CCPC Backup 10/21/2010 Rccpc
REGULAR
MEETING
BACKUP
DOCUMENTS
OCTOBER 21, 2010
AGENDA
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, OCTOBER 21,
2010, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING,
COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA:
NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY
ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION
OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK
ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO
HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA
PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO
THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS
INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE
APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE
PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC
WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE
AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO TI IE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
IF APPLICABLE,.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED
A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE,
MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS
MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON
WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY
3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -- August 25, 2010 EAR, August 27, 2010 EAR, September 16, 2010, September
20, 2010AUIR
6. BCC REPORT - RECAPS - October 12. 2010
7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
A. AUIR Review [Coordinator: Mike Bosi, Comprehensive Planning Manager]
1
B. CU- 2008 -AR- 14078: Cemex Construction Materials Florida, LLC, represented by Robert J.
Mulhere, AICP of RWA Consulting, Inc. and Will J. Dempsey, Esquire of Cheffy Passidomo, PA., is
requesting a Conditional Use within the Rural Agricultural Zoning District with a Mobile Home
Overlay and a Rural Land Stewardship Area Overlay (A- MHO- RLSAO), pursuant to Section
2.03.01.A.1.c.1 and Section 4.08.06.B.4.b. of the Collier County Land Development Code, to allow
earth mining and related processing and production of material for a project to be known as the
Immokalee Sand Mine. The 898± -acre subject property is located on the north side of SR 82,
approximately 1.2 miles west of the intersection with SR 29, in Sections 6 and 7, Township 46
South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP]
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 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± 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. [Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP]
B. CPSP - 2010 -3: A annual staff initiated petition amending the Capital Improvement Element of the
Collier County Growth Management Plan to incorporate updates based on the 2010 Annual Update and
Inventory Report on Public Facilities (AUIR), and additional staff analysis, including updates to the 5 -Year
Schedule of Capital Improvements (for Fiscal Years 2011 2015) and the Schedule of Capital
Improvements for Future 5 -Year Period (for Fiscal Years 2016 - 2020). [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt,
AICP, Principal Planner]
10. OLD BUSINESS
A. Review & Approval of the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance [Coordinator: Robert Wiley]
(CONTINUED FROM THE OCTOBER 7, 2010 MEETING)
11. NEW BUSINESS
12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM
13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA
14. ADJOURN
10/18/10 CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows /jmp
4
AGENDA ITEM 9 -A
CoiLer County
STAFF REPORT
TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: ZONING SERVICES - -LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION -- PLANNING & REGULATION
HEARING DATE: OCTOBER 21, 2010
SUBJECT: PUDA- 2007 -AR- 11961; SONOMA OAKS MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT(MPUD)
PROPERTY OWNER & APPLICANT /AGENT:
Owner /Applicant:
Voila II, LLC
c/o Todd Dubovy, Bessemer Trust
2240 Venetian Court
Naples, FL 34109
A¢ents:
Margaret Perry, AICP
WilsonMiller /Stantec
3200 Bailey Lane, Suite 200
Naples, FL 34105
REQUESTED ACTION:
Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire
Coleman, Yovanovich and Koester, P.A.
4001 Tamiami Trail N. Suite 300
Naples, FL 34103
The petitioner is asking the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) 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 areasa 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 maximum of 456 Independent
Living Units (ILF), Assisted Living Units (ALF); or a Continuing Care Retirement Community
(CCRC) that consists of any combination of those uses along with skilling nursing units. In lieu
Sonoma Oaks, PUDZ- 2007 -AR -11961 Page 1 of 18
October 21, 2010 CCPC
Revised 10/5/10
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 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 8.93 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 (ILF), Assisted Living Units (ALF), or a
Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC) 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.
GEOGRAPHIC 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)
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 PUD that would allow
development of a maximum of 112 dwelling units on the western portion of the site (28.12±
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 PUD
amendment petition.
The petitioner proposes the following changes to the residential portion of the project:
• Add the following uses: independent living units (ILF), 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 1015/10
WAR.
V
HERITAGE BAY
CREEK
TERAFINA
MIRA—
(WI
17
16
15
14
13
ZZ
OA MN.
A
ESTATES IN
OWE CYPRESS
WAIL LONCSHORE
CIRCLE
TMIRASOL
20
21
XERITAGE
23 (DRI)
BAY
24
MPUD
DUDE CYPREroe)
GGFD STATION #73
d
PRESWICK LANE
RPUD
PALERMO COVE
NAPLEBdMMOKALEE ROAD
C.R. 348
SUMMIT
d RICXUNO
LANES
2a
S
TUSCANY
W
SITE
GOLDEN GATE ESTATES
28
27
HABITAT 25
VANDERBILT
UNIT 97
HERITAGE
25
CRYSTAL
N'DOOCREST
COUNTRY CLUB
WOLFE ROAD
RICAS GREENS
LANE
LAKE
INDIGO
LAKES
BRITTANY BAY
ACORN W Y
A
YIARM SPRINGS
APARTMENTS
ACORN WAY
..M
.....
BRISTOL BUTTONWOOD
STANDING
:......:':::'
PINES PRESERVE
SONOFIAOAKS::: ::':::'::'
...............................
Z6
Q
V
PALERMO SUMMIT PLACE
DOVE IN NAPLES
...
