Loading...
BCC Minutes 06/17/2002 W (LDC Workshop re: Variances; Conditional Uses; Density Bonus; & Hearing Examiner Role) June 17,2002 Board of County Commissioners - LDC Workshop County Commissioners Boardroom Building F, 3rd Floor 3301 Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34104 MINUTES June 17, 2002 ATTENDANCE Commissioners: Chairman Commissioner Jim Coletta Commissioner Tom Henning Commissioner Fred Coyle (9:05 A.M.) Commissioner Donna Fiala Commissioner James D. Carter Collier County: Joe Schmitt - Community Development & Environmental Services Administrator Susan Murray - Interim Planning Director Tom Olliff - County Manager Jim Mudd - Deputy County Manager Mike Bosi - Planning Services David Weigel - County Attorney Amy Taylor - Comprehensive Planning Cormac Giblin - Housing Development Manager 1 AGENDA BCC WORKSHOP - JUNE 17.2002.9:00 A.M. - 12:00 P.M. TIME 1 HOUR 30 Minutes 10 Minute Break 1 Hour 30 Minutes TOPIC 1. Overview of the Variance Process 2. Overview of the Conditional Use Process 3. Hearing Examiner Role 4. Presentation by Community Character/Smart Growth 5. Density Bonus discussion 6. Public comments AGENDA ntM No. JUN 1 7 2002 - p -3 s. June 17,2002 Chairmen Commissioner Jim Coletta called meeting to order at 9:00 A.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Tom Olliff stated this was a continuing series of LDC workshops in order to get board direction. Today's goal was to walk the board through some of the major processes of the Land Development Code of which there have been issues at the board level. Staff wanted to make sure they were writing amendments that the board would like to see. (Commissioner Fred Coyle arrived at 9:05 A.M.) I. OVERVIEW OF VARIANCE PROCESS Mike Bosi discussed the differences between the variance process and conditional uses. He stated that both were similar in processes that they have to follow for approval, but they sit different in relation to the LDC. A variance is a limited waiver from the property development standards of the zoning ordinance, which allows an applicant to depart from the standard rules. Variances are included in the LDC to alleviate unique circumstances typically due to hardship inherent in the physical characteristic of the land. Commissioner Fiala asked if there was a way to prevent after the fact variances when a builder has been purposely improper in construction. Joe Schmitt stated there was nothing to prevent this from happening; the only way to do this was to build up a track record of denials. David Weigel stated that there would be criteria mentioned at every variance approval and the ultimate "teeth" was strict application of the five criteria of the variance process. The fee has also been increased for after the fact variances. Mr. Olliff added that this was a common issue that boards rustle with, and it was better now. He noted that they now require a spot survey, but many times the contractors proceed before this gets done. He believed the only way to really stop violations was to begin saying no to the variances. Commissioner Coletta asked the commission to hold their questions until after the presentation. Mr. Bosi described the types of variances that an applicant can seek, which are basically dimensional variances. He noted that a common misconception regarding variances is that financial hardship justifies a variance. In the LDC, it stresses in Section 2. 7.5.1 that a variance cannot be contrary to the public interest, safety or welfare. The criteria that each petition for a variance must satisfy are located in Section 2.7.5.6 Findings. Mr. Bosi discussed the eight findings and he noted that each petition does not have to meet all eight criteria, but it is a framework for them to consider. The Planning Commission recommendation is advisory and not binding upon the BZA. Mr. Bosi then gave a summary of the variance process; pre-application meeting, written petition, notice and public hearing, findings, status of planning commission report and recommendations, and BZA action on planning commission report. 2 June 17,2002 Commissioner Coletta asked if the $2,000 was required to be paid prior to the pre- application meeting. Mr. Bosi answered that $300 was paid at the pre-application meeting, and the remaining money was due when the written petition was filed. If the applicant withdrew from the process, the $300 would be retained. Commissioner Coyle questioned how this process would change with the hearing officer. Susan Murray answered that the process would remain the same, but the hearing examiner would be making the final decision. The public input would still be the same. Commissioner Carter noted that by having a hearing examiner, this would relieve political pressure from the board. II. OVERVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS Mr. Bosi stated that conditional uses are uses that would not be appropriate generally or without restriction throughout a particular zoning classification, but which, if controlled, carry out the purpose and intent of the zoning district. According to the LDC, in each zoning district there is a list of permitted uses that allow for the fulfillment and intent of the specific district. In each district, there is also a list of conditional uses which are required to go through a higher degree of review to develop and are determined to be compatible with a district's permitted uses with limitations. Conditional uses require a public hearing and if approval is granted, are usually subject to the fulfillment of certain conditions by the developer. Mr. Bosi noted that a key of this presentation was that when they are approving a conditional use, they are approving a conceptual site plan. The conditional use process is very similar to the variance process, except the applicant is also required to have a public information meeting with residents in the area before any hearings and application. Commissioner Henning suggested that if they allow conditional uses