EAC Agenda 09/04/2002 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
AGENDA
September 4,2002
9:00 A.M.
Commission Boardroom
W.Harmon Turner Building(Building"F")—Third Floor
I. Roll Call
H. Approval of Agenda
III. Approval of July 3,2002 Meeting Minutes
IV. Old Business
V. New Business: LDC Amendments (5 items)
VI. Council Member Comments
VII. Public Comments
VIII. Adjournment
*********************************************************************************
Council Members: Please notify the Current Planning Secretary no later than 5:00 p.m. on August 28, 2002 if
you cannot attend this meeting or if you have a conflict and will abstain from voting on a petition(403-2400).
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.
July 3, 2002
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
County Commission Boardroom
Building"F",3rd Floor
3301 Tamiami Trail
Naples,FL 34104
9:00 AM
MINUTES
JULY 3,2002
Chairman Tom Sansbury called the meeting to order at 9:00 AM.
ATTENDANCE:
Members: William Hill,Ed Carlson,Thomas Sansbury,Alexandra Santoro,Alfred Gal,
and Ken Humiston.
Collier County: Stephen Lenberger,Kim Hadley,Ray Bellows, Stan Chrzanowski,July
Minor,Marjorie Student,Patrick White,and Maura Krauss.
-Michael Coe,Erica Lynne,and Sorrel had excused absences.
II APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Ed Carlson moved to approve the agenda,it was then
seconded by Alexandra Santoro; it passed unanimously.
III APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Ed Carlson moved to approve the minutes of the June 5,
2002 meeting of the EAC,it was then seconded by Alexandra Santoro; it passed
unanimously.
IV Land Use Petitions
A) Special Treatment Permit No.ST-2194
"Center Point"
Section 3,Township 51 South,Range 26 East
-Patrick White swore in all those who were testifying.
Speakers:
1) Ray Bellows,planning services,presented the planning overview for this petition.
-Mr. Bellows stated the site was located on the NE section of Collier Blvd and US 41
-The site was zoned C3 and has an STE overlay
-The petitioner is requesting to construct an 11,200-sq.ft. drugstore and a 260-seat
restaurant.
-Since this is not a PUD,the ST issues cannot be addressed through the normal PUD
requirements,this petition is to remove the ST permitting process of the zoning map.
-The site is located in the urban residential district(this was a correction of the staff
report)
-The site is located in Activity Center#18,this allows for commercial uses
2) Stephen Lenberger,planning services,
-Site is 4.02 acres in Size(Visual used to show site),Collier Blvd(County Rd.951)is on
the West side of the property,US 41 is on the Southern side of the property
Page 1
July 3, 2002
-Currently there is a fruit stand on the corner of the property,the Western—2/3 of the site
is cleared,the eastern portion is a forested Wetland(contains: Cypress,Oak, &Red
Maple)
-The site is an ST permit,if this petition is approved it will allow development in it,
rather than removing the ST overlay(Mr.Lenberger made a correction to the statements
of Mr. Bellows)
-Jurisdictional wetlands total—1.3 acres of the site and located in the Eastern portion of
the property
-Mr.Lenberger stated that the petitioner wishes to impact most of this and has paid off-
site mitigation to Panther Island Mitigation Bank for 1.86 credits
-The petitioner is required to retain 10%of native vegetation(0.18 acres); the native
vegetation is the forested Wetland on the Eastern portion and—1/2 acre of Pine Oak&
Cabbage Palm on the Northern portion
-Retention area will be left at existing grade(-0.23 acres or 13%)of the native vegetation
-No listed species were observed
-Mr.Lenberger reviewed the regulations and intent of the ST overlay; "directed towards
the conservation,protection,and preservation of the ecological and recreational
values....These areas include but are not necessarily limited to mangrove and fresh water
swamps,barrier islands,hardwood hammocks...and lands and structures of historical
significance. The purpose of this overlay designation is to assure the preservation and the
maintenance of these environmental and cultural resources and to encourage their
preservation and at the same time to permit those types of development..." He also read
a paragraph pertaining to the ST establishment section: "the overlay district classification
is used for those lands of environmental sensitivity and historical and archeological
significance when the essential ecological and cultural value of the land is not adequately
protected under the basic zoning regulations established by code or ordinance."
-Mr.Lenberger stated that they do not feel that an 82%impact to the wetlands on site is
in accordance with the code,they also feel it may be inconsistent with policy 6.2&6.47
of the Growth Management Plan
-Mr. Carlson questioned if these were recent and hard-fast jurisdictional lines
-Mr.Lenberger replied that the Water Management District has already permitted the
project and that they are hard-fast jurisdictional lines.
-Mr. Sansbury questioned if there were Malucca on the grounds
-Mr.Lenberger replied that there were some in the interior and some Brazilian Pepper on
the fringe of the grounds
-Mr. Hill questioned the staff report statement that the site was already impacted due to
the construction of the Falling Waters project neighboring this site
-Mr.Lenberger replied yes,but he would not label this as permanent impact
-Mr. Hill and Mr.Lenberger clarified that the impact on this site(which was being
spoken of)are secondary impacts from the Falling Waters Project,and that there would
be a minor impact on the Northern portion due to this site plan.
