Loading...
CCPC Minutes 03/04/2004 RMarch 4, 2004 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, March 4, 2004 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 AM in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Russell Budd Mark Strain Lindy Adelstein Paul Midney Dwight Richardson Kenneth Abemathy Brad Schiffer Robert Murray George Evans (Absent) ALSO PRESENT: Joe Schmitt-Community Dev. & Environmental Services Ray Bellows - Planning Dept. Marj orie Student - Assistant County Attorney Patrick White - Assistant County Attorney Don Schneider - Dept. of Zoning & Land Dev. Review Kay Deselem - Dept. of Zoning & Land Dev. Review Susan Murray - Dept. of Zoning & Land Dev. Review Jay Sweat - Planning Dept. AGENDA COLLIF, R COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WII.L MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, MARCH 4, 2004, IN THE BOARD OF COUHTY COMMISSIONERS MEF. TING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMF2qT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WHJ. BE LIMITF_D TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SI~-I.P~I~ED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE AI.ID'I'rED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOONVAF. D 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 RESP~ PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITIF~ MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHAH. 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 THE 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. NOTE: The public should be advised that two (2) members of the Collier County Planning Commission (Dwight Richardson and Bob Murray) are also members of the Commurdty Character~ Growtk Advisory Comm/~e.. In this regard, matters coming before the Collier County Planning Commission may come before thc Community Character/Smart Growth Advisory Committee from time to time. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY CLERK 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MARCH 5, 2004 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - FEBRUARY 10, 2004 REGULAR MEETING AND THE FEBRUARY 11, 2004 LDC MEETING. 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS 1 PUDZ-2003-AR-3584, Amy Taylor, of the Collier County School District, requesting an amendment to the Orangetree PUD to reflect a change in rezone from a "PUD" zoning district to a "PUD" Planned Unit Development zoning district to be known as the Orangetree PUD. The purpose for the change is to add Public Educational Plants as a permitted use in the Orangetree PUD to allow construction of the Palmetto Ridge High School within the AG District of the PUD. Public Educational Plants include the educational facility (school) as well as auxiliary facilities (recreational areas) and ancillary plants (administrative buildings and transportation facilities). The property to be considered for this amendment is located at 1655 County Road 858 (Oil Well Road), in Sections 13 & 14, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, Collier County Florida. This property consists of 120~ acres. (Coordinator: Don Schneider) B. RZ.2003.AR.397~ Am~risite LLC, represented by Terrance Kepple of Kepple Engineering, Inc., requesting a rezone from the "A" Rural Agricultural zoning district to the '~-3" zoning district, for property located at ColOr Boulevard (east side) gl mile N of Rattlesnake Hammock Road, in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 9.24 acres. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem) C. SRA-2003-AR-4578~ A resolution of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners designating 960 acres within the rural land stewardship area zoning overlay district as a stewardship receiving area, approving the preliminary stewardship receiving ar~ credit agreement for Ave Maria, and establishing the number of stewardship credits being utilized by the designation of Ave Maria stewardship receiving area. (Coordinator:. Susan Murray) 9. OLD BUSINESS 10. NEW BUSINESS 11. PUBLIC COMMENT II'EM 12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 13. ADJOURN 3/4/04 CCPC A~sp 2 March 4, 2004 e Chairman Russell Budd called the meeting to order at 8:30 AM and Pledge of Allegiance was recited. Roll Call - A quorum was established with Mr. Evans absent Addenda to the Agenda - An e-mail was received by the Commissioners that Item B RZ-2003-AR-3973 is heard first. Mr. Adelstein moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Second by Mr. Abernathy. Carried unanimously 8-0. Absences - None Approval of Minutes - March 5, 2004 Mr. Murray moved to approve the March 5, 2004 minutes with the following corrections: - Page 10 - Mr. Murray thought he recalled under the motion by Mr. Strain they had included the reserve - they would provide a reserve - they would provide a reserve so there is money for those folks. Mr. Strain stated they went from a chain length fence that required hedges to a wall - so not necessary to have a reserve. Second by Mr. Strain. Mr. Schiffer asked about the same motion same page #8 - he thought they had decided not to tie the documents as part of the - the plan was like the race track plan - it was - when Mark made the first part of the motion, it was discussed and gave the designers freedom to do what they wanted to do after that. Mr. Strain did not remember that part. Mr. Schiffer stated the plan was boring. He would like to eliminate #8 and then they wouldn't get in trouble. Mr. Strain wondered what the process would be it there isn't a plan of record. What would it fall back on? It is the one in their packet at the time, worse than the one that was recommended there. Mr. Abernathy stated at the top of page #11 - it said the motion passed 5-3. Schiffer, Midney and Budd opposed the fence portion of the motion otherwise acceptable. The Motion had a wall and not a fence. Mr. Budd thought the fence was fine and opposed the wall portion. Fence should be changed to wall in the motion. Mr. Strain noted Brad had a good point but could not recall the exact language they used for it. He suggested that any document that is presented with flexibility into it that happens when it goes into SDP and the rest - he assumes that any Master Plan approved here, would have the same flexibility when it goes to County Staff for review. That would allow the changes Brad was talking about. 2 March 4, 2004 Mr. Schiffer did not want to lock into the design. Mr. Bellow stated they are not locked into the design. Mr. Adelstein noted the correct spelling of his first name. Carried unanimously 8-0. *** (Please note the minutes the CCPC approved are for February 5, 2004 and not March 5, 2004 as stated.) 6. BCC Report - Recaps- February 10, 2004 Regular Meeting & February 11, 2004 LDC Meeting. Bristol Pines rezone - Petition AR-3542 - companion affordable housing density agreement was approved by the BCC 4-1 - Halas opposed. · LDC Amendment concerning Coastal Construction Setback Variance - approved 5-0. · Calusa Island Village Amendment was continued to March 23rd hearing · Conditional Use Extension approved for the Southern Pines Conditional Use. 7. Chairman's Report- None 8. Advertised Public Hearings: B. RZ-2003-AR-3973 - Amerisite LLC, represented by Terrance Kepple of Kepple Engineering, Inc., requesting a rezone from the "A" Rural Agricultural Zoning District to the "C-3" zoning district, for property located at Collier Blvd. (East side) ¼ mile N of Rattlesnake Hammock Road, in Collier County, Florida, consisting of 9.24 acres. All those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Budd. Disclosures - None. PETITIONER Terrance Kepple representing the petitioner. The petition is to rezone the Agricultural property to "C-3" and is approx. 9 ¼ acres located on east side of Collier Blvd. ¼ mile north of Rattlesnake Hammock Road. The Petitioner also owns two - five acre tracts to the south zoned "C-5" a year or so ago. The property to the immediate north is zoned Agricultural currently - to the east is agriculture and 170 foot FPL easement. Staff report says 100 feet. It fronts on Collier Blvd. One objection of the petitioner is the site with the two five acre sites adjacent to the south will be combined into a large tract and one entrance onto Collier Blvd. to align with the median opening and the access directly March 4, 2004 across going into Naples Lakes - the Commercial portion of it. It is a straight re-zone to "C-3" and originally asked for the "C-5" zoning so they could continue some mini- warehouse that is planned on "C-5" property to the south. After rereading the regulations and discussion with staff they went back to the "C-3" zoning. Mr. Richardson asked about the two five acre tracts. Mr. Kepple described the tracts being long skinny and showed them on the visual and being "C-5". Mr. Richardson then asked if they are coming in now for a "C-3"? Mr. Kepple responded "yes". The whole tract will probably be sub-divided into parcels and have not laid them out yet at this time. It will have to be developed under the "C-3" regulations. Mr. Richardson asked about interconnection and how it is going work. It is not a PUD Document for interconnections to look at - it is a straight zoned project where there is no conceptual plan associated with it. Staff does look at interconnection things and if transportation and planning staff felt there was some need for interconnection - but is not typically done. They are planning on one access to 951 - could he come in and ask for additional interconnect or additional accesses to 951 - which Mr. Richardson did not feel would be appropriate. Mr. Strain made a note due to the applicant volunteering information - when they recommend approval (assumingly) they could stipulate that it is on a condition that is interconnected with the two sites to the south. Mr. Abernathy went back to the history of the petition - he said the two parcels to the immediate south that are zoned "C-5" were they bought at some earlier part? Mr. Kepple responded the petitioner had bought about 3-3 1/2 years ago and zoned Ag. It is within the commercial node of the Rattlesnake Hammock Collier Blvd. intersection. The other five acre parcel is also within that node area. The piece before them today is outside of that area and can't? It is becoming as commercial infill - has to be transitional between the commercial within the node area and the uses outside the node area. The Ag will eventually be zoned residential. They are looking at the transitional zoning between the C-5 and the potential residential to the north. Mr. Abernathy asked about the area and the acres. Knowing the history of 951 he asked if he highest and best use of the tract to the north could be C-37 4 March 4, 2004 Mr. Kepple is under the understanding from staff that any infill commercial can only be used for the immediate tract adjacent to the commercial zoning in the node area so the only tract adjacent to it - presume the immediate tracts to the east could be zoned commercial - but does not see that happening. Mr. Abernathy stated according to some obscure rule only this piece can be transitional and the one to the immediate north can not. Mr. Abernathy stated he is reading a book "The Death of Common Sense"- the author says they supplanted common sense with intricate sets of rules that are mindlessly are applied all the time. Some with devastating consequences. He gave examples. If two C-5 tracts are there - it doesn't do any harm to anyone other than the rule that someone has set to make the C-5 as well. Nothing is obnoxious about storage lockers. Mr. Kepple gave some background - if it could be zoned C-5 the only use of the C-5 as to mini-warehouse and all other uses would be C-3 and would be great with his client. Mr. Abernathy agreed. Staff told him they could request a C-4 - come back with a conditional use and the C-4 for mini-warehouse and restrict the C-4 uses to only the C-3 uses with mini-warehouse under a conditional use. It seemed more convoluted and the petitioner accepted the C-3. Mr. Kepple stated he did not need all three lots for the mini-warehouse. He showed a total conceptual plan site plan for the total 20 acres. Mr. Bellows stated the Comprehensive Plan is specific when dealing with Commercial property located outside an activity center. To be consistent it has to be a transitional or step down, lower intensity commercial uses. The GMP allows for this to be used as one time for that property, so cannot be expanded north. For a step down is to be more consistent with the residential to the north - so staff cannot support the C-5. Mr. Strain stated it will not be more intense in residential - purpose of stepping down the zoning is to give a transition to a higher intensity to a gradual ............ Staff did a good job that got reduced from a C-5 to a C-3 before it came to the CCPC. He thought the C-3 use as a transition would be ideal. Not knowing what can go to the north - he didn't think it would be a straight rezone - would be a PUD of some type. They would then be able to regulate the intensity of it. Mr. Abernathy asked to see the conceptual site plan. Mr. Kepple discussed the native vegetation on site and maintains 25% of the existing vegetation. It is heavily impact by exotic vegetation. Preserve area on north side, required native vegetation they need to preserve - south of that in larger tract - tract in back of parcel east is the mine-warehouse and towards 951 they would make out parcels going north and south without parcels on both sides. They would restrict the uses - he showed areas on map. Specific areas pointed to would be restricted to C-3 and south 5 March 4, 2004 would be C-5 uses. There is a retention lake in back and FPL easement along the east side. Mr. Abernathy asked that now is there a possibility of splitting the difference by having C-4 with a conditional use for warehouses is too cumbersome to bother with it? Mr. Kepple mentioned they would have to come back with a new petition - starting the process over. In talking to his client, and wait another 3-6 months, they decided to proceed with C-3 zoning. Mr. Abernathy mentioned the staff report stated "staff concludes the proposed rezone from A to C-3 may be deemed consistent with the future land use element. Staff considered C-1 through 3 to be low intensity- but- the determination of intensity allowed on this site should be at the discretion of the Board of County Commissioners." He felt that meant the BCC could okay the mini-warehouse. He asked why not go to the County Commissioners and asked for warehouse on this petition. Mr. Kepple stated that would mean coming to the CCPC with a recommendation of denial from County staff asking for C-5. He doesn't like to do that and would rather come to the meeting with a recommendation of approval from County staff. Mr. Murray pointed out page 6 or 7 - neighborhood information meeting - he noted there was a question of ownerships relative to ingress and egress. He asked if the matter was now concluded with the informational meeting and knew it was to be determined. He read "Staff stated that access issues will be addressed when development approval is sought in compliance with requirements in effect at that time." He asked if the ownership now is single. Mr. Kepple answered yes for the three tracts. Mr. Schiffer asked about the graphic previous - there is a sliver of land to the south of the property that looks like it is between the C-5 and the site. He asked if it was correct. They reviewed the aerial of the property. Kay Deselem - Principal Planner answered it is staffs actual exhibit and an error in the lineage. The entire tract goes to the C-5 line. STAFF Kay Deselem - Principal Planner - they did make an extensive review of the Comprehensive issues regarding the GMP because the petition has unusual issues because of the step down and infill. They worked with the applicant to some length and are now comfortable that the C-3 can be supported and deemed consistent with the GMP. Staff is recommending approval. March 4, 2004 Mr. Richardson complimented staff on an excellent job and could not figure out how anyone could read it and understand it and come to the conclusion they have come to - he did not understand it. It is so convoluted. It is because of the infill business but the most complicated thing he has tried to read, other than Ava Maria. He sympathizes with anyone trying to deal with the Code and Growth Management Plan. Guess everyone is happy, they have to go with it, but has trouble with the way the language is and takes more than the time they have to devote to the job to understand those types of things. Kay answered most of the staff report is a quote from Comprehensive Staffs' memo. They did a valuation of the issues because they are so complex and try to state what the requirement was and how the project was affected by that portion of the GMP. Mr. Strain went against the trend and stated - first of all it was suppose to be "B" and not "A" and the book Ken got was written for "A" and that may be why there was confusion. "A" will be common sense problems and "B" may not be. In reading he felt staffhad done an exceptional job because of the details they went into. Fact they feathered out from a C-5 to a C-3 was a right use is what should have been done. Only stipulation he would recommend through the process is to make sure the interconnections are there. Mr. Murray stated he agreed with Mr. Strain in that it was very well done. Mr. Schiffer said C-5 brings in a lot of things they do not want like a dull book store or stuff like that. It's just not mini-warehouses - they are talking about a ............... Mr. Abernathy was talking about a C-5 "limited" to mini-warehouse. Hearing was closed for motion and discussion. Mr. Strain moved to recommend approval for Petition RZ-23003-AR-3973 with the stipulation that this particular site will interconnect with the two sites to the south so there is only one connection for those three sites to 951 and that they will provide for a potential interconnection to the north as they have seen on previous plans as example. Second by Mr. Adelstein. Mr. Abernathy stated he is going to dissent and the record to reflect that the reason he is voting "no" is because he thinks it should be rezoned to C-5 exercising the discretion that the County Commission appears to have. He is trying to get people to think outside the box - but seems to be too much comfort in the box. Kay Deselem wanted a clarification of wondering about putting conditions on the other two tracts as far as what access they can have. They can only state on this particular petition that they have to interconnect to the south. March 4, 2004 Mr. Strain understood that he being a common owner and the fact that he volunteered to interconnect them all into one, the other two are not coming there today, he would accept that as an amendment to the stipulation. Motion carried 7-1 - Mr. Abernathy voting "no". A. PUDZ-2003-AR-3584 - Amy Taylor, of the Collier County School District, requesting an amendment to the Orangetree PUD to reflect a change n rezone from a "PUD" zoning district to a "PUD" Planned Unit Development zoning district to be known as the Orangetree PUD. The purpose for the change is to add Public Educational Plants as a permitted use in the Orangetree PUD to allow construction of the Palmetto Ridge High School within the AG District of the PUD, Public Educational Plants include the educational facility (school) as well as auxiliary facilities (recreational areas) and ancillary plants (administrative buildings and transportation facilities). The property to be considered for this amendment is located at 1655 County Road 858 (Oil Well Road), in Collier County, Florida. This property consists of 120 acres. All those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Budd. Disclosures - Mr. Strain had communication from a resident who received a notice. The notice was not about the school, but a school going up in a PUD called Lewis & Clark High School. He was not sure it pertained to the meeting or not. Don Schneider - Principal Planner - clarified that the school they will be discussing today was called Lewis & Clark at the beginning and in the interim has changed the name and did not catch it on that particular one. It is the exact same spot. Mr. Strain asked if this is an issue that would be of concern to the County Attorneys Office since Lewis & Clark is the one told by all the residents surrounding the property. Those are the phone calls he received - they all wanted to know where Lewis & Clark was. Mr. Abernathy stated he learned in the paper that morning that the school is already being built. He is not sure what they are giving permission for. Marjorie Student - Assistant County Attorney - stated there should be sufficient information in the advertisement to fully apprise people of where it is located. She asked Mr. Schneider if he had the Planning Commission advertisement in his file that they could take a look at. They paused at this time to see if there had been proper public notification. March 4, 2004 Marjorie reviewed the letter and stated there is a street address in the letter and thought the address should be sufficient as long as it was also in the ad that appeared in the Naples Daily News. The ad that appeared in the paper is not in the file. She said the letter stated it, so assumed it stated the same in the ad. The property to be considered for the Amendment is located a 1655 County Road 858 or Oil Well Road in Sections 13 and 14 and the appropriate section township and range. It was her opinion that as long as the street address is there - it would give the individuals adequate notice. Mr. Budd stated they will proceed with the understanding they have sufficient public notice. PETITIONER Robert Duane - Hole Montes and Assoc. - stated the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners adopted an Interlocal agreement between the County and the School Board and requires certain sites set forth in the agreement to be rezoned of which this is one of the sites. They are in agreement with Staff recommendation. Amy Taylor handed out several definitions that staff suggested be incorporated into the Agricultural District of the Orangetree PUD Ordinance. (Hand-out was not given out for the record) The definitions are of educational plant and ancillary plant. They are out of the Interlocal agreement. He inserts the word "facilities that are operated by the Collier County School Board." The definitions may have had some confusion as not defining the terms may have opened up other opportunities for other school sites other than those that are owned and operated by the school board to be allowed in Orangetree. It is not the intent and hopes it clarifies it. He pointed out the Interlocal Agreement required various school sites to be identified on the future land use