Loading...
EAC Minutes 03/05/2003 RMarch 5, 2003 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE NAPLES, FL March 5, 2003 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 County Commissioners Boardroom, Building "F", 3301 Tamiami Trail, Naples FL, with the following members present: Members: Thomas Sansbury Michael G. Coe Ken Humiston Alfred Gal Alexandra Santoro Ed Carlson John Dowd (arrived at 9:05am) Erica Lynne and Michael Sorrell had excused absences. Collier County: Bill Lorenz, Barb Burgeson, Stan Chrzanowski, Laura Roys, Fred Rieschell, Doug Suitor, Ron Hovell, Maura Krauss, July Ardames Minor, and Patrick White (arrived at 9:07 am) Page 1 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL AGENDA March 5, 2003 9:00 A.M. Commission Boardroom W. Harmon Turner Building (Building "F") - Third Floor II. III. IV. Roll Call Approval of Agenda Approval of February 5, 2003 Meeting Minutes Land Use Petitions Am Planned Unit Development Amendment No. PUDA-2002-AR-2240 Development of Regional Impact No. DRI-86-1 "Twelve Lakes PUD/DRI" Section 4, Township 50 South, Range 26 East Conditional Use Petition No. CU-2002-AR-3142 "North Naples Regional Park" Section 30, Township 48 South, Range 26 East Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-2003-AR-3569 "North Naples Research and Technology Park" Section 10, Township 48 South, Range 25 East V. Old Business: VI. New Business: LDC amendments VII. Council Member Comments VIII. Public Comments IX. Adjournment Council Members: Please notify the Environmental Services Department Administrative Assistant no later than 5:00 p.m. on February 28, 2003 if you cannot attend this mectin.q or if you have a conflict and will abstain from voting 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. March 5, 2003 THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Building "F", 3~d Floor County Commission Boardroom 3301 Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34104 9:00AM Minutes March 5, 2003 Chairman Thomas Sansbury called the meeting to order at 9:00am. Attendance: Thomas Sansbury, Michael G. Coe, Ken Humiston, Alfred Gal, Alexandra Santoro, Ed Carlson, John Dowd (arrived at 9:05am) -Erica Lynne and Michael V. Sorrel had excused absences. -A Quorum was established. Collier County: Bill Lorenz, Barb Burgeson, Stan Chrzanowski, Laura Roys, Fred Rieschell, Doug Suitor, Ron Hovell, Maura Krauss, July Ardames Minor, Patrick White (arrived at 9:07am) II. III. IV. Approval of Agenda: -Barbara Burgeson stated she had a few items to discuss under new business. Approval of Minutes for December 4, 2002: -Alexandra Santoro noted that on Page 10 it should read that Mr. Carlson was also volunteered to be on the EAC sub-committee. Mr. Carlson stated that he agreed and accepted the position. -Mr. Coe moved to approve the minutes of February 5, 2003 with the noted addition. It was seconded by Alexandra Santoro. The motion passed unanimously, 6-0.(Mr. Dowd was not present at the time) Land Use Petitions Page 2 March 5, 2003 -Barbara Burgeson stated the BCC and the CCPC have readopted an ordinance where the petitioner does the presentation and staff is available for question. She explained that they were going to put this in effect at this meeting. A) Planned Unit Development Amendment No. PUDA-2002-AR-2240 Development of Regional Impact No. DRI-86-1 "Twelve Lakes PUD/DRI Section 4, Township 50 South, Range 26 East -Mr. Coe swore in all those who would be testifying. -There were no ex parte disclosures. -Don Pickwarth, attorney for Centex Homes, stated that Wilson Miller is the consultant on the project. He provided the committee with an overview of the project. He explained that the petition is to amend the original PUD from 1987. The petition proposed to decrease the number of-1300 units to 1,000 units. He added that the preserve goes from -48 acres to 91 acres in the new PUD, the development standards have been brought on-line with current code, there is a main road through the project which will be a public road thorough-fare to assist with the traffic issues, and the moratorium in the area has been lifted. He added that they agree with the staff recommendations listed in the staff report. -Mr. Sansbury stated that Mr. Murray and Mr. Durham are consultants to his employer, but he does not believe this will affect his judgement on this petition and the denial or approval of this petition in no way effects his employer. He stated he would vote and participate in discussion on this matter as long as no one had any objections. There were no objections made. -Tim Durham, Wilson Miller and Chief Environmental Consultant of this project, stated that they have rearranged the preserve so that it almost doubles in size. The wetlands on site are a blend of Cypress, Pine, and Malucca. Mr. Durham used a map to show the different areas of the site. He explained