Loading...
BCC Minutes 05/17/2004 W (w/CCPC re: EAR) May 17,2004 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS & PLANNING COMMISSION EAR WORKSHOP Naples, Florida, May 17, 2004 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00AM in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Commissioner Donna Fiala Commissioner Frank Halas Commissioner Fred Coyle Commissioner Jim Coletta Commissioner Tom Henning ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Russell Budd, Planning Commission Chairman Mr. Ken Abernathy, Planning Commission Mr. Lindy Adelstein, Planning Commission Mr. Robert Murray, Planning Commission Mr. Dwight Richardson, Planning Commission Mr. Brad Schiffer, Planning Commission Joe Schmitt, Community Dev. and Environmental Services Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney Jim Mudd, County Manager Susan Murray, Director of Zoning and Development David Weeks, Chief Planner in Comprehensive Planning Glenn Heath, Comprehensive Planning Don Scott, Transportation Planning Cormac Giblin, Manager of Housing Development Dan Summers, Director of Emergency Management 1 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS/PLANNING COMMISSION ~ BCC/CCPC JOINT EAR WORKSHOP AGENDA May 17, 2004 9:00 AM Donna Fiala, Chairman, District 1 Fred W. Coyle, Vice-Chairman, District 4 Frank Halas, Commissioner, District 2 Tom Henning, Commissioner, District 3 Jim Coletta, Commissioner, District 5 Collier County Planning Commission ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PUBLIC SPEAKERS ARE ENCOURAGED TO REGISTER PRIOR TO THE WORKSHOP ON SPECIFIC AGENDA TOPICS OF INTEREST PRIOR TO SPEAKING. HOWEVER, IN KEEPING WITH THE TOWN HALL OPEN FORUM FORMAT OF THIS WORKSHOP, THE CHAIRMAN WILL ENTERTAIN INPROMTU SPEAKERS AFTER EACH TOPIC AND DURING THE OPEN FORUM/PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. STAFF WILL FRAME EACH AGENDA TOPIC FOR COMMISSIONERS AND THE PUBLIC TO BE FOLLOWED BY DISCUSSION AMONG THE BOARDS AND QUESTIONING OF STAFF AFTER WHICH THE CHAIRMAN WILL ACCEPT PUBLIC SPEAKER INPUT. 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 IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. APRIL 20, 2004 BCC/CCPC EAR WORKSHOP RECAP 3. Issue: Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA) A. Traffic Congestion Area B. Density Rating System Impact Discussion: A. BCC/CCPC B. Public Comment BCC Guidance: 4. Issue: Density Rating System (Density Bonuses) A. Impact and Results B. General Discussion Discussion: A. BCC/CCPC B. Public Comment BCC Guidance: 5. Issue: Affordable Housing A. Incentives and Results B. Future Directions C. Density Bonus Impact Discussion: C. BCC/CCPC D. Public Comment BCC Guidance: 6. Issue: Activity Centers/Future Intersection Plans A. Density Bands B. Interconnectivity Requirements C. Mixed-Use Intent vs. Results D. Super Retail Center Location/Criteria 1) Future Intersection Planning 2) Size Thresholds, Uses and Trip Generation 3) Community Character Plan Standards Discussion: E. BCC/CCPC F. Public Comment BCC Guidance: 7. Issue: Immokalee Area Master Plan - Update on Restudy Committee Recommendations Discussion: A. BCC/CCPC B. Public Comment BCC Guidance: 8. Other EAR Topics Open Forum/Public Comment 9. Adjourn May 17, 2004 Commissioner Fiala called the EAR workshop to order at 9:00 a.m. She stated that there were 5 issues that were most important to the districts to be looked into. The first issue of the morning was that of the coastal high hazard area (CHHA) with David Weeks presenting. David Weeks, Chief Planner in Comprehensive Planning, stated that one ofthe issues discussed from the last workshop in April was the coastal high hazard area (CHHA). He stated there is no density reduction as part of the density rating system for properties in coastal high hazard areas and discussed that maybe there should be. The only other provision in this system is properties that lie in traffic congestion and all properties in CHHA. Staff feels they don't need traffic congestion area density reduction provision because it hasn't been particularly successful in reducing densities, 1 unit per acre reduction. At the same time it is more appropriate to apply a reduction to being in a coastal high hazard area. Areas identified are ones that want to place a limit on the density allowed primarily because of hurricane evacuation. One of the recommendations was that the density rating system be modified to eliminate the density for traffic congestion areas and replace with a density reduction provision, 1 unit per acre to lie within CHHA. The second recommendation was to impose a cap of 4 dwelling units per acre in the coastal high hazard areas, which was very similar to the urban coastal fringe sub-district. The portion of urban property, both in coastal high area as well as traffic congestion, south of 41, would have a cap of 4 units per acre. The staff's recommendation was a cap of 4 units per acre with no exception; no affordable housing density bonus in CHHA or any other bonus to get above 4 units per acre. Replace with one unit per acre for hurricane evacuation concerns. He stated that staff recommends a cap of 4 dwellings per acre below US 41 for affordable housing. David Weeks also stated that staffrecommends no exceptions. The supplemental in the packets is to give some idea ofthe impact ofthe area in CHHA in the rezone act. (5,000 acres, zone agriculture). He also stated that most ofthe future rezones were from agriculture to residential. Dwight Richardson stated that it's easy to support because there are no other bonus provisions that will apply to the properties and the conversion from commercial to residential would not include a bonus. David Weeks stated he was correct that a density bonus would not allow it to be rezoned above 4 units per acre but would allow property to get two, 4 units per acre. He also stated that when a property is in a CHHA, start with a base density of 4 units per acre, subject to one unit per acre reduction, bringing it down to 3 acres. If zoned as commercial, it is eligible to use commercial conversion provision and can only get back 2 May l7, 2004 up to 4 units per care, instead of 16 units per acre. The bonus is actually only 1 unit per acre because ofthe cap at 4. Dwight Richardson stated that it would be a total of 4 units per acre under any scenario that David described. David Weeks stated that staffs' recommendation is to eliminate that reduction and that the only density reduction provision would be for the property in CHHA. Commissioner Fiala stated that the problem with the area along US 41 and East beyond 951 is due to the traffic congestion area. It's subject to a 1 unit reduction and then adding 8 units on for all affordable housing. The road is only a 2 lane road and there is no provision to widen it for at least 10 years - this may cause a problem. She stated that this is programming for disaster in the area because there is no way of getting out due to the hurricane evacuation route and high congested area. She stated that the road is already over burdened and can't allow any more. David Weeks stated that the staffs recommendation is that the Affordable Housing density bonus only be applicable to get density back up to 4 units per dwelling. He stated 2 options. The first would be to deal with a case-by-case basis when rezone comes before the commissioners. The other option is to maintain the traffic congestion area density on the north side of 41 east of 951 where the cap is at 4. Commissioner Fiala stated that they lose on this issue every time with a 4-1 vote and can't do this to the people living in that area. Commissioner Coyle agreed and stated that the population increase and traffic currently on 1-75 is an issue, as Commissioner Fiala brought up regarding the development on the southeast quarter. He stated that the health, safety and welfare of people are important and the more influx of people, the more difficult they will have getting people out of the CHHA. He feels the need to cap it and also need a clause to maintain that ifhas undo effect on the road in the area. He feels the need to automatically deduct 1 unit per acre. Commissioner Coletta asked if this would in any way be taking away rights with this approach. David Weeks responded to Commissioner Coletta "no" because they are dealing with new rezonings. Policy 5.1 already provides that existing zoning is allowed to remain and develop and is allowed to be amended as long as it does not increase the density intended. Commissioner Coletta was concerned with the Affordable Housing development and the hurricane evacuation. He also felt he needed Dan Summers to answer questions. Jim Mudd, County Manager says that it's basically done on timing and that we can take the traffic network and minimizes the impacts based on the notification of 3 May 17, 2004 evacuation and predictions put out in evacuation order. He also stated that some people don't listen to evacuations and not everyone will leave at the same time. Commissioner Henning asked about the moving of the traffic congestion area and replacing with CHHA reduction and removing Affordable housing density provision, like 16 units per acre, and then only providing 1 unit per acre. David Weeks stated that with Affordable Housing they could get 8 units per acre but want to reduce to 1 unit per acre. Commissioner Fiala stated she doesn't want to leave any loopholes. Also the area is already congested and not going to be widened and is currently only 2 lanes. She talked about the impact the road has for those working and shopping and needs to be thought about in the future. Commissioner Coyle stated that it is difficult traveling back and forth daily on 1-75. He felt that 4 units per acre throughout CHHA of Collier County was the best way to go. Brad Schiffer asked about the overlay district - Vanderbilt and Bayshore Triangle and whether or not they were included because the densities were higher Commissioner Coyle stated Mr. Schiffer had a good point. The exception is the Bayshore area and reallocation of the density of the botanical gardens. Went through a rezone through PUD from residential to commercial. He stated that the Bayhsore Gateway triangle overlay allows for reallocation of these dwelling units for Botanical Gardens. He stated that the purpose of redevelopment was not to cap density at 4 units per acre in that area. Kenneth Abernathy stated that David brought up eliminating the TCA and replacing in CHHA, and any area that has TCA outside. He asked about non-CHHA and the rationale of eliminating them in other places. David Weeks stated that staff was told the traffic congestion areas are no longer valued. He stated the long-term traffic congestion, because of constraints, and that there is a cap. David stated that the end result, if we eliminate the traffic congestion area and replace it with CHHA, will be shifting the line westward and southward and expanding the area, therefore eligible for 4 units per acre instead of 3 units per acre. With this, it will no longer have density reduction of 1 unit per acre. Kenneth Abernathy stated he was more concerned with eliminating the density bonus than eliminating the density reduction. David Weeks stated that the staff recommendation is that the Affordable Housing density bonus be available in CHHA but only to get the density from 3 back to 4 units per acre. 4 May 17,2004 Commissioner Coletta addressed Dan Summers, contacted by Jim Mudd, County Manager, regarding future land use in CHHA, density bonuses, ability to be able