Loading...
EAC Minutes 05/01/2002 RMay 1,2002 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE County Commission Boardroom Building "F", 3ra Floor 3301 Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34104 9:00 AM MINUTES MAY 1, 2002 Chairman Tom Sansbury called the meeting to order at 9:00AM ATTENDANCE: Members: Tom Sansbury, Michael Coe, Alexandra Santoro, Alfred Gal, Ed Carlson, William Hill, Erica Lynne Collier County: Barbara Bergeson, Stan Chrzanowski, Tom Woodings, Paul Matosh, Carol Senne, Fred Reischl, Ray Bellis, Steven Lindberger, Michael Ramsey, Jeff Davidson, Bill Lorenz, Patrick White, Ray Bellows, Marjorie Students II. III. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Since there are no changes Mr. Hill moved to approve of the Agenda, Seconded Mr. Coe, Carried Unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 3, 2002 Mr. Carlson moved to approve the minutes of April 3rd, 2002, Seconded Mr. Coe, Carried unanimously. DISCUSSION OF REVISED LDC 2.6.9.2 .... Essential uses ....Municipal Wellfields. Stan Chrzanowski, Engineer for Planning Services gave a brief history of checking the many of the Municipal wells in the area to make sure they aren't too close to a lake. As a result of checking the wells, they also their GPS (Global Positioning Satellite) and get coordinates on all the wells. Gave them to Mat Hatcher who came up with a working map with location of the wells. It was found that many of the wells did not have a conditional use and the Attorney told them that none of the entities except us would be legally responsible to go through the conditional use hearing because the Water Management District, which holds their own public hearings, would govern everybody else. They are coming to the Committee because they want to be relieved of the same responsibilities everyone else is because of the laws of the State of Florida. Stan introduced Tom Woodings (Interim Public Utilities Administrator) who addressed the well situation also. He stated that in this LDC Amendment he is asking to exempt all essential wells that are particularly county oriented. They need to go to extraction wells to go in front of the South Florida Management District. Through that permitting process he has asked for a representative, Carol Sunning, to address the process for obtaining those permits all the way through to the number of public hearings. The bottom line is they are holding themselves to a high standard but holding the County to standards that they cannot hold other environments such as May 1, 2002 other private wells that are in the area. He is suggesting the Conditional Use process is redundant. One of the key things is Public Notification of which they will do in addition to public notice that is provided by South Florida Water Management District or the Florida Dept of Environmental As County staff, they will make sure the people affected will be notified by them as well as other Departments. He stated they want to make sure they have all the current wells conditionally used permitted and exempted from that process, and any new wells that are dropped into the aquifer, to have those exempt also. Mr. Carlson asked if signage could be on site, and Mr. Woodings said "yes". Stan mentioned since the attorneys told them they are the only ones that can hold themselves to such standards, and not everyone else's shallow wells to that standard, they didn't think it fair to have this conditional use procedure. They would like to grandfather in the existing wells and not requiring the public notification for future deeper wells. Paul Matosh (Director Collier County Water Department) addressed more concerns. He stated they are permitting 5 additional wells in the lower Tamiami aquifer and will not change the consumptive use permit; it is being done for reliability and redundancy purposes only. When one well is down for maintenance, there will be another for a back up - will not change the consumption or the volume of water withdrawal, and already have that use permit from South Florida Water Management District. Carol Senne director of South Florida Water Management District informed the Committee that if a Homeowner called they would immediately send inspectors out & investigate. If there were a problem there ~vould be many things they can do. They would go to the owner and either reduces or stops the pumpage of the well and also mitigate for damages. It could include redrilling the well, or putting in a new well. Carol stated they are in a positioned to protect those off site users. This doesn't happen too often. Carol also stated that they insure to the best of their ability that there will be no offsite impacts before they issue any well permit to anyone, being a municipality or an individual. The participant