Loading...
CCPC Minutes 06/11/2004 W June 11, 2004 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION UDC - LDC WORKSHOP Naples, Florida, June 11,2004 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 AM in the Developmental Services Building, Horseshoe Drive, Conference Room 610 Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Vice-Chairman: Mark Strain Lindy Adelstein Brad Schiffer Robert Murray ALSO PRESENT: Joe Schmitt, Assistant County Attorney Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney 1 June 11,2004 Mark Strain called the meeting to order at 8:30 AM. (The Pledge of Allegiance was not recited as there was no flag in the meeting room.) Assistant County Attorney Patrick White gave a procedural history of the creation of the UDC and welcomed comments from the Commissioners and the public. · The UDC is projected to go into effect on September 27,2004 at 12:01 am. The target for completion is the end of August; this will allow time for code to publish. · There is no official action here. This is just a workshop. · The plan is to amend slightly the ordinance that acts as a vehicle for this UDC to go forward. The goal is to not create any substantial difference with this set of rules as opposed to the existing set of rules. · We understand that this is not a perfect document and there are 'glitches' that will have to be addressed. We will make corrections before sending this to municipal code. · For anyone in the process of review anything that was in the LDC could be put in a PUD. Those projects that do not have a time constraint will be addressed with a second cycle amendment. Mr. Schiffer asks if this process allows for appeals. Mr. White: Maybe it will go to the board. Since we don't know the problem its difficult to contemplate the fix. My concern is to find the right level of fix for the nature of the problem. The discussion continues regarding creating a process to address problems with the UDC. Mr. White will entertain the creation of a committee with volunteer members from the CCPC, DSAC, EAC and perhaps others. His main concern is that the process is fitting to the problem. He confirms that any discrepancies between the LDC and the UDC will be address quickly and efficiently. Mr. White, Mr. Murray and Mr. Strain continues discussing the perspective members, if such a committee is formed. 2 --_.-. June 11,2004 Mr. Richard Yovanovich expresses concern regarding the content of the UDC. He doesn't know the full document enough to know what has been deleted, modified or has remained the same. The discussion turns to the content of the UDC. Mr. Yovanovich and Mr. Brian H. Mackenzie (Collier Resources Co.) point out some discrepancies with the definitions portion of the UDC. Mr. White agrees to submit corrections. Mr. Strain points out that he also had four definitions added back into the document that he determined to be missing from the UDC, but reminds the group that some definitions have been removed because they weren't need or no longer used. Mr. White explains that a definition will be listed if the defined term appears in the body of the UDC. If the term does not appear, as was the case with numerous terms, it was removed. Furthermore, they attempted to reorganize where the definitions appeared so that the terms pertaining to a related industry were grouped together. (For example: Oil & Gas Development is listed under "a" for "Oil" as opposed to "D" for "Development.") Furthermore, he reminds the group that the definitions section of the UDC is designated for defining terms, not processes or regulations. Mr. Mackenzie requests that Oil & Gas Exploration also be listed under the heading of "0" as opposed to "E" for "Exploration." Mr. White agrees to make the change. The discussion continues regarding the listed definitions in the UDC and the possible discrepancies that may have occurred. Mr. Schiffer explains that there definitely must be a process that is fair and fast to make any corrections in the future; there also must be an appeal process to ensure fairness. Mr. White: There is no doubt that the definitions are the building blocks of the regulation. As problems arise they will be resolved quickly, as they were today. A process is very important but it must not outweigh the problem. Mr. Murray asks if there is a way to search for terms, perhaps, through an electronic version of the document. Mr. White confirms that this search will be taking place before the final changes are submitted. Mr. Murray confirms that if something is missing and is deemed important that it can be included immediately. A lengthy discussion regarding the listing of townhouses ensues when Mr. Y ovanovich points out some specific inconsistencies specifically pertaining to townhouses; firewall information has been left out. Mr. Strain reminds Mr. Y ovanovich that firewall requirements would be listed in Florida Building Code 3 June 11, 2004 making that information unnecessary in the UDC. Mr. White states the three main areas of concern are the uses; how impact fees are paid and the Florida Building Code. Mr. Strain points out that in the LDC the wording "where each dwelling unit mayor may not be on a separate lot" is a