Loading...
Agenda 05/13/2008 Item # 9G Agenda Item No. 9G May 13, 2008 Page 1 of 21 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO REVIEW AND DISCUSS THE ADVISORY BOARDS TO ADHERE TO THEIR POWERS AND DUTIES OR CHANGE AN ADVISORY BOARDS' POWERS AND DUTIES TO BROADEN THEIR SCOPE. OBJECTIVE: For the Board of County Commissioners to review and discuss the advisory boards to adhere to their powers and duties or change an advisory boards' powers and duties to broaden their scope. CONSIDERATIONS: As an example: the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC), per the Land Development Code (LDC) 8.06.03.0.2. "...that is or will be reviewed and permitted by South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), are exempt from review by the EAC. " However, the EAC advisory board members are requesting to review projects that would be exempt from their scope. Examples: . EAC (minutes attached 11/07/2007) discussion regarding the Brandon RPUD. Discussion regarding residential uses, building heights, building design characteristics, etc; . CCPC (minutes attached 12/06/2007) discussion regarding the New Hope Ministries PUD and Collier COWlty staff Barbara Burgeson pointing out that the EAC previously approved the PUD based on non-environmental criteria; . EAC (minutes of 03/05/2008 and 03/06/2008) County Attorney Jeff Wright reminds the EAC members, at their request, of their authority by reciting LDC 8.06.03.0.2 to them. FISCAL IMPACT: None GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: None LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: None RECOMMENDATION: That the Board review and discuss the original intent of the advisory boards scope of authority and determine if that scope should be adhered to or broadened. Prepared by: Commissioner Henning Page 1 of 1 Agenda Item No. 9G May 13, 2008 Page 2 of 21 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number: Item Summary: 9G Meeting Date: Discussion regarding advisory boards' functions. powers and duties. (Commissioner Tom Henning) 5/13/2008 900'00 AM Prepared By Sue Filson Board of County Commissioners Executive Manager to the BCe Date Bce Office 5/5/2008 1 :26:43 PM Approved By John A. Yonkosky Director of the Office of Management Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 4/17/20083:39 PM Approved By James V. Mudd County Manager Date Board of County Commissioners County Manager's Office 5/6/20084:02 PM file://C:\AgendaTest\Export\1 07 -May%20 13,%202008\09.%20BOARD%200F%20COUNT... 5/7/2008 8.06.00 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Agenda Item No. 9G May 13, 2008 Page 3 of 21 8.06.01 Establishment There is hereby established an Environmental Advisory Council ("EAC"). The EAC obtains its jurisdiction, powers, and limits of authority from the BCC, and pursuant to this LDC, shall act in an advisory capacity to the BCe in matters dealing with the regulation, control, management, use, or exploitation of any or all natural resources of or within the County, and the review and evaluation of specific zoning and development petitions and their impact on those resources. (Ord. No. 05-27, S 3.NN) 8.06.02 Purpose The EAC will function to: A. Advise on the preservation, conservation, protection, management, and beneficial use of the physical and biological natural resources (atmospheric, terrestrial, aquatic, and hydrologic) of the County in regard to the safety, health, and general well-being ofthe public; B. Advise and assist the County staff and the BCC toward developing the purpose, intent, and criteria of all County ordinances, policies, programs, and other initiatives dealing with natural resources; C. Provide written and oral reports directly to the BCC regarding recommendations on matters dealing with the protection of natural resources; and D. Review and recommend stipulations addressing the preservation, conservation, protection, management, and beneficial use of the County's physical and biological natural resources (atmospheric, terrestrial, aquatic, and hydrologic) for petitions and/or plans for selected development orders, including, but not limited to, rezones, developments of regional impact, provisional uses, subdivision master plans, and planned unit development amendments that are directed to the EAC by County staff, the BCC, or the provisions of this LDC. 8.06.03 Powers and Duties : Tliepo~ers and dutiesoftlie EAt arc asfcUows: A. Identify, study, evaluate, and provide technical recommendations to the BCC on programs necessary for the conservation, management, and protection of air, land, and water resources and environmental quality in the County; B. Advise the BCC in establishing goals and objectives for the County's environmental conservation and management programs; C. Advise the BCe in developing and revising, as appropriate, local rules, ordinances, regulations, programs, and other initiatives addressing the use, conservation, and