map. It has been done and now determined to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He felt they have resolved any outstanding issues that he may be aware of. Mr. Abernathy asked who owns the Orangetree PUD and if they know about this. Mr. Duane could not give him the name of the corporate entity. Mr. Duane stated they posted the signs and had the advertising up. Mr. Strain said they are modifying their PUD that will affect everyone. Mr. Duane stated they have done some updating to bring the PUD up to current standards. They moved the catch all language uses that are comparable and updated that certain uses may have to go before the Board of Zoning Appeals. Some ordinance numbers were updated but no substantive amendments to the document other than education and ancillary plants. Mr. Strain asked if it was fair to the other people that own property and other developers that own property in that PUD to have language changes to the text that doesn't address the addition of educational facilities and educational plants. March 4, 2004 Marjorie Student didn't feel there was a real issue to bring it up for the catch all language. It recognizes a procedure in the Land Development Code. This is going to be a recurring issue with the Amendment of PUD's because they may be under common ownership. In the Orangetree situation the school district owns a piece of it and other owners. When a substantive has changed it is important to limit it to the property that is owned by the applicant. Mr. Richardson asked about the PUD and 36 acres - that is not what they are talking about. They are talking about amending the Agricultural District. The Agricultural language is not amended and has 1,098 acres. Mr. Duane said they are not changing it but adding a use to that sub-district within the PUD, the Ag District. Mr. Richardson is troubled and asked if it affected the land use summary of the Orangetree PUD. It does not. Ray Bellows stated the School Board is a property owner within the Orangetree PUD and sponsoring the petition. Mr. Duane is representing the School Board. They have the authority of the property owner to file the amendment. Mr. Strain asked why they have an affidavit from a property owner from Orangetree attached to the document. Don Schneider answered Mr. Strain stating when the application was submitted, the school board had not purchased the property. They needed the affidavit from Mr. Bryan Paul in order to be legal. Has gone on for two years. Mr. Strain read from the affidavit. Mr. Richardson wanted clarification on whether the building on the property will be limited to 25 feet? It says that in the report in several areas. He is wondering how it all fits together. He was guessing the High School would be more than 25 feet. He stated they should change the PUD then and get it all on the record. Mr. Duane stated in the Agricultural District Section 3 there are no development standards - general description and permitted uses and structures and no development requirements to speak of in that Section. Mr. Richardson is under the impression there isn't any property that doesn't have some standards in Collier County. Mr. Duane could not respond any differently than the Interlocal agreement says these sites are not designated as a permitted use in the PUD. Several years ago a policy decision was made that school sites need more public Scrutiny. He did not want to make 10 March 4, 2004 it complicated - but if they want to suggest other revisions that need to be made to the document or other standards, they can do that. Marjorie Student clarified that when the Interlocal agreement was developed, there were performance standards. There is a review process in the LDC. Sets up a process - site plan review of a school site. There are certain standards that are set by State law hat are for the design of the building. They have their own set of standards controlled by their own regulations. Amy Taylor - Collier County Public Schools - the new high school and ancillary facility had been under an old Interlocal agreement approved in 1996. It had been consistent with all zoning districts and with the reevaluation was totally revamped and reevaluated for where schools would be appropriated and in what zoning districts. They were considered a separate Ordinance. Would mean a rezone action to amend the PUD. This high school was caught in this process and that is why they see the discretion of the BCC approval to move forward with determination from BCC. Once found consistent with the Comp Plan and the agreement was in process and what its intent was, they moved forward with the construction of the high school. She understands the dilemma, but they did get special approval to move forward. They were guided by the Planning and legal staff to amend the PUD. Mr. Schiffer referred to page 10 and asked if they shouldn't be adding educational plants? Mr. Duane stated the County crossed the word "public" out. They are specifically limited and operated strictly by the School Board. Mr. Schiffer would like to have educational as a third item and leave "public" as the second item. Mr. Bellows agreed with the Planning Commission - the purpose was to add and educational facilities and not eliminate a use. He felt it was a typographical mistake. He also added there is a section of the PUD Documents that spells out development standards and feels more comfortable if they reference the agricultural district allowing educational facilities to relate to the development standards of the SP District. Mr. Strain asked about height. Amy Taylor suggests they fall back to the Interlocal agreement which defines what the development standards and requirements are. Marjorie Student stated it does not address height. Mr. Richardson does not want another Board of Education building. 11 March 4, 2004 Mr. Bellows suggested they make it subject to the Interlocal agreement development standards with a provision of adding a height limitation that would work out with the applicant and what the existing height of the structure is. Mr. Adelstein - page 18 - it also said "accepting the educational system to a height of- whatever that figure is. Mr. Schiffer discussed changing the name of the firm that prepared the first amendment - on page 1 - being trivial - but he asked if that appropriate? He was not comfortable with going back and upgrading firms. It was fine with Mr. Duane. Mr. Richardson asked about the status of build out of Orangetree. Mr. Bellows responded there are two other petitions to amend Orangetree under the name Orange Blossom Gardens PUD and filed by the Boldt ownership to amend the PUD. Mr. Richardson stated buses and trucks could create problems for local neighborhood since the agriculture is on that side. He was concerned that the residential housing and integration of the school site and the property that is going to have housing on it and whether it is going to be cared for adequately as far as a planning issue is concerned. Mr. Bellows showed on the visualizer the conceptual overall Master Plan showing proposed developments - Orange Blossom Gardens. Mr. Strain was concerned that construction is going ahead and'the County is already spending money on having facilities built - and wondered what they are doing going ahead that require pubic approval, yet they are getting the public approval after they are spending the money. Mr. Richardson asked where the maintenance facilities will be and how they will relate to other uses. Terry Kohl - showed on the visualizer location of the facilities and future transportation facilities for needed students. STAFF Don Schneider presented the staff report with history of the application starting back in 1982, addressed consistently with the Growth Management Plan and recommended forward on to the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Abernathy commented it would have been more forthcoming if in the staff report mentioned it is an after-the-fact request. He had to read it in the newspaper it was being built. 12 March 4, 2004 Mr. Murray - addressed page 3 of the report - conditional use - section 2.6.9, when looking at the Ordinance he did not see anything in there. He wondered if it was aviated by the LDC Amendment. Yes it was by the Interlocal agreement, was the response. The number of units that can be built on the site was discussed. Mr. Bellows said they are not changing the acreage designated in the PUD document for Agriculture. Doesn't alleviate the density requirements for the rest of the tract. SPEAKERS Nelson Gomez - Vanie speaking for her father stated they had concerns that the school zone was within their property and found out it is not and no longer had concerns. The hearing was closed for motion and discussion. Mr. Strain made a motion, that they have to make, and recommend approval of PUDZ-03 AR 3584 with the following stipulations. 1- Leave in Public where staff previously crossed it out. 2- Be subject to the Interiocal agreement in regards to the development standards and height is to be determined between the school staff and the County Staff in their review, and 3 - The Amended page 10 be accepted as an inclusion into the PUD document. Second by Mr. Adeistein. Mr. Adelstein asked if the motion should also state that if there is an after-the-fact change it has to be noted in the Petition and then be presented to them. Mr. Strain felt the staff would do that. It is not a stipulation that the applicant can do anything with. Mr. Richardson recalled there was a change to the LDC that added a school board member to the group and help them guide through such matters before them. He wondered why the process has not worked. Motion carried unanimously 8-0. Mr. Richardson asked what her role will be and felt it would have been helpful for her to have been there with information before the fact rather than so far behind the fact. Amy explained her role. She is concerned and discussion with their legal staff on sunshine law issues etc. She receives all the packets and reviews them for anything she would like to speak on. She has held back in participating in an official manner because of various petitions ongoing. She did not want to be seen as an influence even as a non- 13 March 4, 2004 voting member. They are evaluating it. The State is considering legislature to change it because it has been a burden on school district staff. She is the only planner in her school district. But she would let them know and provide comment with anything either adjacent to a school or has an increase in density that is of concern. BREAK- 9:43 AM RECONVENED - 9:55 am C. SRA-2003-AR-4578 - A resolution of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners designating 960 acres within the rural land stewardship area zoning overlay district as a stewardship receiving area, approving the preliminary stewardship receiving area credit agreement for Ave Maria, and establishing the number of stewardship credits being utilized by the designation of Ave Mara Stewardship receiving area. Those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Budd. Disclosures - Mr. Budd met with Mr. Vamadoe and Mr. Reynolds representing the petitioner. - Mr. Strain had conversations with Anita Jenkins on the phone and tried to meet and having a hard time getting through the thing with such short notice. - Mr. Abemathy had brief discussion with Mr. Varnadoe. - Mr. Murray echoed Mr. Strain's comments that it was a lot to get through in a short time. Patrick White - Assistant County Attorney - a part of the process they were required to create a separate advertisement and had the publication for the public hearing to go forward and turned the original document to the minute keeper for record keeping purposes. PETITIONER Mr. George Varnadoe - Cheffy, Passidomo, Wilson and Johnson representing a New Town Development LLAP, the applicant - requesting designation of the first Stewardship Receiving Area in the Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay District for Ave Maria. 