Loading...
DSAC Minutes 03/07/2001 RMarch 7, 2001 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, March 7, 2001 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Development Services Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, as the governing board of such special district as has been created in accordance to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:36 p.m., in REGULAR SESSION, at Conference Room "F', Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Thomas Masters, P.E. Charles M. Abbott Dalas D. Disney, AIA Marco A. Espinar Blair A. Foley, P.E. Brian E. Jones Dino J. Longo Bryan P. Milk C. Perry Peeples, Esq. Michelle Arnold John Dunnuck Tom Kuck Robert Mulhere Susan Murray Ron Nino Ed Perico Phil Tindall Page1 March 7, 2001 CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Call the meeting to order. Anybody have anything that we need to add to the agenda? MR. DISNEY: I have-- CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Yes, Dalas? MR. DISNEY: -- a couple of items, if I may. I'd suggest under New Business, two items, A and B. First item, A, Architectural Design Standards Review; and item B, Landscape Plants for Mitigation Review. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Was that landscape for mitigation? MR. DISNEY: Landscape Plants for Mitigation. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. MR. DISNEY: Thank you. MR. MULHERE: I would like it if -- with the committee's approval, to move Item 3C up, make it 3A. I've got two meetings going on now. I've got to be in the fringe committee meeting, which starts at four, but that would give me time to get through these issues first. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. With those, any change -- MR. FOLEY: I make a motion that we approved the agenda as revised. MR. DISNEY: Second. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. All in favor say aye. (Unanimous vote of ayes.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Opposed? Hearing none, we'll accept the agenda. Move on to the minutes quickly. Anybody have any comments on the minutes -- MR. FOLEY: Yeah, I do. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: -- from the last meeting? MR. FOLEY: They're not numbered, the pages aren't numbered, so -- okay, we start from the front with the cover sheet dated February 7 -- 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, looking at the eighth sheet at the bottom part of it, it identifies myself, Mr. Foley, as saying, '1 think also you encouraged buildings and the like." That wasn't my statement; it was one of the parties involved. I don't know if it was Mr. Van Arsdale or Mr. Tindall or what. That needs to be corrected, so I suggest a review of the original documents that were recorded to check to see who made that statement. And also later on in the document, a few more pages in the Page 2 March 7, 2001 back, I'm identified as Mr. Blair. I don't know, it's a -- maybe -- it's the third to the last sheet. I recommended that that be revised, as well. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Perhaps we could list "Unknown Member" instead of "Mr. Foley"? MR. FOLEY: Yeah, that's fine. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Is that all right? MR. FOLEY: Yeah, 'cause I don't -- those other people aren't here to -- Mr. Van Arsdale isn't here to verify that he made that statement. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. MR. FOLEY: That's fine. THE REPORTER: You are Mr. Foley though. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Yes. MR. FOLEY: Yes, I'm Mr. Foley. THE REPORTER: I didn't do that. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Yes, I know. THE REPORTER: But I might. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Yes, Mr. Disney. MR. DISNEY: Third page from the back, there is a -- I think it's just a misspelling on a word. Mr. Masters talks about "community," and I think it should say "committee," and I'm not sure what page number that would be, third page from the back. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. Yeah, I would add that we might want to get these numbered, make it a lot easier to find issues on the page numbering. THE REPORTER: We don't print them. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Oh, okay. THE REPORTER: It's this office that prints them. We just send them out on an ASCII disk, and they take it from there. MR. MULHERE: I would think that you would want page numbers and line numbers on the draft format; then you can refer to them, once they're finally approved, you can take those out, the line numbers. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Yes, as a minimum, at least page numbers. I think that's how they normally come. MR. MULHERE: Right. THE REPORTER: We'll let them know. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: 'Cause it also -- I couldn't find my note in here either, but one of the pages looked like it might have Page 3 March 7, 2001 been out of order or even a page missing in it, so -- MR. DISNEY: Flipped over. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. Any other comments on the minutes? MR. DISNEY: Move approval. MR. FOLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. All in favor? (Unanimous vote of ayes.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Opposed? Motion carries. Let's move on to the Technology Update. MR. MULHERE.' Okay. We wanted to take a little bit of time, and actually this probably will take maybe about a half an hour. I'll say at the outset, one of the things I wanted to show you-all was the results or the process of converting our paper files into an electronic format. You'll recall the electronic conversion surcharge that you-all agreed to that we collect that would raise about 125,000 a year. We bought some hardware, we hired some staff, and we're in that process. Problem is, that software is only loaded on the hard drive of about 100 individual computers in the building. It's not on our network, so I can't access it from here. Didn't realize that. We can either do one of two things. We could defer that to a later meeting, 'cause you have a pretty good agenda here, or if you want, we could take a break and we'll walk up to the records room and take a look at what's going on. UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we defer it. MR. MULHERE: Okay. Then what I'll do is have Don load the software onto this machine, and we'll show it to you at a -- maybe your next meeting. What I have up there right now is the planning services Web page. By the way, a lot of the credit for a lot of the technical advancements that we've been making in trying to enhance our efficiency and also provide greater access information to you and to the public goes to Don Blalock, who's not here, he's working on the house committee; otherwise, I might not have so many technical problems. But anyway Don is really the person that I think gets the lion's share of credit. I tell him what I would like to be done, and he makes it happen, so it works out pretty Page 4 March 7, 2001 good. You know, we have this Web site set up, and you can access an awful lot of information; I'm not sure if you're all aware of that. For example, recently we added -- well, first of all, you've got your fee schedule on there, and you've got all of your applications. Every single application of the planning department is available, and you can download it into word format and copy it and have it in your records, and as it changes, you can take a look at those. There's also all the contact persons in there and there's access to the LDC, to, to recent LDC amendments. As soon as they're approved by the board, we'll make them available to you on here, because you know there's a lag time with the Municipal Code Corporation, and that's a big problem. And we're working with Municipal Code Corporation to renew our contract and to eliminate that problem and have that happen faster, and part of the way we can do that is by distributing it to them electronically rather than a paper format. But we're working on that, but in the meanwhile, we'll put the amendments up here. One of the other things I wanted to show you that I don't know if you-all know, Don put together this little search tool for site plans. You can go in, and if you fill it in, basically any piece of that information, I believe, or, you know, some piece of that information -- I'll try it. Let's see. I don't know what we'll get here. We might get a list if I can spell it right. And there's a list of the SDPs in Pelican Bay. You can see the number and you can then go more specifically to that SDP, find some information on it. But the ultimate goal here will be when we've completed the conversion process of all of our SDPs -- we're doing all the new ones, we're working on the backlog, when we get them all done, there will be a link from here to those actual files with the drawings and all of the correspondence, so you'll be able to look at all the files that way ultimately. One of the things we're talking about internally here is, how can we expedite that process a little bit? We always knew it would take a long time, but we're thinking if we prioritize certain files such as the PUD documents and site plans and like construction, final construction plans, we may want to try to expedite that process, 'cause those I think are pretty important Page 5 March 7, 2001 files that are getting used a lot. Maybe we wouldn't care so much about -- worrying about the backlog of variance petitions and things like that, to prioritize that. Maybe look at actually dedicating some additional revenue to that process so we can speed it up a little bit, perhaps hire even an outside contractor to come in and assist us in that conversion process. Anyway, I just wanted to, you know, encourage you to use the site, and I think there are some other sites within the division that also have some good information, but I'm kind of proud of ours. And now I wanted to show you another couple of sites that we have just -- this particular site here has just gone public in the last week. It's the Neighborhood America. We have a similar sort of a sister site that I'll show you. If you go to the county's main Web page -- let's 9o back one more -- you'll see that it says, access our new community character plan Web site. I put in a request a week ago and maybe I can put another request in to have that say, access our new rural assessment and community character Web site. Anyway, if you click on that -- it hasn't happened yet, but it probably will -- that will bring you to a scratch page which you can go to the community character or the rural assessment Web page, and they are both project sites done by Neighborhood America, and they're interactive; they offer public comment. I wanted to show you this one a little bit. This page here really just has some basic information on it, just a couple of paragraphs about, about the assessment and how we got there. Oh, come on. I wish I had a mouse on this thing. You go to the -- this list here, and there are some