to evacuate, and underlining this ifthey continue with the present rate of growth and density. Dan Summers stated there are a couple of points to be aware of. He stated that one element is time. As a storm continues to progress, the highest concern with storm surge potential is evacuation priority and propose plan procedures. Density emergency management has flexibility with numbers based on time trying to encourage early evacuation. Compensate with leave time. Commissioner Halas asked Dan Summers for figures using 4 to 6 years in regards to what the population was in Collier County. He stated Mr. Summer's point out the element of time, and discussed regular traffic already on the highways versus addressing the traffic for evacuation. He addressed the CHHA density and trying to come up with adjustments so it is uniform throughout the county in regard to new development coming forward. He wants to make sure and encourage adequate roads in the future. Dan Summers stated that the goal will be to look at the utilization of roads to the fullest capacity and to make the public aware ofN, S, and E direction depending on scenario. He stated they need to zone the type of evacuation and evacuation that follows the right steps. The Interstate and its capacity will be challenges for years to come. Mr. Murray stated that his concern was not Affordable Housing but housing in CHHA. He stated that people in affordable housing areas are normally in service jobs and will be required to remain in preparation for storms and later be released to go back home. When they get home they will not have vehicles for evacuation and sufficient vehicles to get them to the roads. He stated that this concern is with combination with that of a wind event and the destruction of lights. He stated that these people are the least amongst us at most peril. He thinks reduction is most desirable in this area. Joe Schmitt told Mr. Summers that the density reduction is not much of a concern as AH issue. Going with density rating and not allowing for density bonus. He stated that the last major hurricane was in 1960. He stated some concern is with timing elements during the hurricane season and getting around from one place to another. Dan Summers stated that the hypothesis peak population is that typically 30% of the population had already left the area or voluntary evacuated days before the evacuation. He told the board to take the worst-case scenario as an emergency planner. First take off 30% and another 10-15 % that have automatically left for business reasons. Now the number is down to dealing with 40-60% of peak to use for evacuation timing for traffic concerns. He stated that the secondary roads are capable of dealing with the traffic. It's the exit route that will spend most of planning and managing. 5 _._,__.'~_~_'.Od__'~"."_~_·'_~·"·······'_··" May 17, 2004 Commissioner Fiala spoke of eliminating the traffic congested areas where Affordable Housing is needed. She stated that Immokalee Road is one of those that concern her with development of Super W al- Mart and the bonuses that go with these activity centers. She also talked about Vanderbilt Drive and Santa Barbara Blvd and was concerned with whether widening of these roads is going to allow for greater traffic congestion because other areas will want to build. Joe Schmitt stated the traffic congestion areas are no longer pertinent because of the new 3.1.5 checkbook concurrency and that nothing can be built unless capacity exists. He stated that the CHHA is proposing elimination of some of density bonuses to get down to a base of 4 units per acre and then, in some instances, reduce to 3 units per acre. Existing criteria says if someone purchases all the agricultural and commercial and converts it _ this is what they will end up with. Density bonus down-zoning from commercial to residential. He stated that staff is proposing to eliminate that. He stated that getting 2-3 units an acre in CHHA solves the problem. He stated that this subject dealing with density bonuses in CHHA is where he needs guidance and where should he go with it. Mark Strain referred to Mr. Week's discussion about removing traffic congestion countywide and saying they don't need countywide but addressing the CHHA. He asked David for the calculation on acreage of the CHHA land presently zoned rural agricultural and asked if the number is a gross number. David Weeks stated excluded property zoned agricultural with ST overlay and potential acreage for rezoning west of Vanderbilt Drive is 5,000 acres. He stated that this figure potentially could be higher but made judgment call. Mark Strain stated he needed transportation to explain that there will be no construction if level of service on hurricane evacuation routes is operating on failed level, including 1- 75 and Immokalee Rd. Commissioner Halas gave staff a recommendation to look at this and at 4 units per acre as the max and ifthey have a vast concern about traffic in a particular area then it is reduced down to one less acre in CHHA. Don Scott, Transportation Planning, first mentioned the traffic congestion area and the questions he had in regards to this were, "Where did it come from?" and "What about areas outside of. . .. ., "Where was it established?" And lastly "What type of analysis would be used to do that?" He stated that the concurrency is supposed to look at all development and take in account the needs across the system. He could say that it congested out to 951, but then roads such as Randall, aren't congested. He wants to look at this on a case-by-case basis. Commissioner Fiala asked ifthe provision allowed 8 units, would it in any way impact the checkbook concurrency. They need a provision to help to move traffic more 6 May 17, 2004 effectively to stop further traffic congestions. She gave examples with Randall Road and the college area. She also stated her concern with the new super Wal-Mart to be developed on Immokalee Road. She is concerned with eliminating the TCA and whether this was going to help or hurt in future developments in such congested areas. Don Scott stated his concerns in respect to 1-75 and will have to deal with it when 1-75 is reconstructed. He stated that this can hurt some areas but can help others. Commissioner Fiala stated that when they all started as Commissioners, they found out about development on Immokalee Road. They have to consider the whole area not just one area that is coming on for approval for PUD. She feels the need to look at the picture as a whole and doesn't know if TCA has anything do with it. David Weeks stated that staff did an analysis of the number of Affordable Housing bonus units that have been granted in the CHHA. He stated that back to 1989, when the plan was adopted; there were a total of 4 projects approved in CHHA, totaling just fewer than 400 dwelling units. SPEAKERS Doug Fee, 921 Carrick Bend, stated that the North Bay Civic is supportive of 12.2.2 that states future land use element limits new residential development to maximum of 4 dwelling units per gross acre within the CHHA. He stated that a couple of years ago hurricane Floyd, as remembered in papers, there was a mandatory evacuation for 2.5 million people and saw pictures of traffic lines. He stated that life is important and how the density issue is going to affect all of us. He mentioned how he had wanted Dan Summers to comment on second component regarding the expenditures that will occur if major hurricane goes through. Dwight Richardson stated he was sensing a consensus on CHHA traffic congestion area, with applying a reduction to areas outside of CHHA. He mentioned Mr. Murray and his involvement with the Smart Growth committee, and felt you need to have congestion of units where facilities are available with infrastructure. He also asked ifthere were some positive benefits to having bonuses or an increased number of units in area where can be serviced. He felt there were strong benefits to higher intensity where can be serviced near activity centers. Commissioner Coletta asked, "If changes were to be made and we would go towards build out, is it in any way the project's differences in population would there be numbers allowing keeping the density bonuses and Activity Center?" He also asked if this was modified what the difference in units would be. David Weeks stated he doesn't feel that there would be a significant change. All of CHHA sits within traffic congestion area. This area is already subject to 1 unit per acre 7 May 17,2004 reduction. If the traffic congested area is eliminated, then eliminating boundary from 4 to 3 units per acre adds some density. Much of this area in traffic-congested area that would not be subject has already been zoned into making significant reduction in density change. Commissioner Coletta stated that Affordable Housing can still take place if making allowances. He stated he dreads the idea of a red line that says you cannot have Affordable Housing beyond this line. He stated that the rich and exclusive neighborhoods should be excluded from dealing with this. David Weeks spoke to the board and asked them a rhetorical question, "Where is Affordable Housing allowed and gone?" He stated that since 1989 there have only been 4 Affordable Housing projects approved for a total of 400 dwelling units, including Tessa Point, Charlee Estates, Botanical Place, and Victoria Falls. Commissioner Coletta stated that it is not right if changes are made to significant parts of the acreage at a cap of 4 units per acre and then Affordable Housing is no longer applicable to CHHA. The bonus to get from 3 back up to 4 is not very significant. The flipside is that the majority of Affordable Housing is outside of the CHHA. In 1989 when allowed density bonus to occur, it was a balancing act to allow Affordable Housing to go within traffic congested area, including in the CHHA. As oftoday, since only have four projects outside of CHHA, it is part of my recommendation to cut density bonus. Commissioner Coyle started to answer Commissioner Coletta's questions and stated that the answers should be found in table 11 or 12. Table 12 reflects bonus and number of units. He asked what this really meant. He also stated if eliminating TCA and CHHA reduction, total eligible reduction is 454 dwelling units. Jim Mudd stated there were 3300 units roughly and if there are 2.5 people in a unit, then the total is a little over 7,000 people. This was to give an idea of population. Commissioner Coletta asked if there is a possibility that staff could come up with some wording that would allow for reduction but make for exception for Affordable Housing. David Weeks said "certainly" and stated that the cap was at 4 units per acre without exception of Affordable Housing bonus. Commissioner Coyle stated that iftruly want affordable housing then they would have to increase density bonus in CHHA because of high cost of property. He stated that it could be kept the same way as it is now and gets the same result, which is not very good. If they want Affordable Housing they would have to substantially increase the bonus for CHHA that would perhaps encourage people to build. But would the future to reduce population in CHHA be effected. He's not sure that this would be a good thing. He also stated that the realities of the market need to be recognized. Commissioner Fiala asked Commissioner Coyle what direction he wanted to give staff. 