that the preserve area would be a continuation of the neighboring preserves on an adjacent project rather than two smaller preserve sites between the two projects. A listed species survey was done on the site. The RCW's have moved off site in the last five years and he doesn't anticipate their return, but the preserves would be accommodating if the RCW's did return. He added that mitigation was made for impacts; this will include removal of the exotics on site, the stabilization of the hydro-period, the recruitment of natural vegetation back into the site, and the perpetual management of those lands. Fox Squirrels have been identified in the area and the preserve area will be able to accommodate them. -Mr. Coe asked if the mitigation for destruction of wetlands was required. Mr. Durham stated that it was, but they were also enhancing the preserve and 16 acres of the wetland mitigation bank. -Mr. Coe asked about the flow across Davis Blvd. Mr. Durham stated that it was captured in the storm water management plan and the primary movement would go along Davis and then south. He explained that this is following with the overall plan for the area, which ties into the county program as requested. -Mr. Coe asked if this project would have the ability to be a 6-lane highway. Mr. Perry, Wilson Miller, stated that there is sufficient right of way is existing and they have reserved additional land in case the state wants the land. Page 3 March 5, 2003 -Alexandra Santoro asked if the Gopher Tortoises and rare plants on site would be protected in the preserve areas. Mr. Durham stated that they would be protected in the preserve areas. -There was no public comment. -Mr. Carlson moved to approve the petition. It was seconded by Mr. Coe. All were in favor; the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. B) Conditional Use Petition No. CU-2002-AR-3142 "North Naples Regional Park" Section 30, Township 48 South, Range 26 East -Mr. Coe swore in all those who would be testifying. -There were no ex parte disclosures. -Dominic Amico, representing Collier County Parks and Recreation, stated that this is a conditional use application for the North Naples Regional Park. The project is located between 175 and the Future Livingston Road. The project covers -212 acres and is intended to be a regional park. The masterplans for the park were shown. There will be eight soccer fields, five softball fields, a pool complex, walking tracks, boardwalks, and other related regional park type facilities. He added that they agree with the staff stipulations listed in the staff report. -Tim Hall, Senior Biologist for Turrell and Associates, used a variety of maps to show the site. He explained that the vegetative communities and the existing and proposed land uses of neighboring sites had been taken into consideration. The site will cover 212 acres and there will be an impact to -50% of the -160 acre wetlands. The project will preserve the other half of the wetlands and some of the uplands located in the SW comer of the site. The RCW's are not currently on site and were last sighted in the 1990's. In the previous year a survey was done and no endangered species were noted. The reports were provided in the EIS. They received their water management permit in September 2002 and they are currently under review with the Corps of Engineers. -Mr. Carlson asked if mitigations had been made. Mr. Hall replied that in addition to the preservation, they will be purchasing 23 credits at an off-site mitigation bank. Mr. Carlson asked if they will encroach on the preserve area in the future or if it had been set aside in perpetuity. Mr. Hall stated that the conservation easement and the enhancement activities were in perpetuity. The conservation easement being filed with the county will be permanently in effect. -There was no public comment. -Laura Roys, Environmental Review, stated that the preservation requirements fall under the 15% category rather than the 25%, since they fall under commercial, industrial, and other. Therefore they would be required to preserve 27.95. They are proposing to preserve 98.57 acres. -Mr. Humiston moved to approve the petition. It was seconded by Alexandra Santoro. All were in favor; the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Page 4 March 5, 2003 C) Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-2003-AR-3569 "North Naples Research and Technology Park" Section 10, Township 48 South, Range 25 East -Mr. Coe swore in all those who would be testifying. -There were no ex parte disclosures. -Robert Duane, Hole Montes and Associates, stated that the site was located in the northern reaches of Collier County and it borders the Lee County line. This is an existing golf course driving range. The site has access from 41. He used a variety of maps to show the location. The site is 19 acres, which is located in the