for change.
13. Consider: Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed
amendment necessary.
14. Will the proposed change adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood?
15. Will the proposed change 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?
16. Will the proposed change create a drainage problem?
17. Will the proposed change seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas?
9.C
Packet Pg. 141
11/12/2019
18. Will the proposed change adversely affect property values in the adjacent area?
19. Will the proposed change be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent
property in accordance with existing regulations?
20. Consider: Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an
individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare.
21. Are there substantial reasons why the property cannot (“reasonably”) be used in accordance
with existing zoning? (a “core” question…)
22. Is the change suggested out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county?
23. Consider: Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the
proposed use in districts already permitting such use.
24. Consider: The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which
would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the
proposed zoning classification.
25. Consider: The impact of development resulting from the proposed MPUD rezone on the
availability of adequate public facilities and services 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 [Code ch.106, art.II], as
amended.
26. Are there other factors, standards, or criteria relating to the MPUD rezone request that the
Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health,
safety, and welfare?
The Board must base its decision upon the competent, substantial evidence presented by the written
materials supplied to it, including but not limited to the Staff Report, Executive Summary, maps, studies,
letters from interested persons and the oral testimony presented at the Board hearing as these items relate
to these criteria. The proposed Ordinance was prepared by the County Attorney’s Office. This is
approved as to form and legality, and requires an affirmative vote of four for Board approval (HFAC)
RECOMMENDATION: The Zoning Division Staff respectfully disagrees with the recommendation of
the CCPC and continues to recommend approval of the petition, which is reflected in the attached Staff
Report and Ordinance and recommends that the Board approve the applicant’s request to amend the PUD
subject to the following stipulations: (which have been added to the proposed Ordinance)
Stipulation 1
One entity (hereinafter the Managing Entity) shall be responsible for PUD monitoring until close-
out of the PUD, and this entity shall also be responsible for satisfying all PUD commitments until
close-out of the PUD. At the time of this PUD approval, the Managing Entity is RP Orange
Blossom Owner; LLC. Should the Managing Entity desire to transfer the monitori ng and
commitments to a successor entity, then it must provide a copy of a legally binding document that
needs to be approved for legal sufficiency by the County Attorney. After such approval, the
Managing Entity will be released of its obligations upon written approval of the transfer by
9.C
Packet Pg. 142
11/12/2019
County staff, and the successor entity shall become the Managing Entity. As Owner and
Developer sell off tracts, the Managing Entity shall provide written notice to County that includes
an acknowledgement of the commitments required by the PUD by the new owner and the new
owner’s agreement to comply with the Commitments through the Managing Entity, but the
Managing Entity shall not be relieved of its responsibility under this Section. When the PUD is
closed-out, then the Managing Entity is no longer responsible for the monitoring and fulfillment
of PUD commitments.
Stipulation 2
The maximum total daily trip generation for the PUD shall not exceed 2,149 two-way PM peak
hour net trips based on the use codes in the ITE Manual on trip generation rates in effect at the
time of application for SDP/SDPA or subdivision plat approval.
Prepared by: C. James Sabo, AICP, Principal Planner, Zoning Division
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. Staff Report (PDF)
2. Attachment A Ordinance 9.25.19 (PDF)
3. Attachment B Master Plan Document (PDF)
4. Attachment C Orange Blossom Density Map (PDF)
5. Attachment D FLUE Consistency Review (PDF)
6. Legal Ad - Agenda ID 10204 (PDF)
7. [Linked] Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (PDF)
9.C
Packet Pg. 143
11/12/2019
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Item Number: 9.C
Doc ID: 10524
Item Summary: ***This item was continued from the October 22, 2019 BCC Meeting and has
been continued indefinitely.*** This item requires ex parte disclosure be provided by the Commission
members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in.
Recommendation to approve an Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida amending Ordinance No. 04-74, the Orange Blossom Ranch Planned Unit Development (PUD),
to increase the maximum number of dwelling units from 1600 to 1950; and providing an effective date.
The subject property is located on the north and south sides of Oil Well Road (C.R. 858) approximately
one mile east of Immokalee Road (C.R. 846) in Sections 13, 14 and 24, Township 48 South, Range 27
East, and Section 19, Township 48 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 616+/-
acres. (PL20180003155)
Meeting Date: 11/12/2019
Prepared by:
Title: Manager - Technical Systems Operations – Administrative Services Department
Name: Michael Cox
10/24/2019 2:46 PM
Submitted by:
Title: Manager - Planning – Zoning
Name: Ray Bellows
10/24/2019 2:46 PM
Approved By:
Review:
Growth Management Department Michael Cox Level 1 Reviewer Skipped 10/24/2019 2:46 PM
Zoning Michael Cox Additional Reviewer Skipped 10/24/2019 2:46 PM
Growth Management Department Michael Cox Deputy Department Head Review Skipped 10/24/2019 2:46 PM
Growth Management Department Michael Cox Department Head Review Skipped 10/24/2019 2:46 PM
County Attorney's Office Michael Cox Level 2 Attorney of Record Review Skipped 10/24/2019 2:46 PM
Office of Management and Budget Michael Cox Level 3 OMB Gatekeeper Review Skipped 10/24/2019 2:46 PM
County Attorney's Office Michael Cox Level 3 County Attorney's Office Review Skipped 10/24/2019 2:46 PM
Office of Management and Budget Michael Cox Additional Reviewer Skipped 10/24/2019 2:46 PM
County Manager's Office Michael Cox Level 4 County Manager Review Skipped 10/24/2019 2:46 PM
Board of County Commissioners MaryJo Brock Meeting Pending 11/12/2019 9:00 AM
9.C
Packet Pg. 144
AGENDA ITEM 9.A.1
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Staff Report (10524 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch)
9.C.1Packet Pg. 146Attachment: Staff Report (10524 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch)
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Staff Report (10524 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch)
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Staff Report (10524 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch)
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Staff Report (10524 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch)
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Staff Report (10524 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch)
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Staff Report (10524 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch)
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: Staff Report (10524 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch)
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Staff Report (10524 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch)
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Staff Report (10524 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch)
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Staff Report (10524 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch)
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Staff Report (10524 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch)
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Staff Report (10524 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch)
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Staff Report (10524 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch)
9.C.1
Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Staff Report (10524 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch)
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Attachment A Ordinance 9.25.19 (10524 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch)
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: Attachment A Ordinance 9.25.19 (10524 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch)
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: Attachment A Ordinance 9.25.19 (10524 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch)
9.C.2
Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Attachment A Ordinance 9.25.19 (10524 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch)
9.C.3Packet Pg. 164Attachment: Attachment B Master Plan Document (10524 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch)
E
MPUD
MPUD
MPUD
MPUD
MPUD
MPUD
CFPUD
O i l W e l l R D
RANDALL BLVD
Map Date: 8/29/2019
Growth Management DepartmentOperations & RegulatoryManagement Division
I
0 800 1,600400
Feet
Orange Blossom RanchDensity: 2.8
Density: 1 per 2.25 ac.