PROJECT
32
Is (NODt)
_
GOLDEN GATE ESTATES
33
VANDERBILT LOCATION
34
UNIT N
Q
R
ACO N W Y A
COUNTRY CLUB
:i5)i:(CU• iii ?iiiZv:!ru ?i......'.ii3ii
?iii' )iii:
NOLi CREEK
B KWDOD 35 36
RPUD
MIs8r
US
BUCKS RUN
BOXWOOD
VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD
MISSION CHURCH
WOLF CREEK
me"
CARUNA
AGE
ON HI
ACORN
� MNEYARDS
2
(DRI)
q
3
2
5
�d GOLDEN GATE
ESTATES
GOLDEN .ATE ESTATES
UMT R
GOLDEN GATE ESTATES
UNIT J
GOLDEN GALE ESTATES
UNIT B
UNIT 95
a
BUCKS RUN
U
O
PUD
GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD
MISSION HILLS
w{
3
U
K
MPUD
PUD
11
12
MNEYAADS
(DR')
g
10
GOLDEN GATE ESTATES
GOLDEN GATE ESTATES
B
GOLDEN GATE
GOLDEN DATE ESTATES
UNIT 1
UNIT 0
UNIT 5
ESTA ES
UNIT 32
PINE RIDGE ROAD
MARTS BOULEVARD
ASTRON
(C.R. 883)
BRCC �3
PLAZA
�
16
15
GOLDEN GATE ESTATES
17
COWEN GATE
GOLDEN GATE ESTATES
UNIT 27
13
An
GOLDEN GATE ESTATES
EVA1E5
UNIT 23
14
GOLDEN ESTATEs
UNIT JS
UNIT 3A
FPkL
UGl
SUNCATE
CENTER
GREEN BOULEVARD
4
LOCATION MAP ZONING MAP
PETITION #PUDA- 2007- AR- 11961
V
ZZ
A
ACE
CIRCLE
Lm
MPUD
N
GGFD STATION #73
d
PRESWICK LANE
RPUD
PALERMO COVE
PUD
SITE
LOCATION
VANDERBILT
COUNTRY CLUB
WOLFE ROAD
ACORN W Y
A
ACORN WAY
..M
.....
cu
:......:':::'
:::
::::::::::::::::::':::::........................................
SONOFIAOAKS::: ::':::'::'
...............................
Z6
Q
V
...
3
Z
V
Q
R
ACO N W Y A
:i5)i:(CU• iii ?iiiZv:!ru ?i......'.ii3ii
?iii' )iii:
RPUD
BOXWOOD
RPUD
WOLF CREEK
MI
ON HI
ACORN
WAY
MPUD
a
BUCKS RUN
O
PUD
m
MISSION HILLS
w{
3
U
MPUD
PUD
CAROLINA VILLAGE
MISSION CHURCH
LOCATION MAP ZONING MAP
PETITION #PUDA- 2007- AR- 11961
2
LAND USE SUMMARY ACRES UNITS /SQUARE FEET
R RESIDENTIAL 15.02 114 DWELLING UNITS
(456ILF, ALF, SKILLED
NURSING UNITS ON
'R' DESIGNATED AREAS)
® C COMMERCIAL 8.93 120,000 SQUARE FEET
{ p NATIVE PRESERVE 5.73
❑oo RIGHTS OF WAY
- PUBLIC EASEMENT 2.06
- DEDICATED 3.50
0 " OTHER 2.26
TOTAL 37.50
INCLUDES BUFFERS, PERIMETER BERM, OPEN SPACE, PUED WELL Bit.
MPUD MASTER PLAN NOTES
1. WITHIN THE MPUD BOUNDARIES THERE WILL BE A MINIMUM OF 102 ACRBS00 %OF 34 (375M.5)
DEDICATED RIGHT -OF -WAY) OF OPEN SPACE.
2. THE FACILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THIS PUD MASTER PLAN SHALL BE CONSIDERED
CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE.
3. THE DESIGN, LOCATION, AND CONFIGURATION OF THE LAND BMROVE.M[ENTS SHALL HE DEIRNED AT
EITHER SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL OR CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND PLAT APPROVAL.
4. THE ROADWAY WITHIN THE SONOMA OAKS PROJECT CONNECTING WOLFE ROAD AND MISSION InIS
BOULEVARD SHALL BE A 50' WIDE UNPLATTED PUBLIC ACCESS BAEEMEENT. ALLSTORM WATER
RUN-OFF ASSOCIATED WITH THE ACCESS EASEMENT SHALL BE ACCOMMODATED ONSTTE VIA THE
SONOMA OAKS STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. ALL STORMWATER 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 SOLE
OWNERSHIP, ACCESS RIGHTS AND MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT
AND ALL INFRASTRUCTURE SERVING THE PUBLIC ACClS3 EASEMENT.
5. 5.73 ACRES OF NATIVE VEGETATION SHALL BE PRESERVED ON-SM.
6. THE RESIDENTIAL TRACT IS DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE INTERNAL ROADWAYS AND WATER
MANAGEMENT.
yr ''
ti
THE PRESERVE SHALL SERVE AS THE CODE
REQUIRED LANDSCAPE BUFFER IN THIS AREA
(15' FOR MULTI - FAMILY DEVELOPMENT). IF,
AFTER THE EXOTIC REMOVAL, THE PRESERVE
VEGETATION FAILS TO MEET MINIMUM CODE
STANDARDS, ADDITIONAL RANT MATERIAL MAY
BE REQUIRED,
WOLF CREEK RPUD
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS
15'TYPE'B'
LANDSCAPE BUFFER
THE PRESERVE SHALL SERVE AS THE CODE
REWIRED LANDSCAPE BUFFER IN THIS AREA
(15' FOR MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT), IF,
AFTER THE EXOTIC REMOVAL THE PRESERVE
VEGETATION FAILS TO MEET MINIMUM CODE
STANDARDS, ADDITIONAL RANT MATERIAL MAY
BE REQUIRED.