drop-down buckets and you have -- about the assessment, and that is really a more in-depth description of the growth management process and how we -- if a final order came to be. Then it specifically goes to the rural fringe area, the eastern lands area, and there are links in both of these. For example, the other maps, you can go back to the final order, and then there's also links to maps depicting the area down a little bit lower here, right here, for example. You can click on the link, and it will bring up a map. Further on this, this bucket here -- whoops, what did I do? Page 6 March 7, 2001 MR. DISNEY: Escape. MR. MULHERE: I don't understand. There we go. There we go. You've got access to project contacts. Ours, you can e-mail the staff directly if you click on any one of those four staff members, but we also have the fringe committee, the eastern lands committee, and the EAC committee, and also there's a technical advisory group that was created to assist during this process. And most of those folks also have a direct e-mail list there, not all of them, but you can see John Folks is with the department of Ag, and Ken Jardin, Johnny Limbaugh from DOT, Dave Burke from the region, and so on and so forth. So people can contact that technical advisory committee too if they wish to, you know, make comments to them regarding some of this process or ask them questions. Here I am again. Let's see. The last thing on that drop-down bucket is related to links. I'm not going to spend a lot of time on that, but I just did want to show you that, for example, you can access, oh, the Governor's Growth Management Study. There's literally -- there's probably like 50 or 60 links on here for various -- but there's the growth management study commission link there. If you wanted to look at their final recommendations, Florida Stewardship has some good stuff on there about preserving rural lands, so there's a bunch of -- it's pretty easy access to a lot of information. Next bucket here is public notice. If we click on that -- you can subscribe to the Web site; anybody can subscribe to the Web site, and you can click on if you want to be notified when the calendar is updated or any time the Web site is updated; and if you do that, you will automatically receive an e-mail indicating that this Web site has been updated, either strictly because of a calendar change or we added a new document to it, and then it gives you a link to the Web site so you don't have to think about coming back to it. And people, I think, who are interested in this process will, will appreciate that. There's a multimedia gallery that contains all of the power point presentations. You can put almost anything on here, including video, but, for example, we have done a power point presentation on urban sprawl to both committees and -- takes a little while for some of these things to load, especially with this Page 7 March 7, 2001 notebook, but it's pretty quick on my laptop. But anyway, the whole slide presentation will come up, and there are several of those on there, and, as you know, someone can just click on the slide and enlarge it and bring it up, but I'm having a little trouble with the old computer. There we go. That was the famous smashing the urban boundary slide that Bruce Anderson is so familiar with. This -- the reason I'm showing this to you is, this is something that, that we really want to utilize a little bit more of, this type of facility. We're getting to some of the other stuff. There's a calendar here that will provide for all of the meetings, and if you click on -- this is the EAC meeting, for example, and it provides a -- it connects you with map plats, provides you with the map of the location, tells you where it is, and so we've got all of those meetings listed on there. The last thing that I wanted to show you was the public comment portion, which I think is very significant. You can participate in several ways. One is, we can place surveys on this Web site, any-- really any amount of surveys, and we've got one on there now that we did that deals with -- it asks some general questions about the Web site, and then it asks some more specific questions regarding natural resource protection areas, preservation of wetlands and habitat and listed species. And it asks quite a few questions. It's not a scientific survey, because there's really no way you could verify duplicative responses or where someone's responding from over the Internet, but it will be a good guide if we get a sufficient amount of responses, and we'll use it only as a guide; we certainly won't use it as, you know, the final say-so on any issue, but we can put a lot of different issues out there. What I wanted to show you is, once someone has responded to this -- and this thing just went public last week, so we don't have much action. We need to get this posted on a lot of people's Web sites, which is -- the next thing I'm going to do is write a letter to a whole bunch of organizations asking them to post the link on their Web site. But when you submit your choices, and we didn't go through it in the interest of time, but you can then look and see how people have responded to the survey, and it calculates the Page 8 March 7, 2001 responses for you. And as you can see, we only have two people that responded so far, but it's, I think, kind of interesting that it calculates the responses for you. And this is also a database, so you can -- there, there were comment boxes under each question, and individuals can provide comments, specific comments rather than just a yes or no, where you can go in and group those comments by key words and things like that. So you remember the Army Corps ElS, they did a similar process, and they had a whole list of all the commenters and what their issues were and grouped them by issue. Remember that this final assessment is supposed to -- the hallmark of this is supposed to be public participation, and we just felt that this was another easier way for the public to participate 24 hours a day, seven days a week. We recognize that not everyone will do it this way, but I think a lot of people will. The last things is public comment. You can comment specifically by e-mail on any of these matters. What we -- and there's a couple of different ways you can do that, but one of the things we said here was, look, if you're going to comment by e-mail, well, we'll use that in our determination; but if you really want your comment to be a specific part of the record, you still have to send it in writing and -- or e-mail, but you have to provide us with your name, your address, and all of those kinds of things. Just an e-mail from Mickey Mouse, you know, sure, we'll take a look at it, but it may not be an official part of the record. And I did want to go to the public comment section to show you how that works if I can see where that is. Okay. Click here to simply browse. We're just going to browse. Here you can, you can post questions that the public can create a discourse on. They can -- this is a Web board; it's available, you know, 24 hours a day, and people can read this question -- if I can get down to it -- and then respond by clicking Reply, and then you can respond to those replies and you can create sort of an ongoing discourse. In the case of this one, should the county have a green space acquisition program to protect and preserve environmentally sensitive lands? Should there be an urban area Page 9 March 7, 2001 component to acquire green space that can easily be used by the majority of citizens? Just general questions just intended to start to get some response, see where we go, we can do other things to that. So that's this Web site. The community character Web site is very similar, and I should let you know we're thinking about a third Web site that would utilize much of this, but not all of it. We're thinking about a Web site that would house all site plans and development petition applications for access by the public; say, within two weeks of it being received, we would post that. Then we would post everything else along the process. So if it was an EAC report, a CCBC report, an executive summary to the board, all of those would be posted almost immediately once they receive a final signature of approval. The point is, we hear from the public a lot that, you know, they don't find out about these things or they don't have easy access to the information early enough in the process, so this will provide them with, you know, full-time access as early as we can possibly make it available to them, and it's consistent with the recommendations of the Governor's Growth Management Study Commission related to enhancing public access to information and involvement in the process. So that's the next step, and, you know, look, frankly, people that are in a development review process that, that are good at what they do are notifying people of what's going on anyway, so we're really not putting an additional burden on them in that process, the ones that are good at what they do. Okay. I wanted Susan to come up and show you guys just real briefly -- I don't know if everybody knows Susan Murray. Does everybody know Susan Murray? She's the chief planner in current planning. She's going to show you the Perconti development review module that we are, what, about three months into now, maybe less? MS. MURRAY: Less. MR. MULHERE: Less? MS. MURRAY: Yeah. MR. MULHERE: So it's going to be a little painful for a few more months, but we, we trust that in the final outcome -- it took about a year in code enforcement and about the same in building before every -- before all the bugs were worked out. I'm not sure Page 10 March 7, 2001 they all are. MS. MURRAY: Two years. MR. MULHERE: Two years? Okay. But ultimately we will recognize significantly enhanced efficiency. As you can see from some of those tabs up there, addressings, code enforcement, permitting, development review, and cash management, everything is linked -- everything will be linked once this is populated with data, and we will -- the next step, we'll make this available to you and the public to be able to access it, so you'll be able to monitor your project through, you'll be able to look at a project and see whether the code enforcement case is pending on it, and we'll be able to do that. Right now it takes, it takes several days just to respond to a simple zoning letter to find out what's happening on it, because you have to go to a lot of locations physically to collect that information and then respond to the bank or the lawyer or the developer or the property owner who's asking the question. This will probably, we think, reduce that time down to maybe an hour once the data has been populated. It will take some time to get the data populated. Go ahead, Susan. MS. MURRAY: Well, you just told them everything I was going to say. What am I going to do now? (Laughter) MR. MULHERE: You're going to show them how it works. MS. MURRAY: For those of you that are involved in submitting the land use applications, site development plans, plats, anything