Loading...
EAC Minutes 05/07/2003 RMay 7, 2003 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Board Meeting Room, 3ra Floor, Administration Building 3301 Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 9:00 AM May 7, 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 9:00 AM in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Members: Tom Sansbury Michael Sorrell Alexandra Santoro Ken Humiston Bill Hughes Alfred Gal Collier County Staff: Patrick White, Bill Lorenz, Barb Burgeson, Stan Chrzanowski, Marjorie Student, Fred Reischl, Ray Bellows, Michelle Arnold, Susan Mason, Steven Lenberger Page 1 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL AGENDA May 7, 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 April 2, 2003 Meeting Minutes Land Use Petitions Am Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-2002-AR-2841 Development of Regional Impact No. DRI-2000-01 "Heritage Bay DRI/PUD Sections 13, 14, 23 & 24, Township 48 South, Range 26 East Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-2002-AR-2433 "H D Development PUD" Section 21, Township 48 South, Range 26 East Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-2002-AR-3242 "Mandalay PUD" Section 16, Township 50 South, Range 26 East V. Old Business A. Rural Lands Stewardship Area Land Development Code Amendment (2.2.27) VI. New Business A. Solid Waste Program Overview (continued to June 4, 2003) B. Code Enforcement Overview 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 May 1, 2003 if you cannot attend this meetin.q or if ¥o,. have a conflict and will abstain from votin.q 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. May 7, 2003 I. Roll Call -The meeting was called to order at 9:00 AM. A quorum was established. -Members: Michael Sorrell, Alexandra Santoro, Tom Sansbury, Ken Humiston, Bill Hughes, Alfred Gal -Michael Coe and Erica Lynne had an excused absence. Collier County Staff: Patrick White, Bill Lorenz, Barb Burgeson, Stan Chrzanowski, Marjorie Student, Fred Reischl, Ray Bellows, Michelle Arnold, Susan Mason, Steven Lenberger II. Approval of Agenda -There were no changes made to the Agenda. III. Approval of April 2, 2003 meeting minutes -Alexandra Santoro moved to approve the minutes of April 2, 2003 as written. It was seconded by Alfred Gal. All were in favor; the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. IV. Land Use Petitions A) Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-2002-AR-2841 Development of Regional Impact No. DRI-2000-01 "Heritage Bay DRI/PUD" Sections 13, 14, 23, & 24, Township 48 South, Range 26 East -Mr. White swore in all those who were testifying. -There were no ex parte disclosures. -Bruce Anderson, Young-Vanasserderp-Varnadoe & Anderson, represented the applicant, US Home Corporation. Mr. Anderson stated that the project was made up of 2,562 acres; 860 acres are or will be placed in conservation and preserve uses. This amount of preserves is more than what is required in the Rural Fringe. The project is made up of four sections of land; one section is in the urban area and three sections are in the Rural Fringe. An activity center with commercial uses will be located in the urban section. The site currently consists of active and permitted Lime Rock quarries, forested wetlands and uplands. The only proposed impact to wetlands is a golf cart bridge Page 2 May 7, 2003 crossing over a recently created wetland connection. The project is designed to minimize wetland impacts by limiting any impacts to this golf cart crossing. All existing wetlands will be preserved. All of the uplands outside of the preservation area have been significantly impacted and contain little or no native vegetation as the result of mining activities. If the land has not already been impacted, then it will be maintained in its natural state. The listed species of plant and wildlife observed on site during the protected species assessment were in the proposed wetland and upland preserve areas. The wetland and upland preserve areas are proposed to be surrounded by a 25ft buffer in order to minimize secondary impacts to wildlife habitat. The property has been in use for many years as an earth mining operation and those activities will continue. The mining permits already issued for this property permit -1700 acres to be mined. The mining use would be phased out as the property is developed for residential uses. The proposed surface water management system will consist of several cascading drainage basins, utilizing the existing quarry pits and proposed lakes to provide the required water quality and quantity storage volume. A portion of the lakes are classified as recreational lakes and will provide flood continuation after water quality treatment has occurred in the other water management lakes. The applicant has met with local environmental agents, who provided input on this PUD. None of these groups object to the project. The applicant is in agreement with the staff recommendations with two caveats. The first one is the understanding that the slope requirements are due to little water table fluctuation in the lakes. Stan Chrzanowski agreed. And the second item was with the understanding that all the mining will continue and even though they are exempted by the permits for the littoral shelf requirements, they will work with staff to identify areas of littoral plantings.