in a residential area, they should require the conditional uses to be located on a collector or arterial roadway. He was concerned with good land planning. Mr. Bosi discussed the 4 criteria in the Findings in Section 2.7.4.4 and noted that the second finding addressed automotive and pedestrian safety, traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe. Commissioner Carter stated that he felt they needed to define arterial or collector. Commissioner Coyle was concerned with the underlying LDC with which decisions are based, and also when this decision was taken away from a deliberative body and given to the hearing examiner. He felt they needed to take a close look at the underlying land development code, and the permitted and conditional uses, to make absolutely sure that what the county wants to be there was in the best interest of the community. Mr. Bosi agreed and said that it might be a good idea to revisit each of the conditional uses in each zoning district to ensure they are what the county wants. Commissioner Coyle added that it would be helpful if they had in the code that the granting of conditional uses will not result in a rezoning. Commissioner Henning agreed. Mr. Olliff added that it might be important for staff to look at this in regards to non-conforming uses, as well. 3 June 17,2002 III. HEARING EXAMINER ROLE Jim Mudd stated that they do not have a hearing examiner yet. They have had three meetings with the selection committee and they are currently going through selection criteria and the questions to be asked. They are hoping to have a hearing examiner recommendation to the board by the fall session. Susan Murray stated that they are taking a comprehensive look at the land development code and ensuring that it is what the county wants, so when the hearing examiner takes over, the process is functioning to its fullest. She noted that the organized community meetings prior to application for rezonings and conditional uses has been implemented into the LDC and has been operational since October 2001. Staffwill give a report this fall as to the success and failures of the public participation plan. Ms. Murray stated that the hearing examiner would make the final decision with respect to the variance process, most of the lesser land use petitions, and several administrative matters. In the conditional use process, non-conforming uses, and rezonings, the hearing examiner's role would be one of a recommending body in lieu of the Planning Commission, with the BCC having final decision. Commissioner Coyle questioned what would be the responsibilities of the EAC and CCPC since these would be greatly reduced and also, would this cause the board difficulty when making considerations on environmental impact. Ms. Murray responded that they weren't anticipating making any changes to the LDC with respect to the EAC's authority. Commissioner Coyle noted that in #29 on special treatment overlays, it seemed that the EAC and CCPC's responsibilities had been removed, leaving the recommendation and decision up to the hearing examiner. Ms. Murray stated that it was not the intention to remove the EAC's role in recommendation for special treatment overlays. Commissioner Carter shared some concerns on the S.T. permits and he hoped that the recommendation would come to the board for them to make the final decision. Commissioner Coletta added that they are redoing the code so that it will be more self-explanatory and so that it meets the needs of the public and eliminates the loopholes that developers have used in the past. Commissioner Fiala agreed with the three other commissioners and stated that she placed a lot of value on the recommendations given by the EAC and the CCPC. Commissioner Coletta asked what would be the remainder of their duties. Mr. Schmitt said the CCPC would still be involved in land use items, PUDs, LDC amendments, and the Growth Management Plan; they would just not be dealing with the variances and conditional uses. Mr. Schmitt added that staff needed to clarify exactly what issues will go through the EAC and CCPC. Commissioner Coletta requested that the members ofthe CCPC be supplied a tape of this workshop. 4 June 17, 2002 Commissioner Coyle suggested that for the S.T. overlays, the proposed process should include a recommendation from the EAC to the hearing examiner and the final decision should be made by the BCC. Commissioner Fiala agreed. Commissioner Henning believed that the hearing examiner's role was to hear variances and conditional uses, which was approved by the board. If they are now allowing other things for the hearing examiner to hear, they should bring this up at the regular meeting to change the ordinance. Ms Murray stated that they only included issues that were highly correlated to the variance process. Mr. Mudd added that they could change the ordinance in order to make them comfortable and it could be as flexible as they liked. Commissioner Coletta asked for this issue to be arranged to be brought back before the board. Ms. Murray noted that they would have a comprehensive meeting at a later date. IV. PRESENTATION BY COMMUNITY CHARACTER/SMART GROWTH COMMITTEE Amy Taylor handed out excerpts from the Community Character Plan. She noted that the Community Character/Smart Growth Committee was established for the purposes of implementing and reviewing any Growth Management Plan amendments and LDC amendments relating to enhancing community character and smart growth initiatives for Collier County for the purposes of meeting the challenges of rapid growth while maintaining a quality community. The recommendation by this board was that it be taken through staff and an implementation citizen committee to begin the implementation process. They have met with a consultant to help initiate the changes to the LDC that will bring community character and smart growth initiatives forward. Each of these initiatives will result in recommendations for LDC amendments. One of the