Loading...
BCC Minutes 05/03/2002 W (LDC Workshop re: PUD Time Limits; LDC Changes for PUDs; and Affordable Housing)May 3, 2002 LAND DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOP BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COUNTY COMMISSION BOARDROOM Building "F", 3R° Floor 3301 Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34112 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES 5-3-2002 9:00 AM ATTENDANCE: County Commissioners: Commissioners Tom Henning, Fred Coyle, Jim Coletta, Donna Fiala, and Jim Carter Staff: Kay Deselem, Susan Murray-Acting Current Planning Dir., Don Schneider, Joe Schmitt- Community Development Adm., Cormac Giblin, Denny Baker-Affordable Comm. Dev. Housing Dir., Patrick White-Asst. Co. Attorney, Marjorie Student-Asst. County Attorney, Tom Oliff- County Mgr., Jim Mudd-Deputy County Mgr. Chairmen Jim Coletta opened the Workshop at 9:10 AM. Mr. Jim Mudd summarized the workshop as follows: discuss Land Development Code changes that the Commissioners would like to see implemented, changes to the LDC for PUD time limits on sunsetting and an overview of the 8 remaining PUDS to be sunsetted. Then changes to the Land Development Code for Planned Unit Developments. The second half of the workshop to be discussed will be Affordable Housing. SUNSETTING Joe Schmitt introduced Kay Deselem to discuss the specifics of the LDC language and how to deal with them along with the options the commissioners want written in the LDC amendment. Kay referred to page 5 from the packet received. She reviewed the information briefly and mentioned that the staff is saying if conditions didn't change enough and that Commissioners can't meet the requirements of the PUD then they need to revisit it. Another change is extending PUDs for longer periods of time. In response to what staff thinks the Commissioners want, they have proposed 2 options. 1) Removed the extension allowance and 2) require an amendment in 6 months or without waiting for any action on the amendment, can initiate rezoning. Summarizing it - choices are amend or initiate rezoning. Staff analysis is in the packet. Commissioner Coyle asked from what point do they start measuring the time for a PUD, Kay responded from the date it is approved by the Board. If it requires approval beyond the board what is the process and time frame? Jim Mudd, Assistant County Manager answered that staff can extend a PUD; of which he didn't think they wanted. There are old PUD's that are 5 year and AGENDA BCC WO~RKSHOP - MAY 3 2002 9:00 A.M. - 12:00 P.M. TOPIC 1 HOUR 1. Changes to LDC for PUD Time L/mits (Sunsett/ng0 including overview of remaining 8 PUDs to be sunsetted 2. Changes to Land Development Code for Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) / 15 Minute Break 1 HOUR 3. Affordable Housing D/scussion 45 Minutes 4. Public Comment May 3,2002 new PUD's on 3 years. When it sunsets they can come in for an amendment that says they need more time. When they amend, they come under the new rules and fall within the current Land Development Code stipulations. That's what staff feels it should be. Commissioner Coyle wants to make sure it is controlled and fair. He feels the procedures need to be defined. Discussion followed on the paperwork involved, permit process, changing the LDC and the considerations that the Board is wanting. Commissioner Coyle felt they need some guidelines for reasons of extension and provide the assurance they will all be treated fairly. Commissioner Fiala supports this issue because she feels they need to get a better grasp on growth and plan for the future. Commissioner Coletta stated no reasonable request will be denied and all circumstances prevail. Kay agreed. She states the staff needs direction. Commissioner Coletta stated the power should be in the hands of the Commission to determine what the particular reasonable request is. The system could be manipulated and this commission and future commissioners need to react to situations that may arise. The powers of the commission have to make the final call. Commissioner Carter's concern is language with "very well defined guidelines" for review. Conditional approvals are made in many instances because of outside agencies determining whether a particular PUD should go forward and can be a victim of the system. He would like to see a tighter review period spelled out with conditions that will have more of a coarse of direction rather than a political decision. He does not feel the language gives that direction. These conditions need to be spelled out clearly. Commissioner Coyle discussed the "old" PUD's and PUD's going forward. He has no concern with respect to the proposals on the old PUD's. He agreed with Commissioner Fiala that they need to proceed quickly and wouldn't propose another 3-year extension. The 6-month opportunity for modifications is appropriate and he supports it. Commissioner Colleta felt they were discussing two different things, the "old PUD's" and the new ones. Need to make a decision on the older ones at this time. He feels they have reached a consensus that the older ones are being sunsetted and brought up for review, and now need to decide what needs to be done with the new ones. Jim Mudd stated there are a total of 16 PUD's. He reviewed taking the extension language out so it is not under the old 5-year rule and to move along to the 3-year cycle. Not only the ones approved now but also those that are old and coming up for modifications or extensions. Commissioner Henning's concern is other government agencies needing an approval. He stated when reapplying for permits, a fee will be required, a representative will be needed to come before the Board and then you get into the affordability issue. He feels staff should do a review and make sure the PUD is within a particular timeframe. Commission Coletta has a problem with staff making these decisions when it should be the Commission making them. Commissioner Carter feels there is not a concise spreadsheet that tells him everything legal council and staff is saying, plus the commissioner's discussion, that makes him feel comfortable. 