Loading...
DSAC LDR Subcommittee Minutes 07/23/2013 2013 DSAC Land Development Review Subcommittee Minutes July 23 , 2013 July 23,2013 FILED#4 Ft-OR i MI Tjt6O?THE MEETING OF THE LAND DEVELTEUWMagGULATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE DEVELOPMfdS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida July 23, 2013 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Land Development Regulations Subcommittee of the Collier County Development Services Advisory Committee, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 2:30 PM in SUBCOMMITTEE SESSION, in Conference Room "609/610," Growth Management Division, Planning & Regulation Office, at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: DSAC/LDR Members: Clay Brooker Alexis Crespo Bob Mulhere STAFF: Caroline Cilek, M.S., Senior Planner Ellen Summers, Planning Technician Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Esq., Assistant County Attorney 1 July 23,2013 CALL TO ORDER: Meeting#4 was called to order at 2:36 PM. ATTENDEES: • Bill Schreck—Collier Building Industry Association ("CBIA") • Don Amico—Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, Inc. • Pat Vanesse—RWA Consulting, Inc. • Mark Strain—Collier County Planning Commission/Collier County Hearing Examiner • Jeremy Frantz—Conservancy of SWF PURPOSE: Review of the Administrative Code and corresponding LDC Amendments. Caroline Cilek noted: • The meeting was the last meeting to specifically review the Administrative Code and the corresponding LDC Amendments. • Goal: To obtain recommendations to be made to full DSAC • The August DSAC meeting was cancelled. • The Subcommittee's recommendations will be emailed to DSAC's members who will be requested to return their"votes" via email. Assistant County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko confirmed the purpose of the email is simply to identify how many members support the recommendations. DSAC's members will officially approve the recommendations at the September meeting. Caroline Cilek contacted DSAC's Chairman, William Varian, who approved the email plan. • The subcommittee recommendations will be presented to the Collier County Planning Commission at the August 15th meeting. 2. SITE PLAN WITH DEVIATIONS: A. (Will be reviewed at the next meeting—date to be scheduled) Caroline Cilek explained the Site Plan with Deviations is geared toward redevelopment projects and the language is being drafted. It will be presented as an LDC Amendment, amending LDC Section 10.02.03. The Administrative Code process is also being amended. It may be necessary to hold an additional Subcommittee meeting before August 15th to obtain input from the members. Robert Mulhere asked when the document would be presented to DSAC. Caroline Cilek replied the same email process would be followed in order to present the Amendment to the full DSAC at the September meeting. She stated the Amendment was modeled after the City of Naples. 2 July 23,2013 Clay Brooker noted DSAC had previously reviewed an Amendment that allowed for more flexibility for redevelopment projects. Caroline Cilek explained DSAC had previously reviewed the Administrative Adjustment which was a multi-administrative approval process. The proposed Amendment will be a quasi-judicial process with public hearings for an SDP, SDP-A, or a SIP. It would probably not apply to re-plats. 1. UPDATE ON ADMINISTRATIVE CODE SECTIONS: A. LDC Section 8.10.00—Hearing Examiner • A copy of the proposed Amendment was distributed to the Subcommittee. • Consists of three paragraphs: (A) Establishment and Powers; (B) Procedures, and (C) Role on Planning Commission. • This is a new section created specifically for the Hearing Examiner. Robert Mulhere questioned the necessity of including the language, "While a Hearing Examiner is employed by the County ..." in Paragraph(C). Clay Brooker stated the word, "While," was misleading. He suggested omitting it and inserting the following language: "Notwithstanding that fact that a Hearing Examiner is employed by the County ..." Attorney Ashton-Cicko noted if the Board decides a Hearing Examiner is not required, the final decision could fall back to the Collier County Planning Commission ("CCPC"). She stated the sentence was tied to employment. She explained the process could remain in place even without a Hearing Examiner. Clay Brooker asked if there would be a contract between Collier County and a Hearing Examiner. Attorney Ashton-Cicko replied a contract