4
20'TYPE'D'
LANDSCAPE BUFFER
5
PALERMO COVE RPUD
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
6
JPAICS.133A
O.R. BOOK 3902
PAGES 2677 -2679
BUILDING SETBACK
LINE (251
20'TYPE'D'
LANDSCAPE
BUFFER
"IFLOW, , FOR
PROPOSEDTURN
I LANE
fPARCEL 132
O.R. BOOK 3902
PAGES 2672 -2676
O.R BOOK 4068
IPAGES 303404 -
�- BUILDING SETBACK
LINE (251
20'TYPE'D'
LANDSCAPE
A BUFFER
0
r
r_
ITT PARCEL131
C.R. BOOK4D6B
Q.1 PAGES 3055-306
r
0 PARCEL 131
OA BOOK 3944 -
n PAGES 3849-3852
20'TYPE'D' 10'LANDSCAPE f EMBNLQ
THE PRESERVE SHALL SERVE AS THE CODE COWS MP HOUSE STATION LANDSCAPE BUFFER BUFFER STATION
A SP 64 28' 6' S' REQUIRED LANDSCAPE BUFFER IN THIS AREA MISSION HILLS PUD A
j (15' FOR MULTI - FAMILY DEVELOPENT). IF, 20' TYPE'C LANDSCAPE BUFFER COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
j SW Optional AFTER THE EXOTIC REMOVAL THE PRESERVE
SQP VEGETATION FAILS TO MEET MINIMUM CODE 20' NON- EXCLUSIVE UTILITY ACCESS
STANDARDS, ADDITIONAL PLANT MATEIAL MAY EASEMENT
I BE REQUIRED.
I
TYPICAL 50' WIDE UNPLATTED PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT
I 1 ( 2 I 3 4 B 6
I IN COORDINATION YNTFI: PREPARED BY: PREPARED FOR: SCALE: 1'200' PUD NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
w1honMiller SONOMA voIAll,uc DATE: SEPTEMBER27, 2010
OAKS MASTER PLAN G 101
m IsoeMRln,Inc .�. DAT MBER1oo -DDZ , KI'C
�masio, RolmFwwee
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 PUD. 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
RPUD, an undeveloped residential project approved at a density of 6.97 dwelling units
per acre, with a zoning designation of PUD. 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 PUD zoning
designation
West: Black Bear Ridge, Phase 1, 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 Page 3 of 18
October 21, 2010 CCPC
Revised 10/5110
PALERMO CCFC
COVE
c
SONOM
OAKS
WOLF CREEK
�C)x Vt t
EBUCKS RUN
_
r�ISsic `J
H ILLS
I II CHURCH
Excerpt from the PUD Map
Aerial Photo (subject site depiction is approximate)
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY:
Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject site is designated Urban (Urban Mixed Use
District, Urban Residential Subdistrict) on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) in the GMP. The
existing PUD was deemed consistent under the auspices of the Office and In -fill Commercial
(OIC) Subdistrict; no substantial changes to the commercial portion of this PUD are proposed as
part of this petition, therefore that consistency finding recommendation has not changed.
Based upon the project's location, Sonoma Oaks may be eligible for up to 7 du/ac., 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 Page 4 of 18
October 21, 2010 CCPC
Revised 1015/10
37.5 ac. total — 8.93 ac. Commercial = 28.57 ac. to calculate residential density
Eligible Density 4 du/ac. 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, sidewalks/trails,
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 Page 5 of 18
October 21, 2010 CCPC
Revised 1015/10
Transportation Element: Transportation Division Planning staff has 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
5.1. 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 seenario(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, PMpeak 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 trips as calculated in the Institute of
Traffic Engineer's (ITE) Report, titled Trip Generation, 8`h Edition or the trip
generation as calculated in the then current ITE Trip Generation Report shall be
utilized.
Conservation and Coastal Management Element (COME): 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 Page 6 of 18
October 21, 2010 CCPC
Revised 1015/10
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 finding 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 indicated 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 COME. 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 10.02.13.13.5, Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as
the "PUD Findings "), and Subsection 10.03.05.I, 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 staff has
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.
Utility 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 Page 7 of 18
October 21, 2010 CCPC
Revised 1015110
Emergency Management: 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. This amendment proposes several changes to the property
development regulations from what was approved in Ordinance Number 2005 -61 as shown
below.
AH –
Ordinance # 2005-61
Amendment proposal
FLOOR AREA
1,000 square feet/unit
750 square feet/unit
Single Family – 10 feet
15 feet or' /2 the
Multi- family -'/z the zoned building height of the
DISTANCE BETWEEN
building height,
whichever is greater
tallest building
Clubhouse -' /z the zoned building height but not
STRUCTURES
for multi - family and 12
less than 30 feet;
feet for all others
ILF /AFL /CCRC –' /z the zoned building height of
the tallest building
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 /AFL /CCRC – 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 CCRC type uses. A 15 -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 15 -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 Page 8 of 18
October 21, 2010 CCPC
Revised 10/5/10
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 forward 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 10/5110
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 County'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 county 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 county 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 county
for right -of -way; it would have been prudent to negotiate that settlement amount with the
understanding that any native vegetation lost within the lands provided to the county 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, finding
that in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3 the petitioner has demonstrated that "the
element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the
community" and LDC Section 10.02. 13.B.51, 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."
LDC Subsection 10.03.05.I.2 states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and
recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners ... shall
Sonoma Oaks, PUDZ - 2007 -AR -11961 Page 10 of 18
October 21, 2010 CCPC
Revised 1015/10
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 findings as to the PLID Master Plans' compliance with the
additional criteria as also noted below. [Staffs responses to these criteria are provided in bold,
non - italicized font]:
PUD Findines: LDC Subsection 10.02.13.13.5 states that, "In support of its recommendation, the
CCPC shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria"
(Staffs 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 buffering 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 Page 11 of 18
October 21, 2010 CCPC
Revised 10/5/10
S. 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 all 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 allow design flexibility in compliance with the
purpose and intent of the Planned Unit Development Districts (LDC Section 2.O3.06A).
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, finding 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 1O.O2.13.11.5.11, 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 Findinils: LDC Subsection 1O.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 bold font):
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 Page 12 of 18
October 21, 2010 CCPC
Revised 10/5110
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 proposed for change.
Staff is of the opinion that the proposed district boundaries are logically 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 policies that are reflected 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 capacity to serve the proposed project at this
time.