urban mix use and residential area. This is the first park coming into to reach the new standards recently set in the comprehensive plan. EDC and Enterprise Florida are helping to support this project because of the high- wage jobs that it will bring into the area. They are in agreement with the staff recommendations except for the FPL drainage easement. He explained that they would be in agreement with it pursuant to the approval of FPL. He stated that he had no problem with the stipulation, but requested that it be modified to read: "pursuant to the approval of FPL". He added that Sterling Oaks has some standing water on the back of their residential lots. The plans were reviewed and although they feel that the plans may not have been constructed in accordance with their water permit, they are willing to accept some of the water into the ditch if need be, pursuant to Sterling Oaks modifying their plans. -Mr. Vasaga, environmental consultant for the project, used an aerial photograph to show that the majority of the site had previously been cleared for use by the golf driving range. Scrub habitats and Pine foresting were located on site. He used a variety of maps to show the location and its demographics. They are proposing to impact the 2 isolated areas due to the low survivability probability. The area to the left of the power line will be isolated, where they are proposing a lake. For mitigation they are removing exotics, lowering the grade, replanting with wetland vegetation, and paying 2.9 acres at an off-site mitigation bank. There were 4 listed species found on site: 2 Gopher Tortoises. The portion of land where the Gopher Tortoise burrow and the tortoise are located will be preserved. They also found a scrub area with Blazing Stars and Prickly Cactus, which will also be preserved. -Mr. Carlson asked if the Tortoise preserve on southeast was confined and if the tortoises would be caged in. Barbara Burgeson stated that they will be required to submit a Gopher Tortoise relocation management plan and that staff will be requiring them to have a fence preventing the Gopher Tortoises from traveling out into the roadway. She added that although part of the area will be fenced, she was not entirely sure at the time if they would recommend the entire area be fenced. -Terry Cole, Hole Montes and Associates project manager for this site, added that the drainage of the site is from the East to the West into the existing ditch along the FPL easement. When FPL came in to create an access road they borrowed soil from both sides of the access-way, which created ditches on both sides. He pointed out the flow of water on the site and intentions for the Page 5 March 5, 2003 future. Sterling Oaks residents have concerns about standing water on their rear lots. Mr. Cole understood that their water management plan required a perimeter burm with their water draining into the project and then discharging through a water control structure. If Sterling Oaks modifies their permit and needed to discharge some water through the proposed research property, they would be willing to work with them on it. -Fred Reischell, Planning Services, stated that comprehensive review has been completed. There were some changes, which the petitioner agreed to. This will be consistent with the sub-district and GMP. Since the site is adjacent to Bonita Springs, staff sent a packet to the city, but has not heard back. -Barbara Burgeson stated that staff recommends approval of the PUD with four stipulations from Stormwater management and the four multi-tiered stipulations from the environmental section, which will be completed prior to board approval. -Robert Duane noted that he met with representatives from Spanish Wells. Public Speakers A) J. Gary Ray, Sterling Oaks homeowner, stated that along with others from his neighborhood, they have been brought up to date with this project through the last several weeks. They have met with the owner of the research park. He has approached the manager of Sterling Oaks about the standing water. The manager stated that they should allow Holes, Montes, and Associates do what they need to do. He and his neighbors asked about enforcement; what to do if the proper actions where not taken by Sterling Oaks. -The EAC and staff discussed the standing water problem at Sterling Oaks. Staff explained that the burm around Sterling Oaks is supposed to hold the water, but in heavy rains it fails. Mr. Chrzanowski told Mr. Ray that he would provide him with his card and see if he could help in this situation, but advised that relief in this type of situation was not always possible. Mr. Chrzanowski further explained that he was unaware if Sterling Oaks was or was not in compliance and the burm is a typical setup for drainage. He added that they can check the grates when they go out. He explained that the county has no authority