2 May 3, 2002 SPEAKERS Bruce Anderson - Attorney - representing PUDs on the review list. He felt the staff avoided answering the Commissioners questions. The PUD's that the Commissioners adopt now routinely state that further County approvals are contingent on first obtaining approval from other agencies. Those permits need to be in hand before you can come back to the County to get STP or plat approval. He feels removal of the 2-year extension language only takes away authority from the Commission and ties their hands from considering the particular facts of a specific PUD. They want to take the decision-making authority away from the Commission. Commissioner Coletta asked Mr. Anderson if he is saying the way the report is written that the Commission does not have the right to have persons come before them for an extension? Mr. Anderson replied, "they do" - but the language that is in the staff report today proposes to take that away from the Commission. Commissioner Coletta understood that it was bringing them back to ask for an extension. Mr. Anderson replied "No" not the language in their printed material. Commissioner Coyle stated to Mr. Anderson that they are trying to get a better handle on managing the growth in the community. When they grant approval for something, it should happen in a reasonable amount of time and consistent with the Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan. Commissioner Coyle summed it up as saying they have a check list, and is designed to determine if they are making appropriate progress in submitting the request for permitting to the proper agencies, and doing all the proper things in order to commence the development on the project. If so, the staff makes the determination that it is okay, and not come before the Commissioners? It was answered- if the staff disagrees with the petitioner, then it goes to the Commission to resolve, and then have that opportunity to look at the staff's recommendation and then make a decision on whether there is a revised PUD or grant an extension to help overcome circumstances beyond control. Mr. Anderson agreed. Tom Oliff, County Manager stated that zoning is valuable. There has to be quality decisions made and is not a black and white issue. So if staff is allowed to review the progress made, make a decision, and then let the property owner be able to take that decision to the Commission if they disagree - is a good policy. Commissioner Fiala stated she was glad Commissioner Coyle brought the reasonable and responsible aspect to the whole issue. In the past it seemed the staff didn't always know which way they were going and this allows them to address the future growth in a responsible fashion. Commission Carter asked if a hearing examiner would be part of this process. Mr. White stated they could ask for a hearing examiner after seeing what the process is, if they wished. Susan Murray, Interim Director of Planning Services Dept. summarized the discussion as follows: the staff presented to the Commissioners an option to remove the extension option, and she felt they agreed with the PUD's at the 5-year sunset, stating the 5 plus years is too long under the old criteria and that the Commissioners would be okay with not allowing any more extensions, May 3, 2002 and direct the applicant to amend the PUD, and direct staff to initiate the rezoning process. Then for the 3-year proposal they would like an extension option. So they would have 3 options, at their direction, they could extend the PUD; grant an extension for 2 years, but like some" very specific criteria". Criteria such as permitting, dedication, vesting issues, or been delayed beyond the applicants control. The other option is to require the amendment, and the third option is to direct staff to initiate the rezoning. Under the new language recently adopted for the 3-year sunset "other action of government" is not clearly defined, and need to come back with a clear definition. Also a monitoring report and that staff receive from the applicant detailed information in the permitting process and that staff clearly defines specific criteria regarding the application process so that they can determine they have truthfully commenced the permitting process. Next issue is the Sunsetting of the 8 remaining parcels. More research has been done and Kay referred to the Summary Sheet #1 that was given to the Commissioners. A revised list of totals of PUD acreage. It was noted some projects were removed. She stated she already has direction from the Commission but there may be speakers that wish to speak on the subject. Commission Coyle asked what constituted a PUD Amendment. Is it a change in permitting uses, and Kay replied "yes". SPEAKERS Bruce Anderson addressed Imperial Lakes PUD. He stated that Imperial Lakes has a 1989 site development plan approval, and that approval is still valid in 1997 when it came in for a sunset review. At that time the PUD was granted a 5 year extension with a condition that they had to omit a new site development plan that complied with