Loading...
EAC Minutes 04/07/2004 R April 7, 2004 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Naples, Florida, April 7, 2004 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Environmental Advisory Council 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: Chairman: Thomas Sansbury Alexandra Ellis Ed Carlson Alfred Gal William Hughes Ken Humiston Erica Lynne Also present: Steven Lenberger, Environmental Specialist Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney Barbara Burgeson, Environmental Specialist ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL AGENDA April 7, 2004 9:00 A.M. Commission Boardroom W. Harmon Turner Building (Building "F") - Third Floor I. Roll Call I1. Approval of Agenda II1. Approval of March 3, 2004 Meeting Minutes IV. Land Use Petitions Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-2003-AR-4674 "Collier Regional Medical Center PUD" Section 23, Township 50 South, Range 26 East V. Old Business VI. New Business A. Update on business recycling requirements B. Artificial Reef Presentation - Doug Suitor C. GMP glitch cycle presentation (material to be delivered separately) D. Matt Fisher of EarthMark-own Mitigation Banks - request for presentation 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 April 2, 2004 if you cannot attend this meeting or if you have a conflict and will abstain from voting on a petition (403-2424). 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. Meeting was called to order by Chairman Thomas N. Sansbury at 9:00 AM. I. ROLL CALL Roll Call was taken and a quorum was established. April 7, 2004 II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Barbara Burgesen requested a deletion of item VI-C: presentation was not prepared and ready. GMP glitch cycle presentation. The III. APPROVAL OF MARCH 3, 2004 MEETING MINUTES It was moved by Mr. Hughes to approve the minutes of the meeting of March 3, 2004. Second by Mr. Carlson. Carried unanimously 7-0. IV. LAND USE PETITIONS A. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NO. PUDZ-2003-AR-4674 "COLLIER REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER PUD" SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST Disclosures: None Those testifying were sworn in by Marjorie Student. Bruce Anderson introduced himself and the consulting team members of the team that will be testifying today: Margaret Perry; Ken Pasarella; and David Wilkenson. We are in agreement with all of the environmental staff stipulations listed in the staff report. This is an application to rezone property that is presently zoned agricultural and travel trailer/recreational vehicle to PUD 60 acre parcel to east side of the intersection of Collier Boulevard and Lely Cultural Boulevard. This application is to open a new 100 bed hospital and medical office building. By way of explanation, the land development code a hospital is recognized as an essential service. Ten of the sixty acres are in the activity center and the remainder is in urban fringe. Margaret Perry gives a brief overview of the PUD Master Plan. Site is approximately 60 acres located on east side Collier Blvd approximately 3 miles north of US 41. Lands to the north and east are agricultural & vacant. Lands to the south are TTRVC - contain Country Camp and Resort, agricultural and vacant with some single family homes. Across Collier Blvd there are various PUDS: Sierra Meadows (mixed), Edison Village (Commercial), and Lely Resort. The main entrance will be at the signalized intersection of Lely Cultural Pkwy & Collier Blvd. A secondary entrance is planned but the exact location is not yet finalized. There have been minor changes to the master plan since the PUD was submitted. The first is the conservation water management area has been re-designated preservation per staff recommendations. Also, three Collier County well sites have been added per the request of the Collier County Utilities Division. A required Type A buffer to northern property line has 2 April 7, 2004 been increased per request of the planning staff to a Type B 20 foot wide buffer until you come to the FPL easement then east of the FPL easement there will be a Type D buffer. We are in agreement with all staff stipulations and they will be included in PUD documentation. Ken Pasarella delivered the Environmental Issues Overview starting with a detailed description of the site. Indicated features and boundaries of the site on the map provided (stepped away from microphone during this time.) The site is relatively flat. Vegetation includes uplands and wetlands. There are 42 acres of wetlands, disturbed cypress and disturbed pine cypress. The 951 canal lowered the wetland water elevation. These conditions lead to infestation by exotics such as Melaleuca, Brazilian Pepper and other nuisance species. 