\ -Stan Chrzanowski stated that the comment Mr. Anderson made about the slope requirements was technically accurate. He clarified that the LDC was amended to require 10ft of lake area with a 4/1 slope. This was done because some areas of water fluctuation in lakes, especially large lakes, act as "sinks". In this case, the applicant says that the lake fluctuation is little. Mr. Chrzanowski stated that he assumes this is correct, but if they find something else during construction, then they can do something different to address the situation. Page 3 May 7, 2003 -Mr. Hughes asked about the potential surface contamination of ground water tables. Josh Evans replied that the runoff from the residential development will be treated in pre- treatment lakes prior to discharge into the recreational lake. Mr. Hughes then asked if motorized vehicles will be permitted on the lake. Mr. Anderson stated that it is a possibility. Mr. Hughes asked if any aquifers crossed the lake. Mr. Evans informed him that it doesn't cross the confining layer so it only interacts with the water table aquifer. -Paul Owen, Environmental Consultant from W. Dexter Bender & Associates, stated that none of the existing natural communities will be disturbed other than by the golf cart bridge. Barbara Burgeson asked about the Gopher Tortoises on site. Mr. Owen stated that there were some Gopher Tortoises seen on a burma few years ago. The tortoises were not seen recently, but if they are spotted, then they will come up with a management plan. The burm will be preserved. -Mr. Hughes asked about the water supply for 3200 residents. Mr. Evans informed him that the water supply would be coming from the Collier North Regional Water Plant and adequate capacity was determined. -Mr. Sansbury asked about water irrigation. Mr. Evans told him that there is a water use permit in the district that has been found sufficient; it will utilize a combination of surface water and the Lower Tamiami Aquifer. -Alexandra Santoro moved to approve the application. It was seconded by Mr. Humiston. All were in favor of the motion; the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. -Mr. Chrzanowski noted that there were some changes in command at the SWFL Water Management District office in Fort Myers. Ricardo Valera was present from this office. B) Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-2002-AR-2433 "H D Development PUD" Section 21, Township 48 South, Range 26 East -There were no ex parte disclosures. -Mr. White swore in all those who were testifying. Page 4 May 7, 2003 -ReAnne Boylan, Environmental Consultant from Boylan Environmental Consultants, used a map and 8.5 photos to present the location site, (not provided to the court reporter). The site is 46.64 acres; 4.9acres are uplands and 41.7acres are wetlands. The applicant proposed a residential development. The impacts would be to 25.53 acres of wetlands. The applicant proposes to preserve 16.21 acres. All the wetlands on site have been invaded by Malucca. The best quality wetlands on site will be preserved and they are contiguous to the adjacent wetland preserve area. The preserve area also incorporates 6.74acres of the ST. The indigenous requirement for this project is 11.2acres and the applicant is preserving 16.21 acres. As an additional mitigation, they will preserve an additional 20acres; 18.67acres are wetlands and 1.33acres are uplands further upstream in the same wetland system. Mitigation will include removal of exotics, placement of the lands under a conservation easement, and a maintenance program. The conservation easement and the maintenance program will also apply to the on-site wetland preserve area. All of the wetland impacts have been permitted by the SWFL Water Management District. She reviewed a copy of the permit with the EAC, approved December 12, 2002 - permit #11-02146-P. A listed species survey was done on the site. One potential Fox Squirrel daybed was observed. A management plan was prepared for the Fox Squirrel, which will be implemented prior to construction. -Fred Reischl, Planning Services stated that the staff review found the petition consistent with the GMP and compatible with surrounding land uses. -Alexandra Santoro moved to approve the petition. It was seconded by Mr. Humiston. All were in favor of the motion; the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. -Alexandra Santoro noted that originally she was concerned about the loss of preservation, but after reading the mitigation in the same flow-way, she concurred. She also concurred with the management plan for the Fox squirrel. C) Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-2002-AR-3242 "Mandalay PUD" Section 16, Township 50 South, Range 26 East -There were no ex parte disclosures. Page 5 May 7, 2003 -The court reporter swore in all those who were testifying. -Barbara Burgeson informed the EAC that the engineer was not present. -ReAnne Boylan, Environmental