Loading...
BCC Minutes 04/20/2004 W (EAR) April 20, 2004 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS EY ALUA TION AND APPRAISAL WORKSHOP Naples, Florida, April 20, 2004 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Board of County Commissioners Evaluation & Appraisal Workshop in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in WORKSHOP SESSION in Building "F of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Commissioner Donna Fiala Commissioner Fred Coyle Commissioner James Coletta Commissioner Tom Henning Commissioner Frank Halas ALSO PRESENT: Kenneth Abernathy, CCPC Mark Strain, CCPC Brad Schiffer, CCPC Robert Murray, CCPC Dwight Richardson, CCPC Lindy Adelstein, CCPC Paul Midney, CCPC (9:24 AM) Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney Jim Mudd, County Manager Joe Schmitt, Community Dev. & Environmental Services Stan Litsinger, Zoning and Norman Feder, Transportation Director Glenn Heath, Zoning and Jim DeLony, Public Utilities 1 _.~". COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ~ JOINT WORKSHOP AGENDA April 20, 2004 9:00 a.m. Donna Fiala, Chairman, District 1 Fred W. Coyle, Vice-Chair, District 4 Frank Halas, Commissioner, District 2 Tom Henning, Chairman, District 3 Jim Coletta, Commissioner, District 5 NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS". ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1 April 20, 2004 ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. 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 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMP AIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. EAR (EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT) ADJOURN 3. 2 April 20, 2004 April 20, 2004 1. Pledge of Allegiance was recited. Meeting opened at 9:00 AM. Everyone introduced themselves. Workshop is being held with the Collier County Planning Commissioners and the Board of County Commissioners. 2. EAR - Evaluation & Appraisal Report - Stan Litsinger This is a valuation and appraisal on the Comprehensive Plan which is a seven year process. There was a need to provide everyone with data and analysis relative to some of the issues year to date. They will take direction from the Board of County Commissioners and Planning Commission to come back to the Planning Commission on July 15th with the final EAR report to make a recommendation to the Board to adopt it on July 27th, 2004. Stan explained EAR is the second Evaluation & Appraisal Report of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. A required process by State Statutes. Takes Goals, Objectives and Policies and Programs contained in the Comp Plan since the last year (1996) - restructuring relative to the Final Order. Have adopted the Rural Land Stewardship Overlays and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District. Done dramatic changes in the Natural Resource Protection systems written into the Comp Plan and adopted into the Land Development Code. Made changes in the EAR on the concurrency management system on how they look at public facilities. Some of the key pieces are already in place that is required by the other 67 counties as part of the EAR process. They are ahead of the requirements. Some of the major points in his power point presentation are as follows: History Overview: . History timeline of adopting the Growth Management Plan was in 1989 . Adopted first EAR in 1996 . County then adopted EAR based amendments in 1997. . In 1997 Department of Community Affairs issued notice & Statement of Intent finding the County's EAR-based amendments not "in compliance" . DCA then petitioned for formal administrative hearing in 1998 . In 1999 - recommended Final Order EAR-based amendments (1997) . Final Order issued by Governor & Cabinet - 1999 . Workshops with outside Government Agencies . Letter of Understanding with DCA on content of EAR and what significant issues need addressing. . Today - Joint Workshop with BCC and CCPC on any issues they need addressed. . After adoption by both entities, will submit EAR to the Department of Community affairs - they will then do a sufficiency review. (60 day timeframe) . September will do year based amendments. EAR Overview: . Have been collecting data, analyzing certain issues. . Will make a presentation on some of the key points statewide and then ask for questions concerning the EAR. 2 April 20, 2004 . State law requires preparation of the EAR every 7 years. . Idea is to evaluate where they have been, where they are going and what changes need to be made. They have done tremendous changes in the Comprehensive Plan. . Assess degree of goals, objectives, policies and programs of the Comp Plan and which have been successful and which ones may need adjustments. . Look at changes in the State Statutes . Public participation involves both the Board of County Commissioners of which this is the second. Have had meetings with interagency working