Loading...
DSAC Agenda 03/07/2012DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA March 7, 2012 3:00 p.m. Conference Room 610 NOTICE: Persons wishing to speak on any Agenda item will receive up to three (3) minutes unless the Chairman adjusts the time. Speakers are required to fill out a "Speaker Request Form," list the topic they wish to address, and hand it to the Staff member seated at the table before the meeting begins. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman, and speak into a microphone. State your name and affiliation before commenting. During discussion, Committee Members may direct questions to the speaker. Please silence cell phones and digital devices. There may not be a break in this meeting. Please leave the room to conduct any personal business. All parties participating in the public meeting are to observe Roberts Rules of Order, and wait to be recognized by the Chairman. Please speak one at a time and into the microphone so the Hearing Reporter can record all statements being made. Call to Order - Chairman II. Approval of Agenda III. Approval of Minutes from February 1, 2012 Meeting IV. DSAC Position Vacancy Review & Vote V. Public Speakers VI. Staff Announcements /Updates A. Public Utilities Division Update — [Nathan Beals] B. Fire Review Update — [Ed Riley] C. Growth Management Division/Transportation Engineering — [Jay Ahmad] D. Growth Management Division /Planning & Regulation Update — [Jamie French] VII. Old Business A. Update on the LDC Amendments [Caroline Cilek] VII. New Business VIII. Committee Member Comments IX. Adjourn Next Meeting Dates April 4, 2012 GMD Conference Room 610 — 3:00 pm May 2, 2012 GMD Conference Room 610 — 3:00 pm June 6, 2012 GMD Conference Room 610 — 3:00 pm July 11, 2012 GMD Conference Room 610 — 3:00 pm August 1, 2012 GMD Conference Room 610 — 3:00 pm September 5, 2012 GMD Conference Room 610 — 3:00 pm February 1, 2012 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING February 1, 2012 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Development Services Advisory Committee, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:00 PM in REGULAR SESSION in Conference Room #610, Collier County Growth Management Division/Planning & Regulation Office, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: Chairman: William Varian Ray Allain James Boughton Clay Brooker Laura Spurgeon De John Dalas Disney Marco Espinar David Hurst Robert Mulhere Mario Valle Ronald Waldrop (Vacancy) Excused: David Dunnavant, Vice Chairman Blair Foley George Hermanson ALSO PRESENT: Nick Casalanguida, Deputy Administrator, Growth Management Div. Jamie French, Director — Operations & Regulatory Management Judy Puig, Operations Analyst — Staff Liaison Jay Ahmad, P.E., Director — Transportation Engineering Robert Salvaggio, Assistant Fire Code Official — Fire Code Office Nathan Beals, Project Manager — Public Utilities Caroline Cilek, M.C.R.P., Senior Planner — LDC Coordinator Jack McKenna, Sr. Engineer — Engineering & Environmental Services February 1, 2012 I. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Varian called the meeting to order at 3:06 PM and read the procedures to be observed during the meeting. A quorum was established. Eleven members were present. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Mario Valle moved to approve the Agenda as submitted. Second by Dalas Disney. Carried unanimously, 11— 0. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — JANUARY 49 2012: Dalas Disney moved to approve the Minutes of the December 7, 2011 Meeting as submitted. Second by James Boughton. Carried unanimously, 9 — 0. (Note: Ray Allain and David Hurst could not vote because they did not attend the January meeting.) IV. PUBLIC SPEAKERS: (None) Judy Puig, Staff Liaison, advised the members to use care when adjusting the microphones to avoid feedback — the bases will be replaced in the near future. V. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS/UPDATES: A. Public Utilities: Nathan Beals, Project Manager • Utilities Standards Discussion Group met on January 17`h o Next meeting: February 21, 2012 Update: Gravity Sewers — Maximum Depth • Proposed 15 feet for maximum depth (from finished grade) ■ Originally proposed 10 feet • Counter: 18 feet o Discussion continues — an official policy has not been determined • Process allows review by deviation — specify reasons • Concern: costs, maintenance issues, disturbance to customers • Requested that DSAC's Utilities Subcommittee not meet until March B. Fire Review: Robert Salvaggio, Assistant Fire Code Official — Fire Code Office Monthly Activity Report was submitted for December, 2011 o Plan Reviews conducted — 731 (November total — 641) ■ Mixture of renovations and multi- family reviews o There have been no issues with transfers ■ Scheduled trips: 9:00 AM and 2:00 PM, with additional trips as need February 1, 2012 C. Transportation Engineering: Jay Ahmad, P.E., Director Collier County Bridges: o 109 in the County — over half are 50 years or older — bridges are aging o Bridges are inspected bi- annually by the Florida Department of Transportation o Received notification from the FDOT — advised to post weight limits on five bridges within 30 days • Four are located on State Road #846 (Immokalee), east of SR #29 • One is in Chokoloskee (Chokoloskee Bay) • Weight limits: 28 tons (4) and 29 tons (1) o Will present findings to the Board of County Commissioners at next meeting o Bridge program is marginally funded by gas tax funds • Golden Gate Blvd. Bridges: o Locations: Miller Canal and Golden Gate Canal o Contract for Design/Build was approved by the BCC o Weight restricted to 29 tons • Chokoloskee Bridge: • BCC awarded a contract for Design/Build • Was repaired approximately 3 years ago (cost: $500,000) • Weight restriction not lifted — was 35 tons • White Blvd. and 23`d Street Bridges: • Still discussing funding (for 23`d St. Bridge) — options under review • Impact fees were allocated but less than $5M is available • Concern for future projects (Collier Blvd. /Wilson/Golden Gate) • Other projects: • Davis /Collier — 17% completed (Duration: 2'/2 years) • Oil Well Road — western portion will be substantially completed by April and the eastern portion by June D. Planning & Regulation: Jamie French, Director — Operations & Regulatory Mgmt. • Activity Report: o 1,700 Permit applications received ■ 82 — single - family ■ 4 or 5 — multi - family ■ construction) ■ individual Trade Permits o Inspections: 2 — commercial projects (new Remainder: Shutters, A/C, 6,400 in January 19 — Pre -Apps 60 — Zoning certificates February 1, 2012 • 50 — Temporary Use Permits • 1 — SDP, 6 — SDP -A, 1 — SDP -I ■ Land Use side is still down • Pulte, GL Homes, and Lennar are calling office — may begin new construction projects • Florida Building Code — becomes effective on March 15`h • At next BCC Meeting — will request outsourcing for Inspections o Budget: $100K (hire independent contractors through an agency) • "CityView" • Portal is available • C/D -Plus permit applications are being phased out Chairman Varian inquired about inspections — how many per day were conducted. Jamie French: 2009 — 24 per day ISO limitation — 16 per day o in order to comply, Staff would need to be doubled o County's EGS (Enforcement Grading System) rating is 4 o City of Naples EGS rating is 3 o EGS rating affects insurance rates Dalas Disney pointed out the ISO Rating apply to Property Hazard Insurance. He asked what was the cost difference to an individual on their insurance policy. He suggested the figure was not significant. He stated the important factor was to keep the number of inspections performed by each inspector as low as possible to improve the ISO Rating and hiring inspectors on a contract basis would help reduce the number. Ray Allain suggested incentivizing the Custom Builders to use providers of 3`d party Inspectors. He stated a study of private providers could be conducted to ascertain level of service. Jamie French stated he was open to investigating but did not think a private provider would always meet Collier County standards. He stated he can request another inspection by the ISO Certifiers but preferred to wait until there was a full year of service under "CityView." Mr. Allain stated a high -end residential builder could afford to utilize a private provider. He further stated if the difficult inspections were performed by a 3`d party provider, it would reduce expenses and eliminate the need to hire independent contractors. Re: "CityView" Dalas Disney noted Reviewers' comments are returned in PDF format. He could not edit the document and was forced to retype his original document rather than being able to cut and paste the comments into it. He suggested returning documents utilizing standard Word format. 