Agenda 12/14/2010 Item # 8B
Agenda Item No, 88
December 14, 2010
Page 1 of 110
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PUDA-2007-AR-11961: Voila, II, LLC, represented by Margaret Perry, of WilsonMiller,
Inc. and Richard Yovanovich, Esquire of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., is
requesting an amendment to Sonoma Oaks Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD)
to allow a maximum of 114 residential dwelling units and/or a maximum of 456 senior
housing units on the residential portion and up to 120,000 square feet of commercial
development and/or senior housing units at a FAR of 0.60 on the 8.93 acre commercial
portion of this 37.5:1: acre total project. Senior housing units include independent living
facilities, assisted living facilities and/or skilled nursing facilities. The subject property is
located on the west side of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) between Wolfe Road and Loop
Road, in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
OBJECTIVE:
To have the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) review staff's findings and
recommendations along with the recommendations of the Co !lier County Planning Commission
(CCPC) regarding the above referenced petition and 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:
This PUD Ordinance proposes, on the residential portion, to allow a maximum of 114 residential
dwelling units (112 units are currently allowed); or a maximum of 456 Independent Living Units
(ILF), Assisted Living Units (ALF); or a Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC) that
eonsists of any eombination of those uses along with skilled nursing units. In lieu of either of
those development scenarios, the residential portion of the property could be developed with
some combination of the singlc-family and/or multi-family residential dwelling units and the
other uses-ALF, ILF, CCRe. The PUD document includes a conversion factor that would
reduce the residential units by one unit for every four ALF, ILF or CCRC that might be
developed.
In the 8.93010 acre commercial portion of this 37.5010 acre total project, the petitioner proposed to
allow a maximum of 120,000 square feet of commercial development (also the current
allocation); and add Independent Living Units (lLF), Assisted Living Units (ALF), or a
Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRe) that consists of any combination of those uses
along with skilling nursing units, Any lLF. ALF or CCRC use would be developed at a floor
area ratio (FAR) of 0,60. The lLF, ALF and CCRC development is not included in the 120,000
square feet of commercial development.
-
Senior housing units include independent living facilities, assisted living facilities and/or skilled
nursing facilities. Please see the attached staff report for a detailed analysis of this proposed
PUD amendment.
PUDA-2007-AR-11961, Sonoma Oaks MPUD
Revised 11/9/10
BCC Hearin9 Date 12/14/10
Page 1 0[5
Agenda Item No, 88
December 14, 2010
Page 2 of 110
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 of the Growth Management Plan as
needed to maintain 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 collected prior to issuance of a building permit include
building pennit review fees, Finally, additional revenue is generated by application of ad
valorem tax rates, and that revenue is dircctly 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
Planning Commission to analyze this petition,
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) IMPACT:
The subject site is designatcd Urban (Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict)
on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) in the GMP, Comprehensive Planning Staff has reviewed
this petition and has found it consistcnt with the applicable policies of the Future Land Use
Element. A detailed analysis of the project's consistency with the FLUE, and any other relevant
GMP Elements is contained in the attached StafT Report.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION:
This item was heard by the CCPC at the October 2], 201 0 hearing, and by a vote of 6-1
recommended to forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a
recommendation of approval subject to the conditions proposed in the draft ordinance,
Commissioner Caron did not support the approval motion citing that she thought that the
proposed maximum zoned building height of 61 feet in the commercial portion of the project for
thc Continuing Care Retirement Center (CCRC) was out of character with the neighborhood.
On November 5,2010, the applicant's agent submitted a revised Exhibit B-2, Commercial "C"
Subdistrict Standards (copy attached), seeking to reduce the maximum building height for
lLF/ALF/CCRC/Skilled Nursing uses "from 61 feet zoned height or 69 feet actual height to 42
feet zoned height. The letter submitted by the petition (copy attached) indicates that this change
was made as a result of comments made at the CCPC hearing on October 21, 2010." Staff has
no objection to the proposed change, but the change was not revicwed by the CCPe.
Because the CCPC approval recommendation was not unanimous, this petition cannot be placed
on the Summary Agenda,
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS:
This is a site specific rezone from a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development Zoning District to a
Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) Zoning District for a project to be known as the
PUDA-2007-AR-11961, Sonoma Oaks MPUD
Revised 11/9/10
Bee Hearing Date 12/14/10
Page 2 0[5
Agenda Item No. 8B
December 14, 2010
Page 3 of 110
Sonoma Oaks 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 (BCC), 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 thc listed criteria bclow,
Criteria for MPUD Rezones
Ask yourself the followillg que,\,tiOlls. The allswers assist you ill makillg a determillatioll for
approval or Ilot
I, 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,
2. Is there an adequacy of evidence of unified control and suiiability 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 on~y
after eonsultation ",ith the County Attorney.
3, Consider: Confonnity 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
pri vate,
7. Consider: The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to
accommodate expansion,
8, Consider: Confonnity 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?
PUDA-2007-AR-11961, Sonoma Oaks MPUD
Revised 11/9/10
Bee Hearing Date 12/14/10
Page 3 of5
Agenda Item No, 8B
December 14, 2010
Page 4 of 110
10. Will the proposed MPUD Rezone be appropriate considering the existing land use
pattern?
I L 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 aJfixt public safetl)
] 6, Will the proposed change create a drainage problem?
17. Will the proposed change seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas?
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 111
accordance with cxisting zoning? (a "corc" 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 penni tting 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 oladequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of
PUDA-2007-AR-11961, Sonoma Oaks MPUD
Revised 11/9/10
BGe Hearing Date 12/14/10
Page 4 of 5
Agenda Item No, 88
December 14, 2010
Page 5 of 110
service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management P,lan and as defined and
implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance [Code
ch.! 06, artIl], 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 BCC must base its decision upon the cornpetent, substantial evidence presented by the
written materials supplied to it, including but not limited to the Staff Report, Executive
Summary, maps, studies, Ictters from interested persons and the oral testimony presented at the
BCC hearing as these items relate to thesc criteria. The proposed Ordinance was prepared by the
County Attorney's Office, This Executive Summary has heen reviewed for legal sufficiency and
is legally sufficient for Board action, (HFAC)
RECOMMENDA nON:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the request subject to the
attached PUD Ordinance,
PREPARED BY:
Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner, Land Development Services
Growth Management Division, Planning and Regulation
Attachments: I) Applicant's agents November 5, 2010 letter and revised Exhibit B-2,
Commercial "C" Subdistrict Standards
2) Staff RepOli
3) Ordinance
4) Application
PUDA~2007-AR-11961, Sonoma Oaks MPUD
Revised 11/9/10
Bee Hearing Date 12/14/10
Page 5 of5
Item Number:
Item Summary:
Meeting Date:
Agenda Item No. 88
December 14, 2010
Page 6 of 110
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
8B
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be proVided by
Commission members; PUDA-2007-AR-11961, Voila, ii, LLC, represented by Margaret
Perry. of WilsonMiller, Inc, and Richard Yovanovich, Esquire of Coleman, Yovanovich &
Koester, P,A., is requesting an amendment to Sonoma Oaks Mixed Use Planned Unit
Development (MPUD) to allow a maximum of 114 residential dwelling units and/or a
maximum of 456 senior housing units on the residential portion and up to 120,000 square
feet of commercial development and/or senior housing units at a floor area ration (FAR) of
060 on the 8,93 acre commercial portion of this 37,5 acre total project. Senior housing units
include independent living facilities, assisted living facilities and/or skilled nursing facilities.
The subject property is located on the west side of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) between
Wolfe Road and Loop Road, in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier
County, Florida,(CTS)
12/14/20109,00,00 AM
P,'epared By
Kay Deselem, AICP
Community Development &
Environmental Services
Planner, Principal
Date
Zoning & Land Development Review
9/22/20089:34:14 AM
Approved By
Nick Casalanguida
Transportation Division
Director ~ Transportation Planning
Date
Transportation Planning
11/17/20102:17 PM
Approved By
Judy Puig
Community Development &
Environmental Services
Operations Analyst
Date
Community Development &
Environmental Services
11/17/20102:55 PM
Approved By
Ray Bellows
Community Development &
Environmental Services
Manager ~ Planning
Date
Zoning & Land Development Review
11/18/20106:14 PM
Approved By
William D. Lorenz, Jr., P .E.
Community Development &
Environmental Services
Director - COES Engineering Services
Date
Engineering & Environmental Services
11/20/201011:00 AM
Approved By
Norm E. Feder, AICP
Transportation Division
Administrator ~ Transportation
Date
Transportation Administration
11/22/20109:47 AM
Approved By
Agenda Item No, 88
December 14, 2010
Page 7 of 110
Heidi F. Ashton
Section ChleffLand Use-Transportation
Date
County Attorney
County Attorney
12/1/201012,39 PM
Approved By
OMS Coordinator
Date
COllnty Manager's Office
Office of Management & Budget
12/1/20103:30 PM
Approved By
Jeff Klatzkow
County Attorney
Date
12/2/20109:09 AM
Approved By
Leo E. Ochs, Jr.
County Manager
Date
County Managers Office
County Mana~lers Office
12/5/20102:54 PM
Agenda Item No, 88
December 14, 2010
Page 8 of 110
WilsanMiller
..
~ Stantec
3200 Bailey Lane, Suite 200
Naples. FL 34105
Tel (2'19) 649-40,10
November 5,2010
Ms. Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner
Zoning Services - Land Development Services Department
Growth Management Division - Planning & Regulation
2800 North Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
RE: Sonoma Oaks MPUD - Revised Exhibit B-2
Dear Ms, Deselem:
Enclosed please find revised Exhibit 8-2, Commercial "C" Subdistrict Development Standards
for Sonoma Oaks MPUD, The maximum building height for ILF/ALF/CCRC/Skilled Nursing has
been changed from 61 feet zoned height or 69 feet actual height to 42 feet zoned height. This
change was made as a result of comments made at the CCPC hearing on October 21,2010,
Please include this exhibit with your backup materiai for the BCC hearing on December 141h.
Thank you for your assistance, and if you have any questions, please contact me or Rich
Y ovanovich,
Sincerely,
/
(,r
I
Margaret Perry, AICP
Senior Project Manager, Planning
cc: Rick Armalavage
Rich Yovanovictl
\11',')010. ??1031.V", 1 . MI'EflflV
;;',s.n,jllO-OIl<' PPH$. ~J:UlnG
Agenda Item No, 8B
December 14, 2010
Page 9 of 110
EXHIBIT B-2
COMMERCIAL "C" SUBDISTRICT
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
MINIMUM LOT AREA
MINIMUM LOi'-""'IDTH
MINIMUM YARDSJExlernall
From Wolfe Road
From Collier Blvd,
!'rom Loop Road.
MINIMUM YARDS (Inte~"aIJ
Inlernal Drives/ROW
I~ear
Side
Lakes
PRESERVE SETBACK
MIN, DiSTANCE BETWEEN.
STRUCTURES
...-i.PRINCipAL USES Ti\c.cESSORY USES. ILF!ALF/CC.RClsKiLLED
NURSING
N/A N/A
.._.__.____~.,__~.,___.. __...__ ~_...__.M_______._
N/A N/A
_.._--_.----_."-_.._--~- ------.
10,000 5gFt
1001'1.
251'1
25 Ft
25Ft
SPS
25Ft.
..,-----~-----
50FL
25Ft.
SPS
-----------."..-.--,-
15 FI
101'1
10Ft
25Ft
25 Ft
10 ft or~; the sum
of Ihe zoned
building heights'.
o 1'1 ---- -------15 Ft.
10 'Ft. .-- -'---"--~-To Fr---'--
- ---------- . --.-,--_._-- -.---..--.--
10 Ft 10Ft
...._.,.._~-_.__. -
10Ft. 25Ft.
.--.-----, '-',,_-~_,_-----~--------
-10 Ft. 25Ft
-.--..... -- 1'b--F-t - ------..- ~-1b ft. or ~fth.e"sum-onhe-
zoned bUilding heights'
I MAX BUILDING HEIGHT
I NOT TO EXCEED
I Relail Burldmgs'"
Office Buildings'"
I _n- _ ..
, Combination Retail and
i Olliee'"
i ILF/ALF/CCRC/Skllled
i Nursiny'"
I --
1".~:~~~~6sL~EERA~~~tE=
I ~1~fMiTM FLOOR AREA-
I RATIO
. Wfllcllever is greater
.. Per principal structure, on the finished first floor, Kiosk vendor, concessions, and temporary
or mobile sales structures shall be permitted to have a mmimum floor area of twenty-five (25)
square feet and shall adhere to the development standards listed in accessory uses above,
... Actual height, as defined In the LOC shall not exceed 50 feet.
i
".i
i
42 ft ZI-I
42 It ZI-I
42 It 11-1
t>4,.feef~~r-99.feel-Af,!
42ft .Qj
______~.._____._ ___.m _ ..._.__._ _"'_"'_~_'___'__'_~'___
42 ft 11-1 N/A
. -.". ..~_.- --.-----------.-
42 ft, ZH N/A
____"_....._M__'_ _. ,__.____,.___..._. __"..._____
42 It ZH N/A
N/A
N/A
1000SgFL::
20,000 Sq. Ft
N-~-f-€g
Z-H -Gr.e9f-€E-:r.,o.f,!
42 It. ZH
-.------.- --.,.-...-...----... - ---
N/A N/A
".. -N/A----- ---.-- '-NiA----
N/A
NIA
06
SPS = same as principal structure
BH = Building Height
ZH = Zoned Height
AH '" Actual Height
ReVised November 5, 2010
Sonoma Oaks MPLJD
Page 10 of 15
Agenda Item No, 8B
December 14, 2010
AGENOKl'nfi.ll1j-Af 110
Co1N'~r County
'- ~--
-'
....
STAFF REPORT
TO:
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
ZONING SERVICES--LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION--PLANNING & REGULATION
HEARING DATE: OCTOBER 21, 2010
FROM:
SUBJECT:
PUDA-2007-AR-11961; SONOMA OAKS MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (MPUD)
PROPERTY OWNER & APPLICANT/AGENT:
Owner/ Aoolicant:
Voila II, LLC
c/o Todd Dubovy, Bessemer Trust
2240 Venetian Court
Naples, FL 34109
Agents;
Margaret Perry, AICP
WilsonMiller/Stantec
3200 Bailey Lane, Suite 200
Naples, FL 34105
Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire
Coleman, Y ovanovich and Koester, P.A.
4001 Tamiami Trail N. Suite 300
Naples, FL 34103
REQUESTED ACTION:
The petitioner is asking the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPe) to consider an
application for an amendment to the Sonoma Oaks Mixed Use Planned Unit Development
(MPUD). This project was approved with two separate development areas-a residential
component on the west side of the internal roadway, and a commercial component on the east
side of the internal roadway. That development plan is not proposed to change in this
amendment. This amendment seeks on the residential portion to allow a maximum of 114
residential dwelling units (112 units are currently allowed); or a maximwn of 456 Independent
Living Units (ILF), Assisted Living Units (ALF); or a Continuing Care Retirement Community
(CCRe) that consists of any combination of those uses along with skilling nursing units. In lieu
Sonoma Oaks, PUDZ-2007-AR-11961
October 21,2010 CCPC
Revised 10/5/10
Page 1 of 18
.~..,.".__._,".~
Agenda Item No, 88
December 14, 2010
Page 11 of 110
of either of those development scenarios, the residential portion of the property could be
developed with some combination of the single-family and/or multi-family residential dwelling
units and the other uses-ALF, ILF, CCRC. The POO document includes a conversion factor
that would reduce the residential units by one unit for every four ALF, ILF or CCRC that might
be developed.
In the 8.93 acre commercial portion of this 37.5"= acre total project, the petitioner proposed to
allow a maximum of 120,000 square feet of commercial development (also the current
allocation); and add Independent Living Units (lLF), Assisted Living Units (ALF), or a
Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRe) that consists of any combination of those uses
along with skilling nursing units. Any ILF, ALF or CCRC use would be developed at a floor
area ratio (FAR) of 0.60. The ILF, ALF and CCRC development is not included in the 120,000
square feet of commercial development.
GEOGRAPmC LOCATION:
The subject property is located on the west side of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) between Wolfe
Road and Mission Hills Road, in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Naples, Collier
County, Florida. (See location map on the following page)
PURPOSEIDESCRlPTION OF PROJECT:
The subject property is comprised of three separate tax parcels; the portion of the middle parcel
nearest Collier Boulevard was cleared and was used as a nursery, the northerly parcel has been
cleared but is undeveloped; the southerly parcel contains the largest concentration of vegetation
and is also undeveloped.
The original MPUD rezoning was approved on November 15, 2005, with the adoption of
Ordinance Number 2005-61. That ordinance approved a mixed used POO that would allow
development of a maximum of 112 dwelling units on the western portion of the site (28.1ll
acres), and a commercial development on 9.38"= acres allowing a maximum of 120,000 square
feet of mixed office and retail uses. The two portions of the project would be bisected north to
south by a roadway that would connect Wolfe Road to Mission Hills Boulevard. Access to
parcels within the site would be from the north-south road to Wolfe Road and Mission Hills
Boulevard. A right-in/out connection to Collier Boulevard was also contemplated.
Currently the petitioner seeks to repeal Ordinance Number 05-61 by adopting a new ordinance
that allows the uses noted previously. The petitioner is seeking one deviation as part of this POO
amendment petition.
The petitioner proposes the following changes to the residential portion of the project:
· Add the following uses: independent living units (lLF), assisted living units (ALF),
continuing care retirement community (CCRC), and skilled nursing units; and
· Add more specificity for accessory uses from original to replace the original general
statement to allow uses customarily associated with permitted uses; and
Sonoma Oaks. PUDZ-2007-AR-11961 Page 2 of 18
October 21, 2010 CCPC
Revised 10/5/10
08 C~ ~
w :;)\1 :J~ ,
<( ~ , <( Oil
0 a.x a."
0 a:~ :i:i :;)~
:;) a.~
. a.
! .
--- _._0._. -- l'L'N'i:l
. ~."
Z
(~~6 -1,1':1) 0 ",moo 0..
w- (]~VAJlnoB
t:'<
-"~ ..0 <(
9
:2:
So
O~ C>
:;)c
a.~ Z
::i:" 0
~ :;) -
0 a.
Z
j 0
N
<D
~ '"
O~ o ~ ~
~
> > :;)>
:;)~ . ; a. . '"
.
a. . :; z
z O~ ~ 0 ..
. , ~
a:" ::>l'i 0 .
. }:-~ 0 . ,
. . 0
g,~ ...
oi
oi
"',
,
..
J~Ol101'1 / Z- Cl
- ::>
a.
..
z
0
I t-
~ ~ ~ t-
, 5,
0- 5- UJ
, . . t)z . ~ ~I ., ::!j, a.
, -!I
il wQ ~ , I ~
I ,'< i
00
, , , "'0
Q.J 0..
I! ,. I ~ ~ !
r ~
I 5. 5. 5. <(
~ . i ...~.. ;: ~j . . :2:
~! ~ i Oi-
I r il
-~~ I.Y~ Z
-,- 'j
~ ~ ~ ~ 0
II '. 5. il ~ll -
! 0 " ...~.. ~ j!i '!!~i I-
, -- ~!
~ ~ <(
0
. I 0
Ii! I ~~:1 ~a::l I ( . ~e:;
I, Ip -J
,no. 3 I . ~5! . ~51 I ~ -151 I
.1 . i .
,
-~- -~~
Ii ~ ~ ~
, 5, I! . 1- 50
..
~I 0 . lllj! ~i~ i!O ~:>-
11
1- ~ h ~ I!
--- ...nYlltRU1l
....
! .ill!~
u
u
..
u
:J
In
:J
Q.
'" Sl 0
N ~
rt. I
~ ; J
." q
I _ I _~ ..-::::-.-==:-=
-...--------=--- -
I
,. III
5 I .11'1 i. Esl ESI
. l!;ull~!l:, .~_ ~d~. rll'I~~~~'~~r ,I!
II !llrlcc~:: u : II
'-~ q! I I I I. -, I
~~--=_I ~-=---~~--=~"\ II U ~
,-:-~
~ iA !;I
~I I ~ II q
ex: Co- ' S !d I
::> ~ ~
! . .
, !
/
P!
~I
- -"""""~---""----~'''----- -~~~~_..__.,- - - - -..--')
Co- _ ___~-~=-'-~-c/---~-=( ~_
( WigU
g."igil I "m :'iill~
~d~iU h ~I mil! ·
lUl!l ii IllIil
1~~Ug rmh
.lg~~1 !
.
Irl'IU,I
.. :1 ·
;111111
:I~~ I
.
tiJ ~ ! ~ ~ L i.~ U "
~ n ~ ~ ~ -. ~ 0< ~." ~~~ .
~ ~ ~ h ~ ! ~ n ~1II~~h I
f!! ~<~~ii1 g ~ ~~ 2~1<~ilh ,~
~ ~ u u ~ ~ ~~ h ~~~~~ij ~
" I ~~ a~=~~~~<~ ~ ~
~!1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I~ ~ i! i U ~!~;II~ld i
~:o .;"' N ~ N ~ ~ !, ~ ~~ i~I~~~I~~ ~ !
~ ~ I ~q ~H~~I.e~U i ~
~ b ~@ i ~jn I IHh~n;;H;
o G: I>. ~ (j ~ w ~~ I ~~ ~li!~<IlI<.(~!!, la ~
I ~ ! ~ ~ ~~ IIi Ii ;1 Ii li111ihlH ~~
I ~ ~~ ~~ i~ ~~.i~~~ ~ ~ i~
u "- i ~ U ~8 ~~ ~~~m~ ~ ~ n
I~J[ill [] 1~" ~".
i
~
.~ -.~<C ,-_..
in
to
~ i
::; ~
iil '"
w
U)
:J
o '"
~ [~
- --< ....''-
'I~
I ~
~~
I~
~~~
ia
. . I
l : I
III
Jhl
n
Ii
<
~~
.~o
VI
Agenda Item No. 88
December 14, 2010
Page 14 of 110
. Changes to residential development standards are proposed:
o Add standards for ILF, ALF, CCRC, skilled nursing (max height 61 feet or 69 feet
actual height); and
o Decrease the multi-family minimum floor area from 1,000 square feet to 750 square
feet; and
o Increase the multi-family maximum building height from 45 feet to 61 feet (or 69 feet
actual height); and
o Reduce the side yard setback for single-family attached and detached dwelling units
from six feet to 5 feet; and
o Reduce the distance between structures from 12 feet to 10 feet; and
o Add the ability to reduce the side yard setback as long as the distance between principal
structures is a minimum of 10 feet.
The applicant's agent wishes to add the following uses to the commercial portion of the project:
establishments primarily engaged in rendering services to businesses on a contract or fee basis
for advertising agencies; adjustment and collection services; credit reporting services;
mailing/reproduction/commercial art; medical and dental laboratories; miscellaneous health and
allied services; ILF, ALF, CCRC and skilled nursing uses. Additionally the petitioner proposes
to revise the commercial development standards such that retail uses would no longer be limited
to one story, but still be limited to 42 feet (zoned height).
The Master Plan for the proposed amendment depicts generalized areas of development and
traffic circulation. Notes on the Master Plan reinforce the petitioner's intention to comply with
code for open space, road construction, landscaping, and project design.
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North: Wolfe Road, then Palermo Cove, a 131-acre, developing residential project approved at a
density of four units per acre, with a zoning designation of POO. Building height
limitations for this project include a maximum of 2 stories/35 feet for single-family
attached, townhouse, patio homes, villas, and clubhouse/recreational buildings; and 3
stories/45 feet for multi-family dwellings (Ordinance # 06-30).
East: Collier Boulevard (CR 951), then Agriculturally used and zoned lands, and the Boxwood
RPOO, an undeveloped residential project approved at a density of 6.97 dwelling units
per acre, with a zoning designation ofPUD. Building height limitation for all uses in the
Boxwood RPUD are 25 feet within two stories height as zoned, but not to exceed 35 feet
actual height (Ordinance # 07-55).
South: Mission Hills Boulevard, then the Mission Hills Shopping Center, with a POO zoning
designation
West: Black Bear Ridge, Phase I, a developing single-family subdivision within the Wolf Creek
residential project approved at a density of 3.99 units per acre, with a zoning designation
of PUD. Building height limitation for principal uses within this project are 35 feet and
two stories for all uses except for multi-family uses which can be 38 feet and 2 stories
(Ordinance #07-46).
Sonoma Oaks, PUDZ-2007-AR-11961
October 21, 2010 CCPC
Revised 10/5110
Page 3 of 18
Agenda Item No. 8B
December 14, 2010
Page 15 of 110
GGf":J
c
SCr~OM
OAKS
~ ~
WOLF CRECK
MISSION
HILLS
HOxwOOfJ
I:JUCKS RJN
\11$$lu", CHURet.
Excerpt from the PUD Map
~,.',..,,'._",.",
. ..'....,
;:.i
: ,": .i," ~;:,;. ~
I.'.'
;;"':,;;::
I ,~
:, "",',"w'
,: ~i^"
it"" ,',,;; I ~:\
,., ' I' .,....
Aerial Photo (subject site depiction is approximate)
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY:
Future Land Use Element (FLUE): lbe subject site is designated Urban (Urban Mixed Use
District, Urban Residential Subdistrict) on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) in the GMP. The
existing POD was deemed consistent IUlder the auspices of the Office and In-fill Commercial
(0lC) Subdistrict; no substantial changes to the commercial portion of this PUD are proposed as
part of this petition, therefore that consistency fmding recommendation has not changed.
Based upon the project's location, Sonoma Oaks may be eligible for up to 7 dulac., when
affordable-workforce housing bonuses are pursued. No bonuses are pursued, so the eligible
density equates to the base density.
Sonoma Oaks, PUDZ-2007-AR-11961
October 21, 2010 CCPC
Revised 10/5110
Page 4 of 16
Agenda Item No, 88
December 14, 2010
Page 16 of 110
37.5 ac. total - 8.93 ac. Commercial = 28.57 ac. to calculate residential density
Eligible Density 4 dulac. x 28.57 ac. = 114.28 du
The base density of 4 units per acre (114 du total) is the total residential density proposed.
Staff believes the project is consistent with FLUE Objective 7 and subsequent Policies 7.1
through 7.4 regarding Smart Growth principles for interconnections, loop road, sidewa1ksltrails,
and various other Smart Growth principles. A complete analysis is the May 25, 2010 memo
from Comprehensive Planning staff. A copy of that memo is attached.
Sonoma Oaks. PUDZ-2007-AR-11961
October 21. 2010 eepe
Revised 10/5/10
Page 5 of 18
.~--'. ~
Agenda Item No. 8B
December 14, 2010
Page 17 of 110
Transportation Element: Transportation Division Planning staffhas reviewed the PUD Traffic
Impact Statement (TIS) included in the application back-up material and the PUD documents to
ensure the PUD documents contain the appropriate language to address this project's potential
traffic impacts, and to offer a recommendation regarding GMP Transportation Element Policy
5. I. Those policies require the review of all rezone requests with consideration of their impact
on the overall transportation system, and specifically note that the County should not approve
any request that significantly impacts a roadway segment already operating and/or projected to
operate at an unacceptable Level of Service (LOS) within the five-year planning period unless
specific mitigating stipulations are approved.
Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the Sonoma Oaks PUD Amendment and has
determined that the proposed amendments do not present an additional impact on the adjacent
roadway network. As such, the roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate this
project within the 5-year planning period, and staff recommends that this project be found
consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan
(GMP).
Please note that the proposed development scenario's all demonstrate a net reduction of impacts
to the adjacent roadway network when compared to the currently adopted zoning. Although
significant impacts are proposed by this zoning, these proposed changes demonstrate a reduced
maximum impact than the previously approved development scenario(s).
In order to address and clarifY the introduction of new land uses into this zoning district, and to
allow flexibility in the land use scenarios that are allowed (without allowing the maximum trip
generation to increase), Transportation Planning staff offers the following stipulation to
accompany any recommendation of approval:
The development within this project shall be limited to 583 two-way, PM peak hour
trips (correspondent to the highest trip generation scenario of those proposed in the
updated traffic study information dated April 12, 2010); allowing for flexibility in the
proposed uses without creating u'1foreseen impacts on the adjacent roadway network
For purposes of calculation of the weekday PM peak hour trip generation for this
P UD, the lesser of the weekday PM peak hour trips as calculated in the Institute of
Traffic Engineer's (lTE) Report, titled Trip Generation, 8th Edition or the trip
generation as calculated in the then current lTE Trip Generation Report shall be
utilized.
Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental staff has
evaluated the application for an amendment to the approved PUD and has determined that the
proposed PUD document complies with all applicable GMP and LDC provisions regarding
conservation, native vegetation preservation and potential listed species impacts.
Sonoma Oaks, PUDZ-2007-AR-11961
October 21, 2010 eepe
Revised 10/5/10
Page 6 of 18
Agenda Item No. 86
December 14, 2010
Page 18 of 110
GMP Conclusion:
The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions such as this proposed
rezoning to CPUD. Staff is required to make a recommendation regarding a finding of
consistency or inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for approval,
approval with conditions, or denial of any rezoning petition. A fmding of consistency with the
FLUE and FLUM designations is a portion of the overall finding that is required, and staff
believes the petition is consistent with the FLUM and the FLUE as ind,icated previously in the
GMP discussion. The proposed rezone is consistent with the GMP Transportation Element as
previously discussed. Environmental staff also recommends that the petition be found consistent
with the CCME. Therefore, zoning staff recommends that the petition be found consistent with
the goals, objective and policies of the overall GMP.
ANALYSIS:
Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition including the criteria
upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in Land Development Code
(LDC) Subsection 10.02.13.B.5, Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as
the "PUD Findings"), and Subsection 10.03.05.1, Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission
Report (referred to as "Rezone Findings"), which establish the legal bases to support the CCPC's
recommendation. The CCPC uses these same criteria as the bases for their recommendation to the
Board of County Commissioners (BCC), who in turn use the criteria to support its action on the
rezoning or amendment request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below,
under the heading "Zoning Services Analysis." In addition, staff offers the following analyses:
Environmental Review: Environmental Services staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD
document to address environmental concerns. This petition was not required to submit a new
Environment Impact Statement (EIS) because the EIS submitted with the original rezoning
remains valid; no hearing before the Environmental Advisory Commission is required.
Transportation Review: Transportation Division staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD
document and Master Plan for right-of-way and access issues. Transportation Division staffhas
recommended approval subject to the Transportation Development Commitments provided in
Exhibit F of the attached MPUD Ordinance.
The applicant has incorporated Transportation Division staffs revisions and the above-referenced
stipulations within the PUD document, and Transportation Division staff recommends approval
subject to the Transportation commitments contained in the PUD document.
Uti/itv Review: This project is located within Collier County Water and Sewer District and is
subject to the conditions associated with a Water and Sewer Availability Letter from the Collier
County Utilities Division. According to county GIS records, there is a 24-inch water main and a
16-inch force main along Collier Boulevard.
Sonoma Oaks, PUDZ-2007.AR-11961
October 21,2010 CCPC
Revised 10/5/10
Page 7 of 18
Agenda Item No 8B
December 14 2010
Page 19 ~f 110
EmerfIencv ManafIement: Emergency Management staff provided the following comment at the
beginning of the review of this project: The Emergency Management Department has no issues
with this project. The Sonoma Oaks PUDA is located in a CAT 4 hurricane surge zone, which
requires evacuation during some hurricane events. There is currently no impact mitigation
required for this, however, it should be noted that approval of this PUD amendment could
increase evacuation and sheltering requirements for the county.
Parks and Recreation: The Public Services Division did not offer any comments regarding this
petition.
Zoning Services Review: The petitioner has revised the Master Plan attached to Ordinance No.
05-61 to depict the commercial and residential development area as well as the preservation area.
The general configuration of the internal roadway system is also shown as well as the Wolfe
Road and Collier Boulevard dedications. Also shown are the proposed buffering and a utility
well site with its access easement. 'Ibis amendment proposes several changes to the property
development regulations from what was approved in Ordinance Number 2005-61 as shown
below.
Ordinance # 2005-61 Amendment proposal
.. '- ...
FLOOR AREA 1,000 square feeUunit 750 square feeUunit
Single Family - 10 feet
15 feet or % the Multi-family - 11;, the zoned building height of the
DISTANCE BETWEEN building height, tallest building
STRUCTURES whichever is greater Clubhouse - 11;, the zoned building height but not
for multi-family and 12 less than 30 feet;
feet for all others ILF/AFUCCRC - 11;, the zoned building height of
the tallest buildina
MAXIMUM BUILDING Single Family - NTE 35 feet ZH or 45 feet AH
HEIGHT 3 stories/45 feet Multi-family - NTE 61 feet ZH or 69 feet AH
PRINCIPAL (actual height) Clubhouse - NTE 45 feet ZH or 55 feet AH;
BUILDINGS ILF/AFUCCRC - NTE 61 feet ZH or 69 feet AH
AH - Actual Height
ZH - Zoned Height
NTE - Not to Exceed
The development standards contained in Exhibit B-1 of the PUD documents reflect a design
approach that would allow construction of a compact and clustered development. The
development standards numerically indicate how the two residential product types could be sited
on the property-multi- and single-family units, and adds property development regulations for
the CCRe type uses. A IS-foot wide front setback is proposed for both the single- and multi-
family housing types. The minimum single-family side setback would be 5 feet while a IS-foot
wide side yard setback would be provided for multi-family units, Rear setbacks for single-
family homes will be 15 feet, with a 20-foot multi-family setback. The minimum floor area for a
Sonoma Oaks, PUDZ-2007-AR-11961
October 21,2010 eepe
Revised 10/5/10
Page 8 of 18
Agenda Item No. 8B
December 14, 2010
Page 20 of 110
single-family unit is proposed to be 1,000 square feet, while the multi-family minimum floor
area would be 750 square feet per dwelling unit. The only change proposed to the commercial
portion is the removal of a one story height limitation. The height will still be limited to the
original 42 feet, but structures can contain more than one story.
However, in conjunction with the height increases that are shown above, the petitioner has
committed to provide (Exhibit B-1, Footnote 2) an increased setback of 200 feet from the
western property line for any buildings taller than 51 feet, which abuts the Bear Ridge
community within the Wolf Creek PUD. Additionally, the petitioner has offered that no
buildings within 100 feet of that western property line will be oriented parallel to that property
line and further no building within 100 feet of the western property line will have balconies
directly facing that property line.
FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with, and complementary to, the
surrounding land uses. However, staff would note that in reviewing the appropriateness of the
requested uses/densities on the subject site, the compatibility analysis might include a review of
both the subject proposal and surrounding or nearby properties as to allowed use intensities and
densities, development standards (building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building
mass, building location and orientation, architectural features, amount and type of open space
and location, traffic generation/attraction, etc. Specifically, staff notes residential building
heights are proposed to increase from 3 stories/45 feet maximum to 4 stories/65 feet maximum.
As illustrated in the aerial photograph located on page 2 of the staff report, the surrounding
zoning discussion of this staff report, and the Master Plan, the site is bounded to the north by
Wolfe Road, then the Palermo Cove Residential PUD and then the Golden Gate Fire Station #
73; to the east by Collier Boulevard, then a plant nursery and the Boxwood RPUD, which is an
undeveloped residential project approved at a density of 6.97 dwelling units per acre; to the south
by the Mission Hills Commercial PUD, a developing shopping center; and to the west by the
Black Bear Ridge single-family subdivision which is part of the Wolf Creek Residential PUD.
The Palermo Cove and Wolfe Creek projects are approved PUD zoned projects with a maximum
allowable density of four units per acre.
Roadways separate this project from all other projects except the Black Bear Ridge subdivision
in Wolf Creek project abutting this project to the west (of the subject property). Thus,
incompatibility issues would only arise in that one area. As noted above, the petitioner has
offered increased setbacks and building orientation limitations to address any perceived
incompatibility that might occur because of the density differences between the Wolf Creek PUD
and the proposed project. Additionally, the petitioner proposes to use the area along the project's
western boundary to meet a good portion of the indigenous vegetation requirements, thus trying
to soften this project's effect upon its neighbor.
Deviation Discussion:
The petitioner is seeking one deviation from the requirements of the LDC. This same deviation
was approved in Ordinance 05-61 and is being carried fOIWard as part of this amendment
request. The deviation is listed in PUD Exhibit E.
Sonoma Oaks. PUDZ-2007-AR-11961 Page 9 of 18
October 21, 2010 CCPC
Revised 10/5/10
Agenda Item No. 88
December 14,2010
Page 21 of110
This Deviation seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01(0) that requires right-of-way for local
roads to be at least sixty feet (60') wide, to allow a minimum fifty foot right-of-way or roadway
width for all project streets in the Sonoma Oaks MPUD.
Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation that this
deviation is desirable to accommodate the COWlty'S need for Collier Boulevard and Wolfe Road
rights-of-way acreage that resulted in a total loss of 2.91 acres to project development, and to
meet the required native vegetation area of 5.71 acres. The reduced roadway width will not
diminish the level of service and all supporting water, sewer and utilities will be accommodated.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: This deviation would allow the developer to provide
narrower roadway widths and according to the statement above, is being sought because the
petitioner provided land to the COWlty for additional rights-of-way needed for Collier Boulevard
and Wolfe Road improvements. Additionally the petition states that the narrower roadway width
is required to allow the developer to meet the LDC native vegetation requirements. Staff
originally asked in the July 26, 2007 review letter to the agent that this deviation be removed
because LDC Section 6.06.01.0 provides a review mechanism for roadway issues during the site
development plan or platting process wherein engineering documentation is provided to allow
staff the detail to adequately review the roadway right-of-way widths in concert with the actual
site design plan, not just a conceptual PUD plan. However because the developer has negotiated
with the COWlty to provide the additional rights-of-way, Transportation Planning Staff has
indicated that support can be offered at rezoning stage for this deviation for this project if the
roadway connecting Wolfe Road and Mission Hills Boulevard is dedicated to the public as a
public access easement with the developer retaining responsibility for maintenance. The
petitioner has agreed to do that.
Staff concurs with the petitioner's contention that this deviation provides a public benefit
because the public will be able to use the roadway that will connect Wolfe Road and Mission
Hills Boulevard. Zoning staff would not support this deviation if the only reason it was proposed
was to meet the LDC native vegetation requirements because there is no public benefit to loss of
native vegetation because a less aesthetically pleasing project could be the result. The petitioner
negotiated what he apparently accepted as a fair settlement for the area provided to the COWlty
for right-of-way; it would have been prudent to negotiate that settlement amoWlt with the
Wlderstanding that any native vegetation lost within the lands provided to the COWlty for right-of-
way would need to be recaptured elsewhere on site by the developer. Allowing over-
development of the site via deviation approvals would not be an acceptable alternative. Zoning
and Land Development Review staff would recommend APPROVAL of this deviation. fmding
that. in compliance with LDC Section 1O.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 1O.02.13.B.5.h. the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation
is "justified as meeting public p\lfVoses to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of
such regulations."
LDC Subsection 10.03.05.1.2 states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and
recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of COWlty Commissioners...shall
Sonoma Oaks, PUDZ-2007-AR-11961 Page 10 of 18
October 21, 2010 eepe
Revised 10/5110
Agenda Item No, 8B
December 14, 2010
Page 22 of 110
show that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the
following when applicable." Additionally, Section 10.02.13 of the Collier County LDC requires
the Planning Commission to make fmdings as to the PUD Master Plans' compliance with the
additional criteria as also noted below. [Staff's responses to these criteria are provided in bold,
non-italicized fontI:
PUD Findine:s: LDC Subsection 10.02.13.8.5 states that, "In support of its recommendation, the
CCPC shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria"
(Staff's responses to these criteria are provided in bold font):
1. 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.
Staff has provided an extensive review of the proposed uses and believes that the proposed
uses are compatible with the uses in the area with the additional setbacks, buffering and
wall placement proposed by the petitioner. Therefore, the commitments made by the
applicant provide adequate assurances that the proposed change will not adversely affect
living conditions in the area.
2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements,
contracts, 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.
Documents submitted with the application, which were reviewed by the County Attorney's
Office, demonstrate unified control of the property. Additionally, the development will be
required to gain platting and/or site development approval. Both processes will ensure that
appropriate stipulations for the provision of and continuing operation and maintenance of
infrastructure will be provided by the developer.
3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and
policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP).
County staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of the relevant goals,
objectives and policies of the GMP within the GMP discussion of this staff report. Based
on that analysis, staff is of the opinion that this petition can be found consistent with the
overall GMP.
4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include
restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and biiffering and screening
requirements.
Staff has provided an extensive review of the proposed uses and believes that the uses
proposed are compatible with the surrounding area.
Sonoma Oaks, PUDZ-2007-AR-11961
October 21, 2010 CCPC
Revised 10/5/10
Page 11 of 18
'~'-'~-"""-'''"
Agenda Item No, 86
December 14, 2010
Page 23 of 110
5, The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the
development.
The amount of open space set aside for this project meets the minimum requirement of the
LDC.
6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of
available improvements and facilities, both public and private.
Currently, the roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project
at this time, i.e., GMP consistent at the time of rezoning as evaluated as part of the GMP
Transportation Element consistency review. In addition, the project's development must
comply with aU other applicable concurrency management regulations when development
approvals are sought.
7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion.
The area has adequate supporting infrastructure such as road' capacity, wastewater
disposal system, and potable water supplies to accommodate this project based upon the
commitments made by the petitioner and the fact that adequate public facilities
requirements will be addressed when development approvals are sought.
8. Conformity with PUD 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,
The petitioner is seeking one deviation to aUow desigu flexibility in compliance with the
purpose and intent of the Planned Unit Development Districts (LDC Section 2.03.06A).
This criterion requires an evaluation of the extent to which development standards and
deviations proposed for this PUD depart from development standards that would be
required for the most similar conventional zoning district. Staff believes the deviation
proposed can be supported, rmding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the
petitioner has demonstrated that "the elements may be waived without a detrimental effect
on the health, safety and welfare of the community" and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.S.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.>> Please refer to the
Deviation Discussion portion of the staff report for a more extensive examination of the
deviations.
Rezone Findines: LDC Subsection 10,03.05.1. states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land,
the report and recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County
Commissioners...shall show that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed
change in relation to the following when applicable" (Staff's responses to these criteria are
provided in boldfont):
1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, & policies of
the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan.
Sonoma Oaks, PUDZ-2007-AR-11961
October 21, 2010 CCPC
Revised 10/5110
Page 12 of 18
Agenda Item No. 88
December 14, 2010
Page 24 of 110
The zoning analysis provides an in-depth review of the proposed uses. Staff is of the
opinion that the project as proposed is consistent with GMP FLUE Policy 5.4 requiring the
project to be compatible with neighborhood development with the additional setback and
buffering commitments provided by the petitioner. Therefore, staff recommends that this
petition be deemed consistent with the GMP.
2. The existing land use pattern;
As described in the "Surrounding Land Use and Zoning" portion of this report and
discussed in the zoning review analysis, the adjacent existing land use pattern is a mixture
of residential uses to the north, across Wolfe Road and to the west and commercial uses to
the south, across Mission Hills Boulevard. Uses to the east are separated by Collier
Boulevard.
3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts;
The proposed PUD rezone would not create an isolated zoning district because the subject
property is already zoned PUD. Additionally, the zoning boundary mirrors the existing
property ownership boundary.
4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing
conditions on the property proposedfor change.
Staff is of the opinion that the proposed district boundaries are 10gicaUy drawn.
5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning
necessary.
The proposed change is not necessary, per se; but it is being requested in compliance with
the LDC provisions to seek such changes.
6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the
neighborhood;
Staff is of the opinion that the proposed change, with the commitments made by the
applicant, is consistent with the County's land use polieies that are rc;fIected by the Future
Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP. Therefore, the proposed change should not
adversely impact living conditions in the area.
7. Whether the proposed change will 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.
The roadway infrastructure has adequate capaeity to serve the proposed project at this
time.
8, Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem;
Sonoma Oaks, PUDZ-2007-AR-11961
October 21, 2010 CCPC
Revised 10/5/10
Page 13 of 18
Agenda Item No. 88
December 14, 2010
Page 25 of 110
The proposed change should not create drainage or surface water problems because the
LDC specificaUy addresses prerequisite development standards that are designed to reduce
the risk of flooding on nearby properties. AdditionaUy, the LDC and GMP have other
specific regulations in place that will ensure review for drainage on new developments.
9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas;
If this petition were approved, any subsequent development would need to comply with the
applicable LDC standards for development or as outlined in the PUD document. This
project's property development regulations do not indicate that exceedingly taU structures
wonld be included in the project; therefore the project should not significantly rednce light
and air to adjacent areas; thus the development proposed, if approved, should not
negatively affect light and air permeation into adjacent areas.
10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area;
This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results, which may be internal or
external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by a host of factors
including zoning; however zoning by itself mayor may not affect values, since value
determination is driven by market value. There is no guarantee that the project will be
marketed in a manner comparable to the surrounding developments.
11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of
adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations;
Properties around this property are already developed or developing now. Therefore, the
proposed zoning ehange should not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent
properties.
12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual
owner as contrasting with the public welfare;
The proposed development complies with the Growth Management Plan which is a public
policy statement supporting Zoning actions when they are consistent with said
Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed change does not constitute a grant
of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public
welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest,
13, Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance
with existing zoning;
The property already has a PUD zoning designation and could be developed within the
parameters of that zoning ordinance; however, the petitioner is seeking this rezone in
compliance with LDC provisions for such action. The petition can be evaluated and action
taken as deemed appropriate through the public hearing process. Staff believes the
Sonoma Oaks. PUDZ-2007-AR-11961
October 21,2010 eepe
Revised 10/5/1 0
Page 14 of 18
Agenda Item No, 88
December 14, 2010
Page 26 of 110
proposed rezone meets the intent of the PUD district and further, believes the public
interest will be maintained.
14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the
County;
As noted previously, the proposed rezone boundary follows the existing PUD zoning and
property ownership boundary. The GMP is a policy statement which has evaluated the
scale, density and intensity of land uses deemed to be acceptable throughout the urban-
designated areas of Collier County. Staff is of the opinion that the development standards
and the developer commitments will ensure that the project is not out of scale with the
needs ofthe community.
15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in
districts already permitting such use.
There may be other sites in the County that could accommodate the uses proposed;
however, this is not the determining factor when evaluating the appropriateness of a
particular zoning petition. The petition was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with
the GMP and the LDC; and staff does not review other sites in conjunction with a specific
petition. The proposed rezone is consistent with the GMP as discussed in other portions of
the staff report.
16. 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.
Any development anticipated by the PUD document would require considerable site
atteration and this project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal. state,
and local development regulations during the site development plan or platting approval
process and again later as part of the building permit process.
17. The impact of development 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,
as amended.
The project will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in LDC Section 6.02.00
regarding Adequate Public Facilities and the project will need to be consistent with all
applicable goals and objectives of the GMP regarding adequate public facilities, except as it
may be exempt by federal regulations. This petition has been reviewed by county staff that
is responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the amendment process and
those staff persons have concluded that no Level of Service will be adversely impacted with
the commitments contained in the PUD document,
Sonoma Oaks, PUDZ-2007-AR-11961
October 21, 2010 CCPC
Revised 10/5/10
Page 15 of 18
.,..,-~.,-_.~~
Agenda Item No. 8B
December 14, 2010
Page 27 of 110
18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC)
shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare,
To be determined by tbe BCC during its advertised public bearing.
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM):
The petitioner and the agent duly noticed and held the first of two required NIMs on September
24, 2007, at 5:30 PM in the Gulf Coast High School Cafeteria. Brooke Gabrielsen, the agent,
gave an overview of the proposed PUD amendment. She stated that there would be no change in
the amoWlt of commercial square footage (120,000 sq. feet) from what was originally approved;
the petitioner is asking to increase the density in the residential portion of this project from the
four dwelling units per acre that is already approved (112 dwelling units), to allow 12 units per
acre using an Affordable Workforce Housing Density Bonus Agreement (AHDBA) bonus to
allow a maximwn of 336 units, If the affordable housing bonus is granted, the petitioner said 10
percent of the units would be sold to families qualifying for Workforce Housing; and 60 percent
of the units would be sold to families qualifying for Gap Housing. The agent also explained that
the petitioner is asking to increase the allowable building height.
Seven people attended the meeting, asking a variety of questions. A concern for the majority of
the citizens was parking and traffic impact to the area. Questions asked ranged from living space
per unit, to the artistic rendering of the site plan. Generally, the building and site layout was
given high praise. Questions about the future use of the commercially zoned area in front of this
development were addressed by both the COWlty planner and the engineers present.
The second duly noticed and advertised NIM was held on July 28, 2010, at 5:30 p.m_ at the
Golden Gate Fire and Rescue District Station #73 located on Collier Boulevard. Kay Deselem
welcomed those in attendance and explained the purpose of the NIM. Along with the project
team, there were seven members of the public in attendance,
Rich Y ovanovich introduced the project team and provided an overview of the PUD amendment
request. The project is 37.5 acres in size and the applicant is requesting a maximum of 114
residential dwelling units or up to 456 senior housing units on the "R" designated areas at a
conversion rate of 1:4 and a maximwn of 120,000 square feet of commercial on the "C"
designated areas as depicted on the PUD master plan which was displayed. Rich added that the
original request included a provision for additional density for affordable housing; however, that
request had been withdrawn. The main request is to add senior housing as an allowed use.
Questions from members of the public and responses by the applicant's representative:
1. The original PUD allowed a maximwn of one fast food restaurant, is that limitation still in
place?
Response: Yes, that limitation is still in place in the proposed revised PUD.
2. What is estimated buildout for the project?
Sonoma Oaks, PUDZ-2007-AR-11961
October 21,2010 eepe
Revised 10/5110
Page 16 of 18
Agenda Item No, 88
December 14, 2010
Page 28 of 110
Response: There is no set buildout or phasing schedule. Market conditions will determine how
the project moves forward.
3. Please clarify the number of units and the conversion factor for senior housing.
Response: A maximum of 114 residential dwelling units and/or a maximum of 456 senior
housing units which can include independent living units, assisted living units, and skilled
nursing units (bed) on the "R" designated areas. Residential dwelling units will be converted to
senior living units at a ratio of 1 :4.
4. Please clarify the requested building heights.
Response: The maximum height requested in the "R" designated areas for single family attached
or detached is 35 feet zoned height or 45 feet actual height, and for multi-family and senior
housing is 61 feet zoned height or 69 feet actual height. The number of stories is not indicated in
the PUD; however, it is anticipated that structures up to five stories are permitted.
Kay Deselem informed those in attendance that the petition has not been yet been scheduled for
public hearings but will have to be considered by the Collier County Planning Commission and
the Board of County Commissioners. She invited those in attendance to attend those hearings
and/or set up a meeting with her if they want to review the project file and stay informed of the
progress of this application.
COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW:
The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report for this petition on October 5, 2010.
RECOMMENDATION:
Zoning and Land Development Review Services staff recommends that the Collier County
Planning Commission forward Petition PUDA-2007-AR-11961 to the BCC with a
recommendation of approval.
Sonoma Oaks. PUDZ-2007-AR-11961
October 21, 2010 CCPC
Revised 10/5/1 0
Page 17 of 18
,~.,"-_._.-,_..
PREPARED BY:
Klr:~LE~~Ai PLANNER
DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
REVIEWED BY:
~ (f /?JL-
ItA YMO V. BELr:OWS, ZONING MANAGER
DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
~. 5?J-S,
LIAM D, LO Z, JR., P.E., DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
APPROVED BY:
NICK ASALANGUIDA, DEP ADMINISTRATOR
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION
Agenda Item No, 88
December 14, 2010
Page 29 of 110
9 /dt f j/O__
DATE
cr.z~-/()
DATE
O~-Z9-Z.0(O
DATE
C'} ,1{J~ 10
DATE
Tentatively scheduled for the December 14, 2010 Board of County Commissioners Meeting
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION:
/JJ?JeJ( P ~d-U~
MARK P. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN L.-n J /7
I_!J~Y//<-' NRU( L~
Sonoma Oaks. PUDZ-2007-AR-11961
October 21,2010 CCPC
Revised 9/28/10
/ () / :2-/ / /0
I 0ATE
Page 17 of 17
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
WWW.COLLlERGOV.NET
(i)
Agenda Item No, 88
December 14, 2010
Page 30 of 110
2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104
(239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-6968
APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR:
l3J AMENDMENT TO PUD (PUDA) 0 PUD REZONE (PUDZ)
o PUD TO PUD REZONE (PUDZ-A)
PETITION NO (AR)
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT NUMBER
DATE PROCESSED
ASSIGNED PLANNER
I'UDA-2007-AR-1l961 RICV: 8
SONOMA OAKS
Project: 2007020023
llete: 8/13110 IlUIC: 9/13/10
APPLICANT INFORMATION
NAME OF APPLlCANT(S) Voila II, llC c/o Todd Dubovy, Bessemer Trust
ADDRESS 2240 Venetian Court CITY Naples STATE FL ZIP 34109
TELEPHONE # 239-514-4646
FAX # 239-514-4647
E-MAIL ADDRESS:r1a@armalavage.com
NAME OF AGENT Margaret Perry, AICP - Wilson Miller, Inc, and Richard Yovanovich - Coleman, Yovanovich
and Koester, P .A.
ADDRESS 3200 Bailey Lane, Suite 200 CITY Naples STATE FL ZIP 34105
TELEPHONE # 239.649.4040 FAX # 239.643.5716
E-MAIL ADDRESS:margaretperry@wilsonmiller.com
ADDRESS 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 CITY Naples STATE FL ZIP 34103
TELEPHONE # 239-435-3535 FAX # 239-435-1218
E-MAIL ADDRESS:ryovanovlch@cyklawfirm.com
BE AWARE THAT COLLIER COUNTY HAS LOBBYIST REGULATIONS. GUIDE YOURSELF
ACCORDINGLY AND ENSURE THAT YOU ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THESE REGULA nONS.
1
Agenda Item No< 88
December 14, 2010
Page 31 of 110
ASSOCIATIONS
Complete the following for all registered Association(s) that could be affected by this
petition. Provide additional sheets if necessary. Information can be found on the
Board of County Commissioner's website at http://www.collierclOv.net/lndex.aspx?paae=774
NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION: Vanderbilt Country Club Homeowners' Association
MAILING ADDRESS 8250 Danbury Blvd. CITY Naples STATE FL ZIP 34120
NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION: Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association
MAILING ADDRESS P.O. Box 990596 CITY Naples STATE FL ZIP 34116
r Disclosure ofInterest Information
a. If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL, tenancy by the entirety,
tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as
well as the percentage of such interest. (Use additional sheets if necessary).
Name and Address
Percentage of Ownership
IN/A
b. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and
the percentage of stock owned by each.
Name and Address
Percentage of Ownership
Voila II, LLC, a Florida Limited liability Company (see below)
100%
The property is owned by Voila II, LLC. The members of Voila II, LLC are lagniappe, llC (60%) and Drax 951,
llC (40%). The sole member of Lagniappe, llC Is Linda Hamilton. The sole member of Drax 951, lLC Is the
Suzanne van liebig Marital Trust. Suzanne van liebig is the sole beneficiary of the Suzanne van Liebig Marital
Trust.
For purposes of executing the application, the Managing Member of Voila II, llC Is Drax 951, lLC. The
Managing Member of Drax 951, LlC Is Von Liebeg Office, Inc. Suzanne Van Liebig is the officer/director of
Van Liebig Office, Inc. Pursuant to the attached resolution, Bessemer Trust Company of Florida is the authorized
signatory for Van Liebig Office, lnc, Todd H. Dubovy Is a principal of Bessemer Trust Company of Florida and
is an authorized signatory for Bessemer Trust Company of Florida,
2
Agenda Item No. 88
December 14,2010
Page 32 of 110
c. IF the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the
percentage of interest.
Name and Address
Perceptoge of Ownership
IN/A
d. If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, list the name
of the general and/or limited partners.
Name and Address
Percentage of Ownership
IN/A
e. If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individual or individuals, a
Corporation, Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contract purchasers
below, including the officers, stockholders, beneFiciaries, or partners.
Name and Address
Percentage of Ownership
IN/A
Date of Contract:
f. If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all
individuals or oFFicers, if a corporation, partnership, or trust.
Name and Address
N/A
g. Date subject property acquired [gj June 2006 leased 0 Term of lease
yrs./ mos.
If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate the Following:
Date of option:
Date option terminates: , or
Anticipated closing date
h. Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur
subsequent to the date of application, but prior to the date of the final public hearing,
it is the responsibility of the applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit
a supplemental disclosure of interest form.
