Loading...
DSAC Minutes 06/11/2008 R June 11,2008 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, June 11,2008 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 I :00 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 (Excused) Charles Abbott James Boughton Clay Brooker David Bryant (Absent) Laura Spurgeon Dejohn Dalas Disney David Dunnavant Marco Espinar Blair Foley George Hermanson Reed Jarvi (Excused) Thomas Masters Robert Mulhere Mario Valle ALSO PRESENT: Joe Schmitt, Administrator, CDES Judy Puig, Operations Analyst, CDES Catherine Fabacher, Zoning & Land Development, LDC Manager Ray Smith, Director, Pollution Control Nick Casalanguida, Transportation Phil Gramatges, Public Utilities Tom Wides, Operations Director, Public Utilities Gary Mullee, Business Management & Budget Manager DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA June 11, 2008 1 :00 p.m. Conference Room 610 I. Call to order II. Approval of Agenda III. Approval of Minutes from May 7,2008 meeting IV. Welcome new Committee member Mario Valle V. 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 VI. Old Business A. Letter re: LDC amendments B. Final Draft for the FY09 budget - Gary Mullee C. Public Utilities "Review of Mater Plans and Impact Fee Studies" - Phil Gramatges VII. New Business A. LDC Amendments - Catherine Fabacher (Time certain to start at 2:00) B. Updated ROW handbook - Nick Casalanguida C. COA Administrative Procedures - Nick Casalanguida VIII. Staff Comments A. Reminder next meeting date is July gth (2nd week) and time is at 1 :00 pm IX. Adjournment Next Meetinq Dates July g, 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 June 11,2008 t. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 1 :05 PM by Vice Chairman Thomas Masters. A quorum was established. II. Approval of Agenda Vice Chairman Masters requested amending the Agenda to reverse the order of items under "Old Business." i.e.. Public Utilities would be heardfirst as Item "A." Mr. Espinar moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Second by Mr. Foley. Carried unanimously, 10-0. III. Approval of Minutes Mr. Disney moved to approve the Minutes of May 7, 2008 as submitted. Second by Mr. Espinar. Carried unanimously, 10-0. IV. Welcome to New Committee Member Mario Valle was introduced to the Committee as its newest member. David Dunnavant asked to add an item to the Agenda to discuss the letter sent by BCC Commissioner Tom Henning. Vice Chairman Masters added the topic as Item D under "New Business. " V. Staff Announcements/Updates C. Public Utilities/Engineering Division Update - Phil Gramatges Mr. Gramatges stated his report was incorporated in "Old Business." D. Fire Review Update - Ed Riley No presentation. Written report was submitted to Committee members. VI. Old Business A. Review of 2008 Master Plan - Phil Gramatges Mr. Gramatges stated the Master Plan had been changed from the original plan presented in June, 2006. This plan has been reduced due to the decrease in population. He stated a number of projects have been postponed. . There are four service areas for water and waste-water service - 2 plants each are existing and 2 are proposed . The Level of Service Standards have been changed due to reduction in population projections . Capital Improvement Program costs have been cut in half for the lO-year CIP cycle . Improvements to plants or construction have been deferred to 2017 and 2022 . Wells will not be needed as quickly as had been anticipated. Blair Foley moved to recommend the BCC approve the 2008 Master Plan as presented. Second by Jim Boughton. Carried unanimously, 10-0. Impact Fee Studies Presentation - Tom Wides Mr. Wides presented a PowerPoint Presentation. . Impact Fees and the Allowance for Funds Prudently Invested ("AFPI") were adopted in 2006 - these are not "new" fees 2 June 11, 2008 . Impact Fees are used to fund expansions relating to the Water and Wastewater Capital Plans . Impact Fees cannot be used for renewal and replacement or deficiencies in existing facilities . The Capital Plans are financed through Impact Fee collections, external debt financing, or user rate revenues - these are the only funding sources . Ad Valorem taxes are not used . Proposing a 3.7% fee reduction ($268.88 combined fee reduction) . Estimated $12 Million revenue capture through 2013 A comment was made that the reductions appear to be capitalized to the lower side and should be greater. Blair Foley moved to recommend the BCC approve the Impact Fee Plan as presented. Second by Robert Mulhere. Motion carried, 8-Yes/2-No. Dalas Disney and David Dunnavant opposed. V. Staff Announcements/Updates A. CDES Update - Joe Schmitt, Administrator Mr. Schmitt stated he did not have a report and no questions were asked. VI. Old Business B. Final Draft of Fiscal Year '09 Budget - Gary Mullee Mr. Mullee stated the Budget would be presented to BCC during its Workshop Session. . Funds #l 13 (Building) and #131 (Planning) are down approximately 25% from I ast year . Fund #111 and the General Fund (#001) are down approximately 2% . There is a 3-month reserve level for Fund #113 and Fund #131 . There is no fee increase within this budget . Staffing levels are back to Fiscal Year 2000 There was discussion concerning square footage, load factors and rents. All departments that are not part of#l 13 pay rent ($20/sq. ft.) A question was asked whether or not permit fees are paying more than their fair share of building costs. Joe Schmitt stated there is space available for other county agencies to move into the CDES building. Dalas Disney moved to recommend the BCC approve the Budget as presented. Second by Robert Mulhere. Carried unanimously, 10-0. A vote was also requested on the Executive Summary distributed to the members concerning revenue generated from the sale of surplus CDES capital goods. The goods were purchased from Fund #113 and any revenue is to be returned to the fund Robert Mulhere moved to recommend the BCC approve the Executive Summary as presented. Second by Blair Foley. Carried unanimously, 10-0. 