for review, this is the electronic version of what once was the big paper trail that we have had for many years in Collier County Government; so this is basically an electronic review process for those types of petitions, and we've identified, in case you didn't know, 74 different types of processes that we have in-house that are mandated by our code, anywhere from SDPs to PUD rezoning the plats, so all of that is now set up in an electronic format so that we can record everything in the computer. And as Bob said, eventually, the idea is to get this on-line so that the public can actually access this too and find out where we are in the review process, what the reviewer's comments are, what -- if anybody has put something on hold and why, that sort Page 11 March 7, 2001 of thing. You can see a due date, when the applicable was actually submitted and accepted, and then from all that information, we'll be able to run monthly reports to see exactly what departments are meeting our goals for our review times. All the review times are set up in a maintenance table, so we have very specific goals. If you look at this screen, one of the nice things is, at the bottom you'll see a pop-up menu, and when the user logs on every morning, the pop-up screen tells them what reviews are due that day and any other reviews that might be late, as well. So every day there's a reminder for what reviews are due that day, so -- let me see if I can use this thing here. And what I want to show you now is basically how this system works from -- there we go -- from an internal perspective, and this probably isn't going to be real exiting, because it's mostly an internal organization, but I'll give you an idea of what you might be looking at sometime in the future with respect to staff reviews. And what we're looking at here is basically, this is our site development plan, and it's currently in the review stage, which means that basically the application was submitted. It was deemed sufficient, the correct fees were paid, and so it was entered into the computer, and that's when the time clock starts ticking. Once that's happened, it then advances to the review stage where we are now; and as you can see, all these are all the departments that are required to review this and the current status of their review. For example, environment health here has completed their review which was due on the 12th of March, and it was completed on the 28th of February. You can see on the next line, water management has yet to complete their review, and none of the information is filled in. If you look down here at fire, they've conducted their review, and the current status of that is reject, and that basically means there are some issues or problems that will necessitate revisions in site plans. Surprise, surprise. MR. MULHERE.' Surprise, surprise. By the way, that happened today. Who's was that SDP? Page 12 March 7, 2001 MS. MURRAY: Let me see if I can open up -. well, fire probably isn't the best one to look at. MR. DISNEY: Oh, no, look at fire. MS. MURRAY: Well, what I want to show you is kind of a mechanism we're using, because I've gotten a lot of interest on this from a lot of engineering and planning firms. This is the -- a checklist, and basically we've set up over 350 checklists in the system, and these are basically what I would call a reiteration of the -- or a summary of the code requirements when you're reviewing this type of petition, and so this is what the staff is required to look at, every item on there, and they are required to check it off whether or not it meets that section of the code or whether or not a certain process was followed. And a checkmark basically means yes. If it's lined out, it means it's not applicable, et cetera, et cetera. And then we have the ability to type in some detailed comments in a remarks screen right there, so the interest -- the checklists I've generated are basically from these firms that are interested in receiving copies of our checklists so that when they're submitting plans, they can insure that they are -- they meet the code requirements from this checklist standpoint. So we've had a lot of requests for copies of our checklist. Once these checklists are complete, the system has the ability to automatically generate a letter, and that -- the system will pull all the negative comments into a letter, and the letter will be faxed to the applicant and the system will store a copy of the letter so we'll have a record of the reviews and all the remarks. MR. MULHERE: I think you can see that the challenge right now is, it's a new process, and it's a little bit painful for all of us, 'cause we're all used to doing things in a little bit of a different way. Frankly, we're all used to sort of finding the person that can make something happen for us and asking him to do it. This is a system that's going to work a little bit differently. Everyone's going to follow this system, and once we all get used to following this system, it will be a little less painful for all of us. It will be much more efficient in the long run. MS. MURRAY: I think the nice thing about this is -- MR. MULHERE.. And I'll follow it too in six weeks. MS. MURRAY: -- is you're going to be able to -- we're going Page t 3 March 7, 2001 to be able to track exactly -- for example, if certain departments are chronically late in their reviews, we're going to be able to track that relatively easily by running a monthly report, and then we start asking ourselves, well, why is that the case? You know, is it due to staffing level's workload? Does the person just need some more training? I mean, there's, you know, there's a lot of questions that could come about out of that. So another thing I want to show you is, on here I went to what's called the project screen. And over the next couple of years, we're going to actually be building this information into the project, and eventually what we'll have the ability to do is, this module will be able to tie into the permitting module, as well. So, for example, on PUDs where you have a set number of dwelling units, a PUD allowed the maximum of 500 dwelling units, the system will actually be able to debit from the -- every time a building permit is pulled, will actually debit from the development review module; and we'll be able to track, so when you reach that 499th of 500 dwelling units, that's it. So from a records maintenance perspective' as well, it's going to be a lot more efficient and a lot more accurate, I think, reducing the margin for error and providing you-all with information about -- and we'll have up-to-date information on the status of certain projects, as well, so that's another benefit. MR. MULHERE: I just wanted to add, also on the development commitments that, that .- MS. MURRAY: Correct. MR. MULHERE: .- you know, maybe we didn't have the direct responsibility for, for insuring that they happened -- it could be a transportation stipulation or a storm water management. The way we did it in the past is for -- generally for PUD monitoring, if you made a commitment to do some storm water management work when John Boldt contacted you and said he wanted that to happen and you went out and did it, we might not be aware of that. When we found out was on the anniversary of the PUD when you submitted a PUD monitor report, or I can say, better yet, you're waiting for a final report to do that. And this system will generate an automatic report that will say, your PUD monitor report is due; here is the deficiency. And we'll send it out and we can generate an automatic letter for Page 14 March 7, 2001 that. So we think we'll do a better job of tracking development commitments, which is probably better for both of us, because it's something that -- you know, you can easily -- someone can easily lose site of or track of, and we certainly don't want to do that, so I think that's another benefit of the system. MS. MURRAY: The module also has a concurrency function built in, as well, with respect to level of service for roads and utilities, and I would bet that eventually that will be built and we will be using the checkbook mechanism sometime in the future, as well. MR. MULHERE: You know, there have been discussions at the transportation workshop of doing something like that. There's been no policy decision, but, but, you know, the idea of -- at the transportation workshop I think Don Wolfe indicated that they wanted and got a blessing from the board to require a, a better traffic impact review, one that really does take in consideration of all approvals and pending approvals and things like that. So, yeah, I think we're moving towards .- even though we might continue to use an annual review on a project-by-project basis, we're going to be looking at this stuff, so if, you know, if we can build a good database, then it will be helpful for both of us to use that date -- use that database. MS. MURRAY: So basically where we are now is, we've just started going live with this on January 16. As you can see, a lot of fields for the information is empty. We're going to set a plan in place to build the database over the next couple of years. We are having, I would call it, a lot of bugs in the system; and if you've received any of our sufficiency letters to date, you'll see that there's just a lot of, a lot of tweaking and a lot of building of the system that still has yet to come, so we ask you to be patient, but it is, for the most part, functional. And you'll probably also note the addressing checklist requirement, those of you that submit site plans and whatnot, and basically, all of the information in here is tied to what's called an address record. It's not necessarily a physical address, but it -- which -- but the address record is tied to a legal description. And if anybody has any questions about that, that -- that seems to be running fairly well. I think people have gotten Page 15 March 7, 2001 the hang of faxing the information in to Peggy up in addressing prior to their submittal or prior to their having a pre-ap on the project. And I haven't run any -- across any problems in that. That's really critical to getting your project into the system, is, having that address, addressing record checklist filled out and your application being sufficient, as well. MR. MULHERE: I just have one thing. Susan really was the team leader for this project, must have been working -- well, I started working on this thing about seven or eight years ago. We never -- then we finally got to -- we went to code enforcement, development -- permitting, and some contractors' licensing, and finally the development review module. But on the development review module, what, about a year and a half? MS. MURRAY: Just about a year and three months, a little less than a year and a half. MR. MULHERE: So it's been a major project, and Susan has really dedicated a lot of time, and others, too. She's just sort of the team leader, but there's five or six other staff members in on it too, and they really just grabbed the ball and ran with it. And obviously we still have a lot more