Loading...
EAC Minutes 12/04/2002 RDecember 4, 2002 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE NAPLES, FL December 4, 2002 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Environmental Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00AM in regular session in the Auditorium of The Golden Gate Community Center, Naples FL, with the following members present: Members: Thomas Sansbury Michael G. Coe Ken Humiston Alfred Gal Alexandra Santoro Ed Carlson John Dowd Michael V. Sorrell (arrived at 9:10AM) Collier County: Barb Burgeson, Kay Deselem, Steve Lenberger, Ray Bellows, Stan Chrzanowski, Patrick White, Robert Wiley, Lisa Koehler Page 1 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL AGENDA December 4, 2002 9:00 A.M. Commission Boardroom W. Harmon Turner Building (Building "F")- Third Floor II. III. IV. Roll Call Approval of Agenda Approval of October 16, 2002 Meeting Minutes Land Use Petitions Planned Unit Development Amendment No. PUDA-2002-AR-2702 "Lands End Preserve PUD" Section 4 & 5, Township 51 South, Range 26 East Planned Unit Development Amendment No. PUDZ-2002-AR-2965 "Charlee Estates PUD" Section 12, Township 51 South, Range 26 East V. Old Business: VI. New Business: EAC discussion of their Quadrennial Review and report to the BCC Conservation Collier Program - update VII. Council Member Comments VIII. Public Comments Ix. Adjournment Council Members: Please notify the Environmental Services Depadment Administrative Assistant no later than 5:00 p.m. on November 27, 2002 if you cannot attend this meetinq or if you have a conflict and will abstain from votinq on a petition (732-2505) General Public: Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto; and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. December 4, 2002 THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Auditorium of the Golden Gate Community Center Naples, FL 34104 9:00AM Minutes December 4, 2002 The meeting was called to order at 9:10am. Attendance: Thomas Sansbury, Michael G. Coe, Ken Humiston, Alfred Gal, Alexandra Santoro, Ed Carlson, John Dowd, Michael V. Sorrel -Erica Lyrme had an excused absence. Collier County: Barb Burgeson, Kay Deselem, Steve Lenberger, Ray Bellows, Stan Chrzanowski, Patrick White, Robert Wiley, Lisa Koehler. II. Approval of Agenda: -There were no changes, additions, or deletions to the agenda. III. Approval of Minutes for October 16, 2002: -Mr. Carlson stated that on page 6, the comments by Mr. Coe were actually his comments. The corrected minutes should show the name change of Mr. Coe to Mr. Carlson on page 6. -Mr. Carlson moved to approve the minutes of October 16, 2002. It was seconded by Mr. Coe. All were in favor, the motion passed unanimously. IV. "Lands End" Amendment -Mr. White swore in all those testifying. -Ray Bellows, Chief Planner with Current Planning Staff, stated that the petition was an amendment to the Lands End Preserve PUD. The petition was originally approved September 14, 1994. The petitioner is now requesting an amendment that will reduce the number of dwelling units, increase the building height, and allow the ability to have Page 2 December 4, 2002 village-commercial uses. Mr. Bellows used an aerial photograph to show the location of the PUD. He also used the petitioner's masterplan to show the layout of the area. The petition area is adjacent to the Eagle Creek Country Club and the Lely Lakes PUD. The Rookery Bay Conservation area is to the South of the petition area. The proposed amendment is consistent with the GMP, including the village-commercial portion. The proposed height has changed from 20 stories over 2 levels of parking to 75 feet over 1 level of parking. -Steven Lenberger, Environmental Services Division, used the visualizer to show a map, which located the native vegetation on this site. The map showed that most of the property was formally agricultural operations. It is now heavily overgrown with Brazilian Pepper. Cattails were also located in the area and pointed out. The masterplan was used to show that the petitioner is going to retain -38 acres of native vegetation, which is -63% of the native vegetation which is presently on the site. The impacts to the wetlands are minimal, 3.34 acres, 9% of the wetlands will be impacted. This is also the area of Hybrid Brazilian Pepper. The protected species survey was done. They found a Fox Crow nest on the upper northeast segment of the property. This area will be preserved. -Mr. Coe asked what the proposed preserve areas "backed up to". Mr. Lenberger stated that the Eagle Creek sub-division lies to the east. To the north is a mixture of agricultural uses and single-family home sites. The state owns the majority of the property to the south and the Rookery Bay Reserve is to the West. -Wayne Arnold, with Grady Minor Engineering, representing the petitioner, explained that this was an amendment to an existing PUD. He added that when they began this project, they met with their neighbors at Eagle Creek, the Rookery Bay staff, and the Conservancy staff. The one issue that stood out with this amendment was the building height that they had requested. The originally requested five buildings up to 20 stories over 2 levels of parking. In the last two months of discussion, they have agreed to reduce the building height request to 75 feet over 1 level of parking. The day before this meeting, they sent a letter to staffthat acknowledged this change. Rookery Bay and the Conservancy were in support of the reduction in height to this level. He also pointed out that they were preserving the "best of the best". One of the