SUBJECT PROPERTY:ORANGE BLOSSOM RANCH2.8 d.u. per acre
GROSS DENSITY UNITS PER ACRE (UPA)ORANGE BLOSSOM RANCH ANDSURROUNDING PROPERTIES (PL20180003155)
Orange Blossom Ranch PUD
Orange TreeDensity: 1.36
Orange TreeDensity: 1.36
Orange TreeDensity: 1.36
Orange Blossom RanchDensity: 2.8
Orange Blossom RanchDensity: 2.8
E
Density: 1 per 2.25 ac.
E
Density: 1 per 2.25 ac.
E
Density: 1 per 2.25 ac.
E
Density: 1 per 2.25 ac.
9.C.4
Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Attachment C Orange Blossom Density Map (10524 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch)
Zoning Division · 2800 North Horseshoe Drive · Naples, FL 34104 · 239-252-2400 Page 1 of 2
Growth Management Department
Zoning Division
Comprehensive Planning Section
MEMORANDUM
To: James Sabo, AICP, Principal Planner
Zoning Services Section, Zoning Division
From: Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner
Comprehensive Planning Section, Zoning Division
Date: May 20, 2019
Subject: Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) Consistency Review
PETITION NUMBER: PUDA - PL20180003155 - REV 2
PETITION NAME: Orange Blossom Ranch MPUD
REQUEST: The petitioner is requesting to amend Ordinance #04-74, as most recently amended by Ord. #16-31,
the Orange Blossom Ranch Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD), to increase density from an approved
maximum number of 1,600 dwelling units to a maximum number of 1,950 dwelling units. Submittal 2 revised the
Working Master Plan, submitted a Statement of Utility Provisions, revised the Traffic Impact Statement (including
an increase of the trip limit), PUD document, application, the boundary survey, and the Disclosure of Interest form.
LOCATION: The ±616-acre site is located on the north and south sides of Oil Well Road (CR-858),
approximately one mile east of Immokalee Road (CR-846). It lies in Sections 13, 14, and 24, Township 48 South,
Range 27 East.
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The subject property is designated Agricultural/Rural –
Settlement Area District, as identified on the Future Land Use Map in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP)
of the Growth Management Plan. The Settlement Area District is described in the GGAMP as follows:
“This area consists of Sections 13, 14, 23 and 24, and a portion of 22, Township 48 South, Range 27 East (the
former North Golden Gate Subdivision), which was zoned and platted between 1967 and 1970. In settlement of a
lawsuit pertaining to the permitted uses of this property, this property has been "vested" for the types of land uses
specified in that certain "PUD" by Settlement Zoning granted by the County as referenced in that certain
SETTLEMENT AND ZONING AGREEMENT dated the 27th day of January, 1986. Twenty-one hundred (2,100)
dwelling units and twenty-two (22) acres of neighborhood commercial uses and hotel/motel use are “vested”. This
area is now known as the Orange Tree PUD and the types of uses permitted include residential, earth mining,
commercial, agricultural, community facility, community uses, education facilities, religious facilities, golf course,
open space and recreational uses, and essential service uses.
By designation in the Growth Management Plan’s Golden Gate Area Master Plan as Settlement Area, the Plan
recognizes the property as an area which, while outside of the Urban Designation, is appropriate for the following
types of uses: residential, earth mining, commercial, agricultural, community facility, community uses, education
facilities, religious facilities, golf course, open space and recreational, and essential services.
9.C.5
Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Attachment D FLUE Consistency Review (10524 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch)
Zoning Division · 2800 North Horseshoe Drive · Naples, FL 34104 · 239-252-2400 Page 2 of 2
Future zoning changes to add dwelling units or commercial acreage within the geographic boundaries of this District
will not be prohibited or discouraged by reason of the above-referenced vested status. The geographic expansion
of the Settlement Area to additional lands outside the areas covered by Sections 13, 14, 23 and 24, and a portion of
22, Township 48 South, Range 27 East (the former North Golden Gate Subdivision), shall be prohibited. The
Settlement Area Land Use District is limited to the area described above and shall not be available as a land use
district for any other property in the County.”
Residential is an allowable use in the Settlement Area District. The Settlement Area District does not have a
maximum number of dwelling units limit; therefore, the proposed amendment to increase density from 1,600
dwelling units (DUs) (2.80 DU/A) to 1,950 DUs (3.41 DU/A) is consistent with the GGAMP. Orange Blossom
Ranch’s total acreage (616A), minus the proposed total commercial acres (44A) equals 572 Acres; and this is the
total acreage used to calculate the density above.
Relevant FLUE Objectives and policies are stated below (in italics); each policy is followed by staff analysis (in
bold).
FLUE Policy 5.4:
New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the
Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004, as amended).
[Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to the Zoning Services Section’s staff as part of their
review of the petition in its entirety.]
FLUE Objective 7 & Policies 7.1 – 7.4:
Promote smart growth policies, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and adhere to the existing development character
of the Collier County, where applicable, and as follows:
[Staff has determined it is unnecessary to conduct a detailed analysis of FLUE Policies 7.1 , 7.2 and 7.4
pertaining to access, walkability, etc., with this application due to there being no proposed changes to access
points, internal roads, land use tracts, etc. from the original PUD approval. Staff determined that FLUE
Policy 7.3 should be reviewed due to a new interconnection now being shown on the Master Plan (see below).]
FLUE Policy 7.3 states: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets
and/or interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type.
The interconnection of local streets between developments is also addressed in Policy 9.3 of the Transportation
Element. [The revised Working Master Plan, Submittal 2, shows that Hawthorne Road will run northwest
from Oil Well Road to the western edge of the subject property and will access the proposed entrance to the
Big Corkscrew Island Regional Park, which abuts part of the western boundary of the project site. Two
potential east-west interconnections with Palmetto Ridge High School (west of the Orange Blossom Ranch
PUD western commercial/office area) are also shown on the Working Master Plan.]
CONCLUSION
This PUDA petition may be deemed consistent with the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and Future Land Use
Element of the Growth Management Plan.
PETITION ON CITY VIEW
cc: Michael Bosi, AICP, Director, Zoning Division
David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager, Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section
Raymond V. Bellows, Manager, Zoning Division, Zoning Services Section
PUDA-PL2018-3155 Orange Blossom Ranch R2.docx
9.C.5
Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Attachment D FLUE Consistency Review (10524 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch)
9.C.6
Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Legal Ad - Agenda ID 10204 (10524 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch)
INDOOR ATHLETICCOMPLEXMODIFIED EX. CORKSCREW LAKE97.990 AC*PHASE 1TOTAL LAKE AREA102.839 ACDOG PARKPHASE 2PROP. LAKE1.250 AC.PROP. LAKE3.600 AC.COLLIER COUNTYPROPERTY LINENE RECYCLINGCENTERAREA OF EX. LAKE TO BE FILLED (43.854 AC.)KAYAK/CANOE DROPOFF/LAUNCHPROJECT BOUNDARY LINECOLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY LINECOLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY LINE PROP. CONTROL ELEV. = 11.25'(4) BASEBALL FIELDSCOLLIER COUNTYPROPERTY LINECOLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY LINETHE WATERWAYSCOLLIER COUNTYFAIRGROUNDSPROJECT BOUNDARY LINEPROJECT BOUNDARY LINECOLLIER COUNTYPROPERTY LINEFUTURE WATER TREATMENT PLANT39TH AVENUE NEOIL WELL ROADORANGE BLOSSOM RANCHPALMETTO RIDGE HIGH SCHOOLGradyMinorCivil Engineers ● Land SurveyorsPlanners ● Landscape Architectswww.GradyMinor.comBIG CORKSCREW ISLAND REGIONAL PARKFebruary 12, 20190SCALE: 1" = 250'250'125'
Proposed Utilities Calculations
Project Information:
Orange Blossom Ranch PUDA
Cursory Analysis of the Proposed Wastewater Collection System
August 13, 2019
BAI # 23218
Fort Myers, Fl 33902-2800
Certificate of Authorization No. 7995
Barraco and Associates, Inc.
2271 McGregor Boulevard
P.O. Drawer 2800
Florida P.E. No. 38536
For the Firm
Carl A. Barraco, P.E.
Page 1 of 12
page
3
4
9
11
12
WaterCAD Model
(Depiction of WaterCAD model used to design forcemain system)
End
(nothing follows)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Project Information:
Orange Blossom Ranch PUDA
DATA
Project Narrative
(Summary of considerations and factors affecting the utility design for this project)
Waste Water Collection and Transmission System Calculations
Pump Station Design
(Calculation of required pump discharge and size based upon proposed demand)
Proposed Flows Within system
(Analysis of the system flows and pressures based on pumping rates and pipe characteristics)
Page 2 of 12
Design Considerations for Proposed Wastewater Utilities
1.
a. Orange Blossom Ranch Phase 1A (PPL-AR-7186) - 244 Residential Units
b. Orange Blossom Ranch Phase 1B (PPL-2005-AR-7431) - 137 Residential Units
c. Ranch at Orange Blossom Phase 2A (PPL-PL15-2151) - 393 Residential Units
d. Ranch at Orange Blossom Phase 3 (PPL-PL18-0417) - 248 Residential Units
2.
3.
4.
1.
2.
1.
2.
a.
b.
c.
3.
design conditions is maintained, in accordance with the Collier County Utilities Design Standards.
Force main diameters were evaluated to ensure a desired scour velocity of 2.5 fps (2.0 fps minimum) at
The existing offsite Collier County forcemain has been evaluated to ensure the flows generated by the 1,950 residential
units and 200,000 sq. ft. allowable commercial uses at full build-out do not result in scour velocities exceeding 6.0 fps.
The proposed lift stations were designed with a 0.40% gravity sewer slope and 0.1' drop in each manhole.
In an attempt to minimize the number of lift stations required, the project was analyzed to determine
The submitted design represents an efficient sewer collection and forcemain system based on the following
parameters, as established by the Engineer of Record for this project:
ideal locations for the lift stations.
been utilized in designing the wastewater system.
Sanitary sewer flows of 250 GPD per residence with a peaking factor in accordance with 10 States Standards have
Orange Blossom PUDA
COLLIER COUNTY UTILITIES
III. Design Considerations
II. Proposed Scope
in accordance with the Collier County Utilities Standards Manual.
The purpose of this summary is to discuss design considerations for the proposed sewer collection/transmission system to serve
the development referenced above.
I. Existing Infrastructure
Currently, 1,022 Residential Units have existing development orders for Orange Blossom Ranch PUD, as follows:
There are four existing onsite lift stations serving the Site Development Plans listed above.