4 February 1, 2012 Jamie French will research the issue with the vendor and Staff. VI. OLD BUSINESS: A. LDC Amendments — Recommendations from LDR Subcommittee: Caroline Cilek, M.C.R.P., Senior Planner — LDC Coordinator, and Clay Brooker Clay Brooker inquired about the comments from the Environmental Advisory Council. Caroline Cilek stated the EAC reviews only Amendments with an environmental component. Several Amendments were returned by the EAC for additional justification. LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS 2012 — CYCLE 1 1. Section 2.03.07 (G) — Immokalee CRA Overlay District (Withdrawn) 2. Section 9.04.08 — Administrative Adjustments Author: Growth Management Division Purpose: To create an administrative adjustment process for non -use issues, for residential and commercial structures Comment: Under review by the County Attorney's Office and will be returned to DSAC at the next meeting. Updates will be applied to all zoning districts including PUDs and more specifics will be provided for deviations. 3. Section 10.02.13 (E) — Planned Unit Development ( "PUD ") Procedures Author: Private Applicant Purpose: To modify the PUD permitted use procedure, allowing for permitted uses to be text changes. Comment: Has been sent "back to the drawing board" — working with the CBIA. Goal is to apply consistent/compatible language throughout the Land Development Code. Will be reviewed by the County Attorney's Office before bringing to DSAC. 4. Section 10.02.03 (B)(3) — Submittal Requirements for SDPs (Insubstantial Changes) Author: Growth Management Division Purpose: To adjust the language and allow for a speedier review process for insubstantial changes. Comment: Was completely re- written to provide more flexibility utilizing DSAC's recommendations to guide how to view insubstantial changes. Member comments: • Laura DeJohn objected to the use of the word "guidelines" and suggested substituting the word "considerations." February 1, 2012 Dalas Disney asked what triggered which requirement for full compliance with the existing Florida Building Code. He had previously suggested examining the existing Building Code — his concern was with existing developed sites and how they are required to comply. He asked if the site is not in compliance, what triggers full compliance. Example, an addition of one square foot triggered full compliance. He stated the Code contains different levels of renovation — Level I is relatively minor, Level II is anything under 50 %, and Level III requires full compliance if 50% or more is renovated. He suggested utilizing the trigger points for site compliance. Bob Where suggested differentiating between what triggers compliance and what is an insubstantial change. He stated the issue was determining which process to follow. Nick Casalanguida stated once a hard and fast rule is inserted into the Code, it must be observed. Jack McKenna stated he will be participating in a round -table discussion with the District concerning use of percentage versus square footage — it is difficult to find a "one size fits all" conclusion. Discussion continued concerning thresholds for a "Letter of Modification" versus a "Letter of No Objection" and possible separation from the District's requirements. Mr. Casalanguida stated it must be clear that a proposed SDP -I actually qualifies for consideration as a true SDP -I and not something else, such as an SDP -A or an SIP — the contractor must understand the difference. The focus should be on the original SDP. Dalas Disney asked how parcels that pre -date the SDP process will be handled. Jack McKenna stated the goal was to prevent any misinterpretation of the Code either by Staff or the public. Mr. Casalanguida noted the Planning Commission will want definitions and specific language. Mr. McKenna concurred that flexibility can be a double -edged sword. Mr. Casalanguida requested the Members to review the information sheet which had been refined by Claudine Auclair and suggest additional changes. He stated the explanation of the project was important for Staff. He suggested holding a weekly Review sessions with 2 or 3 members of DSAC and 2 or 3 Staff members. Dalas Disney suggested bringing issues to DSAC for review. Robert Where moved to approve and accept the revised Amendment as discussed (i.e., elimination of the word "guidelines." Second by Mario Valle. Ray Allain suggested including a sunset to compel revision and discussion on a regular basis, especially if there was enough flexibility that could (potentially) be misused. Chairman Varian noted under the DSAC Ordinance, any member could bring an LDC Amendment forward. Bob Mulhere stated if there was a statutory requirement to review the LDC on a regular basis (every 3 or 4 years), it might be more effective than a sunset. 