Loading...
EAC Minutes 10/01/2003 ROctober 1, 2003 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Board Meeting Room, 3rd Floor, Administration Building 3301 Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 9:00 A.M. October 1, 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 o'clock a.m.,, in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Members: Thomas W. Sansbury William Hughes Alfred F. Gal Alexandra Ellis Edward Carlson Erica Lynn Kenneth Humiston Collier County Staff: Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney; Barbara Burgeson, Senior Environmental Specialist; Stephen Lenberger, Environmental Specialist; Fred Reischl, Principal Planner; Russell Webb, Principal Planner; Laura Roys, Environmental Specialist Page 1 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL AGENDA October 1, 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 August 6, 2003 Meeting Minutes Land Use Petitions A. Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-2003-AR-3665 "Bella Lago" Section 3, Township 49 South, Range 25 East V. Old Business: VI. New Business: VII. LDC amendments - Cycle 3 (LDC amendments for Cycle 3 to be continued on October 6 at 9:00 A.M.) 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 Auqust 29~ 2003 if you cannot attend this meetinq or if you have a conflict and will abstain from voting on a petitior- (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. October 1, 2003 I. Roll Call -The meeting was called to order at 9:00 o'clock a.m. A quorum was established. Members: Alexandra Ellis, Erica Lynn, Thomas W. Sansbury, William Hughes, Alfred F. Gal, Edward Carlson, Kenneth Humiston Alexandra Ellis was elected unanimously as Vice-Chairman of the Environmental Advisory Committee Collier County Staff: Patrick White, Barbara Burgeson, Stephen Lenberger, Fred Reischl, Russell Webb II. Approval of Agenda -Approval of the Minutes of the last meeting was deferred until the November meeting.. -LDC amendments will be heard in part today; the remainder will be heard at the regular meeting in the beginning of November. -III. Land Use Petitions A. Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-2003-AR-3665 "Bella Lago", Section 3, Township 49 South, Range 25 East -Chairman Sansbury swore in all those who would be testifying. -There were no disclosures. -Vincent Cotero, Vice President of Planning for Coastal Engineering representing Gates McVey-Knopke, LLC, stated that the name Bella Laga will be changed in accordance with the addressing ordinance.. Mr. Cotero proposed October 1, 2003 approving a density just below three units per acre and outlined the primary uses of the planned unit development. Wade Waltemeyer, Earth Balance Consulting, stated that there were two main issues on site, first, the wetlands area in the northeast comer of the site; second, the presence of gopher tortoises. Mr. Waltemeyer stated that the applicant has met the required 25% preservation area Mr. Hughes questioned whether there would be a central clubhouse, and whether there were any provisions to make the central clubhouse an emergency shelter.. -Mr. Cotero responded that there would be a clubhouse and that he was unsure whether the developer would design the clubhouse to accommodate any more than the residents that are in that particular subdivision and their guests. -Mr. Waltemeyer stated that the incidence of death of the tortoises is very rare, that there is no certainty as to why some tortoises have respiratory disease while others do not and that there is a possibility the disease is related to stress. Chairman Sansbury asked whether in relocation there is a planting requirement. Mr. Waltemeyer responded this site has enough native vegetation once exotics are removed to provide normal habitat that the tortoises are accustomed to. Mr. Humiston asked whether there have been follow up studies done on the success of relocation. Mr. Waltemeyer responded he was not aware of any. Ms. Lynn asked what the minimum acreage was to maintain a gopher population. Mr. Waltemeyer responded one third of an acre supports one tortoise, but the tortoises need to interact with other tortoise populations. Ms. Lynn asked if the area connects to other areas where there are gopher tortoises. Mr. Waltemeyer 3 October 1, 2003 stated that he thinks there is some habitat that would support tortoises to the east. Ms. Lynn asked how long a gopher tortoise lives. Mr. Waltemeyer answered in excess of 50 years. Ms. Burgeson stated that the gopher tortoise habitat is one of the rarest in Collier County. and that this is a high quality habitat that accommodates many different species and should be preserved. Mr. Carlson stated that there appears to be habitat for gopher turtles adjacent to the preserve. Mr. Wade stated that it has been established that 25 acres is the sustainable population size and 50 individuals is the sustainable population number. A motion was made by Mr. Humiston to recommend approval to the BCC of the proposed LDC amendment in accordance with staff recommendations. Mr. Gal seconded the motion. The motion was carried 6 to 1 with Ms. Lynn opposing. Michael Fernandez, Planned Development, stated that his firm has submitted a proposal to amend the LDC relative to the gopher tortoise provision and that they need relief now. Ms. Burgeson stated that it is staff's