At full build-out, the wastewater collection system is proposed to provide sufficient capacity for
The existing offsite forcemain infrastructure is proposed to accept flows from full build out conditions
up to a total of 1,950 residential units and 200,000 sq. ft. of commercial development allowable by zoning.
The lift stations are connected via existing forcemains to the County's 12" transmission main along Oil Well Road.
The existing offsite 12" forcemain is approximately 4,600 LF to the wastewater treatment plant at 1445 Oil Well Road.
Page 3 of 12
Proposed Utilities Calculations
Project Information:
Orange Blossom Ranch PUDA
Pump Station Design
August 13, 2019
BAI # 23218
Page 4 of 12
PROJECT:
DATE:8/13/2019
QTY.
351 units 87,750 GPD 878 people (approximately)
Other:
87,750 GPD AVG
87,750 GPD
3.84
336,598 GPD PEAK
261.0 gpm
2
8 ft
50.27 cf/ft
1.50 ft
75.40 c.f.
9.26 min. = Storage Volume/ Total avg. flow
2.82 min. = Storage Volume/ (Pump Rate - Total flow)
12.07 min. = Fill time + Run time
2.48
2.41 min. = Storage Volume/ Peak flow
2.16 min. = Storage Volume/ Pump Rate
4.57 min. = Fill time for peak + Run time for peak
6.56
40.50 ft
12.80'
-1.22
Force main length 1,500.0 ft
1,800.0 ft =Force Main Length*1.2
6.00 in
2.96 fps
120
12.86 ft
54.52 ft = (FM highest Elev.-Pump Elev.)+External Head
67.38 ft = Static Head + Dynamic Head
Wet-season ground water table elevation =11.78' NAVD
Rim Elevation = 15.78' NAVD
Lowest Gravity Sewer Inlet Invert =1.78' NAVD
High water alarm elev. = 1.28
Lag pump on elev. = 0.78
Lead pump on elev.= 0.28
Pumps off elev. = -1.22
Bottom wet well elev. =(EX. = -2.22)-2.22
Depth of Wet Well = 18.00 ft
Single Family
Multi-Family
Office / Retail / Amenity
General Commercial
Pump cycles / hour (for avg. flows) =
Velocity in FM at pump rate =
Hazen-Williams C-factor =
Dynamic Head due to pump rate =
DYNAMIC HEAD LOSS DETERMINATION:
Static Head =
Total Discharge Head (TDH) =
Storage Volume =
Phase 3 Flows:
TOTAL AVG DAILY FLOW =
Pump cycles / hour (for peak flows) =
PUMP STATION CALCULATIONS
Orange Blossom Groves (Ex. PS1B-1)
CONTRIBUTING UNITS:
Force main highest elevation =
Pump Rate from Upstream Manifolded Stations =
(or 60.94 gpm)
SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS:
(or 233.75 gpm)Required Pump Capacity during peak =
Required Pump Capacity for avg daily flow = (or 60.94 gpm)
Based on projected population of 878 people
Cycle time (for avg. flows) =
Fill time (for avg. flows) =
(or 376.0 g/ft)
(or 564.0 gal.)
Storage Depth =
Volume Wet Well per foot =
AVG. DAILY
FLOW
Fill time (for peak flows) =
Run time (for peak flows) =
Cycle time (for peak flows) =
Number of pumps in wet well =
Design Pumping Rate per pump =
Diameter of Wet Well =
Run time (for avg. flows) =
Peak Factor =
WET WELL / SWITCH ELEVATIONS:
External head =
Force Main Diameter =
Pump Elevation =
Force Main Equivalent Length =
cycles per hour / pump
cycles per hour / pump
PVC pipe
= Rim elev. - Bottom WW elev.
= Invert elev. - 0.50'
= Alarm elev. - 0.50'
= Lag elev. - 0.50'
= Pump elev. - 1.0'
= Lead elev. - Storage Depth = Pump Elev.
Page 5 of 12
PROJECT:
DATE:8/13/2019
QTY.
351 units 87,750 GPD 878 people (approximately)
5,000 s.f.750 GPD 63 people (approximately)
Other:
88,500 GPD AVG
88,500 GPD
3.82
337,806 GPD PEAK
240.0 gpm
2
8 ft
50.27 cf/ft
1.50 ft
75.40 c.f.
9.18 min. = Storage Volume/ Total avg. flow
3.16 min. = Storage Volume/ (Pump Rate - Total flow)
12.34 min. = Fill time + Run time
2.43
2.40 min. = Storage Volume/ Peak flow
2.35 min. = Storage Volume/ Pump Rate
4.75 min. = Fill time for peak + Run time for peak
6.31
15.00 ft
12.80'
-0.72
Force main length 1,100.0 ft
1,320.0 ft =Force Main Length*1.2
6.00 in
261.0 gpm
5.68 fps
120
31.52 ft
28.52 ft = (FM highest Elev.-Pump Elev.)+External Head
60.04 ft = Static Head + Dynamic Head
Wet-season ground water table elevation =11.78' NAVD
Rim Elevation = 15.78' NAVD
Lowest Gravity Sewer Inlet Invert =2.28' NAVD
High water alarm elev. = 1.78
Lag pump on elev. = 1.28
Lead pump on elev.= 0.78
Pumps off elev. = -0.72
Bottom wet well elev. =(EX. = -1.72')-1.72
Depth of Wet Well = 17.50 ft
PUMP STATION CALCULATIONS
Orange Blossom Groves (Ex. PS1B-2)
AVG. DAILY
FLOWCONTRIBUTING UNITS:
Single Family
Multi-Family
Office / Retail / Amenity
General Commercial
Phase 3 Flows:
TOTAL AVG DAILY FLOW = (or 61.46 gpm)
SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS:
Required Pump Capacity for avg daily flow = (or 61.46 gpm)
Peak Factor = Based on projected population of 941 people
Required Pump Capacity during peak =(or 234.59 gpm)
Design Pumping Rate per pump =
Number of pumps in wet well =
Diameter of Wet Well =
Volume Wet Well per foot =(or 376.0 g/ft)
Storage Depth =
Storage Volume =(or 564.0 gal.)