14 March 4, 2004 A slide presentation was given with the following comments: First implementation of policy and procedures set forth therein. · First major Catholic University to be established in the United States in 40 years. · There is a Stewardship Sending Area application that will take land uses off 5,286 acres of natural resources and protect the agricultural activities that remain on the land. Will provide the credits to entitle the development of the Ave Mafia SRA. · First in Collier County of this magnitude. · This is first phase. · Stewardship receiving area designation is a part of the rural land stewardship overlay district. The Comp Plan has established the types of uses and development forms that are appropriate in the area. · Are looking at specific data and location as receiving areas to determine appropriate location for the type of development they are proposing, on that location. · There are specific criteria set forth in the Growth Management Plan and were listed on the slides. They are consistent with GMP policies, with location suitability criteria, compliant with LDC overlay district regulations and they have sufficient stewardship credits to entitle the SRA. · Referred to location map - site is located on Oil Well Road on the south and will be the entry for the first phase. Camp Keais Road on the east and east of the Camp Keais Strand as shown on the map and slide. · He gave the breakdown of the land uses - 960 total acres, 633 acres set aside for the town use, 950 dwelling units, 90,000 square feet of retail, 35,000 square feet of office, 110 room hotel, 15,000 square feet of civic uses, an oratory that will seat approx. 3,500 people, a private school (300 people in initial phases), K through 12 school, University on 327 acres, (first phase) up to 1M square feet of space and accommodate 1,200 students. · Required elements of the application were given: · Natural Index assessment - Aerial photo with site shown - all land has been in Agricultural uses - not impacting any significant natural resources. One location requirement is to not develop residential or commercial lands on any land that has natural resource value greater than 1.2. Showed the Index Value map. Nothing had a score in access of .7 - well below threshold. · Impact Assessment report - Make sure there is sufficient infrastructure to serve the development when necessary. Will establish a 199 special district supplying the potable and irrigation water, storm water management and the waste water. Will be self-sufficient. The Counties transportation solid waste system is adequate to serve the first phase of Ave Mafia. They have agreed, under certain conditions, to provide sufficient right-of-way off Oil Well Road and Camp Keais Road. Staff report says 200 feet; they are actually giving enough ROW so the County will have 200 feet. · Economical Assessment report - Provide a fiscal analysis to show project was fiscally neutral to the County at thc end of five years or build out year. Demonstrated a total positive impact that exceeds SIM in 2008 which is the 15 March 4, 2004 horizon year for the SRA. Required to do monitoring every five years to make sure they are meeting their goal of being fiscally neutral. If not, assessments can be made to them to offset any negative impacts in the County. Preliminary Stewardship Receiving Area Credit Agreement - Agreement with County and Developer showing what is going to be built and has certain descriptions etc. with the number of credits specified to designate the SRA and the source of the credits. 960 acres - 327 acres for public use, Ave Maria University and 633 acres for the Ave Maria town. Open space is required is 35%, actual open space is 41% in this application. The applicant will acquire 5,064 credits from BCI/BCP Stewardship Sending Areas one, two and three. (Barron Collier Investments and Barron Collier Partnership) He discussed the credits and open spaces with the Master Plan. Mr. Richardson asked if water was considered an open space in the plan. How do they calculate open space - the 41% doesn't include water. Mr. Varnadoe answered "yes - specifically allowed by the LDC". Anita Jenkins - Community and Regional Planning Manager - Wilson Miller She covered the Ave Maria Master Plan with a power point presentation: University District, Town Core, Town Center, Neighborhood General, Common Areas discussed in the community District, entry road from Oil Well Road and the Arc Road. · Districts and areas shown on the map are consistent with the LDC design guidelines: the Town Core, Town Center, Neighborhood General and two areas defined as Special Districts; the University District and Services District. · BCC added two new provisions to the design standards; one architectural design and landscape design. They will be asking for a deviation from the landscape design as it refers to LDC section 2.4. Staff has agreed with the deviation as it is appropriate for this type of development. This town plan integrates uses and creates a walkable pedestrian environment. The perimeter buffers that are required in 2.4 would impede the flow of pedestrian traffic and the uses are integrated in the areas, and not applicable. · Showed the center of the town and the Town Core and Town Center. It is mixed use - with retail, office, residential, civic and institutional and some light industrial uses such as printing. Pedestrian design with shared parking behind the buildings and on the street. Town Core is approx. 27 acres. The Civic area will include the Oratory and the Oratory Plaza. · Town Center is approx. 23 acres - main street area with daily needs and services. · Artist rendering was shown of the Town Core area. Showed a street called Arc Road. Showed the Landmark building being the Oratory and the Oratory Plaza. The Landmark building (Oratory) will be in the center of town. · Wide sidewalks are provided for pedestrian flow. 16 March 4, 2004 Mr. Abernathy asked about the Oratory and wondered if it is what was referred to in earlier presentations as the Cathedral. Also asked about religious symbols such as a cross etc. Anita mentioned the Cathedral is the Oratory and will have a religious symbol as a Catholic Church. Mr. Strain asked the height of the building. Anita responded it will be 108 feet and the setbacks are measured from the right-of-way and vary around from the east and west side 30 feet and couldn't remember the exact footage for the north and south side. Mr. Richardson asked about the Special District boundary on the map. The Town Core and Town Center are consuming credits according to Anita. Joe Schmitt responded the entire area is part of the Special District. Mr. Richardson is wondering if the building is paying taxes. The County will be responsible for providing services and getting tax revenues and try to be fiscally neutral and how they can carry the University and at the same time make it all work. He asked if everything that is not Special District University, is part of the taxable base of Collier County. Joe Schmitt felt they are not using the same terms - the entire area is a Special District of 189 District - the town is divided into township and university. Mr. Varnadoe recalls that Churches do not pay taxes, but this one will be taxed like any other church, it is not exempt as part of the University. Mr. Richardson asked if they could have other public uses for the Town Core and Town Center that would be exempt under tax collector rules. Obviously it will be a burden for the County for having anything off the tax rolls that they have to provide a service for. The special district is not limited to the University property? Mr. Schmitt stated he is correct and it encompasses the entire application. It has already been approved as a Special District before the Board of County Commissioners and going forward to the State for approval. Mr. Richardson said it wasn't mentioned anywhere about the Special District and didn't understand how it plays in - or who is responsible for what - for fiscal analysis. Mr. Varnadoe stated they are using Special District in two different ways. They have the Legislative created 189 District which will be like the Cud's in Collier County that will be responsible for the infrastructure for the entire project whether university or the town. Then there is a Special District context zone which is the University from a Land Use Entitlement point of view - two separate items. 17 March 4, 2004 Town Center- Mixture of uses. Wide sidewalks for pedestrian flow. Neighborhood General - primary residential single family homes. 176 acres and pedestrian oriented design. Variety of housing types, general neighborhood parks and open space and private school. Also neighborhood goods and services - retail and office uses designed to neighborhood scale. Mr. Midney asked if any of the work force persons will be living in the town and will they be able to afford the housing and are they affordable under the Counties definitions. Anita responded the prices will be competitive and comparable to Golden Gate Estates or Lehigh Acres. She would defer to their fiscal analysis and ask the question of the Counties definitions later in the presentation. Design Perspective - pedestrian environment, narrow street lanes, and landscaped areas buffering the sidewalks - sidewalks provided on both sides of all local streets and different open spaces in neighborhood general and parks. Community General - addresses the common spaces in the community. Includes water management system, lakes, stormwater management, open spaces and transportation network. Also includes Special Districts as defined in the Town Plan. (43 acres) Emergency services and Utilities are located. · Open space diagram was shown with lakes and open space. Town has 261 acres of open space and University has 212 acres of open space. Exceeds the 35% open space requirement. · Transportation network - 4 primary route types - Local neighborhood streets, local commerce streets, rural entry road and the pedestrian ways in the University District. · Local neighborhood streets - 10 foot travel lanes, 8 foot parking available on some, sidewalks on both sides, walking, adult bicyclists and vehicles will share the road and all consistent with the LDC guidelines. · Local Commerce Streets - Arc road and main street area. 10 foot travel lanes, on street parking provided and wide sidewalks. Designed for 25 MPH. Mr. Murray asked if it would be a common issue to have bicycles and automobiles and trucks at 25 MPH sharing - is it an accepted standard? Anita answered it is. When getting above 30 MPH then you look for other routes. Very appropriate for bicyclists to share the road with the vehicles in a very slow speed. Rural Collector Street or Rural Entry Road - 2.5 miles from Oil Well Road. Designed with 11 foot travel lanes and a 12 foot pathway on one side of the road. Ave Maria trail system is 18 feet from edge of pavement to the trail. 