groups and will have following advertised public hearings prior to the final adoption on July 27th. Broken into 3 Parts: . Look at population growth and changes in the land area covered by the Comp Plan. . Location of development as anticipated by the Plan . Extent of vacant and undeveloped Land . Financial Feasibility . Brief assessment of successes and redirection that may be needed on each element of the Comp Plan. . Need direction now so they can condense future land use element into a 4-5 page summary. Structure: . Try to structure into format into what DCA identified to them as a EURO friendly type of document. . Prepared a lengthy issue and analysis and response document summarizing key issues in the document through the entire text. . Significant issues - around the FLUE - activity centers . Water Supply Facilities Work Plan -linkage with Land Use. . 2001 appointed Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy Committee . Immokalee Master Plan & related items . Affordable Housing . Concurrency . 2 Ad Hoc Committees met for 2 year periods addressing the Master Plan aspects of the Comp Plan. Special Topics Addressed: . Coordination of future land uses and residential development with capacity of exiting and planned schools. Again ahead of the process. . Coastal High Hazard Area Density (Need Direction to be provided by CCPC- BCC) . Water Facilities Supply Work Plan; mandated by FL Legislature as part of the EAR. David Weeks - Chief Planner in Comprehensive Planning Department Two Topics to address: 1) Activity Centers: 3 -------- April 20, 2004 . Showed locations of mixed use activity centers. Individual maps in the Future Land Use Element showing mixed use boundaries. . When Plan adopted in 1989 - 2 significant changes in commercial development. I-establishment of the mixed use activity center - area County wanted to direct most of the new commercial development. Location at the intersections of major streets. . Zoning not consistent with future land use map . Activity centers not intended to be 100% commercial - intended for mixed use - to allow high density residential and commercial (full array of services) . As proposed in 1989 - not all the same size - not allow same intensity land uses - some neighborhood commercial- some full array of commercial- as adopted - cap was taken away and almost all became same size. . Replaced by Factors to be Considered. Transportation network, market study etc. and made it difficult for staff to recommend denial for commercial request. For past Boards difficult to say "no" they did not want to approve the commercial for not right location etc. . Almost, without exception, all 19 mixed use activity centers are zoned 100% commercial. Conclusion: It is a failure. Not resulting in Mixed Use Development. Approach taken - . Amended the activity center boundaries to follow the existing commercial zoning boundaries. . Expanded - Office Infill Commercial Sub-district . Shrunk activity center boundaries but allowed property to be zoned commercial. . TODAY - in EAR draft - still a failure and not resulting in mixed use. . Can't do much -limited opportunities to make changes because most of the zoning is already in place within the activity center. . If want to change - take away zoning - staff says "open up your checkbook" if they take away the development rights. . The Interchange Activity Centers - should they distinguish between the interchange and the other activity centers? . Want them to be focused more on the traveling public and recognize location at the Interstate to allow uses that are dependent upon the transportation facility. But most zoning already in place. Commissioner Fiala talked about locating supermarkets by activity centers and traffic patterns and asked about locating them further away from the Intersection. Mr. Weeks mentioned the zoning is already there - no choice. Would have to create a commercial opportunity in their plan to allow for the zoning elsewhere. Commissioner Halas mentioned in his district they will have a Super Wal-Mart and Super Target with no pre-planning in regards to other developments that went into that area. They spent large sums of money to increase the flow of traffic off the Interstate - and now it will exacerbate the problem they already have. 4 ---.. April 20, 2004 Commissioner Coyle wondered how they could permit these large constructions if they are going to overload the roads. Norman Feder - Transportation Administrator - question is whether they were vested ahead of time. Most cases they were already vested or established before their system came in. But they are looking at that traffic as well as others coming forward. He felt Collier County is well served in that they don't have strip developments. He discussed establishing access. As new developments are coming along they look at all the issues and pursue the concept of Radio Road. But also need to turn around the