3) Tony Pierce, with the law firm of Woodward,Pierce, and Lombardo,here on behalf
of the petitioner.
-Mr. Pierce requested that Re-Anne Boylan be declared an expert in the area of
environmental science, environmental engineering, wetlands,estuary,and ecology,
vegetation and habitat mapping,environmental impact assessment,environmental
Page 2
July 3, 2002
restoration and mitigation,hydrology, and land use planning.Mr.Pierce places her
resume into the record. (A copy of Re-Anne Boylan's resume was not given to the court
reporter)
-Coastal Management element 6.2 states that"there should be no unacceptable net loss of
"viable"naturally functioning marine and fresh water wetland."
-Policy 6.2.10 states"any development activity within a viable naturally functioning
wetland,not part of a continuous flow-way, shall be mitigated in accordance with South
Florida Water Management District rules"
-Mr.Pierce stated that there is secondary impact from the Falling Waters project and that
the current project therefore is unable to be a"Viable"wetland. Also,he stated that it is
not part of a continuous flow-way due to the previously mentioned activity. This has
been mitigated in accordance with South Florida Water Management District Rules.
-Mr.Pierce makes the Water Management Permit part of the record. He also submitted a
letter(dated June 5,2002)that was submitted to the staff and had the data of permits and
mitigation listed. (A copy of the letter and a copy of the permit were not given to the
court reporter)
-Information in the letter included: advisement's of biologists and environmental
consultants that the drainage used has been severed by past developments in the projects
vicinity,that Falling Water's secondary impacts to the site required that the site follow
mitigation rules,it also included the fact that South Florida Water Management District
determined that this site is no longer a viable wetland functioning system due to
secondary impacts.
-All being considered,Mr.Pierce requested approval of this ST Petition.
-Mr.Pierce made the site photograph part of the record. (A copy of the photo was not
given to the court reporter)
4)Re-Anne Boylan,president of Boylan Environmental Consultants, gave a little
background on her experience. She has a degree in biology from Stetson University
1979,Masters of Environmental Engineering Sciences from the University of Florida in
1982, worked for the Department of Environmental Protection,also worked for the South
Florida Water Management District, in 1989 she established her company, and she stated
that she has been doing this work in South Florida for over 20 years and that she has been
qualified as an expert in numerous administrative and court proceedings.
-Mr.Hill moves that Re-Anne Boylan be accepted as an environmental expert,Carlson
seconded the motion,all were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously.
-Re-Anne Boylan reviewed the site map and the adjacent properties,she then places a
copy of South Florida Water Management staff report of December 21, 1999 into the
record(A copy of this report was not given to the court reporter). She stated that Falling
Waters had wetlands in proximity of their wetlands,these were determined as candidates
for impact and off site mitigation was appropriate.
-During the Permitting process of Falling Waters, the secondary impacts on the wetlands
of the Center Point site had to be mitigated for. On page 7 of the staff report it estimated,
that a functional assessment of this five-acre wetland will lose 20% of its value or the
equivalent of 1 acre of impact.
-Re-Anne Boylan stated that this shows the site is getting no water from the north at this
point in time. She stated that there is no in-flow from the West,and that the wetlands
does extend into the East(off-site)but there still is no water from the Falling Waters
/'.N Project that flows into these wetlands.
Page 3
I
July 3, 2002
-She stated that somewhere in the staff report,it is indicated that the Henderson weir
canal controls the US 41 canal at five(dry season)and 3 and 1/2(wet season), which is
not conducive to wetland preservation.
-The elevation in the wetland is 3 and l and then goes up at higher elevations in the fill
areas.
-She feels that the hydrology of the system was compromised by the Falling Waters
project and is out of the control of the applicant, and that it cannot be maintained at this
point.
-She maintains that the applicant cannot be responsible for this wetland preservation
because due to outside activities this site no longer contains a viable wetland system. She
refers to an excerpt from the South Florida Water Management District staff report for
Center Point,the permit was issued October 11,2001,On Page 5 of staff report that the
district indicated that on site preservation was not feasible in the long term.
-Mr. Carlson asked what future water depths were in the proposed reserve area. Re-Anne
deferred to the engineer as to depths in the actual wetland itself and that they had
provided mitigation for all of the wetlands on the site.
-Mr.Carlson stated that there was a dual purpose,the retention area was also the preserve
area. He also stated he believed that there would be substantial surface water because of
elevation and controlled structure on Henderson Creek. He believes that there could be a
viable wetland. He wanted the Hydrologist to elaborate on the future water levels in the
preserve area. He doesn't see that if the district claimed this as jurisdiction wetlands,
how it is possible that they don't avoid these wetlands saying that they cannot avoid them
and must go to mitigation. He also has an issue that mitigation banks were not
established to buy your way out of avoidance.
-Re-Anne Boylan stated that the district felt that this was not a practical case for
preservation and mitigation is due to long-term preservation is outside of the control of
the permitee.
-Mr. Sansbury clarified for the record that Panther Island Mitigation Bank was mentioned
and that the principles of the firm in which he is employed are also the principles of the
firm which is a partner to Panther Island Mitigation Bank, yet in no way is he involved or
profit from Panther Island Mitigation Bank and does not feel there is any conflict with his
involvement in this discussion or voting on this item.