Fill time (for avg. flows) =
Run time (for avg. flows) =
Cycle time (for avg. flows) =
Pump cycles / hour (for avg. flows) =cycles per hour / pump
Fill time (for peak flows) =
Run time (for peak flows) =
Cycle time (for peak flows) =
Pump cycles / hour (for peak flows) =cycles per hour / pump
DYNAMIC HEAD LOSS DETERMINATION:
External head =
Force main highest elevation =
Pump Elevation =
Force Main Equivalent Length =
Force Main Diameter =
Pump Rate from Upstream Manifolded Stations =
Velocity in FM at pump rate =
Hazen-Williams C-factor =PVC pipe
Dynamic Head due to pump rate =
Static Head =
Total Discharge Head (TDH) =
WET WELL / SWITCH ELEVATIONS:
= Invert elev. - 0.50'
= Alarm elev. - 0.50'
= Lag elev. - 0.50'
= Lead elev. - Storage Depth = Pump Elev.
= Pump elev. - 1.0'
= Rim elev. - Bottom WW elev.
Page 6 of 12
PROJECT:
DATE:8/14/2019
QTY.
434 units 108,500 GPD 1085 people (approximately)
124 units 31,000 GPD 310 people (approximately)
5,094 s.f.764 GPD 64 people (approximately)
Other:61,000 GPD 610 people (approximately)
201,264 GPD AVG
201,264 GPD
3.57
719,375 GPD PEAK
514.0 gpm
2
8 ft
50.27 cf/ft
1.48 ft
74.39 c.f.
3.98 min. = Storage Volume/ Total avg. flow
1.49 min. = Storage Volume/ (Pump Rate - Total flow)
5.47 min. = Fill time + Run time
5.49
1.11 min. = Storage Volume/ Peak flow
1.08 min. = Storage Volume/ Pump Rate
2.20 min. = Fill time for peak + Run time for peak
13.66
50.00 ft
10.80'
-6.77
Force main length 1.0 ft
1.2 ft =Force Main Length*1.2
8.00 in
342.0 gpm
5.46 fps
120
0.02 ft
67.57 ft = (FM highest Elev.-Pump Elev.)+External Head
67.59 ft = Static Head + Dynamic Head
Wet-season ground water table elevation =11.80' NAVD
Rim Elevation = 15.28' NAVD
Lowest Gravity Sewer Inlet Invert =-3.79' NAVD
High water alarm elev. = -4.29
Lag pump on elev. = -4.79
Lead pump on elev.= -5.29
Pumps off elev. = -6.77
Bottom wet well elev. =(EX. = -7.77)-7.77
Depth of Wet Well = 23.05 ft
Single Family
Multi-Family
Office / Retail / Amenity
General Commercial
Pump cycles / hour (for avg. flows) =
Velocity in FM at pump rate =
Hazen-Williams C-factor =
Dynamic Head due to pump rate =
DYNAMIC HEAD LOSS DETERMINATION:
Static Head =
Total Discharge Head (TDH) =
Storage Volume =
Phase 3 Flows:
TOTAL AVG DAILY FLOW =
Pump cycles / hour (for peak flows) =
PUMP STATION CALCULATIONS
Orange Blossom Lift Station 1
CONTRIBUTING UNITS:
Force main highest elevation =
Pump Rate from Upstream Manifolded Stations =
(or 139.77 gpm)
SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS:
(or 499.57 gpm)Required Pump Capacity during peak =
Required Pump Capacity for avg daily flow = (or 139.77 gpm)
Based on projected population of 2,069 people
Cycle time (for avg. flows) =
Fill time (for avg. flows) =
(or 376.0 g/ft)
(or 556.5 gal.)
Storage Depth =
Volume Wet Well per foot =
AVG. DAILY
FLOW
Fill time (for peak flows) =
Run time (for peak flows) =
Cycle time (for peak flows) =
Number of pumps in wet well =
Design Pumping Rate per pump =
Diameter of Wet Well =
Run time (for avg. flows) =
Existing 244 Units (44 gpm)
Peak Factor =
WET WELL / SWITCH ELEVATIONS:
External head =
Force Main Diameter =
Pump Elevation =
Force Main Equivalent Length =
cycles per hour / pump
cycles per hour / pump
PVC pipe
= Rim elev. - Bottom WW elev.
= Invert elev. - 0.50'
= Alarm elev. - 0.50'
= Lag elev. - 0.50'
= Pump elev. - 1.0'
= Lead elev. - Storage Depth = Pump Elev.
Page 7 of 12
PROJECT:
DATE:8/14/2019
QTY.
312 units 78,000 GPD 780 people (approximately)
134 units 33,500 GPD 335 people (approximately)
Other:
111,500 GPD AVG
111,500 GPD
3.77
420,246 GPD PEAK
340.0 gpm
2
8 ft
50.27 cf/ft
2.00 ft
100.53 c.f.
9.71 min. = Storage Volume/ Total avg. flow
2.86 min. = Storage Volume/ (Pump Rate - Total flow)
12.58 min. = Fill time + Run time
2.39
2.58 min. = Storage Volume/ Peak flow
2.21 min. = Storage Volume/ Pump Rate
4.79 min. = Fill time for peak + Run time for peak
6.27
50.00 ft
12.50'
-8.21
Force main length 3,300.0 ft
3,960.0 ft =Force Main Length*1.2
8.00 in
2.17 fps
120
11.40 ft
70.71 ft = (FM highest Elev.-Pump Elev.)+External Head
82.11 ft = Static Head + Dynamic Head
Wet-season ground water table elevation =11.80' NAVD
Rim Elevation = 16.08' NAVD
Lowest Gravity Sewer Inlet Invert =-3.71' NAVD
High water alarm elev. = -5.21
Lag pump on elev. = -5.71
Lead pump on elev.= -6.21
Pumps off elev. = -8.21
Bottom wet well elev. = -10.21
Depth of Wet Well = 26.29 ft
= Lead elev. - Storage Depth = Pump Elev.