18 March 4, 2004 Mr. Strain mentioned one of the elements in the documents provided said the Ave Maria cross section maps were provided - he did not have a copy in his packet. His book is missing pages 94 through page 120. Anita will provide them to him. · Pedestrian Ways - 20 feet wide - facilitate all types of travel and students and faculty for a walkable campus. Mr. Richardson asked about the connection to Camp Keais Road. Construction entrance? Mr. Varnadoe responded there is an existing 30 foot lime rock road that is used for farming operations that they will use for their construction entrance and also a back up emergency entrance that exists today. In the DRI phase there will be a direct connection to Camp Keais Road from Ave Maria. Mr. Richardson asked about the town and is more than what they are seeing and only qualifying the village section of the Land Development Code. They are suggesting they are going to do more than that - in the context of doing that, they would like to see what it is. They are still in the planning phase of it all but there will be a connection from the town to Camp Keais Road. Only planned as a construction route at this time until future phases, transportation and residents will come in through the entry way off Oil Well Road. Will not need to change the size of the streets because it is an integrated network. Mr. Richardson said they have different size roadways serving different transportation needs in the village. Anita said the roadway system is all two lane roadways in a block system. Mr. Richardson said it is a main road coming in - a wide road and doesn't disperse down until it gets into the village. Allen Reynolds - Wilson Miller - showed the main street on the map and traced the phase one boundary. Main Street will be one of the connecting points and designed for the cross section. Mr. Schiffer asked if they were comfortable with the main arterial road dropping down to two ten foot lanes. Anita responded that is the intent because it is a pedestrian oriented design, making sure the block systems created meet the LDC and are consistent with the LDC. Mr. Murray assumed it was planned that way at 96% to the next level, which would be a town, but they have chosen the village format to go into and notes that, although not 19 March 4, 2004 specific in the village, in the town category, 5.1 acres, and if going to expand, is it going to facilitate moving it along or will it become a town by the Code? Anita responded there is a number or a park dispersed throughout for the residents and university and as it becomes a town, they will provide additional parks as required. Mr. Murray asked what options are there for persons that do not wish to go to the private school and is it restricted in any way? Anita started they have an option to home school or send them to the public schools. They are working with the public schools to help in the next phases and planning for public schools in the town. Mr. Murray asked if it would be supported through tuition. George said "yes and would be open to anyone". Subsidized by Ave Maria University and the Church - planned for K through 12. Mr. Murray asked the same question as Commissioner Midney about the people that would work there, and not a high range of salary, he hoped there is some facility there so the children are not traveling long distances or required to be home schooled because it might be the only school in town. Mr. Strain remembered during disclosures he received an e-mail from Amy Taylor. He was going to ask her to explain it later. It was addressed to a few other people and he got a copy of it. Amy Taylor - has the same questions with private schools, the K through 12 and don't assume it would accommodate all the people that would choose to live in Ave Maria. They need to consider the number of dwelling units and what they would generate in terms of students. At the SRA phase they do not have the mechanism for input for analysis but at the DRI phase they will. Mr. Strain asked if she would have had an opportunity to comment on it during the fiscal neutrality analysis to address the school issues and concerns. They had been under that impression, but after an evaluation of the language in the Comprehensive Plan and how it was translated into the LDC, it was determined they did not have that mechanism. The planning staff is amending it so they will. Mr. Strain asked if the impact neutrality analysis they have - says it does have a neutrality by 2008 - doesn't take into consideration school facilities? Amy responded it did include schools. The impact assessment does not include schools. They are comfortable at this point because it will be part of the DRI. He asked if they are required to do a DRI of which the answer was "yes". Mr. Strain asked if they could take the approval today, build it out, decide that is all they want to do and stop. 20 March 4, 2004 Mr. Varnadoe responded "no" they are entering into a preliminary agreement with the State which is requiring them to file application for development approval for DRI within 120 days of the agreement and will be in place before the BCC meeting. Don Scrotinbourgh - Ave Maria l. Jniversity Ave Mafia is not unfamiliar with higher education. He covered all the other areas they currently have campus in the United States and Internationally plus having a law school. There are currently 123 students in North Naples comprising of 32 different states. Mr. Monahan's goal is to be the best, not necessarily the biggest. He gave the following facts and presentation: · Global perspective · Oratory - landmark for development · Arch Road - connector · University- 327 acres, 222 acres is open space. · Goal for 327 acres is to supply 1M square feet of University uses. · Will accommodate up to 1,200 students · Will support 350 faculty and staff members. · Largest components are academics, student housing and sports and recreational facilities. · Map shown · Grid system - design of University is planned for grid system. Founder is much disciplined. Sets up some of the disciplines of Frank Lloyd Wright - is an inspiration that will be integrated into the campus. · Walkable campus. · Typical grid sector is 350 feet x 700 feet. · Buildings located very specifically within the grid systems and set-backs are also from the grid lines. · Discussed the buildings in phase I. · Showed different areas and buildings on the map displayed. · Will not be a Bishop seated at this destination. · Will not be governed under the local Archdioceses of Venice. · He showed where the buildings will be place on the map. · Goal is to have 95% of the students live on campus. · Unless the student resides with the family at they must live on campus. · Law school will be coming down from Ann Arbor. · Frank Lloyd Wright style will be the architecture · Library in Phase I will hold 420,000 volumes of books. Will be one of the largest libraries in the Country in future phases. · Thanked the County Staff for their enthusiasm and willingness to work with them. Mr. Murray wanted him to expound on the fact that the K through 12 will be part of the University - whether it will be pulled into the University somehow and taxes and all the other aspects of it. 21 March 4, 2004 The money that will foster the initial development of the University as well as the K through 12 comes from the Ave Maria Foundation. That is the governing umbrella over all of it financially. They will have a separate staff and faculty operating the K through 12 from the University. Mr. Richardson asked about the diagram on the layout of the buildings and the lake at one side - there is a grayed out area representing other developments on the bottom of the picture. On the overlay it looks like more than the University portion. He wanted to know what else was down there they cannot see on the diagram. Mr. Scrotinbourgh said it is ideas they are trying to follow through on. Basically, in subsequent phases as additional academic buildings are needed, there will be subsequent buildings added on. There is a tree farm that will later be planted throughout the campus as more buildings are needed. The residential pods will hold 1,000 students. Mr. Richardson and Mr. Scrotinbourgh discussed what portion of the project they see on their report cover and potential growth. Mr. Richardson asked if they are asking for the SRA includes not only the colored portion, but the grayed out portion on the background. He is confused by the depiction on their books. Many of the other members were confused as well. Mr. Strain stated they need to define the 27 acres to solve the problem. Mr. Varnadoe showed the map again and the presentation area they got. He discussed the loop road planned for the next phase. Pedestrian bridges were not displayed that will be crossing the north south water body in future phases. Mr. Abernathy asked if there was going to be some religious teaching order identified to be the core staff of the religious aspect. The Chancellor is a Jesuit. The tradition of Jesuit will be followed very closely. There is no order. There will be a priest from Nigeria and Austria. Mr. Murray asked about the infrastructure. Reference to using the garbage, the removal of the garbage, the typical rolling cans or whatever. He found it curious because if they have multi-family homes, he assumed they would be condominiums or apartments. Seemed an odd way of going about, with all the beautiful renderings and examples of very lovely places, it seemed an odd thing, there's zero lot line, not a lot of space for storage, where do they put the garbage cans? The multi-family will be served by the dumpster. STAFF 22 March 4, 2004 Susan Murray - Director of Department of Zoning and Land Development Review Gave overview of what they did and what they found: Did comprehensive assessment · Valuated the projects on environmental, transportation, utilities, comprehensive planning, solid waste and storm water management. · Evaluated for consistency with the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code. · Found the project is consistent with the Growth Managements Plan and the Land Development Code. · Found the economic assessment meets the requirements of 2.2.27 10L of the LDC · Town plan and design standards presented meet the requirements again of the 2.2.27 of the LDC. · Spent a lot of time making sure the project does meet the requirements of the LDC and the GMP. · Feels confident that it is a good product in terms with those provisions. · In the staff report there were recommendations beginning on page 23. Majority been addresses and Town Plan been amended accordingly. · General Comments: - #1 & #2 withdrawn from Comprehensive Dept and addressed. - #3 - dwelling unit count for overall density meets the requirements of the LDC specifically 222710J2A3. Mr. Richardson asked about the maximum heights referred to ........... Susan said it doesn't reference heights. She is getting to it. Bottom of page 23 under Dept. of Zoning and Land Dev. Review regarding the sports and rec facilities. Staff comment was to make sure the illustration complied with the maximum height of 100 feet. The change was made to the Town Plan and is now comfortable with the change. - #2 - Change was made as staff requested and no change necessary. - #3 - applicant indicated creative signs - will remove provision for creative signs and acceptable. They will not follow the County Code. Mr. Schmitt stated the Land Development Code that was passed in conjunction with the Eastern Lands has different criteria - the Planning Commissioners all reviewed it and approved it previously. It had been pointed out in great detail the sign provisions for the Eastern Lands villages and towns were not the same standards as the Coastal Community. They are allowed open neon signs and Mr. Richardson stated he was surprised they did not catch that. Mr. Murray thought there were three monuments at the entrance or perimeters and he could not remember whether that was part of the LDC changes. 