EAC Minutes 06/05/2002 RJune 5, 2002
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF
THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
Naples, Florida, June 5, 2002
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Environmental Advisory Council, in and for
the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:05
a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East
Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN:
THOMAS SANSBURY
ERICA LYNNE
ED CARLSON
ALEXANDRA SANTORO
KEN HUMISTON
ALSO PRESENT: Barb Bergeson, Patrick G. White, William Lorenz Jr., Kim
Hadley, Mac Hatcher, and Majorie Student
Page 1
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
County Commission Boardroom
Building "F", 3ra Floor
3301 Tamiami Trail
Naples, FL 34104
9:00 AM
MINUTES
June 5, 2002
June 5, 2002
Chairman Thomas Sansbury called the meeting to order at 9:05 AM
II.
III.
IV.
ATTENDANCE:
Members: Thomas Sansbury, Erica Lyrme, Ed Carlson, Alexandra Santoro, and
Ken Humiston
-Michael Coe, William Hill, and Alfred Gal have excused absences
Collier County: Barbara Bergeson, Patrick G. White, William Lorenz Jr., Klm
Hadley, Mac Hatcher, and Majorie Student
APPROVA OF AGENDA:
-No additions, deletions, or changes
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 1, 2002
-Alexandra Santoro provided a correction: Page #2, 3rd paragraph from the
bottom, it should read: "Carol stated they are in a position to protect"
-Mr. Carlson moved to approve with this change, Seconded by Alexandra Santoro
All in favor - Passed Unanimously
Land Use Petitions
Conditional Use Petition No. CU-2001-AR-1912
"lmmokalee Road South Project"
Sections 29, 30, 31, and 32, Township 48 South, Range 26 East
-Mr. White swore in all those testifying
Ray Bellows, Chief Planner with the current planning staff. Petitioner is
requesting conditional use 17 of the agricultural zoning district, they are
proposing 2 - 18 hole golf courses on 557 acres (located on the South side of
Immokalee Road, approximately 4 miles East of Collier Blvd.). The project is
located on the agricultural mixed-use district on the "Future Land Use Map".
This area allows for certain non-residential uses, including recreational uses,
allowed prior to the final development order of the Florida governor and the
cabinet. The petitioner entered into a settlement agreement that would allow for
the continued development of Twin Eagles on the South Side of Immokalee Road,
subject being limited to golf courses and not allowing it for residential uses. Staff
Page 2
June 5, 2002
has determined that the project can proceed and is consistent with the growth
management plan.
Mitch Hutchcraft, with the Bonita Bay Group, gives a brief introduction. States
they appreciate the comments from EAC on the previous meeting and they did go
back and made changes to their site plan to incorporate a greater amount of
preserve and appreciates the opportunity of Mr. Carlson and Mr. Bower coming
to the site so they could show the detailed site conditions. He states that the
addition of new preserve areas roughly corresponds to cypress areas shown on the
site. They will also be preserving the area between the golf holes as indigenous
areas within the facility. In order to accommodate these changes they have added
a five-acre piece of land.
Steve Shaw, with Wilson Miller testifying on behalf of the petitioner. States that
changes to the master concept plan, are resulted from Bonita Bay Group
expending additional funds to tighten and define the sight plan. He shows the
revisions on the master concept plan; the golf course areas have been tightened, a
few holes rearranged, the incorporation of large blocks of preserves, (the majority
of these blocks correspond with the higher quality cypress habitat). He adds that
there will be 100% wetland preservation and that the preserves amount to 214
acres (roughly over 100-110 represent cypress habitat). Mr. Shaw adds for the
record, that he would like to submit for the record, a comprehensive list of
changes to stipulations discussed in the last meeting. He states that these have
not necessarily been made since then, that he feels it would be a benefit to have a
comprehensive list of the stipulations that staff provided in the EAC staff report.
Mr. Shaw then proposed the following changes:
1) The stipulation for storm water management is accepted by the petitioner.
2) Environmental stipulation number 1 - has been changed (to revise the
indigenous acreage) since they have added the five acre parcel and the
minimum indigenous requirement has been increased by roughly 6/10 of an
acre.
3) Environmental Stipulation number 2 - Mr. Anderson has proposed a change
in language to this stipulation
4) Stipulation Number 3 - was accepted as staff proposed it
5) Stipulation Number 4 - Mr. Shaw reiterates that the petitioner still has
concerns and that they would like to make one change to what staff
recommended - they would like to change the word "use" to "consider", in
the last sentence
Items five and six were discussed at the last meeting, both the petitioner and
the county staff were in agreement on those revisions
Mr. Shaw feels that Mr. Carlson's concerns in the last meeting, regarding the
low jurisdictional acreage, was resolved in the site inspection and states that a
representative of the water management district is available if there are any
questions regarding this topic
6)
7)
Page 3
June 5, 2002
-Mr. Carlson states that he now feels that Bonita Bay was very "responsive and
responsible" and incorporated a lot of the habitat into preserve and he commends
them for doing so, he feels this is a good plan and he hopes the board accepts it
-Barb Bergeson recommends NOT changing stipulation #4 from "the staff will
use applicable stipulations" to "the staff will consider applicable stipulations",
stating that they will use all comments that come back to them in regards to this
project
-Erica Lynne agreed, she also states that in stipulation number 5, she felt that at
the last meeting the board discussed: "prior written consent of the developmental
services director" be changed so that it came back before the board and NOT be
an administrative decision
-Mr. Shaw had a concern that coming before the EAC for this rather than doing
"such a minor change administratively" will add undue costs
-Mr. Hutchcraft stated that since the land development code already addresses the
"appropriate methodology to review changes in those setbacks" that they be
treated "like everybody else" in this instance and that Bonita Bay would like to be
regulated by the land development procedures
-Barb Bergeson states that they are not asking for anything different than what
any other project can ask for. Staff's position is not to grant any changes to the
25-ft or to the 10-ft distance separation. The only thing staff has done to grant an
exception is to allow some filler sloping adjacent to the accessory Within the 1 O-fi,
and that has only been to an upland buffer and not a wetland buffer.
