Loading...
DSAC Minutes 03/05/2008 R March 5, 2008 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, March 5, 2008 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 (Excused) Laura Spurgeon Dejohn Dalas Disney David Dunnavant Marco Espinar Blair Foley George Hermanson Reed Jarvi Thomas Masters Robert Mulhere ALSO PRESENT: Joe Schmitt, CDES Administrator Judy Puig, Operations Analyst, CDES Catherine Fabacher, Principal Planner, LDC Phil Gramatges, Sf. Project Manager, Public Utilities Nick Casalanguida, Transportation Director Bob Dunn, Interim Director, Building Review & Permitting Dept. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE **Revised** AGENDA March 5, 2008 3:30 p.m. Conference Room 610 I. Call to order II. Approval of Agenda III. Approval of Minutes from February 6,2008 meeting IV. Staff Announcements/Updates A. CDES Update - Joe Schmitt B. Transportation Division Update - Nick Casalanguida C. Public Utilities Division Update - Phil Gramatges D. Fire Review Update - Ed Riley V. Old Business A. Discussion to review letter that Reed Jarvi will be drafting to the BCC to have a DSAC member appointed to the Floodplain Management Planning Committee. VII. New Business A. Review times for Building Review and Zoning - (Bill Varian) B. SOP time limits - amend LDC Section 10.02.03.BA.C to allow more time for construction and build out (George Hermanson) C. SOP Inspection Fees when SOP expires or is cancelled. Should they be returned to landowner (SOP applicant) D. PUD completion and turnover letter from County to HOA accepting PUD commitments IX. Adjournment Next Meetinq Dates April 2, 2008 CDES Conference Room 610 - 3:30 pm May 7, 2008 CDES Conference Room 610 - 3:30 pm June 11, 2008 CDES Conference Room 610 - 1 :00 pm July 9,2008 CDES Conference Room 610 -1 :00 pm August 6,2008 CDES Conference Room 610 - 3:30 pm September 3,2008 CDES Conference Room 610 - 3:30 pm October 1,2008 CDES Conference Room 610 - 3:30 pm November 5, 2008 CDES Conference Room 610 - 3:30 pm December 3,2008 CDES Conference Room 610 - 3:30 pm March 5, 2008 I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairman William Varian at 3:30 PM. A quorum was established. II. Approval of Agenda Mr. Mulhere moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Mr. Foley. Carried unanimously, 9-0. III. Approval of Minutes Mr. Masters moved to approve the Minutes of February 6, 2008 as submitted. Second by Mr. Mulhere. Carried unanimously, 9-0. IV. Staff Announcements/Updates C. Public Utilities Division Update - Phil Gramatges Mr. Gramatges stated he presented the previously discussed Fee Schedule Amendment to the BCC, and it was approved by the Board. The Amendment stated: "Utility Modeling and Analysis Feefor all DRIs and PUDs - $1,000 at time ofSDP, SIP, and/or PPL application for all developments within the geographic houndary of the Collier County Water/Sewer District. " Phil Gramatges stated the modeling was done on a time and material basis by a consultant. Blair Foley requested a list of engineering inspections performed and accounting of the fees that have been paid. He wants verification of where the dollars are going. Reed Jarvi stated he had received conflicting information conceming whether or not inspection fees would be returned when an SDP was cancelled or expired. It was suggested this request should be directed to Joe Schmitt. (George Hermanson and Marco Espinar arrived at 3:35 PM.) A. CDES Update - Joe Schmitt Blair Foley referenced Item VII(C) under "New Business," and repeated his request for an accounting of the spending and allocation of the fees for the inspection portions of the SDP. Joe Schmitt stated the Fee Schedule is based on an aggregate of all the fees collected for a certain portion ofa project. He asked if providing a sample cross-section often submittals and what was spent would be sufficient. He stated inspections were performed at preliminary acceptance as well as at final acceptance. He asked if the committee wanted a forensic analysis of the entire Fee Schedule for that portion of a project, and if so, he would pull 5 or 6 projects and provide a cost breakdown of what was spent along with the breakdown at the next meeting. George Hermanson to discuss Item VII(B) under "New Business" concerning SDP time limits. 2 March 5, 2008 Joe Schmitt stated there is a proposal to amend the LDC to extend the time limits for site plans and the proposed amendment will be presented to the committee during the upcoming LDC Cycle. Copies of a draft of the LDC Amendment Request were distributed. George Hermanson explained his concerns regarding the time limits for site development approvals. He referenced the proposed LDC Amendment Request. In addition to the time limits stated Paragraph 4A and Paragraph 4B, the language referencing adherence to the existing code requirements was confusing. It was suggested adding the phrase "at the time of suhmittaf' at the end of the first sentence to clarify that the code existing at the time the SDP was submitted would still govern. Joe Schmitt stated the amendment would be reviewed and discussed during the LDC Cycle. It is still being debated and comments from the committee should be submitted. There was further discussion concerning the intent of the language. Chairman Varian summarized the discussion: . the amendment will be presented to the committee in May, . if any of the members have clients experiencing problems, they will refer them to Joe Schmitt for review on a case-by-case basis. Joe Schmitt completed his update by stating the reduction in the county's force necessitated the release of 17 employees. He expected 9 to 13 individuals to accept