8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem;
Sonoma Oaks, PUDZ- 2007 -AR -11961 Page 13 of 18
October 21, 2010 CCPC
Revised 10/5/10
The proposed change should not create drainage or surface water problems because the
LDC specifically addresses prerequisite development standards that are designed to reduce
the risk of flooding on nearby properties. Additionally, 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 tall structures
would be included in the project; therefore the project should not significantly reduce 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 may or 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 change 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 Page 14 of 18
October 21, 2010 CCPC
Revised 10/5/10
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 of the 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
alteration 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 ofservice 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 Page 15 of 18
October 21, 2010 CCPC
Revised 10/5/10
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 the BCC during its advertised public hearing.
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 amount 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 maximum 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 county 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 Yovanovich 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 maximum 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 maximum 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 Page 16 of 18
October 21, 2010 CCPC
Revised 10/5110
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.
K
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 (bedf*fm 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, PU DZ-2007-AR-1 1961 Page 17 of 18
October 21, 2010 CCPC
Revised 1015110
PREPARED BY:
7 91ash"19 -
KAY DH$ELEM, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER ATE
DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
REVIEWED BY:
rL z L
3� 17.221-lD
YMO V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER DATI
DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
iA,g L 01j- Z9 -2,0f0
I LIAM D. LO Z, JR., P.E., DIRECTOR DATE
DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
APPROVED BY:
-1,)- /0
NICK ASALANGUIDA, DEPU ADMINISTRATOR DATE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION
Tentatively scheduled for the December 14, 2010 Board of County Commissioners Meeting
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION:
MARK P. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN
Sonoma Oaks, PUDZ- 2007 -AR -11961
October 21, 2010 CCPC
Revised 9/28/10
DATE
Page 17 of 17
Co��r CoH-H�ty
CONSISTENCY REVIEW MEMORANDUM
To: Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner
Zoning Services Section
From: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner
Comprehensive Planning Section
Date: May 25, 2010
Subject. Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Consistency Review (No. 7)
PETITION NUMBER: PUDA - 2007 -AR -11961
PETITION NAME: Sonoma Oaks PUDA
REQUEST: To amend the present Mixed -Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) composed of both
residential and commercial components to:
➢ introduce allowances to develop Independent Living Facility (ILF) units, Assisted Living Facility
(ALF) units, Continuing Care Retirement (CCR) units or skilled nursing facility units as residential
uses permitted in the MPUD; and,
➢ modify or update a number of Development Standards.
Permitted commercial uses remain unchanged, as does the approved commercial building floor area
(120,000 sq. ft.) and commercial tract acreage. Substantive changes are proposed however, to several
residential aspects of the Sonoma Oaks Mixed -Use Planned Unit Development e.g., acreages devoted to
certain uses, Assisted Living Facility (ALF) or other senior housing commitments and options.
LOCATION: The 37.5 acre subject property [comprised of a 28.57 acre residential component and an
8.93 acre commercial component] is located on the west side of Collier Boulevard (CR 951),
approximately one - quarter mile north of Vanderbilt Beach Road, in Section 34, Township 48 South,
Range 26 East.
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The subject property is designated Urban (Urban
Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict) on the Future Land Use Map in the Growth
Management Plan. The existing MPUD, approved in 2005 (Ordinance No. 2005 -61) by the Board of
County Commissioners, was found to be consistent under the Office and In -fill Commercial (OIC)
Subdistrict, and the Density Rating System.
Growth Management Division
Comprehensive Planning Section
The Office and In -fill Commercial Subdistrict is intended to allow low intensity office commercial or in -fill
commercial development on small parcels within the Urban -Mixed Use District located along arterial and
collector roadways where residential development, as allowed by the Density Rating System, may not be
compatible or appropriate. Lower intensity office commercial development attracts low traffic volumes on
the abutting roadway(s) and is generally compatible with nearby residential and commercial development.
For purposes of this Subdistrict, "abuts" and "abutting" excludes an intervening public street easement
(other than utilities) or right- of-way, except for an intervening local street; and "commercial" refers to C -1
through C-5 zoning districts and commercial components of PUDs.
The commercial uses found in the existing MPUD are generally comparable to the commercial uses
allowed in the Mission Hills PUD to the south. Uses contained in the Mission Hills PUD and the subject
PUD range in commercial intensity from CA to C -4 (predominantly C -2 and C -3 commercial uses).
When the Board of County Commissioners approved the existing PUD, they determined the commercial
uses, and other relevant project components and provisions, were consistent with the FLUE via the OIC
Subdistrict. No changes to the commercial component of this MPUD are proposed as part of this
petition.
Based upon the project's location, Sonoma Oaks may be eligible for up to 7 du /ac., when affordable -
workforce housing bonuses are pursued. No bonuses are pursued, so the eligible density equates to the
base density.
37.5 ac. total — 8.93 ac. Commercial = 28.57 ac. to calculate residential density
Eligible Density 4 du /ac. x 28.57 ac. = 114.28 du
The base density of 4 units per acre (114 du total) is the total residential density proposed
FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding
land uses. Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to "Zoning and Land Development Review
staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety.
FLUE Policy 5.8: allows Group Housing within the Urban designated area, which includes Family Care
Facilities, Group Care Facilities, Care Units, Assisted Living Facilities, and Nursing Homes, subject to the
definitions and regulations provided in the LDC.
The Density Rating System found in the FLUE addresses density where land use types are mixed, and
provides methods to determine density in these mixed -use projects. Generally, the residential acreage used
for calculating density is exclusive of the commercial component and of any use with a residential
equivalency, e.g. ALF -adult living facility.
Staff previously recommended that equivalency measures be made part of the conditions applied to this
MPUD as [a set of] Development Standards. These equivalencies [typically provided as one or more ratios
representing the number of ALF units equal to a single dwelling unit] are intended to reduce the number
of residential dwelling units proportionately in substitution for the desired number of ALF units. No
increases in intensity can result from combining more than one type of housing.
