Agenda 04/14/2009 Item #10A
Agenda Item No. 10A
April 14, 2009
Page 1 of 13
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners consider the following
information regarding the Board's discussion related to the extension of the
sunsetting date for Planned Unit Developments (PUDs)
OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) consider the
following information regarding the proposal to administratively extend the sunsetting
date for all PUDs that have sunsetted or that are approaching their established sunsetting
date.
CONSIDERATION: At the February 24,2009 BCC meeting, under Agenda Item 15,
Staff and Commission General Communications, Commissioner Henning proposed that
staff evaluate the feasibility of developing a provision to administratively extend the
sunsetting dates of Planned Unit Developments CPUDs) similar to what was done during
the recent amendments to the Land Development Code (LOC) for Site Development
Plans (SDPs) and Plats. After a brief discussion, the Board directed that staff evaluate
the feasibility of such a proposal and that the topic be scheduled for discussion on a
future agenda.
Site Development Plans (SDP) and Subdivision Plats
As part of the recent amendments to the LOC codified under Ordinance No. 08-83, the
Board, in an attempt to mitigate the downturn of the development economy, approved the
following changes related to SOPs and subdivision plats.
10.02.03 Submittal Requirements For Site Development Plans
8.4. b. Aporoved site develooment plans (SOPs) shall remain in force for 3 vears from
the date of aoorova/, as determined bv the date of the SOP aoprovalletter. If
construction has not commenced within 3 vears, the site develooment alan
aooroval term will exoire and the SOP aooroval is of no force or effect. One
amendment to the SOP mav be aoolied for and mav be Granted orior to the
oriGinal exoiration date, so lonG as the orooosed amendment comolies with the
LOG reGuirements in force at the time of the SOP amendment submittal. The
SOP amendment shall remain in effect for 3 vears from the date of aoorova/, as
determined bv the date of the SOP amendment aoorovalletter.
i. A one time, 1-vear extension of the 3-vear limit of the aooroved SOP
or the aooroved SOP amendment mav be Granted. Aoolications for
an extension must be made to the olanninG manaGer with the
aoorooriate processinG/administrative fee.
10.02.04 Submittal Requirements for Plats
.'-
Agenda Item No. 10A
April 14, 2009
Page 2 of 13
a.3.b. The final subdivision plat shall conform to the approved preliminary subdivision
plat, if the applicant chose to submit a preliminary subdivision plat, pursuant to
section 10.02.05 A. 5. The final subdivision plat shall constitute only that portion
of the approved preliminary subdivision plat, if applicable, which the applicant
proposes to construct within a finite period not to exceed 18 months. The
improvements required by this section which apply to the final subdivision plat
shall be completed within 18 months from the date of approval of the final plat
unless prior to the 18-month construction period, a written request for an
extension in time Rot exseeeinfj one year is applied for and approved by the
del'elf$mfJnt E;fJ,M,'isos 3dminiE;~'(1tor Countv Manaaer or his designee. The
applicant shall enter into a construction and maintenance agreement with the
county, in a form acceptable to the county attorney, which establishes the terms
and conditions for the construction and maintenance of the improvements
required during the 18-month construction period (unless a written extension
request is approved by the County Manager or his designee prior to the
expiration of the 18-month construction period), whether the final plat is approved
. only or approved and recorded with the posting of a subdivision petiormance
security. This agreement shall be submitted with the final plat for review and
approval and executed by all parties at the time of final plat approval per section
c. below.
10.02.05 Submittal Requirements for Improvement Plans
a. 11. Expiration. All required improvements associated with the construction and
maintenance agreement shall be completed within 18 months from the date of
recording of the final subdivision plat, or, if construction of required
improvements is undertaken prior to recording the final subdivision plat, within
18 months from the date of approval of the final subdivision plat by the board of
county commissioners. If improvements are not completed within the prescribed
time period and a subdivision petiormance security has been submitted, the
engineering review director may recommend to the board that it draw upon the
subdivision petiormance security or otherwise cause the subdivision
petiormance security to be used to complete the construction, repair, and
maintenance of the required improvements. All of the required improvements
shall receive final acceptance by the board of county commissioners within 36
months from the date of the original board approval. The developer may request
(1 one time, one YfJ,']r extension to ,"fJSei'ifJ fin,']! ,']Gsf$l3ncfJ of the i/RfJrfNemonts.
one vear extensions for completion and acceptance of the reauired
improvements. Each reauest should provide written iustification for the
extension. Additional extensions mav be aranted at the discretion of the Countv
Manaaer or desianee.
