EXECUTIVE REGULATORY OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE Community Development/Public Works Center 1500 Monroe Street, First Floor Conf. Rm. 1B

Transcription

1 EXECUTIVE REGULATORY OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE Community Development/Public Works Center 1500 Monroe Street, First Floor Conf. Rm. 1B WEDNESDAY, MAY 8, :00 P.M. AGENDA 1. Call to Order/Review of Affidavit of Publication 2. Approval of Minutes March 13, BCC DIRECTED LDC AMENDMENT ELECTRONIC MESSAGE SIGNS BOB STEWART 4. Adjournment Next Meeting Date: July 10, 2013

2 Draft MINUTES REPORT EXECUTIVE REGULATORY OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE WEDNESDAY, MARCH 13, 2013 Committee Members Present: Tracy Hayden, Chairman Jim Ink Michael Reitmann Hal Arkin Bob Knight Mike Roeder Bill DeDeugd Steven Kushner Buck Ward Bill Ennen Committee Members Absent: Stephanie Kolenut Karin Larson Randy Mercer Terry Miller Lee County Government & Representatives Present: Michael Jacob, Assist. County Attorney Ben Dickson, Dev. Review Rep Pam Houck, Zoning Director Pete Eckenrode, Dev. Service Director Nettie Richardson, Princ. Planner, Zoning Rob Price, Sr. Eng., Dev. Services Mikki Rozdolski, Senior Planner, Zoning Chad Rosenstein, Lee Co. Port Authority Carol Lis, Princ. Planner, Env. Sciences Josh Philpott, Lee Co. Port Authority Becky Sweigert, Princ. Plan. Env. Sciences Bob Stewart, Lee County Building Official Glen Salyer, Assistant County Manager Pam Hendry, DCD Admin., Recording Consultants and Public Participants: Amanda Brock, Henderson, Franklin Barbara Luikart, UPS Erin Malone, UPS Laura DeJohn of Johnson Eng. Mark Morig, UPS Tom Vietri, UPS Paul Painter, UPS Introduction Ms. Tracy Hayden called the meeting to order at 2:02 p.m. in the first floor conference room of the Community Development/Public Works Center, 1500 Monroe Street, First Floor, Ft. Myers, Florida. Mr. Michael Jacob, Assistant County Attorney, reviewed the Affidavit of Posting of Meeting and found it legally sufficient as to form and content. Approve Meeting Minutes January 9, 2013 Mr. Buck Ward made a motion to approve the January 9, 2013 minutes. Mr. Bob Knight seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Temporary Mail Distribution UPS Ms. Nettie Richardson said this is a new amendment to the LDC that was requested by UPS. Barbara Luikart of UPS said we re here in support of the temporary use of storage pods to distribute parcels by golf carts. It s a seasonal use, requested from November 1 st Page 1 of 4

3 thru December for delivering packages during the holiday season. Florida statutes already permit package delivery with golf carts and they ve been doing it in Lee County for about 10 years. She said it s good for the environment, good for UPS and good for the residents. It s less intrusive to neighborhoods, the wear and tear on the roads is less, the noise is less and it allows UPS to have more early deliveries instead of the late night knocks on the door. She said the process is, in the morning the package delivery truck brings a load of packages to a storage container pod, then a golf cart delivers the packages in the neighborhood. At the end of the day the pod is closed with the golf cart in it. She said they ve had great support in all areas of Florida from the homeowners. Mr. Ward asked where the pods would be located. Ms. Luikart said they would go in common areas of neighborhoods, a vacant lot, a parking lot or out of a garage with the approval of the adjoining owners, but they can t go on designated open spaces or preserve areas. Mr. Ward asked if it was prohibited previously. Ms. Luikart said it just wasn t addressed. Mr. Knight asked if it s just in subdivisions. Ms. Luikart said it could be commercial, residential or industrial, as long as it s on streets on which golf carts are allowed. Mr. Ward asked if they had any trouble getting permission to do this in Lee County in the past. Mr. Mark Morig said UPS asked Lee County last year and were told no, so that s why we re here today. He said UPS has done it in Pelican Preserve, Colonial Country Club, Gateway, Tanglewood and Whiskey Creek with the pod typically positioned in the maintenance area or parking lot, with their approvals. Ms. Hayden said regarding page 3, in (C)(5) where it says the Applicant must provide a written approval from the homeowners association she would like to discuss the addition of the words, the condo association, or the property owners association, because it s not always homeowners associations. Mr. Kushner said if it was to be located on a vacant lot in a residential subdivision, and not on a common area, you d still want to have the approval, at least by the board of that association. Mr. Jacob said it should read, the Applicant must provide a written approval from the property owners association Ms. Hayden agreed. Mr. Kushner asked if the agreement between the applicant and the property owner is going to address insurance issues. Mr. Morig explained they would submit the HOA contact information to UPS Corporate, who would send the POA their insurance and liability information. Mr. Ward asked if there are any ordinances in the incorporated areas of Lee County for it. Ms. Luikart said no. Mr. Knight made a motion to approve the amendment with the change of homeowners association to property owners association. Mr. Ward seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Flood Hazard Reduction Chapter 6, Article IV Amendments Mr. Bob Stewart said this is a 100% replacement of our existing flood ordinance. He said last year, with the adoption of the 2010 Florida Building Code, the Florida Division of Page 2 of 4

