Loading...
CCPC Minutes 02/15/2007 R February 15, 2007 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida February 15, 2007 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 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Lindy Adelstein Donna Reed Caron Tor Kolflat Paul Midney Robert Murray Brad Schiffer Russell Tuff Robert Vigliotti ALSO PRESENT: Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Dev. Review Joseph Schmitt, Community Dev. & Env. Services Jeffrey Klatzkow, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 AGENDA Revised COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2007, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 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 ORGANIZA TION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAYBE 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 A V AILABLE 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 VERBA TIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY CLERK 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - DECEMBER 21, 2006, REGULAR MEETING 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - JANUARY 9, 2007, REGULAR MEETING 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Petition: CU-2005-AR-8748, Ashraf Fawzy, represented by Alan V. Roseman, of Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A., requesting a conditional approval in the Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to allow aquaculture per Section 2.04.03 "Table 2" of the Land Development Code (LDC). The subject property, consisting of 15 acres, is located at 2060 Tobias Street, in Section 22, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Carolina Valera) 1 >-"----~._..._~"...~.."~..,.- .. -'-,>",,,,,,-~,_.,,.~...,- 9. OLD BUSINESS 10. NEW BUSINESS Request the Collier County Planning Commission to review and choose dates for their upcoming meetings on AUIR 2007, including dates for the actual AUlR 2007 hearing, between the CCPC and the Productivity Committee as follows: BCC CHAMBERS . .LOSS WqFfKSHOP CCPC/PC Ma -07 5/21/2007 5/25/2007 5/24/2007 BCC CHAMBERS 2007 AurR ""tg~ CCPC/PC Oct-07 10/15/2007 10/16/2007 (out 4:30 pm) 10/26/2007 10/29/2007 CD&ES 6091610 2007 AUU~ ""tg~ CCPC/CP Oct-07 10/9/2007 10/18/2007 10/23/2007 10/25/2007 10/30/2007 Would require approximately 2 days in May 07, and the hearing in Oct. 07, approximately 3 days, with 2 Extra pending, in case the meetings need to continue. 11. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 13. ADJOURN 02-15-07/CCPC AgendaIRB/sp/mk CD&ES 6091610 LOSS WOFff<SHOP CCPC/PC Ma -07 5/29/2007 2 February 15, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the February 15th, meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If you'll all please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #2 ROLL CALL BY CLERK CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And I wasn't sure we were starting at the right time today, because Mr. Midney's here. Ms. Caron, could you take roll, please. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Ms. Caron is here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Present. COMMISSIONER CARON: And Mr. Tuff? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Here. Item #3 Page 2 February 15, 2007 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any addenda to the agenda? It's a huge agenda today, one item. (No response.) Item #4 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, hearing none, we'll move on. Planning commission absences. Ray, the next regularly scheduled meeting is our next meeting, if I'm not mistaken. That's the, what, 1 st of March? MR. BELLOWS: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody knowing they're not going to be here on the 1st of March? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the one after that, which is only a few days later, is March 5th. And that's going to be our first meeting on the GMP amendments. Item #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - DECEMBER 21, 2006, REGULAR MEETING Okay, approval of minutes from December 21st, 2006. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Move. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Murray, seconded Page 3 February 15, 2007 by Commissioner Vigliotti. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Item #6 BCC REPORT - RECAPS - JANUARY 9,2007, REGULAR MEETING Ray, the BCC report and recaps. MR. BELLOWS: Yes, on February 13th the board met and they heard Petition SV-AR-9962, which is the Wal-Mart sign variance. The board of zoning appeals approved that by a vote of 4-1, subject to the Collier County Planning Commission recommendations. They also heard the 1-75 Alligator Alley PUD amendment, and that was approved 5-0. And the rezone for Livingston Greens was approved 4-1. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great, thank you. Item #7 Page 4 February 15, 2007 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT The chairman's report for today. I have two issues, Ray, I'd like to kind of touch base on you with. The first one is getting the packages that we receive out to the applicants that are involved in the program. I've been told numerous times that applicants don't receive the same package or the complete package as we do. And I know that it's a public document. I also would assume it's somewhat electronically. And I'd like to ask that staff make an effort to make sure that at the time we get ours the applicants receive an identical package to -- that we receive so that -- this is not supposed to be trial by ambush, and I think it only be fair that they have the same reading matter that we have so they know where we're coming from in our questions and format. MR. BELLOWS: Yes, that did come up a few weeks ago, and we have -- I have started the process to change our procedures. It's been a long-standing way of just e-mailing the petitioner or copying just the staff report itself and not the entire package that you guys get. And we are going to do that. That is in the works. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a reason, when you create the nine packages for us, you just didn't create a tenth and send them the entire package? Because some of the stuff we receive may be less or more than what is submitted by the applicant. MR. BELLOWS: I think historically it was felt that as the applicant they already have all that information, so we were just copying the staff report. But sometimes there are changes to certain documents such as an EIS or TIS. And sometimes the applicant doesn't come with that. So it does make sense when questions arise from this board to the applicant that they have the same document so they know what you're referring to. That is an understandable request and we are going to try Page 5 February 15, 2007 to get that implemented as soon as possible. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And I have another issue that is an old and dear issue to me, and that's the redundancy within the PUD language. I had some information provided to me a few days ago about a PUD that started just a couple of months ago. And the applicant had submitted the PUD, lacking some of the redundant language. And it got rej ected, demanding that the redundant language be put back in only so it can come here so we can take it back out again. Ray, that isn't really the spirit of what this board's been trying to do in working with you on this. Is there some way that maybe -- MR. BELLOWS: I'd like to know who made that request. Because I've told repeatedly to the principal planners for all redundant language to come out. It may have been one of the separate reviewers not under my supervision. But the planners are supposed to work with them to take it out. They have the authority from the division administrator to take out redundant language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I'll suggest that the applicant's representative get in contact with you. MR. BELLOWS: Please do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Item #8A PETITION: CU-2005-AR-8748~ ASHRAF FA WZEY That brings us to our first advertised public hearing. It's Petition CU-2005-AR-8748. The Ashraf Fawzy -- actually, it's an aquaculture application for 2060 Tobias Street. All those wishing to participate in this discussion, please stand to be sworn in by the court reporter. Page 6 February 15, 2007 (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there disclosures on the part of the planning commission? I had a conversation yesterday with Richard Y ovanovich in that he asked me one particular question that today I'm prepared to answer for him, and he's not going to like the answer. With that, I'd like to talk about a procedural issue before we get into this presentation. After reviewing this package, it became apparent to me that this property was in a sending area. It was also in a NRP A, a natural resource protection area. And it also has an ST overlay for wellfield W-2 and W-3. All three of those issues speak to a certain level of sensitivity on the property environmentally. It also has a recorded panther telemetry point within the property as well. Now, when you add all those up, it seems that this certainly is a project that should have been reviewed by the EAC. And in my reading of the Growth Management Plan and in my reading of the Land Development Code, it certainly is a project that should have been required to have an environmental impact statement. Now, I understand there's been some concern that the EIS was waived because of someone's belief that this was a permitted use by right under the sending land category. In studying that, after being questions by the applicant's counsel yesterday, I don't believe it is a permitted use by right under sending land category by my reading of both the Land Development Code, the GMP and Florida statutes pertaining to the Right to Farm Act. Based on all that, it's the discretion of the chairman of this board to be able to remand this proj ect back to the EAC for review, and that is what I am wanting to do here today, pending any objection from legal counsel. MR. KLA TZKOW: None. It's your power. Page 7 February 15, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow, when this is remanded back to them, the EAC is a board that I believe looks at environmental issues, not zoning issues; is that a proper assumption? MR. KLA TZKOW: That's their -- that's their primary mission is to review environmental issues for the board to make recommendations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will they review this on the basis of its designations as sending land and NRPA and possibly STW-2 and 3 in lieu of its presumptive use as a permitted use by right under the LDC? I mean, I don't want them -- I would hope they wouldn't focus on the zoning issue of whether or not this is a permitted use by right, but they would focus on does the property meet the criteria ofNRPAs and sending and the other categories. MR. KLATZKOW: We can certainly take your direction to them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good. I think the zoning matter needs to be left to this board and the other issues need to be left to the EAC. Is there any comments from the planning commission on this course of direction? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I support your action, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Isn't there criteria for when something goes before the EAC? Then -- because why are we here if this is something that should go before the EAC? CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Well, there is criteria. Part of that is which -- is if there was an EIS provided on this project it would have had to go before the EAC. The EIS was waived for some reasons, all of which are not real clear. I haven't myself understood why. But even regardless of all that, Section 8.06.030 of our Land Development Code provides that the chairman of the planning Page 8 February 15, 2007 commission can remand back to the EAC any project that we wish to. Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I was just interested to hear, you know, what the county staff had to say about the reasons why they didn't ask for an EIS. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow, if we entertain discussions like that, is that something that we can go into and still move this back? I don't want to get into a full presentation. I think it would be a lot of redundant waste of time today. MR. KLATZKOW: You have the absolute right on your own to remand this to the EAC for their review. If you want to take comments now, that's your prerogative as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Y ovanovich, I bet you have a comment, don't you? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I would hope that at least the petitioner would be allowed to be heard on the issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't want you -- I'd like to stay to the issue -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- in regards to the statements just made. We're not into the presentation of this particular case yet. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich, on behalf of the petitioner. I feel like I have to address a couple of the comments the Chairman made, because it seems to be those were the bases for why you believe this should go back to the EAC. First of all, agricultural uses are in fact a permitted use within sending lands. There's no question about that. What we're here to discuss today is the digging of a hole to implement the agricultural uses, not the agricultural use itself. That zoning decision has been made in the Land Development Code. The reason we -- and frankly, we have been in this process for well Page 9 February 15, 2007 over a year, dealing with environmental staff predominantly to finally get our day here. It has been an expensive, burdensome process for my client to go through. And then to find out yesterday, the day before the hearing, that there's a potential that we've got to go back to square one and start over again is not fair, it's not right, and it's unnecessary . We're here to dig a hole. That's the zoning issue before -- actually we're not even here because we want to dig the hole. We're here because in digging the hole we'll have to remove more than 4,000 cubic yards of dirt off the property. But be that as it may, we object to having to go back to the EAC. We object to having to do an EIS, because we don't believe an EIS is required under the Land Development Code for this particular piece of property . And with that, we want that on the record, and we think it's unnecessary, it's unfair, and we should be allowed to proceed today based upon the circumstances. Your environmental staff has reviewed the application. There's a recommendation from them and your other staff that this should be approved. And I would hope that they would not make that recommendation if they felt that they did not have the right information in front of them. And with that, our obj ection is noted for the record, and we'll see what the planning commission wants to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the planning commission has already decided this is going to go back to the EAC, Mr. Y ovanovich. As far as the debate goes on the merits of that issue, the EAC requirements were not supposed to be waived in cases where there was -- for example, the GMP says exemptions shall not apply to any parcel with an ST or an ACSC-ST overlay, or within the boundaries of sending lands or NRP As except for single-family homes or as otherwise allowed by the ST or ACSC-ST criteria. Page 10 February 15, 2007 This property triggers at least three of those categories. I don't know why or how the EIS was deemed to be waived on that for that reason. But I certainly as a board member here do not agree with that. Now, staff can take any position they want if it falls back on the agricultural use as being a requirement for an allowable use within a sending land. What is allowed is agricultural uses consistent with Sections 163.3162 and 823 .14( 6) of Florida Statutes, which is the Florida Right to Farm Act. Within that act is a reference to another section of statutes which is Section 193.461. 193.461 pertains to bona fide farm operations, of which your property is not, from my reading of that statute. And therefore, I don't believe, based on that, that you have a sending land capability for permitted use by right. And one step further. If you look at the rural fringe documents, and I have them, and I'll actually read them to you so there's no misunderstanding -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: You spoke a little quick for me. Can you tell me what's -- 193 point what? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 193.461. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Is that the basis for why you think we shouldn't be here today? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's part of the basis. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Do you not have a copy in your backup as we provided this to your staff, a copy of the exemption given by the property appraiser under 193.461? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The property appraiser does not classify agriculture in the same manner that Florida Statutes does. If you read 193.461, Florida Statute classifies agriculture by the word bona fide farm operations. And it defines what that is. This property doesn't qualify as a bona fide farm operation. The sending lands -- you have three lands in the rural fringe: You have receiving, you have neutral and you have sending. In the Page 11 February 15,2007 receiving and neutral, the agricultural operations are very clearly defined. It will actually state what agricultural operations are permitted uses by right, and the references to the Right to Farm Act are not there. They do show up, however, only in the sending lands. Now, someone intentionally changed that designation and that intention of those three codes. Two of them are consistent. One is not consistent. And I believe in reading the Florida Statutes that that was changed because there's a clear delineation between what the tax assessor sees as agriculture and what Florida Statute sees as agriculture. And that is where my concern comes in. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, there's -- since you've got all that on the record, I want to put on the record also that there's no question that aquaculture is in fact a bona fide farming operation and is allowed on the property. And that's what we're proposing to do. We have an existing farming designation that has been approved under 193.461, which is what's required under 163.3162. So we have the requirements. We're clearly under this provision of the Florida Statutes. Again, we believe we are under the statute and we're allowed to proceed forward today. However, I understand that the chairperson has the right to send this back to the EAC. The question I would like answered, so I don't come back here today -- come back in a month or whenever it is, is that are we going to have to do an EIS before we go to the EAC? Because I don't want to go to the EAC without an EIS and then come back up here again and find out that the planning commission disagrees and believe we should have to do an EIS. You have the right to send it to the EAC, but I don't know that the planning commission has the right to dictate that an EIS be done. And I just don't want to keep going around in a circle. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Richard, I don't disagree with you. Page 12 February 15, 2007 I know we have the right to send it to the EAC. I agree with you that it's staffs issues on the EIS. But staff has to abide by the codes and laws of this county, and those are interpreted by our county attorney. So I would hope that the county attorney would weigh in on the precedence of the GMP over the LDC in this regard. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Actually, Mr. Strain, if I might -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The Board of County Commissioners is MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, actually, what happens is the Land Development Code says that staff interprets the land -- MR. BELLOWS: For the record, it's the zoning director that has that authority. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Now, the attorney will give them advice. They will give advice as to whether or not they agree with staff. And as an attorney, I know sometimes the client doesn't always listen. But it is still the client's call, and then it goes up the chain of command. I believe your staff has already made that determination that we don't have to do an EIS. And if we have to go to the EAC, we'll go to the EAC. I just don't want to come back again and then get stuck with -- I don't want to be a push me/pull you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe I should ask the county attorney then instead of the Land Development Code as a reference, since my concerns come from the GMP language, who has the right to interpret the GMP, Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: At the end of the day, you are a local planning agency. You are responsible for the compo plan, not staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. MR. KLATZKOW: What I would say to petitioner is that there is an EIS requirement in Policy 6.1.8 within the Growth Management CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you just --let Mr. Klatzkow finish, please. Page 13 February 15, 2007 MR. KLATZKOW: There's Policy 6.1.8 in our Compo Plan, and it requires an EIS, all right? And if at the end of the day it's held that in this instance an EIS will be required, then I would venture to say if you go to the -- you go at your own peril. If you want to take a position that as a matter of right you don't need to do an EIS, you go at your own peril. Because at the end of the day if the Planning Commission or the Board of County Commissioners finds an EIS was in fact required, then you're going back to square one. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Look, believe me, every property owner in Collier County goes through this process at their own peril. It's a long process. Again, I'm a little frustrated that we're into this thing well over a year and a half to find out that now county staff apparently didn't know what the rules were and we're getting sent back when we spent all this time and effort to resolve the issue. If I'm being told we have to do an EIS because if I don't we're going to be told we had to do one, is that the interpretation of staff that I have to do an EIS? And is that the interpretation of the county attorney's office that I have to do an EIS? Mr. Klatzkow, I don't want to -- just tell me I have to do one or I don't. MR. KLATZKOW: What I will tell you is this: The planning commission, okay, when it is approving a development order, must make sure that it's consistent with the Compo Plan. If they do not feel that at the end of the day this is consistent with the Compo Plan because there's no EIS, that's their ruling. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you run the risk of a negative vote if that is our ruling. So-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can I ask you to poll the board so I don't go through this? You know, I'm not trying to be obstinate, I just want to know what I need to do. Do I need to -- am I going to have to do an EIS for the majority of the board to at least consider the issue of consistency with the Page 14 February 15, 2007 Camp. Plan? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have no problem with that. How many members of this panel would render the decision that an EIS would be required for this property? Please signify by raising your hands. COMMISSIONER CARON: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: (Indicating.) One, two, three, four, five. Okay, those who feel an EIS is not necessary? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well-- and it's not that I feel it's not -- Mark, it's a difficult vote, because I would assume the requirements for the EIS are clearly laid out somewhere. And that is where -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: GMP. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In what section of the GMP? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Policy 6.1.8 of the CCME. Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: I'd like to put on the record -- for the record, Joe Schmitt, your Administrator of Community Development and Environmental Services Division. If the applicant wants to argue whether an EIS is required for this petition, the best way to go about it is to submit for an official interpretation. If it's a GMP -- interpretation of the GMP, that interpretation will go to the comprehensive planning director. If it's an interpretation of the LDC, that official interpretation will go to the zoning director. The county attorney then reviews those interpretations for legal sufficiency. So if there's an argument as to whether it is required, then he can go through the official interpretation process. Page 15 February 15, 2007 Yes, the county attorney is correct, you as a local planning authority, you have the authority in regards to whether it is deemed consistent with the Compo Plan. But if this is an argument as to if an EIS is required and they want to pursue that, they can go through an official interpretation. And then that interpretation is rendered by the appropriate authority, either comprehensive planning director or the zoning director. Then they appeal to the board of zoning appeals. That is the proper procedure and that's the way to go on this issue. I don't argue the fact that it may be in his best interest to do an EIS. But if they want a final determination, that is the way to go about it and appeal it to the BZA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mr. Schmitt. I believe that this issue has been -- enough information has been supplied to the applicant on this issue. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd like to hear from staff how this went on for a year and we are now finding out at the last day what's going on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. VALERA: Good morning. Carolina Valera, Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. Your question is in regards to the environmental determination? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. MS. VALERA: Laura is here from the environmental department. MS. GIBSON: Good morning, Laura Roys Gibson, for the record. The reason that we decided to waive the EIS was the background that it's going to be used for aquaculture, which we did feel that was a Right to Farm Act, it was a -- it is a permitted use in sending areas. And as far as the ST designation goes, it's -- when it says EIS shall be Page 16 February 15, 2007 required for ST or ACSC-ST overlays, we felt -- ST is for straight STs, not ST as far as wellfield exemptions go. There are specific areas in the county that are designated just as ST areas, special treatment overlay, that have a specific environmental sensitivity in the county. We have never required any EISs for wellfield zones. We would have a lot of EISs if that was the case. There is -- the only way that I could see -- and you know, I've gone over this with senior staff and my director, too, so -- and at first Mr. Fawzy was going to farm non-native species, so an EIS would have been required for that. But then they went and changed the plan -- or didn't really change the plan, changed the species, so the EIS requirement may be waived in 6.1.8 subject to agricultural uses as defined by 9.J.5.003(2), including aquaculture for native species. If you want to say may be waived and make that a requirement, then we could use that. But I just -- we didn't feel that it was -- that an EIS is a requirement for the site or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Ms., you're focused on the ST. And you said you consciously thought about the ST not applying as a -- because it's an ST with a W attachment instead of a plain ST. MS. GIBSON: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What was your conscious decisions in writing off the fact that it's a sending land and that it's a NRPA, both of which are referenced in the same paragraph as requiring an EIS? MS. GIBSON: Because it also -- just right above that, that is number three, and then number one is the requirement may be waived for agricultural uses. So it doesn't say except for areas within sending or NRP A lands. It's -- that's the way that we looked at it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. GIBSON: And there is a section in the EIS applicability.: Any other development or site alteration which in the opinion of the Page 1 7 February 15,2007 county manager or his designee would have substantial impact upon environmental quality, and which is not specifically exempted in this code could require an EIS. If you want to take a look at that section, too, within the LDC. But we should also look at what their -- we don't believe that there would be any preserve requirements either for this site. There are no wetlands on the site either. So it's -- they will have to go probably pay for some panther mitigation on the site. That's the main environmental concerns, I think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: After reading this, add me to the vote needing the EIS. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sure Richard will understand where this board's intending to go in regards to that document. If he doesn't want to produce it, then we can deal it when he comes back before us. No other comments from the planning commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, then we will end this hearing and this will be remanded back to the EAC, as we direct. Thank you. Is there any other old business that the planning commission needs to bring up at this point? (No response.) Item #10 NEW BUSINESS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: New business. We have a request from the Page 18 February 15, 2007 comprehensive planning department to look at some dates for the AUIR. And my preference, just so you all know, and I think it's in regards to some of our members who have hearing issues, the CDES room is difficult when it comes to those folks for having to set up the microphones and hear properly. So I think in all cases that we can use this room, we should do so, if that meets with the approval of the rest of the board? And the dates, Ray, that we have for this room are the ones that are on the left side columns of each block. So is there any reason, since those rooms seem to be available on those days, we couldn't use them, Mr. Bosi? MR. BOSI: No, these were the options that were available, and we came seeking the preferences of the planning commission. And you've clearly expressed that you would rather have the meetings within the chamber room, so we will act accordingly upon those wishes. I will say that we have, just as being overly cautious, allocated two days within the May proceedings, which is the evaluations of the level of service standards. And then for the actual hearing of the AUIR, we have three days for the hearing of the AUIR in fallback. Unfortunately the fallback days are going to have to be allocated to the CDES location. And I'm sure the planning commission understands because of the constraints of availability. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Mike, let me -- in the chart that was provided on the back of our agenda, left hand column, it starts out BCC chambers, LOS workshop, CCPC, May 7th. That would be the first date that we would meet is May 7th? MR. BOSI: The agenda packet has eliminated the May 7th date. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, that's -- we need to know this. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, we didn't know that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the date-- Page 19 February 15, 2007 MR. BOSI: I'm sorry, I'm looking at the online agenda of the planning commission. And the May 7th has been removed. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: You want to see this? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You might want to-- MR. BOSI: I believe the planning commission, I don't need to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right, well, let's just walk through the dates. It looks like there's another discrepancy here. The other two dates under that column on the left hand side say -- MR. BOSI: 21 st and the 25th would be the two days available in May that the chambers would be available. So those would be your two preferences. And then your fallback date would be the 29th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's slow down. Let's get this. The two dates, the 21 st and the 25th of May are in this room. The fallback position you're talking about on the 29th would be in CDES's workshop. MR. BOSI: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Why wouldn't we just start on May the 7th and the 21 st and have the 25th as our fallback, and then they would all be in this chamber? MR. BOSI: The 7th is no longer available. COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, it's just no longer available. Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So what we will have then is the 21 st, the 25th in this room. And if we have a makeup day, we'll have to make it up over at CDES on the 29th. Now, the next two columns over, Mike, the BCC chambers 2007 A UIR meeting between the two groups, your first date in there was October 7th. Is that still a good date? MR. SCOTT: That's 2007. I think that's what it means. May, October 2007 -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: October, '07. Page 20 February 15,2007 MR. BOSI: Is that where the confusion -- does that -- May 07 and October -- that's the year. I'm sorry. And the specific dates within -- that has the day, month and year are the dates that are available. I think we were -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, if that's a sign that transportation is paying attention, that is good. (Laughter. ) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Don. So if we move down that column, the days for this chamber are October 15th, October 16th, October 26th and October 29th. MR. BOSI: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is everybody okay with that? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mike, those are the four days in October. Is that all the information you needed from us? MR. BOSI: Absolutely. I appreciate it, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mike, it was fun. Okay, we have -- MR. BOSI: I'm sorry, I apologize, Chairman Strain. Ekna Guevara and Noah Standridge from comprehensive planning have the '05 GMP amendments. And we're going to have boxes available I think for each one of you, because there's going to be a considerable amount of information that you're going to be taking home. Just in -- they're going to ask that -- to coordinate to make sure that everyone has a distribution for the upcoming GMP amendments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Does that include the entire amendment or -- because you're going to produce some today and some a week later. Is that still the scenario? MR. BOSI: I believe that for -- you'll have the application Page 21 February 15,2007 packages from all the amendments. The full applications. Now, the staff reports are not attached with these, just the applications, the backup material, everything that's included within those applications. The staff reports we are planning on distribution for the 22nd, I believe, next Friday is when we're going to attempt to have all the staff reports distributed to the planning commission membership. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. We will certainly look forward to grabbing a box on the way out of here. MR. BOSI: Or two. Item #12 DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Public comment? And then discussion of addendum. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I just had a -- something to discuss. I was hoping that -- the past two or three meetings that this commission has had have been one-agenda meetings. And I am wondering if it is possible when there is only one item, essentially one item, that they be put together so that we only have one meeting, as opposed to two meetings with only one item. It doesn't seem to make good use of staff time to tie up a day if there's only one item. And it certainly doesn't seem to make good use of planning commission time as a volunteer group either. And I don't know if there is some constraint because applicants need to have the time that they want or whether it could all be consolidated into one meeting a month if it -- as it happens, there's one boat dock and one fish farm and one whatever. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt? Page 22 February 15,2007 MR. SCHMITT: That's your prerogative. We try -- there's two meetings a month as scheduled. We schedule based on the applications that come in. But certainly the effort has always been, as kind of the pressure that we receive, is trying to accommodate at least the petitioner to get before you. But it's certainly your prerogative if we converse with the Chair and want to cancel a meeting and combine issues with the next meeting, that is entirely up to you. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I agree. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I wouldn't want to push it out of the month. I wouldn't want to push somebody out so that they would miss a BCC deadline or anything like that. But it seems to me that if there is, you know, one boat dock extension, could have been combined with today's meeting and would have been just fine. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, I just want to make it noted that there are some constraints too that we have to work with. One is staff, other priorities or vacations that they may be going on, or the applicant may not be able to attend one week or the other. And sometimes we are forced to have one on one meeting. We do try to combine where possible, but sometimes we have to work around other people's schedules. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it would be the preference of this board to follow Ms. Caron's direction. So if you can, fine. Then we will discuss those agendas as they come up. That would be great. MR. SCHMITT: Would you like us to pass that on to the Chair and let the Chair make a decision? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You do anyway. But you don't tell me -- what you do with the agenda is I receive them, but I receive the upcoming weeks, not two or three weeks in advance. So if I were able to get two agenda packages for conceptual review in regards to consolidation, that might be an easier way to accomplish the goal. MR. SCHMITT: And we could do that. We could tell you, at Page 23 February 15, 2007 least from our forecast, it looks like there may be two on the next upcoming agenda. Naturally, as they do, even with the Board of County Commissioners, we project months out, but oftentimes they slip and about 98 percent of the time they change at the applicant's request, not because of staff. And that's normally what happens in the case here with the planning commission, it will be an applicant who requests a delay for one reason or another. But we will do that. And I think that's a good recommendation, at least on your times, as well as ours. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I would think for staff as well. I mean, there are a lot of people that we require to be here when we have our meetings, a lot of your staff, Joe. So I would think that it would be beneficial to staff as well. MR. BELLOWS: Also I'd like to point out, sometimes we have three or four items scheduled, but due to unforeseen circumstances, continuances result and we end up with one on that particular day. COMMISSIONER CARON: And I'm not talking about that kind of instance, Ray. I mean, we all understand that you can have four items on an agenda and all of a sudden the night before we're down to one. And I'm not talking about instances like that. MR. BELLOWS: The way we try to schedule them is as soon as the petitions come -- are submitted to the county and found sufficient, we assign hearing dates. If it's a PUD rezone, it's seven months from the time it's found sufficient. And it's on the calendar, so we can try to work with them and group them on specific days. But during the review process, there are reasons that may require more resubmittals, and those hearing dates can no longer be met. Then we -- at some point we'll try to reschedule those again. But normally we do try to get more than one on one day. But we will work with you on this. Page 24 February 15,2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And with that, is there a motion to adjourn? Oh, I'm sorry, I apologize. Item #11 PUBLIC COMMENTS Public comment. We've never had public comment. It's just -- and you sat here so often, I wasn't sure if you, like Don Scott, wanted to keep the chair warm or what. MS. PAYTON: No, I stuck around because I wanted to thank you for sending that fish farm back to -- over to the EAC. But I wanted to bring up the issue is that I came here today to not only address environmental concerns we had about the property site, water quality, wildlife depredation, but also the road that's going to be built. And there wasn't any specific reference to the road and the environmental impacts that that road is going to have. When Jessie Hardy dug his aquaculture pond, he started out with a road that I could barely get my Ford Escort down. Once the trucks started coming in and out of there, there was a road that could handle two dump trucks passing each other easily. You could also see the same type of road develop on Sabal Palm Road to handle that. And neither one of those had an EIS, had any permitting review. So I'm urging you to think about that road as well when the EIS is done. Because there are cumulative and secondary impacts to that fish farm. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great. And then for the record, that was Nancy Payton. MS. PAYTON: I'm sorry. Nancy Payton, Florida Wildlife Page 25 February 15, 2007 Federation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you for the information, Nancy. Appreciate it. Okay, with that, is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER TUFF: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by numerous people. Meeting is adjourned. Thank you. Please take your box of fun stuff home with you. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 9:09 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK P. STRAIN, Chairman These minutes approved by the Board on presented or as corrected , as TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM. Page 26