position that this proposal is inconsistent with the Growth Management Plan and the proposal does not make an attempt to preserve any of the habitat on site. Mr. Humiston asked if they could do a relocation to a site that does not currently have a population. Mr. Sansury stated that this is an item that should be in the GMP process rather than the LDC process. Mr. Fernandez stated that the LDC has already provided for relocation permits that the Growth Management Plan does not address directly and that nothing is being done differently here and he does not believe the 4 IV. October 1, 2003 provision is inconsistent with the Growth Management Plan and therefore this is the appropriate venue in which to review the provision. Mr. Carlson made a motion to support staff's recommendation that this go through the GMP and be revisited in a more comprehensive manner. Ms. Ellis seconded the motion. The motion was carried unanimously. New Business LDC Amendments - Cycle 3 Mr. Webb stated that he is discussing LDC proposed amendment 2.2.2.2.1. Mr. Webb stated that the definition of educational plant and ancillary plant are in the second cycle and that educational plants refer to all buildings that are going to be on the main complex; ancillary plants are secondary. Mr. Gal asked what is the definition of an educational plant. Mr. Webb responded it is all the buildings and facilities in the main complex that are located near the educational facility and the ancillary plants are the structures that are offthe main campus. -Mr. Carlson stated that at this point all the items concerning educational plants should be accepted. Amendment Cycle 3, 2003, 2.2.5.3 -Mr. Webb stated that it is uncertain whether this amendment will be a variance or conditional use. Ms. Ellis stated that it was her understanding that the height of the building was going to be according to its natural grade rather than according to FEMA which would reduce the height of the building. Mr. Webb responded in the affirmative.and stated that underground parking would be a conditional use. -- October 1, 2003 -Mr. Carlson made a motion to approve all LDCs referring to educational plants, ancillary plants and the measuring of building height from grade. Ms. Ellis seconded the motion. The motion was carried 7 to 0. Amendment Cycle 3, 2003, 2.2.38 Mr. Webb stated that this amendment is for a new overlay district to address the moratorium issue. Ms. Ellis asked if the essence was to set up the overlay for well studies in different areas. Ms. Burgeson stated that the moratorium was in effect for a period of two years and extended beyond that. Ms. Burgeson stated that the result of the moratorium, the study, was to create new Land Development Code language to answer the issues and questions that the community had. Mr. Webb suggested that it might be a good idea to have Don Schneider back in November. Amendment Cycle 3, 20032.3, Off-Street Parking and Loading Ms. Ellis asked regarding parking short term in the streets. Mr. Webb responded that he knew of no regulations in the LDC but there may be other ordinances addressing that particular situation. Chairman Sansbury asked regarding a definition of"24 hours". Mr. Webb stated that he did not know. Chairman Sansbury stated that there should be a clarification between the terms "permanent" and "temporary". Amendment Cycle 3, 2003, 2.3.5, Passenger Vehicle Parking Mr. Webb stated that this section dealt with renumbering due to a scrivener's error. October 1, 2003 Amendment Cycle 3, 2003, 2.3.21.4, Off-Street Loading Mr. Webb stated that this section deals with restructuring the existing language for clarification. Amendment Cycle 3, 2003.2.4.7.2, Landscaping and Buffering Mr. Webb stated that section is adding language to reflect that the PSP process will hereinafter be optional. Ms. Ellis asked whether when this comes before us it will be the final project rather than the preliminary. Mr. Webb responded that if the applicant chooses to go straight to the final subdivision plat process it would be reviewed at the final stage. Amendment Cycle 3, 2003, 2.4.7.5, Landscaping and Buffering Mr. Webb stated that this proposed amended would incorporate the Construction Standards Handbook for Work Within the Public Rights-of-Way Collier County, Florida" into the LDC. Amendment Cycle 3, 2003, 2.5.5.2.3, Real Estate Signs Mr. Webb stated that this amendment deals with realignment and adjustment of text Amendment Cycle 3, 2003, 2.5.5.2.5.1.1, Pole or Ground Signs Mr. Webb stated that this amendment would allow for a variance for road frontage of businesses of up to 100 to 149.9 feet. Amendment Cycle 3, 2003, 2.6.33, Coming Soon Signs Mr. Webb asked if there were any comments. There were none 7 October 1, 2003 Amendment Cycle 3, 2003, 2.228.1 Mr. Webb stated that this amendment has to do with kitchens and asked if there were any comments. There were none. Amendment Cycle 3, 2003, 2.7.3.5 Mr. Webb stated that this amendment has to do with PUD review and asked if there were any comments. There were none. Amendment Cycle 3, 2003, 2.7.4.9, Conditional Uses for Schools (PSP) Mr. Webb asked if there were any comments. There were none. Amendment Cycle 3, 2003, 3.2.3, Subdivision Applicability Mr. Webb asked whether anyone had any comments. There were none. Amendment Cycle 3, 2003 3.2.6.2, PSP Procedures Mr. Webb