The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda 10/14/2014 Item # 8B 10/14/2014 8.B. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item,all participants are required to be sworn in. A Resolution of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners amending the Ave Maria Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) Town Plan and SRA Master Plan in accordance with Section 4.08.07.F.4 of the Land Development Code,and specifically to: add single family detached Z lots to the Neighborhood General Zone; add 600,000 square feet of light industrial/warehousing to the Town Center 2b; redesignate 155 acres of Neighborhood General to Town Center 2b; redesignate 90 acres of Town Center 2a to Neighborhood General; redesignate 52 acres of Town Center 3 to Neighborhood General and move an access point along Oil Well Road. The subject property is located north of Oil Well Road and west of Camp Keais Road in Sections 31 through 33, Township 47 South, Range 29 East and Sections 4 through 9 and 16 through 18, Township 48 South, Range 29 East in Collier County, Florida [Petition SRAA-PL20132012]. OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) review staff's findings and recommendations along with the recommendations of the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) regarding the above referenced petition and render a decision regarding this Stewardship Receiving Area amendment (SRAA) petition; and ensure the project is in harmony with all the applicable codes and regulations in order to ensure that the community's interests are maintained. CONSIDERATIONS: This petition is amending the SRA resolutions (Resolutions No. 2004- 89, 2005-234A, and 2011-131, and most recently 2012-232) pursuant to Section 4.08.07 of the Collier County Land Development Code. Resolution No. 2011-131 approved a Master Plan amendment to divide Town Center 2 into Town Center 2a and 2b, moving Town Center 2b, approximately 50 acres in size, from Camp Keais Road to a site along Oil Well Road as depicted on the attached SRA Master Plan. In addition, the westernmost access point was moved to accommodate the Town Center 2b relocation. Resolution 2012-232 added an access point on Oil Well Road. This petition, according to the narrative statement from the applicant, proposes the following changes: The Town of Ave Maria SRA amendment proposes to add specific land use references for light manufacturing/warehousing in the Town Center 2b designated tracts of the Town Plan. Previously the allocation for the existing light manufac- turing/warehousing had been credited against the Office land use allocation. Additionally, the Town Center 2b designation on the SRA master plan has been expanded by approximately 155 acres to include all lands adjacent to Oil Well Road. This area was previously designated Neighborhood General on the Master Plan. The revised master plan also reflects modifications to portions of Town Center 2a which is located north and south of Pope John Paul II Blvd. near Camp Keais Road. Approximately 90 acres of the Town Center 2a area is proposed to be redesignated as Neighborhood General. The master plan was also modified for Town Center Area 3 located in the northeast quadrant of Ave Maria Blvd. and Anthem Parkway. Packet Page -36- 10/14/2014 8.B. Approximately 52 acres have been redesignated as Neighborhood General. The reallocation of acreage results in a decrease in the Neighborhood General designation by approximately 13 acres. A new residential zero lot line dwelling unit type has been added to the Neighborhood General land use designation. A narrative description, development standards and a typical lot layout have been inserted for this dwelling unit type. Previously, minor administrative amendments had been approved by Collier County. These minor amendments have been incorporated into the update SRA document. All new text has been shown in strikethrough and underline format. The applicant was seeking changes to the pathways exhibit and corresponding text as well as seeking to revise the root barrier requirement,but those issues were withdrawn from this petition. This petition is a companion petition to a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) rescission request. FISCAL IMPACT: The County collects impact fees prior to the issuance of building permits to help offset the impacts of each new development on public facilities. These impact fees are used to fund projects identified in the Capital Improvement Element of the Growth Management Plan as needed to maintain adopted Level of Service (LOS) for public facilities. Additionally, in order to meet the requirements of concurrency management, the developer of every local development order approved by Collier County is required to pay a portion of the estimated Transportation Impact Fees associated with the project in accordance with Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. Other fees collected prior to issuance of a building pen-nit include building permit review fees. Finally, additional revenue is generated by application of ad valorem tax rates, and that revenue is directly related to the value of the improvements. Please note that impact fees and taxes collected were not included in the criteria used by staff and the Planning Commission to analyze this petition. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) IMPACT: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject property is designated on the Future Land Use Map and Map Series as Agriculture/Rural, Agriculture/Rural Mixed Use District and is within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (RLSA). The RLSA Overlay includes policies that govern SRAs, and a use table (Attachment C) that identifies the allowable uses and intensities. The Town of Ave Maria is an approved and partially developed Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) and Development of Regional Impact(DRI)*, both of which were deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element at time of approval in 2005. This petition seeks to amend the SRA Master Plan (through a public hearing process) to: 1) re-designate certain portions of Town Center and Neighborhood General land use areas resulting in a net increase of 13 acres of Town Center area and a net decrease of 13 acres of Neighborhood General area; 2) add 600,000 sq. ft. as the maximum intensity of development allowed for light industrial and warehousing uses; 3) make other relatively minor changes. These light industrial and warehousing uses are already permitted in the SRA but this square footage is newly being added to the Town of Ave Maria SRA. The SRA document and Master Plan are presently incorporated by reference into the DRI Development Order. Packet Page -37- 10/14/2014 8.B. * Note that a companion petition (DRIABN-PL20130002016) has been submitted seeking to rescind the DRI Development Order. The proposed amendment changes the approved uses and increases the approved use intensity, but does not affect the boundaries of the SRA. The (light industrial and warehousing) uses are presently allowed by the FLUE RLSA Overlay, Attachment C, Stewardship Receiving Area Characteristics. RLSA Overlay Attachment C also limits the maximum floor area ratio or intensity of light industrial uses to 0.45. Amendments to the SRA document add this floor area ratio limitation to warehousing/light industrial uses within Town Centers 2 and 3. The resulting limitation on the 155 acre Town Center 2b is 69.75 acres that can accept the desired construction of up to 600,000 sq. ft. of light industrial and warehousing floor area. Attachment C also contains a required ratio of Town Center commercial uses per dwelling unit (65 sq. ft./dwelling unit). The existing SRA was found to be consistent with this requirement; this petition results in a net increase in Town Center area by 13 acres and does not change the approved density. In this manner, this Town of Ave Maria SRA Amendment is consistent with the FLUE. A component of the existing SRA document is the Economic Assessment Report. Table 1, the AMU Development Program 2006—2016 summarizes the fiscal impacts of developing the Town of Ave Maria. The introduction of a specified 600,000 sq. ft. of these new warehouse and light industrial uses is represented in this table, and elsewhere in the Economic Assessment Report. The SRA document provides an assessment of their fiscal impacts in Table 3 of the Assessment. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The CCPC/EAC heard this petition on September 4 2014, and continued it to September 18, 2014. By a vote of 6 to 0 (Commissioner Rosen was excused), with the motion made by Commissioner Chrzanowski and seconded by Commissioner Doyle, the CCPC recommended forwarding this petition to the BZA with a recommendation of approval with the following changes: l. The Zero Lot Line housing type concept is acceptable; 2. Anthem Parkway must be blocked off and bermed with allowance to be a gated entrance if land owner or the neighbors want it; 3. Revise the language on the tree spacing consistent with the discussion; 4. The CCPC can support a maximum of 600,000 square feet of industrial/warehouse use for the entire project, with the existing approximately, 260,000 square feet of Arthrex use being counted as part of that 600,00 square feet; 5. The Enhanced Landscape and Development Standards for Town Center 2 along Oil Well Road shall be revised in accordance with the discussion; 6. Lighting for parking lots adjacent to residential uses shall be a maximum of 25 feet tall, and shall be shielded pursuant to LDC requirements. Chairman Strain noted for the record that the Fiscal Impact Analysis model was not reviewed as part of this petition as the most up to date material was not provided to staff or the CCPC in a timely enough fashion to allow review. Letters in opposition to this petition have been received; therefore the petition cannot be placed on the Summary Agenda. Packet Page -38- 10/14/2014 8.B. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This is an amendment to the Town Plan and Master Plan of the Ave Maria Stewardship Receiving Area. The burden falls upon the applicant for the amendment to prove that theproposal is consistent with all of the criteria set forth below. The burden then shifts to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), should it consider denial, that such denial is not arbitrary, discriminatory or unreasonable. This would be accomplished by finding that the amendment does not meet one or more of the listed criteria. Criteria for SRA Amendment 1. Consider: Compatibility with adjacent land uses. 2. Consider: An SRA must contain sufficient suitable land to accommodate the planned development. 3. Consider: Residential, commercial, manufacturing/light industrial, group housing, and transient housing, institutional, civic and community service uses within an SRA shall not be sited on lands that receive a natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2. 4. Consider: Conditional use essential services and governmental essential services, with the exception of those necessary to serve permitted uses and for public safety, shall not be sited on land that receives a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2, regardless of the size of the land or parcel. 5. Consider: Lands or parcels that are greater than one acre and have an Index Value greater than 1.2 shall be retained as open space and maintained in a predominantly natural vegetated state. 6. Consider: Open space shall also comprise a minimum of thirty-five percent of the gross acreage of an individual SRA Town, Village, or those CRDs exceeding 100 acres. Gross acreage includes only that area of development within the SRA that requires the consumption of Stewardship Credits. 7. Consider: As an incentive to encourage open space, open space on lands within an SRA located outside of the ACSC that exceeds the required thirty-five percent retained open space shall not be required to consume Stewardship Credits. 8. Consider: An SRA may be contiguous to an FSA or HSA. but shall not encroach into such areas, and shall buffer such areas as described in LDC Section 4.08.07 J.6. An SRA may be contiguous to, or encompass a WRA. 9. Consider: The SRA must have either direct access to a County collector or arterial road or indirect access via a road provided by the developer that has adequate Packet Page-39- 10/14/2014 8.B. capacity to accommodate the proposed development in accordance with accepted transportation planning standards. 10. Consider: Conformity of the proposed SRA with the goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP. 11. Consider: Suitability criteria described in Items 2 through 9 above [LDC Section 4.08.07 A.1.] and other standards of LDC Section 4.08.07. 12. Consider: SRA master plan compliance with all applicable policies of the RLSA District Regulations, and demonstration that incompatible land uses are directed away from FSAs,HSAs, WRAs, and Conservation Lands. 13. Consider: Assurance that applicant has acquired or will acquire sufficient Stewardship Credits to implement SRA uses. 14. Consider: Impacts, including environmental and public infrastructure impacts. The BCC must base its decision upon the competent, substantial evidence presented by the written materials supplied to it, including but not limited to the Staff Report, Executive Summary, maps, studies, letters from interested persons and the oral testimony presented at the BCC hearing as these items relate to these criteria. This item has been approved as to form and legality, and it requires a majority vote for Board approval (HFAC) RECOMMENDATION: Staff concurs with the recommendations of the CCPC and further recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approves the request subject to the attached resolution. Prepared by: Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner, Zoning Department, Growth Management Division Attachments: 1) CCPC Staff Report 2) Neighborhood Information Meeting Synopsis 3) Application Backup Information due to the size of the document it is accessible at: http://www.colIieraov.net/ftp/AaendaOct1414/GrowthMgmt/SRAA Application.pdf 4) Resolution Packet Page -40- 10/14/2014 8.B. COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 8.8.B. Item Summary: This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. A Resolution of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners amending the Ave Maria Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) Town Plan and SRA Master Plan in accordance with Section 4.08.07.F.4 of the Land Development Code, and specifically to: add single family detached Z lots to the Neighborhood General Zone; add 600,000 square feet of light industrial/warehousing to the Town Center 2b; redesignate 155 acres of Neighborhood General to Town Center 2b; redesignate 90 acres of Town Center 2a to Neighborhood General; redesignate 52 acres of Town Center 3 to Neighborhood General and move an access point along Oil Well Road. The subject property is located north of Oil Well Road and west of Camp Keais Road in Sections 31 through 33,Township 47 South, Range 29 East and Sections 4 through 9 and 16 through 18, Township 48 South, Range 29 East in Collier County, Florida [Petition SRAA-PL20132012]. Meeting Date: 10/14/2014 Prepared By Name: DeselemKay Title: Planner,Principal, Zoning&Land Development Review 9/19/2014 11:23:42 AM Approved By Name: BosiMichael Title: Director-Planning and Zoning, Comprehensive Planning Date: 9/22/2014 2:10:14 PM Name: PuigJudy Title: Operations Analyst, Community Development&Environmental Services Date: 9/22/2014 3:29:46 PM Name: BellowsRay Title: Manager-Planning, Comprehensive Planning Date: 9/23/2014 11:21:36 AM Name: MarcellaJeanne Packet Page-41- 10/14/2014 8.B. Title: Executive Secretary, Transportation Planning Date: 9/24/2014 9:28:47 AM Name: AshtonHeidi Title: Managing Assistant County Attorney, CAO Land Use/Transportation Date: 9/24/2014 12:16:37 PM Name: KlatzkowJeff Title: County Attorney, Date: 9/24/2014 4:17:15 PM Name: UsherSusan Title: Management/Budget Analyst, Senior, Office of Management&Budget Date: 10/6/2014 1:51:07 PM Name: OchsLeo Title: County Manager, County Managers Office Date: 10/7/2014 9:58:50 AM Packet Page -42- 10/14/2014 8.B. AGENDA ITEM 9-E Cotter County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING SERVICES—PLANNING&ZONING DEPARTMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION--PLANNING&REGULATION HEARING DATE: SEPTEMBER 4, 2012 SUBJECT: SRAA-PL20130002012; THE TOWN OF AVE MARIA STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA (SRA) [COMPANION TO PETITION NUMBER DOA-PL201300002016] PROPERTY OWNERS & APPLICANT/AGENT: Owners/Applicants: Barron Collier Partnership, LLLP, owner AMULT, LLC,owner 2600 Golden Gate Pkwy, Ste. 200 2600 Golden Gate Pkwy, Ste. 200 Naples, FL 34105 Naples, FL 34108 Ave Maria Development LLLP, applicant/owner CC Ave Maria, LLC, owner 2600 Golden Gate Pkwy. 2600 Golden Gate Pkwy. Naples, FL 34101 Naples,FL 34101 Agents: D. Wayne Arnold, AICP Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire Q. Grady Minor&Associates, Inc. Coleman, Yovanovich&Koester, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey Northern Trust Bank Building Bonita Springs, FL 34134 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples,FL 34103 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner is requesting an amendment to the Town of Ave Maria SRA to revise the Master Plan to change some Town Center and Neighborhood General locations on the Master Plan and to make some text changes to the documents. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property, consisting of 5.027 acres, is located on the north side of Oil Well Road, the west side of Camp Keais Road and approximately 6,000 feet south of Immol:alee Road (CR-846). Town of Ave Maria SRA, SRAA-PL20130002012 Page 1 of 7 September 4,2014 CCPC Revised: 8!13!14 Packet Page -43- 10/14/2014 8.B. The property lies within Sections 4-9 & 16-18, Township 48 South,Range 29 East and Sections 31- 33 Township 47 South,Range 29 East. (See the location map on following page) PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: This petition is amending the SRA resolutions (Resolutions No. 2004-89, 2005-234A, and 2011- 131, and most recently 2012-232) pursuant to Section 4.08.07 of the Collier County Land Development Code. Resolution No. 2011-131 approved a Master Plan amendment to divide Town Center 2 into Town Center 2a and 2b, moving Town Center 2b, approximately 50 acres in size, from Camp Keais Road to a site along Oil Well Road as depicted on the attached SRA Master Plan. In addition, the westernmost access point was moved to accommodate the Town Center 2b relocation. Resolution 2012-232 added an access point on Oil Well Road. This petition, according to the narrative statement from the applicant, proposes the following changes: The Town of Ave Maria SRA amendment proposes to add specific land use references for light manufacturing/warehousing in the Town Center 2b designated tracts of the Town Plan. Previously the allocation for the existing light manufac-turing/warehousing had been credited against the Office land use allocation. Additionally, the Town Center 2b designation on the SRA master plan has been expanded by approximately 155 acres to include all lands adjacent to Oil Well Road. This area was previously designated Neighborhood General on the Master Plan. The revised master plan also reflects modifications to portions of Town Center 2a which is located north and south of Pope John Paul II Blvd. near Camp Keais Road Approximately 90 acres of the Town Center 2a area is proposed to be redesignated as Neighborhood General. The master plan was also modified for Town Center Area 3 located in the northeast quadrant of Ave Maria Blvd. and Anthem Parkway. Approximately 52 acres have been redesignated as Neighborhood General. The reallocation of acreage results in a decrease in the Neighborhood General designation by approximately 13 acres. A new residential zero lot line dwelling unit type has been added to the Neighborhood General land use designation. A narrative description, development standards and a typical lot layout have been inserted for this dwelling unit type. Previously, minor administrative amendments had been approved by Collier County. These minor amendments have been incorporated into the update SRA document. All new text has been shown in strikethrough and underline format. The applicant is also requesting changes to the pathways exhibit and corresponding text as well as seeking to revise the root barrier requirement. This petition is a companion petition to a Development of Regional Impact (DRI)rescission request. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN(GMP) CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject property is designated on the Future Land Use Map and Map Series as Agriculture/Rural, Agriculture/Rural Mixed Use District and is within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (RLSA). The RLSA Overlay includes policies that govern SRAs, and a use table(Attachment C)that identifies the allowable uses and intensities. Town of Ave Maria SRA, SRAA-PL20130002012 Page 2 of 7 September 4, 2014 CCPC Revised: 8/13/14 Packet Page -44- 10/14/2014 8.B. u. dp do °.°c P4 °< !C CC .1-2 qm Pz , a i s $ : 1 Vi.K C.•.•. a '� pD Fo 5 5b:.: ::.•: : : ,•:•.•.• aW tC Km m :g•;;' ...:::,;.::::H::::::::44-7,01:Hr 4 T 7..4 4 lk.,,,, .0J, -411t, :;:::::::::i -,:;:ii!:; A f � ::::4,21:: ,VI V/ SA :: 2 Lir./ � 41 4. o R F Q 04 is ab r ° <S e� K -tc --- ' 6 -- e'e L f o cs g z a■ g g .' ), nn 0 N N Rd� m R)- z< s '∎ ao H F c1 sm •,m K , <o n ` t < _I --.. 1%! ,,,,,a t a 7i9 c O qi I----— _ ^am I Aim xn s-vss a0mvNrovvnu»Nrry Ill •6 om NI A. 4 m I <p„ J a MVOS 61 ION Q L7 4t I Z Q H 1 ik 3- � � W w 8 '6' a 3 I Eg U z / 6Z N S \ r1 L.L � H X_____/, act -4 0 va b I: 0 c Q Vi m aQ o Q z iir U of 6 i ..■ �' —1 U � Oq O o U ��O O F Z W M1 y. o cc p J g jjp4si •111.11111110- e5 Packet Page -45- 10/14/2014 8.B. I _I n.v iri rn in , N CD 6•. — O ! T t' CO GVO 113M 1i0 i 0 W I t UJ UJ ;i E ' Vj 5 Iii�Y 'vl 11 1 e, 0„I l l ' fiti I4. 1 O ... t 6 CI- 5 Ca g 81 i C N a3 5 Q u_ . U)r, � C. a. S CO O L a LCr) w, ,D V O C . t X Q �^ • y ■ 2 Q i- i,.. Ir; _.. l' LI _, - - ! s, ,4 Y''. ,,n' F I d z. to ; r q L In. tr 4 S Packet Page-45- 10/14/2014 8.B. _ . 1`2. ■-',1- a-,_,....51 ;,...,.- .,,,,..,-.. ,-,-;.. ,....1N, ,,, CJI c4,01 rn 1 0\1011 113M 110 ,.... . .., ..., .„-. '0 .■ 7 6 o o ,..., ?_,-, I '_ < 2o■5 E 8 c 1 E • '''- u uo f 11) ._, 1 _ b.-= 3 3.T.-,, •,, ,5 .,`,°-,, iA 1 16. 1 9- 1-9- uo 1- ■ „:..; . , \ ., ---I , ■.1, 1, I-- ' if _ V, i 'd; ,..1 ' I I! i I 1 ig,,li 11 ) II' "---/ 4, •_ 8161 '1-'11 ' \., .'l 1 . '`.' ,, : , 1 ,‘- . ‘ g '' 0 ii,„;, . , ' i „ ,, 1 :,■ . ,. ,,,, 21 . ) --. c ( ' 1•6,1v, - - . . li'. '' , „ (13 ., , ' - / (1/ 0- - , 7 .. a) 1— ,- .... . , ..._, U) a , . a) _ -' - r-...,___ o . E -------.....ig ..''... '',.1 , -ED • \- oil , ;a , .. . ... (1) U) 'F, , J t I .-- ig, .. ..,_., 0... ,..... _._..... ... • _ CL 0 . \ 1 i ' ' < ' ...., 'f.-::----=■-' N4 ;41 N. 1-,/ ' -' t i -' \ Id ,,7-„, ' 11 . . . 7.---)' ,- I ■1 ii 6. .1( " j ' I (' i -- ■ ' IPII H1 1) V '•i-p 7 1[% '"-:,--,--- - v■ ,, / ..c.....-:.., ) ---”: b b 'II. -1- — 0 /A . < L.,...tfl /11/ /7 //./L:----,— , ' , L-' f).---L' r,' ---- ' -' ' 1// ' / '•.. _ '''',..,/:Is .i , 1 < -"' . ''.. (I igi 0 v) il I . '-.. _ i ‘,.-.. Bi 66 _ x . ' /I .., ,, ,____, ,_ ,.. \ , is ' 43; < ILI' 0 Packet Page -47- 10/14/2014 8.B. _., ‹ . 1 1 —1 LI.J I ill h t2 o , - - a bo 1-' i' tA In I , ■ , c3 ; ' 1 1 • i ... ,.... o z - I 1 - --, !, , ilrip 1 \') 11 ,,I ' , I I ,I iI II '1.7 11 . ),1:_a ' " \I II 13 a) . , i. _ ,_ , , ___ CL 5:3 ' II - ' 1r) I,___ -' ' I •-• 11!.•r "1 W , 1 r 01 •-I I , >< 1' ' LL II 11 I ' - . _ !,....-, ii - i ---- - .....•,.. ....' \ \ , , ,• ,, , , _ ; i, - 1 ,' 0 ft, ••I'•-•_.'IL ), 4. .' ' ' ,I . . I 0 , r ... -- e ,. rr ) , . . _ _. _ •,' 1* re \ '--- .--"7 .0' ' , ., . ''. '•. 1 r. '..,` ,. .-'" ,a0 ...- .... - - .0* ' •••.-. ‘. ,... i ,, • ` ,s, ‘, N re' ,,, it 1 .. ,. ... Il ) III _.. I, -r..._,..........,-.'-6"..... _ '`..... r , 'II;: , Nre r' L'' , s. . . - ... 7 ■ ' N -1:. 1•P',1)1:•'•14.'11.1 — --, ‘ , h, )1/,,IVI,■fril• t,.. • -- -.1 r „1, i - 1.t/•"E1' 1 i - - . 1 )1 ! ri11101110,111 :1 1 ' ''', ,1 .1 1,.,../.••1111 11,/-tIVir1 ' 111t r,1111 li . g 111'1 ------ 1 . '.r.L=.- _ i - E •I ---I I I-- • •- -- I--• " I f'-' -; 'II I -- • II II I , . I 1-1 1 1 e...— 0 I , : ' ---...--ri'',--r-r .-Z'45-ii' ''11'-'4'-t 11 'ii' - L ,-,,,,,- .% r' ' - -1,1fir•,4; or - - ' -11 ' 1 11 •, . "- - ',i11(••141.•111.!1••111)1 i • i , •• 1. t _., ,•___1_1 1 f . 1 .....-2.1 -I E ,. 1 F? L' er e el- , - - 1 F --- s F - I ,I r • ' 1 i '' "- N- ':--1 l (1 ' ' 1 ‘-, ." ' '1 • — r" ...,...,......c... ..,"...‘ ■ I I),1 ' i - . 1 "."' '', ' '''- I'. I . 1 • r- 1 I-- Packer Page -48- 10/14/2014 8.B. ri, w iTi a CI t,1 0 1 - cts LI-I - -J ›.- ul Z 0 N.(' a CD > 44.• -Y cr) cf) 0 o (1) co .-1 1-■ Ul tf) Z I C 1 ai11` '''''4 1 t= 1 _ I 1 I -o, (1) I I Cl) . , "0 t I I I : a) I -a • (1 a) i U) I o — < E 0 >. E CC 0.-0 ..._ rp t- a ., 0,- 1 t •ct-o t:u CU (0 @ c f0 I 9 reC.F.J*- > Cm C >,..n, 6. I °•-- -,.- 0, cu ;,,.rcl: c a)_c I ..., ..- - > .... Eii, ....... I ...--.), . r 0 f 1 175 c-0,50-0 , u= .■...... I --'-•'.......tt U.' 0 C•- tll c (o L, E..- >. r t t 750 •,-:5' ...e U' '-uo ,..-7 E 1 % C 0-,,,' >sz . L.) , . I .... -. ca „ O II)4-) I 9 '0 i t I li 15_C-S "' e. , I ) 1 e 1 oo-cDo.cil: -.6-Da), _,,,...s 0' - ...Cs' i .,....° f..,-., 0-a.0.0 ....i I 01 • t. E -0 a) % -0 0...c n I .*''''' .2 0 4-' „ = u c ...1 c E ' 113--74--0 n, a' > %..- a ' ° E 2 ,•••• ,,,,-, 0- >..., 0 Q. O 0 ID 01 co, n3 _ 0 0 ... '9% I -I-, 0 i- O V ,-R.,-..;-_, co .). v) ----, e t-.). I a) 0 '171 a v) > , V .., 0 o_4- ti i-,....e 0 = C II .• .-' 0 c_a ...., . ,_ , V...... .CC 0.00).64 >-.44" ..., r,", ., H.- CE0,@cUr2, 1.0.--, ... --a, < < 1' 0.4.— / I ' -.' -- ..- t,,...^ r, t ,- ■ En EU , CU 0 To. '1) >--ty 0 n3 tn ....) a) a) ■.-"-- .-' in. • I)ti iz) a)..= (I) 0 1:7 a'..- • 0 Z L-0 C >,1.11 e co P ' 0-=-0 u ,„ f 0/ 0 w 0 eee _c ).-Lei 0 6,-C In..., .N'I C-0 0:3 .)... rq 0 La _c ._. 76 cii .00 J.. , C --- Li..-' C ,--,...-...-' 03 se -0 o (u 0 *.2 4o ',1',10 c aI0.-.)));'0„ .2 .a E-EL Qc n.J. -l-e0 ac c a0,-1-) -.5.0 C e _ e0 77 0 .---.- ”L" " u .i.)/. i t__0 a)-6),2- Lifi.C1-3 --“D -2 E 0,-,= o-0 CU a., C CU a).,■" .1:1 C -C--,-,-, - >—— &—0_C;.---0 ". z• in --..,:. EU -0 ..- 7 = 0-t,Z7 f CI cn ‘a 0 8 ,„ -1, >,- >-. ul Lr1 ..„,_ ,_, . (U 0.0 En Q j co cm aJ re , '0"-. 4, -c rm 5 11.3 4-' •P.: t"; -E ...o re 1, -„,7, 0-0 0 ‘0)15.4c c o . cciDOru.t.-, 2 E re= 0 ■ 2 ---, re ac C7, -_ 'ic rn ,--7. rti-a •,-, . Packet Page-49- 10/14/2014 8.B. The Town of Ave Maria is an approved and partially developed Stewardship Receiving Area(SRA) and Development of Regional Impact (DRI)*, both of which were deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element at time of approval in 2005. This petition seeks to amend the SRA Master Plan (through a public hearing process) to: 1) re-designate certain portions of Town Center and Neighborhood General land use areas resulting in a net increase of 13 acres of Town Center area and a net decrease of 13 acres of Neighborhood General area; 2) add 600,000 sq. ft. as the maximum intensity of development allowed for light industrial and warehousing uses; 3) revise and notate Figure 2,the Potential Pedestrian Network Map to modify most pedestrian network features; and, 4) Make other relatively minor changes. These light industrial and warehousing uses are already permitted in the SRA but this square footage is newly being added to the Town of Ave Maria SRA. The SRA document and Master Plan are presently incorporated by reference into the DRI Development Order. *Note that a companion petition (DRIABN-PL20130002016) has been submitted seeking to rescind the DRI Development Order. The proposed amendment changes the approved uses and increases the approved use intensity, but does not affect the boundaries of the SRA. The (light industrial and warehousing) uses are presently allowed by the FLUE RLSA Overlay, Attachment C, Stewardship Receiving Area Characteristics. RLSA Overlay Attachment C also limits the maximum floor area ratio or intensity of light industrial uses to 0.45. Amendments to the SRA document add this floor area ratio limitation to warehousing/light industrial uses within Town Centers 2 and 3. The resulting limitation on the 155 acre Town Center 2b is 69.75 acres that can accept the desired construction of up to 600,000 sq. ft. of light industrial and warehousing floor area. Attachment C also contains a required ratio of Town Center commercial uses per dwelling unit (65 sq. ft./dwelling unit). The existing SRA was found to be consistent with this requirement; this petition results in a net increase in Town Center area by 13 acres and does not change the approved density. In this manner,this Town of Ave Maria SRA Amendment is consistent with the FLUE. A component of the existing SRA document is the Economic Assessment Report. Table 1, the AMU Development Program 2006—2016 summarizes the fiscal impacts of developing the Town of Ave Maria. The introduction of a specified 600,000 sq. ft. of these new warehouse and light industrial uses is represented in this table, and elsewhere in the Economic Assessment Report. The SRA document provides an assessment of their fiscal impacts in Table 3 of the Assessment. FLUE Policy 7.4 states: "The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types." The existing SRA was deemed consistent with this policy—it includes a variety of housing types; mixture of uses including civic facilities; abundant open space, including multiple parks and preserves; and, an extensive sidewalk system, depicted on Figure 2, the Potential Pedestrian Network Map. The SRA document includes numerous references to the pedestrian friendly nature of the Town, sidewalks,etc. The present proposals provide for single-side sidewalks on local roads with 25 mph speed limits, and for single-side pedestrian paths on its main entry road and in its University District, while maintaining a"walkable",or pedestrian friendly, community. A component of the existing SRA document is the Town Plan. Figure 2, the Potential Pedestrian Network Map and a series of unnumbered figures, the Street Cross Sections illustrate the sidewalks, paths and trails in the Town of Ave Maria. These figures reflect a complete and functional network of pedestrian features on one or both sides of streets. This petition seeks to amend the SRA by removing virtually half its pedestrian paths and sidewalks, and removing its entire trail system. Town of Ave Maria SRA,SRAA-PL20130002012 Page 3 of 7 September 4,2014 CCPC Revised: 8/13/14 Packet Page -50- 10/14/2014 8.B. What remains of these pedestrian features would be located on one or both sides of streets. Worthy of special attention are the Figure 2 notes regarding interconnectivity and pedestrian features — in particular, the evaluation and decisions regarding whether these pedestrian features would be located on one or both sides of streets is left until the time of individual construction plan review(s). These future evaluations and decisions would be left to the"developer and design engineer" without the presence of decision-making criteria appearing in SRA documents. Pedestrian features located on one side of streets remains a prevalent characteristic. REVIEW OF SRA DOCUMENT • Withdraw revisions to Figure 2, the Potential Pedestrian Network Map, OR provide adequate justification/rationale for the changes AND show in the series of unnumbered figures,the Street Cross Sections, and other portions of this amendment/SRA Town Plan the deletion of all design characteristics for pedestrian features and references to the pedestrian friendly nature of the Town, extensive sidewalk system, etc. • Revise and modify "Notes" on Figure 2, the Potential Pedestrian Network Map, OR provide adequate justification/rationale for the change. Make corresponding revisions and modifications where necessary to other portions of this amendment/SRA Town Plan to reflect same changes written for the revised notes. • Provide specific criteria on which to base future decisions regarding pedestrian features in the SRA Town Plan documents. Based upon the above analysis, staff finds that the proposed amendments to the Town of Ave Maria SRA Potential Pedestrian Network Map may not be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. STAFF REVIEW: Zoning Review: The proposed amendment changes comply with the requirements of the SRA procedures set forth in LDC Section 4.08.07. In compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.E, the proposed changes are not in conflict with any SRA suitability criteria, or RLSA District regulations. The proposed changes continue to direct incompatible land uses away from FSAs, HSAs, WRAs, and Conservation Lands. The petitioner has already demonstrated that he has acquired or will acquire sufficient Stewardship Credits to implement the SRA uses. The proposed amendment should not have negative environmental and public infrastructure impacts. The proposed amendment does not change the overall approved uses with the exception of adding a single-family housing type, increase the overall approved density or overall use intensity, nor changes the perimeter boundaries of the SRA (or DRI). Staff believes the proposed amendment is consistent with the Criteria for an SRA amendment. Land Re-designations: The applicant is proposing to re-designate 155 acres of Neighborhood General to Town Center 2b; re-designate 90 acres of Town Center 2a to Neighborhood General; re-designate 52 acres of Town Center 3 to Neighborhood General and move an access point along Oil Well Road. Staff supports this request. Root Barrier Removal: Town of Ave Maria SRA, SRAA-Pi-20130002012 Page 4 of 7 September 4, 2014 CCPC Revised: 8113/14 Packet Page -51- 10/14/2014 8.B. Staff and the applicant have agreed upon the changes to the root barrier requirements and staff supports the applicant's current request. Pathways/Trailways/Sidewalks Removal/Reductions: Staff and the applicant's agent have met numerous times to try to come to an agreement regarding the sidewalk and the 12 foot wide trail provision changes. Staff is not able to support the current proposal because the Notes on the plan are too general, possibly resulting in hodge-podge sidewalks. Additionally, the provision to allows sidewalks on both sides of the roadway, "unless otherwise impracticable due to limiting constraints". Who decides what is "impractical" and what constitutes a "limiting constraint"? The applicant's agent has opted to not provide additional information for staff review. Transportation Review: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the Ave Maria Stewardship Receiving Area Amendment (SRAA) and has determined that the proposed amendment represents an additional impact on the adjacent roadway network. However, the roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate this project within the 5-year planning period, and staff recommends that this project be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan(GMP). Transportation Planning staff has indicated the following stipulation should be added to any approval. The owner will complete the transfer of ownership of the permanent count stations within 90 days of approval. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report for this petition revised on August 12, 2014. The following criteria are to be considered for SRA amendments: Criteria for SRA Amendment 1. Consider: Compatibility with adjacent Iand uses. 2. Consider: An SRA must contain sufficient suitable land to accommodate the planned development. 3. Consider: Residential, commercial, manufacturing/light industrial, group housing, and transient housing, institutional, civic and community service uses within an SRA shall not be sited on lands that receive a natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2. 4. Consider: Conditional use essential services and governmental essential services, with the exception of those necessary to serve permitted uses and for public safety, shall not be sited on land that receives a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2,regardless of the size of the land or parcel. 5. Consider: Lands or parcels that are greater than one acre and have an Index Value greater than 1.2 shall be retained as open space and maintained in a predominantly natural vegetated state. 6. Consider: Open space shall also comprise a minimum of thirty-five percent of the gross acreage of an individual SRA Town, Village, or those CRDs exceeding 100 acres. Gross acreage Town of Ave Maria SRA, SRAA-PL20130002012 Page 5 of 7 September 4, 2014 CCPC Revised: 8/13/14 Packet Page -52- 10/14/2014 8.B. includes only that area of development within the SRA that requires the consumption of Stewardship Credits. 7. Consider: As an incentive to encourage open space, open space on lands within an SRA located outside of the ACSC that exceeds the required thirty-five percent retained open space shall not be required to consume Stewardship Credits. 8. Consider: An SRA may be contiguous to an FSA or HSA, but shall not encroach into such areas, and shall buffer such areas as described in LDC Section 4.08.07 J.6. An SRA may be contiguous to,or encompass a WRA. 9. Consider: The SRA must have either direct access to a County collector or arterial road or indirect access via a road provided by the developer that has adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed development in accordance with accepted transportation planning standards. 10. Consider: Conformity of the proposed SRA with the goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP. 11. Consider: Suitability criteria described in Items 2 through 9 above [LDC Section 4.08.07 A.1,] and other standards of LDC Section 4.08.07. 