-
Growth Management Division
Comprehensive Planning Section
Senior housing is considered quasi - commercial in nature — not residential -- and is therefore subject to a
commercial -to- residential equivalency. Furthermore, senior housing is not controlled or calculated per the
Density Rating System for residences [under which density bonuses are addressed], but through applying a
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) to the structure(s) housing the ALF units.
The equivalencies are structured to apply an ALF conversion ratio of 4:1.
In reviewing for compliance with FLUE Objective 7 and subsequent Policies regarding Smart Growth
principles derived from the Toward Better Places Community Character Plan for Collier County, staff
provides the following analysis.
Policy 7.1.
The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting
collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection
spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. The project has direct access to Collier Blvd.,
a minor arterial road.
Policy 7.2
The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion
on nearby collector and arterial toads and minimize the need for traffic signals. The PUD Master Plan
indicates a single access point directly onto Collier Blvd., bisecting the commercial area and
linking to an internal roadway connecting Wolfe Road to the north with Mission Hills Blvd. to the
south. Both Wolfe Road and Mission Hills Blvd. intersect with Collier Blvd. The result is the two
commercial areas will have internal access, and the residential area will have internal access as
well as internal connection to the two commercial areas.
Policy 7.3
All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and their
interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type.
The PUD fronts on three streets and has access to each — to the north, east and south. Although
there is no interconnection to Wolf Creek [residential] PUD to the west, both Wolfe Road and
Mission Hills Blvd. provide access from the subject PUD to Wolf Creek PUD.
Policy 7.4
The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of
densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types. Since no
deviation was requested, sidewalks are required per the LDC. The PUD provides open space,
preserve areas and recreational amenities; allows for a variety of housing unit types.
Review of PUD Document and Master Plan:
Staff previously requested that provisions for equivalency measures be introduced, as discussed above, as
Development Standards regulating the residential development of this MPUD. Additional revisions have
been made to Exhibit A -1, Residential "R" Subdistrict, List of Allowable Uses, of application materials
and now include the "Principal Uses" entries:
`Single family and /or multi family dwellings (maximum of 114).
3-
Growth Management Division
Comprehensive Planning Section
Independent living fa zlity (ILE) unity for individuals over the age of 55, assisted living facility (ALF) units, and
skilled cur ing facility units or a continuing care retirement (CCRC) consisting of ILF, ALF and skilled nursing units
may be constructed The maximum jz�Ze of the ILt, 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 residential dwelling unit. "
Based upon the above analysis, Comprehensive Planning staff concludes the present version of
the Sonoma Oaks PUDA can be found consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the
Growth Management Plan.
CC. Michael Bose, AICP, Comprehensive Planning Manager, Comprehensive Planning Section
David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager, Comprehensive Planning Section
William Loren5v PE, Director, Land Development.Services Department
Raymond Bellows, Planning Manager, Zoning .Services Section
CD /FLUE file
4-
Growth Management Division
Comprehensive Planning Section
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 ZONING DISTRICT (MPUD) TO AN MPUD ZONING
DISTRICT, FOR A PROJECT KNOWN AS SONOMA OAKS TO ALLOW
CONSTRUCTION OF A MAXIMUM OF 120,000 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
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, representing 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
South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from 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 120,000 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 Page 1 of 2
REV. 9127110
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
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
rN
, Deputy Clerk
Approved as to form
and legal sufficiency:
Heidi Ashton -Cicko
Section Chief, Land Use /Transportation
Exhibit A -1:
List of Allowable Uses (Residential)
Exhibit A -2
List of Allowable Uses (Commercial)
Exhibit B -1:
Residential Development Standards
Exhibit B -2:
Commercial Development Standards
Exhibit C:
Master Plan
Exhibit D:
Legal Description
Exhibit E:
List of Requested Deviations
Exhibit F:
Development Commitments
Project History: Ordinance Number 05 -6 t
CP \08- CPS- 00863 \44
Sonoma Oaks MPUD, PUDA- 2007 -AR -11961 Page 2 o/2
REV. 9127110
2010.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
FRED W. COYLE, Chairman
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.
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.
9. 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 September 27, 2010 Page 1 of 15
Sonoma Oaks MPUD
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 LDC 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 MPUD.
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 September 27, 2010 Page 2 of 15
Sonoma Oaks MPUD
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 confectionary 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 Industrial 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 return
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 September 27, 2010 Page 3 of 15
Sonoma Oaks MPUD
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, CCRC, 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 outlined in the LDC.
Accessory Uses:
Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses
and structures, including, but not limited to:
Revised September 27, 2010 Page 4 of 15
Sonoma Oaks MPUD
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 (SFWMD) or the Florida Department of Environmental Services (FDEP),
and government 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 facilities
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 skilled nursing facilities, such as, but
not limited to, on -site dining facilities, group transportation services and wellness
centers.
Development 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 LDC in effect as of the date of
approval of the SDP or subdivision plat.
B. Maximum Commercial /Office Square Footage: The 8.93 + /- acre Commercial Tract
( "C') shall not be developed with more than 120,000 square feet of
commercial /office 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 commercial /office square footage, and shall
not exceed a FAR of 0.6.
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.
Revised September 27, 2010 Page 5 of 15
Sonoma Oaks MPUD
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 September 27, 2010 Page 6 of 15
Sonoma Oaks MPUD
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.
Development 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 September 27, 2010 Page 7 of 15
Sonoma Oaks MPUD
EXHIBIT B -1
RESIDENTIAL "R" SUBDISTRICT
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
DEVELOPMENT
SINGLE
MULTI - FAMILY
CLUBHOUSE/
ILF /ALF /CCRC/
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
1,000 S.F.
