Loading...
CCPC Minutes 06/06/2013 R June 6,2013 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples,Florida June 6,2013 LET IT BE REMEMBERED,that the Collier County Planning Commission,in and for the County of Collier,having conducted business herein,met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F"of the Government Complex,East Naples,Florida,with the following members present: Mark Strain,Chairman Phillip Brougham (Absent) Diane Ebert Karen Homiak Barry Klein Paul Midney Bill Vonier ALSO PRESENT: Heidi Ashton-Cicko,Assistant County Attorney Ray Bellows,Zoning Manager Thomas Eastman,Real Property Director,CC School District Page 1 of 19 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., THURSDAY, JUNE 6, 2013, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER,THIRD FLOOR, 3299 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST,NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL 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. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES-May 2,2013 6. BCC REPORT-RECAPS 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. RZ-PL201300000049: Veterans of Foreign Wars PUD - An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning property from the Planned Unit Development zoning district known as the Veterans of Foreign Wars PUD to the Estates(E)zoning district for property located at 7071 Hunters Road in Section 6, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 5+/- acres; providing for repeal of Ordinance No. 75-29, the Veterans of Foreign Wars PUD; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Michael Sawyer, Project Manager] 1 B. PUDA-PL201300000886: Meridian Village MPUD - An Ordinance amending Ordinance Number 2010- 28,the Meridian Village MPUD,to allow as permitted uses a youth center and other uses comparable to the permitted uses in this PUD. The property is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Airport-Pulling Road and Estey Avenue in Section 2, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 11.68 acres; and by providing an effective date. [Project Coordinator: Fred Reischl,AICP, Senior Planner] 10. OLD BUSINESS 11. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion to merge the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) with the Collier County Planning Commission(CCPC)[Mike Bosi, Interim Planning&Zoning Director] 12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 14. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS 15. ADJOURN CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows/jmp 2 June 6,2013 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,good morning everyone. Welcome to the Thursday,June 6th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If everybody will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Would the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Diane forgot the words. Mr.Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr.Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr.Vonier is absent. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms.Homiak is here. Ms.Ebert? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr.Klein? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And Mr.Brougham is absent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,thank you. ***Addenda to the agenda. One or two items I wanted to make sure. If we have any issues with 9.A,which is the downzoning from a PUD to a--back to the Estates zoning,and the second one,which is 9.B,which is Meridian,because we are not going to be here again until the end of July,it would be very unfair to request that they hold approvals up before going to the Board for consent. That's going to be almost two months away. So I'm asking the board that when we do our approvals or denials or whatever we decide to do today,we include consent as part of the motion,and then that way we'll get it done. That's the only changes to this agenda that I can think of. Anybody have anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ***Okay,next item is Planning Commission absences. We don't have any business on the 20th of this month,so our next meeting is canceled. The one after that would normally be July 4th,and I don't think anybody would want to be here on July 4th,so that leaves us the 18th of July. Does anybody know if they're not going to be here on the 18th of July meeting? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,thank you. That way we still have a quorum. ***Approval of minutes. We were sent the minutes electronically for the May 2nd meeting.Does anybody have any changes or-- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Ms.Homiak,seconded by Barry. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) Page 2 of 19 June 6,2013 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. ***BCC report recaps,Ray? MR.BELLOWS: There were no land use items presented at the last board meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ***Okay,Chairman's Report. Well,I have to—you know,when I see something that is,let's say,technically illegal,I have to report it. So Barry took the dog bowl from downstairs. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: It's been returned by a security staff CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. He picked his belongings up after he went through the scanner and he was walking in with the dog bowl this morning,so--so I think you're supposed to leave those downstairs. ***The consent agenda items,we don't have any,so we'll move right into the first advertised public hearing. This is 9.A. It's a rezone--actually a downzone. And it's number PL20130000049,Veterans of Foreign Wars PUD. And it's an existing PUD being downzoned back to the Estates underlying zoning located at 7071 Hunters Road. Anybody wishing to testify on behalf of this item,please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've had numerous conversations with Mr.Ohlis concerning his application and the process that we are going through today. Other than that,we'll--are there any--Ray,before we--I make another statement, is there any registered public speakers? MR.BELLOWS: There is one speaker,but it's on the second item on the agenda,not this one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody in the audience here to speak on the first item,which is what we just described in the Estates zoning area? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,then like we did last time,I'm going to suggest to this board we short circuit some of this. I know Mr.Ohlis is probably very anxious to make a long,elaborate presentation to us today,but what he has is an old PUD for the V.F.W.Post that was going to go on a plot of land that had an Estates zoning on it. It was changed to a PUD back in the Seventies,I believe. The surrounding lands are Estates. The neighborhood information meeting,I think from what I understand the public was pleased to see it wasn't going to have a PUD,but it's going to go back to,what,a home or houses. So with that in mind,rather than go through an elaborate process today,is there anybody on the Planning Commission that had any problems with the package that was sent to us to approve a downzone on this property from PUD back to Estates? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Brian,you can sit there and shake your head yes or no.Unless you want to say something,we'll--I think we can go forward. No,okay. Then we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Is there a motion on 9.A? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I make a motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Barry. Made by Ms.Ebert. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Page 3 of 19 June 6,2013 COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. Okay,Brian,that's quite a buildup just to get to today,so you've still got one more level to go through. Hopefully it will go on consent and you'll be able to sit in the audience and let it pass. So thank you for your patience in getting this far. ***Next item up is PUDA-PL201300000886,Meridian Village MPUD,located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Airport Road and Estey Avenue. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item,please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? I had conversations with Mr.Hancock and I received a piece of correspondence basically supporting the project that I will be making sure staff has a copy of. Other than that,we'll move forward. Tim, it's all yours. MR.HANCOCK: Mr.Chairman,members of the Planning Commission,Tim Hancock with Davidson Engineering,representing the applicant for the Meridian Village MPUD amendment. The amendment before you today is about one of the simplest most straightforward ones I've dealt with in 23 years. The project in 2010 was rezoned from a strictly multi-family project permitting up to 120 multi-family units with an affordable housing component to allow for what we'll call an either/or. It meant if it doesn't go forward as a residential,it could go forward as a community facility project. And in community facility the primary uses that were included in the PUD at that time were assisted living facility, adult day care and those types of uses. And what was missing in that PUD is language you normally see and approve which said any other use that is comparable in nature as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals. What has occurred is an unforeseen opportunity. That PUD allowed for churches.Churches typically have accessory buildings.Those accessory buildings house a lot of church-based programs that help the community.For example,I just read a wonderful article about a Seacrest student who transferred to Seacrest after receiving help from Grace Place in Golden Gate. And the help the student received was he was having difficulty with reading English as a second language. Grace Place,which is operated by Reverend Stephanie Munz Campbell,provided after-school curriculum for students who were in need. He's gone onto get a scholarship,a music scholarship in college. And those are the kind of stories that this amendment is targeted to allowing for. What we're requesting is that this body approve that a youth center be permitted on the property as a permitted use. And the only other change to the PUD is to insert that language that allows comparable uses to be determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals,if determined by the BZA to move forward. We had our neighborhood information meeting on this,and the primary concern that I would say came from the folks at the Rock Creek Campground. They have a certain demographic that rents from them and occupies that space.And their concern was whether or not the youth center would create a conflict with their use. And we discussed with them at the time that the youth center,which--the entity that has got the properly under contract is the Salvation Army. Their church is right across the street on Estey Avenue,so in essence is an extension of their campus across the street.And the youth center will coordinate functions with the Salvation Army. While they are anticipated obviously to be on the southerly part of the property,the change in the PUD would allow the youth center to be located anywhere on the parcel. And so they've called Mr.Reischl --one of the individuals called Mr.Reischl yesterday morning and asked if we could be limited to the southerly three acres. Page 4 of 19 June 6,2013 What I don't want to do is--and we have no problem with placing a limitation on the south--that the youth center would be on the southern portion of the property. What I don't want to run into is that if it becomes 3.3 or 3.4 acres instead of three that we end up back before you trying to amend the PUD to add a tenth of an acre or a half an acre in. So--and I know you hate changes on the fly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not if they're productive. MR.HANCOCK: But in an effort to address their concern,I've added one simple line. And under number five--and by the way,this is the entirety of the changes in the whole PUD that you see before you right now. That's it.There's nothing else. The master plan's not changing,nothing else is changing. But just to add limited to the southerly half of the PUD,this keeps it a distance away from the Rock Creek Campground and is my hope addresses their concerns. Some of the other concerns raised were well,what are you going to do with the rest of the property? And the answer is we're going to do exactly what we're permitted to do today.There are no guarantees,but I can tell you that an assisted living facility is very likely in this location. Some site planning is going on with that. And candidly, if that were to go in next to Rock Creek,I can't imagine a better neighbor for them. But again,no other uses are being added to the PUD. The youth center would be limited strictly to the southern half of the PUD so that,you know,the small play field outside would not become a disrupter to the folks who are in Rock Creek. And with that,I think the best thing I can do at this point is shut up and answer questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,anybody from the Planning Commission have any questions? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim,I have a couple,or a few. This facility,according to the NIM,might have up to 400 children,correct? MR.HANCOCK: Yes,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the TIS--and I asked John Pod.to get familiar with this issue yesterday. The TIS was drawn up in a manner that offset the size of the ACLF with the amount of traffic that would be generated by the youth center. So--and where that becomes a problem is in the PUD on Page 15 of the--well,Page 15 in my book,I'm not sure--well,let me look at the section number. It's under yours. It's under Exhibit F, development commitments under transportation. And it's transportation item number four. It talks about the various uses and what their p.m.peak hours are allowed for each use. This new use you're introducing isn't in that list. And because it isn't,I'm concerned for clarity how anybody would know that it's specifically going to offset the ACLF use that refers to 143 p.m.peak hour trips. So I asked John to take a look at that and see if there's a way to clarify it. Do you see any--I mean, did you think about this at all or did you come across this paragraph when you were reviewing the PUD as a possibility of it not being clear? MR.HANCOCK: We did think about it,as a matter of fact,when we crafted the TIS as a part of this petition. I've always looked at that 143 p.m.peak hours as the cap. No matter what we do on the property,when you combine the uses,whether it would be a church or a youth center or an ALF or a combination of them,that they really cannot exceed that cap of 143. So it was our intent to have the youth center combined with an ALF and remain below the 143 p.m. peak hour. So if we were to modify B to state that the combination of the youth center and ALF would not exceed 143,that would be helpful. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, it would. But I think if you look at number four,it says the maximum trip generation allowed by the proposed uses,and that's pluralized,both primary and ancillary,may not exceed the summarized p.m.peak hour two-way trips as shown below. When I first read that I thought okay,well that means you get 70, 143, 114 and 70 again,so you're a total of 397 trips. Which I know is not the intent. But I'm concerned that the clarity isn't there. And we need more than just to add the reference to the additional use being combined with the ACLF as far as calculations Page 5 of 19 June 6,2013 go,but that the overall trip generation of any and all uses on the entire 11 acres will not exceed 143 p.m.peak hour trips. And I think that might capture the issue we're now--the clarification we need as far as how you're offsetting your ACLF p.m.peak hour trips. And John may have worked some language up.John,could you comment,just so we-- MR.HANCOCK: Just so we're clear,Commissioner? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR.HANCOCK: What you're stating is exactly the intent within which we were trying to operate. So much I think it's a matter of just establishing the verbiage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,good. John,did you take a look at that and have any idea on language? MR.PODCZERWINSKY: I did. And the suggestion that I have for language on items A,B and C would be instead of a period at the end of each line,I would recommend putting"comma or". CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then I would suggest we add another line,maybe E,maximum trips for any combination of all uses will not exceed 143 p.m.peak hour trips. MR.PODCZERWINSKY: That's correct. That would work just fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,so I have to make notes on all that,because this is going to be consent,so I've got to make sure it's right. MR.HANCOCK: And,Commissioner,the applicant is absolutely fine with those changes. Just more clarifies our intent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,I mean,I went back and read the historic language on this from the other PUDs,and it has progressively climbed slightly in p.m.peak hour trips,and I wanted to make sure that it wasn't going to happen again. And that's how I got to where this comment came about. In your disclosures for the interest information,name and address of the ownership,you stated International Investments,wholly owned by American Materials,Inc. And then that's solely--and I assume you're saying that's solely owned by L.Robert(sic)Wells,Jr.? MR.HANCOCK: L.Roger Wells,yes,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So he owns 100 percent of American Materials which owns 80 percent of International,which is 80 percent of the property; is that right? MR.HANCOCK: He owns 100 percent of American Materials,which owns 100 percent of International Investments,and they are an 80 percent owner of the property,yes,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the other two 10 percent owners. He's the only stockholder,so we're fine there. That's the only questions I have so far.Does anybody else have any questions? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you,Tim.We'll do staff report next and then public speakers. MR.REISCHL: Thank you,Mr.Chairman,Fred Reischl,Planning and Zoning. As Tim stated,the questions that were raised at the neighborhood information meeting and we crafted the new language,the additional language,and staff is fine with the wording on that. And as long as John is happy with the TIS information,that works for us too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,the restriction to the southern half of the property,how would staff approach that restriction from a,let's say,a line of demarcation showing where that--in looking at Page 3 of the staff report,MPUD,it's got a what looks to be like a platted subdivision that used to be on this MPUD. And I'm not sure how you would draw a line at one-half. Do you--Tim would have to show a calculation as to the southern half,which would then extend across Steve's Ave.on the north end? MR.REISCHL: That's what I was going to say,correct. Where the MPUD zoning line crosses Steve's Avenue,I would continue that line to the east and to me that would be the southerly portion of the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And Tim,I want your concurrence that that's enough of a southern portion that you're referring to so that when the public speakers come up,they know exactly what we're talking about. Maybe we could put that exhibit on the overhead. It's upside down. And that's not the--well,that's one exhibit,but that will work. Page 6 of 19 June 6,2013 Okay,so the southern portion that you're talking about is below that dotted line; is that right? MR.HANCOCK: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's less than half. MR.HANCOCK: It is-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I'd rather not then use the language half. I'd rather say--I'd rather that the exhibit for the master plan be annotated with a dotted line indicating this area below the dotted line is where the youth center would potentially go pending today's and the BCC meeting. MR.HANCOCK: We could revise that language to read"southerly portion as shown on the PUD master plan." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep. That would be more accurate. Great. Thank you. Did you have anything else,Fred? MR.REISCHL: No,thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I'll do,when we finish,I'll read any stipulations I've started writing to make sure,because this is going to have to be consent,so they've got to be as close as we can. Okay,thank you. Any questions of staff from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN S'T'RAIN: Okay, let's start with the registered public speakers first,Ray. And whoever names are called,just come up to either mic and tell us what your concerns are. MR.BELLOWS: Janet Nebus. MS.NEBUS: Good morning,Planning Commission. My name is Janet Nebus and I'm here with my family. We own and manage Rock Creek RV Resort on the corner of North Road and Airport Pulling Road. Our family has been an active member of the local business community for 37 years,and the property we're located on was purchased by my grandfather over 60 years ago. We have an established retirement community and our citizens come back year after year for our resort atmosphere. They enjoy the ambiance of Naples and contribute to the local economy,and we contribute with our bed and breakfast tax. The original Meridian Village PUD with 55 plus living facilities or continued care retirement communities was a compatible use to our business and consistent with our community.We have been here a long time. We're concerned that the proposal has the potential to impact the value of our property,diminish the quality of life for our residents,affect our income and inevitably the future of our family business. We applaud any kind of effort to help disadvantaged children. We have contributed to children's charities for many years ourselves.Our opposition to amending the PUD is that the project they have publicized should be encompassing only three acres,but the whole 11 acres is up for amendment. I know that Tim has come before you and just said the southerly,but I'd like to keep with my script, if you don't mind,just so you know what I was concerned about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Absolutely. MS.NEBUS: As I understand it,once this PUD changes,they do not have to go through a formal process to inform the community of any future projects,just a review board. I'm concerned about number six where it says they have comparable use. Once they get you to approve this,the Commission to approve this,is that comparable use going to be a fast track to oh,we want to do something else now on the other piece of property if it changes that they're not going to do the ALF? That's a concern. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A comparable--that's pretty standard language in most PUDs. What it does,it allows uses that are considered almost identical to the use that's being proposed. Sometimes we have a code book that's-- MS.NEBUS: So that means if they're proposing a youth facility here then on the other side they would be able to go through with the youth facility,another youth facility? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,no. Where the line stops,any youth facility or any related use to that would have to go below that dotted line. MS.NEBUS: Okay. Page 7 of 19 June 6,2013 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if I'm mistaken,Ray,speak up. I believe that's-- MS.NEBUS: Thank you,I just want to clarify that. MR. BELLOWS: That's the main purpose why we wanted this depicted on the master plan,to show where youth group or related type youth activities would be below that line. MS.NEBUS: What exactly does that number six mean? MR.BELLOWS: Well,as the Chairman indicated,it basically allows for a similar use,such as if it was approved for banks and somebody came in for a credit union,that is a similar type use. Why bring this through a formal amendment before the Planning Commission and board for a comparable use. MR.REISCHL: To give you a real world example,at Goodlette Corners PUD they permitted veterinary services,but a dog groomer wanted to go in there. We analyzed that and found that they were very similar uses. It went to the Board of Zoning Appeals and the Board of Zoning Appeals affirmed that decision. So very similar uses is what we're looking at. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: We currently have two processes that we use under the Land Development Code,and they're both advertised public hearings before the Board of County Commissioners. So you would see an ad in the paper that those processes-- MS.NEBUS: I was concerned that-- MS.ASHTON-CICKO: --currently go through the Planning Commission. MS.NEBUS: Okay. I was concerned that even though there was another meeting,it was still already on a fast track because there had always been something else approved. That was just something I wanted to re-clarify. Thank you. We had concerns--let's see. Once--the process to inform the community of any future projects through review board. We had questions. Is the entire parcel under contract? Is there an option to purchase the rest of the parcel? We had these questions because it seems to be rushed through the planning board right now. We're concerned that this could open a Pandora's box as to what is or could be planned for the rest of the property. We would simply like to be informed of all the facts that apply to this parcel of property now and any possible future plans: We attended the neighborhood informational meeting and there was not a great deal of information given out. Tim came over this morning and gave us a little more information,and we appreciate that. There also seems to be some contradictions on how many children would be attended from what we heard at the meeting and what we were told when we placed the call to the Salvation Army. The concern about rushing this through planning at the start of summer when many of the constituents of the community are on vacation is valid on another level in that it does not give the community or the board an opportunity to gather information and make a qualified decision. We were told the facility would be able to handle between 350 and 400 kids. How would this impact the traffic in an already congested area? Buses may be dropping off,but parents would be picking up. What buffers and security would there be to our property and surrounding neighborhoods? Would they be able to keep the older middle school or high school children on their property,not their neighbor's? I would hope there would be money set aside for a sufficient ratio of supervising adults to children and a plan for monies in reserve to prevent the problems that have plagued other children's facilities like in Golden Gate that are standing empty because of lack of forethought or funding. We know you have a lot to consider,but we have a concern about the changing of the PUD for the entire property and what that entails.We thank you for your time and opportunity to speak. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are you familiar or have you seen a copy of the PUD that they currently have? MS.NEBUS: With the assisted living,he gave us some information;55, 120 residential units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 5,500? MS.NEBUS: No,no, 120 residential units,55 plus is what I was trying to say. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The PUD has--may answer some of your questions. There's a rather wide preservation buffer on the north side of the property that they cannot build on.They have a setback from that buffer. The uses in the PUD apply to the 11 acres,the entire 11 acres,regardless of if it was intended to be Page 8 of 19 June 6,2013 split up or whatever it wouldn't matter,the new owner's got to abide by the PUD because that's the zoning on the property,unless they come back through a public process,in which you'd be notified. MS.NEBUS: Just trees can only do so much of a buffer. I mean,they have vegetation and wildlife and sometimes if you've got 400 kids--I don't know if you've been into a youth center facility lately. I have an eight-year-old. Oh,my. Yeah,you have to be used to that. So that's what we wanted to bring up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just wanted to mention,though,there is a--the buffer that's on the north side of this property is larger than many that have comparable uses. So if you need a copy of the PUD,staff can make sure you get a full copy. MS.NEBUS: That would be wonderful.Thanks,appreciate it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,thank you very much. Questions? (No response.) COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Tim,I have some followup questions as a result of this testimony. Is the entire parcel under contract or just a piece of it? MR.HANCOCK: No,sir,just a piece of it.Approximately 3.3 acres. And the statement of 350 to 400 children,that was made at the neighborhood information meeting with respect to the population it could serve. The idea that there would be 400 kids in there at any one time is extremely remote.So,you know,we were almost overstating what the maximum could be because we didn't want it to come back later and bite us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know what the plans are for the rest of the property? MR.HANCOCK: Currently the plans for the northern portion of the property above the dotted line would be an assisted living facility. We have not come in for site development plan approval. We are in the site planning stages with that right now,but that is the current plan of development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything put on the northern part of the property would further buffer the Rock Creek Campground from the activities on the southern part of the property. And with your limitation to the southern part for that particular use,which probably would have been the most intense in the PUD,it seems like they're better protected as long as you've agreed to hold it down to that area. MR.HANCOCK: Yes,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,I've got a question of staff next. Fred,the statement was made repeatedly that this was rushed through. They did the notification process as required by code? MR.REISCHL: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They did the neighborhood information meeting? MR.REISCHL: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They came before this board and they're going before the BCC. Is anything in that rushed? I mean,this seems to be like a standard process. Did something happen that may be giving the impression it was rushed? MR.REISCHL: It's my understanding that we were told that this was fast-tracked because there is a donation awaiting the approval;therefore,we were supposed to--it made it through reviews in the first review,which is unusual,but that's probably due to the simplicity of the change. And,for example,when I get back to the office,hopefully this afternoon,I'll have to enter all this information into the exec software for the executive summary,which was due last week. The deadline is like tomorrow,I think,so--there were certain things that were fast-tracked,but nothing that was omitted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But fast tracking is not omitting any of the processes required that anybody --this has gone through the exact same process as any other rezone would have to go through,correct? MR.REISCHL: Yes,all the advertising,the neighborhood into meeting,this meeting and the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just wanted to make sure that nothing was missed,and that's fine. With that,Tim,do you want any time for rebuttal or comments to close? MR.HANCOCK: No,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any member of the public that was registered to speak who could not--had Page 9 of 19 June 6,2013 not speaked(sic)or wish to speak? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,with that we'll close the public hearing. And I've got three stipulations that if the motion maker wishes to make a recommendation to approve the stipulations might be considered for inclusion. If not,well,that's a whole different story. The three are: Number one,restrict the youth center use to the southernly area of the property as shown on the master plan. Two: Add the word"or"between the references in Exhibit F,transportation section four. So it would be A,B,C and D would all have the word"or"after them and then we'd add a new section called E that will have a not to exceed clause of 143 p.m.peak hour trips for the entire PUD. So that means no matter what the youth center takes up,they can't exceed the total of 143 in addition to the youth center and whatever goes on the north side of that property. MR. REISCHL: Could you just restate that?Not to exceed 143. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Peak--how many-- MR.REISCHL: P.m.peak hour? MR.HANCOCK: It's the exact wording under Item B under the limitation, 143 p.m.peak hour. MR.REISCHL: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because that is the cap.And that also further protects Rock Creek,because the facility that would go on the north then would have to have uses that would generate less traffic because the youth center took up whatever chunk of traffic there was.So all those things may help to minimize the concerns of the northern neighbors. With that in mind,is there a motion from anybody on the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: From Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. I make a motion to pass PUDA-PL201300000886,the Meridian Village mixed use,with the stipulations that Mark recorded. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,the motion maker--it was a recommendation to approve made by Diane Ebert,seconded by Ms.Homiak. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. So we thank you all for your time. I hope that-- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Do we do the consent? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes,we're going to that. But I hope that this works for you. I think we've got good restrictions there,so-- The last item is--and then we'll come back and ask that this be approved as a consent matter at this hearing. Diane,did you want to make another motion to that effect? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes,I'll make a motion to approve on consent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Ms.Homiak. Page 10 of 19 June 6,2013 Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. Thank you for reminding me. MR.HANCOCK: Thank you,Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,appreciate it. Thank you very much. ***And with that,we will move on to the last item on today's agenda--well,first of all,is there any old business? Any members of the panel have any old business to discuss? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none,we'll move to new business. ***And this is a discussion to merge the EAC with the Collier County Planning Commission. Mike Bosi is going to provide us with information. Mike? MR.BOSI: Good morning,Commissioners.Mike Bosi,Interim Director of Planning/Zoning Services. My role here is really kind of just to describe what was provided in the executive summary at the last meeting of the Board of County Commissioners May 28th,and kind of get the discussion going and just I guess stand back. On the 28th of May,Commissioner Henning initiated Agenda Item 11.C. Within that agenda item recommendation for direction was sought from the Board of County Commissioners to have the County Attorney bring back to the Board consideration of an ordinance abolishing the EAC,the Environmental Advisory Council,along with an ordinance that would amend the--establish an ordinance for the Planning Commission which relates to the composition. And in that modification towards the Planning Commission's duties,one of the things that is being proposed is to review of environmental considerations,basically blending the EAC's role with that of the Planning Commission. One of the concepts that was proposed,and it's a proposal,within the executive summary was reducing the membership of the Planning Commission from nine members to seven members,with one member from each of the individual districts and two members at-large,one being an environmental expertise,the other being rural agricultural expertise would be the two areas of concentration for the at-large members. With that,it was sought and it was discussed with the EAC at their meeting yesterday. And today we're looking for some feedback from the Planning Commission upon some of these proposed ideas. Maybe your perspective or modifications or maybe new directions in terms of what you think in terms of the composition of the Planning Commission should be based upon this proposed change,if it is indeed a recommendation from the Planning Commission to absorb those EAC functions as directed by the Board of County Commissioners. And I do have--1'm going to unlock this computer and I have a summary of the EAC's recommendations yesterday. I have that summary on the computer so I can put it up--as I'm doing that,I guess we could just start the discussion with the individual members,Chair. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,I don't know what the other board would like to do first,but we have members--1'm anxious to hear what members of the public that are here have to say on it before our discussion. And I know we have at least two people here to discuss it. Page 11 of 19 June 6,2013 So Mike,did you want to go further or do you want to have discussions by the public? MR. BOSI: Probably I would say that the public discussions,and in that meantime I will--and I think each one of the Planning Commission members were provided a copy of the letter,but I'll bring the summary of those pages up and then we can discuss all those issues,probably would be the best. So Chair,at your direction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'd like to hear from the public and then we could go into discussion on what our conclusions might be. And I know Bob's here and Nicole. Bob,do you want to address this first? MR. KRASOWSKI: Ladies first. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,how about you,you're closer. She's got a cold. MR.KRASOWSKI: As if there was a choice. Actually,I'd really like to hear what Mike has to say as far as transmitting what the Environmental Advisory Council said. Because I was there yesterday. So I want to see how it moves through the two and gets to you. And listen to,you know,your comments so I can hone in on what I want to say. But if you want me to talk right now,we'll do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,we can—I'd rather keep this somewhat informal,because we're looking for input. And if you feel you have better input after we discuss it further,that's fine. What Mike will probably say is what's on the overhead,and what we all have in front of us. So-- MR.KRASOWSKI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay? And then see if--I don't know if Nicole wants to say anything now or wait later? MS.JOHNSON: Wait. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Okay,Mike. MR.BOSI: Basically this was a summary that was provided. And I can just read it for the listening audience,because it is kind of difficult to read. Chairman Dickman moved the following recommendations to Collier County Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners: Number one: If it is determined the EAC should continue to function,the role is expanded to allow for more comprehensive environmental review of land development applications. That was the first recommendation. The second recommendation: If it is determined that the EAC should be consolidated with the CCPC,the following is recommended:The membership be balanced with adequate environmental representation. If the CCPC is compromised of seven members and three members are environmentally qualified. If ifs nine members,then four members be environmentally qualified. The minimum qualifications for an environmental member are expertise in surface groundwater quality,threatened endangered species,as well as knowledge of other environmental agencies'regulations. C: The CCPC have a strong focus on implementing the watershed management plan. D: The purpose of consolidation should not be to speed up development but to protect the environment and the county's natural resources and look at projects comprehensively. E: Adequate staff be dedicated to perform an environmental review of land development applications and made available to provide input to any--at any CCPC hearings. F: Any CCPC staff reports prepared for land development application should contain a section dedicated to environmental review. G: Require any cases heard by the Hearing Examiner to be reviewed by the county environmental staff with input at the hearings as necessary. And finally H: Any proposal for consolidation of the two bodies be vetted by the EAC. And it was seconded by Mr.Sorey,and the motion was carried unanimously. And that's basically the summary of what was conducted yesterday during the discussion with the EAC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,thank you. Page 12 of 19 June 6,2013 Are there any discussions from this panel? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you have something,Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well,I think we're actually looking at two different things. To me, one is to contract the CCPC from nine to seven. And then the other one is to merge the two. And I'd like-- my first comment is about reducing from nine to seven. I don't like that idea because I think District 5 needs two members,one from Immokalee and one from Golden Gate. Immokalee is very different. Our population is different,our needs are different. I've noticed that when I've been on this board and things from Immokalee have come up,I've been able to give contributions based upon knowledge that I have from living in Immokalee that other people wouldn't have. I mean,not to say that they couldn't get it,but it's different when you actually live in a community that's very distinct. So I think that District 5 needs two members. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I'll certainly jump in,if-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: No,go ahead and jump in,Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're not restricted to limit our discussion to strictly seven members on this Planning Commission. We can make a recommendation of whatever we think would be more fair. I have tried to understand how this could fit better. I certainly believe that one member from each district is sufficient,as long as there's other at-large to make up any shortfalls that that one member may have. And Paul has a good point,District 5 is the biggest district in Collier County,and it has a unique municipality--well,it's not really a municipality,but has a unique let's call it urban area within it that isn't like any other in Collier County,and has circumstances unlike any other. And that is Immokalee. So what I would suggest we might want to consider,and I'm not sure it does--as far as the concerns of the EAC,a lot of those are going to be set by the Board of County Commissioners when they set up their criteria for the position. And I think the Board's already well aware of what an environment representative should be and will probably consider the statements already made by the EAC when they look at the qualifications. I feel comfortable there. I think that when staff is needed to be here they show up adequately to defend their positions,and I think the minimal amount of staff here is better than the maximum because it's hard--it takes away a lot of productive time to sit in these meetings. And so if we know that there's an environmental issue,they can be here. And they're only a short distance away if we had to wait for testimony from a specific staff member. So I believe that is one way or another covered. As far as how to comprise the new board,if one was voted that way,I think if we have one from each district,that's five. One from Immokalee,that's six. And three environmental representatives at-large. That's a total of nine,right back where we are now. And that gives us a cross section that may help with the environmental community,it leaves the potential to have an Immokalee representative,and then each district still has the--to what some have today, just one representative here. That may be a fairer recommendation to the Board than trying to pack the fair-- all environmental representation into one or two at-large. So at the same time I saw the BCC meeting in which this was discussed,and of the two in the seven configuration,the two at-large,only one would be environmental. And it was suggested one be from the agricultural area.Well,our agricultural area is Immokalee so I think we can cover that through Immokalee. And likewise,any of the three at-large environmental people are going to be more sensitive to the agricultural rural area,probably than they are in the urban area,because the agricultural rural area is where we've got the most potential growth and that's where more people have the biggest focus. So that's my thoughts on it. And we'll hopefully hear from Bob and Nicole any comments they have. But that does provide a little more balance. A few more bodies on this--bring this board back up to nine. I know the thought was by reducing it we can save time--not time as much as money by the packages,the submittals and all that.And--but if staffs going to be here for seven,they can be here for nine. So that cost goes away. Two more packages is no different than what we got today. The process to move this together as one board is what will save time. The fact we got three,four, five,six,seven staff members here now is what you've got to carry at most of your meetings,or more. That's Page 13 of 19 June 6,2013 where the tax dollars are going a lot to cost. And if we can consolidate that cost but still be effective and cover the bases,then I think this should be looked at as positively as possible. That's my suggestion. And if we can hear the speakers or we can— COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'd like to— CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: My notes here that I made are almost the same. I would like to see it stay at nine if this is going to change or be consolidated,and have one person from Immokalee--one from each district,one from Immokalee and either two environmental and one rural east of 951 or have three environmental.But definitely we need somebody from Immokalee. I think it's a-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree. And my concern with going with one east of 951 specifically, which is District 5,in addition to the Immokalee,it what's puts a weight on the Planning Commission that could be considered unbalanced by some other districts by having three then from the District 5 area. Because you'd have one east of 951,which would be District 5,most likely,you'd--and some of Commissioner Fiala's district overrides in that area. But there is--it's primarily District 5. You'd have the Immokalee representative,which would be District 5. And then you'd have one district representative,which would be District 5. And some other districts may feel they've been slighted by having that many--that's the only reason I suggested three in one,because it gives the balance a little better,a little fairer spread. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: But on the other hand,it kind of makes me think of giving the impression that without the environmental advisory board we don't care that much about--I mean,you know,I looked up other counties that they have the Planning Commission,and they have environmental advisory boards too.And some of the environmental boards have more members than the Planning Commission. So they have two--you know,some of them have two members from each district on their environmental board. I mean,you know,it's all different. It's pretty interesting,actually,to look at the configurations. But,you know,it's not that they don't have them. Pm not so sure speeding up the process is the thing. I think taking the time and doing it right is more important. So,you know,I'm kind of either way. But if it goes that way,I would definitely want it to be nine members. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: I agree with that. I agree with your comments,Mr.Chairman. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: This is not going to be speeded up right away,meaning there's a lot of things-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know what— COMMISSIONER EBERT: --that have to be done,correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have no idea. I mean,sure,we've got to change some of our documents. There'd have to be an LDC amendment or some--maybe it's in the Code of Laws now;I don't remember. MR.BOSI: There's two enabling ordinances for the creation of the EAC and the Planning Commission. Both of those would have to be amended. They'd also have to talk with the County Attorney's office. But I imagine each one of you would have to reapply for the--we'd have to vacate the entire Planning Commission and then we--just in terms of fairness. Because how do I make the determination between who stays and goes from the current membership? That's not--I mean,what I would envision,if we would have to--everyone would have to reapply from each individual persp--whether a district or whether from an environmental perspective to fmd the right candidates. If it would be that nine with a three one and then the representation that you had mentioned,Mark,or whatever that configuration would be. So there is still a lot of mechanics that would have to be worked out. The enabling ordinances or resolutions would have to be adjusted as well. So there would be some modification. And there would probably be--and I don't think this would be necessary at the beginning,but we'll have to follow up with amendments to our Land Development Code for whatever where we reference within the Planning Commission,or at least the EAC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. And if we went to the nine,the EAC is five,so potentially three of those five could apply if their qualifications remain the same as they do on the EAC for the three at-large Page 14 of 19 June 6,2013 positions on the Planning Commission. And not only that,the remaining two or all five could theoretically represent their districts,if we were short on a district representation,like we are from the City of Naples district when Ms.Ahern resigned. There was only one representative from that district and that's still up for appointment. And that could end up being someone that's on the EAC right now. So they could actually make up their commission for the most part by reapplying for this board. So in essence we combine two boards,but we shrink this board by four members,two of which we're already short of.And then go from there. And if we have the Immokalee member,actually I can't imagine a better candidate right here. So we actually man up with six of our members. We're only--we're down to seven now,so that's--we're getting pretty close. So anyway,with comments from the public,maybe this is a suggestion we can follow through on. So Bob,do you want to take a stab at it? MR.KRASOWSKI: Did you see I was further behind? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes,but Nicole kept giving me the sign,get him first. MR.KRASOWSKI: Yeah,I understand. I'm not a dumb guy. So I'd like to offer some opinions on this,in my humble public perspective. I very much agree with the County Commissioners'review of their commissions and councils. You know,I think that's really good reason for it. But it's a little scary,though,to me as a public member to have them being considered eliminating the Environmental Advisory Council.They've been very deflated recently in their abilities and charges,and-- but a while back they were a little more effective. And then also I think there could be improvements beyond that. I envision an Environmental Advisory Council that would just be aware of all of the projects and programs,move it from the staff or from the public that move through the system. And they could be mandated to look at the County Commission agenda to see what's on there and what's going on around them and opine on the environmental impact of anything. You know,they're kind of restricted,as you folks are,you're restricted to the rules and regulations, the laws,ordinances and that.But I think in the environmental community,they can kind of go outside and be a little broader thinking and kind of hone it down and then offer an opinion and then with them still existing is an Environmental Advisory Council,and then you,it all goes up to the County Commissioners and they make their decision. I know Commissioner Nance suggested that you already have like in the community The Conservancy,the wildlife organization and the Audubon,which are,you know,great groups and they all do a lot,you know,and they have a high level thinking standard. But they don't always get it right,you know. And so just to assume that having them coming in front of you as a condensed body would offer us anything better than having a focused group on environmental issues in the community,I don't think that necessarily guarantees anything. So,you know,I know it's not your decision. If there is a condensing,I think the nine-member board is kind of necessary.But I would think five of the members would be environmental. And four,you know, although every environmentalist has their--you know,they're confined to the reality of Collier County government or else they won't get appointed to the Board,you know,so to speak,I mean,in general terms. So let me see if I have any other notes.I might have said-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just I don't want to hear anything about oil wells,okay? We're not here-- MR.KRASOWSKI: That's on the other side.Oil wells and nesting turtles. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Bob was going to speak on oil wells the other night,and it was a pretty testy meeting. MR.KRASOWSKI: It was. It was kind of hyper and confusing. But I have to apologize to Commissioner Nance,because on the agenda it said 8:30 cut off public comment,but he even went to 9:00, but it was 8:36. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He did an excellent job on controlling a very-- Page 15 of 19 June 6,2013 MR.KRASOWSKI: Yeah,contentious. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. KRASOWSKI: Well,it's hard,because people are emotional. And I don't know if you'll come some day to hear that issue. It might fall into some-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who knows. Anyway,I retracted,sorry. MR.KRASOWSKI: That's okay,you're the Chair. So just to kind of in conclusion,okay,I support maintaining the Environmental Advisory Council. And I wish they would have explained that was their preference. They didn't. They want to be very cooperative,you know. And maintaining them for that reason,to have that specifically focused body and then you folks do what you do so wonderfully over such a long period of time and then let it all go to the Commission and it gives us a broader opportunity. As far as saving money,I'm very sympathetic to that,but we shouldn't save money at the expense of process. And as the--it starts coming back,the economy's going to start coming back,we're going to have more and more of a workload,and that's going to be very important. And we don't want,you know,all this money from BP oil spill,there's tens of millions of dollars blowing this way,and I hate to think that things are being kind of shut down a little bit and condensed and,you know,to kind of whatever that would be,I don't know,you know,to kind of protect whose interest in best plugged into what's going on. But,you know,let's keep it broad,keep it for the people,and appreciate the opportunity to make my comments without the buzzer going off,you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wish we had it here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: We should get one. MR.KRASOWSKI: We should be self-disciplined. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,Bob. Nicole is next. And I got an announcement to make that Nicole had informed me of,and it's actually a sad announcement. Andrew McElwaine is leaving The Conservancy. And he has been one of the most dynamic and best leaders of that group that I've experienced since I've been in Collier County,and I've been here 37 or so years. Pm going to miss his expertise. He's done a very good job. And I know that whatever groups he's moving to,they're going to be very fortunate. So you have some tough shoes to fill here. MS.JOHNSON: Exactly. And staff certainly has been thrown for a loop on that one. So we will miss him,but we will forge ahead. Nicole Ryan,here on behalf of The Conservancy. And The Conservancy wasn't an advocate of the EAC being consolidated into the Planning Commission,but I believe it was through a unanimous vote of the board,they wanted to do this. And so,you know,we're really looking forward,because we think that there could be some positive things coming from this,as long as it's done properly. And the two biggest areas of concern really are how you roll the functions of the EAC into the Planning Commission and then the composition of membership. I had looked through both of the implementing ordinances prior to getting the suggested way that the county wants to do this,and my initial concern was how do you get all of those functions of the EAC into the Planning Commission ordinance. So I think that—I like how it's being proposed to be done where you're just cross-referencing the Planning Commission will be acting as the EAC. So all of the EAC's duties,function,powers, responsibilities are going to remain intact. And I think that's a positive. And in the future if we decide that we want to split them out again,it will be easier to do. So we like how it's being proposed to be done. Also, in looking at what the EAC does,I hadn't looked at this ordinance for quite some time,and I was surprised at all of the functions and responsibilities that they have.Because it seems like a lot of these things,they really haven't been all that actively engaged in. I would think that at some point when the LDC is changed to reflect all of these changes that the county take a look—for example,it says the EAC implements the water policy pursuant to the LDC. I'm not Page 16 of 19 June 6,2013 sure what water policy that is. So I think that it could be tightened up and more clarification could be given. But that doesn't have to be done right now. So we like how the EAC is cross-referenced in the Planning Commission ordinance. And the second thing is the composition of Planning Commission members. And The Conservancy does not believe that with adding more responsibility to the Planning Commission that it's now time to reduce the number of members. And we very much support Chairman Strain's suggestion of having the five appointees,one from each district,three enviromnental. Right now the EAC has three technical environmental appointees. So you essentially be transferring that over. What you wouldn't be transferring over is those nontechnical appointments. So we think that's a good idea,especially considering the depth and breadth of environmental issues here. You could have someone well versed in wildlife but they're not an expert in wetlands or water quality, hydrology. So it's going to be up to the Board of Commissioners to make sure that their selection of those three people really are across the board in expertise,but we think that's important. And we also agree,having an Immokalee representative is very important. Because Commissioner Midney has really brought a great level of insight to the needs of the Immokalee community. And you just— you can't get that without having someone as that appointee. And I think that that appointee could very easily be that ag.representative. Commissioner Midney certainly knows a lot about the ag.community and how the Eastern Collier County operates. So we're very comfortable with the suggestion of the Chairman. We support that. And we thank you for your time and consideration on this. I know that the BCC had initially said they wanted to reduce the number,but I don't believe that their minds have been made up. So they are very much going to look to you for what your recommendations are, and we ask that you really stand firm on maintaining the nine.Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And that's the conclusion of the public speakers,and a couple comments. I do think that whether it's seven or nine,it's the same impact. Nine here is going to require the same staff members as the same--nearly the same paperwork production,just a couple more packages. So I think the cost effectiveness of seven or nine is about equal. The process to change it to roll the EAC into here actually in my mind elevates the EAC.We are the designated LPA by the Florida statutes to have an environmental segment on this board that can be equal to or greater than the environmental segment that's on the EAC.It actually elevates the--in my opinion the environmental importantness(sic),because we would have three at-large and potentially five more from the districts,depending on who the commissioners appoint. And even Immokalee,Paul's been very sensitive to environmental issues in Immokalee.If he was the Immokalee representative,I equally believe he would be a good environmental representative. Maybe not the technical qualifications,but I sure know he has stood strong for environmental causes since he's been on this board. So there are some advantages. And the elevated level that this board represents from the state statutes I think is an advantage. So my opinion,my consideration would be recommending the--as we've discussed,five,one from each district,one from Immokalee and three environmental individuals which the BCC will determine the technical expertise needed as they roll this further,if they decide to. That's kind of where I come from. Anybody else? Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah,I like your suggestion too,Mark. I think it's a comment about the quality of life. And in order to ensure that what comes through in terms of development is well designed, you have to have checks and balances. And I think having one out of seven an environmentally technically trained person I don't think is enough. I think three out of nine would be better with an Immokalee representative. Because I've seen a lot of change in the composition of this Planning Commission,and we seem to usually get a pretty good balance. But it varies and it's not a guarantee that you'll automatically get a good balance of people who have expertise and interests in certain areas. Page 17 of 19 June 6,2013 So I think having three members who do have some kind of environmental training or expertise would be a good thing for us to have. But I wouldn't be in favor of just one member of the CCPC,one out of seven being environmentally qualified. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're supposed to put a recommendation forward,from what I understand. So does somebody want to make a motion for recommendation? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I guess I'll go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Basically I don't have anything that I disagree with what you said, Mark. Five members,one from each district,one member from Immokalee,and three members who are environmentally qualified. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I certainly think that's a good idea. Does anybody want to second it? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,Barry seconded. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. • COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. Mike,you got your recommendation,so hopefully it's effective. MR.BOSI: Thank you,Chair,Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And that wraps up all of our scheduled business. Any further public comment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,we're done with that. And anybody here have any comments to make? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,with that,is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So moved by Karen. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Diane. All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're adjourned. Page 18 of 19 June 6,2013 Thank you all very much for coming today. ******************* There being no further business for the good of the County,the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:00 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Acu/4 /9)d,„&_6„.> MARK TRAIN,Chairman These minutes approved by the board on_ °/1" (.3___as presented or as corrected j,.✓. Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service,Inc., by Cherie'R.Nottingham. Page 19 of 19