= Pump elev. - 2.0'
= Rim elev. - Bottom WW elev.
= Invert elev. - 1.50'
= Alarm elev. - 0.50'
= Lag elev. - 0.50'
Dynamic Head due to pump rate =
Static Head =
Total Discharge Head (TDH) =
WET WELL / SWITCH ELEVATIONS:
Pump Rate from Upstream Manifolded Stations =
Velocity in FM at pump rate =
Hazen-Williams C-factor = PVC pipe
Pump Elevation =
Force Main Equivalent Length =
Force Main Diameter =
DYNAMIC HEAD LOSS DETERMINATION:
External head =
Force main highest elevation =
Run time (for peak flows) =
Cycle time (for peak flows) =
Pump cycles / hour (for peak flows) = cycles per hour / pump
Cycle time (for avg. flows) =
Pump cycles / hour (for avg. flows) = cycles per hour / pump
Fill time (for peak flows) =
Storage Volume = (or 752.0 gal.)
Fill time (for avg. flows) =
Run time (for avg. flows) =
Diameter of Wet Well =
Volume Wet Well per foot = (or 376.0 g/ft)
Storage Depth =
Required Pump Capacity during peak = (or 291.84 gpm)
Design Pumping Rate per pump =
Number of pumps in wet well =
Required Pump Capacity for avg daily flow = (or 77.43 gpm)
Peak Factor = Based on projected population of 1,115 people
TOTAL AVG DAILY FLOW =(or 77.43 gpm)
SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS:
Multi-Family
Office / Retail / Amenity
General Commercial
Restaurant
PUMP STATION CALCULATIONS
Orange Blossom Lift Station 2
AVG. DAILY
FLOWCONTRIBUTING UNITS:
Single Family
Page 8 of 12
Proposed Utilities Calculations
Project Information:
Orange Blossom Ranch PUDA
WaterCAD Model
August 13, 2019
BAI # 23218
Page 9 of 12
23218-GROVES-FM.wtg Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center
WaterCAD CONNECT Edition Update 2
[10.02.00.43]
Page 1 of 1
Scenario: Base
6/21/2019 27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT
06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
Page 10 of 12
Proposed Utilities Calculations
Project Information:
Orange Blossom Ranch PUDA
Proposed Flows within System
August 13, 2019
BAI # 23218
Page 11 of 12
Label
Length
(Scaled)
(ft)
Start Node Diameter
(in)
Flow
(gpm)
Velocity
(ft/s)
Headloss Gradient
(ft/ft)
P-9 310 PS1B-2 6.0 240 2.72 0.004
P-10 1,094 J-6 6.0 501 5.69 0.016
P-12 1,550 PS1B-1 6.0 261 2.96 0.005
P-1 1,410 LS-2 8.0 340 2.17 0.002
P-2(1) 1,615 J-1 8.0 340 2.17 0.002
P-5 150 LS-1 8.0 514 3.28 0.004
P-6 1,741 J-3 8.0 855 5.46 0.010
P-7(1) 2,343 J-4 12.0 1,356 3.85 0.003
P-3 134 R-2 99.0 340 0.01 0.000
P-4 149 R-1 99.0 514 0.02 0.000
P-8 85 PS1B-2 99.0 240 0.01 0.000
P-11 182 PS1B-1 99.0 261 0.01 0.000
Page 1 of 1
150.0
150.0
150.0
150.0
150.0
WaterCAD CONNECT Edition Update 2
[10.02.00.43]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
Center
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
Hazen-Williams
C
150.0
150.0
150.0
150.0
150.0
150.0
150.0J-4
R-7
LS-2
LS-1
PS1B-2
PS1B-1
FlexTable: Pipe Table
23218-GROVES-FM.wtg
8/13/2019
Stop Node
J-6
J-4
J-6
J-1
J-3
J-3
Page 12 of 12
#14. EXHIBITS A – F
• Exhibit A: List of Permitted Uses
• Exhibit B: Development Standards
• Exhibit C: Master Plan
• Exhibit D: Legal Description
• Exhibit E: List of Requested LDC Deviations and Justifications
• Exhibit F: List of Development Commitments
PROPOSED CHANGES TO ORDINANCE NO. 04-74
Words underlined are additions; words struck through are deletions.
Orange Blossom Ranch MPUD / PL20180003155 / 2019-03-06
1 of 2
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
The development consists of 616± acres of property in Collier County as a Mixed Use Planned
Unit Development (MPUD) to be known as the Orange Blossom Ranch MPUD, which will be in
compliance with the goals, objectives, and policies of Collier County as set forth in the Collier
County Growth Management Plan (GMP). The Orange Blossom Ranch MPUD is a mixed-use
residential community with associated community facility, recreational, and commercial uses and
will be consistent with the applicable elements of the Collier County GMP for the following
reasons:
1. The subject property is within the Settlement Area District Designation as identified on the
Future Land Use Map, which permits a wide variety of land uses, including commercial,
residential, community facility and recreation.
2. The total acreage of the MPUD is 616 ± acres. The maximum number of dwelling units
to be built on the total acreage is 1,600 1,950. The number of dwelling units per gross
acre, less the 44± acre Commercial/Office area, is approximately 2.8 3.4 units. The
density on individual parcels of land throughout the project may vary according to the
type of housing placed on each parcel of land. No maximum densities have been
established in the Settlement Area District.
SECTION I
PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION
1.6 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The MPUD is a mixed-use residential single family and multi-family community with a
maximum of 1,600 1,950 units designated "R/G" dwelling units and 200,000 square feet of
commercial and office leasable area within areas designated "C/O" on the master plan.