3
PROPERTY LOCATION
Agenda Item No. 88
December 14, 2010
Page 33 of 110
I
Detailed lel!al description of the orooertv covered bv the aoolication: (If space is inadequale, attach
on separate page.) If request involves change to more than one zoning district, include separate legal
description for property involved in each district. Applicant shall submit four (4) copies of a recent survey
(completed within the last six months, maximum I" to 400' scale) if required to do so at the pre-
application meeting.
NOTE: The applicanl is responsible for supplying the conectlegal description. If questions arise concerning
the legal description, an engineer's certification or sealed survey may be required.
Section/Township/Range 34/ 4B South / 26 East
lot: N/ A Block: N/ A Subdivision: N/ A
Plat Book N/ A Page #: N/ A Property 1.0. #: 00203280009; 00204520001; 00203680007
Metes & Bounds Description: See legal Description
Size of DroDertv:
ft. X
ft. = Total Sq. Ft.
Acres 37.5
Address/aenerallocarion of subiect DroDerty: West of Collier Boulevard; between Wolfe Road (to the north)
and Loop Road (to the south).
PUD ~istrict (LOC 2.03.06): 0 Residential 0 Community Facilities !:8J Mixed Use
o Commercial 0 Industrial
ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE
Zoning
N RPUD
SPUD
EA
W PUD
land use
Residential - Palermo Cove
Commercial - Mission Hills
Agricultural - Nursery
Residential - Wolf Creek
Does the owner of the subject property own property contiguous to the subject properly? If so,
give complete legal description of entire contiguous property. (If space is inadequate, attach on
separate page). No.
SectionfT ownship/Range
/
/
lot:
Plat Book
Block:
Subdivision:
Page #:
Properly 1.0. #:
Metes & Bounds Description:
4
Agenda Item No, 88
December 14, 2010
Page 34 of 110
REZONE REQUEST
This application is requesting a rezone from the MPUD zoning dlstrict(s)to the MPUD zoning diSlrict(s).
Present Use of the Property: Property is presently vacant.
Proposed Use (or range of uses) of the properly: Mixed use PUD with commercial and residential districts.
Residential density of up to four (4) units per acre for a maximum of 114 units. Assisted living, continuing care
retirement and skilled nursing units also permitted or an equivalent of 4 per 1 residential dwelling unit and at
an FAR of 0.6.
Original PUD Name: Sonoma Oaks Ordinance No.: 2005-61
EVALUATION CRITERIA
Pursuant to Seellon 10.02.13 of the Collier County land Development Code, staff's analysis and
recommendation to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission's recommendation to the
Board of County Commissioners shall be based upon consideration of the applicable criteria noted below.
Provide a narrative statement describing the rezone request with specific reference to the criteria noted
below. Include any backup materials and documentation in support of the request.
PUD Rezone Considerations (lDC Section 10.02. J 3.B)
1. The suitability of the area for the type ond pattern of development proposed in relation to physical
characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other
utilities.
The subject property is located on the west side of Collier Boulevard, approximately Y. mile north
of Vanderbilt Beach Road, Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East in unincorporated Collier
County. The property is currently zoned as the Sonoma Oaks MPUD. The subject property is
mostly cleared. The remaining vegetation (approximately 12,2 acres of which is considered native
vegetation) consists predominantly of pine flatwoods and woodlands with a mix of different
vegeration types.
The Sonoma Oaks MPUD will be a mixed-use development consisting of commercial and residential
USes. The eastern 8.93 acres of the property will allow for a variety of office and retail uses, as
indicated In Exhibit A-2 of the PUD Ordinance. Continuing care retirement communities are also an
allowed use in this area. The commercial uses and signage will be designed to be harmonious with
one another and will be compatible with adjacent and nearby land uses. In addition to compliance
with all applicable provisions of the LDC, except where deviations are authorized, compatibility
and harmony within the property will be achieved by using common architeclural elements and
common entryway signage and landscape themes.
The remainder of the property may be developed as a residential community and/or a retirement
community. The base density for this property is 4 units per non-commercial acre, for a total of
114 dwelling units.
The PUD Ordinance Exhibits A-1 and A-2 also provide for the opportunity to place a retirement
community consisting of Assisted Living Facilities (ALF), Continuing Care Retirement Communities
(CCRC) and skilled nursing facilities on the site,
5
Agenda Item No, 88
December 14, 2010
Page 35 of 110
The subject property is bounded to the north by the Palermo Cove Residential PUD, to the east by
Collier Boulevard and a nursery, to the south by the Mission Hills Commercial PUD, and to the west
by the Wolfe Creek Residential PUD,
The developer will provide 0 public rood that will interconnect Wolfe and Loop Roads and
separate the commercial and residential components of the MPUD. Access 10 the property will be
provided via 0 right in along Collier Boulevard and a full-access opening along Wolfe Rood and
Loop Road (Mission Hills). Collier Boulevard is currently being widened, and right-of-way was
donated to the County by the developer to help make that happen.
The project site is primarily located within the Harvey Drainage Basin, according to the Collier
County Drainage Atlas. The proposed outfall for the project is to the south through the Mission Hills
PUD water management system. The discharge point from the Mission Hills PUD is the existing
swale, located along the northern side of Vanderbilt Beach Road. The water management system
of the project will include the construction of a perimeter berm with crest elevation set at or above
the 25-year, 3-day peak flood stage. Water quality pretreatment will be accomplished by an on-
site lake system prior to discharge into the Mission Hiils PUD stormwater management system.
The Sonoma Oaks MPUD will be served by County potable water and sanitary sewer, os well as
electric power and telephone. Additional services will be provided as deemed appropriate.
2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contract, or
other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to
arrangemenls 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.
The property is owned by Voila II, LLC The members of Voila II, LLC ore Lagniappe, LLC (60%)
and Drax 951, LLC (40%). The sole member of Lagniappe, LLC is, Lindo Hamilton. The sole
member of Drax 951, LLC is the Suzanne von Liebig Marital Trust. Suzanne van Liebig is the sole
beneficiary of the Suzanne von Liebig Marital Trust.
For purposes of executing the application, the Managing Member of Voila II, LLC is Drax 951, LLC
The Managing Member of Drax 951, llC is Von Liebeg Office, Inc. Suzanne Von liebig is the
officer/director of Von Liebig Office, Inc. Pursuant to the attached resolution, Bessemer Trust
Company of Florida is the authorized signatory for Von liebig Office, Inc. Todd H. Dubovy Is a
principal of Bessemer Trust Company of Florida and is on authorized signatory for Bessemer Trust
Company of Florida.
Common area maintenance will be provided by the developer, or by a property owners'
association. For those areas not maintained by the developer, the developer will create properly
owners' association(s), whose functions shail include provisions for the perpetual maintenance of
common facilities and open spaces, The developer or the property owners' associatlon(s), as
applicable, shall be responsible for the operation, maintenance, and management of the surface
water and stormwater management systems and preserves serving the Sonoma Oaks MPUD in
accordance with the provisions of the LDC together with any applicable permits from the South
Florida Water Management District.
3. Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the growth
management plan. (This is to include identifying what Sub-district, palicy or other provision
allows the requested uses/density, and fully explaining/addressing all criteria or conditions of that
Sub-district, policy or other provision.)
6
Agenda Item No, 8B
December 14, 2010
Page 36 of 110
The development of a Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) to be known as Sonoma Oaks
MPUD, complies with the goals, objectives, and policies of Collier County as set forth In the Growth
Management Plan (GMP). The development of Sonoma Ooks MPUD will be consistent with and
further the planning goals and objectives of Collier County as sel forth in the GMP. More
specifically, the Sonoma Oaks MPUD will be consistent with the GMP goals, objectives and policies,
and with the Collier County land Development Code (LOC), and other applicable regulations for
the following reasons:
1. The subject property is designated Urban on the Future land Use Map (FlUM) and lies
within the Urban - Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict. A 8.93+/- acre
portion of the subject property qualifies for commercial zoning under the Office and In-fill
Commercial Subdistrict provisions of the Urban - Mixed Use District In the Future land Use
Element (flUE), as amended, The remaining 28.57+/- acres qualify for residential
development at up to 4.0 dwelling units per acre. The PUD provides for a maximum of
114 dwelling units and a maximum of 120,000 square feet of commercial office and retail
use.
2. The subject property's location in relotlon to existing or proposed community facilities and
services permits the development's requested density ond intensity as described in
Objective 2 of the FLUE.
3. The development will be compatible and complimentary to existing and planned
surrounding land uses as required by Policy 5.4 of the FLUE.
4. The development of the Sonoma Oaks MPUD will result in an efficient and economical
extension of community facllilles and services as required in Policy 3.1 of the FLUE.
5. The native vegetation provisions of the Sonoma Oaks MPUD Implements Policy 6.1 .1 of the
Conservation Coastal Management Element (CCME) In the "native preserves" will be
incorporated into the project design.
6. By virtue that the project must comply with the provisions of Secllon 6 of the lDC, it will
implement, and further Objective 2 of the FLUE, Objective 8 of the Transportation Elemenl,
Objecllve 1.2 of the Sanitary Sewer Sub-Element, and Objective 1.5 of the Recreation and
Open Space Element.
7, The project provides a roadway connecting Wolfe Road and Ihe loop Road, allowing
access for the public to the shopping center (immediately to the south) and to Wolfe Road
(which is the site of a future traffic signal at Collier Boulevard), thereby reducing traffic
volumes and improving the intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Rood and Collier Boulevard.
In addition, the connection road provides an alternate route for emergency vehicles from
the Golden Gate Fire Station 73, located immediately north of Sonoma Oaks MPUD across
Wolfe Road, which will allow emergency vehicles to avoid the intersection when traveling
wesl. As a result, the Project furthers Goal 1 of Ihe Transportation Element, and
specifically the following objectives, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7.
8. The project development is planned to protect the functioning of natural drainage features
and natural groundwater aquifer recharge areas as described in Objective 1.5 of the
Drainage Sub-Element of the Public Facililles Element.
9. All final local development orders for this project are subject to the County's Adequale
Public Facilities, Section 6.02.00, as amended, of the Collier County We.
4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include
restridions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening
requirements.
The subject property is bounded to the north by the Palermo Cove Residential PUD, to the east by
Collier Boulevard and a nursery, to the south by the Mission Hills PUD, and to the west by the
Wolfe Creek PUD.
7
Agenda Item No, 88
December 14, 2010
Page 37 of 110
The eastern 8,93 acres of the property, fronting Collier Boulevard, allow for a variety of office
and commercial uses, as well as continuing care retirement community, as indicated In Exhibit A-2 of
the PUD Ordinance, The commercial uses and signage will be designed to be harmonious with one,
another and will be compatible with adjacent and nearby land uses. In addition to compliance with
all applicable provisions of the WC, except where deviations are aulhorized, compatibility and
harmony within the property will be achieved by using Common architectural elements and common
entryway signage and landscape themes,
Lighting in the commercial district of the MPUD shall be located so that no light is aimed directly
toward a property designated residential, where such lighting Is located within two hundred (200)
feet of any residential property. Said lighting shall be shielded where necessary to prevent glare
onto adjacent residential property.
The remainder of the property qualifies for residential development. The Residential District will
be separated from the Commercial District by an appropriate buffer as well os the public
roadway that connects Wolfe Road and loop Road. Appropriate buffers and/or berms will also
be provided along the perimeter of the property, in accordance with the We.
S. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development.
The Collier County WC requires that mixed-use residential projects maintain open space at a
minimum of 30% of the entire MPUD. The MPUD Master Plan identifies preserves, lakes, and
buffers as open spaces. These areas, in conjunction with open space areas included within the
residential areas, will satisfy the 30% open space requirements of the WC for mixed-use
development.
6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available
improvements and facilities, both public and private.
The Sonoma Oaks MPUD will be developed in one phase. All final loco I development orders for
this project are subjecI to the County's Adequate Public Facilities, Section 6.02.00, as amended, of
the Collier County land Development Code.
7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion.
The subject property is currently surrounded by residential and commercial uses, except to the east,
across Collier Boulevard, where a nursery Is in existence. Collier Boulevard is currently under
construction to accommodate existing development and future expansiOfl.
The developer will provide a public road that will interconnect Wolfe and loop Roads and
separate the commercial and residential components of the MPUD. Aoccess to the property will be
provided via a right in along Collier Boulevard and a full-access opening along Wolfe Road and
loop Road (Mission Hills). This public rood will allow the Sonoma Oaks MPUD residential
development, as well as other residential developments with access to Wolfe Road to access the
Mission Hills shopping center, and ultimately Vanderbilt Beach Road, while avoiding Collier
Bouievard and its intersection with Vanderbilt Beach Road. The public road will also allow
emergency vehicles from the Golden Gate Fire Station 73, located immediately north of Sonoma
Oaks MPUD across Wolfe Road, to avoid the same intersection when traveling west.
8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications ..f such regulations in the
particular case, based on determination that such modifications of justified as meeting public
purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations.
8
Agenda Item No. 8B
December 14, 2010
Page 38 of 110
Deviation 1 from LDC Section 6.06.01 (0) (Section III of the proposed Construction Standards
Manual intended to be adopted as part of the County's Administrative Code) that requires right-
., of-way for local roads to be at least sixty feet (60') wide. In order to accommodate the County's
demand for Collier Boulevard and Wolfe Road right-of-way acreage that resulted in a total loss
of 3.5 acres, and to meel the required native vegetation area of 5.73 acres, a roadway widlh of
50 feel is required. Please note the reduced roadway width will not diminish the level of service
and all supporting water, sewer and utilities will be accommodated. The minimum right-of-way or
roadway width to be utilized for all project streets in the Sonoma Oaks MPUD shall be fifty feet
(50').
Deed Restrictions: The County is legally precluded from enforcing deed restrictions, however, many
communities have adopted such restrictions. You may wish to contact the civic or property owners association
in the area for which this use is being requested in order to ascertain whether or not the request is affected
by existing deed restrictions,
Previous land use oetitions on the subiect orooerty: To your knowledge, has a public hearing been held
on this property within the last year? 0 Yes 18l No
If so, what was the nature of that hearing?
OfficiallnterDretatlons or Zonina Verificalions: To your knowledge, has there been an official
interpretation or zoning verification rendered on this property within the last year? 0 Yes 18l No
If so, please provide copies.
NOTICE:
This application will be considered "open" when the determination of "sufficiency" has been made and
the application is assigned a petition processing number. The application will be considered "closed"
when the petitioner withdraws the application through written notice or ceases to supply necessary
information to continue orocessina or otherwise actively oursue the rezonlna for a period of six 16l
months. An application deemed "closed" will not receive further processing and an application
"closed" through inactivity shall be deemed withdrawn. An application deemed "closed" may be re-
opened by submitting a new application, repayment of all application fees and granting of a
determination of "sufficiency". Further review of the project will be subjecl to the then current code.
(LDC Section 10.03.05.Q.)
9
SEP-2-2BB9 113:137 FROM:
Agenda Item I~o, 88
December 14, 2010
Page 39 of 110
TO: 191721364410 P.2/2
RESOLUTION OF SOLE DIRECTOR OF
THE VON LIEBIG OFFICE, INC,
(A Florida corporation)
'The undersigned, being the sole director of The van Liebig Office, Inc.
(the "Corporation") hereby consents to, authorizes, and adopts the following resolution
with the same force and effect as if the undersigned were personally present at a meeting
of the Board ofDirectoIs of the Corporation and had voted fortbe same:
Aooointment of Authorized Signatotv.
RESOL YED that Bessemer Trust Company of Florida is hereby appointed as an
Authorized Signatory for the Corporation with the power to execute documents and
instruments in the name of, at the direction of, and for the account of, the Corporation,
for all purposes for which the Corporation may execute and deliver documents; and it is
further
RESOLVED that the Authorized Signatory is authorized and empowered, in the
name and on behalf of the Corporation, to take any action and to execute and deliver all
such further documents, contracts, letters, agreements, instruments, dmfts, receipts or
other writings that such Authorized Signatory may in its sole discretion deem necessary
or appropriate to carry out, comply with and effectuate the purposes of the foregoing
resolution and the actions contemplated thereby and that the authority of such Authorized
Signatory to execute and deliver any of such documents and instruments; including
without limitation any modification, extension or expansion, and to take any such other
action, shall be conclusively evidenced by its execution and delivery thereof; and it is
roilier ;
RESOLVED that the appointment contemplated by the immediately foregoing
resolution be deemed effective, for all purposes, effective as of July 31,2009, and it is
further
RESOLVED that the authority heretofore granted to, and any and all actions
previously taken by, any Authorized Signatory in roilierance of the foregoing resolutions
are hereby ratified, confirmed and approved in all respects.
V\h~ \lr)r)~'~bl
Liebig, Sole Director
Doc#: USl:5744080vl
Agenda Item No, 88
December 14, 2010
Page 40 of 110
AFFIDAVIT
I, Todd H, Dubow as a Principal of Bessemer Trust Company of Florida which is an Authorized
Siqnatorv of Von Liebiq Office, Inc.. which is the Manaqer of Drax 951. LLC. which is the
Manaqinq Member of Viola II. LLC being first duly sworn, depose and say that Voila II, LLC is
the owner of the property described herein and which is the subject matter of the proposed
hearing; that all the answers to the questions in this application, including the disclosure of
interest information. all sketches, data, and other supplementary matter attached to and made a
part of this application, are honest and true to the best of our knowledge and belief, I
understand that the information requested on this application must be complete and accurate
and that the content of this form, whether computer generated or County printed shall not be
altered, Public hearings will not be advertised until this application is deemed complete, and all
required information has been submitted.
As the authorized representative of the property owner I further authorize Coleman. Yovanovich
& Koester. PA and Wilson Miller, Inc, to act as my representative in any matters regarding this
Petition,
Viola II, LLC
By: Drax 951, LLC, Managing Member
By: Von Liebig Office, Inc" Manager
By: Be emer Tr t Company of Florida, Authorized Signatory
"
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this /tl day of I1U}kS /'
2010, by Todd H. Dubovy who is personally known to me or-has plcduced
as-i€Ientification.
State of New Jersey
County of Middlesex
(Signature of Notary Public - State of
Fierffia) Nc",", :Jer~ ey
~. /7
J7t 7')~ /
(Print, Type, or Stamp Commissioned
Name of Notary Public)
LAURA M. RAM
Notary Public of New Jersey
111 Commission ""pi",. lYRe 18, 29 .Ld..
June.. !'if, ;'''0.....
Agenda Item No, 8B
December 14, 2010
Page 41 of 110
COVENANT OF UNIFIED CONTROL
The undersigned do hereby swear or affirm that we are tbe fee simple titleholders and owners of record of property
commonly known as Sonoma Oaks PUD
Propelty In #00203280009, 0020452000 I. 00203680007, Collier County. F]orida.
(Street address and City, State and Zip Code)
and legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto.
The property described herein is tbe subject of an application for mixed use planned unit development (MPUD)
zoning, We hereby designate Todd 1-1, Dubow, Principal of Bessemer Trust Companv of Florida, the Autborized
Signatory of Von Liebig Office, the Manager of Drax 951. LLC, the Managing Member of Viola II. LLC, legal
representative tbereof, as tbe legal representatives of tbe property and as such, these individuals are authorized to
legally bind all owners of the property in the course of seeking the necessary approvals to develop. This authority
includes, but is not limited to, the hiring and authorization of agents to assist in the preparation of applications,
plans, surveys, and studies necessary to obtain zoning approval on the site, These representatives will remain tbe
only entity to authorize development activity on the property nntil such time as a new or amended covenant of
unified control is delivered to Collier County,
The undersigned recognize the following and will be guided accordingly in the pursuit of development of the
project:
I. The property will be developed and used in conformity with the approved master plan including all conditions
placed on the development and all commitments agreed to by the applicant in connection witb the planned unit
development rezoning.
2, The legal representative identified herein is responsible for compliance with all terms, conditions, safeguards,
and stipulations made at the time of approval of the master plan, even if the property is subsequently sold in
whole or in pali, unless and until a new or amended covenant of unified control is delivered to and recorded by
Collier County,
3, A departure from the provisions of the approved plans or a failure to comply with any requirements, conditions,
or safeguards provided for in the planned unit development process will constitute a violation of the Land
Development Code.
4. All terms and conditions of tbe planned unit development approval will be incorporated into covenants and
restrictions which run with the land so as to provide notice to subsequent owners that all development activity
within the planned unit development must be consistent with those tenns and conditions,
5, So long as this covenant is in force, Collier County can, upon the discovery of noncompliance with the terms,
safeguards, a11d conditions of the planned unit development, seek equitable relieCas necessary to compel
compliance, The County will not issue permits, certificates, or licenses to occupy or use any part of the
planned unit development and the County may stop ongoing construction activity until the project is brought
. mpliance with all terms, conditions and safeguards of the planned unit development.
Todd H. Dubo Princi al of Bess
the Manager of Drax 951. LLC, the
(Printed Name)
II Trust Com an of Florida the Authorized Si nato
anaging Member of Viola 11. LLC
of Von Liebl Office
STATE OF NEW JERSEY)
COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX)
Sworn to (or affirmed) and subscribed before me this /()
who is personally known to me ~
day of /1;<107 ,20]0 by Todd 1-1, Dubow
~~7;~'
GN tary Public (Signature)
(Name typed, printed or stamped)
LAURA M. RAM
Notary Public of New Jersey
My Commission Expires June 18, 20 "'=-
Agenda l!em No. 88
December 14, 2010
Page 42 of 110
-\ ') "
FLDRID,\ DJ:PARI'MENT OF Sr'\'!'E 'cI~ ''', . --
D J\[J~I(1N OJ C(JRP\l;UrJO~:- ,.;::;, ,'C;' " 'II', ,I
- ,'. ',::- ",-",.0' ;",>1-
~~1..", ,(, .~Jbl,!:--~1\i,lj~
Home
Contact us
E-Flllng Service.
Document Searches
Forms
Help
Previous on List Next on List Return To List
IEntity Name Search
. Submit I
No Events No Name History
Detail by Entity Name
Florida Limited Liability Company
VOILA II, LLC
Filing Information
Oocument Number L06000060215
FEUEIN Number 205044697
Date Filed 06/13/2006
State FL
Status ACTIVE
Effective Date 06/13/2006
Principal Address
c/o TODD DUBOW, BESSEMER TRUST
100 WOODBRIDGE CENTER DRIVE
WOODBRIDGE NJ 07095 US
Changed 11/27/2009
Mailing Address
c/o TODD DUBOW, BESSEMER TRUST
100 WOODBRIDGE CENTER DRIVE
WOODBRIDGE NJ 07095 US
Changed 11/27/2009
Registered Agent Name & Address
NOVATT, JEFF M ESQ,
821 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH
SUITE 201
NAPLES FL 34102 US
Name Changed: 11/27/2009
Address Changed: 11/27/2009
Manager/Member Detail
Name & Address
Title MGRM
DRAX 951, LLC
BESSEMER TRUST, 100 WOODBRIDGE CENTER DR,
WOODBRIDGE NJ 07095 US
Annual Reports
PUDA-2007-AR-11961 REV: 7
SONOMA OAKS
Project: 2007020023
Date: 4/27/10 DUE: 5/25/10
Report Year Flied Date
2009 04/06/2009
http://sunbiz,org/scripts/cordetexe?action~DETFIL&inq_doc_number=L06000060215&inq,,,1 /8/201 0
_.._.'-""''''''-'~~'
Agenda Uern No, 88
December 14, 2010
Page 43 of 110
2009 06/06/2009
2009 11/27/2009
Document Images
11/27/2009 - ANNUAL REPORT View Image in PDF format I
06/06/2009 - ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format I
04/06/2009 -- ANNUAL REPORT View Image In PDF format I
07/11/2008 - ANNUAL REPORT View Image In PDF formet I
04/24/2007 -. ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format I
06/13/2006 Florida Limited Liabilitv View imege In PDF format I
I NOI.: This Is not official record, See documents If question or conflict. I
, ,
Previous on List Next on list Return To list IEntity Neme Search
No Events No Name History Submit I
I Home 1 Contact us 1 Document Searches I E-FilinQ Services I Forms I Help I
CODyr!Qht and Privacy Pollcies
Copyrlght!Q 2007 State of Florida, Department of Sti:)te.
http://sWlbiz,org/scripts/cordet.exe?action=DETFIL&inq_ doc _number=L060000602 I 5&inq" . 1/8/20 I 0
Agenda J.tem No. 88
December 14, 2010
Page 44 of 110
Home
...-
Contact Us
E-Flllng Services
Document Searches
Forms
Help
Previous on List Next on List Return To List
Events No Name History
!Entity Neme Search
Submltj
Detail by Entity Name
Florida Limited Liability Company
DRAX 951. LLC
Filing Information
Document Number L06000060230
FEI/SIN Number 205044664
Date Flied 06/13/2006
State F L
Status ACTIVE
Effective Date 06/13/2006
Last Event LC ARTICLE OF CORRECTION
Event Date Filed 06/27/2006
Event Effective Date NONE
Principal Address
c/o TODD DUBOIJY. BESSEMER TRUST
100 WOODBRIDGE CENTER DRIVE
WOODBRIDGE NJ 07095 US
Changed 11/27/2009
Mailing Address
c/o TODD DUBOVY, BESSEMER TRUST
100 WOODBRIDGE CENTER DRIVE
WOODBRIDGE NJ 07095 US
Chenged 11/27/2009
Registered Agent Name & Address
NOVATT, JEFF M ESQ.
821 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH
SUITE 201
NAPLES FL 34102 US
Name Changed: 04/26/2008
Address Changed: 04/26/2008
Manager/Member Detail
Name & Address
Title MGR
VON LIEBIG OFFICE, INC.
BESSEMER TRUST, 530 FIFTH AVENUE
NEW YORK NY 10111 US
\
http://sunbiz.orglscripts/cordetexe?action=DETFIL&inq_doc_number=L06000060230&inq...1/8/201 0
Annual Reports
Report Year Flied Date
2009 04/06/2009
2009 04/09/2009
2009 11/27/2009
Document Images
11/27/2009 -- ANNUAL REPORT View image In PDF formet I
04/09/2009 -- ANNUAL REPORT View Image In PDF fOrmat I
04/0612009 -- ANNUAL REPORT View Image In PDF format I
04/2612008 -- ANNUAL REPORT View Image In POF format I
04/2412007 -- ANNUAL REPORT View Image In PDF format I
06/27/2006 -- LC Article of Correctlon View Image In rDF format I
06/13/2006 -- Florida limited L1abllitv View Image In PDF fonnal I
II Note: This is not omclal record, See documenls if question or confllct,l
, , , , .. - - - '" "," '
Previous on List Next on List Return To List IEntity Name Search
Events No Name History Submit I
--
I Home I Contact us I Document Secm:hes I E-Fmnq Services I Forms [ Help I
Copyrlqht and Privacy Policies
CopyrIght @ 2007 State of Florida, Department of State.
Agenda rt'em No, 88
December 14, 2010
Page 45 of 110
http://sunbiz.org/scriptslcordet.exe?action=DETFlL&inq_doc_numbeFL06000060230&inq...1/8/20 1 0
Agenda Irem No, 88
December 14, 2010
Page 46 of 110
Home
Contact Us
E-Flllng Services
Document Searches
Forms
Help
Previous on List Next on List Return To List
jEntity Name Search .
. Submit I
No Events No Name History
Detail by Entity Name
Foreign Profit Corporation
THE VON LIEBIG OFFICE, INC.
Filing Information
Document Number F02000001044
FEIIEIN Number 650745607
Date Flied 02/27/2002
State DE
Status ACTIVE
Principal Address
c/o SEAN S. MEEHAN, BESSEMER TRUST
630 FIFTH AVENUE
NEW YORK NY 10111
Changed 11/2712009
Mailing Address
c/o SEAN S. MEEHAN, BESSEMER TRUST
630 FIFTH AVENUE
NEW YORK NY 10111
Changed 11/27/2009
Registered Agent Name & Address
NOVATT, JEFF M ESQ.