-Mr. Carlson moves to approve this plan and the revisions and stipulations
provided, with the exception of, in paragraph #4 that the EAC support the
recommendation of staff that the word "use" be included, rather than the word
"consider". Seconded by Alexandra Santoro, the motion then passed
Unanimously.
B) Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-2001-AR-798
"Baldridgc PUD"
Section 18, Township 49 South, Range 26 East
-Mr. Carlson states hc had a discussion with Mr. Craparo prior to the meeting in
reference to this subject
-Mr. White swears in all those testifying
Fred Reischill, planning services, requests a PUD re-zone from an existing golf
driving range to a proposed office retail center. He shows the location is at the
Page 4
June 5, 2002
Southeast comer of Livingston Road and Pine Ridge Road. He states that the
proposal is to create out-parcels or that it could be a single use facility also, (the
map showing the property with parcels). The county has requested a 60-ft
preserve at the rear of the parcel to connect two adjacent properties that will
eventually lead to Whippoorwill Lane.
Steven Lindburger, planning services department, presented the environmental
aspects of the project:
1) The property currently has a driving range, native vegetation is approximately
4.3 acres (vegetation on the site is primarily cypress, pine-cypress, and palm
mix)
2) 4.18 acres of wetland on site (the project will impact about 43% of these
wetlands about 1.79 acres)
3) Calculated native vegetation on the project (since the project originally had
more vegetation when the driving range was developed, they calculated the
percentage of native vegetation for the project based on the amount of original
native vegetation on site) 15% of native vegetation on site would be
approximately 1.58 acres, the applicant is preserving most of this, located on
this within the preserve area, identified at the lower end of the PED of the
master plan and a small percentage is in the landscape buffer areas
4) A protected species survey was done; there were some wading birds in pooled
areas on the driving range
-Mr. Carlson questions why the original plan had 4.3 acres of native vegetation
for preservation and the current only has 1.58 acres?
-Barb Bergeson states that staff determined that the original preservation based on
the land development code. Originally the land development code stated that "an
appropriate amount of native vegetation shall be preserved" on the site. Since
then the code was tightened and in response the staffhas placed a base minimum
for this site that is 15%.
-Tim Hancock, with the firm of Vanasse Daylor representing the applicant,
Baldrige Development incorporated. Tim states that he hopes his comments will
address the basis of the impacts that are being proposed.
1) The proposed project after some eminent domain taking of property along the
Livingston Road corridor and Pine Ridge Road corridor is down to ! 6.8 acres.
The property was the subject of a comprehensive plan amendment that was
done in 2001 that took this 17.5 acre parcel and converted it from urban
residential to a commercial in-fill designation allowing up to 125,000 square
feet of retail commercial uses, heights up to 35 ft with 50 ft for office uses,
and required:
A) To provide an access through the project to the south, connecting to future
Livingston Road; in order to reduce the response time of the fire station
B) On the Eastern side of the property, adjacent to all agricultural zones, they
are Required to maintain a minimum 50 ft native vegetation buffer (the
1.85 acres to the south that Mr. Lindburger has referred to do not include
this)
Page 5
June 5, 2002
C) In the original proposal, for a conditional use for a golf driving range, the
reason the area that was set aside for preserve, was delineated was that the
envelope that required only the golf course driving range impacts was
what determined the resulting conservation easement. It was reported to
the benefit of the South Florida Water Management District, and there was
a meeting with them regarding this matter. The SFL Water Management
District was present for any questions.
-The original proposal tried to preserve as much of the original 4.3 acres of
preservation as possible. The concerns that they faced were:
1) The access point on Livingston Road is a result of an eminent domain
court order that requires the access to be in that location, this caused some
level of impact to the recorded preserve area.
2) A request from Collier County Transportation for a 60 ft reservation of
fight-of-way extending from the access point at the rear of the property
should it be needed in the future.
-These two concerns were the primary reason the original impact was affected
and changed to the current impact levels.
-If the County does not go ahead with the roadway at the rear of the property,
then it will stay in native vegetation. If they do go ahead with it, they have a
few options:
1) The planned internal access road may be sufficient for this access, if it is
they will have no need to impact the area any further. If it is not, then this
is a decision that the County will have to make.
-This is something that is not definite, but that had to be shown on the plans,
in doing so they could not count that area as part of the preserve. This is 0.6
acres of additional area that they are not proposing to impact, they are merely
responding to a county request.