to change the state water permit authority and the residents would have to go to the water management district. -Mr. Gal disclosed that his law firm represented Sterling Oaks joint venture. -Mr. Sansbury stated that the assistance they could provide is to put Mr. Ray in touch with Mr. Chrzanowski, who could put Mr. Ray in touch with the correct individual at SWFL water management district to request their review of compliance and procedures needed to modify the permit and correct the problem. Mr. Chrzanowski agreed and asked Mr. Ray to come by the office to review the designs, then he will call the water management district to find a contact for Mr. Ray. -Alexandra Santoro asked if the developers of the research park were offering to help in this situation. Mr. Duane stated that they will volunteer to place a stipulation in their PUD document stating that they will accept their water "pursuant to a modification of their plans" if they are unable to find another Page 6 March 5, 2003 way out. He asked that this stipulation be included in the EAC motion. Mr. Chrzanowski asked if Mr. Duane had asked water management about the possibility of volunteering this. Mr. Duane stated that he had not. -Barb Burgeson stated that they did added the language "pursuant to the approval of FPL" regarding the drainage easement stipulation. -July Ardames Minor, Stormwater management section of the county, stated that she met with a gentlemen from Sterling Oaks a year ago. She explained that Sterling Oaks never did their certification of completion required by South Florida. The district then sent a letter to the developer. She added that she does not know if they have done anything yet, but before it is turned over to the homeowner's Association, she urged them to make sure that the developer comply with the completion of the water management system; a certification of completion. -Mr. Coe moved to approve the petition as amended. It was seconded by Mr. Carlson. All were in favor; the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. go VI. Old Business -There was no old business to discuss. New Business LDC Amendments -Mr. Sansbury asked if they needed to swear people in. Mr. White stated that they did not. A) Manatee Protection Plan Amendments -Bill Lorenz explained that the intent was to incorporate the Manatee protection plan and all of its land development activities into the LDC and to clarify some of the language written in the management protection plan. He stated that the previous morning they received the review of the Development Services Sub- committee. He reviewed a letter from Clay Brooker, which proposed changes to the draft that staff had compiled. Mr. Brooker's letter suggests adding "commercial", "with ten slips or more", and "can legally obtain" to certain portions of the LDC amendment on Manatee Protection. The letter also suggested the removal of the narrative for the table in section 2.6.22.3.1 and breaking up the section 2.6.22.3.3 into three sub-sections for clarity. Mr. Lorenz explained that staff does not agree with using the word "commercial" because they feel this may be limiting. He will speak with Patrick White about this view. For the moment, they feel this limits the facilities that they can look at. Staff also does not recommend using the phrase with "10 slips or more", because they again feel that this would be limiting and they need to regulate all facilities under the Manatee protection plan. Staff does agree with the phrase "can legally obtain". Staff also agrees with the removal of the narrative (sections 1, 2, & 3)in section 2.6.22.3.1. Mr. Lorenz added that they are also okay with the suggestion for section 2.6.22.3.3, but they have some two concems about the wording. One is an issue about removing the wording: "the five-mile on travel distance". Staff suggests Page 7 March 5, 2003 that the distance of five miles remain in this section. The second issue is with the suggestion to remove the requirement for dredging permits prior to STP approval. Staff recommends that you cannot receive your CO till you prove that you have adequate depth. -Clay Brooker, with the law firm Young, Van Assenderp, Vamadoe & Anderson, P.A., stated that the purpose of the letter is to guarantee that the state approved plan gets placed into the LDC correctly. He was glad to hear that the discussions will continue. He explained that they believe the Manatee protection plan only applies to boating facilities with 10 slips or more. They believe that the removal of 10 slips or more would be inconsistent with the Manatee protection plan, which was already adopted by the BCC. They also believe that the water depth issue and the five mile distance is consistent with the MPP and the proposal goes against the MPP. He added that there may be a middle ground they could come to through future discussion. They also prefer