preservation of the County's natural resources; D. Advise the Bee in the implementation and development of the GMP regarding environmental and natural resource issues; E. Advise the BCC in identifying and recommending solutions to existing and future environmental issues; Agenda Item No. 9G May 13, 2008 F. Serve as the technical advisory committee to advise and assist the County in the activities in.fdl\l~JRf fule development and implementation of the County environmental resources management program as stated in the Collier County GMP; G. Implement the water policy pursuant to this LDC; H. Provide an opportunity for public comment on environmental issues, ordinances, and programs; L Implement the provisions of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Collier County GMP during the review process for development petitions and/or plans; 1. Participate in the review and recommendation process for excavations over 500,000 cubic yards,; K. Assist in the implementation of any new programs, ordinances, and/or policies adopted by the BCC which deal with the conservation, management, and protection of air, land, water, and natural resources and environmental quality in the County; 1. Provide an appellate forum and process to hear disputes between County staff and applicants concerning land development projects and recommend proposed stipulations for project approval or grounds for project denial for BCC consideration; M. Function as an environmental impact statement (ElS) review board pursuant to Chapter 10; and N. All preliminary subdivision plat and/or sitedevelopment plan submissions for development or site alteration on a shoreline and/or undeveloped coastal barrier shall be reviewed and a recommendation shall be made for approval, approval with conditions or denial by the EAC. If the applicant chooses not to utilize the optional preliminary subdivision plat process, the review and approval will occur at thc time of either the final plat and construction plans or the final plat. I. An applicant aggrieved by action of the EAC may appeal to the BZA. Said appeal shall be in accordance with the procedure and standards of section 10.02.02 for appeal of written interpretations. O. The EAC shall review all land development petitions which require the following: an environmental impact statement (ElS) per section 10.02.02 of the LDC; alldevelopments of regional impact (DRI); lands with special treatment (ST) or area of critical state concern/special treatment (ACSC/ST) zoning overlays; or any petition for which environmental issues cannot be resolved between the applicant and staff and which is requested by either party to be heard by the EAC. The EAC shall also review any petition which requires approval of the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) or the board of county commissioners (BCC) where staff receives a request from the chairman of the EAC, CCPC or Ihe BCC for that petition to be reviewed by the EAC. I. Any petitioner may request a waiver to the EAC hearing requirement, when the following considerations are met: I) no protected species or wetland impacts are identified on the site; 2) an ElS waiver has been administratively granted; 3) ST zoning is present and an administrative approval has been granted; or 4) an EIS was previously completed and reviewed by staff and heard by a predecessor environmental board, and that ElS is less than five years old (or if older than five years, has been updated within six months of submittal) and the master plan for the site does not show greater impacts to the previously designated preservation areas. Agenda Item No. 9G May 13, 2008 Page 5 of 21 November 7, 2007 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Naples, Florida, November 7, 2007 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 at North Naples Regional Park Exhibit Hall with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: William Hughes VICE CHAIRMAN: Dr. Judith Hushon (excused) Lee Horn Roger Jacobsen David Bishof Nick Penniman Michael V. Sorrell Dr. Llew Williams Richard Miller OTHERS PRESENT: Jeff Wright, Assistant County Attorney Stan Chrzanowski, PE, Planning Review Summer Araque, Senior Environmentalist Susan Mason, Principal Environmental Spec. Bill Lorenz, Director of Environmental Services Melissa Zone, Principal Planner David Weeks, Sr. Planner Ray Smith, Pollution Control Dept. Barry Williams, Director of Parks and Recreation Murdo Smith, Parks and Recreation Chris D'Arco, Environmental Services Nick Casalanguida, Transportation Planning Director Mac Hatcher, Engineering & Environmental Servo Agenda Item No. 9G May 13, 2008 Page 6 of 21 November 7, 2007 condition. He is not sel:king special treatment by the Council and requested a continuance to address the issues herein. Mr. Jacobsen noted the plan is well thought out, but does not have the adequate information to make a decision at this point. Mr. Jacobsen moved