Loading...
DSAC Minutes 11/01/2006 R November 1, 2006 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, November 1, 2006 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Development Services Advisory Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:30 P.M. in REGULAR SESSION in Conference Room #610 in the Collier County Development Service Center, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Clay C. Brooker Charles Abbott (absent) J ames Boughton David Bryant (absent) Dalas Disney David Dunnavant (absent) Marco Espinar Blair Foley (excused) George Hermanson (excused) Reed Jarvi Brian Jones (absent) Thomas Masters Reed Jarvi Robert Mulhere (excused) Fred Reischl William Varian STAFF PRESENT: Joe Schmitt, Administrator CDES Phil Gramatges, PUED Phil Tindall and Nick Casalanguida, Transportation, Don Scott and Trinity Caudill-Scott, Transportation Mark Sunyak, Utilities Sub-Committee Marlene Stewart, Administrative Assistant CDES November 1,2006 I. Call to Order Chairman Clay Brooker called the meeting to order at 3:38 PM after declaring a quorum was present. Chairman Brooker welcomed William Varian to the DSAC membership. II. Approval of Agenda Change: Item VIlA. Land Development Regulations Sub Committee Chairman is Fred Reischl not Tom Masters. Fred Reischl moved to approve the agendas amended. Second by Thomas Masters and carried unanimously 8-0. III. Approval of Minutes, October 4, 2006 Change: Page 1, William Varian was excused, not absent. Change: Page 2, Item VI. A. 1) # 1.- to read - reduction in density in coastal hiI!h hazard area... Dalas Disney moved to approve the October 4, 2006 minutes, as amended. Second by Fred Reischl and carried unanimously 8-0. IV. Staff Announcements A. Community Development & Environmental Services Update Joe Schmitt, No Report at this time. B. Transportation Division Update Don Scott announced they are in the midst of AUIR (annual update inventory report) and meetings are scheduled on November 20,2006 with the Planning Commission and the Productivity Committee to go over AUIR. Main problems are the cost increases. He cited an example on one project: -one bid was received for the Santa Barbara project of 63.9 million dollars. Design cost and construction cost programmed estimates have doubled since last year from 6.2 million dollars per lane mile for design and construction costs to 10 million dollars for construction costs alone for this project. Consideration is being given to limit construction to just the intersections of Golden Gate Parkway and Radio Road where they intersect with Santa Barbara Blvd. Impact fees, expected to rise, were increased in June; but, costs are far outstripping revenue. The 5 million dollar grant received will only make a small dent in the costs. Impact fees revenues are down, indicating that permits are down for large projects. County is doing local study on cost increases. 2 November 1,2006 C. Public Utilities Division Update Phil Gramatges reported that copies of the new manuals are available to DSAC members to pick up at the end of the meeting. He also reported that a study was conducted during the summer of the fire flow and of the costs of meeting the demands of the County Fire Ordinance. The criterion to be met is determined by the Fire Department, which is an entity independent of the County. Theirs is a higher standard than that of the State requirement. Public Utilities objective is that they are trying to estimate what would be the costs to upgrade all the Public Utilities in the County to meet that requirement. That amount appears to be astronomical. This report should be ready for discussion at the next DSAC meeting. D. Fire Review Update Ed Riley was out of town, and so not present. A copy of the Office of the Fire Code Official Summary of Plan Review Activity-September-06 was distributed to the DSAC members in the meeting packet. After brief discussion, it was requested that staff notify Ed Riley or someone from his office to be present at next meeting to discuss the Study Report mentioned by Mr. Gramatges. V. Old Business A. Proportionate Fair Share Ordinance Follow-up Presentation, discussion and provision for comments/input - Transportation Planning Department. (Handouts-2) Nick Casalanguida and Phillip Tindall submitted copies of the Final Draft of the Proposed Proportionate Fair Share Ordinance, mandated by the Florida Legislature (F.S.163.3180(l6)), which will go before the BCC on November 14,2006. DSAC membership reviewed the Final Draft of Ordinance with Mr. Casalanguida and Mr. Tindall; expressing their concerns on several items brought to the group's attention by Reed Jarvi, who had previously participated in an in-depth discussion with Mr. Casalanguida, Mr.Tindall and several members of the development community. Mr. Jarvis provided copies of all the comments on both TIS Guidelines and the Proportionate Fair Share Ordinance generated by this discussion. Mr. Casalanguida assured members that any and all comments and recommendations made at this DSAC meeting will be presented to the BCC. An overview of the background for the Guidelines and Ordinance was provided by Mr. Casalanguida and Mr. Tindall, who explained that these are based on the FDOT provided Model Ordinance which was substantially incorporated into these documents. Lengthy discussions, explanations and rewordings on several of the sections followed regarding both the Proposed TIS Guidelines and the Proposed Proportionate Fair Share Ordinance. Mr. Casalanguida noted the revisions discussed on TIS Guidelines handout. 3 November 1,2006 Legal clarification was sought from Attorney Jeff Klatzkow, who arrived at 4:25 PM and was consulted on several points. After more discussion, some Sections were recommended by consensus of the members, for the following changes: Section 75-202 - Application Process . Item (4)- change the 30 business days to 60 business days . Create a new page 4 showing the renumbering of items (6) and (7), adding (8) and renumbering Item (8) to Item (9). . Renumbered Item (6) is now to begin with: When an application is deemed complete and sufficient.., and end with.. . mitigation on a SIS facility. . Renumbered Item (7) is now to begin with: Approval of a Proportionate Fair- Share Agreement... and end with ... and rental offacilities. . New Item (7) changes: 1. 15t sentence-delete "the following steps" 2. Delete the (a), (b), (c) sub-topic designation 3. 