Loading...
BCC Minutes 10/09/1990 S:~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 l~w and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 5:45 P,M. In SPECIAL SgSSION in Bu~ldinn ~'"P" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the Naples, Florida, October 9, 1990 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners tn fo/lowing members present: CHAIRMAN: Max A. Hasse, Jr. '~ VICE-CHAIRMAN: Michael J. Volpe Richard S. Shanahan Butt L. Saunders Anne Goodnight ALSO PRESENT: Annette Guevin, Deputy Clerk; Ron McLemore, Assistant County Manager; Jennifer Pike, Assistant to the County Manager; Ken Cuyler, County Attorney; Mar3orie Student Assistant County Attorney; Robert Fahey, So]id Waste Director; William Laverty, Growth Management Planner; Bob Blanchard, Growth Planning Director; Russell Shreeve, Housing & Urban Improvement Director; Frank Brutt, Community Development Services Administrator; Ken Ptneau, Emergency Services Director; Eric Young, Planner; Sue Filson, Admlnlstrattve Assistant to the Board; and Deputy Byron Tomlinson, Sheriff's Office. Page October 9, 1990 COLLIER CO~I~ AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS ORDINANCE - C0NTiN~;~.D .,TO Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on 9/19/90, 9/25/90 and 10/3/90, as evidenced by Affidavits of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider/adopt an ordinance to be known as the Collier County Affordable Housing Density Bonus Ordinance. Planner Bill Laverty explained this is the second advertised public hearing regarding the Collier County Affordable Housing Density ~;.~Bonus Ordinance. He stated this ordinance has been before the CCPC twice and before this Board on one occasion. He advised that the author of the ordinance, Bill Merrill with Icard, Merrill, Cullis, T/mm, Furen & Ginsburg, P.A., is not present at this meeting due to an ~llness, but Staff is present to answer any questions the Board may have. Co~issioner Shanahan questioned how the CCPC voted on this issue7 Mr. Laverty replied the CCPC voted unanimously by a vote of 5/0, to forward this ordinance to the Board for approval with the changes provided in the Executive Summary. ~ Commissioner Shanahan asked if the ordinance applies to the entire County, including the coastal high hazard areas7 Mr. Laverty responded it applies to all unincorporated areas of the County. Commissioner Shanahan commented there has been considerable con- ~,~ .cern expressed regarding density in the high hazard areas in relation to evacuation problems. Mr. Laverty agreed, stating those issues will be faced once again, when the Growth Management Plan amendments are returned from the Department of Community Affairs (DCA). ?!i, Commissioner Volpe referred to a potential for abuse within the a~' 'density bonus rating system. He suggested the following example: if he has a 25 acre parcel with a density of four units per acre as allowed under the Growth Management Plan, he would be allowed to build Page 2 i!. October g, 1990 100 units on the 25 acre parcel. He said if he decided to build 10~ ~of that project as Category 3 affordable housing units, that will give him a density bonus credit of three units, per acre. He indicated that since the bonus applies to the entire 25 acres, he will receive 25 .md4Ational units in return for providing only 10 affordable housing T;tmAts. He said if that is the case, he will never rent those 10 ~,~ affordable housing units. · Russell Shreeve, Director of Housing & Urban Improvement, explained that the monitoring built into the ordinance certifies that ~ the developer will rent those units. In answer to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Shreeve stated the intent of this ordinance is for it to apply to the entire project and not only ; the percentage to be built as affordable housing. He said that, with the high cost of land and development, ~f a substantial subsidy is not given to this program, it will not be economically feasible to pursue. Commissioner Shanahan asked Mr. Laverty to elaborate on possible problems the DCA may have relative to the high hazard areas, hurricane ~evacuation and shelters, etc. Mr. Laverty informed the Board that preliminary comments have been received from the Regional Planning Council conc()rning the Growth "Management Plan amendments. He said one particular issue addressed affordable housing in the urban coastal fringe area which the Regional Planning Council has mentioned in its report to the DCA. He indicated · they have concerns with hurricane evacuation times, provision of ade- quate hurricane shelters and the economic feasibility for any develop- ment that would occur in that area. He reported it is difficult to ii!ii~ determine what will transpire, but he expects an objection to be received to that proposed amendment based on hurr]cane evacuation and shelter. He added, unless Staff can determine a solution that will adequately address those concerns, those will be grounds to be found ~iin non-compliance. He commented an alternative solution would be not to adopt that amendment. Commissioner Shanahan asked if the DCA will object to this pro- Page 3 October 9, 1990 ~.: posed density bonus ordinance in the high hazard area? Bob Blanchard, Growth Planning Director, clarified that the affor- dable housing density bonus will apply to all unincorporated areas of the County, however, the density /imitation of four units per acre .iatill applies south of U.S. 41. He explained that, except for the 600 units previously considered by the Board as part of the amendment pro- cess, if a developer in that traffic congestion area south of U.S. 41 ' chose to use the affordable housing density bonus as a way to gain !~'additional density, the cap of four units per acre would apply. He ilexplained that physical area stretches east from the City of Naples, to the urban area and south. In answer to Commissioner Shanahan Mr. Blanchard further :~.