would have to prove that there would be no offsite impact. Notification was discussed and stated that there are mailings, agendas, and advertisement in the newspaper in the area of permit being issued. Direct mail notification will also receive mailings. The City of Naples has a legal wellfield that has been there for many years, received some complaints and now making the city do a monitoring program and proving that there are no effects on the neighboring system. Permits are issued with short duration and longer for deeper wells. Each is only good for that period of time. When it is renewed again, they have to prove that all new existing legal users and any other environmental conditions that may be there now are all taken into consideration for the new permit. Carol felt there would be deeper wells in the future. She sees this as a collaborated effort with all the utilities working together to find alternative sources and projecting long-term water supply. Need to bring all the best 2 May 1, 2002 technical knowledge to committees such as this. They are looking at long-term solutions, but will be a local decision. Tom stated that they have completed a Master Plan for the future and are all Reverse Osmosis. They are aiming at the lower Hawthorn not Tamiami. He stated they would be requesting that all county wells would be exempted from the conditional use process. Mr. Coe moved to approve the LDC Amendment (Essential uses-Municipal Wellfields) as written. Seconded Mrs. Santoro, Carried Unanimously. Land Use Petitions A. Preliminary Subdivision Plat No. PSP 2000-10-AR 1902/ST-99-3 "Little Island Palm" Section 21, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. Chairman Sansbury asked if any members of the committee have had any discussions concerning the above subject. Mrs. Lynne received an e-mail from Sally Barker that the subject was on the agenda and she mentioned she did receive the package. Tom Sansbury stated that previously the firm that he is employed with, another division of that firm, has had negotiations with the owner of this property regarding a different type of development and those negotiations have been terminated. His employer has no interest in the property. Mr. Sansbury discussed this with Mr. Patrick White and felt there would be no conflict for him to take part in the discussions. All those that will be testifying were sworn in by Mr. Patrick White. Fred Reischl, Planning Services, stated the petitioner is here because of the wetland and ST (Special Treatment) overlay in a particular portion of the development, and the Board has directed this committee and the Planning Commission to consider the entire preliminary plat because of the gopher tortoises scattered throughout the area, and not just the ST permit. Proposed are 109 lots, 86-acre parcel with density of 1.25 units per acre. The underline zoning is RSF3 Residential Single Family - 3 units per acre, substantially below the 3 units per acre that would be the maximum. Discussion followed on the gopher tortoise habitat of how many are on site. Barbara Bergeson, Planning Services mentioned the gopher tortoise burrows have increased and the expectation of the number on site has also increased. Some of the burrows are active and some inactive. It was also noted that some of the locations of the burrows might have changed. Barbara stated that this project does fulfill all the requirements and meets all the goals and objectives and policies for Collier County Conservation and Coastal Management element of the Growth Management Plan. All the tortoises on the 14.5 acres will be retained on the property, and any outside the area will be relocated. The petitioners have already obtained relocation permits from the State and they will find adequate and additional habitat off site. 3 May 1,2002 The State staff reviews these permits and when the County allows up to 5 tortoises per acre the State allows 2 per acre. The State will be the one to monitor the off site relocation in terms of density. Barbara Bergeson brought to the committees attention of some modifications and stipulations on page 8 of their packet. Additional language she wants read into the record states as follows "requiring the gopher tortoise relocation management plan which was submitted for approval, the staff is requiring, prior to final plat constructional plans submittal that following modifications be made to the relocation management plan. D. Add language to require that a thorough gopher tortoise survey be conducted prior to the start of any relocation to update the status and location of all burrows. Add the following language to the first sentence under "Development" prior to the excavation of all active and inactive gopher tortoise burrows. F. That more relocation and