2nd sentence to read: .. .improvements that may need to be completed prior to commencement of Development 4. Remove a portion of item (7) to create a new Item number (8) . Item (8) to begin with: Once finalized by the parties... and end with. . .until approved by the Board. . Item (9) - change.. . regardless of whether the application is approved or denied to if approved. Section 75-204 - Impact Fee Credit for Proportionate Fair-Share Mitigation . Item (4) - change 30 days to 90 calendar days Section 75-205 - Proportionate Fair-Share Agreements . Item (2) - change 10 business days from the County's approval to 90 calendar days from the BCC's approval William Varian moved to approve the changes to the Proportionate Fair-Share Ordinance, incorporating the revisions in Section 75-202 and the changes to Sections 75-204 and 75-205 as noted above. Further, to present these recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners. Second by Tom Masters and carried unanimously 8-0. Clay Brooker mentioned having a conversation with a County Commissioner whose concern was that the DSAC's comments and recommendations were not being heard. In the process of subsequent multiple committees review of items, recommendations deemed accepted sometimes get revised and/or omitted by the end of the process. It was agreed that the process needs streamlining. The TIS Guidelines previously reviewed by Reed Jarvi, Nick Casalanguida and Phil Tindall for construction and wording adjustments, were distributed along with a list of comments on still unresolved issues. The following items were discussed and the suggested changes noted as follows: 4 November 1, 2006 Section 5. Internal Capture- Page 4 - Recommendation is to delete next to last sentence which reads: The internal capture trips should be reasonable and should not exceed 20% of the total project trips. Section 6. Pass-by Capture- Page 5 - Recommendation is to eliminate the 25% as information used in analysis is outdated. Pass-by capture to be determined in accordance with guidelines of more recent ITE Trip Generation Handbook. Delete paragraph beginning with: The following pass-by rates would be permitted.... Section 8. Significantly Impacted Roadways/Intersections- Page 6 - item a. Recommendation is to replace the 2%,2% 3% ratios as shown in the TIS, with 3%, 3%, 5% as shown in the GMP and LDC and adopted by BCC. Analysis should be consistent. Page 6 - item d. Recommendation is to insert, after the word, County-at the Methodology Meeting. Page 6 - Recommendation is to add item e. All developments orders approvals or denials will be consistent with LDC & GMP. Section 12. Background Traffic Growth/Future Traffic Page 9 - item e. Recommendation is to re-write sentences to read: The TIS will consider all vested development on significantly impacted links and intersections. This information shall be obtained from the County as agreed upon at the Methodology Meeting. Page 9 - item f. Recommendation is to delete first sentence which reads: Under no circumstances is a negative growth rate allowed. Reed Jarvi moved to recommend to the BCC, approval of all agreed upon changes. Second by William Varian and carried unanimously 8-0. VI. New Business A. Revisit vote to disband Utilities Subcommittee Chairman Brooker gave an update on the resolution made at the last meeting to disband the Utilities Subcommittee, reserving the right to call an ad hoc committee whenever necessary. He explained that no representation from DSAC is on this Subcommittee and therefore it is not a true Subcommittee ofDSAC. Phil Gramatges cited that this Subcommittee is a useful tool for DSAC to participate in many areas of decision making. He suggested polling the members to see if there is an interest in participating. Without backing of DSAC, Subcommittee does not have the same legitimacy as it might otherwise. He urged DSAC to reconsider the disbanding. Marco Espinar suggested an e-mail be sent to all members ofDSAC to see if anyone would like to be on this Subcommittee. 5 November 1,2006 Chairman Brooker inquired about which staff person to contact. Marlene Stewart, CDES Administrative Assistant agreed to contact all DSAC members. Marco Espinar moved to have Marlene Stewart, CDES Administrative Assistant, contact the full DSAC membership to request if they have any interest in serving on the Utilities Subcommittee. Second by Reed Jarvi and carried unanimously 8-0. VII. Sub Committee Reports A. Land Development Regulations- Fred Reischl-Nothing to report at this time. VIII. Committee Member Comments- Dalas Disney commented that he also had three items to address. 1. He also had calls from a Commissioner regarding ways comments are provided the Commissioners and a request for additional fuller comments. He specifically was asked about a unanimous approval on a signage vote that may have been approved on the basis that there was not an advantage to government over private enterprise. After checking the Sign Ordinance, Mr. Disney found that not to be the case. The sign code criteria may not have been adequately presented to DSAC and/or not adequately covered. He would like to have DSAC re-review this to see ifBCC needs to see it again. Chairman Brooker agreed that this be put on the agenda and have Diana from sign code at the meeting, and so called for a motion. Dalas Disney moved that staff request Diana Compagnone to attend the next meeting to address and discuss the status and issues surrounding the sign code amendment. Second by William Varian and carried unanimously 8-0. 2. Mr. Disney informed the Committee of a new form regarding Water sizing and Impact Fees from the Utilities Dept. which appears to be a waste of time and money when buildings are all done and this information is probably already known. He objects to this extra hold-up and brought this to everyone's attention. 3. Along this same line, he pointed out a check list which must be submitted when permitting. His objection was to the part that says "NI A". If that designation is checked, a detailed explanation, on the company's letterhead, of why NI A was checked is required. Mr. Disney would like these items discussed with Joe Schmidt at next month's meeting. William Varian mentioned that he faced the same problem and had spoke to Bill Hammond, who offered some form of exemption when list is brought to his attention. Chairman Brooker stated that these two items can also be brought up to Mr. Schmidt at the next meeting. He also mentioned the four year review report to the BCC on what DSAC has accomplished. This is to be presented in March of2007. Input was requested from all members. 6 November 1,2006 IX. Next meeting date will be December 6, 2006 (Room 610) at 3:30 PM. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chair at 5:59 PM. ************ Development Services Advisory Committee Chairman, Clay C. Brooker 7