88% of the wetlands have greater than 50% of exotics. The site plan establishes one single large preserve area approximately 15.5 acres. The concept is not to fragment the preserve so it can act as a building block for adjacent projects as they come in. The New Town project may complement the preserve. The native vegetation requirement is 6.6 acres and we have 15.5 acres. This will be enhanced by the removal of exotic and nuisance vegetation and continued management. Ed Carlson: Considering this is right in the Rookery Bay Watershed, why does the storm water management plan have all the water discharging point source into the canal and not into the preserve for more treatment? Dave Wilkensen offers a brief presentation on the surface water management system and an answer to Mr. Carlson's question. The existing site drains into two different areas. West into the 951 canal and south to preserve area also further south to a swell along Johns Road then ultimately west to the 951 canal again. The site is bisected by an FPL easement. The system was designed to mimic the existing drainage conditions as closely as possible. (Mr. Wilkensen steps away from microphone to indicate areas on map.) The system has been designed according to South Florida Water Management criteria providing the water quality treatment according to the rules. The post development site does not discharge any more pollutants than the pre-development site. Lastly, a 100 year flood plan analysis was performed. The site does not negatively impact the 100 year flood plan. William Hughes: Is all that parking necessary? Mr. Wilkensen: Yes Mr. Hughes: Can any of that be turf grass to recharge the aquifer; does it all have to be pavement? Mr. Wilkensen: One of the issues associated with that is that the county typically requires a stabilized sub-grade under the parking itself. There really isn't the recharge you would expect with turf grass. Mr. Hughes: Is there a difference in elevation? Mr. Wilkensen: Probably about a half of a foot. Mr. Hughes: The canal discharge being lower? Mr. Wilkensen: Actually the eastern side is slightly lower. 3 April7,2004 Mr. Hughes: That pipe that connects those two is kind of an equalizer? Mr. Wilkensen: It is an equalizer. Mr. Hughes: Physically what is that? Mr. Wilkensen: The structure itself is a round orifice. The water disburses through that into a pipe and then into a spreader swell to spread it out so it's not such a point source prior to discharging into the preserve. Mr. Hughes: The total discharge of. 15 cubic feet per minute? Mr. Wilkensen: It's. 15 cubic feet per second. Mr. Hughes: How much fluctuation is in the retention area? The report indicates up to 5 ft; with storm runoffI expect a lot of variation. Mr. Wilkensen: We analyze system to see how long it takes to recover back to control elevation. We met the Water Management District's rule of 14 days. Mr. Hughes: Does the surface area change a lot in the retention pond? Mr. Wilkensen: From control to peak elevation there is not a tremendous amount of vertical difference in the lake system, maybe 2-3 feet. In the retention areas that are dry there would be a larger ares of fluctuation. Mr. Hughes: All you expect is 2-3 feet; here it is indicated 5 feet? Mr. Wilkensen: Lakes and retention areas are different. Lakes provide the majority of the water quality treatment. Mr. Hughes inquires about the effects of the rainy season on the area. Stan Chrzanowski: The Environmental Department recently revised their literal zone standards calling for larger and flatter areas. It takes into account these larger fluctuation areas because we were finding that the literal zones couldn't take the fluctuation. Mr. Hughes asks they are using vegetation or design. Mr. Chrzanowski: Both, it's the mechanics of it. We used to have an 8:1 or 6:1, now they have a shelf that goes much lower so it's a little more inundated and a little less dry and the shelves are flatter; but they have made accommodations for that. Mr. Hughes: Do we feel secure that this will work? Mr. Chrzanowski confirms that this is a better system than we had before. Mr. Hughes: The Water Department has easements for wells; where will they be located? Mr. Wilkensen steps away from the microphone to indicate the locations on the map. Mr. Sansbury asks about New Town. Bruce Anderson: That's the name of development. Mr. Sansbury asks what barrier is planned to segregate Country Camping. Margaret Perry: A Type B buffer and a wall are required. The owner of property does not prefer a wall so increased landscape buffering is going to be provided. 