goals is community diversity, which includes revitalizing older neighborhoods, improving typical subdivision techniques, requirements for new neighborhoods, promoting great streets, well-designed commercial centers and complementary of mixed-uses, encouraging redevelopment and mixed-uses in older commercial districts, and upgrading the county's architectural and site design standards. Another goal is to enhance public infrastructure and how the planning and construction processes consider quality, aesthetics, and efficiency. Another aspect is greenspace and the committee has worked closely with Public Services and Parks & Recs, as well as an initiative for a referendum for greenspace acquisition. Commissioner Carter commended the work the committee has done. Commissioner Henning mentioned that they were putting in the preparations, such as wiring and irrigation, in order to accomplish the greater goals, such as streetlights and landscaping. Ms. Taylor agreed and noted that they looked at the desires of the community during this process. She added that they were realistic about what funding they had. Commissioner Carter stated that a great deal of 5 June 17,2002 development will be initiated by the community and they will do a much better job than having the county guess what the community wants and needs. (There was a 15-minute break at 10:30 A.M.) V. DENSITY BONUS DISCUSSION Joe Schmitt stated they were going to discuss affordable housing and the density bonus issue. Cormac Giblin brought forth the recommendations by the Workforce Housing Advisory Committee. He stated that the affordable housing programs are on the back-end of the process. If tools are in place in the LDC, housing will be affordable from inception rather than buying down the land on the back -end. Their first recommendation was to amend the LDC to include a fast-track provision for affordable housing developments. He noted that there were no shortcuts in the process, and Mr. Schmitt added that there was concurrent review during fast-tracking. Staff has analyzed that this does not need to be an LDC mandate, rather a countywide policy would suffice. The second recommendation was to allow the rental of guesthouses and accessory units within the urban area. Mr. Giblin noted that this would require some Growth Management Plan changes before this could be implemented, but he felt it was a good idea. Their third recommendation was to amend the LDC to encourage mixed-use zoning incentives for affordable housing. Any bonuses given by the County to build a mixed-use development in an activity center should try to link that incentive to the provision of affordable housing. This would also decrease traffic by allowing the workforce the opportunity to live very near their place of employment. He believed that was the intent of the mixed-use zoning designation, it has just never made it in the LDC as a requirement to link that to affordable housing. Their fourth recommendation was to reevaluate the qualifying criteria for all allowable density bonuses. Mr. Giblin stated that the practical maximum density one could develop a single-family development at was 4 or 5 units per acre. However, the LDC as it is currently written has many ways to reach this density without addressing affordable housing. Mr. Giblin stated what the LDC currently allows density bonuses for, which included conversion of commercial zoning, proximity to mixed-use activity center or interchange activity center, affordable housing, residential in-fill, roadway access, and transfer of development rights. He believed some of these should be mandated by the LDC and some developers have taken advantage of these bonuses. 6 June 17,2002 Their last recommendations were for affordable housing linkage fees and inclusionary zoning. There is a workshop scheduled on July 15 with an expert on this field. Commissioner Henning stated that mixed-use development was probably one of the best smart growth tools that they have available, but he didn't know ifit was proper to have only affordable housing in this area. Mr. Giblin answered that the developers could still develop the original units as they wish, but the suggestion was for the additional 3 units to be used for affordable housing. Commissioner Henning suggested that in the commercial district, they tie the caretakers unit to the occupational license so people won't abuse this. Commissioner Fiala stated the reason they want to address the density bonuses that are received and concentrate only on affordable housing was that it would also be linked to the inclusionary zoning. She added that the motivation for inclusionary zoning was to not allow developers to buyout of inclusionary zoning and to create a more equitable distribution. Commissioner Coletta asked if the committee was recommending this to be retroactive. Commissioner Fiala stated that she wanted it to be retroactive. Commissioner Carter commented that he would like to see many of these things worked out and be implemented, and he stated that people react better to incentives than by government mandates. He added that they might need to do some P.R. to change the image of affordable housing. Commissioner Coletta asked for the July 15th workshop to be televised. Commissioner Coyle had some concerns that some of these recommendations were too restrictive and limiting and he felt that this would cause projects to get developed at a lower quality level and higher density level. He believed there were some incentives that could be provided to meet their goals, but this would not work until the County decided how many they needed, where they would be located, and the impacts it would have on roads and sewers. He added there was a low likelihood given the price of land that developers were going to buy into this process easily. Commissioner Coyle expressed concern about establishing policies without a plan. He strongly felt that there should be certain areas where affordable housing should be