big boxes - coming in without parcels to the front - out parcels establish and demand their access to the arterial system as opposed to access internally. Protect arterials - no collector roads - need to capitalize. Concerns about the plans on the activity centers - particularly their access management. Need to go more with a Radio Road system and reduce access points on the arterials. He discussed density bonus within one mile of an activity center. Commissioner Fiala talked about protecting the surrounding neighborhoods and mentioned putting up walls. Mr. Feder talked about connecting to the arterial opposed to the opposite. How do they keep the trips off the arterial and address their access with the community without having to get onto the arterial system. Commissioner Henning didn't disagree in establishing a collector for activity centers. Interchange activity centers - he would like to see it as an interchange service area instead of what they see on Pine Ridge Road with a lot of community type services. The interchange is already stressed. Commissioner Coyle didn't think the activity centers have been the failure they initially thought they were. Objective was to move commercial development further east to service communities that were developing rapidly. 15 of the 19 activity centers are located west of Airport Road. Access has been discussed and the need for interconnectivity also. They have eliminated the guarantee that access points shown on site plans are guaranteed. They are not. Commissioner Halas talked about the PUD's relying on density bonus and putting undue pressure on the intersections. This needs to be looked at. Commissioner Coletta agreed on tying in the affordable housing with the activity centers and maybe makes it a requirement. Not sure on the density bonus - housing spread out - but may be a possible solution. Affordable housing was then discussed and hoped they would be accomplishing something. Mr. Abernathy - CCPC - felt they were mixing up two different density bonuses. One close to an activity center is abused and should be done away with. The affordable housing meets a social need and goal and should possibly be expanded. Stated density bonus is just a windfall. 5 ----'.'- ... . April 20, 2004 Mr. Weeks clarifies there are two different density bonuses. 1 - If proj ect is located within the boundaries of an activity center with exception of those that are in the coastal high hazard area. Property is eligible for 16 units per acre. The incentive is not working. Because commercial is allowed and a better value. Maybe take away the 16 unit per acre as eligibility and instead replace it with affordable housing. It is an alternative. 2 - Just made changes in 2003 to promote mixed use development. One allows for a mixture of uses in the activity center. Ifproject is within one mile of an activity center intersection it is eligible for a 3 unit per acre density bonus. Can change the density rating system in regards to the locations of the activity centers. Interchange activity centers - distinction - 951 and Davis already has a cap. That change did occur in the EAR amendment. Doubled the size but imposed a cap for commercial. Stan asked for consensus and/or direction to identify the changes in the activity center concept. Commissioner Fiala asked ifthere was a cap at US41 and 951 activity center. Answer is there is not. She would like to see it capped so as not to look like Pine Ridge. Mr. Schiffer mentioned an activity center would be a good place to start using the principles for the Community Character Plan. The Land Development Code is mainly suburban. Mr. Richardson stated they did insert the possibility of mixed use with residence over commercial and looking forward to the next step. Density in Coastal High Hazard area: Mr. Weeks . Provisions allow for density bonus to occur in the area. . Conversion of Commercial Zoning . Activity centers good at promoting commercial development . When he said failure, he didn't mean in every way - because they did focus commercial at intersections and replace strip commercial in some cases - that was the intent. . Zoning evaluation program has a penalty provision. County can come in and say they will take away the commercial zoning that's not in a good location that is appropriate for the community. . An incentive program was the conversion of commercial zoning. Not in the activity center and shouldn't be there - but the incentive is there to allow them to convert the zoning to the highest eligible density - 16 units per acre if change the zoning voluntarily. . One hand saying take away commercial zoning and give density and the other hand saying they don't want it in certain locations. . The direction staff is getting is to make a change and take away the density bonus in the Coastal High Hazard area. Commissioner Halas stated they are in violation of 9J 5 when they give the density bonus in high hazard coastal areas and wants to see it end. They are putting the citizens in harms way. He cannot see the facility to evacuate people. They can't expand the roads to six lanes and there is a problem on 1-75 and if more people are in the coastal area, the more probability of having a 6 . .