the Counties current LDC requirements except requiring a new permitting from other agencies or cause the building arrangements to be moved. Fred Pauly - Pauly Realty - He asked for an extension for one year for the Crestwood PUD. A 15-minute break was taken at 1:35 AM. Kay stated the next issue to be discussed is the concept discussed at the last workshop regarding changes interpreted by the Commissioners that they wanted to see in the LDC to address detail on site direction and exactly what the majority PUD's are actually being planned for. There are Residential, Commercial, Industrial and Community facility. Page 11 of their report explains the pros and cons with the purpose and intent of the proposal by staff. Commissioner Coyle liked the classification and needs to discuss details. Commissioner Henning stated he has seen more problems with Commercial than the other classifications. He is concerned that when there is a Board change that a mixed-use concept phased in, isn't a political decision, rather what is best for the community. Commissioner Carter is afraid of disconnect between Community Character and what they are trying to accomplish. He feels they should recommend the Community Character group be involved in the process. Kay stated they truly want to see planned communities and all working together. 4 May 3, 2002 Tom Cliff, County Manager foresees the public hearing process being the set-backs, the ingresses and egresses, the building heights, and issues they have discussed with square footage for commercial that they can build with residents' living in those particular areas. He agreed with Commissioner Henning that most issues are not with single-family residents, but with Commercial, Industrial, high-rise condominiums or multi-family housing with any type of density. SPEAKERS Bruce Anderson - Attorney - In a favorable way Collier County is quite distinguished because they have a number of large high quality developments. The larger scale developments have been able to provide community amenities, and if these large developments have to come in for re- approval on each phase of their developments, it will discourage that type of quality development occurring in Collier County. They will piece meal it into smaller developments because of having to go through the public hearing process a number of times, going through that is a bad idea. Discussion followed on the quality developments versus other type developments and being more specific in their developments. Commissioner Fiala stated the developers want a firm set of standard rules so it is not changing back and forth. More discussion followed between the Commissioners and Mr. Anderson to get some of his ideas on the subject. Tom Cliff stated the committee is trying to sort through the Character Community Plan and decide as they go through the LDC and Growth Management Plan which concepts are needed to make as requirements. Provide, as being encouraged, codes and get through incentive programs in either Land Development Code or the Comp Plan. He suggests Smart Growth land use planning concepts. Staff and consultant support will be provided. It was decided the staff is on the right track, to review comments and work out details. AFFORDABLE HOUSING Cormac Giblin will give an overview on the Affordable Housing from a previous workshop. This will clear up some misconceptions, definitions and will talk about the LDC providing incentives. Cormac stated he would cover an overview of current programs that are provided, how they impact affordable housing and how they can work to increase affordable housing for the future. He provided (power point presentation) information concerning goals to create an adequate supply of decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable housing for all residents of Collier County. He referred to different policies for the Comprehensive Plan Requirements Housing Elements. He covered implementing the LDC and the definitions of "Affordable Housing", "Low-Income, Very Low, and Very, Very, Low Income Housing". He also covered Workforce Housing (working class persons) and samples of incomes in the different income levels. The different income figures were discussed. Commissioner Coletta asked if they expend their allotted amount of SHIP funds every year? The answer was "yes". He then asked how many units are they deficient in Collier County. Currently they are 15,000 units short of meeting their needs and 25,000 units short is projected by 2010. May 3,2002 Commissioner Coletta stated they need a much more aggressive program. Commissioner Fiala asked if the 15,000 short is the "actual" number or "SHIP" qualified. It is the entire housing picture that is taken into consideration to arrive at that figure. She asked someone to send her the number of housing units there are, what developments they are referring to and how many units there are. The numbers seem to differ than what she comes up with and she wants to see a true picture of the situation. Mr. Giblin then showed the list of Rental Developments in the County, excluding Immokalee. These are currently housing developments that are currently under the government programs. Definitions of low-income affordable owner-occupied housing were discussed. Mr. Giblin showed a map of the locations of the low-income affordable housing developments. Slides were shown on the current incentives available to develop rental workforce housing, such as 6- year impact fee deferral, affordable housing Density Bonus, and fast track permitting & review for Affordable Housing. Discussion followed and