-Points on the subject of water management in this area
1) There is a significant amount of area for zoned development
2) Bryrm Wood was required to obtain only a 25ft buffer to the Southern end
of this project - The reasoning behind this is for Brynn Wood to redevelop
an old slew that use to carry water from this area from the NW eventually
out falling into the 175 canal. The district is requiring each neighboring
project to provide a "piece of the puzzle" for that particular slew.
3) The drainage for this project, preferred by the district, is to dump into that
slew.
4) Mr. Hancock states they modify the environmental resource permit, will
have the ability to send their storm water mn-off into that slew, (if it is
ready, willing, and able to accept the mn-off), or the project can take the
storm water mn-off into the Livingston right-of-way, (this was designed to
accept the run-off of this project). They do not care which way the district
wants them to go. The district has indicated they want them to go into the
slew to help re-hydrate the area. If the slew is not ready when the project
is complete, they have the ability to send it into the Livingston right-of-
way, and when the slew is complete, the water can be blocked and sent
back into the slew. They are willing to do this if the district requires it.
Page 6
Public
Frank
East.
June 5, 2002
Karen Johnson, of the Water Management District, states that Mr. Hancock is
correct, that there is an existing conservation easement on this preserve, and that
they have been doing mitigation monitoring reports annually since the permit was
issued and the project was built. A portion of the easement was vacated for
Collier County to widen Livingston road in the past year. Any additional impacts
to that preserve will also require vacation of that portion of the easement by the
governing board. She also stated that based on the discussion of the proposed
future right-of-way area, her recommendation to her governing board would be:
(since they are not in the habit of permitting potential future right-of-ways and
development permits), that they would leave that area within the conservation
easement, should DOT ever decide to do that road, it will be their responsibility to
justify the impacts and vacate that part of the conservation easement.
Speakers:
Craparo, owns the property that adjoins the golf driving range directly to the
Mr. Craparo concerns are:
1) He feels the county is planning on buying his property.
2) Due to the construction by the County on Pine Ridge Road, it appears to Mr.
Craparo that his drainage cannot flow out the front of the property, which was
a court order from an eminent domain settlement in 1986. He states when the
land was purchased by the county in 1986 they were going to keep the pine
ridge road canal to an 8.6 elevation and he was to discharge into the canal.
3) He feels the slew cannot be a natural system because there will never be
enough rain water to do so. He proposes they drain the Livingston road until
which time they will not impact his property and the county can re-establish
his drainage at 8.6 to the outflow of the canal.
4) He feels that the buffer to the East, is not sufficient because he feels the buffer
will be chopped and his land will be impacted. He believes this is the
county's plan, that they want the 60 ft road to bypass, and that this will cut
about an acre of his property to the south and leave it in "limbo"
5) He also has a problem with the road (access #4), he feels it is too close to the
fire station and traffic would block the fire station, he feels there solution
would be to move it to the East to his court ordered entrance and he also
believes they will close access to this side of his property
6) He feels this will devalue his property and then because he can not rezone
they will be able to buy his property for a lower value than what he feels it is
worth
7) He feels this situation will end up in a Federal grand jury investigation due to
his claims that the county has devalued his property, taken his median cut, and
intimidated land owners, appraisers, and lawyers in the area causing him not
to get decent appraisals because he believes they want a portion of his land at
a lower price
-Mr. Sansbury wants reminds Mr. Craparo that they need to stick to
environmental issues
Page 7
June 5,2002
-Mr. Craparo states again that he feels it will not be possible to create a natural
slew in this area and that it will create a mesquito breeding grotmd which he feels
will impact the health of area residents.
-Mr. Sansburystates that he believes Mr. Craparo's points have been heard and
tells him to make sure the points are also made to the permitting agencies
involved, district, county engineering department, and the development
department when the water management plan is put together. He reaffirms that
Mr. Craparo's position is understood and the EAC appreciates his comments.
Stan Chrzanowski, senior engineer with the engineering review community
development, states the planners decided to make a master plan for the area,
including the transportation, water and sewer, and the drainage in order to avoid
too much impact on an area full of trees and vegetation. Mr. Chrzanowski stated
that Mr. Craparo was not involved in the most recent meeting on the master plan
and that he does not know why he was not involved, but that Mr. Craparo was
involved in previous meeting that discussed transportation.
The master plan shows:
1) Whippoorwill Lane is extended
2) The water and sewer was roughly acceptable to the utilities department
On Drainage:
3) (Mr. Chrzanowski stated that Richard Thompson of the Water Management
District was at the meeting and that the Water Management District was
involved in the process to make sure that the remaining slew that flows into
the Kensington Canal would remain whole.)
-Mr. Chrzanowski stated that the Kensington Canal took a large amount of
drainage from the Whippoorwill section that it started to back up into Kensington.
-The developer of Kensington then built a burm along the side of the canal, which
stopped the Whippoorwill water from surcharging his canal and gave him
drainage, but it also backed up a lot of water into the Whippoorwill Section.
-He then explained that Florida Power and Light has an easement in this area that
is "raised", the maintenance road in the easement acts as damn. The slew was
part of all of the permits issued and the area currently does take enough water that
some people have complained of flooding. He sites that some of the homes along
Hospice are concerned that the slew will be completed.
