Loading...
EAC Minutes 06/04/2003 RJune 4,2003 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Board Meeting Room, 3r~l Floor, Administration Building 3301 Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 9:00 AM June 4, 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: Me mb ers: Tom Sansbury Michael Sorrell Alexandra Santoro Ken Humiston Bill Hughes Alfred Gal Michael Coe Ed Carlson Erica Lynne Collier County Staff: Patrick White Bill Lorenz Barb Burgeson Stan Chrzanowski Page 1 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL AGENDA June 4, 2003 9:00 A.M. Commission Boardroom W. Harmon Turner Building (Building "F") - Third Floor I. Roll Call II. Approval of Agenda III. Approval of May 7, 2003 Meeting Minutes IV. Solid Waste Program Overview Land Use Petitions Planned Unit Development Amendment No. PUDZ-2002-AR-2357 Development Order Amendment No. DOA-2002-AR-2358 "Parklands PUD/DRI' Section 9, Township 48 South, Range 26 East Be Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-2002-AR-3011 "Tuscany Cove PUD"- Section 26, Township 48 South, Range 26 East Ce Planned Unit Development No. PUD-2002-AR-2475 "Falling Waters PUD"- Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East VI. Old Business: A. Rural Lands Stewardship Area Land Development Code Amendment (2.2.27) - New Business: VIII. Council Member Comments IX. Public Comments X. Adjournment Council Members: Please notify the Environmental Services Department Administrative Assistant no later than 5:00 p.m. on May 30~ 2003 if you cannot attend this meeting or if yOu have a conflicl 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. June 4,2003 I. Roll Call -The meeting was called to order at 9:08 AM. A quorum was established. Members: Michael Sorrel, Alexandra Santoro, Tom Sansbury, Ken Humiston, Bill Hughes, Alfred Gal, Michael Coe, Ed Carlson, Erica Lynne Collier County Staff: Patrick White, Bill Lorenz, Barb Burgeson, Stan Chrzanowski, II. Approval of Agenda -Item IV of the agenda, Solid Waste Program Overview, was continued until the July meeting of the EAC. During the Solid Waste Program Overview the county as well as an additional outside committee will provide the presentation. III. Approval of May 7, 2003 meeting minutes -Mr. Hughes moved to approve the minutes of May 7, 2003 as written. It was seconded by Alexandra Santoro. All were in favor; the motion passed unanimously, 9-0. IV. Land Use Petitions A) Planned Unit Development Amendment No. PUDZ-AR-2357 Development Order Amendment No. DOA-2002-AR-2358 "Parklands PUD/DRI" Section 9, Township 48 South, Range 26 East -Mr. Carlson disclosed the fact that he previously had a meeting with the petitioner. -The court reporter swore in all those who would be testifying. -Bob Mulhere, RWA, represented the petitioner. Mr. Mulhere introduced his staff and stated that Ricardo Valera, the Water Management District, was in the audience if needed. The Parklands DRI was approved in 1985 and has been amended a few times to push back the commencement date. The site was shown on a map and is located in both Collier and Lee County. The property is within the urban area. The site permits multi-family and single family units. The petitioner is asking for a conversion from the multi-family units to single family units; for every single family dwelling unit, 1.66 multi-family units will be reduced from the total number. This calculation has been developed to minimize traffic. The petitioner is also seeking to add an Page 2 June 4, 2003 additional 9 holes of golf. The document language and information is being revised to meet the current standards and facts. There was a fire on the site, during which a lot of the native vegetation was destroyed and exotics have begun to grow. The preserved wetland will be restored by removing the exotic vegetation. Mitigation will be done for impacts. The petitioner has been meeting with several environmental groups over the past few months. The design suggestions of these groups were taken into consideration and some were used. The group met with Mr. Carlson to discuss how to increase the wading bird habitat in the native preserves and the reconstructed wetlands. The site will result in the permanent protection of-477 acres of jurisdictional wetlands, incorporate habitat restoration for wading birds, and it furthers the conservation goals, objectives, & policies and the FLUE. The petitioner agrees to abide by the conditions of staff, listed in the staff report. -Ian Butler, Butler Environmental, represented the petitioner. There are 291.03acres of existing water management district wetlands on the site. In 1998 there was less than 10 acres claimed by the water management district. The site has a history of drastic changes in hydrology; dry in the winter, wet in the summer. Since the pumping activities in the agricultural fields to the north have ceased, the duration of the standing water in the wet season has decreased. The largest vegetation on-site is uniform; Hydra-pine Flatwood with Malucca coverage. In 1999 a fire burned -180acres of the wetlands on the east side of the