Loading...
CCPC Minutes 07/18/2002 RJuly 18 & ! 9, 2002 Collier County Planning Commission County Commissioners Boardroom Building F, 3rd Floor 3301 Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34104 MINUTES July 18, 2002 ATTENDANCE Members: Chairman Kenneth Abemathy Russell A. Budd Mark Strain David Wolfley Dwight Richardson Paul Midney Lora Jean Young Lindy Adelstein Staff: Marjorie Student - Assistant County Attorney, Ray Bellows - Planning Services, Susan Murray - Current Planning Staff, Fred Reischl - Planning Services, Steve Lenberger - Planning Services, Greg Garcia - Transportation Planning, Joe Schmitt - CDES Administrator, Kay Deselem - Planning Services, Patrick White - Assistant County Attorney, Stan Chrzanowski - Development Services Engineering, Cormac Giblin - Housing Development Manager, Russ Muller - Engineering Department Others: Austin White, Carol Wright, Alvin Doyle Martin, B.J. Savard- Boyer, Fred Nader, Dick Lydon, Michael Fernandez, Kenneth Goodman, Rich Yuvanovich, Don Cahill, John White, Bill Reckmeyer, Gus Flier, Doug Grant, Clay Brooker, Doug Fee, Dan George, Robert Duane, George Hermanson, Ted Treesh, Fred Thomas, Bill Klohn, Pat McCuan, Russ Miller, Peter Catuzzi, Marie Ingram, Tracy Ingram, Mr. O'Gara, Anthony Pires, Mike Landy, RayAnn Boylen, Mario Curiale, David Farmer, Kevin July 18 & 19, 2002 Barnhill, Nicole Ryan, John Belt, Charles Healy, Robert McConnell, Bruce Anderson, Mike Reagan Chairman Kenneth Abernathy called meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II. ROLL CALL Mr. Abemathy called the roll of the Planning Commission. III. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA There were no changes from staff. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - No Meeting on July 4, 2002, as it was a holiday. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES Mr. Abemathy questioned which commission members would be absent at the first meeting in August. Mr. Richardson stated he would be absent. VI. BCC REPORT -RECAPS -June 11, June 19, and June 25, 2002 Joe Schmitt noted that Commissioner Henning had called for the amendments to the GMP for Concurrency to be on the agenda at the July 30th meeting. This issue was approved by the BCC with a 3-2 vote. Mr. Abemathy noted that the board had stripped out their soft landing approach. Mr. Schmitt added that it was presented to the board, but they went with the direction of staff. VII. CHAIRAMAN'S REPORT Mr. Abernathy stated he would like to discuss the need for a second meeting in August under New Business. VIII. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. LDC AMENDMENTS Susan Murray stated that this had already been seen by the commission, but due to an advertising error, it was not adopted last cycle. It was concerning vehicle parking in conjunction with residential structures. Mr. Abemathy closed the public hearing. Mr. Strain questioned on Item D if the maximum driveway width would allow a width of 20 feet. Ms. Murray stated it would allow them to construct a driveway of 20-foot width. On Item 5, it stated that vehicles needed to be owned or leased by the residents, and Mr. Strain asked if they were making it illegal to have visitors or borrowed cars parked at the residence. Ms. Murray said it wouldn't be an issue unless the vehicles were illegally parked. They could recommend to the board to provide language, but she assumed code enforcement would give leniency if there wasn't an illegal parking issue. Mr. Strain was concerned about this being taken to the extreme and suggested that this be brought up to the board when they reviewed it. 2 July 18 & 19, 2002 Ce Mr. Schmitt added that this was only applicable to non-deed restricted areas in the county. Ms. Murray added that the target was for the multiple vehicles parked at a residence on a consistent basis. Mr. Wolfley asked if they could place a timing provision in the amendment and noted that code enforcement only reacts when a complaint has been made. Mr. Abemathy suggested they needed to take out "and" from paragraph 4 on the last page. Mr. Budd motioned to transmit LDC section 2.3.5 with a recommendation for adoption, Mr. Adelstein seconded. Marjorie Student stated that they needed to add a finding for consistency as part of the motion. Mr. Budd amended the motion. Passed unanimously. VA-2002-AR-2444 There were 3 persons sworn in for this hearing. Fred Reischl stated that this was a request for an after-the-fact variance of 2.5 feet. The site plan was approved at 35 feet, but they did not notice that it was a comer lot, so they would have exceeded the 30-foot setback requirement. Mr. Reischl showed an aerial of the home and stated that there were no other homes affected by this. Staff recommended approval. Mr. Abemathy closed the public hearing. Mr. Budd motioned to forward petition VA-2002-AR-2444 to the BZA with a recommendation for approval, David Wolfley seconded. Passed unanimously. VA-2002-AR-2011 There were 4 persons sworn in for this hearing. Mr. Reischl stated this was a request for 3 after-the-fact variances. He stated that the drive aisles are required to be 24 feet, and these were constructed at 22 feet. The site plan was approved administratively, the property has been open for 3 years, and they are now being requested to go through the variance process. The engineering department felt that the 24-foot drive aisles were necessary, so staff recommended approvals for the setbacks and denial for the aisle width. Mr. Wolfley asked if the STP was approved initially, and Mr. Reischl stated it was built to the STP. Stan Chrzanowski - Development Services Engineering Mr. Chrzanowski stated that they had a standard width of 24 feet when there was 90° parking off the drive aisle. They needed this to have sufficient room when two vehicles were passing in the drive aisle. Mr. Abemathy felt that this could be distinguished for precedent purposes since there was staff complicity. He questioned the width of the parking spaces and Mr. Chrzanowski stated they were 9 feet. Mr. Abemathy noted that the parking lot felt crowded to him when he had visited. Mr. Chrzanowski commented that this community tends to have larger vehicles. He noted that there have been no complaints or accidents, and he felt that people tend to drive slower when they are constrained. July 18 & 19, 2002 Mr. Strain noted that there have been exceptions for two 10-foot drive aisles and these were already at 11 feet on each side. He wasn't sure if there was much of an issue. Mr. Wolfley asked why they were built at 22 feet. Mr. Reischl stated that the former Planning Services Manager approved this STP. Mr. Richardson asked if there was a way to repair this problem by restriping. Mr. Chrzanowski stated that there was no very cheap way to repair this, and he wasn't sure if there was a reasonable way. Mr. Richardson felt that giving the variance would be approving something that was wrong. Mr. Reischl stated that a variance would admit an error had been made, rather than changing the PUD. Mr. Schmitt added that the error was made by staff and so it was developed to the appropriate standards at the time it was built. Mr. Reischl noted that only some areas of the complex were in violation, not the entire parking lot. Mr. Abemathy closed the public hearing. Mr. Budd motioned to forward petition VA-2002-AR-2011 to the BZA with a recommendation for approval on all variances, Mr. Strain seconded. The motion carried 7 for and 1 against, with Mr. Richardson opposed. VA-2002-AR-2015 There were 7 persons sworn in for this heating. Kay Deselem stated that the STP was issued in error relative to the development and parking regulations and they were seeking a variance to obey a code violation for having excessive floor space of the 19 hotel units. Mr. Adelstein disclosed that he spoke with staff on this issue and Mr. Strain disclosed that he spoke with Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney. Ms. Deselem stated that the approval of this variance would have no effect on the infrastructure, transportation, or the environment. She replied that a hotel allows 26 units per acre and a multi-family use allows 16 units per acre, therefore if it was permitted as a multi-family development, it would be over by one unit. Mr. Richardson felt that there was a fairly pervasive attempt by the applicant to deceive the county. Mr. Abemathy questioned the stage of development of this project, and Ms. Deselem replied it was complete and occupied legally in a condo- type ownership. Mr. Schmitt stated that the situation was that the homeowner's were now being cited for the violation. Mr. Abemathy asked if there was a lobby in the building, and Ms. Deselem stated that there was a lobby in the building but it did not operate in the conventional sense. Mr. Abemathy suggested that they require a kiosk or a rental office at the site. Mr. Richardson questioned if it was a locked operation. Ms. Deselem stated she was not sure, but there were no signs as a normal hotel would have. Mr. Strain questioned if the docks and cabanas at the property were open to the public. Ms. Deselem believed that they were not open to the public. Mr. Strain questioned which assignment would have more intense traffic. Ms. Deselem believed that a hotel or motel would generate more traffic. 4 July 18 & 19, 2002 Patrick White - Assistant County Attorney Mr. White was sworn in. He stated that the 19 units were owned condo units. He verified that there was a lobby and parking on the first floor. He added that the doors and elevators were typically locked and the means of rental was through a rental agent. He clarified that it was either a hotel or a transient lodging facility and if the term was 6 months or less, then it would be transient. Mr. Adelstein questioned if bed tax was collected when an owner occupied the unit. Mr. White said that was the case and he felt the facts and requirements that the staff has made seem to comply with what the code requires. Mr. Richardson asked how much bed tax had been collected. Mr. White was not sure, but that should be presented at a later time. Mr. Richardson felt this information should be available since this has been in operation. Mr. Richardson questioned whether he felt it was operating as a condo or a hotel. Mr. White replied that even if it operated as a "hotel", it would still be a condominium, so the idea was that it would be a transient lodging facility. Mr. Abernathy stated that there was no definition of transient in the LDC, but if they placed the 6-month time period on it, then everything could be considered a hotel. Mr. White stated that staff has given their best recommendation. He noted that transient refers to a period of time rather than a type of occupant. He stated this would still be considered transient use, which would require a bed tax. Mr. Strain questioned why they didn't call it a condominium seeking a variance for one extra unit. Mr. White stated that condominium refers to a type of ownership. If you're residential, then the density was restricted to 16 units per acre, but if you're commercial transient use, then density can be increased to 26 units. He added the size of the transient rooms was limited to 500 sq. fi. Mr. Strain stated if it was a hotel, then it would pay the bed tax and individuals would receive tax advantages and if it was a condo, then they don't pay bed tax but they get a less immediate tax advantage. Mr. White said that would be correct if he changed the word "hotel" to "transient occupancy" and "condo" to "residential". Mr. Richardson questioned if this passed, then were they going to see LDC changes to this issue. Mr. White stated that it was alluded that there wouldn't be size limitations as part of the Vanderbilt Beach moratorium. Mr. Richardson didn't feel this was the right vehicle to bring about those changes. Mr. Adelstein added that they were going out of their way to bring this into compliance when they knew the rules when they designed and built the property and he believed they should live with it. Mr. White stated that the county also knew that when they approved the project. Austin White -Attorney representing Manatee Resort and 19 owners Austin White stated that the owners were cited by the code enforcement board. He stated that this was approved in 1997. Two years ago the owners began operating, and were seeking a license as a resort condominium. He assured that the bed tax has been paid by the individuals and is now paid by the rental agent. He urged the commission to approve this variance and noted they were living with the condo documents as drafted. Mr. Richardson questioned why this issue has been in limbo 5 July 18 & 19, 2002 for so long. Austin White stated that the variance was due to the increased size of the rooms, not the type of use. Mr. Richardson said that it seemed these units were being bought and functioning as condominiums. Austin White stated they were condominiums and the declaration of condominium requires hotel use. Austin White noted that the owner of each unit was not allowed to use the unit year-round. Mr. Abernathy suggested they add that the rental agent will render an annual report to the county. Ms. Deselem stated that it would be more appropriate to change the language under ownership entity does the reporting. Carol Wright - President of Vanderbilt Beach and Bay Association Ms. Wright said that her statements were endorsed by the entire VBBA board. They were not interested in penalizing the owners of the Manatee Resort, but she felt the LDC should be obeyed and upheld and there should be penalties when it was violated. When this hotel was built, the code allowed 26 units per acre at a maximum of 500 sq. ft. She felt this was built as a condo, sold as a condo and ran like a condo. Ms. Wright stated that the doors were locked, there were no signs, there was no maid service, there was no overnight lodging, there was no way to call and make a reservation, and the Manatee Hotel was not in the phonebook. She believed the developer built it as a hotel to reap the benefit of more density. She stated that Manatee owners have told her that they were unaware that they were buying into a hotel. She would prefer to see it ran as a condo rather than a hotel. She said that developers should not violate codes as "business as usual". She asked the commission to vote against this variance. Mr. Abernathy asked if she had any suggestions to remedy this problem. Ms. Wright stated that they could get rid of one unit, and she added that the architect lived in one of the units. She stated that she liked the way it has been run as a condo, but she would like to see the proper people penalized. Alvin Martin - Homeowner Mr. Martin stated this issue revolved around corporate governance, greed, accountability and oversight. He said it was never designed as a hotel. He stated that the law was broken and was still being broken and the county was saying, "let's change the law". Mr. Martin stated that he would propose they rezone to residential condominium use. Mr. Wolfley asked what recourse they had, and Mr. Martin felt they should hold the developer accountable and the first step would be denying this variance. B.J. Savard-Boyer - Yanderbilt Beach Property Owner's Association Ms. Boyer read a letter from the President of the Association, Frank Halas, which asked the commission to vote against the variance. Ms. Boyer stated that the developer only wanted to get money so he misrepresented his intentions to the county. She showed a printout of the MLS system where the Manatee was listed under condominiums. She noted that the original condo documents state it is a hotel, so the owner's cannot live there unless the code changes. Mr. Strain stated that the Manatee has condo documents with the word "hotel" sprinkled in a