8 May 17, 2004 Commissioner Coyle stated the need to limit first decisions to CHHA and not let discussion stray beyond that. If limiting density by taking away density bonuses, then they need to deal with some of the Affordable Housing requirements. He also discussed the past with mixed use and bonus outside of CHHA. Commissioner Coletta expressed that he was not happy with this at all because no provisions were made with Affordable Housing. He stated he knows it's a long process and he can't go along with it. Commissioner Henning agrees with staff with recommending seeing the work force trying to evacuate market driven is what is going to have seasonal residents in CHHA. Mark Strain stated dropping to 4 as a base, with no density bonus and reducing it by one if CHHA. Commissioner Fiala stated there were 4 nods of approval for the staff's recommendation and that the planning commission all agrees. Commissioner Coyle asked a question in regard to a recent court decision and the impact this has on claims for density with area already zoned. Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney, stated that anytime there is a change in regulation that takes something away from a property there is a potential of a Burt Harris claim file without knowledge of specific property or claim and even with knowledge of that it is very hard to predict what a court may do. Commissioner Halas stated that this is only for stuffthat may come in rezoned from agricultural or down-zoned from commercial and anything that has already been zoned remains the same. Marjorie Student stated that anytime anything changes in the code, there is that potential. If agricultural is what they have, they would only be going up, not going down. If property bought with the expectation of rezoning of units allowed when bought and changed later when then wanted to do something, an argument may try to be made. Joe Schmitt stated that zoning in progress was based on this guidance. He stated that staff will not be able to implement until the transmittal hearing. Commissioner Fiala asked if there were any further comments. Jim Mudd, County Manager, stated there were 2 categories. The first was agricultural to residential with 4 dwelling units minus one for CHHA making it 3 units. The other category was commercial to residential. 9 May 17, 2004 David Weeks said that would start with 4 minus I, 2nd case we are all on or all back down to 3. BREAK TAKEN RECONVENED Density Rating Systems/Density Bonuses. David Weeks stated that this was a rather broad topic. It covers all density bonus provisions and that it should include traffic congestion area reduction provision. He stated that on the Agenda, number 4, under # 5, was Affordable Housing. Part of affordable housing includes density bonus. He stated that Number 6 involves Activity centers. The discussion also includes density bonuses around activity centers. He stated that they are separate items but covers all areas. In the back of the supplementary notebook on the legal size paper was a list ofPUD's where density bonuses have been awarded. He stated that they are not all inclusive and that they do occasionally have rezone petitions for non-PUD's, but a vast majority of density bonus and rezones are for PUD's. Since 1989, in PUD's, there have been 4,686 bonus units awarded, including the following: Activity Centers - 396 units Conversion of commercial- 165 units Density Ban, 1 mile radius around Activity Center - 2538 units Affordable Housing -1498 units Residential Infill - 40 units Roadway access - 49 units Traffic Congestion - 523 units He made a general comment stating the figures are not absolute, but the total figure is accurate for number of bonuses since 1989. He asked the board which, if any ofthe provisions, they want to see changed. Density ban completely eliminated some discussion about conversion to commercial. Last meeting there was some discussion that should be subject to reduction for both. Mr. Adelstein questioned how it happened, that it changed from commercial to residential with 16 units per acre and how did it come about. David Weeks stated that it goes back to plans in adoption from 1 989 and it was a two- prong approach to commercial development. The mixed-use activity center wanted to promote most new commercial through the Activity Center, with identified location and want to rezone to commercial. The rationale is to make it the highest bonus possible for the incentive program and then come in voluntarily to apply with conversion, resulting in highest possible for 16 acres. 10 May 17, 2004 Mr. Adelstein stated that there are too many other things that have been tried. We have tried Affordable Housing, and the maximum that it gets is 8 units. He feels 16 units is too big Commissioner Coyle stated that this worked to some degree. Maybe the solution is to make some of density bonuses and Affordable Housing density bonuses to encourage the mixed use, the conversion, and Affordable Housing. He stated to maybe make it a combination of things in order to encourage the mixed use. Commissioner Henning stated that trying to get Affordable Housing within commercial is a great idea, but questioned the likelihood of it happening. Commissioner Coyle stated that Affordable Housing in a commercial area is more likely to happen in a mixed-use area than anywhere else. The key is Affordable Housing and not going to have low income housing in these areas, Affordable Housing or work force housing; works well in commercial areas. Commissioner Halas stated this idea is worthy but wanted an example of where it had worked. He mentioned the Super Wal-Mart on Immokalee Road with Affordable Living and that just behind the area. He stated that the only mixed-use is down 5th Ave and that's not Affordable Housing. Commissioner Coyle stated that 3rd Street and Goodlette is where this concept has worked. It's more affordable than a lot in Naples. When the City of Naples wanted to develop what they call Affordable Housing they did it through mixed-use developments, apartments, and condos with people living above commercial. Brad Schiffer stated that this goes back to the old days where all cities were mixed use and zoning codes were isolated. He agrees with Commissioner Coyle and feels Affordable Housing should be the 16 units added on. David Weeks stated two issues or concerns. If the concern is that the conversion of commercial is too high, than should not be providing max bonus, so we are suggesting lowering or taking it away. The second provision for Affordable Housing is come in to rezone to residential and if Affordable Housing is wanted then apply for a bonus and get density. May also take advantage of mixed-use provision to allow high residential density. Commissioner Coletta asked Cormac Giblin what the need was for Affordable Housing. Cormac Giblin stated that the total combined need is 25,000. Commissioner Coletta then asked out of25,000, how much each year. 11 May 17, 2004 Must do at least 500 units per year. Commissioner Coletta then asked ifhe sees this as an increasing ability to provide Affordable Housing or decreasing. Cormac Giblin stated that anytime more regulation or restricted rules are in operation, it's going to make it harder for prospective people to find places. Commissioner Coletta stated his concern with the direction they are taking. We are trying to restrict Affordable Housing more and more. David Weeks stated that he disagreed. Right now conversion of commercial bonus is a bonus provision with no link to Affordable Housing. He stated that can reduce the density bonus or take it away, and by taking it away is one option to increase density. The menus are then more limited. He stated that the discussion is based on whether to reduce or eliminate commercial bonus provisions. Commissioner Coyle stated that based on figures requested from staff is to provide, close to 3,000 Affordable Housing units approved for construction over the next 2 years, which includes Buck's Run. People are coming to them and requesting for approval of Affordable Housing. Mr. Schiffer stated that based on the incentive that the Smart Growth Committee has to allow 16 units for commercial is wise to remove conversion of 16 units. What we are encouraging is multi-use. Mr. Budd proposed whether it was wise to remove the bonus of conversion from commercial to residential because of staff statistics up to 4,686 units that have been converted. He stated that 465, about 3.5 %, have been converted form commercial to residential. David Weeks stated the need to get some direction and consensus on each density is either to eliminate or reduce. Commissioner Coyle stated it was difficult to give consensus on each density bonus because what they're really looking for is a combination of density bonuses that provides results. It would be helpful if staff were to be able to tell them how they can best achieve mixed-use development with Affordable Housing. David Weeks stated that the only bonus provision here that has really anything to do with mixed-use development is the Activity Center bonus. If outside oftraffic congestion area, then eligible for 16 units per acre. None of the other bonus provisions are linked to mixed-use. They are strictly residential bonuses. Commissioner Coyle asked, "What is our goal in providing these bonuses and do we really want to just increase density ofresidential units or want to encourage a certain type 12 May 17,2004 of development?" He stated that this challenge divides into two areas. If we want mixed- use with Affordable Housing, "What is the best combination of density bonuses that will get us there and the other decision is - do they want to encourage higher residential densities? He then asked, "How do we encourage it in areas where it is most beneficial and what combination of density bonuses will get us there?" David Weeks stated that with each density bonus there is a different rationale for wanting them there. If the desire is to promote mixed-use with Affordable Housing, best way to do it is to provide fewer options for density bonus. If provided the higher densities with mixed-use development the likelihood of being affordable is more likely; relatively affordable or affordable per our definition. He stated that this plan is not good at promoting mixed-use development. To encourage it need to look at eliminating some of the density bonuses and being careful. Commissioner Halas stated that 6 units per acre in a mixed-use environment is needed and if the area is Affordable Housing make it 8 units per acre with a total of 14 units. Commissioner Coyle talked about the need for Affordable Housing. He stated that this leaves out a big segment of people who can't afford it and the cost of mixed-use development housing is dependent upon the size of housing. Might want to consider providing variable bonuses, additional bonuses or something that is really affordable housing. Provide a mix in a mixed use development which would benefit a wider range of people. Talked about bonuses, having about 6 bonuses to talk about, issue with big box, might be a good time bringing in a new bonus, address density with sq. footage, establish a maximum size in retail facility and only with a bonus can it get larger if it meets a specific criteria. 1-75 a Wal-Mart and Target, nice to have someone regulating those. Commissioner Halas said this was a great idea. SPEAKERS Carol Woolsey _ President of Olde Cypress Homeowners Advisory Council- Around intersection area 1-75 and Immokalee would support some kind of restriction for size of big box development, not opposed to development of Target, etc but feels that the road system cannot support this. Commissioner Coyle stated that nothing could happen unless roads are adequate and procedures do not permit them to be approved. Carol stated that the indication of the concurrency plan in place is not working and that current concurrency guidelines are what developers are following. 