Loading...
DSAC Minutes 04/04/2001 RApril 4, 2001 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, April 4, 2001 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Development Services Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:35 p.m. In REGULAR SESSION in Conference Room E, Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Thomas Masters, P.E. Charles M. Abbott R. Bruce Anderson, Esq. David Correa Dalas D. Disney, AIA Robert L. Duane, AICP Marco Espinar Brian E. Jones Dino J. Longo Thomas R. Peek, P.E. C. Perry Peeples, Esq. Herbert R. Savage, AIA Peter H. Van Arsdale ABSENT: Blair Foley, P.E. Bryan Milk ALSO PRESENT: Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney Page I April 4, 2001 Ed Perico, Building Director Susan Murray, Current Planning Manager Bob Mulhere, Planning Services Director John Dunnuck, Community Development Admin. Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director Tom Kuck, Interim Planning Director Page 2 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA April 4, 2001 3:30 p.m. I. Approval of Agenda II. Approval of Minutes- March 7, 2001 Meeting II1. Staff Announcements A. Summary of Ordinance Amendments B. Miscellaneous IV. Old Business 1. Subcommittee Members 2. LDC Cycle Subcommittee Reports A. Land Development Regulation (Bob Duane) B. Construction Code (Dino Longo) C. Utility Code (Tom Peek) D. Ad Hoc Committee on Fees VI. New Business VII. Committee Member Comments April 4, 2001 CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Does anybody have any changes they'd like to make to the agenda? John, do you have any modifications? Okay. MR. PEEK: I move -- I move the agenda be approved as issued. MR. SAVAGE: Second. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. All in favor aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Opposed? Motion carries. Okay. Any comments on the minutes from last meeting? Yes, Tom. MR. PEEK: Mr. Chairman, I have a comment, not about those minutes specifically, but about the minutes in general. Is there any way that we can get these minutes printed, say, in 12-point type nonbold Times New Roman type, something other than this billboard that we get every month? MR. DUNNUCK: Yes, we can. That's -- yeah. We can do that. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: or im Is that supplied by the court reporter MR. DUNNUCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. (A discussion was held off the record.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Thank you. With -- with that comment on the minutes, any further comments on anything in there? MR. PEEK: Mr. Chairman, I'd move that the minutes be approved. MR. ESPINAR: Second. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Second by Marco. Okay. All in favor? Page 3 April 4, 2001 (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. And opposed? Okay. The motion carries. Okay. Staff announcements. We'll turn it over to John. MR. DUNNUCK: All right. One of the clarifications I -- I did want to make on this, and I -- before we -- we get into the full agenda was, under old business we have listed the LDC cycle, and one of the things I -- my intent on that was to ask you-all or kind of give you a heads up that we may be requesting a special meeting in May from the standpoint of the board has given us some recent direction re -- through their workshop on some things they'd like to see changed in the Land Development Code. And we may be getting a little bit late in the cycle to -- to ask them when we want to bring them before the DSAC. And -- and that's why I had asked for that -- that actual particular item to be on there, not necessarily to hear them all today. We wanted to kind of hear them all at once in May. But I understand that, you know, there's an expectation. We have a lot of people in the room that anticipate that we're going to hear the Land Development Code items that have gone through the subcommittee already. And it's up to the -- you know, the DSAC to determine if they want to hear those today or if they want to table them to May. MR. LONGO: John, we still have three ordinances sitting on -- on the -- proposed ordinance and amendments; disaster recovery, coastal setback, and plat amendments. Are they all tied in with the FEMA stuff? MR. DUNNUCK: Uh-huh. MR. LONGO: Can we have an update on FEMA, what's going on with all that? MR. DUNNUCK: I don't know if -- Ed? MR. PERICO: Ed Perico. We're waiting on the reports back Page 4 April 4, 2001 from Tom LaSalle. We haven't heard anything more. MR. LONGO: So it will remain the same? MR. DUNNUCK: Exactly. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, Herb Savage. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Yes. MR. SAVAGE: Are we talking about changing an item on the agenda? Is that what we're talking about? MR. DUNNUCK: Well, I think it's -- it's more clarifying an item on the agenda as opposed to changing it. If you want to hear the full subcommittee, you know, recommendations and -- and the report and take you through each land development code, we can. But I think it would be better if we waited till May when we have them all. MR. MULHERE: There's -- there's -- I'm sorry. For the record, Bob Mulhere. There's going to be -- I think what John indicated, there's going to be a couple of potentially additional amendments in the cycle. And also EAC this morning asked staff to make some revisions to the sea turtle special event, hotels. Yeah, thank you. And so there's going to be changes to that too. So really the intent here would be not to necessarily make you hear these things twice. And we'd rather spend the next month continuing to work on some of these things and maybe bring it back to the subcommittee one more time and then have you hear it at the first May meeting. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, in other words, what -- they want to go back to the agenda and delete this Item V-A? MR. DUNNUCK: From the standpoint of actually making the presentation, it's actually for -- I guess it would be Item IV-2 under old business, the LDC cycle. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: My only comment on that is I see some members in the audience that may be here to speak toward a couple of those issues. And I'm not so sure we wouldn't want Page 5 April 4, 2001 to give them the opportunity maybe to make some comments. Any feedback on that? MR. SAVAGE: Well, let's ask identification if there is somebody who wants to talk about that. If there isn't and you don't mind coming back -- no? If you're not going to vote -- MR. HANCOCK: For the record, Tim Hancock. I've provided the D -- DSAC members that have an e-mail address with the points that I wish to discuss. All I'm concerned about is that we have the opportunity to discuss them in this cycle since they're related to amendments that have already been proposed. As long as that's going to be provided, the timing is not that important. MR. LONGO: Is the -- is the county going to allow us to go back to subcommittee? MR. DUNNUCK: Yes. MR. LONGO: Before the full committee? MR. DUNNUCK: Absolutely. MR. ANDERSON: What -- can you tell us the nature of what these other amendments -- what they concern? MR. DUNNUCK: Bob, do you want to update them? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. One deals with excavations in the estates and rural lands. And you recall -- recall the board gave the staff direction to look at that matter and meet with the community and the commercial excavators and try to develop some standards for excavations in the estates. So that's one of the primary ones that we're going to try to get that done so that we can do that in a cycle. And, of course, the other one is the sea -- sea turtle and special-events, people-on-the-beach permit, one. And the third is, perhaps, dealing with -- there -- there has been some suggestion -- I understand Tuesday the board may raise the issue, and the board is looking for us to bring back some Page 6 April 4, 2001 discussion in the form of potential amendment on RT zoning and hotels so... MR. DUANE: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Go ahead, Bob. MR. DUANE: Bob, are one of the amendments going to be the implementing mend -- amendment for Interchange No. 9? Those were going to be coming forth in this cycle also. Is that something that you're -- I think there were some commitments made before the board when that master plan went before them last month that they would be in this cycle. Is that something you're going to be addressing also? MR. MULHERE: I'll have to check on that. I -- I -- I haven't seen those amendments. I don't really know where they really are. MR. DUANE: Well, our subcommittee has met twice, and we were prepared to discuss these. I have no preference whether we continue or not. If that's the pleasure of staff, then I would suggest that, you know, we defer these until May unless there are any objections from the other members of the committee. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Hearing no objection, let's go ahead and table that till our next meeting, then, and we'll get another chance to hear the new issues in subcommittee first so -- go ahead, Bob. MR. DUANE: I'm sorry I was late. I wanted to add several new items under new business today. One was -- a vote of confidence for Mr. Nino would be the first item. The second item was an update on the status of the performance measures that we were going to incorporate vis-a-vis some of the fee increases that we imposed, I think, two, three, four months ago now. And I'd also like a brief update on when we might get the new LDC supplements. We're two supplements behind in our book. I -- I keep hearing that they're coming, but I'd like to know what that Page 7 April 4, 2001 date certain might be, if no one else has any objection to me adding these three items to the agenda. MR. MULHERE: I don't have an objection. I -- I'm sorry. Bob Mulhere. I just wanted to add also that there's the possibility of having the hearing examiner amendments in the cycle as well. And then that's another thing that we hope to get in. That's kind of important. MR. DUANE: Yes-- MR. MULHERE: So I apologize. MR. DUANE: -- Robert. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: We have a motion to add some -- drop back and add some things to the agenda. MR. SAVAGE: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Second. All in favor? (Unanimous response.). CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Opposed? Hearing none, let's go ahead and move forward to the subcommittee reports. Bob. MR. DUANE: We have met twice -- MR. ANDERSON: I wanted to ask Mr. Dunnuck about miscellaneous under staff announcements, if he might introduce for everybody that's here the -- the new staff changes for anybody that doesn't know who everybody is. It's always nice to be able to associate a name with a face. MR. DUNNUCK: Absolutely. Well, in here right now we have Susan Murray, who I'd asked to be the current planning manager to replace Mr. Nino. I got Tom Kuck who I've asked to be the interim curr -- planning director until we fill Bob's position. And -- and, frankly, that's my number one priority for everybody in this room; that's one of the things I'm working hard to do. And, finally, even though he's not here, we have a new business manager starting on Monday who is a CPA, MBA, was a CFO of a couple of companies and had his own accounting firm. And I'm -- Page 8 April 4, 2001 I'm real excited that -- that he's going to be coming aboard. And even while I -- while I've got your attention, too, give you a quick update on the building construction next door. One of the things we had talked about a couple months ago was the fact that why are we building a 40,000-square-foot building, you know, if we're -- if we're going to be leasing it out to other departments. We made the decision that from our -- our needs standpoint we only need 20,000 square feet, and so we're going to save $2 million on the -- on the project by cutting out that 20,000 square feet and reducing the size of the parking garage. MR. LONGO: Very good. MR. DUNNUCK: With the ability to expand later if we ever need it. And that's where we're at. MR. VAN ARSDALE: Permit fee. MR. DUNNUCK: What's that? MR. VAN ARSDALE: Will there be a -- a production of permit fees to go along with this downsizing in government? CHAIRMAN MASTERS: There will be an increase, of course. MR. VAN ARSDALE: Okay. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. Go ahead, Bob, with our update on the LDC. MR. DUANE: We met twice, covered the two dozen or so amendments and reached consensus, I think, on all of them, including the beach and turtle protection ordinance. I think we had one objection from our committee to those amendments, but we will carry forward in May. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. Construction code committee? Nino? MR. LONGO: Well, until John made his comments, I had nothing. Just a quick reiteration. When we formed our ad hoc committee to look into the costs and the reasons of building the Page 9 April 4, 2001 new building and the parking garage, one of those reasons was because we were asked for a permit fee increase to subsi -- for -- to make up the $2 million shortfall on the planning side. So my question is -- it kind of relates back to Peter. We -- we increased our permit fees partly because of that or most substantially because of that. And I'd like to know what's going on with that, that end of the issue. MR. DUNNUCK: We'll take a look at that end of the issue. Frankly, we just made that decision the other day to reduce it down to 20,000 square feet. And certainly if that was the expectation previously on the permit side of it, we will do that. We'll take a look at it. MR. LONGO: All right. And that -- and that led into ad hoc discussions on -- on Bob's side of -- of this -- of development services as to, you know, the efficiency, so forth, and so on. And we've done a great job getting -- getting the Perconte (phonetic) system on -- online and starting to look at the turnaround times on the different applications for permit and his needs and tracking his needs for staff and manpower and all that stuff. So I'd like -- I'd like to really look hard at that. If that's -- if that's a $2 million savings, that's exactly what we've increased our permit fees for. MR. DUNNUCK: I'll bring back a report for the next meeting. MR. LONGO: Thank you. Other than that, Mr. Chairman, I have no report. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. Utility code. MR. KUCK: Yes. The utility code cancels their meeting till -- for this past March, will be continued to the fourth Thursday of this month at three o'clock in the afternoon. MR. MULHERE: For -- for your record, that's spelled K-u-c-k. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Tom Peek just brought to my attention that we skipped over, under old business, Page 10 April 4, 2001 subcommittee members. MR. DUNNUCK: I just wanted to hand out -- I think it's in your package the -- the subcommittee members. You had asked for it at the -- I think, the previous meeting that we provide you a list of all the subcommittee members, and I think -- I think we had gone ahead and maybe sent that -- sent that to you. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Yes. It's in there. MR. DUNNUCK: So, you know, if you had any questions in follow-up, I think there was some concern with the turnover membership, who was actually on the subcommittee. So that's the updated list of what we have in our record. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: So for you new members, feel free to look into joining any of the subcommittees. Peter. MR. VAN ARSDALE: Yeah. I see I'm on this one. That's great. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. MR. PEEK: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, with regard to the utility code subcommittee, that subcommittee needs more members. I don't see Blair Foley with us today. I think Blair is on that subcommittee. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: And I've been trying to attend as well. MR. PEEK: You've been on the subcommittee. Herb is. I'm on it. Brian's on it. And we really need another member from this committee on that subcommittee because, if you'll notice, I'm on every subcommittee. And I need to get off of a subcommittee because I can't make it to all of the meetings. MR. SAVAGE: You had a lot of response, I noticed. MR. PEEK: I see that again. MR. VAN ARSDALE: Who's not here? MR. PEEK: Blair is the only one that's been put down on there so -- Page 11 April 4, 2001 MR. DISNEY: Brian gets on there every time. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Yeah. With -- with the addition of the -- of Blair and myself on the utility code subcommittee, was -- was anybody else interested in joining a committee that's not listed on a committee while we have you? MR. LONGO: I'd like to make a comment. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Go ahead, Dino. MR. LONGO: In -- in light of our recent opportunities to -- to work on our North Naples sewage crisis, I put a bug in the ear to a lot of people and a couple of county commissioners that something that we discussed before this -- before this full committee is having some sort of oversight committee to oversee utilities similar to what we do here in Development Services Advisory Committee and the same for transportation. And I just would like input from this committee as to what their thoughts are because I think the CBIA, myself personally, would move toward -- and toward seeing that happening so that we don't get into the same problems we had this past couple of weeks with our transportation issues and our water and sewer issues. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: That sounds like it could be a step in the right direction. Anybody have any other additional comments? Go ahead, Bob. MR. MULHERE: I just have one comment. Everyone's feeling free to make these comments, so I'll throw it out there. And -- you really, I think, would have two options. One would be to have additional oversight committees or the second would be to look at your enabling legislation that created you and expand that to cover, perhaps, transportation and utilities and then, say, be required to have the appropriate administrative representation at these meetings. MR. LONGO: And I thought we had discussed that at one Page 12 April 4, 2001 time as to that came under our charge, but that really never seems to happen with utilities. And, I mean, we meet on code issues, but we don't meet on overall issues and the general day- to-day business. I'm not trying to tell anybody how to do their job but -- MR. MULHERE: Right. MR. LONGO: -- this -- this committee is charged with overseeing about everything that comes out of industry. But we haven't done a good job, quite frankly, on utilities and transportation. And maybe the squeaky wheel gets oiled in the future, but that's going to be my suggestion. And if we can't come out of here with some backup, I think that's weak on our side. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Tom, do you have any comment on that? MR. KUCK: It's probably a good idea because of the lack of communication, especially over the last few months or over the last couple of years. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Can we broaden the scope of what the utility code subcommittee does, do you think, and bring some of that -- MR. KUCK: We've also got the issue of transportation. Of course, both of those are actually part of public works. And the only thing, I think if you draw them into this committee, whether or not you're going to have adequate time when you only meet, you know, once a month for basically two hours, you know, that's -- and it may be something that should be workshopped with the Board of County Commissioners to see what that process would do. MR. LONGO: And my intent behind it is to have a cross- section of the community in those -- in those disciplines, not necessarily from here, but in those disciplines that can meet on a Page 13 April 4, 2001 monthly basis like we do here. I think it will alleviate some of the burden on this committee and have reports from maybe those other -- those other oversight committees or however you want to call them that can come back to this committee, if -- if-- if actually this charge is by ordinance that comes under us. But I wouldn't be adverse to having that split off from here and having engineers and people like that that are involved in those disciplines to take a look at those things and have them responsible for overseeing, simply because when -- when we had this crisis and we all met and there was literally hundreds of people involved, it shows you the amount of brainpower that's out there and -- and disciplines and people that can get involved and really, you know, help the community out. And it's not -- it's not just to tell people how to do their job in county government, but I think it would help tremendously. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Do you have another comment? MR. MULHERE: No. No. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Is -- is that something that we can try to recommend to the board or-- MR. DUNNUCK: Sure. Absolutely. I don't think that's a bad idea at all. I think the way I would recommend approaching it is maybe have us -- direct us to write an executive summary for you-all to review maybe and bring it back to the next meeting. And then, you know, if you like what we have, we'll give you a menu of recommendations, and we can go from there. MR. LONGO: Yeah. I certainly would like input from this committee as to -- I mean, a lot of these people here have been involved in the utilities, not transportation, but in utilities. Those are the two hot -- hot issues we have in this community today, is water/sewer and transportation. I think we need to take a look at it. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. So you'll bring something back Page 14 April 4, 2001 to the next meeting? MR. DUNNUCK: Sure. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Very good. MR. VAN ARSDALE: Just -- the only comment I may make is -- is that, John, in your review to look and see if there's -- some -- there's a number of committees in the county. Maybe there's already a bunch of them that have that responsibility and aren't looking at it, and maybe it can be reassigned or dealt with in some other fashion. I mean, another MPO has -- besides the MPO's responsibilities, there's a number of committees there that you think would -- and I know there's been discussions on shortfalls in road capacity, but nothing really ever gets done. So I don't know. They might just look and see what sort of -- what they'll be able to give us. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: John will get back to us next meeting with something then. MR. DUNNUCK: Yeah. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: I think you covered ad hoc committee on fees then previously. We'll move on to new business and bring up Ron Nino. MR. DUANE: Trying to decide where to begin. In spite of yesterday's news article, I, for one, feel privileged for 12 years to have had an association with Mr. Nino. Six of those years he's staffed -- provided staff support to this committee, particularly land-use subcommittee, and I think he's done a -- a commendable job. I -- I think Ron, one of his stronger suits has been he's bent over backwards to provide good customer service. And as a representative of the development industry, I don't want my comments to be taken as self-serving. But whether you're a homeowner, in the real estate industry, a landscape architect, this guy or man has fielded dozens of questions a day over a period of years, and he helped make the clock work. Page 15 April 4, 2001 I -- I just -- if his