few times, which July 18 & 19, 2002 was not like typical hotel-condominium documents. He noted that to be a condominium, they were over by 6/10 of a unit. Ms. Boyer suggested that this 6/10 of a unit could be a clubhouse or a library. Fred Nader - Owner of a Manatee unit Mr. Nader was sworn in. Mr. Nader stated that he bought his unit from the realtor, who was the developer, and he had no idea it was a hotel. He noted that the lawyer that was used was now debarred because he was a thief. He stated that he had to move out of the condo because he did not want to violate the law. Mr. Strain asked why they didn't apply for a variance to apply for 6/10 of a unit. Patrick White said that they would have to ask for a "density variance" which was not allowed by the code. Dick Lydon - Mr. Lydon was sworn in. Mr. Lydon did not want this turned into a hotel, so he suggested that they grant the variance and let it play as a condo. Michael Fernandez - Attorney representing the petitioner Mr. Fernandez stated that there was no limitation on size of rooms in Collier County for commercial uses, and he felt this met the request of variance and was in accordance with the code. Mr. Abemathy closed the public hearing. Mr. Budd stated that staff errors were made in this case, but he motioned to forward petition VA-2002-AR-2015 with a recommendation of approval with the conditions in the staff report, Mr. Wolfley seconded. Mr. Richardson stated that he would rather see this turned down and pass along a message to make a change in the code so they can deal with this in a residential condominium fashion. Mr. Adelstein agreed and felt by approving, it would be compounding a fraud. Mrs. Young agreed. Mr. Strain stated that he would like to change the GMP and then ask for one more unit. He also suggested that language be added to the motion to restrict the variance to the existing plan and restrict the use of homestead exemptions. Marjorie Student stated that a GMP amendment could be done. Mr. Schmitt felt it would be a significant undertaking to amend the GMP for a single project. Mr. Budd was concerned that if they denied the variance, they would be choking the innocent while only making the guilty feel bad. Mr. Budd agreed to the two additions to the motion. The motion failed 3 for and 5 against, with Mr. Midney, Mr. Adelstein, Mrs. Young, Mr. Richardson, and Mr. Strain voting against the motion. Mr. Richardson motioned to deny petition VA-2002-AR-2015 on the basis that there are other solutions available and due to contradictions to the existing LDC, Mr. Adelstein seconded. Ms. Student stated that the criterion needed to come form the 8 criteria in the code. Mr. Richardson stated criteria a)-d) in the code, and specifically f), that it was not in harmony with the general intent and purpose of July 18 & 19, 2002 the LDC and would be injurious to the neighborhood and detrimental to the public welfare. The motion passed 5 for and 3 against, with Mr. Abernathy, Mr. Wolfley, and Mr. Budd voting against the motion. (There was a 15-minute break at 11:00 a.m.) VA-2002-AR-2035 There were 3 persons sworn in for this hearing. Mr. Reischl stated that this was a request for a 25-foot variance to allow a 50-foot reduction of front yard setbacks. He stated that the petitioner wants to be able to have larger homes and this variance would be for 20 lots, not just one. He had received six phone calls, but there were no objections to this variance request. Staff recommended denial of the variance because there was no land related hardship and they couldn't require there be a 2500 sq. ft. home when they could build 1000 sq. ft. homes. Mr. Strain noted that they wanted a larger backyard, but in looking at the site plan, they only need to grant the variance for lots 4-9 and 14-19 since the other lots were deeper. Mr. Reischl agreed. Mr. Wolfley asked if they were recommending denial because they looked at the neighborhood rather than individual homes, but Mr. Reischl stated that they did look at individual lots and there was no land related hardship. He added that Ed Carlson called and had no objections to the variance. Mr. Richardson asked in light of all of this if they were still recommending denial. Ray Bellows stated that they were recommending denial because the petitioner had adequate use of the land based on the minimum code requirements. Ken Goodman - Goodman & Breen Mr. Goodman stated that most of the lots were under water. Therefore, they were asking for a 50-foot setback of a 1-acre lot, which was basically what they had. Mr. Goodman noted that they would like the flexibility to build larger homes if desired. Mr. Strain stated that they did not need the variance for all 20 lots. Mr. Goodman felt there was land-related hardship on this property. Mr. Richardson felt that they created the hardship because they were trying to maximize the gain. Mr. Abemathy closed the public hearing. Mr. Budd motioned to forward petition VA-2002-AR-2035 with a recommendation for approval, Mr. Wolfley seconded. Mr. Strain asked if he would consider amending this for the 13 lots, but Mr. Budd wanted to leave the motion as is. Mr. Adelstein stated he had a problem with approving this for all the lots because they didn't all have the need. Mrs. Young agreed. The motion died with 4 for and 4 against, with Mr. Adelstein, Mrs. Young, Mr. Richardson and Mr. Strain voting against the motion. July ! 8 & 19, 2002 Mr. Budd motioned to forward petition VA-2002-AR-2035 with a recommendation for approval for lots 4-9 and 13-19 only, Mr. Midney seconded. The motion carried 7 for and 1 against, with Mr. Richardson voting against the motion. Fe VA-2002-AR-2044 Mr. Adelstein disclosed that he received a phone call from Ted Beisler who asked if Mr. Adelstein could deliver a letter that he wrote to the commission. There were 2 persons sworn in for this heating. Mr. Reischl stated that this was a request for a variance for a car wash that was currently open on Radio and Livingston Roads. The LDC in the C-5 district requires 5-foot rear yard setbacks, but if they are adjacent to residential, they have an increased setback of 40 feet. However, this was adjacent to the golf course maintenance area. The petitioner was requesting a 30-foot variance in order to add an open-air canopy. There were 8 phone calls regarding this petition, but there were no objections. Mr. Beisler's letter stated that he had no objection as long as the car wash built a wall that was required by the county. Staff recommended approval of a 25-foot variance. Mr. Richardson noted staff's 180-day time period if the use were to cease. Rich Yuvanovich - Attorney representing the petitioner Mr. Yuvanovich stated that the canopy was open on all 4 sides in order to provide protection for the workers at the car wash. He said the site plan was approved as if it was not next to a residential area, but when they requested a 5-foot variance, staff found the error, so they now had to ask for a 30-foot variance. Mr. Yuvanovich informed that the operation could not be seen from the road or from residential areas and felt there was a land-related hardship in this case. He had no problem with staff's request to remove the canopy if the operation ceased for over 180 days. Mr. Wolfley asked if this was a drive-thru and Mr. Yuvanovich stated it was. Mr. Strain questioned if there were any objections to the wall, and Mr. Yuvanovich stated there were not. Mr. Richardson asked what was staff' s opinion and Mr. Reischl replied that they did not feel there was a land-related hardship. Mr. Abernathy closed the public heating. Mr. Budd motioned to forward petition VA-2002-AR-2044 to the BZA with a recommendation of approval of the 30-foot variance, Mr. Adelstein seconded. Passed unanimously. (There was a lunch recess at 12:00 p.m.) Mr. Schmitt introduced the new Director of Planning Services, Margaret Wertzlie. Ms. Wertzlie discussed her