Loading...
BCC Minutes 06/07/2005 S (Conservation Collier Report & GMP Amendments) June 7, 2005 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN MEETING OF JUNE 7,2005 OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 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 9: 00 a.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Fred Coyle Frank Halas Donna Fiala Tom Henning Jim Coletta ALSO PRESENT: Jim Mudd, County Manager Michael Pettit, Assistant County Attorney Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 ~ AGENDA June 7, 2005 9:00 a.m. Recommendation - Conservation Collier Annual Public Meeting 2004 Adoption Cycle Amendments Fred W. Coyle, Chairman, District 4 Frank Halas, Vice-Chairman, District 2 Donna Fiala, Commissioner, District 1 Tom Henning, Commissioner, District 3 Jim Coletta, Commissioner, District 5 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, AS AMENDED, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS." ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. 1 June 7, 2005 1. Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance 2. Recommendation to conduct the Conservation Collier Annual Public meeting to provide an update on the program's past activities, for soliciting proposals and applications, to provide direction to staff for making procedural changes to the ordinance and to develop an exceptional benefits ordinance 3. Comprehensive Planning, Growth Management Plan Amendments [2004 Adoption Cycle] 4. Adjourn INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383. 2 June 7, 2005 June 7, 2005 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we'll call the meeting to order. Will everyone please stand and say the pledge of allegiance with me. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much. I understand the first thing we're going to do is have the Conservation Collier update. Item #2 RECOMMENDATION TO CONDUCT THE CONSERVATION COLLIER ANNUAL PUBLIC MEETING TO PROVIDE AN UPDATE ON THE PROGRAM'S PAST ACTIVITIES, FOR SOLICITING PROPOSALS AND APPLICATIONS, TO PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF FOR MAKING PROCEDURAL CHANGES TO THE ORDINANCE AND TO DEVELOP AN EXCEPTIONAL BENEFITS ORDINANCE - REPORT ACCEPTED - APPROVED; DRAFT CHANGES TO ORDINANCE GOVERNING CONSERVATION COLLIER AND REVIEW EXAMPLE OF EXCEPTIONAL BENEFITS ORDINANCE FOR CONSIDERATION FOR DRAFT - CONSENSUS; NOMINATION CYCLE IS OPEN AND ACCEPT RECOMMENDATIONS - AUGUST 15 (NOTED) MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. It's Conservation Collier past and current activities report. It's the annual public meeting. And Ms. Alex Sulecki will present. MS. SULECKI: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. For the record, my name is Alexandra Sulecki. I am the coordinator for your Conservation Collier program. I'm here today for two reasons. One is to fulfill a requirement of the Conservation Collier Ordinance that says that I will conduct an Annual Public Meeting which I will update the Board of County Commissioners and the public on the program and solicit proposals Page 2 June 7, 2005 and applications. The second reason is that I'm seeking your direction in a couple of matters. And I'm sorry for all these matters in the long executive summary that I gave you, but I am trying to use your time efficiently. I have a short presentation that gives you a program update and describes the issues, but before I start my presentation, with your permission I would like to invite Bill Poteet, our Committee Vice Chair, to say a few words on behalf of the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition committee. MR. POTEET: Thank you, Alex. Good morning. My name is -- for the record, my name is Bill Poteet, and I have the pleasure of serving as the Vice Chairman of Conservation Collier. They say a great speech is a short speech, so I plan to adhere to that. Today we're here to give you our annual report. We've been very, very busy in the last year, and we're very proud of the recommendations we have set forth to the commission, which you have passed unanimously on almost every occasion, and we're very thankful for that. We have tried during the past two years that I've been on the committee to ensure that all five commission districts are represented with some of the recommendations that we've set forth, and we're going to continue that process throughout the next year. And before I say anything else, I really need to praise some county employees that make this entire Conservation Collier program possible. First of all, from real estate, Chuck Carrington and Cindy Erb. Cindy Erb's just doing an outstanding job closing the real estate transactions for us. From the County Attorney's office, Mike Pettit. Without his wisdom and guidance to keep us out of trouble, we would be lost. And then Bill Lorenz and Alex Sulecki. Alex Sulecki is just -- she's a gem, you need to keep her. And with that I'll close. Thank you. Page 3 June 7, 2005 MS. SULECKI: Thank you very much. I'd also like to recognize a couple of other committee members that are here today. We have Will Kriz back there and Wayne Jenkins. Okay, just briefly, some of our milestones. We started in 2002 with a referendum and the $75 million bond authorization. We got our Ordinance in December, 2002 that described our program procedures, and set up our acquisition and management trust funds. In January, 2004, we had our first cycle acquisition list in which we had 548 acres approved for purchase. January, 2005, our second cycle acquisition list was approved with 286 acres. And we are currently in the middle of our third cycle, gathering more willing sellers to evaluate land for purchase. Just to kind of give you a brief look at the funding and the money, we have two categories here: Authorized But Not Acquired, and Acquired. And we've separated them by the cycles. So the first one you can see there, we had a total authorization of 35.8 million. We have spent 28.9 million on those properties. We still have 6.9 million worth to go. The 6.9 million is partially an estimated number, because we don't have appraisals on all of that. So that's the squishy kind of part of that number. In the second cycle, we had authorized $10.8 million worth of purchases. And we have purchased 2.4 million, with another 8.4 million to go. And again, some of that is estimated, so that's a little bit squishy. The total authorization that we've had so far is 46 .6 million. And you can again see the breakdown. We have spent 31.3 million to date. And the remainder that we are trying to purchase, 15.3 million. And these costs are further broken down in your notebooks on Page 4 June 7, 2005 the page titled Properties Report. Leaves us with 28.4 million. This is a map of the properties approved for purchase. We have 835 acres approved, 235 acres purchased or under contract right now. And you can see where we have our first preserves, which, thank you very much, you approved the names for. We have Royal Head Scrub, Cocohatchee Creek, Otter Mound and Red Maple Swamp, which is our multi-parcel Unit 53. Royal Head Scrub is 80 acres. It has some of our most highly sought after vegetation communities, xeric oak scrub. It also has pine palmetto flatwoods and marshes and sloughs. And we are in the process of starting management on that. We have a $10,000 grant for exotics removal and are working with the state on that. The Cocohatchee Creek Preserve is a little over three-and-a-half acres up near Veterans Park. It also has one of our premium sought after vegetation communities, which is the riverine live oak. And I added another slide in here, because I wanted to show you some of the things we've been doing there. Public access is a very important part of this program. And we are to make these sites available with minimal risk to the environmental integrity of the site to the general public and school children to educate about the uniqueness and importance of Collier County's natural communities. So the Cocohatchee Preserve is going to be the first preserve open to the public sometime this summer. And we've had the Sheriff s weekenders, you can see them down here, out there working with us to reduce cost, with about 60 people, each time they come. We also had committee member Wayne Jenkins and Joe Delate from your Parks and Rec Department has been out there on his own time helping us on Saturday with that. So we've removed debris and we laid the mulch on the trail in the picnic area. And here you can see we had the contractor grind all the exotics on the site, leave the mulch in a big pile for us where it couldn't be seen from the road. It sat, it killed the seeds, and then we Page 5 June 7, 2005 had the weekenders come and spread it on the trail. And so here's the before and there's the after with a nice mulch trail. So it costs us less to leave this debris on-site, and then we could use it to make a base for this trail. And the plan is to top it with a mulch that is considered ADA compliant so that the site will be accessible to handicapped folks. Otter Mound Preserve is our next preserve. That's a little under two acres on Marco Island. Staff is currently working with an archaeologist and exotic contractor to remove the exotics while protecting the archeological and historical features of this site. And the Red Maple Swamp Preserve is our multi-parcel project. You can see here, it's the whole Unit 53, which is 285 acres. We have 30 acres acquired. But in order to reduce our risk on this type of a project, we've identified a core area that's right up next to the state lands here, and we're most aggressively pursuing acquisitions in that area. We do have a few more than this picture shows you. Currently the whole unit is undeveloped. It's wetlands. And-- well, the core is about 120 acres. So we have about a quarter of it, a little under a quarter of it. What we'd like to do this year are -- some of our goals are to continue to acquire these remaining approved A-list properties. We are in the middle of conducting cycle three property evaluations. We're going to begin and continue our management activities on our acquired properties. We also plan to be a part of the acquisition of selected portions of the Fleischmann Caribbean Gardens property. Weare working to complete our program manual. And we need to amend the LDC to allow the development of preserve access amenities and signs, because we kind of didn't fit with the LDC. So we have to try to make ourselves fit in there and be able to do some of the things that we want in all areas, such as put signs up. We also need to amend some procedures in the ordinance and purchase policy, and that's one of the reasons we're here today, to get Page 6 June 7, 2005 your guidance and to develop -- we'd like to develop an ordinance that would address future public needs. We're calling this an exceptional benefits ordinance, and I'll explain that a little bit more when we get to it. Okay, the reason why we need to amend the procedures in the ordinance and purchase policy . We've had a couple of years to work with this, and we've discovered that the way it's set up in the ordinance, it just takes too long. Real estate transactions need to be a little quick. And the way it was set up, it seemed to take about 13 meetings, and almost a year and a half, to get to a purchase. And that's kind of long. So we got it down by doing all the things that the ordinance says we need to do, but doing them in a more consolidated and efficient fashion. And that's what we'd like to amend the ordinance to reflect, those procedures, so that it's very clear how we're doing things. Some of the procedures that are in the ordinance are just unworkable. And one of them is mailing to all owners in target protection areas. That's 117,000 parcels. And there's some of them we just know we don't want. So there's no point in mailing to them. Some of them are built on, and we -- there's no point in mailing to them either. Also, we found that the ordinance told us that we would have a site visit with committee members, but that proved to be a little unworkable, because it's somebody's private land and we're making it a public meeting due to Sunshine laws. And there's no trails there, there's no -- there's a lot of risk. And we don't know what the risks are with public coming out and joining in a meeting. So we decided in our committee that we would have one committee member come if they want and make a report, and that just seems to work a little better. So these are the kinds of things that we'd like to bring to you. They are procedural matters. Page 7 June 7, 2005 Also, we'd like to reflect our active acquisition list breakdown in the A, Band C category, because that was not in the ordinance. And then some procedures don't match our standard county procedures, so we'd like to just bring them in line. And I put alligator up here as a picture because he's a symbol of not wasting, and that's what we'd like to do, we'd like to be efficient in our work. Now, this the exceptional benefits ordinance. So what is an exceptional benefit? That's something where you get a greater than one-to-one ratio of return, basically. And why -- what would an exceptional benefits ordinance do for us? It would help us set up a procedure where if there were public needs in the future for pieces of conservation land, like for a well or a road right-of-way, that there would be a procedure to show that, number one, it was necessary; number two, it couldn't be done else- wise; and number three, that there would be a greater than one-to-one payback, which would create a bit of disincentive. So our goal is to cooperate with critical public needs, but not be an easy target for our lands. Somewhere in the middle there. We checked with other counties. Many have handled this on a case-by-case basis, but they note problems, especially if there's partners or grants. You can't just sell off a little piece of the land. And a lot of it depended on the language of their ordinance that said what they could and couldn't do. Our ordinance has criteria for these sales. It says that they require the land to be sold for conservation purposes. Well, altering the criteria of our ordinance says so, again, in there requires a referendum. So we would like to figure out a way to deal with this without having to go to the lengths of a referendum. Now, Palm Beach County had a very good solution that our legal counsel favors, and that's creation of a separate exceptional Page 8 June 7, 2005 benefits ordinance that would provide a critical test that's needed -- can you do it elsewhere -- and some exceptional benefit. And this would serve the criteria of the program by allowing us to conserve more. Now, we would work closely with utilities and transportation in developing this ordinance and develop language to bring back to you. And so what we're seeking today is your direction in that matter. Mr. Mudd, is there anything you'd like to weigh in on that matter? MR. MUDD: Commissioners, we talked a lot as far as the staff is concerned about this particular issue. We try up front to identify -- if Conservation Collier has their eye a piece of property, we try to identify right now if there's something that needs to transpire. One of the problems that we've had, and we tried to contemplate is, what happens 30 years down the road? What's it going to look like and what are the needs going to be? Everybody scratches their head and says well, we think but we don't know for sure. But the way the ordinance reads right now, it basically gives you no options, if there is some need that shows up 30 years from now that was uncontemplated. And I believe this exceptional benefits ordinance, if you give us direction to do that, will give future commissions the latitude to do it, but, okay, with some stringent tests and the fact that, oh, by the way, payback, if you're going to take part of that land that's been set aside, oh, by the way, you'll come back with more to put into conservation than you took. So that's where Alex basically says it will provide us more opportunities to expand the conservation lands. Because let's say for instance Mr. DeLony sometime in the future, and we'll call that Mr. DeLony, III comes 30 years from now and says, you know, we need to have a well right here, or I need to put an underground pipeline across it but underneath the ground, not even the wellfield, then he Page 9 June 7, 2005 would have to come back with acreage more than what he needs on this particular property to put in conservation. And it could be three or four times more into that process. It is a dissuader from doing it, but I believe it's something that we need to think about for future generations so that they just don't get themselves in a road block -- well, 30 years from now nobody knows for sure. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Jim, I'm confused about one point, and I think it's probably a legal point. The current ordinance prohibits resales. MS. SULECKI: No, we can resell to other conservation organizations or for conservation purposes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So tell me how having an exceptional benefits ordinance permits you to change the ordinance without a referendum. MS. SULECKI: It doesn't permit us to change the ordinance, but it allows us to meet the test of the ordinance that says that what we're doing is for conservation purposes. So you can say the reason for the sale of this postage stamp size of piece of land for a well is to gain more land somewhere else. If it was just a one-to-one, it would not be something that was for conservation purposes. So this meets -- it allows us not to need to change the ordinance. Mr. Pettit, can I ask you to weigh in on that? MR. PETTIT: For the record, Commissioner Coyle, Mike Pettit. Actually, the language in the ordinance that's key here, it says that any such sale or lease shall only be in accordance with the goals of the program. And this is a knotty problem. We've talked about it. And the first thing we did, as Mr. Mudd said, is put into place a communication mechanism so that each time Conservation Collier is looking at property, transportation and utilities is put on notice and Page 10 June 7, 2005 has an opportunity to partner with Conservation Collier, if at that point in time they know they're going to need that -- part of that land for a well or for a right-of-way, and if in fact they've budgeted in their budgeting for that kind of an acquisition. But as Mr. Mudd said, 20 years from now we don't know where we'll be. Palm Beach solved this notion by saying look, this may come up from time to time. Good planning should make it not a frequent occurrence. But when it does, the reality is, if you need a road or you need a well, you need a road or you need a well. And one way to serve the goals of the program would be to sell a piece of property back for those -- for a utility or road right-of-way and then get more property into the program and that way serve the goals of the program. It's not a perfect result, but it's a way to first -- as you said, Alex, make a disincentive to do it and to force county staff to plan. And I think we are doing that now, because of the communications that Alex does each time we look at a property. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aren't you really just taking money out of one pocket of the taxpayer and putting it in the other pocket of the taxpayer? MR. PETTIT: Well, it's certainly all public money. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. MR. PETTIT: But the key is here that the ordinance as drafted would require, I think, a referendum to let the public make a decision to do something different than we're describing. And I don't think we have -- this exceptional benefits ordinance is not -- this is a concept at this point. And we're going to have to work I think fairly closely with transportation and utilities before anything is brought back to the board to consider. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, I can understand the need for such a thing. I'm just not sure I understand how it's going to be Page 11 June 7, 2005 structured and what the criteria will be. And I guess the time to discuss that will be at a future date, and I'm happy to do that. It just appears to me that by requiring that, let's say, a much higher price be paid for the property, you're really just penalizing the taxpayer, because you're forcing the taxpayer to pay a higher amount of money than they otherwise should have for property that they've already contributed to buy. And I guess maybe we can work that out in a procedure. And I'll hold my questions until we get to that point in time. But I think the process is probably good. MR. PETTIT: If you'd be interested, we can give you a copy of the Palm Beach ordinance. And I'm not saying that we would necessarily follow every detail in that ordinance. That ordinance, we've got some questions about it as well. But you can see what they did there to try to deal with this problem. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you. MS. SULECKI: And thank you, Mr. Pettit, for reminding me about the partnerships and trying to partner up front, because we are doing that right now on three of our properties with the Transportation Department. But we can see in the future where it might not be possible. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, I think you're absolutely right, they're going to be things we never thought of today that will happen 15 or 20 years from now and we have to have some way to deal with it. But I'll wait until we see the draft before I start arguing that point. MS. SULECKI: All right, very good. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Any other questions? (No response). CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're going to want some sense of the board with respect to these issues, aren't you? MS. SULECKI: That's right. I'm asking-- Page 12 June 7, 2005 CHAIRMAN COYLE: You want to take them one at a time or do you want to -- MS. SULECKI: Well, we could -- I have the three of them up here that I'm going to be asking your feedback on. First, that you accept my past and current activities report as presented to you, so I can fulfill my duty. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a motion to accept? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to accept. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to accept by Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Coletta. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor please signify -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Uh. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're not endorsing the list-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're accept-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- we're just accepting it. MS. SULECKI: You're accepting my report, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just the report. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, any further questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. Any opposed by like sign. Page 13 June 7, 2005 (No response.) COMMISSIONER COYLE: It is accepted unanimously. N ow we're going to go to procedural aspects. MS. SULECKI: Correct. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning, you still want to ask a question, or is that left from last time? COMMISSIONER HENNING: That was left from last time. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The procedural aspect that I have concern with is the notification of people in the targeted areas. Now, are you saying that anyone who wants to send -- sell property to you sends you a notification, or do you send notifications to people you'd like to get property from? MS. SULECKI: Our ordinance says that we will send letters asking if people are willing to sell their property to everyone within the target protection areas, which are very, very broad areas. So what we've been doing to meet this part of the ordinance is coming to you with these target protection areas mailing strategy. Because we can't send 117,000 letters out. Number one, I couldn't handle the response, and it's really expensive. So what we've been doing is kind of skimming off the top, skimming off layers of that each time. But really, we're going to get to the point where there are lots of one-acre lots in neighborhoods that we don't want to buy for conservation. So we don't feel that it's a good use of money to send -- and to get people excited to send letters to them asking to buy their property. Now, we do notify the surrounding neighbors when we buy a property. And we're getting ready to do a management plan, we notify people around there, that's a different thing, so that people know what we're doing in their neighborhoods. But what we're trying to do is to give us the ability to use our common sense and the tools that you've given us in the GIS layers Page 14 June 7, 2005 and looking at the aerial maps to say where within these target protection areas that are set up are these resources? Are we going to send letters out that have meaning, that when people get them we are really interested in their property, we're not just sending it because the ordinance says -- and they call me and I say well, you know, I don't know. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, I understand. MS. SULECKI: Just a means to be more efficient. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. Any other questions about that issue? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are there three nods to direct staff to make the necessary procedural changes to the Conservation Collier ordinance and purchase policy? Okay, looks like we've got at least three, so that's a go. MS. SULECKI: And we will bring that back to you for approval, so you will see exactly what we changed. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And the last one is the exceptional benefits ordinance, and you're going to give us a copy of the Palm Beach as a start, is that what -- MS. SULECKI: Yes, sir, I will. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- the way it's going to work? Okay, then you'll bring it back to us at a later point in time and we'll refine that process. Are there three nods for that? Okay, looks like that's approved. And that takes care of everything. MS. SULECKI: Well, I have one final task and that's to publicly call for nominations and applications for our third selection cycle. Our nomination period, we'd like to end it on August 15th so we can prepare reports and have things together by the fall for the ranking. Page 15 June 7, 2005 CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you need our approval for that? MS. SULECKI: No, that's simply a statement to the public. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. All right. MS. SULECKI: But thank you very much. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good luck. Commissioner Henning? MS. SULECKI: Any questions? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Even though this wasn't -- this is supposed to be a public meeting under this topic, annual public meeting, that that wasn't advertised, should we ask if there's any public speakers on this topic? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do we have any registered? MS. FILSON: Sir, I have one registered. I think he already spoke. William Poteet. Would you like to speak again? MR. POTEET: I already spoke. MS. FILSON: That's the only speaker for this item. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good. Thank you very much. Thank you, Alex. MS. SULECKI: Very good. Thank you so much. Item #3 ORDINANCE 2005-25: COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING, GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS (2004 ADOPTION CYCLE) - CP-2004-1 - MOTION TO APPROVE- FAILED; CP-2004-2 - APPROVED; CP-2004-3 - APPROVED W/STIPULATIONS; CP-2004-4 - APPROVED; CP-2004-5 - APPROVED W/STIPULATIONS; CPSP-2004-7 - APPROVED; ADOPTED WITH CHANGES MR. MUDD: Commissioner, now we'll turn to the adoption cycle Growth Management Plan small-scale amendment BCC Page 16 June 7, 2005 meeting, June 7th, 2005. You received your briefing packets in this kind of a notebook. It was advertised. This is the -- this is the second reading, I believe. I'm waiting as people move in and out. And Stan, are you going to open this up? Mr. Stan Litsinger, from Community Development's Environmental Services, your long-range planning director, will present. MR. LITSINGER: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. This is your adoption hearing for your cycle one, 2004 Growth Management Plan Amendments. As you may recall, you transmitted these to the Department of Community Affairs on January 25th for their review and their issuance of their -- an objections, recommendations and comments report. As you may be aware, having reviewed your package, the DCA had no objections to any of the proposed amendments which are before you here today. The process that we will continue today will be a presentation by each of the individual petitioners. In certain circumstances, staff and private petitioners are a team and we will make a joint presentation. After each petition, we will ask the board to take a straw vote relative to adoption of the specific amendment before you. As you are probably aware at this point at the adoption stage for these amendments, it requires a 4-1 vote ultimately on the ordinance before you today. The process that will unfold as a result of your actions today will be that the adopted amendments, if you so choose to do so, before you today, will go to the Department of Community Affairs for a 45-day compliance review. At the end of said time, they will issue a notice of intent to either find the amendments in compliance or not in compliance, which will be published in the Naples Daily News. Page 1 7 June 7, 2005 We expect that these amendments would be effective in the late August time frame. And tomorrow evening you will be hearing associated Land Development Code relative to the implementation of these particular amendments. The staff report, as you will hear after the presentation of the petitioners on each individual petition, reflects the Planning Commission's recommendations to you on adoption on each individual petition, as we've outlined in the staff report. And we will summarize those recommendations and staffs recommendations for you on each individual petition as we move through the process. And with that, I would begin with the first petition, which is Petition No. CP-2004-1. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich on behalf of the petitioner. With me today also are Richard Davenport, who is one of the joint venture partners, Dwight Nadeau with RW A to address planning issues, and Reed Jarvi with Vanasse and Day lor to address any transportation issues you may have. I'll make a brief presentation, since you've already seen it before, but I wanted to put on the visualizer an aerial showing you the location of the property. And we've superimposed on the aerial the proposed site plan, even though that's not before you today. We're far along in the planning process where we were able to share at the neighborhood information meeting the proposed layout of the project if the compo plan amendment goes forward. To our north is the Forest Glen community. You'll see a little -- right there. A little -- it's about a 40-acre piece that has nothing on it. That's owned by the Catholic church. So it's anticipated that there'll be a church there in front of a portion of our proj ect. The project is 196 acres. We're requesting that it be added -- it's within the urban residential fringe subdistrict, which has a base density of 1.5 units per acre. Page 18 June 7, 2005 There's an existing provision that would allow properties in the urban fringe area to request a density bonus of up to six units per acre. At the transmittal hearing, the board limited this parcel of property to an overall three units per acre. We're requesting that that 196 acres be added to your compo plan to be eligible for future density bonus for affordable housing. The compo plan would require that 30 percent of the units be affordable housing. So what we're requesting is that there be 413 market rate townhomes and 1 78 very low income affordable housing units will ultimately be what the mix would be if the rezone -- when the rezone comes through, if the amendment is adopted. This is truly inclusionary zoning. This is a joint venture between a market rate developer and Habitat for Humanities. To my knowledge, nobody's attempted this before, and it's truly unique. The bottom line is affordable -- Habitat for Humanity could never have afforded to purchase this land if there was not a joint venture between them and a market rate developer. Habitat for Humanity, just so you know, has been working with HMA, who's going to be building a hospital in the area, and they have a relationship where Habitat's going to provide HMA first shot at these Habitat houses for their employees. And likewise, HMA is going to consider on a priority people who live in the Habitat housing as employees for the hospital. So there's a relationship there already in place to address housing for the hospital that we all know is coming, and there will be employees at the hospital that need to have housing, and they will live close to where they will be working. We had our neighborhood information meeting, and we presented to the community this site plan that we're imposing -- superimposing on the aerial. And if you will, the portion of the project that is on the south portion of the property, that's the market rate housing. The housing to the north is where Habitat for Humanity Page 19 June 7, 2005 will be. You'll notice that we're going to share an access point off of 951. You'll come in, you'll take a right to go to the market rate housing and you'll continue straight on to the Habitat for Humanity housing. There will be no special signage identifying this as Habitat for Humanity housing. There will be a nice entrance feature and very tastefully and well done. You'll notice that the large preserve area that we have lines up with the preserve area for the golf course. You'll notice that no residential units will be near any other residential units for our neighbors. They'll be adjoining a golf course. So we believe we've taken great care to make sure that this project is compatible with our neighbors. At the neighborhood information meeting, I think it's fair to say nobody said that they objected to the type of project we were constructing. The comments generally were related to traffic and the concern that we were going to create a traffic problem by the approval of this project. As you know, you have a concurrency management system to address that issue. And we likewise spoke to the Planning Commission, and again, I think the comments were they were concerned about traffic. In fact, one of the planning commissioners was concerned. You know, Don Scott mentioned the timing for the improvements of 951, and Mr. Scott also mentioned that the improvements would continue on beyond Davis Boulevard and would actually go through the 1-75 overpasses for the proj ect. And some people were concerned that the project was only going to stop at Davis and we weren't going to get through that intersection. Well, Mr. Scott has informed us that the improvements will go on beyond the Davis Boulevard intersection. We are prepared to offer a phasing schedule that essentially says no units would be CO'd until October 1, 2008, which is the scheduled substantial completion date for the 951 improvements from Rattlesnake Hammock through 1-75. That's the area of951 that we're Page 20 June 7, 2005 impacting with our proj ect. So we're prepared to do that, which should address all the concerns we heard about the project which were traffic related. Once 951 is open and substantially completed, there will not be a traffic issue related to our project. So we think we've addressed that issue by a phasing schedule and have addressed the concerns we've heard from the community. We encourage you to allow us to stay in the process by adopting this Comprehensive Plan Amendment. If it's not adopted, we would not be allowed to go forward with the PUD where we can get into greater detail on the proj ect and, if necessary, greater phasing schedules if needed. We don't believe there will be one needed, but we can address those as we get -- a year from today is about when we'd be in front of you for a PUD rezone. We can address any issues that may remain at that time. We can include all of the safeguards that we're talking about through our site planning at that time. And your staff is recommending approval. There's a lot of community support for the concept of what we're trying to do. We hope that you will encourage other developers to do the same thing, working with Habitat for Humanity in providing affordable housing. And with that, that concludes my presentation, and we'll be able to answer any questions you may have from the team or respond to any public comments from the public. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioners, we have 12 public speakers. You want to ask your questions now or would you prefer to wait until after the staffs presentation and the public? Okay. Does the staff have a presentation? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sorry, I thought the Habitat speaker was going to speak with the public, but Habitat for Humanity does have a speaker here. MR. KOULOHERAS: Sorry about that. Trying try to sneak in any which way I can. Page 21 June 7, 2005 For the record, Nick Kouloheras, Director of Construction for Habitat for Humanity. There's an affordable housing crisis in Collier County and it is getting worse. The median home price in Collier is over $400,000, the highest in the state. Eighty-three percent of the jobs in Collier County are in the low paying service industry. The Chamber of Commerce has identified the lack of affordable housing to be the main problem for business in this community. A study done by the University of Florida Shimberg Center has identified a deficit of 30,000 units of affordable housing in Collier County, making it the worst in the state. Over the last five years, Habitat has successfully pulled together the business community, generous donors and volunteers and spent $10 million per year providing affordable housing. We have built over 100 homes per year for the last three years and have the construction capability to build 200 homes per year. However, this production demand cannot be met without the proper zoning. Due to the dramatic increase in building costs, without density bonuses there will be no more affordable housing in Naples. We will meet traffic concurrency for the San Marino PUD. This parcel is one of the last parcels available for affordable housing in the urban boundary. As the Board of County Commissioners, you must consider some sort of solution to the affordable housing crisis. That solution is density bonus. In this San Marino PUD we're only asking for a three-unit per acre density bonus. Yes, traffic is a problem, but the county is addressing that issue. This county must do something about the issue of affordable housing. This -- we hope that with your support we continue to provide a simple, decent place to live for the working poor of our county. Thank you for your time. Page 22 June 7, 2005 MR. MUDD: State your name for the record, please. MR. KOULOHERAS: This happens once or twice. It's K-O-U-L-O-H-E-R-A-S. First name Nick. MS. JOURDAN: Good morning. For the record, Jean Jourdan, Comprehensive Planning. Since this has already came before you before, I'm just going to give you some brief background information. At the transmittal hearings, the Collier County Planning Commission voted 5-3 to transmit to the Board of County Commissioners. The Board of County Commissioners voted 3-2 to transmit with a density bonus reduction from six to three dwelling units an acre. At the CCPC adoption hearing, staff recommendation (sic) that the Collier County Planning Commission to forward the petition CP-2004-1 to the Board with a recommendation to adopt and transmit to the Department of Community Affairs. At the adoption hearings, the Collier County Planning Commission voted 5-3 to forward to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation not to adopt and not to transmit to the Department of Community Affairs. In regards to public comments, I did attend the neighborhood information meeting provided by the petitioner, and the main concerns were traffic issues. In addition, I've also received several e-mails and telephone calls that were opposed to the project pursuant to traffic concerns. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any questions, Commissioners? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, let's hear from the public. Be three minutes each. We have 12. MS. FILSON: Twelve. The first one is Ted DeGroot. He'll be followed by Mike Werner. Mike, if you want to come up and stand at the other podium? Page 23 June 7, 2005 Thank you. MR. DEGROOT: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Ted DeGroot. I live at 231 Palmetto Dunes, in Lely. And I want to thank you, personally. In the last couple of years, I've been watching the activities of you folks rather strongly, and I'm really impressed by the number of things that you do, the way you approach the projects for our county. I want to thank you. And now you're faced with what I regard as a difficult decision. There's no question that Collier County, which in this case really means Naples, needs more housing that is within reach of the working class. The single mothers, the young marrieds, the older no longer capable of generating increasing wages, the others who have misstepped in the past and now need a solid environment in which to restart their lives. Your question is where should we encourage the placement of such enclaves? Likely, the implicit question is where should you discourage the placement of these somewhat questionable concentrations of conceivably problematical populations? Let me make the following argument against approving this proposal. First, this one is in a unique position of being at the very edge of an area designated as low density housing, and only after a sustained and difficult evaluation and negotiation was that determined. The fact that approving this change in density means that you are willing to cast aside one density requirement means you will cast aside others, if only the argument is persuasive enough. Let's hope you're stronger than that. Approving a greater density for this development is really no different than approving the area for another high-rise. The road is now and will continue to be inadequate, even at eight lanes, to handle the additional traffic, especially as over time Collier Boulevard becomes the main north-south road in the county. And that alone is enough to warrant denying this request. Page 24 June 7, 2005 Further, East Naples, or as I like to call it, South Naples, is an area rich in housing for the middle class, with a scattering of high-end homes in Fiddler's Creek, Eagle Creek and Lely Classics. And East Naples is just as rich in housing for the more financially challenged. Only in South Naples can a buyer find a home, a regular home, for $150,000 or less. The only area in the county that truly competes with homes for the poor is lowly Immokalee. Even Golden Gate City now requires a quarter of a million dollar investment to purchase a single-family home. And even these are -- at the bottom of the barrel prices do not exist all in the area north of Pine Ridge. So I would like to suggest that unless in your heart you can accept that you are shoving all the financially disadvantaged and ethnically different population in our area away from the good parts of town, away from the rich parts of town, that you turn down this request. Thank you. MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Mike Werner, he'll be followed by Philip Reed. MR. WERNER: Good morning. My name is Mike Werner, I'm a Habitat volunteer. First of all, I take offense to some of the things the previous comment of the man commented on. Habitat Homes problematical neighborhoods is kind of a bigoted type of a term, and I think if you saw the Habitat screening procedure and checked the police records for the Habitat homes that presently exist, that he'd have a different attitude. Nothing I say today is going to change your minds. You guys have heard this stuff a thousand times, so I'm going to be as brief as I can. I just want -- there are three topics I want to touch on that I don't think have been stressed enough. Naples Daily News on Sunday had an article about how much money, how many millions of dollars tourist taxes bring into the county. Who do you think waits on the tables, makes the beds in the Page 25 ~~--_._-,.