site. The burned lands have re- vegetated with Malucca, wetland grasses, and Saw Palmetto. The burned areas will have exotic removals and supplemental enhancement planning. The petitioner is proposing 148.99 acres of wetland impacts, impact areas where located on a map. 155.4 acres of wetland and uplands will be preserved as mitigation for these impacts and exotic vegetation will also be eradicated. A monitoring schedule will be required as part of the Water Management District requirements. The petitioner also purchased 329.89 acres of off-site mitigation. Through the meetings with Mr. Carlson to mitigate for the potential impacts to Wood Storks, the petitioner will create 6 shallow water pond areas within the wetland preserve. The petitioner is waiting for a response about their most recent submittal from Fish and Wildlife. The environmental portion of the environmental resources permit has been completed. Page 3 June 4, 2003 -Mr. Hughes asked if the standing water was representative of a naturally occurring standing water area. Mr. Mulhere noted that although the flow-way does not go through the property, they are participating in the flow-way as requested by the Water Management District. Mr. Mulhere always informed the EAC that the DRI requires the developer to construct a roadway, (the only N-S collector in the region), which they have been working with staff on. The petitioner is paying for the roadway, which will be of no cost to the county, and is not asking for road-fee credits. Dave Underhill, Banks Engineering, stated that the increase in standing water has occurred due to area development. Mr. Hughes asked if the preserve area would continue as a water collection infiltration area. Mr. Underhill stated that it will. -Mr. Carlson asked if they anticipated that the elevation of the water would be above control elevation levels for long periods of time. Mr. Underhill stated that they would anticipate standing water after significant rain events. -Mr. Sansbury asked where the agricultural run-off would go. Mr. Underhill informed him that the Water Management District determined that the projects in Lee County will discharge to the ditches along Bonita Beach Rd and ultimately to the Imperial River. This will reduce the amount of artificial flows to the system. -Mr. Humiston asked what would happen after the five year mitigation plan. Mr. Butler informed him that they believed the site should be self-sustaining after five years. If it is not, then the monitoring period will be extended until it is determined to be self-sustaining. Mr. Mulhere added that exotic vegetation removal and maintenance in perpetuity was a standard requirement for PUDs. -Mr. Coe was concerned that the roadway would be 2 lanes when it should be 4-6 lanes. Mr. Mulhere stated that they do not have the opportunity, land, to build more than a 2 lane road. Mr. Coe noted an alternative location for a wider road. Mr. Mulhere stated that some of the locations are not possible because they do not know the future of 951. Mr. Mulhere stated that if more Right Of Way was available, then 4 lanes may have been considered, but 2 lanes would be sufficient. -Mr. Carlson stated that he felt there was an overall benefit being provided from this project and he was in favor of approval. Page 4 June 4,2003 -Mr. Hughes asked if the future road would impede any hydrology. Mr. Mulhere informed him that the road has been designed to enhance the flow. -Mr. Carlson made a motion for approval. It was seconded by Alfred Gal. Erica Lynne asked that the motion be amended to include the staff recommendations as a stipulation of approval. Mr. Carlson and Mr. Gal amended their motion to include the staff recommendations. All were in favor of the motion; the motion passed unanimously; 9-0. B) Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-2002-AR-3011 "Tuscany Cove PUD" Section 26, Township 48 South, Range 26 East -There were no ex parte disclosures. -The court reporter swore in all those who would be testifying. -Dwight Nadoo, RWA, represented the petitioner. The site is 78 acres. The proposed development is for a moderate intensity single family attached/detached villas of 500 dwelling units. 7.28 acres is encumbered with wetlands; 67% are Malucca, 6% disturbed lands, and 27% are mixed Pine Cypress/Malucca. 50% of the wetland area is intended to be impacted, with areas identified and suggested by the Water Management District. The project has been in the planning stages for 1 ½ years. The pre-application meeting has already occurred and they are currently responding to their first RAI. Only 29.88 acres of the site is native vegetation; 7.74 acres will be retained and replanted; 5 acres are native preservation and -2.94 acres are native preserves. There will be more native preserves on the property then what is required by code, but some of the areas will not meet the dimensional standards of the June 16, 2003 LDC. Late development on this PUD masterplan are the result of comments made by the Water Management District; native preserve #6 has been added and native preserve #7 will