asked if there were any comments. There were none. Amendment Cycle 3, 2003, 3.2.6.3.5, Relationship and Amendments to PSP's Mr. Webb asked if there were any comments. There were none,. Amendment Cycle 3, 2003, 3.2.8.2.3, Water Management Plans Mr. Webb asked whether there were any comments. There were none. Amendment Cycle 3, 2003, 3.2.8.3.19, Street Names, Markers and Traffic Control (PSP) Mr. Webb stated that this amendment refers to the PSP process being optional. Amendment Cycle 3, 2003 3.2.9.1.2, Improvements in FSP (PSP) Amendment Cycle 3, 2003, Page 145 -Mr. Webb this was taken from the interlocal agreement word for word. October 1, 2003 Amendment Cycle 3, 2003, Page 149, Item No. 3 -Mr. Humiston asked regarding what kind of a permit the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issues. -Ms. Burgeson responded it would be a technical assistance letter rather than a permit. -Mr. Gal asked who adopted the interlocal agreement. -Mr. Webb responded that it was the Board of County Commissioners. Amendment Cycle 3, 2003 3.5.5.1.3, Development Excavation (PSP) -There were no comments Amendment Cycle 3, 2003, 3.9.6.6 -Chairman Sansbury asked regarding exotic plant removal, are the County and private owners subject to the same standards. -Mr. Webb responded yes, they are. Amendment Cycle 3, 2003, 2.12.5.1 -There were no comments. Amendment Cycle 3, 2003, Page 164, PSP -There were no comments. Amendment Cycle 3, 2003, Page 165 -Ms. Burgeson stated the coastal construction control line is the state line and that the County's actual language would be what we have adopted, the original CCCL into the LDC was through the coastal construction setback line. Ms. Burgeson indicated that a change would be made so that we reference the setback line there instead of the control line. 9 October 1, 2003 -Mr. Humiston asked on Page 166 where it says "variances may be authorized" under 3.13.5.1, it shall be prohibited to use any construction material that can become dislodged during a storm event such as but not limited to the brick pavers, stepping stones and so forth. Mr. Humiston stated that this was in conflict with what the State does because the State would rather see something like pavers that would be moved around during a storm rather than a slab because the State wants storms to be able to move things like that out of the way so that if there is a storm surge you are not channeling the water between buildings which could undermine permanent structures. -Ms. Burgeson stated that is applied more frequently to the building structures so that there are friable parts of the structure that could be relocated to allow the storm surge to wash through the first floor. Ms. Burgeson stated that the issue on the stepping stones and pavers is that it is preferred that those not be used at all, we are requesting prohibiting them because they get dislodged and embedded in the beach and become detrimental to sea turtle nesting. -Mr. ,. Humiston asked regarding sea walls. -Ms. Burgeston indicated that is the same issue. Mr. Humiston stated that his concern is that a property owner could be put in a position of getting approval from the State for something that would be denied by the County. Ms. Burgeson responded that there are a number of places in the LDC where the County takes a more restrictive regulatory position. Ms. Burgeson indicated that in this case there have been discussions with the State and their position is to not 10 October 1, 2003 comment negatively on the paver bricks or stepping-stones so it becomes the County's authority to regulate those. Mr. Gal asked if these variances will come before the EAC. Ms. Burgeson responded that they will not, there is something by the LDC that is directed to go to BCC and staff attempted eight years ago to put these into the process so that the EAC would review CCSL variances because they are environmentally sensitive issues, but at that time the Board of County Commissioners did not want these going in front of the EAC. Ms. Burgeson stated that if that is something the EAC might consider, that could be added into this amendment cycle. Mr. Gal stated that he would prefer that. Mr. Gal asked regarding safety, what would need to be constructed. Ms. Burgeson responded that when construction such as a sea wall is required for safety, typically erosion is the problem. Mr. Gal asked regarding "no reasonable economic use of the property," is that for a homeowner who has already built over the coastal construction setback line, are they grandfathered in. Ms. Burgeson stated that there are exceptions in the amendment that state with a single family home, modifications can be done as long as they stay within the original foundation so they are grand fathered to that extent, to the extend that they have gotten an approved CCSL variance in the past and they have constructed by that variance. 