significant changes that the made to the masterplan was to add -6 acres of preserve on the northwest comer adjacent to the Rookery Bay Preserve. Page 3 December 4, 2002 -Mr. Sansbury asked if the height limitations occurred on all the RG tracts. Mr. Arnold stated that this was correct. -Mr. Arnold pointed out that Mr. Lenberger had requested conditions to be added and they have amended the PUD to incorporate these conditions. -Mr. Humiston asked if there could be a water quality monitoring. Mark Minor stated that they new water quality was an important issue due to the relationship with the neighboring Rookery Bay Preserve. They proposed to construct a conventional Storm Water Management system on site and do primary water quality treatment in the "legs". He added that, post discharge, they will construct a series of filter marshes in spetterswails to further provide secondary treatment for water quality purposes. They have had preliminary discussions with Rookery Bay and the Conservancy. They have agreed that through the ERP process, once the public notice has gone out, that they would further work with these two groups to ensure that the water quality standards are met. This would include the construction of monitoring rails along the south and west property lines. He pointed out that the plan included in the EAC packets, was conceptual in nature. The actual hard engineering design has not occurred yet, but the discussions have come up regarding water quality monitoring. -Barbara Burgeson asked about the location and ownership of the proposed 6 acres preserve. Mr. Arnold stated that it was owned by the state of Florida, but it was part of the Lely Lakes PUD. -Mr. Chrzanowski asked if the offsite discharge was going to be tested for water quality. He believed this was the intent of Mr. Humiston's question and his reply was in the form of ground water control. Mr. Humiston agreed that this was the intent of his question. Mr. Arnold stated that it would not be a problem to sample for discharge water. He suggested that it be set up similar to the regulations that the water management district had for an industrial project or a modification there of. Mr. Humiston stated that he would like to see staff develop a monitoring program to test the water quality parameters in the retention areas, as well as the discharge. -Alexandra Santoro asked who would be continually doing the monitoring in the long- term picture, if they developed this monitoring program. Mr. Minor stated that the developer would be responsible until it is sold out. Then, if it continues past a period of fives years or so, then it would be the responsibility of the Homeowners Association or the Management Company. He added that this is something they will work with Rookery Bay and the Conservancy on in the future. Page 4 December 4, 2002 Public Speakers A) Tad Bartareau, representing the Department of Environmental Protection for Rookery Bay, stated that they have been working with Mr. Arnold on the height level. They have agreed to the 75 feet over ! level of parking. They also agreed that 11 feet was the maximum height of the parking, so they were looking at a total height of 86 feet. He added that they have discussed the fact that 48% of the site is old agricultural field where there is the potential for a range of chemicals. Some sampling has indicated that there are some of the residual by-products there. Through the Water Management District and the permitting process, they will look to address this. Other than this fact, they have no objections to the amendment. -Mr. Carlson asked why they were accepting this if they didn't accept the Rookery Bay Tower Project, which was little more than 86 feet high. Mr. Bartareau stated that the sites were different, because there is less impact on the "view-scapes" from this project. They have determined that this 75-foot level is virtually non-visible from all aspects of the Bay. -Mr. Carlson asked what the original height was on the approved PUD. Mr. Bartareau stated that it was 50 feet. Mr. Arnold stated that the existing height in the PUD is 50 feet over two levels of parking for multi-family homes. For single-family homes, there was a 35-foot maximum. The amendment is requesting 75 feet over 1 level of parking. Mr. Carlson stated that his concern was, they are setting a precedent, which will allow an 86- foot building adjacent to Rookery Bay. He added that what can be viewed from the environmental center, seems to be driving the criteria. He then asked if that criteria, what can be seen from the center, will control all future high rises in that area or have they set a precedent of 86 feet. Mr. Bartareau stated that they have looked at each petition on a case-by-case basis, rather than setting a maximum height. The concern that they have is based primarily on the sight impact in this case. Mr. Coe clarified that Mr. Carlson was saying that approval was based on sight impact, but this is not part of the county ordinance, and the other project was denied due to sight impact. Mr. Bartareau stated that there were other considerations taken into account. One of these was the significant improvement made to the water management. This improvement made the plan more agreeable than the first version that had previously been approved. B) Nicole Ryan, representing the Conservancy of SW Florida, stated that they had concerns about the original proposal for 200 - 60-foot towers. They do not oppose 75-foot buildings over one level of parking, due to the fact that this is a currently Page 5 December 4, 2002 approved PUD. She added