23 March 4, 2004 Susan could not answer off hand, without looking it up, but their document provides a maximum square footage for their entry signs and had been reviewed against the criteria and the Code and found to meet the criteria. Mr. Murray assumed that also, but his job is to find things that perhaps slip by he thought. It may be right but not something he can resolve and hopes Susan can. Susan didn't quite understand his question, but would touch base with him at a break. #4 - University Green - graphic was placed and relocated in the Town Plan and is acceptable. Encroachments bay window was clarified as requested - no further action. 10 foot minimum sideyard requirements - regulation was clarified ands found acceptable. Requested applicant adds a maximum height for accessory uses such s-towers or wert ranks. Applicant doesn't have any idea how high they will be yet and felt it should be established and were not able to come to a resolution. They went back to the designers of the water and sewer plan and feel comfortable they can stay within the 75 feet with the exception of communication towers. #2 - Landscape provisions of the Town Plan - agreed to meet all recommendations. Want to put on the record - very challenging part of the LDC to implement because it is new and different. There are a lot of provisions in 2.4 in Landscaping, irrigation requirements and maintenance that are not necessarily design standards. Very unique and different kind of project - don't see the traditional landscape buffers between uses - it is a mixture of commercial uses. She is encouraged by it and a great project for Collier County to have this kind of diversity. There are provisions of 2.4 that are very important to make sure it is maintained and viable. Different specifics were mentioned such as tree and palm staking, pruning etc. The LDC as drafted provides the applicant to provide both landscape and architectural codes. These were issues in the Land Development Code that they were looking for to be addressed because it is very important to maintain the viability of that required landscaping. · Transportation Operations · Agreement per attached letter - attached to the staff report. · #2 - recommendation of installation of two traffic counters · #3 - recommendation from transportation · #4 - a requirement to provide annual traffic count data · Requirement to monitor for any type of traffic signal. · #5 - All roads will be privately maintained - developer or HOA. · Engineering Transportation · Cross section B2 - 90 degree parking off a 13 foot wide travel lane · #2 - recommendation of theft · Transportation Pathways · #1 & 2 - Applicant will be required to meet the LDC minimum standards 24 March 4, 2004 · #3 - Applicant will provide a 12 foot wide multi-use pad on the entry road per the LDC. · #4 - recommendation Remaining comments are informational - required to be addressed at the time of the application for a Site Development Plan or DRI is applied. Mr. Richardson -page 13 -posed a lot of questions, but did not see any answers. He asked if Susan was satisfied with land uses consistency to FLUE. Second paragraph. Susan responded she was satisfied with the sea land uses. Mr. Richardson had a lot of questions related to the fiscal neutrality. Mr. Abernathy - page 27 - multi use path or undesirable, not mixing well, etc. and then in Pathways - do they need to be resolved? Mr. Schmitt stated they have been resolved. He also had looked up the LDC criteria and found no mention of neon signs. There was an example in the LDC of a sign in the window that was exposed neon, and made it clear with the CCPC &BCC. Mr. Schiffer asked if Susan was comfortable with the parking. She was and stated they had presented a thorough comparative analysis. She was glad that they will have a policy of the students living on campus. The attraction will be that it is walkable with professors and staff living there also. Mr. Schiffer stated this is going to be a successful downtown, an attraction and wondered if they are causing the problem cities are trying to solve when they have the opportunities to solve it before they cause it. He thinks there is a shortage of parking in their analysis - he thinks the LDC is based up on the use, their analysis based upon the people walking into the city and the County not providing parking when the city is going to grow much larger than that. Just the tip of the iceberg, not the complete city. Susan Murray agreed and stated they will be back to the CCPC again; as they add on they will amend the document and will go through the DRI process. It does not where they address site specific design standards. Mr. Schiffer said it is much like downtown Naples, a beautiful place to go, and an urban area, which is why all the landscaping for suburban areas doesn't apply. Once it becomes successful, everyone will be visiting and become a parking problem. Susan answered the LDC doesn't address those type of situations where - it addresses the land use in the town - not that it may become an attracter. Outside scope of reasonable parking for day to day use. 25 March 4, 2004 Mr. Schiffer said they have also vandalized what the town center and the town core needs, based upon the application; when the application is intended to grow greater, therefore those calculations will be thrown off. Walking distances will be larger and parking will be needed and too late - look all the cities that wish they would have had this conversation before. Susan said it is a matter of economics - if not available parking or access to site - people will not come any longer. If it is new it will be exciting and a great number of people at the outset, but the economic viability depend upon whether people will access the businesses and uses reasonably. Mr. Schiffer asked if she thought it will cause such a negative impact and not worry about it. He stated that is not good planning. She wasn't saying that. In the beginning there will be a lot of people walking in the beginning in the community and won't require, but maybe they do - but the uses don't require that much. Why aren't they using the LDC requirements? They had this discussion before about the villages etc., and he is concerned it is going to be successful and it will be a problem. The successes are going to just become from visitors as they develop into the farm lands, it is going to become a large population. Joe Schmitt said they will be able to address most of those concerns in the DRI review process. Staff has no idea what will happen and the expansion will be looked at with the DRI. Mr. Schiffer felt that may be too late to do some development. Same problem cities have everywhere. Susan Murray stated this is a living document and will be amended and as they go through the DRI process, that is when they will have the full scope of review. Joe said they have nothing in regards to uses in the town. They know there is parking and they will be looking at the uses and evaluating the parking and would only guess because they do not have privileged of what is going to be designed into the town, but would guess there will be parking structures of some sort. Mr. Schiffer's concern is it makes sense on this scale not as the town grows. Susan stated she has researched other regulations alloWing similar types of uses and mixture and found parking ratios to be comparable. 26 March 4, 2004 He asked if Susan was comfortable with the one access - the community has a lot of traffic with limited access. They have a gated town. He asked if it will create congestion or what will happen? Susan understands there will be a second access road sometime in the future. Mr. Schiffer wondered how it plugs into the County. Again Susan reiterated it is another issue at the DRI phase. He asked about density - when they reviewed the stuff for the LDC, they came up with a requirement of one FAR of one per block. Mark and he had long conversations about it. This has an FAR 1.5 - he asked if it was something that should be a noted deviation - he does favor it. Susan has reviewed all the FAR's for compliance with the LDC and nothing was out of compliance. Mr. Schiffer said when the LDC comes through as it goes onto the other committees it may have changed. Mark and he have had long conversations. The town and the village have a maximum FAR 1.5 within each block. It was a conversation he and Mark had in length - he favors the higher one and Mark favors the lower one. Fiscal Impact concerns: Jay Sweat - Planning Staff Mr. Richardson pointed out the tables showing the fiscal impact of the residential development program. He wants to know if that includes Town Core and Town Center. Table 1 and Table 2 were in discussion. Mr. Sweat stated Table 1 is residential only. They are looking only at the fiscal analysis of what the residential portion of the project is going to generate. Mr. Richardson asked if he is to assume that the Town Core and Town Center will not be part of the fiscal analysis. Mr. Sweat responded it is. He asked if the dollars, at a lose, up to 2008 on operating would require a special assessment as a monitoring point of 2008. Mr. Sweat stated it does show a deficit - but when factoring in the University and the City Core - had to look at it as an overall picture with the fiscal analysis. Mr. Richardson asked about the staff report and only residential being in the report and how do they figure in the Town Core and Town Center. 27 March 4, 2004 Table 2 - page 20 discusses the residential component and later the city component and about the fact the University and much of the school will be tax exempt. Mr. Richardson pursued - would anything at the foundation put money toward tax exempt? The overall residential is being looked at and includes school, and has been told it is tax exempt because there is foundation money in there. Mr. Varnadoe stated he didn't believe private schools are taxable by State Statute. So not whether it is owned by the Foundation or anyone else - as long as "not for profit corporation" they are ............... Mr. Richardson asked about the Oratory and the Hotel. He responded with the same answer for the Oratory and the Hotel would be taxable. Not funded by the University is irrelevant. No matter who owns it, if it is a commercial operation, it will be taxable. Mr. Richardson use to work in New York City and the churches owned half of downtown and off the tax rolls. Not sure how Florida works, but if some of the purchases - up front money on some of the portion they are talking about will take it off the tax rolls. The Hotel is in the Town Core, Town Center area - not part of the University - and will be taxed like anything else in that area. Florida State Statutes 196.192 and 196.198 discuss the exemptions from Ad Valorem taxes to point out that an Educational Institution and any property used by them or any other exempt entity or educational institution shall be exempt from taxation. (Educational purposes) The Hotel is not part of the University and going to be owned by the joint venture in the Town Core/Town Center - commercial operation and won't be tax exempt. Mr. Midney asked what ownership Barron Collier has in it - who will own it? In the application the list of ownership is there and tells who owns what. This is required by your submittal documents. Mr. Richardson asked about the overall analysis - all the stuff that is part of the books. The State Statute was given, but everything else - as a smaller chunk of the acreage is all they have to carry to fiscal neutrality by 2008. When the taxes are collected, the project will become fiscally neutral by 2008. Mr. Richardson asked how the Special District works into the project. It would take away from some of the adverse impact of the tax payer of Collier County. Response was - Public services will still be needed for the area. Joe Schmitt said the Special District can still assess additional taxes to cover needed activities - transportation etc. In five years Ave Maria will report to them on updates regarding the fiscal impact model. 