4 Emergency Management got with the Building Commission and they put the structural requirements out of the flood ordinances, and into the building code. Then, they drafted a model ordinance for adoption by local jurisdictions to correspond with that language. There s a little language added about farm buildings, things that would be otherwise exempt from the building code, but still needed some flood approval. But, other than that, it s just a different way to say the same thing. Mr. Jim Ink said it s very concise and it goes with a lot of the FEMA technical bulletins that have been out for years, and it s good the new building code decided to incorporate FEMA into it instead of having it as a separate document people chose to ignore quite a few times. Mr. Ink made a motion to approve the amendments. Mr. Reitmann seconded. The motion carried unanimously. 2012/2013 LDC Amendments & Preliminary Streamlining Amendments (Packet 2 & 3) Ms. Mikki Rozdolski said this is the last packet of the regular amendment cycle. There has been a lot of housekeeping and streamlining of the code to eliminate redundancy and to remove outdated requirements. There is more administrative authority, more uses added to the use tables, and the uses that need to go to a special exception have been reduced. She said some of the application requirements have been streamlined, and subsequent to this amendment, we re looking at also reducing the amount of paperwork to be submitted in the applications. She said the number of types of LDOs has been reduced. Mr. Jacob said the amendment for Sec. 1-5 is not going through as it s already in Chapter 10 will remain there for now. Regarding Sec , Mr. Ward asked for an explanation of (a)(17) limited to the prohibition of hardened structures. Mr. Rob Price explained that the language was added to give the ability to deviate from it without having to seek a variance. Mr. Ward said sometimes it s hard to know what will stabilize a lake s banks, and this seems to say that some poor engineer has to say that anything less than this isn t going to work. Mr. Pete Eckenrode explained that a lot of different factors cause erosion, so we want the engineer to evaluate the specific situation, state what is causing the problem and what they think the best solution is. He said a number of engineers in town are getting pretty good at evaluating these situations. Regarding Sec , Mr. Ward asked what happened to the Type 99 LDO and its fee? Mr. Price said it s a Type F now. He explained that the LDOs with like fees are grouped together, and the only increased fee is the Type 10 for open storage facilities because applicants were developing virgin land into open storage facilities with water management type improvements and things that required a lot more review. Ms. Hayden asked if the engineers in the room had any problem with the change from 8,000 sq. ft. to 5,000 sq. ft. in (2) Type B. Mr. Price explained that one LDO type had 8,000 sq. ft. and another LDO type had 5,000 sq. ft., so in melding them together, we Page 3 of 4

5 thought the 8,000 sq. ft. was too high. He said in past submittals there weren t a lot of issues. Mr. Eckenrode said that s something we can look at. Mr. Eckenrode said in (3) Type C, this part of a sentence needs to be removed: for a use other than single-family detached dwelling units, two-family detached dwelling units or bona fide agricultural uses; because it would seem to not allow residential lot splits, when the thought here was to combine both residential and commercial lot splits under one type. He said the correct wording would be, - Any subdivision of land into four lots or less where zoning district regulations permit such subdivision, provided however, that: That way it will apply to both commercial and residential. Mr. Eckenrode said with the changes to the types of LDOs, the application formats will change and not be as long. Mr. Price said there will be very positive updates to the application submittal requirements. Regarding Sec Required submittals, Mr. Ink asked why SFWMD is singled out in (6). Mr. Price said we want to see the submittal for the permit and the permit must be issued prior to the issuance of the vegetation removal permit. Mr. Eckenrode explained that the lack of a SFWMD permit will no longer hold up the issuance of a development order. Mr. Price pointed out that the TIS requirement for concurrency renewals has been removed, so the concurrency renewal is now just the $40.00 application fee and submittal of a letter inventorying how much development s occurred on the site, if any, with what s left. Regarding DIVISION 5. FIRE SAFETY, Mr. Price explained that the Fire Safety Division of the Land Development Code has been completely overhauled because, according to Dan Notte, Lee County Plan Reviewer/Fire Inspector, the it was extremely outdated. Mr. Price said using the new fire code he made changes to the Fire Safety Division to streamline it, and reference back to the Florida Fire Code. Ms. Hayden asked for a motion to approve the amendments with the note that staff will take a look at the 8,000 ft. change to 5,000 ft. in Sec (2), and Mr. Eckenrode s direction to delete part of the sentence in Sec (3). Mr. Roeder so moved. Mr. Ink seconded. The motion carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT There was no further discussion and no new business. Mr. Ward made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Knight seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 3:25 p.m. The next meeting was tentatively scheduled for May, 8, s:\committees\eroc\2013\ eroc meeting\draft - minutes eroc.docx Page 4 of 4

6 EROC ORDINANCE EVALUATION GUIDELINES Proposed Ordinance: 2012/2013 LDC Amendments 1. What is the public interest that the Ordinance is designed to protect? The use and regulation of land. 2. Can the identified public interest be protected by means other than legislation (e.g., better enforcement, education programs, administrative code in lieu of ordinance, etc.)? If so, would other means be more cost effective? No, this ordinance is the basis for the regulation. 3. Is the regulation required by State or Federal law? If so, to what extent does the County have the authority to solve the problem in a different manner? N/A 4. Does the regulation duplicate State or Federal programs? If so, why? No. This ordinance amends and supplements regulations at a different level. 5. Does the regulation contain market-based incentives? If not, could that be used effectively? N/A 6. Is the regulation narrowly drafted to avoid imposing a burden on persons or activities that are not affecting the public interest? Yes 7. Does the regulation impose a burden on a few property owners for the benefit of the public as a whole? If so, does it provide any form of compensation? No

7 8. Does the regulation impact vested rights? No 9. Does the regulation provide prompt and efficient relief mechanisms for exceptional cases? Yes 10. Even though there is an interest to be protected, is it really worth another regulation? Yes, this ordinance supplements and refines current regulations. 11. Has this approach been tried in other jurisdictions? If so, what was the result? If not, what are the reasons? N/A 12. If this regulation is enacted, how much will it cost on an annual basis, both public and private? If this regulation is not enacted, what will be the public and private cost? Any increased cost will be nominal.

8 LDC AMENDMENT SEC Bob Stewart

9

10