be renamed. The site is flat with elevations ranging from 12.68 NGBD to 12.89 NGBD, the control elevation is 12, the 25 year flood minimum road elevation will be 15.01 NGBD, and the 100 year minimum flood elevation is 15.85 NGBD. -13% of the site will be in lakes. Mr. Nadoo introduced the project team that was available for questions. Page 5 June 4, 2003 -Mr. Carlson asked if the plan was to avoid the preserve areas while cleating the rest of the property. Mr. Nadoo informed him that the plan was to avoid the preserve areas as well as the native preserve areas, attain as much native vegetation that would exist after the Malucca removal, and retain this on the lot. -Mr. Sansbury asked if the entrance would line up with the neighboring entrance across the street. Mr. Nadoo stated that it would and it will be a controlled access. -Mr. Hughes asked where the water would go if there was a 12 year or 50 year storm. Emilio Robero stated that site has good outfall facilities and is berm-ed to the 20 year level. If it goes above 25 years, then the water will go onto adjacent properties, but this is the same situation for the entire area. This was designed in accordance by the minimum county standards. -Mr. Hughes asked if it was correct to say that they have increased the ability of this property to absorb and contain water, so it will reduce outfall in most cases. Mr. Nadoo stated that this was correct. -Mr. Hughes made a motion for approval with the staff recommendations. Mr. Coe seconded the motion. All were in favor of the motion; the motion passed unanimously, 9-0. C) Planned Unit Development No. PUD-2002-AR-2475 "Falling Waters PUD" Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East -There were no ex parte disclosures. -The court reporter swore in all those would be testifying. -Gary Butler, Butler Engineering, represented the petitioner and introduced the project team. The petitioner originally requested a waiver for this application because they are only adding 5 acres of development while adding 22 acres of preserve area. Staff denied the waiver. No units will be added. The five acre addition will be developed. There will be a circular road system rather than the original cul-de-sac system. Page 6 June 4, 2003 -Mr. Carlson asked if the original, smaller preserves would disappear. Mr. Butler stated that they were removed from the preserve requirements, but they will remain on site. -Alexandra Santoro made a motion for approval with the staff recommendations. It was seconded by Mr. Carlson. All were in favor of the motion; the motion passed unanimously, 9-0. V. Old Business A) Rural Lands Stewardship Area Land Development Code Amendment (2.2.27) -Barbara Burgeson noted that there was a current, middle LDC cycle; the items being discussed are not environmental or water management issues, but there are a number of landscaping issues. She stated that the board could look at the amendments independently and email any comments to staff. The EAC will not see amendment cycles again until the fall of 2003. Staff will mail copies of the amendments to the board. -Bill Lorenz stated that the packet contains the draft of 2.2.27 that went before the board for their first public hearing. Some minor changes have been made; mostly language changes and changes in response to board comments. The BCC will meet on this item on June 16, 2003. -Mr. Carlson asked, page 20 under item D, what the link was to required stewardship. Mr. Lorenz informed him that the person would be required to strip the rights off the land and not use them in the future. Mr. Carlson stated that there was no direct connection to land stewardship. Mr. Mulhere informed him that it is a stewardship plan for environmental protection, but also for protection of existing agricultural uses. As the uses are stripped and the sending designation is achieved, an agreement document will be recorded that spells out maintenance and other environmental management aspects. Mr. Lorenz stated that the stewardship credit agreement is outlined on Page 18 under number 5. Mr. Mulhere added that there is a requirement to review the program in 5 years. -Mr. Carlson asked when the standards for 5F would be developed. Mr. Mulhere stated that there is no plan for specific standards; each plan was to be viewed on a Page 7 June 4, 2003 case to case basis. Mr. Carlson and Mr. Coe felt that it was important to have the specifics standards be listed in the amendment. Mr. Mulhere agreed that they could place specific standards in the amendment. -Mr. Coe felt that the consequences of not following the standards should also be listed in the amendment. Mr. Mulhere agreed, but added that traditional forms of legal enforcement and code enforcement would take place. Mr. White noted that this is part of the LDC and therefore enforceable as any other part of the LDC is. Mr. White stated that the board could suggest ways to modify or strengthen the enforcement of the LDC, but that would be a separate item from this. Mr. Mulhere added that there will be enough oversight to identify non-compliance with the plan and