>~ clarified that the maximum of four units per acre will apply on Marco · I,~la~d no matter what density bonus system the developer chooses to 11se. Com~mtssioner Volpe asked if the waiver of impact fees will be limited to the number of units that are actually affordable housing units, to which Mr. Shreeve answered in the affirmative. Commissioner Volpe commented if the ordinance applies to an entire pro~ect and is not limited to the affordable housing units being pro- ~i~ ~ vided, that seems to be adequate incentive without waiving Impact fees. Mr. Shreeve responded that when looking at low income housing, the ordinance is beneficial, but it may not be adequate to provide for very /ow income housing. He stated in that case, a developer will be ' provid~ng housing for people earning less than 60~6 of moderate income ~!'~ at a cost of 30% of their earnings. In order to that, he said, the i]~i'developer cannot generate enough income to make the project feasible without additional incentives. ~' ' Ken Plneau, Emergency Services Director, advised the Board that both tropical depressions in the Atlantic Ocean have dissipated and Page 4 October 9, 1990 'the National Hurricane Center is no longer following them. He added .that a deve]oping low pressure system has formed in the last six hours between Havana and Key West which may develop into a tropical ~ression as it moves overnight into the Gulf of Mexico. He stated that. his concern tonight is due to the astronomical high tides with !"the full moon, which may cause the Everglades City area to have local '-flooding. ii;~. In answer to Commissioner Hasse, Mr. Ptneau reported that by this time tomorrow, the current system may develop into a tropical storm in Gulf, but he believes Tampa will be the area of concern. He also mentioned he will be updating Everglades City Mayor Butler regarding the situation. C~ntinuation of Affordable Housing Density Bonus Ordinance Discussion Alan Reynolds urged the Board to adopt this ordinance as soon as possible because of the many delays already experienced regarding this issue. He stated that if adopted at this meeting, it will take an additional 12 to 18 months to have any affordable housing units in place. He added if the Board follows the recommendation of the CCPC in reducing the bonuses in the table of the ordinance, there will be very few projects able to proceed. He reported that he recommended to the CCPC that the table should be removed from the ordinance and used as a guideline In evaluating projects on a case-by-case basis. He stated there is a vast difference between how affordable housing can be creat-.d in Immokalee vs creating employment housing in the coastal area of Collier County. He said there is a need for both, but the same ordinance and tables do not fit both situations. He mentioned that land values and development costs differ tremendously and a regi- mented approach should not be adopted as a mandate in this ordinance, it should be used as a guideline. He suggested that the Board adopt an ordinance and direct Staff to investigate further to establish guidelines for densities in any given situation, and not leave them ¥ applied across the County. Page 5 October 9, 1990 Commissioner Volpe asked if by doing that the potential for abuse will be avoided? Mr. Reynolds indicated he believes that it would, because removing the table from the ordinance will give the Board the flexibility to review each project individually. Commissioner Volpe commented that the Board will not be achieving ~'the intended goal by allowing a developer who commits to 10% affor- ,dable housing units to increase his density by 75 units. ~:"~ Mr. Reynolds replied that the reason that conclusion can be reached ts because this ordinance ts proposing to create a bonus .g system that is objective and not subjective to any discre- tionary process. Commissioner Volpe suggested the ordinance be applied only to the number of affordable housing units in each pro3ect. Mr. Reynolds disagreed, stating the affordable housing portion of any project looses money and is subsidized Jn a bonus process by allowing additional market rate units to make up the difference. He said the bonus must apply to the entire project or there will be no incentive to create affordable housing. Commissioner Volpe asserted that more work needs to be done on this ordinance. He stated the bonus within this system will create a windfall for developers and not create the affordable housing units !~needed tn the community. Commissioner Saunders commented that there does need to be flexi- bility built into the ordinance so that each site can be evaluated and so that a density bonus can be awarded based on the site specific. He stated that, on the other hand, the Board needs guidelines so that property owners can have some indication of what they may expect. He Sl~ggested that the tables within the ordinance be used as a guideline, allowing the Board to evaluate each project based on the criteria con- tained In the ordinance, the financing available and the site specific criteria. He commented, in that way, the Board will have the density rating ~ystem as a guideline with the flexibility to go above or below 000. 07 Page 6 October 9, 1990 if necessary, up to a certain maximum. Mr. Reynolds stated his agreement, and strongly urged the Board to adopt the table as originally proposed and not the version modified by the CCPC. % Mr. Shreeve pointed out that changes already made to the ordinance .state that Tables "A" and "B" will be reviewed and updated if necessary by the Board or its designee on an annual basis. He also mentioned that each time a developer requests an affordable housing ~i19[~ density bonus, he must enter into an agreement with the Board. He said since these agreements are reviewed by the Board on a case-by- case basis, that affords the flexibility being discussed. Commissioner Goodnight asked Mr. Reynolds if his clients who are t:~Jnterested Jn cresting affordable 5ous~nD are looking for waiver of bl/lldtng permit fees and impact fees? Mr. Reynolds replied that his clients are looking for every possi- bility to make the projects work, including waiver of impact fees. Commissioner Goodnight stated that although the density bonus is ~for the entire project, the waiver of impact fees is only for the affordable units portion. She added that the waiver of bui]dlng per- mits is only for projects which are completely funded by federal, state or county dollars. She indicated that she does not support the !