and believe that the MPP does allow, by the language "can legally obtain permits", to have an STP approval obtained with the condition that dredging permits be required prior to the actual CO being issued. He stated that they seem to be on "the same page" as staff on the last issue. -Todd Turrell, local ocean engineer, stated that he agrees with Mr. Brooker especially pertaining to the water depth issue. He agrees "completely" with the statement Mr. Brooker made that "the language proposed would simply render preferred ranking impossible to obtain". He stated that he was on the committee that assisted county staff in drafting the MPP and his recollection of the 5-mile radius was that it was completely related to Manatee mortality and that effect on the facility. He did not believe that it had anything to do with water depth. He felt that the water depth was to discourage people from building marinas in shallow water areas unless they could get dredging permits. He does not feel this is a "practical thing" or the original intent, therefore he requested that they take out any reference to water depth when it refers to 5-mile radius. -Mr. Lorenz replied that the MPP intent defines multi-slip residential facilities include "condominiums, mobile home park facilities, and neighborhood park facilities where boat borring is concentrated in a common rather than individual docks located behind individual residents". -Mr. Sansbury asked if they would have to change the MPP if they put 5-10 slips in the LDC. Mr. Lorenz stated that he did not believe they would have to, because of the MPP definition of multi-slip facilities. He added that this is the interpretation staff has been using since the MPP was in existence. -Mr. Lorenz stated that in regards to the 5-mile distance, staff has always interpreted it as they have written it in the proposed LDC amendment. He added that they believe this is how the state interprets it as well. -Mr. Carlson stated that it was difficult for him to not have been active in the process and know all the details to make a decision. Mr. Coe agreed and felt that through discussion the interested parties and staff would be able to work this out and come to a conclusion. The EAC decided that they would like staff to meet with the interested parties and come back to the EAC in the April meeting with the determinations. Alexandra Santoro added that she agreed with the concept of Page 8 March 5, 2003 not using the word "commercial", the charting for preferred rating to look at the four-foot and the number of and impact on Manatees. She explained that she would hate to see some of the smaller creeks dredged, but she did agree with the concepts. A five minute recess was taken at 10:30AM. B) Encroachments and Easements -Stan Chrzanowski, Development Services Engineering Review, stated that five or six years ago people began doing minor encroachments into easements, mostly into lake maintenance easements. He explained that the problem is that the staff has been issuing a "letter of no objection", which stated that they did not object as long as all the other easement holders did not object, but people began feeling that they had a "right" to encroach and the encroachments are beginning to be much larger than before. This amendment is to try and help get a handle on this situation. The final decision was that all encroachment decisions must go before the board. The amendment tried to avoid all of these decisions going before the board by providing "letter of no objection" procedure that was approved by the BCC. The attorney's feel that this can not be done and the solution is to either "go for a vacation or do nothing at all". After the last few meetings they have decided that if one encroaches on an easement then they need to come in and have that portion of the easement vacated. If the board does not allow the encroachment, then they will have to remove whatever is encroaching the easement. He added that as for all the encroachments previously existing under letters of no objection, that he did not know what would happen to them. He explained that the amendment is not final wording and it may not proceed since they already have a "vacation procedure" in place. -Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney, stated that staff is correct with the problems that they have been seeing, especially the problems with permitting review. He had two concerns. One was real property interest and tracts that have been dedicated or conveyed to the county. He explained that the concern is that to approve these encroachments authority has to be received by the BCC. He added that the only way to remove the "cloud" is by a "vacation" or by the county releasing a portion of the easement in exchange for a relocation of the easement at its full width. The second concern is about setbacks. Mr. White explained