Loading...
BCC Minutes 06/03/2003 W (PUD Workshop #1)June 3, 2003 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PUD-IOU WORKSHOP #1 Board Meeting Room, 3rd Floor, Administration Building 3301 Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 9:07 AM June 3, 2003 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:07 AM in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Tom Henning Frank Halas Donna Fiala Fred Coyle Jim Coletta Speakers & Staff: Leo Ochs Jr., Jim Mudd, Marjorie Student, Joe Schmitt, Jackie Robinson, Barb Burgeson Margaret Wuerstle, Maryanne Devanas, Stan Chrzanowski, David Weigel, Patrick White, Russ Muller, Ed Kant, Tom Cook, Michele Arnold Page COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PUD-IOU WORKSHOP #1 AGENDA June 3, 2003 9:00 a.m. Tom Henning, Chairman, District 3 Donna Fiala, Vice-Chair, District 1 Frank Halas, Commissioner, District 2 Fred W. Coyle, Commissioner, District 4 Jim Coletta, Commissioner, District 5 NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 99-22 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS". ANY PERSON W HO DEClDES T O APP,[AL A DECISION O F T HIS BOARD W ILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774- 8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. 1. Pledge of Allegiance Monitoring of Planned Unit Developments for Compliance with Developer Commitments and Consistency with Approved PUD Documents. 3. Adjourn June 3, 2003 PUD-IOU WORKSHOP #1 -Mr. Henning called the meeting to order at 9:07AM. I. Monitoring of Planned Unit Developments for Compliance with Developer Commitments and Consistency with Approved PUD Documents A) Opening Remarks -Jim Mudd explained that the county staff began creating a database to monitor the compliance of PUDs. Mr. Mudd added that staff is reporting their current findings and they are not finished with the database or inspections of the PUDs in Collier County. B) Status Report- Presentation on PUD Compliance -Joe Schmitt, Administrator of Community Development and Environmental Services Division, explained that the county staff was assigned with this task in January 2003. There are 321 PUDs that are filed for record in Collier County. County staff has completed a review of 179 of the 321 PUDs. Mr. Schmitt explained that one of the difficulties staff faces is that the county does not have a dedicated compliance staff to perform the inspections on existing PUDs. Mr. Schmitt then introduced the staff members who have been working on this project. Mr. Schmitt outlined the staff findings. The categories of commitments are transportation, water management, environmental, arterial lighting, utilities, historical/archaeological, polling places, and landscaping; the three most significant categories are transportation, environmental, and landscaping. 50 PUDs were selected for site compliance inspections, but only 25 have been completed so far. The sites selected for compliance inspections covered a diversity of commercial & residential projects, geographic locations, and varying levels of completed development. A map locating the 25 PUDs with completed site compliance inspections was shown to the board. The staff separated the inspected PUDs into four categories: In Compliance, Substantial Compliance, Can Be Brought Page 2 June 3,2003 Into Compliance, and Out Of Compliance. A list separating the 25 inspected PUDs into the four categories was shown to the BCC. -Barbara Burgeson, Environmental Services, reviewed the Collier's Reserve / Riverchase Shopping Center PUD; Collier Tract 22. A map was used to indicate the upland preserves, committed preserves in good standing, and upland preserves not in good standing. Barbara Burgeson explained that this PUD was placed in the category of Substantial Compliance because staff feels the areas can be restored. -Mr. Schmitt stated that there are several areas in the county where staff identified golf courses in place of committed preserve areas. He explained that the developer is to prepare an annual monitoring report, which is then reviewed by the prospective staff. When this report is submitted, staff takes the word of the developer and there is no dedicated staff to do compliance inspections. Mr. Schmitt stated that this is a weakness they would need to discuss further. He then reviewed some examples of other PUDs not in compliance. Arbor Lakes Club was discussed as a PUD that can be brought into compliance and Citrus Gardens was discussed as a PUD out of compliance. Mr. Schmitt explained that one of the items Citrus Gardens was out of compliance on was that they were to build an interconnect. Because the interconnect was not built and the county has allowed other PUDs to develop around it, the interconnect is no longer possible. This situation has no "easy solution". -Mr. Henning added that the decision not to interconnect was a board decision. Ed Kant, Transportation Department, agreed that