Loading...
DSAC Minutes 12/05/2007 R December 5, 2007 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, December 5, 2007 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 Community Development and Environmental Services Center, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: William Varian Charles Abbott James Boughton Clay Brooker David Bryant Dalas Disney David Dunnavant Marco Espinar Blair Foley Reed Jarvi Thomas Masters Robert Mulhere Excused: George Hermanson Fred Reischl Absent: Brian Jones ALSO PRESENT: Joe Schmitt, CDES Administrator Marlene Stewart, Staff Liaison Catherine Fabacher, Principal Planner, LDC Phil Gramatges, Public Utilities Susan Istenes, Director, Zoning & Land Development Review Bob Dunn, Interim Director, Building Review & Permitting Dept. Robert Wiley, Principal Project Manager DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Note: Revised 12-3-07 AGENDA December 5, 2007 3:30 p.m. Conference Room 610 I. Call to order II. Approval of Agenda III. Approval of Minutes from November 7,2007 meeting IV. Staff Announcements/Updates A. CDES Update - Joe Schmitt B. Transportation Division Update - Nick Casalanguida 1. Roadway capacity-175 & Immokalee Interchange C. Public Utilities Division Update - Phil Gramatges D. Fire Review Update - Ed Riley V. Old Business A. Fee Changes - Susan Istenes B. LDC Amendment: Interim Watershed Management Standards -Robert Wiley C. Flood Management Plan 2008 - PresentationlDiscussionNote - Robert Wiley VI. New Business A. DSAC Applications-Review/Endorsement VII. Member Comments VIII. Adjournment Next Meetinq Dates January 2,2008 - CDES Conference Room 610 - 3:30 pm February 6,2008 - CDES Conference Room 610 - 3:30pm March 5, 2008 - CDES Conference Room 610 - 3:30 pm April 2, 2008 - CDES Conference Room 610 - 3:30 pm December 5, 2007 I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairman William Varian at 3 :32 PM. A quorum was established. II. Approval of Agenda Mr. Espinar moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Mr. Disney. Carried unanimously, 9-0. III. Approval of Minutes Chairman Varian stated there was a correction to Page 8 of the October 10, 2007 Minutes. Mr. Brooker moved to approve the Minutes of October 10,2007 as amended. Second by Mr. Espinar. Carried unanimously, 9-0. Mr. Brooker moved to approve the Minutes of November 7, 2007 as submitted. Second By Mr. Espinar. Carried unanimously, 9-0. IV. Staff Announcements/Updates B. Transportation Division Update No report. D. Fire Review Update No report. C. Pnblic Utilities Update - Phil Gramatges Mr. Gramatges stated Public Utilities is developing a Master Plan to be submitted in 2008. Purchase orders have been issued. It is anticipated that the Master Plan will be presented to the Committee and to the BCC during May, 2008. He asked for clarification from the Committee regarding the fees for Hydraulic Modeling required to determine capacity for new developments. He asked if the Committee preferred the fees to be presented at the SDP stage, and not at the time of the POO. If acceptable, he stated it will be modified accordingly. He stated he would present revised language at the next meeting. Mr. Mulhere stated that while he was not sure that the Committee supported charging the fee itself, he felt all agreed the more appropriate time to charge it was during the SDP. The Certificate of Adequate Public Facilities is issued at the time of the SDP, not at the POO. Mr. Gramatges proposed bringing this issue back at the next meeting. (3:40PM - Reed Jarvi arrived) A. CDES Update - Joe Schmitt . The Fee Schedule was presented to the Board of County Commissioners, but the BCC requested revisions and it will be presented again on December 11, 2007. . The Executive Summary (attached) delineated the increases in costs for the Board's revIew. 2 December 5, 2007 (3:45PM - David Bryant arrived) With reference to the down-tum in workload, Mr. Schmitt stated that there are 37 unfilled positions in his department. He has eliminated two Department Manager positions and has cut his budget by 33 percent. He stated that approximately 10 to 20 more positions may be eliminated. Other options include reducing the work week to 32 - 36 hours. Levels of service will be impacted. He will advise the Committee when an option has been chosen for implementation. (3:48PM - Tom Masters arrived) Mr. Foley suggested staggering hours during the work week. Chairman Varian asked about the status of vehicles for Inspectors. Mr. Schmitt stated that all unassigned