12. Consider: SRA master plan compliance with all applicable policies of the RLSA District Regulations, and demonstration that incompatible land uses are directed away from FSAs, HSAs, WRAs,and Conservation Lands. 13. Consider: Assurance that applicant has acquired or will acquire sufficient Stewardship Credits to implement SRA uses. 14. Consider: Impacts, including environmental and public infrastructure impacts. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) forward Petition SRAA- PL201300002012 to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a recommendation of approval with the stipulations noted above that approved the root barrier request and the land use re- designations but do not approve the proposed changes to the Pathways/Trailways/Sidewalks Removal/Reductions and as described by the accompanying resolution. Town of Ave Maria SRA,SRAA-PL20130002012 Page 6 of 7 September 4, 2014 CCPC Revised: 8113114 Packet Page -53- 10/14/2014 8.B. PREPARED BY: )jai- 0- -e-Ce-viL-, P1102111/ KAY DtSELEM, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING REVIEWED BY: Iz' 14- RAY-MOM-xi. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER DATE DEPA MENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING c-C1- 11 MIKE BOSI, AICP, DIRECTOR DATE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING APPROVED BY: //— ) 6 „ amoragir- NI eASA Af,Tqui A, 1MINISTRATOR DATE GROWTH MANA 'MENT DIVISION Tentatively scheduled for the October 4, 2014 Board of County Commissioners Meeting Town of Ave Marie SRA,SRAA-PL20130002012 Page 7 of 7 September 4, 2014 CCPC Revised: 8/12114 Packet Page -54- 10/14/2014 8.B. DeselemKay From: StrainMark Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 3:34 PM To: DeselemKay Subject: FW: pending Ave Maria SRA petition Please distribute to CCPC Thanks, Mark/ 239.252.4446 Under Florida Low, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. From: Robert Klucik[mailto:RLK @avemarialawyer.com] Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 11:17 AM To: StrainMark Subject: RE: pending Ave Maria SRA petition Mr. Chairman: ' am watching the meeting: 1. AMD committed to discuss a buffer between Del Webb and the proposed expanded Town Center, but they did not commit to install any buffer. 2. AMD discussed page 98 of the SRA regarding street trees. AMD indicated this is NOT being tabled.AMD indicated they don't need permission to make this change to the SRA. However, the proposed change to the street trees does not comply with the goals or the requirements of the RLSA and the FLUE,and given the pervasive language in the current SRA about shady tree-lined streets EVERYWHERE in the town, it is not something that can be changed without approval. Also,the SRA will have to change on many many pages to reflect a lack of pedestrian friendly shady tree line network of pedestrian paths and bike paths. 3. It is too early to decide on any of these issues given the lack of information provided by AMD prior to the hearing. Robert Klucik Ave Maria, FL Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public records.If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity.Instead,contact this office by telephone or in writing. 1 Packet Page -55- 10/14/2014 8.B. DeselemKay From: StrainMark Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 6:23 AM To: DeselemKay Subject: FW: SRAA-PL20130002012 which is on the agenda for the CCPC meeting on September 4, 2014 Attachments: Ave resident letter.pdf Please forward to CCPC M avk/ 239.252.4446 Under FLorida Law, e-mail addresses are pubLic records. If you do not want your e-maiL address reLeased in response to a public records request, do not send electronic maiL to this entity, Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. From: Robert Klucik [mailto:RLK @avemarialawyer.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 5:47 PM To: StrainMark Cc: FlanaganJim; NanceTim; DeselemKay Subject: RE: SRAA-PL20130002012 which is on the agenda for the CCPC meeting on September 4, 2014 The attached file includes a correction to its paragraph 6. Robert Klucik Ave Maria, FL 239.898.4052 From: Robert Klucik Sent:Wednesday, September 03, 2014 4:50 PM To: 'StrainMark' Cc: FlanaganJim; NanceTim; DeselemKay Subject: RE: SRAA-PL20130002012 which is on the agenda for the CCPC meeting on September 4,2014 Sir: I have attached a letter that summarizes my many concerns about SRAA-PL20130002012. Robert Klucik Ave Maria, FL 239.898.4052 From: StrainMark [mailto:MarkStrain @coliieroov.net] Sent:Tuesday, September 02, 2014 7:54 AM To: Robert Klucik Cc: FlanaganJim; NanceTim; DeselemKay Subject: RE: SRAA-PL20130002012 which is on the agenda for the CCPC meeting on September 4,2014 1 Packet Page -56- 10/14/2014 8.B. Thank you for your comments. I have forwarded this to the Planner, Kay Deselem, so she can send your concerns to each Planning Commission member and to respond to your request for a copy of the final petition. M a-rk. 239.252.4446 Under FLorida Law, e-maiL addresses are pubLic records. If you do not want your e-mail address reLeased in response to a pubLic records request, do not send eLectronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by teLephone or in writing. From: Robb Kiucik [mailto:rlk(lavemarialawyer.com] Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 6:39 PM To: StrainMark Cc: FlanaganJim; NanceTim Subject: SRAA-PL20130002012 which is on the agenda for the CCPC meeting on September 4, 2014 To: District 5 County Planning Commissioner Mark Strain Re: SRAA-PL20130002012 which is on the agenda for the CCPC meeting on September 4,2014 Dear Planning Commissioner Strain: I am writing regarding SRAA-PL20130002012 which is on the agenda for the CCPC meeting on September 4. 1. Please send me the actual final petition for SRAA-PL20130002012. 1. I have attached a searchable pdf file of the current approved SRA with the following pages highlighted because the petition appears to violate the SRA requirements contained on those pages: 38,44, 114, 115, 116, 134, 135, 145, 146, 165, 187, 208, 209, 264, 265, 266, 268, 269, 281, 282, 284, and 285. 3. I have attached the two pedestrian route maps (pages are excerpted from materials submitted by petitioner). Please note that currently trails are required along much of the SRA boundary line (the dotted line actually has yellow present in many places indicating a required nature trail).This change also appears to violate RLSA 4.08.07 subsections C.1,J.b and 1.d (requirements for transportation network,sidewalks, and landscaping). 4. I have attached the petition's proposed language requesting a 50% reduction in street trees and requesting that street trees be eliminated where other trees (such as residence landscaping) are within 20 feet of curb (page is excerpted from materials submitted by petitioner). 5.The proposed relocation of Town Center acreage appears to violate the Design Criteria contained in RLSA 4.08.07 subsections J.2.a.viii and J.2.a.xi (the use lacks the required step-down transition from industrial zone incrementally down to residential zone, and lacks a plan to otherwise substantially buffer the sudden transition from industrial to residential). I have been a homeowner and resident in Ave Maria since September of 2007. My law office has been located in the Ave Maria town center for over 5 years. My parents own a home in Ave Maria. My brother-in-law owns a winter home in Ave Maria, and another brother-in-law and sister-in-law also own a home in Ave Maria and live here. While these are my own views, I have been asked to speak on behalf of many other residents in town who have read my views and agree with me. I am most concerned because the changes requested in the petition are changes that change the quality of life 'n Ave Maria. 2 Packet Page -57- 10/14/2014 8.B. The SRA is extremely specific and repetitive throughout its 300-plus pages in stressing how fundamentally important it is to Ave Maria's character to have an unusually and pervasively walkable community with a superabundance of sidewalks and shady street trees on every single street in every single section or category of town,and an extensive network of paths and trails that also are shaded with plentiful shady trees: "The transportation network is characterized by streets with low-speed geometry and the presence of sidewalks and street trees." Elsewhere the SRA explains: "Both Ave Maria Town and Ave Maria University are designed, and expected to be, pedestrian and bicycle oriented developments." The SRA also notes that the town will have "a community trail system connecting all major land uses." Right now my town's SRA—the current legal requirements—sound blissfully bucolic: "Neighborhoods are planned in close proximity to town centers,schools and community parks to encourage pedestrian activity. The neighborhood streetscapes are designed to support a walkable environment, with sidewalks separated from the street by a planting zone." Elsewhere: "The landscape is a tapestry of interlinked quiet tree-lined shady streets, broad waterfront parks and lush native vegetation." And: "Streets and drives in Town Centers 2 and 3 will maintain the pedestrian quality found throughout Ave Maria. Tree lined sidewalks will provide a buffer and shade to those walking within the Town Centers." In all neighborhoods the SRA dictates precisely the method to ensure we have shady tree-lined streets: "Street trees shall occur at a maximum spacing on average of 40 Ft. o.c. along roadways and centered in the planting area between the sidewalk and curb." The SRA even notes that pedestrians and cyclists will actually have several routes to choose from when going from point A to point B in Ave Maria: "The transportation network will provide the pedestrian, motorist, or cyclist with multiple route choices in traveling to a specific destination. This will promote higher levels of mobility for all residents." Just to make sure no one missed it,this point is underscored elsewhere in the SRA: "The Ave Maria transportation network promotes pedestrian and bicycle modes of transportation. The Ave Maria Pedestrian Network Map, Figure 2, included herein shows the many route choices for pedestrians." And for those who are stubborn the SRA makes the same point again: "Traditional subdivision design will incorporate the interconnected pedestrian networks to provide numerous route choices for pedestrians." The SRA explains that this is all part of the town's fundamental character: "The rich agricultural heritage, environmental beauty, and rural character of Eastern Collier County influenced the character of Ave Maria. Pedestrian and bicycle movement is facilitated and encouraged through the design of a variety of paths and trails throughout the campus and town.A narrow, residential street pattern facilitates safer pedestrian movement and calms traffic. Outdoor activity and pedestrian accessibility in encouraged through a chain of trails, community parks, open spaces, continuous sidewalks and jogging paths. A community trail system is comprised of trails linking to sidewalks, park pathways and boardwalks. It links parks and open space with neighborhoods and town centers. it facilitates a viable alternative to local automobile travel, because trails extend beyond where roadway- are connected." What is more the SRA explains this in very specific detail so that no one can misunderstand how expensive and expansive the requirements are, even including cross sections for those that might not understand: "The Ave Maria transportation system will be a network of interconnected streets, pedestrian ways and trails. The transportation design concept is one of a walkable community. This is illustrated in port by the cross-sections included herein." 7 Packet Page -58- 10/14/2014 8.B. The simple fact is that the petition would do away with all of that—the developer is asking to be fully relieved of its obligations to provide Ave Maria residents with the amazing park-like environment throughout every neighborhood and commercial area in Ave Maria (as required by the current SRA).The petition seeks a huge change that will undermine and redefine the character—and the quality of fife -that the SRA clearly describes and promises over and over again on its pages. Finally, it seems that rather than such drastic changes,the petitioner could have asked for a specific variance for a specific project,which would allow everyone involved to determine whether the impact of a one-time variance might be acceptable. Sincerely, Robb Kiucik Ave Maria, Florida Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public records.If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead,contact this office by telephone or in writing. 4 Packet Page -59- 10/14/2014 8.B. DeselemKay From: StrainMark Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 6:23 AM To: Deselem Kay Subject: FW: SRAA-PL20130002012 which is on the agenda for the CCPC meeting on September 4, 2014 Attachments: Ave resident Ietter.pdf Please forward to CCPC. M c4eki 239.252.4446 Under FLorida Law, e-maiL addresses are pubLic records. If you do not want your e-maiL address reLeased in response to a pubLic records request, do not send eLectronic maiL to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. From: Robert Klucik [mailto:RLK©avemarialawyer.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 4:50 PM To: StrainMark Cc: FlanaganJim; NanceTim; DeselemKay Subject: RE: SRAA-PL20130002012 which is on the agenda for the CCPC meeting on September 4, 2014 Sir: I have attached a letter that summarizes my many concerns about SRAA-PL20130002012. Robert Klucik Ave Maria, FL 239.898.4052 From:StrainMark [mailto:MarkStrain @colliergov.net] Sent:Tuesday,September 02, 2014 7:54 AM To: Robert Klucik Cc: FlanaganJim; NanceTim; DeselemKay Subject: RE: SRAA-PL20130002012 which is on the agenda for the CCPC meeting on September 4, 2014 Thank you for your comments. I have forwarded this to the Planner, Kay Deselem, so she can send your concerns to each Planning Commission member and to respond to your request for a copy of the final petition. /4614-k> 239.252.=446 Under FLorida LOW, e-moil addresses are pubLic records. If you do not wont your e-maiL address reLeased in response to a pubLic records request, do not send eLectronic maiL to this entity. Instead, contact this office by teL_°.p one or in kt—"trod. Packet Page -60- 10/14/2014 8.B. Robert Klucik,5142 Ave Maria Blvd,Ave Maria,FL 34142 September 4, 2014 Commissioner Mark Strain Planning Commission Collier County,Florida Re:SRAA-PL20130002012 which is on the agenda for the CCPC hearing on September 4,2014 Mr.Strain: This letter will summarize all of the concerns I have about petition SRAA-PL20130002012 in which Ave Maria Development (AMD) requests amendments to the SRA for Ave Maria. This SRA is on the agenda for the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) meeting on September 4,2014. I noticed that back in March 2014 the county planning office asked the petitioner to hold a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM). At the August 21 meeting the petitioner held for residents, there were no microphones, no speakers and it was not apparent that any recording was being made or that any synopsis was being written of the questions and answers (all of which was requested by the county). Can you please provide me with access to the recording of and any written synopsis of that August 21 meeting(if they exist,of course)? I have been a homeowner and resident in Ave Maria since September of 2007.My law office has been located in the Ave Maria town center for over 5 years. My parents own a home in Ave Maria. My brother-in-law owns a winter home in Ave Maria,and another brother-in-law and sister-in-law also own a home in Ave Maria and live here. Through the years I have always encouraged (both privately and in public) everyone in town to be supportive of AMD.This is the first time I find that the priorities and interests of homeowners and residents diverge from the interests of A MD. While the views in this letter are my own views, I have been asked to be the voice of many other residents in town who have read and heard my views and agree with me.I am most concerned because the changes requested in the petition are changes that change the quality of life in Ave Maria and the fundamental character of the town. These are my concerns: 1. The petition appears to violate or hinder certain goals (which are stated as requirements) in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE),namely these: • FLUE Policy 7.4 (see page 24 of the FLUE)-The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable conmiunities with a blend of densities,common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types. • FLUE RLSF. Overlay Policy 4.7.1 (see page 106 of the FLUE)-Towns are the largest and most diverse form of SRA,with a full range of housing types and mix of uses.Towns have urban level services and infrastructure that support development that is compact,mixed use,human scale,and provides a balance of land uses to reduce automobile trips and increase livability.Towns shall be not less than 1,000 acres or more than 4,000 acres and are comprised of several villages and/or neighborhoods that have individual identity and charmer. Towns shall have a mixed-use town center that will serve as a focal point for community facilities and support services. Towns shall be designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation including" deSl�xa_ en CDL." by 1__clllQinU art!lIICerCOnneQed.sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential neighborhoods. Z.ey would r �L ,'s F 771~- i ire. the '�ot_._., ul_ 2`tTa'1T be eL o�-z�'n, v.: .�.�te corn_..____. . �� ; requirement), nor u�ou d '�° "LOW ru-e._..O:i. ingpedestria. and oicJclecirculation(a FLUE a»ire,ment)hi adopting thcpetitioner's which would _.__.11. e:e most (ghat is, nel: mccc thai: haifi the :oT -.hicul r trimspcirtation Packet Page -61- 10/14/2014 8.B. network, and render the rest of the network far less amenable to pedestrian and bicycle usage by eliminating half of the sidewalks,half of the pathways,all of the trails, and almost all of the shade trees that the SRA currently requires. 2. The current FLUE,RLSA and SRA have actually worked together as planned:since moving to Ave Maria the superabundant and shady pedestrian and bicycle routes (the network)that have been built under the current SRA have changed my daily habits.I stopped driving one of my two family cars and it has sat covered in our garage for several years. I have chosen to walk or ride my bicycle to almost all of the activities I engage in within Ave Maria. This is possible because so far ALL of the neighborhoods and ALL of the various usage districts have extensive tree-lined sidewalks/trails/paths that make walking or biking an easy choice. 