Stated succinctly, an approved SOP remains in force for 3 years (formally 2 years) and
can be extended once for a period of one year. An additional 3 years could also be added
to the life of an SOP if an amendment to the SOP is approved before the SDP expires.
The timeline for completion of required infrastructure improvements through an
approved SOP was extended from 18 months to 30 months. Infrastructure improvements
for Final Subdivision Plats are required to be completed within 18 months of the final
Agenda Item NO.1 OA
April 14, 2009
Page 3 of 13
recording of the final plat and can now be extended for on a 12 month period and on an
unrestricted number of extensions.
Planed Unit Developments
The timeframes and sunsetting criteria for PUDs are defined in Section I 0.02.03 of the
LDC and were codified under LDC Amendment Ordinance No. 08-08. Extracts of those
amendments are shown below.
10.02.13 Planned Unit Development (PUD) Procedures
D. Time limits for approved PUDs.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1. For residential portions of PUDs, Iho owns,' OF/lity sf-wi! iF/Wale physical
development of infrastructure improvements, including access roads,
internal roads, sewer and water utilities and any other related infrastructure,
that supports a minimum of 15 percent of the designated residential area or
areas of the PUD shall be initiated by the tRiffi fifth anniversary date of the
PUD approval. An additional 15 percent of such infrastructure shall be
completed every year thereafter until PUD buildout; and.....
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Q. PUD sunsetting. Prior to or any time after the planning services department
director determines that a PUD has sunsetted, then the property owner shall
initiate one of the following:
a. Request ffH a PUD extension; eF
b. Request ffH a PUD amendmentc .. or
c. Request a rezone.
Z Board of county commissioners action on PUDs which have sunsetted. Upon
review and consideration of the appropriate application, or the status report
provided by the property owner and any supplemental information that may
be provided, the board of county commissioners shall elect one of the
following:
a. To extend the current PUD approval for a maximum period of two
years; at the end of which time, the property owner shall again
submit to the procedure as defined herein, however no further
development order applications shall be processed by the county
until the PUD is officially extended.
b. Approve or deny an application for a PUD amendment. The
existing PUD shall remain in effect until subsequent action by the
board of county commissioners on the submitted amendment to
the PUD, however no further development order applications shall
Agenda Item NO.1 OA
April 14. 2009
Page 4 of 13
be processed by the county until the PUD is officially amended.
c. Require the owner to submit an amended PUD. The existing PUD
shall remain in effect until subsequent action by the board of
county commissioners on the submitted amendment to the PUD,
however no further development order applications shall be
processed by the county until the PUD is officially amended.
i. If the owner fails to submit an amended application to the
PUD within six months of the action of the board of county
commissioners to require such a submittal, or the board
denies the request to amend the PUD, then the board of
county commissioners may initiate proceedings to rezone
the unimproved portions of the original PUD to an
appropriate zoning classification consistent with the future
land use element of the growth management plan.
.?. PUD time limit extensions. Extensions of the time limits for a PUD may be
approved by the board of county commissioners. An approved PUD may be
extended as follows:
a. Maximum extension: There Sh3!1 be :1 m3ximum of t\'.<e oxteF/siom;
may be one PUD extension. Tf:Je first m3]' bo granted for a
maximum of two years from the date of original approval. +he
soec:mg extensiaF/, m:1j' bo fJ.r3F/t09 fo,r 3F/ 3ddi/ieFli1! /1'.'9 j'D3,rs
from tf:Jo Gia/o af IiJXpi,r3/ion of /f:Ja fi.rst fJ)(tElF/sian
b. Approval of an extension shall be based on the following:
i. The PUD and the master plan is consistent with the current
growth management plan including, but not limited to,
density, intensity and concurrency requirements;
ii. The approved development has not become incompatible
with existing and proposed uses in the surrounding area as
the result of development approvals issued subsequent to
the original approval of the PUD zoning; and
iii. Approved development will not, by itself or in conjunction
with other development, place an unreasonable burden on
essential public facilities.
d. No more than twe one extension!'; may be granted for any
development original approval date.
Stated succinctly, a PUD remains active for 5 years and can be extended for a one 2-year
period if development has not met the defined development thresholds of 15 percent of
the infrastructure improvements within 5 years for the residential development and an
additional 15 percent for every year thereafter until buildout, and 15 percent of the
Agenda Item No. 10A
April 14, 2009
Page 5 of 13
authorized floor area by the fifth year or 25 percent of the designated land area when the
floor area is not the defining intensity measure for commercial development and non-
residential development. Any existing PUD approved under previous criteria regardless
of the sunset date provided the timeframe was less than a total of 7 years, are allowed to
seek an extension to equal the 7 year time limit.