there was no "easy solution", but added that there may be a solution sometime in the future. Mr. Schmitt explained that whether political reasons or otherwise, a PUD that is not in compliance must either be amended or corrected in order to ensure that the document legally complies with what is on the ground. C) Staff Recommendations -Mr. Schmitt reviewed the staff recommendations: 1) Monitoring reports must be accompanied by an affidavit signed by the principal in charge of the project and also signed by the varying project consultants certifying that accuracy of compliance. Page 3 June 3,2003 -Mr. Schmitt explained that this would provide the county with a legal instrument to, in some manner, hold the developer responsible for what is put in the PUD monitoring reports. This would deter falsifying the documentation. -Mr. Coletta stated that he was concerned about the false monitoring reports being handed into the county. Mr. Schmitt stated that he believed there were false statements in the monitoring reports, but the reports are not entirely wrong. Mr. Mudd added that the monitoring reports were "misleading". Mr. Schmitt noted that this recommendation would require a signed affidavit to be included with the monitoring report. The LDC amendment to implement this requirement will be coming before the board in the next amendment cycle. -Mr. Halas agreed that a licensed professional should be signing the monitoring report and be held responsible. He also felt that laws should be enacted to "heavily fine" those not following the requirements of their PUDs. Mr. Schmitt stated that this is the staff intent. -Donna Fiala felt that staff was taking the next "logical step" in attaining PUD compliance. She felt that the county was sending the development community a good message. -Mr. Coyle agreed that this was a good thing to do and that it, in part, came about since the county had not "done the job they needed to do in the past". He felt that they should concentrate on solving the problem first and then look at ways to mitigate the past problems. He also believed that the county needed to delineate between those violations that are true violations and those that are incidental. -Maryanne Devanas stated that in their inspection of the 25 PUDs, staff reviewed the PUD commitments and the monitoring reports. A list of the inspections was in the BCC binder, which included whether or not staff was in agreement with the monitoring reports. -Mr. Henning stated that he was aware of a community that was supposed to have sidewalks, but didn't. He explained that the development has now been turned over to the Homeowner's Association and the community does not want sidewalks. He asked what would happen in these situations; require the sidewalks as originally planned or require the developer to provide off-site mitigation. Mr. Page 4 June 3,2003 Mudd stated that in cases like this, staffwould come before the board. He also noted that if the developer was still "on the hook", staff would require them to keep their PUD commitments before they turn the property over to the Homeowner's Association. Mr. Schmitt added that the PUD is "fundamentally" an ordinance that must be complied with or amended. Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney, stated that the county could develop a mechanism, dependent upon where the PUD is in the process, to bring the PUD back before the board. An example would be to provide the ability for a non-compliant PUD to come before the board for review before it is turned over to the Homeowner's Association or before it is built-out. 2) All subsequent development applications or petitions within a PUD must submit a copy of the latest adopted PUD ordinance. -submitted documents must be inclusive of any waivers or deviations from the adopting ordinance that have been negotiated and approved. 3) CDES must assign expanded staff to perform duties and responsibilities that are dedicated to exclusively monitoring PUDs. -Comments received from reviewing departments regarding annual monitoring reports, need to be documented, researched and subsequent action taken. -Devise ways to collect and record monetary commitments at PUD approval. -Mr. Schmitt explained that currently the county is not staffed to do LDC/PUD compliance inspections. If these inspections were done with current in-house staff, then those staff members would be taken away from other functions in the county. Mr. Schmitt noted that he would probably have to devise ways to collect and recover monetary commitments and charge a fee for the compliance inspection. -Mr. Halas felt that legal staff should be involved with these inspections. 4) Identify consequences for noncompliance of the approved commitments. -Re-open PUDs to re-evaluate commitments and all other aspects of the PUD. Page 5 June 3, 2003 -Withhold Building Permits and/or C.O.s until compliance is met. -Mr. Schmitt noted that currently he withholds C.O.s and inspections in order to force compliance with the PUD. He added that they will have to consider, from the county attorney's perspective, how to recoup punitive damages. 