---------- -",. April 20, 2004 disaster. He wants to see no more than 3 units per acre on the coastal high hazard area and no density bonuses. Mr. Weeks then discussed the other density bonus applicable in the coastal high hazard area which is the affordable housing. There is then a balance. This all includes the areas along 41 east also. Discussion followed on the affordable housing, lower income housing and concentrating in the different areas. Density bonuses and units per acre were also discussed. Commissioner Henning asked about if a disaster affects some of the buildings, how would the Federal Government look at a build back? Mr. Weeks said by policy that zoning on the ground, commercial or residential, is not consistent with the location criteria, and those properties are allowed to develop or re-develop in accordance with the zoning. Marjorie Student talked about the vested rights. The reevaluation zoning program was to recognize vested rights and allow properties to go through a process rather than have them take the County to court. She discussed the lots subdivided and platted in the Vanderbilt beach area. If the density is changed, and no one can build and forced to combine lots - there are Fifth Amendment taking problems along with Burt Harris problems. Needs to all work together in a study and informed matter. If not developed, there is no problem. Stan Litsinger stated they have no further formal presentations to make, but will go through the notebook with any questions they may have. Mr. Strain referenced Page 9 - 2.8 - Talks about problems with Beach and Beach parking and boat access. He mentioned there are Land Development Code rules that make it difficult for people to store their boats in their yards. Wondered if they can find a need for storing boats if residents had a better way of keeping them in their yards or garages. Commissioner Coletta responded they have a lot of water resources and if the zoning requirements are so restrictive, how are they going to address the problems and what can be done to allow persons with boats leave them in their driveway or undercover. May want to explore more with local civic organization. The real problem is where they are going to go. Stan suggested this issue may need to be addressed in the Land Development Code. Commissioner Coyle felt they could get into trouble trying to address the issue on a County wide basis. They should listen to the neighborhoods and determine ifthere is sufficient support in each neighborhood. When people need places to put boats and can't do it at their homes, there will be storage areas available and will not be as expensive as dry storage. If losing storage capacity and dry storage, that is expensive. A person that loses that capacity can afford to put a boat in a storage lot if so desired. The free market economy can adjust to it whenever the demand is there. Trying to change zoning laws County wide to accommodate this issue is a can of worms. 7 .,. ...----., April 20, 2004 Commissioner Halas felt looking at the potential growth of the County they have some serious issues and need to address boat storage. They need to provide an area close to the water to store boats. There are responsibilities by the County to make sure there are resources for the citizens to use. (States in GMP and LDC Amendments) Commissioner Henning mentioned in the analysis they used the State compilations on the number of launches per person is 20 per year. (Per vessel) Some of the citizens are seasonal. Glenn Heath - Comprehensive Planning - stated that is a state wide average and not directly germane to Collier County but was the figure they used. They would have to do a survey to get a more accurate figure. Commissioner Henning felt they should have more of a reality figure. Mr. Strain referred to #20 - talked about taking away the traffic congestion area. (Negative reduction) Occurs more than just in the CHHA areas. Asked why not put both there and leave traffic congestion where it is. Glenn Heath responded the reason staff proposed getting rid of the traffic density reduction is because it is not working. There are other density factors they can apply. He talked about converting commercial to residential and affordable housing bonus. They can ignore it. It was not effective now. They need a density reduction in the CHHA and recommended scrapping the traffic reduction factor and replacing it with a CHHA reduction factor being a smaller area. Mr. Strain commented the Coastal Hazard is the worst area to experience hurricane evacuation and can reduce it by adding another density reduction in the area on top of the