that this seems to be a circumstance that only applies with respect to preserves. His review of provisions pertaining to this concept of setback, seem to speak more in terms of buffer. He believes that they may need to do more modifications to these parts of the texts to ensure that what they are speaking of is setbacks from preserves for structures, whether principal or accessory, and other activities that may be prevented or precluded in the buffer area. Mr. White felt that this provision will not lawfully clear the "cloud" from an easement. He believed that the only way to do so was to vacate the county interest or release the easement in exchange for a relocated easement. -Mr. Chrzanowski added that when he is talking about encroachments, he is generally talking about vertical building or structure encroachments. He does not Page 9 March 5, 2003 consider sidewalks or fences are encroachments. He explained that another concept that they will be looking at is what exactly constitutes an encroachment. -Mr. White stated that there are procedures that exist, other than vacations or exchanges, for authorizing the construction or erection of certain types of structures. He used right-of-way permitting and fence permitting as examples. He explained that in the past certain types of structures have not been seen as encroachments on the "scope of the encroachment" and this is an acceptable idea. He felt they could simplify defining what these types of structures are. -Mr. Chrzanowski stated that they are currently telling people that they need to apply for a vacation of the easement. This subject may not be brought back to the EAC if the proposed amendment is done away with and replaced by the notion of everyone needing to go through a "vacation". He felt this is probably what would happen. C) Literal Standards -Bill Lorenz, stated that this proposed amendment addresses new standards for their literal plantings. After a current analysis, staff determined that they are "missing the mark" on what it is that these plants need to survive. They also feel that the current planting elevation is too high. They attempted to provide better standards in order to ensure the survivability of these "literal zones". He asked the EAC to consider the "Literal shelf planting area" and the policy issue that discusses the amount required to be planted. The current codes states that 2% of the surface area, measured at control elevation, is required. The proposal is for 10% measured at the control elevation. He added that when the GMP was adopted, it required 2.5%, therefore they have to have at least the 2.5%. The Rural Fringe amendments adopted 30%. Another substantial change is that they want to consolidate the areas as much as possible; one location as opposed to the current various locations. They believe this will achieve a higher environmental value and will require a simpler maintenance plan. Staff also recommends locational criteria, that the location be "up against the preserve location" and upstream of an outflow structure, rather than around a residential lot. A second criteria specified looks at shelf elevation. The current code is an 8-1 slope. The proposed amendment states an 8-1 slope or flatter; flatter will provide more credits. A critical element in the proposed plan says that the designer must take into account the hydro-period of the system and the maximum depth that will occur at the planting location. This is to ensure that the proper plants are selected for the locations. They will also require signs that specify the areas not be sprayed. The DSAC sub-committee recommended additional criteria for the signs and they indicated a desire for opportunities that larger systems would not have to be located in one area. The proposed amendment has changes to how they evaluate the success of the shelf; whatever naturally recruits on the shelf as long as it is not exotic vegetation. The DSAC sub-committee also recommended that it should not be nuisance vegetation either. Mr. Lorenz stated that they will be added this language. They have eliminated the requirement to have compensating literal zones if you have bulk heads of more than 40% of the stormwater system. The code currently requires that if you have it in one location, then you have to have 125% of the requirement. Now they want to encourage having the shelf in Page 10 March 5, 2003 one location so they are proposing to eliminate this requirement as well. The amendment criteria addresses modification of existing lakes or existing plans under the old code. The DSAC sub-committee asked staff to provide a list of consultants that the standards have been sent to. Mr. Lorenz only knew of one return comment that staff received. One installer stated that the direction they were heading in was appropriate and suggested planting on 36-inch centers, which is less costly