6 February 1, 2012 Motion carried, 9 — "Yes7] — "No. " David Hurst was opposed and Mario Valle was not present for the vote. Chris Scott, Senior Planner — Growth Management Division, stated: • Primary task is to go through Administrative Code process • the County is trying to remove the procedures and application content from the LDC and place into the Administrative Code o Procedural issues are found primarily in Chapter 10 of the Land Development Code but are also interspersed throughout the LDC o The Administrative Code will site back to specific development criteria in the LDC o Will function like a user's handbook • The Administrative Code will closely follow the LDC o No substantive changes o No procedural /regulatory changes • Still working with the Consultant — White and Smith • Will be reviewed by the County Attorney's Office • Cycle II will amend the LDC • The Code of Laws will be reviewed next • Time Line: • February /March — review by Environmental Advisory Council • April /May — review by the Planning Commission • June, July, and September — presentation to the Board of County Commissioners Updates — Approved Amendments: (Caroline Cilek) • Boat Dock Extension — under review by the County Attorney's Office — similar to what was approved — will be more objective and number oriented • Personal Storage Containers — will be moved to different section of the Code (Chapter 5) • Extensions to SDPs and SIPs — placing a two - extension limit (2 -years per extension) — upon expiration, must apply for SDP - I or SDP -A — must comply with the Code after 7 years • Conditional Use Application — CBIA proposed allowing one extension (2 -years per extension) following the 3 -year time limit o The Board directed extending the time limit from 3 to 5 years VII. NEW BUSINESS: (None) VIII. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS: February 1, 2012 Chairman Varian stated he could not find the DSAC Amendment and requested a copy. o He stated there were reports that DSAC was required to submit — under Joe and Gary — very specific — he remembered fee changes — requested research to determine what is still valid NEXT MEETING DATES: (Meetings will commence at 3:00 PM unless otherwise notified) • March 7, 2012 • April 4, 2012 • May 2, 2012 • June 6, 2012 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:40 PM. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE William Varian, Chairman The Minutes were approved by the Board /Committee Chair on , 2012 "as submitted" [_] OR "as amended" [_I Office of the Fire Code Official Summary of Plan Review Activity January-12 Architectural Reviews Sprinkler Reviews Underground Reviews Fuel & LP Gas Reviews Hoods & FSUP Reviews Alarm Reviews SDP Reviews Total # of Plans Reviewed Number of Work Days Average # of Plans Reviewed per Day ASAP Reviews per Building Department: Total # of ASAP Reviews': Total ASAP Reviews per Day "Overtime Reviews are not included in this figure Scheduled Meetings /Hours: Ed: Bob: Jackie: Ricco: Maggie: Classes and Seminars attended by FCO: Participant 1/3 NFPA 1 & 101, Fort Myers Jackie de la Osa, Maggie Jani 1/17 -1/20 Fire Rescue East, Daytona Ed Riley 1/31 Fire Caucus, Tallahassee Ed Riley Total Overtime Hours for the Fire Code Office 'Overtime Hours Reimbursed by Contractors In addition to the above - mentioned tasks, The Fire Code Official's Office fields numerous phone calls, walk -ins, field inspections and impromptu meetings. Office of the Fire Code Official 2700 N. Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 364 37 11 8 15 178 73 686 20 34 6 Architectural per County 14 AC Change outs 8 Low Voltage 12 Tents 40 2 30.00 Hrs. 32.58 Hrs. 5.75 Hrs. 48.08 Hrs. 3.67 Hrs. 10 11 (5 Reviews) Fire Plan Review - Time Frame Summary January-12 Number Number Average #of 1st %of 1st Percentages of of Time in Reviews Reviews Within Time Reviews Days Days Approved Approved Frames Architectural Reviews 364 1483 4.07 Total 1st Review 249 1295 5.20 2nd Review 84 138 1.64 3rd Review 25 40 1.60 4th Review 3 4 1.33 5th Review 3 6 2.00 Total 2 -5 Reviews 115 188 1.63 Fire Sprinkler Reviews 37 130 3.51 Total 1st Review 27 110 4.07 2nd Review 6 10 1.67 3rd Review 4 10 2.50 Total 2 -3 Reviews 10 20 2.00 Underground Reviews Total 11 40 3.64 1st Review 6 31 5.17 2nd Review 4 6 1.50 3rd Review 1 3 3.00 Total 2 -3 Reviews 5 9 1.80 Fuel & LP Gas Reviews 8 21 2.63 Total 1st Review 5 18 3.60 2nd Review 3 3 1.00 Total 2nd Review 3 3 1.00 Hood & FSUP Reviews 15 47 3.13 Total 1st Review 9 35 3.89 2nd Review 3 6 2.00 3rd Review 1 0 0.00 4th Review 2 6 3.00 Total 2-4 Reviews 6 12 2.00 Fire Alarm Reviews 178 504 2.83 Total 1st Review 