management criteria may be required on the plan as a result of discussion and technical support being provided to staffby professionals with expertise with gopher tortoise management. David Farmer, Vice President of Land Development for Keystone Custom Homes, answered questions that were brought up previously. Discussion followed on the State guidelines for permitting relocation of the gopher tortoises. Erica Lynne discussed and asked about maintaining birds in the area and many other organisms in the eco-system. She asked if they knew where the active burrows are now. She is concerned about their movement and the numbers to be relocated. Speakers: Dr. Goldman representing Colliers Reserve Country Club and Colliers Reserve Homeowners Assoc. Dr. Goldman spoke on the above subject of the gopher tortoise, relocation and the respiratory distress syndrome. After many comments and more discussion he stated he is not in favor of this development. Barbara Bergeson wanted it known in the records that when staff visited the site there was no evidence of scrub jays. She felt with the survey that has been done, they have no reason to believe there have ever been any on the site or any at this time. Next speaker: Robert McConnell is President of the Collier's Reserve Homeowners Assoc. He addressed that Keystone has not addressed them as a Board. He contacted Mr. Farmer to set up a meeting for possibly next week. Next speaker: Tony Pierce - Attorney representing Palm River Homeowners Assoc. He stated the developer has had recent discussions with the Board members and various representatives. He feels the more recent surveys are premature such as the data that identifies the active and inactive burrows. Summarizing discussion, Mr. Pierce stated the requests by the Homeowners Assoc. is to have updated and current data before making recommendations and ask for the gopher tortoise area that any fencing easement area be in the Northern most area. They request that this petition not be heard until that data is before the committee. 4 May 1,2002 Next Speaker: Kevin Barnhill - Palm River Homeowners Assoc. Mr. Barnhills concern is the risk to Public Health and Welfare. He supports the conservancy's position. He has seen scrub jays, fox, otter, snook, owls, and other wildlife in the area. Next Speaker: Nicole Ryan -Conservancy of Southwest Florida. A memo was handed to all committee members. She stated their position is for public or private funding to purchase the property for a Tortoise preserve and conservation area. More recommendations they are suggesting are stated in the memo. Nest Speaker: John Belt - Treasurer of Palm River Homeowners - He stated this is the first time they have had an opportunity to speak with the Developer in 21/2 years. Only information received was through the staff of the Development Department of which they had received. Had a meeting with Mr. Farmer & he did answer questions. They are in favor of reducing the number of homes but didn't feel they have done all their homework. He is concerned about the active and inactive tortoises and where they are located. He feels they need to update their data. Next Speaker: Kathleen Avalone - City for the Protection of Animals - Being that it is not a reality purchasing this land they have been working with Keystone and the County for the best possible solution. She asked that all projects that come before the committee dealing with the gopher tortoises and upland habitat receive as much concern as do the wetlands. The lack of protection of the gopher tortoises that it is receiving now will assure an endangered species in the future. A 5 min break was taken at 12:22 Am. Mr. Carlson moved to approve the Petition for the Preliminary Subdivision Plat No. PSP 2000-10-AR 1902/SDT-99-3 "Little Island Palm" with a strong recommendation from the Board with the points in the memo from the Conservancy be conditional to the approval, and the additional stipulations that the staff added. Seconded Mr. Coe. After a lengthy discussion from each committee member, the vote was called with 4 against (Hill, Gal, Santoro & Lynne) 3 For (Carlson, Sansbury & Coe) Motion fails. Mr. Gal moved to deny the Petition for the Preliminary Subdivision Plat No. PSP 2000- 1 O-AR 1902/SDT-00-3 "Little Palm Island". Seconded Alexandra Santoro. Vote was called - 4 For (Hill, Gal, Santoro & Lynne) 3 against (Carlson, Sansbury & Coe). Motion Carried. B. Conditional Use Petition No. 1 CU-2000-22 "Yahl Mulching & Recycling section 31Township 49 South, Range 27 East Anyone that is going to speak was sworn in. Ms. Lynne said Nancy Payton had sent information via e-mail saying there are woodpeckers in the area. Ray Beilis - Chief Planner with Planning Staff- Petitioners are requesting a conditional use for an earth