Loading...
BCC Minutes 02/08/2006 S (LDC Amendments) February 8, 2006 SPECIAL LDC MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, February 8, 2006 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board( s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 5:05 p.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Frank Halas Fred Coyle Jim Coletta Donna Fiala Tom Henning ALSO PRESENT: Joe Schmitt, Community Dev. & Env. Services Susan Murray, Zoning & Land Dev. Review Catherine Fabacher, Zoning & Land Dev. Review Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 ----. -- COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ~ Board of County Commissioners/Land Development Code AGENDA February 8, 2006 5:05 p.m. Frank Halas, Chairman, District 2 Jim Coletta, Vice-Chairman, District 5 Tom Henning, Commissioner, District 3 Donna Fiala, Commissioner, District 1 Fred W. Coyle, Commissioner, District 4 NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2004-05, AS AMENDED REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS." ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE Page 1 February 8, 2006 _.,__.._m ~.+--~.__. ~"~n._ TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMP AIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. THE BOARD TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 04-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE REGULA nONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. 3. ADJOURN INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383. Page 2 February 8, 2006 -....-....- ------ February 8, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. This is the second hearing of the LDC amendment request for 2005 cycle II to be scheduled today at February 8th, 2006 at 5:05. Would you all rise for the pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: County Attorney, has this been properly listed or published? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes, sir. For the record, Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney. I've reviewed the notice for tonight's LDC hearing and find that it's been properly advertised. Item #2 ORDINANCE NO: 2006-07: ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 04-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA- ADOPTED WI CHANGES; MOTION TAKEN TO DENY 10.03.05 - APPROVED CHAIRMAN HALAS: Now, we're having two sessions. We're going to have the second session and then we're going to go into the first session in the second half; is that correct? MS. F ABACHER: Yes, sir, if that's your preference. Can I correct one thing? Catherine Fabacher for the record, LDC Coordinator. This is our second meeting in the public hearing process. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Right. MS. FABACHER: And what we had planned to do, if this meets with your approval, is to go ahead and answer any questions. Staff is Page 2 ---..-- ----- February 8, 2006 here for some questions you had from the amendments we looked at on the 11 tho We will look at that and then answer your questions and vote on that, and then go on to the second section for the first hearing of the amendments we did not hear. And then the second hearing for those amendments will be February 28th at your regular meeting. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good. Yes, County Attorney? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Thank you. And I'd just like to put on the record that it requires a super majority vote to pass these amendments. And we also need to with that make a finding of consistency with the growth management plan. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, with that, if you'd lead off, I think we should get through the first group probably in short order. MS. FABACHER: Okay. And I'm just going to, like we did last time, if it's okay with you, read through them. And I'll note where you had questions. If not, just stop me or I'll just keep going, okay? Okay, we have -- first item on page i is Section 1.04.04, reduction of required site design requirements. Your comment had been that you wanted to retain the right to subdivide properties if properties are reduced to below an acreage side by the taking, which stops split due to regulation on that. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any questions? (No response.) MS. FABACHER: We have one public speaker. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MS. F ABACHER: Mr. Ken Fritz. MR. FRITZ: Thank you for getting me on first. Good evening, lady and gentlemen. My name is Ken Fritz. I'm an owner in and an officer of the board of directors of the Cypress Woods Golf and Country Club. It's my understanding -- well, I know for a fact that one of the Page 3 -.----- --- February 8, 2006 other officers of our board spoke at a meeting in September and informed you of our plight. I will just remind you, about 30 days prior to the takeover of our board from the developer, they sold a substantial portion of our preserve area to FDOT for use in the 1-75 expansion project. They're going to use that for a retention pond. And frankly, there is no other land available to us if we were required under the current structure, and we don't know what we would do. It's also our understanding that the amendment before you is going to relieve us of any mitigation responsibilities. So on behalf of the 787 owners in Cypress Woods, we respectfully request your approval of the aforementioned amendment. While I have your ear, I would just like to first of all thank the Board of County Commissioners. I assume you're the ones that created the department that has been so helpful. But Mr. Schmitt, sitting over there, and in particular Maryann Devanas has been of a measurable help to us. And what you're doing with regard to helping homeowner associations in advance of the turnover process is certainly a very welcome and almost necessary thing for all of the new developments that's going on. And I just want to say thanks again for what you're doing. And Mr. Schmitt, you got a real dandy in that Maryann Devanas. She has been extremely helpful to our board during the entire process. Do you have any questions of me? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have one. When FDOT compensated you for the taking of your property was there any discussion between the state and the homeowners association on compensation? MR. FRITZ: They didn't compensate us, they compensated the developer. Page 4 .---.- -~-- February 8, 2006 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, let me go back to my question then. Do you have any knowledge when the state compensated the developer? MR. FRITZ: Yes, we do. We subsequently, with help from Maryann and Joe's department and Mr. Stan Chrzanowski, we were given some information, but they would -- we formed -- at Maryann's suggestion we formed an ad hoc committee -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me just get to my question. And the question is, the compensation amount, did it compensate for recreation of the preserves? MR. FRITZ: We have no idea what the compensation was for. We understand that it was fair market value of the land, plus the engineering costs. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The only concern I have with this is typically under right-of-way taking, example: For our roads in Golden Gate Estates you have the option to retain, you know, if it was a two-and-a-half-acre parcel and they had to take a half an acre, you could had the ability to retain all your building rights previous. Or if you did not, you weren't compensated for that. So I just want to know if government is being over generous in the compensation of it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: This is federal government. Isn't this federal? MR. SCHMITT: Well, this -- for the record, Joe Schmitt, Community Development, Environmental Services Division Administrator. This is beyond really the issue here with Cypress Woods. This is also dealing with how we -- when we deal with acquiring lands. And this is to prevent kind of a double dipping come back at us, meaning the county, for payments for future changes that may be required in order to comply with the code. Page 5 -~-_... - February 8, 2006 So this -- and I would -- I don't know, I have -- Nick's not here, or anybody -- Susan can talk probably on the details on this. But this also just so happens to fall in a -- well, provide us the tools we need to deal with the Cypress Woods issue. Now, as I know and understand, yes, the issue is the property owner received payment. What that payment was for, we don't know. That's certainly an issue that's going to be dealt with through the civil courts between the property owner association and the developer. But we can't -- I can't get into that battle. All this does is, the state came in to acquire this land -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you understand my -- MR. SCHMITT: Yes, I understand exactly what you mean. Because it involves -- it could be involving what you said, where they got money for something and now they're not going to have to do it. But Susan, if you could clarify from the county's perspective. MS. MURRAY: Susan Murray, zoning director. I can't speak from the state's perspective, but my understanding is, from what I've been told, they only compensate for the property that they take. They don't compensate for any -- making the property whole again. And I'm going to use that statement in context of these local regulations that we're proposing. When we go in and take property for right-of-way expansion, the property owners are coming back at the county, trying to get the county to pay to make their property whole again. So if they take half of a landscape buffer, then it's expected that the county is to re-create the landscape buffer at their cost to make it compliant with the code. And what this does, it says if as a result of a taking the remainder is acceptable -- in other words, if we take half your landscape buffer, it can stay as half a landscape buffer until the time that the property comes in later and redevelops the site, then they would have to comply. Page 6 ---- ----- February 8, 2006 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's stay on the discussion for argument on the landscape buffer. Because we're there, and I think you probably answered my question. We're paying them for the land underneath the landscape buffer. Do we pay them for the landscaping on the buffer? Do we compensate? MS. MURRAY: The way it's structured now, the code is structured now, we are subject to the property owner coming after us or requesting that we pay for -- to recreate the entire landscape buffer. So if that involves shrubs and trees being removed, then we would have to kind of recreate the buffer in a way to make it comply. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you're saying we're not paying for that and this is a -- this code is a provision so we don't have to pay for so much for taking of the property. MS. MURRAY: Correct. That's the end result of this code. What -- essentially what it does is it allows as a result of a taking certain site conditions to remain as they are, meaning they are not required to come up to code standards at that point in time. However, later when the property is redeveloped, then they would have to -- MR. SCHMITT: I know where you're -- I know where you're coming from. And yes, we do -- my understanding, I'm probably going to look to Jeff Klatzkow, because I don't see anybody else from transportation, and Jeff once did represent them, he might be able to help me. But yes, we do compensate them for the landscaping. What this prevents is compensating them for the landscaping, but also having to compensate them to bring the property back into conformity, and then they never bring it into conformity until it's redeveloped. This says, okay we're going to compensate you for the lost landscaping, we're going to compensate you for the land, but we're not going to compensate you to bring this back into code again, because we're going to consider this a legally nonconforming lot until such Page 7 ----~~. -- February 8, 2006 time as it's developed. So it prevents double dipping and triple dipping, so to speak. Is that -- does that help you there? COMMISSIONER HENNING: That does. It makes me feel much comfortable (sic) with the changes that we're doing. The last question, I apologize -- the -- let's say that I bought a nonconforming lot in Golden Gate Estates that was five acres originally, but because of right-of-way taking, now it's four acres. Is this provision giving that right back to that property to split it into two legal conforming lots? MS. MURRA Y: Yes. That was the question that Commissioner Fiala issued -- that Commissioner Fiala raised at the last meeting was the right to split a lot would not be taken away as a result of exactly what you described, Commissioner. So that was added under 2-A on Page 2, towards the last -- towards the end of the paragraph, beginning with "further". And it basically allows the property owner to retain that right, if it was otherwise conforming. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's nonconforming today, we're going to make it conforming. MR. SCHMITT: If you have a five-acre lot, it would be conforming. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, it was a five-acre to begin with and now it's a four-acre. MR. SCHMITT: Because the right-of-way is taken. You still retain the right to split, based on the language that is written. You do not lose that right. MS. MURRAY: As a result ofa take. MR. SCHMITT: Otherwise-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: From this day forward? MS. MURRAY: From the effective date of this ordinance. MR. SCHMITT: Otherwise, what was happening is the property owner would ask to be compensated for that loss as well. And this is Page 8 ---- -.".- February 8, 2006 recognizing that there is no future loss. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And it wouldn't apply to lands that was taken 10 years ago then. MS. MURRA Y: Correct. The effective date is from the effective date of this -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: From this date forward. MS. MURRAY: Correct, yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, you raised some good questions. You were very protective over these people and I think that's wonderful. It raised a question in my mind. I just have confusion. So the state comes in and takes part of their land and pays the developer and these people don't get it. They pay the developer because he's taken the land, right? But then at some point in time if they want to use that land, then it has to be brought up to landscaping code, right? Do the people who didn't get any of the money for it then have to bring it up to code? MR. SCHMITT: This ordinance protects basically Cypress Woods -- the land that is being acquired by the state is for a retention/detention pond for the widening of75. It happens to be preserve area. Cypress Woods has no other preserve area even to make up the loss if they were to -- if we made them make up the loss, they basically would impact the golf course -- MR. FRITZ: Yes. MR. SCHMITT: -- or some other area. MR. FRITZ: That's correct. MR. SCHMITT: They would have to find -- this basically protects them until such time as somebody comes in and rezones all of Cypress Woods -- Page 9 --- _.~- February 8, 2006 MS. MURRAY: Let's say they redevelop their golf course. So then at that time their plan would have to include that makeup of preserve. MR. SCHMITT: Correct. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I see. So then they would have to pay for it themselves -- MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- even though they didn't get the money for it originally. MR. SCHMITT: This protects them now that because of something they did not create, there was some mandate from government saying we need this land, I don't have to now force them to bring the PUD back into compliance. This basically grandfathers the PUD and says you're in compliance until such time as whenever you come in and redevelop. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And you guys are okay with that? MR. FRITZ: Oh, absolutely. MS. MURRAY: What we're finding, a lot of -- I know if Nick were here he'd probably tell you that as a result of some of the right-of-way acquisitions, a lot of folks are coming in with older sites and they're what I would call double dipping. They are asking for compensation from the county to bring their site up to code as a result of the taking and then turning around and flipping the property to a developer and not even, you know, utilizing it. That's their right, but county taxpayers are paying for that. And this is intended to hopefully reduce the costs of right-of-way acquisition. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. MR. FRITZ: I should mention to you, Commissioners, that Maryann is arranging an appointment with one of your assistant county attorneys with me. My understanding is that they're doing some investigation to find out if FDOT should have talked to the Page 10 ~---_.- ---- February 8, 2006 county. And some of the -- some of the monies that were paid to the developer may be due the county. Our main concern is, as Mr. Schmitt has said, we have no land left to do anything. We just don't want the county coming back to us saying hey, you've got to buy property and make it a preserve area. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think that we've pretty much clarified that. MR. FRITZ: That's all you need from me? Thank you very much. MS. FABACHER: Okay. CHAIRMAN HALAS: You want to continue on? MS. F ABACHER: Sure. The next item on the same, summary sheet i, is going to be the addition of language to the parking, taking parking calculations out of the calculation of floor area ratio. You had no comments on that. I'm turning to Page ii -- no, I'm going to Page iii and it's returning sporting and recreational camps' definition that was lost in recodification to the permitted use table. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any questions on those? MS. F ABACHER: Any questions? (No response.) MS. F ABACHER: Thank you. I'm turning the page, I'm on summary sheet iv. Same situation, for definitions, we're returning the definitions of the four types of restaurants that were omitted during recodification. Any questions on that? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Questions? (No response.) MS. FABACHER: Okay, the next one is returning the definitions for sign types to the code that was lost during recodification. Any questions on that? Page 11 .--- .-.- February 8, 2006 (No response.) MS. FABACHER: Okay, turning to Page 5, or v, this is the Conservation Collier lands, defining them as essential services and allowing them to have the minimum of access facilities to these lands as a permitted use, but made -- more aggressive improvements require, you know, a conditional use. Last time we discussed it, there was some discussion with issues associated with creating public restrooms, public spaces with restrooms, but we didn't receive any direction from the board in that, and -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, those will come back to the board. So where it's appropriate, then I'm sure the board will approve it. MS. F ABACHER: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. MS. F ABACHER: Any questions? (No response.) MS. F ABACHER: Okay, the next page, Page 6, vi, was a clarification, Section 2.01 on the parking. It's just a renumbering of the section for residential parking requirements. The next item is the Goodland zoning overlay, and this was taking clam nurseries and taking it from a conditional use and moving it to a permitted use. We have highlighted it because I don't -- just for safety sake, since we gave -- it was left out of the last packet. We don't really want to vote on it until the 28th. Same deal with, you know, the next item, which is the Golden Gate -- remember, if you'll recall you got an earlier version and not the latest in your packet. The packet you have now has the very latest final version. CHAIRMAN HALAS: So when it comes time for voting, then we'll make sure that in the motion that this is not included in it, Page 12 -'--' February 8, 2006 correct? MS. FABACHER: Exactly. And I just -- if you have any more questions about it, staffs here to address it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any questions? (No response.) MS. F ABACHER: All right, I'm going to go to the next item then on summary sheet seven -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: The Golden Gate one? We need to discuss the Golden Gate one. I thought we were going to discuss the ones that we did not -- MR. SCHMITT: We can discuss that today, Commissioner, but because we had the wrong one in your packet, we will include that in the ordinance on the 28th. But we certainly can discuss that today, just to address that issue. MS. FABACHER: Michelle had given you kind of the breakdown of the ordinance -- I mean the amendment -- last time. If you have anymore questions? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Which one are we on, the Goodland or are we on Golden Gate? MS. FABACHER: We're on Golden Gate now. MR. SCHMITT: Page 27 -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: No one has any questions on the Goodland? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, good. MS. MOSCA: For the record, my name is Michelle Mosca. Good evening, Commissioners. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Good evening. Page 54, item nine, it talks about crime prevention through environmental design. Page 13 ---. -- February 8, 2006 When a application comes through for site development plan, does community development have anybody on staff to review this for this kind of design standard? MS. MOSCA: Actually, the crime prevention, or CPTED principles that are listed on Page 54, item number nine, those are items that staff would be able to review for. Some of the CPTED principles are subjective in nature and not objective, so staff would not be able to review for those. And those were not included in this overlay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. What about the lighting provisions? I guess my concern under this CPTED is flooding the neighborhood with lighting, forever to be daylight in this district. MS. MOSCA: I believe we addressed that issue with the planning commission and with the community, and we reduced the lighting, I want to say, to .5 foot candles, and then a higher illumination for the parking lots only. And those lights would have to be shielded so as to protect the neighboring properties. COMMISSIONER FIALA: It doesn't say that here. MS. MOSCA: Under CPTED? It would be included under the parking standards. Let me see if! can locate that for you quickly. MS. FABACHER: Actually, Michelle, I see it on Page 60 under lighting. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sixty? MS. MOSCA: Right. And there's also, for the higher illumination underneath the parking standards. MS. FABACHER: Okay, sorry. MS. MOSCA: And that's on Page 55, under 14-G. 56, I'm sorry. It's G-56, under the parking. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Then Page 60, under item 20, 20-A and 20-B, I believe addresses the lighting and beautification. MS. MOSCA: That would be the decorative lighting adjacent to sidewalks, and the perimeter lighting. Page 14 .----..- ----.--. -- February 8, 2006 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, last question on Page 56, starting at 15. You start talking about landscaping, but then you get down to 16, landscaping continues, and it requires a landscaping code. So I'm kind of confused. We're applying the whole -- the landscaping code to the whole thing, but we have so much other language about landscaping. MS. MOSCA: Well, where the zoning ordinance doesn't specifically address items related to landscaping, then it would defer back to the Land Development Code. The item 15 under project standards, it was the community's desire to have increased landscaping standards for this particular area. And that's the difference. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Even in the front? MS. MOSCA: Well, along Golden Gate Parkway are you referring to? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MS. MOSCA: Those standards are not as rigid as the other standards, the internal to the project, as well as the perimeter buffering requirements. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, see, you want two trees above the minimum code requires (sic) for 100 linear feet in the front. In both the front and the rear facade. MS. MOSCA: And that would not be applicable to those properties along Golden Gate Parkway, because there is a requirement for right-of-way improvements which include the landscaping. So we don't want to hit them twice with the landscaping. So there's an exception to A. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Where's the exception at? MS. MOSCA: On A, if you look on the last sentence, it says except that projects with frontage along Golden Gate Parkway shall only be required to provide the planting along the rear facade. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So we want to go above Page 15 --- -- February 8, 2006 and beyond the code for parcels off the Parkway. MS. MOSCA: Well, that would be -- it would also include those properties along the Parkway, but just in the rear. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just in the rear. MS. MOSCA: Correct. And that was the desire of the community to have that increased buffering. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that actually doable? Because right now we have, what is it, trees every 20 feet on a commercial? Linear feet? Every 20 linear feet? MS. MOSCA: I'm not sure. MS. MURRAY: Susan Murray. It depends on what the two uses are that you're buffering as to the standards. It can range anywhere from one every 30 feet to one to every 20 to 25. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So if you throw two more trees in there, will the trees survive and look like trees? I guess. MS. MURRAY: Well, this says it's two above minimum code for every 100 linear feet. So that's a pretty extensive spacing criteria just for two trees. So it should -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, how I read it is if you have it every 30 feet, a tree, you have to throw two more in for every 100 feet. Is that how I'm reading it? MS. MURRAY: That's how I read it. MS. MOSCA: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you're increasing the standards. And I would imagine there's studies been done for our standards now. If you increase it, is it a good thing? Is the trees (sic) going to survive? MS. MOSCA: Let me defer to Nancy. MS. GUNLOCK: Good evening, Commissioners. For the record, I'm Nancy Gunlock, landscape architect with zoning and land development review. Page 16 ---'" --"'--'- -- February 8, 2006 And Commissioner, I can assure you that the trees will survive. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: If not, we'll continue on. MS. FABACHER: Okay. All right. Okay, the next one is on the bottom of summary sheet seven, vii. It was a scriveners error to remove single-family dwellings as a permitted use in the golf course district. Any questions? (No response.) MS. F ABACHER: You had no comments on that. On the next page, Page 8, viii, Section 4.02.03, seawall height. This was, you remember, an amendment not to artificially increase the seawall height to allow -- to decrease your setback. Commission asked us to add Goodland as an exception for the setbacks, along with the Isle of Capri, and it has been so revised to reflect your direction. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any question? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a little one. See where it says Isle of Capri? Could you add an S to Isle so it says Isles? MS. FABACHER: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's all right. MS. F ABACHER: I just learned to spell Immokalee two months ago. Okay, thank you. All right, the next -- any questions? (No response.) MS. FABACHER: Okay. The next is a clarification, minor, that retitles Section 4.02.14 so people could locate the special treatment district standards. You had no comments. Page 17 ,.--...- .---..-- -- February 8, 2006 Any comments? (No response.) MS. FABACHER: Okay, turning the page to Page 9, Section 4.03.02, clarifying property requiring subdivision approval by the BCC. You had no comments. Any questions? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any comments on this one? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: No. MS. F ABACHER: I'm going to the next one then. It's a bunch of sections: 4.03.03, 10.02.01 through 10.02.04. And this was where we modified the final site plan submittal procedures and requirements because we did away with the preliminary, the need for the preliminary . And you had one question at the -- and we -- you know, fee simple townhouses do not have to go get SDP -- do not have to be platted. They used to but now they don't. And the comment you had, you had asked us to research why the number of bedrooms is required to be listed on the plan. And Susan had answered at the time she thought it was to calculate parking, and we've since gone back to staff and that is the reason why. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Does that answer everybody's questions? Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Continue on. MS. FABACHER: Okay, great. Okay, next section is on Page 10 of the summary sheets, it's 4.05.03, specified parking requirements. This is the one designed to prevent people from parking all over their front yard. So you had no comments at the last meeting. Any questions this time? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any questions at this time? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, if! may. Page 18 ---^-' ----- February 8, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Schmitt, there is a permit available for people that are going to be working on a house to be able to park on the yard during that time that construction's taking place, the renovation? MR. SCHMITT: There's been, I know, a series of e-mails. And to answer your question, you can apply for a temporary use permit, but for parking -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Residential parking I understand is a different thing. MR. SCHMITT: There's really no permit. When this came up -- there's a problem with that microphone, actually. When this came up, we understood that the person that contacted you, Commissioner Coletta, had to do with parking of -- temporary parking for a vehicle or equipment or whatever during the construction phase, and I responded to that. But what this specifically was, is can I park in the street while the house is under construction? There really are no provisions for that. It's -- I guess that's what you're asking. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, in the yard. MR. SCHMITT: In the yard. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Or if you have equipment that has to be used, like a roofer uses special equipment that goes underneath the roof to catch shingles that come off, is there any provision for that? Or does this particular ordinance that we're talking about now, maybe it doesn't address it in any case either way. MS. MURRAY: There's no specific provision that I'm aware of, and this ordinance wasn't intended to address those circumstances. I guess it probably would be a policy decision as to whether or not to attempt to apply this ordinance from a code enforcement perspective, if an officer was out and noticed the vehicle parked in the yard while they were doing work. It seems to me common sense would dictate Page 19 - - February 8, 2006 that's a temporary situation and out of necessity. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I would think if there was a permit posted -- MR. SCHMITT: Exactly. CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- that then of course we know then that there's -- you have to park in an area. And especially if you're working on a roof and you have to take the material off the roof and put it into a dumpster or whatever else. I would think as long as you have a permit -- MR. SCHMITT: This issue came up, an individual was issued a parking citation for parking while folks were doing work in the yard. Certainly to me there are what I would deem extenuating and mitigating circumstances, that common sense would dictate that if there's a permit, certainly activity is taking place in a home, the parking citation certainly would not be justified. The problem there is the fight would cost more than to pay for the parking. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: She paid the fine. Her name was Mrs. Douglas, and it's in your district, Commissioner Halas, but she's a friend of mine, that's the reason she wrote to me. She paid the fine because it wasn't worth the trouble to try to fight it. You know, I think it was a $50 fine. MR. SCHMITT: I'm not sure of all the circumstances in that -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It dealt with construction. And she wanted to make sure at some point in time we did address this so it doesn't happen to someone else. MR. SCHMITT: I mean, if this board directs, we'll come back with clarification language to add that in the next cycle that would clearly define that -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Ifwe could, please. It's just one person out there that it's probably something that made a deficiency. And we have a code enforcement group out there that does a Page 20 --- ---- --- February 8, 2006 wonderful job that follow the rules right down the line. But we need to give them better guidance. MR. SCHMITT: We will come back in the next cycle with some guidance that clarifies that certainly under circumstances, parking in the right-of-way or elsewhere would certainly be authorized for cases where -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: And then we'll have to make sure there's not a loophole so somebody doesn't park their car for 48 hours or three days and say, well, I'm doing construction work, but it might be midnight, too. MR. SCHMITT: We'll do that. We will clarify. And I'll take that matter up with code enforcement so we can deal with the situation that happened. It was just -- I can't explain why the person didn't realize what was going on, but we will -- I will make sure code enforcement understands that common sense would certainly dictate that the person can't park in the driveway. We'll take care of that. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. MS. F ABACHER: Anymore questions on this one? (No response.) MS. FABACHER: Okay, move to the next one, and that would be Section 4.06.02, buffer requirements. This is the one that we discussed last time to allow flexibility in type B landscape buffers that have lakes between multi-family and single- family residential uses. You all had no comments. Any questions now? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any comments? MS. F ABACHER: Mike had that lovely presentation, I believe. Turning the page to 11 of the summary sheets. Once again, general landscaping requirements, to limit the use of synthetic turf for lawns. Commissioner Fiala asked that language be added to address drainage and water management issues. And Mike has done that. If Page 21 --- -_.~ February 8, 2006 you turn to Page 85 and look at the last sentence -- I'm sorry, 86, water runoff shall be contained on-site for any recreational areas containing synthetic turf. Will that do it? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, thank you. I think we've addressed that. MS. F ABACHER: The next one is another general landscaping requirement, and this was to require specific landscaping techniques and engineering standards for slopes in landscape treatments, meaning the berms that we put around usually the PUD's. You all had no comments on that. Are there questions tonight? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any questions? (No response.) MS. F ABACHER: I think Mike had another presentation on that one last time that was pretty good. Okay, I'm going to turn the page to design requirements. This is one where they are adding additional minimum size requirements for PUD and clarifying defining in-fill parcels. Let's see, you had no comments last time. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: I believe none. MS. FABACHER: Okay. All right, I'm going to turn the page. I'm on page xiii, 13, of the summary sheet, and it's Section 5.05.08, architectural and site design standards. And that was the one where we had removed the term reflective for permitted panels, metal panels for facades. And the board requested that we add clarification to say that this does not restrict the use of metal panels on roofs. And the language has been added, per your instruction, and that ought to be on 97, to exclude roofs, you Page 22 ,------ "'- February 8, 2006 know, the metal on roofs. Ninety-seven. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did that meet DSAC's concern, do you think? MS. F ABACHER: Their concern was the argument over whether or not their panels were reflective. You're restricted to 33 percent -- they meant metal panels completely. So people were saying this isn't a reflective metal panel, therefore I'm not held to the 33 percent. So it solved it, and it also helped with clarification about the roofing, because everybody seems to be going to them. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Please continue. MS. F ABACHER: All right. Let's see. All right, and then I am on Page 14 of the summary sheets. Sign standards for specific -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Don't we have -- MS. FABACHER: Did I pass something up? I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- Page 98? MS. MURRAY: Yes, Section 5.05.08. MS. FABACHER: I'm so sorry, yes. That's the one where they reduced the required width of pathways, which, you know, is the interior circulation on a project, as opposed to a sidewalk from six feet to go to five feet, to be consistent with the changes that were made to make sidewalks five feet, just to save money on concrete for the builders. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are there any concerns or questions on that? MS. F ABACHER: No comments? (No response.) MS. FABACHER: Okay, now we're going to do sign standards for specific situations. Page 23 ,^--" ~- February 8, 2006 You had no comments on it last time. I think it adds a Collier -- Conservation Collier land sign, and it gives you standards for the little planter around a ground sign. And you didn't have any comments last time. Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Continue on, please. MS. F ABACHER: All right, the next one I'm going to move to is Section 6.06.03, streetlights, replacing the lighting standards, language by referencing the Illumination Engineers Society of North America. I don't know what RP 8.00 means, but it's their current standards, current lighting industry standards. You had no comments on that. Are there any questions? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any comments on this one? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Continue, please. MS. F ABACHER: Okay, thank you. We're on Page 15 ofthe summary sheet, Section 9.04.02, and this was the addition of a variance to allow removal of some of the mangroves on Plantation Island subdivisions units one, two and three to prevent takings claims. You had no comments last time. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, the EAC's recommendation, it says bring back to next EAC -- or bring back to EAC at next meeting. Can you tell me how they commented on that? MS. F ABACHER: Susan? Susan's not here. COMMISSIONER FIALA: DSAC did, right? And CCPC did. I just wondered how -- you know, being that EAC would be involved in mangroves. MS. MURRAY: Catherine, who presented this at the EAC? MS. F ABACHER: Susan Mason. MS. MURRAY: Susan? MS. F ABACHER: I don't think Barbara or Bill remembers the Page 24 -"-- ,.~'''-,- ------ February 8, 2006 vote. MR. SCHMITT: Bill, Barbara? This was part of the settlement agreement, Margie, in regards to Plantation Island. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes, it was part of an agreement, as the Commission may remember, that we voted on. I believe it was the end of April or last May, and it was to implement the agreement that we had with the Department of Community Affairs on this to avoid any takings claim. The only thing I can think of about why the EAC may have wanted it to come back was for perhaps clarification of the area that was covered. I'm not sure, Bill, if you have that -- MR. SCHMITT: I believe the note there says full text not included at that meeting. It was brought back, but it was approved by the EAC. Bill? MR. LORENZO: Right, I don't -- for the record, Bill Lorenz, environmental services director. I don't recall coming back to the EAC. I wasn't there at that meeting. We might have to run it down from staff. MR. SCHMITT: Well, it was approved by the EAC, and as was just pointed out, went through with the rest of the committees, so there was no other problems. MR. LORENZO: And as Marjorie indicated, this was just simply reflecting the agreement that was established with the DCA. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Yes. And the board approved that in either late April or early May of2005. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other questions? (No comment.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Please continue. MS. FABACHER: Okay, I'm turning to Page 16 of your summary sheets, and it's Section 10.02.06. And this was the Page 25 --- ___ n__.~ --- February 8, 2006 amendment that kind of mirrored the GMP in that we increase the time from 10 years to 25 years before ago land could -- that received an agricultural clearing permit could be rezoned. So it does mirror the GMP. So we're kind of compelled. You did have a few questions that we have staff here to address tonight. Do you need me to read the questions from the comment sheet, or shall I just have my speaker address them? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We don't have anyone here to speak on it from the agricultural industry? MS. F ABACHER: No -- oh, from the agriculture industry? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I guess there's no objection to it. I don't think that this weighs too heavily on them. I haven't heard from anyone on this with any kind of objection to it. MS. FABACHER: I'm going to allow perhaps one of the environmental to speak. I think this is -- the reason it was put into our growth management plan was because people would buy property as an investment, clear cut it, get an agriculture permit and clear cut it, put a few cows on it, keep it that way for 10 years and then come to develop it and they have no preserve there. They really have kind of gone around the back door. So I think they saw fit to -- you saw fit to increase the GMP to 25. And so the LDC by law has to mirror that. But I do have some questions here. If you do need answers, staff has done the research. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I remember Nancy Payton coming up to say in the fringe we don't want somebody in the sending areas, as they still had that right and have that right today, to clear that land for farming and then come in 10 years. We want to prohibit that. It was my understanding it was just the fringe, but also recognize somebody can come in for a deviation of the code if it's appropriate in Page 26 ----- .--_._" ---.. --- --.-- February 8, 2006 the urban area. So I don't have a problem with it. MS. F ABACHER: All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other questions? (No response.) MS. FABACHER: Okay, turning the page now to 17 of your summary sheets, and it's 10 -- Section 10.02.13, PUD procedures. It was minimal to correct a reference citation because of something that changed in the previous cycle. You had no comments on that. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any questions? (No response.) MS. FABACHER: Okay, the next amendment is Section 10.03.05 and this was to extend the notification requirements from 1,000 feet to -- well, actually we moved it down to 1,500 feet. I think you saw Mr. Schmitt's presentation on this and I think we discussed at the last meeting the issue of overburdening applicants with excessive requirements. It would, you know, significantly increase the number of mail outs. They'd have to pay for the letters, the -- that sort of thing. CHAIRMAN HALAS: All right, any questions? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I can't support it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I need a little bit more description on exactly what we're intending to do here. I don't want it taking away from the public process. MS. FABACHER: Well, it's not taking away. We're currently in non -- in areas not designated urban on the future land use element, we are required to go out 1,000 feet from all boundaries; cast out on the property appraiser's system and pick up the names of all the property owners within that distance and send them letters of notification at the applicants expense to say that there was going to be a conditional use or some other change. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now we're looking to do away with that? Page 27 ____m_' --_.-'-,---- .--- February 8, 2006 MS. F ABACHER: No, not at all, sir. They had looked at increasing it. Because they were saying in the Estates that doesn't give you much. But when we actually took and ran five scenarios on the GIS, and at the last meeting we presented the difference in the numbers and it just got to be unwieldy, the increase. And not only that but there would no longer be neighborhood information meetings, there would be mob rallies. I mean, it was just an unmanageable number of people in-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I take it because of the area we're trying to expand it to. You're talking about taking it from 1,000 feet, which it was, we expanded out, and the expanded distance was going to be something like what, a half a mile? MS. F ABACHER: Another 500 feet. Half again as much, to 1,500 feet. Well, it started out as a mile. And then we got the research back and realized that wasn't -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So now this particular-- MS. FABACHER: Now goes to 1,500 feet. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: To 1,500 feet rather than a mile. MS. F ABACHER: Right. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And originally it was 1,000 feet? MS. FABACHER: It is 1,000 feet currently. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It is 1,000 feet now. So we're increasing it another 500 feet. MS. F ABACHER: Well, we talked about it, and we -- the discussion was not in favor of that at the last meeting, but yes, that's what the amendment proposes. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Joe had -- MR. SCHMITT: Commissioners-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Maybe I misunderstood -- MR. SCHMITT: I'm sorry, go ahead. Page 28 ~--_.,- .----.-- -- February 8, 2006 COMMISSIONER HENNING: I understood that we were decreasing it because it was unwieldy. My apologies. I can support it, because it's reasonable. MR. SCHMITT: This was at board request or direction to look at increasing the scope of notification in the Estates area. Basically it's 1,000 feet, we were asked to expand it to 1,500 feet. We looked at it, for a conditional-- let's say a property owner for a conditional use. The notification just became unwieldy as far as -- but pretty much proven that 1,000 feet certainly met the requirements. So this is -- there's no reduction, it's to leave it at 1,000 feet. The LDC language was written to move it from 1,000 feet to 1,500 feet. And what -- basically as it went through the recommendations, the DSAC and the planning commission felt that the 1,000 feet was adequate. And that's basically what's in front of you today, that each are recommending to leave it as written, rather than increase it to 1,500 feet. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I remember when you made the presentation. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN HALAS: You basically showed with the GIS map exactly how much more cumbersome it was going to be. That's -- I think that's why we ended up saying that continue at where we're at right now. But Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, where we're at is 1,000 feet. Your request is to go to 1,500 feet. And I think that we all agreed that was reasonable. Because the example was -- MR. SCHMITT: I think you did. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, the example was a variance. If somebody had a side yard setback variance, they would have to notice people, a lot of people. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. Page 29 -- February 8, 2006 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. Ifwe increased it from 1,000 to 1,500 -- I have the numbers, I apologize, I don't have that information with me tonight. But it did increase it significantly with regards to the notification, far beyond anybody that even would have any visual or other impact. And again, this is only -- it's the public notification process. I'm fine with leaving it -- if you want to increase it to 1,500, this was something you had asked staff. And I cannot recall why you directed staff to increase it, but in looking at increasing it another, say, 50 percent, actually going from 1,000 to 1,500, it does significantly increase the span of requirement for notification, probably far beyond, like I said, anybody really having any impact or -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: -- comment. So your advisory councils all recommended to leave it at the current 1,000. If you choose, we'll make it 1,500. I mean, it's-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll follow Commissioner Fiala's light. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I just wanted to know, where it says that DSAC and CCPC recommends denial, did they recommend denial of the one mile or the 1,500 feet? MS. FABACHER: They had looked at the 1,500. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Not the one mile. MS. F ABACHER: Right. When we started producing the data from GIS, we realized it was an impossible mission. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I see. Because it just refers to the one mile in the summary here. MS. F ABACHER: Yes, ma'am, that's how it started out. But then it got revised as it went through the boards, and then it finally -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: In fact, it says the new range is Page 30 .,,--_. --~-._.-- ---~- February 8, 2006 excessive. Keep notification range at 1,000 feet. Recommend denial. I think that was based on the 1,500. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If! may, I can tell you what's happening here. You have a street that's going one mile long in Golden Gate Estates. The lots are 660 feet deep. So even at 1,000 feet, the people on the next street on both sides would be getting notices of a small variance that would be taking place. I can understand what they're saying. Even at that, you're going to have a tremendous number of people that are going to be receiving this about a street that's one removed from them for a small variance, maybe a setback in the yard. Probably totally confused by it. I can understand about not increasing that. But here's my concern, and this would be a concern I'm sure of the Golden Gate Estates Civic, is the commercial that would be part of the whole thing, where you have something coming in on a corner that's going to definitely impact quite an area. A thousand square feet there does get the immediate neighborhood. I'm not going to push the envelope on this too hard, because I don't want to impair the ability of my residents out there to be able to make minor changes to their homes, to be able to make it work and all of a sudden they give up, throw up their hands and walk away. But the commercial aspect of it -- but then again, too, the commercial aspect, we do notice it with a big sign out front -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: I was just going to say, you have a sign -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: You have to notice the -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm fine with it. I don't want to delay any more time on that. MR. SCHMITT: Can I just make a comment then? If it involves commercial, do you want to just -- Page 31 .",--- .__._---~- ..,,- February 8, 2006 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, leave it where it is. Because even 1,000 feet goes way past anything that's realistic. I mean, it's going to be hitting many, many streets, side streets. People are going to be getting notices that have absolutely little or no interest to it. I'll tell you what does the trick, it's going to be the four-by-eight sign that we have them put out front noticing them of the meeting that's coming up. That will bring out anyone that's interested in it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think that should do it. MR. SCHMITT: Another measure I'm also doing, in addition to the 1,000 feet, we've been actively capturing presidents of homeowners associations and other community groups. They in addition will get a letter as well. So that even if they're outside the 1,000 feet -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're right, we got it covered, we got it covered well. MR. SCHMITT: We're trying to get the folks who are involved, whether it's a homeowners association or other activity out there, we're notifying them -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Anything more than that, we're just going to make the printers and the post office rich. CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's what we're trying to eliminate. MS. F ABACHER: Anymore questions? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are there anymore questions? I believe we covered it. (No response.) MS. F ABACHER: Great. Then I'm going to turn the page, and we're again in Section 10.03.05. And this is a situation where I explained that we had changed a letter, 21 days from receipt of a sufficient. And I had explained that staff asked this request, because if it's a 21-day letter, sometimes it goes out with the wrong information. If we make it a 15-day letter, it tracks the publication date of the Page 32 ------ ,.--.-.--- -- February 8, 2006 required advertising. And essentially that's when they have to decide if they have everything or if they're going to go forward. So sometimes letters go out early and the thing gets pulled, the case, and people still have this letter saying they're to come, and no. And it's not -- the information's incorrect. So what staff has asked is if we time the letter along with the public advertising. And our advertising staff member says that it usually goes out more like 18 days. It's a 15-day letter, but it will usually go about within 18 days, so -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Everybody comfortable with that? (No response.) MS. F ABACHER: You had no comments last time. Okay. And then the last amendment in this section on this page is the addition of an amendment requiring us to notify applicants by certified mail of a petition -- of a conditional use petition closure. You know, sometimes they lapse if you don't turn in what's needed or you miss certain milestones. And we're not really required to -- we send them a letter, but we just want to get a little better assurance that they got it. You had no comments on that one. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: I believe that's-- MS. F ABACHER: Now, if it's all right, if it's your preference, I could just read through the numbers and we could just go ahead and vote on these. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay? Take one at a time. MS. FABACHER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MS. FABACHER: Okay, I'm again on page i, the first page of the summary sheet. Section 1.04.04 -- MS. MURRAY: Catherine? Page 33 -- -.--<.-- ^--- February 8, 2006 MS. FABACHER: I'm sorry. MS. MURRAY: Marjorie, could we just vote on these collectively and -- MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Yes. MS. MURRA Y: I know -- I'm assuming you probably don't want to approve the increase in notification, based on what you've said, and then we were going to exclude the two, the first time reviewed. But maybe they could just collectively vote on the rest. Because you did read the numbers in and they are part of the record. MS. FABACHER: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: Catherine, just read the ones we're excluding and the one that they're going to vote and recommend denial, so we could at least have that on the record. MS. FABACHER: Okay, great. We are excluding in tonight's voting Section 2.03.07J, the Goodland zoning overlay with the clam nurseries. We are going to exclude Section 2.03.07, the Golden Gate Parkway downtown commercial overlay. And then the last amendment that -- the one that they are not going to approve is going to be Section 10.03.05. That's on xvii, Page 15. And this is -- they are going to vote to deny extending the notification range in areas not designated urban from 1,000 to 1,500 feet. It will be the one that they'll vote to deny. CHAIRMAN HALAS: So do you want a separate motion for that one, or can we just put them all together? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I think that what you can do is vote on them collectively and state that you're excluding 2.03.07J relating to Goodland and 2.03.07 relating to the Golden Gate -- was it Parkway? MS. F ABACHER: Golden Gate downtown commercial district. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: That it excludes that and vote on that. And I think to be crystal clear as to what we're doing, then vote Page 34 -- ..-----....- --- February 8, 2006 to deny 10.03.05 on the notification requirements. So it would be two motions. And you need four votes to approve. And on the denial it would take three. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Only denial you've got is 10.03.05. CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's correct. I'd entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I make a motion to approve all of the Land Development Code amendments for Cycle 2, excluding Section 2.03.07J, and Section 2.03.07, 2.04.03, 2.05.01, and 4.02.37. And also excluding Section 10.03.05. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: 10.03.05 I don't believe is an exclusion, I believe that's going to be a denial, which will be a separate motion. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But we can't approve it. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Okay, I understand what you're saymg. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do I hear a second? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. All those in -- any questions? Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those in favor, signify by saying-- oh, I'm sorry? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes, and I just want to make the point that I'm assuming that motion includes the finding consistency with the growth management plan. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yes, I meant to say that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: My second includes it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, we have a motion and a second for the adoption of the LDC amendments here. Any further discussion? Page 35 --"-" -~._-- February 8, 2006 (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: If not, I'll call the question. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those opposed, by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Passes unanimous. Now, I need a motion for denial of 10.03.05. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So moved. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, motion's been made and a second. And any further discussion in regard to 10.03.05 on the denial? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: If not, I'll call the question. All those in favor of denying that, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. All those in favor of passing it? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Unanimous. Okay. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you, excellent. CHAIRMAN HALAS: You want to take a break, five-minute break? Okay, why don't we take a 10-minute break and then we'll start on the next section. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Do you think it might be Page 36 -------- ,.,-_.- _._-- February 8, 2006 possible if when we start we could hear from the people in the audience first, they'll give us guidance? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure. We'll do that when we get back. Okay, so we'll be back at 6: 17. (Recess.) Item #2 (Continued) ADDITIONAL LDC AMENDMENTS: 1sT PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING 10.8.02: DEFINITIONS FOR GAP HOUSING (P. 124 AND 124A) AND 2.06.03: AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS RATING SYSTEM AND OTHER AMENDMENTS NOT COVERED DURING THE JANUARY 11 BCC-LDC MEETING- CONTINUED TO 2ND PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD ON FEBRUARY 28, 2006 DURING THE BCC-REGULAR MEETING CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your seats, we're reconvening from recess, and going to start with the first reading of the next set of LDC amendments. And if staff would take over from here, I'd greatly appreciate it. MS. F ABACHER: All right, thank you. Okay, the first amendment. We are beyond your pink tab now. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are we going to take the affordable housing? MS. F ABACHER: Yes, first. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, very good. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that the one Bruce wants to speak on? MS. F ABACHER: First -- we're reading -- this is going to affect Section 1.08.02 definitions for gap housing. And also, it's some changes to Section 2.06.03, the affordable housing density bonus rating system. Page 37 "--..-- _.--.~-~.- ---- February 8, 2006 And Cormac Giblin is going to give you a rundown on this amendment. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Cormac, about how long will this take? I was wondering if we should call the speakers first. MR. GIBLIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That says yes. MR. GIBLIN: Commissioners, my presentation is basically what you have before you. So if you'd like to hear speakers first. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Why don't we take the speakers first. And you obviously have them listed in order that they signed up for. And we'll limit this to four minutes in this item. MS. FABACHER: Okay, first speaker is going to be Bruce Anderson. MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Chairman, before Bruce speaks, we need to clarify -- I need to make sure Cormac clarifies, you have Page 124 and 124-A. And I would ask if Cormac could at least clarify that so you understand the differing proposals. CHAIRMAN HALAS: All right. MR. GIBLIN: Yes, sir. Again, for the record, my name is Cormac Giblin, I'm the Housing and Grants Manager for Collier County . The first amendment you have, number 1.08.02, definitions is the definition of housing, affordable-workforce. The definition as prepared by staff and approved by the DSAC and approved by your affordable housing commission, following the board's guidance from the gap housing workshop in December seeks to incorporate the concept and the income ranges contemplated in the idea of gap housing into the county's existing affordable workforce housing programs and definition. That's on Page 124. Page 124-A is the planning commission's recommendation that there be an actual separate definition in the LDC for gap housing. That's the distinction between 124 and 124-A. Page 38 ~_.--- -'-,-,_. -- February 8, 2006 MR. SCHMITT: And if! could add, on 124, if you note, there is an underlined version that basically takes all the various terms used to define affordable housing or other categories and tries to define it in the LDC as all inclusive. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Are there any questions before I have the first speaker? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, go ahead. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What was the gist of the planning commission's recommendations? MR. GIBLIN: The planning commission felt that the issue -- that gap housing deserved its own recognition in the LDC because they saw it as two separate issues, affordable workforce housing and gap housing. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you want to know why, or should we hear from the speakers first? COMMISSIONER HENNING: He just told me why, but if you have something to expand on it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a little bit. And that was that with the gap housing, they don't use the same pot of money and they don't have the same requirements, and so they felt that it should be a separate entity. There's different funding sources, different loan sources. And then we voted on it and we asked our county attorney, Jeff Klatzkow, we felt that the -- the committee felt that it would water down the effectiveness of gap housing if it were tucked underneath the affordable workforce. And so Jeff gave his opinion. And if you would like to hear from him, I'd love to have him just state simply what he told us on this. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I like your voice better. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Go ahead, Jeff. MR. KLATZKOW: For the record, JeffKlatzkow, assistant Page 39 -- '-...- -- February 8, 2006 county attorney. One of the discussion points in Commissioner Fiala's gap housing informal committee was whether or not there should be a separation between affordable housing, gap housing. And the general consensus, although not unanimous, but the general consensus was that we're talking about two different things here. We're talking really two different communities and different needs. When you think of affordable housing, often you think of our labor force. Typically you would be thinking of people who work in restaurants with the hotel industry and that sort of thing. Gap housing would take in teachers, sheriffs, many of the county employees. Affordable housing might encompass rental units; gap housing is predominantly owner occupied homes or condo units and that sort of thing. And the fear among many of the members of Commissioner Fiala's committee, and I frankly agreed with them, was that if you were to take the gap housing and put it into the affordable housing, you'd get lost. Because the affordable housing has a certain focus, it has certain financial arrangements to it between the state and federal government that gap housing just doesn't have. And that they need two separate tool boxes. You're looking at, for gap housing, certain ways to fix the problem, and for affordable housing other ways to fix the problem. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. Any questions? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to hear the speakers. CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's where we're going to start. MS. F ABACHER: Okay, our first speaker will be Mr. Bruce Anderson. COMMISSIONER COYLE: His time has already expired. MR. ANDERSON: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. My name is Bruce Anderson, and I wanted to speak Page 40 *-_.." ---- February 8, 2006 to the encouragement of gap housing in the rural fringe. The rural fringe distinguishes between affordable housing and workforce housing as being two different types. Specifically in a rural village in the rural fringe it's required to provide .2 units per acre of affordable housing. And of that, half of that has to be for workforce housing. But we're not clear what the definition of workforce housing IS. And the way I was reading this was that workforce housing may be the equivalent of gap housing. And I'm wanting to find that out and, you know, clarify that so that it's clear, if that's the case. And I spoke to Cormac about that and asked him, you know, for some -- for some clarification on it. And I'll ask him to come back up after I make my next point. I would note that outside a rural village, there are no incentives for the provision of affordable or workforce gap housing at all in the rural fringe. And I would ask you to consider making the new affordable housing, workforce housing density bonus table applicable to rural fringe receiving lands that are outside of a rural village. I think that that would probably require a comprehensive plan amendment, but this could be addressed as part -- probably as part of your upcoming EAR amendments for the comprehensive plan, if the board directed staff to include it. And I would just ask you to, you know, maybe give me some reaction to encouraging gap housing out in the rural fringe. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we address it by percentages? Percentages of the different categories within the fringe? Like a 30/30/30 or something like that? Thirty-three point -- MR. ANDERSON: You mean in terms ofa density bonus or-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, whatever the language is in the fringe, you're asking to include the gap housing part of the Page 41 --- ._"-"...__."- ,.------... ....~- February 8, 2006 component. MR. ANDERSON: I'm asking you to define gap housing to mean the same thing as workforce housing. COMMISSIONER HENNING: For the fringe. MR. ANDERSON: For the fringe. And that workforce and gap housing is different than -- or is a different category of affordable, I suppose. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, my only thought on that, Commissioners, is you're still going to need all those elements out there. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But if we consider gap as affordable, then we might not get any of the other elements. And that's why I'm saying, if we recognize it as a percentage of. MR. ANDERSON: I'm just advocating that workforce and gap be equivalent, not gap and affordable be equivalent. MR. GIBLIN: Commissioner, I think that the staff proposed definition gets to what your question is. We're trying to move our LDC definitions away from multiple terms that mean almost the same thing. So by including everything under one term, affordable workforce, and then below it having percentage of median income that you're targeting, it gives much more specificity to when somebody stands up and says I want to do that essential personnel housing or any of these other terms that are being used interchangeably, they must follow it up with the specific percentage of median income that they're targeting. And that is the basis for the definition that you have before you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, Mr. Giblin, what was the recommendations from the affordable housing committee? MR. GIBLIN: The affordable housing commission voted to recommend approval of the staff recommended or the staff drafted Page 42 ------ --- ..--.-.. --~-_..- February 8, 2006 version of the all-inclusive definition with the added specificity of income -- median income level and voted to reject the planning commission's recommendation. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And the recommendation was based upon what, some sort of science with the need that's out there? MR. GIBLIN: I think it was more based on just clarity. Again, when we have all these multiple terms floating around, just trying to bring consensus and specificity to a definition. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My concern -- and I'm not saying that I'm not willing to talk about it -- is that when we separate it, if! was a developer, I would try to pick the most expensive type of housing to build that I could. And if I was left to my own resources, I definitely would go with gap housing every day of the week, because it would increase my bottom line. I'd like to see where they have to provide a mixture, where we have those mixed neighborhoods we've been talking about for so long. But once again, I'd like to hear everybody's opinion on this. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I didn't think there was a difference now between affordable and workforce, because I had understood -- and maybe I misunderstood, so please correct me -- I had understood that the affordable housing commission felt that their people, you know, in the workforce also had affordable, and they said they shouldn't be differentiated between. They are the workforce. And so they wanted them to be a combined unit, affordable and workforce; is that correct? And so then my question to Bruce is, then your workforce that you're referring to is part of affordable already because it's affordablelworkforce, right? MR. GIBLIN: I would tend to disagree with the comments that Assistant Attorney Klatzkow made about gap not including the professional workforce -- or, I'm sorry, affordable workforce not Page 43 -- ----- February 8, 2006 including the professional workforce. The income limits -- that's why we have the definition and that's why we have different layers within the definition, to try to encompass all housing needs. So really, the affordable housing commission looked at the incomes contemplated in gap housing as just affordable housing for higher income residents. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: This is getting more and more confusing the longer we talk about it. Can we just try to simplify this? We've got two definitions before us, on Page 124 and one on Page 124-A. Tell us again which definition was approved by Commissioner Fiala's workforce housing task force and which definition was recommended by the planning commission. MR. GIBLIN: I would say that the one on 124-A was approved by Commissioner Fiala's task force and recommended by the planning commission. The one on 124 was the one that we received staff direction from the full board to prepare. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, let me make one other observation: The issue of including the requirement for workforce housing, gap housing, however you define it, in the rural fringe is a valid concern. But it has nothing to do with this particular revision. It is something we should take up with respect to the rural fringe amendment and any other applications of it. But I think it's a good thing to do. But we need to debate that at a different point in time; is that correct? MR. GIBLIN: That's correct. I think Mr. Anderson was just bringing it up for a future discussion. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. ANDERSON: Part of what I said was about for something for future discussion. But currently today your land development code talks about the requirement to provide both affordable and workforce in a rural village, and we're trying to figure out what the Page 44 -_.~ -- February 8, 2006 difference is. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. We're trying to figure out what the definition is, too. So as soon as we figure it out, we'll tell you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think that's for future discussion, and I think we'll probably address that. Would that address your concerns? MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Chairman, this definition helps clarify that. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'm just talking about the rural fringe. MR. SCHMITT: Either one defines -- if you note, it's now housing, affordable-workforce. So it becomes all inclusive. What the definitive criteria become are the breakdown in percentage of income. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And could I just -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- get one more point of clarification here? Neither of these two definitions will take the definition out of our existing Land Development Code. It will not require a growth management plan revision. So either one of these that we select will keep it within our existing Land Development Code, and it becomes immediately available for any density bonuses which we wish to award. Is that a true statement? MR. GIBLIN: All we're doing right now is defining the term. Decisions about density bonuses will come in the next amendment. I'll have to defer to David Weeks. The comprehensive plan, or the growth management plan specifically identifies affordable and workforce housing. It does not speak to gap housing at all right now. So if you were planning to adopt the second recommendation that an individual term of gap housing be created, I don't think that that's referenced anywhere in the compo plan right now. MR. WEEKS: For the record, David Weeks, planning manager in the comprehensive planning department. There is one place that I can recall where the term -- in the Page 45 .-- ---.---"'. --- February 8, 2006 growth management plan where the term workforce housing is used. That's the research and technology part subdistrict, but I don't want to go off in that direction. We have to stay on point. I believe, and to try to directly answer the question, I believe where the rural village provision in the rural fringe makes reference to affordable housing and workforce housing as two separate requirements, I would concur with Mr. Anderson that the affordable housing would be that which we historically have applied; that is, the one that you have the density rating system provision for in the future land use element, the one that qualifies for the state and federal housing incomes. That is, I think, generally 80 percent or less of the median household income. And therefore, I would suggest to you that the intent for workforce housing, because that term has been used for a few years now, at least going back to 2002, in the context of the growth management plan, I would suggest to you that that term does denote the gap housing, something of a higher income level. And I think we could -- we and ultimately the county commission could interpret it that way. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm sorry, but I need to get this straight, okay? I don't want to speak for Commissioner Fiala, but I believe it would be her interest to try to get something going for gap housing or workforce housing, whatever we call it, as quickly as possible. I don't think she wants to wait for a year or more to get a growth management plan provision or modification through the process. I suspect she wants to do something fairly quickly. And what I'm trying to make sure of is do either of these two definitions and the way they're being handled make it more difficult or make it easier to get the job done? MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, either definition does exactly that. That's the owner occupied workforce housing, 101-150 percent, as defined on Page 124 -- Page 46 ---." ------ .--.- -- February 8, 2006 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just say 124 or 124-A. MR. SCHMITT: 124-A. It just separates it but it is essentially the same thing. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Same thing. So neither one of these processes complicates the process of getting workforce housing implemented as quickly as possible. MR. SCHMITT: Correct. Then you -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: All right, that's all I need. MR. SCHMITT: -- take these definitions and apply them to the next amendment, and that's how they're broken down. The next amendment does not get into the definition, it strictly applies the income level. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good, good. MR. ANDERSON: On 124, though, the last paragraph on there, that provides that workforce and gap are the same. MR. SCHMITT: Right. MR. ANDERSON: 124-A doesn't do that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Exactly right. MR. SCHMITT: That is in essence correct. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And they don't use the same funding sources, and that's why we wanted to keep them separated, so that we could get that moving forward. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, just so you're clear, I'm willing to support your recommendation, your definition. So if that speeds things up, I'm for it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Next speaker, please. MS. F ABACHER: All right. Mr. Bill Klohn. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, if! may, I wanted to address the second point Mr. Anderson raised before we move to the next speaker. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, go ahead. MR. WEEKS: Very short, to the point, I concur with Mr. Anderson, it would require a growth management plan amendment Page 47 -~- -"-.-.-" - February 8, 2006 before an LDC amendment to allow for a density bonus for the workforce housing of whatever type, affordable, gap or the whole range. Would require growth management plan amendment. I also want to remind you that this commission was I think very -- made a very strong point the last time we discussed awarding additional density bonuses in the rural fringe area, that you did not want to do that. Your concern was that landowners of the sending lands would just sit back and say well, if I wait long enough the county will add more density bonuses, so I'm going to sit back and not participate in the program. Certainly it's a policy decision, so you all can change that, but you did make that point about a year ago when we last amended -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that on 124 or 124-A? MR. WEEKS: Totally separate. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Separate item, yes. MR. KLOHN: Good evening, Chairman, members of the commission. My name is Bill Klohn. I'm president ofMDG Capital Corporation. We're quite active in providing -- in building communities to deal with the crisis of workforce and affordable workforce housing in Collier County. My position as a developer is that -- and as I watched all of you up here this evening, it's way too confusing. And I would support one term. And I've reviewed Cormac's charts and definitions and so on. Unless it would be in conflict with some of the things in the growth management plan or LDC, I think we should try to move towards one definition. And then as you look towards Cormac's tables, they're applying different density bonuses to the different types of housing, be it low income or moderate priced income. So as a developer -- if we adopt the new definition of affordable workforce housing, as a developer I would say I'm doing affordable workforce housing, and my price points -- or I'm at the moderate level. And you go to the chart. And it seems quite simple to me. Page 48 -_..- _m.~ February 8, 2006 So I'm for one word to be done with this for -- also that the confusion is ended. But again, if there's conflict for the comprehensive plan or the LDC, that's another matter. The other item that I'd like to suggest is that -- to raise the limit to 150 percent of median is ever so important, and I'd like to just read a brief paragraph out of the Daily News. Once again, there's affordable housing making the headlines of regional scene -- I'm sorry, of local and state. And the paragraph I'd like to cite is quoted by the president of the Carlisle Group, Lloyd Bogio. They're one of the state's largest providers of apartment units in the state. And he says, rising building costs are also taking a toll. Nearly a third of the companies that have provided affordable housing are out of business or building more expensive homes. Those that remain are facing escalating building costs that are outstripping the rents that can be charged to keep a development affordable. We pay the same costs as the guy who's building the multi million dollar home. So I think it's very important to take heed to Cormac's request to up the limit of the definition to include 150 percent of median. Thank you very much, and I applaud your vision and your efforts for the affordable workforce housing crisis. You're one of the most advanced counties in the state. We're in three counties now doing this type of work. And congratulations. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Next speaker, please? MS. F ABACHER: Will be Bob Pastula. MR. PASTULA: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the Board of County Commissioners. My name is Bob Pastula, and I'm the vice chair of the sheriffs and the clerks innovation group. And this group has been put together to try to assess problems and increase efficiencies inside the clerk's office and sheriffs department. And we Page 49 "---~_.--_.".".'~ --.---- '0-__._""- "~-- February 8, 2006 come together today to talk about the affordable housing issue. And although the facts and figures that I'm going to point out really tend to go towards the sheriffs office, we think that -- we feel that it affects all public safety employees in the county. The Collier County Sheriffs Office is facing a critical situation right now in that they're not able to recruit a sufficient number of qualified members to join the agency, and then they're not able to even retain the staff that they currently have. The unsatisfactory, inadequate, very slight net gain of members that they've had over the past year is due in great part to the affordable housing issue. A typical deputy sheriff can't afford to purchase a house or rent a house here in Collier County. Fannie Mae recommends that no more than 28 percent of the household income for housing costs. A deputy makes $36,000 roughly, starting pay. That means that he could afford a home for about $121,000. If him and his spouse both made the same amount, we're talking about $243,000, where the median home in Collier County is $500,000. So even ifboth spouses are working, they can't afford to live here in Collier County. The mid-December, 2005 average rental for the limited number of rentals that were available in Collier County was $1,521 per month. For the starting pay of a deputy, that's 50 percent of his gross income. So it makes it really tough for deputy sheriffs to -- and firefighters, EMS workers, hospital workers, any of the public safety workers, to live here. From mid-November through mid-December of2005, 25 members left the Collier County Sheriffs Office in a 25-day period. So they're losing about one sheriffs deputy per day. That's slowed down some, probably because they're running out of deputies to lose. Many cited the housing situation as their reason for leaving. That was an experience level of over 178 years that just up and left Collier Page 50 --- ---~-- -_.,-----,-- February 8, 2006 County. So it's a detriment to the public safety, I think, here in Collier County . The number of applicants received has been declining since 2004. 2005 applicants received equal those in the year 2000. They had 1,600 applications. In 2005, 110 members left the Collier County Sheriffs Office, and 124 were hired. So we had a net gain of about 14 members. Which is less than one percent of the total staff. These figures indicate the importance of not only being able to recruit qualified members, but the significance remaining competitive in wages and benefits so that we can keep experienced and trained members on the agency. While it's clear that the lack of affordable housing is a considerable issue in the recruitment and retention of the emergency service workers in Collier County, the problem is really broader than just housing. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Bob, we pretty much understand what the crisis is. We're also experiencing it here with the county staff. So if you can get to your point. We understand the crisis, so what we're trying to do here is just address this amendment here in the Land Development Code, okay? MR. PASTULA: Right, I understand that. And all we've come to tell you is that the innovation group for the clerk's and sheriffs office is behind whatever you can do as a board to make this work out or make this happen. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very, very much. MR. PASTULA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, any questions? Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Mr. Giblin, help me with this. If a deputy is making $36,000, tell me where he falls in this particular chart. MR. GIBLIN: He would fall at -- if it's a single person in the Page 51 --- ____"u. ---- February 8, 2006 household making $36,000, he would fall at the 60 percent of median income level. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And what about ifthere was two people that were making 72,000? MR. GIBLIN: They would fall at the 150 percent level. CHAIRMAN HALAS: 150 to 180, somewheres in there. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, it might be interesting to note that as bad as the Sheriffs Department has experienced what they've experienced with nine percent attrition in the past year, the county is suffering at 15 percent. That means every six years we turn all our employees. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Next speaker, please? MS. FABACHER: Next speaker will be Kathy Patterson. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Somebody is the timekeeper there? MS. F ABACHER: Yes. MS. PATTERSON: Good evening, Commissioners. I'm Kathy Patterson. I'm the Executive Director of the Collier County Housing Development Corporation, and I'm speaking on behalf of the CCHDC in favor of the proposed amendment to the LDC code, which increases the limits of affordable housing from 80 to 150 percent of area median, and to tell that you the CCHDC is not in favor of creating a separate definition for gap, as proposed by the planning commission. And I will also want to speak in favor of the density bonus for affordable housing up to 150 percent of the median income. By changing these LDC amendments, it will help the HDC address the housing crisis for families up to 150 percent of median, which include but not are limited to the teachers, peace officers, firefighters, et cetera. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. MS. PATTERSON: Do you have any questions? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any questions? (No response.) Page 52 --- ------,..- -~--, February 8, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. Next speaker, please? MS. FABACHER: Mr. Chair, our last speaker is Lisa Lefkow. MS. LEFKOW: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Lisa Lefkow, and I am Director of Development at Habitat for Humanity, standing in for Dr. Sam, quite an auspicious task, you'll agree. We certainly do want to support the initial Page 124 definition of affordable workforce housing. It seems to me that this is the most clear. We keep stumbling over the words and getting tangled up in the semantics. Any kind of discriminatory designation of which services are essential and non-essential, I think we would all agree that if we went into a restaurant and found no one to take our order or cook our order, that we would certainly be up against essential services. Let me remind you, too, that it is 83 percent of our workforce that are employed in the lowest wage sectors of our economy. And while we certainly support the provision to increase affordable housing, everyone should have access to affordable housing, regardless of your income. And increasing the definition to include folks up to 150 percent of median income is certainly supported, and we would encourage that. However, let me remind you that we are talking about the vast majority of our workforce that are struggling at the very lowest end of the economic sector. So on behalf of 800 Habitat for Humanity families that are providing essential services in Collier County, and on behalf of the 1,600 future families for whom we have home sites already in our land inventory, we thank you for continuing to go to task and go to bat for affordable housing for everyone, and encourage you to continue to work at the density, to work at zoning and permitting so that we can quickly get these units out of the ground and families into those Page 53 '~---- ---- February 8, 2006 owner-occupied dwellings. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any questions? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a comment, please. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I do guess that maybe -- I can't verify the 80 percent, but I'll go along with the 80 percent. But it's seldom that you ever find anybody living by themselves any longer. Most of those people have a spouse or a roommate or, you know, a significant other, which then puts them in a different category. And I still truly feel that the gap housing is terribly important to those people who have a spouse living with them or a mate or whatever. And it's a different funding source. And I think they ought to have a different sunshine committee and -- whereas, if the gap housing were incorporated into the other, they would all be governed then by the affordable housing commission, which I think then they would lose their identity and we would harm all the housing that's needed. The gentleman from the Sheriffs Office went on to say how many people are leaving. And what's happening is it's a wonderful time for those people who are living in what we would term gap housing right now. They bought their house five years ago and it was a really good price, and they can sell out now. These professional people can take their nurse's cap or their sheriffs badge with them any place they want to go, they can get another job, they could sell their house here for three times the amount and go someplace else and pay for a house free and clear, put money in their pocket. Problem is, there's the deficit. Now we don't have that professional workforce, so we have to hire them back in. Now we don't have the gap housing that they used to live in because they sold it at three times the amount. And nobody's building it now. No one. No one. And we need to have that type of housing. Yes, we have a lot of people that are good at building affordable Page 54 ._~- ---- February 8, 2006 housing. Bill Klohn is sitting here and Habitat is sitting here, and they have -- they're dedicated to that. No one's dedicated at all to this part of the housing market that is so desperately needed and that we're just complaining about now. Thank you. MS. LEFKOW: May I respond? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure. MS. LEFKOW: Just quickly. We agree that there is definitely a deficit in that sector of folks making 100 to 150 percent of median income. Deficit of product. There is no product available. However, as we're talking about folks that are at the 83 percent of our workforce, those are family units; those are not individuals that I was referring to. So those are folks with spouses still making less than 50 to 60 percent of -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: The whole family -- MS. LEFKOW: -- median income. Family unit. A family unit. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have Fishkind checking that for me. MS. LEFKOW: Terrific. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you very much. MS. LEFKOW: Terrific. So we agree that there are a variety of products available, variety of tools in the tool box, but the definitions that I would hope that we would look carefully at that break down by percentage of income will be much clearer for us to work with to use the available tools appropriately. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, I will make one last comment, and that's all. And when you say 80 percent of our workforce makes less than, and you say that's families, now, that means none of the sheriffs deputies, none of the government workers, none of the teachers, which is the highest employer in the county, qualify. They're all above 80 percent is what you're saying. None of the firefighters or anything. You're -- and they all make above. MS. LEFKOW: Yes. Cormac's references were appropriate. He Page 55 --- ....~n.'.._.._. .-..~- February 8, 2006 gave you the breakdown there. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think we got the point. Thank you very much. Anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Next speaker, please? MS. F ABACHER: That's it on this subject. MR. GIBLIN: Commissioners, I think I can summarize it by saying both definitions, functionally, programmatically and effectively will do the same thing. It's just one maybe more clear in terms of people using one term that encompasses everything, followed up by a specific income to be cited. The other one creates an additional new definition of gap housing. But functionally and programmatically, they both do the exact same thing. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, I'd like to make a motion that we approve 124-A, giving gap housing its own definition. MR. SCHMITT: We have to bring this back again for another hearing. And this will be brought back. So today was the first discussion, we bring this back again for consideration, so no motion is required. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Forget that motion. MR. SCHMITT: All we would like is if you have any other guidance or any other -- from a standpoint of which you would prefer to have brought back, or we could just bring them both back and you debate it at that time. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think if we cover it tonight I think would be best. MR. SCHMITT: Right. Because understand, I'm faced with what we perceive the board gave us direction, and then we have a definition what the planning commission has. So if you want to sort through that and then we'll bring that -- we'll bring something back for you to vote on at the next meeting. Page 56 ---.-- ,-----. _.__....-~ ..- February 8, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta, I believe? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You can let Commissioner Coyle go first, he's our elder. COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, no, Commissioner Fiala is the eldest. COMMISSIONER FIALA: He's right, by the way. I'm the oldest one up here. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Who needs affordable housing the worst? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Commissioner Fiala does. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle, go ahead. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm still confused about something. Joe, you're telling me that either of these definitions -- neither of the definitions will make it more difficult to implement housing procedures or policies for gap housing? MR. GIBLIN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, David Weeks told us that we would have to go through a growth management plan change. David, did I misunderstand something here? MR. SCHMITT: Only in this issue in regards to the rural fringe. Now that-- , COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, only the rural fringe. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Which we're going to bring up later. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then let's discuss that later. I won't belabor that point. So now that I understand that, I feel better. MR. SCHMITT: We don't have in our GMP -- and David, correct me -- we do not have in our GMP this thing called gap housing. The definition in 124 solves that problem, because it makes it all inclusive. COMMISSIONER COYLE: 124-A does, too. It makes it all inclusive. MR. SCHMITT: Well, we create this new term called gap Page 57 ___.u__ ------- February 8, 2006 housing. David? MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, I'll summarize it this way: The easiest way would be the definition under 124. But if you go with the definition on 124-A, it's going to require an interpretation by the board. If someone were to come in with a rezoning request and they wanted -- in the urban area and they wanted a density bonus to provide gap housing, we're going to go to the future land use element to the density rating system where the bonuses are provided, it's going to use the term affordable housing. And of course historically that has been at 80 percent or lower income levels. So this board, in order to grant someone a density bonus for providing gap housing, would have to interpret that affordable housing includes gap housing. And if I may -- so we're taking an interpretation as a policy matter for this board. And if you're willing to do so, then there is no Issue. Additionally, as part of these EAR based amendments, which will be coming before you in April for transmittal hearings, I intend -- our department would intend to take direction from you on whatever action you ultimately take on this LDC amendment. So if you end up with a single definition, then we're going to change the term in the future land use elements. If you come up with separate definitions; that is, Page 124-A, we will make the appropriate change in the future land use element. So the two documents are in synch. CHAIRMAN HALAS: This is for the rural fringe, though, right? MR. WEEKS: No, sir. No, sir. I'm talking about the urban. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Urban area. MR. WEEKS: The separate issue goes back to Mr. Anderson's second point, and that is the discussion of having a density bonus for either type, whatever definition we adopt outside of rural villages. MR. SCHMITT: Can I just clarify again, on Page 126 you have Page 58 ~---- ---...--..--- February 8, 2006 an amendment that applies the income levels. So those income levels, regardless of which definition, implement the gap housing density bonus criteria. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So then we wouldn't really have to make a policy decision then to provide the density bonus if you use this table; is that correct? MR. SCHMITT: Again, it's -- David, it would be an interpretation of when we do a consistency with the GMP. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, let me ask it this way: Can we just make a single determination at one point in time that yes, gap housing falls under the same criteria as affordable house? And we wouldn't have to hear these things independently every time we wanted to grant a bonus? MR. WEEKS: You certainly may. And again, we will initiate an amendment to the growth management plan so that there is no longer any cloud or any policy decision to make. We'll have the terminology the same. MR. SCHMITT: And that's what we thought we did with that last underlined sentence under l24. The term affordable workforce housing is specifically intended to include similar categories such as gap housing, essential personnel housing and reasonably priced housing. So we basically take the definition and take the matter off the table, it's no longer discussed. And just so you understand -- and I fully understand Commissioner Fiala's point, what her position is, that certainly the intent was to recognize gap housing as a separate and distinct entity. And if that is so -- the intent of this board, we will come back in EAR based amendments to ensure that the GMP language doesn't conflict with where the LDC is going. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I just make one final comment? And then I'm out of this thing. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, you'll be back. Page 59 -~--- .'.---.---- _.~...- - -- February 8, 2006 MR. SCHMITT: I know it hurts your -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not going to talk about this anymore. CHAIRMAN HALAS: We've got four more hours. COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, we don't. I just want to say this: That there are a number of categories, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven categories. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, professional housing. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Of all kinds. And adding a category that says gap housing in no way interferes with the process of assigning names to each of these categories, okay? MR. SCHMITT: Right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So I don't understand why you couldn't just say in the last category, owner occupied workforce housing, in parenthesis, gap housing, 101 percent to 150 percent of median income, otherwise considered to be moderate income or gap housing. You know, it's just another category. You've categoried the others as low income and moderate. So you categorize that one as gap housing. I mean, that's -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Three different tiers. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. MR. SCHMITT: I would agree with you, Commissioner, that is a proposal that makes a lot of sense. Unfortunately when we drafted this, we drafted this based on your guidance -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand. MR. SCHMITT: -- that we heard from the -- but that solves the problem. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm looking for a way to deal with Commissioner Fiala's concern about a separate identification. And she's right, it's a separate category, because they're not eligible for any Page 60 ----.- --- February 8, 2006 other kinds of benefits. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So there's nothing wrong with calling it something different, because you call all the other categories something different. So you could even incorporate that term in your 124 and accomplish everything that Commissioner Fiala wants to accomplish and have a separate category for gap housing. But okay, I'm not going to debate. We don't make a decision on this tonight anyway, so let's save it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Believe me, this is an extremely healthy discussion. And I'm kind of enjoying it. You know, we have all sorts of issues coming up here, and I think we're all in the same mindset, that we realize that there's a tremendous need out there. Regrettably we're never going to be able to fulfill that need. Once again, my concern is the fact that once we separate it gap housing would become the preferred vehicle for a lot of developers out there. And I have had a number of them tell me that that makes sense to them. They love the idea of gap housing, because they put it on there, the bottom line is taken care of. They can be able to use it to take care of what they're going with. I still think you need gap housing, no arguments about that at all. But if we can't come up with a proportionate across the board, we're going to miss the boat. We're going to see gap housing become the predominant form of housing in Collier County, and we're going to lose a big base of our employment. Tell me this, Cormac, our county employees, we have a lot of them that are probably in the level of what, 40,50,60 percent? MR. GIBLIN: Commissioner, I can't tell you. I haven't reviewed our staffs employment -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sure Mr. Schmitt knows. Sorry, Joe, I was just kidding, of course. Page 61 ~--~~"'.....,_._-_.__._'" ~- February 8, 2006 MR. SCHMITT: Just to follow your point, the chart in the next amendment is the -- that's the way we apply it. We get different credits for different categories of income. Certainly the chart -- and I'm kind of moving in the next category. The chart is weighed -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Weighted for -- MR. SCHMITT: -- towards the lower income bracket, more beneficial -- a greater density bonus. CHAIRMAN HALAS: If you look at it, you get bigger density bonuses if you provide income for lower -- MR. SCHMITT: And then it becomes a business decision. They do a business plan and decide which one they can do at the cost price breakpoints. And that chart is -- there's -- everybody agreed on that chart. So I'm stealing the thunder for the next one. CHAIRMAN HALAS: But I really think that we still have control -- MR. SCHMITT: Everybody up to this point, let me put it that way. CHAIRMAN HALAS: But we still have control over when something comes before us -- MR. SCHMITT: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- a PUD, we still have control over what you're going to put on there. We can recommend or demand that you're going to put so much affordable housing in, so much workforce housing in and then so much gap housing in. MR. SCHMITT: That is part of the affordable housing density bonus agreement that comes with any type of density bonus request that comes to this board. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think it's also terribly important that some point in time here we study what we actually need. I mean, right now do we need 10 affordable homes to one gap? Do we need four affordable homes to two gap? Do we need five gap to one Page 62 -- ..---'."- _.,-_.--~ -- February 8, 2006 affordable? Have people who specialized in affordable housing, and they have many perks from -- given to them from the government, the federal government, the state government, and that makes it a very lucrative business when they build this affordable housing. There's no incentives there for gap housing. The only thing that there would be, and one of the things -- we only ask -- that's not reflected in here any, but we only asked for four units density bonus. That's all we wanted. And the four units, although I don't see it anyplace here, would consist with one affordable, because we felt that they should be represented also, two gap and one market rate. And that would be the only incentive that the builder would have is that one market rate. True, as Commissioner Coletta put it, the two gap housing, it wouldn't make a bunch, but they wouldn't lose anything. And so it's worth it to build the one affordable in order to kind of even the pot out. And that's where we were going with this, and that's why we needed a separate committee and a separate definition. I hope that explained it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, somehow we got off on the process of talking about the table for density bonuses. Are we moving to the next item? CHAIRMAN HALAS: No. MR. GIBLIN: I think we need direction on the definition first. CHAIRMAN HALAS: What we need to do is look and determine what we want for definition before we go on to the next. That was brought in to give you some idea, to make it more confusing. MR. SCHMITT: There's only -- actually, I introduced that so you'd understand that either chart, either definition is applicable to the next amendment. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there any other discussion? Page 63 ----,~...- '----.'-'>'" ___~_m ..- February 8, 2006 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Do you want to poll the commission? I for one know where I stand on it. I haven't heard anything to change my mind. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Where do you stand? CHAIRMAN HALAS: You're sitting right now. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sitting right now. COMMISSIONER COYLE: He doesn't want to tell us. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I wanted to leave it for a big dramatic -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: What we need to do is we need to give staff direction on which one we want here. MR. SCHMITT: I can leave it like it is and we can bring this back again for discussion, if you want. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, then we'll go through this whole scenario again, unless there's questions in our minds here. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's hear what Commissioner Coletta has to say. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I was just going to say, we went through this before, we gave direction to staff. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now we're thinking about possibly we made some wrong decisions. We heard from our housing, affordable housing group out there who came out. They've been studying this a long time, and they're looking for a balanced approach. And we heard from staff, they're looking for a balanced approach. A number of people that spoke to us today, they also have similar concerns that I do. I would like to stay with the, surprise, surprise, staff recommendations on Page 124. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, would you ask for a consensus of the members of the board so we can move on. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. Let's make a decision here by nods. Page 64 ------- _~.___~_e._ -----~~,,_._- .- February 8, 2006 Who's all in favor of 124, the language in that? I am. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I am. COMMISSIONER HENNING: (Nods head affirmatively.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Three. Okay. Is that -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm not. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No? Well, ask on 124-A. CHAIRMAN HALAS: What about 124-A? COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's me. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm okay on that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I still would like a combination of the two to make it simpler. See, if you look at these -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: It comes down to if two committees are ruling or one. It comes down to the affordable housing commission telling gap what they can do or gap housing putting together their own committee to decide how they're going to run it. I think that that's -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: But Commissioner, we still have the final say in regards to when a PUD comes before us -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: But if you don't have a committee representing this type of housing, it will be shuffled under the carpets. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I make a suggestion? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You know, I see Commissioner Fiala's passion on this. I'm more than willing -- and I know that wasn't the direction we were looking at to do. Commissioner Henning just went both ways with a nod of the head. So-- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Because he said he could live with either one of these. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, right. We have Commissioner Coyle who's coming up with a proposal to bring two of them together. I heard his proposal. I didn't quite understand it altogether, but possibly you should bring that back and call Page 65 .--.-- ---..-- -,-- February 8, 2006 Commissioner Coyle's a C, to see if it's a marriage of the two that might be able to get us where we need to go. I just want to make sure there's a safety mechanism in there that will protect -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: 124-A already says that. It already puts them altogether under one. It says gap housing -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, no, but Commissioner Coyle had something that incorporated some of the elements of B. CHAIRMAN HALAS: All he did just basically -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Or A, rather. CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- was changing a word or so in the owner occupied gap housing. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me explain. Let's take a look at 124 just briefly. And let's look at the statement that says the term affordable housing is specially intended to include affordable workforce housing, okay? Now, you look on 124-A and you see the same statement, the term affordable housing is specifically intended to include affordable workforce housing. Then go back to 124 and you see the term affordable housing is specifically intended to include similar categories such as gap housing, essential personnel housing and reasonably priced housing. Well, you go to 124-A and you see exactly the same language is used in the last paragraph on 124- A. And then if you go back to 124, you see owner-occupied workforce housing is 101 percent to 150 percent of median income, otherwise considered to be moderate income. Exactly the same statement is contained on 124-A where it says owner occupied gap housing is 101 percent to 150 percent of median income. So the real difference between the two is in that term moderate income, on 124. You see where it says owner-occupied workforce housing, 101 percent, 150 percent of median income, otherwise considered to be moderate income? If you were to change that Page 66 --- _.,,--~-, . ".-...--- - ","-- February 8, 2006 moderate income to gap housing, you have exactly the same definition. COMMISSIONER FIALA: How would you set up the committees so -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: It would be a gap housing committee. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So you'd have a separate committee for the gap housing? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, sure. And see, that's a separate category -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Change moderate income. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And like with the -- and I know we're getting into another definition, but the gap housing was for far less density. COMMISSIONER COYLE: We'll get into that next, but I agree with you there. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, see, so then that committee will govern that -- the same with incentives. The incentives are -- that's another reason for the separate committee. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that's my whole contention is they're two separate products, and it went by -- you've got to realize there's a reason why they're pushing so hard to put it here, you know, and we don't see the little play on words. They're not coming across. And so I'm concerned about that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, I'm just trying to help here to get it moving along. There's really no difference in these definitions, if you change that one word moderate income -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Moderate to gap. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- to gap -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: On Page 124. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- housing, there's really no -- Page 67 ,----- ~..._,--'" -- February 8, 2006 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I know where it is. It's just -- it's changed. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have no problem with that change. It's a given. What do you call the animal doesn't make any difference to me, you know. But the whole thing is, is I'm reluctant to say okay, this is considered a loan. And then we call it a loan, and then we're going to consider affordable elements going on the other end in succession. And that's where I'm having the hangup. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, we'll get to that when we get to the density bonus issues. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So in other words, you're suggesting that 124, we change the moderate income to gap housing. And I could go along with that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I don't want to disappoint Commissioner Fiala, but I just don't understand the difference. She'll have the same -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Other than a lot of wording in here. But it doesn't really mean a lot. This gets right to the point, I think, 124 with the change that Commissioner Coyle has suggested. COMMISSIONER FIALA: There would have to be other things written in to give it its owns separate definition. CHAIRMAN HALAS: It is, I believe. COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, it isn't. It would then become -- it would become a part of then that affordable housing commission. CHAIRMAN HALAS: The owner occupied workforce housing, 101 percent, 150 percent of median income, otherwise considered to be gap -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm trying so hard to say it, but I guess I'm not saying it very clearly. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could I ask a question? Might Page 68 ---- ^"_m ---. --- February 8, 2006 help me an awful lot. What is the problem with the affordable housing commission? I mean, they recognize gap housing. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that's good, and I'm glad of that. But they govern where their dollars are going to go, right? And they govern, you know, what kind of -- I think that they're all very much in tracking affordable housing and making sure that they get a lot of funding. They want to have a higher density bonus. They have some great things. And they're focused on affordable housing. Gap housing has nothing to do with any of those things. It's a separate entity. But the people that are on that committee aren't totally focused on affordable housing. And I think that gap housing is going to get lost in the shuffle. CHAIRMAN HALAS: But we have control over the gap housing, don't we? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, not anymore. Once you put it here, you don't. MR. GIBLIN: Commissioners, you have control over who you appoint to that committee, though. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, but that committee is what, affordable housing commission? MR. GIBLIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: See, then you lose it again. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can I ask the question? This affordable housing committee, they deal with gap housing. Are we talking about coming up with some sort of percentage? I mean, I thought we were coming up with some sort of percentage to be able to assure that we're going to come up with a mixture. Are we not going that direction, or not? MR. GIBLIN: The affordable housing commission has gone on record that they are welcome to explore ideas to enhance any type of housing affordability at up to 150 percent of median income. CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's the guideline we're putting here. Page 69 _____n___ -~._---_. -- February 8, 2006 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But wait. Commissioner Fiala's concern is, is that the commitment isn't there for gap housing. And my -- what I'm saying is what about a percentage? I mean, I heard you mention these numbers before. She has -- Commissioner Fiala has referred to one for two, two for three. I mean, all sorts of numbers. Isn't there some sort of formula that we have which is a target that we're looking for so that we could be assured for maybe every -- forgive the numbers, I don't know what the numbers should be -- that we have justified within our economy we need four affordable houses, just for an example for a gap house? Is there anything that exists like that that we could start working towards to be able to give some level of comfort and be able to give direction to this committee so to make sure that we do be able to present all -- meet all sorts of elements that are out there. MR. GIBLIN: Commissioner, what we have is an affordable housing needs assessment that the State of Florida conducts for every county in the state. The results of that are that approximately two-thirds of the affordable housing need in Collier County falls to households at less than 80 percent of median, and one-third of the affordable housing need in Collier County is for households above 80 percent of median income. And the affordable housing commission has discussed the study and results of it and have agreed that whatever they propose should be targeted in such a fashion to address where the needs are. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But are they going to propose at some point in time and give it to this group for consideration so that we know that there's going to be gap housing in this mixture? MR. GIBLIN: Yes, sir. We have plans in the works right now that are going to be specifically targeted to include -- I believe that was the direction that the board gave in December was to incorporate the incomes contemplated in gap housing into all of our affordable housing programs. Page 70 -------- _ _ "..m._.___' - --'._'--~ .._.._._._---~.,...- --- February 8, 2006 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And believe me, the last thing I want to see go down the tube is the idea that gap housing is not a need in Collier County, because it is. And I go to these committee meetings whenever I can. And regrettably my schedule is kind of tight. I can make so many. I would suggest that you advertise these meetings in the future that one or more commissioners may be present. And, you know, Commissioner Fiala, Commissioner Halas, Commissioner Henning, Commissioner Coyle, whoever wants to, could go to that meeting, sit in the back of the room and maybe express an opinion and some guidance to this committee. I found them to be pretty receptive and a pretty good cross-section of the community. MR. GIBLIN: Certainly, Commissioner. All the affordable housing commission, just like any of your other commissions, are advertised with the Sunshine Law and more than one commissioner can certainly attend and speak and converse on the same issue. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now, where did you get this 80 percent of all households earn less -- now we're talking families, right -- earn less than the median income? MR. GIBLIN: That was Ms. Lefkow's information. I'm not sure I agree with it, that it's a household number. But I can tell that you 83 percent of the jobs in Collier County are in the four lowest paying job sectors, which I do know. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That I agree. It's just usually that person doesn't live by themselves. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I am going to support Commissioner Fiala's definition, just to move this along. I'm afraid it's not going to get her where she wants to go, but I am going to support it, because she -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: And that's on 124-A? COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- because she has worked so hard Page 71 .--- --......-..---.. -.--..-..- - February 8, 2006 on this thing, that I am going to give her the benefit of the doubt and support her on 124- A to get this going. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do I have four commissioners with a nod of 124? COMMISSIONER COYLE: You've got three. CHAIRMAN HALAS: All right, you've got my nod. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In other words, we're going to cancel 124 out? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. We're going to stick with -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think we made a serious mistake, but go ahead and proceed. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think we've given staff guidance to what needs to be done. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I've definitely got to be on the record as being totally opposed to the tenth degree on this, that we are on the road to worst destruction as far as our affordable element goes than we ever were before. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, Commissioner Coletta, I really appreciate your passion for it. And if you're right and I'm wrong, I sure want to know about it. I have contacted -- I have people making an independent -- two independent studies for me, because I question a lot of the figures that we received. And sometimes they're given to us haphazardly and have __ and I've discovered that many of them are not very correct. So I've asked the Fishkind Company to do a study and I've also gotten somebody else working through the property appraiser's office. And no matter -- and I've told both -- you know, I don't want to tell you how I want it to come out, because I want it to come out fair. I mean, it would be stupid for us to build five gap and one affordable when you need just the opposite. Then we would never be accomplishing anything. And our most important thrust must be to fill whatever needs are out there. I just want to know what they are. And Page 72 --- - '-~."-'._-"- .- .,~--_._. -"--- --- February 8, 2006 I have a hunch, but my hunch do be way off. So I'll bring that back. In fact, when I get those studies, which I'll have in two weeks, when I get those studies back, I'll distribute them to everybody. And them you can challenge those, too, you know. But I'm working on that right now. And if I'm dead wrong, I'll surely come up at the next LDC meeting and say that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Does that give you some fuzzy feeling, or not? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I wish you didn't ask that question. The answer has to be no. CHAIRMAN HALAS: All right, I think we've -- have you gotten enough guidance on what we're going to do here? Okay. And I think we can move on to the next portion, I hope. MS. FABACHER: Okay, the next portion is still affordable housing, and we're going to look at Section 2.06.03, the affordable housing density bonus rating system. And that will be on Page 26. I know you've looked at it before. Do you want to give a brief history about it? MR. GIBLIN: Sure. Commissioners, the nice part about this amendment is that it doesn't matter what you call it, because it operates on a percentage of median income. Working off of the guidance received at the gap housing workshop in December, I believe that that committee came forward with a proposal of a density bonus of four. And Commissioner Fiala cited it a little while ago, two of the units would be gap housing, one would be affordable and the other would be market rate to compensate the -- you know, to entice the developer to do that. That is the basis of the chart you have before you on Page 126. What I've put on the visualizer is what I call the baseline, which Page 73 .---.. ..--... --------.----- ..-.-- .- February 8, 2006 is that four unit per acre bonus that accomplishes those same goals of the two gap, one affordable and then one extra market rate, you know, to provide the incentive. And working that into our table, we then extrapolate, if you want to do more gap or more affordable, you can qualify for more of a bonus. Or if you do less, you can qualify for less. The table is pretty straightforward. But one thing it does is it also requires you to do at least 10 percent affordable housing, or at the 80 percent level to qualify for any incentives at the gap housing level. So it ensures that gap housing cannot be looked at on an island. You must incorporate some affordable to take advantage of any bonuses at the gap level. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think that's fair, yeah. And let me say, by having an affordable housing commission and a gap, now you've got not only what they're building for affordable, and that's -- with all the incentives, you now have an extra something thrown this because of this gap, which is completely separate and giving some more to the affordable. And we felt that that was fair also. MR. GIBLIN: Right. Commissioner, this chart will help to -- it works both ways. The provision of gap housing incentivizes the creation of more affordable. And also the provision of affordable will incentivize the creation of more gap by way of the chart. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't have an answer for this, and I'm not sure you do either, but perhaps there's a way to get close to an answer before we hear it the next time. But here's my concern: How do we know that these are the right density bonuses to grant, based upon the economic factors in the development of the housing development or the PUD? And bear in mind that the private sector has a greater responsibility for the fact that there is no affordable housing than does the government. Page 74 ._--" ...--- ___.n__ - February 8, 2006 The private sector determines prices of land and prices of homes. They don't determine home construction costs, of course, in many cases. But the point is that if you're building a home for a person who's in the gap housing category, you're probably building a home that is profitable to build. It is not a loss; it is probably profitable to build. Or at least you can break even on it. So why should not a gap housing unit be an absolute requirement without a density bonus in some of these developments? Why would you have to grant more density for someone to build a house that can be sold at a profit? MR. GIBLIN: Commissioner, if I understand you right, you're wondering out loud why don't we make it a requirement that every new development address housing affordability at the gap -- at least the gap level? COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. In order to get a bonus unit for any of the other categories, they have to build at least one gap housing unit or two gap housing units. Because it's not a loss to them, it's a responsibility they should be willing to accept. Because they have as much of a stake in making sure that we have affordable housing in this community as anybody else. MR. GIBLIN: And I think you can get there by passing some type of inclusionary zoning that would require that income level of housing. And, you know, you did direct us to bring that back and we are preparing it for your next LDC cycle, so approximately six months from now you'll have it in front of you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And we're talking about units up to maybe $300,000. MR. GIBLIN: That's right, for gap. CHAIRMAN HALAS: This is inclusionary zoning; is that correct? MR. GIBLIN: That's what we're working on right now. Page 75 ._-~ "'-'---'-' w.___._ ..----. --'- February 8, 2006 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Ifwe were to approve -- and we're not approving it tonight -- but if we were to approve this table, how would that conflict then with your plans to bring back an inclusionary zoning requirement? MR. GIBLIN: Any type of inclusionary zoning proposal needs to include an underlying density bonus that acts as a compensation to the developer to avoid a Burt Harris Act, you know, takings. So a density bonus is a needed piece of inclusionary zoning. I think it can build off of this chart when we get to that point. COMMISSIONER COYLE: My only request is that by the time we get to the second hearing of this, can you give us some data that will help us justify whether or not these are the right ratios? Taking into consideration again that you're asking a builder to build a $300,000 house. In some cases, the maximum cost of the house they're building might be $500,000. So this is not a big sacrifice here. So maybe if we could see some of the economics of a development it would help us understand a little better about what ratios we should be establishing. MR. GIBLIN: Right. I think what this does is we clearly see in the marketplace that no one's building a 250 or $300,000 house anymore. What we hope to do with this chart is provide the incentive for them to do those. Even though they could still make money on it, they could still make a lot more if they just ignore it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But remember, when we increase the density, we also increase the impact on our roads and our other facilities, and we increase the cost of land. Because when we grant density bonuses and people understand they can put more houses on that land, the price of land is going to go up. So if we go too crazy with density bonuses here to solve a real problem, then we get ourselves in trouble in other ways. So we've got to balance that some way. Page 76 ---.- -~_._..'. _m"_.._.__~_ -- February 8, 2006 MR. GIBLIN: Commissioner, before your next hearing, I will get with some private sector partners and perhaps some of the people on Commissioner Fiala's committee that suggested basically what we have here in front of you to determine that economic balance. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good, that would be very helpful for me. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let me see if I really understand where we're going here now with this particular element. We're talking about the directions that you got so far, what do you understand that's different from here? You don't see any directions coming down as far as more gap housing or the requirements? Give me an example. Let's start from one. One hundred houses. How would this 100 houses break down, according to this chart? MR. GIBLIN: Well, right now, it works better if you use it in terms of a piece of land. And if you look at the example on the screen, you have a 20-acre parcel of land right now would have a base density of four units to the acre. They could go out and build 80 million dollar houses without really any need other than a rezone of the commission. If they were to take advantage of the chart by doing 20 percent at the gap level and then the additional mandated 10 percent at the affordable level, as required by the chart, they end up with a density bonus of a plus four. So now they can build 160 units on that same piece of property. Of those 160,32 are gap, 16 are affordable, and they get an extra 32 market rate units. So that is the economic engine that drives the density bonus formula, those 32 extra market rate units. Which 16 of them theoretically are just off the top to cover the 16 affordables. So they end up doing in reality 16 extra market rates. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And going back with Page 77 -- -,-_."'~--- .-- ------....- --,~--- .- February 8, 2006 Commissioner Coyle's idea, rather than giving them a choice, is that still an option that we can look at where we tell them that if they're coming forward, they have to have a -- MR. GIBLIN: I think that is incorporated in that exclusionary zoning type ordinance. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other questions? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, other than the fact that, you know, this once again is going more for gap than it is for the affordable element, even though all the charts and everything we seen indicate it should be different. I think it's a fine idea. Other than the fact that it's out of balance. MR. GIBLIN: Commissioner, again, this is the base line. And a developer can choose to come in and work -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And put more affordable in it. MR. GIBLIN: -- any part of the chart. In fact, the bonus is greater if you do more affordable. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let's go in just the other way now. Suppose they come in and they just want to build the market rate and affordable. Then they don't build gap; is that what it is? Or do they still -- MR. GIBLIN: Again, this is a voluntary program, and you can pick and choose any combination you want on this chart, other than the underlying premise that you can't get any bonus for gap unless you also do at least 10 percent affordable. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Clear? Okay. MS. F ABACHER: Finished? CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think we've hammered this one out. MS. F ABACHER: All right, we're going to turn the page and go to the next one, which is going to be Section 2.03.01, staggered setbacks in the Estates, in the E zoning district. This was board directed, proposal to stagger front setbacks on Page 78 --- ---~,,>_. ~,..__._,.- --.---' -~- February 8, 2006 75-foot wide lots in the E district to accommodate the storage of commercial vehicles in the rear yard and facilitate access to homes by emergency vehicle. I see that the planning commission was unanimous to recommend denial on that. It is on Page 127. And I think if you look in the amendment request comments, that staff generally is not in favor of it either. They don't think it will do what was intended for what they wanted for fire protection and so forth, and so on, and parking vehicles in the rear. Then there were concerns about the equity of it of, you know, who has to -- does someone have to go closer to the street, or if you have to go much farther back, then you pay more for your driveway, should utilities come out from the county, you're going to pay more to tie in. CHAIRMAN HALAS: And I've got some concerns about the person that has to put their house back, because I'm looking at somebody's backyard. COMMISSIONER FIALA: How does Commissioner Coletta feel about it? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, here's the problem. 75-foot lots, they're an anomaly that never should have happened, but they did. And they're a fact of life. 75 wide, 660 by 75 feet. The problem is that when they build a house out there anymore in the Estates, they always build the maximum house they can with just the minute amount of setback. The setback is what, seven and a half feet? MS. F ABACHER: On the side. MR. SCHMITT: Side yard setback, seven and a half feet in the Estates. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Seven and a half feet. Okay, so think about it for a moment. Even if you stagger at seven and a half feet, how is somebody going to get around their house from the back yard without going through their neighbor's yards? It can't happen. So that raises a real problem. Unless we get to the point where we Page 79 -- .-- - February 8, 2006 want to require them to have a setback on one side that would be more than seven and a half feet, and it's only a 75-foot lot, then we've got a serious problem. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, what's your recommendation? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My recommendation is go with the planning commission on this. I'm sorry, Joe? MR. SCHMITT: I just want to make sure you understand, there's a development window in that lot. They can move that house anywhere on the lot. You saw that in the last petition that came before the board. I think the only issue here is the board mandated that we create some kind of staggering system. The application is tremendous in order to try and do that. I think it's best just -- there's kind of a construction envelope. Where they put that house depends on the wetlands and other type of criteria, and I think it's best to leave -- that's what your commissions recommend, just best leave it the way it is. Because there are other factors that are going to mandate where that house goes with the septic drain fields, some of the other type of requirements. And it's best just to -- we define the setbacks and then they build the house anywhere within those setbacks. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Why don't we just leave it alone? MR. SCHMITT: That is the recommendation from all your advisory panels. But understand, this was directed of staff to bring this forward by the board, and that's why we did so. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we're recommending denial of this one, right, whenever the time comes? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. MS. F ABACHER: Great. CHAIRMAN HALAS: We've got enough nods on that one, I believe. Page 80 >--...-..- ._~~_._- ---- - February 8, 2006 MS. FABACHER: Okay, beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel here. We have our last two amendments, and they're going to be -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Did we have any public speakers on the last one? MS. FABACHER: I'm sorry. No. N ow what I wanted to do is the next presentation is going to be on both Bayshore and Gateway overlays. And sometimes we use them interchangeably because so much of it is the same for both of them. Like items like landscaping and so forth. Before I do that and introduce David Jackson, who's going to kind of lead off here, and then I do have Nancy Gunlock wants to put __ read a couple of changes in the record. Before I do that, though, I wanted to read to you the directions -- the recommendations that the planning commission specifically asked that we -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'd like to put something on the record, too. I think we have at least one commissioner that's been out of the room for at least 10 minutes. Commissioner Henning. Put that on the record if we can, thank you. MS. FABACHER: Okay. All right. So as I had prefaced before, it's on the very last sheet in this section of your summary sheets. It's 23. But anyway, this is for both Bayshore and Gateway Triangle mixed use district overlays. And it was not unanimous, but the consensus of the planning commission members to recommend the following to you: One, that a fee should be charged by the county per unit for the 388 residential density bonus pool units from the Botanical Gardens. Two, consideration be given to an affordable housing requirement, particularly in the Bayshore area, as affordable housing will be lost due to the redevelopment. Three, there's kind of an interesting -- I'm sure David will explain to you -- set of bonus density pools. There's the 388 units, and then as Page 81 ",-'- ~._._-,-_..- -- February 8, 2006 a demonstration project and in the GMP, they allow a density of 12 units per acre in the mini triangle. Are you familiar with the mini triangle? And that's written in the GMP. And as written, that does not have to come out of the bonus 388-unit pool, it would be separate, is my understanding. COMMISSIONER FIALA: The mini triangle is all commercial. How did they get residential units? MS. FABACHER: Ma'am, because it's going to be mixed use. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I'm sorry. MS. FABACHER: No, no, both the -- so we'll have residential in the whole Gateway Triangle. And in the mini triangle, it will be mixed, okay? So originally in the GMP, in the growth management plan, they are allowed to have up to 12 density -- 12 dwelling units per acre. What the planning commission -- and this is not addressed in the compo -- in the growth management plan, and David can speak to that if you need him. But the residential bonus units in the mini triangle, they recommend to you that those be taken from the 388-unit pool that was created when the Botanical Gardens was rezoned. And essentially it's not bringing new units in, it's units that were kind of taken away from where the Botanical Gardens were. So that's how -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Like a transfer of development rights? MS. F ABACHER: Yes, more like -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Transfer density from the Botanical Garden area to the mini triangle. MS. F ABACHER: So I'm going to introduce then David Jackson, the executive director for the -- I'm sure you know -- the CRA advisory. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do we have speakers on this? MS. F ABACHER: Yes, we have many speakers. But he's going Page 82 --- - -_.__...,----~ ----- --.-"... -- February 8, 2006 to just I think give you 10 or 15 minutes to lay it out. Ten or 15 minutes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You want to take a break first? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do you want to take a break? Okay, why don't we take a break and we'll be back at 7:52, okay? (Recess.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd take your seats. We're back in session here with the first round of the LDC codes for 2006. And I believe we have at present four commissioners, and one is MIA. So continue on. MS. FABACHER: Okay. David, I-- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Go ahead, David. MR. JACKSON: Thank you. David Jackson, Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency. In quick summary on the overlays, real short, real brief. In 2003, the CRA asked the county, BCC, to go into contract with HDR, Incorporated to create some overlays, as asked for in its language in the GMP. So these overlays are written to effectuate that language. The Bayshore area had a preexisting overlay, and it's been amended once. And it only had partial coverage. And on the charts and the maps up here, you look at the one to the left, it shows what the area was in the Bayshore that was covered. The Gateway Triangle is all new language, and it's going to cover all of the area in that part of the -- in the Gateway Triangle area. Now, with these two documents, once they get implemented and put into a Land Development Code, then you will have a chart that's on the right. And everything that was in the future land use map will now be covered by some type of overlay zoning so that we have completely encapsulated the area there. And there are some areas that are outside that future land use, but it's still inside the CRA boundaries. Page 83 ---" --....