and has the same survivability. Mr. Lorenz stated that they will look into this suggestion and they will send the standards to the particular consultants requested by the DSAC sub-committee. They also removed the performance guarantee. Mr. Lorenz stated that this proposed amendment will come back to the EAC in the next few months with final changes. -Mr. White added that he was responsible for reviewing and signing off on the ordinance that embodies all of these regulations. He will work with staff to eliminate legal problems, clarifying intent and application, and bring them back to the EAC with the provisions. -Mr. Coe stated that he believes they waste money on medians. He doesn't believe that just stating a 2-foot center is sufficient and wondered why they don't put grass on medians. -Mr. Sansbury agreed that it was good to concentrate the selves in the preserve areas because it he feels that it is impossible to enforce single family lot requirements. He asked how these rules relate to the rules of the environmental resource permits of SW Florida. Mr. Lorenz stated that staff does not see a conflict. Mr. Sansbury added that he is concerned about too many signs taking from the beauty of the area and that the enforcement should be in the hands of the maintenance team. -Mr. Lorenz addressed Mr. Coe's comments about spacing. He stated that staff has looked at manuals with regard to spacing and there requirements are on the conservative side. They will be looking at this further. He added that they are looking to develop a literal shelf planting at Lake Sugdeon. He showed a map that gave a visual concept of how it would look with a 2% planting versus the 10% planting, which staff is proposing. -The EAC stated they would like staff to retum with the final changes. Mr. Lorenz stated they will go before the DSAC committee on March 19, 2003. D) Beaches -Mr. Lorenz stated that the current code prohibits the ability to get large equipment on to the beach in order to maintain the beach re-nourishment projects. This proposed amendment makes the appropriate changes to allow cleaning and maintenance machines. Staff is also attempting to reduce the number of redundant sections in this portion of the code. This amendment proposes that the setback from vegetation, in terms of raking, should be 15-feet. The state requirement is only 10-feet. Staff will provide data and research to support the 15-feet. -Alexandra Santoro asked why the requirement for beach raking and cleaning devices not penetrating below one inch was changed to two inches. Maura Krauss, Environmental Services Department, replied that this was changed in order to be consistent with the state requirements. She added that they eliminated Page 11 March 5, 2003 tire tread and consolidated some of the sections. They attempted to make it more consistent with the current permits being issued. Alexandra Santoro was concerned about the environmental relevance of the change. -Mr. Coe asked what a "valid permit" would be to go onto the beach during the turtle nesting season. Maura Krauss informed him that the permit is required from the state and county. The permitted vehicles are concessionaires and beach raking. Barbara Burgeson stated that in the past beach raking was prohibited at this time, but it was allowed in the code two years ago. -Mr. White stated staff was looking for direction on the 15 feet versus the 10 feet in respect to the beach raking next to the dune. The EAC had no problems with this. -Mr. Coe made a motion for approval. It was seconded by Mr. Carlson. All were in favor; the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. E) Maintenance for Vegetation -Barbara Burgeson stated that there have been some major changes to 3.97. This proposal was an attempt to consolidate many sections of the code relating to different aspects of the preservation areas, to incorporate staff's current policies being used for the past ten years, and to incorporate additional guidelines that have been recommended and used, but not in written form. Staff has chosen to take out a small portion of this proposed amendment due to legal questions, in attempt to have it go through this LDC amendment cycle. They will come back at the next cycle with the full proposal after it has been reviewed for legal sufficiency. She reviewed the changes in the proposed amendment that would be removed and proposed for this cycle: 1) 3971 - The first sentence will be removed 2) 3972 - The first sentence will be removed 3) 3975 - The last sentence proposes to allow in the last sentence "unless it can be demonstrated that it will not effect the integrity of the preserve". The only way they would permit anything in the 10-feet adjacent to the preserve is if that item is a structural boundary to protect the integrity of the preserve. 