750 S.F. /D.U.
N/A
NIA
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
YARD
MIN PRESERVE
25 FEET
25 FEET
25 FEET
25 FEET
SETBACK
MIN DISTANCE
10 FEET
/3 THE ZONED
/1 THE ZONED
% THE ZONED
BETWEEN
BUILDING
BUIILDING
BUILDING
STRUCTURES
HEIGHT OF
HEIGHT, NOT
HEIGHT OF THE
THE TALLEST
LESS THAN 30
TALLEST
BUILDING
FEET
BUILDING
MAX BUILDING
NTE 35
NTE 61 FEET
NTE 45 FEET
NTE 61 FEET
HEIGHT
FEET ZH or
ZH or 69 FEET
ZH or 55 FEET
ZH or 69 FEET
45 FEET AH
AH'
AH
AHZ
MAXIMUM
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.6
FLOOR AREA
RATIO
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
FRONT6
10 FEET
10 FEET
20 FEET
10 FEET
SIDE
5 FEET
5 FEET
/: BH
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
BETWEEN
PRINCIPAL
STRUCTURE
MAX BUILDING
NTE 35
NTE 61 FEET
NTE 45 FEET
NTE 61 FEET ZH
HEIGHT
FEET ZH or
ZH or 69 FEET
ZH or 55 FEET
or 69 FEET AH,
45 FEET AH,
AH, whichever
AH, whichever
whichever is less'
whichever is
is less'
is less
less
Revised September 27, 2010 Page 8 of 15
Sonoma Oaks MPUD
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 western property line.
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 September 27, 2010 Page 9 of 15
Sonoma Oaks MPUD
EXHIBIT B -2
COMMERCIAL "C" SUBDISTRICT
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
* 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 September 27, 2010 Page 10 of 15
Sonoma Oaks MPUD
PRINCIPAL USES
ACCESSORY USES
ILF /ALF /CCRCISKILLED
NURSING
MINIMUM LOT AREA
10,000 S . Ft.
N/A
N/A
MINIMUM LOT WIDTH
100 Ft.
N/A
N/A
MINIMUM YARDS External
From Wolfe Road
25 Ft.
SPS
25 Ft.
From Collier Blvd.
25 Ft.
SPS
25 Ft.
From Loop Road
25 Ft.
SPS
25 Ft.
MINIMUM YARDS (internal)
Internal Drives /ROW
15 Ft.
10 Ft.
15 Ft.
Rear
10 Ft.
10 Ft.
10 Ft.
Side
10 FL
10 Ft.
10 Ft.
Lakes
25 Ft.
10 Ft.
25 Ft.
PRESERVE SETBACK
25 Ft.
10 Ft.
25 Ft.
MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN
STRUCTURES
10 ft. or 7/-2 the sum
of the zoned
building heights*
10 Ft.
10 ft. or % the sum of the
zoned building heights*
MAX BUILDING HEIGHT
NOT TO EXCEED
61 feet ZH or 65 feet AH
Retail Buildings***
42 ft. ZH
42 ft. ZH
N/A
Office Buildin s * **
42 ft. ZH
42 ft. ZH
NIA
Combination Retail and
Office***
42 ft. ZH
42 ft. ZH
NIA
ILF /ALF /CCRC /Skilled
Nursing
N/A
N/A
NTE 61 FEET
ZH or 69 FEET AH
MINIMUM FLOOR AREA
1000 S . Ft. **
N/A
N/A
MAX. GROSS LEASABLE
AREA
120,000 Sq. Ft.
N/A
NIA
MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA
RATIO
N/A
N/A
0.6
* 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 September 27, 2010 Page 10 of 15
Sonoma Oaks MPUD
w
I 3 3 4 S
LAND USE SUMMARY ACRES UNITS /SQUARE FEET
u
R RESIDENTIAL 15.02 114 DWELLING UNITSD PAIERMOCOVERPUD
RESIDEN IA DEVEIDPMENF
(456 ILF, ALF, SKILLED r A 50 WIDE UNPATTED
NURSING UNITS ON ROW PARCEL 1388 PUBUCACCESS EASEMENT
EASEMENT O.R. BOOK 3802
'R' DESIGNATED AREAS) PAGES 2677 -2678 B
C COMMERCIAL 8.93 120,000 SQUARE FEET I WOLFE RD. 20, TYPE S7'
LANDSCAPE BUFFER
n IT NATIVE PRESERVE 5.73
CTL7L RIGHTS OF WAY PARCEL 133A
/`
- PUBLIC EASEMENT 2.06 - \ / � \ \ O.R. BOOK3902
- DEDICATED 3.50 .. ; . ! , \ \\ \ // J \ PAGL32677 -2679
"OTHER 2.26 UNE(NG SETBACK
TOTAL 37.50 THE PRESERVE SKULSEIMEASTMECDDE / / /, % "�� \ \ / /'_ \\ '. \\•\ uNEks1
REQUIRED LANDSCAPE BUFFER IN THIS AREA
•' INCLUDES BUFFERS, PERIMETER BERM, OPEN SPACE, PUED WELL, ETC.
(IS- FAREMOVVEIOP PRESERVE /\ \
AFTER THE EXOTIC REMOVAL TIE PRESERVE ' _ / ,! / / �I � \ � `�• \ \\ � 20' ME'D'
VEGETATION FAILS TO MEET MINIMUM CODE LANDSCAPE
MPUD MASTER PLAN NOTES STAFOMDS, AODIIIONALMNf OEREQUIRED, Y // ! / /\ / \ \ �\ BUFFER
L WITHIN THE MPUD BOUNDARIES THERE WILL BE A MINIMUM OF 102 ACRES (30 %OF 34(37563.5) ! I C
DEDICATED RIGHT -OF -WAY) OF OPEN SPACE. - J /\ / / / i \ \ \\ \ RO,W, WR
\�., \ \\. SET) NRN
2, CONCEPTUALI N AND VF.MENTS SHOWN ON THIS PUT) MASTER PLAN SHALL BE CONSIDERED .\ \/ \/ \// 1--1 ` \` \\ \i\; LANE
CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE.