to continue the Petition to the next meeting. Second by Mr. Horn. Carried unanimously 8-0. Break: 10:20 A.M. Re-convene: 10:27 A.M. B. Planned Unit Development PUDZ-2006-AR-1 0171 "Brandon RPUD" 'Secnon lJ, 1 ownshlp 48 South, Range 25 East The presenters were sworn in. Mr. Jacobsen disclosed that he had walked the site. Mr. Miller disciosed that he resides at Strand, easterly of the project. Patrick White, Attorney from Porter Wright Morris and Arthur representing Eastbourne Bonita, LLC provided a brief overview of the proj ect noting a Continuance from the last agenda to address a staff concern. The request is to rezone approximately 51, I acres from Agriculture (A) and Special Treatment Overlay zone to Residential Planned Unit Development. A Master Concept Plan has been provided with the application which shows the location of Livingston road and Della Rossa proposal to the West, Agricultural zone land and Royal Palm Academy to the South; FPL easements to the East. The request is for the maximum density of204 residential units or 3.99 units per acre. Patrick White qualified Kendra Willet of Johnson Engineering as an expert witness in the area of Wildlife issues. Kendra Willet provided a power point presentation for the proposal. She noted the following: . Approximately 40 acres of the site are wetland, . Approximately 7 acres are proposed as preserve . Drainage water will enter the preserve following treatment . A protective species sw'Vey in May of2006 indicated no presence of protective species; 3 areas were found for potential of leaf nest for the Big Cypress Fox Squirrel . A Management Plan has been provided for the Fox Squirrel . The application is consistent with the Growth Management Plan and LDC . The applicant has agreed with the Reconunendations in the Staff Report that a note be added before the project is reviewed by the Collier County Planning Commission: 6 Agenda Item No. 9G May 13, 2008 Page 7 of 21 November 7, 2007 a. "Remaining Preserve Area is defined at the "time of the next" development order. . .. b. the end of the note "shall be located adjacent and contiguous to the preserve shown on the site master plan Mr. Penniman asked why the drainage flows to the Southwest Chris Hagen of Johnson Engineering stated the drainage is based on existing conditions created by previous construction in the area. He reviewed the Lidar Map noting the project is draining into a restricted discharge basin and overall will provide for minimal offsite discharge and will not affect the receiving area. The detailed information will be presented at the Site Development Plan level. Mr. Bishof noted the wetland elevations were based on adjacent site data and asked if an existing and proposed on site hydrology analysis was conducted to dctennine the elevations, Chris Hagen Slated that detailed studies on site had not been completed, The project is in the conceptual stages and established elevations are based on previous infonnation established in the area. Mr. Bishof also asked why the seasonal high, established as wetland for the site is elevation 11.7', I foot below the existing grade of 12.7', yet the site is characterized as wetland. Chris Hagen stated that the site is in transition to upland and if undisturbed within 10 years the site would be an upland community. This is due to the fact existing developments have altered the historic flows into the sitc. Stan Chrzanowski, PE, Planning Review stated that the difference in the database for the elevations could be causing con fusion. The proposed conceptual plan is based on NGVD elevations for the Water Management District as opposed to NA VD Lidar elevations, NGVD elevation base is approximately I foot higher than the NA VD. Mr, Bishof noted no matter which database is utilized for the conceptual plan (and it is not indicated), the natural hydrology that exists on this site, not adjacent sites (which mayor not be accurate) needs to be utilized in planning; not elevations based on previous developments. Thc elevations as provided will effectively drain the wetland groundwater as opposed to re-hydrating it and the issue needs to be addressed. Chris Hagen agreed with Mr, Chrzanowski's comment that the confusion is caused by the elevations and that 1.3' added to the existing 11.7' elevation shown on the conceptual plan will provide an established wetland elevation of 13.0' hydrating the wetland. Mr. Bishof requested Mr. Hagen review the conceptual plan. After reviewing the conceptual plan, Mr. Hagen agreed the data shown is incorrect and he necds to look at revising the elevation data on the plan. Mr. Bishof stated with the revised elevation data, ;1 is still a concern on how the hydrology of the site will be impacted with the proposed project 7 Agenda Item No. 9G May 13, 2008 Page 8 of 21 November 7, 2007 Mr. Miller asked what the proposed residential uses would consist of in terms of smgle family umts vs. mull! famIly