history. The Planning Commission welcomed her. G. VA-2002-AR-2691 There were 10 persons sworn in for this hearing. Ms. Deselem described the lots in question, as well as aerials and photos. She noted that the adjacent house was not 9 July 18 & 19, 2002 oriented toward the petitioner's lot. Mr. Strain asked how many stories was the house, and Ms. Deselem replied that there were 3 stories above the garage. Mr. Abemathy asked if the footprint of the house lied on the Coastal Construction Setback Line, and Ms. Deselem said it did. Ms. Deselem noted that the variance for the CCSL was granted on October 9, 2001. Mr. Richardson asked if they deemed it not necessary to go to the EAC. Ms. Deselem stated that after checking with the environmental staff, they felt it was already addressed by the 8 conditions. Mr. Richardson noted a letter from the President of Barefoot Beach that recommended denial and the Architectural Review board also felt the variance should not be granted. Ms. Deselem stated that there were some letters of support and some objections as well. Mr. Strain felt that the house to the south was the only one that was really being affected. Mr. Adelstein asked if the house would fit on the lot if it was moved in some way, but Ms. Deselem stated this was not yet proven to her. Mr. Schmitt noted that they were actually asking for three separate variances, one on the west, one on the north, and one on the east sides. Mr. Abernathy stated that it seemed as though they were trying to fit 10 lbs. in a 9 lb. sack. Mr. Midney agreed and said that they knew the lot size when they started. Mr. Strain asked if this was the same condition as the previous variance where a house could fit on the lot if it weren't so big, and Ms. Deselem said that a house could fit on the lot. Mr. Richardson stated if staff was consistent then they should recommend denial. Ms. Deselem felt it was different because the CCSL was already addressed and there was no necessary harm to the public. Mr. Richardson asked if there was a land-related hardship in staff's view. Ms. Deselem believed that there was since the gulf lots were considerably smaller and it also had a limited area to access the roadway. Mr. Schmitt added that the overriding factor in recommending approval was the approval of the CCSL variance. Mrs. Young noted that under condition d), the petitioner had not demonstrated a minimum variance. Ms. Deselem agreed, but she believed there could be a practical difficulty. Mr. Midney stated except that he designed the house too big of the lot. Mr. Schmitt noted that the house was the same design as what went to the BCC back in October. Mrs. Young felt that the granting of the variance would give the petitioner the privilege of being closer to the gulf than the neighboring lots. She felt that was of concern. Mr. Richardson stated that the other courtyard homes were successful in meeting the PUDs without variance requests. Ray Bellows noted that each individual home of this type would need to seek a variance and it was determined on the amount of encroachment, so this would not be setting any precedent. Don Cahill - Architect Mr. Cahill discussed that they got the preliminary site plan approval from the property owner's association, the plans were prepared and submitted, the county said they needed a variance for the CCSL, they approved the CCSL variance, the plans were finished and approved by the state, the construction was started, and then the 10 July 18 & 19, 2002 neighbor requested they get a variance. He added that the footprint was completely within the setback requirements; only the balconies and roof needed the variances. Mr. Cahill added that they did get approval from the Architectural Review Committee and the homeowner's association. He stated that all of the neighbors in Beach Garden C supported this variance, except one they have not heard from. John White - Attorney representing the petitioner Mr. White felt that they were not asking for anything that was hugely in excess. Mr. Strain stated that the standard in the LDC was 36 inches, but they were asking for 10 feet, which was over three times what is allowed. Mr. White restated that process of approvals that this project has gone through. He felt there were some criteria for hardship in this case, for example, the expenditures of $100,000 by the petitioner and a permit that expires at the end of this year. Mr. Richardson noted that in the most recent letter from the homeowner's association of June 25, 2002, they did not approve of the variances. Mr. White felt it was sent as an individual, rather than an association. Mr. Strain felt that the petitioner clearly knew what the setbacks were at the time of closing. Mr. Adelstein suggested that they slightly reduce the size of the house, but Mr. White felt that it was consistent with others in the neighborhood. Mrs. Young questioned if there were open balconies, but Mr. Cahill clarified that there were glass railings at the required heights. Mr. Budd questioned if the site line was based on the peak overhang. Mr. Cahill noted that the window on the second floor would have 18 inches visible from their view. William Reckmeyer - Owner of the lot Mr. Reckmeyer felt he was trying to do what everyone wanted, but the rules were being changed midstream. He stated that the letters of opposition were from people who could not even see his property from theirs. He added that all those from Beach Garden C have supported it. He said that since he was spending $2 million for the lot, he was going to try to put the largest thing on it. Mrs. Young questioned if they could compress the house a little, but Mr. Cahill stated that the footprint was contained on the buildable land. Gus Flier - Mr. Flier submitted a letter to the commission. Clay Brooker - Attorney representing Phillip Lewallen Mr. Brookcr restated that his client's house was thc most affected by this proposed house. Hc stated that Mr. Lewallen docs object to it on thc grounds that they have not met thc code by the county or Florida law. Mr. Lewallen also felt that his view would be obstructed. Mr. Brookcr believed that the CCSL should have no impact on thc variance requests for today. Hc went through thc 8 criteria for variances and described how this was not in line with them. He stated that neighbors have thc right to rely on thc existing zoning conditions and he recommended denial of the variances. Doug Grant - Mr. Grant was representing Richard Dolan who lives in Beach Garden C at Barefoot Beach. He owns the first home north of the subject's house. Mr. Dolan 11 July 18 & 19, 2002 was concerned about selling his home due to the variance. Mr. Budd asked if Mr. Dolan had changed his mind since he previously signed a petition of approval, and Mr. Grant stated that he had. Doug Fee - President of the North Bay Civic Association Mr. Fee stated that some of his members live in Barefoot Beach area. He discussed some of the general objectives to the LDC from the MuniciCode website. He asked that they review the CCSL process in order to make the public aware of when these variances are passed. Mr. Schmitt recommended that his association bring a proposal to Development Services for amendment of this process. Dan George - President of the Property Owner's Association Mr. George stated that his concern has been to downsize to get inside the lot lines. He stated that he was talking as President of the property's owner association, not merely as an individual. He added they were trying to preserve sizes in the neighborhood and he felt that they needed to say enough is enough. Mr. White felt that Mr. Reckmeyer's application does show a need for a variance on several accounts and this was consistent with the trend in the neighborhood. Mr. Abernathy closed the public hearing. Mr. Richardson motioned to deny petition VA-2002-AR-2691 on the basis that the house was designed too big for the lot, it