As noted in the LDC, if development is not taking place at the prescribed development
thresholds, the developer/owner has the following three options prior to or any time after
a PUD has met the 7 year sunset limit:
1. Apply for a PUD amendment;
2. Apply for a complete rezone action such as a complete revision of the PUD;
or
3. Choose to allow the PUD to sunset. The developer/owner does not lose the
PUD zoning however helshe will lose the ability to obtain development
permits until the sunset status is rectified by either number I. or 2. above.
The requirement to sunset and update a PUD is to assure that PUDs that sit donnant
comply with the most current requirements in the LDC and (hat they are deemed
consistent with the most current GMP. Past experience indicates that projects which
remain dormant for long periods of time without being updated often result in projects,
which when (hey are eventually developed, may not be consistent with the GMP or LDC
at the time of development. The County has missed opportunities through the rezone or
amendment process to acquire adequate property for right-of-way and other needs as a
result of aged, undeveloped PUDs. Furthermore, the opportunity for the public to weigh
in on compatibility issues especially within the context of newer development which may
have occurred around these properties while they lay dormant is lost.
During the 2002-2003 timeframe, the Board held seven LDC workshops focused on the
BCC directive that the sunsetting provisions of the code must be enforced in part for the
reasons noted above. The primary subject of the seventh workshop held on December 2,
2003, focused on the implementation of the PUD Sunsetting program and guidance to
implement PUD monitoring. At that meeting the Board gave staff clear direction to
insure that sun setting provisions were enforced for (hose PUDs where development was
not progressing as specified and that these PUDs be sunsetted pursuant to the LDC, and
that the developer then be required to update the PUD to integrate current development
standards and criteria as specified in the current LDC. As noted above, this past year the
Board approved an amendment to the LDC which changed the sun setting provision from
a 3 year limit with 2, two-year extensions for PUD approved on or after October 24, 200 I
to a 5 year limit and one, two-year extension and by doing so retained the 7 year limit as
the defining limit to initiate development within a PUD. With this change, the Board
effectively gave the developer an additional two years to meet the development
thresholds without the requirement (0 extend the PUD. Prior to the October 24, 2001
date, all PUDs had a 5 year limit with no extension provision.
Agenda Item No.1 OA
April 14. 2009
Page 6 of 13
Currently there are 385 separate PUDs in Collier County and each PUD has its own PUD
ordinance that define the property limits, development standards, commitments and
similar related items. Two hundred and thirty-three (233) of the 385 are active PUDs and
18 of the 385 are considered sunsetted. It is difficult to quantitY how many more will
sunset in the next 2 years without analyzing the remaining to validate that each has
sustained the 15 percent construction threshold but a cursory estimate shows that another
12 to 15 will sunset in the next 2 years. Below are four approaches for extending PUDs
that have or are approaching their sunsetting date.
Option 1: Board ordinance to extend all PUDs. Procedurally, one way to extend the
sunset date of the PUDs that have or are projected to sunset in, for discussion purposes,
the next 24 months is to do so through a omnibus extension ordinance to extend these
PUDs for a specified period of time as desired by the Board.
Pros: This process could encompass all the PUDs in one action and would be
executed through an ordinance approved by the Board. Unlike, extending subdivision
plats and SDPs through administrative processes, currently extending the life of a PUD
requires a quasi-judicial action of the Board and must be done by individually approving
an extension by individual ordinance for each PUD or using this option through a
universal ordinance to capture all of the sunsetting PUDs.
Con: Pursuant to the LDC such action requires approval of the property owner or
managing entity of each PUD, legal public notice and advertising and would be costly
and time consuming for staff to obtain the needed approvals. In addition, the Board
would have to decide whether to absorb the costs for staff time and advertising in the
general fund or direct staff to attempt to pass the costs off to the respective property
owners or managing entities.
Option 2: Implement an expedited extension process. Direct staff to create a
truncated, expedited process and appropriate fee for requesting an extension to a PUD.
The revised process would simply involve an application and the requisite public notice
and public hearing but would eliminate any staff review to evaluate consistency with the
GMP and any needed updates and consistency reviews to conform to the requirements of
the now current LDC. Barring objections raised as a result of public notice, the extension
would most likely be placed on the summary agenda for Board approval.
Pros: This process essentially follows the existing process as defined in the LDC.
It also places the burden of applying for the extension and the cost on the applicant
(likely at a reduced rate) and provides proper public notice.