13 May 17,2004 Commissioner Coyle talked about the situation with Wal-Mart. The, procedure that existed in a plan for several years, that permits a company to prepay impact fees, and in return, get a guarantee of concurrency. He stated that they are operating under this and not the current concurrency plan and he does not want people mislead. He stated that this plan is far more restricted than other plans and that the issue of concurrency is a very serious one. As far he knows there has to been a final determination on traffic impact. He stated that he hears remarks quite frequently but when it's measured, the initial reactions are not correct. He does not want to erode the current concurrency system. Susan Murray, Director of Department of Zoning Development and Review, stated her concern with Wal-Mart. It is talked about possibly looking at some limits for Big Box, maybe even a special district that could apply to any super retail. She also responded to something that Mr. Coyle said. We understand that the Walmart situation is vested at informational meetings about Super Target. She stated that it has not been voted on yet. Asked transportation people with best recommendation on trips per day. Comments on concurrency plan is they believe an even more stringent concurrency plan is needed because of issues in place and in favor of a Target, but just need to have things in place to accommodate it, including the road system. Commissioner Coyle stated that the best way to deal with this is to see the BCC's decision and that there is a process, it goes before the board and BCC to make a judgment about policy before it has been brought before the approval agencies. He stated that every time one comes before this board, the question the board asks is, "Can the infrastructure support this development?" He feels the need to follow the process about what is or is not working. Commissioner Halas commented that what concerns the citizens. He stated that as the process for approving Super Target succeeds, they will look at what is out there and how that will work with the new concurrency management system. Commissioner Fiala asked the commissioner if they have any guidance for staff on density rating system. Brad Schiffer stated the need to get rid of conversion and use the incentive of the Smart Growth Plan with mixed use. Mark Strain felt that a maximum square footage should be created and should create a commercial density bonus if they want to go beyond that. Russell Budd wanted to reiterate what Mr. Coyle stated with beginning with the end in mind; to look at the overall goal. He stated that he is not comfortable with getting rid of commercial density because the math doesn't work. He agrees philosophically with Mr. Schiffer that the overall goal and then start manipulating the system. He stated that if we poke in one spot that's not going to do it. It has to been done in concert and need to keep that goal in mind. 14 May 17,2004 David Weeks suggested that he go through briefly each ofthe density bonuses and their uses. 1. Mixed-use Activity Center - commercial development and also residential mixed use on site. Captures some trips on site so residents do not have to go onto roads for commercial needs as well as commercial for employment purposes, true center of activity example would be downtown sth avenue area. 2. Conversion of Commercial provision - incentive to get persons who have property in commercial zoning in an isolated location. Zoning on ground did not conform to location criteria on future land use plan, rezone from commercial to residential. Maximum of 16 units per acre. 3. Density Ban Provision - 1 mile radius around MU activity centers, intense development with AC, as well as having high residential up to16 units per acre, allow a transition with 16 units per acre and/or commercial development to a density of 7 units per acre with 3 units per acre bonus being in the density ban. Provides transition in density, would want high density close to that (in proximity). 4. Residential Infill Bonus - to promote development of rather small parcels of land and promote development of infill. Limit properties to no more than 10 acres is size, now modified to 20 acres in size. Bonus of 3 units per acre. S. Affordable Housing Density Bonus - promote affordable housing, allows up 8 units per acre depending on the specifics of the density bonus program 6. Roadway access- if project has access to 2 or more arterial and collector roads eligible for a 1 unit per acre bonus. The rationale is that there is access to a couple of major roadways, benefit to community, 2 different ways to disperse traffic and appropriate for a bonus. Traffic congestion area. Mr. Murray stated RA 2 arterial and 2 collectors, wondered ifthere are incentives by making 1 Y2 units for collector roads and Y2 units for arterials. Would promote interconnectivity and strongly give a bonus where they will keep traffic in a compacted area before sending out into arterial. Over time, it may affect interconnectivity. Commissioner Halas stated that he thinks it's a great idea, getting farther away from Activity Centers, when it impacts more and more traffic on roads when giving density bonus of 7 units per acre. Mr. Adelstein felt that commercial to residential of 16 units is too large a number. Mr. Richardson feels they should get rid of conversion of commercial to residential because they are trying to promote mixed use. He feels that the category should be taken away, without arguing about the numbers. He feels the rest ofthe density bonuses are appropriate. He asked, "In concept, do we agree with these density bonus plus's and minuses?" The only one he sees that has to come out is conversion of commercial. Commissioner Coyle stated that he would like to support Mr. Richardson's concept, talking a lot about need for commercial areas near centers of population growth to 15 May 17, 2004 minimize the trips from homes to shop or to work. If continually encouraging commercial to residential creating more density and people on roads and doing nothing to satisfy the needs for people to shop and work. Thinks it's a good idea to either minimize or eliminate the incentive to convert and somehow transfer it into mixed use. He stated the idea ofrestricting the concept only to PUD's. He stated that something that might be larger than a strip mall might provide opportunity for plan to mixed use. This would allow smaller strip malls to convert to residential and have a density bonus for doing so, but still provide incentives for a larger mixed-use development to take place. Commissioner Fiala asked if they want to change or leave the activity centers. Commissioner Henning liked Mr. Strain's idea; detailed with big box, consider that along with the location criteria, think it an solve lots of problems. Commercial component from 1 mile for intersection. Base maximum Sq footage for retail commercial facility and to go beyond maximum there is a series of criteria to be met, leave big box with strict criteria. Commissioner Fiala agreed that this is the direction we want to go with Activity center bonuses. Jim Mudd asked David Weeks if someone had commercial in an Activity Center they'd want commercial. He questioned whether someone in that Activity Center can switch to commercial and get 16 unit's density bonus, seemed counterproductive. Mark Strain stated the need to establish base and let staff come back with criteria and what could go beyond. Commissioner Fiala recommended giving staff a base to make jugdements, audible goal. Commissioner Coyle stated that he didn't know what the objective was and the board still has to come back to it. He stated that to encourage mixed-use with Affordable Housing they need to understand what combination of incentives are necessary to do so. He stated he can't vote on this independently. David Weeks stated that this has the potential to result in mixed-use development within an Activity Center allowing highest residential density. He stated that this has not been very successful so far. He would rather see mixed-use density bonus including conversion to commercial, include AH and AC bonuses. Forget about individual density bonus, our goal is to promote mixed-use development and mixed-use category and bonuses reduction, eliminate small strip malls and convert to residential lets' retain the conversion bonus for that, i[made these density bonus relates 16 May 17, 2004 specifically to one of our goals. It would be easier to administer and take advantage of all things together into a concept and then design bonuses to accomplish each goal. David Weeks stated that the existing density rating system is not focused toward Mixed- Use development. He stated that if this is the objective, to create a density bonus system directly to promoting Mixed-Use development that can eliminate because bonuses have absolutely nothing to do with mixed-use except for Activity Center. He stated that one of the changes adopted last year was to mixed-use activity centers that provides for 16 units per acre or mixed use development. If in the Activity Center and they want to do mixed-use development, then get 16 units per acre, or if a developer wants to walk into door and wants residential, density will not be 16 units per acre if eliminating this density bonus. He stated that the only way to get the density bonus in activity center is for mixed-use development. Commissioner Fiala stated she was seeing some thumbs up for approval. David Weeks recapped their recommendation. Eliminate conversion of commercial bonus, density ban, residential infill, and roadway access, but don't want to delete Affordable Housing bonus, which is a freestanding bonus that has nothing to do with mixed-use development. Commissioner Coyle stated that any type of development can pick from this bonus and does it have something to do with mixed-use or is it just not included in the mixed-use category. David Weeks stated that they are suggesting conversion of commercial only be applicable for non PUD commercial zoning He recapped again; only density bonus retaining is conversion of commercial, applicable to non-commercial PUD zoning, retaining Affordable Housing bonus, and mixed-use activity center already has provision. Commissioner Coyle stated that if they do that, then that gives them control over non- conforming strip malls because they are trying to come in through a PUD revision and they have control over PUD provisions. David Weeks stated to Commissioners one reduction provision, CHHA cap at 4 units per acre, subject to a 1 unit per acre reduction, which means 3 units per acre unless Density Bonus allows otherwise, traffic congested area reduction itself. He asked if the Commissioners wanted to correct staff to eliminate that density reduction. He did not see a consensus. Mr. Murray stated that David Weeks indicated that the TCA failed and that their concurrency program will be effective in taking care of the problem, if in fact, can understand the reduction being eliminated. 17 "',"_.~.