-Re-Anne Boylan enters the district staff report for Center Point into the record(A copy
of this report was not given to the court reporter).
5) Mike Landy,of Landy Engineering represented the petitioner.
-Stated the project was required to water management under a 25yr/3day-storm plan
-Existing grades of the wetlands are in the 5.2 range and he expects them to go up 3.5 feet
and then bleed down a couple days after(This would be a major storm event)
-They established a controlled elevation at 5.0,the controlled elevation at Falling Waters
is 3.5
-He would not expect standing water in the dry retention area,but after rains similar to
the recent ones he would expect it to be a little muddy,he feels that this project would
isolate the hydrology and help the system they are preserving
Page 4
July 3, 2002
n -Mr. Sansbury questioned if there was anyway to complete this project without placing a
burm near property lines,and on the next neighboring project do the same,so that a
viable area could be preserved. Mr.Landy stated he did not know the answer to this.
-Mr. Carlson asked Mr.Lenberger if he had been on the site,Mr.Lenberger stated he has.
Mr.Carlson then asked,based on the natural indicators what is the wet season water
level,pre-construction. Mr.Lenberger replied,"I can't tell you,I know the answer to
that question,I did ask the applicant to provide that" what they came back with was the
information with the control elevations,because they did not shoot elevations for the wet
season water table. Mr.Carlson and Mr.Lenberger agree that this is important
information and that it should be seen.
-Alfred Gal asked if the project was still viable if forty parking spaces were not created. It
was determined that the project was not viable less forty parking spaces.
-It was re-stated that along with Re-Anne Boylan's opinion,it is not believed that the
petition was inconsistent with 6.2,6.2.1, 6.4,6.4.7 and that they are comply with
requirements of the land development code.
-Re-Ann Boylan then stated that they are not inconsistent with 6.2, 6.2.10,6.4,and 6.4.7.
She stated that she does not agree with staff that they are inconsistent with 6.4.7 because
they are looking at the project in the long term.
-There was no public comment.
/'\
-Mr.Hill stated that it is unclear to him if the opinion stated by Mr.White in a
memorandum to Miss Murray is the same at this time. Mr.White stated that his opinion
stands and that is the reason for this hearing that rather it would have been an
administrative review only.
-Alexandra Santoro asked Stephen Lenberger to clarify his position. He stated that they
believe it is a viable wetland,that there is hydrology there,and that this will be viable.
-Mr. Hill's concern is that they are chopping away at a wetland piece by piece and that he
saw no secondary impact from Falling Waters, and if this is approved the next
neighboring site will have the same claim and they will lose the whole six acres.
-Mr. Hill made a motion for staff to be recognized as an expert in all the same respects as
Re-Anne Boylan. It was seconded by Alexandra Santoro, all were in favor,it passed
unanimously.
-Mr.Carlson made a motion to support the recommendation of staff and recommend
denial of this project,it was seconded by Alexandra Santoro, all were in favor,it passed
unanimously.
-Mr.Hill stated his vote was based on the same questions Mr.Carlson had in respect to
the hydrology of the land.
At 10:15 AM a five-minute break was taken.
B) Planned Unite Development No.PUDZ-2002-AR-2491
Page 5
July 3, 2002
"Arrowhead PUD"
Section 31,Township 46 South,Range 29 East
Section 6,Township 47 South,Range 29 East
-Patrick White swore in all those who were testifying.
-Mr. Hummiston declares that he has a disclosure and in accordance has filled out the 8-B
form due to his contractual arrangement with Turrell &Associates and that he will be
participating in the discussion but will refrain from voting.
A) Ray Bellows,planning services, stated that the petition was an"Arrowhead amendment
to the PUD".
-The site is located on the South side of Trafford Road,—1 mile west of state route 29, —1
mile east of Lake Trafford
-The PUD is 307 acres,currently approved for 900 residential units, it also allows for
mobile homes, and 15 acres of commercial use that allow for—130,680 gross lease-able
floor area.
-The proposed amendment will eliminate the mobile home uses, will re-configure the
commercial tract, modify the mix between single and multi family, and increase the total
number of dwelling units.
-(Immokalee Future Land Use Map was used to show the subject sight):Two land use
classifications: 1)259 acres located in the low residential district,eligible for a density of
4 units per acre and would allow for a maximum 1,036 units;2) allows for a mix of
commercial and residential uses, maximum density of 12 units per acre, 33 acres of this
project located in this area which would allow for an additional 400 dwelling units
-Petitioner requests that the density is consistent with the density allowed by the n
Immokalee area master plan and staff has also deemed this consistent with the Immokalee
master plan
B) Kim Hadley,planning services, stated that the majority of the project site is pasture for
grazing cows and that the remaining is upland,live oak hammock,mixed wetland
hardwoods, two cypress heads and catapalms.
-The ground cover and mid-story vegetation has been impacted by the cattle grazing.
-The site contains 48.67 acres of wetlands.
-The applicant is proposing 0.08 acres of impact to the wetlands.