exceeded the boundaries in every dimension, it would not be in keeping with the LDC, it provided special treatment to the petitioner, there was opposition from the neighbors, it did not have any built-in hardship based on the land, and all eight conditions seem to militate against the petition, Mr. Adelstein seconded. The motion carried 5 for and 3 against, with Mr. Budd, Mr. Abernathy and Mr. Wolfley voting against the motion. (There was a 15-minute break at 3:15 p.m.) Mr. Abernathy noted that Item I would be taken before Item H on the agenda. PUDZ-2002-AR-2491 There were 11 persons sworn in for this hearing. Mr. Strain disclosed that he conversations with the applicant, two of his consultants, and Fred Thomas. Mr. Midney disclosed that he spoke with Mr. Thomas. Ray Bellows stated that the petitioner was requesting a rezone from PUD to PUD in order to amend the Arrowhead PUD. They are currently approved for 900 units at 3 units per acre. They would like to increase to maximum number of dwelling units to 1190 units for workforce housing and to eliminate mobile home uses. Mr. Bellows stated some of staff's conditions on the project. Staff was of the opinion that all of the requests were acceptable. There were a few traffic concerns. 12 July 18 & 19, 2002 Greg Garcia - Transportation Planning Mr. Garcia discussed some of the changes in the language relevant to the PUD. There were some concerns for impact fee credits, now impact fee credits were not allowed. Mr. Garcia noted the deletion of the word "timing" from page 19, letter N. Ms. Student noted that the whole PUD document needed to be readopted. Mr. Bellows added that it has been fast-tracked due to workforce housing. Mr. Richardson asked if there was acceptable level of service, and Mr. Garcia assured that it would meet the acceptable level of service. Mr. Wolfley asked what was the current level of service, and Mr. Garcia answered it was LOS-C. The commission was informed that the only changes to the packet were the traffic updates. Mr. Bellows stated that the intent was to adopt the specific transportation requests in the packet. Robert Duane - Hole Montes, Inc. representing the petitioners Mr. Duane stated that the traffic work has been conducted over the past 6 weeks. He stated there weren't any level of service problems and he also had support and petitions from the Immokalee community. He requested that the requirement of commercial development be reduced from 30% to 20% from the time the building permits are issued. Mr. Abernathy questioned when this petition was going before the BCC, and Mr. Duane answered on July 30th. George Hermanson - Hole Montes, Inc. Mr. Hermanson stated that an extensive traffic study has been conducted and he felt there were possible deficiencies at the intersections. They placed new conditions A- U on thc PUD, including several traffic improvements. He stated that staff was in agreement with this. He noted the language that the board may consider to issue impact fcc credits. Mr. Richardson stated that 50% of the completed project was 623 units, and he felt it might be prudent to start some of the improvements earlier. Mr. Garcia stated that the LOS was acceptable at this point. Mrs. Young asked what would be the LOS after development. Ted Treesh - Metro Transportation Group Mr. Treesh stated that with the traffic improvements, the roads would be operating at LOS-B or LOS-C. Mr. Hermanson added that the improvements would be in before the first CO was issued at the site plan approval. Cormac Giblin - Housing Development Manager Mr. Giblin urged the commission to support this amendment. He stated it was the first of its kind for a PUD of this scale for an entire development of workforce housing. He noted that 304 units would be owned by the county. Mrs. Young asked if they were going to incorporate smart growth concepts into the plan. Mr. Giblin said that they were planning two separate clubhouse facilities, nature walks and picnic areas. Fred Thomas - Executive Director of the Collier County Housing Commission Mr. Thomas stated that this was one of the first projects to address the problems faced in Immokalee. He noted that they were affordable because of the tax credits. In 13 July 18 & 19, 2002 He regards to transportation, Mr. Thomas felt this would actually decrease the impacts to Lake Trafford Road due to the commercial developments. Bill Klohn - President of Cypress Glen Development Corporation Mr. Klohn had support letters of the community. Mr. Bellows added that staff recommended approval. Patrick McCuan - Chairman, MDG Capital Corporation Mr. McCuan asked for the commission's approval and support of this amendment. He requested they encouraged the BCC to accept the configuration as well as the 20% reduction for the commercial requirement. Mr. Abemathy closed the public hearing. Mr. Wolfley commended the developer for committing 100% to workforce housing and agreeing to take care of traffic problems before they knew whether they would receive impact fee credits. Mr. Wolfley moved to forward petition PUDZ-2002-AR-2491 with a recommendation of approval with a modification of the language requested by staff, the commercial requirement reduced to 20% of the build-out, the open space of 12.1 acres be corrected on the Master Plan, and the latest transportation submittals to be used as the criteria, Mr. Strain seconded. Passed unanimously. (Paul Midney left at 4:25 p.m.) PUDA-2002-AR-2028 There were 11 persons sworn in for this hearing. Mr. Richardson disclosed that he had discussions with Mr. Duane and Mr. Strain had the same disclosures as in item I. Mr. Bellows stated that they were requesting a PUD rezone to PUD for the purpose of amending the PUD to allow a new development strategy. He stated it was consistent with the future land use map. He noted that there was not an increase in the number of units and the traffic impacts were the same. He added this was also workforce housing. Mr. Giblin stated that he wished there were more developers like this and noted that they were not receiving any density bonuses. They would like to provide 10% of the development to low-income homebuyers, at a minimum of 5%. Mr. Strain stated this was a good example of affordable housing infill. Mr. Wolfley clarified that they wanted to reduce the building height from 3-stories to 2-stories and to reduce the 10- foot buffer to 5 feet. Mr. Bellows agreed and noted that the Community School was going to lend 5 feet as well. Mr. Strain stated that they had no way to enforce this agreement between the two parties. 14 July 18 & 19, 2002 Patrick McCuan - CEO, MDG Capital Corporation Mr. McCuan stated this project was more important than the last because it was actually located in Naples. He noted it was integrated along into more market rate housing. Mr. Richardson asked if the 5 feet was critical for the project, and Mr. McCuan stated it was. Robert Duane - Hole Montes, Inc. Mr. Duane noted that 35 units were under $130,000 and would qualify for the SHIP program. He restated that they were not receiving any density bonuses. He stated that staff wanted to maintain the buffer, but there was no buffer planned at this time. Mr. Duane addressed the 4 conditions in the staff report. In regards to sidewalks, they have agreed to provide sidewalks to the pool areas. If they were to do the required landscaping, they would lose some units, but there have been no objections to the lack of landscape buffering. Third, there was currently no upland buffer, but the 15-foot requirement from SFWMD would serve as the setback from the wetland and the buffer requirement. Lastly, he restated that the Community School was allowing the 5 feet on their property and he felt that was sufficient. Mr. Duane also submitted support letters for the record. Mr. Abernathy was concerned about the sidewalk issue. Mr. Budd commented that it was dark when both workers and children