^'-- May 17,2004 David Weeks stated that it means ifthe traffic congested area larger than CHHA, then reducing the size of urban area is subject to a density reduction. Property use to be in TC but not in CHHA, use to start at 4 and drop down to 3, now eligible for 4. David Weeks asked Commissioner Fiala a question back to CHHA. He stated that they are now down to only 2 density bonuses. He asked ifthe board would like to see bonus applicable within CHHA. Mr. Murray stated that it is more important to help people in both instances, although intense in some areas, reduce the number of people in CHHA, and protect as many people you can. It's okay if they need to increase intensity somewhere. David Weeks stated the consensus is both the conversion of commercial and Affordable Housing bonuses apply in CHHA but subject to 4 units per acre cap, but eligible for 1 unit per acre bonus. LUNCH BREAK-12:05 pm RECONVENED - 1 :05 p.m. Jim Mudd, County Manager, spoke about the last 2 sentences Mr. Weeks mentioned before lunch. Mr. Weeks talked about 2 scenarios, one for residential, 4 units minus 1 brings it to 3 units, then another scenario about Commercial that would rezone into Residential. Could May 17, 2004 have awarded them up to a 16 unit bonus, if Commercial, and if they wanted to rezone to Residential, it would be 4 minus 1 for CHHA totaling 3 units. When talking about density bonus for Activity Center, wanted to get rid of bonus in its entirety, 2nd Unit is if non PUD commercial outside of AC wanted to keep commercial density bonus up to 16 units, and then he stated Commissioner Schiffer's comment that they would have to come through the zoning process through the Planning Commission and BCC, and lastly Affordable Housing density bonus for all, wants Affordable Housing bonus and commercial bonus to be in for CHHA. He thinks it's a misstatement; want Affordable Housing density bonus to be in CHHA, but didn't believe they want commercial conversion to come in. Mark Strain wanted to make sure in summary addressing strictly residential but doesn't delete fact about looking at big box issue. David Weeks stated the only two density bonuses that still apply are Affordable Housing which applies anywhere but in CHHA, with only 1 unit per acre bonus with a cap of 4. The other density bonus is conversion of commercial for non PUD commercial zoning, which will still give 16 units per acre but not applicable to CHHA. 18 May 17, 2004 Mark Strain stated that the only issue is Mr. Adelstein's concern with reducing from 16 units to some other level of bonus. He stated that this is the only gray area left. Mr. Richardson also stated that the only issue left is to agree with 16 unit conversion in non-CHHA or ifit should be a different number. Commissioner Fiala asked commissioners what their thoughts were about leaving at 16 units or reducing to 12 or any other number. Consensus: All commissioners agree 12 units if strictly residential and 16 units if mixed use. David Weeks recapped and stated that the board wanted the conversion of commercial that does not involve mixed-use with a bonus to be 12 units per acre not 16. He then said that with mixed-use development, get 16 units per acre. He asked why someone would come to the board with mixed-use development when already zoned commercial Mark Strain stated that Mr. Weeks had a good point because the objective is to get rid of strict zoning and how are we getting rid of it if we keep saying we are allowing to go there as mixed use. Commissioner Fiala asked the board how they wanted to say this so they would give clear direction to staff. Consensus: reduce to 12 units with public hearing process (comment made by Joe Schmitt), and mixed-use provisions already addressed. Brad Schiffer commented staff work on standards for mixed-use development. Commissioner Fiala agreed with Mr. Schiffer and stated that this absolutely needs to be done. All commissioners in agreement with the density bonus of 12 units with public hearing process and mixed use provisions. Item # 5 - Affordable Housing Glenn Heath, Comprehensive Planning, addressed issues that staff has been having including what is affordable housing and what constitutes affordable housing? He stated that there are a certain number of units built per year. He stated that there is an issue whether the number should be higher or lower than the current number right now at SOO. He also asked about whether to encourage rental units or owner occupied units and what, if any, additional incentives do we need to encourage Affordable Housing. Cormac Giblin provided a copy of the Future Land Use map for Commissioners to reference. He recapped where they have been. He stated that Affordable Housing 19 ----...-",...'...-... May 17, 2004 density bonuses are allowed only in urban areas, further limiting them outside of CHHA. The direction staff is taking is to suggest Affordable Housing density bonus program as currently written does not say, type of units or location of units. The study suggests that there is an equal demand on rental and owner occupied. By reducing the amount of land in Collier County puts in a box of where can be located. He stated what hopes to happen be take off artificial barriers to developing, as long as within box (shown on visualizer) as long as they propose to build in this area entitled to Affordable Housing density bonus. Most land in County is too valuable. Affordable Housing is probably a low priority and by taking government of where and how to regulate is the end objective. Commissioner Coyle commented that he is not convinced that this is a correct interpretation. He stated that Affordable Housing density bonus is restricted to the urban area. He then asked how you define urban area. Cormac Giblin stated that it is the area in yellow plus Immokalee, 1 mile east of 951 on the map shown. Commissioner Coyle stated that the action taken earlier to restrict Affordable Housing bonus to area outside of CHHA leaves a vast amount of space near us 41 and west of 951 for the major part ofthe County all the way up to Lee County. Cormac Giblin stated that the GG Estates are the only other major urban areas in coastal Collier County with a density of 1 unit for 2 Y4 acres. He stated that most of the lots in Golden Gate Estates are larger than 5 acres and can have no more than 1 house per lot, with possibly a guest house but there are restrictions. He stated that Affordable Housing in the Estates is difficult because lots are too big. Glenn Heath stated this goes back to the planning of the Estates. The developer going back after people that bought lots and illegally subdivided them. He stated that that's why the original developer has been replaced by a succession of other people. Have been unable to do anything with them and this would give opportunity. Commissioner Henning stated that zoning by right is a novel idea, only if owner occupied. This leaves a value to the community as far as rental, which there is a need for within the rural fringe including villages and hamlets. He stated he wants to consider a density bonus of 1 unit per acre for Affordable Housing. Commissioner Coletta stated some good points were made, but need to be careful when reaching out and trying to reach people, and not dilute value. He stated they might be able to work something out with the developer, possibly donate a large sum of money. Mr. Adelstein, major problem is building a lot of apartments. They pay the bank or County to get into this, now they have ownership and that changes the picture, 80% or more of the Affordable Housing is renting, not homes to live in 20 May 17,2004 Commissioner Fiala stated what upsets her most about rental units is they get all density bonuses and millions of dollars to build them and then charge them an affordable rate of $1,049 per 3-bedroom unit. This is what they call affordable, and the government throws money at them to build this. She stated it's no wonder people have to double and triple up. They get paid the modest of wages and are charged the highest affordable housing rates for rental. She feels that something should be addressed here as well. Mr. Adelstein stated they are not getting anything in terms of residential homes that people could buy into besides Habitat for Humanity. He stated that he feels a need or an incentive to allow these builders to build homes to live in and own. Commissioner Coletta stated that Habitat for Humanity does a wonderful job, but not sure of mechanism to put in place. He stated that affordable housing is extremely difficult to convince because ofthe CHHA. He thinks ofthe people out there and how they are going to react and is concerned with the outpour. Mr. Murray questioned that of the homes on odd lots. He stated that this could represent a first home to someone who is just getting into it. He stated that due to the enormous number of dollars and low risk that it seems reasonable and should be able to construct some means of controlling. He feels that the Habitat for Humanity is a trick that allows them to flip a property that prevents a would-be seller from offering up property and making a profit for themselves. Mr. Adelstein stated that he felt this idea was great, and too many people are smart enough to figure their way around it. Commissioner Coyle stated that he takes a slightly different take. He stated that he thinks they would get a lot further ifthey didn't view Affordable Housing as a competition of one geographic area over another. H stated that a reason for excluding a density bonus in CHHA is quite different from Affordable Housing. He stated that a small piece of property subject to various setbacks is likely to be less expensive housing than ifbuilt on a larger lot. This can then result in somebody being able to afford to live there who couldn't before. He stated whether it's Affordable Housing or not, it's whether someone works in the community and can afford a home. He stated whether there is anything wrong with letting them build on this property. He stated that he doesn't think there is anything wrong. He thinks this will serve a need, and that everything is relative. Some people who would like to live in that area can buy a home, have the value appreciate, make a profit, and can then afford a bigger, better home for their family. He stated that by keeping everything in inventory, people are not getting a fair return on buying an affordable housing home. Mr. Schiffer stated that the only reason thought to keep in inventory is because obliged to live to a goal. He stated that he agrees with Commissioner Coyle in some way because locked into a number, but doesn't object to wanting to retain inventory. 