Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Mechling shared his concept of reinstating the Professional Services <br />Advisory Committee ("PSAC"). He continued when PSAC was in place, should there be <br />notable changes to the Code or technical standards, such as Utilities, it would go before <br />the PSAC, where professional architects, engineers, and developers who were experts <br />in the industry had the opportunity to review what was being considered before it went <br />before the County Commissioners. <br />Chairperson Robinson suggested to wait and see what this committee could <br />accomplish effectively, efficiently and as an asset to both staff and the County <br />Commission. She reminded the committee of the specific direction for the present time <br />from the Commission was to discuss the process of land development and construction <br />as it related to working with the County and how to make it more effective, efficient and <br />affordable. She suggested beginning a "Wish List" for the committee and placing PSAC <br />as a future discussion topic. <br />Mr. Burke asserted the actual number of days involved in a given process <br />exceeded a staffing level issue and if the professionals were not aware of what was <br />required on the documents created additional cost, time and effort. He relayed his <br />success in getting building permits in Indian River County for most of his projects under <br />5 days was largely due to relying on the Florida Building Code to provide everything <br />needed for a project. He continued as long as the plans examiner was made aware of <br />the project's building design, the process moved quicker. <br />Mr. Burke mentioned a pilot program offered in Palm Beach County on January <br />1, 2018 and was expected to run for 4 month to test what 35 architects had been taught <br />how to do a smaller project properly. He opined the same thing should apply to planning <br />and site design and if the professionals were not giving staff what was expected, what <br />was the problem with the applicant and why it was not being done. He stated he did not <br />believe there should need to be multiple submittals because once a project came out of <br />the TRC Meeting, the project's questions and issues should have been addressed. <br />Mr. Mechling referred to Staff Suggestions on pages 3-4, Item 4a, and suggested <br />review of the 7 suggestions. <br />1. Hiring and training additional review staff to address the current <br />basic workload imbalance was already in progress. <br />Mr. Mechling asked whether Public Works had sufficient staffing levels for the <br />review process. Mr. Boling responded he could not speak to Public Works budget; <br />however, an additional Current Development Planner was budgeted for the Community <br />Development Department. Mr. Szpyrka advised from Public Works' standpoint, there <br />were 2 positions posted for the Land Development Division; however, the work load was <br />so far behind, he was not sure if those 2 positions would be enough to keep up with the <br />review timeframes. <br />7 <br />C:\Users\sjohnson\AppData\Local\Microsoft\windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\SEU7ML71\11.8.17 DRPP Minutes.doc 65 <br />