located in order to avoid devastating the economy. Commissioner Coyle didn't believe that tying a living unit with a business would yield high occupancy rates in a mixed-use development. He suggested a good way to create affordable housing was to have a combination of rental and purchase units. Commissioner Fiala stated that affordable housing programs such as the one the committee proposed were working very successfully across the country, including inclusionary zoning in wealthier neighborhoods. She said they were focusing on the mistakes and successes of other programs in their development and they would certainly have a plan in place before there were any votes. Commissioner 7 June 17,2002 Fiala noted that the free market system has not worked very well in East Naples and Golden Gate City. She expressed the need for them to come up with a system that is more equitable. Commissioner Carter stated that he was not against trying to provide workforce housing, but they needed to be realistic about what is out there and what can happen. He didn't believe it was legal to apply this to existing PUDs. Commissioner Coyle was concerned that once you create affordable housing, particularly if it is a purchase unit, you would have to maintain government control over that unit, even though somebody purchased it. He felt if they deprived giving them the opportunity to make a profit, then they deprived them of the opportunity to advance themselves. He added a basic failure of smart growth was that it assumes people want to live where you build it, not where they want to build it. Commissioner Coletta disagreed with the premonition that everyone's goal was to move to a gated community. He noted that if they try to limit affordable housing to certain areas, they are typecasting this as the only suitable area for affordable housing. He suggested the board keep their minds open in the workshop to see what the other successes and failures have been. His concern was that past commissions have held back on the affordable housing issue and they were now trying to catch up. Commissioner Henning stated that he agreed with some of the comments made by Commissioner Coyle, but he saw a need to create a housing element for the workers who cleaned the pools and cut the grass. He was also concerned about the hearing examiner in regards to conditional uses. Do they develop the criteria for the hearing examiner to use or do they wait for input from the community. The board supported his concern for having additional criteria for conditional uses. Mr. Giblin clarified a previous comment, that in the LDC, what maintains affordable housing for the long term was having a maximum that a house can appreciate per year. Mr. Schmitt added that was only if they participate in the SHIP program or affordable housing density bonus. Commissioner Coletta said that they needed to negotiate. Commissioner Henning noted that they cannot tell somebody to do something as far as existing PUDs unless it's in the LDC or Growth Management Plan. If they do, he felt they needed to consider purchasing the development rights for that property. Commissioner Coyle commented that there was a limited amount of land available for affordable housing, but he supported the effort to achieve more affordable housing as long as it was in a way that was logical, well planned and devised on fact. 8 June 17,2002 Commissioner Carter stated that he would like to know the total inventory of affordable housing units. He didn't feel that density was an issue, but more how it was put together. Commissioner Fiala stated that the committee was carefully working through this issue and when they come with a complete plan, she hoped the board would be able to accept it. She added that they have to protect the urban boundary, but when they allow for very high densities, this leads to urban sprawl. She noted they needed to keep in mind that many of the people who need affordable housing are retirees. Mr. Mudd summarized the board's direction to staff: 1) schedule another workshop in the fall tightening up conditional uses and make sure the specifics are there, 2) if they want the hearing examiner to handle conditional uses, they need to make sure that a granting of a conditional use will not result in a rezoning, 3) specify the role of the hearing examiner and what is currently in the ordinance that they voted on, 4) have the July 15th workshop on affordable housing televised, 5) give the CCPC a tape of this workshop, and 6) try to get rid of the "catch 22" phrases in the code. Commissioner Henning added that the board wanted to see what the needs are as far as affordable housing. Commissioner Coyle mentioned the 20,000-unit goal and added that they need the total inventory before they could move forward. Mr. Olliff recommended that there were assumptions they could make by doing sample surveys to give the board some broad parameters. There was a brief discussion to how they could compile this data. Commissioner Fiala noted that there was a person putting together a map that would point out the number of affordable housing units in place. Mr. Olliff added that the board needed to have an approach once they had a funding source. VI. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. VII. ADJOURNMENT * * * ** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:05 P.M. BO~ONERS JIM ETT A, C AIRMA: 9 June 17, 2002 ,~~ i:f"" <'AT.l~~':'ttHt'ill', l!'~.g.~~tqCK, CLERK f;.Ci:.ir:",,,lIi"" 4~"l;:,~ "'0:,,";.1, "'~"Id~\"" .", "t t;:at-'\~""'r..i~".t~ '..'::'. ",;fO"""""" " lI'-1\T.oIY'rt:'J: &,1. .:iF """,,,,,,tJ.,,,.'- , L?J[ ~;!%~~'~~1~~~~~,,~;;, "(', , ~!~~\~(;~;~, ~~~1.:"t. ~'c. t_,,~ "~~ ,:~:.. fI:~ 1\.1"\ "" n ~1~~1~~P\:bLIN.LO \VJ ,-U.,-. -"', ....-::.:? <'1.' ............."....." .', ',' "" ' . S'U1flWse'minut~pproved by the Board on ::f"u...L ~ :3 0 , 2,.(:) 0 2- As presented / or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF MANPOWER SERVICES, INe., BY AMBER M. FREDERIKSEN, RPR. 10