^- ..... .--.---*,.._-----.. June 7, 2005 hotels, cleans the rooms, buses tables, washes dishes, works as security guards and does all the jobs necessary to bring all those dollars into this community? It's the people in the entry level jobs who need entry level homes. Many of them live in Habitat homes. And I think we need to recognize the value that these people bring to the county and the serious problems we'd have if they didn't live here. Another issue I'd like to raise is I know Commissioner Coyle has talked several times about creating higher paying jobs, that that would ease the problem. And that is certainly a laudable goal. In fact, I spoke before you, and Tammie Nemecek came here for her proposals. And I think that's a very important thing to do, to bring high tech jobs here to diversify your economy. But while that's laudable, unless you completely shut down the tourist industry, which I don't think you want to do, the need for the jobs I mentioned before still exist and will continue unabated, and those people will need houses to live in. Additionally, if Microsoft decided they were going to move here tomorrow, it would be a great thing for the community to bring in some really high-tech people, but they still need security people, delivery people, cleaning people, maintenance, and a host of other entry level jobs that they hopefully would recruit for locally. Those people would need a place to live. Commissioner Fiala has talked, and rightfully so, about the serious need in the community for mid-priced housing. I wholeheartedly agree with that. However, the need for that type of homes does not diminish the need for entry level homes. And this project in no way interferes with or is in competition with any other plan or program to promote mid-priced homes. In fact, the San Marino project will be a merger of the two, which I think meets both goals. So I sincerely hope that you will support this project. Time's up. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Page 26 June 7, 2005 MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Philip Reed. He'll be followed by Lisa Lefkow. MR. REED: Good morning. My name is Philip Reed, for the record. I'm a full-time resident of North Naples, and I'm also treasurer of Habitat for Humanity, Collier County. Habitat has already spent over two and a half million dollars to acquire a portion of this San Marino property. Our plan is to spend an additional 11 million to construct 178 duplex houses on this land. These houses will become homes for 178 low-income families who already live in this area. Let me repeat, the families who will buy these houses will have lived in the area for at least one year. That's a requirement. These homes will not add to the traffic on the roads of East Naples, but they will enable 178 good hard-working families to move from horrible living conditions in overpriced housing to a simple, affordable home. I don't see how this proj ect would not be in the best interest of all Collier County residents. Thank you very much. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Lisa Lefkow. She'll be followed by Lindsey Halstead. MS. LEFKOW: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Lisa Lefkow, and I am the Director of Development for Habitat for Humanity of Collier County. Today we have a unique opportunity to set precedent for the future of Collier County. This partnership holds many of the ideals that you have recommended in the past. Commissioners, you've given voice to the idea of inclusionary zoning and the provision of affordable housing within a market rate development. And we present to you today a working example of your idea. In addition, you've looked for partnerships between the marketplace and the private sector to address the issue of affordable housing. Habitat's strength comes from the successful brokering of Page 27 June 7, 2005 just such partnerships, a strength that brings in more than $10 million locally to build and sustain affordable homes in successful communities. As was mentioned earlier, we are working diligently with HMA to ensure housing for employees of the Collier Regional Medical Center. Homes in this subdivision would also house employees of nearby businesses, including the Wal-Mart Super Center, resorts and service industry of Marco Island and others. The concern about traffic is well noted. However, by not providing place for members of the rapidly growing service industry to live, we do risk collapse of our economy with an increasingly unstable work force. And we unintentionally create more stress on our roads as a result of longer commutes. For 27 years, Habitat for Humanity of Collier County has been committed to making this county stronger by building partnerships between hard-working families, generous donors, and willing volunteers. Today we ask you, our county government, simply to allow the thousands of committed individuals, hundreds of businesses, civic organizations and communities of faith to continue working together to assure that every child in Collier County has at least their most basic needs of shelter met in a simple, decent place to live. Thank you for your consideration. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Lindsey Halstead. He will be followed by Albert Crass. MR. HALSTEAD: My name is Lindsey Halstead. I live at 2225 Beacon Lane in the Moorings and have lived there for 13 years. I'm also a member of the board of Habitat for Humanity. I want to first congratulate the commissioners and the county staff for a complete and clear review of the state of affordable housing in Collier County at their May 3rd affordable housing workshop. You clearly defined the issues and highlighted several of Page 28 June 7, 2005 the most viable actions that could be taken to make progress on those Issues. Today you have an opportunity to take action consistent with one of the potential alternatives cited at that workshop; namely, the approval of a density bonus for Habitat's San Marino PUD. Habitat for Humanity is in the business of providing affordable housing, but that is not their only objective. Habitat is also in the business of providing a safe, healthy, attractive environment for hard-working families that are willing to partner with Habitat. My role on the board is to develop homeowners associations in each of the PUDs we develop. By recruiting, training and mentoring homeowners, we provide a proactive environment in which the homeowners themselves can manage their communities, enhance the community's appearance, improve its safety, and work with the local authorities to achieve those objectives. They contribute -- the homeowners contribute directly in time, money and ideas to meet their community objectives, and that's in addition to the 500 hours of sweat equity and the down payment they make on each of their homes. Please consider favorably the proposal to provide a density bonus so that 178 additional Habitat families can improve their living environment and contribute to enhancing yet another planned unit development, the San Marino homeowners association. Thank you very much for your consideration. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Albert Crass. He'll be followed by Doug Rankin. MR. CRASS: I'm Albert Crass. I'm a full-time resident of Collier County. Ms. Fiala, gentlemen, I thank you for this opportunity to speak. Divosta V erona Walk, only in their first phase, a new hospital, a new office park, Lely still expanding. A new park for light industry on Beck Boulevard, and of course Wal-Mart. The list goes on. Page 29 June 7, 2005 Naples Lakes, Forest Glen, Cedar Hammock, thousands of new people on Marco every year, thousands more being added at Fiddler's Creek. All these people are thrown onto a road that is already doomed to failure by 2010, even with six lanes. That prediction was made by the county's own traffic engineer in these chambers last January. There are many thousands more that have no choice other than 951, if they were forced to evacuate their homes and businesses in an emergency. To this mix, add the new fire station on Beck. They already have a great deal of trouble reaching their destination during a time of emergency, due to the traffic backup on 951. It's easily understandable that since the San Marino project is tied to several Habitat homes, that emotion becomes a part of this issue. However, there are thousands and thousands of other people who have no choice other than 951 to simply reach their jobs or to simply access their homes. With this consideration, I would ask that your vote on this issue be dictated not by emotion but by good common sense. Again, thank you for allowing me to address you. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Doug Rankin. He'll be followed by Joe Foster. MR. RANKIN: Thank you, Commissioners. First, my name is Douglas Rankin. I live in Golden Gate Estates. I own offices in the City of Naples, and I commute back and forth through these areas you're talking about. I want to thank you for your support of affordable housing in the past, and I want to request that that support continue. There's no question Collier County needs affordable housing. We've all been to the seminars. Weare the least affordable Community South of Washington, D.C., and if you were to draw a line across the country, probably west of California. That takes out Page 30 June 7, 2005 about half the country. And Habitat is your best choice. You happen to be blessed, and I happen to be on the Board of Directors of Habitat, as you all know. But you happen to be blessed with the most successful Habitat chapter in the world. But unless we have a place to build houses, we can't continue to do that. And since you need affordable housing, Habitat is the best choice for that. I would differ with one of the earlier speakers. We have some programs at Habitat. You have to pay your mortgage in person every month. And we -- our staff very carefully talks to those people when they pay that mortgage in person every month, and we make sure proactively that there are no problems in the neighborhood, and if there are, we deal with them. I would suggest that you talk with county staff. You will find that our neighborhoods provide you less trouble than some of the upper middle class neighborhoods in this community. I will also suggest to you that the default rate on mortgages for loaning to millionaires is one to two percent. I will personally tell you, without waiving any privileges since I do the few foreclosures we have, our default rate is less than one-tenth of one percent. Which means a millionaire is 10 times more likely to default on their mortgage than a Habitat homeowner. So I would suggest to you that Habitat is your best choice. We hear about roads. Anybody been on 1-75 or 41 recently, especially coming south in the morning or going north in the evening? Well, if we don't provide these people a place to live, they're going to get here somehow. And then your entire road system is going to collapse. You all spent a lot of money trying to sustain this road system. And, yes, 951 needs more lanes. They're in your program. They've already made indications of how we're going to do this. But if we don't provide this affordable housing nearby, it's going to get Page 31 June 7, 2005 worse. And then the new projections, I heard from Mr. Woodruff, you know, he's spoken to several of the committees locally, that a lot of the growth is going to start to move out east, Hardy and all that. And then how are you going to provide transportation in from there? You don't have any real plans to do that. My suggestion is if you don't approve this, number one, you're going to destroy, like they said, the first attempt to do this, and number two, you're going to make your road system even worse. Thank you very much. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Joe Foster, he'll be followed by Kathy Patterson. MR. FOSTER: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Joe Foster. I'm a local attorney and I'm the volunteer president of the Collier County Housing Development Corporation. It's been a month since I was before you at your affordable housing workshop, and in that last month, I have become more and more concerned with the growing crisis and the lack of reasonably priced housing for our workforce. No matter where I am, whether or not the individual I'm talking to knows my interest in the area, whether or not I bring it up, I will tell you that housing always comes up in my discussions today when I'm talking to people who work in the community. It is the number one issue facing Collier County employers. It doesn't matter if they're big business, small business, sole proprietor, they are all having the same problems attracting and keeping employees due to a lack of affordable housing for folks who work here. The San Marino PUD is the type of proj ect this board has been asking for for the past several years that I've been involved in the community. It is a voluntary inclusionary zoning, for-profit developer partnering with a non-profit developer, mixed market rate Page 32 June 7, 2005 affordable project. Even better, the market rate units that are being proposed here will potentially serve the income of 100-125 percent range employee, which is serving a growing workforce need that is not currently being met by anyone. It is the best of both worlds, serving the growing need for two income levels. The number of units that is being proposed here is a drop in the bucket in terms of need in Collier County, but it's a drop in the right direction. I would urge you to please approve the amendment to allow this badly needed project to proceed through the process. Thank you very much for your time. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Kathy Patterson. She'll be followed by George Rasley. MS. PATTERSON: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Kathy Patterson. I am the Executive Director of the Collier County Housing Development Corporation. I'm here in support of the San Marino PUD. This mixture of market and affordable housing is an innovative and creative housing plan. In the light of the lack of workforce housing in Collier County, this development is another step towards solving the shortage of housing, affordable housing in Collier County. I ask that you support this proj ect, and I thank you for your time and attention. Thank you. MS. FILSON: George Rasley. He'll be followed by Ted Beisler. MR. RASLEY: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. For the record, my name is George Rasley. I'm coming before you as Executive Director of the Leadership Collier Civic Information Center, which is a project of the Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce. Earlier this spring we took a survey of business leaders in the Page 33 June 7, 2005 community; approximately 500 people were surveyed. The number one concern was employee housing. This proj ect is a unique partnership, as has been noted before, but it needs a third partner, and that's you guys. It's a unique blend of housing opportunities for the two income levels, as has also been noted before. And I want to stress to you that the market level housing, rather, the market rate housing that's proposed is every bit as important as the low-income housing that is proposed. These townhomes are -- have the potential for being homes for our sheriffs deputies, our teachers, our firefighters who are currently not being served in this market because they don't qualify for the low-income workforce housing, and they don't have the income, even if they have the good credit, to qualify for a $400,000 mortgage. So I want to stress to you again the need for this project. It's a unique partnership, but it needs a third partner, and that's you county commissioners. Thank you for your time this morning. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Ted Beisler. He'll be followed by Jeff Cecil. MR. BEISLER: Good morning, Commissioners. Along with everyone else, I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak to you this morning on this issue. Obviously we need affordable housing. That's not -- we can't deny that. The problem with this particular parcel and what we're looking at is the fact that we have a road that is failing. Again, it was pointed out earlier in this chamber, it was said it would fail in 2010, even after it's been expanded. And we're looking to add more to it. And another issue that no one really has spoken about is not just 951, which is and will become the major north-south road, but Davis Boulevard. Davis Boulevard is a parking lot, too. They can't get through on Davis Boulevard. And yet there are various developments that are already approved that are in the process of Page 34 June 7, 2005 being constructed there. So it's not just the one roadway, it's the second roadway that's constrained. And we know how much development there is and continues coming. Your Collier County Planning Commission voted 5-3 that this was not the right project to put in this area, and we agree with that. And thank you very much. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Jeff Cecil. He'll be followed by your final speaker, Larry Mullins. MR. CECIL: Good morning, Commissioners, I'm Jeff Cecil, I'm a local attorney, and I am chair of the Affordable Housing Commission. That is a commission that you established. When I heard the Planning Commission decision and recommendation I thought well, why show up, it's a done deal, it's a dead issue and I shouldn't bother wasting my time. But I decided that I can't sit back and not say this. What every project that's built in this county has going for it is that it causes more traffic. Why is this one receiving so much more? And I would submit to you that it's because it has an element of affordable housing with it. You're at a crossroads. You can do what is politically expedient or you can do what is right. Collier County needs more projects just like this, projects that put people before profits, projects that benefit those of lesser means and not just the wealthy, projects that make a difference by permitting those who work here to live here, projects that fight the prejudice and discrimination that contribute to this problem, as we've heard from some of the opposition. This can be a watershed moment for Collier County employers and all of us who believe that everyone is entitled to a decent, safe and affordable place to live within a reasonable distance from their work place. Please have the courage to do what is right. Thank you for listening. Page 35 June 7, 2005 MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Larry Mullins. MR. MULLINS: Commissioners and fellow citizens, I'd like to make three points, much the same as I did on May 3rd when you had such an exciting and constructive meeting exploring the possibilities of how public-private groups could work together, what areas you might examine within the framework of county government to make affordable housing more accessible. The first point is that of urgency. I mean, the urgency hasn't changed in a month and it won't change in three years. The task we have is enormous. As I've mentioned, this whole question of affordable housing has been talked about and talked about and talked about. So it comes down sometimes to priorities. We hear about well, it's all emotions. Well, yeah, homeownership is emotional, particularly if you don't have one or can't afford one, or you'd like to work someplace but you can't get there. Yeah, that, that gets emotional. Probably a little bit more on the emotional edge than the issue of the roads. Granted that the roads are important. But it's the whole road system that we have to look at, not simply a single road. And that was brought up by a previous speaker. Second point that I'd like to make is that affordable housing is part of the infrastructure of any progressive area. It's not considered an addition or something that's nice or cute or just handy, it is part of the infrastructure, as important to an area as water, sewer or anything else. It has to be in the plan. Has to be part of it. And when it comes the time to make a priority or to suggest the priority and you've got the infrastructure of roads and you've got the whole question of affordable housing, where do you go? What decision do you make? Yes, it's emotional. Some people are going to be unhappy about roads. But a lot of people are going to be unhappy and very emotional about not being able to live where they want to. Page 36 June 7, 2005 Finally, I think about the most fundamental phrase for all of us is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And the question of pursuit of happiness, pursuit of happiness, the American Dream, all of these things, are -- is an area that speaks to the hearts of every one of us. I never want to be in a situation where one of the speakers suggested that, you know, it's not NIMBY anymore, it's Not In Our District. Is that NIM or is it numb? I don't know what it is. But it's Not In My District. No, that can't be the situation. It strikes me that yes, it's emotional, but please, back this proposal. It's the first step. Past this step, there will always be another road. But this is now, and now's the time for positive action. Thank you. MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Mr. Y ovanovich. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Just briefly. Your first speaker mentioned that there was housing available for $150,000 in Collier County. You know, with the beauty of technology we were able to get on the MLS listing service as of today. And he's right, there are four houses in all of Collier County listed for less than $150,000. Two of them are in Immokalee, one is in Naples Manor. You can buy it for 139.9 or you can rent it for $850 and you'll get a 660 square foot house built in 1961. Or if you're over 55 you can buy a mobile home -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's the MLS number? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's the MLS number? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We'll get it for you, Commissioner. But I want a commission for brokering the deal. I think that shows you that there is not an abundance of housing available for sale or purchase in Collier County less than $150,000. We are proposing a proj ect that, including the 350 apartments that are already constructed, will have an overall project density of Page 37 June 7, 2005 four units per acre. That's not out of line. That's not a dense project. Your staff, including your Transportation Department, has reviewed our petition. They are recommending approval. Weare willing to wait until 951 is substantially completed through the 1-75 area. That will address the transportation question. We have brought to you a project that we've been told the community wants. It's a joint venture between a for-profit, if you will, and a not-for-profit. We hope you'll encourage us and others to do the same by voting in favor of adoption of this amendment. And we're available to answer any questions that you may have. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: My questions are for staff. And my biggest concern with affordable housing, this issue's been brought before us a number of times. And we establish affordable housing in the baseline mode, but then as these people that were first-time buyers in affordable housing, these homes are sold and they are no longer in the affordable housing range, what is staff doing to direct this to hold the price down upon resale? MR. GIBLIN: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Cormac Giblin, your Housing and Grants Manager. These units will be part of the county's official affordable housing inventory. Each of them will have a deed restriction recorded against it through the density bonus that you're being asked to apply to this property that will maintain its affordability for 15 years from the date of CO. There's a formula built into the Land Development Code that allows those units to appreciate at a modest five percent per year, and that if the home is sold before the 15-year affordability period expires, then there's a financial penalty to the seller for that home leaving the affordability -- affordable housing stock. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Does this just pertains to these homes or does it pertain to all other homes that we've approved as, Page 38 June 7, 2005 quote, affordable housing? MR. GIBLIN: It pertains to, as far as I can think, 100 percent of every affordable unit that's been approved by this commission. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And what is the price range of the other San Marino homes that are supposedly are going to be in there for mid-range? MR. DAVENPORT: Commissioner Halas, Richard Davenport, for the record. Since it's probably three years off, I would be the greater fool to try to give you a range today. We're currently selling the same units that we anticipate selling there in the 289 to 419 range, which is on the very high end of workforce housing, to say the least. But it's the realities of the market. That's what we have to do in order to make a reasonable profit. I could share with you that our proformas show that this proj ect, because of the affordable housing aspect of it, will probably make a materially lower profit as a percentage of sales than we are accustomed to seeing elsewhere in Naples. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you. I have one other question, I'd like to ask the transportation portion of the question. The question is, I remember when Don Scott, yourself, and I think Norm Feder came before the Board in regards to scheduled dates of completion of different segments of highways in Collier County. And of course those dates seemed to have slipped to where we didn't complete them on the dates that we were really anticipating the completion date to be. One that comes to mind, I believe, is the Mission Hills that was located at 951 and Vanderbilt Beach Road. I think there was a scheduled date of about when that intersection was going to be addressed. MR. SCOTT: Don Scott, Transportation Planning. Going back to 2002, there was discussion with Mission Hills about whether out in front of them would be included as part of the Page 39 June 7, 2005 Vanderbilt job or as part of the 951 job. As time went by, the -- Mission Hills was not -- I mean, 951 was not going to be done before Mission Hills. And it was never stated that it would be. The statement was, though, that 951 would be started by January of this year, which did not happen. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So my concern is the petitioner has already stated that there would be no COs issued until, I believe it was, October of 2008? MR. SCOTT: 2008, yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: What's our time line schedule for 951? MR. SCOTT: That job is supposed to start in April, 2006 and be about a two-year project, which would be April of 2008, given about a six-month cushion in there. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So we're looking at probably completion date is really not going to be until probably the early part of 2009. MR. SCOTT: No, early April, 2008. It starts April, 2006, two-year project, to be finished April, 2008. They're talking about October, which is about six months later. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I just -- I'm concerned that we're going to start giving out COs on this prior to the road being even nearly completed. So that's my biggest concern. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I think you can stipulate that it's-- on top of the date, you can make it a substantial completion of the six-laning of 951 from a different segment, and that will give you the flexibility I believe that you're looking for. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, putting stips on this request at this stage, I don't know if it's really necessary. I think it's -- if it is, it's trying to reassure the public that we don't want to impact Page 40 June 7, 2005 that road. The -- if approved, that I don't want to waive any concurrency that we do have. I think you still need to meet it. If -- you know, if we 10-lane it, you still need to meet the level of service on the road. The question that I have is the base density for the overall project today is 1.5? MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Now, your part in the urban area, in the urban fringe also? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Is that a blended density? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, the whole project is in the urban residential fringe. So the entire 235 acres, of which we own 196, is 1.5 units per acre. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The 1.5, and you have 196 is the total acreage? MR. YO V ANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So that is 282 units, approximately 282 units what you can do today. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, today we could do two hundred and -- I'm sorry, 352 is the overall density for the full 235 acres, of which 350 have been built. So on 196 remaining acres we could do two units. COMMISSIONER HENNING: All right. 350 you can do. And how many units have been built already? MR. YO V ANOVICH: We could do 352. 350 have already been built, two are left over for the remaining 196 acres. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Two units. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Two units, that's it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So are we asking to provide market rate housing? Is that the goal? Or is it -- the goal is Page 41 June 7, 2005 to provide affordable housing? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's -- the goal is to provide both. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we already have enough market rate housing in Collier County, my opinion. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. But in order to be able to afford to construct the affordable housing and bring the land price down to make it available for affordable housing, there needs to be a partnership between market rate housing and affordable housing, which will result in 178 very low-income affordable housing units. And I want to point out that Habitat for Humanity has a 20-year restriction on the house staying in the affordable stream, which is greater than the 15 years that Collier County has. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't have a problem with how Habitat does their business. So there's two available units that can be built on this land? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- and I think Mr. Durso stated that he's got $1.5 million invested in it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Actually, he's got $2.5 million invested. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Two point five. And I'm sure Mr. Davenport has -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Slightly more than that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- slightly more than that for the availability to build two units. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I -- definitely Habitat or Mr. Davenport won't be able to use my checkbook for their financing. I just think that's bad business. You're asking us because of what you paid for the property, you need this density. And I understand -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're not asking you for that. What we're saying is we knew we took the risk of buying the property. We Page 42 June 7, 2005 believed in the project when we took the risk. We thought this was a good proj ect for Collier County. We -- you know, we took the risk. If it doesn't get approved, we'll have to figure out what else we can do with the land. We're offering you a proj ect, you the commission and you the community, a project that this county needs. We're not asking you to finance our project. We're asking you to partner with us to encourage people to provide this form of housing. Whether we waited to buy the property and bought it contingent upon zoning or not, we would still be in front of you requesting your assistance to do a j oint venture between a market rate housing provider and -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: HMA is going to need that type of housing when they open up the doors. The problem is, is are they going to need all that type of housing? I'm not sure if giving today's approval for that type of a density -- or that many units is in the best interest of the county. I just have a little concern of that. I think the affordable housing is needed all over, and including this corridor, but I'm concerned about the market rate housing. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And Commissioner, there's no question that we need all types of housing in Collier County, including affordable housing. And the mechanism to get your affordable housing is to allow people who are providing market rate housing to partner with them to make that occur. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. I -- slowly but surely we've been making steps forward in the progress of this. Some close to four years ago, Commissioner Fiala introduced us to this theory of inclusionary zoning. And at that point in time, I really didn't understand it. And I think it's a wonderful idea, what's being taken place in Arrowhead with great results. This would be probably be the first time in the urban area or close to the urban area -- the Page 43 June 7, 2005 urban area of Collier County that we'd see something of this magnitude. I'd like a little more information from Mr. Giblin, if I may, on inclusionary zoning. And how does it work in other communities, basically? Is this something where the concept is valid? Has it been tried and proven? MR. GIBLIN: Sure. Again, for the record my name is Cormac Giblin, your Housing and Grants Manager. Inclusionary zoning is really a nationwide idea that actually started in the Seventies in the Washington D.C. area where they had a rapidly appreciating housing market and the workers in Washington D.C. and in the surrounding area couldn't afford to live there anymore. So county governments and city governments instituted a policy that every new development had to address the affordability of housing in some way. It really creates that partnership between a private developer and a low-income housing unit. To put this project in perspective, if the county were to go out and try to construct 178 very low-income housing units, we'd be looking at an investment, and Habitat for Humanity is looking at an investment here of about $30 million. That would 100 percent of all of our grant funds for the next 10 or 15 years dedicated to only one project. That's the beauty of a public-private partnership like this, in that the county essentially is not being asked to pay the burden for the provision of these houses, it's that partnership that creates the opportunity . COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Going to a slightly different part of this whole proposal, Commissioner Henning was the one that came up with the idea of a partnership between HMA and Habitat for this available housing that's coming up. The distance is only a couple miles, I guess, between the two different communities. It would make sense, because, I mean, people would not be traveling on our highways from some distant point, just a short move Page 44 June 7, 2005 across -- that's what we've been trying to accomplish forever. But I'm not too sure I totally understand the concept of how this would work. How would they -- they would get first call on it, HMA, or -- and that would be not only for the affordable end but also for the market rate housing? Is that the way it would work? I'd like to hear some sort of commitment. Or are these kind of details that we have to flush out totally when we come to the PUD? MR. GIBLIN: I think the developer can address that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Actually, I was given this. It's a written statement from HMA. I can just -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Please. No, go ahead, would you read it, Commissioner Henning? This was your baby. COMMISSIONER HENNING: This is to Mr. Durso. As you know, HMA is a strong supporter of working with Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, both financially and in voluntarism. Weare pleased to learn that Habitat is proposing another affordable housing project in San Marino development. Close proximity of San Marino is a site we are expecting soon to begin to construct HMA, Collier Regional Medical Center, with -- provided future homes with many employment opportunities soon to be stated, the state of our facility. I'm confident that the owners of family members will be given strong consideration or preference of employment opportunities due to the 24/7 working cycle the hospital needs for short employee community (sic) travel times. Commissioner Coletta, I told Mr. Perry from HMA that I would hope that they would give a stronger commitment similar what Naples Community Hospital does is actually provide some assistance to their employees to purchase homes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Giblin, could you-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: So that's -- I'm still working on that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. And Commissioner Page 45 June 7, 2005 Henning, I really appreciate the fact that you're moving forward in an out-of-the-box type of thinking and just tying all these elements together. Is there something that we can do now or is this something we would do at a PUD type of hearing? MR. GIBLIN: It may be a little premature at this hearing to stipulate those kinds of conditions on a compo plan amendment. But certainly, I know that the Naples Community Hospital has an employee downpayment assistance program that they operate privately, and then they can also apply to the county for our downpayment assistance program to encourage their employees to live here. And they know when they have someone who has a home in the county, they've got a long-term employee and it saves them in the long run in recruiting and retention. I think HMA sees that same goal. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But there would be no problem with expressing our thoughts and directions on this for the future? MR. GIBLIN: No. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you so much. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And we're going to take a 10-minute break. We'll be back here at -- we'll make it 12 minutes. (A recess was taken.) MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd start taking your seats. Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mic. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're back in session. It's Commissioner Halas's time to talk. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. One of the interesting portions of this discussion Commissioner Henning brought up, and that is that the Habitat for Humanity homes are about 178; is that correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. Page 46 ""_--~~>~---,-_.-,--,_.-..",'._- June 7, 2005 COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And so you're looking for an additional density in this project of 589 on top of the 352 that are already constructed; is that correct? MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm really a strong advocate for Habitat of (sic) Humanity. Now what's the other 411 units going to be? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's going to be a market rate townhome project, similar to Summit Place that you've seen before. It's going to -- frankly, it's going to serve people who work in Collier County as well. I mean, there are other employees than Habitat that are not only low-end wage earners, there's mid-range wage earners that will be served by that market rate housing, as well as probably county employees -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: And this is going to be in the $400,000 market, probably. MR. YO V ANOVICH: Right, 289 -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Starting, to 400 -- MR. YOVANOVICH: --t0419. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have a difficult time increasing the density there. I can see that we need to address the Habitat for Humanity, which is 178 units. I think that's fantastic. But the other 411 units I got a hard time with. That's all I have to say on it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, Commissioner, I would hope, if I may, that we can at least adopt. You're not giving me anything by adopting. We'll be coming back to you with a rezone in which we'll be asking for exact density. I would like the opportunity between now and then to provide you with an analysis as to just how many market rate units we need to make the project work to everybody's benefit. Because there's got to be a partnership between a market rate provider and Habitat for Humanity. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I understand that, very much so. Page 47 June 7, 2005 But my concern is when we get the road completed in 2008, it's scheduled for failure around 2013, after we complete the six-Ianing. And right now I don't think we have any other -- anything on the horizon as far as addressing an additional north-south corridor. So there's what some of my concerns are, along with the hospital and everything else that's going to be coming on board. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. And Commissioner, this doesn't exempt us from your concurrency management system. If there's concurrency issues, we don't get to go forward with our proj ect. This is simply giving us an opportunity to come through with a rezone. And if the rezone doesn't meet your concurrency standard, then it won't be approved. And there are plenty of safeguards in place to make sure that the units don't get built. And again, I would say, you know, a perfect example of this is south of -- 951 south of U.S. 41, you've got three projects that have been approved that because of the concurrency management system can't go forward until we solve the problem and fix the road ourselves. So the concurrency management system works. There will have to be -- we'll have to address those transportation issues, and you might want to ask Don Scott, but I know he's already working on those issues and looking for alternative corridors to address those issues. And you're looking at a model that has a lot of assumptions that mayor may not be accurate. I mean, eight years from now some of those assumptions may have proved to have been you were too conservative in your assumptions and you may not have an issue. We don't know. Eight years is a long time from now, and we can plan and solve those problems. COMMISSIONER HALAS: At a 20 percent growth rate, that's what we had experienced last year. I'm sure that yeah, we've got some very conservative estimates. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala -- Commissioners, Page 48 June 7, 2005 we can't spend all day on this item. We've got to get to a decision-making point. Commissioner Fiala hasn't had a chance to talk yet at all in getting questions answered, so she's got the floor. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Fine. I'll just get to it quickly. You are saying Habitat has to partner in order to build, but I think that really, it's the developer who has to partner in order to build any more than two on his property. He needs to have an affordable housing component in order to increase his density, so I just wanted to clear that up. Commissioner Coletta asked about inclusionary zoning. But inclusionary zoning isn't used to increase density. Inclusionary zoning says each development must include some component of affordable. Just to get to that. One of my main concerns, but I wanted to ask a question first. Can we ever just build the 1 78 rather than the 413? I thought that was something to throw in there. We also -- and it hasn't been mentioned at all today . We have 16,000 already approved units there that are unbuilt in that -- that are going to be using that same corridor, and there begins my dilemma. We have Rattlesnake Hammock that will be widened to six lanes from two lanes. They begin next year. We have Davis Boulevard to be widened to six lanes. That's a lot more traffic pouring onto 951. We have an 1-75 corridor right now, and it's only going to be widened to Golden Gate Parkway. It will not be widened to 951/Davis Boulevard exit. N at only that, but as the Florida Department of Transportation told me and explained very carefully to me, that intersection is terribly impaired. They say that it cannot just be an easy fix, it's going to cost them $150 million to fix the intersection of 951 and Davis Boulevard. And I asked when that could be done, as long as they know it's Page 49 June 7, 2005 so bad. And they say -- it's the most utilized intersection, yet it's so bad, when are you going to fix it? They say it's on the 2030 plan. 2030 plan. That's 25 years from now. Now, how much more can we approve? And I felt in my mind I cannot approve any increased density. The property already has 350 units, it's zoned for 352. They have two units left. That's it. And as Rich said, the developer knew when he went in he only had two units remaining, and that's all he could build there. And I feel in all good conscience, I cannot -- I don't care which roadway it is, I don't care if it's 951, Immokalee, U.S. 41, I don't care where it is, if a density calls for so many units and that's what the property owner is allowed, and that road is already failing, we cannot increase the density. And so I vote to -- I vote to not recommend to transmit. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I agree, we've got a lot of other business to do. I think Florida Department of Transportation was 120 million to fix the interchange at 951 and 1-75. Because I know that we're going to construct 951, widening it to six lanes plus a turn lane beyond Davis Boulevard on 951 and even further north to come. The concern that I have, the request is I'm -- I feel uncomfortable with the market rate units. But I guess I need to trust that at the rezone hearing you will provide some reassurance that, like Commissioner Fiala said, that do we really need the market rate units to get the affordable housing at this project? I don't understand real estate or construction or that, so I really need a lot of information before I would approve it. And I would never approve it if it's going to jeopardize the level of service on 951. That's very important. The -- knowing that there is a need for workers in Marco Island and HMA, I feel that Habitat will shorten the trips, help with the Page 50 _.~._,,~~-----" June 7, 2005 traffic on 951. So Mr. Chairman, if you're ready for a motion, I'm ready to make one. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm ready for a motion. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to make a motion to adopt. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And if I may, as the Commissioner of that district, I would like to second that motion, as what I see is the best interest of District Five and Collier County in general. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I have a motion from Commissioner Henning to adopt -- or forward to -- yes, to adopt, and a second by Commissioner Coletta. Commissioner Coletta was about to ask a question. Is there any discussion? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I don't think that anything more can be added to this. CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. No further discussion. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. All opposed, like sign. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, the motion fails on a vote of 3-2. It requires four votes. Okay. Commission Henning, Coletta and Coyle voting in favor, Commissioner Halas and Fiala voting against. So the motion fails. Okay. Let's take up the next item of business. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that's Petition CP-2004-2. It's a petition requesting an amendment to the countywide future land use Page 51 June 7, 2005 map to change 79 acres from the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, RFMUD neutral lands, to the RFMUD sending lands, and to change 153 acres from the RFMUD neutral lands to the RFMUD receiving lands for property located one mile south of Immokalee Road and 2.75 miles east of Collier Boulevard in Section 31 and 32, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, rural estates planning community. And Mr. R. Bruce Anderson will present, I presume. MR. ANDERSON: You're correct, sir, yes. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Bruce Anderson from the law firm of Roetzel and Andress, on behalf of Resource Conservation Properties, which is one of the Bonita Bay group of companies. Just to go back through. I know you've seen this before. You see a lot of things on your agendas. This is an application to change the future land use map on two rural fringe parcels on the south side of Immokalee Road that are presently designated neutral. It is proposed that a 153-acre parcel which abuts a 243-acre parcel that's already designated as receiving be classified from neutral to receiving. The second half of the proposal involves changing the designation of an approximately 80-acre parcel known as the Talon parcel from neutral to sending. Collectively, these three parcels were part of the southern portion of the original Twin Eagles proj ect. The county's leading environmental organizations -- Florida Wildlife Federation, Collier County Audubon Society and the Conservancy of Southwest Florida -- all support this amendment, as did the planning commission twice, and as did the county commission at the transmittal hearing. The Department of Community Affairs registered no objections to this map amendment. Both the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Committee and the Board of County Commissioners have previously ranked the 80-acre Talon parcel as a priority one Page 52 June 7, 2005 property for acquisition. Now, obviously if the Talon parcel's designation is changed from neutral, which permits one house for every five acres, to sending, which permits development of only one unit per 40 acres, the market value of the Talon parcel is decreased. Now, if the property owner objected to that redesignation, that would be one thing, but in this instance the property owner has requested the redesignation. Bonita Bay's plans are to incorporate the 153 acres proposed to become receiving to become part of a rural village. The Bonita Bay has filed an application for the south side of Immokalee Road. Without designation of this 153-acre parcel to receiving, a rural village is not possible on this property because of the -- in the surrounding Bonita Bay lands because there's a 300-acre minimum size requirement for a rural village, and that's exclusive of the required greenbelt around a rural village. Approval of this map amendment provides several significant public benefits. Completion of a regionally significant wildlife corridor and flowway that begins at Bonita Beach Road in Lee County and stretches to Vanderbilt Beach Road extension in Collier. The Immokalee Road wildlife underpass is being built to provide a link between Twin Eagles and the lands that are subj ect of this amendment. Another public benefit is the ability to preserve an 80-acre parcel that's sought by Conservation Collier which abuts a school site owned by the school board, which in turn abuts land owned by the county and is planned for a park. It's a unique opportunity to assemble a large contiguous tract of land under public ownership and set aside for public use. Third public benefit is the ability to provide a route for a connector road linking Immokalee Road and Vanderbilt Beach Road extension. And that way it will provide for two ways to get to the Page 53 June 7, 2005 adjacent school sites and the county park site. The Bonita Bay group committed on the record at your transmittal hearing to seek a rezone of this property to a rural village, and that application was filed May 26th. The proposed rural village, if approved, will help jump start the rural fringe program and the modified TDR program. It's a great opportunity to have one of the region's premiere community developers to set the standards for a rural fringe village. I'll be happy to answer any questions that you may have, and that concludes my presentation. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are you going to transfer the density off this property, the neutral lands to be sending lands into the village? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir, we will. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, will that include the -- if we adopt the TDR, the amended TDR? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. That's all part of-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't know who's stupid here, whether it be the Board of Commissioners or staff or who? Why would we buy this property if you have the ability to put it in conservation and give it to government anyways? MR. ANDERSON: Exactly. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. So that's probably a Ken Jennings question that won't be answered today. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, a couple of questions. You were saying something about 300-acre requirement. Could you explain that just a little bit? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. Your Comprehensive Plan has a minimum size requirement for a rural village of 300 acres. And that 300 acres is exclusive of a greenbelt that is also required to surround Page 54 June 7, 2005 the rural village. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And this meets all those requirements? MR. ANDERSON: It would if this map change is made, yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And my last question is, are you considering -- and I realize this is very early in the process, but I would be hoping that in this area that doesn't have any problems on the road systems as yet, that they would be considering some type of gap housing or affordable housing within this village mix. MR. ANDERSON: There is in fact a requirement that a rural village contain some affordable housing, and certainly my clients are going to comply with that requirement. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanks. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I have a couple of concerns. One is that a letter dated April 8th, 2005 from the Department of Community Affairs said in one of their questions, we would like to point out that unlike other sending unit areas that are connected to a major environmental system or conservation area, this proposed sending land would be isolated from the major environmental system and that could diminish its purpose and utilization as a wildlife habitat. How are you going to address that? MR. ANDERSON: We have identified a wildlife corridor, inclusive of the greenbelt, along the eastern -- or the western side of this property, stretching all the way from Immokalee Road all the way down to Vanderbilt Beach Road. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And how is this going to affect as far as heading -- the wildlife heading north? Are they going to have to go through a golf course? MR. ANDERSON: No, there's going to be a greenbelt that they Page 55 June 7, 2005 will be able to traverse. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And how wide is this -- MR. ANDERSON: Now, when they get north of Immokalee Road, where there is already a golf course, yes, they will continue to use the golf course, as they apparently have in the past. COMMISSIONER HALAS: But there's nothing that's going to be set aside as far as a greenbelt other than the golf course? In other words -- MR. ANDERSON: No. There is a separate set-aside greenbelt that doesn't have a golf course associated with it along the western side -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: I understand that. But on the north side of Immokalee Road, the only way that wildlife will traverse that area is basically through the golf course; is that correct? MR. ANDERSON: Golf course and natural areas that already exist. I mean, the state regulatory folks apparently have the opinion that the animals already use this. COMMISSIONER HALAS: But what the statement says is that they have some concerns that this is an isolated area and they're wondering how wildlife is going to traverse this area. In this letter. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. There is-- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do you have a copy of that letter? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. I'm going to ask Mitch Hutchcraft from the Bonita Bay group to tell you about a natural area that exists on the north side of Immokalee Road. MR. HUTCHCRAFT: Good morning. For the record, my name is Mitch Hutchcraft. I'm regional vice president with the Bonita Bay Group. I did just briefly want to address that issue, because we do have a contiguous greenbelt that is non-golf course related, the entire length. Page 56 -~--- June 7, 2005 As you look at the plan -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: You need to get the portable mic., Jim. MR. HUTCHCRAFT: So the property that we are discussing is the property south of Immokalee Road. And we do have a greenbelt that is provided along the western side of that. The undercrossing that Mr. Anderson referenced is in this area. As you move northward between the two proj ects, the Bonita Bay east course, as well as the Twin Eagles project, there is a greenbelt that runs within some existing native areas that is not golf course. And it runs to the northern edge of the property, continues through future mitigation property, some of which is privately owned, some of which is currently controlled by the water management district. And then we have a property south of Bonita Beach Road that is going to contain two flowways that would also allow circulation through that property. So the result is approximately a six-mile greenbelt that does not require crossing on a golf course for wildlife. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And what is the width of that greenbelt; do you know? MR. HUTCHCRAFT: It varies pretty dramatically. I think the minimum is 125 feet. But we have areas up in Twin Eagles where it's probably 400, 500 feet wide. But when you combine that with the natural area on the north side of the east course, it's over a mile in width. So we've got areas that are very dramatic in width. COMMISSIONER HALAS: The other question I have, and that deals with the archeological sites. How are you addressing that? MR. HUTCHCRAFT: We have identified all of the archeological sites, and we are going to incorporate those into the open space or the preservation areas within our site plan. Some of those require different management techniques, but to the extent that we can include those in open space preserve areas, that's what we're Page 57 June 7, 2005 planning to do. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Are you going to rescue any artifacts out of there? Are you going to leave that as such and just have it fenced off? Or what is your plan? MR. HUTCHCRAFT: Right now, I don't think that we've gotten to that level of detail. That's something that we'll clearly discuss with you and staff when we go forward with the PUD. I don't believe that right now our expectation is to remove any artifacts out of that. It's probably more of a preservation. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Because it looks like that the Division of Historical Resources, the State of Florida, also had some concerns about exactly what was going to transpire there. And I just wanted to get some indication in regards to exactly what you were going to do with that particular area. MR. HUTCHCRAFT: We have identified all those sites and will be addressing that when we come through with the detailed PUD plan. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, just one last -- don't leave. You were talking about this greenbelt and how long it would be. MR. HUTCHCRAFT: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do they contain uplands or are they all uplands or partially uplands? MR. HUTCHCRAFT: It's a combination of both uplands and wetlands. And it has been worked out through the planning of four projects. And we've done it in conjunction with local environmental groups, Audubon, Conservancy, Florida Wildlife Federation. We've also worked with the Department of Transportation in the sizing and the construction of the underpass. And then as we've been doing our permitting for the Twin Eagles project, the Phase II of the Twin Eagles project, as well as our Bonita Bay east course, we have worked to incorporate both uplands Page 58 June 7, 2005 and wetlands that consist of this greenbelt. So there's both in there. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So these uplands would allow them to continue on. I mean, it wouldn't be uplands and then for a whole mile just be wetlands. I mean, there would be a whole corridor? MR. HUTCHCRAFT: There's connected patches throughout that whole proj ect that would allow them to use it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do we have any public speakers? MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, we have two speakers. The first one, Nancy Payton. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's hear from her. MS. FILSON: She'll be followed by Brad Cornell. MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton, representing the Florida Wildlife Federation. We're here to support the amendment. And I'd like to shed some additional light on the linear preserve that connects the 80 acres that are proposed to be redesignated to sending land and how it connects up to CREW lands. That wildlife -- or that linear preserve is part of our Twin Eagles settlement, which I believe was in 2001. And that is a legally binding document between Florida Wildlife Federation, Collier County Audubon Society and Bonita Bay. And we've been working for a number of years on this linear preserve with input from the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. They've all been involved in designing this to ensure that it is a very usable and workable linear preserve for wildlife to move north and south. There are no roads that cross it except Immokalee Road, and there is a wildlife crossing that the county is building underneath Immokalee Road to connect this linear preserve. And the Wildlife Commission and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service would not approve that crossing at that location unless there was conservation land on Page 59 June 7, 2005 either side; otherwise, it was really a waste of public money to put in a crossIng. So this linear preserve has been going -- has been in the works for many, many years, and it is approved by both state and federal wildlife agencies. I wanted to comment about the 80 acres. They were proposed to Conservation Collier prior to this idea of the -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: And it's still on our list. MS. PAYTON: Right. But this is an out-of-the-box way to acquire it. And I agree that it should come off the list immediately when -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Left hand doesn't talk to the right hand. I'm sorry. MS. PAYTON: Well, it did go on hold while this amendment was being resolved. The linear preserve does connect up to CREW lands, so it is not an isolated land. It may be isolated from public lands, but through this private linear preserve it does connect and does provide movement for wildlife. As part of our settlement with Twin Eagles, the minimum width of that wildlife corridor is 300 feet. Now, in some cases it may abut other preserves, so we get a wider area for wildlife to move. But the minimum is 300 feet, which is recommended by wildlife biologists. The linear preserve in part south of the Immokalee Road does abut the old Florida Golf Course preserve, so it does provide some additional area for wildlife to roam. And wildlife does use -- do use golf courses, particularly at night, so they do provide some additional habitat. The-- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Nancy. MS. PAYTON: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We got the point. MS. PAYTON: Okay. Page 60 June 7, 2005 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. MS. PAYTON: You're welcome. MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Brad Cornell. MR. CORNELL: Good morning, Commissioners, Brad Cornell, on behalf of Collier County Audubon Society. And I too am here to support this petition. As Nancy Payton stated, we are parties to a settlement agreement with Bonita Bay and we have worked on this with them for many years. In addition to the regional flowway and the wildlife corridor that we've been discussing, I want to point out that this is an opportunity for cooperation and planning across boundary lines with the school board and with the Parks and Rec department of the county to achieve the best thing for our community and for the wildlife and for the infrastructure that we need in this area. I think that that has a great deal to offer to all of us if we have productive discussions. And this is -- this map change is part of that discussion. And I also want to point out that this map change, if you adopt this today, enables Collier County to see its first rural village in the 95,000-acre rural fringe area. And this is really momentous. And it's -- I would submit to you that it's the best way to accommodate not only the TDR credits and the bonus credits, which we're going to discuss shortly, but it's the way we should be developing all across our map with mixed use, compact, traffic-friendly type of development that incorporates affordable housing, parks, civic uses and infrastructure. So we support this petition. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I make a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second that. Page 61 June 7, 2005 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Halas -- MS. MOSCA: Commissioners, if I may, I just have a correction for the record. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MS. MOSCA: If I may. I apologize for interrupting. F or the record, Michele Mosca with the comprehensive planning staff. The only change I have is a correction to the ordinance. What we'd like to do is accurately reflect the project acreage. The redesignation of 79 acres, rather than 80 to sending, and the redesignation of 153 acres to receiving, with a total project acreage of 232. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I'm fine. I was going to make a motion, but Commissioner Fiala did. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. Any further discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. Any opposed by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us with to the next item, which is Petition CP-2004-3. Petition requesting amendment to the future land use element and future land use map to create a new Page 62 June 7, 2005 Vanderbilt Beach Road neighborhood commercial subdistrict to allow for C-l through C-3 commercial uses, other comparable and/or compatible commercial uses not found specifically in the C-l through C-3 zoning districts. Mixed use development and indoor self-storage on two parcels, one located at the northeast corner of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Livingston Road, which is 9.18 acres, and one parcel further east on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road, eight acres, zoned Vanderbilt Trust PUD, in Section 31, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, urban estates planning community. And Mr. Arnold, Wayne Arnold, will present. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you, Commissioners. Wayne Arnold for the record, here with Rich Y ovanovich, Tammy Kipp, Amy Turner, who are the property owners of the subject petition. Staff report was very clear. The property is two parcels located on Vanderbilt Beach Road; one at the corner of Livingston Road, the other is just slightly removed by two parcels to the east. This started out under your original transmittal to the state with the reference to indoor self-storage. Between the transmittal and our adoption today, and in fact before the planning commission, we held a neighborhood informational meeting out at the Vineyards Community School, well attended by residents from Wilshire Lakes, as well as some residents from Village Walk, which is across the street from the two parcels. And one thing was very clear at that meeting, nobody was supporting indoor self-storage. So after that meeting, we modified our request to eliminate the indoor self-storage reference in this. I understand that the text that's before you today still has one stray reference to indoor self-storage that I think staffs going to tell you it should be removed. But that was probably the largest discussion point at that meeting. And so we eliminated that request. We did have follow-up meetings with certain residents of Wilshire Lakes and Fieldstone Village Condominium that's part of Page 63 June 7, 2005 Wilshire Lakes, as well as representatives from Village Walk board of directors. And after that meeting, I think it was clear that the self-storage was a use that they were very happy that we were willing to give up. Also out of that meeting we learned that there was a concern over gas station uses. We agreed to eliminate gas stations and convenience stores with gas pumps. The other significant amendment was there was a concern about certain types of fast food restaurants. Not all fast food, but -- I could name some of them, but they're primarily the type that serve hamburgers of the fried variety, and we agreed that the most appropriate reference, rather than naming specific chain restaurant names, was to -- I think it was David Weeks who actually coined the phrase, it would be limited fast food restaurants would be prohibited. So you'll now find this a little bit reorganized, but there's prohibition on self-storage, prohibition on gas stations and a limitation on certain types of restaurants, if you will. And the other couple things that we did do, we agreed to provide a minimum 30-foot buffer adjacent to the Wilshire Lakes property, which would be our eastern boundary, and we agreed to allow the county and Wilshire Lakes to work along our common property line to bring a sound wall, if required, as part of the six-lane improvements for Vanderbilt Beach Road, to turn it north along our common property line to help satisfy some of the noise concerns that the Fieldstone Village residents had with the six -laning. The other thing that we agreed to do that I think both groups that we've primarily worked with here were happy to hear was the fact that we were willing to bring forward a specific landscape plan and architectural standards as part of the zoning that we'll certainly follow so that we can demonstrate to them that this isn't your typical commercial type development. And in fact, on the eastern parcel, with the limitations that we have, there is no retail even permitted, it's Page 64 June 7, 2005 now primarily office, professional service type uses and assisted living type facilities, those types of community facilities. And I think we have concurrence from all of our neighbors that we're on the right track and they would hope that we could move forward endorsing the plan amendment. One of the other suggestions that the planning commission had that would be certainly something tied to zoning was that in the zoning document, they would look for assurances that no Certificates of Occupancy for either parcel would be issued until October of '07, which coordinates with the six-lane improvements for Vanderbilt Beach Road. But with that, that's really my presentation. We would encourage you all to adopt it. We've had unanimous recommendation from Planning Commission. I think you'll hear from at least one of our neighbors here that they're now in favor of it with the elimination of self-storage, the gas stations and limited restaurant uses. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have one public speaker. Would you like to listen to speakers first, Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sure. MS. FILSON: Your speaker is Kathleen Adams. MS. ADAMS: Kathleen Adams, Village Walk Homeowners Association. Many of you may remember that you did receive a letter from us, along with a petition, asking for residential. And after meeting with the folks from the Turner family and their representation, we're convinced that what they're proposing is something that we can live with and we have absolutely no objection to it, and we urge you to vote for it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I think you were -- what is Page 65 June 7, 2005 the height of the buildings going to be in that general area? I think you were looking at coming up with assisted living and some office space. MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. Right now the assisted living that was approved as part of the Vanderbilt Trust PUD on the easternmost parcel, which is known as parcel two, allows for 50-foot building heights on that parcel. One of the things that we had talked about was adding a building height to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment language, and the Planning Commission eliminated that early on, thinking that if we put a height then we're entitled to get it. And I think there was a thought that let us be silent on height in the comprehensive plan and let's debate that point of what's the appropriate height when we come back for zoning. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion for approval. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, motion for approval by Commissioner Halas, second by Commissioner Fiala. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioners, this is boxing in a parcel in between that I can see the only future use for that one would be commercial. And why would you put residential in between two commercials? So my concern is that we limit it, that there won't be any big boxes on either one of these parcels, Parcel A or Parcel B. CHAIRMAN COYLE: So Parcel 1 or Parcel 2? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Both. CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. MR. ARNOLD: If I might address that. I don't -- in the context that I think of big box retail, if that's like some of the other users that we've had, the Toys R Us, the Sports Authorities, things of that size, your code talks about them being 20,000 square feet or larger Page 66 June 7, 2005 qualifies under the big box regulations that you have in the land development code. The only way that I see any individual user exceeding 20,000 is if we end up with an assisted living facility that would house that much square footage. But otherwise, I really envision on the corner you would end up with more of a retail center that would have outparcels. And that in itself may exceed 20,000 square feet, but I don't think we've envisioned a single user that would connote a big box user -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the only for that is this parcel might languish for years and years, and then the people in the middle here come back for a comprehensive amendment and therefore demonstrating a big box, so -- MR. ARNOLD: Well, if it would satisfy the Commissioners' concerns, I guess if we could keep it to single user not exceeding the 20,000 square-foot standard, I think that that's something that works for us. We don't certainly envision that -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's in my motion. MR. ARNOLD: -- on the retail or commercial side of things. No retail or commercial -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's the difference between what I said and what you're saying? MR. ARNOLD: I don't know that there is. I was just trying to clarify that we meant a single use. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I wonder if your assisted living is 20,000? Then all of a sudden you've defeated that, right? MR. ARNOLD: Maybe what we should say is no retail or commercial use would exceed the 20,000. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Retail or commercial. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So we have a motion by Commissioner Halas -- MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, staff has to put a couple of things on the record. Page 67 -'-'~~- June 7, 2005 Mr. Moss? MR. MOSS: Good morning, Commissioners, John-David Moss, Comprehensive Planning. As Mr. Arnold mentioned, if you look at the exhibit that's been provided to you, there is in the second line the phrase "and indoor self-storage," which needs to be stricken. So I just wanted to point that out. I also wanted to point out that I did speak with another community group in the neighborhood, and although they were opposed to it initially, they are perfectly satisfied with the changes that have been made and they're 100 percent in support of it also. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion by Commissioner Halas, seconded by Commissioner Fiala for approval with the stipulation that no single commercial or retail user will occupy either of these sites and that we will strike any -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Size of the building, less than 20,000 feet -- square feet. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think it's greater than 20,000 feet. But if we -- is that where we are, no single user -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: No individual user can exceed 20,000 square feet of retail. And there's no retail at all on Parcel 2, so -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: You don't mean individual user, you mean individual retail user. Isn't that what you said? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. On Parcel 1 where commercial and retail is allowed, no individual single retail user will be allowed to exceed 20,000 square -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Retail or commercial user will be committed (sic) to build there. And we will strike all references to indoor self-storage. Okay, Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think the key word is commercial. That's retail and offices. And the other one about the Page 68 -'-=-----·_,·,·,··,,··,···_.'<·_·~.____~,_~w..._._·., June 7, 2005 indoor storage, Commissioner? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, I've already stipulated that and it's included in this motion. I want to make sure we're clear on what you're saying, Commissioner Henning. We're saying retail or commercial. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, if you just say commercial, that takes care of office and retail, that you can only limit it to 20,000 square feet. It would be on both parcels. MR. ARNOLD: Right. I don't think we have an objection to the direction we're headed. I guess the only hesitation I would have is the only C-l to C-3 use that we would envision that could ever exceed that 20,000 might be something like a supermarket or grocery store. It could be an anchor tenant that has that type of square footage. I don't know if that use is a specific concern, but, you know, I understand which way we're headed. I don't want to make this too confusing, but like I said, I think that would be the only type of use I can envision under those C-l to C- 3 as a retail type commercial use that could gain that kind of square footage. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I'm trying to get the specific language for this motion in place. Are we going to say retail and commercial not to exceed 20,000 feet for a single user, or are we just going to say commercial? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commercial, Commissioner, is anything. It's office, it's retail, it's industrial, it's -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is it assisted living? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, there's still some discussion about this issue. MR. ARNOLD: Could I just ask clarification? Is there a concern specifically about a grocery store? Because I -- that would be the only hesitation I'd have about boxing ourselves in to something that we didn't intend -- Page 69 .~._--- June 7, 2005 COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't think a grocery store even enters into this, with the size of the parcel that's here. And I think from my understanding talking with the particular people that own this property, the discussion was that it may be a certain type of restaurant, it may be little curio shops, and then it may be also assisted living on the other part. So that's my understanding. So as far as exceeding the 20,000, I don't even think that really enters into the picture. MR. ARNOLD: To be honest, Commissioner, it didn't to me either until the issue was raised by Commissioner Henning about the big box. And just not knowing exactly what the mix of tenants is, that was the only tenant that I could envision that could exceed that 20,000 square feet. But I certainly understand and I don't want to overcomplicate something I think we're headed in the direction we need. CHAIRMAN COYLE: What's the motion going to say? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, the motion should say that this is strictly for small-scale retail or restaurants that fit the agenda that's been discussed by not only the petitioner but also by the community that was accepted. And I think the things that were brought forth through all the negotiations with the property owners that surrounded this particular piece of property, I think that's what we need to address in that manner. And I think that everybody realized that what was going to be there is basically assisted living on Parcel No.2, and on Parcel No.1 there would be no gas stations, but there could be a restaurant there, an upscale restaurant or whatever else, and maybe some upscale type of coffee shops or whatever else. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Does that help clarify? CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, stop, okay? You guys sit down. Commissioner Henning, go ahead. Page 70 June 7, 2005 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me clarify the motion and you can correct me, Commissioner. It's a motion to approve removal of self-storage out of the parcel and limit the square foot of commercial space to single user to 20,000 -- not to exceed 20,000. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Not to exceed 20,000. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And that's okay with your second, Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. Any opposed by like sign. (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: It carries unanimously. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you, Commissioners. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to Petition CP-2004-4. It's a petition requesting an amendment to the future land use element to change the rural fringe mixed use district sending lands to add three transfer of development rights, TDR bonus provisions, each for one TDR credit for, number one, early entry into the TDR program; number two, environmental restoration and maintenance; and number three, fee simple conveyance to a government agency by gift and to amend the rural village development standards. And Mr. Bruce Anderson is going to present. MR. ANDERSON: Good morning again, Commissioners. My Page 71 June 7, 2005 name is Bruce Anderson, from the law firm of Roetzel and Andress, and I'm here representing the Contractors and Builders' Industry Association on this amendment. With me today is Robert Duane, planning director of Hole- Montes, who is the planner on this amendment and put together the data and analysis to support it. I also want to introduce CBIA's original co-applicants on this amendment, Nancy Payton of the Florida Wildlife Federation, and Brad Cornell of the Collier County Audubon Society. This amendment bears the distinction of having four co-sponsors. I believe that's a new record here. The Florida Wildlife Federation, Collier County Audubon, Collier Building Industry Association, and last, but certainly not least, your staff. It reflects a consensus from the -- from those members of the community who did participate in the public hearing process that the voluntary conservation incentives of the current TDR program need to be improved, that we need to make the economic incentive to conserve sending lands equal to or exceed the economic incentive to develop 40-acre or less size homesites on sending lands. There are more than 1,450 separate sending land parcels of less than 40 acres. And of those, more than 1,000 are five acres or less and can all have a home built on them, unless they have a conservation easement placed on them and the TDR severed. These amendment co-sponsors are trying to successfully implement the county's rural fringe program, which calls for the county to direct new development to appropriate locations called receiving lands, and to protect from new development valuable environmental lands called sending lands. Sending lands also include natural resource protection areas. One of the primary ways that the rural fringe plan attempts to accomplish this is through an economic-based incentive program to preserve these sending lands, known as the transfer of development Page 72 June 7, 2005 rights, or TDR, program. It was envisioned that an owner of sending lands would record a conservation easement on his or her property and then sell the TD R unit to an owner of receiving lands to build a dwelling unit on the receiving lands. It is important to emphasize that before a TDR can even be created, first there must be a conservation easement recorded on the land that is the source of the TDR. No conservation easement, no TDR. There is no requirement that a TDR actually be used by any certain time. Without a conservation easement, the approximately 21,000 acres of sending lands in the rural fringe are vulnerable to development as country estates scattered throughout the 73,000 acres that make up the total area of the rural fringe. We call that kind of development pattern urban sprawl. The TDR program, I would respectfully submit to you, is stalled out at the starting line and not succeeding in its aims to incentivize and encourage voluntary preservation of 21 ,000 acres of sending lands. It needs a jump start to become successful. And as Dr. Nicholas stated in his report, quote, enhancing the incentive is the only thing to do, unquote. The proposal before you enhances the TDR incentives without raising the density limits that are already in place in the rural fringe. Those density limits are one unit per acre, except in a rural village where a maximum of three units per acre is allowed. I will address the early entry TDR bonus. Nancy Payton will address the TDR conveyance bonus. And Brad Cornell will discuss the TDR restoration mitigation bonus. The early entry bonus is modeled after a similar early entry program in the rural lands stewardship area. The rural lands stewardship area is a five-year early entry period. Dr. Nicholas recommended that the TDRs' early entry bonus be reduced from five Page 73 June 7, 2005 years to three years, and the co-sponsors of the amendment have all agreed to that change. The purpose of the early entry bonus is to provide an incentive to place a conservation easement on sending lands earlier rather than later, before the sending lands succumb to market pressures and are sold for development rather than preservation. The sooner land is conserved, the more certain that the land is conserved in fact rather than developed. Closely related to the problems with getting the TDR program off the ground are some changes that are proposed to the very specific standards that are listed in the growth management plan for rural villages, which is where higher densities and