3. It is false to say that the way future areas are built will not impact the way I(and countless others)live in and make use of the town's transportation network. We walk or bike to work, to eat out, to attend university events, to visit friends and family in other neighborhoods,to go shopping,for recreation,to attend church,to attend sporting events, and to go swimming. We are able to do this because all those other places in town (where the walking or biking Ave Maria resident does not actually live himself)also have this extensive network of tree-lined streets/paths/trails. In other words, the pedestrian and bike network present in any neighborhood or town center is not required by the SRA/RLSA/FLUE for the benefit of that same neighborhood or that same town center,but rather the SRA/RLSA/FLUE requires it for the benefit of everyone who lives in (or shops in,or works in,or visits)the Ave Maria SRA. 4. If now some of the new sections in town don't have the same extensive network of tree-lined streets/paths/trails,it changes the character of the town and the way we are able to travel to the various activities.That will discourage us from walking and biking,especially through and within neighborhoods that are now at least 50%less-friendly to pedestrians and far less shady, and because now there won't be any trails that make the walking/biking-journeys in-between the neighborhoods inviting and comfortable. All of that is in direct contradiction to the requirements contained throughout the FLUE,the RLSA and the current SRA. 5. There is no way to know what specific changes petition SRAA-?L20130002012 is actually proposing to the language of the SRA. How could it he fair or desirable or acceptable for the CCPC to make a recommendation or for the County Commission to make a decision when at this point (the day before the hearing)the actual final petition for SRAA-PL20130002012 that is available to the public still does not include a copy of the SRA with every addition and deletion noted(clearly denoting every word and phrase that is being nullified, altered or added). No one knows what the SP—A.would look like if the petition is approved because a marked-up draft of the amended SRA has not been made available to the public(even though the county has asked petitioner for it). Well in-advance of any CCPC recommendation or any vote by the County Cormn;psion, the pet 7,inn,,7 should he rom-ch-Pd to present and exinliirt this to the public and residents should Moe the opportunity to scrutinize and evaluate the plans. 6: All proposed variations or deviations from the requirements of the LDC, including justification and alternatives proposed I prefficusly sent the CCPC anti a pdf file of the current approved SRA with the following pages highlighted because the petition appears to violate the SRA requirements contained on those pages: 38, 44,114, 115, 116, 134, 135, 145, 146, 165, 187,208,209,264,265,256,268,269,281,282,284,and 285. The proposal eliminate7 the currant requirement to create dozens of miles of 12 foot wide paths and trails and i_tfa,s-dttsallts that the S7...41,currently 1-ts.asuiret (the current Avt Maria wr'bsite and promntional material repeatediT mentions that Maria has over a hundred of mu th:arid trail* Ti7ift TATO oecie,strian roes: mans pro,fitiesh Err the hcIitiorir show the ctirteht networh of sidcwalits/ciathsitrails and the prop,csed version that eliminates most hf that network. Please note that currently trails 2rf: required along ant of ths hotis:„; (the slottea: line actnaThf has yellow nresent in many places indicating a req1.2irecl tars trail),This change.also 2;:po,-.,rs TILSA 4.H.07 subse,tioc,c 1.-1.a, JcIE.,car'. crequicemohts for transportation network,side-tralits,and hindscapin<z). What is more,the Packet Page -62- 10/14/2014 8.B. maps don't do a very good job of showing the trails and paths, so it is not easy to know what is being eliminated.Well in-advance of any CCPC recommendation or any vote by the County Commission,the petitioner should be required to present and explain this to the public and residents should have the opportunity to scrutinize and evaluate the plans. 9. The RLSA 4.08.07 also provides in section K.1.b: "The transportation impact assessment, in addition to considering the impacts on the highway system,shall also consider public transportation(transit)and bicycle and pedestrian issues to the extent applicable.'The traffic study submitted by petitioner does not appear to address bicycle and pedestrian issues even though those issues are at the very core of the petition.Well in- advance of any CCPC recommendation or any vote by the County Commission,the petitioner should be required to present a new traffic study that addresses pedestrian and bicycle issues,and to explain it to the public,and residents should have the opportunity to scrutinize and evaluate it. 10. The petitioner is requesting a 50% reduction in street trees (from every 40 feet to every 65 feet) and is requesting that street trees be eliminated where other trees (such as residence landscaping) are within 20 feet of curb (page is excerpted from materials submitted by petitioner),and also totally eliminates street trees where the street does not front a building lot.This would conceivably allow an entire neighborhood to be built with ZERO street trees, which would drastically change the character of the town and which would hinder the goals of and violate the requirements in the SRA/RLSA/FLUE. 11. The proposed relocation of Town Center acreage appears to violate the Design Criteria contained in RLSA 4.0Iii.07 subsection J.2.a:viii (the proposed use lacks any progressive transition from industrial zone incrementally down to residential zone, and lacks a plan to otherwise substantially buffer the sudden transition from industrial to residential). This will have a huge impact on the entire community given that this is located at the main entrance to the town.What is supposed to be a naturally beautiful park- like community will have at its entrance an industrial park(where a golf course was supposed to be). The current SRA requires smaller areas for commercial and light industrial use that are interspersed throughout the community with buffered transition between the various use zones.This assures that there can be no dominant commercial area and that no zone will feel overwhelmed by the zone next door. What is being proposed destroys this fundamental planning principal that is built in to the current SRA (and which is called for in the RLSA and the FLUE). The RLSA defines a Town Center as "A defining Context Zone that is intended to provide a wide range of uses, including daily goods and services,culture and entertainment; and residential uses within a Town. The Town Center is an extension of the Town Core, however the intensity is less as the Town Center serves as a transition to surrounding neighborhoods."The RLSA in subsection J.2.a.x requires that a Town "Shall include a minimum of three Context Zones: Town Core, Town Center and Neighborhood General, each of which shall blend into the other without the requirements of buffers."The petition proposes a huge and intense industrial Town Center that does not serve as a transition to a neighborhood use,and does not"blend in"in any way with the neighboring Del Webb golf course communit i'.There is no provision for blending in the huge factory buildings with the golf course community. Currently as one sits in the infinity pool at Del Webb or tees up on the golf course or strolls through the neighborhood,one looks out onto a huge factory/wa_reb .use.building and its floodlit parking lot.in addition with the huge light industrial use being planned,it hardly seems that the reconfigured Town Center acreage being petitioned for will provide the nearby neighborhoods with any 'daily goods and services, culture and entertainment, and residential that the RLSA requires. In fact, the petition. eliminate:: most of the current compact Town Cco:er areas that ose now nicely fl..rpersed throughout oughout the town,and Instead concentrates nearly all Town Center acreage into what will essentially i' 1-:;,!at industrial zone.The F LS, e_, iremcnt that Town Cerit?rs provide "drily goods and 5C77,i_cs, cukure ass t:ntertainme ,and 7_s.cer+ti ' will be obliI,2fraitd if this DCLtion is granted.. IL ..1.a^_�_ of any CO PC recommendation or asY Vase � she ,o 1'li "o;;rrasic .- titiorser . should be require_ to practise arid piairs c tail plan. to the public about what ht fern ,la he put ac.. if she Town _-.:u1__ cerise was i _ lccatc_steer fhi Well reot tin.g. askad for tt.i_.b'ar the n,_shoos=i has not:pro rt1.e..1 d.,a's ]_ public 1 a.1;had Inf..M _t, . m'0 Packet Page -63- 10/14/2014 8.B. 13. The petitioner has repeatedly claimed that all of the changes being requested won't impact existing neighborhoods or zones (for enample, if you have a sidewalks on both sides and trees according to the current requirements, those requirements will remain in place). If that is true, where does the LDC provide that to be the case?What written provisions will there be to hold the petitioner to these promises? What about a neighborhood that is only partially finished?Will the current SRA rules apply or will the new rules apply? These are all very important questions,and none of this has been covered in the petition and related material that has been made available to the public. Well in-advance of any CCPC recommendation or any vote by the County Commission, the petitioner should be required to present and explain this to the public and residents should have the opportunity to scrutinize and evaluate the plans. 14. The SRA is extremely specific and repetitive throughout its 300-plus pages in stressing how fundamentally important it is to Ave Maria's character to have,an unusually and pervasively walkable community with a superabundance of sidewalks and shady street trees on every single street in every single section or category of town,and an extensive network of paths and trails that also are shaded with plentiful shady trees.Right now my town's SRA—the current Land Development Code for Ave Maria,which was drafted by AMD—sounds blissfully bucolic(in keeping with the requirements and goals of the RLSA and FLUE): "The transportation network is characterized by streets ze;ith low-speed geometry and the presence of sidewalks and street trees." b. "Both Ave Maria Town and Ave Maria University are designed,and expected to be,pedestrian and bicycle oriented developments." c. `2!ire town will have]a community trail system connecting all major land uses." d. "Neighborhoods are planned in close proximit to tozen centers, schools and community parks to ne ed es- encoiLrrzo p_.1��;.riar, activity. The neighborhood str-ectscr.Cies are designed to support a zE•.rlhr_li/c environment,with sidewalks separated from the street by a planting zone." c. The landscape is a tapestn c1f m/erliaked quiet tree-limn!shady streets, broad wate7front parks and iush native vegetation.' f. "Street:and drives in Town Centers 2 and 3 will maintain the pedestrian quality found throughout A ve Maria. Tree tined sidewalks will provide a huff e7-and shade to those walking within the Town. Centers. g. In all neighborhoods the SRA. dictates precisely the method to ensure we have shady tree-lined streets: "Street trees shall occur at a maximum spacing on average of 40 Ft. o.c. along roadways and centered in the planting area between the sidewalk and crirb."This is not some nebulous changeable provision, but rather is essential to creating the community the SRA repeatedly declares Ave Maria shall be. h. The SRA even notes that pedestrians and cyclists will actually have several routes to choose from when going from point A to point B in Ave Maria: `he transportation network will provide the pedestrian, motorist, or cyclist with multiple route choices in traveling to a specific destination. This will promote higher levels of mobility for all residents," lust to snake sure no one missed it, ;.his point is }u:1crs_ored elsewhere in the SRA: "s Ave is«°sz'ortali:o77 ;let ark[ros otes peslestrthrt and birer/c modes of transportation. The Ave Atr.7:.a Pedestrian Network Map, Figure 2, included herein shows the many route choices for pedestrian_. 1. 1 Lod hr 10:,_. :�'i1.^, still U.,u _ the Jr,h the T,.71°_ no ins. dg<:s.... 'Traditional oiuZi as /g7 Z..._incc7porac the tnte,.onnect- t erie trio _ „t1 O;7„s to .,=..r._,I " '1Cte 7'0 st/ 11. Th_ SRA e'u the:2Cr, u` . _. Lci: of Lund sr .ltas chzi,i_mr. IhC agricultural !"l rp" C _.lt eCeetr ,Fa. .'ti'.. .zn ros-o ewe-errs';- c Lantern „o!icr ..oesnp' i7Yt7uer:ced the A ve Ma _ C «, v 77[O.,..."7:27;2 !t«Cilli. I.CC<-077C'e72 cogia nod t_7i 2,`.7C t. .jra . =c_'j p.__ a:7_. town,_. . . ,men' ,S.ontao ..1 _C Packet Page -64- 10/14/2014 8.B. pattern facilitates safer pedestrian movement and calms traffic. Outdoor activity and pedestrian accessibility in encouraged through a chain of trails, community parks, open spaces, continuous sidewalks and jogging paths.A community trail system is comprised of trails linking to sidewalks,park pathways and boardwalks. It links parks and open space with neighborhoods and town centers. It facilitates a viable alternative to local automobile travel,because trails extend beyond where roadways are connected." 1. What is more the SRA explains this in very specific detail so that no one can misunderstand how expensive and expansive the requirements are,even including cross sections for those that might not understand: "The Ave Maria transportation system will be a network of interconnected streets, pedestrian ways and trails. The transportation design concept is one of a walkable community. This is illustrated in part by the cross-sections included herein." The simple fact is that the petition would do away with most of the currently required network - the developer is asking to be fully relieved of its obligations to provide Ave Maria residents with the non- vehicular superabundant deliberately redundant network that provides an amazing walkable bike-able park-like environment throughout every neighborhood and commercial area in Ave Maria (as required by the current SRA).The petition seeks a sweeping change that will undermine and redefine the character - and the quality of life - that the SRA (the current land code) clearly describes and promises over and over again on its pages. 15. This is not about the intentions of AMD.This is about what the land code requires regardless of who the developer is. Developers come and go,and the land code should not be amended based on the good will or past good practices of the current developer. Tomorrow most of the land in Ave Maria could be sold to an investment bank or a foreign land baron. That may be very unlikely, but the land code should advance the county's stated land use goals regardless of who owns or develops the property. 16. Finally,it seems that rather than such drastic and sweeping changes,the petitioner could have asked for a specific variance for a specific project, which would allow everyone involved to determine whether the impact of a one-time variance might be.acceptab e. Sincerely, Robert Klucik Cop i _. Commissioner Tim Nance, County Planner gay~Deselen-1 Packet Page -65- 10/14/2014 8.B. From: Robb Klucik [mailto:rlk @avemarialawyer.com] Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 6:39 PM To: StrainMark Cc: Flanaganiim; NanceTim Subject: SRAA-PL2O13OOO2012 which is on the agenda for the CCPC meeting on September 4, 2014 To: District 5 County Planning Commissioner Mark Strain Re: SRAA-PL2O13OOO2O12 which is on the agenda for the CCPC meeting on September 4, 2014 Dear Planning Commissioner Strain: I am writing regarding SRAA-PL2O130002O12 which is on the agenda for the CCPC meeting on September 4. 1. Please send me the actual final petition for SRAA-PL2O13O0O2O12. 2. I have attached a searchable pdf file of the current approved SRA with the following pages highlighted because the petition appears to violate the SRA requirements contained on those pages: 38,44, 114, 115, 116, 134, 135, 145, 146, 165, 187, 208, 209, 264, 265, 266, 268, 269,281,282, 284, and 285. 3. I have attached the two pedestrian route maps(pages are excerpted from materials submitted by petitioner). Please note that currently trails are required along much of the SRA boundary line (the dotted line actually has yellow present in many places indicating a required nature trail).This change also appears to violate RLSA 4.08.07 subsections C.1,J.b and J.d (requirements for transportation network, sidewalks, and landscaping). 4. I have attached the petition's proposed language requesting a 50%reduction in street trees and requesting that street trees be eliminated where other trees(such as residence landscaping) are within 20 feet of curb(page is excerpted from materials submitted by petitioner). 