that this was one of the significant differences from the Estuary Bay Towers. Also the Conservancy was pleased because they were decreasing the density on this project from 786 units to 725 units. She added that the property is significantly impacted and degraded due to the agricultural uses on it. She explained that they were concerned about the view-scape, but they have received assurances that the buildings will not be seen from key points in Rookery Bay. They felt this was important since the tax payers have paid for Rookery Bay, and do not want to see high-rises in their natural preserve areas. The Conservancy will continue to look carefully at the proposed building projects around the boundaries of this area. They would like to see some kind of proposed height restriction or some sort of special overlay district for the areas adjacent to preserves. Then there would be a higher level of scrutiny for impacts to the environmental view, water management, and other environmental issues. She added that these areas are different than other developments within the urban area and they should be treated differently. -Mr. Carlson stated that Sand Hill is a piece of property owned by the National Audubon Society on the north end of Rookery Bay. He explained that it is a rare coastal dune that is -22 or -32 feet above sea level. He added that the view from this point would be obstructed and dominated by the high rises. Nicole Ryan stated that this might be a good reason, in the future, for the EAC and the county staff to work on some sort of special overlay district for the areas adjacent to Rookery Bay. -Mr. Sansbury asked what the height limitation is at Eagle Creek. Barbara Burgeson stated that there was no staff present at the time that was able to answer that question. Mr. Bellows added that the current Lands End PUD allows for 50 feet in the multi family residential tract, and the requested change is a 25-foot difference. Mr. Sansbury asked Mr. Gal if there was anything off Eagle Creek that one could see from 951. Mr. Gal informed him that there was not. -Mr. White asked if there were any ex parte disclosures. Mr. Carlson stated that he had a phone call the day before from the representative of Rookery Bay. Mr. Humiston stated that he had a discussion the day before with Tad Bartareau. -Mr. Carlson and Mr. Gal stated that they were abstaining from the vote. -Barbara Burgeson stated that she had attempted to add a stipulation. She read the idea into the record: "staff will develop a monitoring program to test water quality parameters in retention areas and discharge areas to ensure proper pre-treatment prior to all off-site discharge. Annual reports will be provided with the required PUD annual monitoring report." -Mr. Humiston made a motion for approval with the stipulation drafted by Barbara Burgeson. It was seconded by Mr. Coe. Page 6 December 4, 2002 -Mr. Coe asked who was going to do the monitoring after the developer is out of the picture and how do they know that it is being done. Mr. Sansbury informed him that the district permit requires you to signify who is going to be the long- term owner and operator of the system, which is the Homeowners Association. Mr. Chrzanowski added that they have yearly monitoring reports that must be submitted and these reports have stipulations to verify that all this is being done. He suggested that the best people to test the water quality may be the Rookery Bay people since they know the best times and techniques for testing. Mr. White added that typically what is done with the permits, is that the actual provisions are included in the declaration of covenants and restrictions that are applicable to the regulated property. His understanding was that the applicant's agent was willing to put on the record that this is something that they would be amenable to and it reflects their agreements with the Conservancy and other interested parties. -Mr. Sansbury commented that he still had a difficult time with 85 feet, but he supported the compromising nature between all parties involved. -Mr. White stated that Mr. Carlson and Mr. Gal have filed form 8B. -Mr. Sorrel clarified that the difference from the original PUD, was a difference of 14 feet. He asked Mr. Bartareau if he was saying that they are now required to do more than in the original PUD. Mr. Bartareau stated that in terms of preservation of Rookery Bay it was indirect, in terms of restoring flow-ways and habitats. He added that it was a trade off to some degree. Their recommendation is for approval of the amendment since the flow-way restoration piece is in there. -The motion was recalled. The motion passed, 5-1. (Mr. Gal and Mr. Carlson abstained from voting and Alexandra Santoro opposed). A ten-minute recess was taken. Charley Estates -There were no ex parte disclosures. -Mr. White swore in all those who would be testifying. -Kay Deselem, principal planner with current planning, used an aerial photograph to show the location of the land. She explained that it only had access to US 41, by two different points. The project surrounds the First Haitian Baptist Mission. It was zoned into two separate pieces. One piece was zoned agricultural and the other piece was zoned PUD. The proposal is requesting that the entire parcel be zoned PUD. The original PUD was known as Habitat Place. They propose to build 124 single-family detached units and they are asking for consideration of an affordable housing agreement that would allow these homes to be used for low- income housing. -Mr. Lenberger, environmental services division, stated that the