commercial uses are encouraged. These proposed changes to the rural village design standards also include some changes proposed by your county staff. In a rural fringe stakeholder meeting that was held in July of 2004 at the development services building, a consensus was reached by and between county staff, the environmental community and the property owner development interests, that in order to encourage the establishment of rural villages and to provide for flexibility in project design and more creative use of open space, that the average width of the perimeter greenbelt that is required should be reduced from 500 to 300-foot minimum -- maximum. And that the minimum width be changed from 300 feet to 200 feet. It was felt that the average of 500 feet was a serious disincentive to rural village development. Your outside counsel, Marti Chumbler, has previously stated that this change will align the rural village greenbelt standards with the village standards -- greenbelt standards that are present in the rural lands stewardship area. After you hear from Ms. Payton and Mr. Cornell, if there are questions related to either the TDR amendments or the rural village amendments, I or another member of the team will be happy to try Page 74 June 7, 2005 and answer those questions. We ask you to reaffirm your prior unanimous approval of this attempt to rescue the county's TDR program. Thank you. MR. CORNELL: Commissioners, Brad Cornell with Collier County Audubon Society. I'll be brief. I know you've heard this discussion when you transmitted, but it's been a couple of months, so I want to just go over the restoration and maintenance bonus TDR credit. And there are two reasons for our support of and proposal of this bonus credit. One is that it further incentivizes financially landowners not to build on sending lands; rather, to sever their TDR credits and to sell those for use in receiving areas in which it's more appropriate, and thereby preserving the natural lands on which the sending lands are designated. The second reason is the opportunity to achieve restoration and management, which is not there presently, and to incentivize landowners to do this on behalf of the public and be paid for it. Those two reasons we believe are very important and therefore we support this. How does it work? A landowner would propose and submit a restoration and management plan to be accepted by the county. Once accepted, that is the time at which the bonus credit would be given. This plan includes a number of facets. It has to have a listed species management plan for listed species that inhabit the habitat on that site. It has to have exotics removed and a plan for maintenance of that in an exotic free state. There are criteria to be adhered to and set forth on ecological and hydrological restoration success and sustainability . And a performance bond is posted until these criteria are met, the criteria for success and sustainability. And the expectation is that it would be about 25 years for those -- for that success and sustainability to be achieved. Or the performance bond could be Page 75 June 7, 2005 removed and that requirement removed if the property were conveyed to a government conservation agency. And Nancy Payton will now speak to that issue. MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton, Florida Wildlife, and a co-petitioner. The conveyance bonus TDR is pretty simple, that you do get a third bonus TDR if you convey your land to a public conservation agency. Might be Conservation Collier, might be Florida Forever, might be South Florida Water Management District, which I remind you did write a very good letter supporting this program as a way to help them achieve some of their Everglades restoration goals, as well as dealing with flooding and Naples Bay restoration, rehydration of certain areas. It does provide a lot of opportunities for various conservation agencies and the county itself to meet its goal. Most likely the conveyance TDR will be most attractive to entities that are purchasing large tracts of lands for the TDR value, not the land value. And so we do have the opportunity to get significant chunks of conservation land through this program. And those are my comments. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Nancy. She was our last speaker? MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, I have three additional speakers. Mitch Hutchcraft. CHAIRMAN COYLE: He's waiving. MR. HUTCHCRAFT: I'll pass at this time. MS. FILSON: Richard Woodruff. He'll be followed by Bob Mulhere. MR. WOODRUFF: Good morning. For the record, Richard Woodruff. Just a couple of brief comments. First of all, I would like to commend the county commission. You have constantly worked over the last several years after the Page 76 June 7, 2005 committee that met 53 times made their initial recommendations. You have continued to try to find a solution that will help us in the rural fringe area. The fact that the County Commission is taking this action I think is very significant, because it recognizes what Commissioner Coletta asked this program to do from its very beginning, and that was to find a way to properly compensate the small property owner. I know in a public hearing that he hosted and the county hosted several weeks ago out at Golden Gate High School, there was a lot of good information. I commend the county for the extra efforts. Two things I do want to stress. These amendments will, we believe from the development side, it will allow a proper balance between prices in the marketplace. What has been wrong with the program at the present time is the current level of density does not result in a price that the developer can pay in order to buy that TDR from the person selling the land. I believe this creates a balance that will work in the market. Second point that I want to make is a comment that I believe that Chairman Coyle made in one of our former hearings for transmittal, and that was there will not be any future significant changes to this program. Why is that important? We all know that we're going to have to continue to tweak it. So yes, there will be minor changes. But the message needs to be sent to the people who own the sending land and want to sell it, as well as to the developers who want to buy it, this is the program. You need to make it work. Do not look for government to tweak this any further. Let the market dynamics now work. With that, again, I thank you. I commend CBIA and the environmental groups and the county staff for the amendments that are before you. I strongly recommend their adoption. Thank you. MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Mr. Bob Mulhere. Page 77 June 7, 2005 MR. MULHERE: Thank you. Good morning, still. Bob Mulhere with RW A, speaking on my own behalf today. I just wanted to state briefly that I think looking at the big picture, these amendments that are before you will create a much more favorable climate in the marketplace for utilization of TDRs. That's really what it's all about. But the result of that is that you achieved your policy objectives. You end up protecting the critical environmental lands, wetlands, uplands and habitat, that really was a major component of the whole rural fringe process. And with these amendments, you do that to an even greater degree, because through a market incentive you create a climate whereby the public dollars do not have to be spent to enhance those lands, to maintain those lands or even to conserve those lands. So really, it's a win-win situation. Thank you. MR. LITSINGER: Mr. Chairman, Stan Litsinger, Comprehensive Planning Director for the staff. And as was mentioned by Mr. Anderson, we are a co-petitioner, along with the other entities that were mentioned, and do support and recommend these amendments to you. I wanted to report to you that the planning commission did deadlock in not making a recommendation either for or against these amendments. Staff wanted to point out that in the process -- the hearing process since transmittal, that we did recommend a slight language change relative to rural village and the issue of what is a bonus unit associated with rural village development. And that would be on Page 7 of your executive summary. That we wanted to specify and make it clear that the bonus associated with a rural village was not a TDR in and of itself, in that it was not a multiple of each TDR that might be used. So we have added that language since the transmittal and as a result also of the planning commission's hearing. We also have one other correction to the language that we feel Page 78 June 7, 2005 we need to add for clarity, and that would be on Page 4 of Exhibit A of your ordinance that we will ask you to adopt today, and it has to do with rural villages served by a binary road system. We feel that we need to change the first reference there to primary road system to be consistent with the latter reference to primary road system, and the series of definitions that will be coming to you in the land development cycle. Other than that, as mentioned earlier, staff recommends these TDR bonuses to you. We believe that they will help to get this program on course and to accomplish the goals that you wanted to achieve in adopting a TDR program for compensation of property rights and adopting your rural fringe mixed use district. And we are in support of these amendments, along with the co-petitioners. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Mr. Litsinger, one of the concerns that I had the last time, probably the only concern that was left, and I think we worked this thing to death over the last four years or so, was the golf courses and the TDRs that are applied to these golf courses. And the proposal to use these TDRs once they purchase them for the golf course, they can reuse them in the community, which made some valid sense in the fact that we'd be more assured that we're going to end up with a rural village rather than a golf course community, one house per five acres spread out over quite an area. However, at that time I asked if we could get a letter from Dr. Nicholas, who was our consultant on this, stating that he had no problems with this particular direction. Did we ever receive that letter? MR. LITSINGER: Commissioner Coletta, we are aware of your concern in that area. That technically relates to your land development code to implement the compo plan that you will be hearing tomorrow evening -- Page 79 --~"''-.''''~.'''--'''''"---''' ,,'~' June 7, 2005 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I know that. That's -- MR. LIT SINGER: -- where we would address that issue. We have of course added language relative to the utilization of golf course TDRs in a restricted manner and associated development surrounding the golf course for dwelling unit creation. We had communicated through Carlton-Fields in Tallahassee, with Dr. Nicholas, and he is neither for or against, but he did indicate that he did not see it as a detriment to the TDR program in that it would create a surplus of available TDRs or flood the TDR supply system. We have not received a written communication other than e-mail communications through Carlton-Fields and down to your staff. But again, you will be hearing that provision tomorrow evening, which is neither dependent on this particular matter -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm glad we had a chance to touch on this today. Between now and tomorrow, could I get an e-mail directly from Dr. Nicholas? MR. LITSINGER: I will contact him when I get back to the office. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Because that's still an important issue for me. MR. LITSINGER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: With that, I'd like to make a motion by approval. CHAIRMAN COYLE: A motion for approval by Commissioner Coletta. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Henning. Commissioner Halas has a question. COMMISSIONER HALAS: If -- I don't want to be negative on this, but with the additional TDRs, if this doesn't trigger the sale of them, what's our next step? Page 80 June 7, 2005 MR. LITSINGER: Thank you for reminding me, Commissioner. As Dr. Woodruff had mentioned, at your transmittal hearing you had indicated a -- which we took to be a policy direction, that in the event that upon the adoption of these TDR bonuses by the board, by yourselves and the implementation of these TDR bonuses, that you would not be inclined to look at another change or modification for at least three years. So we are taking that as policy direction relative to certainly any staff-initiated amendment to the TDR provisions for some time to come, while we give this system a chance to operate and for both the development community and the people who own the TDRs to become comfortable that there is a standard that is not subj ect to change every few months to work before we would ever propose another change. Now, of course a private petition may be submitted each year in your annual amendment cycle. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm concerned, because I know that when we first initiated this, we were trying to have a support price of around $25,000 for a TDR, which we thought maybe would be difficult to maintain that support price. Obviously the price of that TDR has skyrocketed. So as land prices go up, that's why I'm concerned, are we going to have another stock split later on? But I think you addressed the question. And I hope that this does trigger the ability for people to realize that there's an incentive out there now for them to sell those TDRs. Because if it doesn't work, I just don't think there's anything that we can really make it work, function with. MR. LITSINGER: Commissioner, your staff and your consultants feel that that is the case, that we have an incentivized program. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, you know, that's exactly the point. We don't want to turn this into a speculative process. Page 81 June 7, 2005 COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And it already has gotten to that point. I'd be perfectly happy to say publicly that I won't vote for a change in those incentives for the next 30 years, not the next three years. That's the end of it. But the one question I have with respect to the change has to do with the term "bonus unit" for a rural village. Now, if the density of a rural village is not going to be increased, it appears to me that the term "bonus unit" is erroneous, because there is no bonus unit in a rural village. There is a maximum density cap, and that's all there is. MR. LITSINGER: Commissioner, there is in fact a density bonus unit for coming forward with a rural village form of development. As we know, the maximum density that can be achieved in a rural village development is three units per acre. Base density, of course, as we know in receiving lands is one unit per acre. The next unit of density above base must be a TDR base. But by proposing a rural village PUD, you get the additional bonus unit due to the fact that you are developing under the rural village standards. So our interpretation is that yes, that is a rural village bonus unit. And of course the nomenclature, we have the difficulty of the confusion with TDR credits. And we tried to change the language to make it clear that if for -- if you need 100 TDRs, or if you're doing a 300-acre rural village and you need 300 TDRs, you then don't get an additional 300 TDRs effectively in addition to the rural village bonus units which you would receive. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I just want to make sure it's clear that when we're talking about a bonus unit, it is not a unit that is authorized above the maximum density cap. MR. LITSINGER: That's correct. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay? And if that's clear, then I -- it's okay with me. Page 82 .-~.._-----......- June 7, 2005 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good point. CHAIRMAN COYLE: So whatever you call it. But I just want to make sure that the record shows that this is not a bonus above the density cap for the rural village. MR. LITSINGER: No, sir, it's not. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right, Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I just wanted to add a note. I don't want any asperity to come down on this program, for people to visualize the fact that it might not work. It will work. It will work very well, just for the sheer number of acres of land that are already tied up by the developers who have been waiting for us to make this final decision. The time comes after this decision's made and it goes to the Tallahassee Department of Community Affairs and gets the final approval, come back, they're going to be separating the TDRs. The amount ofTDRs they're going to separate at that time will assure this program will have the success that it needs to be. I don't want any panic selling out there on the part of the public thinking this program may be in jeopardy. It's not. It's strong, and hold out for the top buck. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, that just killed your-- MR. LITSINGER: Sorry, Bruce. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- PR program. So now they don't get anything at all. Okay, all in favor of this motion, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. Any opposed by like sign. Page 83 June 7, 2005 (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to Petition CP-2004-5. It's a petition requesting an amendment to the future land use element and future land use map to create a new Davis Boulevard-County Barn Road mixed used neighborhood subdistrict to allow mixed residential and commercial development similar to the residential mixed use neighborhood subdistrict four 22.8 acres located at the southeast corner of Davis Boulevard and County Barn Road in Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, South Naples planning community. State your name for the record, sir. MR. MURRAY: Good morning. It's still morning. This is Don Murray, I'm a planner with Coastal Engineering Consultants. With me I have Mr. Robert Pritt from Roetzel and Andress and our client, Mr. Barry Goldmeyer. I'll keep this very short. We've had pretty much unanimous support of this project from both the Board and the Planning Commission. The project is 22.8 acres. It's located at the southeast intersection of County Barn Road and Davis Boulevard. It's for a mixed use neighborhood subdivision subdistrict called the Davis Boulevard-County Barn Road mixed use neighborhood subdistrict. The project will provide both residential and mixed use with a five-acre mixed use component that would provide retail office, commercial uses with residential above it. Emphasis will be on neighborhood-scale pedestrian orientation, and uses that are found more in the traditional neighborhood districts. The project also will have bicycle paths, sidewalks and other amenities, a park, things that will make it, like I said, more -- giving it more emphasis on pedestrian orientation and less emphasis on the automobile. Page 84 June 7, 2005 The commercial uses will be limited to no more than 45,000 gross leasable square foot area with uses at 15,000 square feet, unless it's a neighborhood grocery, which would be allowed to go to 20,000 square feet of leasable area. Other than that, the proj ect -- like I said before, the access will be -- thank you. The access will be from the south, hopefully with a j oint access onto County Barn Road, and also access onto Davis Boulevard in the -- it would be the northeast section of the property. The commercial component will be in this area here. And that pretty much describes the project, so I'd like to leave the remainder of the time for any questions that you might have. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: At the transmittal we talked about affordable housing and workforce housing, now it's all deemed affordable housing with different price points. I didn't see any changes here. MR. MURRAY: The project will provide for density above the base density, 10 percent workforce and affordable housing, as we discussed. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can you point out where that is? MR. MURRAY: In the -- I'm sorry, on the proj ect itself, on the map? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, in the petition. You're talking -- MR. MURRAY: Well, we had discussed it. Staff had written it into the project, the subdistrict description. It should be in there. Regardless, we have -- as we discussed previously, we will stand with that 10 percent affordable and workforce housing. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The -- item J says -- I'm sorry, item Ion Page 5. It says residential development shall be limited to a maximum of 238 dwelling units; however, a minimum of Page 85 June 7, 2005 184 dwelling units shall be provided. I might be wrong, but I don't think that's ever been submitted in a compo plan, is you'll have a mInImum. MR. MURRAY: No, that's -- I believe that when we discussed this previously, the density cap and the number of units was deleted, or supposed to be deleted from this proj ect, or from this district, with a minimum of 71 residential units to be built. COMMISSIONER HENNING: A minimum of what? MR. MURRAY: Seventy-one residential dwelling units. That was staffs recommendation. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Maybe I got the wrong book, because this is what mine says. MR. MURRAY: That may be the old language. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, under Tab -- where it says ordinance in your book, if you go and flip through, you'll see Exhibit A for CP-2004-5. And on the second page is where the petitioner is basically talking about, and it's item number three, B-3, to be exact, where it says a minimum of 71 residential units. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I found ordinance tab. Now where do I go? I'm sorry, I was looking at the petition. It really doesn't say. It just says -- MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, if I might. David Weeks of the comprehensive planning department. What Commissioner Henning was reviewing I believe was the actual application that the petitioner had submitted. But at the transmittal -- in preparing for the transmittal hearings, staff had recommended significant language changes to the petitioner's proposal. The ordinance that County Manager Mudd has just referred you to reflects the staff changes which were endorsed by the planning commission and by this board at transmittal. So originally they had proposed language that stated a minimum Page 86 June 7, 2005 and maximum number of units. That has been removed, and now the only commitment is that a minimum of 71 dwelling units will be constructed on the property. When you reviewed the rezoning petition for this property, number one, they will have to comply with that minimum of 71 units, but any density beyond that will be a function of the density rating system. If they qualify for any bonuses, then you will have the discretion to approve or not approve those. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, how they came up with the 71 units, best I can tell, is that there's five acres that are dedicated to be mixed use commercial-residential. And in that five acres, there's a density for residential of four units per acre, so there's a total of 20. The remaining 17.8 acres, if you multiply it by four, it gives you 71. So they're talking about a minimum of 71 units, which is four units per acre on that particular issue. And anything above that, then they would fall into some kind of a density bonus issue when they come forward with their PUD. Have I missed anything, David? MR. WEEKS: That is exactly right, sir. And I would also like to mention, Commissioner Henning, what you pointed out about the commitment for the affordable and workforce housing, that absolutely was included in the transmittal. This ordinance does not reflect it. Assuming you want that to be part of the motion, we will be sure that is added to the ordinance language. That was an oversight on staffs part. I apologize. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, is there a motion? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve with the addition of 10 percent housing units would be affordable and 10 percent housing units would be workforce. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, is there a second? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Coletta. Page 87 ,_~..,.._« ,o,<","...,_.~___ June 7, 2005 Motion by Commissioner Henning for approval with stipulations. MR. MURRAY: Could I make one -- the -- if I remember right, the correct stipulation was for that density above the base density of four units per acre. So it would be 10 percent affordable, 10 percent workforce housing for any density above the base density. I just wanted to make sure that was -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: And what is the base density? MR. MUDD: Four units per acre. MR. MURRAY: Four units per acre. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we just heard from residents on the San Marino project that Davis Boulevard is failing. So why would we -- I mean, if that's not good enough, then why is it not good enough for Davis Boulevard? MR. MURRAY: The way I understand it, the capacity on this part of Davis Boulevard is adequate, and the same for County Barn Road. And there was never an issue on that. So I don't know what the -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: There was an issue because it was affordable housing. COMMISSIONER FIALA: What was? COMMISSIONER HENNING: San Marino. COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I don't think so. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Coletta for approval, subj ect to the requirement that there be 10 percent affordable housing above the base density of four units per acre. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And 10 percent workforce housing, you said. Right? MR. MUDD: Ten and ten, there's two stips. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So just to clarify this, we're looking at 91 units then, right, on this property; 22.8 acres? Page 88 June 7, 2005 MR. MUDD: You're looking at 20 units on the commercial, okay, which is five acres. And you're looking at a minimum of71 on the remaining 17.8 acres. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And then there will be 10 percent-- MR. MUDD: A stipulation, anything over the 71 on the residential piece, 17.8, anything above four units per acre on that particular portion, there will be 10 percent that are affordable and 10 percent that are workforce. MR. MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right, any further discussion? Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just a question. So if they don't want to do affordable workforce, they just ask for four units per acre, or the 71 units. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I thought that's what the base of mixed use was is to try to get the affordability component in there. But chances are we might not on this one, because there's no guarantee it's going to happen. MR. MURRAY: We will do it. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are you arguing against your motion or is your motion still standing? COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, I'm going to pull it. MR. MURRAY: Let me address that. We will be building more units than that, and there, like we said before, would be 10 percent affordable and workforce. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, I got caught with my pants down on the Buckley's piece, and I'm not going to on this one. Whatever I understand is in the language, what's written, is what the board is accepting. You know, Buckley came by and said oh, we're going to have -- Page 89 June 7, 2005 you know, the people who live there are going to work there and so on and so forth. Well, that didn't get in the language in the compo plan, so it didn't happen. And all I'm saying is if we're going to really abide by it -- I mean, you have an opportunity to come in and say well, we changed our mind, or in the case of Buckley, oh, we sold it, we made a ton of money, we sold it to somebody else and we don't want to do any affordable housing and workforce housing, we just want to do market rate housing and that. So the way it stands now is there's no guarantee for that component of mixed use of affordable or workforce housing. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, so there's no motion on the floor. It has been withdrawn. Is there -- MR. GOLDMEYER: Mr. Coyle, we have an idea that might help Commissioner Henning's concern. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, please go ahead. MR. GOLDMEYER: Barry Goldmeyer, 1000 Mariner Drive, Key Biscayne. As you -- as some of you may recall, I've built affordable housing in Collier County in the past, and fully intend to maximize the opportunity to get density bonuses on the property. And there was no objection to building affordable housing the last time. I just wanted to understand what the workforce housing requirement was. And I would suggest that we keep the 10 -- the bonus as to 10 percent above the minimum, but I would agree to a stipulation that if we build the minimum number of units, that we have the same 10 percent plus 10 percent in the minimum if we build that minimum number of 91 units, in addition -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is the key word "if'? Ifwe build? MR. GOLDMEYER: I'm trying to assure you that we will have affordable housing there, but I'm trying to limit the amount of units Page 90 June 7, 2005 that I have to devote to the affordable component to 10 percent above the minimum. So if you want to be assured that we will have some affordable housing component in the property, even if we don't ask for any density bonuses, I'll give you that assurance, as long as I have the ability to limit the number of those affordable units to 10 percent of the units above the minimum. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that was in my motion. MR. GOLDMEYER: Yes, but where you had a question was what if we don't ask for any density bonuses and only seek to develop the minimum number of units. And we would agree that if we seek to develop the minimum number of units, still that minimum would then include an affordable housing component. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. GOLDMEYER: I'm just trying to -- MR. MUDD: Let me -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, let's get the numbers worked out. Suppose you build the 91 units, a total of 91 units. MR. MUDD: So he's basically saying he'll have at least -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're going to have 20 percent of those. MR. MUDD: He'll have nine workforce, nine affordable of that 91. MR. GOLD MEYER: Yes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And then if you go above that, it will be only 10 percent of the additional. MR. GOLDMEYER: Of additional. But I'll agree to a minimum of nine plus nine on the project then. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. GOLD MEYER: And of course we're going to seek as many density bonuses as we can, thus increasing it. But we'll agree to a minimum of nine plus nine. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can you incorporate that in Page 91 June 7, 2005 your motion, Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I thought we started off with 71. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I know. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I thought we did, too. COMMISSIONER HENNING: We did. CHAIRMAN COYLE: There were two different parcels, but yes. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, there's 22.8 acres, okay? This thing reads that five acres will be mixed use commercial and residential. Of those five acres, it has a density of four units per acre, which gives them, on the mixed use commercial, five acres, a total of 20 residential units. Then you have 17.8 acres left of the 22.8, after you subtract the five. They're basically saying a minimum of 71 units on that particular 17.8 acres. And that basically is for four units per acre as a minimum on the residential piece, strictly residential piece. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And so that adds up to be a total of -- MR. MUDD: Of91. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- 91. And so we're talking about taking 20 percent of those 91 units and they will be affordable housing in one of two categories, or split equal into two categories. MR. GOLDMEYER: Correct. I think what we'd agree to, because we are going to come in and seek the density bonuses, that in no event will the number of affordable units be less than nine or workforce units be less than nine. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And is that okay with your motion, Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER FIALA: He already withdraw it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I withdrew my motion. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I'm wondering if you're going to make another one. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The same one I did before. I Page 92 June 7, 2005 don't know what was wrong with the same -- the affordable housing and the workforce was in the base density of four. MR. GOLDMEYER: The difference is I was trying to mitigate the total number. Ifwe get up to a higher number, I was trying to limit -- you know, mitigate the total number on the, you know, much denser proj ect by putting in those minimums that you were concerned that we might try to avoid if we just developed the base density. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Then I read farther on in the text towards the back of this large book that was presented to us where there's a possibility that there could be a density of what, 238 units? MR. GOLDMEYER: It would be probably higher than that. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Be higher than that? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Higher than that? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Only if we grant it. We don't grant it now. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I understand that, but it's written in there that there's that potential of at least 238. So you're looking at, as Commissioner Henning is looking at, we're only looking at nine units of affordable housing and nine units of workforce housing on top of a 238 -- possibly a 238-unit project. MR. MURRAY: No, there would be 10 percent above that base density. You'd start with the nine and nine and then anything above the 71 or 91 would be 10 percent workforce and 10 percent affordable. So if it was 238, then you would subtract out the base density and then -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's not what the owner said. The owner said it would only be 10 percent if he goes above the base. Because he's trying to limit his risk if he goes above the base. That's what I understood him to say. So he's guaranteeing the 18 -- or the nine and nine on the base density, and he's saying he will give an additional 10 percent on any Page 93 June 7, 2005 bonus density he is granted. That's what I heard him say. Now, am I wrong? Am I wrong or right? MR. MURRAY: Yes, that's correct. CHAIRMAN COYLE: So I'm right. MR. MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, is there anyone here who has a motion that will support that? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll make a motion to support that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: With the understanding that we're not approving any density above the 91 at this time. CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's correct. Okay. Commissioner Coletta has made a motion to approve. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, seconded by Commissioner Fiala. The motion is to approve, with the stipulation that 10 percent of the base density will be affordable housing and 10 percent of the base density will be workforce housing, and that if in the event bonuses are granted above the base density, 10 percent of that housing will be affordable housing. Okay? MR. MUDD: And 10 percent will be workforce. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, so you are going to put -- MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, then I was wrong. MR. MUDD: And at no time will you get less than nine units affordable and nine units workforce. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right, is everybody clear on that? Okay, the motion maker is and I think the seconder is. So is there any further discussion? Page 94 June 7, 2005 Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So the only difference is this, we're already predetermined what the affordable housing percentage is above the base density. Affordable and workforce housing above the base density. That's the only difference between my motion and the motion that's on the floor. CHAIRMAN COYLE: That wasn't my understanding of your motion, but if that's what you say, that's okay with me. So-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: But any time that we -- any extra density that we have given lately is not market rate, but here we're saying yeah, 10 percent workforce, 10 percent affordable and 80 percent market rate. I just think it goes against the grain of what we approved in the recent past. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Which one are you talking about, the base density? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I'm talking above. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We haven't approved anything above. We might never approve anything above. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that's true. You're absolutely correct. CHAIRMAN COYLE: So this motion has nothing to do with that. It's just a stipulation that if we should, by chance, by a very, very slim chance, if we ever approved any density here, then it would have to contain some -- at least some -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ten percent. CHAIRMAN COYLE: At least 10 percent. Actually, 20 percent -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Twenty percent. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, 20 percent. So-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, I'm comfortable. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right, everybody's okay? Everybody understands where we are? Page 95 June 7, 2005 Okay, all in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. Any opposed by like sign. (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. Don't come back for any base density -- I mean, any increases in density. MR. MUDD: The next petition is petition -- do you have something to say , David? MR. WEEKS: If you don't mind. I'm still not clear, and I'd need to, of course, make sure we're really clear on the language. And I believe you're -- what you approved was that 10 percent of the base density would be affordable housing and 10 percent would be workforce housing. The base density of this proj ect, assuming they develop the full five acres that they're allowed, well, subject to rezoning, of course, but if they develop the full five acres at commercial, then they'll have 17.83 acres of residential. That's times four, the base density is where we come up with the 71 units. In your motion then it sounds to me that you're saying of those 71 units, that's the base density, 10 percent will be affordable and 10 percent will be workforce. And then you went on to say that any bonuses granted at the rezone time, 10 percent of those must be workforce and 10 percent affordable. CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's absolutely right. MR. WEEKS: Thank you. MR. MUDD: Are you -- no, wait a minute, David, now I'm confused. And I want to make sure I've got it right. He said 71 -- Page 96 June 7, 2005 there's two parcels. COMMISSIONER HALAS: There's two parcels. MR. MUDD: There's mixed use, okay, on five acres that has residential over the business. Now I would assume, and maybe I'm wrong, that those will probably -- those residential units will be the affordable and the workforce ones, just because you've got some cost leveraging you're doing with the commercial property underneath, okay? That's a total of 20 units that are over there. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's right. MR. MUDD: Then you've got 17.8 acres over here, okay, and I'll quit using my fingers, okay, but you got two parcels over here -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just be careful which finger you use. MR. MUDD: And they're saying it has a minimum -- as a minimum of four units per acre, a total of 71 units. So when you said, and I believe the petitioner said that if he is only coming in with the commercial piece mixed use and the residential piece, which gives him a total residential unit count of 91, that he would bring in 10 percent affordable and 10 percent workforce. And we talked about nine units of each. CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's correct. MR. MUDD: And then he said, and if I come in and get a density bonus for affordable housing, and let's say 16 units per acre, or whatever that's going to be, and they get above the 91 but no less than the nine and nine, that he would put 10 percent affordable and 10 percent workforce aside, so you could get a greater number of those particular units. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Still sounds like an echo to me. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Except for the word no less than. MR. WEEKS: So there's an actual commitment then that in the commercial component of the project, they will develop residential. Thank you for that clarification. Page 97 June 7, 2005 CHAIRMAN COYLE: You got it? MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. MR. MUDD: Got it. Commissioner, that brings us to No.6, which is Petition CPSP-2004-7. It's a petition requesting amendments to the future land use element and future land use map and map series, Golden Gate area master plan element text and future land use map capital improvement element and the potable water and sanitary sewer subelements of the public facilities element to include potable water and sanitary sewer subelements, capital improvement element, Golden Gate area master plan, future land use element No.5, future land use map, and No.6, future land use map series. And Mr. David Weeks will present. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any further discussion? We have a motion to approve by Commissioner Henning, I think a second from Commissioner Halas. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: No public speakers? MS. FILSON: No, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Anything you need to read into the record, David? MR. WEEKS: No, sir. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. Page 98 June 7, 2005 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. Any opposed by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, now I need the board to -- you've adopted five of the six. Now I need the board to give a motion to transmit the adopted petitions. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a motion to transmit the adopted petitions? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So moved. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So moved. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion by Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Halas to approve forwarding the adopted petitions. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. Any opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to ask if you wouldn't mind if you'll leave your binders here, we'll be glad to pick those up to reuse them. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then we are adjourned. Thank you very much. Page 99 June 7, 2005 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:19 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL FRED cîrtt ~ha~ ATTEST: . . .~~-? DWIGHT-E~ B~Óþ~, CLERK '. "'-." . . , <., - "t. ;~e~i~~~~~~~ard on ~1~4 a, ~OO5- as presented ¡.../" or as corrected . , TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM. Page 100