traffic where it is limited in that area. He asked about diminimus impacts in regards to the Florida Statutes concerning hurricane evacuation routes. Need to establish time frames and LOS. Then see if there is a diminimus impact. The more reduction they can provide along the coast the better off they are going to be. There was a consensus among the Commissioners that this is something they want to do. If reducing density in the high hazard area without running afoul without any vested rights is what they are referring to - Commissioner Coyle is in agreement. Mr. Weeks talked about the density rating system being applicable when they rezone their property. If they do not come before them for zoning changes under Policy 5.1 they might come in and ask for a change in the zoning. Then the density rating system would not be applicable. Only when to up-zone to a higher density. Mr. Strain referred to 2.28 Page 25 - Urban Development patterns in Neighborhood Commercial - seems to encourage neighborhood scale commercial uses in or near residential areas - they have had issues to this and come in to try to convert to residential bonus. He wondered if they were creating more potential for more conversion later on. 8 -- April 20, 2004 Glenn Heath responded that it is a suggestion that the County does need a greater volume of neighborhood commercial to reduce trips. Creates a certain quality of life. Case by case basis would need to be considered by Planning and the BCC. Mr. Murray had a question on # 13 - center of page - need explanation of effectiveness of the density bonus. Wanted to know what the basis is. Commissioner Henning stated it was the language to encourage affordable housing by rights and changes to the Land Development Code. Jay Sweat - Affordable Housing - they are working with the housing department and Cormac making it "by right." Cormac Giblin - effectiveness is there because they do have a density bonus program and it is effective in producing low income apartment rental units and ineffective in producing affordable home ownership units. Commissioner Coyle referred to the Concurrency Management Issue - #6 - Section 2.3 - have 75-80,000 approved, not built housing units. Many PUD's have been built out. Easier to monitor if old density is off the books. If kept on the books there is a potential to have a result of resources - money and time - developing infrastructure where it is not needed. Need to get it off the books and hope staff has guidance to do so. Stan Litsinger talked about the concurrency system. They are working on the annual PUD monitoring process with traffic impacts and phasing reports that are required to be submitted on an annual basis. It can be used to persuade developers to submit revised plans and other options that Ms. Students is looking at through the PUD monitoring process that would retire some of the PUDS other than the platted lots. Commissioner Coyle has asked staff, in a letter, to provide the Board with some suggestions on how they prohibit a repeat of the problems that change setbacks and heights and footprints. Should they change their procedures was his question to be done by staff only in certain limits. Commissioner Henning stated the BCC approved the PUD and the PUD was the vehicle for, what some are saying, changes in the setbacks. The PUD did allow the clustering and ability to take lots or plats and bring them together. Not sure how to address it when it was sanctioned by the BCC and the language allowed it. Commissioner Coyle doesn't want to get into the box again. The developer built buildings, subdivided the property resulting in zero lot lines. Can't be done - can't change it but in the future it shouldn't be permitted without being reviewed by the Planning Commissioners and the BCC. It is a legal issue and he doesn't want to get involved in it. He does not think it is good for the staff to make decisions on major setbacks and footprints without a formal public hearing by the Planning Commission or the BCC or both. 9 ..--.- April 20, 2004 Marjorie Student cautioned everyone about talking about particular projects because the County is in litigation on the particular project Mr. Coyle is referring to. It may be more of an LDC issue rather than a Comp Plan issue. Stan mentioned it is not a Comprehensive Plan Amendment issue and would not recommend addressing it in the Comp Plan, but can draft some changes to the LDc. They were addressing an SDP - not a PUD modification. BREAK 10:42 AM RECONVENED 10:54 AM Commissioner Fiala mentioned they will possibly need another workshop. She asked for those that have questions to address them at this time. Mr. Schiffer mentioned there is no public review of the design. When they do the PUD's they are just setting parameters. Commissioner Coyle stated he was really talking about Site Development Plan because that is what happened - staff can make minor changes to SDP without any