-He stated the main concern at the meeting is the sequence of construction. He
stated there is a meeting for final plans (provided to Jim Mudd) is June 15, 2002.
This plan must show what the sequence of construction will be and stating the
legal agreements that tie it together.
4) Mr. Chrzanowski, states that this is where the master plan currently stands,
and that most of the details to be worked out deal with the sequence of
construction. He is unsure where Mr. Craparo feels he is going to have a
problem with his land due to anything they are allowing for in this master
plan, and that the transportation issues (he assumes) will be handled by the
planning commission since they do not involve his team.
-At 10:08 AM a Five minute break was taken
Page 8
June 5,2002
-Mr. Carlson stated that he is sorry that some preserve area was lost in the midst of
development but that he sees no other way to do this considering the right-of-way
requirements and everything else involved.
-Mr. Carlson moves to approve, seconded by Mr. Humiston, All in favor, it passed
unanimously
Old Business - there was no old business for discussion.
New Business -
A)
Proposed GMP Amendments for the Rural Fringe/Response to DCA's
ORC (Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Report) -
Informational material given previously.
Robert Mulhere, with RWA Inc. on behalf of Collier County spoke on the
comments of the DCA prior to adoption and the responses provided:
-The objections by the DCA, if not addressed, may result in a finding of non-
compliance; so as indicated in the staff report, the county needs to respond to
those objections in order to satisfy the issue. Comments are not the basis for non-
compliance although each of them have been responded to although they are not
the basis or finding of non-compliance from the DCA.
1) (Staff report -page 4), deals with the first objection of the DCA dealing with
density blending.
A) DCA recommendation: It is important that the county justify the need for
density blending and provide a separate map identifying the properties
eligible for application of the proposed planning provision and provide an
analysis of the suitability of the identified areas for density blending.
B) Response: they understand the comment, they are going to provide them
with additional data and analysis, they have identified properties eligible
for density blending and asked each of these property owners to provide
any additional information (specifically regarding the environmental
aspects of the lands) they may have to be forwarded to DCA.
-Mr. Mulhere stated that the DCA felt this was sufficient
-A map was shown that indicates eligible lands
2) (Staff report- page 5), titled agricultural rural land use designation
A) DCA recommendation: Revise the plan to define and specify the intensity
standards and development controls that will be applicable to commercial
and industrial uses in the rural land use designation.
B) The concern has been addressed, amendments were made to the
designation that would specifically identify the lands that are eligible.
-They proposed a 1 O-acre commercial designation in the area of State
Road 29 and US 41, five acres on each side. The DCA had concerns this
was too much. When addressed, they felt the Chevron station side was not
technically commercial uses and the use in the Southwest Quadrant was a
total of about 2 acres. The plan was then revised so the commercial uses
Page 9
June 5, 2002
where consistent with the plan (a maximum of 2.5 acres), but only in the
SW Quadrant. They believe this addressed the DCA concerns.
3) The next comment is deferring to the land development regulations. DCA
expressed concern that the language made the plan "self amending".
A) DCA Recommendation: To revise the plan to specify the types, uses and
the density and intensity that will be applicable to certain commercial uses
and they indicated the term "essential services" should be defined in the
plan. They also felt "mixed use" categories should be defined in the type
of uses, their densities and intensities, and the percentage of distribution
among the mix of uses for other objective measurements.
B) Response: The proposed amendments were revised to be more specific,
not to defer to the land development code. They did so by giving the
reference a date, and by giving it a date it was then Not self-amending.
Also (on Page 6, #8), revisions have been made to clearly identify a not to
exceed amount for commercial and also US 41 and State Road 29 change
is included here. They as well indicated (under item C) the proposed uses
"include", was changed to the proposed uses "are limited to" those uses.
-Mr. Mulhere stated that the DCA indicated that this would resolve their
issues. (Page 6, item #9) comments on rural villages and discussion on
land use mixture. They have added percentages for commercial and
mixed uses into the rural village center and the rural village language.
They have also provided for maximazation for square footage and other
uses. They believe this will address the concerns of the DCA.
4) Dealt with the TDR rate. The plan indicated that the board might adjust the
TDR rate if they chose to after some period of time. The DCA felt this may
be self-amending and should be done through a comprehensive plan
amendment. The plan has been revised to indicate this.
5) Deals with the Coastal high hazard area.
-The DCA indicates that a portion of the receiving area falls within the coastal
high hazard area.
A) DCA recommends: Revise map to exclude that portion of the receiving
area from the coastal high hazard area.
B) They changed the designation here to neutral so that the land uses already
there are not affected, but so that they cannot receive any additional
density within this area.
6) Deals with rural villages. The DCA indicates that the concept of rural villages
is innovative and will encourage clustering of land use activity into a logical
urban form assuring a complimentary mix of uses, however guidelines
addressing the location and planning are incomplete.
A) DCA recommends: The DCA gave three options to deal with this:
1) To indicate, with the amendment, to map the location, size, and
amount of development permitted for each rural village.
2) At the time of PUD or DRI approval require that the comprehensive
plan be ammended to show the location, size, and amount.