5.The proposed relocation of Town Center acreage appears to violate the Design Criteria contained in RLSA 4.08.07 subsections J.2.a.viii and J.2.a.xi (the use lacks the required step-down transition from industrial zone incrementally down to residential zone, and lacks a plan to otherwise substantially buffer the sudden transition from industrial to residential). I have been a homeowner and resident in Ave Maria since September of 2007. My law office has been located in the Ave Maria town center for over 5 years. My parents own a home in Ave Maria. My brother-in-law owns a winter home in Ave Maria,and another brother-in-law and sister-in-law also own a home in Ave Maria and live here. While these are my own views, I have been asked to speak on behalf of many other residents in town who have read my views and agree with me. I am most concerned because the changes requested in the petition are changes that change the quality of life in Ave Maria. The SRA is extremely specific and repetitive throughout its 300-plus pages in stressing how fundamentally important it is to Ave Maria's character to have an unusually and pervasively walkable community with a superabundance of sidewalks and shady street trees on every single street in every single section or category of town, and an extensive network of paths and trails that also are shaded with plentiful shady trees: "The transportation network is characterized by streets with low-speed geometry and the presence of sidewalks and street trees." Elsewhere the SRA explains: "Both Ave Maria Town and Ave Maria University are designed, and expected to be, pedestrian and bicycle oriented developments.' The SRA also notes that the town will have "a community trail system connecting all major land uses." Right now my town's SRA—the current legal requirements—sound blissfully bucolic: "Neighborhoods are planned in close proximity to town centers, schools and community parks to encourage pedestrian activity. The neighborhood a Packet Page -66- 10/14/2014 8.B. streetscapes are designed to support a walkable environment, with sidewalks separated from the street by a planting zone." lsewhere: "The landscape is a tapestry of interlinked quiet tree-lined shady streets, broad waterfront parks and lush native vegetation." And: "Streets and drives in Town Centers 2 and 3 will maintain the pedestrian quality found throughout Ave Maria. Tree lined sidewalks will provide a buffer and shade to those walking within the Town Centers." In all neighborhoods the SRA dictates precisely the method to ensure we have shady tree-lined streets: "Street trees shall occur at a maximum spacing on average of 40 Ft. o.c. along roadways and centered in the planting area between the sidewalk and curb." The SRA even notes that pedestrians and cyclists will actually have several routes to choose from when going from point A to point B in Ave Maria: "The transportation network will provide the pedestrian, motorist, or cyclist with multiple route choices in traveling to a specific destination. This will promote higher levels of mobility for all residents." Just to make sure no one missed it,this point is underscored elsewhere in the SRA: "The Ave Maria transportation network promotes pedestrian and bicycle modes of transportation. The Ave Maria Pedestrian Network Map, Figure 2, included herein shows the many route choices for pedestrians." And for those who are stubborn the SRA makes the same point again: "Traditional subdivision design will incorporate the interconnected pedestrian networks to provide numerous route choices for pedestrians." The SRA explains that this is all part of the town's fundamental character: "The rich agricultural heritage, environmental beauty, and rural character of Eastern Collier County influenced the character of Ave Maria. Pedestrian and bicycle movement is facilitated and encouraged through the design of a variety of paths and trails throughout the campus and town.A narrow, residential street pattern facilitates safer pedestrian movement and calms traffic. Outdoor activity and pedestrian accessibility in encouraged through a chain of trails, community parks, open spaces, continuous sidewalks and jogging paths. A community trail system is comprised of trails linking to sidewalks, park pathways and boardwalks. it links parks and open space with neighborhoods and town centers. It facilitates a viable alternative to local automobile travel, because trails extend beyond where roadways are connected." What is more the SRA explains this in very specific detail so that no one can misunderstand how expensive and expansive the requirements are, even including cross sections for those that might not understand: "The Ave Maria transportation system will be a network of interconnected streets, pedestrian ways and trails. The transportation design concept is one of a walkable community. This is illustrated in part by the cross-sections included herein." The simple fact is that the petition would do away with all of that—the developer is asking to be fully relieved of its obligations to provide Ave Maria residents with the amazing park-like environment throughout every neighborhood and commercial area in Ave Maria (as required by the current SRA).The petition seeks a huge change that will undermine and redefine the character—and the quality of life-that the SRA clearly describes and promises over and over again on its pages. Finally, it seems that rather than such drastic changes,the petitioner could have asked for a specific variance for a specific project,which would allow everyone involved to determine whether the impact of a one-time variance might be acceptable. Sincerely, Cobb Klucik Ave Maria, Florida 7 Packet Page -67- 10/14/2014 8.B. DeselemKay From: StrainMark Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 6:22 AM To: DeselemKay Subject: FW: Zoning Changes at Ave Maria Please forward to CCPC M a-rk/ 239.252.4446 Under FLorida Law, e-maiL addresses ore pubLic records. If you do not want your e-mail address reLeased in response to a pubLic records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by teLephone or in writing. From: Valerie Pakaluk [mailto:vpakaluk @gmail.comj Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 4:46 PM To: StrainMark Subject: RE: Zoning Changes at Ave Maria Dear Mr. Strain: I would like to add some comments to my son's message to you regarding the Planning Commission meeting and changes suggested to our peaceful place here in Ave Maria. I moved here in 2011 from Hicksville, Long Island, New York where I lived all my life. When 1 was a young girl Hicksville was just like Ave Maria is now. Beautiful,peaceful, safe although only 35 miles from New York City was considered "country". However one day the town fathers decided to rezone and that's when everything disappeared. Residents didn't understand the notices received in the mail, similar to your recent correspondence, couldn't attend a meeting at a Town Hall 35 or 40 minutes away and we woke up one day finding we were living in a light industry zoned area that had once been zoned residential. So, from homes, children, families we changed to businesses,trucks, vandals and locked doors. Please don't let that happen here. I'm not an expert reading all the rules and regulations and I'm sure that has been well documented by my son and others much more qualified than I. But I was on committees before moving here to Revitalize Hicksville and groups known as "Vision Long Island"have sprouted up in many communities that were fighting to get back that borne town feel, but after the damage was done that became a very difficult task indeed. Thank you for your time and concern. I would be grateful for a response. Sincerely, Valerie Pakaluk 5164 Taylor Drive Ave Maria, FL 34142 9 Packet Page -68- 10/14/2014 8.B. DeselemKay From: StrainMark Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 2:40 PM To: DeselemKay Subject: FW: Proposed changes in Ave Maria SRA Attachments: Letter from AMD.pdf Please forward to CCPC members Mark, 239.252.4446 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. From: mpakaluk @gmail.com [mailto:mpakaluk @ gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 1:35 PM To: StrainMark Cc: Catherine Pakaluk Subject: Proposed changes in Ave Maria SRA Hi Mark, ' have lived in Ave Maria for four years, along with my wife and seven children. My mom lives next door, having moved two years ago from Long Island. My father-in-law lives in the town also, having moved from Worcester, Mass.. An older son, his wife, and two children have just relocated to Ave Maria as well from Boston. As you can see, I am committed to Ave Maria and enthusiastic about the town. I think its fair to say that my wife and I have played a significant role in several people relocating here from the north. I suspect that that kind of relocation is meant to be the main strength and direction of development for the town. That is why I am deeply concerned about the amendments to the Ave Maria SRA which Ave Maria Development has put on the table. I am unable to attend the meeting tomorrow in Naples, as I am a professor at the university and am teaching classes all day tomorrow, as is my wife. So if you do not mind I would like to share my main concerns in a brief letter, and then if convenient I hope we would have a chance to talk by phone. My main concern is that the changes are not in the spirit of the original plan for the town and represent a kind of change of direction. I understand that the original plan established that Ave Maria was to be a town which was integrated with the natural beauty around it, and which reflected that beauty and situation in its own design--in its many lakes, bike paths, pedestrian walkways, and small parks. I have presumed that this integration with the natural beauty of the Everglades was the chief draw in inducing people to move to Ave Maria rather than to Naples, with its proximity to the beach, shopping, and restaurants. believe than many if not most of the people who relocated here did so on this same assumption. This is so in part even for those of us who moved here for a job at the university, such as myself. It was the great 11 Packet Page -69- 10/14/2014 8.B. beauty of Ave Maria which was decisive for me and my wife in making the move from the Washington DC area. I do not see how the establishment of a large scale commercial park on Oil Well Road, at the entrance to Ave Maria, is consistent with this vision. No other community that I know of, representing itself as integrated with nature, has a commercial park at its entryway. Arthrex already is a bit of an eyesore,to be frank. For example, it is visible from every hole on the golf course, spoiling what used to be an Everglades like experience on the back 9. From the new Oasis Club at Del! Webb, what you see in one direction are lakes and trees, but in the other, the glaring lights of the Arthrex parking lot at night, or the boxy, bright-white Arthrex building during the day. To be honest, Arthrex is not so bad -- it is tolerable --though I think Arthrex or AMD should be required to put up a buffering earth wall, with landscaping, which shields the Dell Webb community and the golf course from the factory. However, a full-scale commercial park would not be tolerable and would fundamentally change the character and experience of living in Ave Maria. And let's face it: it's like the nose of the camel under the tent. Two years ago, no one would ever have agreed with building a commercial park on Oil Well Road at the entrance to Ave Maria; but once Arthrex was built, the idea can now seem plausible. Suppose then that a full- scale commercial park gets built: what will seem plausible next? It's easy to see that the entire direction of development at Ave Maria will change. Then AMD wants to put up a community of zero lot line houses, for the workers at this commercial park. Note that they are not planning to build these houses for people already living at Ave Maria, because there is no great demand. Nor are they planning to build them for people relocating from the north, who are looking for a condo-like experience and no lawn-maintenance responsibilities. Rather, they are building them solely to house workers who otherwise would not move to the community. "What is so bad about that?"y ou may ask. There is nothing bad in itself, of course, about building the tandem of commercial park plus low-cost housing. However, that style of development could be built anywhere. It stands on its own. The point is that it does not represent the organic and faithful development of Ave Maria in accordance with its original plan. I believe this change is simply a money-making expedient which serves the interests of AMD as investors but does not serve the long term interests of the town or the county. Exactly the same thing may be said about the proposal to abolish sidewalks in part of the town on one side of the street. Obviously, children and the elderly need sidewalks. Obviously, children will not walk across the street to get to the sidewalk on the other side of the road:they will stay on their side of the street and walk on the street. So AMD is proposing something which is inconvenient to the elderly and children, and possibly dangerous -- and inconsistent with the spirit and beauty of the town -- and for what reason? Simply to minimize costs and increase profits. A similar point may be made about AMD's desired amendment that shade trees no longer need to be planted at comfortable intervals along town roads. These changes are purely for the economic advantage of AMD and not in the interests of the town. May I say also that AMD has represented its case to current Ave Maria residents in bad faith? I will attach a letter which AMD sent to me last week, on August 28, 2014. They say such things as that the amendment that sidewalks need be only on one side of the street "intends to provide an option for buyers who may prefer not to have a sidewalk in front of their residence." Really? They say that they are building zero lot line residences in imitation of Pelican Bay, Pelican Marsh, and Fiddler's Creek. Really? No:they are not building these houses to attract elderly retirees who are looking to minimize house and lawn maintenance costs. And so on. 12 Packet Page -70- 10/14/2014 8.B. In my view, AMDs proposed amendments to the SRA spring from impatience. AMD does not want to wait for the university to expand and for seniors to relocate to Ave Maria University,which is a slow process. therefore,they have given up on the idea of integrated development of office and small-shop businesses into the community, and they have given up on the idea of Ave Maria as chiefly attractive for its natural beauty. They want the quick fix of a commercial park and low-cost housing, artificially inserted into the town. I believe that in the long run this impatience, if it leads to changes in the town's SRA, will in fact spoil the economic development of the town. Those who are already here will believe that the terms on which they moved her have been change. They will be disgruntled--and therefore will not be happy neighbors--and perhaps they will even look to move somewhere else. Most probably they will cease trying to attract their friends up north to move here, because they will have no confidence that the original vision of the town will be honored--and so the current engine of economic development will stall. In a short period of time, the town would turn from a university-based town, known for its natural beauty, to a commercial-park-based town, preferred as a residence largely because the commute is shorter. Needless to say, the university-based town according to the original vision of Ave Maria is also in the long term interests of Collier County as a whole. The County can locate a commercial park anywhere. It has only one high-quality liberal arts university. I very much hope that the Planning Commission does not approve AMD's proposed amendments. Sincerely, Michael Pakaluk, Ph.D. Sent from Surface Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public records.If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request.do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead,contact this office by telephone or in writing. 13 Packet Page -71- 10/14/2014 8.B. DeseiemKay From: StrainMark Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 7:55 AM To: DeselemKay Subject: FW: Ave Maria Development Please forward to the other CCPC members. Mark 239.252.4446 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. Original Message From: Georgia Weis [mailto:georgiaweis(ulgmail.com] • Sent: Monday, September 01, 2014 2:07 PM To: NanceTim; FlanaganJim; StrainMark; BellowsRay Subject: Ave Maria Development Gentlemen, Please vote against: SRAA PL20130002012 And against: DRIABN--PL20130002016 Thanks, William L. Miner Georgia L. Weis 7954 Guadiana Way Ave Maria, FL Sent from my iPad Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. Packet Page -72- 10/14/2014 8.B. Deselem Kay From: StrainMark Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 7:54 AM To: Deselem Kay Subject: FW: Developers proposal in ave Maria Please forward to the other members of the CCPC. Thanks, Mark 239.252.4446 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. Original Message From: Williamminer [mailto:williamminerPyahoo.com] Sent: Monday, September 01, 2014 9:21 AM To: StrainMark Subject: Developers proposal in ave Maria Pls don't let the developer go back on his promises in. Ave Maria. Thx Georgia Weis 7954 Guadiana way, ave Maria Sent from my iPad Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. Packet Page -73- 10/14/2014 8.B. DeselemKay From: StrainMark Sent: Friday,August 29, 2014 7:58 AM To: DeselemKay Cc: BellowsRay Subject: FAN: Proposed Ave Maria SRA Amendment Please forward onto the other CCPC members Mar 239.252.4446 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. From: karenrayzor©gmail.com [maiito:karenrayzor©gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 9:46 PM To: BellowsRay; KayDeseleme©colliercov.net, StrainMark; NanceTin; Cc: scott brooks Subject: Proposed Ave Maria SRA Amendment Collier County Planning Commission- We appreciate the opportunity to submit these written comments to the Collier County Planning Commission concerning the proposal to amend the Ave Maria SRAIDRI. The undersigned are residents of the Del Webb community within Ave Maria who have a number of issues with respect to the proposed amendment of the SRA. Given the short notice we received regarding these proposed changes to the SRA and the importance of Collier County receiving appropriate public input to the SRA amendment, our first request is that the process be extended to allow the residents of Ave Maria to better understand and evaluate the proposed SRA changes and the potential impact on our community. We understand that one of the primary motivations of the proponent is to provide significantly more flexibility to developers as Ave Maria is developed. While we understand that any developer wants as much flexibility as possible, as residents, we want assurances that further development within Ave Maria is subject to existing commitments made by the developers and applicable Collier County requirements so that developers don't have a blank cheek with future residential and commercial development. By way of example, one such flexibility being sought is to dispense with the requirement of sidewalks on both sides of the street. We believe that is inconsistent with the character of our pedestrian friendly community and should only be allowed by special exception based on community input and Collier County criteria. As noted earlier, one of the selling points of Ave Maria is its pedestrian friendly environment which we believe may be threatened by the proposal to amend the SRA to reduce or eliminate the community's commitments to trails and pathways. If anything, we want more assurances that the trail and pathway system be further expanded throughout the community for walkers, cyclists and golf carts. Packet Page -74- 10/14/2014 8.B. The proponent is also requesting that the commercial zoned area be relocated from its current location adjacent to the intersection of Camp Keais and Pope John Paul II to an area along Oil Well Road. We believe such a relocation may present a number of adverse implications to Ave Maria residents that need to be fully explored "lefore approving such a change including: addressing access issues; implications of the aesthetics of Ave Maria's entrance along Oil Well Road; need for adequate buffering between the residential and commercial/industrial developments to mitigate against light,noise and other aesthetic challenges presented by further commercial development. We are not opposed to all such development, but it should be consistent with community and properly buffered by berms and landscaping to minimize any adverse impact on the residential sections of Ave Maria. As Del Webb residents, we have a special interest in assuring that the section of Anthem Parkway through Del Webb does not become a public safety issue to us as we take advantage of the many public amenities within Del Webb. We do not want Anthem to become a major thoroughfare for ingress and egress to Ave Maria,but rather a road that primarily serves the resident needs of Del Webb. As such, access from Oil Well Road needs to be eliminated or limited to emergency vehicles. We chose Ave Maria as our home given its unique charm and character which we believe may be jeopardized by the proposed SRA amendment. We do not want to unduly restrict development of Ave Maria, but want future development to respect Collier County requirements; appropriate input from current residents; and the special character of our community. We trust our concerns will be considered as the Planning Commission and County Council undertake a review of the proposed SRA amendment. Respectfully Submitted (additional supporters), Karen & Joseph Rayzor 6161 Victory Dr. Ann & Paul Hashagan 6192 Victory Dr. Janice & Gary Snyder 6085 Victory Dr. Patricia Sullivan Lance Berthiaume 6156 Victory Drive Dale & Nick Calderaro 6193 Victory Dr. Amanda & Gary Jones 6157 Victory Dr. Claudette Sang & John Shaffer 6153 Victory Dr. Karen Ruberto Packet Page -75- 10/14/2014 8.B. 6149 Victory Drive Erika&J. Ludwig Figueroa 6136 Victory Dr. Sent from my iPad Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public records.if you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity.Instead,contact this office by telephone or in writing. 