5) Amend the LDC to require that the owner notify the appointed staff within CDES of the sale or transference of PUD ownership. -Mr. Schmitt explained that currently when ownership is switched, the county is not aware of the switch. As a result of this, the new owner is not always aware of the requirements or that they need to complete an annual monitoring report. 6) CDES to develop a process which engages staff to review, the PUD development requirements and commitments prior to the turnover of the property to homeowners associations. -Mr. Schmitt explained that Homeowner's Associations need, at least, a point of contact in the county. This point of contact would assist the organization with their start-up. -Mr. Coletta agreed with this recommendation and noted that with the help of staff he helped to establish seven Homeowner's Associations in his district over the past year. He explained that staff's assistance has been very helpful to the Homeowner's Association. Mr. Henning agreed that it was important for commissioners to help the start up of Homeowner's Associations in their district, but he was concerned about the use of staff time and the tax dollars being used for this. Mr. Coletta felt that the commissioners regularly used staff time and assistance in order to help their constituents and that this situation was no different. -Mr. Coletta recommended that staff recommendation #6 be done through the "commission-base" rather than a separate staff department. Mr. Henning felt that this needed to go through the county manager. Marjorie Student stated that they would have to review recommendation #6 from a legal perspective. She did not believe there was a problem with a staff liaison to assist new Homeowner Associations with their PUD document, but she was concerned about an actual organization. Mr. Coletta noted that he involved a civil attorney in his assistance Page 6 June 3, 2003 to Homeowner's Associations. The attorney volunteered his time to help organize and charter these organizations with no cost to the county attorney's office. Mr. Schmitt clarified that when there was a transfer from a developer to a Homeowner's Association, he felt there should be a point of contact in the county to review the PUD document, but staff should not act in a representative capacity. -Donna Fiala suggested that they create a website for new Homeowner's Associations that tells the organization what they need to know when beginning their process. Mr. Schmitt stated that this was a good suggestion. II. BCC Policy Direction A) BCC Comments -Donna Fiala asked if the same developers continually honored their commitments while the same developers violated theirs. Mr. Schmitt replied yes. Donna Fiala felt this process could be a disservice to those who constantly followed the rules. She supported withholding building permits and felt there should be more "teeth" in this process. -Mr. Coyle agreed and felt that the staff suggestions regarding fines and other sanctions were appropriate. He felt that it was important to differentiate the substantial failures to comply from the insubstantial. He also agreed with staff recommendation #1. He was apprehensive about "forcing things" on the Homeowner's Associations, since the county had not done their job "before the developer got away". Mr. Coyle also suggested that the requirements, (obligation to notify the county of transfer, monitoring report, etc...) be included in the PUD document. -Mr. Coletta agreed with all of Mr. Coyle's statements. Mr. Coletta added that he was very upset about people knowingly not living up to their promises and felt that the county needed a process to identify "the problem people". -Mr. Halas also wanted a list of the developers that are "blatantly misusing their PUDs". He suggested an escrow fee that was charged to the developer based upon the amount of preserve required in the PUD. The escrow fee would then be returned to the developer after he fulfilled the PUD requirements. Page 7 June 3, 2003 -Mr. Henning noted that part of the responsibility falls on the county, since they did not make sure that all the developers were living up to their commitments. He felt that rather than creating more bureaucracy, they should have a checklist through the STP/platting process. He also felt the board should direct the county attorney to see if the ability existed to go back to the original developer for non-compliance after a PUD had been turned over to the Homeowner's Association. Mr. Coyle agreed with this, but felt that legal staff needed to be involved prior to the developer turning the property over rather than after. Mr. Henning agreed. -Donna Fiala noted that she was in agreement with all of the other