when a sending area is created easements over the property are created, which places specific identities to oversee the easement. Mr. Mulhere referred to item H on page 18, which stated that the credit agreement must include items regarding the assurance and enforceability of the credit agreement. Erica Lynne stated that the difference between violation of this agreement and code violations is that environmental lands cannot be replaced once they have been destroyed. Mr. Mulhere stated that this is the same impact as when a PUD preserve is destroyed. He noted that if this type of enforcement is to be changed or strengthened then it is not in this plan, but in provision 1.9. -Erica Lynne recommended that the other environmental groups, (Florida Wildlife, Conservancy, Audubon Society, etc...), be included in the process for a stewardship agreement plan. Mr. Mulhere stated that he doesn't see a problem with it, but he did not think that it needed to be a provision of the plan since the agreement was between the landowner, county, and possible other government organization. Mr. Lorenz stated that the stewardship agreements will be adopted by the BCC in a public hearing, which will allow opportunity for public comments. Mr. Mulhere added that some of the agreements will come before the EAC, which will allow additional public comments. -Mr. Carlson recommended that in item F - Page 18, they specify that if you establish a sending area, then you will achieve, at least, no more than a 5% exotic vegetation cover on those sending areas. Page 8 June 4,2003 -Mr. Coe recommended more specific wording under Item H - Page 18 to cover ensuring enforceability of the credit agreement. Mr. Mulhere asked if the intent was to have more accountability for stewardship. Mr. Carlson and Mr. Coe stated that this was the intent. -Mr. Carlson made a motion to add the specified criteria to 5F and strengthen & clarifying provisions for enforceability in 5H. Mr. Coe seconded the motion. All were in favor of the motion; the motion passed unanimously, 9-0. -Mr. Carlson stated that on Page 43 - Item 4, they should add #5 that discusses a special taxing district called LSTU; land stewardship taxing unit. Mr. Carlson went on to explain that an LSTU would generate a fund that would be administered by the county and that grants from the fund could be dispensed to land management projects within the sending area. Mr. Carlson made a motion to add item #5 as he discussed. Public Comment -Mimi Wallac, founder and director of The Greater Everglades Land Trust, stated that the land trust she worked for was a new land trust. Their mission is to work with private landowners and government to preserve lands in the greater Everglades eco-region. They are looking for creative partnerships with government and private landowners. Mimi Wallac had no comment on LSTUs. -Mr. White noted that in Item #4 - Page 43, "other special taxing districts" was listed. Mr. Carlson stated that item #4 encouraged this, but did not require it. Mr. White added that it would be difficult to require a special taxing district without a vote being made on the matter.. Mr. White suggested that a definition be created for LSTU and added in the plan. -The motion was recalled. Mr. Carlson amended his motion to recommend LSTU be added under Item #4 Page 43. It was seconded by Mr. Coe. All were in favor of the motion; the motion passed unanimously, 9-0 Page 9 June 4, 2003 VI. New Business -There was no new business to discuss. VII. Council Member Comments -Mr. Coe stated that the "Parklands PUD/DRI" was a prime example of how the county should take a good look at the roads. He was concerned that the road would be built with 2 lanes and then widened in years to come, rather than making the road wider to begin with. He suggested Mr. Lorenz or staff talk to someone about how the county projects relate to these PUD roads. -Mr. Sansbury agreed that this was a valid concern, but suggested that Mr. Coe speak to the commissioners. Mr. Coe felt that this could be discussed on a staff level first. -Mr. Mulhere noted that in the "Parklands PUD/DRI" the transportation did review the road and the road that will be developed is accommodating what the county was asking for. He corrected an earlier statement, saying that this road will accommodate 4 lanes, but not 6 lanes. -Alexandra Santoro referred to the morning paper, stating that since the county would be coming up with new enforcement policies on PUDs, she would like the chance for the EAC to review them. -Alexandra Santoro asked about the newsletters she had been writing. Barbara Burgeson stated that she still needed to work out where they would go and how it would be handled. She asked Alexandra Santoro to continue sending the newsletter to her and that Patrick White would review them to see if staff needed to consider funds or other legal issues. ¥III. Public Comments -There were no additional public comments. IX. Adjournment -There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:03AM. Collier County Environmental Advisory Committee Chairman Tom Sansbury Page 10