vehicles will be turned in. Mr. Foley asked if the fees paid were reimbursed to the developer if a project died. Mr. Schmitt responded that unless specifically requested in writing, fees are not reimbursed. If a request were to be made, fees would not be reimbursed for all inspections performed. He stated a plan was in development to extend the timeframes and will be brought to the Board for approval. Mr. Schmitt stated the increase in Impact Fees takes effect as of January 1, 2008. Chairman Varian asked about the 6l-G-15 Reviews. Mr. Schmitt stated the Fire Review Task Force informed him that all Reviews will be returned to the Building Department as of January 1,2008. He stated Ed Riley will review subcontractor submissions but not original designs. The process is in transition at this time, but a final permit will not be issued without approval by a Fire Code official. Mr. Disney asked how did it happen that an administrative review document (6l-G- 15) became a plan review document? Mr. Schmitt stated the process was supposed to eliminate problems. Chairman Varian asked about the DEP employees on staff. Mr. Schmitt stated that he was paying $90,000 as part of the permitting process in the Estates. The DEP Grant was eliminated as a cost cutting measure. Chairman Varian stated he received complaints concerning the $300 fee. Mr. Schmitt stated the BCC approved his request to assess a $300 fee to perform a survey for wetlands determination. Mr. Lorenz stated the DEP will train the County's personnel in order to perform this function. He stated that vegetation along the property line will be cut by a surveyor. He stated he will make sure that the industry is informed of this change. Mr. Espinar suggested modifying the fee schedule to consider lot size when charging a fee instead of charging a flat fee of $300.00. There was further discussion concerning 6l-G-l5 and engineer reviews. 3 December 5, 2007 Mr. Schmitt stated that the Building Department is sorting through the process, and will ensure that nothing is asked for that is not required by Statute. He asked the Committee to clarify the fees previously approved to be charged for Affordable Housing permits: 1,000 square foot house - permit fee will be 23% less 1,500 square foot house - permit fee will be 13% less 2,000 square foot house - permit fee will be 7% less 2,500 square foot house - permit fee will be 3.85% less 3,000 square foot house - permit fee will be 1 % less He stated fees will increase for permit applications of 3,500 square feet and larger. V. Old Business A. Fee Changes - Susan Istenes, Zoning Director Ms. Istenes stated the Department would like to submit a lesser fee to contractors when they submit a sheet change-out. Previously, contractors had been permitted to make changes in certain situations without clear policy guidelines. The intent is to eliminate charging a full re-submittal fee for a minor change. The proposed sheet trade out fee is $35.00. Acceptable situations will be defined. Staff review is required to assure compliance. This proposal will be submitted to the Board at its next meeting. Mr. Bryant moved to approve the sheet change-out fee subject to formal policy or procedures being submittedfor review at the next DSAC meeting. Second by Mr. Foley. Carried unanimously, 12-0. B. Interim Watershed Management Regulations Standards - Robert Wiley Mr. Wiley stated the Amendment was back for review pursuant to Committee's request. A copy of the revised Amendment Request was distributed. In response to a question from Chairman Varian, Mr. Wiley stated that if the footprint of an impervious area is not increased, nothing would be triggered and a retrofit would not be considered to be a redevelopment. Mr. Mulhere asked about the criteria used to determine when floodplain compensation should be used in one area as opposed to another. A draft map was distributed to the Committee to help define seasonal wetlands subject to flooding and drainage problem areas. Mr. Espinar requested more definitive information concerning wetlands. Discussion ensued concerning the requirement for a project to meet 150% water quality treatment standards and the detrimental effect of that requirement upon the redevelopment of older areas. If it is only an "interim" requirement and may be changed again, the Committee questioned why it was included. The Committee agreed that existing problems should be rectified as part of a redevelopment project, but wanted fairness for the business owners who were trying to revitalize their older properties. 