21 May 17, 2004 Cormac Giblin stated that the reasoning and arguments are behind the density ban and residential activity center bonuses, based on fact that density would be greater. He stated that he was thinking that the value could be less, but found it doesn't work. He stated that the issues at hand are the odd shaped lots and the other is Affordable Housing density bonuses and how they would be included. Mr. Schiffer stated that he wanted to support what was said but also stated that it would be sad if the Affordable Housing program kept people in poverty. Mr. Adelstein stated that the lots with no value now would make Affordable Housing building very easy. He thinks it's a necessity to do this. Commissioner Fiala stated the need to get back on track and find out what is needed from the Board. Glenn Heath stated the need to get back on track for the ability to evaluate the issue. He still needs to have a discussion with DCA on this aspect of Affordable Housing and other aspects in trying to interpret of what is wanted to look at through the evaluation and appraisal report. He stated that he would like to get a consensus and asked if it was okay for staff to evaluate in doing this issue. He stated whether we are looking at economics, demographics, and price and see ifthis can conceivably work, or is it so bad that we need to bury it. He stated that there are two issues. One is non-conforming lots in the Estates and whether this area should be used for affordable housing only. The 2nd issue is whether any lot, anywhere in the urban area of Collier County should allow Affordable Housing by right rather than requiring a restrictive permit. He asked the Commissioners about their approval for the 15t issue regarding non- conforming lots in strictly Golden Gate Estates. He asked for direction to put together a plan to resubmit for approval to the Board. Consensus: Nods of approval from commissioners to move forward with 1st issue. Cormac Giblin stated that the 2nd issue is to explore a system of Affordable Housing land use densities by right in urban area excluding the coastal fringe, subject to owner occupied. If so desired, can build Affordable Housing without a public hearing. Commissioner Coyle stated that he sees a big difference of a single family home on a non-conforming lot and high density. Affordable Housing project on a 1/2 acre or acre lot. He thinks they need to be dealt with separately and differently; an obligation to compatibility and screening for residents thinks it would be wrong to permit that to go around public hearing process. 22 May 17, 2004 Public Speaker Mr. Doug Fee, 921 Carrick Road, made a comment Affordable Housing in that he agreed with Commissioner Coletta about making sure that Affordable Housing in the County is equitable. He felt that was a very good goal to have. He stated that one of the biggest incentives is the use of PUD, which can be used in any district and any area of county. Mr. Fee had a copy of a PUD called Cocohatchee Bay, which is located in North Naples area, where Mr. Fee lived. This developer is approved for 590 units and 90 of the units are west of 41 that were reserved for workforce housing. In any rezone you have the ability as Commissioners of approving and negotiating in getting some workforce housing in the area for approval. It's not just the Affordable Housing bonus; it's the actual development and flexibility in a PUD that would allow this. Commissioner Coletta stated that he is having difficulty with the motion that the rights to build Affordable Housing on any particular lot in urban Collier County without having a public hearing. He likes the idea with the right to build but feels the need to have the right to have a public hearing. Mr. Murray stated that it is reasonable to be concerned for the neighbors and that they have an obligation to part ofthe building for an entire community. He feels they can produce a lot of issues and agrees with the public hearing process. Commissioner Halas talked about the non-conforming lots in the Estates. Right is allowed but the Density needs a hearing. Can review site plans, but can't deny the right to build or get turned down and if cramming and doing 12 units per care, it won't get through. All they can discuss at a hearing is the site plan lay-out, can't be discussing the use, can say they don't want it in their backyard because density is too great and too close, but up to the Board to review each case, not on the use but the design. Commissioner Halas _ make sure in the Estates, when looking at an acre of land, strictly an infill, only one home for a public forum, so residents on either side will be compatible to the adjacent parcels and shouldn't be clustered to the point they have an apartment building. He thought that should be the direction to staff. Commissioner Coyle - how important to have public hearings on these things, when playing around with peoples property values and homes. It is essential to perform our responsibilities and review them, maintaining some kind of control over the process. Cormac Giblin _ Density Bonus rating system shown, if propose to develop Affordable Housing on residentially owned area in urban area, entitled to Density bonuses by right, including no need for public hearing. This is what staff is proposing. Chart significantly different from the existing chart, existing chart concept is the same. Try to create inclusive communities by not segregating 100% affordable communities. The developer could take 10, 20, or 30 percent of development and designate it as Affordable Housing and get densities by right, if wanted to turn to other use, still need to 23 May 17,2004 go to residentially zoned land. If decision is to build affordably, will have 7 units by ri gh t. Commissioner Fiala gave direction to staff to write up a proposal for both ways of looking at it and come back in July. Cormac Giblin stated that the direction is to look at non-conforming, non-buildable lots in Golden Gate Estates with a complete proposal and direction to look Affordable Housing density by right with necessary control. It was stated that July is the time ofthe adoption hearing. If they don't like it, they won't have enough time to change. June is time of transmittal hearing. Due to the timing schedule, we would have to come back in a workshop format again. We can't get in a full hearing. Marjorie Student stated that these are not the EAR amendment that we will be doing. It's the EAR report. The amendments are supposed to implement the report but the amendments themselves will come some time later. There is not a transmittal or adoption for them. We just send the report to the DCA. The report is typically broader then the amendments. **A 10 MINUTE BREAK TAKEN Jim Mudd called the meeting back to order. David Weeks, Comprehensive Planning Staff, stated already covered Item 6A- Density Bans. He stated that the Commission had already given staff direction/action to eliminate certain density bonuses, as well Item 6C - Mixed Use Intent versus the results. He stated that this was pretty much covered since they have eliminated density bonus that is allowed. This leaves provision that if there is an activity center and develop mixed-use, can have 16 units per acre in mixed-use property or simply eligible for the 3 or 4 units per acre. Mr. Murray posed questions about interconnectivity as well as citizen's right to utilize parks. He stated that he was under the impression that the parks will not open to interconnectivity and that the North Regional Park being constructed was a recently approved PUD. He questioned whether that would be open and was told no. He expressed that he believed strongly that interconnectivity is a critical factor and the government has a responsibility to participate in this. He stated that the Parks and Recreational people need to protect and control property but believes it is essential that citizens have the ability to ride their bikes, etc rather than go on the highway or some path to get into the parks, leading to minimizing traffic. Item 6D Super retail centers - consensus of the 2 boards was to look into establishing a building square footage, size threshold and the only way to exceed the threshold was to develop a 24 May 17, 2004 big box which would have to apply for a bonus provision, whether it is Affordable Housing or some other provision to allow for a big box. Susan Murray discussed the potential of creating a separate zoning district for the big box type of retail and how it still requires some form of zoning act. She stated that some ofthe information was from the supplemental packet, the information for Activity Center, with exception 4 out of 19, 15 other are 70% or greater zoned commercial which means there is limited opportunities to make changes, in regulations that would have any real impact on mixed-use activity centers. She pointed out the interchange Activity Center at Pine Ridge, Immokalee, Collier Blvd and Davis Blvd. Stated these are a little different but percentages are especially high at Immokalee at 89%, and that the opportunity to make changes is not really there. Davis and 951 roughly SO%. Stated that all cap at SO% and no more than 50% of acres can be rezoned commercial. The cap is already in place that will help result in some type of mixed-use development and specific to the issue of the big box. This is somewhat of a limitation on big box development. Pine Ridge Activity Center - 62% zoned commercial. Much ofthis does not allow for big box development. This only allowed for commercial uses to serve the traveling public. As was mentioned at the last workshop, staff would recommend that for the interchange activity centers, limit new commercial zoning only to uses that serve the traveling public and for uses dependent upon the transportation network. What it would take away is general commercial uses, including shopping centers and the big box retail for new zoning. This would take away the opportunity to have community shopping centers. It was suggested that it's more appropriate to be located away from the Interstate due to traffic. Interconnection - one of the difficulties in Collier County development, specific to Activity Centers is the need to have willingness of both property owners for interconnection work. Need more interconnections. Not sure how they are going to resolve it other than the desire to have a policy to implement it n a case-by-case basis when rezone comes before the Commission. Take the developer to task, in asking what they are going to do and if they are going to provide an interconnection. Direction- endorses the general policy that wants to continue to promote interconnection. Other direction to make change to interchange AC limit to uses serving the traveling public and transportation network. Susan Murray, Director of Zoning Department, also discussed the possibility of looking in the area ofthe County that may result in future activity centers, such as Golden Gate Estates and other areas of Golden Gate. She stated the concern about making requirements or having a plan where they have circular or interconnection between properties that would be linked to an activity center. She stated that there was 25 May 17,2004 some discussion amongst staff and Commissioner Fiala about requiring first person in activity center to set standard in terms of providing a loop road or access. She stated that this was some additional information to consider All commissioners nodded for approval. SPEAKERS Nicole Ryan thanked the commissioners and staff for taking comments a little out of order. Nicole referred to the CCME under section 1.5.F - page 1 when talking about assessing CCME, objective 1 by August 1, 1994 the County will complete the development and implementation of comprehensive environmental management conservation program which is to ensure the natural resources, including species of special status. She stated that the Conservancy believes it has not been done sufficiently because of glitch 7.1.2 subsection 3. It's already being addressed through current GMP process and maybe good to make note of it. Page 5 of Section F, Policy 1.3.4 - talks about technical advisory committee that is to look at NERPA's, thinks it's great idea, and is this a committee that does meet annually and are we looking at future NERPA's and areas for potential NERPA's Bill Lorenz, Environmental Services Director, the Environmental Advisory Council is environmental board for implementing the environmental policy listed here; they have particular authority to review these things. Objective 2.1 on page 