Recreational facilities may ·be provided in conjunction with the dwelling units. Residential
land uses, recreational uses, community facility uses, commercial uses and signage are
designed to be harmonious with one another in a natural setting by using common
architecture, appropriate screening/buffering, and native vegetation, whenever feasible.
SECTION III
RESDIENTIAL/GOLF
“R/G”
3.1 PURPOSE
The purpose of this Section is to identify permitted uses and development standards for areas
within the Orange Blossom Ranch MPUD designated on the Master Plan as "R/G",
Residential/Golf.
PROPOSED CHANGES TO ORDINANCE NO. 04-74
Words underlined are additions; words struck through are deletions.
Orange Blossom Ranch MPUD / PL20180003155 / 2019-03-06
2 of 2
3.2 MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS
A maximum of 1,600 1,950 dwelling units of various types may be constructed within areas
designated R/G on the Master Plan.
2,149
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
FILE NAME
LOCATION
PLOT DATE
OVERALL PLAN.DWG
J:\23218\DWG\ZONING\2018\EXHIBITS\
THU. 3-21-2019 - 9:21 AM
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
ORANGE
BLOSSOM
MPUD
THIS PLAN IS PRELIMINARY AND
INTENDED FOR CONCEPTUAL
PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY.
SITE LAYOUT AND LAND USE
INTENSITIES OR DENSITIES MAY
CHANGE SIGNIFICANTLY BASED
UPON SURVEY, ENGINEERING,
ENVIRONMENTAL AND / OR
REGULATORY CONSTRAINTS AND /
OR OPPORTUNITIES.
PLOT BY ANGELICA HARDY
DRAWING NOT VALID WITHOUT SEAL, SIGNATURE AND DATE
COPYRIGHT 2019, BARRACO AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
REPRODUCTION, CHANGES OR ASSIGNMENTS ARE PROHIBITED
PREPARED FOR
WWW.RONTO.COM
PHONE (239) 649-6310
3066 TAMIAMI TRAIL N., UNIT 201
NAPLES, FLORIDA 34103
2271 McGREGOR BLVD., SUITE 100
POST OFFICE DRAWER 2800
FORT MYERS, FLORIDA 33902-2800
PHONE (239) 461-3170
FAX (239) 461-3169
arraco
and Associates, Inc.B
CIVIL ENGINEERING - LAND SURVEYING
LAND PLANNING
www.barraco.net
FLORIDA CERTIFICATES OF AUTHORIZATION
ENGINEERING 7995 - SURVEYING LB-6940
CROSS REFERENCED DRAWINGSCROSS REFERENCED DRAWINGSCROSS REFERENCED DRAWINGS
C
PLAN REVISIONS
SHEET NUMBERPROJECT / FILE NO.
1
PROPOSED
DENSITY
EXHIBIT
23218
PLAN STATUS
OIL WELL ROAD
IMMOKALEE ROADIMMOKALEE ROADN
S
W E
0 210 420 840
SCALE IN FEET
PALMETTO RIDGE
HIGH SCHOOL
CORKSCREW
MIDDLE SCHOOL
COLLIER COUNTY FAIR AND
EXPOSITION
COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S
OFFICE-DISTRICT 4
PHASE 2
PHASE 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
FILE NAME
LOCATION
PLOT DATE
DENSITY ANALYSIS PLAN.DWG
J:\23218\DWG\ZONING\2018\EXHIBITS\
THU. 3-21-2019 - 9:16 AM
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
ORANGE
BLOSSOM
MPUD
THIS PLAN IS PRELIMINARY AND
INTENDED FOR CONCEPTUAL
PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY.
SITE LAYOUT AND LAND USE
INTENSITIES OR DENSITIES MAY
CHANGE SIGNIFICANTLY BASED
UPON SURVEY, ENGINEERING,
ENVIRONMENTAL AND / OR
REGULATORY CONSTRAINTS AND /
OR OPPORTUNITIES.
PLOT BY ANGELICA HARDY
DRAWING NOT VALID WITHOUT SEAL, SIGNATURE AND DATE
COPYRIGHT 2019, BARRACO AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
REPRODUCTION, CHANGES OR ASSIGNMENTS ARE PROHIBITED
PREPARED FOR
WWW.RONTO.COM
PHONE (239) 649-6310
3066 TAMIAMI TRAIL N., UNIT 201
NAPLES, FLORIDA 34103
2271 McGREGOR BLVD., SUITE 100
POST OFFICE DRAWER 2800
FORT MYERS, FLORIDA 33902-2800
PHONE (239) 461-3170
FAX (239) 461-3169
arraco
and Associates, Inc.B
CIVIL ENGINEERING - LAND SURVEYING
LAND PLANNING
www.barraco.net
FLORIDA CERTIFICATES OF AUTHORIZATION
ENGINEERING 7995 - SURVEYING LB-6940
CROSS REFERENCED DRAWINGSCROSS REFERENCED DRAWINGSCROSS REFERENCED DRAWINGS
C
PLAN REVISIONS
SHEET NUMBERPROJECT / FILE NO.
1
PROPOSED
DENSITY
EXHIBIT
23218
PLAN STATUS
N
S
W E
0 200 400 800
SCALE IN FEET
FUTURE
5.1 D.U. / AC. .
(1176 UNITS ON 230 AC)
ACREAGE TOTALS DO NOT INCLUDE ROAD OR AMENITIES
PHASE 1
2.8 D.U. / AC. (381
UNITS ON 137 AC)
PHASE 2
5.0 D.U. / AC. (393
UNITS ON 78 AC)
OIL WELL ROAD
FUTURE COMMERCIAL
PREPARED FOR
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
FILE NAME
LOCATION
PLOT DATE
23218-Z01-WORKING.DWG
J:\23218\DWG\ZONING\2018\
THU. 3-28-2019 - 11:01 AM
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
ORANGE
BLOSSOM
MPUD
WWW.RONTO.COM
PHONE (239) 649-6310
3066 TAMIAMI TRAIL N., UNIT 201
NAPLES, FLORIDA 34103
THIS PLAN IS PRELIMINARY AND
INTENDED FOR CONCEPTUAL
PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY.