reviews. If they could be reviewed by Planning and the Board when they are significant it would go through a public process. Mr. Abernathy asked if they have a bias towards rental housing or homeownership. Stan mentioned they will talk more about affordable housing and that is where they need to start. Commissioner Fiala discussed the issue of giving affordable housing density bonuses to rental units who then charge $1 ,089/Mo and get millions of dollars thrown at them for building the so called "affordable housing rental units". That amount for a 3 bedroom/2 bath house is not affordable housing. The goals within the Comp Plan on affordable units, on a yearly basis, are a combination of rental and homeownership according to Stan Litsinger. Commissioner Coletta talked about beach access. He went over several numbers of the residents and parking spaces available. Beach access will only get worse. Many have given up during season trying to find places to go. Glenn Heath mentioned there are formulas Parks & Recreation Dept uses with regards to beach access with numbers of actual locations over a number of miles and parking spaces etc. Amanda Townsend - Parks & Recreation - the advisory board had adopted a level of service for beach parking at one space per 150 residents of the County. That is the goal they work towards, based on seasonal population. Commissioner Coletta asked what mechanism kicks in to get back to where they need to be or do they just accept it. They are looking at projected build-out for the County and not sure they can maintain it. 10 -- April 20, 2004 Need to be more proactive he said. A bus service would help to meet basic needs - he would like to see the service extend out to Golden Gate Estates and to Immokalee. CAT is not allowed to go beyond 951 and Commissioner Coletta felt that was a selfish thing and they needed to explore that idea again. Need to look at it across the board on how they are serving the general public. Commissioner Henning's concern on the concurrency is transportation and funding the roads. Wondered if the Board wanted to address it in this document. Glenn Heath responded they did not address it directly and were asked to address the funding mechanism and methodologies to see if they were accurate in the way the County does business and the needs of the facilities. Not specific funding issues. Stan said all the revenues have been accessed, and all actions taken in the last couple of years. The EAR did not identify any problems or issues that were not being met. Commissioner Henning asked if it would be appropriate to address materials for road construction in the document and Stan responded "yes". Jim Mudd - County Manager - page 1.4.5 under Policy l.2.9 - basically says Collier County will not exceed a maximum ratio of total government debt service to bondable revenues from current sources of 13%. He informed everyone they are very close to that 13%. This was written many years ago and he asked Mike Smykowski how to fund the Capitol Improvement element. They have gotten closer to the 13% now then they ever have before. He asked the Director of Office Management to see if the 13% is still valid based on the economics of the times today - not just Collier County but the United States. It all fits in with Commissioner Henning's remarks - they are borrowing a lot of dollars to make sure the Capitol Improvement is up to standards and stays ahead of the Growth pattern in Collier County. Has to make sure the debt service is paid for, along with the growth, as not to be left with a used debt and the only way to pay it off is with Ad Valorem taxes and a significant increase to the millage. Commissioner Henning stated the funding sources are very important and the issue he was addressing is; will the lime rock to build the roads always be there in the future. Question is should they address it in the documents and where are they going to get the materials. Mr. Feder stated he has heard with the overlays they have now - there are no areas where mining can be allowed. If so, they are talking about brining and hauling in for a higher cost. Land has gone up and less people want to mine. "If' it is true, with the overlays there are no longer areas to provide for mining and is a concern. He is not sure that is true or not and would defer to staff. Stan said they would address the issue when they come back with the EAR report with available sites and zoning Comp Plan provisions for mining operations in Collier County. 11 ------...... -..----.