-.. --.- February 8, 2006 The CRA has conducted nine public hearings. We've had four planning commission meetings. And all I'm going to summarize here is that the overlays provide an opportunity to improve and rebuild the CRA's failing and noncontributing properties. And we do have a far number of them. That's why we were determined as -- that's why the CRA was created. These overlays create an instrument to implement the incentives to develop a better residential and commercial community. And we are trying to do that. And that's why they're here before you today. In summary, the planning commission recommendations that was read to you before you took your recess, the local advisory board for the CRA asked me to relay their comments to you as follows on those comments, made by the recommendations from the planning commISSIOn. One, on assessing a fee to the bonus density units. They oppose that. Not unanimously. It was 8-1 was the vote. To not assess a fee for that because it's a tool that can be used, and it was given to us for the CRA, to make the area better. The second one on affordable housing, they do support affordable housing but not a written requirement by hard numbers. But yes, that should be something that should be brought into it and could be used to do that, either affordable or gap, the previous discussion, whatever word you want to put on it. The third one is removing the 12 units, density units on the mini triangle. They oppose that. Because the GMP allowed that to be put in there. And if you look at the market analysis and numbers, if there isn't some kind of bonus density unit allocated to the mini triangle as a catalyst project, that area will not get redeveloped, it will remain as it is, and as the rest of the CRA develops around it, then you'll still have it what it is, and it won't grow with the rest of the community. So essentially the bonus units, as they are given to us, along with the overlay, they are incentive in implementing tools for the CRA and Page 84 ---- ....,- '-'-.."- --"- February 8, 2006 we support them, and that's why we want to put the overlay in place with the bonus density units without a value placed on them. But they do have value, and they do have meaning. But we can use that in a better way and to bring it on board here. Now, what we don't want to have happen is work two long years to get these overlays before you and then create some other process that will take one to two years later before we'd be able to use our tools, they're basically in de facto, creating a delay in this area of redeveloping. So that's where we sit with that, and I'm here for any questions. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I believe that staff and you have been, as you said, been working diligently on this for two years. MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HALAS: And I'd sure like -- I would sure not like to hold this up, because I think it's greatly needed. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, if! could add, your staff has probably spent 800 to 1,000 man hours, probably even more, working with David and his consultant. And as Susan would probably attest as well. But I believe the language you have in front of you, we've gone through in great detail, made the modifications, worked with the planning commission as well. And what you have in front of you is and can be applied both by your staff as well as the CRA. And I think it's a product that frankly we're looking forward to assisting him and David and his team in implementing. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Now, some of the changes -- do any of these changes, do they need to go back to the planning commission, or are we okay with everything? MR. SCHMITT: No, you're probably going to hear a petition later today that we can discuss that with one of the public speakers. But what you have in front of you today has been thoroughly vetted through all the planning commission, as David said, four times, four Page 85 ._.~-'- ,~--",. -- February 8, 2006 separate meetings, and through your development services advisory committee as well, at DSAC, so -- MS. MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, I do -- Nancy Gunlock has been working closely with the landscape section, and there was a couple of changes she wanted to read on the record. They are not regulatory changes, it's just what I would call cleanup clarification language. And they did not make it in your packet. If you would indulge us for just a minute. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think Commissioner Coyle has a question, and I think it's going to be short. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, very short. David, I was unclear about the three recommendations from the planning commission. Do you agree with all three of those recommendations? MR. JACKSON: No, sir. The local advisory committee does not support number one and number three. They do not support that. They voted and agreed that those were not in the best interest of the overlay and the CRA in order to implement the redevelopment plan. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So essentially you are saying that you do want to place a value on the density bonus units? MR. JACKSON: We do not. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You do not. MR. JACKSON: A monetary value. A dollar monetary value. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And with respect to the mini triangle bonus units. MR. JACKSON: We would like for them to remain as it is written in the GMP that there are 12 density units per acre allocated to the mini triangle, and they don't come out of the 388 bonus density units that were derived from the Botanical Gardens, that they are separate and distinct numbers and they shouldn't be blended or subtracted or added to each other. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And the affordable housing density Page 86 .---.. _._--~ --- - February 8, 2006 bonus units proposal, you agree with? MR. JACKSON: We agree that affordable housing is -- and gap housing. Let me put them both in there. When you guys agree to what the term is -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Whatever it is. MR. JACKSON: Cost-effective housing, whatever the name of it is. We do believe that that kind of residential units do need to be there. In other words, we need and want to build a mixed income community. We don't want it to be high in millionaires and we don't want it to be so poor that they don't have a job. We want it to be a mixed income community. And the affordable component is good, but I don't think that you want to -- well, we want to go and put a number requirement on there. Those requirements can come out of the implementation tools that you have in Joe Schmitt's organization or Cormac's organization. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have a question. With the 388 units, are all these going to be in affordable housing, or is it going to be a mixture? And then the other question is: This is on the south side of U.S. 41, which is a coastal high hazard area. So are we encouraging density in the coastal high hazard area? MR. JACKSON: Okay, you're not encouraging an increase in density more than what was there when all the land was platted. And I don't know the appropriate term for it, but all the density that's in that area has already been accounted for in the traffic studies and it was all there. All they did was take 388 residential units that would have been on the property that the Botanical Garden's on, and just took them out of it and rezoned that land, and they were already platted to be put in there. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Were they based on -- if you're saying it Page 87 ~_.. ~---' _._-_._~-~ .---.- -- February 8, 2006 was a traffic study, so then we're looking at four units per acre minus one for traffic? MR. SCHMITT: No. CHAIRMAN HALAS: No. MR. SCHMITT: David, if you want to clarify base density so Commissioner has an understanding what existed there. MR. WEEKS: For the record again, David Weeks, of your comprehensive planning department. Commissioners, the three -- well, the base density in most circumstances is not even going to be applicable here. Because as Mr. Jackson has stated, the properties have been platted and zoned. Most of them are already zoned residential or commercial. Many are zoned RMF-6. That would exceed the base density if the property were going through a rezoning process, as you typically see rezoning from agricultural to something else. CHAIRMAN HALAS: And when was that rezoned? Way back -- MR. WEEKS: Oh, decades ago, yes, sir. Now, the 388 bonus density units were established in the year 2000 when the future land use element for this overlay for this area was created. It was known at that time by what is now the Botanical Gardens PUD, was going to be rezoned from a variety of residential zoning district to establish that nonresidential use. So the provision was all the units that would have been allowed by the former zoning, multi-family, single-family, et cetera, which total 388 units, could be reallocated elsewhere within this overlay. So it is somewhat like a transfer of development rights type of a program. But there was never any contemplation that there would be any charge or any fee for these. At that time, in the year 2000, this predated your rural fringe amendments. We did have a TDR program in our codes, but it was very different. Page 88 ----'^~...._..- _..-- -- February 8, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: And the CRA was already established back in 2000? MR. JACKSON: It was created in 2000, yes, sir. And it was almost a companion document with the comprehensive plan being adopted, and that's the -- it was all worked out together. And it happened about the same time frame. CHAIRMAN HALAS: So you're telling me that -- are you telling me that this has been all grandfathered in? MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. In effect, that's true. CHAIRMAN HALAS: So any new LDC amendments that came after the establishment of the CRA and the 388 units that was determined that was going to be placed somewheres else in the CRA, that supersedes any of the LDC amendments that we presently have? MR. WEEKS: Yes, that's correct. Mr. Chairman, you had made a comment about the coastal high hazard area. I wanted to address that, if I may. When the future land use overlay was being prepared in 2000, this Florida Department of Community Affairs, which oversees our comprehensive plan and amendments thereto, raised a concern that we not be increasing density within the coastal high hazard area. And we told them no, we're not, we're reallocating -- we're just simply redistributing units that already have a zoning approval within the coastal high hazard area. They were fine with that. But their concern was do not increase density. Don't bring new density into the coastal high hazard area. And as Mr. Jackson has correctly stated, the future land use element does allow for a bonus density to be applied to the mini triangle, which is on the north side of 41, up to 12 units per acre. At that time, in the year 2000, December specifically, when the amendment was adopted by the board, staff erroneously believed that the coastal high hazard area was following u.s. 41 east, which means the mini triangle was outside of it. Page 89 ----- .----_.~ . --- February 8, 2006 Our error was that earlier in the year 2000, we adopted future land use map amendments that changed the coastal high hazard boundary, from where it used to run along 41 all the way over to Airport Pulling Road, running up the road. Which means the mini triangle area is in the coastal high hazard area. Again, Mr. Jackson is correct, the language, the way it is adopted and the way I would say the board's intent at that time clearly was to allow that 12-unit per acre bonus in the mini triangle not to be subject to this density pool, not to come out of that pool. But I want to bring this issue to your attention, because I know this board, as a consensus, I don't think unanimously but as a consensus has repeatedly expressed concerns about increasing density in the coastal high hazard area. And if this zoning overlay for the Gateway Triangle is adopted as proposed, you will be allowing for density bonus in the mini triangle to increase density in the coastal high hazard area. Because as it is proposed, those bonus units in the mini triangle would not be coming out of that density pool. So you'd still be reallocating the 388 units from the old Botanical Gardens zoning, plus you would be allowing some additional density in the mini triangle, which is in the coastal high hazard area. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do you think that will have any repercussions from DCA on this? MR. WEEKS: No, sir, I don't. Zoning code amendments are not subject to their review. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I know the other thing is that the Governor is looking very seriously at -- in regards to communities that are encouraging more density in coastal high hazard areas. So that's why I just brought this up, okay? MR. WEEKS: Certainly. And Commissioner, this is obviously a policy decision for this board to make. We just bring it to your attention. Again, the existing growth management plan would allow you to approve the overlay as proposed. Page 90 -~-- -_.~.-.-,_._-' --- February 8, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a couple of questions. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Then we'll get on with the speakers. COMMISSIONER FIALA: If you'd like me to wait. CHAIRMAN HALAS: No, go ahead. COMMISSIONER FIALA: With these 388 units, so you're going to like give them away as an enticement, right, to come into the area. So say, for instance, developer A and developer B come in. Developer C and D are also looking at the area. Developer A and B take all the 388 free units, more or less. What happens to developer C and D? MR. JACKSON: Well, when the 388 units are used, there are no more bonus density units, unless you want to, by policy, as David said, increase the density in that area -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I was -- MR. JACKSON: -- through TDR's or whatever else. What happens to them, and ma'am, if I may, is that there is a process here within the overlays that the allocation is done by the Board of County Commissioners through petition by an investor in the area wanting to do a mixed use development. And they come before you and they say this is my program, this is my mixed use project. You look at it. And on the merits of that project you will say yes or no. And if you say yes, there may be a request for an increase in their density on that land out of the bonus density pool. Reallocation out of Botanical Gardens that may go into that project. And you can look at -- and on the merits of that project, you can allocate the number that they are requesting or less. And in that, there's discussion on it. So the thing is is that the allocation is of the number -- and the pool is there until it's used up. Now, looking at the amount ofland that we have in there, they're looking at the red and maybe the kind of purple color up there? That is the only land in the place that you can Page 91 -- -- -- February 8, 2006 put the extra bonus density units in for mixed use. The problem is that there's not enough land, not enough size that can be redeveloped to really use much more than what is already there. And then the rest of the land will be used under whatever they have for an underlined base unit. So ifit's a C-l, C-3, they have four units for it and a smaller project. But yes, there will be -- and right now it's set to be first come, first serve. And it's based on merit. And you don't have to give it to them. And it's based on the merit from the Board of County Commissioners to look at the mixed use project. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have one more question, but Margie wants to say something. Margie, did you want to say something on the record? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes, because from my reading of the compo plan, so there are some criteria that govern where a project is located in relation to certain types of roadways and so on as a consideration as to whether, you know, you get that extra density. And you might want to address that a little further. MR. JACKSON: Yeah, without getting too much in detail, there's only a certain amount of land that's available for that. North of Davis Boulevard, you can't do a mixed use project and use the bonus density units. East of Airport Pulling, over on this side of the street, you can't use them there. But you can use them in the rest of the area. And a lot of the other area is residential and you can't do a mixed use project in a residential area. It has to be commercial. And it's over time. So if that answers your question, ma'am. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I think what -- to summarize what you're saying, when you look at the way the regulations are crafted and the lay of the land, that it's sort of self limiting. I think that's what you're saying. MR. JACKSON: That's correct. An assembly of land costs a lot of money. And we know the price ofland here in this county. And Page 92 --- -- --- "-..-- -.--- February 8, 2006 it's one of the reasons that the 12 units per acre in the mini triangle, that we support it being allocated to that special project. If it doesn't have bonus density units put on it, there's a very good likelihood it's going to just stay as a C-4 property. And what it is now is what it will be for a very, very long time. COMMISSIONER FIALA: My second question was, and this doesn't have anything to do with you, actually, but it's just a side note to ask Joe Schmitt. I know we've had some problem with permitting because of redevelopment there, and all of our permitting rules are based more or less on new development, and it's been a little cumbersome for staff when they're faced with these odd shaped lots and everything. Are we working on some kind of criterion by which we help this permitting process through to judge each project in redevelopment by their merits, rather than by new development merits? MR. SCHMITT: I understand your question, and we are looking at that. There already are deviation process on the books that allow for a developer to ask for deviations, if the site is restrictive in some nature or form. But this gets in the fundamental question again of where you -- through redevelopment, you want to promote redevelopment into -- to conform with certainly what you intended in your Land Development Code. By creating more deviations, you are not -- I'll use the word forcing development to come into conformity of some of the lots. But this is an issue that comes up often in regards to a developer having to meet current requirements in the code for setback, for drainage. There are certain things I cannot deviate from. But there are certain things that we will either come to the board for guidance, or we can, through Susan MUlTay's authority as zoning director already exist. Susan, you want to cover some of that as well? MS. MURRAY: Sure. We've got some that exist over the terms Page 93 --- ---- ,--_.._-,,- February 8, 2006 of parking and architectural requirements, and we're looking at doing the same for the landscape provisions. Kind of learning as we go with some of these new projects that have most recently come in as to what works and what doesn't work and where the code falls short of addressing some of these redevelopment areas. So to answer your question, yes, we are looking at enhancing some of the tools we've got now with additional tools. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I understand it's been difficult for you guys to try to deal with these really weird sized lots and things that our code doesn't cover. MR. SCHMITT: And it's a balancing act. Certainly you don't want to allow everything, but you want to somehow create a process that will give and take and not create a situation where it becomes uneconomically feasible to redevelop, and then you have a barren piece of land sitting. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I've got one question before, because I want to get on with the speakers here. But my question is, with all the 12 units per acre in the mini triangle and then with the redistribution of the 388 units in the Bayshore area, how is this going to impact the traffic in that general area? Will they make the traffic count, or are we going to have a problem with addressing the traffic on U.S. 41 in that particular area? MR. JACKSON: The 388, as I'm told by the Collier County Transportation Department, were in the study. CHAIRMAN HALAS: They've always been there? MR. JACKSON: Yes. That -- which predates me. But those (sic) traffic study, that 388 number, is in there, it's in the formula and it's been cranked out. I don't have a definitive answer to answer you about the 12 units for the mini triangle. I do not know the answer to that. CHAIRMAN HALAS: We'll address that when it comes before us. Page 94 ----- February 8, 2006 MR. SCHMITT: That's already designated a TCMA, Commissioner, and it's a system-wide assessment. MR. JACKSON: And if! may go back, sir, if! may? Mr. Schmitt's comment about the deviations and the ability there, the only -- as I've lived through this process and we've already been through it once before is that I think that the Board of County Commissioners may want to look at talking to and maybe giving direction to the county manager to allow a little bit more authority or ability at Mr. Schmitt's level and below as they deem necessary to be able to provide a little bit more leeway to make some judgments on these very difficult and nonconforming lots and other properties, based on the merits of what they are. And I know that they're limited to what they can do, but you may want to look at expanding that ability for -- you know, pushing responsibility as low as you can on the thing so it doesn't have to come back to you guys in your BZA agendas and you end up with very long meetings, that where it makes sense, maybe a little more authority down in the trenches down there for them to make good qualified decisions would help our process in the CRA and it would help us expedite. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Power men. MR. JACKSON: Very good word. Can we do it? CHAIRMAN HALAS: David, do you have anything to say? MR. WEEKS: Yes, please. Commissioner, once you get to your public speakers, I think you could go in a little bit of a different direction. The issue of affordable housing within the overlays. At present -- two points: One, Mr. Jackson had mentioned that the CRA is supportive of affordable housing, and that Mr. Schmitt's division that we in community development presently have the ability through our current processes to implement some requirement for affordable housing, that's not quite right. We do not. Because the only means for requiring affordable Page 95 -'--~'-'. -.~.,._-" _._mo. ~--,.- ..-- February 8, 2006 housing is through a rezone action when someone requests a density bonus for affordable housing. The process that is being established with the zoning overlays still comes before this board for approval, but it is a brand new process and it is not a rezoning. It's known as mixed use project approval. But the point is, is that it's not a rezoning. Therefore, even if this board were so inclined to want some affordable housing, I don't believe there's a legal mechanism for you to do so. Secondly, at present, the growth management plan does allow for a density bonus in the coastal high hazard area for affordable housing units, up to the maximum, eight units per acre. The evaluation and appraisal report that this board adopted in 2004 directs staff to amend the growth management plan to cap the density in the coastal high hazard area to four units per acre. No exceptions. Which simply means if someone were to request an affordable housing density bonus in the coastal high hazard area, in reality it would be limited to one unit per acre bonus. And as I was stating earlier in the meeting, the majority of the properties, if not all of them, already have residential and commercial zoning. They already have a zoning at the three units per acres or higher. So there really is no reason for someone to come before you for a rezoning of their property to try to provide affordable housing, unless they want to try to obtain I would say that maximum of maybe up to eight units per acre. And again, if you adopt the EAR based amendments, then that will no longer be an option. All of the -- both overlays, the entire overlays, are within the coastal high hazard area, with the exception of the properties north of U.S. 41 and east of Airport Pulling Road. That's where Home Depot is at, all the way down to the automobile dealership. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do we call for our first speaker? MS. FABACHER: Okay, would it be your preference to hear Page 96 M_'___ .-._- February 8, 2006 Nancy read in the changes and have the landscape architect speak? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, let's get that taken care of. MS. GUNLOCK: Good evening. For the record, the landscape changes are -- this is in the Bayshore overlay under Item F, landscaping and buffer requirements, number three. MS. FABACHER: Excuse me, Nancy. Catherine Fabacher. I think that's on Page 163, Commissioners. MS. GUNLOCK: That's correct. That's item number three: A shared 10-foot wide landscape buffer with each adjacent property contributing -- and this is the added language -- a minimum of. Okay? And the next landscape change is under item five, water management area. And it will state a minimum of 50 percent of the __ and the added word here is surface. And I'm going to go back to item number three. I just left off the very last sentence. We're going to add the words comma, and building foundation planting areas. And that was at the end of number three. CHAIRMAN HALAS: At the end of number three. MS. GUNLOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Instead of where the period is? MS. GUNLOCK: There will be a comma, and it will state, and building foundation planting areas. The other two changes that were requested are regulatory in nature, and that is for item number six, parking perimeter. Item number seven, which is right-of-way buffers. And actually there's a third one, item number nine, dumpsters. Those are regulatory in nature, and we intend to -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Where are these at? MS. GUNLOCK: They're at Page 163 and 164. I can read those agam. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I don't have 164. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Me either. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I've got 163 and then I go to 165. Page 97 "---- February 8, 2006 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I've got 164. I'll share it with you. MS. MURRAY: I think they're just mis-numbered. They go in succeSSIOn. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They're different pictures. MS. GUNLOCK: It's the page with the side parking lot with street wall graphic on it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: We don't have this in our books. MS. GUNLOCK: Oh, my goodness. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, go back to seven again. Would you start at seven, ma'am? MS. GUNLOCK: Yes. Okay, number seven is right-of-way buffers. And gosh, I'm looking at this, you don't have that. We can bring them forth to you at the next meeting. CHAIRMAN HALAS: We've got one book and three of us are sharing this. So just continue on. MS. GUNLOCK: Yeah, after item number six, there is an item number seven, which isn't in your book, and that is right-of-way buffers. That will go to sub-committee. And the next item is item number nine, which states dumpsters, and that will go back to sub-committee as well during the next LDC cycle amendment. And the same changes will apply to the gateway overlay as well. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. MS. GUNLOCK: You're welcome. MS. FABACHER: Mr. Commissioner, we have some speakers directed to landscaping. And that would be -- first we had Kristen Petry. MS. PETRY: Petry. MS. FABACHER: Petry. MS. PETRY: Ifit's okay-- CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'm going to ask the speakers if they Page 98 -- - '---~"-'- -- February 8, 2006 would -- MS. PABACHER: We'll go in whichever order you'd like. CHAIRMAN HALAS: The speakers we have here, I'd like, if we could contain this within a three-minute time frame. MR. ANDREA: I'll be one minute, I'll be good. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, thank you. MR. ANDREA: Good evening. My name is Christian Andrea. I'm a landscape architect, having practiced here in Collier County for the last 16 years. In general, I support the amendments proposed. The few issues that we disagree with, I think with future code evolutions, I think we'll come to a conclusion that we all agree with. Realizing that codes are an evolving process, I'd like to plant some seeds for future consideration for future code rights. As members of the design community, we need to stay focused on creating sustainable landscape areas that define our community. Sustainable landscape is defined as planting that will last more than one generation. Quite often most of our design work is limited to instant impact and instant gratification. The most dramatic element of any streetscape or community is the use of large and mature canopy trees. Canopy trees are typically identified as like live oaks or other leafy type trees or non-palm trees. If you look at some areas within Naples that have a strong sense of communities, you look at areas like Park Shore, Port Royal, streets like Gordon, Crayton, they are all defined as a large canopy streetscape. And that's a vision that I think we all share as a good sense of community. After Wilma, we all realized what damage occurred to our community through the loss of these historic trees. I want to offer that as our code evolves we don't lose the ability to plant these canopy trees by eliminating planters, making planters too small, or planting them too close to buildings which prohibiting (sic) us to plant any tree Page 99 February 8, 2006 of any significance. As the code evolves, we need to consider increasing the planting areas selectively n so not everywhere, but selective areas -- reducing unnecessary pavement encroachments that overlap these landscape areas, minimizing the overuse of short-lived palms -- again, instant gratification -- and to satisfy landscape that only benefits the community in a short-term process. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. Questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Next speaker, please. MS. F ABACHER: Kristen Petry. MS. PETRY: Good evening. I'm Kristen Petry, and I have a company in town called Pergola. And what we do is offer landscape architecture, landscape construction and landscape maintenance servIces. And I too agree with the language that Nancy Gunlock has put forth to you tonight. I agree with what Christian Andrea has said, as a representative of the landscape industry here in town. I would also like to say specifically and kind of on a personal note, in 1993 when I first came to town, I was fortunate to be hired with a newly minted degree, master's degree in landscape architecture, by the company that did landscape architecture for the revitalization of Fifth A venue South. And with that, I was privy to the effort that went into that. And I think that part of the reason that that is so successful, that area is so successful, is that the lead landscape architect envisioned what the future would be. And in that she provided that element that makes that landscape successful, the landscape story. Just like a novel has a plot and there are elements within the story that support the plot, it's important to have the necessary elements in the landscape story so that the concept is supported and so that the plot Page 100 -.--".,.,. -~ -. '"' --~-~ _._n_ February 8, 2006 can have a conclusion. And with that said, I would like to say that I do care about the landscape story here in Collier County, and I think that the language that is put forth by Nancy Gunlock speaks to those elements so that the landscape story and the Bayshore overlay area will be successful into the future. And when we're talking about other issues into the future, we'll look at this area that we're discussing now and say boy, we got those elements right and they're all there and isn't it successful. And I think that if some of these elements that these amendments address are not there, we're going to miss it and it's not going to be what we want it to be. So I thank you for your time and thanks again for including me in the process. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. Next speaker? MS. F ABACHER: Well, we have one more speaker on the landscaping. I think he's left. Wayne Hook? He's gone, okay. So are we ready to go on then to the other speakers, Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, please. MS. F ABACHER: Mr. Chuck Gunther? Mike wants to go first, all right. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Mike, can you probably deliver all this in about three minutes, you think? MR. FERNANDEZ: I'll do my best. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, I'd appreciate it. MR. FERNANDEZ: Three-minute version. Michael Fernandez, for the record. MS. F ABACHER: Excuse me, let me hand this out before you start the time, Margie. I promised to help by handing out what he's providing tonight. Page 101 .---. ~-'-'-_."'-'~ ---. '.--'--- February 8, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: We'll give you the benefit of the doubt, Mike. MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, I think a point that Commissioner Fiala brought up is the one that we're trying to address. Earlier in the process, late in the process for the planning commissioners, we introduced the concept of a deviation process that would be administrative to handle those little items that would come before you for projects that there is no solution in the code for. I've got to applaud the work effort that's gone through -- or been provided by your staff and your consultant team. But of course this is a new code and there's always going to be nuances that need to be addressed, especially with very difficult and challenging projects in a redevelopment area and most certainly in a mixed use environment. Before the planning commissioners, we proposed some more exacting text, but it was at their last meeting and they chose not to vote on that text yea or nay, but said to take this forward, present it, see if you can gain the support of the CRA advisory board, and then if successful, take it to the Board of County Commissioners. The CRA advisory board, as David can tell you, and Chuck, who's on advisory board, voted unanimously to ask your support for a deviation process. What's been handed out to you, in red, there's a portion there that's called deviations. It was crafted by Patrick White. We hired him to look through the files of numerous communities and find some regulations that have some provisions that we could extract from. And he produced what we believe is something that's viable. We still think n we've had some comments from it. I think it needs a little bit more work. We would ask for your indulgence to consider this and ask your staff to work with us between now and your next meeting on the 28th to refine it and see if we can't come up with something that you feel comfortable in approving. Page 102 -~_. - -....-.-.-.- ---'-'-'-' ----",- -'-'- February 8, 2006 I would tell that you these deviations would not apply to all projects. In fact, it only would apply to projects that apply for the mixed use process and are reviewed by the advisory board for their merits and are approved by you, the board. And so it's only at that point -- after that point when it goes to an SDP that staff then can evaluate to see if there's a deviation requested, if they believe it has merit and is consistent with your approval. And Patrick White created, I believe, seven standards that it would be measured against, including growth management plan compliance, consistency with the CRA redevelopment plan and such. So we'd ask your indulgence again to -- although it's late in the process, let's see if we can get this in. It really needs to be incorporated to foster the types of projects that you're looking for. And again, it would be very few projects. It would only be the ones that you approve of through that mixed use process. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer it. And we've basically requested Patrick to be on board and to work with your staff to finalize the document between now and the 28th. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think this needs to be addressed with staff. MR. FERNANDEZ: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN HALAS: And I believe that possibly the planning commission ought to also scrutinize this. So I guess I'm looking for direction from Dave. Dave, do you think that the way to address this -- so we don't hold up any longer, do you believe that staff has enough time between now and the next time that it comes before the Board of County Commissioners for approval of the CRA amendment to have the planning commission and staff look at these, or do you think it's going to hold the process up? MR. JACKSON: I'm not going to speak for Mr. Schmitt's people. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Joe, you can jump in on this, too. Page 103 .._~. --.....-.- -.- _...~- '- February 8, 2006 MR. JACKSON: But yes, sir, if mandated, it can be done, and bring it back on the 28th. But the thing that I would really like to make sure is that if you are going to entertain putting something in here and it has to go back to the planning commission, can you get the planning commission on a special meeting to review it before it goes to the 28th of this month. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Joe? MR. SCHMITT: No. In a nutshell, no. I don't have enough time to get this to the planning commission to bring it back. Your executive summaries for the 28th meeting are being finalized now and are to the manager's office next week. The next planning commission meeting -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think you've answered my question. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, I would recommend -- I know this is important, and I know it's certainly important to Michael's client, but also, the overlay is important. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Exactly. We've got two years on this thing. MR. SCHMITT: And I would recommend -- the problem with staff, though we don't disagree with the language, it's going through it and making sure we can apply it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's what 1-- MR. SCHMITT: And this was raised to your planning commission, just for the record, so you know that -- and they said we're not going to review this, no time to review it, so -- MR. JACKSON: And just for the record, the local advisory board did say that yes, there should be some sort of deviation language in there. They did not fully say that this needs to be there, but they said there needs to be a paragraph, that there's some deviations, for those very difficult projects and properties that we have. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle? Page 104 ---~..- -- ~--'---'-'" ._. February 8, 2006 COMMISSIONER COYLE: This is given to us at the last minute. There's been plenty of time to get this stuff into the process. We've been working on it a long time. We haven't even had a chance to read this. I think it's unreasonable to try to push this into the process at the present time. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I do, too. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think we just have to get this thing approved and get it through the process and then we'll consider amending it sometime in the future. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think we've got time later on to make amendments. MR. FERNANDEZ: One more comment, Commissioners, and that really is that, you know, I believe you sincerely need to look at this. I think there is time to look at it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Not by the 28th. MR. FERNANDEZ: And I don't want to hold up the other overlay, and I don't think it should be hold (sic) up. However, I would tell you that if these regulations are passed in the form that they are now, they would essentially preclude development of many parcels. From -- because right now, the way the code is written. For instance, it says that even if you used the underlying zoning, you have to abide by the site design standards -- certain site design standards, which there are parcels it cannot meet. And so it would basically make those parcels undevelopable. And you're basically imposing a moratorium. For instance, I'm representing several clients that have different parcels of different sizes, and that would be the outcome right now. So I think -- and again, it would only be to those that you have an opportunity to review at a -- you know, through the muck process. CHAIRMAN HALAS: But I think, Mike, I believe that the opportunity is available that we can address this in amendments to it later on. Page 105 ___M ---------' -.-." M____ February 8, 2006 MR. FERNANDEZ: The opportunity was going to be not there for another eight months before it can be reconsidered. And during that period of time, I'm afraid that some projects will go by. And of course during that period of time there are land that would be undevelopable, could not be permitted through this system. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Why didn't you bring that before us before tonight? That would have been a fair thing to do. MR. FERNANDEZ: Sir, we originally did bring it to the planning commission in one form at a early meeting. They didn't get the revised language until the last meeting. They said that we could have the opportunity and suggested we bring it to the board for their consideration. The advisory board did vote on this language and did ask that you consider this in this cycle, and asked staff to work with us until the 28th. We've got a very good consultant that you're familiar with that's willing to work on this language to get it where you need to be. And then if you're not comfortable on the 28th, then of course you can vote it down. But I think it really needs to be considered again; otherwise, you're essentially putting some properties that could not be developed. The code, as it's been proposed right now, has been developed for very small parcels that are very linear in nature -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Why are we arguing about this? We just made a decision. MR. FERNANDEZ: Very good. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: That was my comment. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I think we got directions. MS. FABACHER: Mr. Gunther? MR. GUNTHER: Commissioners, Chairman, Chuck Gunther, 2448 Bayside Street. I'm here representing myself. Page 106 ---_.__..__.._.._--._~-_._~~------_.- ""u,,___,.,,__ February 8, 2006 I come up to talk about two things: One was what just come up about the deviations. As an advisory board member, we did vote on this. I didn't agree to it word for word, but I think it's something that -- the way I look at it is we want to have a working document, something that works. I think what we have right now is something we're going to trip over, and I'd rather not see that. By tripping over it, I think what they're trying to say right now is if we have a good plan, somebody can't come in and buy certain little areas and put something in that we don't really want. This is closing some of those gaps and saying we can put something in there better. And I think even a quick review of it might help to just get it passed through and possibly put the whole thing through and then maybe put this in as addendum into it. Say, you know, and maybe passing it in the future to add on to it. So I think your amendment might work out. So I'll go along with that. The other thing is on density bonus units. You probably all got this in your e-mail. I feel very strongly about this. The Collier County Planning Commission had brought it up first about they should charge on these units; some charge should be placed on them. I had asked about that back in 2000. Why do we have these bonus density units and why are we giving them away? There's no reason to give away density. Density is something that can cost you in the long run. It can also help you. To give as an incentive, I think any builder in this county or any builder in this country right now knows that this county is all the incentive you need. They can build here and make money. There's going to be a lot of cost, there's going to be a lot of things, you know, that are going to cost them money. Density allows them to make more money on a certain piece of land they have. So I think that part is kind of out. The incentive is there. I think if we don't give them some kind of a monetary value, Page 107 -.-,---- -.-._~_.-.._...._.,._..~-_.~_... ,. --"-- February 8, 2006 you're going to see when you do give units out -- we have one developer right now who's asking for 260 units. That's over two-thirds of the 388. Ifwe give that out and somebody comes in and asks for, say, 12 and gets turned down or asks for, say, 200 and can't get them, somebody along the lines are going to say foul, something's wrong. Questions might come up, is this fair to do it this way. First come, first serve sounds nice, but it doesn't really -- when you talk legalese to me, first come first serve doesn't sound too right. I'm sorry. I'd like to see just any kind of value put on it and work from there. I think by having a value on them, you're going to see they'll be respected. You can take that value that can be used for a lot of different things. If we had to, you can take that money and push it back into even affordable housing, Habitat for Humanity, something like that. There are things you can do with it. One of the problems was the time to get this done. We've asked about this and asked about it and asked about it. And it's been pushed on the back burner over and over, since 2000. I don't think the thing about time is there. I think the time has been, let's put it off, put it off, put it off. And I don't think it should be put off, there should be a decision about it. To leave it to the advisory board, I can tell you right now -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are we just about wrapped up? MR. GUNTHER: -- the value will be given away. That's about it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. Yes? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Thank you. This issue has come up, and I've been aware of it just since I came into this process about charging for units. I just want to put on the record that we have a legal consultant at Nabors-Giblin looking at this because there are several legal issues. Page 108 ""---"-~'"'-'--"-""'- .-..--..--.'. --.---.--...-..--- February 8, 2006 Not saying we can't do it, but there are several legal issues that come up. But I'm suggesting it's something that has to be well thought out and you just can't arbitrarily assign a number to it and say, well, that's what we're going to do. It has to be based on something. So again, hopefully by the 28th we'll have that legal opinion from Nabors-Giblin, and I'll also be calling Greg Stewart to see how he's progressing on that to give to the board. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. Anything else? I think we gave direction to staff. Is that it? MS. F ABACHER: That's it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other comments? MR. SCHMITT: Any further guidance on this amendment, we'll bring it back and we'll continue this meeting until the 28th of February at our regular BCC agenda -- as a regular BCC agenda item, and we'll bring back these additional amendments for your second review. CHAIRMAN HALAS: If there's no other discussion or items to be brought up, we are adjourned. Page 109 ----- ---'-"-.-'-. '-~'-'--'-- - - February 8, 2006 ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 8:42 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL 2-~.Ki? ./ FRA~ALAS, Chairman ATTEST: DWIGHT E.-,BROCK, CLERK <" , ~M By:', O-.u.u ~j IiU> W 0(' ." Attest .,,'. ". ,oa..l~ I 11 onaturi\'Oft 1 · . These minute~roved by the Board on 3 11'200(.0 , as presented or as corrected . TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM. Page 110 -~""'-"-~