3) To include more explicit, specific guidelines and standards in the
comprehensive plan and additional data and analysis in the supporting
Page 10
7)
8)
June 5, 2002
documentation to ensure that the location, size, and amount of
development in each rural village will be environmentally suitable, and
adequate public facilities will be available and officially provided.
(They also discussed locational criteria)
B) Response: we have enhanced or added to the additional criteria for rural
villages (Page 64 - Future Land Use Element).
- The DCA also had a general comment providing for greater definition of
what was intended by a rural village. The response was (page 63 - under
rural villages) to add more specific language that provides definition of
what the county expects to see when a rural village is developed, and in
order to have one approved. (Page 65 - item B - Locational restrictions)
they said a rural village "shall" not be located any closer than 3 miles from
another rural village, rather than "may" not. They also indicated no more
than one rural village may be located in each of the distinct receiving
areas, (before this condition was not here). They also indicated that a rural
village shall have direct access to a roadway, classified by the county as an
arterial or a collector, or access to the village may be via a new collector
roadway directly accessing an arterial the cost of which shall be borne
entirely by the developer. They also stated that rural villages shall be
located where other public infrastructures, such as potable water and
sewer facilities already exist or are planned. This was in direct response to
the DCA comment. (Page 66 - referring to DCA comments on land mix:
they define neighborhood center and what % can be dedicated to this, etc..
This is where he indicated, that they provided specific and measurable
intensity and density caps in the plan.
(Page 10 - staff report & page 70 of the FLUE) - The DCA indicated that they
had concerns with the conservation unit category allowing 1 unit per 5 acres
and 1 unit per 3 acres within the Big Cypress, they stated that this level of
development is not compatible with the need to ensure the protection of
environmental sensitive areas, including wetlands. Furthermore oil and
mineral extraction are allowed in the conservation designation both as an
authorized use and as a conditional use. The DCA felt this needs to be
clarified, and Mr. Mulhere stated that they have now done so. They have
eliminated that use as a permitted use and retained it as a conditional use.
A) DCA recommends: To revise the plan to clearly specify the uses allowed
in the conservation designation, consistent with the need to protect natural
resources. The county should establish that publicly owned conservation
lands will have zero density.
B) (Page 70) Mr. Mulhere stated they indicated that public lands do not have
any residential density component. They also retained the 1-5 and or 1-3
within the Big Cypress density for privately held in-holdings and or
privately owned lands within the conservation designation. They did so
because they feel they need to respect the rights of private property
owners.
-Mr. Mulhere stated the DCA is comfortable with this.
(Page 79 - FLUE) deals with natural resource protection areas.
Page 11
June 5, 2002
A) DCA recommends: comment was that they had identified uses that were
permitted within natural resource protection areas under the sending
designation and within the rural fringe mixed use district most of the lands
and NRPA's were identified as sending, but not all of them. DCA feels
they must have restrictions under the NRPA designation and not just under
sending.
B) Response: They have added appropriate language to the NRPA overlay
and the FLUE. (Page 79-80) They have added four items basically taken
out of the sending designation. (Page 5 - Errata sheet) South Golden Gate
Estates was made a permanent NRPA as part of the Rural Fringe
Amendment. Identified lands specifically, what the perceived a minimal
threat of conversion of those lands, and an indication that they would
change the land use category where these processes have been completed.
-Mr. Mulhere now moves into the "comments" of the DCA. (Page 11) He felt it was
notable to state that there was not a single objection by the DCA on the conservation
coastal management element, there were comments, but no objections. Comments: 1) Minor correction. It was made.
2) General comment about the organization of the plan, the DCA comment was
that they would like it re-examined. They also indicated the broad uses
allowed in the agricultural designation as well as the rural mixed-use
designation should be re-examined. The FLUE was amended to clearly
identify the rural use designation and the organization of the entire
comprehensive plan will be re-evaluated in January 2004 and they do not feel
it is appropriate to do at this point in time. He also indicates that the plan was
originally written by Charlie Goadie, of the DCA, so they don't mind revises
it if it needs to be done. Stated the rural designation only applies to two areas
and when they pointed this out to the DCA, the DCA was more comfortable
with it. The amendments do propose to add a third site, adjacent to industrial
and adjacent to the landfill. The board wanted data and analysis of this land,
from the property owner, and Mr. Mulhere stated that they did not have it to
date so it may be an issue for the board to deal with at their adoption hearing.
3) The plan requires greenbelts around the rural villages but allows golf courses
within the greenbelts. The DCA comment was that this may lead to a
proliferation of golf courses in the area and defeat the purposes of the
greenbelts and that golf courses are more suitable in urban areas. Mr.
Mulhere states the response is that golf courses are intended to be primarily
open areas and they must be designated in receiving areas surrounding the
villages, receiving areas allow golf courses so they feel it is appropriate. He
also stated that they added a requirement that golf course turf areas first be
located within clear or disturbed areas within the greenbelt in order to
preserve existing vegetation.