the county's offer of voluntary separation and he is in the process of trying to "right size" the organization and to prepare the budget for 2009. VII. New Business C. SDP Inspection Fees when SDP expires or is cancelled. Should the fees be returned to the SDP applicant? Reed Jarvi asked for clarification of the rule ifan SDP was cancelled. Joe Schmitt stated if a project had been reviewed but inspections had not started, a cost analysis would be performed and refunds would be issued but each case would be reviewed individually. The current fee schedule allows for a refund of 50% of the estimated inspection costs if any work has been done. It was suggested the fee schedule should be review and revised if it allowed the county to retain 50% of the inspection fees even ifno work had been done on a project. Copies of the current Fee Schedule will be distributed. (Dalas Disney arrived at 4:10 PM.) IV. Staff Announcements B. Transportation Division Update - Nick Casalanguida . The projects that are ready to go to bid are being reviewed and re-adjusted due to budgetary constraints . Current projects are either ahead of schedule or 'on track' . Vanderbilt Beach Road billing is over $IM per month . 951 from Golden Gate Boulevard to Pine Ridge is in design He also stated the East Trail Consortium was submitting a pre-application for the Lowe's project to obtain a right-of-way permit. (Charles Abbott arrived at 4:10 PM) 3 March 5, 2008 D. Fire Review Update - Ed Riley Mr. Riley stated 6l-G reviews of sprinklers and alarms were no longer provided by the Fire Code Department. The Building Department began providing the reviews as of January I, 2008. He clarified 61-G reviews amounted to approximately one-third of the total review numbers, but not one-third of the department's time as had been previously reported in prior meeting minutes. Currently, a program is in beta-testing to track contractors, types of permits applied for, approvals and/or reason for rejection. The information generated will allow his department to target problem areas and tailor specialty classes for industry. The goal is to significantly decrease the number of rejections. V. Old Business A. Review of Letter drafted by Reed Jarvi to the BCC to appoint a member of DSAC to the Flood Plain Management Planning Committee Chairman Varian stated a copy of the draft had been distributed. Bob Mulhere moved to approve the draft andfor Chairman Varian to sign it and forward the letter to the BCC. Second by Marco Espinar. Carried unanimously, 13-0. VII. New Business A. Review Times for Building Review and Zoning Chairman Varian stated Bob Dunn had placed a placard at the front desk to announce goals for expected review times as has been previously requested. He stated it is taking 12 to 14 days to obtain a rejection letter from the Commercial Planning Review Coordinators after the inspectors have reviewed it. Bob Dunn stated that particular function is currently being reviewed. The goal is to have each reviewer send out his comments after the review is completed. It may take another month to revise the process. He stated the reduction of staff in that area has also contributed to the problem. C. SDP Inspection Fee Refund Issue Joe Schmitt stated his department incurred costs to review a project, and overhead costs are incorporated into the fee, Tonya Levitt responded the inspection fee would be fully refunded after submittal of a request for refund. Fees expended for reviews would not be refunded. She further explained the fee schedule does not permit refunds of any engineering, environmental, or zoning. Joe Schmitt stated he does not have the authority to amend the fee schedule. He will present an amendment of the fee schedule to the BCC to recoup fees on a case by case basis. If a project had been abandoned and other permits had been obtained that required bonding, those requirements would have to be fulfilled per code. He stated some language and requirements were being revised and he would review the data submitted on a case-by-case basis and write an executive summary to present to the BCC as necessary. 4 March 5, 2008 D. PUD Completion and Turnover Letter from County to an HOA accepting PUD Commitments Joe Schmitt stated the BCC had given clear direction to first obtain letters from an HOA or the HOA's representative and/or from a property owners' association before a bond could be released. Stan Chrzanowski stated developers' bonds had previously been released by the BCC via a consent agenda. Homeowners complained about the release of bonds when a developer left unfinished proj ects that were not covered under the bond. The BCC directed the bonds to be held until a member of an HOA or someone not involved in the development of the project signed off on the project. He further stated it was very difficult to find someone who would accept that responsibility and he had no way to determine whether or not a developer had, in fact, contacted the various members of the HOA. Joe Schmitt is writing an executive summary that includes the specific language requested by the BCC. It was suggested the HOA could hire an independent civil engineer to inspect the property to determine whether or not the developer fulfilled his commitments and the release ofa performance bond is a different issue from completion of the PUD. Next DSAC Meeting Dates: . April 2, 2008 at 3:30 PM . May 7, 2008 at 3:30 PM . June 11, 2008 at 1:00 PM There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:52 PM. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE William Variau, Chairman These Minutes were approved by the Board/Committee on as presented , or as amended 5