subject property is wooded. He used an aerial to show both pieces of land. Most of the area is vegetated with Pine, but there is an area of Cypress and another of Saw Palmetto. The wetlands are about 9.5 acres and they are in the Pine and Cypress areas. The petitioner did a protected species survey and did not find any protected species on the site. Page 7 December 4, 2002 -Ken Griffith, principal planner with Johnson Engineering in Fort Myers, stated that he and his co-workers were present on behalf of Habitat for Humanity. Habitat for Humanity owns the 20-acre parcel and has a contract for the additional 8-acre parcel. Currently the PUD is approved for 100 dwelling units on the 20 acres. The amendment is to add 24 additional units on the 8 acres, then the overall net result would be a decrease in the density from 4.95units per acre to 4.37 units per acre. It is a proposed affordable housing project. -There were no public speakers. -Mr. Carlson added that there is a Deltona Settlement agreement map. Mr. Lenberger stated that the diagram shows the agreement. The areas slated for development and the preserve lands that were set aside were shown on this map. The area is set aside for development in the Deltona Settlement agreement. There is no additional wetland preservation required for this site. The water management district will permit the project and there will be no mitigation required from the state for impacts to wetlands. The applicant will still have to get permits from the Army Corps of Engineers for the project. -Mr. Coe made a motion for approval. It was seconded by Alexandra Santoro. All were in favor. The motion passed unanimously, 8-0. VI. New Business A) Quadrennial Review and Report: Barbara Burgeson stated that there is no additional information for the EAC to discuss this month. Item A was put on the agenda as a reminder. B) Conservation Collier Program Update: Barbara Burgeson stated that she had handed out press releases to the EAC earlier that morning. The BCC amended the ordinance the day before with very minor changes to this. This press release has a December 30, 2002 deadline so anyone interested in applying must get their resumes and letters to Sue Filson by December 30, 2002. Any members of the EAC wishing to sit on both boards, were advised that Barbara Burgeson believed it was allowable. She added that she would check with Sue Filson to make sure. She explained that a staff position will be added under Bill Lorenz's position. This will be posted and defined probably by the end of December or early January. C) Hearing Examiner: Barbara Burgeson explained that the hearing examiner position will not be filled at this time. The BCC decided to postpone this indefinitely. -Mr. White reminded the members of the council that there should be no exchange of emails before a matter is heard that requires a decision on the part of the EAC, especially those pertaining to quasi-judicial matters. The only reason for emails should be something that EAC would like to direct staff in finding for the matter. One of the reasons that this is important to remember is due to the Sunshine Laws. -Alexandra Santoro asked if they should submit ideas or discuss the quadrennial report. Barbara Burgeson stated, that as a result of the BCC decision to postpone the hearing examiner, there may be some potential modifications to the direction this report would take. Mr. White added that there are a series of questions to be Page 8 December 4, 2002 VII. answered, but these are the questions in the agenda packet. He believes if the EAC had some suggestions or directions for staff, that it would be appropriate to make them at this time. Alexandra Santoro asked which staff member they should direct their comments to. Barbara Burgeson replied that they could send them to her or Bill Lorenz. -Alexandra Santoro stated, with the announcement of the hearing examiner, that some of the things they have been doing would be continued. She would like to see the council become more pro-active in helping to form an ordinance around Rookery Bay regarding maximum height and the promotion of recycling. She believes the council has been very effective this past year in the changes to the LDC. She asked if staff would put down the number of heatings on PUD's that they have had in the past year. Barbara Burgeson stated that they would. -Mr. Coe added that they need to get into re-writing the LDC. One thing he believed that should be part of this is some way of providing county with the authority to shut a project down when it is in opposition to the LDC. He used the "turtle ordinance" as a case where similar problems had occurred. -Mr. White stated that the limitations in question were limitations on government, itself. The power under the constitution is in three parts: courts, legislative, and executive. He explained that it is ultimately the courts that have the authority to enjoin certain activities that are unlawful, and a code or rule cannot grant local government this authority. The local government does have the authority to deny permits or approvals to a project where a violation has been determined to exist. The ability to shut down a business because of a violation of the LDC is not in the authority of the local government. He added that this is the notion of "the balance of power". Mr. Coe stated that he would still like to explore the possibility of increasing the penalties or whatever it takes to put "some teeth" in compliance of the code before it goes to court. -There were no public comments. Adjournment - Adjournment was at 10:15AM. Page 9