work to do, but I think, you know, we're getting towards a better automated system here. MS. MURRAY: Any questions or anything that I can -- MR. DUNNUCK: Secondly, I wanted to offer, I asked Bob to put this on the agenda to show you all a little bit about what your money pays for, you know, as far as this system goes and, and to show you that we're moving into more of a technology age and looking to be a little bit more efficient. Bob mentioned or Susan mentioned that we have some 74 processors that we deal with in the planning section, and, frankly, that has been an area -- since I've been over here, there's been a little bit of concern as far as the ability to keep track of all that going on, and this is one of those mechanisms that's going to allow us to track that much better, and from an auditing standpoint and from a business efficiency standpoint, I'm looking forward to. The other side of it, too, is, we can build in the level of service standards that you want. You know, we're going to be Page 16 March 7, 200t bringing back in next month or the month after the level of service standards of where you-all want to be. You know, a couple of months ago we came and asked for additional positions, but the proof is in the pudding, is, we have to come back and say, okay, you're going to get this level of service for getting those positions, and this will allow us to make sure that from an internal standpoint we are delivering to you-all. MR. FOLEY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Yes. MR. FOLEY: On the new process that you have, Susan, with your -- on your checklists that come in from addressing, you know, when you're faxing information to addressing and they get, they get that, they approve it, and we include that in our package -- MS. MURRAY: Yes. MR. FOLEY: -- what necessitates an incomplete package where, where it won't be locked into the system and distributed to the different staff members? MS. MURRAY: Well-- MR. MULHERE: I can answer that. MS. MURRAY: What's that? MR. MULHERE: I can answer that. MS. MURRAY: Go ahead. MR. MULHERE: Well, first of all, you've got to get the addressing, because that's a key piece of informational data. This is an informational database, and what it allows us to, to go out electronically and pull out information is that key piece of information which is the address record. It's not a folio number necessarily, because ultimately it will connect to the folio number, but folio numbers change as the properties split, so that -- that's one thing. You've got to have that in order for it to be processed, so that's the first point. You've got to have that address form filled out and completed. Second, there is an actual review -- we have right now one dedicated person, Cheryl Long, and we probably will have two dedicated people with some reassignments, 'cause we're going to have somebody in Tom's shop. As you all know, Sherry is, at the very least, overworked. She's very good at what she does, so we're looking at supplementing her with another person. Those two dedicated people, meaning Cheryl or someone taking Cheryl's -- she's doing it now, that's one position, and one Page 17 March 7, 2001 in Tom's shop -- their ]ob will be to review the package generally for sufficiency using a checklist. They will not be reviewing it for quality, so -- is there an ElS in there? Is one required? Yes? Is there any ElS? Yes. Okay. It won't be reviewed for the quality of the information until it gets to the reviewer; it will be distributed. So there is a physical process using checklists to go through that -- whatever that package is, you're going to be followed by two people. Before we waste the time of putting that data into the system, we want to make sure it's a complete package; then once it's complete, the data will be put into the system and the case distributed. MR. FOLEY: What kind of time frame are you talking about? Seems like it's a little bit of a different level, because you're checking it to make sure you've got the right amount of money, the right number of copies, that kind of thing; but there's no mechanism obviously built into the system to spit out a letter like a review letter like you're going towards with this document, so it's going to be actually a physical review by different people in-house. Does that add any time frame to the review process? MS. MURRAY: No, not really. MR. MULHERE: I don't think so. MS. MURRAY: We didn't design it that way. Actually, the process -- or the system does have the ability to draft an insufficiency letter based on your submittal. MR. FOLEY: Oh, okay. Okay, yeah. MR. MULHERE.' I don't, you know, I don't think it's any longer. What -- we always had about a three-day time frame -- MR. FOLEY: Sure. Right. MR. MULHERE: -- anyway, that it could sit on Sherry's desk. MR. FOLEY: Sure. MR. MULHERE: So I think it's three to five now, but we've bought time elsewhere in the process, so in the long run, actually, I think once we get this thing really running well -- and it will take some time; we feel probably at least another six months. MS. MURRAY: Oh, at least, yeah. MR. MULHERE: We can give you -- MR. FOLEY: Sure. I was just curious to see what we could Page 18 March 7, 2001 do to try to make sure that I get past that first step and get into the reviews, 'cause obviously there will be some comments from the staff. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, of course. Well, one thing we know we have to do, we do have to supplement Cheryl. We, we know we need another person assisting with that process -- MR. FOLEY: Okay. MR. MULHERE: -- procedure. MS. MURRAY: I think what we'd like to do too, Blair, is have two designated people who strictly review for sufficiency. MR. FOLEY: Right. MS. MURRAY: The problem you get is, when you get ten different people reviewing for sufficiency, you get ten different interpretations of sufficiency, even though you may have an application with a checklist that spells out your requirements. I think if we get two people working on sufficiency review, I think you're going to get a lot more consistency. They're going to have a lot in their responses; they're going to have a very-- a set time frame, as we've already discussed, you know, the three-to-five-day window, and that is really going to be the focus of their responsibility. MR. MULHERE: That, and the data entry, the initial data entry, once they've deemed it to be sufficient, you know, the data entry part of it, making it an official project by putting it into the system and distributing it. The second part of it, as you know right now, we've talked about this before in here, but Sherry is really like the key contact for the whole world out there as to what's going on. MR. FOLEY: Yeah, I know. MR. MULHERE: There's always a line of people. Well, we need to, we need to make that process easier, and we can do that with a few dedicated -- shift that burden a little bit, so who you-all can contact, in other words -- ultimately we don't want you to have to contact anybody; we want you to be able to go into the system and look for yourself. MS. MURRAY: One of the nice things about this is, anybody can pull up these reviews on the system, anybody, not just Sherry Long anymore, and they can see what the status is. They can go to the checklist; they can read the remarks; they can tell you over the phone. Page 19 March 7, 200t Eventually, when it's on-line, you could do that yourself. You can get kind of a heads-up as to what some of the problems might be. For example, with utilities, I hear that there's always a long list of problems with utilities and their review, and that often they try to fax those comments to you ahead of time before they're even officially faxed by Sherry so that you can get a heads-up on what you need to change, and you'll actually be able to do that yourself. MR. FOLEY: Yeah, I, I just wanted to make a statement. The addressings checklist is really moving along well. I've had to do it on a few occasions, and they're real good about getting back to you within three days maximum. MR. MULHERE: In the beginning it was tough, but it's getting a lot better now, I think. MR. FOLEY: And I know this whole process will get better as time goes on, but I just wanted some ideas about how you can handle that initial -- 'cause I'm, I'm just concerned about something coming in and not getting distributed. Whatever I can do as a consultant to identify what are you looking for, we can get it at least out to the different reviewers, and the time clock can start, information will be put in there. MR. MULHERE: I think we answered your question from our perspective. From your -- from the perspective of you-all, just I mean doing a good job to make sure that that application is complete, and so there's two ways: One is the addressing; the other thing is those pre-ap notes, and what's identified and what's not. MR. FOLEY: Uh-huh, uh-huh. MR. MULHERE: There was no traffic impact statement required. Well, those pre-ap notes, you have to really .- the pre-ap meeting takes a more critical role now, as it should. We, we all were a little bit lax, and what happened is, we all got used to the system here. We'd go in there and shoot the breeze on a five-minute pre-ap meeting and maybe not really address some of the issues that needed to be addressed, and then they came out in the review process. Well, we'd rather identify them up front, and it means a little more responsibility on all of our parts to look at the issues in the pre-ap meeting, and I think we all agree, for your clients, in the Page 20 March 7, 2001 long run, that's going to be better. MR. FOLEY: Thank you. MS. MURRAY: Anything else? We're done. Thanks. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. We've got to leave. MR. DISNEY: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Thank you. MR. MULHERE: Sorry to take so much time, but we thought you'd find it kind of interesting anyway. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. Our next item is the Summary of Ordinance Amendments. Do you have any comments on that, John? MR. DUNNUCK.' Okay. I don't know if there's any questions. One of the things as far as summary goes, if you have any questions on any one of these issues, I don't think there's really much to report, but I did want to talk a little bit about -- I know one of our key issues today is, we have Phil Tindall here to talk about the impact of the ordinance, and maybe if I could slide it into this part of the agenda, we're planning on presenting that at the March meeting, March 13, and this will probably be a good opportunity to finalize the ordinance, and Phil can go over some of the highlights of where we need to go or where we're planning on heading and get some recommendations from the Department of Services Advisory Committee. I know Mr. Anderson had some recommendations. Unfortunately, he had to leave to go to the rural fringe meeting, and I will relay a little bit of his comments on it, but~ Phil -- MR. TINDALL.' As you may remember from the last meeting, we gave a slide presentation on the main issues surrounding our consolidated impact fees ordinance, and we got a pretty positive response from this group. One thing, as John was saying, we would like to solicit a recommendation to the board, and we're scheduled to go to the board with a public hearing for adoption of this consolidated ordinance on next Tuesday, March 13. And what I've put in front of you today we worked on last week just making all of the final editorial changes and such on the ordinance, so this is your final document subject to maybe a few minor typographical-type things and also the executive summary that the board will have in front of them. What we've summarized in the executive summary is the Page 2t March 7, 2001 main issues, which pretty much mirrors what we presented in the slide presentation at your last meeting. So that's kind of it in a nutshell. We were just wondering if you had any remaining questions or issues or anything like that that you'd like to bring up and see if the committee would be willing to make a recommendation. MR. LONGO.' Were there any increases in impact fees at all? MR. DUNNUCK: None. None of the rates are being affected. This is all administrative. I do want to point a couple things to you-all that will affect the development community that was part of this consolidation, and one of them was brought to light at the last time when we had Don Wolfe here, that what's being proposed by the transportation division is that there's a $2 million cap on developer contributions, and what they're saying is, he's creating a five-year plan, Norman Feder is creating a five-year plan, and he's saying, when you get those contributions that get outside of that five-year plan, he doesn't want to have to deal with them. He doesn't want to be giving out money, you know, through contribution agreements that are going to affect his ability to pay for that five-year plan. And so he said, I want to do a $2 million cap so that in essence I can determine if -- maybe, yes, if there is that gem project that comes in that I want to be able to fund within that five years or we may want to accelerate through contributions or we feel that it's definitely going to be a cost benefit to the county, I'll give $2 million annually maximum to that type of thing; otherwise, he wants to get out of this developer contribution agreement business for the, for the most part of -- It's, it's money that we can't count on. We don't know when the developer is going to come in and want to collect on it, and it makes it very difficult from an accounting perspective, understanding that we have about a $300 million shortfall in transportation road projects currently over the next, you know, five years, that we need to come up with the funding sources. And this is one way that he wanted to mitigate how we're doing business at the time that will affect development coming in. Another point to make is that negotiating, you know, negotiating deals within that five-year plan that what we'll do is, we'll act similar to how the state acts when a developer wants Page 22 March 7, 2001 to come in and, and move forward with the development and there's a road project out there that would benefit them directly within that five-year plan if they accelerated the project, what we're proposing is that, as part of the agreements that are set up, that they can go ahead, and they would have to pay for the road improvement. We would reimburse the developer at the time that it falls within our five-year plan so that it's similar to how we're doing our traffic signal study here with the county where the state said, we don't plan on doing this till 2004. The county says, well, we want to do it in 2001. So they said, okay, you go ahead and pay for it in 2001; we'll pay you back those funds in 2004 when actually it falls within our plan. It's getting out of this mode of kind of, you know, as development comes in, you know, we're building roads, and, frankly, over the last couple years, admittedly, we haven't done as good a ]ob as we could, and -- in getting us into more of this long-term planning and understanding that we have to commit to the long-term plan in order to get the roads that ultimately will benefit the development community. MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Yes. MR. JONES: John, again, I still have a question on the fire impact fees schedule. MR. DUNNUCK: Uh-huh. MR. JONES: Page A-7, under the commercial category, you stated to Mr. Longo that there's been no increases or changes. MR. TINDALL.. Right. I want to -. let me explain what you're looking at in front of you. MR. JONES: Please do. MR. TINDALL.. The fire impact fees that are affected by this ordinance are only the Ochopee and Isle of Capri fire districts. Those are the dependent fire districts under the county's jurisdiction. This ordinance has no impact on the various independent fire districts that, that assess impact fees in the county. Now, we collect those moneys and we forward them to the various -- to those districts such as North Naples Fire District, Golden Gate Fire District, et cetera. Page 23 March 7, 2001 Now, they charge impact fees at different rates than our two dependent fire districts. MR. JONES: Double. MR. TINDALL: Right. It's quite a bit more, so what I'm saying here is, what you see in front of you, if billed an Ochopee or Isle of Capri fire district, those are the impact fee rates that you would pay. If you billed outside of those districts, those are separate government entities that Collier County has no jurisdiction over, and we don't have any say-so regarding their rates. We only have in our local agreements with them for which, for which our participation is to collect the fees and forward them and collect a small administrative cost. Yes, sir?. MR. LONGO: Then we should identify those fees as to those districts. MR. TINDALL: Well, they're identified in our fee schedules that we hand out in the main lobby, and if anyone, you know, has a question about their impact fees on any building permit -- MR. LONGO: This is part of your, your new consolidated impact fee ordinance, and it doesn't identify Ochopee and the other -- MR. MR. MR. MR. MR. MR. TINDALL: It does actually. LONGO: It does? TINDALL: Yes. LONGO: Within the ordinance itself? TINDALL: It's in the ordinance, yes. LONGO: Okay. MR. TINDALL: If you look on page 2, for example, where it's, it's in a number of different places where -- in section 74-100 where it talks about repeal of ordinances, basically the ordinance is being replaced by this one. At the bottom of that paragraph, you'll see Collier County Ordinance 98-30, which is Isle of Capri and Ochopee Fire Impact Fee Ordinance. MR. LONGO: Okay. MR. TINDALL: And you'll see it in a number of other different places. Let me find some -- let's see. Fire. On section 74-309, you'll see in there where it explains that these are the provisions that apply to the -- especially under paragraph B2 where these Page 24 March 7, 2001 are provisions that apply to the Isle of Capri and Ochopee Fire Districts. MR. LONGO.' All right. Thank you. MR. TINDALL: And it also even has the district boundaries starting on page 68, so -- all right? MR. LONGO: Thank you. MR. TINDALL.' Sure. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Phil, did you get a copy of this note from Bruce Anderson? MR. TINDALL: Yes, I have it here, and it -- CHAIRMAN MASTERS: And have any of those been addressed already or -- MR. TINDALL.' We have started working on a written response. I could -- I have basically a draft, but we're not quite finished. I can probably address some of these again, the specific ones that you would like that -- CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Yeah, just for the rest of the members, 'cause Bruce wasn't available; he's in a rural fringe meeting. MR. TINDALL.' Okay. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: He just dropped this off on me now. I'm not familiar with it at all, so, Phil, will you address some of the issues that -- MR. TINDALL: Sure. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: -- that Bruce has brought up, just so that -- MR. TINDALL: Do you want me to just start with the first one and go through? Like, for example, on -. talks about page 4, subsection F there on page 4, the comment is, the imposition of the impact fee is to provide a source of revenue to fund the construction or improvement of public facilities necessitated by growth. His comment is, should growth be listed in defined terms? We honestly don't feel that it needs to be. It's kind of a generally understood term that it has to do with new construction in the community, whether it be either commercial or residential. You know, we don't feel like that's something that's going to cause any confusion, so, so that's basically our answer for that one. We don't see a compelling reason to add one, the definition for the term "growth." Page 25 March 7, 2001 Just going on, section 74-105, starting on -- which is on page 5, I believe it is. I'm kind of following the ordinance as I go here. Okay. I'm sorry. I've got page 4 actually, 74-105, purpose, comment. Says here, see sentence number 3. He's recommending a recommendation where we add on after the -- let's see -- the term, Florida statutes, which is right about -- see item 3 in about one third of the way down, to implement and be consistent with? Adding some language, and at the option of the county, enter into a development agreement as provided in the Florida Local Government Development Agreement Act. County attorney's response to that is that we don't wish to do that because we feel that that statute sets forth provisions that vast restrict and frees land use rules, regulations, and policies and other developmental rights and could be detrimental to the county's ability to adequately control the development process. So we feel we don't really necessarily want to adopt that particular statute as being incorporated within our ordinance. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: I just realized he's got 28 similar such items, and do we want to go through these item by item, or -- MR. DUNNUCK: Why don't you just do the highlights -- MR. TINDALL: Sure. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: -- or suffice it to say that Bruce's comment was -- MR. TINDALL: Have any of you had a chance to review -- CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Bruce's basic comment was that he didn't think it was quite ready and that he was prepared to vote against it. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Are you going to change anything as a result of the comments? MR. TINDALL: Well, at some -- let's see. There are a number of typographical errors that we're certainly planning on changing. Let's see. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: And these are things that could be picked up at the board level? MR. DUNNUCK-- Probably what's going to happen from my perspective is, conceptually, we're going to be moving ahead with all these ideas here. I think most of Bruce's things had to do with more technical level and definitions. We will probably, if there's a concern that the board feel Page 26 March 7, 2001 comfortable, as I said, we're preparing our response to Bruce on this. You know, every ordinance is imperfect at some stage, but we will bring it to the board, and that's probably where some of those technical items will be addressed and then adopted by the board as amended. MR. TINDALL: I will tell you that generally, I've spoken with the county attorney's staff, and they don't feel like any of these are of sufficient level of deficiency, you know, to -- that we would recommend delaying implementation of the ordinance, adoption of the ordinance, that these are things that we could perhaps deal with at a later date, but they're certainly not in any way detrimental to the county's interest. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Does anybody else have any questions or comments about the state of the -- MR. FOLEY: Did everybody get a copy of this? CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Just when we walked in. MR. TINDALL: We have provided the committee with drafts, previous drafts. In fact, a couple months ago we had your land use subcommittee review, the current draft at the time, and got inputs back from the subcommittee and incorporated those. MR. FOLEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Go ahead. MR. DISNEY: I guess just as a comment, not having reviewed this, I, I couldn't put myself in a position to make a recommendation upon it without having read it. And I see in the executive summary that it's .- I think that that has been anticipated, that the -- I'm trying to find it here; bear with me. As of the date of preparation of this executive summary, DSAC has not made a formal recommendation, but staff will solicit it at the March 7 meeting. Well, that's this meeting. If we, if we ask -- if you ask for a recommendation on the committee, I'm going to have to vote no, that I can't recommend it, because I haven't read it. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Any other comments? Does anybody have the feeling that we're ready to recommend forwarding it, or are we in a position -- would you like to put that in the form of a motion, Dalas? MR. PEEPLES: This ordinance has been before our land development code subcommittee, and I know we have people here who were on that subcommittee. What was the result of Page 27 March 7, 2001 the review? Do you recall? MR. TINDALL: We had very few comments, I would say just a handful, and we incorporated those. For example, if you look at the executive summary, item 3B on page 2, one the recommendations, we initially were going to make that more restrictive where the time period after which we would not consider the impact fees for, for vacant property to be vested would be just a year, and then, and then also we had changed it to two years, and it was brought up at the last meeting during the presentation and it was still felt by the members providing comments that that was too restrictive, so we've changed it to seven years based upon, you know, input from the committee, and that seven years is tied to the fact that when the county collects impact fees, we're required to spend those funds by the end of the fiscal year following the sixth anniversary of receipt. We have to actually spend those funds on new construction or refund the money, so, so were tying it to that requirement. MR. PEEPLES: Just so I understand though, the comments that came out of subcommittee were very minimal. MR. TINDALL.. They were. MR. PEEPLES: And most of the comments that have been made by this committee are contained in Bruce Anderson's memo made by Bruce; is that correct? MR. TINDALL: I would say those are more extensive than the others that we received previously, yes. MR. PEEPLES: Okay. MR. DUNNUCK: My assessment is that Bruce's are of a technical nature, one that you may see, you know, from an attorney point of view looking at definitions and things along those lines. Conceptually, from what issues we had talked about at the last meeting, we have not changed a thing, and -- you know, from that consideration. I understand that you haven't had a chance to read through the entire ordinance, but conceptually we have not changed anything from what we were preparing previously to what we have before you today. MR. DISNEY: Tom, let me expand upon my comment. It well may be that everything in here is just fine. I don't Page 28 March 7, 2001 know that, not having received it before today. I'd just like to have an opportunity myself to read through this and assure myself that it is the way that we all understand it was supposed to be. MR. ABBOTT: As a long-term member of this committee -- and Dalas can remember this -- we would work like hell for days drafting something. It would come back, you know, changed very differently from what we sent to the secretary, so Dalas's point is well made. I'd like to read it thoroughly too. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Just for clarification, we need -- it's going to the board for approval .- MR. TINDALL: Yes. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: -- at this next meeting? MR. TINDALL: Yes. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: So, I mean, we're going to have to put something on the record as not having reviewed it or not being able to make a recommendation or -- opposed or in favor of it. MR. DISNEY: Put it on the table and let it vote up or down. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: So we need to come -- have something come out of this. MR. ABBOTT: Except the subcommittee addressed several things at different times that we felt we were poorly served, as well, and we got all spanked for it, and so a no recommendation is better than voting on something we haven't read. MR. TINDALL: I would request that if you're going to make a decision today and if you're not going to request or recommend that the board adopt the ordinance, that you at least make a -- just a no -- nonrecommendation then. MR. PEEPLES: Yeah, I agree. I don't think -. you know, again, if we're talking about people who aren't more familiar, I don't think you can decide that you're going to recommend approval or recommend disapproval. I think it's more a matter of you don't have a recommendation on approval or disapproval as of today. MR. DISNEY: That's right. MR. PEEPLES: And I'll make a motion that we send this to the board without making a recommendation for either approval or for disapproval based on the fact that we just haven't had the opportunity to review it in enough detail, or the changes. Page 29 March 7, 2001 MR. DISNEY: Right. I second that motion. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: And as a comment, I'm inclined to agree. We read through it the first time, and as long as something else didn't slip in or out or just get misrepresented, I think that seems like a reasonable approach. Any other comments? Call it to the vote. All in favor. (Unanimous vote of ayes.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: All opposed? The motion is unanimous. MR. TINDALL: I'm going to leave some additional copies here in case anyone else needs some. MR. PEEPLES.' John, this is going before the Board of County Commissioners Tuesday -- MR. DUNNUCK: Next week. MR. PEEPLES: Tuesday of next week? MR. DUNNUCK: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: So if we read through it, if we have some comments, should we -- I mean, maybe they can forward comments to me. MR. DUNNUCK: I will pass it on as individually -. you know, I will, I will communicate to the board. I'm meeting with them next week, but I will communicate to the board, you know, what the committee's findings were, and do it in a, you know, in a memo format and copy you-all on it. But if you have comments, feedback, we'd appreciate it. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: And you're planning on getting a response to Bruce Anderson's comments prior to that meeting? MR. TINDALL: Yes. We have something in draft, but it's not complete, and we can forward that to all the members here as soon as it's completed. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. Thank you. Go ahead, Dino. MR. LONGO.' Can we not in the future, when it comes to large ordinances and recommendations, get this stuff to us in a more timely manner or not put us under the gun that next Tuesday this is going to go before the board, and we really have not had a chance as a committee to put our comment on it between us all back and forth that we could get these on a more timely basis? Page 30 March 7, 2001 MR. DUNNUCK: Yeah, I agree. There have been a lot of factors involved in this one. Typically, from an ordinance standpoint, we have seven different departments that were involved in this ordinance. We had a consultant who we had to drag through to get this thing done. We publicized the date on which it was going to be advertised, and we moved forward. I take responsibility for it. I will make a note to make sure we don't do this next time. MR. PEEPLES: And just a very important note on the ordinance obviously, and that is, I think generally speaking staff does a great job in getting things in time. Part of this, even though John's not saying it, this trip about the Board of County Commissioners, I mean, they're ready for this, and they're going to be demanding that it come forth quickly. I know. Nonetheless, we still have to do it. MR. DUNNUCK: We just completed it Friday. MR. LONGO: Mm-hmm, but our charge, our charge as this committee is to review this. MR. PEEPLES: I know. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: I think staff understands our position. It's not that we'd like to see it, and I think us not being able to support it definitely makes that pretty clear. MR. PEEPLES: And I don't disagree with you at all. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: We have no items under Old Business. Moving on to subcommittee reports, did anybody meet last month? MR. NINO: Mr. Chairman, no, we didn't meet last month. I'm pleased to tell you however that cycle 1, 2001 will begin very shortly, and we would like the Land Use Committee to meet on March the 15th and the 29th of -- well, that would be next week, and we'll send out a package by Thursday of this week. However, I need to remind you that I don't think you have defined who the membership is on the Land Development Committee for some time, and my list still has Mary Lamb on it and Brian Nelson. MR. ABBOTT: It was Sally Lamb. MR. NINO: Sally Lamb. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: That brings up a good point from the last meeting. We had asked that we get a slight summary of Page 31 March 7, 2001 each committee listed by name and address so that we can enlighten our couple new members as to what those committees do, and perhaps we can solicit some more participation in those. MR. NINO.' The Land Development Regulation Subcommittee -- the land use subcommittee deals with all amendments to the Land Development Code and the growth management plan prior to it coming before the board in its entirety, and, and someone else could describe what is involved in the construction code and utility code. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: And I don't think anybody's resigned off that committee, so all the existing members that are on your list are still involved. MR. NINO.' Yeah, but I think there are only four members on the, on the current board that are on that committee. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Oh, okay. MR. NINO: I don't how many, how many members you normally have on it. MR. DUNNUCK: I'll bring back a full list. I apologize. I'll bring back a full list so we can go through it at the next one. That's taken a little bit more digging than I thought it would when I went back to the office, and we didn't have that readily available, so -- CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. And .- MR. NINO: For the next meeting, for the next meeting though, John, who would we send the -. who would we invite to the land use subcommittee? There's only about four of the current members on here. MR. FOLEY: I don't know if you have my name, Blair Foley, for the record. UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER: And I thought Bob Duane was the chairman; wasn't he? CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Yeah, Bob Duane's on that committee; I'm on that committee, as well. MR. PEEPLES: Bruce and Tom aren't here, but aren't they both on it? CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Bruce is on it and Tom Peek is on it. MR. PEEPLES: And I'm on it also. (Inaudible. Several members speaking at one time.) THE REPORTER: Excuse me -- Everybody's on it! Page 32 March 7, 2001 one. (Laughter) MR. DISNEY: Yeah, virtually everyone's on it. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Yeah, we do have quite a list on that MR. NINO: Well, why don't I just send it to everybody, and those that show up -- CHAIRMAN MASTERS: And primarily our two new members are Peter van Arsdale and Bryan Milk now, so, I mean, it's -- THE REPORTER: Excuse me-- CHAIRMAN MASTERS: It usually meets monthly on the -- is that the third -- MR. PEEPLES: I know I was being asked to participate with the Land Development Committee .- CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Right. Right now with the new cycle coming through, there are two meetings this month. We went for a couple months without a meeting, so it's basically a monthly meeting. Okay. And so we have two meetings coming up, and we'll plan on attending those and getting a package. Next one is construction code. Dino, do you know if anything's happening there? MR. LONGO: Mr. Chairman, we did not meet last month. I think we need to take it back up this coming month or at least maybe this week. We're meeting with Bob Mulhere and his group and discussing the Perconti system and the time frames, along with Ed Perico, who's been attending, as to looking at how the Perconti system is working on tracking. And there's a couple of other issues we're discussing as to the new building and shortfall on the fees, so I'd like to reschedule it, but without Bob here, I'm not sure what his availability is. MR. ABBOTT: Well, let's set it for next Wednesday like we always do and see what comes of that. MR. LONGO: All right. If someone will notify Bob Mulhere that we would like to continue on with our meetings for next Wednesday at three o'clock, I'd like to go ahead and do that, if that's okay with Dalas and Perry and -- MR. PEEPLES: That's fine. MR. LONGO: -- anybody else. MR. DISNEY: And, and committee members for that Page 33 March 7, 2001 MR. PERICO: thing. MR. MR. MR. committee? MR. LONGO: Yeah, we have Dalas Disney, we have Charlie Abbott, we have Perry Peeples, we have myself. I don't even know if David Correa is still here participating, but he was -- initially was on the board, on that subcommittee. MR. ABBOTT: Anybody's welcome though. MR. LONGO.. Yeah, anybody is welcome. I did receive a packet from Bob on the breakdown of what we're starting to do on the review activity schedules and the time frames and stuff like that, so I would assume that he sent it to us with the anticipation that we'd start looking at it. This is from -- MR. PERICO.' Building division. MR. LONGO: -- Ed's division, building, so this is the next item for us to discuss, the building division, as well. MR. PERICO: This is the ad hoc committee really. MR. LONGO: Right. It's the ad hoc committee kind of melded into the construction code subcommittee. We've got two committees doing the same LONGO.' It is the subcommittee -- ABBOTT: Same people. LONGO.' All right. MR. ABBOTT: Change the title. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. Thank you for the update, and we'll have that on record. John, can you let Bob know that we do have a meeting? MR. DUNNUCK.. Yes. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. And-. MR. ESPINAR: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Yes. MR. ESPINAR: I never caught a time for the Land Development Code meetings for the 15th and 29th, the time for that? CHAIRMAN MASTER: Those are three o'clock, as well. MR. NINO: Three o'clock. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. And the utility code subcommittee is Tom Peek, who's not with us today. MR. TUCK: I'll just go over it a little briefly. For distribution, there is a copy of the minutes from the February meeting, and Page 34 March 7, 200t we're getting real good attendance, usually 12 to 15 people in attendance, but we're lacking getting any representation from this committee. As I say, this past meeting, I don't think anybody was represented from the advisory committee. I think it would be nice to have somebody there, and I guess I'm pleading that -- to get some volunteers or -- and I think Tom Peek was chairing that for them. And Tom has indicated, and I think he's going to drop by the wayside, I guess, on the -- chairing the utility committee, but again, we're scheduled to meet the fourth Thursday of this month, as always the fourth Thursday of the month, at three o'clock. I'm encouraging some representation from the advisory committee. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: All right. And I also volunteered to show up at those, and I've missed the last two unfortunately, but we definitely need more participation from our committee. Mr. Foley or someone? MR. JONES: Is it possible to have reminder calls? MR. TUCK: I'm on that committee, and what I try to do is send out the agenda ten days prior to the meeting, the agenda and the minutes of the previous meeting, with a note on there saying if they can't attend it, please contact me, but -- MR. JONES: Okay. MR. TUCK: So the only other thing we could do is probably have a call reminder to everybody three or four days prior to the meeting. MR. DUNNUCK: Or a day prior. MR. TUCK: Or the day prior, and just, you know -- I'm not going to be here for the next meeting, but I'll instruct the secretary to give a phone call to the members. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Go ahead, Dino. MR. LONGO.' John, I'd like to change my address, my mailing address. MR. ABBOTT: Are you telling your wife? MR. LONGO: Yeah. It's 6895 Lone Oak Boulevard 34109. I believe the packages have been going to my old address, so -- appreciate it. MR. MILK: On that note, can I make a correction, too? CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Sure. MR. MILK: Actually, the, the address is City of Marco Island, Page 35 March 7, 2001 that's at 950 North Collier Boulevard, that's Suite 302, and that phone number is 389-5017. MR. DUNNUCK: That's in the revised version. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. And have we addressed the ad hoc committee on fees then? Is that rolled into the utility now? MR. PERICO: They're on the construction code. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. All right. Under New Business, we have two items, the agricultural design standards -- MR. DISNEY: Architectural. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: The architectural standards. I can't even read my own handwriting. Thank you. MR. DISNEY: I asked that this be placed on the agenda here really at the urging of some staff members here with development services. When section 2.8 of the Land Development Code was initially established, it was after a lengthy review period and some specific input by a few of the design professionals in town. Knowing that this was going to take some time to work with it and have some adjustments in a short period of time, the particular standards were established. There's been enough time now that I think some of the workings of that and the difficulties, positives and negatives, have been identified, and it's probably time that that come back for another review, and I'd like to make in the way of a recommendation to this committee that the architectural design standards as well as its related site standards in division 2.8 of the current LDC be reviewed on the Cycle I 2001. MR. NINO: I doubt if we could do it for that date within that short a period of time. I assume you're talking about establishing an ad hoc committee of the architectural community -- MR. DISNEY: Certainly. MR. NINO: -- and that will certainly take more than the next two months to achieve that, 'cause we would have to have it before you by the first part of April to get to the board in June. So that's a little tight, but we can certainly do it for the Cycle 2 amendment, which concludes in December of this year. MR. DISNEY: I think it's just important that we get going on it and move something forward for everybody to look it. There are some, there are some difficulties within that Page 36 March 7, 2001 standard that have developed themselves over the last couple of years that simply need to be tightened up, take a little bit of the gray area out so that it's not quite so subjective. MR. NINO: Uh-huh. MR. DISNEY: Certainly anything to do with design of a building can be viewed as the eye-of-the-beholder-type thing, and some of that has been a little difficult in, in review through this building, and it just seems that we could, we could do a better job with review at this point, so just bringing it back before everybody and getting some additional public involvement would, would be a great help. MR. MILK: What has the -- what's the latest review on that architectural design guideline? Is that since -- brand new in '92 or '3, or has that been looked at? MR. NINO.' It hasn't been looked at by anyone other than staff in terms of amendments to those provisions, and I think what Dalas is getting at is going back to the philosophy of seeing if we were correct the first time and to what degree our experience and the experience of the architectural design community that suggest that there are problems with the current regulations that could be improved and by taking out some of the ambiguity and some of the subjectiveness out of it and, and perhaps more importantly dealing with standards that really do not have anything to do with producing a quality architectural statement. MR. DISNEY: We also, just to explain .