821 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH
SUITE 201
NAPLES FL 34102
Name Changed: 11/27/2009
Address Changed: 11/2712009
Officer/Director Detail
Name & Address
Title DPST
VON LIEBIG, SUZANNE
BESSEMER TRUST, 630 FIFTH AVENUE
NEW YORK NY 10111
Annual Reports
Report Year Flied Date
2009 04/15/2009
2009 06/06/2009
http://sunbiz,org/scripts/cordet.exe?action=DETFIL&inq_doc_number=F0200000I044&inq...1/8/20 10
"_._..^,,'''''~''''---"...< "
2009 11127/2009
Document Images
11127/2009 - ANNUAL REPORT View Image In PDF format I
06/06/2009 - ANNUAL REPORT View Imege In PDF foimat I
04/15/2009 -- ANNUAL REPORT View image In PDF format I
04/06/2009 - ANNUAL REPORT View Image In PDF format I
05/08/2008 - ANNUAL REPORT View Image In PD F format I
04/2612008 - ANNUAL REPORT View Image In PDF format I
04/24/2007 -- ANNUAL REPORT View Image in PDF format I
04/25/2006 - ANNUAL REPORT View Image In PD F format I
04/1912005 -- ANNUAL REPORT View Image in PDF format I
04/06/2004 -- ANNUAL REPORT View image In PDF format I
04/09/2003 -- ANNUAL REPORT View Image In PDF fonnat I
02/27/2002 -- Forelqn Profit View Image in PpF fonnat I
Note: This Is not official record, See documents If question or conmct.1
"
Previous on List Next on List Return To List IEntity Name Search
No Events No Name History Subm~ ,
I Home j Contact us I Document Searches I E-FUlno Services I Forms I Help I
COPyriQht and Privacy Policies
Copyright @ 2007 State of Florida, Department of State.
Agenda item No, aB
December 14, 2010
Page 47 of 110
hllp:/ /sunbiz.org/scripls/cordet.exe?action=DETFIL&inq_ doc _ number=F0200000 I 044&inq... 1/&/20 I 0
Agenda Item No. 8B
December 14, 2010
Page 48 of 110
SEP-2-2009 10:07 FROM:
TO: 191720644U!
P.2'2
RESOLUTION OF SOLE DIRECTOR OF
THE VON LIEBIG OFFICE, INC.
(A Florida corporation)
The undersigned, being the sole director of The von Liebig Office, Inc.
(the "Corporation") hereby consents to, authorizes, and adopts the following resolution
with the same force and effect as if the undersigned were personally present at a meeting
of the Board ofDireotors of the Corporation and had voted for the same:
AODointment of Authorized Signatory.
RESOLVED that Bessemer Trust Company of Florida is hereby appointed as an,
Authorized Signatory for the Corporation with the power to execute documents and
instruments in the name of, at the direction of, and for the account of, the Corporation,
for all purposes for which the Corporation may execute and deliver documents; and it is
further
RESOLVED that the Authorized Signatory is authorized and empowered, in the
name and on behalf of the Corporation, to take any action and to execute and deliver all
such further documents, contracts, letters, agreements, instruments, drafts, receipts or
other writings that such Authorized Signatory may in its sole discretion deem necessary
or appropriate to ciirry out, comply with and effectuate the purposes of the foregoing"
resolution and the actions contemplated thereby and that the authority of such Authorized
Signatory to execute and deliver any of such documents and instruments, including
without limitation any modification, extension or expansion, and to take any such other
action, shall be conclusively evidenced by its execution and delivery thereof; and it is
further
RESOLVED that the appointment contemplated by the immediately foregoing
resolution be deemed effective, for all purposes, effective as of July 31,2009, and it is
further
RESOLVED that the authority heretofore granted to, and any and all actions
previously taken by, any Authorized Signatory in furtherance of the foregoing resolutions
are hereby ratified, confumed and approved in all respects.
V\h~ \l()rig'~bl
Liebig, Sole Dir~ctor
DoeiI: USl:$7lj4080vl
""",..--.,-^
Prepared by and return to Law Offices of
MICHAEL W. McARDLE, Esquire
3033 Riviera Drive - Suite 201
Naples, Florida 34103
Telephone: 239.659,0333
Agenda Item No, 88
December 14, 2010
Page 49 of 110
3867969 OR: 4068 PG: 0303
momo in omCIAL RECORDS of C011lER COUNTY, FL
01/01/2006 at 02:JIPK DWIGHT E, BROCK, CLBRK
CONS 16125000.00
RBC m 18,SO
DOC-.l0 112815,00
Parcel Identification Nos: Parcel ill
No. 00203280009 and No. 00204520001
PREPARED WITHOUT OPINION OF TITLE
Retn:
STANLBY J LIEBBRIARB
1100 5TR AVE SIlOS
HAPLBS FL 31102
SfECIAL W ARRANlY DEE!!
TillS SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED, made thia26~ day of June, 2006, between CDN
PROPERTIES, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, of PO Box 1019, Naples; Florida
'34106, Grantor; and VOILA II, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, of 2919 Gulfshore
Boulevard North, Unit 603, Naples, Florida 34103, Grantee,
The Grantor, for and in consideration of the sum ofTEN AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($10.00), and
other good and valuable considerations .' , . hand paid by said Grantee, the receipt
whereofis hereby acknowledged, h ~ . sold to said Grantee, and Grantee's
successors and assigns forever, t ing described " ate in Collier County, Florida, to
wit:
LESS the East 100 feet previously deeded for state highway right of way.
LESS and except that certain additional right of way conveyed to Collier County,
Florida by instrument recorded October 3, 2005 in OR Book 3902 at Page 2680 of
the Public Records of Collier County, Florida
Subject to restrictions, reservations, limitations and easements of record, ifany, and taxes subsequent
to 2005.
This property is not the homestead of the Grantor. '
And Grantor, for itself and for its successors and assigns, does hereby covenant with Grantee that it
will defend the sanle against the lawful claims of all persons claiming by, through or under the
Grantor, Where used herein the tenus "Grantor", "Grantee" and "Trustee" shall be construed as
singular or plural as the context requires,
SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE
Agenda Item No, 8B
December 14, 2010
Page 50 of 110
*** OR: 4068 PG: 0304 ***
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has hereunto set its hand and seal the day and year first
above written.
Signed, sealed, and delivered
~~
Firs! Witness (signature) - as to both
O/-M-f./AJA- M.,~
First Witnes ed/printed name)
GRANTOR:
::.~~
CARL M. NAGEL, Manager
PO Box 1019
Naples, Florida 34104
THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT was acknowledged before me on this .;/'~t'4ay of
June, 2006, by CARL M. NAGEL and DANA L. NAGEL, the Managers ofCDNProperties, LLC,
Grantor, who are LJ personally known to me or ~ who have produced a valid Driver's License
as identification,
Page 2 of 2
~~"",,-,~,_.,.~_.>-
6/26/2006 1:57 PH FROM: F~~ TO: 19709261312 FAGEI 002 OF 006
Agenda Item No, 88
December 14, 2010
Page 51 of 110
Prepared by and "'turn to Law Offices of
MICHAEL W. McARDLE. Esquin:
3033 Riviera Drive - Suite 201
Naples, Florida 34103
TelephODe: 239.659.0333
3867970 OR: 4068 PG: 0305
RECORDBD in OFFICIAL RlCORDS of COLLIBR COUNTY. YL
07/07/2006 at 02:31PK DIIGHT B. BROC!, CLBR!
CONS 5375000.00
REC FEE 18.50
DOC-,70 37615.00
P~.lldentification No. ParcellD
No, 00203680007
PREPARED WITHOUT OPINION OF TITLE
Retn:
STANLBY J LIBBBRrARB
1100 5TH AVE S 1405
NAPL!S IL 31lO2
SP~WABJWiIX l>,gJ!
THIS SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED, made ~Zl1i....day of June, 2006. between
RICHARD D. CRAIG and FRANCES A. CRAIG, husliand llIId wife. Grantolll, of306 Citation
Point, Naples, Florida 34104; and VOILA n, LLC, a Florida limited liability company. of2919
' OuIfshore Boulevard North. Unit 603, Naples, Florida 34103, Grantee.
The Grantors, for and in consideratiol!
other good and valuable consid
whereof is hereby acknowled
successolll and assigns fore er,
wit:
o NO/I 00 DOLLARS ($10.00), and
paid by said Grantee. the receipt
d to said Grantee. and Grantee's
in Collier County, Florida, to
LESS and except that
Florida, by iDStll1ment '
the Public Records of Collier
Subject to restrictions, reservations. limitations and easements of record,. if any, and taxes subsequent
to 2005.
This property is not the homestead of the Grantors.
And Grantors, for themselves and for their successors and assigns, do hereby covenant with Grantee
that they will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons claiming by, through or under
the Gnmtors, Where used herein the terms "Grantor", "Grantee" and "Trustee" shall be construed as
singular or plum! as the context requires.
SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE
Page 1 of 2
6/26/2006 1:57 EM FROMl Fax TO: 19709261312 PAGE: 003 or 006
Agenda Item No, 8B
December 14, 2010
Page 52 of 110
*** OR: 4068 PG: 0306 tt*
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantors have hereunto set their bands and seals the day and
year first aboVe written,
Signed, sealed, and delivered
WDNESSES:
GRANTORS:
i._/l~
}3 Witness'(si - as to both
.rAM~~ /, Ct.:Fr.I'P
First Witness (typedlprinted name)
()2fl r;), (0 ~
RICHARD D. CRAIG , J
306 Citation Point
Naples, FL 34104
. Second Witness (si
e-
Second Witness (typedlp' t
THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT was acknowledged before me 011 this )-7 day of
June, 20~, by RICHARD D. CRAIG alld FRANCESA. CRAIG, husbWld and wife, Grantors, who
are (JLj personally known to me or L.J who have produced a valid Driver's License as '
identification. ~>w.)x ~
Notary Public (signature)
Page20f 2
~-------!---
!,
.1
~:~ '....
--~-,,~---
"
~ ~
~ 'll~
~ ~; ~
~ ~; ~
~ It'<!'"
g
,
,
~
~l
,~
:- 1~,<J/IlO8fnmwS!AAjONJtf!!T"1
- );;6 {WON .llY,lS
",..;;~;r",--;;>r';i":<>~-"'-"'T--
"
It__ ....__~___
, "
"
",..hi
.i~~H
"
~,
_..~
(rt), )fi'
"
.;
~fi"
.1
!
~
,
"
~
i ~
I'
i .~
i
;
;
;
;
;
i
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
i
11
"
W
i
;
i
;
j .~
- - - -- - - - - ----=.d,o ._, '-'7of'3i'2!j Ii'- ... - ;;~;,.! ~[~}J#;J~"f,;:;-~,,;><,: ~1"
~r lH"'LATlCI) ("'NOS VACANT 'T/(;fAl HtCQI1OS0(J(g( tN, PAU _,",
.
"
~
"
~
---
I
M.~I(>N
-~
, =~
"
,
'.
~
~ ~
fi:", ~
~~ ~
S~ ~
~~ :;
" "
, ~
C
~
~
"
I
i
i
i
,
i
;
;
i
'.,i
i
I
;
II
, ,
~ i
. '
, ,
- !
.
. !
:/
,
,
:
"
,
"."..... f"'" ..~
.'
"
,
i
I
"i
i
i
i ~
, .
'I
U
i
i
i
I
,
~
~
:;
~ ~
~ k"'~
~ l;;~(.j
.. '-> ~
~ ~~
~
- !
ili i
". !fi i
1'110 I I
i!l,il!,!".,
- '111"'''1
1>" .bi" ~J J
IiI! li~lml!
~~~~i~j~~~~i;~~
I '. ,i
I! j-
ii - ~I ~t !k
I 1!1;1' 'i'li
'1"''''1''1/''
!!ml!M!!)i
;~tU~h~tu.!lh"
" ,
'I' ii'
h ~ ~ '.
",'I i ~ :~~~l ~
irJ ~ 8 jll- I {l ~ u ~ 5i
"I ~ ~ leU m
ill. 8 ,m . ~ii
'I" ~ . <,
.~: "" 't",,,,
Hi. (m
~:Ii~ ~ J: q
~i!li h m
I -E
!i
U
Ii
~ ~t i i U
:! II !l! lli'j
,! i' III d"
;' I ~l'I. ~ d
e .,l Ilh
l! 'i I !Ilj I'll
"I!ll " . ,I,
;,':11: Hlildi'
.., i "il! .'
i~f ~. i ita I f ~ i;
"1' ~ l I!! II; ;r : I i
".'101 ilt! .,'
....!.,.. 11111'
.~! i .1 ~! .1 i I .1
ill!!!!!!!II!I::!1
'"
"
"'~
~~~J:?~t i
0..: Q ~~ .;J:.i:
t.....'qCSil....::r:
oV)ctl"..,fSa!:?
~~_.~.;2:t:
'l::~;:'::i;:P;'_~
:t:)?5 ,_~~.....
~~V\c;t}l,.JQ
::::'t.Jt>'Ji'i:ct:l<.J~
~5iCS\!IO,"
g "-'l... Q,i..-"'t{.)~
a.. ~C)~>--.V)~v
i:E '-<.ll:::~;<Q:~
v C)~o:sgt.J....
L...Q:....8<J~~
~-.I;~; p::l,..J<5~
:tCl"l~t;Q~~
'-- -lu<-ll:::
2:\I)~:;jCl::"'tQ..J..
:::J~>::8(,)Qlo..o
R~~....~~8J.
4.rgsV)l/)l::'!u8:]?5
i!;<~~tS~i!;~
, .
__._u_ of I"
-- .. .
~-- ~ J
'II ~
'I ,1;; ""
"r e 5;. ~,. ,~~O
t'~ i ~ i ille ~
II, .o!, I
1:' i ~ j!11
I!! gdn
!~i~ ~ ~
ilw~ I-
'-
i'li' .
II"i1;; "
~I<~:O ~ ~
. !jll $ P
!,I! ,g !
--.r';;;;;;:;../i:;<...-:;o""-7;'~'- .~~~-;;--
N/l(Jll)lont<)
>S=,.,
(Q'~ 0Y001 3J.Y1S
!
, '
-~
i~~
iii
~~.
'" t;. 5{~
"0!18 ~":J:
'l~ ' ;;
~ ~ 1l
~lg
.,
o.E
.;
>>ow
NO! ':'COW
-,
'11
",-- J~
I!
'"
".
'.
, -
.
Ii
~i
Ii
'-
"
~
.
3
~
~
~ g
~ ~
~ ~.. ~
~ e ~ 't,
;;.; ~~.."" ~- -":...
_-:._--t~~~;tl
r~ ~~ ~ ~
<.:> ~ ~ -.;. ~
~~: ~
~ ; ~ ~
~ ~
I
~ ,. ,
~' \
...'g~.. -
h~i~ ~
~ ~e~~ ~
~'"~ '- !i
~ ....
g ,
&
I
I _~_
-.~------
~
n
H~l
i ""
i
!
-Iii I
,l'p
!llilhl:!!'I.
1111111"i!
hu ~!~Im~~
;;~~i~h~~\lln s
Ii "1
' ',I"j
, 'i' II
,I 11'1' :I!.
" ;' 'I I .!.I
Ii 'Ii I ii! I It Ii
,ill I "\' I,",
"'Ill' i; I iq,
!l;; !.q I!tl
h~, t "I Pit ~ it
Hi ! II ',! !lpli i I'
"'. I i"I. II
11'1! i 11'1 i hili i!, III
j ~ e~ ,I ~l... no:
L .....,
,
'.
",
",
I
I I
Ilh
,. I !iI
!!
. .
,
!,il:
,-
'" ia
i.
!'"
,
~.. ~
~
.
,
",
",
~
'"
~,
'"~
\c4,,1,...~:::
~ C,)!-..If..r))..
,,~ ~ ~
i:>-~ >
1-..a:::~l.5
~V) .R:5:
-- w~ VlkJ
~~~t}~
I ~~~~~
Q; ~Z~~L.:
.~Vi~e
' ~ ~ )...8).;
~~f2k~
'S- ,~~~
'--'il-c> I
:t'-'1'''H.J~~
~~~~~K
<:~~ :jc~
~~~~if~
"
-',
",
,
.~ )
~ I
,-
I!
,
i
i
i
i
~~ i
.... JJU9' II PAcT'}".."tf
COIIb.It(J(JJr,Q91"'A(.{.,.
~:g~:~COItO$8C()KJfr.
-,
",
'"
~:~)
.f!
c::J
"
~
SO!?5W'C
(.INR(~~~:r'/')s
-=_-=..:::T_';:.'='='--
I
".,' ''"'-''_..'~--~'-''''''I
!'
"~I
--rn-n!
!
,
,
-- - -- - - - - ~ ---- - ~ -- ~-- - - .":,~~-",-;~~.,.~,-- -- -.
111 ~
'-j ~ ~
,i, ~ > , . ,
_"1'/ " ~ , ""0'
, "~li.i';.
n '" - ;Jf ~
':;1 l ~ II"U
!~ IJ} ~!i
I;t~ \f ~ &It_
'I;d ~
i'li' ~
~~ ilii{~ I :
- .Ii- ~ ~i
"',II , ~,
. ,I
("""':ntW1i1fm;).~_0S>f/
If~_!IlYJ$
.
(If) .ff1S~1
(..
.
; 3.Lr;.Rl."IOS
~:
"
,
I
)
~
, I
Iii I
!~ ~ ~
i. ,jl !
, !lll'!!l,!~! Ii
. '''111''1''''
~ Iii iilmll
;~~;i;i;~;~i;~ i
, ~;
! .f ;
h ,1,lilll Ii
, ! !Ipl Ii 'Ii
I ~~, '1;' 'In III'
f"' !!i!l!!i!!h!~I!
~ "l~f
~ ~l~~l R~v!~hHh:~~h~
~ .'~
~~:
".'(
l'
,
0'
"
~i
c'
~~ '
~c.
,
,
, "
" ,
~.,,~
,,"'<.1..__
h~~~
~~~c~
r:;~~
,
~ ;,:
i
.
..., ~
~
~
"
,
;! !! II! II jl 'iill
11 'It! ii;1 II 1!Ii!"
,;! ! .' II i il.,',
., I I ~!!; I . " 'ill'
"" 1,lill! I' i'l!
lr ;! i ~~i "II I ~!q
111 i! ! i'd!!' " Hil
lid,!! !1!li'll ! :1 !llll
',ii,!!!"III I III:,!!II
i !Ii ! !l ! ! !II :1 !! :1 !!! !lllil
~~
~.
~i.:'l.'\
~~~'e
~ . ~~! e
-~--~~ (flIJN:"(;!iI!J M.trJ./Jl:./()N , ,-- ---~ ~i?8~
iU! " r"
C:<~ /'
1 , ~ ;: ~&~
, " , - ~ S
\,1 ~E,-:!t'~
I ~~ 3;bI~.Cl:~
, ~,Y!", I,'
I 1 c::::<~ v' <( ~ ~~ ~~
I , u~~ ' I
, ~:Zl,y~"-
I ~ ~'~ I , --G'{(S
I ~ 4i . I: ~!11 ~::;~ ~?i
, 'I ~~s " tl:""t ~)...
, i' ~:r~~~
, gg , ",:::.:::.""a;
, I' ~~~~~
" i'
, "lIS
.,-....._,.;-~,-._.
...~...
i~'
.~=
.~.
h~
><E
.
.
i\i
"'
j~
~< ,
.,
~{~
i~:
,
Agenda Item No, 88
December 14, 2010
Page 56 of 110
STATEMENT OF UTILITY PROVISIONS
FOR PUD REZONE REQUEST
APPLICANT INFORMATION
NAME OF APPLlCANT(S) Voila II, LLC c/o The Oliver Group
ADDRESS 2919 Gulfshore Blvd. N clTYNaples
TELEPHONE #239.825.0015 CELL #
E-MAIL ADDREss:vray@aol.com
STATEFL
FAX #
ZIP34103
ADDRESS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY (IF AVAILABLE):
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Section/Township/Range 34 / 48S I 26E
Lot: N/A Block: N/A Subdivision:N/A
Plat Book N/A Poge #: N/A Property I.D.#:00203280009;00204520001 ;002036800(li
Metes & Bounds Description: See Legal Description
I TYPE OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL TO BE PROVIDED
(Check applicable system):
COUNTY UTILITY SYSTEM
a. CITY UTILITY SYSTEM
b. FRANCHISED UTILITY SYSTEM
PROVIDE NAME
c. PACKAGE TREATMENT PLANT
(GPD capacity)
d. SEPTIC SYSTEM
B
o
o
TYPE OF WATER SERVICE TO BE PROVIDED
a. COUNTY UTILITY SYSTEM
b. CITY UTILITY SYSTEM
c. FRANCHISED UTILITY SYSTEM
PROVIDE NAME
d. PRIVATE SYSTEM (WELL)
~
o
o
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 01/18/07
PUDA_2007-AR-11961 REV: 1
Project: 19990299
Date: 7/2/07 DUE: 7/24/07
STATEMENT OF UTILITY PROVISIONS - page 2
Agenda Item No, 88
December 14, 2010
Page 57 of 110
TOTAL POPULATION TO BE SERVED:120,000 sf commercial; 336 d.u.
PEAK AND AVERAGE DAILY DEMANDS:
A. WATER-PEAK 295,3 GPM AVERAGE DAILy106,325 GPD
B. SEWER-PEAK 209.7 GPM AVERAGE DAfL y7 4,480 GPD
IF PROPOSING TO BE CONNECTED TO COLLIER COUNTY REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM,
PLEASE PROVIDE THE DATE SERVICE IS EXPECTED TO BE REQUIRED May 2008
NARRATIVE STATEMENT: Provide a brief and concise narrative statement and schematic
drawing of sewage treatment process to be used as well as a specific statement regarding the
method of affluent and sludge disposal. If percolation ponds are to be used, then percolation
data and soil involved shall be provided from tests prepared and certified by a professional
engineer.
COLLIER COUNTY UTILITY DEDICATION STATEMENT: If the projecr is located within the
services boundaries of Collier County's utility service system, written notarized statement shall
be provided agreeing to dedicate to Collier County Utilities the water distribution and sewage
collection facilities within the project area upon complelion of the construction of these facilities
in accordance with all applicable County ordinances in effect at the at time. This statement
shall also include on agreement that the applicable sysrem development charges and
conneclion fees will be paid to the County Utilities Division prior to the issuance of building
permits by the County. If applicable, the statement shall contain shall contain an agreement to
dedicate the appropriate utility easements for serving the water and sewer systems.
STATEMENT OF AVAILABILITY CAPACITY FROM OTHER PROVIDERS: Unless waived or
otherwise provided for at the pre-application meeting, If the project is to receive sewer or
potable water services from any provider other than the County, a statement from that
provider Indicating that there is adequate capacity to serve the project shall be provided.
Application For Public Hearing For rUD RezQlle 01118/07
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
WWW.COLllERGOV.NET
(i)
Agenda Item No. 86
2800 NORTH HORSESHOE oItW8mber 14, 2010
NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 'Page 58 of 110
(239) 403-2400 FAX (239) 643-6968
PRE-APPLICATION MEETING NOTES
,','" ',' '" "". ,,'
'0 Pu.p9.~%qn~(:pbD~)
o PVt,i id "Pijt>R~%onl;l(~i,JDZ~A)
~Jj Am~n~cment (PUPA)
,
, ,
Dale: Z~~7Time: /:/~ Firm:
, /!otJ5 IN&-
Proiect Name: :"'::><5'/11 01'1 If: O/fI(S - Ar;:t;,eDA-13l.-C Size of Proiecl Site:
$7, 5 acres
Applicanl Name:
K't ~rhH:D -0. It!) V I!-#t! 1/ I (U!
Phone:
4'36=- 3.sj'S-
')wner Namel
vr:;l/ L- A- ~ .t? r!.-
Phone:
{J 2-.5"--ex::y 6
Owner Address: t: '1/ '1
Cily
Slale
ZIP
Exisling PUD Name and Number .5b,IfJot'l1( ell/'KS I1?VP
Assigned Planner ;t(1t!-111/-~L- :r. 'J:>~ /CuNTz-
tl1l ji ';U'J", lfIW"I'I"li'
",,~el!:n:!J~I~b'''IlIl$,1 t!lI!!lP!l ~(!I,!l J\ ~,"i!!!.IY,
~V''': l''Jl;;' ,~, ,1i'll"1!i~"'1 f'Jf"', ",~I",m",,,,."miillm~
""!b..:ilHtlitllntlly.,lf.iilll,,,..i\\l \'f,"Fiiij~t'1lA9!1"<<~~I!,..u~Ug
PU~A-2007-AR_11961 REV' 1
ProJect: 19990299 .
Date' 7/2/07
. DUE: 7/24/07
-1 -
-,:ICurrentINew Pre-Application Forms 20061PUD Rezone, PUD Amendment PUD to PUD Rezone pre-app
.50404,doc
. ':~,':"'::'~~:f:;~~,~/i~:V:', tI,'!.L:}.
PUi;)lo' PU[)!/.~~9N~(PU(jZ.A)
pub .4,M~~~M~!,!,T (~I,Il?Al
APPLI~M'ION" '
s,uBMrtTAt'c~Ei:kLlst
Agenda Item No, 88
December 14, 2010
Page 59 of 110
THIS COMPLETED CHECKLIST IS TO BE SUBMITTED WITH APPLICATION PACKET IN THE EXACT ORDER LISTeD BELOW W/COYh,
SHEETS ATTACHED TO EACH SECTION.
NOTE: INCOMPLETE SUMBITTALS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED.
REQUIREMENTS
#OF
COPIES
REQUIRED
NOT
REQUIRED
eN~'"":<r~~N.'J~~~21#;:&r}~!Y~'~~~~1"1ii?~ . ~' ,")";::<"~~51j'WM~~~,:t:i'i'~\';l!;'W~
'. .... Jli,<r:'H..,j;jI'J; .'r, ,~,,'dt,Lt, d", I "..' ..!~ ..-,< -!o\i~'~\t~\{,~f\'"
J AddUlonal .ellf located in the Bay.hore/Goteway Triangle
Redevelo ment Area)
Co les of detailed description of why amendment Is necessary
Com leted Application (download fram web.lte for current form)
p re~appllcatlon meetIng nofes
PUD Document & Conce tuel Site Plan 2411 x 361> and One 8 Y2" X 1111 co
Revised Conce fual SIte Plan 24" x 36uand One 8 Y2" x 11" copy
Original PUD document and MOlter Pion 24" x 36" ONLY IF AMENDING
THE PUD
Revised pun document with changes crossed thru & underlined
Revised PUD document w amended TItle a e word #'s LDC 10.02.13.A.2
24
24
24
24
24
24
v
V'
v
v
24
24
Deeds/Legal's & Survey (If boundary of origlnol PUD Is amended)
List identifying Owner & all parties of corporation
Owner/Affidavit signed & notarized
Covenant of Unified Control
Completed Addressing checklist
Environmental Impact Statement (ElS) and digital/electronic copy of EIS or
exem tion ustification
Historical Surveyor waiver request
Utility Provisions Statement w /sketches
Architectural rendering of proposed structures
Survey, signed & sealed
Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) or waiver
Aerial photographs (taken within the previous 1 2 months min. scaled
1"~200'), showing FlUCCS Codes, legend, and prolect boundar
Electronic copy of all documents in Word format and pla~s (CORam or . .
Diskette
.~
10",
2
2
2
2
2
3
4
4
4
4
7
>> if+- '
V'
5
o EDe UFcst Track" must submit approved copy of official
application
~Affordable Housing uExpedited" must submit copy of signed
Certificate of Agreement.
2
/
I loeat d In RFMU Rural rin e Mixed Use Rec lvln land Areas
Applicant musf contact Mr. Gerry J. laeQvera/ State of Florida
Division of Forestry @ 239~690-3500 for information regarding
"Wildfire Mitigation & Prevention Plan", lDC Section 2.03,08.A.2.o,{b~i.c.
- 2-
G:\Current\New Pre-Application Forms 2006\PUD Rezone, PUD Amendment PUD to PUD Rezone pre-app
050404.doc
~ .-' -,--... \,........ .~r:;J:..vlI~1 T i'L.:J per acre lor traction thereof}
OPJ,OOO (pUD to PUD) + $25 per acre (or fraction thereof) ~?eec~C;::~~~~4~~.0~~
[B'$6,000 (PUD Amendment) + $25 per acre (or fraction thereof) Page 60 of 110
0:1 $1 50.00 Fire Code Review
~ $2,250.00 Comprehensive Planning Consistency Review
L1 ,,$500.00 Pre-application fee (Applications submlfled 9 months or mClre after the date .of the last pre-app
meeting sholl not be credited towards application fee. and a new pre-applieallon meeting will be required.
o $729.00 legal Advertising Fee for CCPC meeting (to be reconciled upon receipt of Invoice from Naples Daily
News).
o $363.00 legal Advertising Fee for BCC meeting
o $2500,00 Environmental Impact Statemenl review fee ~I~.
o Property Owner Notification fees. Property Owner Notifications $1.00 Non-certifieel; $3.00 Certifieel return
receipt moil (to be paid after receipt of Invoice from Dept. of Zoning & Development Review)
Transportation Fees, if required:
o $500.00 Methodology Review Fee, If required
o $750.00 Minor Study Review Fee, if required
o $1,500.00 Major Study Review Fee, if required
Fee Total $
PLANNER MARK IF NEEDED TO BE ROUTED TO REVIEWERS BELOW:
Comments should be forwarded to the Planner rior t the due date
SCHOOL DISTRICT ARKS & REC _ Amanda Townsend
SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS IMMOKALEE WATER/SEWER DISTRICT
DR/EM1 - EMER. MGMT - Jim Von Rintein UTiliTIES ENGINEERING _ Zamira Deltoro
COES Coordinator - Linda B. Route Sheet
anI
J '1'V'l~~JI'h9'~,:Of~~ J
' ..'