was already in place. Robert Mulhere speculated that, in the future, the Board could decide to engage the services of an individual to act as a Hearing Examiner but not necessarily to be employed by the County on a full-time basis. Attorney Ashton-Cicko responded there would still be a contract between the Board and whomever was hired. Clay Brooker asked, if the Hearing Examiner was the final decision maker concerning any of the items specified in the Amendment and the Planning Commission could not hear any of the items, were there circumstances where the CCPC would ultimately hear the item. Caroline Cilek stated it would take one path or the other. (Due to interference from heavy static, the remainder of her response was not audible.) Mr. Brooker noted in a situation where the Hearing Examiner recuses him/herself, the case would go before the CCPC for a decision. Attorney Ashton-Cicko responded the reasons for a recusal were outlined in the Administrative Code as well as in County Ordinance No. 2013-25. The purpose of the 3 July 23,2013 Section was to recognize it in the LDC. She noted Ordinance No. 2013-25 is also in the Code of Laws. B. Chapter 9 (Administrative Code) Hearing Examiner provisions Caroline Cilek noted this document is located in the Administrative Code. It outlines the procedures for the Hearing Examiner process. She stated the Chapter referenced Section 8.10.00 and the Code of Laws. It was suggested that the definition of"standing" should be included under the Public Hearing portion on page 220. Clay Brooker stated there was case law that defined the term. Robert Mulhere noted under Paragraph I, "Due Process," it was stated: "The term "parties" to any proceeding are the Applicant and the County (or their representatives) and does not include public participants or their representatives. " Clay Brooker explained case law does not allow a non-party to question or cross- examine witnesses in a quasi-judicial hearing. In a public hearing, anyone can make a statement. He stated the Chapter could require that a member of the public identify his/her interest in the project (or lack thereof). Mr. Mulhere suggested contacting Mark Strain of the CCPC. There was further discussion concerning Items 1 and 2, "Public Hearing—Rules of Evidence," on Page 220. Lee County's policy of requiring a"48-Hour" Memo was briefly outlined. It was suggested to insert a time-frame. Clay Brooker commented if ex-parte communication is going to be allowed, it is important that the Applicant is informed of what the issues are and what has been provided to the Hearing Examiner in advance of the hearing. He referred to Page 222 and questioned who could file a Motion for Reconsideration. He suggested specifying who was allowed. Attorney Ashton-Cicko stated she would review the document. Mr. Brooker referred to Paragraph I, "Due Process," on Page 220 and suggested the following: • Delete the phrase: "and does not include public participants of their representatives." • Insert the sentence: "The Parties may file a Motion for Reconsideration." Attorney Ashton-Cicko noted the process in place is to appeal to the Board before instituting a civil action. Caroline Cilek reminded the Subcommittee that she will collect their written comments at the end of the meeting. She asked Clay Brooker to help prepare an overview to be sent to the DSAC members which will request their feedback. 3. UPDATE ON LDC SECTIONS 4 a July 23,2013 A. Section 10.02.04—Plats and Plans Caroline Cilek stated the language regarding the PSP Section was reviewed and amended to identify that a Boundary Survey is be prepared by a professional surveyor and mapper (signed and sealed). The remaining materials would be considered a "land plan" which would not require a survey due to the fact that it was an early stage in the process. She stated this would also be indentified in the Administrative Code. B. Section 3.02.10—Standards for Subdivision Plats Caroline Cilek noted there have been some issues regarding final subdivision plats with Base Flood Elevation identifications. She stated the language concerning Base Flood Elevations was deleted since BFEs are subject to change by FEMA every five to ten years. The Section will be consistent with other Sections in Chapter 10 that have been amended. E. Deleted: " ... and the minimum base flood elevation as required in this Section." Discussion ensued concerning the use of NGVD versus NAVD. A suggestion was offered to use one or the other as long as an equation to convert was also provided. The goal is to eliminate having two sets of grades on the plans. Caroline Cilek stated the issue will be thoroughly addressed during the next LDC Amendment Cycle. Robert Mulhere suggested a potential "fix"by inserting the following language: "All grades must be shown in NAVD, and an equivalent formula for NGVD may be provided." 