3 June 11, 2008 (I :45 PM - Reed Jarvi arrived.) A question was asked concerning how to be removed from the PUD Monitoring Cycle onee a development has been built-out. Joe Schmitt stated a process is being developed because there are now 25 Units that will be brought to the Board for approval in September. C. Letter regarding LDC Amendments A letter to the BCC concerning future LDC Amendments was distributed to the members. Robert Mulhere moved to approve the letter to the BCC for signature by the DSA C Chair. Second by Dalas Disney. Diseussion ensued. It was suggested that the word "unanimously" be added to the letter and thereby eliminate the need to set forth every single Committee member at the end of the letter. Robert Mulhere amended his motion to approve the letter to the BCC for signature by the DSAC Chair and to add the word "unanimously" to the phrase "It is recommended" (3rd paragraph, page 2). The revised phrase will read: "It is unanimously recommended by DSA C that... " Second by Dalas Disney. Carried unanimously, 11-0. VII. New Business A. LDC Amendment Discussion - Catherine Fabacher, LDC Manager A question was asked concerning the revisions to Seetion 1.04.04. Catherine Fabacher stated it would be presented to the LDR Subcommittee at the J 18th . une meetmg. (George Hermanson arrived at 2:05 PM.) Section 4.07.02 GA.a: (p. 13) The change is to clarify language: "... either donated in fee simple or dedicated by easement..." and the term "project area" was changed to "gross area" wherever used to achieve eonformity. Section 5.05.12: (p. 15) The term "raw water wells" was changed to "Public Utility Ancillary System" and the word "substantially" was added before the word "amended." Section 3.06.06: (p. 25 - 32) Existing illustrations were replaced by updated versions, and Ave Maria was added to the list of well-fields. Section 1.08.02: (p.33) The definition of"Aquitard" was discussed and suggestions were made to clarify the language. It was suggested ehanging the second sentenee on page 34 to read as follows: "An Aquitard may not fully prevent the flow of water between adjacent 4 June 11,2008 aquifers, nor readily yield water to wells or springs, but provides a regionally mappable hydrologic separation between recognized aquifer units and may provide for some storage of ground water." Ray Smith stated he would review this suggestion. The Subcommittee had recommended approval with revisions. By consensus, DSAC agreed. Section 2.03.04: (p. 35) GMP language was added, along with verifieation of 2004 EAR-based GMP Amendment. Section 2.03.07: (p.39) Staff declined to insert the word "residential" between "single-room" and "occupancy." Staff prefers to use the standard term ofSRO (single-room occupancy) Hotels. It was suggested the definition of the term should be added. Section 3.02.09: (p. 43) Language was corrected to read as follows: "No mobile home shall be plaeed in a lloodway or in the coastal high hazard area." Section 4.07.02: (p. 45) A question was asked concerning the payment of impact fees. Catherine Fabacher stated the impact fees eover regional and eommunity parks. Neighborhood parks do not reeeive any funds from impact fees. There was diseussion about whether or not a "public" park (within a PUD) would be continued by an HOA, after taking over from the developer, due to insuranee constraints. Attention was drawn to the word "suitable" (GMP language). The Amendment will be brought before the LDR Subcommittee at the June 18th meeting. Section 6. 02.05: (p. 49) Section 6. 02.06: (p. 51) Section 6. 02.07: (p.53) Section 6. 02.08: (p.55) A question was asked coneerning whether or not this is the appropriate location for these amendments or if they should be placed in a free-standing ordinanee in the Code of Laws. Option I: the LOS requirement will be in accordanee with the annually adopted AUIR rather than to state a fixed dollar amount Option 2: list the dollar amounts in a separate ordinance for per capita measures sueh as gallons of potable water, garbage, police proteetion, etc. Clay Brooker stated the Subeommittee suggested recommending approval of these amendments with the understanding that they will be moved into a separate 5 June 11, 2008 ordinance (or Administrative Code) which referenees to the AUIR. Section 2.03.01: (p. 57) The changes suggested by the LDR Subcommittee were made to the text. Section 4.02.01: (p.61) It was suggested that documentation should be provided which specifies the exact limits of the permitted encroachments. Catherine Fabacher stated she would investigate the amount of maximum encroachment allowed and would bring this amendment back with the eorrect information. Section 4.02.03: (p. 63) Two tables have been re-titled to state the information contained does not refer to the Estates. Section 4.05.06: (p. 69) The requirement for multi-family