-25.73 of upland buffer habitat surrounding the wetland acres will be retained,the total
exceeding the 25%preservation requirement.
-Mr. Hummiston verifies that the total acreage is 307 acres.He questions how 48.67
acres of wetland and 25.73 acres of upland make 25%.
-Kim Hadley explained that it is 25% of existing vegetation not of the entire 307 acres.
C) Robert Dwayne,of Hole Montes &Associates,represented the petitioner.
-Stated he is not an expert in environmental planning,but has Tim Hall from Turrell&
Associates and Jeff Head from Hole Montes&Associates,both available for questions.
-Stated the project did not have a district permit,however they have filed their application
for a permit
-They have no disagreement with the stipulations recommended by staff
-Mr. Carlson questioned how the Waste/Water Management Treatment in Immokalee
going to handle a project this large.
Page 6
July 3, 2002
r1
-Mr. Dwayne stated the sewage is going to be treated by the Immokalee Sewar and Water
District and they will be provided fees to help treat the capacity of this project, and they
are required by the DEP to fill out forms for permitting purposes
-There were no public comments
-Alexandra Santoro moved to approve with the staff's recommendations included,Mr.
Hill seconded this motion,all were in favor, it passed unanimously(Mr.Hummiston
refrained from voting on this subject due to the previously mentioned conflict)
V.Old Business—There was no old business for discussion.
VI.New Business
A) Discussion on Beach Raking
-Mr. Sansbury asked if he should fill out the appropriate form due to the fact that his employer
owns part of a beachfront property that may be affected,Mr.White advised he waited to see if
conflict arose after hearing the concerns,Mr. Sansbury agreed.
1) Bill Lorenz,Natural Resources Director, stated the EAC requested there be a discussion
concerning beach raking and Mr.Lorenz advised that the Coastal Advisory Committee
had also requested that county staff advise them about what was occurring with the
county's operations concerning beach raking. Presentations are being made to both
/'"N parties,today's presentation is to provide the EAC with information on beach raking and
begin a discussion,which may develop action later in this year.
2) Maura Kraus,principal environmental specialist for the Collier County Natural
Resources Department,gave a presentation on beach raking and its environmental
effects, she provided a pack of information as well.
-Collier County began raking the beaches in 1990 on Marco Island. They used an ATV,
a tractor with a chain link fence behind to smooth the beach.
-In 1995 they upgraded to a forked rake,this penetrated the sand 2 inches,with the chain
link fence following behind to smooth out the beach.
-In 1996 they used a beach rake to provide routine maintenance,clean up after storm
events, and restoration to beaches of Marco,Naples,Park Shore, and Vanderbilt beaches.
The DEP issued a permit to rake on an as needed basis,it was not the intent to rake for no
reason.
-Environmental effects of the large machines to the beaches and dunes are removal of
sand and shell,removal of seed sources and seedlings,reduction in the integrity of the
beach,dune and root systems.
-The EPA conducted a study in Maine, showed beaches that were raked had 25%less
root mass,rhizomes coming from the dunes. The closer to the dunes the more damage
done. It also removes nutrients from the dunes that act as natural fertilizer,it eliminates
natural re-development of the dunes.
-Mr. Carlson questioned dragging versus raking and to what extent their uses are.
-Maura Kraus stated that original the beaches were only dragged until 1996 when the
larger machine was purchased in order to remove rocks and now the machine is regularly
raking the entire beach.
Page 7
•
July 3, 2002
-Maura Kraus explained that the reason the larger machines affect the dunes is because
the root mass extends 25-ft from the dunes and the rakes go within 10-ft.
-Mr. Hill questioned that since the county has increased the scope of its raking,is it
therefor in violation of the DEP's originally issued permit.
-Maura Kraus stated she was unsure,that when she spoke to the DEP they stated it was
not the intent to rake the entire beach on a regular basis.
-Maura Kraus stated the environmental impact to sea turtles is that it can cause
compaction over a misidentified or false crawls,removal of sand and shell can cause the
eggs to become exposed,and removing of nesting evidence if raking occurs before
monitoring.
-Mr. Sansbury questioned if any of this has definitely happened.
-Maura Kraus stated that they are not aware if this is happening in Collier County,but
she provided the packets to show testimony of other areas, which rake, and the fact that
these dangers have been noted as occurring
-Mr. Sansbury stated he would like the dunes researched to see if the dunes are being
affected by the raking.
-Mr. Hummiston stated that this theory of the dunes ability to grow without raking is a
rational theory.
-Maura Kraus stated that there is also an effect to the macro-invertebrates,Mole crabs,
coquinas, removal of ghost crabs, and damage to crabs and their burrows due to their
proximity's to the rack line and the surface of the sand,since the larger raking machines
go as far as 2 inches down.
-There is environmental affect to birds and their nesting sites. She states example in
Marco. The nests,chicks,and eggs ca n be crushed,there is also a threat to some birds
who feed off the rack line.
-The rack line also provides habitat and food source to sport fish,therefor the removal of
beach rack will affect this.
-She would like the county to educate the public on the rack lines and their place in the
eco-system,work better with the adopt a shore program, look at smoothing or different
equipment,and feels they need to better determine when the shore should be raked versus
smoothed,keep better documentation of materials,and create a clear definition of the
necessity of raking.