-Erica Lynne stated that she as well objects that golf courses permitted within
the greenbelts, along with the DCA, and she objects that because the DCA
doesn't force it, that Collier County do the best job possible and not just
follow the letter of the law
Page 12
June 5,2002
-Mr. Mulhere stated he felt that this was the best job possible and that Erica
Lynne and the DCA have a difference of opinion to this
4) The DCA comment was that there is an inconsistency in the provisions
pertaining to site preservation in the receiving lands. (Item 7 - page 51) states
that site preservation areas are intended to provide habitat function and shall
meet minimum dimension set forth in the land development code and that an
applicable standard shall be established within one year. On page 52, item 7,
refers to open space and native vegetation requirements. Mr. Mulhere stated
they were correct that there was a discrepancy and it has since been corrected.
5) The DCA comment was the proposal for rural villages does not include
adequate criteria and guidelines for their design. Mr. Mulhere stated that it
originally had more detail for design and that they have gone back and added
more to the definition and more to the details of design. The information is on
page 64-66 under rural villages. Also on the Errata sheet page 1, more
information is listed.
6) The DCA comment was that the plan amendment indicates that rock mining
activities in the North Bell Mead area are proposed to be expaned, the
expansion of these activities has the potential to increase truck traffic in
adjacent neighborhoods, raising compatibility and safety concerns; the county
may consider designing alternative truck routes with this amendment. Mr.
Mulhere stated that these comments would be relayed to public body for their
consideration. He felt there may be more discussion further on in this
meeting.
Mr. Lorenz covers comments on Conservation Coastal Elements (page 13):
1) deals with amount of density bonuses to be granted. Staff put the language
directly with the FLUE language.
2) (Page 32 - Conservation and Coastal Element Development) - deals with the
utilization of the functional assessment of the WRAP or the Future Unified
assessment methodology that the state is still looking at. Staff went with the
functionality assessment. Due to the comments by Jim Beaver, staff is also
making the suggestion that in the rural fringe areas only, that the area be
considered not less than 1/1 ratio.
3) Concerns deed restrictions may not be the permitted mechanism for protecting
preserve area. Staff made changes that ensure the deed restrictions come out,
and that the areas will be under conservation easement and have platted
separately to ensure this.
4) Deals with underpasses to avoid roadway impacts. Staff has added the
language in the appropriate places to the CCME.
5) Dealt with the appropriateness of the county requiring federal and state
agency approval for all listed species, wading birds, roqeries and shore bird
nesting areas. Staff feels that it is sufficient that they allow and seek out the
recommendation of technical agencies. They feel requiring approval could
cause phasing problems. So currently, staff is leaving the language "as is".
6) Deals with additional guidelines for Wood Storks, American Equestrals, and
White Ibis. The multi-species recovery plan has the guidelines for the Wood
Storks, so staff feels that is a technical reference. Mr. Lorenz also states that
Page 13
June 5, 2002
they just received the reference for the southeastern American Equestral, and
that they have not had a chance to review it but that it could be incorporated as
long as it is appropriate. Also a comment was given dealing with
management plans for Black Bears, that habitat mitigation should be
considered. Staff has added this language.
Public Facilities Comments:
1) The comment indicated that policy 1.53 was unclear regarding provision of
potable water and sewer within the receiving areas will not adequately
objective 1.5 to discourage urban sprawl through maximization of the use of
existing public facilities. The recommendation was to revise to clarify the
intent of potable water and sewer services in receiving areas. Staff felt that
these policies in both the sanitary sewer and potable water have been modified
to clarify that essential utilities will be provided by the county for those rural
transition water and sewer district, which is receiving lands and certain neutral
lands. This excludes the Merisol section that is in conservation and the Big
Corkscrew island community. It also indicates for rural fringe areas outside
the rural transition water and sewer district, only individual potable wells and
septic tanks are allowed.
There were changes made, driven by staff recognition that something was missed
or specifically by BBC direction: (Page 14-16)
1) (Page 15, 2n°bullet) eliminate secondary sending lands category from the text
and future land use map, and return the 6,550 acres that were in the secondary
sending designation to there existing designation.
2) (Page 15, 7th bullet) Staff has modified sending lands to clarify permanent
agricultural uses are those which are in accordance with the right to farm act.
3) (Page 15, the last bullet) Added the county wide protection plans.
(CCMB -page 22) shows some of the language, similar in the advertisement for
the board's transmittal hearing, is put back in place. Some changes to note: A) Golf courses would be required to obtain 35% native vegetation
B) They added another category for industrial development, within the
rural industrial district only. They proposed a 50% standard.
C) Policy 6.24 (Page 30) - has carved out a "finger" from Lake Trafford
extending Eastward into the Irnmokalee urban area, and will apply the
rural mixed-use district wetlands protection standards. After a year
they will determine if this is appropriate. In North Golden Gate
Estates they are discussing a requirement that will require individual
property owner to get an agency jurisdictional permit, but they will not
be holding permits until they get this, but will have a notification
process. South Golden Gate is not included, the permits will be held
till agency permits have been issued.
D) Objective 6.3 deals with the language of submerged habitat is now in
the adoption draft and the policies addressing Sea Turtles is now in the
adoption draft as well
E) South Golden Gate estates has been changed to a permanent status as a
permanent NRPA
Page 14
June 5, 2002
F) In regards to wetland retention ponds the language was changed from
"a literal shelf equal 10% of the shoreline" this is changed now in the
codes to "2.5% of the pond surface area", this will be the standard for
urban designated areas; within the rural fringe the proposed standard
is still 30%
-Mr. Mulhere points out that the boundaries in the original map has been slightly
changed, due to recent information in terms of acquisition. He points out the reduction in
the size of the receiving area, which, now reflects the current public ownership.