~- }>'-~~ ~~~ 'I
- - ~i3(-_~'~' .~
fi7t/~T/J$? c#/ ~~
,#41":-0 .d-IJP'J<; h;'/5rAm,l/ rf- M-/.....d:. (7.......1-1-,..>1.-:,,,,,
;J- t-ANDS(A{J~;, ~'r'=ANOA~O PA;RJ.~CRn? t)11~ .~
..;.
~
- 3-
j:\Current\New Pre-Application Forms 2006\PUD Rezone, PUD Amendment PUD to PUD Rezone pre-app
J50404,doc
-^~~_.--...-_.<
PRE-ApPLICATION MEETING
MEETING NOTES
Agenda Item No. 88
December 14, 2010
Page 61 of 110
5b,AlOHA- c3A7{c""- d-~b/1-.8Lg- ~(.)~r,.d6- ~#7
Project Name Date of Meeting
7f< 1'01 (V$ ~. 4> ()vV tv (/t-6 - 1'1 EE...'T .::D==-~ ICAt 10 N.3,.
rGJZte>~/e>,v ;,..u XC ""lVt~
Nr!:-v-J TI5 cPLAtVrVltV6, l...J.SVeSL) pe"
Fo~ Vc.u ~
,1'-'4<-- '-:pv
Aa::rb'(10r"'4L v,v'TS:
,
Me,r~i
Ii EL::-7(t'Vb (.s.
~u/~,
i
G:IOeRunfzlCopy of Pre-App. Meeting Notes.doc
PRE-ApPLlCATION MEETING
SIGN IN SHEET
Agenda Item No. 88
December 14. 2010
Page 62 of 110
;70,v&H k c;/{I( 5 - 41"',,'77R:D#;s~ G7" ,abt/y"vc.-
zY;~ 07
Project Name
Datl\l of Meeting
IfltlWlllj
Name
Representing
Phone #
E-mail Address
Michael J, DeRunlz (239) 403-2416 mlchaelderunlz@colliergov.net
'530-' '77 -Z-OLrn~~d.eliot.t;
\D ~ Goll ~0 lJ. f\.OJ
n PI . (f\Oycla...ke..r, <Q
. Lol'l'\' a (1.111. 0 -,,:(38' c.ov/lVL ov.nek-
&/.':Q """ "'r~'
~,t"~,~"../ ~..v,".....J Ua.'{/=4';"'C'e"~ r~6'f'/r/ ~
STAN (fi ftY.?:-IJl\J()C(USlCf GJ CCJW~GolJ. A.J&'7- r:;.STJ-S7Yl
- '52lI<A l'f/-^l(!Ij. ~~ I~ "";6,:::;;
Ji;/,)at.$/l.- hZd" C::Od~ _
{21ss MI1LL€-1?-
C;;tJ6, (f::..
"4o,-~z.
. rt<s.sJ11Lt)I~ C"//.jotl..VJe.+-
file<xE'i'1 x:>iJ <!'-4;lJ.j:I(,1.wu; IU/$P-. a
~ TyStJ10 ,tlJl~UbU\Li~ 0i.c1.40c'fe>
, g:){ shu/c# 11P#f/~: &,/d::-~Il.
~,.t. "lO"'''''''Il-.J,J... G\ c.-s
J/:\f5 WI\iaQ., p;; ~. W.
~f'Q ?~~/,.vS~ /7O\,u.,.5?h"..wlJ- 1J35crO
I t/!;()",IJ Xi'! a '1# ~2~ -00(> I/~ . all Cd'wL
o,\l 3~M~r~.Q. ern.. PO'-1/\.. YJ'f-."f),)o j;)ca{{;t( 1,V\.(..1-
L-o ~ ~~LciJ ~~ cfo 5 ?/3]C 6'r~~47 qf)6{~~.
G:\OeRunlz\Pre-App sign in sheel.doc
5~~ g;jc)l( 13,'<<r:/.r?p//JIaE'&.., Idsxs. c:::.?1"I-"L.
'i:):r . ~1. s:-
~13~~q[t.}-
r--J \).to..--o-->'.t. Q.6t::i \ t.w -l Q..",
i rsWiWt 1ICi4!-ec'd/;~ ~
,.~ ,._,-~-...-~,~"'.-
Jan SI 2001 11:UJ e.U1
AnDRESSlNG CH:&CKLIST
(R8/1'st::n
Agenda Item No. 88
Ilecember 14. 2010
1/31 [O"1P,,!ge 63 of 110
Please complete the following AND FAX (139-659-5724) OR SUBMIT IN PEMON TO TIlE
AJ)))RE8SlNG SECTION. FORM MUST BE SIGNED BY ADDRESSING PEMONNEL PRIOR TO PRE-
APPLICATiON MEETING. Not all items will apply to every project. Items in bold type are required.
. 1. Legal description of subject property or properties (copy of lengthy description may be attached) West
side of Collier Boulevard. approximatelv \{ mile north of V anderbilt Beach Road. Section 34. Township 48
south,Ranpe26eastCollierCounty.Florl4a'_ P<LtCe.J;O, \ 1"30,0 (I\~
2. Folio (l.'roperty lD) lIumber(s) of above (attach to, or (ISsociate with, legal de1loription if more than one)
0020328000~.00204520001. 00203680007 _
3. Street address or addresses (a. applicable,' if alread.y assigne<f)
4. LoeatioD.map, showing exav't location ofprojectlsite in relation to nearest public (oad tight-of-way (a//ach)
5. Copy of survey (NEEDED ONLY FOR UNPLAITED PROPERTIES)
6. Propo.ed project name (if applicable)
Sonoma Oaks
7. Proposed Stteet names (if a'pp/icable)
8. Site Development plan Nwnber (fOR EXlSTING PROJECTS/sms ONLY)
SDP .
9. PetitloD Type - (Complete a separate Addressi~g Checklist tor each Petition Type)
DSDP (Site Development Plan)
o SDPA (SDP Amendment)
o SDPI (SOP Insubstantial Change)
o 81]> (Site Improvement Plan)
o SIPI (Sll'Umubstantial Change)
o SNR (Street Name Change)
.0 VegetationlExo!ic (Veg. Removal Perm.its)
o Land Use Petition (Variance, Gonditional uSe,
Boat Dock Ext., Rezone, l'UD rezone, etc,)
o Ollter - Describe: pUD Amendment'
o l'P.L (Plans & Plat Review)
o 1'81' (l'relimirutty Subdivisi()n Plat)
o FP (final Plat)
o LLA (Lot Line A<ljusltnent)
o BL (J31astin8 Perm.it)
o ROW (Right-of-WayPerrnit)
o EXP (Excavation Pennit)
o VR,SFP (Veg. Removal & Site Fill Pennit)
o TDR (Transfer ofOevelop~enl Rights)
10, Project or development names pro1'0300 for"or already appearing in, condominium doct.ments (if
applicable; indicate whether Jl!'Oposed or existing)
11. Please Check One: 0 Checklist is to be FMed Back 0 Personally Picked Up
12. Al'plieantNBrne: Richard D. Yovanovic4_Phone:239-435-3535 Fax: 239-43$-1218
B. Signature on Addressing Checklist does nol COnstitute Project and/or Street Name approval and is subject to
further review by the AddressixJ.g Section. . '
FOR STAFF USE ONLY
PrimatyNwnber 4- 'L'Z.-3
Address Number !.J."2.. Sl!.-
Address Number II. Z3( .f..-
Addl'l'Ss Number' J
Approvedby /11"",:;/.,,) mATii:l..vn Date 01_'-01 -0/
,
.-Ii
d
Ii
II
I
I
I
,
,
,
,
,
i
I
r'
r'
~
JIm. J.,4s'/~?
~;;, ~f;j ~''''-- $ ~oo-:-"'~
MOnlg~!'Y CHAFF",MO"". d~ h'
. A H K ;monIlJOlnerpbllnk.eom
R~ ___.__._____ ..
-~.
VOILA II, LLC
2919 GULF SHORE BLVD N
NAPLES, FL 34103
So-1776.B1S
II' WI. I. 70:1 211'0 loO LB
1018
-----~
Agenda Item No. 88
December 14:2010
. Page 64 of 110
"1'1
III
I'IIIJ.
lilt.
II;
.'
II!!,II
1'1'
hlllj
Ilil!i
J!II!!!!
>0
t
ID
a.
o
0:
ID
"
E C
- ro
'-0
e c
o.~
0.0
<CD
~
a;
2
ro
Q.
"""'~-'., .''"''''''~%%,,&u.-'
"<<~WJ\~~. """
'\Y? .-;.,/1,,:-. '0......,.
I""
Ill! .
11111
11111,/,
Ill,' !.
IIi) Iii
'lllill':.ll!
I'll I!
.'liH,
11111""
1:'I,Wl
t) ho
.
u
'"
o
oll
o 0
~~III
QI QI ~
;;]]j
~::J;-g
~:SOf
III c: C :J
,2 'E'E ~
~~~i5
wCJf3:a
, '~ '~~ ~ O!
In vi 1/1 1/1 QI '- '{~
O-g-g'8gu ~~Ai1
c: i Q Q ~!: III QI i1{\
~ E!!~70~ ~ fS'_,~
~ 1ii1ll__-O~1::J'~l
C .-a.ii:u...u...I.l..:;:= c';J;
g ~!:~!~~~O.s""'"
111 ~ ~ it ii: ii: ii: a. (I) oCt
o
.
'e
..
,5
c
'"
2~
'" ~
E 0
.~~
"t:
o.~
0.0.
'" 0
Q:
if)
U
u
:1
u.
! t! ~!i
! 5 ~I.
i 5u ~h
"" !:! l! !.~~i
Q:j I -A jg ~~~G!l
:;sq-ilfl
I j I Ij filii
[i J Ii ~!~
.
"
o
U
'" '"
o g W WOM~
o ::J.............. U) ~ Oif ":f.q
~ ~~:;::;;Oifr---t-~
I
1:.. TRANSPORTATION
K CONSULTANTS, INC,
Agenda Item No. 88
December 14, 2010
PaGe 67 of 110
13861 PLANTATIOfirROAD. SUITE 11
FORT MYERS, FL 33912-4339
OFFICE 239.278.3090
FAX 239.278.1908
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
TRANSPORTATION PlANNING
SIGNAL SYSTEMS/DESIGN
TO: Margaret C. PelTY, AICP
Wilson Miller, Inc.
FROM:
Ted B. Treesh
President
PUDA-2007.AR-11961 Rrv: 7
SONOMA OAKS
Project: 2007020023
Date: 4(27/10 DUE: 5/25/10
David L. Wheeler
Transportation Consultant
DATE:
April 12, 2010
RE:
Sonoma Oaks MPUD
PUDA-2007-AR-11961
Collier County, Florida
TR Transportation Consultants, Inc. has completed a trip generation comparison analysis
between the land uses for the Sonoma Oaks MPUD as currently approved under Ord.
2005-61 and the land uses currently proposed as a part of this amendment application.
The subject site is located on the west side of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951) just south of
its intersection with Wolfe Road in Collier County, Florida.
Approved/Proposed Development Parameters
Under the approved Collier County Ordinance 2005-61, the subject site is zoned for the
development of up to 112 residential dwelling units and up to 120,000 square feet of
commercial uses. The CutTent zoning request would allow an additional scenario for the
residential portion of the property to be developed as a Continuing Care Retirement
Community (CCRC). There are cun'ently three (3) development scenario's being
contemplated on the subject site with regards to the proposed CeRC use. Table 1
summarizes the maximum potential development on the subject site under each scenario
as well as the maximum potcntial development based upon the approved Zoning.
Agenda Item No. 88
December 14, 2010
Page 68 of 110
-- 'L TRANSPORTATION
K CONSULTANTS, INC.
Margaret C. Perry, AICP
Sonoma Oaks MPUD
PUDA-2007-AR-11961
April 12,2010
Page 2
Table 1
Proposed Land Uses
Sonoma Oaks MPUD
. -"Ii":li"~i!\!'l ~..,j~t'!i'~!!'i!f" ~fu~fi(),:;iii\'if) Wl'i~iji!"iMii~rjll1rlli" "!f*,~~li)
.~,.J.t!'_imfL,*,:\\11~\$. .~"" I ~...,~ . 1>...""gSi:.ftJ\'.) "'*']tJ'''M"...,<"".'l\,JC,,"~nL1'l:'!,J.~J, ".,~m.~1'l,l_"~,,,\.
Approved 112 dwelling units
Ord.2005-61
120,000 square feet
Proposed CCRC 456 units
Scenario I 98,650 square feet
Proposed 173 units
Scenario II 120,000 square feet
CCRC 456 units
Proposed (Beutle Villa e Data
Shopping Center 20,000 square feet
Scenario III (LUC 820
General Office 100,000 square feet
LUC 710
Trip Generation of the Approved Uses (OI'd. 2005-61)
As currently approved the subject site could be developed with up to 112 residential
dwelling units and up to 120,000 square feet of commercial uses. The trip generation for
each approved land use was detennined by referencing the Institute of Transportation
Engineer's (ITE) Report, titled Trip Generation, 8'h Edition. Land Use Code 210
(Single-Family Detached Housing) was utilized for the trip generation purposes of the
approved residential units and Land Use Code 820 (Shopping Center) was utilized for the
trip generation purposes of the approved commercial uses. The equations for each Land
Use Code are attached to the end of this document for reference. Table 2 indicates the
potential total trip generation of the Sonoma Oaks development based upon the approved
zomng.
~ TRANSPORTATION
K CONSULTANTS, INC.
Agenda Item No. 88
December 14, 2010
Page 69 of 110
Margaret C. Perry, AICP
Sonoma Oaks MPUD
PUDA-2007-AR-11961
April 12, 2010
Page 3
Table 2
Trip Generation - Total Trips
Sonoma Oaks MPUD - A roved Zonin Uses
!i1W~~t{a~':<~jl\itm~~~jmIUUr 'MZij~R!'J~";W:tMili:~~;R~IiJ>~~~t .
f:5~hr,,?Q.!lr:f1\&l~r ..;n,;;iU1X;:r: "'i::i1)\it::::' "1'll~t\ij .'.'~~:w'!lY)
Single-Family
Detached Housing 22 66 88 73 43 116 1,154
112 dwellin units
Shopping Center 105 67 172 352 367 719 7,645
(120.000 s uare feet
TotalTri s 127 133 260 425 410 835 8799
However, not all of the trips shown in Table 2 will utilize the public roadway system.
Some of the trips will travel to/from the land uses located within the proposed Sonoma
Oaks MPUD. Therefore, an internal capture rate of eleven percent (II %) was calculated
for this development by utilizing the methodologies presented in the ITE Trip Generation
Handbook dated June 2004, which calculates the internal capture rates of multi-use
developments. The summary sheet utilized to calculate this internal capture rate is
included in the Appendix of this report for rcference. Table 3 indicates the number of
trips anticipated to be added to the public roadway network based upon the CUlTent
zoning approval.
Table3
Tl'ip Generation - Total External Tl'ips
Sonoma Oaks MPUD - Approved Zoninl!: Uses
..... Weekdliy A.lVi:, j>e~k HQur ,veel<dav p.M. Pe~k Hour Dailv
LliqdUse Ii/. alIt t tl lj) O!!t tQtlll 2-w.av
. " ..' . QA
Total TriDs 127 133 260 425 410 835 8,799
Less 14% Internal Capture -14 -15 -29 -47 -45 -92 -968
Total Trips 113 U8 231 378 365 743 7,831
(Utilizing the Puhlic Roadwav NetlVork\
The trips shown in Table 3 will not all be new trips to the adjacent roadway system. ITE
estimates that a shopping center of comparable size may attract anywhere from IOta 90
percent of its traffic from vehicles already traveling the adjoining roadway system, This
traffic, called "pass-by" traffic, reduces the development's overall impact on the
surrounding roadway system but docs not decrease the actual driveway volumes.
According to the ITE report titled Trip Generation Handbook, June 2004, for Land Use
Code 820 (Shopping Center) the relationship between the size ofthe development and the
pcrcent of pass-by trips is:
Ln (1') = -0.29 Ln (X) + 5,00, where
T =A verage pass~by trip percentage
X = 1000 square feet of gross leasable area
-- 't. TRANSPORTATION
K CONSULTANTS, INC.
Agenda Item No. 88
December 14, 2010
Page 70 of 110
Margaret C. Perry, AICP
Sonoma Oaks MPUD
PUDA-2007-AR-11961
April 12,2010
Page 4
Using this formula the percentage of pass-by trips for the shopping center use was
calculated as follows:
Ln (T) = -0.29 Ln (120) + 5.00
T = 37%
However, the maximum pass-by percentage allowed by the Collier County Department of
Transportation for Land Use Code 820 (Shopping Center) is twenty five percent (25%).
Therefore, twenty five percent (25%) was utilized to calculate the pass-by traffic for the
shopping center use. Table 4 indicates the amount of new external traffic anticipated to
be generated by the subject site based upon the current zoning.
Table 4
Trip Generation - New External Trips
Sonoma Oaks MPUD - Aooroved Zoninl! Uses
. Weekdav A.M. PeakHoUr W~~kdav P.M. PcakHoUi: Daily
.' Lan,dIJ~e :lli 'l'Qt~i I:' ., Out. tiital
Out ._ . Iii (2-way)
Total Trips 113 118 231 378 365 743 7,831
(Utilizing the Pubtic Roadwav Network\
Total Retail Trips 93 60 153 313 327 640 6,804
(Utilizing the Public Roadwnv Network\
Less 25% Retail Pass-by -19 -19 -38 -80 -80 -160 -1,701
New Trips 94 99 193 298 285 583 6,130
fUtilizlnR Ihe Pnbllc Roa~wav Network)
Trio Generation of the Proposed Uses - Scenario I
Scenario I would permit the Sonoma Oaks MPUD to be developed with up to 456 CCRC
units and up to 98,650 square feet of conunercial retail uses. 111e trip generation for the
commercial retail land use was determined utilizing Land Use Code 820 (Shopping
Center) from the Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) Report, titled Trip
Generation, 8th Edition. The trip generation for the CCRC use was determined based
upon a local trip generation study conducted by TR Transportation Consultants at the
Bentley Village development. The trip generation equations for LUC 820 and the
Bentley Village study are attached to the end of this document for reference. Table 5
indicates the potential total external trip generation of the Sonoma Oaks development
based upon the proposed Scenario 1 land uses.
1: TRANSPORTATION
K CONSULTANTS, INC,
Agenda Item No. 88
December 14,2010
Page 71 of 110
Margaret C. Perry, AICP
Sonoma Oaks MPUD
PUDA-2007-AR-11961
April 12, 2010
Page 5
59
23
82
22
309
331
56
321
377
78
630
708
1,281
6,731
8,012
Total Tri s
93
152
60
83
153
235
The pass-by rate for the retail trips was calculated as follows in the same manner as noted
previously:
Ln (T) = -0.29 Ln (98.65) + 5,00
T = 39%
However, the maximum pass-by percentage allowed by the Collier County Department of
Transportation for Land Use Code 820 (Shopping Center) is twenty five percent (25%).
Therefore, twenty five perccnt (25%) was utilized to calculate thc pass-by traffic for thc
shopping center use. Table 6 indicates the amount of new external traffic anticipated to
be generated by the subject site based upon the proposed Scenario 1 land uses.
Table 6
Trip Generation - New External Trips
Sonoma Oaks MPUD - Scenario I
l,aiJ.(! Use Weekday A.M. Peak Hour Weekday P.M. Peak Hour Daily
. '" _.'d ..._" . ... ,_ . _,,",'" ,..-..-, ,.... .. -,...
t.. ,04i, 1Qt~[ IiL Qijt. T(ltd (2~ WllY)
..II
Total Trips 152 83 235 331 377 708 8,012
(Utilizin~ the Public Roadwav Network)
Total Retail Trips 93 60 153 309 321 630 6,731
(Utilizing the Public Roadway Network)
Less 25% Retail Pass-by -19 -19 -38 -79 -79 -158 -1,683
New Trips 133 64 197 252 298 550 6,329
(Utilizin. lbe Public Roadwa. Network)
Trip Generation of the Proposed Uses - Scenario II
Scenario II would pernlit the Sonoma Oaks MPUD to be developed with up to 173
CCRC units and up to 120,000 square feet of commercial retail uses. The trip generation
for the commercial retail land use was detennined utilizing Land Use Code 820
(Shopping Center) from the Institute of Transportation Engineer's '([TE) RepOlt, titled
Trip Gelleration, Srll Edition. The trip generation for the CCRC use was detennined
based upon a local trip geueration study conducted by TR Transportation Consultants at
-- 't. TRANSPORTATION
K CONSULTANTS, INC.
Agenda Item No. 88
December 14, 2010
Page 72 of 110
Margaret C. Perry, AICP
Sonoma Oaks MPUD
PUDA-2007-AR-11961
April 12,2010
Page 6
the Bentley Village development. The trip generation equations for LUC 820 and the
Bentley Village study are attached to the end of this document for reference. Table 7
indicates the potential total external trip generation of the Sonoma Oaks development
based upon the proposed Scenario II land uses.
CCRC
173 units
Shopping Center
(120.000 s uare feet)
Total Tri s
:f;:l"hPe~kHdtif mar
tV"'" ::tjj.t~r. ,j;;';{'
,,..It.C' L}y..y)
22 9 31 8 21 29 486
105 67 172 352 367 719 7,645
127 76 203 360 388 748 8,131
The pass-by rate for the retail trips was calculated as follows in the same mmmer as noted
previ ousl y:
Ln (T) = -0.29 Ln (120) + 5.00
T = 37%
However, the maximum pass-by percentage allowed by the Collier County Department of
Transportation for Land Use Code 820 (Shopping Center) is twenty five percent (25%).
Therefore, twenty five percent (25%) was utilized to calculate the pass-by traffic for the
shopping center use. Table 8 indicates the amount of new extemal traffic anticipated to
be generated by the subject site based upon the proposed Scenario II land uses.
. '.,' ....,. W~~kda';A.'ivLp~lik1i(jttr "',~i!l<dilv l'.Mi Peak HQur Dlilly
LjlildUse .-,....,........,...... "..",. .,..........,-...... '.
;,:1., ,: :,::",:~<..,.. ,.", L.... ,,,.,',...._,,,.;~.'.:..; .. .'.11(, "':'. chit. ",t!!t~J bL Old. TQtld, , . (~;;w'!iY)
Total Trips 127 76 203 360 388 748 8,131
(Utilizin' the Public Roadway Network)
Total Retail Trips 105 67 172 352 367 719 7,645
(Utiliz;na the Public Roadway Network)
Less 25% Retail Pass-by -22 -22 -44 -90 -90 -180 -1,911
New Trips 105 54 159 270 298 568 6,220
(UtiJizin.the Pubtic Roadway Networl<l
..
Table 8
Trip Generation - New External Trips
Sonoma Oaks MPUD - Scenario II
1:. TRANSPORTATION
K CONSULTANTS, INC.
Agenda Item No. 88
December 14, 2010
P8ge 73 of 110
Margaret C. Perry, AICP
Sonoma Oaks MPUD
PUDA-2007-AR-11961
April ]2,20]0
Page 7
Trip Generation of the Proposed Uses - Scenario III
Scenario III would permit the Sonoma Oaks MPUD to be developed with up to 456
CCRC units, up to 20,000 square feet of commercia] retail uses, and up to ] 00,000 square
feet of commercial office uses. The trip generation for the commercial retail land use
was determined utilizing Land Use Code 820 (Shopping Center) and the trip generation
for the commercial office land use was detennined utilizing Land Use Code 710 (General
Office Buildin~) from the institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) Report, titled Trip
Gene/'alion, 81 I Edition. The trip generation for the CCRC use was detennined based
upon a local trip generation study conducted by TR Transportation Consultants at the
Bentley Village development. The trip generation equations for LUC 820, LUC 710, and
the Bentley Village study are attached to the end ofthis document for reference. Table 9
indicates the potential total extemal trip generation of the Sonoma Oaks development
based upon the proposed Scenario III land uses.
.... Weekday A.M. Peak It&ur W~ekdav p.M. t>~ak'ItQlir. . P",Jy
L~itdTJse .111 Qut Totai . ,Ill, QuL f6tiii..... (ifjyav)
. ....;.. r.
CCRC 59 23 82 22 56 78 ],28]
(456 un;ls) --
Shopping Center 37 23 60 106 110 216 2,386
(20000 sQuare feet)
General Office 165 23 188 32 159 ]9] ],334
fI 00.000 sauare feel)
Total Trips 261 69 330 160 325 485 5.001
Table 9
Trip Generation - Total External Trips
Sonoma Oaks MPUD - Scenario III
The pass-by rate for the retail trips was calculated as follows in tlle same manner as noted
previously:
Ln (T) = -0.29 Ln (20) + 5.00
T = 62%
However, the maximum pass-by percentage allowed by the Collier County Department of
TranspOliation for Land Use Code 820 (Shopping Center) is twenty five percent (25%).
Therefore, twenty five percent (25%) was utilized to calculate the pass-by traffic for the
shopping center use. Table 10 indicates the amount of new external traffic anticipated to
be generated by the subject site based upon the proposed Scenario lIlland uses.
- "'C.. TRANSPORTATION
K CONSULTANTS, INC.
Agenda Ilem No. 88
December 14, 2010
Page 74 of 110
Margaret C. Perry, AICP
Sonoma Oaks MPUD
PUDA-2007-AR-11961
April 12, 2010
Page 8
, '@i;~ ):';i:~~!bY1~t;\
, ,.J~".w.uL
261 69
Total Retail Trips 37 23
UtiJizin the Public Roadwa Network
Less 25% Retail Pass-b -8 -8
New Trips 253 61
Utlllzln the Public Roadwa Network
160
325
485
5,001
60
-16
314
106
-27
133
110
-27
298
216
-54
431
2,386
-597
4,404
Comparison of Approved/Proposed Trip Generation
Table 11 provides a comparison of the net new external trip generation based upon the
approved zoning and each development scenario cun-entl y proposed.
,'., "'. Weekd~v A.M. Peak Boqr Weekd.av p;Nt:p~likHo\h' P~ijy '.'
Sc~.iiijrio In Out To,tIIl in Out Ttit't (2Wli )
. ,.J\. ,.c,.... Y .
Approved Zoning 94 99 193 298 285 583 6,130
(112 sin.le-ramilv and 120.000 sJ. retain .
Proposed Zoning - Scenario I 133 64 197 252 298 550 6,329
(456 CCRC units and 98 650 s.f. retaill
Proposed Zoning - Scenario II 105 54 159 270 298 568 6,220
(173 CCRC units and 120000 s.f. retail)
Proposed Zoning - Scenario III 253 61 314 133 298 431 4,404
(456 CCRC units, 20,000 sJ. retail,
and 100.000 s.f. office)
Table 11
Trip Generation Comparison- New External Trips
Sonoma Oaks MPUD
From Table 11, the PM peak hour represents the worst-case in terms of trip generation for
each scenario. Additionally, none of the proposed three (3) development scenario's are
anticipated to generate more traffic than the cUlTently approved development scenario
under Collier County Ordinance 2005-61. As the cUITently proposed uses will not exceed
the maximum P.M. peak hour two-way peak hour trip generation or maximum P.M. peak
hour peak direction trip generation of the CutTently approved Zoning uses, no further
analysis is required.
Attachments
1:. TRANSPORTATION
K CONSULTANTS, INC.
Agenda Item No. 88
December 14, 2010
Page 75 of 110
13881 PLANTATION ROAO, SUITE f1
FORT MYERS, FL 33912.4339
OFFICE 239.278,3090
FAX 239.278,1906
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
SIGNAL SYSTEMS/DESIGN
TO:
John Hoover
Classic Residence by Hyatt
FROM:
Robert 1. Price, PE
Senior Transportation Consultant, Inc.