commissioners. She wanted to see that responsible developers were not penalized and suggested a sliding scale for fees. The scale would be based on how compliant or non-compliant a developer is. Mr. Halas agreed with this suggestion. -David Weigel, County Attorney, stated that a fee, like a law, is a generalization and it can be very problematic to have a penalty in place before the fee is in place. In regards to the issue of an escrow, Mr. Weigel explained that they already have a construction maintenance and escrow agreement, but the county can enhance this to include the value of conservation areas in a PUD. He stated that the county cannot do a sliding scale fee, because they cannot place a penalty on a developer's future PUD for non-compliance during a past PUD. He added that it would be acceptable to require the developer to return for a compliance review before they turn the development over to the Homeowner's Association; this also could be restated in each PUD document. Mr. Weigel suggested that the board and staff also consider the need for continual PUD monitoring after turn-over of the property. B) Board direction on Staff recommendations #1-#6 -The BCC directed staff to continue with the 6 recommendations. -Mr. Coyle asked that withholding escrow be added as item C under recommendation #4. Mr. Mudd stated they could do that and added the item. The commissioners agreed on the addition. Page 8 June 3,2003 -The commissioners agreed that recommendation #5 included placing requirements in the PUD document; requirements for monitoring reports, recording, and staff & legal review before turn-over. -Mr. Henning asked for information regarding staff expansion, its fiscal impact and cost/user fee. Mr. Mudd stated that this information will be determined by and provided during the budget workshop. -Mr. Mudd added that good developers could be celebrated in an open forum. Mr. Henning gave the example of a plaque or award for developers consistently compliant. Mr. Mudd and Mr. Coletta agreed that this was a good idea. III. Budget -Mr. Mudd stated that there will be a -16.3% property assessed value increase next year. He explained that this was -$1.5 million per percent; -$24 million "new money". After the $7 million is deducted for road bonding issues -$17 million in new money is left. Mr. Mudd stated that he is keeping to the budget guidelines directed by the BCC in March 2003. The county will be going mill-age neutral, so Mr. Mudd will show the BCC during budget considerations the costs of several add- on programs and the board will then prioritize them within the budget. This is in place of the traditionally established budget that the board either approves or denies. Mr. Mudd added that this year's budget layout will be clearer and easier to follow than in previous years. This year's bud?t will only discuss two "fund particular" items; fund 111 and 001. -Mr. Henning stated that there was not an assumption that they would approve the sheriff's budget. He felt that the sheriff's department needed to go to the school system and find out what the schools would provide for staffing the schools with deputies. Mr. Henning was not in favor of the current sheriff' s budget. -Mr. Coyle suggested not funding some currently funded programs in order to use the money for their unfunded requirements list. He asked for recommendations from staff on relatively lower priority projects where funding could be transferred to the unfunded requirements with higher priority. Mr. Mudd stated that staff would do this. Page 9 June 3, 2003 -Donna Fiala asked the staff and board about their thoughts on the elimination of lighting and sidewalks on US41. Mr. Coyle stated that he agreed they needed to inquire about these issues. He added that they needed to consider this during the budget considerations, so they can place it in comparison to other necessary projects. Mr. Coletta hoped that the lighting situation on US41 would be considered during the budget discussion. Mr. Mudd stated that these issues will be listed in the budget process and open for consideration and discussion. IV. Closing Statements -Mr. Henning noted that he spoke with a county employee, who was concerned about the evening question and answer session in the community. The employee informed him that the meetings were taking away from his other duties and diminishing the time spent with his family. Mr. Henning asked Jim Mudd to monitor this and come up with an alternative where the commissioners could provide answers for their constituents and still recognize that "staff has a life and that does come first." Mr. Halas and Donna Fiala agreed with this. Ve Adjournment -There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:55AM. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL~ TRI~T~z~ER I. TS CONTROL TOM HENN'ING, CHAgRiN ~lW~'~g.h. {~ROCK, CLERK These lmnutes approved by the Board on [o-~ "0 3 , as presented Page 10