Con: There is no staff review to assure whether the PUD needs to be updated to
comply with changes in the code and to assure consistency with the GMP. There likely
would be no specific criteria for approval and the reasoning would likely be limited to the
Board's desire to extend the life of a PUD. Absent specific criteria for approval or
Agenda Item NO.1 OA
April 14, 2009
Page 7 of 13
denial, the Board would likely be obligated to vote to extend all PUDs unless there was
an overriding health, safety, welfare issue, irrespective of public input.
Option 3: Amend LDC. Amend the LDC to extend the initial 5 year period to 7 or 8
years and by doing so extend the need to request an extension, however, that action may
not resolve the need for many of the existing PUOs that had their sunsetting date
amended by the allowed 2 year extension.
Pros: Conforms to the lawful requirements for amending the current LDC
language as it relates to the current development requirement thresholds for PUDs.
Cons: Considering that there are two LDC amendment cycles already in process,
one special cycle for the sign code amendments and the second, the "normal" FY09
cycle, the Board would have to declare another special cycle for this one amendment if it
was looking to have this process resolved expeditiously. The process itself requires
multiple public hearings therefore the Board could not react expeditiously. The cost of
the amendment and the source of the funds would also have to be considered. When and
if the Board wanted to expeditiously revert back to the original time frames, the same
issues as noted above would surface again.
Option 4: Ordinance to toll all active PUDs. In response to the dramatic decline in
development and development related activities and in an effort to help stimulate
recovery, declare by ordinance to lawfully toll the clock for a recommended 24 months
for all of the active PUOs. Attachcd for your discussion is a proposed ordinance from
the County Attorney's office.
Pros: Quick action that can be accomplished within 30 days.
Cons: Impacts only active PUDs. Unless the tolling is done retroactively, this
action fails to resolve those PUDs that have already passed their sunsetting date. This
action also delays or defers any staff review for compliance with changes to the GMP or
amendments to the LOC.
FISCAL IMPACT: Eliminating or delaying the need to apply for an extension or for a
PUD amendment will certainly be beneficial to the property ownerldeveloper as it defers
the applicable fees (PUO Extension -- $1,000; PUD Amendment -- $6,000 plus $25 per
acre if the amendment is over 10 different lines of text change).
GROWTH MANAGEMENT (GMP) IMPACT: Delaying the requirements for a PUO
extension or amendments to a PUD may delay the need to update the respective PUD
documents to comply with recent changes to the GMP or LOC.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: The County Attorney's office will work with staff to
implement the Board's direction. This item is not quasi-judicial and no ex parle
Agenda Item No. 10A
April 14, 2009
Page 8 of 13
disclosures are required. A majority vote of the Board is necessary for Board action-
HFAC
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board consider this information and considering the
legal requirements, related costs and time constraints, and given that the current PUD
development requirements are of greater benefit to the public at large, that the Board
conclude that the current PUD extension process is sufficient for PUD extensions,
therefore no change should be made to the current LDC requirements.
Should the Board disagree with staffs recommendations, staff advises that option four
would likely be the most expeditious action, however, noting that this option defers any
updating and respective public notice for up to two years.
PREPARED BY: Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator, CDES
Item Number:
Item Summary:
Meeting Date:
Page I of2
Agenda Item NO.1 OA
April 14, 2009
Page 9 of 13
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
10A
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) direct staff on the
preferred process to be used to administratively extend the sun setting date for all PUDs that
have sunsetted or that are approaching its established sunsetting date. (Joseph K. Schmitt,
Administrator, COES)
4/14/20099:0000 AM
Prepared By
Joseph K. Schmitt
Community Development &
Environmental Services
Community Development &
Environmental Services Adminstrator
Date
Community Development &
Environmental Services Admin.
312512009 11 ;33;21 AM
Approved By
Judy Puig
Community Development &
Environmental Services
Operations Analyst
Community Development &
Environmental Services Admin.
Date
312512009 1; 20 PM
Approved By
Jeff Klatzkow
County Attorney
County Attorney
Date
County Attorney Office
312712009 1 ;29 PM
Approved By
Joseph K. Schmitt
Community Development &
Environmental Services
Community Development &
Environmental Services Adminstrator
Date
Community Development &
Environmental Services Admin.