1 THE DESIGN, LOCATION, AND CONFIGURATION OF IHE LAND IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE DEFINED AT \� \ / r\\ \�,\ `• \,
EITHER SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL OR CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND PLAT APPROVAL. WOLF CREEK RP/D
SINGLE FAMILY OMLUNGS PARCEL 132
4. THE ROADWAY WITHIN THE SONOMA OAKS PROJECT CONNECTING WOLFE ROAD AND MISSION HILLS - j // I f f OX BOOK3902
BOULEVARD SHALL BEA 50• WIDE UNPLATTED PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT. ALLSTORMWATER \\ \ j / // %i I IC_� — PAGES 2672 -2676
RUN -OFF ASSOCIATED WITH THE. ACCESS EASEMENT SHALL BE ACCOMMODATED ON -SIZE VIA THE /%� L- -' O.R. BOOK4068
SONOMA OAKS SE SHALL WATER NED IN ENTORDANCE WITH SOUTH FLORIDA WATER / \ // \\ \\ J;1\ \`\ \, I PINES 303 -304
INFRASTRUCTURE SHALL HE DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SOUTH FORIDA WATER J
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AND COLLIER COUNTY STANDARDS AND THE PROPER EASEMENTS SHALL BE
RECORDED. THE SONOMA OAKS PROPERTY OWNERS 'ASSOCIATION SHALL BEGRANTEDSOLE •
OWNERSHIP, ACCESS RIGHTS AND MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENI / \
AND ALL INFRASTRUCTURE SERVING'IHE PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT. 1s, TYPE / / f- \ \ BUILDING SETBACK
LANDSCAPE BUFFER // // �� \ \\ UNE(251
5. 5.73 ACRES OF NATIVE VEGETATION SHALL BE PRESERVED ON -SITE.
6. THE RESIDENTIAL TRACT IS DL51GNED TO ACCOMMODATE INTERNAL ROADWAYS AND WATER
MANAGEMENT. / LMOSCAPE
BUFFER B
THE PRESERVE SHALL SERVE ATTHE CODE !/ / / l O
REWIRED LANDSCAPE BUFFER IN THIS AREA r
(15' FOR MULT:AM0.Y DEVELOPMENT). IF, ' . " . - - \ C
MERT(E EKOM REMOVAL, THE PRESERVE • - V \ \ m PARCEL 131
VEGETATION FAILS TO MEET MINIMUM CODE \ `\ \ O.R. BOOK 4068
STANDARDS, ADDITIONAL PANT MAUIRED. - � \. �` \\ \ PAGES 305.306
Ir "'S i"I LI:z PP . \ \ 0 PARCEL 131
1 - - - - . • . - / T\ \., _ O.R BOON 3944
PAGES 3949 -3852
MISSION HILLS BLVD. 20•ME'D' tD LANDSCAPE EMeARQ
[OW ER COUNTY POEDWELL/ LANDSCAPE BUFFER BUFFER STATION
THE PRESERVE SHALL SERVE AS THE OWE PRAP HOUSE STATION
t 5• 6• 28• 6, 5• REQUIRED LANDSCAPE BUFFER N THIS AEA MISSION HILLS PUD A
(t5'FORMULTI- FAMILY'OEVELOPE". IF, 20'TVPE'C LANDSCAPE BUFFER COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
GEEOUT E$ VEGETATION FNLS OM MEET CODE 20NON4D(CIUSIVE UOUTYACCESS
50' STANDARDS. ADOMONAL PANT MATERIAL MAY EASEMENT
BE REQUIRE). M'
TYPICAL 50' WIDE UNPLATTED PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT``
3 I 4
N CO"NAT10N WITH: PREPAREO n: PREPARED FOR: sulE: _ r -200' PUT) NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
!S¢11Miller
SONOMA VOILA II,LLC OAT: SEPIEAIBER :7,i01D MA.ItlirAN
WIIwnMAkr. ��cy - OAKS >N.�. PIN, 05544.100 -M EXHIBIT C G 101
<:aa. `°" R�R�..«R ARC
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 September 27, 2010 Page 12 of 15
Sonoma Oaks MPUD
EXHIBIT E
LIST OF REQUESTED DEVIATIONS
Deviation 1 from LDC 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 ail 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 September 27, 2010 Page 13 of 15
Sonoma Oaks MPUD
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 properly 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 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 trips as calculated in the Institute of Traffic Engineer's (ITE) 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 plan. 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 September 27, 2010 Page 14 of 15
Sonoma Oaks MPUD
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 well /pump
house area, and the developer of Sonoma Oaks shall review and approve the design of the
well /pump 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 September 27, 2010 Page 15 of 15
Sonoma Oaks MPUD
Naples Daily News •Sunday,October 3,2010•9B
PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the filed with the Department of Zoning and Land Development
Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) at 8:30 A.M., Review prior to October 21,2010,in order to be considered at
_ Thursday,October 21.2010,in the Board of County Commis- the public hearing. All materials used in presentation before
sioners Meeting Room,3rd Floor, Administration Building, Col- the CCPC will become a permanent part of the record and will
tier Government Center,3301 East Tamiami Trail,Naples Florida, be available for presentation to the Board of County Commis-
to consider: sioners,if applicable.
INDIGOI I_ BRISTOL BUTTONWOOD
Petition: PUDA-2007-AR-11961,Voila, II, LLC, represented by AKES PINES PRESERE
Margaret Perry, of WilsonMiller, Inc. and Richard Yovanovich, PCO RMO SINMNAP PLA
Esquire of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., is requesting Poi GGED I PROJECT
an amendment to Sonoma Oaks Mixed Use Planned Unit De- m VANDERBILT LOCATION
COUNTRY CLUB 36
velopment(MPUD)to allow a maximum of 114 residential dwell- tom"
ing units and/or a maximum of 456 senior housing units on the WOLF. CREEK BOXWOOD
CAROLINA MISSION BUCKS RUN
residential portion and up to 120,000 square feet of commercial vuAGE\ mms.