4 April7,2004 Mr. Hughes asks if the campground will still be preserved in that location. Ms. Perry: Yes Ed Carlson asks about the east and south boundaries. Ms. Perry: A buffer will be provided in existing vegetation however, after the removal of exotics, if there is a need for additional plantings to meet Type A requirements we will do that. Mr. Carlson: No bums or no clearing? Ms. Perry: No. Steven Lenberger enters one change to sections 6.4C: "All preserve areas shall be identified as separate tracks and be protected by a permanent conservation easement to prohibit further development." I spoke to the petitioner and they are aware of this addition. Mr. Hughes: Is this a public or private hospital? Bruce Anderson states that the hospital is privately owned. Mr. Hughes: Has the location been looked out to see ifa hospital is safe in that area? Dave Wilkensen: That was considered with the state roles governing hospitals. Mr. Hughes: If anything happens are people safe in that facility? Mr. Wilkensen: Yes Mr. Carlson: This project destroys almost 70% of the wetlands. Is there any additional info on any additional mitigation that might be required for this site? Ken Pasarella: Currently we are in the district and core permitting part of the process. Through negotiations we are looking for offsite mitigation. Our proposal is to keep this in the general vicinity. It will be offsite but in the same area. No additional staff comments. Ed Carlson moves to approve. William Hughes seconds the motion. Ed Carlson would like a discussion due to the large percentage of impact on wetlands. Can put a condition that we encourage the inclusion of offsite mitigation? William Hughes: Personally, I think it's a bad location; there's a potential of trapping people out there. At the same time its their property they can do what they want to do within the roles. Ed Carlson: We would like this project to include offsite mitigation because of the large percentage of the site is wetland that is being impacted. Motion is passed unanimously April7,2004 V. OLD BUSINESS VI. NEW BUSINESS A. UPDATE ON BUSINESS RECYCLING REQUIREMENTS Steven Lenberger talked to the recycling coordinator and requirements for business recycling. They are looking at creating them soon. Alexandra Ellis asks if there is there a time frame. Mr. Lenberger: June Ms. Ellis: I would like to be apprised of the situation. Steven Lenberger: I could request that when they move forward they presentation. currently there are no give you a B. ARTIFICAL REEF PRESENTATION Steven Lenberger introduces Doug Suitor of the Artificial Reef Program. Doug Suitor Gives a comprehensive overview of the reef program including slides and snapshots of the web site. They have a volunteer dive team and have been building reefs since back in the 1970's. The primary reason have been for recreational fisheries and diving sites. More recently they have focused on habitat enhancement and reef preservation. They do not have their own barge; they hire one. Materials are inspected and approved before loading and they are brought to the permitted site and they are thrown overboard. They do a variety of small and large piles of material. After a few years growth on the materials render them unrecognizable. They mark the sites with buoys; it's also a lot easier with GPS. They do not mark the sites further out for safety reasons. People are aiming at pre-designed reef modules. They are very predictable and easy to use. They are a little expensive. Some have been donated and include the remains of some deceased people. One of our operations was highlighted on the Discovery Channel's Extreme Funerals. We try to use a lot of limestone. The primary material we put out is clean concrete waste material. We work with Marco to do bridges. Last year we started working with the solid waste department. They are paying us to bring it out for them. Through the state grant program we have worked with the volunteer dive groups to do comparisons of the different types of reefs and the different fish species that are near the reefs. We are also working with other counties and the state to study the economical contribution of the reefs. 