4. DSAC-LDR RECOMMENDATIONS: A. Public Comments: (Copies of the comments were provided to the Subcommittee.) Comments submitted by: • Michael Fernandez—Planning Development Incorporated o Suggestion: to allow an architect or other responsible professional to submit a cover sheet, site plan, grading plan, and the majority of detailed plans in addition to an engineer. Robert Mulhere stated "some" plans are created by planners or architects, i.e., Site Improvement Plans and basic site plans that do not require engineering details. He suggested adding the following clarifying language: "To be signed and sealed by a registered Engineer, a Landscape Architect, or an Architect as permitted under licensure requirements." Caroline Cilek noted the Administrative Code states: • Construction plans shall be signed by a Professional Engineer • Landscape plans shall be signed by a Landscape Architect • Architectural plans shall be signed by an Architect 5 July 23,2013 The LDC references only Site Development Plans. The model will be applied to the LDC, i.e., "construction plans or equivalent." Comments submitted by: • David Wilkison—Stantec o Section 10.02.04 B(2)(c)—"professional surveyor and mapper" o Section 10.02.04 B(2)(e)—"stormwater" management o Section 10.02.05 B(2)(e) —"signed and sealed" in place of"certified" Caroline Cilek noted Mr. Wilkison's suggestion will be incorporated in the changes to be made. Comments submitted by: • Dom Amico—Agnoli, Barber &Brundage, Inc. o Section 10.02.04—"Requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plats and Section" • 10.02.04 A(1)(a) —will be considered in the future • 10.02.04 A(4) — PSP must look the same as the final plat • 10.02.04 B(2)(d) — will be added to list of future LDS Amendments • 10.02.04 B(3)(c) —language will remain, i.e., "will"—not "may" • 10.02.04B(3)(d) —this is standard policy • 10.02.04 F(1)—will discuss with Jack/John o Section 10.02.05 —"Construction, Approval, and Acceptance of Required Improvements" • 10/02/05 B(2)(a)—will be added to the list of future LDC amendments • 10.02.05 B(2)(b)—this is current procedure • 10.02.05 B(2)(e)—a PDF is the preferred submission—Mylar will be phased out • 10.02.05 D—current amount is 150% of estimated costs • 10.02.05 D—extensions—there are too many—some allow more time than others—reduce to two options • 10.02.05 E(3)—Caroline will research how other communities handle the same situation (Robert Mulhere left at 3:45 PM) Summary of Recommendations: (1) Meeting #1 (January 24, 2013) • Re-codify the Appeals process to the Planning Commission during the next LDC Amendment Cycle. Section was previously located in the Boat Dock section(91-102 Code). • Consider proposing removal of the BCC Mailed Notice, if required, for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (existing). It is rarely triggered. (2) Meeting #2 (February 28, 2013) 6 July 23,2013 • Include the voting requirements of the Board in instances where the Board is the decision-making body during the next LDC Amendment Cycle. o Recommendation by County Attorney's Office: May not be appropriate since the voting requirements are subject to change and are identified in Florida Statutes in the Florida Administrative Code. o Clay Brooker supports inclusion. (3) Meeting #3 (July 8, 2013) • Add Archeological Plan process to the Administrative Code (in Chapter 7). Caroline Cilek will update the recommendation to include the comments made during the meeting in addition to including the Hearing Examiner procedures (Section 8.10.00). B. Notification to DSAC: • The Subcommittee's recommendations will be emailed to DSAC members • DSAC members will be requested to return their "votes"via email • Official vote will be ratified at September DSAC meeting NEXT MEETING: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 at 3:00 PM There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chairman at 4:16 PM. DSAC—LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE CLAY BROOKER CHAIRMAN The Minutes were approved by the Board/Committee on 7/?j / / 13 , 2013 "as submitted" [v( OR "as amended" ( 1.