mining facility located on the North side I75 and south side of Washburn Ave. located in the rural area of Collier County. The petitioner is requesting conditional use 2 of the rural agricultural zoning district May 1, 2002 to allow for the expansion of an existing horticultural mulching facility. Purpose is to allow for additional storage area for the existing operation. Steven Lindberger - Planning Services Department - He referred to a map concerning the 5.2 acres of wetlands and mentioned the cypress trees and the woodpeckers in the area. Discussion followed with staff and committee members discussing the age of the pines in the area, woodpecker activity, and water drainage and removing the exotics. Michael Ramsey - Environmental Consultant addressed the same above concerns of the woodpecker activity, the water flowing properly and removing all the malalucas, Brazilian peppers, acacia and any other exotics on the property. Mr. Jeff Davidson - Davidson Engineering - spoke of the water quality and working under the South Florida Water Management criteria. He discussed the flowage and pumping status. Mr. Coe moved to approve the Conditional Use Petition No. CU-2002-22"Yahl Mulching and Recycling" Section 31, Township 49 South, Range 27 East. Seconded Alexandra Santoro, Carried unanimously. It was decided at this time to hear a letter from the Conservancy before breaking for lunch. Speaker Shannon Gromal- representing the Conservancy of Southwest Florida - she referred to a letter in the committees packet concerning the erosion and major damage to plant roots due to beach raking of the sand on beaches. A handout was given concerning debris and different beach site samples from a dumpster per a 5 gallon bucket. Shannon stated the raking should be done on an "as need basis", not every day. She attended a meeting of the Marco Island Beach Advisory Committee and stated her concerns with them. They voted to follow the conservancy's recommendations to limit beach raking on Marco Island. A question was asked who does the raking of which Shannon stated the County does. There are permits issued individually for some property owners so they do additional beach raking in some sections of the County where they don't rake it daily. It was clarified that this is just not the chain-link fence raking that is seen many times on the beaches. Mr. Coe directed the staff to write an Ordinance that prevents any future beach raking at all for any reason other than storm clean-up or fish kill, disastrous type situations, any other type of clean up be done by hand on a weekly basis. Shannon talked about rocks on the beach - that the beach raking is taking care of rocks for manicuring and esthetic reasons. She feels this is a bit extreme and the litter that accumulates isn't excessive that it can be picked up by hand. Bill Lorenz - Natural Resources Director - stated this has been under discussion with his staff and the Coastal Advisory Committee. They have also expressed their concerns on this matter. His suggestion would be to coordinate the EAC and the Coastal Advisory Committee to address this situation and May 1, 2002 recommend a beach nourishment program due to the excessiveness of the beach raking. It will then be communicated to the County Commissions. 12:20 break for lunch. 1:00 - a quorum was established. Alexandra Santoro did not return. OLD BUSINESS: A. Finalize the EAC's Annual Report to the BCC '11 Lorenz - Natural Resources Director - discussed the Annual Rep,o~t. A ~al format will be done for the County Commissioners for their May 28 , 2002 meeting. He suggests someone from the EAC be at that meeting to answer any questions. He needs the report finalized by May l0th, 2002. The report was discussed and changes were made. Committee members are reminded to think about any future plans for the EAC. Mr. Carlson moved to approve the draft with the additions and revisions that were discussed. Seconded Mr. Coe, Carried Unanimously. Mr. Sansbury and Mr. Coe will attend the BCC meeting on May 28th, 2002. Bill Lorenz announced to the committee that the County Commissioners would hold a workshop on May 13th, 2002 on Land Acquisition Program. The Political Action Committee "Vote Conservation 2002" will be approaching the County Commission on putting a ballot on the referendum in November 2002 for Purchasing Environmental Sensitive Land. The committee returned to the Petitions before them. Under V. Land Use Petitions A. Conditional Use Petition No. CU-2001-AR-1912 "Immokalee Road South Project" Sections 29,30,31 and 32, Township 48 South, Range 27 East Mr. Patrick White swore all those testifying in. Tom Sansbury asked if any Committee members have had any discussions on the above subject. Mr. Carlson had a meeting with the Bonita Bay group