~i~iwaiver of building permits for affordable housing, and each project should be looked at individually regarding waiver of impact fees. Commissioner Saunders suggested adding the following language to Section ? of the ordinance: "The density bonus rating system con- rained herein is a quideline only Each pro3ect will be evaluated by the Board of County Commissioners with the appropriate density bonus to be determined by the Board of County Commissioners at the ,ublic hearing on the zoning." Assistant County Attorney Student asked if Commissioner Saunders' isuggsstion is to use the formula contained within the ord~.~ance as the :~u~deline, to which Commissioner Saunders replied in the affirmative. Frank Brutt Community Development Services Administrator, advised Page 7 October g, lggo the Board on affordable housing activities in other communities. He mentioned the State of California simply states they will grant up to · 25~ density bonus in the particular zoning density in which the pro- ·Ject is located, or a decrease of up to 25% of the assigned costs of doing the project, i.e., impact fees, etc. He recommended for the Board's consideration, that a subcommittee be established comprised of · for example, two members of the CCPC, two members of the Board, Staff, economists, a banker and the County Attorney. He said the ~?devsloper would then propose a project to Staff who would assemble the ~- information, including the economics of the project, for the subcom- .!mittee,s review and evaluation. He stated it is important to remember that at the end of 15 years, the affordable housing units revert back to ~arket rate rentals. He reported an Affordable Housing Subcommittee will give the Board the advantage of a/lowing experts to i i~ ~ook at the projects and provide their recommendations '~' In answer to Comm~ssioner Hasse, Mr. Brutt suggested that the ~.'i Board adopt the ordinance and consider the subcommittee in the future. He said that committee will be a way of relieving the Board in the ~ of the need to consider projects at length without having the various factors resolved in advance. Commissioner Volpe indicated his belief that the ordinance as 'drafted provides too great an incentive to the developer and many ~holes. County Attorney Cuyler, using Commissioner Volpe's exaaple of 25 acres with a base density of four units per acre, stated the 10% of affordable housing units would be applied against the total density; therefore, that project would be required to have 17.5 units of affordable housing. Commissioner Volpe stated that is still too much of an increase in density for the amount of units that will be affordable housing. Commissioner Saunders again mentioned that additional language to .7~ ~ the ordinance may resolve that problem. He asked the County Attorney his views on adding the fo/lowing to Section 7: "The density bonus Page 8 October 9, 1990 g system contained herein is a guideline. Each project will be evaluated by the Board of County Commissioners with the appropriate density bonus rating system to be determined by the Board of County Co~isstoners at a public hearing at which time the zoning is ii approved." County Attorney Cuyler recommended against adding that language He pointed out that the bonus within the ordinance establishes a fixed maximum so that the Board will not have to negotiate with every deve- loper on every project as to whether he should go above what would otherwise be a maximum. He said nothing precludes the Board, based on compatibility or appropriate zoning considerations, from lowering that He suggested the Board direct Staff to meet with Mr. Merrill to review the ordinance for possible changes. ' Commissioner Volpe asked that the suggestion made by Mr. Brutt regarding the subcommittee be reviewed for possible inclusion into the ordinance. Comm~setoner Volpe moved, seconded by Commissioner Saunders and cmx~i~imoual¥, to continue this public hearing until 11/13/90 at 10--90-16 1~ A~ ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 82-2 FOR RESOURCE R~COV~RY F&CILIT~, ~SFER STATION A~D RECYCLING - TO BE CONSIDERED FOR PTION AT A FINAL PUBLIC _HEARING ON OCTOBER 23 1990 Planner Eric Young asked the Board to consider ZO-90-1b, an ordi- nance amending Ordinance 82-2, The Comprehensive Zoning Regulations for the Unincorporated Area of Collier County, by amending Section 20, Definitions, by deleting the definitions of recycling center and by definitions of transfer station, resource recovery facility and g. He stated this amendment ts Intended to better define the activi- ties associated with the concept of recycling and to bring the 's zoning regulations up to date with national and state stan- for waste management. He said this amendment will, at the same create the flexibility needed in the zoning ordinance to address Page 9 October 9, 1990 meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair - rapid advancements in the technology and processes associated with 'the recycling Industry. He reported these goals will be accomplished deleting the definition of recycling center and adding the three definitions of transfer station, resource recovery facility and recycling. He concluded the CCPC has forwarded ZO-90-16 to the Board with a recommendation of approval. ~iutone~ Saunders moved, seconded by Couteetoner Shanahan and c~.-x'ied u~mnimouely, to close the public hearing. Oo~m[isstoner Saundere moved, seconded by Co--~teetoner Shanahan and carried unantmly, to tentatively approve the amendment to Ordinance 82-2 with ftnml m~rptton b~tng on October 23, 1990. There being no further business for the Good of the County, the as presented Time: 6:50 P.M. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL ,~'minute~'approved by the Board on or as corrected Page 10