SITE LAYOUT AND LAND USE
INTENSITIES OR DENSITIES MAY
CHANGE SIGNIFICANTLY BASED
UPON SURVEY, ENGINEERING,
ENVIRONMENTAL AND / OR
REGULATORY CONSTRAINTS AND /
OR OPPORTUNITIES.
PLOT BY
CROSS REFERENCED DRAWINGS
2271 McGREGOR BLVD., SUITE 100
POST OFFICE DRAWER 2800
FORT MYERS, FLORIDA 33902-2800
PHONE (239) 461-3170
FAX (239) 461-3169
CIVIL ENGINEERING - LAND SURVEYING
LAND PLANNING
FLORIDA CERTIFICATES OF AUTHORIZATION
ENGINEERING 7995 - SURVEYING LB-6940
BASEPLAN = 23218-Z00.DWG
ANGELICA HARDY
CROSS REFERENCED DRAWINGSCROSS REFERENCED DRAWINGS
C
DRAWING NOT VALID WITHOUT SEAL, SIGNATURE AND DATE
COPYRIGHT 2019, BARRACO AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
REPRODUCTION, CHANGES OR ASSIGNMENTS ARE PROHIBITED
SHEET NUMBER
PLAN REVISIONS
PLAN STATUS
PROJECT / FILE NO.
1
WORKING
MASTER
PLAN
23218
USE: HIGH SCHOOL
ZONED: ORANGETREE PUD
CANAL CANALCANAL R/G
R/G
R/G
R/G
R/G
R/G
R/G
R/G
C/O
USE: GOLF COURSE
ZONED: ORANGETREE PUD
USE: VACANT
ZONED: ORANGETREE PUD
POTENTIAL
INTERCONNECT
POTENTIAL
INTERCONNECT
CF
USE: SINGLE FAMILY
ZONED: ORANGETREE PUD
ORANGETREE
WATER AND WASTEWATER
TREATMENT FACILITY
NO BUFFER REQUIRED
15' WIDE BUFFER 15'TYPE"D"BUFFER15'TYPE"D"BUFFER20'TYPE"D"BUFFER20'TYPE"D"BUFFERSITE SUMMARY
(R/G) RESIDENTIAL / GOLF ± 474 ACRES
(C/O) COMMERCIAL / OFFICE ± 44 ACRES
(CF) COMMUNITY FACILITY ± 98 ACRES
TOTAL ± 616 ACRES
NOTES
1) MASTER PLAN AND SITE SUMMARY ARE
CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND RESIDENTIAL TRACTS
AND LAKES ARE SUBJECT TO REFINEMENT DURING
JURISDICTIONAL AGENCY REVIEW AND APPROVAL,
AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEWS AND
APPROVAL.
2)LAKE AREAS ARE APPROXIMATE AND LOCATIONS
ARE CONCEPTUAL. THEIR FINAL SIZE AND
CONFIGURATION WILL BE DETERMINED AT THE TIME
OF PLATTING OR SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
APPROVAL.
3)INTERNAL ROADWAYS, AND INGRESS AND EGRESS
LOCATIONS SHOWN ON THE PLAN ARE
CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND ARE
SUBJECT TO APPROVAL AT THE TIME OF SITE PLAN
OR PLAT APPROVAL. 1-5 ON THE MASTER PLAN
REPRESENT APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF 5 WATER
WELL EASEMENTS THAT WERE AGREED TO IN THE
2004 PUD APPROVAL.
3)POTABLE WATER WELL LOCATIONS 1-5 ARE SHOWN
CONCEPTUAL AND ARE SUBJECT TO PUD SECTION
6.4.
DRAINAGE
BASIN ONE
DRAINAGE
BASIN TWO
DRAINAGE
BASIN THREE60' PUBLIC
ACCESS
RECREATIONAL
AMENITIES
± 5 ACRES OILWELLROADC/O
TYPICAL WELL
EASEMENT
1
2
3
TYPICAL PERIMETER BERM
EXISTING GRADE
2'
4 :1 4:1
TOP OF BERM ELEVATION 16.0'
NOTE:
STEEPER SLOPES MAY
BE REQUESTED AT THE TIME
OF DEVELOPMENT WITH
ADDITIONAL STABILIZATION
(I.E. RIP-RAP)
TYPICAL LAKE CROSS SECTION
BOTTOM OF LAKE
ELEVATION ± -7.0'
BREAK POINT
ELEV. ± 3.0'
CONTROL ELEV. ± 13.0'
4 :1
2 :1
4
5
EXISTING LAKE
± 90 AC
CSA-2
TEMPORARY
CONSTRUCTION ACCESS
N S
W
E
0 200 400 800
SCALE IN FEET
15'WIDEBUFFER15' WIDE BUFFER
10'WIDEBUFFER10'WIDEBUFFERLEGEND
*HAUL ROAD ACCESS
AREA OF SOIL REMOVAL
*
*
THIS IS NOT INTENDED TO CHANGE THE AREA DESIGNATED C/O
IN THE PRIOR MASTER PLAN APPROVED IN 2004 IN ORDINANCE 04-74.
NOTE
DRY SEASON WATER ELEV 8.4'
GOLDEN GATE CANAL
GOLDEN GATE CANAL
USE: SINGLE FAMILY
ZONED: GOLDEN GATE ESTATES 25' RIGHT OF WAY
RESERVATION
75' RIGHT OF WAY
RESERVATION
CS1B-1
CS1A-1
CS1A-2
15' WIDE BUFFER 10' TYPE "A" BUFFER 10'TYPE "A"BUFFER
R/G
30' PIPELINE
EASEMENT