Consultant, stated the location of the project site and its surrounding properties. The site is 25.08acres; 10.13acres are uplands and 17.93acres are wetlands. The wetlands include 5.35acres of Brazilian Pepper invaded Cypress, which are located in the northern portion of the site. The remainder of the wetlands are located in a slew system along the eastern property boundary. The project proposal includes a residential development. The project includes impacts to the 5.35acres of Brazilian Pepper/Cypress area and 0.36acres of impact to the periphery of the slew system. The total impacts are 5.71acres. Of the total wetlands, 12.22 acres will be preserved on-site along with 0.05acres of uplands. The plan includes the preservation of the best quality wetlands. These wetlands extend off-site to the northeast and eventually south under the road. The indigenous requirement for this project is 7acres and the applicant is preserving 12.27acres total. A SF permit has not been attained at this point, but preliminary calculations anticipate that any deficit in mitigation on-site through enhancement and management would be accommodated through the purchase of credits in a mitigation bank. A listed species survey was completed. One stick-nest was found is disrepair. They found no signs of Fox Squirrels or any other species. -Ray Bellows, Chief Planner with Current Planning, stated that the petition was reviewed for consistency with the GMP; residential uses are permitted in this area and the densities are consistent. Staff is recommending approval from a planning standpoint. He placed the community masterplan on the visualizer for the EAC to view. -Ricardo Valera, SF Water Management District, stated that they have not received an application for this project yet, but the discharge will be reviewed in the process. -Stan Chrzanowski stated that he received a lot of letters from the neighbors at Quail Hollow, who are concerned that this project will interrupt their drainage system and cause drainage problems. He explained that owner used to design the water irrigation to drain into the back woods. The owner, Mr. Cooper, was concerned that he would now have to handle the Quail Hollow retention. Mr. Chrzanowski stated that he assumed the district Page 6 May 7, 2003 would require a common swail between the two properties that will mn the water to the preserve area. The decision would be made by the district. -Mr. White noted that the staff stipulation includes the deletion of section 5.6 of the PUD document, which is stormwater management. -Mr. Humiston asked if the stipulation meant that they would have to include the mn-off. Mr. Chrzanowski stated that their submittal to the water management district will be under the districts requirements. Mr. Valera noted that they would consider the neighbors at the time of submittal. -Alexandra Santoro moved to adopt of the zone change and the PUD as shown with the stipulation that necessary permits are acquired. It was seconded by Mr. Hughes. All were in favor of the motion; the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. V. Old business A) Rural Lands Stewardship Area Land Development Code Amendment (2.2.27) -Mr. Sansbury noted that his employer is a land owner and will be affected by these LDC requirements. Mr. Sansbury did not believe that any action he takes on this item will have a direct effect on those particulars rights in the area. He stated that if there were no objections, he would take part in the discussion and vote on this item. -Bill Lorenz, Environmental Services Director, reminded the EAC that they generally supported this amendment at their last meeting, but reserved the right to review the amendments prior to their final action before the BCC. The most current draft was provided to the EAC in their packet dated April 17, 2003. There were two changes to that draft and a meeting was being held to create another draft that will go before the CCPC on May 14, 2003. The BCC will hear this for the first time on May 21, 2003 and then again on June 18, 2003. A number of issues have been worked through since the first draft. These amendments are the regulations that will go into the LDR and they implement the goals, objectives, & policies for the RLSA that was adopted by the county commission. These regulations were an attempt to define the process and clarify the language of the goals, objectives, & policies. One of the changes is that the provision of restoration for stewardship credits is now in a clearer, more precise language. Secondly, Page 7 May 7, 2003 some additional clarifying language concerning the restoration index was added. There is one outstanding issue; the provision that allows for proposals of SRA to modify provisions of the LDC. -Alexandra Santoro noted that the golf courses will also be reviewed by the FL Department of Environmental Protection and the EAC will be incorporated into the application process for receiving areas. -Mr. Lorenz noted that he would place the most current draft in the June 2003 EAC packet. -Alexandra Santoro made a motion to continue with the direction they gave last month in regards to the RLSA amendments. It