Ted 13. Treesh
President
COPY:
Robert Duane, AICP
Hole Montes, Inc,
Nancy Cutter
Classic Residence by Hyatt
DATE:
December 17, 2008 - Revised
RE:
Bentley Vilh\ge
TR TranspOltation Consultants, Inc, has completed a traffic analysis for the Bcntley
Village site located between V,S, 41 and Vanderbilt Drive just south of the Lee County
Line in Collier County, Florida. The site currently consists of 566 independent living
units, 84 assisted living units, and a 100 bed care center for an overall Congregate Care
Retirement Facility (CCRC) unit count of750 units. Of these 750 units, 92 of the
independent living units, six (6) of the assisted living units, and four (4) of the eare center
beds were vacant when the traffic generated by the proposcd facility was counted.
The objective of this analysis was to determine the amount of traffic currently being
generated by the Bentley Village site, and to compare this volume with the amount of
Agenda Item No. 88
December 14, 2010
Page 76 of 110
"L TRANSPORTATION
K CONSULTANTS, INC.
traffic approved by the existing PUD on the subject site. In order to achieve this
objective, it was necessary to place mechanical traffic count devices at the Retreat Drive
intersections with U.S, 41 and Vanderbilt Drive as these are the two (2) entranccs/exits to
the community. However, there is a 164 unit multi-family residential development. The
Retreat, that also accesses Retreat Drive along with the Bentley Village. As such, it was
necessary to place additional traffic count devices at the driveways for The Retreat in
order to separate the Bentley Village traffic and The Retreat traffic. An aerial photograph
depicting the locations of the traffic count devices has been attached to the Appendix of
this document for reference.
For the purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that there is no interaction between The
Retreat and Bentley Village. In other words, when the residents of The Reu'eat entered or
exited tlleir community, it was assumed that tlley did not come from/go to the Bentley
Village.
The mechanical traffic count devices were placed over a period of one (1) week. The raw
data collected on Retreat Drive can be found attached to the Appendix of this document.
It should be noted that the traffic data collected for Tuesday, August 26th was not utilized
in this aualysis as this was an election day, so there was additional u'affic associated with
the poIling location located within the Bentley Village site.
The raw data indicated within the Appendix was then summarized by averaging the
entering/exiting AM and PM peak hour u'affic data from Monday, Wednesday, Thursday,
and Friday at each location. A representation of the average wcckday AM and PM peak
hour traflic is indicated within the Appendix of this report for reference. As can be seen
from this graphical representation, the Bentley Village traffic was determined by
summing the inbound and outbound traffic on Retreat Drive at U.S. 41 and Vanderbilt
Drive, then subtracting the traffic generated by The Retreat. The Retreat traffic was
determined by adding the inbound and outbound traffic from both intersections of Retreat
Drive and Lake Louise Circle as weIl as the three (3) inte1'l1al access points serving The
Retreat.
Based on the results of the tramc data collection, the Bentley Village site generates 76
entering vehicles and 29 exiting vehicles in the AM peak hoUl' as well as 28 entering
vehicles and 71 exiting vehicles in the PM peak hour, Based on this information, average
trip generation rates were determined for the Bentley Village site. According to the unit
count information obtained from Classic Residence by Hyatt, there approximately J 02 of
the total 750 dwelling units were vacant. Fmthermore, approximately 69 additional
Independent Living Units were vacant as they are occupied by seasonal residents that
were out of town for the summer. As such, it was assumed that a total of 5 79 dwelling
units were occupied during the time period when the traffic counts were performed. The
AM and PM peak hour average rates were determined based on the following
calculations:
Agenda Item No. 88
December 14, 2010
Page 77 of 110
1: TRANSPORTATION
K CONSULTANTS, INC.
# of Trips
A verage Rate AM Pm' = # of Occupied Units
105 trips
Average Rate , -
,1M loak 579 occupied units
A R - 0 18trip%
verage ate AM I' ,- . . d . ~ SO
/I {XI occuple unzt
T = 0.18(X), where T = Trips; X =# occupied units
Likewise, the PM peak hour average rate was determined to be 0,17 trips per occupied
unit. It should also be noted that the directional split of the Bentley Village traffic was
observed to be 72% entering/28% exiting in the AM peak hour and 28% entering/72%
exiting in the PM peak hour.
It is our understanding that Classic Residence by Hyatt intends to expand the existing
Bentley Village CCRC facility to consist of a maximum of 887 units. The result is an
addition of 137 new CCRC units. Based on the previously determined average trip
generation rates, AM and PM peak hour trip generation calculations were performed for
an 884 unit CCRC use. Table 1 reflects the trip generation ofthe proposed CCRC use
based on the rates calculated in accordancc with thc field observed traffic data on the
Bentley Village sileo In addition to the 887 unit CCRe use, Table I also indicates the trip
generation of 14 multi-family unils. The Classic Residence by Hyatt also owns 14 multi.
family units within The Retreat, so these 14 units are accounted for within Table 1 in
order to reflect the total trip generation of the Bentley Village,
Land Use
Proposed 887 w1it CCRC
14 multi-family units
Total Proposed Bentley Village
In
Table 1
Trip Generation
d Bentley Village ExpanSIOn
AM Peak Hour
Out Tot~1
45 160
9 Il
54 171
In
42
8
50
PM Peak .upur
Qitt' Tol31
109 151
4 12
113 163
Propose
lIS
2
117
The existing PUD on the Bentley Village site currently consists of a combination of 566
multi-family dwelling units as well as a 184 bed assisted living facility. Trip generation
calculations were performed based on the uses currently approved in the Bentley Village
PUD in order to determine If the proposed changes to the Bentley Village PUD would
result In an increase in trip generation. As a result, Table 2 was created to reflect the trip
generation ofthe approved 566 multi-family dwelling units combined with the 184 bed
assisted living facility.
Agenda Item No 88
December 14. 2010
Page 78 of 110
'"t TRANSPORTATION
K CONSULTANTS I INC.
. ""' "'..;~' .;.'" ,', '.
566 multi-famil units
184 bed assisted living facility
Total A roved Bentle Village
35
17
52
'{';~:"'("'."~~'r;~~~i~o~r~t.':';I.';
11. .,;{ij,ilt. .,.'. !lat.
167 82 249
18 23 41
185 105 290
Based on the trip generation calculations contained within Table 1 and Table 2, the trip
generation within the approved Bentley Village PUD will be reduced with the proposed
re-zoning ofthe Bentley Village PUD. Table 3 indicates the trip generation comparison
of the proposed Bentley Village PUD versns the approved Bentley Village PUD. A
negative value in Table 3 reflects a reduction in trips based on the proposed re-zoning
while a positive value represents a trip increase based on the proposedre-zoning.
Table3
Trip Generation Comparison
Pronosed Bentle Villa!!e pun vs. Existinl! Bentlev Villal!'e pun
Land Use AM Penk Hour PM Peak Hour
I.ti Qut T/lt!I! I Out T(jtal
I)
Pronosed Bentley VilIaQe PDD 117 54 171 50 113 163
AUDroved Bentley Village PUD 52 181 233 185 105 290
Tril:l Generation Difference +65 -127 -62 -135 +8 -127
..
As can be seen within Table 3, the two-way traffic volumes generated during the AM and
PM peak hours will be reduced based on the proposed re.zoning of the Bentley Village
PUD. Additionally, the peak hour, peak direction traffic volumes generated by the
approved PUD are also higher than those of the proposed PUD on tlle site, As such, the
peak hour impacts of the proposed PUD on the adjacent street network will be reduced as
a result of the re-zoning ofthe Bentley Village PUD,
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Attachments
. < ....~:~;~'"''""'''-._..._.;-- '. -.
~ (j~~~ (~~~CQ;}:"
fJ ..' ~...:.~ '. ~.',.
~
l!!
:>
C>
u::
(fJ
w
()
5
w
o
I-
Z
::lw
OC!)
()::s
~..J
u..-
u..>
g~
..JI-
...JZ
<t:w
u..<O
o
Z
o
i=
C3
o
...J
z0
a;!;
~g
~<
at:;
~"
!2!2
~a
I-U
f-L:C
~t sn
~tsn
&; t
. :1l
~t
. ;::
+-L
+- 9~
g'"
'I::lOC'!no1"1i1l1
6 ...
JIO.~lno1.~e"l
+-0 +-~
~ ... S'ld""O""'O' ~ ... "Id$;o~y
~~m m~_
~_N mN~
" " " , " ,
" c", 11~~
z~~
i=!::!::: -1-1-
l-_ijJ
ijJ~~ i5~
~I-W ~I-W
""""" fO<1i~
!-W""
o"'~ ~~....l
+-0 I-I-~ +-0
~5 ~>
"'ld~U""'d !j!~ "ldl;OO"V w~
0'" ~ ... "'~
!-... ...!-
Z Z
ill ill
'" '"
n~ ~ :;;~re
m_~
" II It U II II
+-~ """ +-~ """
z~?; z~;;
ocffiffi -"''''
C,ldU3:lO'O' !;#ldno"o'O' "'g!'"
~ ... ~~~ v'" ~z~
ffiww mww
....l!;(UJ ~I-'"
""w" ""<1i"
1-",:,\ "'",:,\
O...~ ol-~
1-",- "'w-
",> ",>
w>- w~
",'OJ "'~
1-1-
Z "'z
+-L w +-6 w
'" '"
'J:)"clnO'.~R1 JI:)oqIlO'''~O'
O~ ... a...
a:: a::
::> ::>
0 ;! t 0 N t
:r: :r:
~ . ... ~ . '"
<( ;tj
W
0- 0-
:;; :;;
<( 0-
OAIoIOlllq,lIPUI'^ '''''OlIlQlOPUI!^
.
.
.
.
.
.!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
II
.
II
II
III
III
[II
III
III
III
III
III
ra
II
II
II
IJI
II
l{J ;;
E
~ ~I
v' -....9 i~
J\
~'8 ~
""<[ ~ ~
<- d ""
.....
() en "0
,:9.'0 f'i.i 01
> 0 <::L
C'i: '\J -"'\.) t.l
~ ..
o 0- W L w
.. ..
E E ::> Q (I)
~ i= Cl ::I
L C
<L. Z
C>... ~
<::t:
*
>- ~laJ a>~ta~
~Uj~
~ ~ e
~ . .
"Q
I-
Z ::l!:
w :::l~ ~!~! 1B
::l!:zU)':g B~
ge~~ ~
. . ~~
~ e Q
. .
w~:::l <( ri,Q 10
> I- w D~
ww~ (I), I
Z ::I
Cwu c BID' '"
WC>..J :s Q) Q)
U)a.<( 't:>.t:! ~B
:::l-z 8(1) ~ Bl
...!. 0:: ~ ::;, ~ ~
I-I-w -J ~~I9~ ~ Bu a .
. < . a
..J I- ~ ~ ~ '" .
"" e
:::l Z - . ..
::l!: _ Bl OJ B:
C !~ ~l
z 'ii;
<( ~on E
=M (V')E :I'i
Ji ~
- ~ e Uj
~ . .
.ij Q
<;;
~
.s
ro
w
(I) l'l
::I
C -1l Q) {2
'0 Z or)3
~ l>
:0 ::;, Jfi~(ij~
.... -'
"J r-- ~ ~~~
.J
0 ::r- "0
0"
ti ~ ~
on
~$ 2
... ...
~ 0 :B ~
~
.ij
d
'"
,;
B
'g UJ -,
Il:
~ i2
. ..
~ ~ ~
,J! -J
;; ~
~
0 ffi
D
<II ~
-' 0- I~ I-'l V1
~ ;.r:
2 r- -;r
fV) ("7 r- I:YJ
...
C
ID
E u
Cot!j 0 ~ l:l
.2 '" &1
~ @ n t'
ID :5
c
CIl
(I)
:J
,
:;::;
:; to I
:IE ~ \ \ \
..
.e ::;,
@
(I)
.S- :5
..
I-
ili
c
..
s
itl "<: f..\
... t!j l?, ::;. r-
ID '" ,I
z ~ ("/) ty) ...,
:5
.. ~ - ~
.l!l .'!!
tli ~
'"
Q)
t!>
.[t
'"
Q)
:3
,
.s>
C))
,"
CJ)
Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd Edition Chapter 7 . ITS '09
Agenda Item No. 88
December 14, 2010
Page 82 of 110
TRIP GENERATION EQUATIONS
SONOMA OAKS MPUD
ITE TRIP GENERATION REPORT, 8th EDITION
Land Use Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour Weekd~
Bently Village Survey T-0.18(X) T~0.17(X) T ~ 2.81 (X)
(TR Transportation) (72% 1n/28% Out) (28% In/n% Out)
T - Trips, X - Number of aceu ied units
Shopping Center Ln(T) 0.59 Ln (X) + 2.32 Ln (T) - 0,67 La (X) + 3,37 Ln (T) ~ 0.65 Ln (X) + 5.83
JWC 820) (61% In/39% Out) (49% 1n/51% Out) ;
T TrijJs, X I,OOO's of square feet GLA
. ...
General Office Building Ln (T) - 0.80 Ln (X) + 1.55 T - Ll2 (X) + 78.81 Ln (T) ~ 0.77 Ln (X) + 3.65
(WC710) f88% 1n/12% Out) (17% 1n/83% Out)
T Trips, X I,OOO's ofsCjU.re feet GL",_ m",""
Single-Family Detached Housing T - 0.70 (X) + 9.74 Ln (T) - 0.90 Ln (X) + 0.51 Ln (T) ~ 0.92 Ln (X) + 2.71
(LUe 210) (25% 1n/75% Out) (63% 1n/37% Out)
T - Trips. X - Number of dwelling units
Agenda Item No 88
December 14, 2010
Page 83 of 110
AFFIDA VIT OF COMPLIANCE
I hereby certify that pursuant to Ordinance 2004-41, of the Collier County Land Development
Code. I did give notice by mail to the following property owners and or condominium and civic
associations whose members may be impacted by the proposed land use changes of an
application request for a rezoning, PUD amendment, or conditional use, at least 15 days prior to
the scheduled Neighborhood Information Meeting. For the purposes of this requirement, the
names and addresses of property owners shall be deemed those appearing on the latest tax rolls
of Collier County and any other persons or entities who have made a formal request of the
county to be notified. The said notice contained the laymen's description of the site property of
proposed change and the date, time, and place of a Neighborhood Information Meeting.
Per attached letters and or propeliy owner's list, which are hereby made a part of this
Affidavit of Compliance
1-,
~~ i~/
, /1/ a>l6/L/1 ,. 7 '
(Signatuy6 of Applicant)/
State of Florida
County ofeollier
The foregoing Affidavit of compliance was acknowledged before me this ~t, day of
Jut, ' 2010 bY~3 (U(f'1 Uef---~----' who iSE.ersonally_
~own to me or who has produced . as identification.
oG4L~i
(Signature of Notary Public)
kah fl. /1J(c;{(:
(Notary Seal)
Printed Name of Notary
QJ-RJ'~' LEAH ABEDI
~'i :.~ MY COMMISSION # 00949426
-', I EXPIRES December 30, 2013
(407)300-0153 FlortdaNolalYServlce,com
T
I
I
I
A1l3^"'-O!l-008-~
WO)'};JD^e'MMM
r w.tdn-dod pJoqaJ 81 ,le(~^,",
I ap Ulle" 9Jn4'B4 elii' zanday
lUaWBbJell'
ap lues
T
r
I
!
@09.b.~@i!Ml~1}t,mm~'!! zasll~n
Dec-/'.' ~~~~f8>>anb!~~
Page 84 of 110
ACORN WAY LLC
414 ROSEMEADE LN
"l-'-~"'~S, FL 34105.~~7153
ACORN WAY
414 ROSE ADE LN
NAPL ,FL 34105-7153
};f
ACORN WAY C
414 ROSE ADElN
NAPLE ,FL 34105--7153 ~
ADRAGNA,ANDREW=&TARAJ
7231 ACORN WAY
NAPLES, FL 34119-9609
BENNElT, CRAIG J & JENEANE P
7259 ACORN WAY
NAPLES, FL 34119--9609
BUCKS RUN DEVELOPERS LLC
PO BOX 5265
FRISCO, CO 80443-~5265
BUCKSTONE ESTATES LLC
C/O GRADY MINOR
PO BOX 771251
NAPLES, Fl 34107~-OOOO
BUCKSTONE E ArES LLC
CIa GRADY INOR
PO BOX 'Z 1251
NAPLE ,FL 34107-0000
pt
BUCKSTONE STATES LLC
C/O GRAD MINOR \ ,.V
PO BOX 1251 ty.....,
NAPL . FL 34107--0000
BUCKSTONE ES TES LLC BUCKSTONE TATES LLC BUCKSTONE TATES LLC
C/O GRADY OR C/O GRADY INOR ~ C/O GRADY INOR ~
PO BOX 77 51 K PO BOX 1251 PO BOX 7 251
NAPLE L 34107.-0000 NAPL . FL 34107-0000 NJ'i'.PLE FL 34107-0000
BUCKSTON STATES LLC BUCKSTONE ~ATES LLC BUCKSTONE ATES LLC
C/O GRAD MINOR ~ CIO GRADY NOR ~ C/O GRADY INOR ~
PO BOX 71251 PO BOX 7 251 PO BOX 7 251
NAPL ,FL 34107-0000 NAPLE ,FL 34107-~OOOO NAPLES Fl 34107--0000
BUCKSTONE TATES LLC BUCKSTONE E ATES LLC BUCKST~STATESLLC
c/o GRADY INOR K C/O GRADY OR ~ C/O GRAD INOR ~
PO BOX 1251 PO BOX 77. 251 PO BOX 1251
NAPL ,Fl 34107-0000 NAPLES L 341 07 -~oooo NAP;.s' Fl 34107-.0000
BUCKSTONE A TES LLC BUCKSTONE . TATES LLC BUCKSTONE TATES LLC
c/o GRADY INOR ,~J CIO GRADY INOR ~ C/O GRADY INOR ~
PO BOX 1251 PO BOX 1251 PO BOX 1251
NAP~, FL 34107-0000 \! NAPLE ,FL 341 07 -~oooo NAPLE ,FL 341 07 -~oooo
BUCKSTONE ES TES LLC BUCKSTONE E A TES LLC BUCKSTONE TATES LLC
C/O GRADY M R kV C/O GRADY NOR ~ C/O GRAD INOR ~
PO BOX 77 1 PO BOX 7 251 PO BOX 1251
NAPLES L 341 07 ~-OOOO NAPLE ,FL 34107.--0000 NAP~, FL 34107-~OOOO
BUCKSTONE E ATES LLC H BUCKSTONE TATES LLC BUCKSTONE STATES LLC
C/O GRADY NOR ClO GRADY lNOR ~ C/O GRAD INOR &{
PO BOX 1251 PO BOX"l 1251 PO BOX 1251
NAPL ,Fl 34107~-OOOO NAPLE . FL 34107-.0000 NAPl ,FL 34107~-OOOO
~
BUCKSTONE E fATES LLC
C/O GRADY NOR
PO BOX 77. 251
NAPLES L 34107---0000
M
BUCKSTONE EJ5TATES LLC
C/O GR~DY (NOR ~
PO BOX 7 251
NAPL~ ,Fl 34107-.0000
T
I ",09~S @AHaAV
~
r wJ,e6p3 dn~dod 9sodxa
: 01 aUII 6uou! pU9n
_ Jaded ~ea:l
.
r
I
,
@09~S '~.Idwal @A,"AV asn
CIAnR' ....IAA... ,(~P:J
^lf3^\f-O!>-008.~
WOJ"AJ9^e"MMM
BUCKSTONEFS ~TES LLC
c/o GRADY M OR
PO BOX 7!Y' 1 1,J}!
NAPLES~.r- 34107---0000 D'Vw-\
r I'Hdn-dod pJoqaJ 91 Jal~^~J
I ep ulle QJn4Je~ el ~ za!fda~
BUCKSTONE STATES LLC
C/O GRADY lNOR
PO BOX 1251
NAPLE . FL 34107---0000
SUCKSTONE E TATES LLC
C/O GRADY NOR ,
PO BOX 77 251 1 ",,01
NAPLESI"L 34107-0000 Il"~\
BUCKSTONE TATES LLC
CIO GRADY JNOR
PO BOX n 251
NAPLE~ L 34107.-0000
BUCKSTONE TATES LLC
C/O GRADY INOR
PO BOX 7 251
NAPLE FL 34107---0000
BUCKSTONE STATES LLC
CIO GRAD lNOR
PO BOX 1251
NAPLE ,FL 34107...0000
vr
BUCKSTONE STATES LLC
CIO GRADY JNOR
PO BOX 7 1251 ,,' J}I
NAPLES Fl 34107--0000 OV-\
~
BUCKSTO - ESTATES llC
C/O GRA MINOR
PO BOX 71251
NAPL ,FL 34107---0000
K
BUCKSTON STArES LLC
CIO GRAD MINOR
PO BOX 1251
NAPL . Fl 34107--0000
M
BUCKSTON ESTATES LLC
CIO GRA MINOR
PO BOX 71251
NAPl S, FL 34107--0000
BUCKSTONE TATES l.lC
c/o GRADY INOR \ ,.fly
PO BOX 7 251 OV". \
NAPLE Fl 34107--0000
BUCKsro ESTATES LLC
C/O GRA MINOR
PO 80 771251
NAP S, FL 34107---0000
CCB III LLC
1065 EXECUT!VE PARKWAY DR #210
SAINT LOUIS. MO 63141--~6367
DAVENPORT, ROBERT E
l YNETTE E DAVENPORT
9064 THE LN
NAPLES. FL 34109-~-1554
DEANGELIS DIAMOND HOMES lNC
6635 WILLOW PARK DR
NAPLES, FL 34109--8917
COLLIER CNTY
3301 TAMIAMI TRL E
NAPLES, FL 34112.~-4981
DAVENPOR~OBERT E
lYNEITE E AVENPORT
9084 T~El
Np..PlErrl 34109---1554
DEANGELIS DIAM D HOMES INC
6635 WilLOW P. RK DR
NAPLES, FL 4109---8917
DEANGELlS~1 OND HOMES INe
6635 WILlO ARK OR
NAPLES, F 34109.--8917 ~
T @om @A~3^" ~
M
H
K
~\'
K
JJ1
ELIAS BROTHERS COMM PALERMO CV
4206 ENTERPRISE AVE # A7
NAPLES, FL 34104--7066
, lNJ.a6p3 dn~dod asodxa
: 01 SUI! 6uole DueA
\UaWab,ll?lf)
ap suaS
T
_ Jtld~d Ddd:l
..
,
I
I
.
Ii>09A~~o1\'gMmett\1 z"s!l!~n
Dec~iI\mF f~I!W1W~"nb~;
Page 85 ~f 110
BUCKSTONE E ATES LLC
CIO GRADY OR M
PO BOX 77 51
NAPLEYL 34107-..0000 a
BUCKSTONE TATES LLC
c/o GRADY INOR . . . JCr
PO BOX 7 251 ;V'" '\
NAPLES l 34107-0000 v
BUCKSTON ESTATES LLC
CtO GRAD MINOR
PO BOX 71251
NAPLE ,Fl 34107-0000
~
BUCK~TO ESTATES lie
c/o GRA Y MINOR
PO 80 771251
NAPL. $, Fl 34107---0000
~
BueK~TO ESTATES LLC
C/O GRA MINOR
PO eo 771251
NAPl S, Fl 341 07 ~--OOOO
~
CAVin, KERRY A
231 SE 30TH TER
CAPE CORAL, FL 33904--3433
COLLIER eN
3301 TAMI J TRL E
NAPLES L 34112--4961 P1
DAVENPORT, ROBERT E
9064 THE LN
NAPLES, FL 34109---1554
DEANGELIS D1AM D HOMES INC
6635 WIllOW RK DR
NAPLES, F 34109---B917 J.>>f
. ELIAS BROTHERS COMMUNITIES AT
RAFFIA PRESERVE [Ne
15100 COLLIER BLVD
NAPLES, FL 34119--7631
'/'
I
I
@09~S e~eldwe! @f..Je^\feSn
"I~np., _ 1:lI:::r.J ,(CD~
T
I
I
I
A1I3^V-O!)-008-~
WO:l"AJa^e"MMM
EXXON MOBIL CORP
% CORP~EMB~2305A
p"""-q,QX 53
;TON, TX 77001--~0053
GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL &
RESCUE DISTRICT
4741 GOLDEN GATE PKWY
NAPLES, Fl 34116--6901
HERBERT, THOMAS MICHAEL
ASHLEY R HERBERT
7323 ACORN WAY
NAPLES, FL 34119-9625
JONJAMES LLC
14370 COLLIER BL VO
NAl='lES, Fl 34119---7712
LINDNER TR, MARK L
LAND TRUST UTD 01/04/99
2950 IMMOKALEE RD STE 4
NAPLES, Fl 34110-1411
REGIOI,S BANK
2800 PONCE DE LEON BLVD
7TH FLOOR
CORAL GABLES. Fl 33134~-OOOO
RESTORATION CHURCH INC
7690 RUNNING BUCK CT
NAPLES. FL 34120---0000
SUMMIT PLA;EE C ri'1Y ASSN INC
% KW PROP M T & CONSUL liNG
3358 WOODS DGE CIR STE 102
BONITA SjINGS, FL 34134-~3323
iY1
/
VANDERBILT C TY ASSaC INC
8250 DAN BUR L VO
NAPLES, Fl 4120--1631
J;-wy
,lIll:. ~
404 elT ION PT
-. ." "'",-- "'It. .
T 'i,og~S @A1I3Ncf ~
r wJ.dn-dOd pJoqaJ 81 JaJ~^'~
I ap U!le 9Jm.peq el 'i zaUdaH
l,UaWabJ2L!)
9P sues
'f
FRANK JR, WILLIAM E
DAVID E FRANK
LOIS K HOTHERSALL
2950 COACH HOUSE LN
NAPLES. FL 34105--2721
GULFSTREAM HOMES INC
6646 WILLOW PARK DR
NAPLES, FL 34109-~9017
HOGUE, DAlE=& KIMBERLY
7279 ACORN WAY
NAPLES, FL 34119--9609
KELl V-BRAD TR, CORRINE
BRAD FAMILY TRUST
UrD 11/20/09
7303 ACORN WAY
NAPLES. FL 34119-0000
MISSION HILLS LLC
% THOMSON TAX & ACCOUNTING
1735 MARKET ST srE A-400
PHilADELPHIA, PA 19103--7501
REGIONS BAN
2800 PONCE E LEON BLVD i lAY
7TH FLOO V~ !
CORAL ABLES, FL 33134--0000
SIECZKOWSKI. THOMAS A
DAN UTA SIECZKOWSKI
16 HEAVENLY WAY
CLIFTON PARK, NY 12065--6149
SUMMIT PLACE CI\ TV ASSN INe
% KW PROP MG & CONSUL liNG
3358 WOODS GE CIR STE 102
BONITA .sPf.'! GS, FL 34134-3323
t~
VOILA !Ill ~
404 Clr JON PT
NAPLE ,FL 34104-3535 ~t.' .
WALTERS, CARRIE H
SCOTT E HORNER
7275 ACORN WAY
NAPLES, FL 34119...9609
f WJ. a6p:I dn~dod asodxa
1 O} au!! 6uOI!:! pueg
_ Jaded l;>SlJ:i
- Y
T
I
!
@09Ag~~l!f-1\'i!Jl"meMI zasll!~n
Dec4i\\t't.11 f~!~~nanb!J;
Page 86 ~f 110
FRANK JR. WILLIAM E
DAVID E F K
Lors K H HERSALL
2950 C CH HOUSE LN
NAPL . FL 34105~-2721
LlJf
HE/NIT, GERALD=& JENEENE
7263 ACORN WAY
NAPLES, FL 34119-9609
HOME DYNAMICS NAPLES LLC
4755 TECHNOLOGY WAY, STE 210
BOCA RATON, FL 33431-0000
KENNEDY, JANE A
3 FALCON RUN
KINNELON, NJ 07405--3020
MISSION HILLS C
% THOMSON & ACCOUNTING , /
1735 MARK ST STE A~40D , .. J':J"
PHILADE HIA. PA 19103--7501 t'" \
REGIONS BANK
2~OO PONCE 0 LEON BLVD \ . ):/
7TH FLOOR r \
CORAL G LES, FL 33134---0000
SUMMIT PLACE CMN1Y ASSN INC
% KW PROP MGMT & CONSULTING
3358 WOODS EDGE CIR STE 102
BONITA SPRINGS. Fl 34134---3323
VANDERBILT CMM1Y ASSOC INC
8250 DANBURY BLVD
NAPLES. FL 34120-1631
VOILA II LL
404 CIT A ON PT
NAPlE I FL 34104-3535
q~
WEINRICH, CHARLES E=& JANINE F
7239 ACORN WAY
NAPLES, FL 34119--9609
r
I
I
@091S &~eldwa.L,@.ue^v esn
Slacg, ....Iaa~ A:$~:JI
A1l3^\f-O~-008-~
WO)"AJG^e"MMM
r L';.Ldn~dod pJoqaJ al Jall!t^9~
: ap U!~E! 9Jn4)eq el , zsUdal:t
~UaWaDJelp
ap sues
y
WINNER, DAVID E=& MEliSSA J
7240 ACORN WAY
NAPLES, FL 34119...9608
Golden Gate Estates Area
Civic Association
P.O. BOlt 990596
Naples, FL 34116
T @09~S @^~a^" ~
r m e6p3 dO.dod asodxa
~ o~ au!! 6uole pUBS
_ ,laded Dua:!