146 476 3.26 2nd Review 29 25 0.86 3rd Review 3 3 1.00 Total 2 -3 Reviews 32 28 0.88 Summary 1st Review 442 1965 4.45 Corrections 171 260 1.52 Overall Totals 613 2225 3.63 174 70% 100/10 Days 10 Day Max 100/3 Days 100/3 Days 100/3 Days 67/3 Days 99/3 Days 4 Day Max 14 52% 100/10 Days 7 Day Max 100/3 Days 75/3 Days 90/3 Days 4 Day Max 3 50% 100/10 Days 8 Day Max 100/3 Days 100/3 Days 100/3 Days 3 Day Max 3 60% 100/10 Days 8 Day Max 100/3 Days 100/3 Days 2 Day Max 4 44e/a 100/10 Days 8 Day Max 100/3 Days 100/3 Days 50/3 Days 83/3 Days 4 Day Max 114 78% 100/10 Days 7 Day Max 100/3 Days 100/3 Days 100/3 Days 3 Day Max 312 71% 100/10 Days 98/3 Days Office of the Fire Code Official 2700 N. Horseshoe Dr. Naples. FL 34104 MEMORANDUM DATE: February 24, 2012 TO: Judy Puig FROM: Ian Mitchell, Executive Manager Board of County Commissioners RE: Development Services Advisory Committee As you know, we currently have 1 vacancy on the above referenced advisory committee. A press release was issued requesting citizens interested in serving on this committee to submit an application for consideration. I have attached the application received for your review as follows: Mr. Christopher R. Mitchell 8501 Laurel Lakes Boulevard Naples, Florida 34119 Please let me know, in writing, the recommendation for appointment of the advisory committee within the 41 day time -frame, and I will prepare an executive summary for the Board's consideration. Please categorize the applicants in areas of expertise. If you have any questions, please call me at 252 -8097. Thank you for your attention to this matter. IM Attachments Mitchelllan rom: chrism @mitchelleingeeringgroup.com ent: Monday, January 30, 2012 4:42 PM o: Mitchelllan Subject: New On -line Advisory Board Application Submitted Advisory Board Application Form Collier County Government 3301 E. Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34112 (239)252 -8606 Application was received on: 1/30/2012 4:42:26 PM. Name: Chris Mitchell Home Phone: 39- 430 -233 HomeAddress 8501 Laurel Lakes Boulevar Ciity: ale Zip Code: 34119 Phone plumbers Fax: Business: 39- 682 -2248 Q,M.iIAddrws-. hrismQmiichelleingeerinpgroup.coA Board,./: Committee Applied for: Oevelopment Services Advisory Committed Category: Not indicate Work Place: Mitchell Engineering Group, LLC How long have you lived In Collier County: ore than 15 Have you ever,been convicted of any offense agai nstthe law? of Indicate Do you_or your employer do business with the County? Not Indicate NOTE: All advisory board members must update their profile and notify the Board of�County. Commissioners in the event that their relationship changes relating to members p': i of , . organizations that may benefit them in the outcome of advisory board recommeniMo-nvpr they enter into contracts °with the County. Would you and/or any organizations with whom you...are ai%liated` Benefit from :decisions or recommendations made 'by this advisory board ?' s Y e am a land development consulting civil engineer. The recommendations of DSAC may affect the d ulations within Collier County and may affect clients that employ me. My recommendations will irectly affect me or affiliated orizanizations. Are you a registered voter inwCollier County? Fe S Do you currently hold public office? Dolyou currently, or ever;.served on a'Collier County._Board or Committee? ©e SAC Fire Sub- Committe Please list your community activities: Oakridge Middle School Student Advisory Committee - Paren • Zasters of Science in Environmental Engineering - University of Cincinnati Bachelor of Science in Ci n ineerin - Purdue University Naples High School Class of 1990 *Oerience have been a resident of Naples since 1984 and a consulting engineer for almost 15 years (March of 1 S ave been involved in all facets of development from residential, educational/institutional , amenity, ho Dmmercial, golf course, roadway to park projects. I am intimately aware of the development regulatio (Tecting Collier County and the direct impact of these regulations. I believe my experience can have a npact on the recommendations given to the Board. DSAC— LDR Sub - Agenda March 7th, 2012 All of the proposed amendments and related documents can be accessed at the LDC Amendments webpage: LDC Amendments webpage. The LDC Amendments listed below will be ready for review on the webpage on Friday, March 2 "d LDC Amendments to review: 1.) 9 04 08 Administrative Adjustment Other Updates 1.) LDR subcommittee to meet in March 2.) LDC Amendment updates and new amendments 3.) Administrative Code Update 2/29/12