about this particular project. Ray Bellows - Chief Planner - Petitioner is requesting a conditional use in a rural agricultural zoning district for a stand-alone golf course on the south side of Immokalee Road south of the Twin Eagle Golf Course. Mr. Bellows referred to the map. Barbara Bergeson stated facts concerning the subject property being on 552 acres with 27 acres being wetlands. The site description contained in the handout was discussed. May 1, 2002 The 452 acres of uplands on the site include some oak hammocks with staffrequesting them to be retained. The protected species on site has been identified or potential of identifying a number of species and will be required to provide gopher tortoise relocation management plans for the site if need be. Other species on site were Florida Black Bear, Florida Panther (documented 1 mile from the site) and Big Cypress Fox Squirrel expected to use the site. The requirement by staff is to retain a minimum of 80 acres of native vegetation and a management plan for any of the species that would be or are utilizing the site - be submitted to them before final approval. Speakers: Steve Shaw - Project Manager in the Environmental Division of Wilson Miller. Mr. Shaw covered the subject of approximately 90% uplands, the wetlands area, and the exotics and vegetation on the project site. He referred to the map concerning the areas discussed and where the gopher tortoises are located. He did want to mention that the petitioner is negotiating on a 5-acre parcel adjacent to the project acre. If it is purchased it will be done in advance of the Planning Commission meeting to meet the noticing requirements. Further information was stated on the irrigation water coming from wells, reclaimed water, solid waste being minimal, and archeological and cultural factors (a report may indicate archeological sites on the property). In closing he handed out a list of stipulations that were not covered in the staff report, and covered #4, 5, and 6. At this point he introduced Mr. Bruce Anderson. Bruce Anderson - Attorney on behalf of Property owner. He quoted Stipulation #2, and wanted to make sure they were not giving up their vested status by agreeing to the Stipulation #2. In clarifying he just wants to make sure they did not give up the vested status that the project has. Barbara Bergeson discussed the permitting process for the protection of the habitat and species on site. Mr. Sansbury seemed to think there was a lot of duplication in the process. A lengthy discussion followed. Steve Shaw stated that part of the petitioners concern is that they are trying to do things properly and what is suggested by the agencies and felt that the entire stipulation #4 would be acceptable if they could replace the word "shall" or put "shall consider" in the language. He was encouraged to see the 30-day limit was placed in the stipulation since agencies tend to take a long time. It was noted that the requirement was written by staff and to be sure that they are following their drift management plan submitted by the Land Development Code to get the additional information necessary to incorporate into a management plan. Under State law they have an obligation to protect species and make sure nothing falls through the cracks. Mr. Carlson questioned the low exotic infestation that was not included in the Jurisdiction Wetlands map. He wondered how the jurisdictional lines only included 29 acres when there are hundreds of acres if cypress on this project. Steve Shaw stated there three primary criteria has to be met: l) Has to have wetland vegetation 2) Has to have hydric soils and 3) Needs to have sufficient hydrology. The reason those areas are no longer jurisdictional are they no longer have the hydrology. Four years of monitoring well data collected that was the primary May 1, 2002 information used to come to the conclusion of the jurisdictional areas that are there now. Mr. Carlson said he has never seen a deep cypress forest with large trees as upland. Mr. Shaw said they went through the official process and the wetlands that are identified on the exhibits are the only jurisdictional areas. There are a lot of cypress but a more cabbage palms. Mr. Carlson felt this was the most environmentally damaging area he has ever seen. He cannot support the project unless someone can explain why the deep cypress systems are uplands. Mr. Hill still questions in g4 the distinction between "shall" and "will" and the underline and strikeouts. He would like an explanation. Mr. Shaw stated that he knows the regulatory process is a long one and tough to get through. He feels that adequate listed species review will occur during the permit process with the right agencies. It's during those processes that the agencies will get a