6 April7,2004 All the information is kept on the website. QUESTIONS: Thomas Sansbury: In Palm Beach County a very good staffed program and right next door in Broward Bounty they had a very good staff but they always had budgetary problems. Eventually Broward, and with Palm following behind it, the Artificial Reef Committee was established to bring in a lot of money for the program from private industry. You seem to have a very good program but there is a problem with having enough money. Could the board be approached to get the citizens involved in assisting? William Hughes: What about tippage fees to get rid of concrete? Doug Suitor: They waive that. Mr. Hughes: We have very limited space. It costs a serious amount of money to get rid of this stuff. Wouldn't'it be more prudent, instead of waiving the fees, to have those materials applied directly to this project? Mr. Suitor: Yes, it would help fund the program. Mr. Hughes: We're giving away a free service Mr. Suitor: What I gathered is that a lot of the companies weren't bringing it. They were disposing of the stuff all throughout the county. Mr. Sansbury: This stuff is all over the place. Mr. Hughes: Hasn't that era changed a little now; aren't we a lot more regulated? Mr. Sansbury states that there is still a lot of it around. Stan Chrzanowski: The building code has a provision that you could use inert materials as backfill and we found that a lot of people were doing that if you charged them at the landfill. Mr. Hughes: Yes, that makes sense. Mr. Suitor: states that with the landfill bringing it out we have all the reef material we can deploy. Mr. Carlson makes a motion that the county has a formal artificial reef committee and that committee should find sponsors to fund the program. Mr. Hughes seconds the motion. Eriea Lynne: Will there be big signs marking the locations? April 7, 2004 Mr. Sansbury states there will only be buoys with the numbers. Underneath the water there are signs but that is quickly grown over. Motion passed unanimously 7-0. Ce MATT FISHER OF EARTHMARK-OWN MITIGATION BANKS - REQUEST FOR PRESENTATION Steven Lenberger introduces Mr. Fisher to the council. Matt Fisher, Director of Marketing for EarthMark-own Mitigation Banks, requests a presentation in May for simple education in reference to what has been achieved at Big Cypress mitigation banks in the past four years. The Board agreed to listen to the presentation in May. VII. COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS Ms. Ellis gives Mr. Sansbury a card for his last meeting and reads a poem Mr. Sansbury: Thanks everyone. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENTS Stan Chrzanowski: In March 2001 you all looked at a project that you voted to deny. One of the reasons was that the water management district had two plans that they were looking at; since that time the project has gotten through all of their approvals. We had a meeting with the Water Management District yesterday and they said that they had two stipulations but they are interested in getting the flow-way done as quickly as possible. The district approved one specific path. The stipulations are that the flow-way has to be dug exactly as the district specified and they have to have the permit from the corps before they dig. We would like to issue a permit when they come in; does anyone have a problem with that? This came before you already and I don't think it should come again; I think it's a waste of your time. Ed Carlson states that this project is getting extra scrutiny from the corps. Stan Chrzanowski: Nothing gets issued until the corps permit gets issued. Marjorie Student: We've been given notice on the county level to be careful about issuing permits until we get all final permits from the corps. It is up to this board if they feel they can assist staff at this point. If the ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL recommends denial of a petition that does not go back before the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS then staff would take that recommendation. It would be up to the petitioner to petition the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS again. 8 April 7, 2004 Stan Chrzanowski asks Ms. Student if staff can take ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL recommendations and deny an excavation permit on something that meets the land development code. Marjorie Student will be happy to come back another time with a full answer to that after further investigation. Barbara Burgesen: On an SDP or a commercial excavation permit that staff is going to be issuing; staff is the final decision maker because those are all administrative and don't have to go before the Board of County Commissioners. However in administrative decisions when staff has the final say and we bring it to the Environmental Advisory Council we take very strongly your position and recommendations in our final decisions. In the past the Environmental Advisory Council's recommendations have been stipulated in our final decisions. Marjorie Student: I have had occasion to look over the powers of the Environmental Advisory Council. The Environmental Advisory Council is an advisory body and staff takes the council's recommendations into account for the stipulations of the permit and the issuance of the permit. IX. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:05 am. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Chairman Thomas Sansbury 9