28 March 4, 2004 They intend to go back and look at the assumptions that have been received. It would be for the entire five years and will monitor it - if a problem within that time period; they would discuss it and work it out with the developer as time goes on. Mr. Varnadoe read a paragraph from the Land Development Code - Section 2.2.27.20 L3. "If the report identifies a negative fiscal impact of the project to the unit of local government in referenced above, the landowner will exceed to a special assessment his property also such a short fall or the alternative make a lump sum payment to the unit of local government equal to the present value of the estimated shortfalls for a period covering the previous phase or five year interval." Mr. Richardson asked for an interpretation. Mr. Strain - policy 4.17 GMP requires included in the fiscal analysis the Parks, Law Enforcement and School Facilities - he asked if they were all included. He asked again if they were included in which the answer was "yes." Mr. Varnadoe stated in the Town Core design - the parking is contained to interior to block with perimeter blocks around them. Will accommodate necessary parking, and as it builds, no reason it has to stay on grade parking. It grows as the town grows. Mr. Schiffer asked who owns the parking - response was - the landowners will own the parking. He asked if the developer of an office building will own the parking lot. Maybe keep it with the Town owning the parking lot then they can do what he said they can do easier. Mr. Varnadoe responded there is no town in terms of an incorporated entity. Mr. Schiffer asked how the town would be governed - by Collier County. Yes - it is part of Collier County. Mr. Strain mentioned the elements he asked about were not included. He wanted to make sure staff has now found the information and contrary to their report that they are included. They discussed the misnomers 4.16 and 4.17 - not evaluated to capacity because of the 4 elements that Mr. Strain mentioned. The fiscal analyses were. Mr. Strain reiterated that those three elements are included in the analysis of fiscal neutrality of Collier County. He asked about Mosquito spraying. It was not a required element of fiscal analysis - it will be handled through a special district if it isn't within the spraying district of the Collier County Mosquito District. 29 March 4, 2004 Workforce housing was discussed concerning the prices - mid range for single family is $275,000 and town homes $250,000. What percentage of the units will be below the $150,000 workforce was asked. Services provided for the University that are not provided by them are part of the fiscal analysis. But they will not be collecting taxes as it is a tax exempt entity. Mr. Strain stated the fiscal neutrality between the two parties is getting confusing. He wondered if it was included - was the University analyzed as to its fiscal neutrality for Collier County. Was it reviewed? Ron Swartz - Fishkind - stated it wasn't included at what they are looking at now. They think it is a public benefit use and should not be part of the analysis. The same way they wouldn't analysis the fiscal impact of other service providers, whether schools, churches or other government buildings. Did not include the fiscal analysis of the University. But they did do one. Shows in 2008 the University will have a bigger plus than the town. Mr. Murray stated the University generates waste and asked who it would be collected by and is there a cost associated with it. Answer was - by Waste Management and is paid monthly and comparable to the kind of costs of residential. Mr. Murray said it generates costs and doesn't want to quibble but he thinks it is valid; they live in a world of paper and volumes of paper thrown away etc. something they may be just glossing over but maybe shouldn't be. They will have some costs to the County. Mr. Strain felt there was an easy solution to the fiscal neutrality - they are going to do a DRI, and at that time, if some of the questions he will ask can be resolved by submission included in the DRI - that would be sufficient for him to understand to better answer his questions.. He went through them as follows: - Reason he asked about the University is Section 315 of the LDC - meaning each development "as a whole" will be fiscally neutral. The University is part of the overall SRA which means as a whole, which he thinks would then be necessary to include that, and that's why he would like to see it at the DRI process. - Asked about the fiscal impact model - containing elements pertaining to Parks, Law Enforcement etc. Answer was yes. Mr. Richardson said the financial consultant said none of the University costs were included in the fiscal neutrality. Mr. Varnadoe responded he told Mr. Richardson the fiscal analysis that was supplied to the County did not include the analysis of the University. He did not say he did not do 30 March 4, 2004 one, because they did. It showed the University had a positive impact on the County by the end of 2008. Mr. Richardson is concerned about the special assessment at the end of five years and wants to make sure the components are calculated in the special assessment if there is one are properly identified. He heard they are not going to be included, and Jay is saying he thinks they could be. Should the University be subject to the fiscal neutrality language? They did the analysis and are fiscally neutral at the end of 2008. Mr. Richardson wasn't sure the Code said that - but if it did he would retrieve his remarks. (Mr. Adelstein left at 12:05 PM.) Mr. Strain referred to the tables and the Workforce Housing which will be addressed later. Page 20 was referred to - 2nd paragraph in which Jay did not agree with the fiscal impact model used. It contradicts - he wanted Mr. Varnadoe neutrality analysis submitted by the DRI process - they could then say on record to contradict what staff was concerned abut that it does become neutral and here is the proof. Discussion followed that more information would be appreciated when the DRI is submitted. Mr. Strain wondered who establishes the value - it is the tax assessor's office. He asked which ones they are referring to when asked about the AMU estimates are greater. The project data referred to on Table 3 of page 21. Will be a test for the fiscal neutrality year 2008 - he asked how much of the University will be built. Answer was 1.2M. Emergency management was mentioned in report - he lives in Golden Gate and wondered about the provisions for storm refuge in the Ave Maria area. He was told they are working on it and probably are funds available from the State. Mr. Schiffer mentioned there will be no place to park. Potable water was mentioned - will be using deep well injection - it is an acceptable use to use to get rid of semi-treated water. Why affluent water wouldn't be used. Mr. Varnadoe responded they will use everything they can for irrigation. Mr. Strain asked about the modeling shown on the effect on the aquifer, if any, during the driest season. It has, and Mr. Varnadoe discussed the different, and stated this will be a confined aquifer. Solid waste will be hauled into the Immokalee landfill with it being moved to Golden Gate - report states there is 15 years left at Golden Gate and Mr. Strain wondered what the source will be for solid waste after the Golden Gate Landfill. 31 March 4, 2004 There have been meetings with Jim DeLony and focused on waste reduction and potential need for a transfer station at the DRI phase and not the ultimate disposal of the solid waste. Parking was brought up and wondered if they could suggest that the actual parking requirements needed versus those required to put in by the model - if they could be monitored to see if they worked. He was talking about the town and not the University. Mr. Varnadoe talked about the design and parking structures if and where necessary. Mr. Schiffer asked they show the parking they are providing and show, where, as per the LDC parking could be provided if necessary, which could be a second level structure. Mr. Varnadoe also reminded the Commissioners they are trying to have it pedestrian oriented and compact. They can go up in parking in the future if and when required. Mr. Strain asked if there is any impact to the beaches as far as costs goes. This is a different type of student body and atmosphere - the goal is to provide recreational, religious and esthetic resources on the campus and the surrounding town so they are not running all around the County. Not the type of use the State would have. Concerning transportation, Oil Well Road and Camp Keais Road Mr. Vamadoe explained they agreed to dedicate about 115 acres of right-of-way for the expansion of Oil Well Road and Camp Keais Road without any credits. That is based on the County doing certain things. Mr. Strain asked about the traffic counts, current impacts - being a two lane with opening in 2006 - wondered if anyone has looked at the current problems on Immokalee Road and how it is going to be impacted. Analysis was done according to the concurrency management plan allowing utilizing the roads that will be completed within three years. Mr. Strain stated the rate it is going it will be after the year 2006. The total impact on the road he thinks is above 5% and asked what it meant for Level of Service. Ed Kant - Transportation Operations Director - the fact it is under construction essentially brings it to concurrency. Doesn't want to comment on the issues that are currently with the - there are some law suits right now on that particular piece of roadway. His understanding is the road is in the work program, a contract let, under construction; therefore the concurrency issue is not an issue now. Were two scheduled dates, one in '06 and one in '07 or maybe one year one way or another. Can't comment on it now - still moving forward according to schedule? Immokalee Road is not a Level of Service issue - there are some on other roads - according to the letter and other information in their packets, they will be addressed with other construction projects. 