chance to comment on the project and see it as a whole. Feel it would be redundant to get their comments again. Mr. Carlson asked the difference between the "shall" and "will". Mr. Patrick White said he felt that ": will" is more precise - both mandatory, but "shall" may mean in some circumstances "must" and in others has a temporal component to it saying "you will" but not knowing when that "will" occur. Not sure there is much distinction between the two, other than balance. Staff's language allows for a comment period from the agencies in respect to the guidelines or recommendations. More precise comments may be made that may be included that may be part of the counties stipulations with respect to it's management plan approval process. He adds that the LDC does not allow this council to decide. Attorney Students wants the record to show that in the Land Development Code "shall" is undefined - not left up to what somebody thinks it means, and "shall" is defined as a mandatory term and "will" as permissive or not mandatory. Mr. Hill moved to approve and accept the Conditional Use Petition No. CU-2001-AR- 1912 with #4 stipulation as written by staff and #5 & #6 with revisions proposed by petitioner and #2 with further review by Miss Student prior to going to the Planning Commission. Seconded Mr. Coe. Carried with 4 yes - Hill, Coe, Lynne and Sansbury, 1 no- Carlson This motion was not to approve the Petition as restated by the Chairmen Mr. Hill states his motion over. Mr. Hill moved that items #2, 4, 5, and 6 in the staff report under Environmental heading will be revised as follows - # 2, to contain the suggestion made by Attorney Anderson, #4 to remain as originally stipulated by staff in their report, #5 and 6 to accept the changes as recommended by the Petitioner. The Environmental portion of the staff report is approved as corrected. Seconded Mr. Coe. Carried unanimously. Discussion followed on the wetland and upland confusion addressing the water lines, native habitat, localized flooding issues, Mr. Anderson wanted everyone to know that this site plan is a direct result of a settlement agreement with the Florida Wildlife Federation and Collier County Audubon Society. Mr. Carlson asked if the Wildlife May 1, 2002 Federation and Collier County Audubon has examined this plan with 36 holes of golf, not just the flow way, but the whole plan, and are in agreement that this is a good plan? Mr. Anderson commented that was his understanding. State that his specific plan was gone over with them. Mr. Coe moved to delay this discussion until the next meeting so someone from South Florida Water Management and Wildlife Federation can give more information on the Upland and Wetland subject. Discussion followed, motion dies for lack of a second. Mr. Coe moved to get a South Florida Water Management representative at the next meeting to find out how they were able to determine that this is no longer a wetland and classified as upland. Seconded Mr. Carlson, Carried with 4 - yes Coe, Hill, Carlson and Lynne - 2-No Gal & Sansbury. This item is continued to the June EAC. D. Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-2001-AR-1331 "ASGM Business Center of Naples PUD" Section 10, Township 51 South, Range 26 East. Mr. Patrick White swore all those testifying in. Mr. Sansbury asked if any committee members had any discussion on the above subject, hearing none they proceeded. Speakers Mr. Ray Bellows - Planning Staff- The petitioner is proposing a rezoning from "A Agricultural to a "PUD" for a proposed business park development consisting of 40.88 acres. Steven Lindberger - Planning Services Dept. - He referred to the map on location of the project. Property has 20 acres of Wetlands- mixture of native and exotic vegetation Primarily Brazilian Peppers, Wax Myrtle and other Laurel Oaks. No protected species on site that were identified. Speaker - Julie Erickson - She wants to reiterated the degraded wetlands on site. Mr. Hill moved to approve the Petition for the PUD No. PUDZ-2001-AR-1331. Seconded Mr. Coe, Carried unanimously. VII. VIII. XI. NEW BUSINESS - None GROWTH MANAGEMENT UPDATE - None COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS: It was asked of the committee to make corrections of any member names to a list for updating and that Chester has resigned and the BCC reappointed Erica and appointed Ken Homisten, with Homisten and 10 May 1, 2002 Moore Engineering starting with the June EAC meeting. Larry Stone's term expired and will be an appointment later. A reminder for the Committee members that they are reminded of an Eastern Lands Transmittal Hearing on May 22, 2002 5:00, packets will be out a week before. X. PUBLIC cOMMENTS- None XI. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting adjourned at 2:40 PM. 11