- -'--'" April 20, 2004 Commissioner Coyle agreed with Commissioner Coletta on beach access. They do not have enough money in Collier County to provide a parking space for everyone that wants to go to the beach. Discussed the Vanderbilt parking garage and mentioned they need to get bus routes, shuttling people by boats to Keewaydin Island and improve parking areas to accommodate the population is one way to help access. Commissioner Halas concurs with Commissioner Coyle. Needs to find ways to purchase property that may become available for beachgoers. Has concerns on data furnished on population with figures not being up-to-date. Mr. Strain referred to Mass Transit - Policy 12.8 - Tab B - Requirement in policy acceptable level of service standard with development plan - because of a change in Florida Statutes they exempt transit system from concurrency. Suggest leaving it in as a concurrency item and being part of the program. Glenn said it is not an option but are exempt by Florida Statute. Mr. Feder stated they are not taking them out but encouraging development as they look at concurrency at what options they can present. He did not recommend taking it out. Mr. Midney asked about the water supply work plan. He addressed saving 11 million gallons a day of potable water by using reclaimed water for irrigation and being the leading county in Florida. He asked what percentage of the affluent is wasted that is not reused and how can they increase that percentage either by penalties or incentives. Jim Mudd said the problem with reclaimed water is the oversupply during the wet season. In the dry season they use it all. The shortage is right now. In the wet season there is no demand because no one wants to pay for a product that costs dollars. He talked about installing the aquifer storage and recovery wells at the Pelican well site running along 1- 75 and Immokalee. Those 5 wells will help store the access reclaimed water in the wet season so in the dry season they will take care of the demand of the customers on the waiting list. Jim DeLony - Public Utilities Administrator - reiterated what Mr. Mudd said and stated it is a challenge in their current system in who pays for the plumbing from the sewer plant to the golf courses of which was a question by Mr. Midney. It is a shared cost among the user and the County Utility Company. Waste water customer benefits because they are disposing of affluent that needs to be disposed of safely and environmentally. The end user of the re-use, benefits also. He needs to let the Board know how they are going to expand the system and allocate those that pay and those that benefit with regard to the expansion. The end user is the one that provides for the interconnection and then pays a usage charge per 1,000 gallons on the usage. This is only in the areas the system is available in the water sewer district. That does not encompass the entire county. The cost of potable water is going to go up. The shallow aquifers are being replenished as quickly as they are being drawn down. They monitor the system every day and are keeping up with it. Mr. Mudd stated SFL WM and the Big Cypress Basin has the overall responsibility to make sure they monitor the aquifer and limit the amount of consumptive use permits and monitor the rainfall, seepage etc. 12 ..--,-. ,.----' April 20, 2004 They operate under water re-use restrictions in Collier County year around. Mr. DeLony stated the water consumption per capita goals are laid out in the report and gave the goals and objections in the report today. It is dovetailed to the Master Plan ofthe Collier County water sewage district. Commissioner Coletta just added a couple things Mr. Midney was alluding to and related to Immokalee. Immokalee was the first to come up with the deep injection well. No capabilities to distribute through the town, but with the economic boom, there will be a demand for the resource. Everglade City has plans to get it to the individual homes and heard they are applying for grants. He talked about a program in Immokalee for the future. SPEAKERS Sally Barker - she stated she can't comment on the EAR report as she hasn't had the opportunity to review it. She did not see it on the website. She commented on the process as follows: . Has tried to open the door to County Government . The Workshop on the EAR a year ago, staff told them it was no longer a big deal. . DCA not interested, legislature removed the requirement that a citizen's review committee participate and staff said it was a waste of time and money. She disagreed. . If so, why raise all the questions so far. Could have been hashed out if there had been a public review committee. Issues could have been hashed out. . She understood why no committee, because being a pain in the neck taking up staff time and resources. . Since State Law requires them to go through the process should they wring as much out of the process? . GMP basis for rules and regulations and ordinances, with goals and objectives and policies for Collier County. . Points she made are: continue to do periodic review of the Growth Management Plan . If doing so, let the residents participate. Now the only public participation is the Planning Commission. They are knowledgeable, but reviewing a report after the fact is not the same as participating in the