dwellings to provide a loading doek was removed. Section 4.05.08: (p. 73/74) This is the same language that is in the eode, only two sentences regarding applicability were omitted. Catherine Fabacher stated staff is unable to rewrite Subseetion C. The Subeommittee stated this section was unnecessarily specific and suggested it should be reviewed during the next cycle. DSAC suggested, by consensus, to eliminate Subparagraphs 1,3 and 4 from Paragraph C ("Design"). Section 4.06.03: (p.75) The language regarding curbing was revised to allow Type D or Type F raised curb profile. Catherine Fabacher stated this amendment will be discussed with staff. DSAC recommended, by consensus, that this amendment should be brought back for consideration at a later date. Section 4.06.05: (p. 81) The language was revised and a caveat was added that the amendment applied only to county-required landscaping. Section 4.06.05 K.l: (p. 83) No questions from DSAC. Section 5.05.08 C.9: (p. 85) No changes from DSAC. Section 5.05.08 C.2: (p.87) No changes from DSAC. 6 June 11, 2008 Section 5.06.02: (p. 89) No changes from DSAC. Section 8.03.08: (p. 95) No changes from DSAC. Assistant County Attorney Heidi Ashton had confirmed an appeal be presented to the BCC as stated in the amendment. Section 5.06.04: (p. 245) This is a new amendment which will be brought before the LDR Subeommittee on June 18,2008. Section 2.06.00: (p. 247) This is a new amendment whieh will be brought before the LDR Subcommittee on June 18,2008. Section 10.02.07: (p.259) This is a new amendment which will be brought before the LDR Subcommittee on June 18,2008. Catherine Fabacher verified that DSAC was going to approve all amendments previously reeommended by the LDR Subcommittee with the exception of Amendments 4.07.02, 4.02.01, 4.05.08, and 4.06.03. Clay Brooker moved to approve the recommendations of the LDR Subcommittee as previously stated. Second by Blair Foley. Carried unanimously, 12-0. BREAK: 3:10 PM RECONVENED: 3:25 PM (Charles Abbott arrived at 3:25 PM.) V. Staff Announcements/Updates B. Transportation Division - Nick Casalanguida Mr. Casalanguida stated Diane Flagg was appointed Director of Code Enforeement while Michelle Arnold, formerly of Code Enforcement, will assume the duties as Director of Alternative Modes of Transportation. The County Manager decided to to rotate the positions effective July 1,2008. VII. New Business C. COA Administrative Procedures - Nick Casalanguida The seeond half of impact fees are supposed to be paid by a developer within three years of application. Second-half payments are not being paid. A draft was submitted to the Committee outlining the process being developed to handle the question of how to re-allocate transportation capacity that was vested with the initial payment. It may 7 June 11, 2008 be accomplished through an "Insubstantial Construction Plat Application" which is a one-page form. Capaeity has not previously been reserved on a lot-by-lot basis. Vesting runs with the land after three years when the second half payment is due. There are approximately sixteen developments (l,OOO lots) that failed to make the second-half payment. A formal resolution will be presented to DSAC prior to submittal to the BCC. He asked for comments from the Committee to be em ailed to him. B. Updated ROW Handbook - Nick Casalanguida Landscaping requirements were added. Nick Casalanguida asked for comments from the Committee to be emailed to him. He will bring a final version back to DSAC that reflects the submitted comments. A question was asked concerning "Pantone Purple Omni Locate balls" and a better description/definition was requested. Also questioned was the inclusion of design issues in the construction doeument. He stated a resolution for the COA administrative procedure would be brought back to DSAC at the July 9th meeting and this had priority over the ROW Handbook. D. Letter from BCC Chairman, Commissioner Tom Henning It was explained to the Committee the letter was initially direeted to the EAC because there were issues concerning the approval, or lack of approval, of various PUDs. The EAC overstepped their authority regarding issues that should have been determined by the Planning Commission. VIII. Member Comments: Dalas Disney stated he was eneouraged by the reduction of impact fees by the Public Utilities Department. He stated he would like to see more reductions. Bob Mulhere stated impact fees are reviewed every three years by ordinance but there could be a reduction during the Yearly Index Review (based on the Consumer Price Index). Clay Brooker suggested that DSAC send a letter to the BCC informing them of the Public Utilities Department's reduction of impact fees due to population reduetions, and to recommend reviewing other impact fee eategories to determine if out-of-cycle reductions could be made to help stimulate Collier County's eeonomy. He asked if staff eould be contaeted informally and asked to compile a list of which impaet fees are population-driven and might be reduced. By consensus, it was decided to invite the Impaet Fee Coordinator to DSAC's next meeting. DSAC Meeting Dates: . July 9, 2008 at 1 :00 PM . August 6, 2008 at 3:30 PM 8 June 11,2008 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Vice Chairman at 4:00 PM. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Thomas Masters, Vice Chairman These Minutes were approved by the Board/Committee on as presented , or as amended 9