umts, accessory structures, building heiglits, ctc. Laura Spurgeon of Johnson Engineering staled that the exact design standards have not been proposed at this point, but the uses will be the maximum allowed under the Land Development Code standards; single-family 35 feet maximum height or multi family 50-foot maximum height. Melissa Zone. Collier County Principal Planner noted that the issues today are envtronmental and the stze and heIght of structures proposed would be addressed at the Planmng CommissIon hearmgs, Chairman Hugbes stated that these ISSueS could be considered enviromnental L issues. Chairman Hughes requested Mr. Chrzanowski address the drainage issues associated with the proj ect. Stan Chrzanowski noted that the Livingston Road construction affected the pre existing drainage patterns in the area and the drainage considerations proposed in the conceptual plan are on the right track A question was asked if the presenters had taken into account the Staff Report item V.C.2 noting the Master Plan is being required to show a pedestrian connection for a future pedestrian interconnection between Brandon PUD and developments in the west. It was also noted these items are important as the proposed or required infrastructure could affect Stormwater flows. Patrick White stated after discussing this issue with Planning and Transportation Staff, it is not applicable and the details will be addressed in the Planning Commission hearings. Dr. Williams requested clarification of section VLA. Paragraph 4 of the Staff Report addressing the stormwater management system, Chris Hagen stated that the intent of the on-site Stormwater design is to have all the stormwater enter the lakes for treatment and direct only treated water into the wetland preserve, Mr. Bishof stated there are many water quality issues with this site and areas off site that may be adversely affected. The level of detail provided at this point does not fully address these issues. Chris Hagen agreed that these items need to be addressed and that level of detail will be provided at the next review stage for the County and South Florida Water Management District. These jurisdictions heavily regulate these issues to ensure water quality. Mr. Penniman noted the large amount of impervious surface areas proposed for the project. Chris Hagen noted that the project proposes Code deviations for required sidewalks in some areas and would aid in the quality ofthe water falling on 8 Agenda Item No. 9G May 13, 2008 Page 9 of 21 November 7,2007 impervious areas as the quality of water draining from roofs and buildings is of a higher quality than roads and sidewalks. Patrick White stated he appreciated the level of detailed questions and assured the Council that these detailed issues will be provided at the Site Development Plan level and addressed by those various Agencies and requested a recommendation of approval for the Petition. Melissa Zone slated that Staff does not support the request for the sidewalk deviations requested. Mr, Miller expressed concern over the lack of spcc; ficity of the building design characteristics and noted this could have an impact on the character of the neIghborhood. Laura Spurgeon re-iterated that the structure design will be in accordance with the Land Development Code standards with the maximum intensity allowed. She noted that the project is 2-3 years away from completion and the level of detail requested is not available. Mr. Horn expressed concern of the lack of general building footprints. Bill Lorenz stated that the Petition review should focus on the environmental impacts and some of the questions require more detail than required at this level. Mr. Penniman moved to deny the Petition on the basis oflhefact Ihis is 78 percent existing wetland and inlense development of such uncertain fpecificalions being put on here is probably nol the appropriate way 10 develop this kind of land. In addition has huge questIOns over Mr. Btsllof's concerns regarding the wetlands. Second by Mr. Jacobsen Patrick White stated the Petition meets the threshold of what they were to demonstrate to the Council, and is inappropriate to go afield and raise inquiries that they don't have the answers for at this time. He stated if they have concerns over the process they should change the process. The project meets the requirements for approval and the Committee has asked for a level of detail they are not required to provide. He asked for a reconsideration of the motion. Mr. Bishof asked jfthe Petition would come back before the Council at a future date with more detailed information. Summer Araque noted that it would not come hack to the Council, if approved it will he forwarded to the Planning Commission for the Site Development Plan Process. MOlion carried 7-1. Chairman Hughes voted no. C. Commercial Planned Unit Development CPUD.2005AR-9127 "Myrtle Woods CPUD" 9 Agenda Item No. 9G May 13, 2008 