5 January 2000 the County shall prepare water shed management plans that will address appropriate mechanisms that will protect counties estuarine and wetland resources. The section does admit that deadline has not been met. Goes in to say the Collier County Storm Water Management Dept. is working on the development of these plans. Watershed management goes far beyond storm water management. Environmental Dept. needs to be involved in b/c of what is required for watershed mgmt. plans for the Cocohatchee Basin and Wiggins Pass. Something County should be looking into. Item on page 6 Policy 2.2.3 - requires chemical spraying for aquatic weed control should be conducted with extreme caution. Perhaps need to add follow up mechanism. Lake Trafford fish kill caught her eye. Page 8 and 9, Objective 2.5 - county will continue with its implementation of its estuarine management program by requiring development to meet its current standards of storm water management and the protection of sea grass beds, dunes, and strands and wetland habitats. States that the County is following this objective and should be retained but since the County defers urban wetland policies to South Florida Water Management 26 May 17, 2004 District, conservancy doesn't believe the objective has been actually up to standards. Concern is how they can protect wetlands if they don't have any say over them. Dwight Richardson stated that maybe environmental researchers should be looking into or in conjunction with, possibly overlapping and taking more control. Commissioner Coletta- Big Cypress Basin, has own staff and public process to go through. If had to duplicate, cost would be tremendous. Commissioner Fiala asked if Bill Lorenz had any comments to make. Bill Lorenz stated that the board had seen this policy discussion through rural fringe amendments when the Board adopted the countywide amendments. It's truly what Nicole indicated that the Board decided that within an urban area, they would rely on South Florida Water Management District permitting jurisdiction and we did adopt some varying standards for rural fringe area. Commissioner Coyle stated that it would be helpful if he had some concrete examples of the reliance of SW Florida or other agencies. What went wrong and how can they resolve and improve in the future. He recommended to either change the process or suggested Southwest Florida management district or Big Cypress Water Basin implement procedures to take care of certain procedures. Nicole Ryan stated that when the policy went through in June 2002, the County would rely solely on the water management district for urban wetlands. Prior to that the County had a say in what happened to urban wetlands. Nicole also stated that when she initially heard the policy went through, felt she did not realize what kind of acreage they were talking about. It was stated that rather than having staff duplicating efforts, maybe on certain items and categories when there is a red flag, they could have staff do research on it as well. Commissioner Coyle asked if it was a concern about having input during the process to County Commission during the time something is being considered or is there a specific concern about damage being done by this particular process. Thinks it hampers along with whole list of species issue, same kind of battle, hampers staff if can't take a look at a project in its entirety, the wetland acreage impacted being one ofthose factors. The way it is currently written now and deferred to water management district is offlimits for staffto say that they have concerns. They may get district permit but staff may have additional concerns. Commissioner Coyle stated that he would be delighted to listen to the recommendations of staff. He stated that they may not always disagree but would allow their input and didn't realize we were inhibiting staff from providing input. If that is the case, he wanted to encourage speaking of what's wrong with process. His concern was whether the 27 May 17, 2004 Board would have to balance the conclusions met by SW Florida Management and staff, and ifthey differ, will we have to resolve it. He would have no problem doing so. Commissioner Fiala stated that she saw some nods of agreement and asked the Board if they wanted to work this into this amendment. Commissioner Halas asked ifthere was a concern with the Big Cypress Basin. Nicole Ryan stated that it was not necessarily a concern with Big Cypress Basin or Water Management District. She stated that when staff is reviewing a new PUD she believes it hampers the wetlands and what can be done with them is deferred to the district. If staff is going to be looking at the development in entirety then staff needs to be able to look at all aspects of the development including the impacts on the wetlands. She hopes that staff would look at it and give a quick overview and if in compliance with South Florida Water Management and Big Cypress Basin, she hopes that they would also add it into the executive report how all Commissioners felt. Dwight Richardson stated the analysis that everyone receives is in the executive summary and typically says that it is taken care ofthrough another agency, so it's basically offlimits for their comments. Mr. Richardson stated that he thinks Commissioner Coyle is right on. If can at least broaden the subject of their analysis to include whatever expertise can bring to bear is just additional information to bring to the process. Bill Lorenz stated that currently what are applied are vegetation requirements and a limited review of a particular project. He stated, for instance, do not go out and verify the jurisdictional determination of the wetlands system because that's what the agency does and do not evaluate the functionality of each of the wetlands systems, also do not evaluate if propose off site mitigation at a particular ratio. This negotiation is what the agencies do. If areas that are wanted for the staff to review regarding a proj ect, then staff would have to question what to evaluate and evaluate to state rules. He also stated they would either be disagreeing or agreeing with their own interpretation of the rules unless they wanted to adopt a specific set of standards to apply for Collier County. Commissioner Coletta stated that he personally can't justify another layer of staff going in there and reviewing this thing all over again when expertise belongs to South Florida Management which doesn't mean the Board can't make their own suggestion on elements on top of it. Commissioner Henning - Expansion, talking about another review process, process is broken at review district, maybe can make suggestions to the district about process, more employees, and more offices, and just gets bigger, let us know what's wrong at the agencies and maybe can assist you. 28 ._._"""--_..~ May 17,2004 Nicole Ryan stated that the Mirasol project was brought up. She stated one ofthe problems, with additional scientific information coming to light since County approval, is the way that the County regulations are. The conservancy disagrees with the water management and still doesn't know if they're going to issue permit or not. Districts issuance of their permit, they still don't know if they are going to issue or not. Don't know if the County would be able to weigh in the wetlands issue because it is deferred to the district. In this case she disagrees with the district. She stated that the point was to the fact that the objective says that the County is going to implement estuary management programs and protect the wetlands habitat. The County and the urban area aren't doing that because they are deferring. Nicole stated that she really wants to implement the policy but not sure what staffs load was prior to June of 2002 with new wetland policies coming into place and doesn't know how much time and resources it took staff to review these wetland issues. Commissioner Coyle addressed Bill Lorenz and asked if he were to infer from the last question, that Mr. Lorenz doesn't believe that we currently have sufficient staff to make jurisdictional interpretations or to interpret state law, as well as the agencies that are responsible for it. He asked ifthis was a correct statement. Bill Lorenz stated that he was correct. He stated there are a lot more standards adopted as a result of the governor's final order and that we would not have enough staff in place to do that new level of effort for each project. Commissioner Coyle stated that it is inefficient to duplicate and ifthere are things that appear to be broken or the water management district or Big Cypress Basin is interpreting something incorrectly, then he would like to know from Mr. Lorenz, other concerned citizens, and/or staff regarding this. He then stated that as a Board they can make a decision as to whether or not they would make recommendations to solve these issues. Commissioner Fiala stated there were nods of approval for this matter. Next item _ question for clarification on page 13, Policy 4.2.2 recommends that the County negotiate agreement with the golf courses to accept and use treated waste water equate from irrigation when and where, same as available for existing and future waste water treatment plants. Collier County recommends that this policy be revised due to the County's public utility and energy departments' limited capacity to provide waste water to all golf courses in the County. Nicole asked if it was because capacity of water isn't there or infrastructure and they shouldn't be expanding or incentivizing to do so. Jim Mudd stated they have more land that needs irrigation then have sewer product to put on it. Right now 26 contracts are out there, some golf courses and some residential areas. There is a waiting list for 128 more customers for reclaimed water and if we had it we would get it to them. One of problems with this is that we have 2 seasons, wet and dry. During the wet season we still have a product but because there is a natural source of irrigation, they have extra product that no one wants because then they have to pay for it. Because of this, with aquifer storage recoveries, they have a way to sort during wet 29 ~--,-_..