Public Speakers
Nicole Ryan, representing the Conservancy of SW FL, stated she would like to comment
on the May 31, 2002 memo sent to the EAC from the Conservancy.
-The Conservancy's concerns mainly dealt with the county not implementing any land
use plans for agricultural.
-The Conservancy agreed with DCA recommendations on density blending and was glad
to see that staff put in more stipulations.
-The Conservancy's largest concern, with respect to density blending, is in the North
Belle Meade F1 project, they ask that the county proceed with caution.
-They also have concerns with the size, location and make-up of rural villages, they fear
without strict standards, that these lands would not stay rural. They are pleased with the
changes staff has made in the amendments dealing with how these villages are made up.
-The Conservancy agrees with the DCA recommendation that residential density be
eliminated on publicly owned lands
-(In regards to Objection 8 of the DCA) The Conservancy would like some sort of
policies for future agricultural uses within the NRPA's, however they understand that
county staff is not willing to do that at this time
-Agrees with the DCA that golf courses not be allowed in the greenbelts
-(On Page 13 comment 3 under the CCMA) the Conservancy hopes a binding
conservation easement might be used in place of the deed restrictions.
-(Page 15 -under bullets, in regards to secondary sending areas removal) The
Conservancy cautions that there are a lot of areas that are environmental sensitive that
have been developed and they would like to see some sort of sending status be retained
on those lands
-Overall they feel today's product is better than what was initially proposed, and they feel
the staff has done a good job in addressing the DCA concems, these are only additional
comments.
Brad Cornell, representing Collier Audubon Society, states three points dealing with the
agricultural policies:
1) allowing agriculture to continue after TDR transfer, he believes undermines
the purpose of the protection status and the TDR program (Page 62- Future
Land Use Element - #7) - he does not feel this change is warranted.
2) Feels the 25 year prohibition on using TDR's, where parcel has been cleared
of agriculture, as of adoption, should be extended to 40 years (Page 64 - #4) as
a disincentive to clearing
Page 15
June 5, 2002
3) (Coastal and conservation management element, policy 6.1.4 on page 26) He
feels the prohibition of conversion of newly cleared agriculture to urban uses,
should be extended from 25 to 40 years
4) (Under wetland policies) He feels would like to adopt a policy similar to Lee
County, that you need a agency permit in hand before you can get a building
permit, where there are known to be hydric and wetland soils.
5) Also, he feels that letters, review and approval from protective agencies, on
listed species sites, should be required.
6) The Terrell shelves for storm water management ponds in the Future Land
Use Element should also indicate the 30% area as it does in the Coastal and
Conservation Management Element
7) (Page 79 - Future Land Use Element) The last line of Item E, should read
"North -West portion, not North -East.
8) The increase in density on sending lands to 1 unit to 40 acres, he believes is
unnecessary
-Collier Audubon Society does support the general overall policy directions in the
Rural Fringe Policies, with the recommended changes they fully support adoption
Ernie Cox, representing Collier Resources Company, stated Collier Resources Company
owns oil and gas interests underlying most of Collier County. The federal government
has now agreed to purchase about half of those interests. That purchase does not cover
all of the interests, including some interests in the Rural Fringe, and also other lands not
contained within. He stated the request was that plan stay the way it was, prior to the
proposed amendments, which is to say oil extraction and processing is a permitted use in
conservation, in the rural and agricultural designation. They request this be a permitted
use not only in the sending and neutral lands, but through all the lands in that area. The
reasons for this are, oil extraction is done by wells and have less impact than mineral
extraction, also that there are already stiff federal and state regulations on the extraction
of oil. Also he makes a note on the change to conditional use in the conservation areas
and the sending areas in the Rural Fringe, is additional regulation, and he states that oil
has only one use and request no changes be made and that he would object to any
changes.
-As proposed the change would be conditional use in sending areas and also area where
TDR's might be utilized (page 64-65), this leads to additional regulations and it takes
away the certainty provided Chapter 377 Florida statutes, this brings the county into the
permitting processing if the change is made
-Mr. Mulhere states he has no objections to this, but he would like to mn it by Nancy
Lenan, the county's council, because he feels there are some legal implications. Also he
would like to take it to DCA and the council to hear their concerns and then go from
there.
Nancy Payton, representing the FL Wildlife Federation, stated she believes it is a
digression to speak of exemptions for the permitting process, and that it is a "slippery
slope". She addresses essential uses on sending lands, NRPA's, and conservation lands.
She states it took a long time to get these lines identified and protected, due to their
strong environmental values. She feels the definition of essential services is too broad.
She also states that some of the permitted uses under the conservation district that are
Page 16
June 5, 2002
concerns to the Wildlife Federation. Under the conservation segment -they don't see any
conservation lands between the sewer districts, and also they do not feel these facilities,
sewer stations and lift stations, should be on conservation lands and they urge that this
particular use be eliminated from conservation land. (Page 71) She refers to a map that
there are no shown conservation lands between these sewer district.