meaningless phrase. Assistant County Attorney Joe Schmitt reminds the group that they are trying not to have policies in the definitions. Mr. Schiffer redirects the focus to the process to solve any problems. He suggests that if there's a conflict between the new (UDC) and the old (LDC) then the LDC prevails. Then an appeal can be made to staff and then a further appeal to the Commission. Mr. Schmitt: If there is a clear disparity of the rules between the LDC and the UDC I want to make sure we have a process that doesn't prevent corrections. Mr. Schiffer would also like to see an appeal process at no cost. There is further discussion about the process of correcting any discrepancies within the UDC. The prospect of creating a committee is discussed. Mr. White acknowledges that the new UDC is outside of the comfort level of those who use the LDC. Upon further review and interpretation of the UDC, committee members and members of the public will become more comfortable with the UDC. Mr. Schmitt states that he does not want to create another review panel or board for this purpose. Mr. White states again that when there is conflict the old code will be applied. Mr. Strain stresses the importance of challenges to the UDC reaching them quickly. Mr. Schiffer suggests they be included as an agenda item, with a simple 'yes or no. ' Mr. Murray thought there would be an exercise using a mock PUD to try to purge the document of any errors. Mr. Yovanovich and Mr. Mackenzie express their support for keeping the old code (LDC) in lieu of the new code (UDC.) Mr. White: I believe it was the Board's perception that the code needed to be amended. It was their decision to investigate and commence this process. Professional consultants were called upon and the ultimate decision of all parties was that the structure of the LDC needed to be rethought. I understand that everyone will have to read the UDC and there is a cost. 4 June 11,2004 Mr. Schmitt: I want to confirm that the consultant stated that we were the 2nd worst code that she had encountered as a professional. Are we dealing with a lack of trust in the document or simply resistance to change? Mr. Adelstein: The truth is that you cannot minimize the fact that we have to learn the mew code. I rarely found a problem but it cost time and money to investigate that. I do believe that there has to be a quick way to resolve problems. Mr. Y ovanovich: I'm not afraid of change. I see a lot of strike-through and I'm concerned about the unintended consequences. Mr. White: Many people think they know what is in the code but have not read it for several years or even at all and they are in fact unfamiliar with the actual code. Mr. Schiffer: This code is phenomenally better. Mr. Strain: I have read the old code twice; I like it and I'm used to it. I kept thinking there were mistakes and, upon further review, there were not nearly as many errors as I expected to find. I have to believe that glitches will be reviewed and corrections will take place. Mr. Schiffer: Mr. White will come up with a process of appeal. Mr. Schiffer further comments that he was not comfortable with the defined terms being listed in bold capital letters every single time they appear in the code. Mr. Murray agrees with this and mentions that it breaks up the page when trying to read it. Mr. White states that they will be asking Municipal Code for several versions that also will not include the bold capitals and they will find a solution to this. In response to a question by Mr. Mackenzie, Mr. Strain states that the final changes will have to be in place by the end of July. At this point comments from Mr. Schmitt and a 2-minute silence take place in the remembrance of President Ronal Reagan. Mr. White explains that the date of adoption for the UDC will be June 22, 2004 but it will not go into effect until September 27,2004. The proofs must be complete by July 28, 2004. 5 June 11,2004 Mr. White and Mr. Schmitt explain that any job titles listed in the old code has been changed to read "The County Manager or Designee" because some titles have become obsolete and, looking into the future, current titles could also become obsolete. This will default to the Administrative Code, which is reviewed annually. There is a list of designees included in that code which will direct any petitioners to the correct party. Mr. Schiffer expresses some concern for this because there may be a conflict of interest between the County Manager and the designee that could affect a decision. Mr. White explains that this would be an impossibility because all decisions by designees would be approved of by the County Manager anyway. The designee is ruling on the County manager's behalf. Mr. White makes a closing comment thanking all those who participated in the workshop, specifically Commissioners Schiffer, Strain and Adelstein for their comments. He recognizes the difficulty of this process but is passionate because he wants what is best for the community. Mr. Strain expresses his appreciation to the members of the public that attended. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned at 10:25 AM. Collier County Planning Commission Mark Strain, Vice-Chairman 6 ._-~.-.