Page 10 of 21 December 6, 2007 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida December 6, 2007 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Lindy Adelstein Donna Reed-Caron Tor Kolflat (Excused) Paul Midney Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti (Excused) ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, Chief Asst. County Attorney Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney Joseph Schmitt, CDES Director Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Development Review Page 1 Agenda Item No. 9G May 13, 2008 Page 11 of 21 December 6, 2007 COMMISSIONER CARON: Administrative Code. MS. ZONE: Thank you, I had a loss there. Florida Administrative Code. And now I've lost it. MR. SCHMITT: The reading is the language from the CCME. I think Barbara is going to have to read the stipulations. MS. ZONE: Sorry, I thought that was the stipulation you wanted m. MS. BURGESON: For the record, Barbara Burgeson with Engineering and Environmental Services Department. The original staff report that you received with the stipulation regarding the stormwater was not recommended by environmental or engineering. That was -- it accidentally got into the staff report. It was part of discussions back and forth. But the final determination by the engineering and environmental services staff department consolidated determination that the appropriate stipulation for that staff report should never have been what you had in your original staff report. It should have been what was amended and sent out to you, that no stormwater would be permitted in the upland preserve. . And there's a number of things that I wanted to put on record, just to give you some back-up for that. The first that I wanted to correct, or at least expand on, is that the EAC, Environmental Advisory Council, did approve this project. It was not a unanimous approval. One EAC member did deny the project for environmental reasons. But the reason that the remainder of the EAC aeproved the project, and as they cited on record was not for any environmental reasons at all. All of the reasons that they cited to a2Prove the ~ ,was based on the use. And they felt that it was a good use in a good location. It was not -- there was not environmental basis for their wroval. , CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you go farther, Barbara, on that point I'd like to ask the county attorney, this is happening more often, Page 57 Agenda Item No. 98 May 13, 2008 Page 12 of 21 December 6, 2007 Why is the EAC getting involved in planning issues that are outside their jurisdiction, which is basically they're an Environmental Advisory Council. And this has happened on other projects. I'm just curious as what product analysis, use analysis they really have to offer when their whole objective is environmental. MR. KLA TZKOW: This office allows a free discussion from all boards on issues that they deem to be appropriate. We don't tell a board what they should say or what they shouldn't say, If the Board of County Commissioners starts to feel otherwise, I'm sure it will be communicated downstream to them. MS. BURGESON: We do attempt to keep the EAC focused on just environmental issues. This is one of the -- we rarely see where they go off, stray quite so much as they did on this one particular project. But I just wanted to put that on public record, that it may have sounded like they supported the site plan environmentally, but that was not the basis for the five people to support the site plan. And also, earlier in the discussion there was a comment about vacating a conservation easement. The original New Hope property, the original 20 acres had the entire rear half of the property under a conservation easement. And that was part of the property that had to have the conservation easement vacated. I'm not sure ifthat's been done yet or whether they're still in the process to assure that that gets done, That was under -- placed under a conservation easement because of the red-cockaded woodpecker use on that site and the cavity trees that were in that area and one that was on that site. During site visits back with Nino Spagna and Kim Dryden and myself, we noticed foraging RCWs on that site, back when their original project was approved. So that's where the vacation of that easement -- I believe that they did mitigation off-site, and that the RCWs at that point when the state accepted off-site mitigation and Page 58 Agenda Item No. 9G May 13, 2008 Page 13 of 21 December 6, 2007 vacating that easement, there was no use of that rear portion of the property for RCWs. I also wanted to just put on public record at the -- two items: One is the Board of County Commissioners' final hearing for the language that was approved for the Growth Management Plan. And when the Growth Management Plan language was discussed at that final hearing, there was an attempt to -- or a proposal to modify what