-The entire maintained beaches are being raked,Maura Kraus used a map to show
specific locals being maintained. She stated that the state maintains that the rakes can be
adjusted to not pick up the sand and shell,but she has observed that even though there are
adjustments there has not been a change.
3) Ron Hovell,coastal's project manager for Collier County, gave background on himself
and the program.
-started with the county last summer
-his program is 100% supported by tourist tax funds so they consider a lot of the input
from the tourist community
-offered a brief packet to cover some of the information.
-Review of the packet:
A) currently, since 1996,the county rakes Vanderbilt,Park Shore,Naples,and
Marco Island(Mostly in beach re-nourishment permit and beach raking
permit areas)
Page 8
July 3, 2002
B) They are currently using the Mechanical raking equipment primarily to
remove rocks. They have 3 sets of equipment and 3 operators. He feels that
the reason this program has grown is due to tourism and not looking at the
environmental side.
C) The Pelican Bay Services Division maintains their beaches with an old
tractor and about every six weeks has the county bring in the mechanical
rakes.
D) In the past 6-9 mos.these issues have been reviewed at the Coastal Advisory
Committee,the Conservancy,The EAC,the City of Naples,and Marco
Island. Marco Island wants to continue raking every day,Naples supports
reducing mechanical raking to as needed and picking up trash by hand,this is
also the view of the conservancy.
E) They have one set of equipment in need of repair,which they are choosing to
not do so,lower their equipment#to 2. The third operator is using a"gator"
to hand pick up trash. They also are now only raking above the rack line
unless they determine with natural resources that they need to do otherwise.
The goal is to remove the amount of shell and sand being removed. \
F) The requirements of the federal, state, and county permitting issues are that
the depth of raking not go below 2 inches and that ground pressure is
supposed to be less than 10/sq. inch.
G) The conflict: Original intent is to remove rocks and you can't do this with 2
inches depth.
H) The consent order: The re-nourishment in 1996 pumped up rock onto the
beaches,the county has been under a notice of violation from both the state
and the army Corp of engineers. Last summer the state changed this to a
consent order. A rock removal plan had to be submitted,raking was built in
to this plan,therefor if changes of raking are made,they will need to go back
and make changes to the rock removal plan.
-Mr. Gal questioned if Marco Island or the City of Naples approval is needed or if the
county is just looking to them for input. Mr.Hovell stated that although they are 100%
funded by tourist tax fund, which is advised to the Board of County Commissioners by
both Tourist Development Council, (which has members in it that are from the city of
Naples and Marco Island),as well as the Coastal Advisory Committee, (which has three
members from Marco Island and three members from the City of Naples and three
members from the County),because they historically have maintained all the beaches
including beach raking with the tourist tax fund,it does become a joint decision.
-Mr.Lorenz showed a slide represented the cycle of time they would have to follow in
order to create change. He feels that there are two main components that they will need
to address in regards to beach raking. 1)establishing the county's protocol, in reference
to when and where raking should occur,identify beach grooming versus smoothing and
where these protocols can be adjusted to lower the environmental impact. 2)To what
degree do they have to make modifications to the Land Development Code. Some of the
items staff decided would need modification are: 1)marking tires on ATV's did not work
and needs eliminated,2)need better definition of raking, grooming, smoothing;etc., 3)
need to look at beach re-nourishment and the requirements that will allow this.
-Alexandra Santoro requested the requirements for the beach re-nourishment be sent to
them prior to other discussions.—The staff is going to do so.
Page 9
July 3, 2002
-Public comment
4) Jerry Therion,represented La Playa Beach Resort and the Naples Visitor Bureau. He
stated he is not an expert,but claims to be a"self-proclaimed"expert in resort tourism
due to his 35 years of experience. They are in support of the environment but that the
local residents and the tourist demand that the beaches be at least maintained. He said he
has had comments that the beaches"aren't what they used to be",the beaches"are nicer
and less expensive"elsewhere. He emphasized that the tourist level creates the tourist
tax, which pays for the beaches to be maintained. In his observation they are staying well
beyond the 10-ft dune line.
-Mr. Gal does not believe that ceasing to rake the beaches will cease tourism.
-Mr.Therion stated they are not against smoothing,that in the past dragging an old
bedspring drug behind did the trick.
-Mr.Carlson agreed and stated that smoothing is good for the turtles.
5) Chris Pataglia,stated that she lives in Park Shore and is on the board of Gulf Shore
Association of Condominiums. She stated that they are for all environmental concerns,
and as the speaker before mentioned they want to protect the environment but they do not
want the services to the beach to discontinue. They want the beaches to continue to be
manicured and that there are certain times for stronger maintenance, such as red—tide
events. Her organization,is for keeping the level of current services and do not want to
see a reduction.
6) Tom Cravens,has been coming to Vanderbilt beaches since 1979. He is now living in
Pelican Bay and walks on the beaches daily. He stated that when it is plowed it is sterile
land with"no critters" and that it is difficult to walk. He wants the beach raking to stop
and does not feel it will affect tourism.