11 October 1, 2003 Mr. Gal asked whether this is a case of someone may have a piece of land and they want to build on the land but do not have enough room for setbacks so they are going to have to build over the coastal construction setback line and the County is going to have to grant a variance. Ms. Burgeson stated that there has never been a request using this exception; the language is in there from the Growth Management Plan and it is more likely a legal property fights issue and language that provides for at least limited use of the property. Mr. Gal stated that he was opposed to that exception. Ms. Burgeson responded that it is right out of the GMP and we would not be able to make an amendment here without visiting that process first. Ms. Burgeson stated that it could be researched and that before November an email would be sent to let everyone know where the language came from and if the EAC has any ability to make modifications, it can be done at the November meeting. Mr. Humiston stated that if the EAC wished to make a recommendation for changes in any of the things we are looking at today, the November meeting is when we can do so. Ms. Burgeson responded that the EAC can make the recommendations today, but since we are coming back in November with more of the environmental review package that resulted from the GMPs that were recently adopted or became effective in January, the EAC can do that today, can reopen and revisit that in November or postpone it until the November meeting and make your recommendation at that time. 12 October 1, 2003 Mr. Humiston stated that he would like to make a recommendation concerning the conflict between the County approach to the impervious surface of the pavers and the local approach and that it should be taken out of there, 3.13.5.1. Chairman Sansbury stated that since there is concern because of the potential conflict, we have requested staff to come back at the November meeting after researching the issues. Mr. Humiston stated that staff needed to show that has been resolved with the State so that it is not a conflict. Ms. Burgeson stated that it is not so much a conflict as it is that the State defers that final decision to Collier County. Mr. Humiston stated that the State would not issue a permit for a slab whereas the State would issue a permit for a paver. Ms. Burgeson stated that the CCSL variance as it is written would not permit a slab in front of the CCSL line, but only permit it behind the line. Ms. Burgeson stated that according to the amendment language the only thing that would be permitted in front of the line would be a boardwalk or other pervious pathways because that would be considered more than a minor accessory structure. Ms. Burgeson stated that the County would be the more restrictive entity. Ms. Burgeson agreed to speak with the DEP. Mr. Gal stated that he did not want the two exceptions reviewed but would rather they be removed to prevent a conflict between what the State might approve as opposed to what the County might approve. 13 October 1, 2003 Mr. White stated that the proposed regulation has a time clock on it, these are two-year temporary permits. Mr. Gal asked if that was to begin construction. Mr. White said that is not the way it is written. Mr. White indicated that it appears from the way it is written that the life cycle ofa CCSL variance has a maximum of three years from the date of approval. Mr. Gal stated that needs to be corrected. Ms. Burgeson stated that is the intent for the construction. Mr. Gal stated that he wants a safety exception as well as economic utilization. Mr. Gal stated that regarding 3.13.5, he would like the language which says "where said prohibition would result in no reasonable economic utilization of the property in question, for safety reasons" removed. -Mr. Gal made a motion that the above-read language be removed from the amendment. Mr. Gal amended the motion to delete the language regarding safety. Chairman Sansbury stated that Mr. Gal has made a motion that would strike "no reasonable economic utilization of the property in question". Motion was carried 6 to 1, with request that one line be removed. Chairman Sansbury asked as to 3.13.5.1, do we want some additional information. Mr. Humiston stated that he would like it brought back again in November. Ms. Burgeson agreed to bring the matter back in November. Page 169, Setbacks -Mr. Webb asked if there were any comments. There were none. Page 171, Guest Houses or Cottages 14 -Mr. Webb asked if there were any comments. There were none. Page 173, Airport Map -Mr. Webb asked if there were any comments. There were none. 2.2.5.3, FEMA Elevations -Mr. Webb asked if there were any comments. There were none. Page C and D, FEMA -Mr. Webb asked if there were any comments. There were none. Page E and F, FEMA -Mr. Webb asked if there were any comments. There were none. Page G and It, FEMA -Mr. Webb asked if there were any comments. There were none. Page I and J, FEMA -Mr. Webb asked if there were any comments. There were none. Page K, L and M, FEMA -Mr. Webb asked if there were any comments. There were none. Page N, FEMA -Mr. Webb asked if there were any question. There were none. Page Q, Building Elevations -Mr. Webb asked if there were any questions. There were none. Page T, Building Elevations -Mr. Webb asked if there any questions. There were none. -Mr. Lenberger agreed to produce data on herbicides and pesticides. October 1, 2003 15 October 1, 2003 It was agreed among the EAC members that a representative from Emergency Preparedness give the committee a presentation regarding emergency preparedness and how it might relate to the LDC. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:05 o'clock p.m Collier County Environmental Advisory Committee Thomas W. Sansbury, Chairperson 16