the EAC and this planning commission had recommended, which was no adverse impacts. And at one point both the EAC and the planning commission had recommended language that said that it needed to actually benefit the preserve. But then at your final meeting for that hearing, the language went from benefit to no adverse impacts. At the Board of County Commissioners a recommendation was made to change that language. And then towards the end ofthat meeting, as it was rediscussed, brought back up for a final evaluation ofthat proposed change of the language, it went back to no adverse impact language. And in that discussion, Commissioner Henning discussed with -- also with Commissioner Halas and Bill Lorenz, had a fairly in-depth discussion in terms of that Commissioner Henning had stated that it's not there to put extra stormwater on vegetation that won't accept it. If it's acceptable and won't degrade it, that's the whole purpose of it. They talked about putting stormwater into a system that necessarily is not used to that much stormwater. And that's why we have the adverse impact statement in there, inclined to allow this to clarify the details of the criteria in the Land Development Code, But as Mr. -- Commissioner Henning stated, that he would have a problem if they were trying to degrade existing upland species. That is not the objective. So that was the discussions even at the final planning commission hearing, that the objection is the stormwater was not to Page 59 Agenda Item No. 9G May 13, 2008 Page 14 of 21 December 6, 2007 provide a negative or change to the upland vegetation. Now, concern that staff has is twofold: One, we went through an LDC cycle at length last go around. We had created some pretty specific language that went to the EAC and the planning commission and the board that identified that it was appropriate for stormwater in wetlands, and we limited the stormwater to hydric upland soils. But we were saying that non-hydric upland soils were inappropriate because ofthe potential change to that vegetation, that the reason that we were protecting these preserves as they were selected was because of the descending criteria. For instance, if we selected a particular upland preserve, it was because that vegetation on-site had a higher function and quality than the lower quality wetland on-site. And so to allow that upland to be impacted with more water than is normal may not cause that vegetation necessarily to immediately die off, but to probably -- and as put on that public record at the board hearing, that it would definitely degrade the vegetation in that upland by having the longer hydroperiod, the longer inundation of the upland. Even the berm around it could have had a spreader swale to allow that, if you had natural rainfall that might be bermed into that area to naturally be discharged as opposed to, as the applicant says, that it would just be a bathtub. You have the ability to do that differently. The -- all of the information that we had and reviewed by staff indicated that we do not have -- we do not have the comfort level that we could find this consistent with the GMP policies or the policies that we are currently working on for 2008 first cycle. Weare not proposing language to allow this in the language that we're in draft form right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barbara, are you about to wrap up your part of it? MS. BURGESON: I can be done, Page 60 Agenda Item No. 9G May 13, 2008 Page150f21 December 6, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The only reason is, I didn't think we were going to get into this. I thought we were about done with this one, and I apologize, Cherie', for not stopping at 10:00. We will stop now and reconvene at 10:30 and provide you with the break you should have gotten. Thank you. (A break was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody, welcome back from our break. We left off, Barbara was getting close to wrapping up a presentation. I'll ask her if she has any final comments before we ask any questions. Barbara, there is some questions from several members here of the planning commission. The first one was Brad, then Mr. Midney, then Ms. Caron. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Barbara, it goes way back to the first thing you said is that we have a report that the Environmental Advisory Council voted 5-1. But you said that that wasn't an environmental council meeting, that was -- MS. BURGESON: No, I said that was an environmental meeting but the vote was not -- when they e!:!! on record why they voted for it, they did not list environmental reasons. The reasons that they .supported it were not based on the el.