it was stated that Collier County does not waive impact fees for affordable housing. He continued his report on the Current Incentives available to develop owner occupied Workforce Housing. Mitchell Friedman was introduced. Mitchell Friedman- Senior Vice President of Pinnacle Housing Group who has done approx, 20 housing developments in the State. He stated they have done just about every type of affordable housing there is. They have an understanding of the different types of populations they are reaching for affordable housing. He discussed tax credits; tax exempt bond programs, and Buy Down Programs. He discussed some of the problems they encounter such as the high costs of insurance, which has almost doubled. Rents can't be raised because they are governed by what the law says. Another issue why they have an affordable housing problem is lack of subsidy. Most feel there is a lot of subsidy around, but not what is needed. One important fact he brought up was the Density Bonus. It is serving people they can't serve or can't fund the project. Reason is if having to do 60% AMI (federally mandated), but start serving it - 50% or 35% without providing additional subsidy makes it almost impossible in Collier County. Not totally impossible, but very, very difficult. If it is not linked to another type of subsidy, he stated, "you will not see additional affordable housing done in this community". Mr. Oliff asked the speaker what Land Development Code standards would he recommend that would encourage or allow private developers to build owner-occupied affordable housing projects. Mr. Friedman answered financial incentives. Mr. Giblin went back to his presentation on "Inclusionary Zoning". He gave some Zoning Examples, Affordable Housing Linkage Fees, and an Expanded Affordable Housing Density Bonus Program. He gave results of Granting Density for Other Uses and used the Meadow Brook PUD as an example. He gave his conclusion from the packet. The SHIP Program was discussed and Commissioner Henning asked to have language stating a mortgage is not for two families, only single family or one family per household. He knows of cases there is more than one family on a mortgage. May 3, 2002 SPEAKERS Jim Rideoutte - Chairman Community Character & Smart Growth Advisory Committee He is asking support for his Committee in two areas. They would like to be included in the changes and revisions being made and also staff support. They would like to move as fast as possible and have the support of the Commissioners. He supports outside consulting if needed. Commissioner Henning advised that Amy Taylor does not have enough hours in a day and outside consulting will be discussed and on the agenda for Smart Growth. Fred Thomas - Director of Housing Authority - He addressed some of his concerns. He stated there are different levels of affordable need for housing in Collier County. He also stated the only way to really approach affordable housing is infrastructure. Persons buy their personal goods in the area they live, not where they work. He said there needs to be an attitude "how can we help you" to encourage smart growth. When talking about affordable housing, the public thinks of "the project". He agrees there is a lot of overcrowding in certain areas because they can't afford rents in certain areas. Commissioner Henning agreed with Mr. Thomas' statement and endorses the staff' s recommendation. Commissioner Henning left at 1:10 P.M. Commissioner Fiala stated the Density Bonus is an incentive and make sure the road and traffic can accommodate the density that it may be increased to. Maybe the percentages should be adjusted. She is in favor of Inclusionary Zoning and no buy-outs or mitigating. Linkage Fees are good and Impact Fees referral program should be kept in place. Commissioner Coyle didn't feel he could make any recommendations at this time because he doesn't know what the inventory is of affordable housing in Collier County. He would like to understand more clearly what our needs are from staff. Tom Oliff said they would provide more information for the Commissioners. Discussion followed on Mixed-Use being a good idea, Inclusionary Zoning, and Buy-Out information. Commissioner Carter stated they need to look thoroughly at all the possibilities, as they don't want persons putting a less desirable connotation on an area of living. Commissioner Coletta commented on the Affordable Housing situation. He stated they can't lose sight of this and have to keep moving forward and not to shelf any of the programs. Everyone has the basic commitment to make it all work. Tom Oliff summed it up from what he heard from the Commissioners today as follows: 1) More information on inventory of affordable housing in the Community and the actual affordable housing "need" is needed. May 3, 2002 2) Bring back some recommended adjustments to the percentages to look at, such as (Density Bonus Program) 3) Look at affordable housing outside the urban boundary area and whether there are some affordable housing incentive programs outside that area -rural villages or just Land Development Code providing opportunities and 4) Bring back some increase in the SHIP Program maximum purchase prices, such as (130,000-150,000. The next Workshop is scheduled for June 17th, 2002 - included with that will be a presentation by Community Character-Smart Growth Committee. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1:30 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEAL/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DIST~,ICTS UN~ER ITS CONTRO~ I~M COLETTA, CHAIRMAN