4) 39762 - They are proposing limitations on the re-created preserve area. They are also proposing that the minimum spacing and widths be applied to both the created and existing preservation areas. The language was modified to "20-foot on center for trees, with an exception of 30-foot on center for large canopy trees where there is a greater than 40-foot spread, and 5-foot on center for shrubs. The 2-foot on center for groundcover was changed to 3-foot on center. They have allowed for a modification which allows for smaller plant materials when it encourages survivability. In regards to minimum width: for parcels less than 5-acres the minimum width is less than 20-feet, for parcels 5- 10 acres the minimum width is 30-feet, and for parcels 10-acres and greater the minimum width is 50-feet. -Barbara Burgeson reiterated that these are all of the changes that they are proposing to take out for "this cycle" and the DSAC sub-committee supported just these amendments into the current cycle. She asked the EAC, since they had the "full" proposal, that even though it may not be applicable this cycle, to send comments to her. This will help her make improvements before the next cycle. Page 12 March 5, 2003 VII. VIII. Announcements -Barbara Burgeson stated that she had a few announcements to make. She congratulated Mr. Carlson on his appointment to the Collier Conservation Land Acquisition Committee. She stated that the first meeting will be on Monday in the same room. Alex Salecki was the staff person appointed to this committee. She reminded the EAC that she handed out a survey and she asked the committee to return it by the end of the month with suggestions. The survey asked how the EAC felt in regards to the meetings, how they were mn, any changes that need to be made, etc... Mr. Sansbury will be providing the quadrennial report to the BCC on March 11, 2003. She added that Alexandra Santoro has created a newsletter that they would like to distribute to the EAC. She asked that the EAC consider if they would like to distribute this to other groups. The newsletter discusses some of the actions and accomplishments of the EAC. She also asked ~he EAC to consider if they want to attach this to the EAC website. She explained that the sub-committee for the overlay still needs to reach a date. The EAC stated they will contact her with this date. Barbara Burgeson also noted that Erica Lynne had requested $80 registration fee for a native plant society conference in May, 2003. She explained that they are entitled to reimbursement of expenses approved by the BCC and the money would come out of the EAC budget. -Mr. Coe made a motion to approve the $80 registration fee and found that it was reasonable for the performance of her duties. It was seconded by Alexandra Santoro. All were in favor; the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. -Bill Lorenz distributed the "Rural Lands Stewardship Area Implementing Land Development Code Amendments". The package will be in this LDC cycle. Carlton Fields is the consultant and has just distributed the packet to staff. Staff will provide a briefing and description of the packet at the next EAC meeting in April, 2003. -Mr. White added that member comments on this set of LDC amendments are desired. -Barbara Burgeson stated that the county attorney's office has informed staff that they have not correctly been following the voting conflict procedure. She explained that when the forms are filled out, the signed forms must be distributed to the board members. After the meetings, they will hand them out to the EAC so that they have copies for their records. Public Comment A) Bob Krasowski, Zero Waste Collier County, stated that his committee has been working on solid waste options since 1995. They have secured a grant from the Department of Environmental Regulation and received assistance from the Collier County School Board. He handed a pamphlet to the EAC that describe a workshop and the speakers that would be presenting on the zero waste initiative. He explained that the initiative is the application of design, theory, principal, and practices to every component of the resource extraction, production, sales, distribution, and discard of the material life- stream cycle. There are categories in each that prove opportunities for Page 13 March 5, 2003 IX efficiencies in reducing waste and recycling. The address ways of dealing with waste other than incinerators. He invited the EAC and staff to the workshop in order to learn more about the program and the environmental concems involved. -Alexandra Santoro stated that she was concerned with commercial office recycling and asked if staff could speak to the EAC on commercial recycling in the future. Barbara Burgeson stated that she would call solid waste and see if they could be scheduled to speak in May, 2003. Adjoumment - There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:53 AM. Page 14