313012009 10;27 AM
Approved By
Heidi F. Ashton
County Attorney
Assistant County Attorney
Date
County Attorney Office
313012009 11 ;45 AM
Approved By
Ray Bellows
Community Development &
Environmental Services
Chief Planner
Date
Zoning & Land Development Review
4111200910;19 AM
Approved By
Susan Istenes, AICP
Community Development &
Environmental Services
Zoning & Land Development Director
Date
Zoning & Land Development Review
411120095;10 PM
Approved By
OMS Coordinator
County Manager's Office
OMB Coordinator
Date
Office of Management & Budget
4/2120099;21 AM
A pproved By
Mark Isackson
County Manager's Office
Budget Analyst
Date
Office of Management & Budget
412/2009 11; 17 AM
Page20f2
Agenda Item NO.1 OA
April 14, 2009
Page 10 of 13
Approved By
Leo E. Ochs, Jr,
Board of County
Commissioners
Deputy County Manager
Date
County Manager's Office
41212009 12:07 PM
Agenda Item No. 10A
April 14, 2009
Page 11 of 13
ORDINANCE NO. 2009-_
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, DECLARING A STATE OF LOCAL
ECONOMIC EMERGENCY; TOLLING THE PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT TIME LIMIT AND TIME LIMIT EXTENSION
REQillREMENTS AS FOUND IN LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
SECTIONS 10.02.13.D, ET SEQ., TO APRIL 15, 2010; PROVIDING FOR
CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, the United States of America, the State of Florida and Collier County are
presently experiencing an economic downturn not experienced in the last 30-40 years; and
WHEREAS, individual citizens and families living in the United States, Florida and
Collier County are experiencing negative effects from this economic downturn; and
WHEREAS, because of significant revenue decreases at the State and local levels, jobs
are being lost, homes are being foreclosed, and services are being cut; and
WHEREAS, Collier County is currently experiencing a dramatic and devastating decline
in the residential and commercial development markets that adversely impact the entire local
economy; and
WHEREAS, Section lO.02.B.D et seq. of the Collier County Land Development Code
provides for Planned Unit Development time limit and time limit extension requirements. The
local economic emergency has created a situation that is making it impractical, if not impossible,
for developers of Planned Unit Developments to complete their projects within the time limits
established prior to this period of local emergency. Collier County currently has a very large
number of homes that have been approved for development but have not been built and are not
anticipated to be built during the period of the local economic emergency; and
WHEREAS, tolling of the Planned Unit Development time limit and time limit extension
is necessary to relieve conditions resulting from the local economic emergency; and
Page I of3
Agenda Item NO.1 0/\
April 14, 2009
Page 12 of 13
WHEREAS, because of this emergency, the Board wishes to toll the Planned Unit
Development time limit and time limit extension provisions without going through the process of
amending the Land Development Code as set forth in LDC Sections 10.02.08 .C and 10.02.09.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
SECTION ONE:
Short Title and Recitals.
This Ordinance shall be known as the Collier County Local Economic Emergency
Ordinance, and the above findings and recitals are hereby adopted by reference into this
Ordinance.
SECTION TWO:
Declaration of Local Economic Emergency.
The Collier County Board of County Commissioners, convened In regular session,
hereby declares and ordains that a Local Economic Emergency exists within Collier County,
Florida, requiring immediate measures to address the emergency before irreversible harm is done
to the economic well being of the citizens of the County. This Ordinance is adopted after public
hearing pursuant to, and in accordance with, Section 125.66(3), Florida Statutes.
SECTION THREE:
Tolling of Land Development Code Section 10.02.13.D, et seq.
Section I 0.02.13.D, et seq. of the Collier County Land Development Code provides for
Planned Unit Development time limit and time limit extension requirements. These time limit
and time limit extension requirements are hereby tolled to April 15, 2010. Prior to that date, the
Board of County Commissioners will detennine if the declaration of Local Economic Emergency
should be ended.
SECTION FOUR:
Conflict and Severability.
In the event this Ordinance conflicts with any other ordinance of Collier County or other
applicable law, the more restrictive shall apply. Ifany phrase or portion ofthis Ordinance is held
Page 2 of3
Agenda Item No. 10A
April 14, 2009
Page 13 of 13
invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct, and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portion.
SECTION FIVE:
Inclusion in the Code of Laws and Ordinances.
The provisions of this Ordinance shall become and be made a part of the Code of Laws
and Ordinances of Collier County, Florida. The sections of the Ordinance may be renumbered or
relettered to accomplish such, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section", "article",
or any other appropriate word.
SECTION SIX:
Effective Date.
This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State.
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier
County, Florida, this _ day of
,2009.
ATTEST:
DWlGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By:
, Deputy Clerk
By:
DONNA FIALA, CHAIRMAN
Approved as to form
and legal sufficiency:
Jeffrey A. Klatzkow
County Attorney
Page 3 on