Loading...
CCPC Minutes 11/18/2021November 18, 2021 Page 1 of 23 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida November 18, 2021 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 2:00 p.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Edwin Fryer, Chairman Karen Homiak, Vice Chair Karl Fry Paul Shea Christopher T. Vernon ABSENT: Joe Schmitt Robert L. Klucik, Jr. Tom Eastman, Collier County School Board Representative ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney November 18, 2021 Page 2 of 23 P R O C E E D I N G S MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Bosi. Hello, everyone, and welcome to the afternoon or first session of the November 18, 2021, meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. Will everyone please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Secretary, I ask that you call the roll, please, sir. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Eastman? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Shea? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Present. COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm here. Chairman Fryer? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Vice Chair Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Schmitt? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Vernon? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Klucik? (No response.) COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Chair, we have a quorum of four -- five. That would be five. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. And I was contacted -- I received a one-way text from Mr. Eastman to indicate that he had a commitment and not able to be here, and also we've heard from Commissioner Schmitt and Commissioner Klucik. They all had unavoidable or unforeseen business commitments, so their absences are, of course, excused. And before I forget -- and I might have forgotten at our last meeting to excuse the absences of Commissioner Fry and Commissioner Vernon. I'm not sure whether I did or not, but I want to be clear to have made a record that those absences were excused as well. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And I know staff keeps track of that, so I wanted to have made an official record of to that effect. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: When you said "Joe," it made me remember to shut my phone off. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, yes. Very good. Addenda to the agenda, Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: No changes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting after this evening session is on December 2 of 2021. Does anyone know whether he or she will not be able to be in attendance? COMMISSIONER VERNON: December 2? CHAIRMAN FRYER: December the 2. And while you're checking that, Commissioner, I'll also ask the same question about December 16. Anyone know whether he or she might not be able to be here on December 16? (No response.) COMMISSIONER VERNON: I think I have a conflict on the 2nd. November 18, 2021 Page 3 of 23 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. Well, we'll be forewarned. Thank you, Commissioner. All right. Otherwise, it looks like we'll be -- we'll have a quorum on both of those days, I hope. Approval of minutes. We have no minutes before us for action. BCC report, recaps, Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: Unfortunately, I didn't have a chance to provide that recap for you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Not a problem, sir. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Zoning director. The one item that was heard by the Board of County Commissioners was the AUIR/CEI which this Planning Commission had made a unanimous recommendation of approval, and the Board approved it with no changes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Bosi. Let's see. Chairman's report. None today. Consent agenda, nothing on consent. So we'll go right into public hearings, and make a comment or two, because this is a rather unusual situation that we have for -- those of you who have taken a look at the agenda will see that. And I want to set straight at least what I believe my perception, and I think staff's as well, how we properly should proceed in this way. In essence, we've got companions, three companion items, and we're going to hear two of them this afternoon, and then the third we're going to hear at five minutes after 5:00, which we'll call the evening session. The first one is PL2021000603. It is the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay density pool bonus large-scale Growth Management Plan amendment, and it's back for action today on the question of adoption. You'll recall we heard this on transmittal last June 17, and we unanimously recommended that it be transmitted. So it's back again today on adoption. And it's companion to two LDCAs, and here's where it gets a little tricky. PL20210001033 is the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle redevelopment area density bonus pool LDCA, which we're going to hear this afternoon, and it will be heard jointly with the Growth Management Plan amendment. Now, setting the stage for what's going to happen this evening, just to set out for continuity, I'll make reference now to the third companion, which we're going to hear in the evening, and that is the PL20210001222, the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area LDCA. Now, that, among other things, adds prohibited uses. And so in that respect, as a staff-generated LDCA that covers more than 10 acres and adds prohibited uses and then there are some other things as well that would trigger it, that's why that thing has to happen in the evening. And there are no prohibited uses or other tripwires, if you will, that would require us to have heard the first LDCA in the evening. So it gives us a somewhat unusual situation where we're going to have a joint hearing in the afternoon and then we're going to hear separately the third matter. But this afternoon is for matters 0603 and 1033. And since these are all legislative in nature, we can dispense with the need to swear in witnesses and make disclosures, and we can move directly to staff's presentation. Gentlemen. Staff. MR. BOSI: And just from a procedural matter, we were going to have the consultant for the Bayshore CRA to provide an overview of the amendment, and then staff will provide their brief presentation. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. Ms. DeJohn. MS. DeJOHN: Okay, good afternoon. Laura DeJohn, for the record. I'm a certified planner with Johnson Engineering, and I am working on behalf of Bayshore/Gateway Triangle CRA office today. And with me is Deborah Forester who runs the CRA office, who can also assist with any questions about this program. November 18, 2021 Page 4 of 23 As already mentioned, we have been before -- been before you already with the GMPA, Growth Management Plan amendment, request related to the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle area density bonus pool. We will also be relaying to you the content of the Land Development Code amendment that's meant to implement the policies discussed in the Growth Management Plan amendment. I'll ask you a couple questions just from a presentation standpoint, is is it acceptable to run through both items from an explanation standpoint, or do you want to pause in between and then -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: The two items that are on for this afternoon? MS. DeJOHN: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think however you're most comfortable. We're accustomed to hearing them sort of together. MS. DeJOHN: Yes. Okay. So that's how this is set up. I will begin. And you've heard this before, because we've talked about this Growth Management Plan amendment before when you heard this for transmittal purposes. Just a reminder, the CRA, the community redevelopment area, is an adopted area within the county, and the BCC adopts a redevelopment plan in accordance with Florida statutes to implement initiatives within that defined CRA area. Most recently, the redevelopment plan was updated by Board approval in 2019. And why we're here is because initiatives that are put forth in that Board-adopted plan call for activity to do more within the CRA area to maximize potential development, take advantage of bonus density programs like are already in place, and just improve upon them. So that's why we're here. The Growth Management Plan has a Future Land Use Element that does establish an overlay. So geographically the overlay covers the CRA redevelopment area and defines what initiatives are meant to, you know, encourage development in that area. And then the Land Development Code is the implementing tool which outlines specific standards on how those programs are going to be designed. So you'll -- you can see here what area we're talking about. Bayshore/Gateway Triangle is defined, basically, from Davis Boulevard on the north all the way down to the end of Bayshore Drive to the south. This item has been discussed over the course of over a year. We began by introducing these concepts to the CRA Advisory Board in July of 2020. A stakeholder meeting was held in October about a year ago. The CRA Advisory Board has been the sounding board for many changes that we've made along the way on this document, so we saw them again about a year ago in November. Again in January of 2021. These LDC amendments also weave their way through the Development Services Advisory Committee review. So the Land Development Code amendments went to DSAC in June. You-all heard the transmittal for this item in June as well. As you mentioned, it was a unanimous vote to forward that item for state review. The Board of County Commissioners also unanimously supported that transmittal and no objections were received from any state agencies, so that's why we're back here again. The DSAC voted to recommend the Land Development Code amendment associated with this bonus density program a couple months ago. So bonus density pool highlights: Basically this program was adopted about 21 years ago, so it's been in place a long time. It was meant to incentivize redevelopment in an area that was defined as needing additional encouragement for development purposes, and it's been a success. So the pool originally had 388 units. Those were derived from the PUD rezoning when the Naples Botanical Gardens went from having residential development potential