- y
f
I
I
@09AS &nA~l{1\f ~!Jl!,';I,e~~1 zas!I!ln
D~cM~t~rffi~1Wnanb!}~
Page 87 of 110
@09~S .l.,dw.lli/J~'.^\f .sO
Slsae1 ~laEM ASB=I
NEW D1RECTIOI'lS IN PlANNfhIG, DESIGN &: ENGINEERING. SII\JCE 1956.
Agenda Item No. 88
December 14,2010
Page 88 of 110
~ WilsonMiller@
y
July 8, 2010
Dear Property Owner:
I would like to take this opportunity to advise you that Richard Yovanovich of Coleman,
Yovanovich and Koester, representing Voila II. LLC, has filed an Application for Public Hearing
for a PUD Amendment to the Sonoma Oaks PUD. The requested amendment is to allow for a
mixed use development including commercial.and residential districts, The applicant is
requesting up to 114 dwelling units and up to 120,000 square feet of commercial office and
retail use on approximately 37,5 acres, The applicant is also requesting the ability to provide
continuing care retirement community (CCRC) uses at an equivalent offour CCRC units to one
residential unit at a maximum floor area ratio of 0,6, The total number of CCRC units on the
residential portion of the project will not exceed 456 units. The site Is currently vacant and is
located on the west side of Collier Boulevard, south of Wolfe Road and north of Loop Road.
You are receiving this letter because you own a parcel of land located within 500 feet of the
subject property boundary. Please see enclosed location map,
In order to provide you an opportunity to become informed about the PUD amendment
application, we are holding a neighborhood information meeting on Wednesday July 28, 2010
at 5:30 p.m. at the meeting room of Golden Gate Fire and Rescue District, Station 73,
14575 Collier Boulevard, Naples, FL 34114.
At this meeting, we will make every effort to describe the proposed PUD amendment. I hope
that you are able to attend this public information meeting and I look forward to seeing you
there, In the meantime, if you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 239-649-
4040 or Richard Yovanovich at 239-435-3535.
Sincerely,
/ -~ ;j7
IlaLfaJ/t~r
Margclret Perry, Al9'P
Senior Project Manager
Enclosure
L~OO.64!1.433~-'-~~ ~,649~040
Corporate Office 3200 Bailey Lane SUlt~~~NaPles, Florida 341 O~L= _
617/2010.21867S.Var: ,-MPERRY
055(4-100-002 _ PPHS _ 3~006
f 239.643.5716
WilsonMlller.com
~."",/"eO_<".,...,,-
Agenda Item No. 88
December 14, 2010
j,~!,;q J ~J) {=H.~:I~IJ!;J~ilirl!lIIJjill inillmIjl~i!Dil:iI~. ]::::::15::--11--=11--
\1, 'yl ~'>I g,:J I;;:; , i I LliWu.. U"lLIIH ,\'if ""J : Z I Ii
'. iJ "" I~I 'I oi I II -~WJrrrr.;Ir\llli-,llll,N~., I" ~.1/ " 1-
/' q; l:;-l -- : I' : '\ ']1,1', lfll"I) Jl1!U '.""'- J::;J I I
.. v' ~ ",31 , I', .... ,.. .u_,. c ,~ ";, ,
~'I";;"i ~ ~~ 1'j:J-..Ti111ITill~tnTnl11ITl.i01 [.uiIDIIDIJIj[DH.IJIHllLillllilIJ&- -Imo ~:-l'm'\'mm-'L---
t- Lir' (~i~~~_:I_l1J1j;.Llj !l:;lil!ili'lIJi~L:: 8- I \'~w.!.J. '1W.1lL!..u.lilli;'
~riIif:t~li~';~~\;"i,-~T1)lmi;:11~n}ik~f~i' d I i ,!.b,J)i i1llUlillli1i1l
,:-3 '1'-'"-'''''\''''' '-',Ut!', b'", I ---, "~"Sf;,'lj
hi' 'I' I,,,L\"'\:J~:. " [-J '-",J , 1~4'1::oi I I f" liUIli!L!illj1J!EI!Jl!nj I
~~~L t~~~~I1":~JC~ ;t'~~: --- '-;>J~J!l!!IIJljl]mrn!n):
,A'" 'd'l, ,,1"-) p""m!.., \ '(~I!-l I 1..-..._. 1 I
""-J:1~1J:~~~t. k3";jj k,J~I~ ~~ If]........."...-...... '''.
0>-O-^,,,Jr- nrtl~ WTIfro~E::;~l ': I :1 i
v". I. ."'~ !l1I1. 'fi?1"m \ ' Ii'
./. 'i-,JIIITI "rnrnT-';-=-- - LW ." .n I J __...... _. _ _ _ __ _~_
j-I!.'.! 11.i.IJlJ-\t GGFD I J \ 1/
'I ,". STATION n -.l ",:; '1-', ,', (.'-"--'_'0-' .- C-"",--
r"=~~----"18 r 111,,-,,_ r1 -,-
';="'~."c,+-" , ,_P~lET~:~~.I~~;~ :U,: /// i ,~ ~;~~\~~:~~~!~f1 :~~~~~ur
.)i:0ill1JlliIlJ[.~:1 Ii '11.1'/\ //.j//./// ,/ LeT 1\t~J
,=.....,./..c.;l..L.f,eJ I =l[~~ilil \ I r- : I if tilt- ~;~;}5ff r--.~c-~-I~~J\'~~~???!rnlTTmrT(~;
<:11 I~;;l:~;~ IL ............. ... - --1$1 ~ :~~l i/;; ~( 0;~~~~ i-'::':::::::'=:::l-" "'::"O!':~~~:lilll
,,~ ^\\,' :C:';;--::C, I li=-+n j'1lii ;, I L...... ';:'OAKS ,7': 1- - -:- ---.----1
YA,3~DWA:,<.I,'l ,L_.. wOl~~RI'E,EEjll:fDD'--'U t.;/ 0~/ // / I' BOXWOOD puLe. . _~~!
"""C:W"'11',1I" .....j., ...[..'" I, " 'i--\ "'
'..z<}/>,/ /<:$Ju1ilU i \,...., h (1 !"d.-r-r~n-J--rn jj) 0 \ 'I i \ ~ J
. ./.., 0~~,0\i'!F!!:1 I } (('.'":",:'"'"] i ! q..-\. U),:,~ "C'~';'~:;'1~:-""'~i/'1 ! ..1 I !!i!
1,.1)."'.'" ". !.!'!I'.'':;\\:". iil i j I'.':::::---'(':';'::~::;~i i'-( 'r! r :lLL.!.!,..,.. ".'.,\1 'I' MISSION i"-!. ,-8\JCKS-RU~ PUD ii\~
"",;<.-il.' 1: ".',,,.? f,.,.,<",\.JJ I" 'I '----'--::-:"..! /::~ J II J' "_.._,_L_____ \ J[ HILLS PUD1 ; \ \~:-;
"j ;"1/ '''''!~,';;;'l f'1 : L 1-1,,_.-,J jr ( U I \'-'\1' ':=:::1 i Ii'
ir"lf Mi!.'l?jfLtli \1 P'\l,J-;\.\ 'Ii CAROLlNAVii:LAc;i, 1_,,-' -- -'---",'
j!~_:~gl~~LjJI~I:iL::~!U2~~jjj,::gW[)::_'~UT L]J r-\ , MISSION CHURCH PUD :
VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD i U--- .----___._.__.....1.
rrl, 11 l' '-:ill.... r" -T , "1 i ~' !....I'-]I.. - -'-1 jl -111'11,,'-----'1/:," T'l"i
i'=J' '
Lti---j '-r:'-I-'- :+ili . i : . jT~-1 .......--Jlrrl- -! 1-+1'1 li--I
,I 1 I, ii, I,.. .,__ ii: I , j Ii: i I I
' . . I" 1_' "'Ii ,I I I II I I I I '
I I Iii 'I i J I I ' I ' Ii I I '" ii'
,'j. , 'i i, I, ,. ' ..-..- -..j,........ _..c._ . ", --I' 'l.-J-, i-i- '1"1-'"
.iG~J~T~~~~ IdfATfs - T-", :'1 -t.-: . -1-'-1 : : "'1 ;i Ii' '.,'. ,.,.1.:.1 "1 I, Ii
! ' I 1 r ! : h- - -.i i .r...~'-!-.-~-..-i i, I'
i" +-., .!-i- Ii l-I,"--'I: li +1+-1- . L . .'1' I:.b:d, GO~, dE~,i, .is.,! AtE[~~A~E~-
i i ! ' j i ! : !
] L~.'''..'". i'-.- "jl 'I!!
..) '""--1 ,I
, ,
\--) ~'-.i ' I j I
\.'.1....,,[.:.-...-.'.] /TfiT'--"iT'" n:'j' r:-...
f. '-i :.,.~,....LL.I.ilL-,.l.,..:_L.!.. J '..'1-.____
--, \fr"'f"'i'TT'rTj"j"Tj. liT'-' r~
. '''--i !":j 'l_,.-;",-w,...LLL .-,,,,~_L,,j,,,,_'1
\,=1 t:,,~ ,-- . ;._..j ~."...1
? ~j!J f~:EI];Jrl,r:/)?jL?!10J;~t;)!..
, '( x-) . " I.......J..L.. ..,...."..,.~
: \ c' , )I ~.:':? i-':_L,J ?,,',:) \~~-\ \- j
;:iD;;IIT.~t~E9J~fr~!.l: ,..J
-tF,Lf ;i~j~:~j~]
,
....,..i__.._
--'-,
''''''ru'
ii
'I
i.
'''''Ii
:t
I
I
.... .... u 4....-
''',I
I:
"
"
....~.___---11
I
!
. ...1
I
--;_..
i
I ,
Ii
,~-L_ ..../.
'''--'''[""'''1
i i
! .
, I
I ' I
.1.11....;
ii' .
!
; 1 '
. i I :
'j' "'!"-'T-'-""
LOCATION
MAP
i!"~~~~1Jry!~~w.~~~,ry~!'0~,~~:~:::'l'?~~~~~-~~~.?,"':"r.~','\Y"C"':""""'.":"."" .
. ..............."~7"...,.,"1=~!""...~~~~~~~A."!'~.';!:<~~d'~: .~~,~~-ii~..
.. . gen a lterilNO' 88 ." ..
7:.~.~~"6'oi:::
.'.:<
.-;-.<.
";'::.>:+,?::
.,.",.'.
"
,."":.,,.,..,
.",.:"-;..,;.
, _ -:' ,'.': ~ .:: .: :i,:-:,:
.-,--..;.:';'",.-.'"
.-..,...
Agenda Item No 88
December 14, 2010
Page 91 of 110
ORDINANCE NO. 10-~_
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 04-41,
AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,
WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS
FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY
CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN
DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT ZONfNG DISTRICT (MPUD) TO AN MPUD ZONING
DISTRICT, FOR A PROJECT KNOWN AS SONOMA OAKS TO ALLOW
CONSTRUCTION OF A MAXIMUM OF ]20,000 SQUARE FEET OF
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND/OR SENIOR HOUSING UNITS
INCLUDING INDEPENDENT LIVING, ASSISTED UVING AND SKILLED
NURSING UNITS AT A FAR OF .60 ON THE COMMERCIAL PORTION AND
A MAXIMUM OF 114 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS AND/OR A
MAXIMUM OF 456 SENIOR HOUSING UNITS INCLUDING INDEPENDENT
LIVING, ASSISTED LIVING AND SKILLED NURSING FACILITY UNITS
ON THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE
WEST SIDE OF COLLIER BOULEVARD (CR 951) BETWEEN WOLFE
ROAD AND LOOP ROAD, IN SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE
26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 37.5~ ACRES;
PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 05-61, THE
FORMER SONOMA OAKS MPUD; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE,
WHEREAS, Margaret Perry of WilsonMiller Inc. and Richard Yovanovich, Esquire of Coleman,
Yovanovich & Koester, P,A, reprcsenting Voila II LLC, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners
to change the zoning classification of the herein described real property;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA, that:
SECTION ONE:
The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 34, Township 48
Sonth, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed hom a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development
(MPUD) to an MPUD Zoning District, for a project known as the Sonoma Oaks Mixed Use Planned
Development to allow construction of a maximum of ]20,000 square feet of commercial development
and/or senior housing units including independent living, assisted living and skilled nursing units at a
FAR of .60 on the commercial portion and a maximum of 114 residential dwelling units and/or a
Sonoma Oaks MPUD, PUDA-2007-AR-11961
REV, 10122/10
Page 1 0(2
Agenda Item No. 88
December 14,2010
Page 92 of 110
maximum of 456 senior housing units including independent living, assisted living and skilled nursing
facility units on the residential portion in accordance with the MPUD Documents, attached hereto as
Exhibits A through F, all of which are incorporated herein and by reference made part hereof. The
appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier
County Land Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly.
SECTION TWO:
Ordinance Number 05-61, known as the Sonoma Oaks MPUD, adopted on November 15, 2005,
by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, is hereby repealed in its entirety.
SECTION THREE:
This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State,
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super majority vote of the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this _ day of
,2010.
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY:
FRED W. COYLE, Chairman
, Deputy Clerk
Approved as to form
and legal sufficiency:
(1\0
0" 0
\,;-01\
.0\
.
Heidi Ashton-Cicko
Section Chief, Land Use/Transportation
Exhibit A-I:
Exhibit A-2
Exhibit B-1 :
Exhibit B-2:
Exhibit C:
Exhibit 0:
Exhibit E:
Exhibit F:
List of Allowable Uses (Residential)
List of Allowable Uses (Commercial)
Residential Development Standards
Commercial Development Standards
Master Plan
Legal Description
List of Requested Deviations
Development Commitments
Project History: Ordinance Number 05-61
CP\08-CPS-00863153
Sonoma Oaks MPUD, PUDA-2007-AR-11961
REV. 10/22/10
Page 20f2
Agenda Item No. 88
December 14, 2010
Page 93 of 110
EXHIBIT A-1
RESIDENTIAL "R" SUBDISTRICT
LIST OF ALLOWABLE USES
Permitted Uses:
No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used,
in whole or in part, for other than the following:
A. Principal Uses:
1. Single-family and/or multi-family dwellings (maximum of 114).
2, Independent living facility (ILF) units for individuals over the age of 55,
assisted living facility (ALF) units, and skilled nursing facility units or a
continuing care retirement community ('CCRC") consisting of ILF, ALF and
skilled nursing units may be constructed. The maximum size of the ILF, ALF,
CCRC skilled nursing and similar facilities shall not exceed a floor area ratio
(FAR) of 0.6. For conversion purposes, four (4) ILF, ALF, or skilled nursing
units shall be equal to one (1) residential dwelling unit, for a maximum of 456
ILF, ALF, skilled nursing or CCRC.
3. Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list
of permitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals
("BZA") by the process outlined in the Land Development Code (LDC).
B, Accessory Uses:
Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses
and structures, including, but not limited to:
1. Clubhouses
2. Private garages
3. Swimming pOOls with, or without screened enclosures
4. Tennis courts
5. Tot lots
6. Playgrounds
7, Outdoor recreation facilities
8. Model homes, and other uses and structures related to the promotion and
sale and/or rental of real estate such as, but not limited to, pavilions, viewing
platforms, gazebos. parking areas, and signs SUbject to the requirements of
the LDC.
g, Essential services, including water and sewer lines, natural gas lines,
electrical transmission and distribution lines, sewage lift stations and water
pumping stations, essential service wells and wells permitted by the South
Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) or the Florida Department of
Environmental Services (FDEP)
10. Water management facilities and related structures
11. Irrigation treatment and distribution facilities
12. Temporary sewage treatment facilities
13. Lakes, including lakes with bulkheads or other architectural or structural bank
treatments
14. Temporary construction, sales, and administrative offices for the developer
and developer's authorized contractors and consultants, including necessary
Revised October 21,2010
Sonoma Oaks MPUD
Page 1 of 15
Agenda Item No. 88
December 14, 2010
Page 94 of 110
EXHIBIT A-1
RESIDENTIAL "R" SUBDISTRICT
LIST OF ALLOWABLE USES
access ways, parking areas, and related uses. Temporary sales centers may
be serviced by temporary well and septic systems.
15. Landscape features including, but not limited to, landscape buffers, berms,
fences, and walls
16. Uses accessory to ILF, ALF, and/or skilled nursing facilities, such as, but not
limited to, on-site dining facilities, group transportation services and wellness
centers.
Development Standards:
Exhibit B-1 sets forth the development standards for land uses within the MPUD
Residential Subdistrict. Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those
specified in applicable sections of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) and the LOC in
effect as of the date of the site development plan or subdivision plat approval.
A base density of four dwelling units per acre yields a gross density of 114 dwelling units
for the Sonoma Oaks MPUO. .
Operational Characteristics:
The developer of ILF, ALF, CCRC and/or skilled nursing facilities, its successors or
assigns, shall provide the following services and/or be SUbject to the following
operational standards:
1. The facility shall be for residents 55 years of age and older.
2. There shall be on-site dining for the residents.
3. Group transportation services shall be provided for residents for the purposes of
grocery and other types of shopping. Individual transportation services shall be
coordinated for the residents' Individualized needs including but not limited to
medical office visits.
4. There Shall be an on-site manager/activities coordinator to assist residents with their
individual needs. The manager/coordinator shall also be responsible for arranging
trips to off-site events as well as planning for lectures, movies, music and other
entertainment for the residents at the on-site clubhouse.
5. A wellness center shall be provided on-site. Exercise and other fitness programs
shall be provided for the residents.
6. Each unit shall be equipped to notify emergency service providers in the event of a
medical or other emergency.
7. Each unit shall be designed to allow a resident to age-in-place. For example,
kitchens may be easily retrofitted to lower the sink to accommodate a wheelchair
bound resident or bathrooms may be retrofitted to add grab bars.
Revised October 21, 2010
Sonoma Oaks MPUD
Page 2 of 15
Agenda Item No. 88
December 14, 2010
Page 95 of 110
EXHIBIT A.2
COMMERCIAL "C" SUBDISTRICT
LIST OF ALLOWABLE USES
Permitted Uses:
No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used,
in whole or in part, for other than the following:
A. Principal Uses:
1. Paint, glass, and wallpaper stores (Group 5231)
2. Variety stores (Group 5331)
3. Miscellaneous and general merchandise stores (Group 5399)
4. Candy, nut and confectlonary stores (Group 5441)
5. Dairy product stores (Group 5451)
6. Miscellaneous food stores (Group 5499)
7. Any retail business engaged in selling apparel and accessories as defined
under the Major Group 56 In the Standard Industrial Classification Manual.
8. Any retail business engaged in selling home furniture, furnishings, and
equipment stores as defined under Industry Group 571, 572, and 573 in the
Standard Industrial Classification Manual.
9. Eating places (Group 5812), except that a maximum of one free standing fast
food restaurant. as defined in the lDC, shall be permitted. not to exceed 5,000
square feet of gross leasable floor area.
10. Drug stores and proprietary stores (Group 5912)
11. Sporting goods and bicycle shops (Group 5941)
12. Book stores (Group 5942)
13. Stationary stores (Group 5943)
14. Jewelry stores (Group 5944)
15. Camera and photographic supply stores (Group 5946)
16. Gift. novelty and souvenir shops (Group 5947)
17. Luggage and leatherworks stores (Group 5948)
18. Establishments operating primarily in the fields of finance. insurance, and real
estate as defined under Major groups 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, and 67 in the
Standard Industrial Classification Manual.
19. Establishments operating primarily to provide personal services as defined in
the Standard I ndustrial Classification Manual for the following Industry Groups;
a. Photographic portrait studios (Group 722)
b. Beauty shops (Group 723)
c. Barber shops (Group 724)
d, Shoe repair Shops and shoeshine parlors (Group 725)
e. Miscellaneous personal services, only including Group 7291 tax retum
preparation services, and Group 7299 personal services, only including
car title and tag service, computer photography or portraits, costume
rental, diet workshops, electrolysis (hair removal), genealogical
investigation service. hair weaving or replacements service, dress suit or
tuxedo rental, and tanning salons.
20. Establishments primarily engaged in rendering services to businesses on a
contract or fee basis for the following Industry Numbers:
a. Advertising agencies (Group 7311)
b. Advertising, not elsewhere classified (Group 7319)
Revised October 21,2010
Sonoma Oaks MPUD
Page 3 of 15
Agenda Item No. 88
December 14, 2010
Page 96 of 110
EXHIBIT A.2
COMMERCIAL "C" SUBDISTRICT
LIST OF ALLOWABLE USES
c. Adjustment and collection services (Group 7322)
d. Credit reporting services (Group 7323)
e. Mailing, reproduction, commercial art (Group 7331-7338)
21. Establishments primarily engaged in developing film and in making
photographic prints and enlargements for the trade or for the general public,
only including Industry Number 7384, photofinishing laboratories.
22. Establishments engaged in miscellaneous repair services, only including
Industry Numbers 7631 - watch, clock, and jewelry repair and Group 7699 -
repair shops and related services. not elsewhere classified.
23. Video tape rental (Group 7841), excluding adult oriented rentals and sales.
24. Physical fitness facilities (Group 7991)
25. Establishments operating primarily to provide medical and health services as
defined under Major Group 80 in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual,
for the following Industry Numbers:
a. Offices and clinics of doctors of medicine (Group 8011);
b. Offices and clinics of dentists (Group 8021);
c. Offices and clinics of doctors of osteopathy (Group 8031);
d. Offices and clinics of other health practitioners (Group 8041-8049);
e. Medical and dental laboratories (Group 8071-8082);
f. Miscellaneous health and allied services not elsewhere classified (Group
8092-8099).
26. Establishments operating primarily to provide legal services as defined under
Major Group 81 in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual.
27. Membership organizations engaged in promoting the interests of its members
as defined under Major Group 86 in the Standard Industrial Classification
Manual.
28. Establishments operating primarily to provide engineering, accounting,
research, and management for the following Industry Numbers:
a. Engineering services (Group 8711)
b. Architectural services (Group 8712)
c. Surveying services (Group 8713)
d. Accounting, auditing and bookkeeping services (Group 8721)
e. Management services (Group 8741)
f. Management consulting services (Group 8742)
g. Public relations services (Group 8743)
h. Business consulting services (Group 8748)
29. Independent living facility (ILF) units for individuals over the age of 55, assisted
living facility (ALF) units, and skilled nursing facility units (Groups 8051 and
8052) or a CCRC consisting of ILF, ALF and skilled nursing units. The
maximum size of the ILF, ALF, CCRe, skilled nursing and similar facilities shall
not exceed a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0,6.
30. Any other principal use which is comparable in nature to the foregoing list of
permitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals
("BZA") by the process outiined in the LOC.
B, Accessory Uses:
Accessory uses and structures customarily assOCiated with the permitted principal uses
and structures, including, but not limited to:
Revised October 21,2010
Sonoma Oaks MPUD
Page 4 of15
'---""~'*-'--'
Agenda Item No. 88
December 14, 2010
Page 97 of 110
EXHIBIT A-2
COMMERCIAL "C" SUBDISTRICT
LIST OF ALLOWABLE USES
1. Uses and structures that are accessory and incidental to the Commercial Permitted
Principal Uses within the Sonoma Oaks MPUD.
2. Retail sales and/or display areas as accessory to the principal use, not to exceed
an area greater than 20 percent of the gross floor area of the permitted principal
use.
3. Essential services, including water and sewer lines, natural gas lines, electrical
transmission and distribution lines, sewage lift stations and water pumping stations,
essential service wells and wells permitted by the South Florida Water Management
District (SFWMDl or the Florida Department of Environmental Services (FDEPl,
and govemment facilities (including law enforcement, fire, emergency medical
services and facilities, pUblic park and public library services and facilities)
4. Water management facilities and related structures
5. Irrigation treatment and distribution facllitles
6. Temporary sewage treatment facilities
7. Lakes including lakes with bulkheads or other architectural or structural bank
treatments
8. Temporary construction, sales, and administrative offices for the developer and
developer's authorized contractors and consultants. including necessary access
ways, parking areas. and related uses. Temporary uses for sales centers may be
serviced by temporary well and septic systems,
9. Landscape features including, but not limited to, landscape buffers, berms. fences,
and walls
10. Uses accessory to ILF, ALF, CCRC and/or skilied nursing facilities, such as, but
not limited to, on-site dining facilities, group transportation services and wellness
centers.
DeveloDment Standards:
A. Exhibit B-2 sets forth the development standards for land uses within the MPUD
Commercial (C) Subdistrict. Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be
those specified in applicable sections of the GMP and LOC in effect as of the date of
approval of the SDP or subdivision plat.
B. Maximum CommerciaVOffice Square Footage: The 8.93+1- acre Commercial Tract
("C") shall not be developed with more than 120.000 square feet of
commercialfoffice uses in accordance with the permitted principal and accessory
uses set forth above. IlF, ALF, CCRC, skilled nursing and similar facilities shall not
count toward the 120,000 square feet of commerciaVoffice square footage, and shall
not exceed a FAR of 0.6.
Ooerational Characteristics:
The developer of ILF. AlF, CCRC andlor skilled nursing facilities, its successors or
assigns, shall provide the following services andlor be subject to the following
operational standards:
1, The facility shall be for residents 55 years of age and older.
2. There shall be on-site dining for the residents,
Revised October 21,2010
Sonoma Oaks MPUD
Page 5 of 15
Agenda Item No. 88
December 14, 2010
Page 98 of 110
EXHIBIT A.2
COMMERCIAL "C" SUBDISTRICT
LIST OF ALLOWABLE USES
3. Group transportation services shall be provided for residents for the purposes of
grocery and other types of shopping. Individual transportation services shall be
coordinated for the residents' individualized needs including but not limited to
medical office visits,
4. There shall be an on-site manager/activities coordinator to assist residents with their
individual needs, The manager/coordinator shall also be responsible for arranging
trips to off-site events as well as planning for lectures, movies, music and other
entertainment for the residents at the on-site clubhouse,
5. A wellness center shall be provided on-site. Exercise and other fitness programs
shall be provided for the residents.
6. Each unit shall be equipped to notify emergency service providers in the event of a
medical or other emergency.
7. Each unit shall be designed to allow a resident to age-in-place. For example,
kitchens may be easily retrofitted to lower the sink to accommodate a wheelchair
bound resident or bathrooms may be retrofitted to add grab bars.
Revised October 21, 2010
Sonoma Oaks MPUD
Page 6 of 15
Agenda Item No. 88
December 14, 2010
Page 99 of 110
EXHIBIT A-3
NATIVE PRESERVE "P" SUBDISTRICT
ALLOWABLE USES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Permitted Uses:
No building or structure. or part thereof. shall be erected, altered or used, or land used,
in whole or in part, for other than the following:
A. Principal Uses:
1 . Open spaces/Nature preserves
B. Accessory Uses:
Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses
and structures, including, but not limited to:
1. Water management structures
2. Mitigation areas
3. Footpaths and boardwalks, provided any clearing required to facilitate these uses
does not impact the minimum required vegetation.
DeveloDment Standards:
5.73 acres of native vegetation shall be preserved on-site, in accordance with the MPUD
Master Plan provided as Exhibit C of this Ordinance.
Revised October 21, 2010
Sonoma Oaks MPUD
Page 7 of 15
Agenda Item No, 88
December 14, 2010
Page 100 of 110
EXHIBIT B.1
RESIDENTIAL uR" SUBDISTRICT
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
DEVELOPMENT SINGLE MULTI-FAMILY CLUBHOUSE! ILF/ALF/CCRCI
STANDARDS FAMILY RECREATION SKILLED
(ATTACHED BUILDINGS NURSING
AND UNITS.
