Loading...
BCC Minutes 05/11/2005 S (LDC Amendments) May 11, 2005 LDC MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MAY 11,2005 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board( s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 5 :05 p.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: VICE- CHAIRMAN: Frank Halas Jim Coletta Donna Fiala Tom Henning Fred Coyle (Absent) ALSO PRESENT: Joe Schmitt, Community Dev. & Env. Services Susan NlunAay, Zoning & Land Dev. Review Catherine Fabacher, Zoning & Land Dev. Revie\v Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 -»--~.----" COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ;} LDC AGENDA May 11,2005 5:05 p.m. SPECIAL MEETING NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND \VILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS". ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE l\IAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIlVIONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE (5) lVIINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOlVIMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOl! ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY 1 May 11,2005 FACILITIES MANAGEl\IENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST T AMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE [\ THE COUNTY COMlVIISSIONERS' OFFICE. 1. IN\/OCA TION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. THE BOARD TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE Al\1ENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 04-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, \VHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. 3. ADJOURN '" 'lay 11. 2005 .~,,~_.._--"_.- ,---- May 11,2005 VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. This is the first ~earing of the LDC codes for the first cycle of 2005 on the May 11 th of -- and the meeting's starting at 5 :05. If you would all rise and repeat after me the national anthem -- oh, pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, at this time I'll turn this over to Joe Schmitt here from Community Services. MR. SCHMITT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, Joe Schmitt, Administrator, Community Development, Environmental Services. Again, welcome. This is the first public hearing of cycle one, 2005 before the Board of County Commissioners of the LDC amendments as we determined at the spring cycle. Just to place on the record, these LDC amendments have already gone before the Environmental Advisory Council, have been before the DSAC and before the planning commission. And we will point out, there are some amendments that the planning commission reviewed but have not yet voted on because they preceded the compo plan amendments, which they'll be looking at. And we'll explain that as we go through this, Commissioners. But before we proceed any further, I'd like to turn this over to Assistance County Attorney Patrick White so he can make a part of the official record the advertisement. MR. WHITE: Thank you, Mr. Schmitt. Assistant County Attorney Patrick White. I have reviewed the affidavit of publication for today's meeting and find that it's appropriate for the meeting to proceed, it's legally sufficient, and I'm going to turn it over to our record keeper for recordkeeping purposes. Thank you. MS. MURRAY: Good evening, Mr. Chairman. MR. SCHMITT: Let me -- just one -- just for the record, make Page 2 May 11, 2005 sure folks understand, this is the first hearing, and that we'll be going through this, and I'll be turning this over to Ms. Susan Murray, and so we can describe how we're going to go through this. Of course it's up to you on how you want to proceed. We do meet: again; we're scheduled to meet for you to vote on these on Wednesday, June 8th at 5:05. And just for the record, that is the day after you will be hearing the compo plan amendments that will be to you before the public hearing for adoption. So the compo plan amendments that involve some of the issues regarding TDR, TDR bonuses, those issues in regards to the rural land stewardship overlay, are -- many of the amendments are in this packet. You'll be seeing them today, but you will be doing your final vote after you vote on the compo plan amendments. And I just wanted to make sure you understand the sequence. So some of these -- this is working in tandem. We're working the LDC amendments in regards to the implementation guidance for the rural land stewardship overlay involving the TDR, TDR bonuses and -- or I'n1 sorry, the rural fringe mixed used district regards to the TDR's, TDR overlays. But you will be voting on those after you go through transmittal of those GMP amendments. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: That will be tonight we're going to vote on the reading of this? All we're going -- MR. SCHMITT: You do not vote on this tonight. All we're doing is taking your comments through the series of LDC amendments. And if you have any guidance in regards to how you want to make changes to direct staff on any issues or concerns. So we're here tonight just only to hear your con11nents and concerns, and then we'll come back and vote on these. And I \vould like to turn this now over to Ms. Susan Murray, n1Y Director for Zoning and Land Development revie\v. And if she could introduce her team. MS. MURRAY: Good evening. Susan Murray, Director of the Page 3 May 11, 2005 Zoning Department. Two things: First, I w~nted to introduce Catherine Fabacher. She's sitting next to Patrick White. She is the most recent addition to our staff. She's the principal planner and she'll actually be handling the LDC amendment cycle and process after this cycle is complete. She's replacing Russell Webb, if you recall. So I wanted to familiarize you with her and tell her welcome. Again, this is the second hearing -- or first hearing, I'm sorry. The second one will be the adoption hearing. If there's any member of the audience who wishes to speak on any of the proposed amendments tonight, if they could fill out the speaker slip and then drop it right off here to myself and Joe, we'll organize them and make sure you get your opportunity to speak at the appropriate time. Next I wanted to just go through briefly with you how your packet is organized. Because it's divided two ways. The first overall division takes the entire packet and divides it into three sections. The first section, which is comprised of approximately 160 odd pages, is the section you'll probably want to focus on, because that is the section wherein you either have new text or modified text and -- which results in regulatory change. Each section is preceded by your summary sheet. So there are three summary sheets in here. The two remaining sections deal primarily with clarification and the addition of text for clarification and errors and omissions as a result of the recodification process that we went through last year. Those result in non-regulatory change. So those are the last two sections. And they are identified by Band C, after each page number, which is in the bottom center. They -- again, and they each have their own summary sheet before that section. . The color coding relates to the groupings of sections that deal with like issues or issues within the same category. So, for example, Page 4 May 11,2005 anything that's color coded red deals mostly with your rural fringe, your TDR's and your rural land stewardship area amendments, and they should probably be considered together, just to have a complete understanding of what's being changed. And the same with the other groupIngs. The remaining amendments in the first item are just grouped according to their section number chronologically. So what 1'11 be doing is I'll just be guiding you through, based on your summary sheet and 1'11 be telling you what page number to go to as well. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest, normally we've been starting out with items -- we've got a couple of consultants that the county is paying for, and they're introducing some of these items. Nancy's not here? Okay. Well, and normally we've been starting with those. I do have two groups of those. The first is comprehensive planning, but Nancy Linan isn't here at the moment, so perhaps if you wish, we could go to the raw water wells, which is the blue tabs in your section, and that begins on Page 92. And I know Bruce Tyson is here. And I don't know if you want a full presentation from him or you just want a brief overview or if you want to just ask -- VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: What's the wish of the board? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'd like a full-blown presentation. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: How about you? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I do, too. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, we'll do it -- that's the way we'll go. Because I know I have a couple of questions on this, too. MS. MURRAY: And this item actually begins on --labeled as Page 92. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Ninety-two A, or just 92? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ninety-t\vo. Page 5 May 11, 2005 VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MS. MURRAY: Actu~lly, if you would, turn to Page 125-A. This is the one that they're going to be presenting. We'll get to 92 after this one. Ray Smith, if he's here, maybe while they're setting up, we could go back to 92 and just look at that real quick. Ray? If you would, just come up and just briefly discuss your item. MR. WHITE: Feel free to use the podium on this side, Ray, if you'd like. MR. SMITH: Good evening. My name's Ray Smith, I'm Director of Pollution Control. I'm here today to answer any questions the Board may have on the proposed amendments to the Land Development Code 3.06, ground water protection ordinance. The proposed amendments represent the required update or remodel of the well-field risk management zones, in addition to updates to the titles of the wellfields. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have one question. MR. SMITH: Sure. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: What about the Marco Island wellfield? I didn't see that listed in here. MR. SMITH: The Marco Island wellfield is a -- the Marco Island \vellfield is a lake that's drawing water from surface water source. It's not a wellfield. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I didn't know that. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Learn something new every day. MR. SMITH: That's located on the comer of951 and-- MR. SCHMITT: Forty-one. MR. SMITH: -- and 41, yes. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Because I see all the other Page 6 May 11,2005 wellfields. That's why I asked that question. MR. SMITH: The wellfields that are remodeled at this particular point are those well fields within the surficial aquifer system, those wellfields located within the lo\ver Tamiami aquifer system and the Sandstone aquifer system. Those in Hawthorne are not remodeled and are not a part of this. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: So the maps that are included in this are just basically of the Tamiami maps then? MR. SMITH: And Sandstone aquifer system, out in Immokalee. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is there any questions fron1 board members on this particular item? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think that takes care of it. MR. SCHMITT: Bruce, are you almost ready? VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. MR. SMITH: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great. MR. TYSON: My name is Bruce Tyson. I'm a planner and a landscape architect with Wilson-Miller. And I don't know an a\vful lot about running power point shows as it relates to your equipment, so at least with a handout we can get started. Karen Juliani is with me trying to make that all happen. Karen is a Principal Project Manager with Public Utilities \vho I've been working with in putting this together. So let me just go in and we can work our way down through this. The most important thing for everybody to understand is the concept behind this. And what was happening is to permit a well within the county -- simple well, something that's as innocuous as dealing with a 40 by 50 piece of land, was taking up to five and six n10ntl1s to get it through all of the different stages of the process that needs to go through. And so in working with staff and in working with the consultants Page 7 May 11, 2005 who were doing a lot of this well work, we came up with a plan in order to link all of the wells ,together with the water treatment facilities. And consequently, in doing that, what we have now is a new description or a new -- what it amounts to is what we put together. We have a -- whoop, we have it here. Okay, now we're on with this, so you have that on your monitors. Okay. What we came up with is a new definition for raw water wells as they relate to the work in the county. And that was done. And then secondly, this is, as I've indicated here, was done in collaboration with the people at development services. Okay, the schematic that you see on the second slide deals with all of the wells that are in the county. There's some 70 of them now, but the intent is to get it to 170, just about, in the future. So what the program was, is with all of these being linked, we can now come up with a very simplified version that not only helps the county but also helps from a standpoint of speed in getting these approved, but also makes it so that they're -- the linkage of these allows, through the definition, for one site or two sites or a number of sites, but big ones, significant ones, to house all of the issues dealing with the environment, native vegetation, all of those issues. So we're not looking at on a 40 by 50 site, for instance, saving the equivalent of a parking stall, but in essence being able to link those now to another property where we wind up getting something that is far more significant, as you see in your screen here, something that would be as small as a well site, and then dealing with this as it could be placed on a relatively sizeable piece of land. So linking these allows for this vegetation to preserve in very, very large areas, and that was something that we worked out very closely with the people in the environmental services group. What we have are basically we have three diffe~ent conditions for \vells. One is with wellhouses that where these wells are housed where they're greater than 400 square feet, one where they're less than Page 8 -----,,-~-_.- May 11. 2005 400 square feet, and the other thing is where we have fences or walls that surround all of these different well configurations. Now let me just quickly get into what we have done to establish these. For well houses that are greater than 400 square feet, we have setbacks now that are very specific for these. From any right-of-way to be 25 feet from a side yard, we want to make sure that everybody's -- or the adjacent landowner is protected. So consequently, if there's a 30-foot setback for a building requirement, that that 30 feet gets honored in the way in which these are being done. So if there's a 30- foot setback required, then the building has to be set back 30 feet from the property line. So we've tried to keep it very consistent and to protect private property rights for those people who are not impacted or affected by this development. Rear yards are 25 feet. And then occasionally we'll have well houses that are in easements. And when they're in easements, they can be six feet, or again they have to meet all the requirements so that their setback again is not being affected for their specific location. And any appertinent equipment has to be set back six feet as well. And here's a little schematic of a condition like this that you would get if you had a well house that was more than 400 square feet, we've done the setbacks for that, and kind of indicated what that house could look like in elevation. Next, if we have a condition of where that well house is less than 400 square feet, that setback then is reduced to 15 feet. And typically, by the way, that's for a building, just to give you a size, that's something like 16 by 24. That works out to a size that the county does use, and that's about 384 square feet is the way in \vhich that works out. Side yards again, still very in1portant to protect those for the adjacent property owners, so we've held onto that requirement to n1ake sure that that side yard is retained from the standpoint of the setback. Page 9 May 11,2005 depending upon the underlining zoning district's requirements. Rear yard would be 10 feet. Andjust like the other one for the well houses within easements six feet for the above setbacks, and all that appertinent equipment again should be six feet as well, being set back from the property line. This would be a condition where you would have a well house and the -- by the way, the well house was for the properties that are -- or for the -- when you have a well house that is greater than the 400 square feet. Typically that goes on a property that's about 100 by 100. This one would go on a property that's about 60 by 70. Now, a lot of times we don't have well houses and we have conditions of where there's just a fence that's going to surround it. So what we've done is come up with very specific requirements for these. What's probably most important, in addition to the fact that we have now a five-foot setback for the fence that surrounds this, and if you are in another easement, we've reduced that to two feet. And what we've tried to accomplish here with this is that -- to have enough room to create a planting zone around all of these fences so that the idea in a number of years, whatever number of years it will take for the hedges to get up to the point of where they're as high as the fence, and if that number -- that number's probably going to be around five years. But the point is that this is what with a -- the situation you have on your screen right now is what these fences and walls would wind up looking like as they would be surrounded by the vegetation, and you'd have a well vault and a control panel in this typical 40 by 50-foot space. There's a number of these, depending upon exactly what happens, but again, I'll run through those with you in just a second. But the landscaping and screening requirements are probably most important here, because that's what we all see. ,r mean, that's the thing that in the long run is what's important. So all of these new facilities will be landscaped around the Page 10 May 11,2005 buildings, as well as around the walls and the fences. The native landscape materials are to be used where practicable. We're going to have irrigation systems for these, or irrigation will be provided, one way or another, whether it's through a system or vvhether in some remote cases it's more cost effective to do it by other means. A fence or a wall height may be up to eight feet surrounding these, and that's mainly for security. And then all the other appertinent equipment exceeding the height of the fence or wall shall be set back no less than the underlying zoning requirement. So again what we're looking to do is when we have a situation, and typically like this one where you'd have an emergency generator that would be a component of this, that could be higher, because we have to set those up much higher simply because of fuel storage within that facility, it has to be above water or ground water or 100-year flood elevation. So consequently they come up relatively high, to 14 to 16 feet above the pad, which could easily mean somewhere in the neighborhood of six to eight feet above the height of the fence. Consequently, when that situation occurs, we want to have cabbage palms or the equivalent planted around that to screen it very effectively. And as you can see, the intent would be at planting to have these plants placed around that, so in essence it would be completely screened. That is exactly where we want to go with this. We put all that in the language, of course, which is what you have in front of you, and I'd be happy to answer any questions about this. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any questions, Commissioners? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. Do these areas, these wells, do they smell? Page 11 May 11,2005 MR. TYSON: No, it's strictly from a standpoint of -- when you say smell -- . COMMISSIONER FIALA: I mean, like the one we have in Lakewood, when you walk by, you have to take a breath before you get too near it because it smells so bad. But it's out in the open, so -- MR. TYSON: Not that I'm aware of. These are all enclosed. They're drilled down into the aquifers to take water from them. And there's no exposure -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good, good. MR. TYSON: -- that I'm aware of that comes from these. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that's a sewer station. COMMISSIONER FIALA: No wonder it smelled. Okay, thank you. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, it's a lift station you're probably talking about. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, yeah. MR. TYSON: Different. MR. SCHMITT: Different function. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. How noisy are they? MR. TYSON: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER FIALA: How noisy are they? MR. TYSON: Very -- the only time you're going to experience any noise from these will be during the operation of the emergency generators. They are emergency in nature only. They are run periodically, and typically that means for a brief period of time on a weekly basis to make sure that they're functioning. And then they'll nln during an emergency condition in order to maintain the water supply for the county. COMMISSIONER FIALA: People wouldn't ~ind the noise then. But during the week you say once a week they test them, huh? MR. TYSON: Typically that's the case. Page 12 Mav 11. 2005 01 ' COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do they usually do it in daylight hours -- MR. TYSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- where it isn't \vaking anybody up anything?' MR. TYSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Next. Do you ever put these like right in somebody's front yard? And if you do, do you kind of move it over so that, you know, their front yard doesn't look like a well house? MR. TYSON: Well, depending upon what the circumstances are for that easement and where it is, those issues are usually worked out with the property owner well in advance of them -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: So you're flexible -- MR. TYSON: -- getting the easement. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- enough to 1110ve it a little bit so -- MR. TYSON: It can be moved, as long as it doesn't affect that side yard setback that I was talking about. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. MR. TYSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And 111Y last question -- I'm sorry I had so many questions. You were talking about the plantings, and that you would say that in a few years they would grow, or so many years they would grow to cover it, more or less. How many years? MR. TYSON : Well, typically for the condition that you have here, you're still looking at -- those shrubs are -- what we want to do is let those grow up to the point of where they cover the entire facility. Around the well houses they're going to be maintained and trimmed. so they'll only go up to three or four feet. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. MR. TYSON: But I think the right ans\ver for your question~ if Page 13 -- ._. ....~ij ..--- May 11, 2005 I'm not mistaken, is about five years before the entire fence would be surrounded and covered so t.hat you wouldn't even see it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you plant fast-growing shrubs? MR. TYSON: Well, they're native so the idea is to get them to the point of where they will grow a little bit more rapidly, yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Anybody else have any further questions? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have one question. It's a technical question. What's a pig launcher? MR. TYSON: I'll back off of the stock answer. No, the pig launcher is -- well, I'll give you the line. I said picture a catapult, you know, that sort of thing. But no, what it amounts to is this is a device because raw water wells will frequently pick up a fair amount of sediment from these lower aquifers when they're drawing water, and it will collect within these piping systems. And so what they have is a launcher that squeals like a pig for a -- in essence it's a canister that goes through that pipe and cleans it out. So as it's going through the pipe, it squeals. Became the pig. It's launched at that point. COMMISSIONER FIALA: How often do you do that? MR. TYSON: Probably when necessary, and not any sooner. But it sounds like about every two years. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do we have any public speakers on this issue? MS. MURRAY: No registered speakers on this. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Onto the next one then. MS. MURRAY: Okay. I think we'll go to the rural fringe PDR's. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What about the well field tab? MS. MURRAY: I'm sorry. Page 14 May 11,2005 COMMISSIONER HENNING: What about the wellfield tab? We're not going to deal with the wellfield at this time? VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: We already did. MS. MURRAY: We -- that was Ray's presentation. C()lV[MISSIONER HENNING: That was the wells. But the wellfield is a series of wells. MS. MURRAY: Correct. Are you referring to the one on Page 92? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. MS. MURRAY: Yes, that was what Ray Smith handled while we were -- VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: What question did you have, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the question is what's the permitting process for a wellfield now? MR. SMITH: Again, for the record, Ray Smith, Director of Pollution Control. The permitting process for wellfields is handled primarily by the South Florida Water Management District, not Collier County. Does that answers your question, sir? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, yes. Thank you. But I was actually -- asked the County Attorney a couple of days ago to get that ans\ver for me. The concern I have is when you have a wellfield, there is a buffer area for quite a few miles, and the uses within that buffer area are limited, correct? MR. SMITH: Depending on the land use, yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. Gas stations. MR. Sl\1ITH: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And there's a litany of them. l\nd so we don't have any intrusion within the wellfield area, you \vant a protection area. Page 15 May 11, 2005 MR. SMITH: Yes. COMMISSIONER H~NNING: I guess I'm just asking my colleagues, should it be something that is a conditional use process? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I? VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't think so. I think we need to have it as a permitted use, very similar to what we're trying to do with our fire stations and whatever. It's a needed public facility with the necessary setbacks and everything to meet the public needs. We still have to go through a hearing process, if I'm not mistaken, is that correct? MR. SMITH: If I can just elaborate on the type of land uses to provide the board that type of -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. MR. SMITH: -- viewpoint? Items such as solid waste disposal facilities; solid waste transfer stations; solid waste bulk containers, nonresidential handling hazard -- nonresidentials -- or residential handling hazardous products. These are commercial businesses that use large volumes of hazardous products. Domestic wastewater treatment plants; industrial wastewater treatment plants; collection transmission systems, those conveyance devices for wastewater materials; sludge application sites, or domestic residual disposal sites. On-site sewage disposal systems; concentrated animal feeding operations; stormwater management systems; well construction subsurface exploration; excavation mining operations; and petroleum exploration and production facilities. That's what we're talking about regarding land use. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Stonnwater retention? MR. SMITH: Regarding stormwater management retention, there is some exemption, but we do go out there and just make sure that what's being retained, what's run off from -- into that retainage area is not too close to a wellfield. And we'd approach primarily what Page 16 May 11~ 2005 is in that runoff, not necessarily the stormwater retention area. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You want to look at the depth then. MR. SMITH: We want to look at what's entering that area. CCJrv1MISSIONER HENNING: Okay. But no gas stations? MR. SMITH: Gas stations, we go by the Florida Administrative Code. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You have no choice on that. MR. SMITH: That's it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, thank you. MR. SMITH: You're welcome. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other questions by board menlbers? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there any public speakers for this? MS. MURRAY: No. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are we ready to go on to the next? MS. MURRAY: Next item will begin on Page 4, and that's section 2.03.07, overlay zoning district. MR. LITSINGER: Good evening, Commissioners. For the record, Stan Litsinger, Comprehensive Planning Director. The Land Development Code changes that \ve're bringing before you tonight, which is the first time you have seen them. They've been through the Planning Commission, as mentioned before, once, and there have been some updates and continued modifications which in your draft you may see some double underlines which technically, since it's the first time you've seen it, should be single underlines. So I \vould ask for you to look at them from the standpoint this is the first tin1e that you have seen it. What \ve are trying to accomplish here, starting on Page 4, is the implementation of the bonus amendment provisions that will be Paae 17 :;:, May 11,2005 coming to you for adoption on special meeting on June the 7th, and provided (sic) a procedural ~nd operational framework within the Land Development Code that will permit us to implement that and move forward in a very rapid manner to make this a viable and also practically achievable program. If you would like, I can open it to your questions. Generally what we've done here in 2.03.07 is we have outlined the three bonuses and the requirements within the Land Development Code in order to be awarded the possible three additional bonuses. To refresh your memory very quickly, we have the early entry bonus, which is automatic for entering the program within the first three years of the effective date of these amendments, going back retroactive till last March. We also have -- which would be two automatic. We also have the restoration and maintenance program bonus, which provides the opportunity for a property owner to achieve an additional bonus unit. And then the final step would be a conveyance bonus for gifting the property to one of the identified environn1ental agencies that we've outlined in the Land Development Code. We've provided some detail associated with the documentation and criteria that we would need in order to approve a restoration and maintenance plan, and also in order to record easements against the properties upon submission of an application. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there any questions? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may, I don't have questions, I just have a comment. This commission, when we -- we directed us to have a workshop on this, if you remember correctly, and we held that workshop. And I want to tell you that it was very successful. We had a modest turnout. Some of the people that showed uP,. it really didn't apply to them. They didn't quite understand it. When the notice was sent out, it was sent out to people on five-acre lots that already had a Page 18 May 11,2005 homestead on there, and of course they're not eligible for the bonus, and there's no reason, unles~ they leveled their home to restore the land, and I doubt if anybody's going to do that. But generally it was fairly well accepted. There was still some people that were totally against the program from beginning to end, but I tell you, they were in the minority of who showed up there. And that's the report I wanted to give you. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other questions? (N 0 response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there any public speakers on this? MS. MURRAY: I do have three speakers. I'm not sure if this is the item they want to speak on. Bruce Anderson will waive. Nancy Payton? Waived. Brad Cornell? And he'll waive as well. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Wave back. Thanks a lot. We'll go on to the next one now. MS. MURRAY: Page 54. I'm sorry, 53, actually. 2.03.08. MR. LIT SINGER: This is a continuation of both the in1plementation of your pending amendments that you will be adopting relative to the bonus program and the rural village provisions also that were submitted and petitioned by the CBIA and a number of applicants, including Florida Wildlife and Collier Audubon, in support of the TDR bonuses. And also some of the provisions that we're changing relative to the rural village in order to make them more viable as a realizable development entity from the standpoint of practicality, considering that we are limited to four nlral villages in the receiving lands. Of note, since the original drafting of these LDC, we have added provisions relative to specificity on the requirement, the TDR's associated \vith golf course entitlement, and clarification of the Page 1 9 May 11,2005 utilization of those TDR's that are encumbered. We've provided additi~nal clarification of the methods for achieving the maximum density within the rural village scenario, which is, we know, to refresh your memory, is three units per acre through a rural village scenario. But the first unit above base density must be achieved by the application of a TDR acquired from sending lands, which could be any of the four that we've now identified can be used for that first unit, which then leads to other -- an additional unit of bonus for pursuing the rural village type of development. We also have a provision in here that requires .2 units per acre within a rural village to be affordable work force housing, which is a provision that we're very proud of. There are no other changes here which do not reflect pretty much the exact interpretation of the language in your comprehensive plan amendment, which you have yet to see. And that has to do with the delineation of the type of road system that we want to see in the rural villages in order to make sure that these are publicly accessible and provide the opportunity for destinations for employment and shopping east of 951. So we've added some language on Page 57 associated with the type of roadways that we would like to see within the rural villages themselves. The rest of it has to do with some requested changes relative to green belt that has been brought forth through your stakeholders meeting since last July, and is included in your comprehensive plan amendment and is merely effecting those changes that you have in your comprehensive plan amendment. We have several changes in here that are mixed through. They're part of your glitch amendments that you adopted last October where we made some corrections and clarifications on the first round of the final order amendments, and there's also some later i~ this package associated with the rural lands stewardship area. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any questions from the Page 20 May 11.2005 commissioners? Yes, Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. With the transportation design~ the -- do you accommodate for pathways, sidewalks, bike paths, that type of thing in the rural village? MR. LITSINGER: Of course. That is a requirement of the Land Development Code within the PUD and the rural village development scenario; that is correct. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, and -- VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta? Oh,1'111 sorry . COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's all right. I was just -- VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: No, go ahead. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You were -- and you have the affordable housing. How much did you say that was? MR. LIT SINGER: A minimum of .2 units per acre was the -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: So could you tell me, in like 10 acres, is that -- what is that, in 10 acres? MR. LITSINGER: It would be two. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Two per 10 acres. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Tell me exactly where \ve stand. I see we got some double underlines here -- MR. LITSINGER: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- where we're dealing with TDR credits versus golf courses. What's changed from the last time? MR. LITSINGER: We found, in discussion within the -- as we also had the opportunity to actually be processing in the practical real world an application for TDR associated with the pending amendment, and the -- what \vas the understanding associated with the board's policy decision on the need or the desire to require that TDR participation be a requisite or prerequisite of golf course development Page 21 May 11,2005 in the rural fringe lands, receiving lands. And we concluded by ~Öoking at the public record. And staffs recall that the intent was to require one TDR per five gross acres of golf course development, but those TDR's would be thereby restricted for use to entitle one dwelling unit associated with that contiguous development within that same continuing development pattern. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: When you say "we", who's that? Staff? MR. LITSINGER: That would be your staff, that would be your consultants, that would be the petitioners. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry, I just don't recall this coming up before laid out like that. Or is this -- this took place what, at some staff meetings? This hasn't come back to us before, has it? MR. LITSINGER: No, sir, it has not. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So in other words, before it was one per five acres. And we fought like crazy to get that, if I remember correctly. And Heritage Bay was -- MR. LIT SINGER: Right. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- probably the first example. And now we're going back to where it's one per five acres, but they're entitled to one house someplace else on the development for that. MR. LITSINGER: That's correct. That was -- the recall and examination of the discussion at the public hearings indicates that the intent was to both require participation for golf course development, but also not to require retirement within that same development scenario, continuing development scenario, of the units that would be entitled. Because technically a TDR entitles a unit, not a golf course. So on one hand we wanted to link golf course development with TDR participation, but there's no connection between TD~ and golf holes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What we're doing is we're going back and we're giving them something a little extra. Page 22 May 11,2005 What did we agree with with Heritage Bay? Is that something different than this, or does that link back to this? MR. LITSINGER: Heritage Bay would be -- have the same requirements applied to them in their golf course development, to the exte:lt that it -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: When Heritage Bay came to us and we got discussing about the TDR's how they apply and everything, what was the finding that the commission came up with at that time as far as golf courses versus TDR's and acreage? Was that part of it at that time, or no? MR. SCHMITT: We had some density blending as well. But Bruce can answer that, because he represents the client in that. MR. ANDERSON: For the record, my nan1e is Bruce Anderson, and I was involved in the Heritage Bay petition. Heritage Bay did not need the TDR dwelling units, so the issue never arose. They just had to get the TDR's for their golf course. They did not also need TDR's for dwelling units. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, so -- I'm sorry, Bruce, let me -- if I remember correctly, it was in two different areas. You had part of your land that was in the -- MR. ANDERSON: Urban area. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And the other part of it was in the rural lands area. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And the part that was in the rural lands area is the golf course. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. I -- yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No houses. MR. ANDERSON: Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. There's houses, but it's just built \vith density that got blended, not with any TDR's. They didn't need TDR's, except for the golf course. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, but -- so let me ask the Page 23 May 11,2005 question, Bruce. If you're only required to have TDR's for the golf course and you don't need t~em for the other part, so this means nothing to Heritage Bay, this particular change. MR. ANDERSON: That's correct. It's of no consequence to them -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, and-- MR. ANDERSON: -- at all. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- I'm sorry I brought Heritage Bay into it. I didn't realize that. So this would be for something future that's coming down the road. And that's because we can't make the nexus without having a house go out there, at least one unit? Is that what it is? MR. LITSINGER: It's a consensus of intent. The intent, as we understood from the public hearings and upon presenting the interpretation upon review of a pending application with the language, as it's currently written, it was brought to our attention that was this the intent to require the expenditure of the TDR, which is technically a dwelling unit, just to entitle the golf course with no associated dwelling unit benefit. And we -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, and-- MR. LITSINGER: Excuse me? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry, sir, I didn't mean to interrupt you. MR. LITSINGER: And we determined both through staff consultation, consultation with their consultants, Marti Chumbler and Nancy Linan, who were involved in this process, and also from the industry representatives that yes, we wanted TDR participation, but we did not necessarily see the benefit to the county of the TDR program by creating a new class of TDR that essentially did not correspond to a dwelling unit. Because it was used to entitle golf course development. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Then let me ask the question a Page 24 May 11.2005 little differently. If the way it was originally written where they had to have one TDR for five acres, no allowances for another unit, that \vas illegal, we couldn't do that. MR. LITSINGER: No, sir, it was not illegal. CC)~¡IMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, it wasn't. Okay, then let me ask the question a little differently. The TDR's that we have out there, the supply we got and everything, we're going to dilute it now four times. Which I got no problem, because I really don't think there's as many TDR's out there as people think there are. I don't think there's a lot of people that are never going to sell, and I want to make sure that we have enough to make this all work, the rural village. What does the effect of this one extra unit mean as far as TDR's are going to need for the rest of their project? How big is a golf course, can you tell me that? I have no idea, I don't play golf. MR. LITSINGER: The application in-house will require to entitle the golf course about 20 TDR's. So either that's 20 units associated with this golf course development, or that is the elimination of that product associated with the willingness to go out and purchase TDR's to entitle the golf course. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So in other words, in a golf course community, this would mean 20 less TDR's would be needed if we make this change? MR. ANDERSON: No. MR. LITSINGER: No. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, okay, I'm wrong. I'm sorry, I definitely don't understand what we're doing here. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Me neither. MR. ANDERSON: Can I try? MR. LITSINGER: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I think we're not alone. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think the TDR's also, in order to Page 25 May 11, 2005 get them for a golf course, they have to meet the rigid standards of a golf course in regards to pril!ciples of resource management of golf courses, too. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that-- VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Am I correct? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. That wasn't the question I had. I'm worried about the supply of TDR's, not so much the golf course itself but the supply ofTDR's and what this is going to do with the remaining sources out there. And are we going to make the people hold that are in the sending lands? That was my concern. MR. ANDERSON: May I try to answer that? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sure. MR. ANDERSON: Number one, the -- when this requirement for using TDR's for golf courses first came into being a requirement, the idea was to discourage people from building standalone golf courses out in the rural fringe and avoiding having to buy TDR's. It was to help create a market for TDR's. And I can tell you that it's my very clear recollection from the discussions at those times that it was understood that a person could -- that a person who used TDR's to entitle a golf course could also use them to put a dwelling unit in that golf course community. They didn't have to, but they could. And the language was silent on that. It didn't speak to it either way. And so now what staff is doing, and I agree with them, because I brought it to their attention, is they are making explicit at least what I understood to be implicit all along. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could -- for the -- when this comes back to us again, when's that going to be? MS. MURRAY: June 8th. MR. SCHMITT: June 8th. Page 26 Mav 11,2005 '" COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is it possible we could have a letter from Dr. Nicholas, w~o can make out something, read into the record, very clearly stating the fact that this will not unduly dilute the supply ofTDR's in the sending land or cause their value to fall? ìVfR. LITSINGER: We will do that, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you so much. I appreciate your time. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other questions from commissioners? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I just had -- VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I couldn't find the affordable housing thing in here. If you could please help me with that. And the second thing, while you're looking for that, could you tell Ine, how big is the rural village? MR. LITSINGER:We have the opportunity for four rural villages maximum at this time in your Land Development Code; three up to 1,500 acres. And the large receiving area off of south 41, south of 951, can accommodate up to a 250 -- excuse me, 2,500-acre rural village, on the assumption that the parcels can be a assembled and the development scenario can be presented and the TDR's can be acquired. As you know, you have pending an amendment that would mean that our first rural village will be in the neighborhood of 300 acres. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So if you have your rural village and a developer comes in and he wants to build a component of affordable housing, can he pull the affordable housing density bonus, or are you only allowed that .2 per acre, period? MR. LITSINGER: We require .2. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. But you didn't answer Iny question. MR. LITSINGER: The affordable housing density bonus within Page 27 May 11,2005 the rural village development scenario? Weare -- that is -- as a matter of fact, you have your ERA ,based amendments coming forward, and the affordable housing density bonus is one of the only two that you have not directed us that you want to eliminate. So it would follow that theoretically the affordable housing density bonus would be available. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So the affordable housing-- MR. LITSINGER: But it's not addressed, ma'am, in these -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, it isn't. MR. LITSINGER: -- particular amendments that you have here. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But I just wanted to know that it is there. The affordable housing density bonus would be available in a rural village, right? MR. LITSINGER: That would be my interpretation. MR. MULHERE: I'm registered to speak, but I know you don't have public speakers yet. I think I could shed some light on this item, if I may. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have one question. What is the proposed density or population of one of these rural villages? MR. LITSINGER: Well, a 300-acre rural village can have a maximum of 900 dwelling units. About 2.4 is the population factor that we generally use per dwelling unit. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Bob, did you have anything to shed on this? MR. MULHERE: Thank you, I appreciate the opportunity. Bob Mulhere with RWA. Just a couple things, if I could. I'm sorry, I've got to go back to the golf course issue just very briefly. I just wanted to reiterate, I know you've asked for Dr. Nicholas to look at it, I think that's a great suggestion. I was the consultant for the county. And prior to being the consultant for the county on this I was the planning director when we prepared this language. And I can tell Page 28 ,-~-->--,... May 11,2005 you that the intent was exactly as Bruce indicated, standalone golf courses not consuming TD~'s \vouldn't drive the TDR purchase program. That was a concern. So we created a requirement to buy one TDR per five acres of golf course land. But it was never the intent to say you couldn't also use that. People are going to pay 35, and $40,000 per dwelling unit for these things. And the assumption was always that they would still be able to use those as part of their receiving land development. I don't think it will dilute the program. It will actually drive more TDR's to be purchased. If you want to have a golf course, you've got to buy one per five in addition, you know, to the other ones that you're going to buy. So I think it's a good suggestion to have Dr. Nicholas look at that. Commissioner Fiala, the rural fringe language that we wrote -- first of all, I wanted to say, prior to your transmittal hearing, I had submitted some language to staff to look at as an option enhancing the affordable housing provisions in rural villages and creating more of an incentive. And I think the decision was made that there was so much on the table at that point in time that it was an issue that was valid to look at, but we would defer it to the next cycle. And I think it was actually discussed at your transmittal hearing, that that would be something \ve would look at at the next cycle. And that next cycle is coming upon us. And I think Cormac may talk about a little about this after I finished. But there is I think direction to look at this issue comprehensively in the next cycle. Having said that, what does the language say today? Number one, you are required to provide 100 percent of the base density that you enjoy on your property, which is one dwelling unit per five acres. If you translate that to an acre density, it's .2 units per acre. That's all the density that you enjoy prior to buying any TDR's. 100 percent of that must go to affordable and workforce housing. The entire thing. Page 29 '- May 11,2005 Half of it goes to affordable housing, which at present is defined as -- and I may not have this exa~tly right, but I'll try my best -- but families earning between 50 and 80 percent of the medium income in Collier County. Good. The other half was intended to go to workforce housing, which we defined as housing that's affordable by families earning between 80 and 100 percent of the medium income. Now, the reason we did that, and the reason I think that you approved that at the time was because there's language in rural villages that says we want this to have the full range of housing types and the full range really of price points. We want it to be a mixed community. Affordable, workforce, market rate. So by doing that, we put a minimum requirement. Every single unit that a landowner enjoys today as a base density goes to affordable and workforce housing. Any unit he wants for market rate he's got to get through TDR's or TDR bonuses. That's not the limit. He can -- a landowner can increase that amount. That's just the minimum requirement. Now, the affordable housing density bonus that applies in your urban area is restricted to your urban area. It doesn't apply in the fringe. That's why I feel it's important in the next cycle for us to look at that issue and make sure that we do have incentives to maybe increase or maximize the opportunity to provide affordable and workforce. Now, we have this confusion. Affordable and workforce. They mean different things and they mean the same things, and they mean different things to different people. We probably need to look at the terminology. Someone -- and I apologize, I was unable to attend your workshop. But I understand there was a term raised ,called gap housing. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, yeah, but that's -- that just is a Page 30 May 11~ 2005 little bit different in that it doesn't get any government funding and -- MR. MULHERE: I understand that. And what I'm saying is, and you'll appreciate this, I think, you know, I have a daughter who graduated from the University of Florida, she's a nurse at Naples Cornrnunity Hospital. Well, in the foreseeable future, I can't see her affording any home ownership. And I think there's a lot of people, whether they're sheriffs deputies or policemen or nurses that don't qualify for affordable housing because they earn too much in the family situation, but also can't afford market rate houses. And that's the other option that I think we need to look at and define. We need to address both of them. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think we need to cover that on another item. MR. MULHERE: I understand, and I agree. But I just wanted to sort of explain what the language says today. And I think Cormac ",rill discuss -- you know, address these issues. And I think with an opportunity between now and your next meeting, I think we can come up with some languages that relates to that. Thank you. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there any other questions by commissioners? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. The last comment, you talk about adopting it in this cycle? MR. MULHERE: For-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Of the workforce. MR. MULHERE: No. Well, the term's already defined. And there's a proposal to change the definition of that. The unintended consequence of changing the definition of that is it conflicts with the language that's already in the rural fringe. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What did you mean by your last statement? MR. MULHERE: What I meant was I think Cormac's got son1e language that will address the concerns right now. And I still think it'sn Page 3 1 May 11,2005 a good idea to look at it more comprehensively in the next cycle. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You said next-- MR. MULHERE: Next LDC amendment cycle. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other further questions? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Why would you wait till next LDC? Why not just do it now as long as you know you have to look at it? VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: They might not have it written up, I don't know. MR. SCHMITT: You may not be able to do that. We would have to go back and do public hearings before the Planning Commission and before the Development Services Advisory -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Henning thinks we can do it right now. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, may I point out that you're not going to have anything happen in time for them to take advantage of the way it's written at this point in time. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, so you got enough time to be able to work it all out. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, that next cycle should be sometime in October, I would think, right? September or October? MS. MURRAY: It begins in June and ends I think early November. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other questions? (No response.) MS. MURRAY: We have more speakers, if you're ready. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: We have what? MS. MURRAY: More speakers, if you're ready. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure. MS. MURRAY: Brad Cornell. He's going to waive. Nancy Payton? Page 32 May 11,2005 MS. PAYTON: No. MS. MURRAY: Going to waive. Richard Woodruff? MR. WOODRUFF: Good evening. For the record, Richard Woodruff 'with Wilson-Miller. First of all, I would like to commend the commission for the workshop we had several weeks ago out at the Golden Gate High School. It certainly helped clarify a lot of points to a lot of people. And I think the suggestion of having that was very worthwhile. I'd like to speak to the issue of the rural fringe and the amendments, and specifically the rural village. You asked a question a minute ago, Mr. Chairman, about the rural village. I'd like to actually give you a real live workup that we've done for a client. We've actually been asked as a company to look at three rural villages, and I'd like to give you the example of one of those rural villages. Unfortunately I'm not going to be able to tell you who the client was or where in the rural fringe, but I would like to give you the numbers. Your code, as currently established, says that a rural village can be between 300 and 1,500 acres. And if it's in the north Belle Meade it gets to be 2,500, but ours wasn't. Your current regulations say a minimum of two units per acre and a maximum of three. What we were asked to design was a 1,500-acre rural village at two units per acre. So I'd like to address your question regarding what are you really developing in that context. A 1,500 acre rural village, a gross density minimum of two units per acre means that by your code you would have to have 3,000 units on that 1,500 acres, because you have established a minimum density. The property, 1,500 acres, comes with an automatic base density of one unit per five acres. So what that means is out of the 3,000 units you're required to develop in a rural village, that the property gives Page 33 May 11,2005 you a base of 300; 1,500 divided by five. Now, that means we h':!ve a shortfall as an industry of2,700 units. What your code says today is that in order to reach the minimum density, for every one TDR we buy the county will give us a bonus of one TDR. So in order to put together this rural village, we went to the marketplace to try to buy 1,350 TDR's. Because if we buy 1,350, you will match that with 1,350, giving us 2,700 to add to our 300 base density to get us to 3,000. I can tell you, after months of trying to buy 1,350 TDR's, the developer simply said it's not for sale. I cannot assemble that many units. If we had been able to acquire that many units and build the minimum of 3,000 units on a 1 ,500-acre project, we would have had, at 2.4 people, which is basically what we see average for Collier County, we would have seen 7,200 -- or let's see, somewhere in the vicinity of 7,200 residents. Remember, your concept of rural village was to create something large enough to be pretty self-sufficient. It has to demonstrate a number of things, including the way it's designed and that it's got enough services and that it's not negative to the tax base. What I will tell you is that without these amendments that give us better access and more incentive for the property owner to sell their TDR's, the program will not work. So I stand in front of you with a real life example today that tells you we tried to make it work, we do believe very sincerely that the person owning the sending land, if we can give them more TD R' s to sell, then there is the incentive created so you can create a marketplace that will work. So I encourage you tonight to please act positively on these proposed amendments. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: So are you telling me that the Page 34 May 11,2005 workshop that we held, and I think we ended up with five TDR's for five acres, is not going to be. sufficient? MR. WOODRUFF: No, sir, that's not what I'm telling you at all. What I'm telling you is the workshop which you held at Golden Gate High School, I believe a month ago, did a great job of education. And I think with the amendments that you are being asked to adopt, the program will in fact work, because what it will do is change the economics so that a person selling the property can get a reasonable price and that the numbers of units created can help the marketplace buy those units. Thank you. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any questions? (No response.) COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understood perfectly. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other public speakers? MS. MURRAY: No. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Ifnot, we'll move on. MS. MURRAY: The next will be on Page 64, Section 2.05.02, density blending. MR. LITSINGER: This is part of your glitch amendments. This is to provide language in the LDC that extends the density blending provisions from receiving to neutral lands. Similar to what we have from the urban area to receiving lands currently. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any questions? MR. LITSINGER: Pretty much word-for-word interpretation of your compo plan. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to emphasize that these past three sections that we've talked about, as your summary sheet indicates, were continued by the planning commission to their 5-19 Ineeting, as Mr. Schmitt had informed you at the beginning, and will be addressed after they've talked about the similarly related GMP matters earlier in that day. So when you next hear these on the 8th, there may be some Page 35 May 11, 2005 tweaks based upon Mr. Mulhere's comments and others. But we're anticipating that those will ~ave been fully resolved on June 7th when you finally look at those GMP matters, prior to considering the second round of hearings on the LDC on the night of June 8th. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: The GMP amendments, how are they going to correlate -- are they going to correlate pretty closely with the Land Development Code so that we can follow along? MR. WHITE: More correctly it's the other way around. But the answer is yes, whichever way you look at it through the telescope. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: All right. I just want to make sure that we have the guidance here to say that we want -- at this point in time we've got enough information to forward this on to the next hearing and we don't have to worry about any cumbersomeness because of the GMP amendments that are coming up on 5-19. MR. WHITE: I think your concern is understood by the staff. MR. LITSINGER: We believe that these LDC amendments that we are bringing to you today are completely consistent with amendments that you will be seeing on the 19th. MR. SCHMITT: June 7th. MR. LITSINGER: June 7th, excuse me. MR. SCHMITT: June 7th is the GMP amendments. MR. LITSINGER: Yes. VICE- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: So, on the 7th, that's when the CCPC will hear this? MR. SCHMITT: No, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: No? MR. SCHMITT: No. Next week, Thursday, the Planning Commission, we hear GMP amendments along with these LDC amendments that -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I see. So then when we get our information to study for the 7th, we'll have of all that stuff written out Page 36 May 11,2005 for us. MR. SCHMITT: You will have a book, ma'am, for the 7th. That's the Growth Management Plan amendments. Of course that's a package, an entire package of amendments, one of which are these -- the arnendrnents associated with the -- this -- these LDC amendments. And then on the 8th you'll be seeing these in their final form. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any further questions? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any speakers on this? MS. MURRAY: No speakers on this issue. The next will be on Page 101. That's Section 4.08.00. MR. LIT SINGER: This is -- these are glitch amendments for clarification and consolidation, and essentially moving provisions associated with your rural lands stewardship overlay that was previously adopted and modified by the glitch amendments back in October. There's a combination here of -- it appears that there's a lot of changes. Effectively all we're doing in most cases is moving the language from one section of the LDC to another section, which we felt would be more appropriate. There are really no specific policy decisions that you had not seen before associated with your adopted glitch amendments here. We have a couple of potential language changes that the Planning Commission may recommend and you may see on June the 8th, along with the adoption hearing on these LDC. Other than that, I do not find any specific new policy direction that is not currently in the LDC or implement the changes that we put in place associated with the glitch amendments. In some cases we've added clarification language associated to referenced regulations that were not in place in the previous draft that went to the planning commission in order to be specific on regulations that applied to oil and gas drilling and FSA and other delineated lands Page 37 May 11, 2005 within the rural land stewardship area. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: The proposed language changes, how is it highlighted? MR. LITSINGER: It's -- if you look on Page 112, as an example, the double underline here -- which is for the Planning Commission, because they had seen it once without these changes -- would be the reference to environmental permits required to be in place relative to oil and gas exploration, and also for oil and gas recovery . VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there any questions from fellow commissioners? Yes, Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: The receiving and neutral land blending, how many examples would there be there that you can think of? MR. LITSINGER: I really don't have that answer, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we provided that within the Heritage Bay, and there's -- you got neutral and receiving within 951 corridor. MR. LITSINGER: And that's urban area to rural fringe density blending. The provision here relates to neutral to receiving or, vice versa, density blending, relative to the change that was made in the glitch amendments. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And then you'll have in the North Belle Meade, there's one. Okay, thank you. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other questions? MS. MURRAY: No speakers on this item. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. . MS. MURRAY: Next will be on Page 168, that's Section lO.03.05.E, public participation. And I think Stan has some handouts. Page 38 May 11,2005 MR. SCHMITT: While Stan is getting these, this is the amendment that the board d~rected us to prepare to provide at neighborhood information meetings, similar to what we do now for PUD amendment. And this board directed that with the private petition Growth Management Plan amendments that the petitioners now have to hold a similar type meeting, neighborhood information meeting, which will be coordinated through community development, just as it is with any type of rezoning request. MR. LIT SINGER: As Joe had mentioned, there had been interest expressed by both the planning commission and supported by yourselves that on site specific compo plan amendments and small-scale amendments, that we have a neighborhood information meeting in a very similar mode that we do for PUD rezones. The handout that I gave you tonight reflects, and I will admit, recent staff assessment of the NIM process. And what we have done in the language that I've handed out tonight is we believe is that due to the extraordinary nature, that there will be a number of EAR based amendments which could be technically considered site specific. But we do not believe that due to the lengthy public input and participation process that took place for over two years associated with the adoption of the EAR, and the EAR adoption -- EAR amendment adoption, which is fairly routine, that we would want to exclude the EAR based amendments from the NIM process as they're coming forward. MR. SCHMITT: However, there would still be the required advertisement, just as -- MR. LITSINGER: Absolutely. MR. SCHMITT: -- any other compo plan amendment. It would be advertised and certainly noted. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: This handout that was given to us, has the planning commission also got -- MR. LITSINGER: No, sir, they will see these next week on the Page 39 May 11,2005 19th. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any questions from the commissioners? I realize that we just got this a few minutes ago. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it makes sense. You know, the EAR based amendments is something that's mandated that we need to do. And in the small-scale amendments to the compo plan is a wish that somebody wants to do. MR. LITSINGER: Commissioner, the rationale had to do with the development of the EAR report and the very voluminous document that you folks approved last summer and was found to be sufficient by the department of community affairs and were developing the EAR amendments which involved a long list of public meetings and workshops, giving a broad opportunity for public input, even beyond a normal comprehensive plan cycle, which is essentially what we're saying here is in the case of some of those could be termed to be site specific. It might be redundant, and process -- a weighty process to then hold neighborhood information meetings associated with the EAR based amendments. So we had asked that we eliminate the EAR based amendments for this provision. MR. SCHMITT: If I could just bring the board to focus really what you directed us. These were -- this is mainly to deal with private petitions so that if there was a private petition that was going to change the future land use map and somebody was in an area that they moved to that was ago and all of a sudden it turns out to be a compo plan amendment coming in to zone at the C-3 or a PUD, what we're doing now is making sure that very early in the process the neighborhood information meeting notifies the neighboring properties, property owners, of potentially that a rezoning could take place. So of course it's the precursor is the Growth Ma~agement Plan amendment, then follow on to rezoning. So it's what you had asked us to do. And a case in point was the small-scale amendment you saw on Page 40 May 11, 2005 East 954 -- or East 41, out past 951 where fundamentally the people said they knew nothing abo~t it. So now the process will be in place. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, if I may, I first want to compliment this commission on moving public notices forward. When we originally started, Commissioner Fiala, Commissioner Henning, you remember the only thing you had to do was post the notice on a telephone pole, one notice about the size of this sheet of paper, and that sufficed for due notice to the public. And now we have it where it's like a billboard, a four by eight, and it's very specific how it has to be put together. All sorts of notifications in the paper, even Immokalee, Everglades City. It's fairly extensive. But do I think we're doing enough? No, I don't think we've reached that point. We have all sorts of positive things taking place. Even the meetings going over the Internet for people that want to be able to watch them and they don't have a television that picks up the channel. But I do have concerns. I've had a lot of concerns in my area from the different civic associations, property owners associations, due to the fact that District 5 is very big and the events that take place 1,000 feet or more away. While the urban area wouldn't have too much of an impact, in the rural area, it has a tremendous impact. At some point in time, and I don't know when that appropriate time would be, whether it's now or later, I would like us to revisit the notification limits if anything identifying the urban area as being a special consideration because of the size of it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: The rural area. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The rural area. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I totally agree. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, how ma~y associations do you have out there, Commissioner Coletta? Because the requirements is also to mail out to the different associations. Page 41 May 11, 2005 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, there's a lot of them. I created something like seve~ new ones in the last four years. The problem is is you don't have everybody and his brother in the associations. I wish everyone belonged to one association or the other COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you need to work on that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- so they could be informed. But I'd like to tell you that it doesn't happen. There's a lot of people. And you have them come finally to the informational meeting because they heard about it from a neighbor or somebody else, and they feel absolutely mad as anything that they didn't get the same notice that so-and-so got down the street and short distance. And it does have an impact on them. The good one was that asphalt plant they were looking to put in not to long ago off of Oil Well Road. Notification didn't get out to a lot of people. We met the requirements that was supposed -- or the petitioner met the requirements that were required, but it didn't go far enough. And I keep hearing this over and over again. It's not something that was one time maybe had a shortfall, but it's over and over. And I'm not too sure exactly what those limits would be, but I'd sure like to have discussion on it and maybe be able to bring members of the different associations forward to talk to us about it. COMMISSIONER HALAS: The problem is I think also we have to make sure that it's cost effective. There's a cost for mailing and a cost for additional signs. And especially if you're looking at an individual that's interested in one piece of property and the notification has to be put up for a change. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, let's talk about that for a minute. Cost effective. We have a mailing that mig~t cost a total of 50 cents. The cost is borne by the petitioner. Shouldn't we be trying to serve the needs of the public the best way we possibly can? Page 42 May 11,2005 VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah, but are you saying just 50 cents or 50 cents per -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Per mailing. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- per mailing. Okay, then -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll give you an example. It just -- yeah, Mr. Schmitt had his hand up. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, just -- if this board directs right now, we'll bring it back next cycle for discussion. W e'lllook at increasing the zone of notification for those properties in what is deemed the rural area, which we'll try and define. I guess pretty much most everything east of -- one mile east of 951. And we'll look at extending the notification distance for anything out in that part of the county. Is that -- and we'll bring that back next cycle. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would appreciate if we could. At least -- MR. SCHMITT: I believe, if I recall, we're at 1,000 feet now, and if we want to look at what distance would be appropriate, we'll look at that and staff will bring a proposal back next LDC cycle. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would appreciate it, if the board -- MR. SCHMITT: If that's the concession of the board. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: What's the wish of the commission? Do we have three nods? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yeah, I agree. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do we have a problem just in Golden Gate Estates or all the rural area? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Rural area. MR. SCHMITT: It would be the rural area, probably excluding Imn10kalee, which we define as the urban area. So anything in the rural area, we would increase the notification. It's 5QO feet in the urban area; 1,000 feet, if I recall, out in the Estates, but we can look at enlarging that and call the rest of that the rural area, and we'll look at Page 43 May 11,2005 the notification. COMMISSIONER CqLETTA: Maybe even come up with zones, so we're not -- like something on the other side of a canal where they can't access a certain area. That would be a waste of time and effort to reach out to those people, and when they'd be totally lost why they're being contacted. But coming up with something that's realistic. Maybe along a whole route where something's going to be affected. MR. SCHMITT: We'll look at the pros and cons and we'll bring it -- we'll come up with a proposal and bring it back. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: So we're looking at one mile east of 951 and then all the way out -- MR. SCHMITT: Yes, excluding Immokalee. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: What's the wishes of the board? We'll give them direction. We'll give you direction on that. MR. SCHMITT: The commissioner is correct, that there were some people that said -- that was the issue with the asphalt plant, the folks said they were not that far away, but we met the intent of the requirement. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We sure did. And we thought that intent would take care of everything. Well, I guess that gives us job security that we'll never quite get it perfectly right. MR. SCHMITT: Right. MS. MURRAY: There are no public speakers on this item. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Next one, please. MS. MURRAY: Okay. Next we'll go to the green tabs, beginning on Page 94 with Section 4.06.04, trees and vegetation protection. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Good evening, Commissioners. Stan Chrzanowski with the Engineering Revie\v Department. The purpose of Section 4.06.04, the part that IllY department is responsible for, is we changed the limits on clearing from 25 acres at a time to 100 acres at a time. Page 44 May 11,2005 Now, I can give you a quick overview of why we did this and a presentation, but if you don'~ need that, I'll just field questions. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Wishes of the board? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think it's a great amendment and helps a lot of communities out there that are new communities and still building infrastructure. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Maybe just to give us a brief overview, nothing elaborate, but just hit the high points. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Just so long as you remember, if you've been here a while, back in 1981 when I came here, there were large portions of Golden Gate and of all of Naples that were cleared. And they tried stopping that by making it impossible, practically, to clear anything without a permit. And that went probably in the old pendulum theory, went a little too far one way. F or a while we had when you would go in and start work on a subdivision, to dig the lakes you actually had to haul all the fill off-site, because you couldn't clear the lots, you could only clear the infrastructure. Well, the infrastructure is the roads, and that's what you're trying to build, so you've got no place to stockpile your fill. And after a few years of that we went to this 25-acre limit where you could clear 25 acres worth of lots. But it's really not enough. We've had projects come in over the ye3:rs with 25 consec -- or three consecutive 25-acre clearings. We had a proj ect, and please don't ask me the name, they cleared practically 100 acres. And we didn't realize it because they were in the woods. This was about six years ago. We went and shut them down. And, you know, at the present time, if you looked at it's, it's a perfectly good subdivision. You know, no harm, no foul, you know, in the end. Well, we figure that 100 acres would be a perfe,ctly allowable -- and from our point of view it would cut our workload down tremendously. We wouldn't be processing all these little 25-acre Page 45 May 11, 2005 clearing permit applications, and somebody could go in and clear the infrastructure and 25 acres worth of house lots to clear and 50 out of those -- I'm sorry, 100 acres worth of house lots. Fifty out of that 100 acres they could actually do lot preparation where they wouldn't have to stockpile, they could just fill it to the top of the house pad and let it settle so that you do have some compaction. When you go to build your house you have less settlement afterwards. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioners, I've been pushing this for six months or longer. It's frankly the industry. At 25 acres was just simply inefficient. And we do have provisions where they come to the board to ask approval. But in today's day and age and the way development is taking place, the 25 acres was really a limit to prevent the mass clearing and then sitting barren for 10 or 12 years. Well, today, if a developer folds, there's six more right in the corner waiting to move in. So there's really no threat here in regards to as far as land being cleared and left cleared. This is about what we say that a developer can clear and develop in a year. And it's -- I think it's a good amendment. It allows my staff to now work with the industry to allow the clearing without the limits that we're going on, 25, coming in and asking for 25 more. Very inefficient and very costly to the development community. And I know that members of the community want to speak on that. But this is something that I think is -- provides us the tools we need to allow them to move forward in a probably more efficient and more effective manner. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I'm not sure that the visualizer is on, but -- is it? When I first came to Collier County, when you looked at a PUD proposed map, the PUD plan, you had a square that was the PUD boundary, and then you had like a bubble showing this was residential, and a bubble showing this \vas commercial. You had an arrow showing this is maybe where I'm going to put my entrance, another Page 46 May 11,2005 arrow saying this is maybe where I hope to get a second entrance, if they let me someday. . Now the plans that we see are just so specific. It tells you where every preserve is, it tells you where every lake is. There's no way somebody can do something -- they'd have to come back and amend this map after they clear. And it would be difficult to do that when you've already cleared a preserve. We would tell them you can't do that. So there's very little we can see going wrong with this process. It's going to be cleared. You know, the larger projects like Verona Walk -- Island Walk was a farm field, 640 acres, they built out in not too many years. I think there might have been 700 total. But it was a farm field. It was all cleared before they even started. If we had let them clear it all at once, you'd still be looking at Island Walk today the way it is. MR. SCHMITT: Understand, Commissioners, all the preserves are required to be marked, all the wetlands will be clearly delineated and marked, and there will be requirelnents for posting the appropriate bonds, just in case anything from a perspective of the developing folding and someone having to come back in and repair or actually revegetate. So all of those are part of this amendment. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Is there areas going to be marked off like preserve areas, or whatever, that there are cypresses that are out there? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm concerned, too, we're talking about coming up with a red cockatoodle (sic) woodpecker plan. I said it right, didn't I? MR. SCHMITT: Red cockaded woodpecker. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: You're working on it. Page 47 May 11, 2005 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, the RCW. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, yes, every -- they cannot do anything until they go through the review process then and have the appropriate permits. They still have to have their-- C()MMISSIONER COLETTA: The cypress swamps would be protected. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. They still have to have their South Florida Water Management permit, their Corps permit before they can proceed. What this does is allow them to proceed to begin or at least do the clearing, the initial clearing. We're going to have another amendment that allows for early work, but that's in this package as well. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm confused. Is it the RCW or the eagle that's the county's bird? COMMISSIONER FIALA: The turkey. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Turkey. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The turkey, that's right. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Close. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: The only one you can shoot. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner, your terminology is a lot better than John -- the former Commissioner John Norris on the RCW. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We won't go there. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other questions from fellow commissioners? Is there any -- MS. MURRAY: No speakers. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: No speakers? Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think that it's good that we're doing that. I can't believe that somebody would have 1,000 acres and they'd have to come in for every 25 acres to permit. It's good that they're Page 48 May 11, 2005 moving this along. MR. CHRZANOWSK.I: Well, it was the -- thank you, it was the infrastructure, you could do all that. But the infrastructure, basically if you're piling fill, it's in your way. MS. MURRAY: The next item will be on Page 97, and that's Section 4.06.05, cultivated tree protection and tree replacement. MS. GUNLOCK: Good evening. I'm Nancy Gunlock, and I'm a Landscape Architect with Zoning and Land Development Review. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Nancy? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nancy what was her name? MS. GUNLOCK: Gunlock. That's my new name. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Congratulations. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER FIALA: We have had a new name. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You never congratulate the bride on getting married. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, what do you say, hoop-de-doo? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Condolences. MR. SCHMITT: Condolences. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I wish you well. MR. SCHMITT: I wish you well. At least she struck around. MS. GUNLOCK: Okay, this particular change is a change to add tree preservation language to the code and also to create a tree replacement fund. And perhaps I should just start out by asking if there's any questions about this particular amendment. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Anybody have any questions on this? Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there any exclusions from the Page 49 May 11,2005 Golden Gate Estates? Is there any exclusions from Golden Gate Estates? MS. GUNLOCK: Well, it would not pertain to the Estates, because tree removals are not required of single- family residences, and Golden Gate Estates would fall under that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So it would apply to like common areas or commercial? MS. GUNLOCK: Okay, it would apply to commercial projects, industrial projects, institutional. It would also apply to residential projects, such as multi-family that fall under a common ownership. It would not apply to single-family residences. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And this is on improved property or unimproved? MS. GUNLOCK: It would be on improved properties. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can you say that again? MS. GUNLOCK: It would be on improved properties or properties that are developed. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can you tell me where I could find that in the language, where it applies to just improved properties? MS. GUNLOCK: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, Paragraph A-3-1 is the exemption where it cites single-family. Trees located on any single- family manufactured home, subdivision, manufactured home, park or duplex lot shall be exempt. So basically it exempts single-family, and so that means everything else is inclusive. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Should we not make it easier and spell it out and say excluded unimproved properties? MS. MURRAY: We can do that. Just clarification. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure. MS. GUNLOCK: Sure. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's the only question I had. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other questions? Page 50 _H"'"___._'_'___·_ May 11,2005 (N 0 response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there any speakers on this? MS. MURRAY: No speakers. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Move on to the next one. MS. MURRAY: Okay. The next one will go to your yellow tabs, and that is on Page I, which is the first page after your summary sheet regarding definitions for affordable housing. And Cormac Giblin, I believe we has a handout. MR. SCHMITT: I apologize, Commissioners, but this is a change as a result of the workshop, affordable housing workshop and your guidance, so you're just getting this. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wow, that's great. MR. SCHMITT: And you'll see it's color coded to show what was originally proposed, which is now being crossed out. And we're basically -- as Cormac is handing these out, we're eliminating the word affordable and we're calling everything workforce housing. And I'll leave the rest for Cormac to describe. MR. GIBLIN: Good evening, Commissioners. For the record, my name's Cormac Giblin, your Housing and Grants Manager. As Joe mentioned, we've just handed out a replacement for this item. Basically the -- what brings this item about is just we're seeking to clarify and differentiate the definitions of affordable and workforce housing. We've had this discussion before, in fact, as recently as last week at our affordable housing workshop. And I would propose that we replace what we had put in your package with the handout that I've just passed out. And I'll summarize what it does quickly. We're proposing that we eliminate the definition of affordable -- eliminate the term affordable housing to be replaced :with workforce housing. And then within workforce housing, we differentiate between owner occupied workforce housing at 50 percent or less of Page 51 May 11,2005 median income, owner occupied workforce housing less than 60 percent, 80 percent and 100 .percent of median income, as well as rental workforce housing at 50 and 60 percent of median income. This was one of the suggestions that was brought to you last Tuesday at your affordable housing workshop. I believe it was Mr. Joe Foster with -- in his presentation that suggested language such as this. We think that by using one term for all affordable or workforce housing type activities, and by tying that term to specific income categories I think it will be much more clear when we speak it in terms of requiring developers to provide certain units at certain income levels. We, staff, the board and the public will have a much better understanding of what exactly is being talked about. With that, are there any questions on it? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. You know I'm pushing for some of that like median income housing, but it doesn't have any criteria, like it doesn't get any SHIP funds or HUD funds, and it doesn't -- they don't have to qualify under this 50 percent or 60 percent, and they don't get any impact fee deferrals, it's just a house between 150 and $225,000, period. Which means then that right now we just heard at one of the last things today how people, nurses, actually, they were talking about Phil McCabe was saying his places are selling for one and a quarter, but he couldn't sell them because the people that wanted to buy them, people in the sheriffs office, over at the hospital, they didn't qualify because they made too much money and so they couldn't buy these. And this would have been perfect for then1. And I feel that this gap housing that we're talking about, this 150 to two and a quarter, would -- without having any of these limitations would then allow these people to buy it. But would that ever have to be worked into something like this, Page 52 May 11, 2005 or do we just have to do that on our on, or what? MR. GIBLIN: Sure, I ~an address that in a couple of ways. Unfortunately when we give assistance using the state housing money or the federal HUD monies, those are limited to only up to 80 percent of median income. And on the visualizer I put up a chart that we've broken out what 50 percent of median is, what 60 percent, what 80 percent and what 100 percent is. Along with what the one-person maximum income limit is and a four-person household maximum income limit is. And under them I've put -- and on the far right it says what does that translate into? What price house can those people buy at the four-person and the one-person income? And then under it I've listed several occupations in each category and where they would fall, based on what -- what percentage of median they would fall in based on the average annual salary in Collier County is for those professions. So like I said, when we use SHIP money or HUD money, we cannot go over 80 percent of median -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I wasn't talking about that. As I said, not in that category. MR. GIBLIN: Right. Ifwe-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can people just build and charge that amount, not have to be -- you know, not have to answer to you or anybody, but, you know, if we would say, encourage -- say for instance a PUD was coming up and we were looking for this gap type housing, we weren't looking for any special awards or anything like that, just to build it. Nothing special at all. We wouldn't have to qualify for this. But would you need something in the Land Development Code to describe it, or do you just have to like do it on -- I just don't know how to go about doing it. MR. GIBLIN: Certainly. And that's what I thi~k -- that's why we have this amendment in the format it's in now, is that it provides us with a definition of what levels of incomes housing will be kept. Page 53 May 11,2005 Is the pleasure of the board to serve higher incomes than this? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, no, no. I'm afraid that I must not be saying this correctly. I'll have to fine the right words. Because I'm talking about a subj ect that isn't on here that doesn't qualify. lVlR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, one of the problems is -- I know what you're saying, you want to limit or define what type of product they can build. And the only way we can do that -- there's no zoning law that we can impose upon the developer. The only tool we have, since they agree to some form of affordable housing density bonus agreement or some kind of deed restriction, that it would be tied to the property, then Cormac can apply these rules. But if you're just looking for this term that was called gap housing, other than again a developer agreeing to provide that, there's no zoning. We have no way of controlling what market they cater to when they develop a product, other than the tools we have, like I said in regards to the density bonus or deed restrictions that we would impose based on some kind of incentive, which would be the density bonus agreements that we usually reach, or some other incentive that may be included, like fast-track or those type of things where they're trying to -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you think that would be something, if a committee got together and gave you some ideas along this line, and I don't even know what they would be, would that be something you would need to put into the Land Development Code in order to find incentives to get that built into PUD's, or is this something we should just try from the dais on our own, or -- MR. GIBLIN: Commissioner, I think we're there already. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think we could just extract it-- MR. GIBLIN: By using this definition, you can require or you can ask of a development to provide a certain number of units at any one of those income categories. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Or something higher. Page 54 May 11,2005 MR. GIBLIN: Or something higher. COMMISSIONER FIJ\LA: Yeah, exactly right. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: She was stressing to go somewheres between -- I think a good example yesterday was brought forth to us and that was 61,000 to 81,000, someplace in that category. Because you can't get any funding, any finance funding, but yet if we could work with the developer to see if he could accommodate and still make money to build that housing of that -- in that area, that range, of -- that would include people that are making 61 to $81,000. MR. GIBLIN: If I could -- it may be prudent to proceed with caution in those areas. Once we put -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think you ought to review the last meeting, because you're going to get a visit from somebody -- anyone to assist you to -- assist them to put it together. And at least through that example we have guidelines that we can pull out and keep on our desk. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. That's good. Thank you. MR. GIBLIN: Once we start to include our definitions in the Land Development Code, they serve to entice, encourage or require units of certain price ranges. And I remember when I started with the county nine years ago, we only provided assistance to 50 percent of median income. A few years later we raised the bar to 80 percent. Now it's up to 100. And we may be thinking about going to 120. It's a slippery slope we start to follow when all of a sudden we are requiring and incentivizing and requiring homes to be built say at the $250,000 range, and the need is still down at the 100 and $150,000 range. I'll just us as we move caution that way. MR. SCHMITT: We get into -- that part of it is where we begin to look at density, because that's when the developer can provide a product that is priced at the market -- or at the rate that they think they can sell it at that market rate, at least sell to that clientele. Page 55 May 11,2005 And of course it's several factors, as Russ tried to go through, Russ Wyer (phonetic), whet?- he went through during the affordable housing. And again, you're talking density, you're talking land prices. But as Cormac says, we begin to now incentivize homes at the 100 to 120 percent range, then we're going to lose sight of the homes that are in the program we really started on, and that was the 50 percent to 80 percent range is really where we were focusing the affordable housing. I think Dr. Woodruff had a question -- maybe could-- VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I was just going to add, before Dr. Woodruff got up there that we're getting to the point where we're being forced -- really, it's difficult for anybody to get into the 50 percent median because of the fact that it's very difficult, with land prices and everything else, to come up with something that's in the $1 05,000 (sic) range. I mean, it's just -- it's just part of economics here with Collier County. Doctor? MR. WOODRUFF: Yes, sir, Richard Woodruff, for the record. Two real quick points. Incentives are what the developnlent industry responds best to. Exactions have to have some legal basis. When you were standing on the dais, for you to exact something from my client, unless you have a legal basis for it, we are going to be forced to tell you that won't work. On the other side, at the end of the day it all comes down to how many units we can build on the property. If you can build in -- and I will refer you back to the exact discussion we had 30 minutes ago about TDR's. You have taken the TDR program and you're trying to incentivize its use. If you want housing to work in these ranges and in the gap area that Commissioner Fiala's talking about, if you provide incentives, then \ve can work with the development industry to bring those to reali ty . MR. MULHERE: May I make a few comments? I did register to Page 56 -"'~'--"~" May 11, 2005 speak to this issue, but I don't know if you're on public speakers or just pulling up a few excellent e~perts. In any case, I have a brief comment to make. Thank you. Bob Mulhere, RW A. As I said earlier, in the rural fringe, the way we wrote that plan -- and I'm not suggesting it doesn't need some tweaking, and I think we can look at that in this next cycle, as I indicated. But the way we wrote it, we wrote it so that you would have both affordable housing and what we called at the time workforce housing, which was to address really what Commissioner Fiala, what you brought up, the folks that don't qualify for affordable housing. But still they're under served. I think Dr. Woodruff really made an excellent point. The degree to which you can provide incentives is the degree to which you will find that kind of housing actually coming into the marketplace. The reason that you do see some workforce housing -- some affordable housing coming in is because there are federal and state incentives associated with it. We don't have any incentives for this next sort of segment. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. MR. MULHERE: And I think we can do that. It's premature to do it now because there really hasn't been any kind of analysis or discussion. I think it needs to be pretty comprehensive. I think we owe that to you, we owe that to the public. I'm more than willing and I'm sure Dr. Woodruff is more than willing to work with your staff -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're on the committee. That's two. MR. MULHERE: -- and I really think we can come up with some quite excellent incentives. What we have to do -- in my suggestion what we have to do is put a few people on there that have had experience in the development community so that we understand what kind of incentives will drive Page 57 May 11,2005 them. COMMISSIONER PIi\LA: I've got your names down. Okay. MR. SCHMITT: I would only warn, though Commissioner, then we're talking about issues where we're again adding density bonus, because that's probably the most preferable in the industry are the density bonus issues. And-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think there's a real modification there. But we'll talk about that some other time. You've got a -- MR. SCHMITT: Well, we're going to move to the next amendment talking about density bonuses. So Page 66. MR. GIBLIN: And Commissioners, leaving the definition amendment, that will be going in the format I just handed out back to the planning commission next week for their hearing of the revised version, and then come back to you on your second hearing. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are there any further questions before we move on? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Go ahead. MR. GIBLIN: As Joe said, moving to Page 66, now we're talking about an amendment to the affordable housing density bonus rating system itself. This is required by Policy 2.9 of the housing element of the comprehensive plan that it be updated periodically to address changing market conditions and things. The bonus formula in its current format has never been updated since its implementation in the early Nineties. So this amendment seeks to both clarify and further incentivize the construction of affordable housing by using the bonus. And I have a blow-up of what the new chart will look like. It is in the packet. It's in the package on Page 67 -A, but on the screen is the blow-up of the same chart. It basically incentivizes -- the old chart, if you look at Page 67, if you did homes at the 80 percent of median level, you would have to do 30 percent of your overall development at Page 58 May 11, 2005 that income level to receive one unit per acre bonus. The new chart starts at. 1 0 percent. Basically if you do 10 percent of your development as affordable housing you get a one percent bonus. We think that it really serves to encourage and incentivize construction of that 80 percent of median household income level, as well as, according to the old chart, the old chart may have been a little bit too lenient or too forthcoming when we talked about the units in the 50 and 60 percent of median change. There are some developments where in the old chart they could receive a bonus of plus three for only doing 10 percent of their units at 60 percent of median income. We've scaled it back in the new chart, making them -- giving them only two instead of the three for only a 10 percent commitment. So we think that the new chart and the new formula will address the current market situation and further incentivize creation of affordable housing, specifically at some of the higher income levels. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any questions? COMMISSIONER FIALA: So -- just so I understand what I'm reading here. So at the 50 percent of the median level or market level, when you get three on top of the 10 percent, does that mean 13 percent? I don't understand what that means. MR. GIBLIN: The way you read the chart is the percentages along the top, the 10, 20, 30, 40, that's percentage of the overall development that are made up of affordable housing. And then the percentages along the side are what income level of median income those would serve. So if you did -- 30 percent of your overall development consisted of units serving 80 percent of median income, that would be a density bonus of three units per acre. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So in other words, instead of eight units per acre, you'd have 11 units per acre? MR. GIBLIN: Well, it would be added to your base density of Page 59 May 11,2005 four. So instead of four units, you'd get seven. COMMISSIONER FIJ\LA: Oh, I see, okay, okay. MR. SCHMITT: You subtract one if you're in the coastal high hazard area. The base density in a coastal high hazard area is three. COIYIMISSIONER COLETTA: I think it's very important to mention that if we do adopt something like this and we go forward with it, we have to stick by it. We can't go back in and when the developer comes in here expect him to bend from those numbers. These numbers are supposed to be the guidelines that they're working with. MR. GIBLIN: As mentioned-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's a big concern. Because every time they come in, we seem to want to drive down the density, and here we're talking about accepting something that is allowing for the density, and we understand now that in order to be able to do housing to meet these different criteria, that a certain percentage has to be able to go on the land, increases have to take place. I just -- just a point I want to get across. Because we spend an awful lot of time in meetings, we come up with a plan, we put it together, we put it in our Land Development Code, then when they walk through the door we want to negotiate away the right that we're trying to give him here to be able to incentivize them to do this. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's always going to happen unless it's a commitment by the super majority of the board. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, let's talk about it right now. Because we shouldn't be -- if we're going to do these numbers, we're telling the industry out there this is what we're setting as the baseline for you to work with. And if this isn't a baseline to work with, let's be honest about it and just tell them up front. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, my opinion is we have several rules out there that we don't abide by, and things change every time we gather. I mean, I'm speaking open and frank at this point. Page 60 May 11,2005 And I struggle with it every time I meet with you guys. COMMISSIONER CqLETTA: What's this "you guys"? COMMISSIONER HENNING: You's guys. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I thought I was Frank. No, you were being frank. I'm sorry. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I think what -- I think where we're -- what leads us a lot of times to cut down on density is when we're trying to hold the line on concurrency as far as the road capacities. And hopefully we'll do a better job when we start to expand out in the eastern lands and make sure that we have a grid network and that we plan ahead so that we have some areas destination. And I think that's the most important thing. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you got piss poor land plan going on, if I can speak frank. You've got all the jobs in the urban area, but yet we're trying to encourage all the workforce to live in the rural area. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Tell me this, I'm curious. When would we be having this affordable housing element take place in the rural lands, according to the rural villages? When can we see the first one of them go into place in the very best of circumstances? MR. SCHMITT: That's a different issue. Those are -- as was discussed, those are rules that would apply for in the rural fringe mixed use overlay district or the rural stewardship area, and there are different implementing criteria for those specific overlay districts. This is criteria defined -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, what it was, Mr. Schmitt, was is that the statement was made that we have something coming forward that's very good for the rural lands, which is true. But there's a gap in there of how many years, five years, six years, seven years, eight? VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: You got Ave Maria coming on board. Page 61 May 11,2005 MR. SCHMITT: Well, you have Ave Maria, certainly, which is -- you're going to see in Jun~ in regards to the commitment. What they're going to define in regards to meeting the affordable housing commitments. And you'll see that. But it's just as well. Y oll're going to see another one. You saw a portion of it during transmittal, the portion associated with Twin Eagles expansion. And the commitments that -- that will be part of -- you're going to see as part of your package for the compo plan amendments on the 7th. That will be the first actual rural village you'll see in regards to applying the rules in the rural area, yes. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I also think that when Ave Maria comes on board, we've already got, what is it, about 1.8 million square feet that is going to be commercial. So that's kind of a destination area, we're hoping. MR. SCHMITT: Well, we're also looking at this as part of the east of 951 study, the entire aspect of land use outside of the two special districts and outside the two overlay areas. So we're looking at that as well. I think Dr. Woodruff -- I know that's his client, and I brought up his client's name, so -- MR. WOODRUFF: Richard Woodruff for the record. Commissioner, to answer your question, your first rural village, if you adopt these amendments, your first rural village is probably three years away from selling its first unit. Why is that? Because in addition to your regulations, you have the state law, which requires anything over 2,000 units to be a DR!. Most of your rural villages -- there will be some exceptions, but most of your rural villages will be 1,000 acres or larger. By your minimum density being set at two, that automatically makes them a DR!. So in the rural village, my projection is unless it is a small rural village of like 300 acres, most of the rest will be three years before you see a unit come out of the ground. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Do you see the rural villages, Page 62 ..._..,----"~_.__...-.." May 11, 2005 including Ave Maria, as answering the affordable housing issue? MR. WOODRUFF: Tþe answer there is yes, because it is a simple balance between supply and demand. No matter if you're selling apples or houses, if the demand for the apple is greater than the supply, the cost goes up. What you need to do to increase or to make more reasonable housing costs in Collier County is to increase the supply. You increase the supply by letting people build. By building Ave Maria, by building rural villages, you will be increasing the number of units on the market. That should bring the market pressure down. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So what you're saying is that we don't need anything other than the rural villages to meet our homeless efforts -- MR. WOODRUFF: Oh, no, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I mean affordable. MR. WOODRUFF: I didn't say that at all. I think that it's a very complex -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, okay. Well, that's what I'm getting at is that I don't want us to be depending 100 percent upon the rural villages as our answer to affordable housing. And that's what we're getting -- we might be heading down that direction. If we've got no other alternatives, we've got to pick them up whenever we can. There's few opportunities out there. And there's a gap of many, many years before we have any appreciable amount of housing, regular or affordable, out there in the rural area. And we will get it. In the meantime, we have to look at every opportunity. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That just goes back to what Commissioner Henning said before. If you locate all of the affordable housing out there but the jobs are in here, it doesn't make any good. If the jobs are there, then it's worth building affordable , housing. But you can't just shove it into an area to put it in some area. I mean -- and I think that they've done it very well when they say .2 per acre. Page 63 May 11,2005 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think we'd save a lot of people a lot of pain if we just said tþat there would be no affordable housing in such and such an area. And be done with it. Because we go through this scenario all the time. I'm talking about 951, I'm talking about everything. We keep having the petitioner come forward with the rules we set up and then we tell them that won't work and why it won't work. And they throw up their hands. We give them an extension to be able to bring it back a different way and repackage it, and we keep going through the same scenario of events. Either we can do it in these areas or we can't do it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Don't you think criteria has something to do with it? Like yesterday we had -- we were talking about 951 and 41, and how they said even with the road widened, it was only good for a year and it's done for. Well, in that situation you shouldn't -- well, we didn't want to build anything because of the situation there. I think you have to take it case by case. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I know we're getting far off the subject, but -- while we're here, but it's worthy of a discussion. You know, my belief is the workforce housing and the stewardship in the villages and the rural area will service the rural area. But the problem is we still have a deficit within the urban area. So therefore, we probably will get more trips from the rural area into the urban area. So what -- how are we fixing traffic when we disapprove that type of housing which we need in the urban area? We're not. We're just creating more traffic problems through the whole thing. So-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I apologize for taking everybody so far afield of where we are with this particular thing. MR. GIBLIN: Commissioner, if I could clarify a couple things on this particular amendment. At last week's workshop, the idea of applying the density bonus Page 64 May 11,2005 formula by right was brought up. This amendment does not implement that. This amen~ment was written back in December and it's taken this long to get to this point. We were given direction, however, last week to look at implementing this formula in a by-right scenario, and we will do that in an upcoming cycle. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are there any other questions? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are there any public speakers on this? MS. MURRAY: No speakers. MR. SCHMITT: I recommend we take a break. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure. Take a 10-minute break. Be back at 7: 14. (Brief recess.) VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: We'll continue on at this point. MS. MURRAY: Okay. For the record again, Susan Murray. I do not have any other registered speakers. I think at this point I'll work from the summary sheet, the first summary sheet. I'll be working from Page 1. I'll read down each section number, and I'll pause. If you have any comments or direction for us, you could stop me at that point. Otherwise, I'll continue reading each section number, if that's okay. Working from Page 1 on your summary sheet, and I'll skip those that we've already gone over, obviously. COMMISSIONER FIALA: He's got things tabbed. So what he's going to have to do is cross-reference things. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, go ahead. MS. MURRAY: Okay. The first item would be Section 1.08.02, for definition of pervious surface area, and that's on ~age 1. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any questions on that? MS. MURRAY: Next would be section -- Page 65 May 11, 2005 VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hold on just a second till he catches up here. . COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, go ahead. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, you're ready? JVIS.MURRA Y: Section 2.03.05, open space zoning district on Page 2. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any questions? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Continue. MS. MURRAY: Now I'm actually going to skip to Page 3 of your summary sheet, because we've covered the others, and some of them have been withdrawn. And actually I'm going to skip to Page 4, because we've covered everything on 3 and 4. So I'm now on Page 4 of your summary sheet, and that's Section 2.07.00 and 4.02.01, which is on Page 70 of your packet. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hold on just a minute, we'll see if there's any -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, this is with setbacks, correct? MS. MURRAY: Correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And there's -- VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have a question. It says waterfront, 10 feet. Where does this refer to; can you tell me? MS. MURRAY: This would be for any yard located along a waterfront. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any waterfront? Is this lakes, canals and so on, or what? MS. MURRAY: Yes. And this actually -- the only change here really is adding an exemption for legal conforming lots in the conservation zoning district. The rest of this table remains intact. It's just being relocated. And then a fe\v corrections to the footnote, or footage requirements. Page 66 May 11, 2005 COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- I guess the issue for me-- so it's none of it's being cha~ged, but it's also underlined. MS. MURRAY: Because it's being relocated. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Relocated. MS. MURRAY: So what we did was strike the one location and underline the new location. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Has there ever been a discussion about the Estate lots, when you have different width of lots and the setbacks? Because in the Estates minimum front yard is 75, side yard is 30. Minimum rear yard is 75. And I thought we always went by percentages for the side yard setbacks. MS. MURRAY: We do when there's a double frontage lot. And then if for your legal conforming lots, like your 75-foot wide lots, there's a different side yard setback to adjust for the minimum amount of frontage which is -- or the minimum amount of width, which is 75 feet. If you recall, last cycle, and I'm just kind of doing this blindly without the information in front of me, we had added a clarification where you measure the front yard setbacks, because we do a reduction. For example, if you have two front yards. In other words, if you're a corner lot so you have frontage on two streets, you're allowed a percentage of reduction for one of those streets. And we clarified that in the last amendment, because we had been running across some errors in the application of the language and some misunderstandings out in the development community. So we did discuss that at that time. I don't know if that's what you're referring to. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I'm talking about -- I understood that it was like 20 percent for an acre and a quarter, an acre -- I'm sorry, two and a quarter, two and a half, two and three-quarters, and five acres you always went by I think it was 20 percent of your total frontage that would be the setback. So if you had like 100 -- what is it, 105- foot is the acre and a half? Page 67 May 11,2005 MS. MURRAY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you would have 20.25 side yard setback? MS . MURRAY: I don't believe the code distinguishes between the 75··footers, the 105-footers. MR. MUDD: I believe if you take a look at Page 76, I think it's 10 percent of the width of the lot for the side yard setback. And then it -- and it maxes out at 20 feet, Commissioner. And I believe that's the rule that they use out there. It's 10 percent. If you got a 75-foot lot, you got seven and a half foot side yard setbacks on either side. If you have 105 yard, it's 10.5 feet on either side. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's right. And I'm glad -- I did see that. And the only clarifying point is when a staff member goes to the table is you're going to see the footnote on the -- MR. MUDD: That's a good point. And I'd ask Susan to note that and try to get that more specific so it's more upfront with the table so that they see it ahead of time. MS. MURRAY: Okay. I just want to make sure I understand what you're trying to clarify. So the footnote related to the -- MR. MUDD: Ten percent. MS. MURRAY: -- the 10 percent, okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Actually, it's 20 percent. It hasn't changed. Just make sure that it's -- and that's on the main structures and accessories? I don't think there's any provisions for accessories, it's all 20 percent. And you don't have to answer that by memory. 1'11 send you an e-mail. MS. MURRAY: Please, do. I do not pretend to memorize these dimensions. I'm always looking at the code before I answer. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other questions by any of the commissioners? (N 0 response.) Page 68 '-' May 11, 2005 VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, continue on. MS. MURRAY: Okay. Get back to where we are here. That I believe was on Page 70, so we're up to Page 5 on your summary sheet. And 3.04.02, sea turtle dune walkover repair. It's on Page 79 of your packet. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are there any questions? (No response.) MS. MURRAY: 3.05.05, criteria for removal of protected vegetation, on Page 83. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are there any questions? Yes, Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'd like a little bit more explanation on this one. What is the creation? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Commissioner, Stan Chrzanowski from Engineering Review. We're responsible for a part of this. I see a lot of area underlined. But the part that we're responsible for is it's possible with our system of application when you submit for an SDP review, you can go through all the -- we get like 18 copies and they go to fire, they go to architectural, they go to landscaping. And we have had projects held up for items that did not pertain to land clearing or infrastructure, pending resolution of issues. This is to allow -- if a project has definitely no problems with engineering or land clearing, environmental, that we allow them to clear if they apply for it. Is that the portion of this you're questioning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. And I guess it's the existing code. If I have a preserve and I want to put some natural vegetation and enhance it, do I have to get a permit? I think that's what it's saying in E. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: To plant the tree? I'll ~- MS. BURGESON: For the record, Barbara Burgeson with Environmental Services. Page 69 May 11, 2005 If you want to do anything in an approved preserve, added landscape or modifying the existing vegetation in a preserve, what you need to do is just amend the preserve management plan. There's no permit for that. C()MMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MS. BURGESON: The language that's in here allows for additional permits. COMMISSIONER HENNING: In Golden Gate Estates you don't have to have a -- it's not a management preserved area. It's just MS. BURGESON: Right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- a lot of it is, you know, wetlands or -- MS. BURGESON: Yeah, in Golden Gate Estates you would not need a permit, once you've got your building permit. That would allow you to clear up to one acre. And there's no changes in any of the amendment proposed language here to effect Estates clearing. What you would go by is the section that would allow you to obtain the vegetation removal permit for something that's consistent with that zoning and accessory uses to that zoning. So there's no language here to propose any changes to that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So if I have a wetland in Golden Gate Estates, I can plant a coco palm without getting a permit, or do I need a permit? MS. BURGESON: If you've got a single-family building permit, environmental review does not review anything that's planted. The only thing that you would have a review from would be the landscape review. And I'm not sure what the minimum landscaping is. I believe it's still one tree for 3,000 square feet. And as long as you meet that minimum landscape review, then there would not be any other reviews wi th that. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: How do you control somebody's Page 70 ~ May 11, 2005 planting an exotic? MS. BURGESON: EX,otics are prohibited by the code. Ifit were brought to anyone's attention, that would be turned over to Code Enforcement and they would contact them for removal. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: I just want to know how we can get somebody, you know, if they have a one-acre-- MS. BURGESON: Yeah, typically that's a neighbor that calls in. We seem to get a lot of people calling in with issues like that. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other questions? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Continue on. MS. MURRAY: Okay, the next section is 3.05.07, preservation standards, on Page 87. 3.05.08.C, exotic removal, single and two-family, Page 88. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any questions on this? (No response.) MS. MURRAY: Skip to Page 7 of your summary sheet at the top, Section 4.06.05, landscape certificate of compliance, Page 100. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Have any questions, Commissioners? (No response.) MS. MURRAY: Skip to Page 8, top of Page 8, Section 5.05.08.C, building facades. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Questions on this? (No response.) MS. MORRAY: Section 5.05.09.G, communication tower development standards. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: I 'think we got one question. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Could you give us a little more detail on that? MS. MURRAY: Do you have a specific question, Commissioner, or do you just want a brief explanation? Page 71 May 11, 2005 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I want to know exactly what these contemplated changes , are all about. MS. MURRAY: The code amendment itself was specifically requested by Collier Mosquito Control and it's basically to add a lighting requirement to existing telecommunications towers over 150 feet for the protection of their pilots and the general public. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, that's what I thought. My concern is I've had complaints before in the past where some tower lights or strobe lights are very bright. Is there anything that dictates what the candle power or illumination power of these lights are and how they're directed? VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: The only thing it says in the code is it requires with FAA ruling requirements. MR. WHITE: And if I may, my recollection of how those rules operate is that it would be the same as those that are above 200 feet above the sea level, I guess is the standard they use. And the lighting is to be red flashing at night. And it's white strobe during the day, daylight hours. Precisely when those times change from one to the other is in those regulations that I think are promulgated by the FAA. But what we're effectively being asked to do, because the FAA doesn't typically regulate below 200 feet, is in this instance to have a county rule that will essentially apply the FAA's rules and standards, but below the 200 feet. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And the FAA's standards require for certain kinds of shielding? MR. WHITE: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, thank you. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Does that answer your question? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, it does. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other questions? (N 0 response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, continue on. Page 72 May 11,2005 MS. MURRAY: Okay. I'll get back to where I was here. The next item will be ~ection 6.06.01.0, right-of-way cross-section widths on Page 129. The next will be -- I'm on the top of Page 9 of your summary sheet, appendix E, access management plan maps. Next would be Section 10.01.02.A and B, early work authorization. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hang on just a minute. Do you have any questions on any of these? (No response.) MS. MURRAY: Next would be 10.02.02.B, submittal requirements for plats. 10.02.02.B, subdivision exemptions. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I got one question. MS. MURRAY: And I just wanted to -- I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Probably for Patrick. Or maybe you. This is -- will we see a fee associated with this before its implemented, or the board approve? MS. MURRAY: You know, we really didn't contemplate one at this point, Commissioner. What we're going to do is add an effective date of 90 days beyond the date of adoption in order for staff to develop a process so people will know what to do and how to do it. So I really can't answer that at this point. I imagine, perhaps. I mean, similar to any other application process, depending on how long it takes staff. And I think that's really going to be determined by the process that we outline, who's involved, what it -- you know, how long it takes, that sort of thing, as to whether or not a fee would be brought forward later. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, that's fa,ir. MR. WHITE: To the extent we've had those conversations, what Susan's saying is accurate. It's kind of like trying to guess today what Page 73 May 11,2005 it's going to take you tomorrow to do the job. And one of the reasons it's being suggested that the .board approve a 90-day effective date for these provisions is to be able to make those kinds of determinations, have the staff training take place and be fully prepared to address all of those things that are of certainly great concern today to the community. MS. MURRAY: I'm back on Page 10 of your summary sheet. Section 10.02.04, subdivision requirement -- submission requirements. Section 10.02.06.J, cultivated tree removal permit. Section 10.02.07 and 1.08.0M, certificate of public facility adequacy. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Questions? (No response.) MS. MURRAY: Top of Page 11, 10.02.13.F, PUD reporting procedures. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- and transportation's not here to answer that, but is there any -- I didn't see any exemption for build-out PUD's or DRI's. MS. MURRAY: We actually by policy stop sending reports once we've determine all the commitments have been met and they're essentially built out. However, we are -- I mean, we've had discussions with the board about bringing forward that ordinance, clearly defining what build-out means. And I know Commissioner Coyle's not here tonight, but -- and discussing the probability of taking back unused dwelling units. And I think in part that will probably be addressed through that ordinance. At least that was the last discussion I had with Assistant County Attorney Marjorie Student who was working on that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I guess the concern we have is we all change. We're not going to be the same here in a few years. And we might have Susan Murray's planning -- public planning out Page 74 May 11,2005 there. And when you get new employees like that, what we're seeing today, will apply later on, is.-when do we stop the reporting period for traffic counts and that? And this one is annual traffic counting reports. Are we going to -- I guess my concern is, you know, should we have language in there, you know, existing -- or built-out communities are exempt from this? MS. MURRAY: Well, to a certain extent they are. But once they're built out, you -- unless something changes, you're -- essentially your traffic reporting should be about the same. I mean, should be consistent year to year. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah? MS. MURRAY: I mean, you know, if you have 200 single-family dwelling units and there's trips assigned, as long as the 200 number doesn't change or any other factors that may change socially or what have you, you're still going to retain that count, that same count. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So they can hand in the same sheet? MS. MURRAY: They're pretty much -- I don't think they're going to be asked to hand in anything really once build-out status is determined. And I'm speaking completely for the Transportation Department without their knowledge or assistance. But I think essentially you're going to have a database that's already set relative to those built-out PUD's. And unless something changes within that PUD which would necessitate somebody coming through an amendment process or some other type of redevelopment plan, they're not going to be required to submit it, at least through the PUD monitoring process. There may be other processes that transportation has that I'm not aware of that they use to account for that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think it's in your shop as far as the PUD monitoring process. Page 75 May 11,2005 VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'm concerned where someone has something built out or says ~hey have something built out and they have 800 or 1,000 units left over and then later on they say well, we'll have a redevelopment area here and we'll build a high-rise or a couple of high rises or whatever, to accommodate the units that were originally approved in the PUD. So then that impacts the traffic. So did we already have that in the part as the concurrency of the 100 units or 1,000 units that are not built out? I can see where Commissioner Henning's coming from. MS . MURRAY: I think the idea behind the proposed -- or the ordinance that is being worked on that will eventually be before you is to determine a, quote, built-out status of a PUD and then hopefully to be able to remove the ability to further develop beyond what's already been determined as built out. Unless somebody comes in and then later amends their PUD, they're always going to retain the same development rights, either as modified by that ordinance through a process, or through a PUD amendment. So I don't -- I'm not sure I could completely answer your question. But I think essentially unless they come through some process, things should essentially remain the same. I mean, if they have the right to build 100 multi-family dwelling units and they want to change single-family to multi-family, there's going to be a minimal impact there. But again, through a site plan process, they're going to be required to submit data to that effect anyway, and that's data that the transportation department would analyze in approving that proj ect through that review process -- VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, then let me try another-- MS. MURRAY: -- which is different from this. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Let me try another avenue here. Is there some way that we can address -- and maybe you're working on this already -- so that after, let's say, a period of five years Page 76 May 11,2005 or six years or whatever time frame we want to decide, that there's been no more building in th~lt area, but there's still some reserve capacity that we can negotiate to take that out of the equation? MS. MURRAY: Commissioner, that's the understanding that I have with respect to the ordinance that Marjorie Student is working on. Yes, exactly. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Ghost? MS. MURRAY: The phantom unit. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The phantom unit. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Ghost, phantom, something. MR. MUDD: Commissioner? MR. WHITE: What this provision is intending to do is to -- I'm sorry? MR. MUDD: Patrick, just for a second? MR. WHITE: Sure. MR. MUDD: Jim Mudd for the record, real quick. Commissioners, there are a couple of things that are transpiring right now. One is the ordinance to make all the development out there prove that they're vested, okay? So we've got that in the works right now, so that's going to help a little bit. And if you remember correctly, when we had the change to our Growth Management Plan/Land Development Code where we talked about developments coming forward and paying half their impact fees for roads at plat, that basically gave them vesting for half of their units in that planned unit development. And then within three years of that payment, they have to pay the other half. So I believe, and I'm going to ask Susan and Patrick to keep some notes on this one, so that they basically have a bank account that's basically giving them vesting per se on their PUD. I would think that when those monies are gone,. okay, and they have the ability to claim what's left, if there's anything left in their bank account, this credit account, because they've built out and they Page 77 May 11,2005 don't plan to build those 800 units, they ask for a refund of those particular impact fees that h~ve been put into the account. When that happens and we pay that back over a five-year period of time, I would think at that juncture that they don't have anymore vesting. There are no more ghost units, and they have to con1e forward again to pay those impact fees, and then Norman has to go through his concurrency review on that particular process. And I would ask Susan to make sure that that impact fee type issue in that account, that there's some mechanism in there in order to check that, too. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other questions? MR. WHITE: Not to dispute what the County Manager's apprised you of, but just so your understanding is clear, the way that the 50 percent in vesting operates as to transportation impact fees is not a proportionate to number of units, per se. It is 50 percent of the total number of units that you're paying for. And if you do not bring in the other 50 percent within the time frame, you've effectively lost the money. There is nothing that's returned. Because the other 50 percent of the transportation impact fees have to be paid at building permit, along with 100 percent all of the other applicable impact fees. So they don't get 50 percent of their units vested, per se, and then 50 percent more later. It's 50 percent of the 100 percent that they've paid. And unless they pay the other 50 percent, they get zip. So-- VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Got you. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So in other words, does that mean that they then try and permit closer to the number they actually intend to build? MR. WHITE: Yes, that's exactly the way the system was intended to operate. It was intended to provide a degree of flexibility that matched the expectations of the property owner and developer. And it allowed them to effectively buy what capacity they needed for Page 78 May 11,2005 what they were going to build in a very. close time frame. It also has a benefit to ~he county, of course, turning us back to the building of road business and saying okay, we know how much capacity we've got to create and we've got the money earlier in the pipeline to be able to actually achieve that objective by the time that the units are coming on line for use. What this provision is intended to do is to make an automated system for operating the concurrency management system an economic incentive to people who are otherwise required to file these reports for PUD monitoring. It will build and grow effectively a computerized tracking system to help have real time concurrency management, which is what the board's direction has been. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other questions? (No response.) MS . MURRAY: On Page 11 of your summary sheet, Section 10.03.05.B(8), notice of public hearing. Page 166. That essentially covers all of the amendments that result in regulatory change. As I mentioned earlier, we have two other sections. I think, Patrick, could I just refer to them by -- in general terms and ask if there are any questions? MR. WHITE: Yes, if there are any questions. MS. MURRAY: Okay. That actually begins -- I'll just refer to the summary sheet, which is after Page 169. And they're all labeled as Page I-B through 74-B. So if there's any questions on any of those. Again, these are just correcting omissions during the recodification of the 2004 amendments. And then the next section is labeled as C. And it begins after Page 108-B. And these are amendments where we added wording for clarification. Again, these don't result in regulatory <;hange. And they're all labeled through Pages l-C through 15-C. If there's any questions on those. Page 79 May 11,2005 VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any questions, Commissioners? Yes, Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: The EAC or DSAC or the Planning Commission review these? MS. MURRAY: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Because their comments are not on. MS. MURRAY: They actually had no comments. And I apologize for that, we need to put that in so that's part of the record and you realize that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, that's fine. MS. MURRAY: But there were no comments on either B or C. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. MS. MURRAY: With that, I guess we could announce that the next hearing is June 8th, which will be really the time at which you need to take a vote. It will be 5:05 p.m. in this room. That will be your second and final hearing on these amendments. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are there any additional comments from the commissioners? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that date set in stone? MS. MURRAY: Well, it's been advertised. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other questions? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN HALAS: Ifnot, we're adjourned. ***** There being no further business for the good of the Gounty, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 7:45 p.m. Page 80 May 11,2005 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL. ~~/ FRAÑK HALAS, VICE-CHAIRMAN ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK ,'. "j. ~. '< ,. . ., ~': ~ . .,"",', ~'oflAl~AS~~~ij~ . he . , i " 't:\f'~l.i.'~~):~~';:·~ì .- .. ,,:;t",'::;~~'~~""" .... .""4-I!!"~ These minutes approved by the Board on 0WYLL ('-I, too 5 as presented V' or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM. Page 81 '--