7) Sharon Cromwall,representing the Conservancy of Southwest Florida, stated that in
March she mailed a letter that stated their concerns,and again addressed the EAC in
April about their concerns. She stated she felt Maura covered the environmental aspects
thoroughly,but she wanted to add a few other things. She reported that during the fiscal
year 2001 1300 tons was taken to the landfill and so far this year 733 tons,consisting of
mostly sand and shell. She also stated she shoveled a five-gallon bucket out of the
dumpster to sample what was being raked. She stated that she is aware this was not a
very scientifically sound research,but wanted a general idea of what was leaving the
beaches. The five-gallon bucket she withdrew from the Naples dumpster weighed 44 lbs.
and contained 21 lbs. of shells,9 lbs. of sand, 13 lbs.of rock, and a minute amount of
litter. They would like to see beach raking limited and see clarification of when it is a
necessity to rake.
-Mr. Carlson questioned if they were offering Sarasota County beach raking plan as a
model(listed in the letter). She stated it was an example of what other counties do to
regulate, and that they did not necessarily want those regulations,just specific policies
implemented.
-Mr. Gal would like to see studies that not only survey damages by raking,but also
surveys to see if tourist dollars are being affected.
-Mr. Hummiston said that we bring the sand and shells in at times and it is a detriment to
take it out,but that he believes smoothing is needed and that he believes that at some
point staff will bring this back with changes and they can consider things further then.
Page 10
ir
} July 3, 2002
-Mr.Lorenz stated that it will come back at a later point and that today was to bring
information before the board so they were aware of the discussions at the time and have a
chance to state some concerns.
-Mr. Gal and Alexandra Santoro feel that Marco Island may be a good testing ground to
stop raking and see what the affects are. Mr. Gal said that due to the political nature
possibly causes this not to be attempted that he was willing to lobby on behalf of trials if
it would help in the future.
B) Amendment to the EAC Ordinance to delete the annual reporting requirement
-Bill Lorenz stated that the reporting requirement now in place,to report once every year,is
unique to the EAC,and that other advisory committees report once every four years. The
county management recommends that the EAC be on a similar reporting requirement. At this
point he just wanted the board to be aware and it will come before the board for advisement
closer to the point of passing it.
VII.Council Member Comments—there were no additional comments made.
VIII.Public Comments—there were no additional public comments made.
IX.Adjournment—the meeting adjourned at 12pm
Page 11
ii
ORIGIN: Public Utilities Division
AUTHOR: Ray Smith, Director
DEPARTMENT: Pollution Control &Prevention
LDC PAGE: LDC3:186
LDC SECTION: 3.16.2.1.2.1.7. to 3.16.2.1.2.1.10.
CHANGE: Through the "Wellfield Remodeling" exercise,
Collier County's Ground Water Protection LDC will better
reflect the current status of those municipal wells located
within the County.
REASON: Wellfield Remodeling
FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: There are no
known fiscal impacts on Collier County other than the cost
of updating the existing Ground Water Protection LDC
maps and Zoning Maps. The only known operational
impact would be the required identification and
n application of changes in County's Ground Water
Protection LDC land use restrictions due to changes in
active municipal well locations and pump rates.
RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: NA
3.16.2.1.2.1.7. The following wellfields withdraw groundwater from the water table aquifer:
A. The Everglades City Wellfield; and
B. The Florida Governmental Utility Authority Golden Gate Water Treatment
Plant Cities (Avatar)Wellfield_—ate
C. The North Naples Utilities (Quail Creek)Wellfield.
3.16.2.1.2.1.8. The following wellfields withdraw groundwater from the Lower Tamiami
aquifer:
A. The Collier County Utilities East Golden Gate Wellfield;
B. The Coastal Ridge (Goodlette Road)Wellfield;
,•� C. The Collier County Utilities Wellfield;
D. The Glades Wellfield;
1
D. The Airport Water Treatment Plant Wellfield of the Immokalee Water and
Sewer District wellfields;
FE. The Carson Road Water Treatment Plant Wellfield of the Immokalee
Water and Sewer District wellfields; and
G7 F. The Orange Tree Pelican Bay Wellfield.
3.16.2.1.2.1.9. The Port of the Islands Wellfield withdraws groundwater from the intcrmcdiatc
3.16.2.1.2.1.9 40 The Main Water Treatment Plant Wellfield of the Immokalee Water and Sewer
District wellfields withdraws groundwater from the Lower Tamiami and the
Sandstone Aquifers.
LDC AMENDMENT/ /
2
ORIGIN: Public Utilities Division
AUTHOR: Ray Smith, Director
DEPARTMENT: Pollution Control & Prevention
LDC PAGE: LDC3:191
LDC SECTION: 3.16.2.4.1.1. to 3.16.2.4.2.1
CHANGE: Through the "Wellfield Remodeling" exercise,
Collier County's Ground Water Protection LDC will better
reflect the current status of those municipal wells located
within the County.
REASON: Wellfield Remodeling
FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: There are no
known fiscal impacts on Collier County other than the cost
of updating the existing Ground Water Protection LDC
maps and Zoning Maps. The only known operational
impact would be the required identification and
application of changes in County's Ground Water
Protection LDC land use restrictions due to changes in
active municipal well locations and pump rates.
RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: NA
3.16.2.4.1.1. Collier County Utilities East Golden Gate Wellfield.
3.16.2.4.1.2. Coastal Ridge (Goodlette Road)Wellfield.
3.16.2.4.1.3. Collier County Utilities Wellfield.
3.16.2.4.1.4. Everglades City Wellfield.
3.16.2.4.1.5. Florida Governmental Utility Authority Golden Gate Water Treatment Plant
Cities (Avatar)Wellfield.
3.16.2.4.1.6. The Orange Tree Glades Wellfield.
3.16.2.4.1.7. Immokalee Water and Sewer [District] wellfields drilled into the Lower
Tamiami aquifers and Sandstone aquifers.
1
ii
3.16.2.4.1.8. North Naples Utilities (Quail Creek)Wellfield.
3.16.2.4.1.9. Pelican Bay Wellfield.
3.16.2.4.2 Unregulated wellficlds. Wellfield risk management special treatment overlay
shall not be applied to:
3.16.2.4.2.1. Port of the Islands Wellfield.
LDC AMENDMENT/ /
2
�-` ORIGIN: Community Development and Environmental Services Division
AUTHOR: William D. Lorenz, P.E., Natural Resources Director
DEPARTMENT: Natural Resources
LDC PAGE: LDC5:17
LDC SECTION: 5.13.2.3
CHANGE: Remove the requirement for the Environmental Advisory Council
(EAC) to present an annual report to the Board of County
Commissioners (BCC).
REASON: The LDC requires the EAC to present an annual report to the BCC
in May of each year. This reporting requirement is specific to the
EAC and is not part of the normal review schedule and process for
other advisory boards. Deleting this requirement will make the
EAC's reporting requirement consistent with that of the other
advisory boards.
FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: Deleting this requirement will result in an
t•-•\ annual savings of approximately $500 in
staff time related to the coordination of the
annual report.
RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: None
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: None
Amend the LDC as follows:
5.13.2.3. The powers and duties of the EAC are as follows:
board meeting in May of each year. The report shall list the EAC
ORIGIN: Community Development and Environmental Services Division
AUTHOR: Barbara S. Burgeson, Sr. Environmental Specialist
DEPARTMENT: Planning Services
LDC PAGE: LDC3: 157
LDC SECTION: 3.13.6
CHANGE: To amend the notice and public hearing procedures for obtaining a
Coastal Construction Control Line Variance; providing more
extensive information to the public and to make the process
consistent to that required by other variances.
REASON: To provide the public with more notice and information regarding
proposed CCSL variances.
FISCAL& OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: There will be an additional cost for signage
to the County (if the parcel is less than one acre in size) or to the
property owner if the parcel is one acre or more in size.
n RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: None
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: None
3.13.6.2 Notice andublic hearingfor coastal construction setback line
P
variances. In the case of an application for coastal construction
setback line (CCSL) variances, such provisions shall be enacted or
amended pursuant to the following public notice and hearing
requirements by the board of county commissioners.
1. A sign shall be posted at least 15 days prior to the date of the
public hearing by the board of county commissioners. The sign
to be posted shall contain substantially the following language
and the sign's copy shall utilize the total area of the sign:
n
PUBLIC HEARING REQUESTING
CCSL VARIANCE APPROVAL
(both to contain the following information:)
TO PERMIT: (Sufficiently clear to describe the project)
DATE:
TIME:
TO BE HELD IN COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM,
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER.
The area of the signs shall be as follows:
a. For properties less than one acre in size, the sign shall
measure at least one and one-half square feet in area.
b. For properties one acre or more in size, the sign shall
measure at least 32 square feet in area.
2. In the case of signs located on properties less than one acre in
size, a sign shall be erected by the development services director in
n full view of the public on each street side of the subject property and
on the side of the property visible from the beach. Where the
property for which approval is sought is landlocked or for some
other reason the signs cannot be posted directly on the subject
property, then the sign or signs shall be erected along the nearest
street right-of-way, with an attached notation indicating generally the
distance and direction to the subject property.
3. In the case of signs located on properties one acre or more in
size, the applicant shall be responsible for erecting the required
sign(s). A sign shall be erected in full view of the public on each
street upon which the subject property has frontage and on the side
of the property visible from the beach. Where the subject property is
landlocked, or for some other reason the signs cannot be posted
directly on the property, then the sign or signs shall be erected along
the nearest street right-of-way, with an attached notation indicating
generally the distance and direction to the subject property. There
shall be at least one sign on each external boundary which fronts
upon a street, however, in the case of external boundaries along a
street with greater frontages than 1,320 linear feet, signs shall be
placed equidistant from one another with a maximum spacing of
1,000 linear feet, except that in no case shall the number of signs
along an exterior boundary fronting on a street exceed four signs.
The applicant shall provide evidence to the planning services
department that the sign(s) were erected by furnishing photora hs
of the sign(s) showing the date of their erection at least ten days prior
to the scheduled public hearing by the planning commission,
whichever has jurisdiction. The signs shall remain in place until the
date of either of the following occurrences: 1. Final action is taken
by the board of county commissioners or 2. The receipt of written
notification by the planning services department director from the
applicant requesting to withdraw the petition or requesting its
indefinite continuance.