went to work and school. Mr. Schmitt noted that staff was aware of this issue and they would need to come up with something. George Hermanson - Hole Montes, Inc. Mr. Hermanson stated that they would make sure there was a sidewalk connection to Phase 1 and they would designate 4 feet of the road for a walkway. Mr. Abernathy asked about street lighting, and Mr. Hermanson agreed to provide this as well. Mr. Abernathy said he could accept either alternative, and Mr. Hermanson said that they would do both. Russ Muller - Engineering Department Mr. Muller stated that restriping was not preferred and he would rather see the walkways go through Phase 1 to get to Pine Ridge Road. Mr. Richardson stated that he was satisfied with the Community School commitment, the landscape buffering and the upland buffer. Peter Catuzzi Mr. Catuzzi stated that there were very few children in the neighborhood at this point, so the sidewalk issue was minor to them. He would like to have this approved. He added that they could put bumpers in the neighborhood in order to slow down traffic. Mr. Abemathy closed the public heating. Mr. Strain motioned to forward petition PUDA-2002-AR-2028 with a recommendation for approval based on the following stipulations: 1) they 15 July 18 & 19, 2002 modify the sidewalk plan on the northern side and come to a conclusion to provide sidewalks to Pine Ridge Road as well as street lighting, 2) the 15-foot buffer be waived to 5 feet and they will maintain the 10 feet on the neighboring property, 3) the buffers between the buildings be maintained as planned and they utilize landscaping elsewhere in the project, and 4) they reduce the structural buffer and retain the wetland applications. Mr. Budd seconded the motion. Mr. Bellows suggested that they add the minimum 5% requirement for low- income housing. Mr. Duane suggested they add that the 15 feet would serve as the buffer and the setback requirement. Mr. Strain added this to the motion. Passed unanimously. RZ-2001-AR-1143 There were 4 persons sworn in for this hearing. Mr. Adelstein noted that this item had been previously approved, but was back due to misadvertising. They agreed to hear directly from the public. Marie Ingram - Ms. Ingram owns a house directly across the street from the property in question. She mentioned a 1972 zoning map which designated the property as a park site, and she felt this was never rezoned. She noted they had deed restrictions to this site. Ms. Ingram noted that there were 18 criteria for zoning changes. She stated that this was not conducive since it was 3 blocks from an overcrowded elementary school and it would increase traffic, especially during the construction phase. She said that it would adversely affect the property values in the neighborhood. She felt it would grant the developer a special privilege by being allowed a higher density. She felt there were other adequate sites for this project, and the developer knew it was deed restricted when he purchased it. Lastly, she believed it would compromise the health, safety and welfare of the public. She was concerned about the taking of greenspace and the increased density. She added that the space was held for civic use only. Marjorie Student restated that deed restrictions would not affect this and were not enforced by the county. Mr. Bellows stated that the current zoning map had this zoned as RSF-3. Tracy Ingram - Mr. Ingram mentioned how the developer has cut comers, and he described the inappropriate signs, which were never professionally done even after being asked by the county. Mr. Ingram felt that this was an indication that the houses would not be built to the highest quality. Mr. Strain noted that the density would be RSF-5, but the developer would build at RSF-3 standards. Mr. Bellows stated that this complied with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Budd stated that the developer was supposed to have a more professional sign and he was very disappointed to hear that this was not done. He agreed that this would lead Mr. Ingram to believe that the houses may be low quality. Mr. O'Gara Mr. O'Gara stated that he had to redo the signs three different times, so he was trying to keep the costs down because signs can be costly. Mr. Abemathy closed the public hearing. 16 July 18 & 19, 2002 Mr. Strain motioned to forward petition RZ-2001-AR-1143 with a recommendation of approval subject to the original stipulations, Mr. Budd seconded. Mr. Wolflcy disclosed that he spoke with Mr. O'Gara about the project. Mr. Richardson stated that hc was sympathetic to the deed restriction. Passed unanimously. K. PETITION ST-2194 There were 8 persons sworn in for this hearing. Mr. Strain disclosed that he met with the applicant and two agents to discuss thc wetland issue. Mr. Wolfley disclosed that he spoke with Mr. Pires, Mr. Landy and Mr. Morton. Mr. Budd also spoke with Mr. Pires, Mr. Landy and Mr. Morton. Mr. Bellows stated the petitioner was requesting a Special Treatment Development permit and that the development would impact 82% of the wetlands. This project was located an urban mixed-use district within the activity center. He stated that it was consistent with the Growth Management Plan. Steve Lenberger - Mr. Lenberger noted that the ST overlay was over the entire parcel. The project was permitted by the SFWMD, but they required mitigation. They were also required to preserve. 1 acres of native vegetation. Staff believed that impacting 82% of the S.T. area was not consistent of the special treatment regulations. Staff recommended denial of this project. He added that the EAC unanimously supported their recommendation of denial. Mr. Strain questioned what would remain if this was preserved since sheet flow no longer existed. He wasn't sure of the value of retaining this land in an activity center verse mitigating it elsewhere. Mr. Lenberger stated that staff believed that the land was valuable. Mrs. Young asked if there had been a study of the water flow system. Mr. Wolfley noted that Falling Waters had stopped all the water flow in the area. Mr. Lenberger stated that it was an isolated wetland, but that didn't mean it was not viable. Anthony Pires - Woodward, Pires & Lombardo Mr. Pires noted that when the SFWMD issued the permits for Falling Waters, they recognized that these would not be viable wetlands. He stated that viable, naturally functioning wetlands do not occur anymore. He noted that the control elevation was at 5 feet, but the ditch was at 3 feet. Mr. Pires asked for approval of this item with additional native vegetation landscaping. Mike Landy - Landy Engineering Mr. Landy stated that he had sent out a survey crew and this land would not receive hydrology from the adjacent properties. Mr. Strain asked if he felt this was viable as greenspace for Collier County, which was required by the code. Mr. Landy did not feel it was and he added they had a mitigation plan for the lost greenspace. Mr. Strain asked if the EAC felt these wetlands were viable, and Mr. Landy stated that they did. Mr. Abernathy stated it was fanciful to expect to preserve wetlands in an activity center and he felt the social good may be to allow mitigation. RayAnn Boylen - Boylen Engineering Consultants 17 July 18 & 19, 2002 Ms. Boylen confirmed that there was no longer sheet flow on this property. Mr. Strain asked how many mitigation credits were purchased offsite, and Ms. Boylen answered 1.68 credits were purchased. Mr. Strain asked why they had calculated such a low ration. Ms. Boylen replied that they were ranked according to their functional value. Mario Curiale - Adjacent Property owner Mr. Curiale stated that they should keep greenspace as large portions, rather than small pieces here and there. He would like to see the money used for mitigation, and he added that Rookery Bay could use some money. Mr. Abemathy closed the public heating. Mr. Budd agreed that greenspace was