32 March 4, 2004 Mr. Strain stated it is not a level of service when it is four laned; there is right now. When improved and have the four lanes it needs to - there will be no negative impact. 3 Mr. Kant agreed. Mr. Strain inquired of the fiscal analysis with the DRI process being more complete with the elements that were talked about. Mr. Varnadoe responded when they do the DRI analysis for an economic analysis, it not only covers - they are talking about direct dollars to and from the county. It also encompasses - as he knows, an economic analysis on the County as a whole which is not encompassed in the fiscal neutrality analysis per se. When looking at the University it has a job creation of some 743 or 753 jobs with additional wages of some 16 or 18M overall output of dollars in 2008 - mixing apples and orange analysis when they get in the DRI process but they will try to give the information Mr. Strain wants to look at. Mr. Strain asked if FIAM is a model - if it was updated to bring in the University portion of it and include parks and law enforcement as well as schools, that would be everything they are looking for. The FIAM model encompasses all the things that the County local government spends money on including parks etc. Joe Schmitt stated Mr. Fishkind has been working with the County for over a year in developing the model specifically Collier County. It includes all the financial data associated with all the aspects of operating the County. (Sheriff, Fire, EMS etc.) Mr. Strain asked for a copy of that document. Mr. Schmitt said it is a spreadsheet. Mr. Strain wants to make sure that everything they talked about is covered. When they come in with the DRI they could do a demonstration of how the model works. Mr. Schmitt felt they need to have a workshop with Mr. Fishkind. Mr. Strain asked that when the DRI model comes through, the CCPC meeting is not scheduled for at least two weeks after the Board receives regarding that element. Discussion of timing and getting information to staff was of concern. At this time Mr. Budd asked if they wanted to continue and whether there were any public speakers. Being none, they continued. Mr. Schiffer inquired about page 58 the land use table. Road section was not in his packet. Neighborhood General Land Uses. His concern was they spent some time coming up with an Ordinance where they cannot have a driveway less than 23 feet from the back of a sidewalk, if a car was parked in it; it would not stick out causing a dangerous situation for pedestrians. Being pedestrian oriented, the setbacks don't meet those requirements. Could they be tuned to do that? Page 62 there is a 15 foot driveway and he is worded about the guy that can't find a parking place for the restaurants sticking 33 March 4, 2004 out into the street when he parks in the driveway. When going from the back of sidewalk to garage door there is at least 23 feet. Would cause adjusting some of them. The large single family there is 20 feet. The sketches and dimensions should be such that - unless they want a deviation from that - but .......... Anita Jenkins mentioned there are specifications that the garages should be recessed from the primary facade. Mr. Schiffer agreed that is the large single family and still only puts it at 20 feet as proposed - referred to page 65. It was a concern they have accepted - unless they want deviation from it. Another question he had was - the large single family lots have a 10 foot setback and both have to add up to 10 feet. Intent is to not allow a comer lot to have a zero side setback on the other side - he asked if that was correct. Typically a lot would have a 5 foot minimum setback, both adding up to ten - comer lot on the same chart says it has a ten foot setback both which adds up to ten plus zero would comply. Anita answered they could have a zero setback on one side and then ten foot on the comer. He asked if that was the intent to have a zero lot line on a comer lot. Anita said it states the minimum sideyard setback is 5 feet on one side with the total of both 15. Would not have a zero setback, would be a minimum of 5 feet. Mr. Schiller is curious of the back alley. There is a Y-2 section shown .......... on the Master Plan. It is in their book on page 97 according to Mr. Vamadoe. Mr. Richardson has a conflict with the assertion by the applicant, if he heard him correctly; the University will not be part of the fiscal analysis and fiscally neutral analysis that the County is going to apply to determine that the five year monitoring point with an assessment applied. Jay said he expects to see that - and he is identifying that as a conflict. He for one thinks they should look at the entire project and see the entire impact including any of the good things they want to put into the analysis. Mr. Midney asked about Section 4, page 3 - potable water - says they will be using about 700,000 gallons a day of potable water among 950 dwelling units. That comes out to about 21,000 gallons a month which seems high. He asked how they arrived at that figure. John English - Wilson Miller - Mr. Midney asked his question again. There was discussion among the staff and commissioners. Mr. English responded the demands aren't just limited to residential - it is for the entire SRA development. Mr. Strain asked about the outstanding answers yet. The work percentage ofworkforce housing will be price below $150,000. Mr. Vamadoe did not have a percentage. During 34 March 4, 2004 the DRI process they will look at the generation of how much low income housing they need to have based on the generation of jobs. Mr. Strain asked again about the maximum heights of accessory structures. Mr. Varnadoe is comfortable or 75 feet for accessory structures but with the exception of communication towers. Will need some two way radio communications and doesn't know where it is. Susan stated they are comfortable with the 75 feet - the principle structures are allowed to go to 50 in the community district given its location she can't tell him what is going to be around it. Heights were discussed. Mr. Strain asked if they had any problem going to 100 foot with communications tower. It was acceptable according to Susan. Susan stated she reviewed all the FAR's both in the Code and the Ave Maria document and they all comply with the LDC. There is a variety of FAR's - overall and FAR's for individual types of uses. Town Core is three and Town Center is two - for overall. The uses breakdown less than that. The Hearing was closed for motion and discussion. Mr. Strain makes a recommendation for approval SRA 2003-AR-4578 with the following stipulations: 1) The applicant will obtain a preliminary development agreement with DCA, the reason for it - the answers were voiced or banked on the fact they are going to have a DRI - this would tie it to that. 2) Remove the provisions for signs for staff comments for Item #3 of theirs. 3) Maximum height of accessory structures at 75 feet for communication towers to 100 feet. 4 - 5 - 6) Staff went through item by item of the elements of Transportation, the engineering transportation section, transportation pathways and would like to incorporate all their comments as part of the stipulation. 7) That the storm refuge issue be addressed at the DRI process. 8) More detailed fiscal neutrality assessment will be provided at the DRI process including the University. 9) The percentage of Workforce Housing will be provided at the DRI process. Mr. Varnadoe asked for clarification on the transportation recommendations; he thought they had worked them out without having to include the staff. A second needed to be made. Second by Mr. Murray. 35 March 4, 2004 Mr. Varnadoe stated if they go to Transportation engineering - page 27 - referenced the multi-paths undesirable etc, - the LDC is adopted allows a 12 foot multi-modem lane on a collector road, and they are utilizing it. He wants to make sure they are not asking them to do anything wider or different. If they all understand it the same way, it is okay. Mr. Strain clarified the stipulation that the pathway references are pursuant to the LDC requirements. Motion carried 6-0. 9. Old Business: Marjorie Student wanted it stated in the record as required by State Statute that at the last meeting Chairman Budd conflicted out on the appearance of impropriety on the sign variance for the Naples Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Schmitt addressed the CCSL variance - made notes about the recommendation that the Chairman or Vice Chairman would prepare a memo to the Board of County Commissioners to the Chair specifically addressing their requests to have the item reviewed and the reasons why in a future LDC cycle. He asked the Chair or Vice Chair prepare a memo, he would assist, addressing the issues that they recommended in regards to the CCSL variance in reference to the issues that were taken out in regards to permitting process in lieu of going through the variance process. His second issue was in regards to a Court Reporter versus the use of Manpower - what is the long and short of it. The short of it is the court reporter responsibility is we get the court reports and their contracts costs somewhere in the neighborhood of $800 or more a meeting, and would be more costly depending upon the length of the meeting. Manpower Services is far less. He did not budget after the last contract that was negotiated as they did not budget specifically for a Court Reporter at these proceedings. He understands their direction as asking for a Court Reporter - but to understand that it is 3 to 5 times more costly for a Court Reporter than it is for Manpower. Mr. Budd mentioned in his opinion the $24,000 just to round things off a year, two meetings a month, 12 months a year, $24,000 they spend is an investment for the citizens of Collier County, in that specific stipulations and agreements are made by developers of property in this process that, he knows everyone makes their best to carry forward, but an accurate transcript would capture all those assurances by developers and give us better security that they were not lost in the process. 36 March 4, 2004 10. Mr. Strain agreed because when he has gone into the minutes of past meetings that are on line, trying to see what they did to make sure that when they are coming back they at least adhere to what they did previously. The minutes don't reflect verbatim transcript closely at all. Joe mentioned he was not sure what happened with the agreement with the Clerk and the previous contract for Court Reporters, but the agreement was that the Board of County Commissioners would continue to ask for Court Reporters - all of the meetings would be taped, which they are taped and would be taped both for visual and for audio. He needs to budget for it and will budget for it based upon on their request. Their request will have to budgeted for it in the next fiscal year. It comes out of Development Services fees, a separate fee, and has to pay that service to the Clerk - he will work it out with Jim Mitchell. So it is not something that is going to happen immediately but he will budget for it and move in that direction. Mr. Murray stated he would certainly support that. New Business: The Boathouse Workshop is March 16th at 9:00 AM. The Commissioners are invited to attend. 11. Public Comment Item - None 12. Discussion of Addenda - None There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:50 PM. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Chairman Mr. Russell Budd 37