DETACHED)
PRINCIPAl.. STRUCTURES
MINIMUM LOT 2,250 S.F. 10,000 S.F. 10,000 S.F. N/A
AREA PER UNIT
MINIMUM LOT 35 FEET 100 FEET N/A N/A
WIDTH
MINIMUM 1,000S.F. 1,000 S.F./D.U. N/A N/A
FLOOR AREA
MIN FRONT 15 FEET 15 FEET 15 FEET 15 FEET
YARD'
MIN SIDE YARD 5 FEET 15 FEET 15 FEET 15 FEET
MIN REAR 15 FEET 20 FEET 20 FEET 20 FEET
YARO
MIN PRESERVE 25 FEET 25 FEET 25 FEET 25 FEET
SETBACK
MIN DISTANCE 10 FEET Yo THE ZONED Yo THE ZONED Yo THE ZONED
BElWEEN BUILDING BUIILDING BUILDING
STRUCTURES HEIGHT OF HEIGHT. NOT HEIGHT OF THE
THE TALLEST LESS THAN 30 TALLEST
BUILDING FEET BUILDING
MAX BUILDING NTE 35 45 FEET ZH or NTE 45 FEET NTE 61 FEET
HEIGHT FEET ZH or 55 FEET AH2 ZH or 55 FEET ZH or 69 FEET
45 FEET AH AH AH2
MAXIMUM N/A N/A N/A 0.6
FLOOR AREA
RATIO
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
FRONT' 10 FEET 10 FEET 20 FEET 10 FEET
SIDE 5 FEET- 5 FEET YoBH 5 FEET
REAR 5 FEET 5 FEET 10 FEET 5 FEET
PRESERVE 10 FEET 10 FEET 10 FEET 10 FEET
SETBACK
DISTANCE 6/0 FEET 6 FEET 10 FEET 6 FEET
BElWEEN
PRINCIPAL
STRUCTURE
MAX BUILDING NTE 35 45 FEET ZH or NTE 45 FEET NTE 61 FEET ZH
HEIGHT FEET ZH or 55 FEET AH' ZH or 55 FEET or 69 FEET AH,
45 FEET AH, AH, whichever wh ichever is less'
whichever is is less
less
Revised October 21,2010
Sonoma Oaks MPUD
Page 8 of 15
-'~-~"'._~'t--".....---
Agenda Item No. 86
December 14, 2010
Page 101 of 110
EXHIBIT B-1
RESIDENTIAL "R" SUBDISTRICT
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
NTE = Not To Exceed
BH .. Building Height
ZH = Zoned Height
AH .. Actual Height
Notes:
1 , Setback from lake easements for all accessory uses and structures shall
be zero feet (0') or greater.
2. No buildings greater than fifty-one feet (51') in height (zoned) shall be
permitted within two hundred feet (200') of the westem property line. All
buildings within one hundred feet (100') of the western property line shall
not be oriented parallel to the western property line.
3. Front yards shall be measured as follows: If the parcel is served by a
public right-of-way, setback is measured from the adjacent right-of-way
line. If the parcel is served by a private road, setback is measured from
the back of curb (if curbed) or edge of pavement (if not curbed).
4. If ILF. ALF, CCRC, skilled nursing or similar facilities are located in the
Residential District in an area adjacent to the Preserve, the Preserve
acreage shall be allocated to the FAR even if it is platted in a separate
tract.
5. Minimum side yard setback for principal and accessory structures may be
reduced as long as the minimum distance between principal structures is
a minimum of ten feet (10').
GENERAL: Except as provided for herein, all criteria set forth above shall be understood to be
in relation to individual parcel or lot boundary lines, or between structures. Condominium,
and/or homeowners' association boundaries shall not be utilized for determining development
standards.
Revised October 21, 2010
Sonoma Oaks MPUD
Page 9 of 15
Agenda Item No. 88
December 14, 2010
Page 102 of 110
EXHIBIT B-2
COMMERCIAL "C" SUBDISTRICT
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
PRINCIPAl USES ACCESSORY USES ILF/AlF/CCRC/SKlLLED
NURSING
MINIMUM LOT AREA 10.000 Sa. Fl. N/A N/A
MINIMUM LOT WIDTH 100 Fl. N/A N/A
MINIMUM YARDS fExtemal)
From Wolfe Road 25 Ft. SPS 25Ft.
From Collier Blvd. 25 Ft. SPS 50 Ft.
From Looo Road 25 Ft. SPS 25Ft.
MINIMUM YAROS Ilnternall
Internal Drives/ROW 15Ft. 10Ft. 15 Ft.
Rear 10 Ft. 10 Ft. 10 Ft.
Side 10 Ft. 10 Fl. 10 Ft.
Lakes 25Ft. 10Ft. 25 Ft.
PRESERVE SETBACK 25 Ft. 10 Ft. 25Ft.
MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN 10 ft. or Y, the sum 10Ft. 10ft. or Y, the sum of the
STRUCTURES of the zoned zoned building heights'
buildina heiQhts'
MAX BUILDING HEIGHT 61 feet ZH or 69 feet AH
NOT TO EXCEED
Retail Build/nlls'" 42ft,ZH 42ft. ZH N/A
Office Buildinos'" 42 ft. ZH 42 ft. ZH N/A
Combination Retail and 42 ft. ZH 42 ft. ZH N/A
Office-
ILF/ALF/CCRC/Skilled N/A N/A NTE 61 FEET
N ursine ZH or 69 FEET AH
MINIMUM FLOOR AREA 1000 Sa. Ft." N/A N/A
MAX. GROSS LEASABLE 120,000 Sq. Ft. N/A N/A
AREA
MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA N1A N1A 0.6
RATIO
. whichever Is greater
.. Per principal structure, on the finished first floor. Kiosk vendor, concessions, and temporary
or mobile sales structures shall be permitted to have a minimum floor area of twenty-five (25)
square feet and shall adhere to the development standards listed in accessory uses above.
"'Actual height, as defined in the LDC shall not exceed 50 feet.
SPS " same as principal structure
BH = Building Height
ZH = Zoned Height
AH = Actual Height
Revised October 21,2010
Sonoma Oaks MPUD
Page 10 of 15
1_0__ . " 3~ I, 3~ J~
.~;: i "~~~ s~ l. os~ m
O"~. ~t.L "..~ ~~ ~. !.~., 0'
i~~ ~i ~~! ~~~ ~o ~Z! :i~ :'\; ,,0.."",10. ~S
, , !~
.. ~ \ \ '\ '_ '___ __~__,~O~1:~B~~~_~~i511 /
II ~; rr ~~~~=~ --~ if r= ~~~ --= ~ ~- ~r-I~
L'~_. nt, I U II U ·
r.. f~(~~-c -: -- ru_ I J
r,;. ;l~:;; ""
I -0. 1",
~- "~~
~g'" II
~~ lL~e ! ,I
~~ 0: I r
~~ -- - Iii'
"
~! ,: i
:J I
11
I'
II
II
I
~k~_c">. _~/
!n..
/
(/
'm ~
~. ,
"~ ~
! ~
~
/
,
~l'n~
.~ ~Ih~
't(~ :n;
i}iE ;ji
iN~~
.!k~
lim~
'i~~il
"
....
~ 'JJO ~
~ ''-I;.,:):t:l G:l
:ii ~ ~O" ~
<C ~C'lE 8 ~
a, 9~-5~ ~
en ...l.o:Q50
~ ~d'~&1 ~
Z;!;~~~~'
:::l ,....'!.7.E',.
Vi
~ i=:
() :!i
'"
~ ~
<Xi .,.,
..0 ~
N";
;e, ~
N h
~
1):1 ~
'" z
:;; e
~ ill
Vi ~
UJ
Vi
:o!
o '"
s.!J
~
~
-l ~ :;: ~ p
s ~ ~ "' ~
~~~~~ ~
!J.l "" (J'> ~ p ~
~~tr;2t3~~
8i~" o~
.
::lu:
-"
.'
~~
,0
Vl ~~
~ ~~
o ;;"
z 2~
~ ~!i;
~, :~
ml ~@
<Ill?;"'"
;il ~ ~
~I ;OQ
~I
u~
[JlJll 0
0::
$
~
o~
.,
'I
S,
~~
,
;
f
,
:;; Q
, ~
. 0
< z
" <
< ~
~ s
z
<
~ (;
i G
z z
.) ~
~ z
- 8
~ -
8 C
~ ~
~ Q
2 (\
~ ~
, ~
z
~
~ ~
~ .~
~ ~
"
5 F'
,
,
j
E~
"<
zu
~~
~::;
j~
<.
5<2
2~
.-
U
~e
'z
6~
cr,
~~
Q~
'0
::;~
~~
;."
P"
""a
~~
~'"
s:J
~~
g~
"'
-~ ._-.........
-'-~.~---------
-'-~~----
n..
;f.
om
!.
'l
I
(
~!;~~!~
~~~i:lii?!l
.<~~h.
.'~...'
;!,~~~
.n'.~
ilii~~
~o..~l
~l~=~i
;o-!its:c
- ~
r'l' II
,-,j' .. ~
pi I
~il ~.
"I i~
n
-:-, -<i~1
~ j~ ~ ..
~ o~ · ~I
- ,~ ~ ~
::: ~, !.
~ Il i ~
""~1
'"
,
00 (;,
N ~
r~j(l
..xl!
.-;
..,.
"'1
"',
~~
~
t-
Z
W
:;;
UJ
Vi
L5
Vi
Vi
W
()
()
'"
()
::J
al
:0
a.
o
:':!
....'
:5'
a.!
z
OJ
UJ
o
'1:
b
~
~
()
~!
..-
o
..-
\.7
Q~~
~~=
~~
~ . "
, . ~
- ~ i
li .
~ I
.H!!
I
, II,
ill
II
, j;Ji
- I
I: .i
~ l'!:J
_I ;:)11
i
i
J
,
" - <
_.__..__._-~._.~-~.._._----_.._..~--..__.._-_.._----_...._--
_.__ ... ... ........-_'_ ___11_
~.
~
'0
<
"
~
,
,
j
,\;;'~'" -
~!1;~-
· "ij .00
,
,
,
~
<
,
,
~~~
Agenda Item No, 88
December 14 2010
Page 104 ~f 110
EXHIBIT D
LEGAl DESCRIPTION
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BEING 37.5+/- ACRES, IS COMPRISED OF 3 ADJOINING
PARCELS THAT ARE LOCATED IN SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,
AND IS FULLY DESCRIBED AS:
THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF
SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
LESS THE EAST 100 FEET PREVIOUSLY DEEDED FOR STATE HIGHWAY RIGHT.OF.WAY
(PARCEL 1).
THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LESS THE EAST 100 FEET PREVIOUSLY DEEDED FOR
STATE HIGHWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY (PARCEL 2).
THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; SUBJECT TO EXISTING RESTRICTIONS AND
RESERVATIONS OF RECORD; AND EXCEPTING THE EAST 100 FEET THEREOF
PREVIOUSLY CONVEYED FOR HIGHWAY RIGHT-OF.WAY (PARCEL 3).
Please note; legal description has not changed; it is being provided with this submittal as a
courtesy. ;
Revised October 21, 2010
Sonoma Oaks MPUD
Page 12 of 15
Agenda Item No. 88
December 14, 2010
Page 105 of 110
EXHIBIT E
LIST OF REQUESTED DEVIATIONS
Deviation 1 from LOC Subsection 6,06,01(0) (Section III of the proposed Construction
Standards Manual intended to be adopted as part of the County's Administrative Code) that
requires right-of-way for local roads to be at least sixty feet (60') wide to allow a roadway width
of fifty feet (50'). Please note the reduced roadway width will not diminish the level of service
standard and all supporting water, sewer and utilities will be accommodated. The minimum
right-of-way or roadway width to be utilized for all project streets in the Sonoma Oaks MPUD
shall be fifty feet (50').
Justification: In order to accommodate the County's demand for Collier Boulevard and Wolfe
Road right-of-way acreage that resulted in a total loss of 3.5 acres, and to meet the required
native vegetation area of 5.73 acres, a roadway width of 50 feet Is required.
Revised October 21,2010
Sonoma Oaks MPUD
Page 13 of 15
Agenda Item No. 88
December 14, 2010
Page 106 of 110
EXHIBIT F
DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS
Transportation
The development of this MPUD Master Development Plan shall be subject to and governed by
the following conditions:
A. The developer has conveyed right-of-way for Collier Boulevard and Wolfe Road: (1) Collier
Boulevard - a strip of land 65 feet in width and running the entire length of the property
frontage on Collier Boulevard; and (2) Wolfe Road. a strip of land 80 feet In width and 540
feet in length along Wolfe Road frontage of the project. No further conveyances are
required.
B. The roadway within the Sonoma Oaks project connecting Wolfe Road and Mission Hills
Boulevard shall be an unplatted pUblic access easement which shall be created prior to the
issuance of the first building permit and shall be constructed prior to the issuance of the first
certificate of occupancy. All storm water run-off associated with the access easement shall
be accommodated on-site via the Sonoma Oaks storm water management system. All
storm water management infrastructure shall be designed in accordance with South Florida
Water Management District and Collier County standards and the proper easements shall
be recorded. The Sonoma Oaks property owners' association shall be granted ownership,
access rights and maintenance responsibility for the publiC access easement and all
infrastructure serving the public access easement.
C. The development within this project shall be limited to 583 adjusted two-way, PM peak hour
trips (correspondent to the highest trip generation scenario of those proposed in the
updated traffic stUdy information dated April 12, 2010); allowing for flexibility in the
proposed uses without creating unforeseen impacts on the adjacent roadway network. For
purposes of calculation of the weekday PM peak hour trip generation for this PUD, the
lesser of the weekday PM peak hour tr!rs as calculated In the Institute of Traffic Engineer's
(lTE) Report, titled Trip Generation, 8 Edition or the trip generation as calculated in then
current ITE Trip Generation Report Shall be utilized.
Utilities
The development of this MPUD Master Development Plan shall be subject to and governed by
the fOllowing conditions:
A. The Owner will convey to Collier County an easement for a parcel of land for a well and
pump-house, at no cost to the County. The size of the well and pump-house parcel shall
be the minimum necessary to accommodate these improvements and shall not exceed
10,000 square feet. The Owner shall also convey to Collier County a 20 foot non-exclusive
easement for access to the well site parcel and for underground pipelines, at no cost to the
County. The general location of the well site parcel and the 20 foot access and utility
easement and the configurations are indicated on the PUD master pian. The precise
locations of the easements shall be determined at the time of first site development plan or
subdivision plat approval. Collier County may also use the public access easement
described in Transportation Commitment Condition B of this Exhibit F to install its
Revised October 21, 2010
Sonoma Oaks MPUD
Page 14 of 15
Agenda Item No 88
December 14,2010
Page 107 of 110
EXHIBIT F
DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS
underground pipelines and other utilities by coordinating the location with Owner. Collier
County agrees to design and construct the pump-house, fencing, landscaping, signage,
and lighting, and any other site improvements in the well site parcel so as to conform to,
and be harmonious with, the architecture of the commercial or residential site location,
depending upon the final site location, In exchange for the easements, at a minimum,
Collier County agrees to provide a type C buffer around the perimeter of the welVpump
house area, and the developer of Sonoma Oaks shall review and approve the design of the
welVpump house and the landscaping prior to construction or installation. At or before site
development plan approval if Owner has not platted the easements, Collier County shall
prepare at its expense any necessary easement documents and legal descriptions for the
well site and access easements which documents are subject to the Owner's review and
approval.
Environmental
The development of this MPUD Master Development Plan shall be subject to and governed by
the following conditions:
A. All conservation areas shall be designated as conservation/preservation tracts or
easements on all construction plans, and shall be recorded on the plat with protective
covenants per, or similar to, those found in Section 704.06. of the Florida Statutes.
Conservation areas shall be dedicated on the plat to the project's homeowner's association
or like entity for ownership and maintenance responsibility and to Collier County with no
responsibility for maintenance.
B. Development must comply with the guidelines and recommendations of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USF&WS) and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
(FFWCC) regarding potential impacts to "listed species.' Where gopher tortoises or other
protected species have been observed on site, a Habitat Management Plan shall be
submitted to Environmental Services Staff for review and approval prior to site
plan/construction plan approval. '
C. 5.73 acres of native vegetation shall be preserved on-site, in accordance with the MPUD
Master Plan provided as Exhibit C of this Ordinance.
Revised October 21, 2010
Sonoma Oaks MPUD
Page 15 of 15
(QOO
co~~
,O~
(""/O>..!4-
- ')
L J
2a;..-
-.D Q)
"'EOJ
'OUJ'"
cuo....
'" "
;fo
t- Z ~
00
~~ ~ i=
~8 0-<(
"~\ g: g
i ~ lr-1f1 I~
1_11 ~I' ~! lir l~!ir~~,
r:1 h ) ~ ~ ~Il ,
I ~1'~ I' lir u 11 i!
-r-"'''''''- Jill '-r- r.B -
c.::-'-""H.! 11! j, i ~
1.-~ ! . I W j; u_ .T
!" il. _ _ "._L!'_ _'__'lliJ i L
I~J I I~~ O~::;":.:.~! -1!1, ~-.
I;! , r-~-- -r Ii .
"10!- -'.< ,-
"' Ni~I'Llcr~'-"-~-- l~"
- - -L'
...=L _
<l:
o
~
,
l ,
,
,
, 0
; -
~g :::
--
( ~<;;6 ,n)
w
3
rn
o
u
>
"
z
o
8
_ 1
"
u
~
"
o
::l
0..
z
o
w-
f-~
",0
o
~
"
Cl~
::JQ
o..~
~~
~
J
, 0 -~~1;~1~~
.
" g "
.
::> 0
D. >
0:: ~ ,
u
<
II
-
,
"
j
"
"
~~
!
"
,
~ i
,
a~
,
" 'i
i
8
,-
,-
,
~~
""\-T
>>Jj'~IlNn"
.-- -.
,
u
08
::> ~
0..><
cr: ~
05
:::J"
o..~
~~
<l:
l\iN\iJ
WN'o':J
0 < ~
:J 0 , Cl~
D- o 0 ::>~
>
~ 0 lL~
z
~ .
00
::l~
o..U
o:~
<
Jl'1<)S D1 ~aN /
.-
---.---- .-+----.
,
,
~..
'i
!
~
i
!
,
8
'.
"'
""
r
~
N~:
r
~
~ ~ ~
!
m"'^Jlnoe ~J1110"
1O"'>f'~
.~~
,I
~
..,~:
j'
~
0'
-,.
I'
. n-
,
0t:!~
<I"
,"
,
0;g~
'" ~~.'
8'
~
i
GH~^"n,?~ Nv,,01
,-
i~ on
,
,-
., .
,-
gi - "j~j~Hl!NI
!-
,3
~t[
~ ~i-
_.~~ ,~._-,
O~\IA3lIl013
.
~
,
05
::>z
0..9
"
.
~]1ll0J
w
o ~
::>>
0.. ~
~~
"
~
z-
,
,
t::!'
~ ~ ~
.
,
~
a
, -
.. -
D'
,"
i
~~
'~
~ !I,LI'
'. 0"
" "
I.~ ~ ~ i
!
I
,
'" ~ ~ ~
-..e
gE!
.
o
UH\fA'llrlOB 4t..,
~
,
.
a..
<(
~
<..?
z
z
o
N
<0
'"
rY
"
"-
o
o
N
"
o
::J
!L
"
Z
o
l-
I-
UJ
!L
a..
<(
~
o
i
z
o
I-
<(
o
o
---l
i
'I z h~ i !. .~ I
<(g~ .e "^ -'.
g .~. ~. '">
,," t 20 0_ ~; :8' .....
=~. "'<- .~- i z" ~..
z" ~.~ 9;:; li 6~ 0
~.j ~;;; o. ~B .0. iB ,,~~ ~~ l', ~
.0. jjl~ l. ~~ " ~ .....
COLLIER' BLVO~ leR 9511 19
, ,
~~ ! , , I
--,- --,-~-,- __':..i. ~!_-~
~~ ~ ,- .:....j - - - I z
~tj 5u
ou I I I ~~ o"-!:::
.~ l ." ~~~
~~ j a..t:!i:
I U I u :/~
I , I ; ~
. '--- I 8 " ~
'-- , " 0
~ g .n ~
~ p~ - ~ j
~. .~ ~ liS
ON 'Ij.. '" .~ " I
, 00 I: "' .
og o.
-0 '.
~g j ~; Agenda It Q ,8
'< ",
~o :m ~ ~8 Decembeo 10
o~ ~ ! Page 1 0
~~ I
,. i I "1
:;:'!Z 'I '" ,-
~~ ~ ;;s " 8~ II
, ~< " ~~
0::: ~ SO ~ ~' il'
."
~ "~ ' .
z ~ ~
0 81
CL Vi ~. " i
~
" ~ ~
. ~
p~ ~ "
~. ~ I
.~ "i'.'~d
, o .~o !l!
~ ! CL / ~~~~~d
~ / ~~g~~~:ii
~i~~~! ~ ~
~i~'~g~~ l~*~ i 5
~ ~ ~6~~ , ~
gi~i~i~ ~ S "'!a~!1l~;l5 w ::li/;'l"
o~ ~ E ~f ::>ii'l:;! ~~2~g~
~~a;f~~~ ';2;!; ~~~lll
~;:;~~~~~ ~~ ~ .~~<j~ P"~~i
1:';::i= ~- 0
~~~:;;I:l'::; 8~ ;il~~~ .~ <1:
'~o~"! ~~ l ~~~~q 0 2~
m~~~
.z66~i 0<1:
~lS~~~o tl(:5;:J1:i~
:q::> ~~ ~s::;~~ 20
~c::;..~ 'l~.~~ 0
f...<<i""~
,'2<<i >-~~~::3o Vl
~~~~@ >~
.- . 0
~
f-'
W'
W
u..
W
"'
'"
OJ
o
UJ
u;
f-
Z
OJ
UJ
W
"'
U
'"
"
>- ~
"'
'" 7.
:::; ~
:::; e
~
OJ ~
UJ ~
W
UJ
OJ
0, '"
z' 1--1
'"
~ J
/,
t/1 Cl ~ H
8:J ~;j '""
.-. -f t;:;
::.i ~ ;;~.
l)lflt::t;j ;t
~~3~ ~
...;"'- l) Z CJ
~~~~ ~
6 - g; ~ g
=~~~ 5
N
o
~
~ ~ 0 <
~ " ," N
~ N ,.; "
~
~
~ ~
~ ~ ~ 0 ,
~ 'J', ,
" ~ ~ ~ ~ I"
$ ~ ::: " ~
~ u ~
u ~ ~ u
~ ~ 0 ~ 0 ~
~ ,~ ~ w
0 ~ ~ :::> w ~
0 ~ ~ ~ 9 1<
0 ~ 'j 0 ~
u z 2 10
if-
U 'L
~I r I I I ,-'
III " 'I
:,]
g f- jl.i
~ ,. z
W
, :::; 'I'~il
W
UJ, o 1:.1.
~ iiil ~ I'~I
~ '.ill
;::' =p UJ I i"
(, UJ
, c W
co c U
;~ Eci U
f ~ , '"
, ?~ I
? c t u
,'2 :J
:1' " (lJ
" ~ OJ
0 ~ "-
" I
"' " 0
9 N , ~ W
v" I f-
0 I f-
" , '"
s " -' ~
c :1, "-
j{i z
fj t p OJ ~
'.' t ~ w
0 .
~ - ~
, fe: " z
~
~ ~( ~ "'
~
., c-'"' '"
... !~, :; u
r-:': a:
>-
f-
':....-.__~__.__u._..._____....:....._____...~_..~";;:-..;;__~..=.::.::.;~..:::;----=-__":':::.~..:::'-=
Naples DaDy News' Sunday, November 28, 201(1 · 21D
NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE
Notice is hereby given that on Tuesday, Oecember 14. 2010. in the Boardroom. 3rd
Floor, Al;iministration Building, Collier County Government (eoter, 3299 East Ta-
miami Trail, Naples. Florida, the Board of County Commissioners will consider the
enactment of a County Ordinance. The meeting will commence at 9:00 A.M. The
title of the proposed Ordinance is as follows: ,
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COlliER COUN.
TY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 04'41, AS AMENDED, THE COLlIER
COUNTY LAND DEVelOPMENT .CODE, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE
ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY.
FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATlAS MAP OR MAPS BY
CHANGING THE ZONING ClASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPER.
TY FROM A MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT (MPUD)
TO AN MPUD ZONING DISTRICT, FOR A PROJECT KNOWN AS SONOMA OAKS TO
ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A MAXIMUM OF lZ0,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMER.
ClAL DEVELOPMENT AND/OR SENIOR HOUSING UNITS INCLUDING INDEPENDENT
LIVING, ASSISTED LIVING AND SKILLED NURSING UNITS AT A FAR OF ,60 ON THE
COMMERCIAL PORTION AND A MAXIMUM OF 114 RESIDENTIAL DWelLING UNITS
AND/OR A MAXIMUM OF 4S6 SENIOR HOUSING UNITS INCLUDING INDEPENDENT
LIVING, ASSISTED liVING AND SKILLED NURSING FACILITY UNITS ON THE RESIDEN.
TIAL PORTION, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF COLLIER BOULE.
VARD (CR 9S1) BETWEEN WOLFE ROAD AND LOOP ROAD, IN SECTlON 34. TOWN.
SHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, flORIDA, CONSISTING OF 37.5
+/. ACRES: PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 05-61, THE FOR.
MER SONOMA OAKS MPUD; AND BY pROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. ",': "
" .... {,. ".,...., .
Petition: PUDA-2007-AR-11961. Voila, II, ll( represented by .
Margaret Perry, of WilsonMiIler, Inc., and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire, of Cole-
man, Yovanovlch and Koester, P.A., Is _requesting an amendment to Sonoma -Oaks
Mixed UsePlanne(j Unit Development (MPUD) to . ,,', ,','
allow a maximum of 114 residential dwelling units and/or a l11aximu.m of 456'senior
housing units on the residential portion and up to 120,000 squa're feet 'of commer.
cial development andlor senior housing units at a FAR of 0.60 on the -8.93 acre com.
mercial portion of this 37.5 +/- acre total project. Senior housing units. include inde.
pendent living facilities, assisted living facilities andlor skilled nursing facilities. The
,ubl'ect property is located on the west side of Collier Boulevard (CR9S1) between
Wo fe Road and Loop Road, In Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Col-'
lier County, Florida.
A copy of the proposed Ordi.nance is on, file, with the Clerk to the Board and is
available for inspe~lon., AII,!~ter~sted~.ar;tj'es are jn~j~~~ to attend In.d be heard,:
"--.', ,',,:,:..-
NOTE: All persons wishing to speak. on any agenda item must register with the
County Manager prior to presentation of the agenda' item to ,be. addressed.
Individual speakers will be limited to 3 minutes on any item. The selection of an in-
dividual to speak on behalf of ~n ,organiz.ation or group Is encouraged. If recog-
nized by the Chairman, a spok~sperson,for a grQup or organization m!!ly be allotted
10 minutes to speak onan item. . - , ,.,
Persons wishing to have' written. Or graphic materials_ indu~ed infhe BQard agenda
packets must submit s.aid material a minimum of 3 weeks prior to the respective
public hearing. In any case, written materials intended to be considered by the
Board shall be submitted to the appropriate County staff a minimum of seven days
prior to the public hearing. All material used in presentation~ before the Board
will become a permanent part of the record. .
Any person who decides to appeal a de'(ision, of t,he 'Board will need a record of the
proceedings. pertaining thereto and therefore, may need to ensure: t~at a verbatim
record of the .proceeqings Is made, which record includes the telstimony and evi-
dence upon which the appeal is based. ' .
If you are a person with disability who needs any accommodation in order to par-
ticipate in thiS proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of
certain assistance. Please contact' the Collier County Facilities Management Depart~
ment, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Building W, Suite #101, Naples. Florida
34112, (239)252-8380. Assisted listening device$ for the . hearing impaired are 'avail-
able in the County Commissioners' Office.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, flORIDA
FRED COYLE, CHAIRMAN
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK. .
By: Martha Vergara, Deputy Clerk
(SEAL)
Nov~mhpr 'R ,n10
Nn1R77Q-=tQ
'","'!J
Agenda Item No. 88
December 14 2010
Page 11 0 ~f 110