was seconded by Ken Humiston. All were in favor of the motion; the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. VI. New Business A) Solid Waste Program Overview -(continued to June 4, 2003) B) Code Enforcement Overview -Micheile Arnold, Code Enforcement Director, stated that she would provide an overview of what they do with code enforcement in regards to the Environmental aspects. Susan Mason, previously an enforcement officer, was present. The Code Enforcement Department is governed by the State Statute - Chapter 162, which identifies that once a violation is found, code enforcement must provide adequate notice to the violator and provide sufficient time to correct the situation. Code Enforcement works with the environmental staff in natural resources, engineering, and planning to determine corrective actions for violations. -Susan Mason, Natural Resources - former code enforcement officer, provided the EAC with a hand-out that described the process of environmental enforcement. Some of the environmental issues addressed by code enforcement are coastal zone management, endangered & listed species protection, prohibited exotic vegetation control, landscaping ordinances, sea turtle monitoring enforcement, water quality, vehicles on beach, Page 8 May 7, 2003 vegetation removal, and PUD stipulations. There are some cross-over issues with the regular investigators in the department, such as zoning issues, site improvement plans, etc.. Susan Mason used a flow Chart, (not provided to court reporter), that used vegetation removal for an example of a violation and the process followed to gain compliance. Once a complaint is received it is researched before a site visit is done. They then begin the investigation on site. Once on site, they determine whether or not there is a true violation. Then they provide an NOV if a violation is found, which outlines the section of the code that was violated, what was observed on-site, and providing instructions to correct the violation in a reasonable time-frame. If it is an STP in the process to be approved, there is the possibility of fines. If this is not the case, then mitigation plans are to be submitted to the county within 30 days. If the plan is rejected, the applicant is informed of the reason it was rejected and is to resubmit a new plan. If there is a lack of cooperation or the cooperation stops, then it could go to the courts or the code enforcement board. For environmental protection issues, it will primarily go before the code enforcement board for non-cooperation. Any mitigation is monitored for up to five years. After this point, the complaint is closed and the violation is considered abated. This same monitoring process is followed when the code enforcement board establishes a decision. -Mr. Hughes asked how Code Enforcement became aware of violations. Susan Mason informed him that patrolling is done, but the vast majority of violations are found through complaints from the staff or the public. -Aiexandra Santoro asked what the timeframe was from the site visit to the point where they do or don't cooperate. Susan Mason told her that it has to do with the amount of contact and the size of the violation; small violations may be a month, but larger violations can take longer. If it is a larger violation, staff discusses the violation and the remedy with the consultant, once the consultant is found. -Mr. Sansbury asked if the enforcement officers were deputized. Susan Mason informed him that they were not. -Micheile Arnold added that the enforcement officers are busy, so they don't always have an opportunity to patrol. As a proactive step, staff has met with other environmental agencies and workforce to provide them with the information on what is considered Page 9 May 7, 2003 acceptable practices, etc... They have also met with associations, so that they as well are informed on the requirements. -Mr. Sorrell asked who provided tree trimming licenses. Michelle Arnold stated that this was done under the county contracting license department. -Mr. Hughes asked if code enforcement could use the information department at the county in order to create a consist document for questions of the public. Michelle Arnold stated that they do have a form that they distribute to the public, created with the natural resources department. A video was done by the public relations department and is available to the public. -Mr. Sorrell asked if the satellite on the county website was being used to find violations. Michelle Arnold informed him that they do use property appraiser's information to c6mpare the site changes; yes they do utilize the data. VII. Council Member Comments -Barbara Burgeson informed the EAC that Susan Mason is now employed by the environmental resource department. Susan Mason was with code enforcement four the past four years. Barbara Burgeson added that Steve Lenberger will be the official liaison for the EAC in the future. VIII. Public Comments -There was no public comment. IX. Adjournment -There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:14AM. Collier County Environmental Advisory Committee Chairman Tom Sansbury Page 10