role is going to change -- and that's not my job to tell you how to manage your people, but I -- I would hope that we'll continue to use him as an asset. I know the article you were quoted as saying yesterday that you're going to try to use him to the greatest extent practical. But he's been so many things to this department, a mentor to young planners. He's provided a leadership role. We've lost people that have good background in all of these books (sic). But, frankly, he -- he knows as much or more than many of the people that we have on our staff today. And I say that in due deference to all our other staff matters. But I think he's been outstanding. And I -- I think it would be a shame if he were shoved in the corner somewhere and his expertise were not fully utilized in all aspects of this department, whether or not he's in decision-making capacity or not. And I don't make speeches very often, but that's all I have to say. MR. DUNNUCK: And just to address that, I absolutely agree. You know, not an easy decision, you know, based upon, you know, what came out of the -- the golf course impact-fee audit. Personally, I think it was time to -- to make a few changes in the planning department, regardless of that audit, too. I -- I look at Ron as a very -- a huge asset to this -- to the department, to the division as a whole. And my -- and my commitment to him is that I plan on keeping him around, you know, until he wants to finish out his career here and -- and use him, as I said, to the fullest extent possible. I mean, I think it goes without saying that we have enough work to keep people busy around here, and we will keep -- we will keep Ron busy, and we'll be using him to the fullest extent. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, Herb Savage. I'd like to suggest that Robert Duane make this as a formal motion of commendation for Ron Nino, and I'd like to second that motion if Page 16 April 4, 2001 you would do that. I think it's imperative to let everybody know who reads these minutes know what we think of Ron Nino, not just his boss. MR. DUANE: I'm close to making that motion, and I don't know if anyone has any other -- wants to chime in or not. Otherwise -- MR. SAVAGE: Opposed? CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Bruce Anderson has some comments. MR. ANDERSON: I have read the clerk's report, and I have read Ron Nino's response to the allegations in there. And I don't know -- the gentleman who prepared the report for the clerk's office, so far as I know, does not have a law degree. I assume he may have consulted with an attorney. I know Mr. Brock does have a -- a law degree. But I want to comment that the allegations or cases that they made about Mr. Nino supposedly granting variances that should have properly gone to the Board of County Commissioners is far but clear. I -- I have looked at the code provisions cited by Mr. Nino, and I think that he was within his lawful authority and discretion in taking the actions that he's criticized for. That's just one lawyer's opinion. But I sure don't think it was a clear case by any stretch of the imagination. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. Any other comments? Go ahead. Peter. MR. VAN ARSDALE: Yeah. I think the only -- the concern I have is that we're -- I mean, John's already made his decision, and I think that we'd be better served to sort of stand behind his decision. And I like Ron, and I respect what he did, and I think he got the short end of the stick, and I -- but that wasn't the decision we made. And I'm -- I'm more inclined to support John's decision than I am to -- because I think that -- that sort of action Page 17 April 4, 2001 would undermine what he did. MR. ANDERSON: Well, I hope we're not implying any criticism of John's -- MR. SAVAGE: Not at all. MR. ANDERSON: -- decision. That's not my intent at all. MR. DUANE: Nor did it necessarily change his decision. MR. ABBOTT: Aren't you strengthening John's decision? MR. VAN ARSDALE: To keep him on? MR. ABBOTT: I think it -- MR. VAN ARSDALE: No. I mean, it -- no. I think -- I think -- MR. ABBOTT: Really, I think that that would support it if you did -- MR. VAN ARSDALE: No. I think that -- that John felt really good about it. Just leave him as he is until, you know -- and fight the fire with fire rather than -- but in that we -- you know, the change has been made. He's been demoted. He certainly -- you know, hasn't been good for him. I just have a little concern as -- as just being on this advisory committee, sort of taking a position that -- that really undermines that decision that, you know, it's not just -- I just don't feel good about it. MR. DUANE: It's a vote of confidence, and it's nothing more than that. And it's not meant to undermine your authority. I understand the distinction between your management authority and the commission of this board. But I think in recognition of 12 years of service that he's given to the community that I, for one, and -- would like to give him a code -- a vote of confidence. I'd actually like that to be drafted in the form of a letter, perhaps, from our chairman to you with a copy to the manager's office for what little or -- what little purpose that may serve. But I may be the only one that feels that way on this board. And if that being the case, then this discussion will not carry forward Page 18 April 4, 2001 any further. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: motion -- MR. SAVAGE: Second it. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: We have a second. discussion on the motion before us? from with That -- that being in the form of a Any further MR. SAVAGE: I call the question, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: All in favor? (Aye). CHAIRMAN MASTERS: And opposed? MR. VAN ARSDALE: Aye. MR. PEEPLES: Aye. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Two opposed, Perry and Peter. Okay. What would -- do you feel that -- that a letter coming the chairman to the board may be the best direction to go the -- MR. DUNNUCK: That would be most appropriate. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, I have to leave in a few minutes, and I'm interfering with the agenda. But I'd like to make sure this board does a similar kind of a resolution to a man who is leaving here very soon, and that's Bob Mulhere. I trust that somebody will do that before the day is over. I have to leave in a few minutes. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. Go ahead, Bruce. MR. ANDERSON: I'd like to make that motion that we extend our thanks and best wishes to Bob Mulhere, our thanks for his 12 years of loyal service to the public, and wish him well in his new endeavors. MR. PEEK: I would second that. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Second from Tom Peek. All in favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Hearing none, the motion passes Page 19 April 4, 2001 again. MR. MULHERE: Wow, thank you. No one opposed? Come on, give me a break. MR. SAVAGE: Well, I was going to speak up but -- MR. ABBOTT: We didn't bring our tomatoes. MR. MULHERE: You'll have your chances. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. Moving on, the performance measures I think we've discussed. Do you have further discussion? MR. DUANE: Well, I just wanted to know if -- if, perhaps, for our next meeting -- because I don't know that Mr. Dunnuck is prepared to give us a report, but we put a four-month clock on some performance measures. And I think that we dealt -- be well served by those -- if we could have a report on that at our next meeting, I'd appreciate it. MR. DUNNUCK: Sure. From what I understand, things are going pretty well in the subcommittees and that they're getting to the bottom of a couple of issues. And there's a few recommendations, I think, coming before us, especially in Ed's shop, from what I hear, that -- that I'll be happy to bring a report to, MR. DUANE: Okay. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. MR. DUANE: And the final item is -- if you could bring a report on when we might expect from Municipal Code Corporation the two last supplements. MR. DUNNUCK: Yup. Patrick? MR. WHITE: Yes. MR. DUNNUCK: Why don't you update them on the municipal code. MR. WHITE: Thank you. Patrick White, assistant county attorney. Page 20 April 4, 2001 My most recent communication with Municipal Code has assured me that sometime this week we should be receiving proofs for the two supplements to get us up to current with the most recent legislative changes to the LDC. I've been dogging them regularly to insure that we get service. We're also looking at revising our contract with them and other options with regards to CDs and other kinds of technologies so that we can get you the codes in forms other than just the printed code. So hold tight. We're -- we're hoping within the month to have them out, published, and done, and it will be up to date, other than the ones we're going to be doing in this round effective June. Is there any questions? Bob? MR. DUANE: No. Thank you, Patrick. MR. MULHERE: No. I was going to ask you a question. Did you just -- did they indicate that if we provided them with the approved amendments in some sort of an electronic form, they could expedite? MR. WHITE: We're -- we're looking at trying to get them to commit to a time frame that we think's very reasonable. They've agreed to do so. We just have to agree on what that number is. I would think somewhere between 90 to 120 days is probably reasonable. And, yes, we have -- they allow you to send it to them digitally, and that's what we intend to do the next round of amendments. That's why having them in a particular format and making sure all of the, you know, I's and T's are dotted properly and crossed is important. So that's what we're going to do. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Right -- right now -- right now when you get a new LDC book, does that have all the current amendments in it when we or -- when someone orders a book from those guys or not yet? Page 21 April 4, 2001 MR. WHITE: Not yet. It doesn't have the last -- CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Two cycles. MR. WHITE: There's two cycles, plus there's -- another ordinance, I believe, that's in there as well so... CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. Thanks. MR. WHITE: It's about a year behind, actually. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Uh-huh. All right. Finishing that up, we can move on to any additional committee member comments. We'll start with Bob Duane. MR. DUANE: Well, I've talked enough for one day. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Herb always has something to say. He stayed just for that; right? MR. SAVAGE: Well, I didn't think I was going to be here this long, but I've already said my piece. Thank you. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Thank you. Marco? MR. ESPINAR: No comment. MR. ANDERSON: No. MR. LONGO: Two things: I think John's doing a great job at what he's doing, John Dunnuck. MR. SAVAGE: Absolutely. MR. LONGO: I would caution us to make sure that we're not losing these 12-year guys on a daily basis. I hate to have to break new guys in every day. And that's a concern always with the experience and the knowledge of what they -- they've been doing here day in and day out. The second is, we do have a subcommittee meeting with the construction code next Wednesday at three o'clock. Go ahead and schedule that now. MR. DISNEY: Nothing. Thank you. MR. PEEK: Yes. I have a que -- question -- two questions. One is of Dino. The meeting next week of the construction code subcommittee, is it for construction code items, or is it for the ad Page 22 April 4, 2001 hoc -- MR. LONGO: -- slash, ad hoc, mostly probably ad hoc items next week. We'll be discussing with Ed's department, you know, some of the things we discussed a couple weeks ago on the permitting and the applications and stuff like that. MR. PEEPLES: And timing issues. MR. LONGO: And timing issues. MR. PEEK: The second item I wanted to comment on is the fence-permit processing. And my comments are generated by personal experience. I engaged a fence contractor to build a fence for me. And he came and applied for a permit, and he tells me that what used to be a walk-through for a fence permit is now a two- to three-week process because it has to go to fire review, and they don't process it in two to three weeks. So I have a question: Is that, in fact, true that they now have to run fence permits through the fire department? MR. LONGO: We'll run that by subcommittee next Wednesday. MR. ABBOTT: But in the meantime, Tom needs a fence post. MR. PEEK: No. Seriously, you know, it does -- MR. ABBOTT: Yeah. MR. PEEK: -- has been a change in process. The question is a big why so... MR. SAVAGE: Well -- Mr. Chairman, Herb Savage. You must understand all metal fences have to be reviewed by fire. MR. PEEK: This is a concrete fence. MR. SAVAGE: Concrete? MR. PERICO: What they can do is use that coupon book that they give to them. Tom, he doesn't have to come in here to permit. I got a coupon book if they pick it up, and they can do it immediately. But as to why fire is looking at all fences is to make sure it's Page 23 April 4, 2001 not impeding any flow for emergency to get through. You know, what -- that's what they have all these permits for. MR. PEEK: Well, now that -- not to extend this meeting too long, but that's stupid. You know you're not applying for a fence to put it across an easement or -- or a roadway. I'm putting across a back lot line. It has no access permitted for the fire department or anyone else to go across there. MR. LONGO: Well, actually, Tom, we have meetings with the fire guys. So we'll see if we can't sort that out. In the meantime, you might want to get ahold of Bob Savaggio (phonetic) -- MR. DUANE: Shortest meeting we ever had. MR. LONGO: -- and see if you can't --. MR. VAN ARSDALE: Can you ask them to come -- Ed Riley to come to the meeting on Wednesday? MR. LONGO: Sure. MR. VAN ARSDALE: Because I think -- I think, Tom, that we - - we need to have some sort of process that when changes are made, that the way -- the permitting process has got to be reviewed in some fashion so that this doesn't happen and we learn the hard way. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: My -- my guess is that part of the new tracking method we have for a lot of the permits, even a minor FTP amendment now is required to be tracked through all the different departments, whereas normally it just went to the departments that were affected by a change. So now an engineering change is even reviewed by the fire. MR. LONGO: I'd -- I'd like to hear their argument as to why it has to go the fire -- review. And there -- there might be a good reason, but I agree that we just shouldn't be changing permit process in midstream. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. We'll bring that up in subcommittee, I think, would be a better place to discuss that Page 24 April 4, 2001 further. Any comments from any of our visitors today? Go ahead. MR. ELLIS: I'm David Ellis with the Collier Building Industry Association. I promised you I would come every month and tell you what I know about the new building codes. If you remember our report from last month, which was we don't know anything more, it's the same report. I was in Tallahassee with Dino Monday, and we asked -- and we are still waiting to get a copy of the code. That was going to for sure be here last month, but they're confident, fairly confident, we'll have it by the end of this month. So as soon as we have it, we'll let you know. The lobbying and the legislature now is that either -- it has been proposed by the statewide building code that the code become effective October 1st, but there's general consensus among people that -- that understand the process that January 1st is more likely the date. We will continue to update you. We can -- we have the class with -- I met with the folks that are going to teach the classes through the school system, through the university system, yesterday. They're prepared to teach classes on the code. I've got a guy who's going to come down from Florida Home Builders Association who's been a part of the code process to explain a lot of what it means. We've met with Ed. We're all ready to go. We just need that code and the -- the training book, which we'll keep you posted on that. On the sewer issue, I know there's been a lot going on. There's another follow-up meeting with county staff next Tuesday at four o'clock at my office or at here on Enterprise. Everyone's welcome to come. The county staff has been very good about meeting with us and updating us on just what's happening. And, as you know, we're in the final stages now of the consent order in the interconnect with the city. Those things Page 25 April 4, 2001 are progressing. So, again, if you're -- if you're interested and you have clients or whoever, they're welcomed to come. It's four o'clock next Tuesday at our office. And I would ask John -- I don't know if there's anything that you want to mention to these guys about the meeting next -- not this Friday but next Friday. Isn't that when we're doing the workshop on the development review process? MR. DUNNUCK: That's correct. April 12th, I believe it is, is - - we're doing the development review workshop, which is, we're going to walk them through the process. The -- the main focus of it is to educate the board and to let them learn exactly how the whole process works. The second part of it is to talk to them about where we can add more public participation. That's been a -- a concern, you know, of this board, and it's been a concern of staff because that's the one thing that we consistently get beat up on, is the fact that we do not let the general public know what's going on or the community where they're being affected, what's going on. We do this lee -- we hide behind this little thing, this advertisement that's this (indicating) big in the paper ten days in advance. And we say, '~/ell, you should have known," you know. And we're going to be bringing back some recommendations in that regard, at which time what will happen is, the board will give us directions or -- or -- in -- you know, unofficially give us direction to go back, and then we'll bring back some policy changes through the DSAC, but you're all welcome to attend. MR. ELLIS: And my question, really, in relation to that John, was that -- would that be an appropriate form for any concerns like we have through DSAC to bring back to the board to come forth, like -- about some of the additional advisory committees and things, or is that a different process? MR. DUNNUCK: That's probably a different process, Page 26 April 4, 2001 because what we're talking about, as I said, is where we are with the current process and what -- you know, we -- we'd like to change. I intend on, as I said, bringing back an executive summary. You know, if you're talking about advisory boards and -- and roles, you know, I'll -- I'll bring back something to the next meeting to address the most recent issue. But -- but our intent is to just stick to the development review process at this time. And we're also going to talk to them about where we are with these subcommittees as far as -- because we also told the board when we raised the permit fees that we were working with you-all to talk about level of service standards and where we're going to be. And we're going to touch upon that with the understanding that the main time that they're going to see those changes is during the budget process, which will be in June, which is where we would make proposed budget changes if -- if you-all want to raise that level of service or we found ways where we can be more efficient, vice versa. MR. ELLIS: And just one last thing: Those of you that do business in the City of Naples, they have formed now a similar committee, not really as formally as the Development Services Advisory Committee, but they now have a monthly advisory committee meeting for -- through the trades. And the builders, subcontractors, and folks meet with them and talk about their process. And they met for three months now and are looking for additional input. Any of you that do business in the city and would like to participate in that, I think they would welcome that. You just want to contact Bob Devlin over there. I just say that -- I know many of you do business there, and that might be helpful to you. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. Thank you. MR. ABBOTT: What time Friday is that? Page 27 April 4, 2001 MR. DUNNUCK.' Nine a.m. MR. ABBOTT: There's not any -- MR. DUNNUCK: It's Thursday. and I think it's at 9 a.m. Yup. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. anyone? It's -- Thursday's the 12th, Any other comments from Go ahead, Bruce. MR. ANDERSON: Just on what John was talking about about the notice requirements and everything. If we are going to go beyond the minimum requirements of the statutes, then let's do it all the way and the county provide notice when they are initiating things, apply the same requirements to the county that you would now be applying to property owners, whether it be comp plan amendments or changes to the C-5 or other zoning districts. MR. MULHERE'. Are you talking about LDC amendments? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. Yes. Let's really make sure that people know. MR. MULHERE: The intent is to include that in -- in the recommendations that we're going to make for broader public notice. One of the things that we're going to recommend is the creation of a -- of a website where applications for development are posted on the website early in the process, probably within a couple of weeks deeming to be sufficient, and then every report that follows would also be posted. People can click on a website by geo -- geographic area. It will bring up the developments that are in review in their area. They can review those. Also, we're talking about allowing them then to subscribe to that website so they would be updated when -- they would be notified by e-mail when amendments or changes or additions are put on the website. And they can also comment electronically. And then the other thing we're talking about is actually Page 28 April 4, 2001 requiring for some threshold of public hearing that the developer notify the residents and hold a public meeting in the community explaining what the proposal is. MR. ANDERSON: May I respond to that last comment about the developer notifying the residents? I know that I speak for a lot of people -- MR. MULHERE: You do it already so... MR. ANDERSON: -- is that we would rather that the county be the one to send out the notice, because if we miss somebody because there's been a change on the tax roll, it will be viewed as a developer conspiracy -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah. MR. ANDERSON: -- to keep the people uninformed. MR. MULHERE: Bruce, the suggestion I'm making is that the county would provide you with that notified -- that list. So we would be responsible for providing you with the list, so it would be our responsibility. MR. DUNNUCK: But you'd pay for it. MR. MULHERE: But you'd be paying for it. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Very good. adjourn? MR. DUANE: So move. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: So moved. MR. ESPINAR: Second. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Seconded. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: With that, a motion to And all in favor?. Opposed? There being no further business for the good of the County, Page 29 April 4, 2001 the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4'-16 p.m. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE THOMAS MASTERS, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY BARBARA. DONOVAN, RMR, CRR Page 30