- expand just briefly, there's, there's an overlap in division 2.8 between architectural and site design, and it seems to me that the site design elements are handled quite adequately by planners within this, within this division, and they don't necessarily need to have a second review or an opportunity for an interpretation by another review, whether it's the second or third time. Where do we have crosswalks and how we have that really has no effect on my building design, and frankly, I don't think that most architects in town would, would have a problem with that being dealt with in the site portions of the, of the ordinance. It's simply, it's simply slowed down the process of reviews and created dual reviews, and that's just one instance. But others are the massing and how we're doing what we're doing, and adjacent properties. Page 37 March 7, 2001 We have some experience now with this, and it seems as though we could clean up some of those areas to make them substantially more defined than they are today in the first pass at that regulation. So I'd certainly like to see it move forward, and I volunteer my time for it. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Would that involve from the staff level then, that review process, or-- MR. DUNNUCK: Yeah. What I'd like to do frankly from the standpoint of if this committee recommends it, I think it's a good opportunity for the committee for me to present an executive summary to the committee kind of saying, we want to create this committee at the DSAC's recommendation, 'cause I think it adds a little bit of visibility. And if you're telling me it's been since '92 since we've had any kind of external review on architectural standards and considering this board is very much appreciative of tightening down the standards, I think that would be a very good mixture and a good public relations things to get the DSAC making that recommendation and us acting to get it before them. And I do agree with Ron though, I think it needs to be a Cycle 2 issue, but I just don't think we have the time frame to do that, especially with the load of amendments that are going to be coming through this cycle. But I think that's a very good idea, Dalas. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Do we need to make that in the form of a motion? MR. FOLEY: I'll make it a motion. I think it's a good idea, as well. I'll make a motion as stated. MR. LONGO: And I'll second it. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: As you stated. MR. DISNEY: As I stated. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: All in favor of forwarding that motion? (Unanimous vote of ayes.} Opposed? The motion carries unanimously. And the next issue on your landscape plants for mitigation? MR. DISNEY: Landscape plants for mitigation, and I put this under -- asked for this to be placed under New Business simply Page 38 March 7, 2001 because it didn't seem appropriate under committee member comments. A local landscaper came to me and brought to my attention issues that landscape plants for mitigation, as the current ordinance is written, and I don't know if any of you are familiar with this, but it's LDC section 3.9.5.5.2, and I have information here that I'll leave with whomever needs to take this, but it was pointed out that the ordinance is, is -- or the LDC section is written in such a manner that describes sizes of plants and standards that really aren't common for the area. And the, the comment here, while it is somewhat garbled in its nature, simply goes to the fact that it needs to clean up some of the sizes of plants so that plants, gallon sizes and grades and heights, so that it is something that is reasonable available in the area. Whether it's larger or smaller is not the issue; just that the particular type of material that is available in a 3-gallon container where the ordinance asks for it in a 5-gallon container. So we need to get some nurserymen involved to clean up that type of language, and as it was presented to me from the particular landscaper, he's got probably 20 different nursery people and landscape installers that have all lent support to reviewing this again. So I just bring this to your attention, and I think that what they're trying to do is assist themselves in being able to find something that is just reasonable to do a reasonable job and not necessarily lessen any of the ordinances that we currently have, so with that, I, I'd be happy to share this packet of information with whomever can get the process started. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: As a comment, I've heard that same thing from our in-house landscape architect, that they consistently have a request for a one-gallon, 14-foot-tall tree, which doesn't exist, so -- MR. DISNEY: Exactly. MR. DUNNUCK: I'll take that as a direction. MR. DISNEY: That you very much. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. That brings us to committee member comments. Mr. Foley? MR. FOLEY: Mr. Chairman, yes, I would like to make a comment just on presentation of the new system going Page 39 March 7, 2001 electronically. I certainly am in favor of that; however, I'm a little concerned just about how it's going to operate and if we're adding any additional levels of review. And I know Bob's not here anymore, but Mr. Mulhere indicated that perhaps the review has gotten a little lax over the years and we're comfortable with this system. I really haven't had any difficulty in operating through the system the way it was, and I'm concerned, more from an engineering standpoint, that we might be adding some additional time frames, some additional burdens really on not only the development community but maybe the staff people themselves, and I just want to post my concern about that. And I know it's a new system and we're going to have to work our way through it, but I just -- you know, I'm hoping that it's still going to be a user-friendly system and that we're going to support the development community in doing, in doing an expeditious review of the projects that come through. And I know that years ago, in conclusion, five, six, seven, eight years ago, when there was a different regime in this building, that things oftentimes came to a grinding halt; and that's a big fear of mine, and I just hope it doesn't reoccur. MR. DUNNUCK: Well, and, and if I can just respond real quick, I think with your ad hoc slash construction committee talking about -- we're talking about the actual level of service standards; you're talking about review times and things like that -- MR. FOLEY: Uh-huh. MR. DUNNUCK: -- the electronic portion is just the tool. It's just the way that we track to make sure it all gets done. What you'll be establishing through that ad hoc committee and bring it to the Development Services Advisory Committee is what you find is acceptable levels of review and time frames. MR. FOLEY: Right. MR. DUNNUCK: And that's where we come in and say, okay, if you want to have it done in one day, we'll give you X amount of -- we need X amount staff. If ten days is good, then here's the amount of staff; if 20 days is good, here's the amount of staff we need. MR. FOLEY: Uh-huh. MR. DUNNUCK.' And that's where -- then we'll say, from that tool standpoint, you know, that's how we will track it. We will Page 40 March 7, 2001 find out if it's fire code review is a little slow or structural people are a little bit slow and they're overwhelmed with something on the technical side, then we'll have to take a look at that and see what we can do from an efficiency standpoint to make it a little bit better. MR. LONGO: And to add to John's comments, that's exactly what we're doing. It's going to help us on both sides; I think. It's going to -- what -- we have to determine acceptable standards for review times on certain items, and it's going to allow the county to track those review times and at the same time not come back and say, we need five additional staff people because. MR. FOLEY: Sure. Is your committee also looking at review times for engineering submittals like SDPs and plat reviews, that kind of thing? MR. LONGO.' Bob, on the plan side, Bob's pretty much done his end of things. Now starting next Wednesday, we'll be looking at the building permitting side. MR. PERICO: It's already been in review once already, so -- MR. LONGO: So it will, it will be going to a level of service at some point in time, and then we'll just have to see how it goes, and if it's taking 20 days for some sort of review coming up that's not acceptable to the engineering community or the development community, then we'll go back and we'll review that as to why. They might need two more staff members or the submittals were too ambiguous, whatever it is that helps us track it. The Perconti system, it seems like, is probably going to be very, very good. MR. FOLEY: Okay. MR. DUNNUCK: And I think Bob's comments were taken from a standpoint of when he actually went in and started doing -- looking in -- in looking at that review, he found out that there were some things that he didn't like, what his staff was doing. MR. FOLEY: I see. Okay. MR. DUNNUCK: And they were missing some areas and that, that, you know, from a standpoint of what we are charging you as a fee and saying, we're going to deliver for you, are we doing it on the staff side of it? MR. FOLEY: Got it. Okay. Thank you. MR. DUNNUCK: That's part of what he's -- Page 41 March 7, 2001 MR. LONGO: It actually identified for him areas that he was very deficient in -- MR. FOLEY: Good. MR. LONGO: -- and thinking that he was deficient in, and it woke him up real quick. MR. FOLEY: Good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Perry? MR. PEEPLES: Thank you for coming tonight. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Bryan? MR. MILK: Thanks for having me on your committee. I look forward to it. As you know, I'm the city planner for Marco Island now. I appreciate the opportunity to be here, and I've served ten years here at the county and have a good feel of the system here, previously done. I worked with the LDC greatly and a lot of the projects here and the rezones, so hopefully I can add to that land use perspective and architectural components, landscape components. Down on Marco Island I am the landscaping architect and zoner all in one, so I use all those codes intimately, so I'd like to give you some thoughts on that matter. Thank you. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Well, welcome. We're glad to have. Mark? MR. ESPINAR: No comments. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Dalas? MR. DISNEY: No comment, thank you. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. That concludes this meeting then. There being no further business for the good of the County, the Meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:03 P.m. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE THOMAS MASTERS, CHAIRMAN Page 42 March 7, 2001 TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY SANDRA BROWN Page 43