MISSION CHURCH
development and/or senior housing units ata FAR of 0.60 on the VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD
8.93 acre commercial portion of this 37.5A± acre total project. 'o
Senior housing units include independent living facilities, as- w-
sisted living facilities and/or skilled nursing facilities. The sub- 3 m glz
ject property is located on the west side of Collier Boulevard GOLDEN GATE ESTATES 0 GOLDEN GATE ESTATES GOLDEN GATE ESTATES
W UNIT 3 UNIT 6
(CR 951)between Wolfe Road and Loop Road,in Section 34, UNIT 2 3
Township 48 South,Range 26 East,Collier County,Florida.(Co- O
ordinator:Kay Deselem,AICP,Principal Planner) GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD
Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the CCPC
All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard. Indi- will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and
vidual speakers will be limited to 5 minutes on any item. Ex- therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the
pert witnesses shall be limited to 10 minutes each. Persons proceedings is made, which includes all testimony and evi-
who have been authorized to represent a group or organization dence upon which the appeal is to be based.
should limit their presentation to ten minutes.Persons wishing to
have written or graphic materials included in the CCPC agenda Collier County Planning Commission
packets must submit said material a minimum of 10 days prior Collier County,Florida
to the respective public hearing. Written comments must be Mark P.Strain,Chairman
No.231146139October 3.2010
18D • Saturday,October 2,2010•Naples Daily News
NOTICE OF MEETING NOTICE OF MEETING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING '
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Collier County Plan-
ning Commission on Thursday,October 21,2010 at 8:30 A.M.in the Board of Coun-
ty Commissioners Meeting Room, 3rd Floor, Administration Building, County Gov-
ernment Center,3301 East Tamiami Trail,Naples,Florida 34112.
�......, The purpose of the hearing is to consider adoption of an amendment to the Capi
tal Improvement Element of the Growth Management Plan. The ORDINANCE title
is as follows:
ORDINANCE NO.10-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 89-05, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER
COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY PROVIDING FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT,PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY,AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE
* CPSP-2010-3 A staff initiated petition amending the Capital Improvement Ele-
ment of the Collier County Growth Management Plan to incorporate updates
based on the 2010 Annual Update and Inventory Report on Public Facilities(AUIR),
and additional staff analysis, including updates to the 5-Year Schedule of Capital
Improvements (for Fiscal Years 2011 - 2015) and the Schedule of Capital Improve-
ments for Future 5-Year Period (for Fiscal Years 2016-2020). [Coordinator: Corby
Schmidt,AICP,Principal Planner]
All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard. Copy of the proposed
amendment is available for inspection at the Comprehensive Planning Department,
2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00
P.M., Monday through Friday. Any questions pertaining to the documentshould
be directed to the Comprehensive PlanningDepartment (239.252-2400). Written
comments filed with the Comprehen jve P nin Department prfgC fo1000; 4 60ct 1,
p`,2014 will lI re l art, „considers at tlt pukli ear g. 1 F
`43a 41erson decides to appy,:anti deisiew aaade-by the-Coder.-Courity*l'altrring
}, Cosnmissio espect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he
i will need a ,of that proceeding,and for such purpose he may need to ensure
that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made,which record includes the testi-
. I mony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.
Mark P.Strain,Chairman
Collier County Planning Commission
October 2.2010 No 1869556
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INSPECTION HISTORY PRINT
PERMIT NBR: 1999110448 JOB DESC:EXST S/F-POOL W/ ELEC SUB STATUS:CANCEL
JOB LOCATION: 5891 STAR GRASS LN
SUBDIVISION 721 / Golden Gate Estates Unit 31 BLOCK:79 LOT: 0
MASTER NBR: TRS: UNIT: TRACT: NONE TAZ: 89
WATER: SEWER: COA: N/A FLOOD ZONE: X
OWNER NAME: J & S HOMES OF NAPLES INC JOB PHONE:
CERT NBR: 16245 DBA: DIAMOND POOL CONSTRUCTION, INC JOB VALUE: $10, 000.00
CONTACT NAME:JACK CONTACT PHONE: (941) 992-1376
SETBACKS
FRONT: REAR: 10 .00 LEFT: 30 .00 RIGHT: 30 .00
SPECIAL:
IMPORTANT DATES: EXTENDED
APPLICATION APPROVAL ISSUED CO EXPIRATION CANCEL EXPIRATION
11/4/1999 11/4/1999 11/4/1999 5/2/2000 1/14/2009
DIRECTIONS: ADDRESS WAS 24TH AVE SW
ADDTL INFO: MP #99-03
PERMIT CANCELLED PER BOB DUNN FOR DATABASE CONVERSION
SUBCONTRACTORS
CERT NBR SUB STATUS START DATE END DATE STATUS SUB CLASS DBA
20163 ACTIVE ACTIVE EL EXCEL ELECTRIC OF NAPLES, INC
SUBPERMITS
PERMIT NBR STATUS TYPE CERT NBR DBA JOB DESC
FEES
FEE CODE STATUS DESCRIPTION WAIVE AMOUNT DUE ENTER DATE
08BPNP POSTED BLDG PERMITS - NAPLES N 53 .00 11/4/1999
08MFSG POSTED MICROFILM SURCHARGE N 3 . 00 11/4/1999
REQ CLASS DESCRIPTION/REMARKS PRI REQ DATE RESULT CODE RES DATE INSPECTOR
099 NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT 0 11/19/1999 90 11/19/1999 ARTHURS_T
2612-1910
122 SS 10 DAY SPOT SURVEY 0 10/26/2000 90 10/26/2000 CRONBERG_D
12/21/00 2ND COPY OF SURVEY/JMH
502 EL FINAL ELECTRICAL 0
700 PL POOL BONDING 0 11/18/1999 90 11/18/1999 ARTHURS_T
701 PL FINAL POOL 0
702 PL POOL DECK 0 12/21/1999 90 12/21/1999 GIOFRIDA_P
Collier County Board of County Commissioners Printed on: 10/26/2010 7 :33 :25AM
CD-Plus for Windows 95/NT CDPR2036 Page 1 of 1