3 Packet Page -76- 10/14/2014 8.B. DeselemKay From: StrainMark Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 7:58 AM To: DeselemKay Cc: BellowsRay Subject: FW: Growth Management Petition re Ave Maria Attachments: Growth Management Petition- Letter.pdf Please forward onto the other CCPC members. Ma.-,rk/ 239.252.4446 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. From: Bob Wunker [mailto:rwunker(agmail.com] Sent:Thursday, August 28, 2014 4:33 PM To: BellowsRay; StrainMark; NanceTim; FlanaganJim Subject: Growth Management Petition re Ave Maria Gentlemen: Attached is my letter of comments with regard to DRIABN PL20130002015 and SRAA PL20130002012 for your considerations in advance of the Planning Commission meeting of September 4. Very Truly Yours, Robert L. Wunker Under Florida Law.e-mail addresses are public records-If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity.Instead,contact this office by telephone or in writing. 1 Packet Page -77- 10/14/2014 8.B. ROBERT L. WONKER S080 Annunciation Circle,#3O3 Ave Maria, FL 34142 August. 28. 20l4 �iaE/oaUTo: iin11ThDaz.ao@,coUisrgocnct PRl/\ -PL201$00O2016: The Torvnu(,Aye K1ar(o PL-2U13ODO2OI2 �car �/rs Yama |uU'±ner�r|jpn� o[2' reNariaandwri�cu� pp�oa�c�un �n �hcPeriduner's d�s|�e to r�sci�d �he D�� and �` severa{ a�pec�zu� Lzn� ��'Dau�nadoo' /�durdab|e Hnurin� '/ Zer�'Lo� L/neDcrc|np�nen� andreduconns /n �a�hna�s �raUu�`\ �nd siJoe.d�� ndDR| 3;nnioa�i,n ! xndR*'�cs��q�ban Thc �u`['ns�J hnd /�'d��i�nxd'i� isoppo�ed Lnman? re�iJen!� of!he Doi Vycbh co:n/nun��! � > Jo nni resWe e 5uta:21-pc FL; aH.rf:,'cts tbeirop�osihuo. rrit: trarficxo� �orah/� �rucb n-afhc �brou�h /Ls nnam ruod mr�ery Ac�hem �'ar��rv�T. miU burden uaderntxnd h, thc �n°Orchnanci:| burUcno[d}a� road�snmin�cxancewihou� cnn17ibudonh-om the ovvner(s) in the proposed oex/ industria\ parr.. Ycijculu/ 1ra[jco[trucL, orcr � �cc�in siz� nr �«e�"�� c:u!d bcpruh��i��d. �u\ xu�h im`hihki:n irnucinr|uded /n �hu cu-�eoLp.'��i�nadoop|an Tkc ��ur,a�� p|a: br�he� �rn�a,xes noxrandxrJsnrcuh.den, iOm�1`atioos on dlt:, �nduso7' m b� yU,nred in Tte n�� rca - �u[di:gs rni�b[ be h/AD aroordin:2, c ��.`!rmp/'�s -n�deh�. �ar�� Gc/^cn u� acnn��uun�`/ m�'eon� npren�i� �cid x� A»/ cuu|� c`n/.onn2( reciJeoso[!>e| ;V�bhandth:, ues�cdrhin� |�om onc� (@ Packet Page -78- 10/14/2014 8.B. kft-c [dab|e Housing/ Zero-ioUJnrDeve' nt: The Petitioner has admitted the town has sufficient affordable housing already but desires to allow an unlimited number of zero-lot line homes and to alloy,: the individual development companies (e.g,. Pulte Homes, CC Devco, et al) to decide how many and where to place zero-lot line homes in their respective developnient conunn till ihes. Such carte blanche grant s to the sufferance ot existing residents who purchased homes in reliance upon prospectuses, representations drawings, and existing development plot plans. Developers need to think what s best for the community asa higher priority ruv/ha1is best for theft pockct'bnoi. I have no opposition to the construction of zero-lot line homes in a small area adjMning the present Middlebrooke section of the town but do oppose zero-lot line homes being constructed in the midst of single family detached homes unless a specific area on a restricted side ad a devehopnient is designated for them. The Petition contains no such imitation however and should not be granted without such limitations being required by and meeting the satisfaction of the Planning Commission and the [nontyCornrnissinncrs. Reductinri» pa[b«rd}s,.T[a!|wti.;ys.uodSidevva|kc: A||hoi4h atLhe rcccntAue NarLIcornru:n/ty 1.11 •ctin? Ncssrs Q:Irid Cccsun �nd �p/ayne ,Aroo|fl sLat-+d ',.hat. 'smnn,,...,' pah1\va?s' uraU^/ays, and zhien'aUa wuu|d He eliminated or excluded, the 51ah Report specifically states ur the bottom of page ; ad that report ''Thiy petition `eeksLoarnend the SRAhvremonn,c4nrk/aU:,,, ha|[its pedexnianpa1hs and sidcm'a|kti and removing its entire trail systcrn.^ | oppose such removals. yvinrcorer. as noted on pope S u[the Stall the Petitioner soelirs to have ridcl:vu|kson Only One Side o[a roadway ^un|essothenvise impractical doe to !irn(dni, constraints." That would he a grandiose grant of unbounded and unbridled ability for a developer tio iotcnhnuo\h constrain an area in order not to huild sidcnn|ts! [onrursc}y, p/nuW a large [ ather than xr^aUcr] arcz otze�o-int. Hie hocresbe deemed b] a -consrraint' hecausehorccs are U.,izhdy nack�d t"4zther'S �ne i'storia 1x a [a,nii,..: �ovvn� |nznv iamiher i1a�c ,:::i - 8 ?oun.7 rhUd-en; Ir u||nvr sidavva/ksoc only onesiden[!i-tr�i.i'rx (chus,snbrzdcre|oper '.,:. ovvndscrerinn) i::, dyTruncrkxns| ro �hose !ao`i!:crasrs-U uucreub/�� onnt',:' n`nditinn!-:. Cn/idrtsn net'd �ide\Ya|Lcu:, cd� tricyccsand ncberbikcs;. udcvvu!ksare n,,,,+�eJ iokerp :,ka0,e�crd� o|Y'tr�i- n. c(..1a)io1:1A• w'hee|ch:irLind hI:ntdrar)ped perpm� n` m:clk *n N^nu �o� sren b/ ^U as a �odca�rian ti�nd|} ��6o}�mcnt .m� 'aeJ� .o hc }�cp� 10/14/2014 8.B. I7T;C tescis= To rescind the DR! would allow an Architectual Review Standards Board without future governmental oversight and without accountability to voters. Such sanction would be inimical to the representational interests of the voters. Such sanction would strongly encourage development to be in the best interests of developers only and with no accountability to residents. In summary, the Petitioner has failed to provide controlling limitations in each aspect of its proposals sufficient to safeguard the vested interests of residents in the community and would sanction whatever developers kVa it to do and to do so without a Pail timbrella ofaccountr hilt r and representational governance. I ask the Petitioner not be given the open-ended scope of sanction grant it seeks from the i'larmi `_? Commission ion lnd the County Commissioners. . Very Truly Yours, Vs'iner Packet Page -80- 10/14/2014 8.B. DeselemKay From: StrainMark Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 8:49 AM To: DeselemKay Subject: FW:Ave Maria- Planning Commission agenda items Please distribute either as part of CCPC packet or email. Thanks, Mark, 239.252.4446 Under FLorida Law, e-mail addresses are pubLic records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a pubLic records request, do not send eLectronic maiL to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. From: Robert Klucik [mailto:RLK @avemarialawyer.com] Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 8:46 PM To: BellowsRay; StrainMark; NanceTim; FlanaganJim Subject: Ave Maria - Planning Commission agenda items Dear Collier County officials: I have owned a borne and lived year round in Ave Maria since September 2007. Three members of my extended family have also purchased homes in Ave Maria. I have been practicing real estate law in Ave Maria since 2009,so I know a great deal about all the complexities and layers and history of the Ave Maria development project. Below are remarks I sent to my neighbors in Ave Maria tonight regarding: a. Petition SRAA-PL20130002012 b.Petition DRIABN--PL20130002016 c. unspecified proposal regarding the creation of a new Architectural Review Standards body for Ave Maria Stewardship Community District I hope my remarks and concerns (after my siganture block) are helpful to you as you make decisions regarding these matters. Sincerely, Robb Klucik 5072 Annunciation Circle, Suite 326 Ave Maria,FL 34142 239-455-4529 RLK( AveMariaLawaer_com 1 Packet Page -81- 10/14/2014 8.B. Robb Kludik Attorey_at-Lain (239)4J54LA r4' PIX@AvervtarraLavrier.com Avelda riaLawyer.corn' Law Offir.s.of Robs,rt L.}Sudk Jr„P.A. 5072 Annunciation Circle Suite 325 Ave Maria, FL 34142 The meeting with Ave Maria Development's representatives was this evening. I admire AMD and how they have operated - and we should all keep in mind all the good they have done and continue to do. They are truly experts at how to do things right. And of course they want to maximize profits (which won't happen if they don't build an appealing community). They aren't the bad guys- not at all, but they have their perspective and priorities, and homeowners sometimes have a different perspective and priorities. And we should not be shy about giving candid feedback about our concerns -or even about trying to influence the process. This is where we live, and we don't have to be shy about sticking our nose into our own business. Below are my impressions of the meeting and a list of things you can do if you have further interest in these matters: I was very surprised- and pleased -to see how many people were in attendance at the meeting. The meeting room was packed - standing room only. I think over 60 people- maybe near 80. The people in town made excellent points. Bob Wunker made the best points- I hope somebody will elaborate on what he said in the comments below (it was great). People at the meeting were generally not very happy for two reasons: a) there was no attempt to get input from the homeowners before submitting the proposal to the county(the county notice was kind of startling to most people). b) the proposals being made are unnecessarily sweeping and give the developer extremely broad discretion to change a lot of things in town so they will be quite different from the status quo - and different from what people were told and shown when making the decision to buy homes here (including exactly where to buy homes here). Of note: 1. The proposal will allow zero-lot line homes for all future homes in all neighborhoods (this means the lots will be even more narrow than Maple Ridge with even less space in between houses). Right now none are allowed. I don't think the Coquina site plan is legally possible without the proposed change. 2. The proposal eliminates the current requirement to create miles and miles of 12 foot wide paths and trails (the current Ave Maria website and promotional material repeatedly mentions we have hundreds of miles of paths and trails). 3. The proposal eliminates 50% of the currently required sidewalks (the recent and current website and PR material repeatedly mentions one of the features of the neighborhoods are all the sidewalks and front porches). 4. The proposal creates a rather large industrial area just south of Del Webb and east of Arthrex {between Arthrex and the main entrance to Ave Maria). Nearly all of the current light industrial area at the end of John Paul II Blvd will be eliminated. Most of the commercial space southeast of the gas station as you drive toward Middiebrooke will be turned into residential. I am not sure if the Coquina site plan is legally possible without the proposed change. This is all just rearranging the zones - Packet Page -82- 10/14/2014 8.B. there will be roughly the same amount of light industrial areas as we have now-just in different areas. 5. Eliminate one layer of planning bureaucracy for Ave Maria, which is known as the DRI. Some things currently have to get approved by the DRI process in addition to other planning processes. 6. In addition to what was on the notice we received from the county,AMD is also likely to seek planning commission approval (at this same meeting) of a proposal to strip the County of its power to approve and control the Architectural Review Process in Ave Maria. The idea is that we have special needs in Ave Maria (that is likely true)- however currently the decisions are made by people accountable to voters, whereas the proposed board would be comprised of people who don't answer to the voters. This might not be such a bad thing, but we should be candid about what is being proposed. If you are concerned or interested, you can do several things: a) Send an email to County Planning Manager Ray Bellows at RayBellows(a�colliergov.net b) Call the Planning Office at(239) 252-2463. c) Send an email to our own District 5 County Planning Board member Mark Strain at markstrain(acolliergov.net d) Send an email to our District 5 County Commissioner Tim Nance at TimNance @colliergov.net and his assistant JimFlanagan(a7coliiergov.net e) Attend the Planning Commission meeting on September 4 at 9:00 AM in the Board of County Commissioner's Meeting Room, located on the Third Floor of the Administration Building at the Collier County Government Center, 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida. a) f. Attend the County Commissioners meeting on October 14 at 9:00 AM in the Board of County Commissioner's Meeting Room, located on the Third Floor of the Administration Building at the Collier County Government Center, 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida. Ave Maria is beautiful right now because AMD is a good developer. Keep that in mind. Expressing ourselves in a candid but polite way is actually a good way to show them respect and help them stay on top of their game. I hope this message if helpful. The sky is not falling. There is no emergency. This is not a call to arms. This is an invitation to pay attention to government decisions that impact us directly. Under Florida Law.e-mail addresses are public records,if you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records reques?,do not send electronic mail to this entity.Instead.contact this office by telephone or in writing. 3 J Packet Page -83- 10/14/2014 8.B. DeselemKay From: StrainMark Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 9:25 AM To: Gwen Moore; NanceTim; DeselemKay Cc: Carlos Figueroa; Jay Zebora; Bobby Pitts Subject: RE: Public Notice I have not seen the changes yet as the staff report will not come to the Planning Commission until August 29th. However, it is in the process and the planner, Kay Deselem, whom I have copied with this, should be able to forward to you the draft information. Hope this helps, Mark Strain 239.252.4446 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. Original Message From: Gwen Moore [mailto:rngipad2(comcast.net] Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 8:20 PM To: StrainMark; NanceTim Cc: Carlos Figueroa; Jay Zebora; Bobby Pitts Subject: Public Notice On page A6 of the Naples News, Friday, August 15 there is a notice of a public hearing on September 4, 2014 regarding the amendment of Ave Maria Stewardship Receiving Area Town Plan and Master Plan. However, I cannot find any information on the Collier County web site. I have several questions regarding these changes and want to have specific details regarding these changes. How do I get this information? One question I would like an answer to immediately is whether any of these changes involve Anthem Blvd. Can you please help? Gwen Moore Ave Maria Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 1 Packet Page -84- 10/14/2014 8.B. RESOLUTION NO. 14- A RESOLUTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING THE AVE MARIA STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA (SRA) TOWN PLAN AND SRA MASTER PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 4.08.07.F.4 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND SPECIFICALLY TO: ADD SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED Z LOTS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL ZONE; ADD 600,000 SQUARE FEET OF LIGHT INDUSTRIAL/WAREHOUSING TO THE TOWN CENTER 2b; REDESIGNATE 155 ACRES OF NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL TO TOWN CENTER 2b; REDESIGNATE 90 ACRES OF TOWN CENTER 2a TO NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL; REDESIGNATE 52 ACRES OF TOWN CENTER 3 TO NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL AND MOVE AN ACCESS POINT ALONG OIL WELL ROAD. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTH OF OIL WELL ROAD AND WEST OF CAMP KEAIS ROAD IN SECTIONS 31 THROUGH 33, TOWNSHIP 47 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST AND SECTIONS 4 THROUGH 9 AND 16 THROUGH 18, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST IN COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA. [PETITION SRAA-PL20132012] WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners approved the Town of Ave Maria Stewardship Sending Area (SRA) by Resolution No. 2004-89 on March 23, 2004 and Resolution No. 2005-234A on June 14, 2005; and WHEREAS, as part of the approval of the SRA, the Board approved the Ave Maria Town Plan and Master Plan; and WHEREAS, Ave Maria Development LLLP and Ave Maria University, Inc. have applied for an amendment to the Ave Maria Town Plan and Master Plan in accordance with Section 4.08.07.F.4. of the LDC and Appendix D of the Ave Maria Town Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: 1. Pages 1 of the Executive Summary, 2 of the Introduction, 3, 6, 8 and 12 of the Impact Assessment Report of the 2005 SRA Application are hereby amended and replaced with the pages attached hereto as Exhibit"A"to this Resolution. 2. Pages 1, 76, 77, 97, 98, 100, and 216 of the Town Plan are hereby amended and replaced with the pages attached hereto as Exhibit"B" to this Resolution. 3. Pages 96A. 119-A, 119-B, 226 and 227 attached hereto as Exhibit "C", are hereby added to the Town Plan. (14-CPS-01291/1118427/1]71 Ave Maria SRA Town/Master Plan Page 1 of 2 SSRa A-PL20 10-313—Rev. 9;2214 Packet Page -85- 10/14/2014 8.B. 4. The Master Plan, Page 6 of the Town Plan, is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the Master Plan attached hereto as Exhibit"D"to this Resolution. 5. Except as set forth herein,the Ave Maria Town Plan shall remain in full force and effect. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote this day of , 2014. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: By: Deputy Clerk TOM HENNING, Chairman Approved as to form and legality: `rx Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachments: Exhibit A—Pages of Executive Summary, Introduction and Impact Assessment Report Exhibit B—Pages replaced in the Town Plan Exhibit C—Pages added to the Town Plan Exhibit D—Master Plan [14-C1'S-01291/1118427;1]71 Ave Maria SRA Town/Master Plan Page 2 of 2 SSRAA-PL2O1 G-3 13 —Rev. 922'14 1, Packet Page -86- , lip. 10/14/2014 8.B. Executive Summary This Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) Designation Application for Ave Maria is filed on behalf of Ave Maria Development, LLLP. Ave Maria will consist of Ave Maria University and The Town of Ave Maria. The cornerstone of Ave Maria will be the University, the first major Catholic university to be established in the United States in more than 40 years. The town area of Ave Maria is designed as a compact, walkable community around a town core which will contain as its landmark, an Oratory of distinctive architecture. In addition,there will be distinctive residential neighborhoods offering a variety of housing types and lifestyles. This SRA Designation Application, consists of 5027 acres, 955+/- acres of which are dedicated to the University and 4072 acres to the Town, including 72 acres for public use (47.7 acres of public school sites and 23.8 acres in excess of requirement for community parks). Ave Maria University will support 6,000 students, and contains academic and administration buildings, student and administration housing, recreation, sports, and support facilities. The Town will contain a maximum of 11,000 dwelling units in a mix of residential unit types in the Town Center, and Neighborhood General context zones. Uses that provide the mix of services to, and are supportive of, the residents of The Town of Ave Maria and university will be mainly located in the Town Core and Town Centers. The Town Core, Town Centers, and Neighborhood Centers will provide a maximum of 690,000 square feet of gross leasable retail/service, 510.000 square feet of gross leasable office, 35,000 square feet of medical facilities, 148,500 square feet of gross civic uses, 600.000 square feet of light industrial/warehousing and 400 hotel rooms. In addition, the town will provide public school sites, parks, golf courses, and other open space uses, while Ave Marie University will provide, in addition to the above facilities, private K-8 and high school. There are few undisturbed native vegetation areas within Ave Maria, and all vegetated areas are subject to ditches, berms, etc. Extensive areas of exotic monocultures (Brazilian pepper) exist across the site. The predominant agricultural land use is evidenced by the absence of any lands which score higher than 1.2 on the Natural Resources Index Map. The Natural Resources Index Assessment quantifies the acreage by land- J,4,2se and demonstrates consistency with the Suitability Criteria, as is seen from the open space percentages and the Applicant's commitment to provide access to Ave Maria from Oil Well Road and Camp Keais Road. This SRA Designation Application also provides the calculation of the required Credit Use to designate the Town, Sr.ewaraship Receiving Area 1 Revised 09118(2014 Packet Page -87- 10/14/2014 8.B. 7.Credit Use and Reconciliation Analysis.This Credit Use and Reconciliation Analysis is submitted in order to track the transfer of credits from Stewardship Sending Areas (SSA) 1,2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 to the Town of Ave Maria SRA.The Analysis provides a summary table that identifies the exchange of all Stewardship Credits. 8. Preliminary SRA Credit Agreement. Finally, an SRA Credit Agreement for those Stewardship Credits needed in order to develop the 9RWSRA authorized development is provided. The Agreement sets forth the number of SSA credits the applicant is utilizing in order to implement the Ave Maria Town Plan as included in this application. The development parameters used throughout these applications are illustrated in different manners depending on the purpose of the particular analysis. Table 1 provides a summary of these parameters. Table 1 Ave Maria Land Use Town 4,000 Acres" Residential 11,000 Units 6,876 Single Family 4,124 Multi Family ALF 450 Units Retail 690,000 Sq. Ft. Office 510,000 Sq. Ft. Hotel I 400 Rooms Civic 148,500 Sq. Ft Medical 35.000 Sq. Ft. Oratory 75,500 Sq. Ft. (3,500 seats) Light IndustriaUWarehousinq 600.000 Sq. Ft. Public Use 1027 Acres University &Ancillary Uses 955.55 Acres (6,000 university students) Public school site(s) 47.7 Acres Community park in excess of requirement 23.8 Acres Total 5,027 Acres Acreages include lakes and open space and are rounded to the nearest acre. *This acreage includes 417.7 acres of open space in excess of the required 35% This excess open space does not require the consumption of credits nor do these acres count toward the 4,000 acre maximum for the town. i oddu.ct un , Revised 09/18/2014 Tne ov n pf Ave, Mans ✓.^.u'- 2 Packet Page -88- 10/14/2014 8.B. Potable Water Potable Water; a potable water assessment shall be prepared by the applicant as a component of an Impact Assessment Report that is submitted as part of an SPA Designation Application package. The assessment shall illustrate how the applicant will conform to either FAC Chapter 64E-6,for private and limited use water systems, or FAC Chapter 62-555 for Public Water Systems.In addition to the standard requirements of the analyses required above, the potable water assessment shall specifically consider,to the extent applicable,the disposal of waste products,if any,generated by the proposed treatment process. The applicant shall identify the sources of water proposed for potable water supply. Ave Maria Utility Company, LLLP,a private utility will construct,operate and maintain the potable water system. This system includes the water supply,treatment,storage and distribution system.Water will be supplied by ground water wells.This raw water will be softened to remove hardness and disinfected to kill water-borne bacteria.Treated water will be stored in above-ground concrete storage tanks until it is pumped into the potable water distribution system. Due to the size of this system,all facilities will meet and exceed the requirements of FDEP as stipulated in FAC 4' - r Chapter 62-555 for Public Water Systems. In addition,the private utility s.1' et company will obtain approval from the South Florida Water Management 'af i -� District for the consumptive use of water.Ground water will be withdrawn s•' �:_: ' ` 4 from the Lower Tamiami aquifer.Liquid waste products from this facility will be disposed of by discharging into the head end of the wastewater treatment plant. The following table identifies the potable water demands projected for this SRA area. (Table 1 SRA Potable Water Demands Potable Water Flows(mgd) _ 1 ADD MMADD MDD - 1 SRA(Original) 6.4 MGD 8.96 MGD I 12.8 MGD Licht 0.018 MGD 0.025 MGD ! 0.025 MGD ' Induatrialnarehousino SRA(Total) 6.42 MGD 8.99 MGD 12.83 MGD ADD-Average Daily Demand MMADD-Maximum Month Average Daily Demand MDD-Maximum Daily Demand irlDaCt L sessmtent Report Revised C9 1820,1< i4tt'! ^' 11j° Maria 3 Packet Page -89 Pne 10/14/2014 8.B. Wastewater Wastewater;a wastewater assessment shall be prepared by the applicant as a component of an Impact Assessment Report that is submitted as part of an SPA Designation Application package. The assessment shall illustrate how the applicant will conform to either Standards for On-site Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems, contained in State of Florida in Chapter 64E6, F.A.C. for systems having a capacity not exceeding 1 0,000 gallons per day or Chapter 62-600, F.A.C.for wastewater treatment systems having a capacity greater than 10,000 gallons per day In addition to the standard requirements of the analyses required above, the wastewater assessment shall specifically consider, to the extent applicable, the disposal of waste products generated by the proposed treatment process. —1 Ave Maria Utility Company, LLLP,a private utility will construct, I operate and maintain a municipal quality advanced secondary wastewater treatment plant to service Ave Maria.This facility • .. will be designed and permitted by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection in accordance with Chapter 62-600- 4 Domestic Wastewater Facilities, F.A.C. Wastewater will be treated to produce irrigation quality reclaimed water for disposal.This water will be stored in storage ponds until required.A projection of anticipated wastewater generation is contained in the table below. Sludge generated by the wastewater facility will be disposed by land application on nearby farm fields or by burial at the county's landfill. Table 2 ADF,MMADF,MDF for Wastewater Treatment Plant Design II Peaking Factors Wastewater Flows(mgd) AADF: I AADF AADF: AADF MMADF MDF MMADF I :MDF PHF SRA Area 2 4 5.8 MGD 8.7 MGD 11.6 MGD Area(original) j Light Industrial/ warehousing 0.018 0.024 I 0.032 (600:000 SQ.ft_1 I i Subtotal 1155 ' 2 4 5.82 MGD 8.72 MGD j 11.63 MGD Allowance for Ulm) .58 MGD 58 MGD .58 MGD SR.&Totals 8.34 9.2C3 12_4821 Assumed 10%of ADP" impact Assessment Report FPVt Na 09/1F,12C1t Town of Ave Maria ?'3 if Packet Page -90 10/14/2014 8.B. programs.The table below demonstrates the anticipated benefits of the recycling program.At the request of the County Manager,Ave Maria University will establish a special recycling program focusing on the further reduction of solid waste from the university.The exact details of this special program have not been established, Estimated Solid Waste Generation r , 1 Domestic Solid Waste ' Domestic Solid Waste Phase Cubic Yards/day Tons/day Existing 0 i 0 Phase 1 61.5 ,' 18.5 . : Phase 2 (buildout) 111.0 33.3 (Light IndustriaINVarehousinql Total 125.2 ' Anticipated Benefits of the Recycling Program Units Proposed Garbage Garbage Garbage Source/Housing typo Units Phase 1 Year 2011 (lb/day) (ton/day) (yd3lday) . Residential Dwelling Unit 6.010 24,040 12.0 40.1 Retail ft2 410,400 5,335 2.7 8.9' Office ft2 276,600 5.532 2.8 9.2 Hotel room 110 220 0.1 0.4 Medical ft2 15,000 300 0.2 0.5 Civic _ ft2 115.500 _ 1,502 0.8 2.5 Total before Recycling(Phase 1) 36,929 18.5 61.5 Grand Total with 30%Recycling (Phase 1) 25.850 12.9 43.1 Units Proposed Garbage Garbage Garbage _Soorcetlicosingtype Units Phase 2 Year 2016 (1b/day) n/day) (yd3iday) Residential Dwelling Unit 11.000 44,000 22.0 73.3 Retail ft 2 690.000 8,970 4.5 15.0 Office ft2 510.000 10,200 5.1 17.0 ! ....___ Hotel room 400 800 0.4 1.3 Medical ft2 35.000 700 0.4 1.2 Civic ft 2 148,500 1,931 1.0 3.2 1 - , Light Industrial/Warehousing ft2 600,000 8.520 4.3 14.2 Total before Recycling (Buildout) 66404-75.120 3-2437.6 111.0125,2 Grand Total with 30% Recycling (Buildout) 46,62052,585 22-.326.3 77.787.6 _ ; Impact Assessment Report Revised 09118"2C,14 - own o f Ave Maria Pagr a Packet Page -91- 10/14/2014 8.B. The original proposed demands for Public Water Supply use +swas expected to be 2.336 MG per year, with a maximum day use of 12.8 MGD. The change in demands with the light industrial/warehousing use are minimal. As future renewals of the SFWMD Consumptive Use Permit are made, any necessary increases to the permitted allocation due to the addition of light industrial/warehousing will be reviewed and addressed with the District. The irrigation requirements for Ave Maria using the modified Blaney-Criddle method will be an annual demand of 2, 117 million gallons per year(MGY). No change in irrigation demand is anticipated with the addition of the light industrial/warehousing use. 3.Proposed Consumptive Use Impacts Existing irrigated agriculture fields will be removed in the process of developing the Ave Maria University and Town. The combined PWS (6.4 MGD) and irrigation maximum day demands (5.8 MGD) less reclaimed water generated for irrigation (5.8 MGD), which forms the basis upon which potential impacts are evaluated, is 6.4 MGD (6.49 with proposed light industrial/warehousing), or approximately 42% less than the currently permitted allocation. The impacts associated with groundwater pumpage are therefore reduced by a similar amount. The SFWMD Lower West Coast Plan (April 2000), which is the District's assessment of water demands and sources, indicated no adverse impacts associated with current and future projected agricultural use. The proposed reduction in permitted allocation will reduce the potential for adverse impacts to occur. The proposed withdrawal facilities will be located to minimize potential impacts. Facilities will be located, designed and operated in such a way that they will not degrade the ambient surface or groundwater quality, and will not adversely impact any adjacent FSA, HSA, WRA, or conservation areas. 4. Proposed Dewatering Activities and Potential Impacts Temporary dewatering will be conducted in association with lake construction and other construction activities such as utilities installation. Dewatering activities are typically completed in a few days to a few weeks per site. All water withdrawn during dewatering will be directed to retention areas or lakes and will remain on the project site. Dewatering to a depth below 0.0 NGVD will not occur within 1,000 feet of saline water and the proposed activities will not cause an exchange of saline and fresh water. Dewatering will not occur within 100 feet of any wastewater treatment plant percolation pond and will not cause violations of state water quality standards for either surface or groundwater. Recharge trenches will be used to maintain a hydraulic barrier between the dewatering sites and wetland areas or other sensitive land uses. Adverse impacts to existing legal uses, off-site and uses, or the environment due to the proposed withdrawals are not anticipated. • irr,T,ao1 L,sse5srr.e .. R.0Gcr. Revised 09'18/2014 The Town o` Ave Maria Pape 1. Packet Page -92- 10/14/2014 8.B. Table of Contents Introduction 2 Overview and Master Plan 4 Figure 1:Ave Maria SRA Master Plan 6 University District 8 Town Core 23 Town Center 1 54 Town Center 2 and 3 76 Neighborhood General 97 Services District 140 Community General 142 Stormwater Management 142 Transportation Network 151 Figure 2:Pedestrian Network Map 155 Street Cross Sections 160 Parks 169 Open Space 174 Figure 3:Open Space 175 Community Signage 176 Terms and Definitions 184 Appendices 190 Appendix A:Legal Description 190 Appendix B:Shared Use Parking Analysis 204 Appendix C:Permitted Land Use Matrix 216 Appendix D:Amendments to Ave Maria 221 Appendix E:Solid Waste Management at Ave Maria University 223 Appendix F:Street Tree Spacing Exceptions 226 Table of Contents Tow~ Pint Revised 09/18,20`,4 Nr r,�rc Packet Page -93 10/14/2014 8.B. Town Centers 2 and 3 Key Features Mixed Use . IR Shopping ,l, 1,,.Alit: T Employment ,. ! 1r.. Wellness Residential Town Centers 2 and 3 will provide a diversity of opportunities for a variety of businesses. Retail, service, residential and employment opportunities will be abundant.In Town Centers 2 and 3 businesses will feel they are part of a real and growing town-one that combines all the benefits of a quiet, close-knit neighborhood with the enriching environment of a major university. A wide variety of shopping needs will be met through local,national and regionally recognized stores. In short,Town Centers 2 and 3 will provide residents opportunities to find everything they need in close proximity to their homes. Streets and drives in Town Centers 2 and 3 will maintain 4, .._...---"` ^--- J / the pedestrian quality found throughout Ave Maria. Tree lined sidewalks will provide a buffer and shade to those 5 Canter (-- r2e walking within the Town Centers. I The photographs, graphics, and diagrams are schematic '.. and do not represent any actual pictures,designs,product , t '- ; �,.� ) w, r _-.;;4.e..: ..3,.:„, , Center Y i? 'ilk, a�1r y .- sir v 't'f "7� �+ Vie -.%-,;' Trnm �.w Center Pedestrian shading from buildings and canopy T Town Centers 2 & 3 introduction Town Plan I The Town c: Marie aaF' E., Revised 009/18:2014 Packet Page -94- 10/14/2014 8.B. floor plans, maps,architectural footprints,elevations, buildable area,actual lot configurations or the like.They are provided for illustrative purposes only. Land Uses Town Centers 2 and 3 will provide daily goods and services for the residents and visitors of Ave Maria. Buildings may be single-use, or shared-use.A mixture of uses including retail, office, civic, recreation/wellness, hotel/motel, light industrial and manufacturing,warehouse and warehouse distribution center and flex space,and residential are permitted within Town Centers 2 and 3. Specific uses permitted within Town Center 2 and 3 are included in the Ave Maria Permitted Use Matrix,Appendix C. See page 96A for additional buffers and development standards for non-residential uses in Town Center 2b adjacent to Oil Well Road and Ave Maria Boulevard. Business Park Uses A minimum of 50,000 SF will be reserved within Town Center 2 or 3 for uses defined in Appendix C as Business Park uses. Building Height-Maximum 4 Stories, Maximum 200 Ft. for cell towers Block Perimeter- Maximum 3,500 Ft. Density Floor Area Ratios: (FAR)shall not exceed 1.5 for the Total Building Area within each block. Floor Area Ratios: (FAR)shall not exceed 0.5 for Office/Commercial/Retail within each block. Floor Area Ratios: (FAR)shall not exceed 0.6 for Civic Uses within each block. Floor Area Ratios: (FAR)shall not exceed 26 units per acre for transient housing (hotel) within Town Centers 2 and 3. Floor Area Ratios: (FAR)shall not apply to residential uses. Floor Area Ratios: (FAR)shall not exceed 0.45 for Warehousing/Light Industrial within Town Center 2 and 3. Required Parking Refer to Appendix B for Town Centers 2 and 3 parking analysis. Design Standards Design standards that control building placement,streetscape, parking,service areas, and landscape in Town Centers 2 and 3 are found on the following pages. Town Centers 2 & 3 General Design Standards Taw n Pd a n Revised 09'18;2014 n. AVE, f1`ia is P'ace 77 Packet Page -95- 10/14/2014 8.B. Neighborhood General , ,: • Key Features: , .• Residential • Public Schools • Neighborhood Centers • Neighborhood Goods and Services Neighborhood park A broad mix of residential lot sizes and housing types anchor the Neighborhood General. Each neighborhood is characterized by a distinctive and consistent architectural design,and a community focus element. Neighborhood centers, parks and plazas are places where people will meet in formal or informal situations.The location of such facilities where people can cross paths is a key to a sense of neighborliness. Each neighborhood may contain an appropriately scaled center of neighborhood related goods and services including small workplaces, civic/institutional, and neighborhood retail and office buildings. Neighborhoods are planned in close proximity to town centers, schools and community parks to encourage r� pedestrian activity.The neighborhood streetscapes ,✓ gym .,, { are designed to support a walkable environment, with '- MI- sidewalks separated from the street by a planting . )0,7,4" tareamws, too, zone.There is a hierarchy in the Town with regard to * commercial uses,from Town Core to the Town Centers to the Neighborhood Centers to Local Neighborhood 5.