-Mr. Mulhere stated that it is possible that there will not be a need to run a collection or a
transmission line through a conservation district, but there is the possibility that this
would happen while or before a land is being proposed for conservation
-Nancy Payton affirms she is objecting to sewer lines and lift stations on conservation
lands
-Nancy Payton and Mr. Mulhere clarify essential services (by referring to Page 71, the
last paragraph, sub-paragraph one), it reads: "essential services not identified above in
paragraph H, within one year Collier County will review essential services currently
allowed in the Land Development code and will define the .... During this one year
period...shall be approved."
-The EAC decides to vote on the balance of the provisions, with the exception of the loan
that contains a conflict of interest for Thomas Sansbury
-Erica Lynne stated concerns that SFL Water Management feels that without buffers of
one to two miles this plan will not work, (this is in reference to a letter from SFL Water
Management dated December 11, 2001
-Mr. Mulhere states that he is unsure if that this letter was written prior to the changes,
and if this is still the standing of the SFL Water Management or if that view has changed,
but they have considered and understood the input and that it has been considered
through the entire process
-Mr. Lorenz stated that these distances have been discussed ahd the staff's position is that
they cross-reference the procedure that SFL Water Management uses
-Mr. Mulhere clarifies that if this is referenced and there is a legitimate scientific reason
for a buffer to be 1 mile then it is possible through this process that it could be a buffer, it
is the degree to which there would be a degradation in the hydrology as a result of the
development
-Mr. Carlson feels this information is coming from two sources, Clarence Tiers (Collier
County, Big Cypress Basin) and Mike Duvars (Fort Myers Service Center with the SFL
Water Management District) and questions if the DCA had comments on appropriate
buffers
-Mr. Lorenz and Mr. Mulhere explain that the buffer is a minimum of 300ft and that this
can be changed by the permitting process; In the buffering language, they address the
hydraulic concerns by using the procedure that the SFL Water Management District
uses, and they also address the buffering through the utilization of open space, or if there
is a particular listed species that have a particular set of requirements that are identified in
Page 17
June 5, 2002
the policy, then those numbers would "trigger" the minimum to buffer to be higher than
300ft.
-Mr. Carlson provides a list for discussion of recommendations
1) that golf courses Not be permitted in the greenbelts
2) that there be legal conservation easements when there are issue of listed species and
wildlife protection
3) the plan is weak in restricting agricultural uses on sending lands where the
development rights have been sent, and that it needs to be strengthened
4) that sewage lift stations and lines are not compatible with sending and conservation
lands
-Mr. Humiston has concerns about the restrictions on the lift stations in the conservation
lands is (as Robert Mulhere pointed out) that the alternative is to avoid it by going around
some conservation lands might be ultimately more impactive, in specific situations, then
going through the conservation lands (Impactive to other lands that may have
environmental resource value and that sometimes it may be less impactive to go through
the conservation lands, then it would be to take a much longer route around therefore
affecting a larger quantity of land)
-Mr. Lorenz showed on page 34 of the CCME policy 6.26, that they took deed
restrictions out
-Mr. Carlson amends his list
-Erica Lynne motions that the EAC recommend the Rural Fringe Agricultural
Assessment Growth Plan Management Amendments with the following conditions:
1) that golf courses not be allowed in the greenbelts around the rural villages
2) that they need to look closer at restricting agriculture in sending lands in order to
protect the natural resources there
3) to delete sewage lines and lift stations from permitted uses in conservation, NRPA's,
and sending lands
-Seconded by Mr. Carlson,
All those In favor: Alexandra Santoro, Ed Carlson, and Erica Lynne
All those Against: Ken Humiston and Thomas Sansbury
The vote was 3-2 thus the motion failed
VII. COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS
-Mr. Sansbury questioned a legal notice in Saturday's paper that he believed was
the "Rookery Bay Towers" project which failed unanimously before the EAC
and that it was under a different name
-Robert Duane, stated that it is now called Estuary Bay, and that the Water
Management district has issued a permit that since they went before the EAC, that
they could have an enough enhancement on this site that they were able to offset
Page 18
June 5, 2002
their impact on a small development. The only thing that has changed is the
name.
VIII. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Frank Craparo, concerned that the first weir in the Golden Gate Canal is still running
water over in the mist of the draught.
-Mr. Sansbury stated that it is currently being raised approximately 2 feet and is expected
to be completed around 60 days, having been raised from 3.2 to 5.2
Mr. Craparo feels it is blocked and that it will take a year to complete leaving incapable
to deal with flooding. Also he believes all the weir's are 2-3 feet too low, he feels this
can be remedied by a pulse-release system that disrupts the Eco-system in the bay, or that
the water can be released in a controlled manner so as not to disrupt the Eco-system.
-Mr. Sansbury stated that he is aware of an innovative project underway at the Big
Cypress Area, relating to the spoken of weir. He feels Ed is utilizing the canals and the
interior lake systems within the community, which will be superior to just the canal.
IX. ADJOURNMENT - the meeting was adjourned at 12:25pm on June 5, 2002. -The next meeting is July 3r~, 2002 at 9am
Page 19