important, but he felt this was too close to the activity center. Mr. Budd motioned to forward petition ST-2194 with a recommendation for approval, Mr. Abernathy seconded. Mr. Strain asked to consider adding a .65-acre enhancement for greenspace, a requirement to open the property to interconnection to Mr. Curiale, and also if there was any viability to interconnect to the north. Mr. Budd added these conditions to the motion. The motion carried 5 for and 2 against, with Mr. Richardson and Mr. Adelstein voting against the motion. Le ST-99-03 There were 10 persons sworn in for this hearing. Mr. Reischl stated the applicant was requesting a permit for 1.5 units per acre density in a Special Treatment Overlay District for 109 lots. The proposed impact to the wetlands was less than 10 acres. They are required to retain 25% native vegetation, but they are proposing to maintain 43%. They have increased the gopher tortoise area to 14.5 acres. Mr. Strain, Mr. Budd and Mr. Wolfley disclosed that they spoke with Mr. Farmer and Ms. Ryan. The EAC made no recommendation for this because there was a motion for and a motion against the petition. Staff recommended approval. Mr. Abernathy asked if they have taken into account the Conservancy's position. Mr. Reischl noted that he has had talks with Barbara Ferguson and Nicole Ryan and he believed their concems were addressed. David Farmer - Keystone Custom Homes Mr. Farmer explained the original site plan. He stated that the new plan was only impacting 10 acres of the wetlands. He noted that the 14.5 acres for gopher tortoises has now been tied to six other preserves. He added that they have 200% of the high- quality gopher tortoise requirement. He noted that there were no clubhouses proposed on this site. He mentioned that they were preserving 99% of the onsite wetlands. He stated they were going to dedicate 109 lots into the MSTU of Palm River for roads, etc. Mr. Farmer said that this would never be a gated community. 18 July 18 & 19, 2002 He stated that they were working with the Conservancy to meet some of their suggestions. He added that this project exceeds all of the LDC requirements. Mr. Strain questioned about the increase of construction traffic. Mr. Farmer stated that they were willing to talk about construction timing. Anthony Pires - Attorney representing Palm River Homeowner's Association Mr. Pitts stated that there has been an increase in gopher tortoises since the EIS was conducted. He felt that a thorough study should be conducted before this is approved by thc BCC. He noted minutes from the EAC meeting of February 13, 2001, where the applicant agreed to several stipulations. Mr. Pires read these stipulations to the commission and he felt that all of these needed to be part of the recommendation. Kevin Barnhill - Palm River resident Mr. Bamhill stated that they have come a long way. He urged the commission to attach the stipulations discussed by Mr. Pires and the Conservancy. Nicole Ryan - The Conservancy of SW Florida Ms. Ryan stated that she e-mailed the comments to the commission. The Conservancy feels that this land should not be developed and should be preserved due to the large number of gopher tortoises. She noted that Ray Ashton, gopher tortoise expert, reviewed the plans and submitted recommendations on how the tortoises should be protected if development should proceed. The Conservancy urged that the petition be contingent on the Conservancy's recommendations. She noted that they have reached consensus on many of the issues. She stated that Goal 6 of the GMP discusses the need to protect gopher tortoises, as well as policy 3.11.3.4, sub 1 of the LDC. Mr. Abernathy asked if she felt that staff was on the right track, and Ms. Ryan agreed. Mr. Reischl stated that they changed some of the language for clarity, but they have the same intent. John Belt - Treasurer of Palm River Homeowner's Association Mr. Belt stated that the developer has come a long way, but he didn't feel the developer had worked very well with the homeowner's in the area. He urged the commission to recommend the stipulations discussed by Mr. Pires. He was also concerned about the safety. Charles Healy - President of Palm River Homeowner's Association Mr. Healy was also concerned about safety. Robert McConnell - Collier's Reserve Mr. McConnell stated that he would like to see this remain as greenspace, but they recognize the right to property. They were concerned about the gopher tortoise population. They agreed with the Conservancy's position. Mr. Farmer stated that he tried very well to inform the residents of Palm River and provided information to them. He asked if the commission would use the letter that he submitted for the stipulations, rather than Mr. Pires. Mr. Farmer stated that the 19 July 18 & 19, 2002 IX. XJ XI. XlIl. prescribed burn was what he was not happy about. Mr. Wolfley asked if he could manually remove the undergrowth. Mr. Farmer said that this was feasible, but it would be more expensive, although he was willing to do whatever needed to be done. Mr. Farmer noted that the number of tortoises has increased by 10 since the last survey. Mr. Strain asked if he was in agreement with the survey requirement. Mr. Farmer agreed and said it was also a stipulation of the state permit. He added he was willing to agree to have Mr. Ashton available onsite. Mr. Strain asked if he was willing to provide speed bumps or speed humps. Mr. Farmer stated that he was willing to provide speed bumps. Mr. Garcia replied that speed humps were preferred by the transportation department. Mr. Farmer said that was fine. Mr. Abemathy closed the public heating. Mr. Budd motioned to forward petition ST-99-03 with a recommendation for approval along with staff's stipulations and the letter from Mr. Farmer, not Mr. Pires, as well as a manual remove of vegetation, Mr. Richardson seconded. Passed unanimously. Me CP-2000-6 Mrs. Young motioned to continue this petition to Friday, August 1, 2002, Mr. Strain seconded. Bruce Anderson stated that he would be out of town on August 1, 2002. It was decided that this would be continued to Friday, July 19th at 8:30 a.m. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business at this time. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Abernathy addressed the issue of a second meeting in August. It was decided to forgo the August 15, 2002 meeting. Mr. Budd stated that Mike Reagan had developed some language for the commission to review regarding the distribution of information at the meetings. Mr. Reagan distributed this language to the commission. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEMS There were no public comments at this time. DISCUSSION OF THE ADDENDA There were no public comments at this time. CONTINUATION The meeting was continued at 8:00 p.m. 20 July 18 & 19, 2002 Collier County Planning Commission County Commissioners Boardroom Building F, 3rd Floor 3301 Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34104 MINUTES July 19, 2002 ATTENDANCE Members: Chairman Kenneth Abemathy Russell A. Budd Mark Strain Dwight Richardson Lora Jean Young Lindy Adelstein Staff: Marj ode Student - Assistant County Attorney David Weeks - Planning Services Others: Bruce Anderson Ron Talone Paul Owen Josh Evans Mr. Abernathy called the continuation of the July 18, 2002 meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. Mr. Abernathy stated there was only one petition to consider this morning. XIII. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS M. CP-2000-6 21 July 18 & 19, 2002 David Weeks noted that there was a citizen courtesy notification sign-up sheet available. He stated this was a transmittal heating, not an adoption hearing. He stated that this was a Comp Plan amendment related to the DRI. Mr. Abernathy stated that there was no need for disclosures, and Marjorie Student agreed. Mr. Weeks described the location of the site. He stated that the only issue was a provision to allow 30,000 square feet of commercial inside the Agricultural-Rural portions. Staff did not feel this was consistent with the Rural Fringe amendments because they only allow commercial within the Rural Village center. Mr. Richardson asked how this applied to the Rural Village concept. Mr. Weeks stated that this fits the provision in the Rural Fringe amendments for density blending. Staff believed they would comply other than the interior commercial aspect. Mr. Weeks noted that the petitioner would be eligible if this were strictly residential. He added that they were asking for less dwelling units than the maximum. Mr. Richardson said he was confused because he thought that they were required to purchase TDR credits. Mr. Weeks stated that they were eligible to use the credits because they were in the receiving lands, but they were not proposing to since they were asking for density blending. Mr. Abemathy noted that if they use TDRs than they would have to construct a village, and Mr. Weeks agreed. Mr. Strain stated that they were proposing 54 holes of golf, so they were supposed to purchase TDRs. Mr. Weeks stated he wasn't sure because this was a density blending issue. Mr. Strain said this was the one concern he had expressed over golf courses and he thought a provision had been added to require golf courses to buy TDRs. Mr. Richardson added that they did not want to gut the TDR program before it even got started. Mr. Weeks was not sure if the requirement to purchase TDRs existed. Mr. Weeks stated that from the DRI transportation analysis showed potential impact, but the numbers would become more concrete at a later stage, at the DRI and rezone. He stated that the application submitted did not define commercial parameters, which staff felt was way too vague, and the issue was now resolved. In the language referring to clustering, staff recommended changing the word "may" to "shall", but they were okay with either word. He stated that they would cluster even without the word "shall". Mr. Strain noted on page 10, it stated that "the applicant should work with county staff", "the applicant should make changes recommended by staff", and "changes should include text". Mr. Weeks stated he would change "should" to "shall" in those three cases. Mr. Richardson asked how the applicant could address the adverse impacts. Mr. Weeks stated they could use phasing of the project, make construction improvements, pay money to the county, or a combination of these. Mr. Strain asked if staff was under the impression that the mining was going to stop once it became residential because the DRI said that they were going to continue mining. Mr. Weeks stated it was not uncommon for a project to do both, but at the adoption phase, this would become more concrete. Bruce Anderson - Agent for the applicant, U.S. Home Corporation Mr. Anderson stated that he would attempt to answer all the questions, but there were some questions that they were not able to answer at this stage. Mr. Strain asked where they disagreed with staff. Mr. Anderson stated that were in agreement with 22 July 18 8,: 19, 2002 most of the language changes, but they disagreed with the use of the word "consistency". In regards to clustering, they were more comfortable with the word "may" because there was no definition of clustering. Mr. Anderson noted that the density was capped at 1100 homes less than they were allowed. The applicant was claiming zero density based on Rural Fringe. Also, they were requesting 700 dwelling units less than allowed in the urban area. He noted it was reviewed by and recommended for approval by the Rural Fringe Assessment Committee. He added that they were required to preserve 40% of the existing native vegetation, but they were retaining at least 90%. He respectfully disagreed with staff on the internal commercial neighborhood centers. They were requesting a Comp Plan amendment for this in case the Rural Fringe gets challenged. He noted that Florida Wildlife Federation, the Conservancy of SW Florida, and the Collier County Audubon Society had no objections to this plan amendment. He believed the neighborhood centers were allowed by the Rural Fringe amendments. He stated that they would capture car trips for everyday use, which would decrease traffic on county roads. He thought this employed good smart growth concepts. Mr. Richardson asked if the neighborhood centers were within a gated community and not available to the public, and Mr. Anderson agreed. Mr. Anderson stated that Dr. Nichols felt that density blending would have no effect on the TDR process. Mr. Strain asked if they were planning on purchasing TDRs, and Mr. Anderson stated they were not. Mr. Strain stated that they thought the intent of the discussion during the TDR review was to require golf courses to be attached to the TDR process. Mr. Anderson stated that there was a distinction drawn in the Rural Fringe Amendment language between projects that were subject to density blending and the rest of the Rural Fringe. Mr. Weeks added that language was structured so that there was a provision for density blending projects and non-density blending golf courses. Mr. Abernathy was concerned how they could exclude 4 receiving sections from the TDR program and it would have no effect. Mr. Anderson stated that he viewed density blending as an internal form of transfer of development rights. He added that their project did not exacerbate urban sprawl. He noted that they have been requested by county to reserve right-of-way along the Westside for the extension of 951, and they have agreed to do so. Ron Talone - David Plummer and Associates Mr. Talone stated that there was at least an 1100 unit reduction, which would reduce thc potential traffic impacts. Hc stated they would reduce impacts to public roads by providing commercial centers and recreational activities. Hc stated there would be internal connections to thc activity center. Hc noted that there would bc impacts whether or not it was adopted, but it would be fully mitigated. Mr. Richardson said that next time hc would like to understand interconnections to the Northeast activity center. Mr. Abemathy closed the public hearing. 23 July 18 & 19, 2002 Mr. Budd motioned to forward petition CP-2000-6 with a recommendation to transmit to the DCA along with staff's stipulations, the modified sewer language, the changes in text provided in the handout by Mr. Weeks, the language modified to "shall", and the "may" reference to clustering, Mr. Adelstein seconded. Mr. Strain recommended they amend the motion to allow that the golf course provisions of this project will use TDRs in the language for the rates that are dictated outside the density blending provision. Mr. Budd accepted the modification to the motion, Mrs. Young seconded. Mr. Weeks stated that by their motion, they are requiring a link to the TDRs. If the Rural Fringe amendments do not go forward, then at the adoption heating, then they could add TDR language to this application. Mr. Anderson stated that the TDR requirement was to guarantee that there was a minimum density associated with golf courses and to encourage the purchase of TDRs. Mr. Strain stated not "and", "or", and he stated this was the way to kick off the TDR process. Mr. Anderson noted that they were not even using all of density that was allowable. Mr. Strain stated that this was the opposite direction that receiving areas were supposed to go. Mr. Anderson said that this may make this project unfeasible. Mr. Richardson added that they liked the project, but they were trying to mesh the best parts of all. The motion passed unanimously. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:10 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION KENNETH ABERNATHY, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF MANPOWER SERVICES, INC., BY AMBER M. FREDERIKSEN, RPR. 24