__.,.._"...".,-- May 17, 2004 season so that during the dry season they have more customers use it. This could take care of all irrigation needs in Collier County. Commissioner Coyle stated this policy change they are talking about is temporary in nature because really moving long term to provide for sufficient needs, not permanent change only temporary Commissioner Strain stated if they had some kind of incentive for development or people need effluents to install main lines for distribution see that the lines get installed in affluent and get distributed more readily. He suggests putting out some sort of prioritization list. Jim Mudd stated that he asked staff to take a look at the next 5 on the list and if ready to go then need to install distribution line, and those that say they don't want to, then need to move to bottom oflist. An example would be with Fiddler's Creek. He stated there is no incentive for development to make that connection outside of its cheap water. Nicole Ryan made her next comment regarding page 21 that talks about listed species protection. She stated that this is being worked on as part of the glitch cycle because important clarification. She also stated that under Policy 7.1.2 there was a need for revision of the last sentence. Nicole's next comment on page 29, Policy 10.1.7 - regarding marinas and destruction to wetlands with public use, should be discouraging activities that destroy marine wetlands whether it's for public use or not. City of Naples has fairly good policies about protecting the wetlands. She commented that perhaps the language of destroying marine wetlands- if it's for a public benefit it's a concern. Glenn Heath, Comprehensive Planning, stated that the intent of policy is not to encourage destruction of wetlands by marina, but if they do propose to destroy wetlands, they need to show that they are providing a public benefit, otherwise not going to destroy the wetlands. He also stated that they may need to work on some of the wording ofthe policy but the intention was not to encourage the destruction of wetlands. Nicole stated that it does say if it's for a public benefit its better. She really feels the need to avoid marine wetlands destruction. Nicole stated that she was not comfortable with the wording. Commissioner Coletta thinks that the public element needs to be in there. He stated that destruction is a terrible word to have in there and that maybe wording such as "degrade to any large degree," "impact" or "modify" would be more suitable. Nicole's final comment was along lines of process. She stated that with growth plan amendments or land development code amendments there is always a transmittal through the DCA, then the DCA makes comments and then it goes through the adoption process. 30 May 17,2004 She talked to staff and knows that a transmittal in their case would be a courtesy, and is not required but is a part of the flow chart that DCA has on their website for the EAR report for the EAR process. Thinks its something that can be very beneficial to the County. Nicole commented what Mr. Strain brought up earlier with concerns about Affordable Housing, and stated that unless another workshop is planned, the next time this issue would be addressed would be the last before it's sent to DCA. The courtesy transmittal not only allows the public to be involved but it allows you to see what DCA's concern might be before getting a letter of insufficiency. She stated that this is what really wants to be avoided. She stated that she would like to see a courtesy transmittal take place. Mark Strain commented that the more chances to review the better. The Board was all in agreement with the matters at hand. Item # 7 - Immokalee Area Master Plan Jim Mudd asked for recommendation from the Board for a courtesy transmittal of EAR to DCA and to get comments back for a public hearing - was this doable? Joe Schmitt scheduled for adoption at BCC July meeting, recalls the date to be July 2i\ and if transmittal is done will probably not be hearing anything back from the DCA for at least 90 days. The EAR report will not see the adoption for this until late fall. Commissioner Strain stated that he called the DCA to ask a specific question asking whether the delay of EAR simply meant we could not adopt any other amendments to GMP until EAR is submitted its' final form. They are frozen until they get final EAR report and there's nothing that can be done with any GMP amendments. They do have the glitch amendments coming, plus 6 other private portions for GMP amendments. Once identified in the EAR report and set out to develop EAR based amendments will have process of EAR based amendments. David Weeks stated that the other item to be adopted was the annual change to capital improvement settlement, which also would be delayed if they decided to send it up to DCA for a courtesy review. The concern is the impact to potentially delay the ability to adopt some amendments both now and once the EAR is adopted. Until found sufficient, will preclude from adopting any other amendments Glenn Heath, Comprehensive Planning, once submit EAR report after adoption, there is a period of time DCA takes to review, issue what is called a sufficiency finding. They have to find the reports sufficient in order for them to begin the process of producing EAR based amendments. If submit a report and not found sufficient and have to go back and redo EAR, according to DCA's direction, then during that period of time cannot adopt any amendments. Then later we have up to 18months to produce and adopt EAR based amendments. Once they submit the amendments then frozen again towards 31 May 17, 2004 adopting other amendments, 2 potential period times where could be frozen from adopting amendments. David Weeks stated the he does want to discount the benefit oftransmitting up to DCA for the courtesy review; as factual matter their courtesy comments are not binding. Once they adopt EAR, because the comments are not binding, they can still take issue with what adopted and find it insufficient. Staffs opinion is when they transmit up to DCA for EAR, they are likely going to be found insufficient because that is the norm and this is not just for Collier County. Part of staff s perspective is to assume they are going to be found insufficient. Been there before and likely to be there again David Weeks wanted to bring them up-to-date on the status of the Immokalee area Master Plan update process and have draft set of recommendations. Showed map on visualizer ofthe Immokalee urban area. 1. Major issue is that the committee would like us to propose to expand the Immokalee urban area, at the time felt and still feel do not have enough information to warrant either expand or contract. Would like to have the ability to study that further. Have proposed that to the committee and feels this should be part of the EAR based amendment process 2. Other issue is the future use of the Immokalee airport property. Staffs recommendation is basically to leave this area alone, can't get an agreement on this. Intent of FAA that County operated primarily as an airport. Over time the County has explored having an industrial park on a portion ofthe property. Either being associated with the airport directly or not, the airport authorities making drag strip a permanent use. Also a campground that works with the drag strip and how they can give incentives for the industrial park so there is more interest in it. Mr. Adelstein mentioned that he read something prior to the workshop about the idea that the lmmokalee Industrial does not have allowable use yet as well as the airport. Joe Schmitt thinks the airport issue can be worked out, and stated there is still an issue with drag strip and campground and that they were looking at a PUD for campground and drag strip. He stated that the master plan committee wants to expand to Hendry County. Commissioner Halas stated that this is probably something they can address tomorrow morning if going to be an airport or drag strip Glenn Heath stated that conceptual permitting means that the applicant or petitioner will present a conceptual design that subject to change and the agency doing permitting would agree or disagree in general to the petitioner going forward with a particular type of project, neither side absolutely commits to a final permit. 32 May 17,2004 Brad Schiffer was wondering ifthey could add something to preserve 1-75 corridor and the vegetation around it, putting walls around these developments, set some sort of setbacks. Glenn Heath stated that staff would be agreeable on this but appears from analysis that 1- 75 may already be gone, but staff understands the concern. Commissioner Coyle stated that we have to keep in mind that the landscape buffer consists of Melaluca trees and in order to get same sound buffering by preserving vegetation, will mean probably taking a couple hundred yards of very thick vegetation. He stated that in those cases based on properties essentially moving functionality. He stated that this was a difficult issue to deal with and without understanding the impact upon the functionality of the land would be reluctant to go forward with that kind of restriction. Commissioner Henning stated that he thinks it is a noble idea if they had a clean sheet of paper. As the State expands 1-75 and they have noise criteria and abate at neighboring property they should try to buffer walls through landscape to break it up. Mr. Richardson thanked BCC for inviting them to the workshop, supposed to be planning designated agency for Collier County but never seem to do much planning, this seems to be an opportunity overdue and hope to see it in future sessions Mr. Murray thanked BCC and staff and all hard work gone through to produce the documents and information within and most productive day, when first started in awe, great job done and happy to be a part of it Mr. Adelstein feels the same. He couldn't believe how much was accomplished and stated that is was a pleasure and hopes to do it again. Mr. Abernathy agrees with all of what was said. Mark Strain _ did meet with staff as recommended and had lots of questions, still have 2 dozen questions, but will put in written format and send to each member and will be detailed. Can then decide if should move into staff or not or how to recommend any decision. Commissioner Fiala stated that she was interested in Mr. Strain's concerns and asked him to review with the board. Some of the concerns included the following: · Advertising requirements · Concurrency elements for hurricane shelters · Call out for school in CHHA 33 -~~.~----"-" .'. .__._~--_._,-- May 17,2004 · Straight away acquisitions and consistency · Hurricane evacuations routes · Transit systems with concurrency · Wastewater management plan · Limited water supply resources · EAR policy review (periodic) · Solid waste issues · AH units - net or gross · Isle of Capri Rd. · Rookery Bay - research analysis · Transportation - overpasses Mark Strain stated that these were the bulk of them. Glenn Heath was instructed to offer and submit comments in writing take care that they were answered by the appropriate people and distribute answers to everyone. Mark Strain thanked everyone as well for everything. Commissioner Henning commended Mr. Strain for putting comments together and keeping everyone in the loop. Commissioner Halas _ great that everyone gathered today and feels they had a very productive session thanked everyone for taking time out oftheir schedule to be here for the workshop. Commissioner Coletta _ thanked everyone originally scheduled a half day meeting and all carne forward that wanted a full day meeting, needed it. Public Sueaker Nancy Payton carne down to the workshop because she wanted to know the decision on the courtesy transmittal and wanted to confirm that it was nixed. The Board confirmed to Mrs. Payton that the courtesy transmittal was nixed. Also wanted to comment on was Mirasol and the discussion about it not being the correct information. PUD primarily outside of urban boundary filed prior to June 22 1999, so not covered by final order or the subsequent amendments that were a result ofthe final order. Mirasol was ruled by previous growth management plan, which there was a suggestion that we go back to. Joe Schmitt stated that staff is moving forward with the EAR report and final EAR based amendments. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:28 PM. 34 May 17, 2004 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER & PLANNING COMMISSION EAR WORKSHOP Chairmtß--n~ala . 'fl, ~~ ,:',-; i .. . I "" "jt";¿ . ;,.., """"¡!j~~ ·¡i~ ~,J.::'i... ~..... ....... 9. ~ ø.,¡:.;:" "~" ATTEST,:,'." .. . ,,""" c.~ ", DWIç;:;Wf" ~ BR.oOK~·""~$RK ~ ~':': ~~ I. . _~.' ': ~ ~ ~:~~':'!!Jf"~!:- ·C'~ ."....,.) These minute~'a~~~~~~d by the Board on .:run~ ZZ/ 200'1 , as presented / as corrected or 35