analytical process. . She is extremely disappointed - Collier County has chosen the quick and easy was of evaluating the Growth Management Plan. Bruce Anderson - had a few comments as follows: . Page 3 - Par K - part of the EAR being part of a public participation - heard two listed - the Golden Gate Master Plan and Immokalee area study. . No one on a daily basis knows this is going on and encourages the Board to encourage the staff to meet with local planning organizations, CBIA and environmental groups. . Density Bonuses - they have worked within a mile of the activity center density band. Smart Growth principles also support density bonus around activity centers. It encourages people to live where the infrastructure is already in place. 13 April 20, 2004 . Can't say they are a complete failure because they aren't mixed use, the ones that are approved for mixed use are: I- 75 & Immokalee Road, 1-75 & Collier Blvd, (both are affordable housing) and Pine Ridge & Airport. Stan commented on the dates of events on the workshops and had been a decision of the Board not to appoint a citizens advisory committee for the EAR process. In additional to the workshop, on July 15th there will be a public hearing for the Planning Commission. The draft that day will affect their input and direction today but is not a closed document. Commissioner Coletta felt it was a good idea to take it to the builder and civic associations. Commissioner Fiala mentioned the Homeowners Assoc. Presidents Club Joe Schmitt put together and felt that would also be a good group to be invited. Commissioner Coyle stated they need to keep in mind what they have been doing in the past two years. They have gone through the most comprehensive revision of the GMP and the LDC in the history of Collier County along with the Rural Land and Urban Fringe Amendments. No way could a public committee possibly kept track of all the changes and place them in the proper context and understood them. There were briefings from the staff, they hired consultants and felt it would have been an impossible task. All the changes they have done all went through the public participation process. Should inform the public about the evaluation process and conclusions. Glenn Heath stated the report makes no changes only recommendations. They will come before the Board again. This is a schedule of Amendments to be looked at later. Marjorie Student pointed out the Statute requires implementation of the report through amendments. Law states the Amendments are to implement the report. Commissioner Henning had a concern on 2.19 - appears they are giving direction for amendments they are not sure the Planning Commissioners or the Board are going to approve. (Natural resources and listed species) He asked if there was anything in the report that guides the Planning Commissioners and the Board of Commissioners into making changes in the future without banning them out in the public. The answer was "no". The report can be made available and have a presentation to interested groups on the report presented today. Prior to the hearing process, they can consider the concerns and interest that would be brought back to them in July. Commissioner Fiala stated they have not begun to touch on some of the subjects and felt they need to have another meeting scheduled. Discussion followed on a time frame for another meeting. Decision was another workshop will be scheduled. Cormac Giblin - program on density bonuses was discussed. Produce low rent apartment complexes clustered together. Units of 220 in one area - serving family of 60 % of median income. Formulas today are excellent. Problem is rents are $1,000 a month which is not in line 14 April 20, 2004 with affordable housing in the market. He talked about adjusting the percentages and income limits to produce more units at higher income levels. (80%) Limitation to Saturation levels is what Commissioner Fiala wanted to touch on. Can they lower the amount of rent that must be paid so it is reasonable with low and very low income? Staffhas encouraged developers to stagger the income limits of their developments. The formulas are one thing to quality for density bonus and have held them to a higher standard which produces lower rents. A discussion followed on the density bonuses and affordability of rents for the lower income. Need to tighten up the monitoring and lessen the burden on the front end and how long they need to remain affordable. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order ofthe Chair at 12:01 PM. COLLIER COUNTY COMMISSIONERS EAR WORKSHOP Chair¡g~one¿~1a ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK \ ,""'" , <\'1~~ . ür.Jf,'ílO" . e:,r.." ';"'."'" tq,;. .: ~f':."~"'";.",,~::.,, . , - Ä\~~~. ~l~I\ØJ..n' $ sfi . _filðir;.~' "'" ' ' 1: ,~ .Id, ..",,"',{'i" i11.~U¡¡'ì:'~¡' ÏJ.L These minute~ approved by the Board on 0ìtu..t.1 ¡ 1'1-.004 , as presented as corrected ~ / or 15