4. Notice of the time and place of the public hearing by the board
of county commissioners shall be advertised in a newspaper of
general circulation in the county at least one time at least 15 days
prior to the public hearing. Where applicable, the notice shall clearly
describe the proposed land uses, applicable development standards,
intensity or density in terms of total floor area of commercial or
industrial space and dwelling units per acre for residential projects,
and a description of the institutional or recreational uses when part of
the development strategy. The advertisement shall also include a
location map that identifies the approximate geographic location of
the subject property.
n 5. The board of county commissioners shall hold one advertised
public hearing on the proposed ordinance or resolution and may,
upon the conclusion of the hearing, immediately adopt the ordinance
or resolution.
3.13.6.2 The board of countycommissioners shall within 60 days of the
Y
notice.
3.13.6.3 Due public notice shall mean at least 15 days' notice of the time and
eifet,,at: the
3.13.6.43 The board of county commissioners shall notify petitioner in writing
of its decision within 15 days of the public hearing.
3.13.6.54 Any person aggrieved by a decision of the board of county
commissioners granting or denying a variance may apply to the
circuit court of the circuit in which the property is located for
judicial relief within 30 days after rendition of the decision by the
board of county commissioners. Review in the circuit court shall be
by petition for a writ of certiorari and shall be governed by the
Florida Appellate Rules.
r-�
DONALD A. PICKWOHTH, P.A.
�N ATTORNEY AT LAW
SUITE 602 NEWGATE TOWER
5150 NORTH TAMIAMI TRAIL
NAPLES, FLORIDA 34103
(941) 263-8060 FAX (941) 598-1161
August 12, 2002
Susan Murray, AICP
Current Planning Manager
Community Development and Environmental Services Division
2800 North Horseshoe Drive
Naples, Florida 34104
Re: Lely Barefoot Beach
Dear Susan:
This letter is a follow-up to our telephone conference this date. I represent the Levy
Barefoot Beach Property Owners Association (the POA) in trying to find a resolution to an on-
going issue with regard to certain small sodded lawn areas seaward of the beachfront homes
and beach gardens within the development. The single family homes and the common areas,
known as beachfront gardens, are built right up to the Coastal Construction Control Line
(CCCL). The sodded areas extend from the beach-facing side of the homes about 20 to 25 feet
seaward of the CCCL. These areas are important to the owners since the sodded areas allow
traverse by aerial lifts and other equipment that must occasionally access the seaward front of
the homes and the beach gardens areas for maintenance purposes.
Code enforcement has notified individual property owners and the POA that there are
alleged violations and has stated that enforcement will be held in abeyance until November
2002 in order to provide an opportunity to attempt a legislative resolution.
Last year, during the Spring LDC amendment cycle, in an attempt to resolve this, the
environmental planning staff drafted an LDC amendment that would have allowed a 15 foot
strip of sod in front of the homes and seaward of the CCCL. For reasons that are not entirely
clear, this amendment was removed from the proposed amendment package prior to being
heard by the Board. I appeared before the Board last June to urge that the proposal be
considered again during the Fall cycle, and the Board directed that be done.
There appears to be a difference of opinion as to what the Board directed, since I
believe the Board directed staff to process the amendment again, and the staff believes the
amendment must be processed as a request from the POA. Since we have a very short time
frame before the initial hearings on the amendments, this letter will serve as a request from the
POA for the processing of the amendment. A check in the amount of$1,200 is enclosed. If it
is determined during the process that the amendment should be a staff request, we would ask
that the $1,200 be returned. However, I do not want this issue to delay or cloud the larger
issue we are trying to resolve.
Attached is the suggested text of the proposed amendment. This is the same language
that was proposed last Spring. I realize from our conversation that the staff will have
objections with regard to GMP consistency and with regard to whether the proposal will have
negative environmental consequences. For our part, we believe that the amendment may need
further revision to resolve all issues, including the common area protrusions seaward of the
CCCL. I would very much like the opportunity to meet with you and such staff as you deem
appropriate to discuss how we can most expeditiously resolve these issues. I am available at
your convenience. Please give me a call at 263-8060.
Very truly yours,
Donald A. Pickworth
Enclosure
cc: Lely Barefoot Beach Property Owners Association
.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO LDC TO PERMIT LIMITED NON-NATIVE
VEGETATION SEAWARD OF COASTAL CONSTRUCTION SETBACK LINE
Amend the Section 3.13.8 of the LDC to add a new subsection 3.13.8.3 to read as follows:
3.13.8.3. Use of pavers, decks (wooden or synthetic), shell, lawn and non-native coastal
plant species on a single-family lot, when a Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (FDEP) permit has been obtained and the following criteria have been
met.
3.13.8.3.1. A building permit has been issued for a single family dwelling unit.
3.13.8.3.2. Distance seaward of the CCSL shall not exceed 15 feet and no more than 50
percent of that area may consist of pavers or decks..
3.13.8.3.3. Use of any Category I invasive exotic plants, as defined by the Florida Exotic Pest
Plant Council, is prohibited.