4 December 5, 2007 Mr. Mulhere stated the phrase "to the greatest extent possible, a site shall be brought into compliance" has been used by the County in various sections of the Code. He suggested striking the second sentence of Paragraph "A" and substituting, ''In such cases, the following interim regulations shall be met to the greatest degree possible or greatest extent possible." (The "following" would be Paragraphs "B" through "G.") He added, "At a minimum, such redevelopment shall provide 1 00% of the water quality volumetric requirements of Section 5.2. 1 (a). " Mr. Wiley agreed that the requirement of 1 00% of water quality should be based upon assessed value provided there was no change to the square footage of the project. He stressed the goal was to correct existing problems as part of any redevelopment. Mr. Mulhere suggested striking the second sentence in Paragraph "A" and revising the first sentence to clarify that, in redevelopment projects, interim standards are not triggered unless 50% of the total impervious on-site area is exceeded. A sentence could be substituted for the strike-through to read, "In such cases the following interim regulations shall be met to the greatest degree feasible. At a minimum, such regulations shall provide for an increase in the amount of water quality treatment. The determination of improvements needed to meet the 'greatest extent feasihle' shall be made hy the County Engineer. The County Engineer's decision may be appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals pursuant to the provisions set forth in Section nm. " Mr. Jarvi asked for definition of Paragraph F. He asked if the basis could be a 25-year storm event. It was decided to add the term, "based on a 25-year, 3-day design storm" to the end of the sentence. Mr. Wiley agreed to change renumber Paragraph "B" to Paragraph "A," and to change [former] Paragraph "A" to Subparagraph (2). Mr. Mulhere moved to substitute the language set forth above in place of the second sentence of [new! Paragraph "A." Second by Mr. Brooker. Mr. Espinar objected to the exhibit as provided. Mr. Disney objected to voting on language which he did not feel was clear enough. Mr. Mulhere amended his motion to strike through the second sentence of Paragraph "A" and to add language that allows, in the case of redevelopment, to meet the interim requirements to the greatest extent possible as determined by the County Engineer with an appeal process available should the applicant disagree. The Committee suggested that, in the first sentence of Paragraph "A," the phrase "50% of building footprint or" should be removed and that the words, "and redevelopment" should be removed from the first sentence of[ old] Paragraph "8." 5 December 5, 2007 Mr. Mulhere continued with his amended motion: In addition the method of determining redevelopment shall be the total impervious on the site and in such cases where the additional impervious exceeds 50% of the existing total impervious. He further moved to strike through the words, "and redevelopment" from the first Sentence of Paragraph "B." He further moved, in Paragraph "F," the basis of the design was the 25-year, 3-day design storm, and that the accompanying map was not approved. Second by Mr. Brooker. Carried unanimously, 12-0. B. Floor Management Plan 2008 - PresentationlDiscussionlVote - Robert Wiley Due to time constraints, the presentation was not made. Mr. Wiley stated the Flood Management Plan will be presented to the BCC at its next meeting, and will not be presented to the Committee. VI. New Business A. DSAC Applications - Review/Endorsement Chairman Varian stated the terms for six Committee members would expire at the conclusion of the meeting. Four members submitted applications for re-appointment. A second advertisement will be placed for the remaining two positions. Mr. Mulhere moved to accept the four applications and to recommend them to the BCC for re-appointment. Second by Mr. Bryant. Carried unanimously, 12-0. VII. Member Comments The next DSAC Meeting was scheduled to be held on January 2, 2008. Committee members suggested changing the date to later in the month. Mr. Disney moved to schedule the next DSA C meeting for January 9, 2008. Second by Mr. Mulhere. Carried unanimously, 12-0. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:20PM. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE William Varian, Chairman These Minutes were approved by the Board/Committee on as presented , or as amended 6