• Goods and Services. ,./7 Neighborhood Centers may be relatively large and are 9 y Y 9 centrally located within neighborhoods to encourage ti -7r. interaction.These will house facilities such as fitness the and recreation centers, clubhouses, limited retail, office -- Neighborhood General introduction Town Plan i t r;e Town o? Ave Ma'la Gage 97 Revised 039'1E3,'2014 Packet Page -96- 10/14/2014 8.B. and restaurant, among other uses. Limited neighborhood-scale retail and office uses are encouraged to be strategically located within the neighborhoods.Their location is controlled by locational criteria defined in the Neighborhood Goods and Services sections of the town plan. The neighborhoods provide open park areas,water bodies, and recreational amenities such as a golf course to encourage outdoor activity. Neighborhood parks will be found within short walking distances of residences. These parks will be small in scale and have elements specific to the needs of the neighborhood. Design standards that will control building placement in the Neighborhood General content zone are found on the following pages.As mentioned in the Overview,all photographs and graphics are for illustrative purposes only and do not regulate the exact location or design of any feature or building. Neighborhood General-Landscape Landscaping within Neighborhood Centers shall adhere to the following criteria. • Provide a variety of tree and shrub species with at least 50%of the required trees and 25%of the required shrubs being plants native to Florida. • Required canopy trees used in open landscape areas(other than street trees)shall have a minimum caliper of 11/2". • Planting at the ground plane shall be a minimum of turf grass, groundcover, low shrubs or flowering plants in tree planters is allowed as is appropriate to the design. • Landscape areas may provide for utilities, drainage, access easements,and signage. Neighborhood General-Landscaping within and adjacent to Right of Way • Street trees shall occur, as indicated in Appendix = _ •_ -• • _ - •• : • . •• • - roadways and centered in the planting area between the sidewalk and curb. Street trees located outside ROW shall not be counted as a required landscape tree for an individual lot.. • Trees should have a clear trunk, beginning of branching of 6 Ft. clear and be an overall height of 12 Ft. At a minimum,trees shall be 11/2"caliper at time of installation. • Plantings used in this district shall include a variety of tree and shrub species with at least 50%of the required trees and 25%of the required shrubs being plants native to Florida. Neighborhood General General Landscape Town Plan Revised O9117/2014 vv.., '.! -i- Ca b Packet Page -97- 10/14/2014 8.B. Land Uses Permitted land uses in this district include residential and other housing. In addition, retail, office, civic/ institutional, recreational, and community facilities are encouraged and guided through location criteria. The Ave Maria Permitted Use Matrix,Appendix C,provides the detailed uses allowed in Neighborhood General. Setback Minimum Lot Area Front Rear Side Single Family Townhouse A 1200 Sq.Ft. 5 Ft. 0 Ft. 0 Ft.Int./5 Ft. End/5 Ft.Corner Single Family Townhouse B 2000 Sq.Ft. 10 Ft. 0 Ft. 0 Ft.Int./5 Ft.End/10 Ft.Corner Single Family Townhouse C 3000 Sq.Ft. 15 Ft. 20 Ft./5 Ft. 0 Ft.int./5 Ft.End/10 Ft.Caner Accessory Structure Single Fanily Totinhouse D 1400 Sq.Ft. 20 Ft. 10 R. 0 R.int./5 R.End/15 R.Comer Small Single Fanily Detached 3 R.—1 In./Taal of both sides Fir L Las 4000 Sq.Ft. 10 D Ft.t. 0 R. 10 R.min./ 10 R.Comer Large Sirgle Family Detached 5 R./Tad of both sides 10 Ft.min./ Rear Loaded Lots 7400 Sq.Ft. 20 Ft. 0 R. 10 R.Corner Srr l Single Family Deta 10 Ft./5 Ft. 3 Ft.—1 In./Total of both sides Front-or Side-Loaded Las 4200 Sq.R. 20 Ft. Accessory Structure 10 Ft.min./ 10 Ft.Corner Medium Single Family 3 Ft.—1 In./ Detached 6200 Sq.Ft. 20 Ft. 20 Ft./5 Ft. Total of both sides 10 Ft.min./ Front-or Side-Loaded Lots Accessory Structure 5 Ft.Corner Large Single Family Detached 20 Ft./5 Ft. 5 Ft./Total of both sides Front-Loaded Lots 8200 Sq.Ft. 20 Ft. Accessory Structure 10 Ft.min 10 Ft.Corner Single Family Detached Z Lots 10 Ft./3 Ft. 0 Ft.one side/10 Ft. Other 3190 Sq. Ft. 20 Ft. side/5 Ft.both sides/15 Ft. (Zero Lot Line) Accessory Structure Corner 5 Sq. 10 Ft./5 Ft. 0 Ft.one side/5 Ft.Other side/ Single Family Attached 3 0 q•Ft• 2 0 Ft. Structure 10 Ft.Corner Multi-Family"A" N/A 0 Ft. 20 Ft./5 Ft. 10 Ft. Multiple-Family/Other Housing Accessory Structure Multi-Family"B"Multiple-Family N/A 0 Ft. 15 Ft. 15 Ft. Not less than Equal to min lot area setbacks of 20 Ft./5 Ft. Neighborhood woods and of the smallest adjacent lots Accessory Structure 10 Ft. Service Uses adjacent lot r Neighborhood Center N/A 0 Ft. 20 Ft./0 Ft. 10 Ft. Accessory Structure Schools N/A 20 Ft./5 Ft. 0 Ft. Accessory Structure 25 Ft. individual product sheets provide additional design standards. The diagrams are schematic and do not represent actual product floor plan, architectural footprints, elevations,buildable area or actual lot configurations. A 23-foc:setback shall be maintained from the back of the sidewalk to front loaded garages throughout the Neighborhood General District Neighborhood General Land Uses .-._. ic,lw.'n P i a r Revised 09/18/2014 Ti-m,n Of A,E, k'';a Ha Page 00 Packet Page -98- 10/14/2014 8.B. Appendix C Permitted Land Use Matrix Town Town Town Neighborhood Services PERMITTED USES Core Center 1 Centers General District 2&3 RESIDENTIAL AND OTHER HOUSING Single-Family Attached X' X Single-Family Detached X' X Single-Family Townhouse X X X X Multiple Family X X X X Accessory Dwelling Unit X X X Bed and Breakfast X X X X Fraternity, Sorority House X Home for the Aged,Assisted X X X Living Facility Student Dormitory x Youth Hostel X X X CIVIC/INSTITUTIONAL Cemetery, Mausoleum X X* X Church, Chapel, Bell Tower X X X X* Clinic, Urgent Care X X X X* Community Meeting Facility X X X X* Convents monasteries,group X X X X* housing for religious order Day Care Center X X X X* Emergency Services X X X Family Day Care Home X X X X* Fire Station X X X Funeral Home/Crematories X X Group Day Care Home X X X X* Heliport y X X Hospital X X X Lodge, Club, Country Club, Fraternal Organization X X X X* j Medical Center/Clinic X X X X* Museum X X X Nursing Home X X X* Nursery School X X X X* I Philanthropic Institution X X X ! Police Station _ X X X X Post Office, Mail Stores X X X X* , Public Buildings. Libraries X X X X* X Recreational Field X Schools, public or private 1 X I X I X , X = Permitted use X* = Non-residential uses are permitted as defined in the Neighborhood Genera!sections of this town plan. Y,** – roe affordable horsing only. Refer to residential product sh:ets-tiie-Neig oo^ ral section. Appendix C Town Plan Revised 09/18/2014 - nF Packet Page -99- 10/14/2014 8.B. Enhanced Landscaping and Development Standards Town Center 2b northern boundary and neighborhood general interface • 60'wide buffer. • 8' high berm measured from finished gradel3' to 4' above pre-development grade) with a hedge installed on the berm which shall achieve 90% opacity at 6' in height within one year of installation, two staggered rows of canopy trees or palm clusters spaced no more than 30 feet on center and a minimum of 14'in height at time of planting and shall be installed concurrent with each phase of construction. • A minimum of 50 percent of the 60-foot wide buffer area shall be composed of a meandering bed of shrubs and ground covers other than grass. • 70' building setback. • Access to the Town Center shall be from Oil Well Road and Ave Maria Boulevard. Vehicular Interconnection to Anthem Parkway shall be prohibited unless it is gated and approved by the neighborhood general residential developer or residents of the residential community. • Parking lot lighting for non-residential uses shall have a maximum fixture height of 25', and lighting shall be shielded per Collier County Land Development Code standards. Oil Well Rd. • 50'setback for light industrial. • 20' setback for other non-residential. • Existing 30' average width buffer. Enhancement of existing palm tree cluster plantings which occur on 100' centers within canal tract adjacent to new development to include installation of a continuous hedge consisting of Fire Bush, Simpson Stopper, Walter Viburnum, or similar species, a minimum of 3 gallon in size and planted 4' on center. Ave Maria Blvd. • 50' setback for light industrial. • 20' setback for other non-residential. • Existing 25' average width buffer to remain without additional plantings due to plantings in-place on Ave Maria Blvd. Town Centers 2 & 3 Landscape Town Plan Revised 99/8/2014 T.Dvr, Avg,d^`ic:'ic r`'2p:: 954-, Packet Page -100- 10/14/2014 8.B. Small Single Family Detached 2'Lots _ (Zero Lot Line) Min. Lot Area: 3,190 Sq.Ft. wo.cc.uco '` Min. lot width at front or rear setback (whichever is more restrictive):38 Ft. Min. Lot Depth: 84 Ft. FtGordoe side Load rd Geroge Min. Front Yard Setback: 20 Ft. front load. Min. 14 Ft. side load garage for principal and accessory structures. Min. Side Yard Setback: 5 Ft. on each side,or 10 Ft.on one side and 0 Ft. on the opposite for principal and accessory structures. Minimum 10 Ft.separation between '--' - �- principal structures. Min. Corner Side Yard Setback: 15 Ft. Min. Rear Yard Setback:10 Ft.for principal structures or O �, 3 Ft. for accessory structures ' Maximum Height: 21/2 Stories for principal and accessory structures. _ ' Residential Parking:Two off-street parking spaces per house (inclusive of garages and driveways)shah be provided. Garages: Garages may be two cars deep perpendicular to the street. Minimum driveway width shall be 9 Ft., maximum 900 Sq. Ft.for garage. Accessory Structures: One accessory residential unit of up to 650 Sq. Ft.for a lot less than 4,000 Sq. Ft. in size,and up to 900 Sq. Ft. for lot sizes 4.000 Sq. Ft. or larger. This structure may be freestanding or built over a garage. This structure may be used for a home office. hobby/workshop, pool house. residential storage or living quarters. Miscellaneous structures (such as potting and tool sheds)of up to 100 Sq. Ft. One additional off-street parkina space is reauired for accessory structures unless on-street parkina is provided on the adjacent street. Encroachments: Porches. stoops, chimneys. bay windows, canopies. balconies and overhangs may encroach into the front yard up to 50 percent of the total setback.These same elements may encroach into a side yard up to 50 percent of Neighborhood General Residential T ■,' iu,- Revisec 09'1812014 - t Packet Page -101- 10/14/2014 8.B. the total setback of the side yards, but no element may encroach into a side yard such that the distance to the property line from the encroaching element is less than 2 Ft.—6 In.except that overhangs may encroach up to 2 Ft. into any yard. Additionally. a roof line overhang with gutter along a 0 Ft. side setback may encroach up to 2 Ft. into the adjacent lot. Fences and walls may encroach into any yard up to the property line. Fencing and walls may not exceed 7 Ft. in height. Fence and wall materials may consist of wood. iron. vinyl. or masonry. Steps shall not be considered to be an encroachment. Due to compact lot dimensions, rear yard drainage easements (D.E.'s) for secondary drainage may be 10 Ft. in width and shared between adjacent lots. In these cases,the accessory structure setback may be 0 Ft. from the D.E.with no allowable at-grade encroachment. Landscape: Minimum of 80 Sq. Ft. on lots that are greater than 3.000 Sq, Ft. but less than 5,000 Sq.Ft.in area 100 Sq. Ft. for lots 5,000 Sq. Ft. or larger in area. Minimum of turf grass for the remainder of the property. Plantings shall be in planting areas,raised planters. or planter boxes around the perimeter of the dwellina. Zero Lot Line:Windows may be permitted on the zero lot line, e g ti-+cd 4nppt.: Gryene�,r31 Resdenoa! nn �.t� r'r, i E n n r� Packet Page 402- 10/14/2014 8.B. Appendix F ,----. i _ t-.-.),. , ,- .... _ , — !I-- ' ,--,_ 0 .)-A / g.J1, e I , ..., t .i. .cz$ iz. .. 2' i.– fs _ 8 I :w 5 IF ---ri i . ■ (.,_ ______ ;Et-2 I - - I , -----L. ./—*-%)1 .....2 ..-- .„....- 4 !I L,-• ', Bitt'm ./$ s,.. ,...._ _ __-- I - F / 1-------N1 ..-- 8 )1 ..-,h ,:.- "'-'''' .,a Ut -, / \,.., \ O. –.1 i 3–ai 1 C.) CO . ;,..: \ .04 4. –— -- \ a e--1 ,, 1 L5 ,..— . ..4.............. UJ ...--.._.„ v–. 1 1 1 r U– 0 F- £ ,, . f- ri X 0 -• 1 .■- , .f 1 0 , (7) ,4 - / .,,,, _., > ,--,Lu r___t___ / E.: I -§. Z I- r , E u j t ■–..../ - CL J Fa i I ,;.. ....- , / 7-.. ,,, ,4 t t p I -,/ ,_ __,.....3„,._ , -, f - - 4 7---"•., ' .., 1 MI * al, , , . ______ C3 -1.-/-;'V -, If ' ' > -,-, -,,... "•......,.. - CO W in \ / ..■ -.•, r- i "'"--4, 0 7 . I c 0 '"'"'",. 1 ......:*■4.,-, >. ■-■• '-'t ,.. tt'" ''`'C -. ,z2 ,•4 * Ff 5- t,!,-'•'('5-V'-"a-E--. u•.' ■ <,7: ,,t,..,,St)/ 7:,....: n...-7,'•,..171,V. ''''a z . + 4. 2E--.).„,, .▪ , --,, ., cr- z ,,i,"*▪.. - — ---- < — c, h r.lr,L.,.•.7,• - - , +.. 7..'41:.',..Z■■CC, 1,, __. dill, ...., ,,,,,..,f..10.4.■ __ ,, .... t1,1 ^, 'Iv - _,..7,ZI:i. -a-- u c w ..),e / / \ a.- Append X.F(1) ,......_ _ ..._ _ - Revtseri 09'1E1201z —rte. awr 04.kw..Maela ''s:H 22:- Packet Page -103- 10/14/2014 8.B. Appendix F g E /M\ „ = 2,- s....‹, 0 El 5Entq" r tt'. ,tte, ii ;,...,.. itw ----. t r7,2 / \ I , A i ) .4, 411 — tE2z3 ,-.....--, \ , „,m.... EL' \ 1 / c---.y .z.... 3. 0_. i 1 i ....._, , w , - (.) „....,,o (\Ili- , 9 LJ LI-I LI,1 z X p= .;. 0 U) 1 o'—',, t • WILLI ,....._.,- (Li< <10 , --J 1 Z "----N, 0 1- Z t/ \ 1 1 0,...; I / ,, n i o \ .1 -'- -:t at ' '''..........--4*- = :1-, t z - zxvv--,-- ..--- m- 5. _ mv, --4J ■ r 1— -, „..,- —_ i I i i ..—, 1 -,7•M< C,,,ti- - 1 ----e / ,...„,„,., -...,--- Ay,,,,,,, - -.„.„.__ / '`.4...,AL ,U.,.. ''11,1---,t• CI,t '■_ Appendw F:2 MI Wr Pier- Revised 0:3 182014 r=aa€ :27 Packet Page -104- 7-t"r--36:r 01 A''''''' ''''37'E" 10/14/2014 8.B. D'E IL C ra 1.2 ci: cti -, i-- no `` Z c'-:,i Ssc1 0V0a 113M 110 1 r-,,i-4,,,,,,:fr••-•;:,•,- ■ 7--- (f) t - .rZ . z •i' ig, , ,..• 0 5 f, ji_ = - .'?'''2 E :3 1 • j ,`J i- tn 8c 0 0 t',9480 1-? i J l * 4 ` I 10 j' -ii 9 ablimi. ,.._ i J , ,. , Isomerla .„..„. ,,,v„ 411•0 _,,,,..„ —IL.,, .., _ _ ‘,..,,,',1:-.,,,':.i,!„ ,, ' ro : , ■ __J • ,--— 4111:._joie 'PIP : < I , ' , 1 '...:_' r• , : if,ri r• 'D "-- ii / i'' •.i. j, ' ....i i, vi. ,, „ ,,, , :,., ,..,...,,,,..,,,... , se , - 1---,..., ,...,i, -:Ti,,,,: f4p4e0 t*N. - ' 1 - - \ ,, , 11 4 , , _ 7 — trA,p.i,-,,,,,t4.4--,r,/,'.,---4,1'1- 4 , '; 4.1iNw. ill tit. 'it 2, i -,:.:••.' ,:,-. -- r.i. 1,- c. * tre# ift ir , , ,,,-`,..Viiii•,.',,,,,.#,-, t'' ,,,,,,,, ' IPP 4011' ' '' I = P ' a `;ii.T. '2. .tananon 41/4 .000— dookagginta or , ,/t5!;,15-- ile .,,,it'''0 t ., #,..q ,.., .....00.4. ,..,:-.,, -,,, ,-, .,-.. -,: ( ig,',-, ei.,... „. , -, ' ,ggrol'Ima Tt .441 ,--,,,,:ii, v,,:,,'`te,..' .,'-t. , ';‘,,, pitte,.041, 1t atto•T .....,.,...,f.„,:::t.. c- z-,-. „r,..,. v,..- ':.,, .k.,,,,,,,•-f-,,,..:-.5,--!:::_-,-,,,,,,,,,,....---, ';•,--4s•- - < ■%1 tattAt ..4t .,- -;.----i.F..;-.!'-;,,- , t•:,,-...,-•,,,-, '7— —' t„,_, :,,,?-7.4.---,!..,,;talg,,,..-4,,I• _,,- , L., "'22' iiigssi' i --. .' ji-ii`,:-...7.=•I g.z.R-s#,:tx-, :: --'-- ,--.- 7 1 ,, ,.... P `,..;& ,,s":144, s'..r — ' 't., 111111211 0' '0114 11* Vril,-41T...*1!"%:',•''', '.',,•f.:'.4';''.7i'''', ,',f, < u9 1 '” It li c I1 It° .-- 1 i .."- r-;.--- 1. , .., ::• 7-: c.-., < •— -- f i r t ,, .... , . , . VI .s„......_,.....,..................,...... V. re Packet Page 105 .....,„„..,•....„._ Revised 09'1 612014 10/14/2014 8.B. PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE E NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER RESOLUTION Notice is hereby given that on Tuesday,October 14,2014,in the Boardroom,3rd Floor,Administration Building, Collier County Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida,the Board of County Commissioners will consider the enactment of a Development Order Amendment. The meeting will commence at 9:00 A.M. The title of the proposed Resolution is as follows: a A RESOLUTION OF THE COLUER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING THE AVE MARIA STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA (SRA)TOWN PLAN AND SRA MASTER PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 4.0&07F,4 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,AND SPECIFICALLY TO:ADD SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED Z 1 LOTS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL ZONE; ADD 600,000 SQUARE FEET OF LIGHT INDUSTRIAL/WAREHOUSING TO THE TOWN CENTER 2B; REDESIGNATE 155 ACRES OF NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL TO TOWN CENTER 2B; REDESIGNATE t 90 ACRES OF TOWN CENTER 2A TO NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL; REDESIGNATE 4 52 ACRES OF TOWN CENTER.3 TO NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL AND MOVE AN ACCESS POINT ALONG OIL WELL ROAD.THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTH OF OIL WELL ROAD AND WEST OF CAMP KEAIS ROAD IN SECTIONS 31 THROUGH 33,TOWNSHIP 47 SOUTH,RANGE 29 EAST AND SECTIONS 4 THROUGH 9 N t AND 16 THROUGH 18,TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH,RANGE 29 EAST IN COLLIER COUNTY, Q> i FLORIDA[PETITION SRAA-PL20132012] V ..: urn cc i p ` in I CL 1_ - are rl jJ - ii 1 E r� Copies of the proposed Resolution are on file with the Clerk to the Board and are available for f inspection.All interested parties are invited to attend and be heard. NOTE: All persons wishing to speak on any agenda item must register with the County administrator ae r— prior to presentation of the agenda item to he addressed. Individual speakers will be limited to 3 '-r' tr minutes on any item.The selection of an individual to speak on behalf of an organization or group o is encouraged.If recognized by the Chairman,a spokesperson for a group or organization may be n allotted 10 minutes to speak on an item. P e s,tinu sh,nr;to have wri en or arson c_ moterNs included tr the Board apenco bactcets must z n; said material na rntrtimum of 3 weeks s prto to tne respecfrive pudtic hearth° in anii. case. I m wirier t materials intended , > „ : rea by t B t o submitted the rrr,pr m e 1 to ��„ ,i staff.a o niur cif s_. us^, poor tI the cool �eare:s Al material.erial us_d.r p :srr.,..ic:t 1 hire the r r r will become permanent port of the rec:.ra. I Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore,may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is f s made,which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding;you are entitled,at no cost to you,to the provision of certain assistance.Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Department,located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East,Building W, Naples, Florida 3a112,(239)252-8380. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are s available in the County Commissioners.Office. I BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1 COLLiEF:COUNTY,FLORIDA TOM HENIJING,CHAIRMAN 1 DV■r',GHT E.FROCK.,Cl ERK 1 By: Martha Vergara,Deputy Cierk(SEAL { No.2 31 1 23842 . September 24,2C t • Packet Page -106- .