to becoming a botanical garden. The potential units that could have developed on that site were assembled into this pool, and they've been dedicated to potential developments throughout the years. Two hundred sixty-six units have been used so far. You see those when they do come through for rezoning purposes, and density pool units are being requested in the area, and now 122 units are remaining and that's, you know, creating a sense of urgency to replenish the pool. It's been a useful tool. There's been successful development going on in the redevelopment area. November 18, 2021 Page 5 of 23 So one of our goals here is to make a mechanism -- since the Botanical Gardens happened 20 years ago, let's see what other types of property like that could be leveraged to contribute to the pool as well. So the GMPA, the language before you, includes an allowance to allow other projects that are going to nonresidential use to replenish the pool. There's also some additional criteria that is desired to make these units that are being rewarded as an extra bonus to the developer useful to the community as a whole. So in exchange for the awarding of bonus units, the approach here is to put some standards on any recipient of bonus units. Number 1, vehicular access to the property that's being developed should not be gated, because that is a goal of the CRA to be not a, you know, gated-off community to be a walkable and integrated community, and that public-realm improvements should be performed by that developer who's receiving those units from the pool. Finally, we're addressing something that has been an issue for some smaller property owners, and that is where a multifamily zoned property that could be very small in this older area of town, the potential to develop more than just what is entitled to that multifamily site could be greatly improved with just one extra unit, for example. So we've created a program called the limited density pool allocation for those smaller sites. So to be more specific, we have removed the finite reference in the text, no longer referencing 388 as the number of units in the pool. We don't really need that in the Growth Management Plan. We've taken that out and made the threshold that can be requested no more than 25 percent of the total density pool available or 10 units, whichever is less. Also, residential only bonus pool projects which were originally allowed along all the major corridors have been narrowed to be only allowed along Bayshore. And with that, I'm going to switch gears into the Land Development Code amendment, unless you have questions on the Growth Management Plan. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry does. COMMISSIONER FRY: Hi, Laura. MS. DeJOHN: Hi. COMMISSIONER FRY: Two questions for you. First is you mentioned 122 bonus -- density bonus units are still remaining. MS. DeJOHN: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: How many, if any, of those have been applied for at this point? MS. DeJOHN: There are no pending applications for those 122. The 97 -- there's been a recent allocation of 97 to the Cirrus Pointe/Camden Landing project, which brought it down to the 122. COMMISSIONER FRY: That was really my question, whether those had been netted out, and they have. Okay. Second question is -- and I might have missed this in the packet, but is there compensation for -- when bonus density units are recaptured to replenish the pool, is there compensation for the property owners of the units that then -- that do get released? MS. DeJOHN: The answer's no. There's not an intention to, you know, pay for the -- like, the CRA or county entities would pay for the units being contributed to the pool. It's assumed, kind of like the Naples Botanical Garden, that there's a driving intent by the property owner to not use those units. And it could be CRA-owned property. You know, the CRA has the 17-acre site. We don't know what's going to happen with it. Should a CRA-owned property become a park, then the residential development potential on that site is a natural fit for this program. Any other developer who happens to be developing something -- and purely optional. There's no requirement to grab those units. It's just you if there was -- if the option was chosen by the developer, the excess unused units could be dedicated to the pool; just allowing it. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. So if they don't use the units, they would go back to the pool, basically. MS. DeJOHN: Yes. And, yeah. Anyone who's awarded the units, we have -- we are November 18, 2021 Page 6 of 23 proposing an expiration that was not formerly on the books, yeah. COMMISSIONER FRY: Is there -- oh, what did I want to ask? How many units are associated with the 17 acres that might be -- if it was not built residentially, would go back into the pool? MS. DeJOHN: Right now the PUD has 40 units on the 17-acre site. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'll cap on, if I may, just to create a confirmation for the record of reassurance that I received from staff on Tuesday and points that were also made back on June 17 when we heard this on transmittal, that even though we're removing the 388 finite number, this is not an increase in density of any kind whatsoever. It provides for a replenishment, but we're not adding density. In other words, we're not offending general principles such as we want to require affordable when we add density. This is not that at all. So -- and I'm absolutely satisfied that that's the case, but I wanted to repeat at this hearing that it is, indeed, so. MS. DeJOHN: No. Thank you for making that point. That's -- COMMISSIONER FRY: May I add a follow-up question to that? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: That raises a point. I guess it sounds like the decision has been made that the CRA is willing to have all the eligible residential units developed in that neighborhood; whereas, density is always a big sticking point. It's always an objection from the public. It's too dense. There's too much density. But the CRA has made the decision that we're not going to strive for less density. We're going to basically add this as an incentive for developers to build out the maximum residential density that's possible overall in the CRA, correct? MS. DeJOHN: Right, that limited kind of capped condition of how many units could happen in the CRA by right is just being reallocated within the CRA. COMMISSIONER FRY: And the CRA board, everyone associated with that, embraces that approach? MS. DeJOHN: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm glad you raised that, because that is the very question I asked staff on Tuesday, and it's quite pertinent, obviously. Thank you. Ms. DeJohn. MS. DeJOHN: Okay. With no further questions on the Growth Management Plan amendment, we'll shift gears, but it's very similar subject matter. We're now talking about the Land Development Code amendment application, PL20210001033. These are Land Development Code amendments that are specifically targeting the implementation of the Growth Management Plan amendment we just talked about. Before I begin, I think we had a scrivener edit or two, and I'll ask Eric Johnson to share those. MR. JOHNSON: Good afternoon, Eric Johnson, principal planner. As the Chair had aptly mentioned earlier, these amendments are all in tandem with each other, although we will hear the one later at 5:05 p.m. This particular amendment, 20210001033, contains some of the same information in it that will be in the one that's later on. So the assumption is that if everything is approved in the subsequent amendment, that that would be recognized here at this one. For example, we're changing the name of the BMUD zoning district to the BO, and then the GTMUD would be GTO. And so that's reflected in this amendment even though that discussion may occur later on tonight. Because we're dealing with the same sections of the code, this one you'll notice that on Page 53 of your packet, that C10 will actually be C13 because of duplication with the one that will be heard tonight. So I just wanted to make sure that you were aware of that, that C10 will be C13 and then C11 will be C14 and so forth and so on. And then the last thing I wanted to mention was that this Land Development Code amendment includes an administrative code amendment. So I just wanted that to be recognized. November 18, 2021 Page 7 of 23 That's all I have, and I have nothing further to add to Laura's presentation. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I don't mean this in a humorous fashion, but I asked it of staff Tuesday so I'll ask you. Are you sure you want to go with "BO"? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah, I have that same -- COMMISSIONER FRY: And GTO. Little GTO -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: I kind of like GTO. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. Well, pretty nice, but you could go BOD and GTOD. It's, you know -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Some of the maps also are -- MS. DeJOHN: Need correction. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: -- say both. MS. DeJOHN: Yes. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And the district is the last word of all of these things, and everything else is the same. MS. DeJOHN: There's been a lot of work that has -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: There's too much BO, that's all I can tell you. MS. DeJOHN: A lot of work has gone into this exact question, so -- and that really is a subject matter for at 5:00. It's BO and GTOs. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Zoning director. And part of the discussion around that was if it was Bayshore overlay -- it was -- because we -- everything is a district, what would happen would be Bayshore Overlay District District, and they didn't want that repetitive nature, so they just -- that's why they shortened it. So it's BO, but you consider it as the BO District. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You're digging in there. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I think it should be BOD. It doesn't make any sense. MS. DeJOHN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I think that's kind of a legitimate point of view. I really didn't mean it to be humorous. I think if there's -- if there's a point of view to be expressed up here, we have every right to do so. What do other members of the Planning Commission think about that? What do you want to recommend? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I think there should be a D on the end of everything that has a district on it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, please. MR. JOHNSON: I think that discussion would probably be better served at the 5:05 p.m. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. That's a fair point. MR. JOHNSON: Fair enough. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay, good. Is that okay with you, Vice Chair? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I guess. MS. DeJOHN: Okay. So back on subject of the density bonus pool Land Development Code amendments. I'm going to begin by describing that we are amending Section 4.02.16 where there's discussion of how development is to occur within the CRA in general, and then as a subset of that section, we're introducing this new concept, which is called the limited density bonus pool allocation process. And, again, it's targeted for those unique situations that have been occurring in the CRA area where a small site, two acres or less, may be more viable if it could have just one or two units per acre more, which could achieve up to a total of four bonus units should we have the perfect scenario of a two-acre site calculating out at two units per acre and being granted four bonus units on the site. This allocation process is modeled much after the site plan with deviations process. That goes to a hearing, and it goes to the Hearing Examiner, typically, unless elevated to the Planning Commission. As Eric mentioned, administrative code updates are in your packet explaining just what the November 18, 2021 Page 8 of 23 applicant would submit and the type of review criteria which are based on that "site plan with deviations" process where there is consideration of compatibility with neighboring properties and the need and appropriateness of doing that project in that location. I mentioned before, and just a reminder, to access that bonus density pool, we are also adding, toughening up the criteria, requiring that vehicular access to the property cannot be gated and that a public-realm improvement is required. CHAIRMAN FRYER: May I ask a question while we're on the two acres? MS. DeJOHN: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is the word "contiguous" implied in that statement of two acres? Is it necessary? Do we care? MS. DeJOHN: The intention was that it was a single site measuring up to two acres in size. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Contiguous acres? MS. DeJOHN: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think we probably want to insert that word, if that's the intention. MS. DeJOHN: I'm just looking at the way it's worded currently. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm looking at the new language. MS. DeJOHN: The property shall be limited to a maximum of two acres, two contiguous acres. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. There are several places where it says "two acres," and I think if it matters -- and I'm not saying it should. But if it does matter, I think we should specify contiguous acres. And I don't know, other members of the Planning Commission, thoughts? As it happens, the City of Naples has an issue going on where the concept of contiguousness was not dealt with, and now they're arguing over it. And so that's what prompted me to want to ask this question. Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. I think I agree with the Chairman, but what is -- what was the -- did you guys think about that as a staff? Did you -- would you prefer it to be contiguous? Makes sense. MS. DeJOHN: Deborah's nodding her head yes. MR. BOSI: And from staff's perspective, we thought about it as these projects would be an individual stand-alone parcel, not a conglomerating of individual parcels. So that's why we didn't even think to add the word "contiguous," because it's one parcel of land as we thought. But I don't think there's any harm with the addition, the clarification that it has to be contiguous, because I'm -- I don't even think that could apply to two individual parcels. MS. DeJOHN: Right. I could just -- you might have a common ownership across a street and try to achieve, you know, a calculation off of all that ownership, and that's not the intent. COMMISSIONER VERNON: That's not the intent. Not the intent. So it wouldn't hurt anything to add "contiguous," because that's what we're striving for. MS. DeJOHN: We agree with that. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah, I definitely support your thought. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry, did you -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, I just wanted to clarify. I thought maybe, perhaps, by definition a parcel was by definition contiguous, and I think that's where you were going. But there's no harm in adding the word "contiguous." I would agree. MS. DeJOHN: Agreed. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And is it sufficient, then, if we feel this way, we just ask that you go through and do an electronic search of the number 2 and the word "acres." MS. DeJOHN: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Great. Thank you. I should ask the County Attorney: Am I creating a problem here in need of a solution? November 18, 2021 Page 9 of 23 MR. KLATZKOW: I think it's six of one, half dozen of the other sometimes, but, you know, it's -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. I'm not creating any problems that you can see? MR. KLATZKOW: No. I'm not sure you're solving any either, but... CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. Okay. Well, that's -- let's do it, then. I think that's the consensus of the Planning Commission, if you don't mind. I'm sorry I interrupted you, Ms. DeJohn. MS. DeJOHN: No, thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. MS. DeJOHN: So now we're going to drill down into what is meant when we describe public-realm improvements as a condition of the density bonus pool allocation. So what's defined in the Land Development Code, Section 4.02.16.C, is that the applicant who is, again, asking for something extra, he's asking -- he or she is asking for bonus units that he or she is not typically entitled to, and in exchange the applicant would be required to contribute monetarily or contribute in equivalent physical improvement to their site that is in a -- that is going to benefit the public. And those benefits to the public are defined as something that is within the CRA's public art fund, the CRA capital project fund, or the county capital project fund. The value -- the valuation we've attached to the applicant who's seeking to obtain those bonus units is a calculation which is 3 percent of engineer's opinion of probable cost at the time of developing that site. That's the same calculation already done at the time of applying for a Site Development Plan or a plans and plat approval. That calculation serves to define the applicant's fee just for the review of their application at 3 percent of the opinion of cost. And so having that already built into the system was the amount attributed to the applicant's offering, basically, in exchange for the bonus units. And we do have a graduated charge, I guess, or contribution amount based on the number of units being requested. So the smallest number at one to four units, the contribution or the physical improvement would be the equivalent of 3 percent of the probable cost of that development. At a higher number of units being requested, then the percent goes up to 5 percent, and then if number of units requested is over 10, a 1 percent addition comes with each increment of 10 more units being requested. So it's really, you know, accounting for the larger depletion of the pool; the larger number of units being requested by that developer equals a greater contribution back to the public realm. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Ms. DeJohn, the public-realm improvements, are they retroactive? Do they apply to developers that have already received density bonus pool units, or is this only forward looking? MS. DeJOHN: This is only forward looking. COMMISSIONER FRY: Forward looking, okay. The engineer's opinion of probable cost is an intriguing term because it's kind of a wide open what might be, but you said that it is the basis for fees. Which fees are based on that? And what if it's grossly inaccurate? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Which they often are. COMMISSIONER FRY: Which I would assume they, by nature, would not be -- who can estimate a construction project that accurately? So what is the ramification of that? MR. BOSI: That's normally a discussion that's engaged between the applicant's engineer as well as the county's -- the county engineer in terms of what they think is that -- is that 3 percent of that -- of the opinion of probable cost. And if it is something that doesn't -- isn't in a correct amount or area from the county engineering perspective, then that goes -- there's a discussion back and forth as to what is the -- a true accurate probable cost of the project. COMMISSIONER FRY: Is it safe to say that it's a negotiation to a degree between the project engineer and the county to come up with a mutually agreeable estimate of cost? November 18, 2021 Page 10 of 23 MR. BOSI: And it's what we do for every SDP or plat that comes through. So it's something that's -- it's engaged in on a very regular basis by the industry as well and agreed upon by our county engineering team. COMMISSIONER FRY: What fees are based upon that estimate? All the fees associated with the project? MR. BOSI: The total cost of the project. COMMISSIONER FRY: But what -- MS. DeJOHN: It's the fee that the county charges to review the Site Development Plan or plan and plat construction plans. It just depends on what type of project's going -- I mean, multifamily projects are usually going to be Site Development Plan applications. And at time of, you know, the submittal of all those construction plans to develop that site, the engineer is required to submit an opinion of probable cost and calculate that 3 percent to write -- you know, the applicant writes a check to the county for reviewing that project for Site Development Plan purposes. And I'll just -- to give maybe some degree of comfort, I don't think any engineer would be willing to lose his or her license by doing faulty estimates. I mean, there are some industry standards and -- COMMISSIONER FRY: I didn't mean to imply that, only that it's difficult to estimate accurately. Is there a review done at the end in terms of the accuracy of that, or is it really just a basis for the administrative review cost of the county and now it's additionally going to be used to calculate this monetary contribution or the value of the improvements needed? MR. BOSI: And just to -- and I think this will directly answer your question. That will be established when that -- when the -- when the SDP or the plat is submitted, our engineering department will establish what that application fee is, and that's that 3 percent and, then, therefore, the CRA doesn't get into a negotiation, because it's already established for how the plat or the SDP is moving forward. So they utilize what's agreed upon, and that's the 3 percent contribution or physical improvement that's going to be contained. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. So we really have eliminated the arguments or the he said, she said, or the disagreements, the gray area of how much these fees should be? MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I guess I'm concerned why -- we're basing the fees on estimate -- or opinion of probable cost, right? And the county doesn't have any estimating professionals on board, and the person providing the opinion of probable cost works for the developer, right? MR. BOSI: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So it just -- and I've done that for years and years and years, and probable cost is there. And the owner says, I'd like it down here. And it's not an issue of ethics. It's an issue of you don't know, so your range is much wider. It just seems like a moving target to base a fee on. That's all. MS. DeJOHN: You know, procedurally it's a -- we settled on this as the best fit for assigning a value at time of an application because, obviously, you can't come after the fact. You can't wait for the whole development to happen and then come chasing, you know, a developer down asking for a check. This would be the timing at which the applicant is coming into the system, already defining a set of costs that they assume for the development of their project. You know, putting pen to paper, writing a check for an application fee and writing a check for the units that they have been -- that they've requested and are being rewarded from a density standpoint. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So there's no -- it would be too difficult to have an adjustment like Karl was suggesting after the costs are all in and -- MR. KLATZKOW: You can do an adjustment, which won't work for staff, but you can do an adjustment. November 18, 2021 Page 11 of 23 COMMISSIONER SHEA: What I worry about is -- I mean, no offense to staff, but -- MR. KLATZKOW: Understanding the adjustments go both ways. COMMISSIONER SHEA: What? MR. KLATZKOW: Understanding that adjustments go both ways. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah. MR. KLATZKOW: But it's not uncommon I put into contracts that there will be an adjustment at the end of the day. You know, you true up what the numbers are, yeah. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, at least then you're dealing with facts rather than a crystal ball, and then -- MR. BOSI: What I would say is on a calendar-year basis, the county processes hundreds of SDPs and PPLs, and it has not seemed to have been an issue with our engineering reviewing team or the development community in terms of arriving upon what that probable cost is. COMMISSIONER SHEA: What do you do with it? Why do you -- other than a situation like this, what difference does a probable cost make to the county? MR. BOSI: That's the fee that they utilize to establish the application fee, so the -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. MR. BOSI: -- professionals who have to provide the inspections, who have to go on site and provide the individual reviews of the plans and all the activity that take place before the project could be CO'ed can be compensated for that type of activity. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So it's your recoup of your administrative costs to process? MR. BOSI: Yes, yes, and that's simply what it is. It's trying to estimate the scope of the project. As the scope gets bigger, the cost is larger and, therefore, the activities become more cost consuming. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. French? MR. FRENCH: Thank you, sir. For the record, Jamie French, deputy head for Growth Management. Mr. Shea, or Commissioner Shea, thank you for the question. But much like within your International Code Council, you've got a set of charts that's adopted and recognized by the State of Florida. Typically what happens is that that opinion of probable cost, it really relates directly to the complexity of the project. So as we start to look at the more expensive the costs, not necessarily at the materials, but the labor and those things that are associated with the project, it makes it much more complex on both the review and on the inspection. So the -- even though it's not systematic in such a way where one project gets one inspection. One project may receive hundreds of inspections. And because we are a fee-based service, in other words, the services that we provide are enterprise fund based, about 90 percent of our budget is based off of the fees we collect. So there's no direct impact to the taxpayers of Collier County. So all of that development, then, is passed on to he or she who benefits. So it would go back on to the development of that property. So that's really the way those fees are based. And that's why the opinion of probable cost, it's not contractually bound. We don't get into the contracts, but we rely on that engineer to sign and seal and certify that the opinion of probable cost is in relation with the cost of the actual project, as close as it can get. Does that answer your question, sir? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, it doesn't -- yeah. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, hold on. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I mean, this is a different issue here. I mean, you're talking bigger dollars than your administrative fees, I would guess, in dealing with bonuses. MR. KLATZKOW: Correct me if I'm wrong. You guys are essentially charging a fee for the increased density, and that fee is going to be going to these public art funds or whatever, right? MR. BOSI: (Nods head.) November 18, 2021 Page 12 of 23 MR. KLATZKOW: So we're charging a fee, all right, and it's not an insignificant fee. How many of these -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Fee for services. MR. KLATZKOW: How many of these are we going to be doing? MR. BOSI: Well, I mean, based upon -- we had 388 units that were allocated to a pool 20 years ago, and 122 still remain; the frequency is not overly burdensome. MR. KLATZKOW: So one or two a year. MR. BOSI: If the CRA is having a good year. MR. KLATZKOW: So truing it up at the end of the project -- I mean, it's not a bad idea, and it's certainly not going to be much of an imposition if you're only doing one or two projects every 10 years. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. I think what our County Attorney said a little while ago, though, if I'm running the numbers correctly, if you build -- because I mean, things are getting, you know, expensive everywhere. If you build 10 units, a million bucks a unit, that's a $10-million project; 5 percent is $500,000. MS. DeJOHN: This isn't a -- excuse me. This is Laura DeJohn. This isn't a calculation of the whole project cost. It's a calculation at time of site development work, which is a calculation of the land development cost, not the vertical construction cost. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Oh, wow. So this is a whole different game than I'm thinking. Is that -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: Well, what I was -- yeah, just to -- yeah, I guess me, too. It was just -- what the County Attorney's saying is we may be giving money back at the end of these projects if we're -- so I was kind of getting a sense of -- if we're truing them up at the end. MR. KLATZKOW: How much money are we talking about? COMMISSIONER VERNON: That's what I'm trying to figure out. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Not very much if you're just talking about the land development costs. Significantly less than we think. MS. DeJOHN: That's right. Let's think back to the baseline right now. Right now projects are being voted upon and granted up to 97 units at a time just based on a zoning approval, period. So a developer comes in, and because this pool exists, he or she walks away with 97 new units on that site that were not normally allowed -- MR. KLATZKOW: Every executive summary that goes to the Board of County Commissioners has a fiscal impact. What is the fiscal impact of this? MS. DeJOHN: Well, the -- there's no -- well, there's administrative function of taking a calculation that's already being made and then assigning it to -- MR. KLATZKOW: You're going to need a fiscal impact when this goes to the Board of County Commissioners. MS. DeJOHN: If you're talking about economic impact to the private sector, we have examples. MR. KLATZKOW: No. What's the fiscal impact of this program? How much is the county going to collect? And don't tell me you're doing a program and you have no idea how much you're going to collect because I'll say, then why the hell are you doing the program? MR. BOSI: There's no program that we're going to collect. Each individual project is based upon the scope and the size of that project, and that would -- that determines how much of the engineer -- the total project costs. MR. KLATZKOW: But you're doing this to fund the -- you're doing this for the CRA's public art fund. MR. BOSI: I think we need to separate something. We utilized an accepted -- we're utilizing an approach that the county currently utilizes for every SDP and every PPL. We utilize November 18, 2021 Page 13 of 23 that with every single one that comes through, and we base the application fees upon the engineer's probable costs. We utilize that same process to say, okay, that's what we're going to allocate and attach to the increased density that these applicants are requesting. That's what we're doing. MR. KLATZKOW: But what's -- what -- why are we doing this? We're doing this to fund public arts, right? MR. BOSI: Public benefit is the -- MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. How much are we talking about? MR. BOSI: I couldn't give you a -- MR. KLATZKOW: Deborah, you're the one pushing this. How much are you looking to get out of it? MS. FORESTER: Hello. For the record, Deborah Forester, CRA director. So the idea here was that we felt that the density pool was a benefit for creating other improvements we needed from the Bayshore CRA. If you look at your TDR program, if a private sector is selling a unit to someone else to move it from where there is density allowed to another area, you would have a value. The county doesn't calculate those values. So what we were trying to accomplish in this program is to make it fair and reasonable for a developer who was seeking our units and at the same time getting those units that there would be another benefit to the CRA either as a public art fund or as an improvement such as improving the main street of Bayshore, Bayshore Drive. We want to improve those landscaping, lighting, all those kinds of features. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Excuse me, Ms. Forester. MS. FORESTER: As an example -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I don't think anyone doubts the worthiness of the project. What we're all, I think, looking for is something to hang our hat on quantitatively. MS. FORESTER: Okay. So I'm going to give you some examples. So we wanted to look at this to see what this would mean. So if you take the Mattamy Homes development, who did receive density bonus previously, at a fourplex, their declared value was $1,068,480. If they had received approval for us at, I think, six units, they would have been providing us 6.4 percent, which would have been $68,382. So for that fourplex, that would be their contribution. Now, there's a number of fourplexes in that development. And so then the more that they don't -- density bonuses they would receive, they would pay more, but that would be, like, baseline for a fourplex. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So this -- thank you, and this is very helpful. I've got Commissioner Vernon lit up, and then do you want to speak, Commissioner Fry? COMMISSIONER FRY: I do. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Commissioner Vernon, go ahead. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I don't know that I have a question. I just -- I guess that helps me a lot, the last thing you said, because I know it's just an example, and every project's different. But it's by -- in that example they're paying six-tenths of 1 percent of the project cost, roughly. MS. DeJOHN: Project value. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Project value. Okay. I was just trying to think that through rather than my example is half a million. So it's much -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: We should use the term "site development cost value." It's not the project value. The site development's probably 10 percent of it. So we're dealing in one tenth of the numbers that we were thinking that the bonus was in. COMMISSIONER FRY: What I'm taking away is that this is gravy. This is an enhancement -- an additional enhancement that gives funds to the CRA to perform improvements that might not be available otherwise, and I applaud that. A math question. So let's say that we know that Camden Landing used 97 units. What would their -- what percentage would they have -- what would be the calculation for the November 18, 2021 Page 14 of 23 percentage? I'm just trying to follow this 10-plus bonus units and how does that actually calculate out. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Fourteen percent, if I understand this. COMMISSIONER FRY: So -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: Wait. I don't know that I'm right. MR. BOSI: You are. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I just -- I'm just trying to follow -- figure it out as I go. COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, 5 percent -- and that's for zero, and then 1 percent for each 10, even though you're paying 5 percent for five to nine. I mean, I just would have thought the 5 percent would have covered the first 10. MS. DeJOHN: It does. COMMISSIONER FRY: It does? MS. DeJOHN: Yeah, five plus one for each increment of 10 over. COMMISSIONER FRY: So you'd have 5, and then you'd have 8.7 percent more. So it would be 13.7 percent. MS. DeJOHN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER VERNON: A good math teacher. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anyone else want to be heard on this subject? Where are we consensus-wise on the Planning Commission? Is this something we want to change? COMMISSIONER VERNON: If I could ask one more question. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Why -- I'm not necessarily objecting to it. Why is it one to four, five to nine, 10 plus? Why isn't it just more of a gradiation for the first five it's 1 percent, for the five through nine, it's .75 percent, for 10 plus it's .5 percent rather than, you know -- I'd be looking at this and may change my mind based on this. Do you see what I'm saying? COMMISSIONER FRY: Is that simpler, Chris? COMMISSIONER VERNON: It's just -- it's just as simple. Both are a little complicated. I think this one's a little bit easier to game it, or trying to game it; make decisions based on this rather than decisions on what you want to do. MS. DeJOHN: Well, I want to throw one more complication to it. We are making that adjustment to what requests can be made at 25 percent of the pool. The language in the GMP already had a nebulous way of describing what could be requested. It said, there's 388 units, and the developer can get 25 percent dash 97 units. Ninety-seven is 25 percent of the whole pool. But as the pool depletes, 97 kept getting out -- so that would mean four projects could get 97 units, and that wasn't probably how the wording meant for when it said 25 percent dash 97 units. I'm just describing that because there won't be -- you know, we'd be lucky if we get the pool up that high again where as many as 90 units could be requested. It's just -- it's not that high anymore, and it's probably just going to incrementally get, you know, a few more units here and there, but the 25 percent ask is never going to be more than 50 units, I would assume. COMMISSIONER VERNON: No, I was just wondering why you did it this way; not necessarily objecting to it. Just wondering if there's some reasoning. MR. KLATZKOW: What's the rationale? Rather than doing 1 percent per unit, as an example, why did you break it down like this? MS. DeJOHN: Well, the one per four -- one through four has the rationale that we defined that limited density pool situation where four is a number that the limited pool was supposed to be meant to be palatable and achievable by smaller property owners. So that was our baseline, one to four, because it attaches and aligns with that limited pool. The jump -- we did -- we experimented -- we experimented with these creative different add-ons and percentages and arrived at something that seemed understandable. So the increment above the limited pool is at 5 percent. It's a recognizable amount. It's November 18, 2021 Page 15 of 23 not, you know, hard to understand. And then the 10-plus was really where the attention was being paid to make sure larger developers getting larger amount of bonus units are paying at an incremental rate for the larger number of units that they may attain. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. That's helpful. I'm in consensus. I think I'm okay with this. I know we spent a while on it, but I understand it better now. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think it was time well spent. What about you, Commissioner Shea? COMMISSIONER SHEA: I guess you probably shouldn't have come today when you're the only one on the agenda so we'll have a lot of questions. But I guess the question is -- and I don't know the -- is is that a fair price for what we're giving away? Now, I realize we aren't increasing in the CRA the density overall, but we are giving that developer something, and he's paying for it in exchange. And he's getting X number of additional units, which makes him -- if I were a developer -- if I were the -- if the developer was me, and now you're coming and asking me to buy some bonus points out of that pool, would I think that that's a fair number? MS. DeJOHN: So this does go to the Development Services Advisory Committee, which I am a member of and is a group who represent the development community. So that's been vetted with that group. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. MS. DeJOHN: And, really, this is a balancing act. I mean, it's zero right now. We're trying to keep the success of the redevelopment area going, so we don't want to be punitive but, like Deborah said, there's a happy medium where the developer gets what he needs, which is units to make his project viable, and the CRA and the public get what they need, which is some return on that reward of the units. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Bosi? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Question for Mike. I guess the -- if I were to apply -- I don't know how you make -- I know you probably can, but we pay so many thousand dollars for an additional dwelling unit in the RLSA. How does that compare to what they're paying for an additional dwelling unit? MR. BOSI: That would be the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District through TDRs. We have a price tag that's associated with a TDR, and it's right at about $13,500. My response back would have been -- would be to whether this is cost prohibitive -- would be whether in the future a project is going to seek to utilize it. They will do a market analysis. And if the cost is too prohibitive against the return, they're not going to take part in this incentive program, they're not going to seek additional units, and they would just simply develop with the density that's allocated within their zoning. In comparison, in relationship to I think the price tag that Deb provided from an example, I think it's a little bit less than what the TDR going rate is currently at that 13,5-. But at the end of the day, I can't provide that answer. The market's going to provide the answer as to whether they feel that the cost associated with now seeking the density pool is going to be -- is going to be a value add to their project or if it's going to be -- from a cost-benefit analysis, if it doesn't meet that muster, then they won't be utilizing this program. COMMISSIONER SHEA: And then we could change it later on. MR. BOSI: And then we would -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: So why start out low? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. My take on it, and this is very much ballpark, but it helps me mentally think about it, is they're going to pay, in my mind, about 50,000 per million they spend on their projects and, to me, that sounds about right. COMMISSIONER SHEA: A million on the dirt part of the project. COMMISSIONER VERNON: No. I think -- well, maybe I don't understand it. I think November 18, 2021 Page 16 of 23 that if they spend about a million, on whatever they spend it on -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: On the site development cost. That's the dirt, moving the dirt around. That's all that you're getting. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah, you're right. You're right. You're right. Yeah, but -- okay, okay. Yeah. I'm trying to articulate it, because I was going to say, this seems about right to me, it seems high enough to me, because I was thinking -- maybe I was thinking it was more than it really is. So I'm a little lost, to be honest, because I'm trying to get in my head what the number -- the real numbers are going to be because, I think -- you know, if it were a million, 50,000 on a million, which it sounds like it's not, that that would be about right, because that area's going to get improved while they're improving their property. COMMISSIONER SHEA: But if you're doing small projects, they're not going to be 10-, $20 million projects, and the site development's 10 percent of whatever that is -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: It's not much money. COMMISSIONER SHEA: -- so it's not a lot of money. Again, we're asking a lot -- I'm asking a lot of questions. I probably don't have the desire to make any changes because I know there's been a lot of smart people looking at this, but I -- sometimes we get accused of being too developer-friendly, and this would be a case where you use an opinion of probable cost; you only use site development. I feel like we're being too developer-friendly. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mike? MR. BOSI: Oh, I just wanted to add -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Bosi. I thought you'd finished. MR. BOSI: The current rate as of now that's adopted is zero. That's how much it costs right now to participate with the density pool. It's zero. Right now it's zero. So that would probably be -- so any improvement or any change that we're making with this in the 3 percent or the 5 percent or the 5 percent plus 1 percent over the -- with the 10 or over units, that is going to bring in more money for public improvement associated with the mission and the purpose of the Bayshore CRA. MR. KLATZKOW: I'm going to tell you right now, when this gets to the Board, you better have numbers, because these questions here, the Board is going to have the same questions. Unless you get a significant fiscal impact, estimated cost would be whatever, because this is -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: So the 322 units or whatever numbers, the two-thirds that are already gone didn't put anything back into the community at all in exchange for the density? MR. BOSI: They put back investment into the community. Remember, for this CRA to be established, there had to be a declaration of blight, a declaration of blight for the area, from an overall perspective. So what the CRA is designed to do is to try to be a catalyst for the infusion of investment for new projects to be developed and improve those conditions. So originally when the CRA was designed, those 388, there wasn't a price tag associated with it because they wanted to -- they wanted to spur development. Now that the CRA has matured, that they've gone -- they've been 20 years within their mission, they've seen improvements, they've seen the area start to lift up, they're seeking to add a little bit more, I think, as the Planning Commission is trying to identify, to bring more improvements to the public realm and to further the mission of the Bayshore CRA. And we take -- and we appreciate this line of questioning, because I think you're right, we will have to have, Jeff, and we will, have to have specific examples of projects that we -- that have been -- that have utilized the density pool, that we know what their opinion of probable costs are. We'll give you the -- we'll have those -- those costs associated with it, and then we can break it down to a per-unit basis of what it would cost, you know, if you're four units or if you're in the five to nine units or if you're above that, what the average unit would cost based upon the -- based upon November 18, 2021 Page 17 of 23 those real-world examples. COMMISSIONER SHEA: But you're going to have to be careful when you talk to them. You're going back and forth with what the units would cost with just -- what the fee's based on. Your costs are going -- you've got to be really clear what the fee's based on versus the cost per unit, because the cost per unit is all cost in, and the fee is only based on the site development cost. So I'd be very clear when you're talking to the Board of which costs you're talking about. MR. BOSI: Understood. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry and then Commissioner Vernon, please. COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, I'm inclined to support it as written mostly for the reason of what you said, Paul; a lot of people with a deeper stake than us in this have put a lot of time and effort into analyzing it and coming up with the numbers. And the ultimate goal of this entire thing is realize a vision, an improved vision for the area. And this is -- as I said, I think it's gravy. It's additional funds that wouldn't have been there otherwise. I'm going to assume you've had interaction with the developer community through the development of this plan. What feedback have you gotten from the developers in terms of do you have -- you obviously have the belief they will continue to invest in your area? CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's DSAC -- COMMISSIONER FRY: That's DSAC and -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- and they passed on this. MS. DeJOHN: Right, yeah. I referenced that the Development Services Advisory Committee is made up of the development community, and they weighed in and voted to recommend this. COMMISSIONER FRY: To recommend this. MS. DeJOHN: Yeah. And I guess Deborah hasn't had one-on-one developer interactions to vet exact, like, case study projects, but the Development Services Advisory Committee did support this. And the CRA Advisory Board that meets monthly saw this two or three times in a public setting, and it did change through their review. We had a cap -- at first there was a sensitivity like this will scare developers away, so there was a maximum 500,000 price or contribution ascribed here, and that was recommended by the CRA Advisory Board to be removed. COMMISSIONER FRY: I guess -- I'm not looking at the specific language, but can I assume that the 10-plus bonus units is more clearly defined in the language than it is -- MS. DeJOHN: Yes, and there is an example given. There's a "for instance," and the math is written into the code. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. I think some numbers are -- because, as you can tell, I'm just trying to get a number in my head to feel like if it's fair, give some examples. Because based on Paul's clarification, if I do understand it now -- and this is all estimates and everything, but if really it's -- the SDP is 10 percent of the project, so you're talking about maybe 5,000 per million spent by the developer, which seems, you know -- again, I agree, I don't think it's -- you guys have put a lot of time and thought into this, but that almost seems a little low. COMMISSIONER FRY: It doesn't translate to units. If I'm -- correct me if I'm wrong, but if I clear two acres of land and I'm putting a six-story apartment complex up, my site development costs might be the same as if I'm putting up a two-story complex with one-third the units. So it really is not translatable directly to units. It's more -- MS. DeJOHN: It's just a common -- COMMISSIONER FRY: It's more the size of the property is what I'm getting, if it's just the site development costs. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I just think -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: That's a great point. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I think what Jeff's -- he's right every time. And every November 18, 2021 Page 18 of 23 time I come up with -- try to get it in my head, it would be great if you had an example of somebody building three units, somebody building 50 units. What are they going to pay? MS. DeJOHN: Right. COMMISSIONER VERNON: And that would help me a lot, and I assume the Board of County Commissioners, it would help them a lot. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Based on -- MS. DeJOHN: We can do that. COMMISSIONER FRY: Based on -- if that was accurate, that it's really more based on the size of the property, then the developer really has a much lower cost per unit the more units they build on the same size property, correct? MS. DeJOHN: Well, horizontal development costs in urban settings versus, you know, smaller sites that require a lot of, you know, underground water -- stormwater systems and things like that are going to have variables that are different than a larger site that can do water management without that expense. So, I mean, there are variables here -- and that's why we used -- instead of trying to fit every shape of peg into every shape of hole and try to estimate all types of different types of projects that could be built and assign formulas to that, we used a tried-and-true formula that's already used and familiar to the industry and familiar to the county. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. I just think the number gets -- as Karl clarified again, and he's right, that the more -- as I think through it, each time I think through it, the number comes down. I think it's going to end up being a fairly small number for the developers, which may be fine, but that's -- going in, I wasn't thinking that at all. COMMISSIONER SHEA: But the other part is what Karl said, I keep wanting -- that is depending on how you build, whether you build -- how many units -- it's really a function of how many units, and that's what the developer is going to look at. Whatever the cost is, he's going to spread it over the units. So if it's taller and there's more units per acre, but they're all paying on site development costs, which actually may be lower for a taller building, it doesn't seem like it'd be fair. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Maybe SDP's not the right -- that's not the right thing to use. MS. DeJOHN: Well, I think what -- it also does eliminate gamesmanship. I mean, this is a given. You know, the development community should be coming to the CRA and doing the best possible project within the CRA's very strict development standards and regulations and doing the project they think is the best fit and the most -- you know, achieve the most on that site. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MS. DeJOHN: This comes along as an additional charge in exchange for those units. MR. KLATZKOW: It might be easiest and more transparent just to have a fee. I mean, 1.4 [sic] bonus units is $30,000, five to nine is $50,000. I mean, if you just charged a flat fee, it would be easy for everybody to understand it and very transparent. COMMISSIONER SHEA: And it might eliminate some gamesmanship. MR. KLATZKOW: It would eliminate all gamesmanship. It's a flat fee. Everybody would know what we're talking about. And then if we find that it's not incentivizing people like we can, we could easily modify the fee. COMMISSIONER FRY: So what you're saying, Jeff, I mean, the reward for the developer is the unit. It's the additional units. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: So basing the fee on the units, I think, makes the ultimate sense. MR. KLATZKOW: Because that's what you're selling. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah, I like that idea. MR. BOSI: I think that's a question that Ms. Forester would -- these are amendments for the Bayshore CRA. We are trying to implement the division [sic] of the redevelopment plan, and November 18, 2021 Page 19 of 23 we've came up with one strategy -- I would have to defer to the -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. Forester. COMMISSIONER SHEA: We call that a punt, Mike. MS. FORESTER: This is Deborah Forester. So, you know, I guess the question is how would we value that one unit. You know, if you looked at the TDR provision, which is in the Rural Lands, that's $13,500. That doesn't seem like the right amount, then, to use for an urban density. We don't want to get it too prohibitive. I mean, we want our developers to still come into our area. We want them, though, to be engaged in the other public-realm improvements that we would like to see implemented. And we also recognize that a developer can go and get a Comp Plan amendment and go outside of this density pool, and that can be approved as well, which happened also at Courthouse Shadows and at Camden Landings/Cirrus Pointe. So where they got our 97 units, that wasn't quite enough for them, they also got a Comp Plan amendment. So I think what we want to do is try to start off at something that's reasonable. We don't have a lot of units, 122. Those could go by quickly. But, again, the real point was to start having that conversation that -- you know, in the beginning, we needed developers. We needed to give them those units. But now the market's changed; things are improving. So now we would like to have some return and partnership with them. No gated community. That's another big step for some developers that, at this point in time, don't want to do that. So in addition to that fee, they also have to make sure that they've got a non-gated development. So I think that these fees are reasonable. I think we can get some more examples for the County Commissioners to look at. And I think with the Development Services Committee, they were able to review it, and they also bought into this because, again, we don't want to deter people from coming into the area. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. Even though I'm the one asking a ton of these questions, I do think that, you know, we've got the person standing right here whose heart and soul's been put into it, and we're kind of trying to give her something she's not asking for, in a sense. So I'm going to vote in favor of this as-is even though I was the one causing a lot of the trouble. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let me take the pulse of the rest of the Planning Commission. Is anybody coming in a different direction after the -- I think it's been a great conversation. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes, it has. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea, are you -- where are you leaning -- leaning at this point? COMMISSIONER SHEA: I mean, there's been a lot of smarter people than me. I mean -- and at this point, the bulk of the bonus credits have already been used, so you have to also balance what's fair to the ones that have already, you know, I guess, received them as an incentive to come develop in the community rather than paying for them. So you can't all of a sudden hit these last groups real hard. So I think you have -- I think this represents probably a better completion of the program. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Vice Chair, any thoughts? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, I was liking the fee thing. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I like that, too, but -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'm not sure if it would be fair. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: My impression, after a few years in seeing the Bayshore items come through, is that there's a tremendous amount of organization, vision, strategy that's been exercised in that area. The transformation, I think, has been striking. So I tend to just defer to the November 18, 2021 Page 20 of 23 work that's gone into this. They feel like it's a win for them. It's gravy for them. So I will support it as written. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Ms. DeJohn, back to you. MS. DeJOHN: All right. We are on the final element of the Land Development Code amendment, and we mentioned this earlier. The one missing piece in the Land Development Code was that there was no declared expiration when units were allocated to a project, and now we are declaring that if unused after five years of being allocated, then they do return back to the pool. So that's formalized. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And that is certainly at the very heart of these proposals, and I think that the replenishment concept is a very good one and it will, I hope, serve its intended purposes. No one else is signaling at this point. I have at least one other question. And maybe while I'm asking mine others can think if they have some as well. And I'm also looking at the clock. I think we're going to be done with this before 3:30, but, if not, 3:30 is when we need to have a midafternoon break. So my first question ties in with other issues that have been before us and I think are still pending. And this comes in Section 10.D on Page 54 of 61 of this first agenda packet. It's also Page 4 of the free-standing materials from staff. And D is captioned "evaluation criteria," and it says, "The application shall be reviewed by the Hearing Examiner or CCPC for compliance with the following standards of approval," and then there's some standards listed. So we've got pending before us -- and I don't know exactly where it is. I was going to raise it in new business, but we can either deal with it then or now. But we've got an administrative code amendment pending that maybe could be heard on the 16th of December if staff is ready for it at that time, because right now there's nothing else on the agenda for that slot. And at that point we could deal with those other issues we had writ large such as NIM requirements and the like that we all articulated some months ago and notes were taken but then wrap into that criteria for such cases where it says "Hearing Examiner or CCPC" so that there are standards for staff to apply -- objective standards in deciding whether a matter goes to the HEX or comes to us. And Chairman Strain had a solid sixth sense about that. Of course, he was also the HEX. But he seemed to know -- and I never took issue with the judgments that he made -- whether it should be a HEX matter or a Planning Commission matter. But now we've got a separate HEX, separate from the Planning Commission. It seems to me that we could roll into the administrative code, because there are a number of places in there that say it's going to be the Hearing Examiner or the CCPC, to include those standards. And that doesn't need to require a change in this language as long as we made a mental note -- physical note that we're going to come back with these administrative code changes, and we're going to include criteria such as the size of a project, the controversial nature of the project, and other things so that staff knows whether this should go to the HEX or the Planning Commission. Now -- so what I'm saying is that if we can get some consensus that we're going to be hearing that administrative code, and that can be included in it, I'm not going to propose a change to this language because this is only one of a number of places where the either/or needs to be supported by objective criteria, I think. Mr. Bosi. MR. BOSI: And, Chair, we have, on January 20th, your second meeting in January, is whether we tentatively have that administrative code to be brought back for the Planning Commission's review. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And I assume that you've considered the fact that you have nothing on the agenda for the 16th? MR. BOSI: We have two -- we have three things. We have a PUD rezone, and we have November 18, 2021 Page 21 of 23 an LDC amendment related, Cruz Road. We also have LDC amendments related to murals within Bayshore, as well as a scrivener's error amendment. So there's three items. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Bosi, this was not on your looking ahead, or it was? COMMISSIONER SHEA: He's talking December 16th. You're talking January. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Then here's where I'm making my mistake. There was a meeting, I guess, coming up in January where there's nothing. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes, January 16th. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's the meeting you're talking about? MR. BOSI: The meeting we have for the administrative code is the second meeting in January, yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Understood. Okay. Then I stand corrected. Thank you very much. I'm with you. So I don't have a suggested change, then, for 10D because we're -- if staff will bring back something with those criteria in it. MR. BOSI: Sure. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And there was a time, I think, when the County Attorney and I and Hearing Examiner Dickman had had a three-way conversation about whether we were going to get together and try to write something up. I don't need to be a part of that. And I think someone could supply a couple of sentences to deal with it appropriately. And so I guess that -- that's being teed up for January, so I'm satisfied with that. All right. Let me see if I have others, and then we can move on, if not. Those are all the -- those are all the questions I have. So is staff's presentation completed? MS. DeJOHN: Yes. MR. BOSI: And that was -- that was the consultant presenting for the CRA. We do have Parker Klopf from our Comprehensive Planning section who did the Comp Plan review. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. BOSI: I know it's somewhat confusing. Mr. Johnson did the review from the LDC amendments. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let's make that record then. MR. KLOPF: Parker Klopf, senior planner, Comp Planning Department. I did the Comp Plan review. Staff was supportive of all the changes as presented by Laura, and we suggest approval. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Any questions for this gentleman? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Apparently not. Thank you, sir. MR. KLOPF: You're welcome. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Then I think it would be appropriate for us to ask if there's any public comment. And, Mr. Youngblood, do we have any? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Chairman, I have two registered speakers. One is present with us today, Al Schantzen. And then we will go online to an online speaker, Karen Beatty. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Mr. Schantzen, you're recognized, sir. MR. SCHANTZEN: Thank you. For the record, Al Schantzen, Bayshore CRA member. I totally support this. We've been watching developers come in and request and get, because that's what they can do, get these bonus density points, and I just sit there and choke that we don't get nothing for the CRA or the residents. So this has been a long time coming. And when I first seen it started happening, and the director started working and getting this to this point, and I'm really happy to see it finally come to fruition so that -- however, if, from what I heard making the sausage today, we can get more, that would be nice. I mean, we would appreciate that, because the public realm isn't something that the November 18, 2021 Page 22 of 23 board got into the nuts and bolts of public realm. We're basing that on the rest of the Land Development Code. But just as a point I'd like to make here, and it's in reference to animals and what we have going on at Domestic Animal Control. If as these people make these developments, they'd make their deeds less restrictive so that these bigger developments can have animals, large/small cats, that would help our animal population that's in domestic animal control. So if there's any influence the Planning Commission can put now or later in that realm, the animals would greatly appreciate that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Understood. Of course, indenture restrictions are strictly private. MR. SCHANTZEN: I understand that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Your point is well made, and you've given a public voice to it. And also, on behalf of the Planning Commission, I want to thank you for your work on the board. We appreciate it. Thank you, sir. Who's next, please, Mr. Youngblood? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Ms. Beatty has declined to speak, so that is our only registered speaker for this item. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. We'll close the public comment portion, then, of the hearing, and we'll turn to our deliberation and vote. Anyone wish to be heard? COMMISSIONER SHEA: I've deliberated -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER SHEA: -- and am ready to vote if somebody's ready to make a motion. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Still on Page 53, with the abbreviations and the BO and GTO, so if we approve this, we're approving that? CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's a good question. I think we ought to facilitate our ability to come back on that question if we don't approve of it, if we ask for a change or recommend a change, then I think that would -- that should relate back to the action we take on this, if that works for staff. MR. BOSI: And staff would suggest that you can base your approval conditional upon any changes that may be recommended related to the acronyms provided for in the evening petition discussion. And so it could be -- it could be self-amending, sort of speaking. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: County Attorney, I'm not -- does this work? MR. KLATZKOW: We'll get it all fixed up before it goes to the Board. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. That's great. All right. So the Chair would entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER FRY: I would make a motion to approve the GMPA and the LDC portions of this item with the changes that have been stipulated. I believe the word "contiguous" was added to several sections. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Right. COMMISSIONER FRY: In addition to the reserving the right to retroactively apply any changes made this evening to the language to these items. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Very good. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER SHEA: That's a -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Vernon, you're signaling. COMMISSIONER VERNON: No. I was just going to say to you folks who are there in the thick of it, you know, you mentioned making the sausage, we'd like more. So I think you heard the tone of our thought process. So if this goes really well and you think, you know, maybe November 18, 2021 Page 23 of 23 you should be charging developers a little bit more, I think we -- I'd be open to that based on what I think the numbers are, because I think the numbers are pretty low, and it's a great start. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It is indeed. All right. Thank you for those words. And I'd like to see if there's anything that I need to say under new business. I think I've actually -- or old business. I think I've already covered this. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: We didn't vote yet. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We didn't vote? All those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you for keeping me straight here. Okay. Oh, the only other thing that I wanted to raise -- and it's just going to take me a minute -- we talked about the administrative code that's coming back in the second meeting in January, and it's going to contain criteria for the Planning Commission or HEX hearing. It's going to contain the additional points that we raised some months ago when we talked about this having to do with NIMs, I believe, and some other things. And you-all, I'm sure, have those notes somewhere. So all that is -- that's good, and I'm satisfied that that's covered. And, therefore, unless there's new business or additional public comment -- I'm assuming there's no public comment. So without objection, we will adjourn -- or we'll stand in recess, the first session, and then we'll reconvene for the second session at five minutes after 5:00. Thank you. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:23 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION _____________________________________ EDWIN FRYER, CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on ____________, as presented ______ or as corrected ______. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI L. LEWIS, RPR, FPR-C, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. November 18, 2021 Page 23 of 23 you should be charging developers a little bit more, I think we -- I'd be open to that based on what I think the numbers are, because I think the numbers are pretty low, and it's a great start. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It is indeed. All right. Thank you for those words. And I'd like to see if there's anything that I need to say under new business. I think I've actually -- or old business. I think I've already covered this. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: We didn't vote yet. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We didn't vote? All those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you for keeping me straight here. Okay. Oh, the only other thing that I wanted to raise -- and it's just going to take me a minute -- we talked about the administrative code that's coming back in the second meeting in January, and it's going to contain criteria for the Planning Commission or HEX hearing. It's going to contain the additional points that we raised some months ago when we talked about this having to do with NIMs, I believe, and some other things. And you-all, I'm sure, have those notes somewhere. So all that is -- that's good, and I'm satisfied that that's covered. And, therefore, unless there's new business or additional public comment -- I'm assuming there's no public comment. So without objection, we will adjourn -- or we'll stand in recess, the first session, and then we'll reconvene for the second session at five minutes after 5:00. Thank you. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:23 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION _____________________________________ EDWIN FRYER, CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on ____________, as presented ______ or as corrected ______. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI L. LEWIS, RPR, FPR-C, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. ✔