}vironmental Conservation Collier -- the CCME or the environmental sections of the Land Development" Code. . , COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The concern I have is we have an environmental issue that they reviewed, and from the vote it appeared they support it, but you're up here negating that support. ,MS. BURGESON: I'm saying they supported it, but the discussion was based on they thought that the church was a good use of the property, that because of where the location was that they ,would support a church in this area, that maybe more people would go . Page 61 Agenda Item No. 9G May 13, 2008 Page 16 of 21 December 6, 2007 to church. I mean, the discussion was not focused on environmental issues. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So nowhere in here did they discuss the issue of putting stormwater into the preserve -- MS. BURGESON: They did discuss it. And the only person that voted against the project was voting against it based on the environmental concern. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: This is my last point. So can I asswne that the people who voted for it knew of that concern and didn't have a problem with it? I mean, it's the Environmental Advisory Council, it's not the planning commission. MS. BURGESON: I could not say that-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If you can't say it, that's good enough. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barbara, if I was watching a BCC meeting and I heard staff characterize our vote in the manner you have characterized theirs, I would be concerned over it. I don't think it's appropriate. I think that they voted the way they did because they reviewed everything. Now, they may have complimented the uses, they may have complimented the fact more people need to go to church, but the point is they didn't come out as a majority against it for any environmental reason. And I think they would have if they thought there was one there. And I think that's maybe the basis we ought to be relying upon, not anything else at this point. Mr. Midney, you were next. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, just to go back to what Brad is saying, They didn't put any stipulations in. I mean, if they had some -- if they were unhappy about the environmental aspects, I would have thought that they would have put in some stipulations. And they didn't do that; is that correct? The EAC, they didn't -- you Page 62 Agenda Item No. 9G May 13, 2008 Page 17 of 21 December 6, 2007 said that they -- MS. BURGESON: They didn't add stipulations. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay. Is the environmental department's objections related to nutrients entering in or just change in the water table? MS. BURGESON: Staffs recommendation on the EAC-- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, staffs recommendations on this development And their objection to any stormwater entering the site, is that based on nutrients or is it just based on water table? MS. BURGESON: It's mostly based on the water table and the inundation, not on the nutrients. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: How can you prove that there will be no adverse impact of a development onto this upland preserve? MS. BURGESON: The evidence that we were using was the tables that evaluated the inundation, typical inundation periods of -- and the hydroperiod in a typical upland. We looked at what the maximum amount of stormwater in that area might be acceptable in terms of under normal circumstances. But that's without a berm around it holding it in. And remember, too, that that is always without the consideration for the duration after that event So if you look at the evaluation for let's just say a storm event that is going to pop off into that preserve area, and they say that it's just going to go up to, you know, maybe two or three inches or three or four inches under normal conditions, if that preserve didn't have a berm around it and wasn't actually part of the stormwater system where the intent is to retain it there for a duration of 12 to 15 days. So you're talking about each of those events has an extended period of inundation. We had -- no one that we talked to felt that that -- that they felt comfortable that that would not -- they could not prove that that would not have a negative impact to upland vegetation, especially where the upland vegetation was in non-hydric soils. Page 63 Agenda Item No. 9G May 13, 2008 Page 18 of 21 March 5-6, 2008 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Naples, Florida, March 5-6, 2008 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 at Building "F" of the Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: William Hughes VICE CHAIRMAN: Dr. Judith Hushon Roger Jacobsen David Bishof Nick Penniman Dr. Llew Williams Allison D. Megrath Lee Horn Michael Sorrell (excused) ALSO PRESENT: Jeff Wright, Assistant County Attorney Susan Mason, Principal Environmental Specialist Stan Chrzanowski, PE, Planning Review Summer Brown-Araque, Sr. Environmental Specialist Bill Lorenz, Environmental Services Director Stephen Lenberger, Sr. Environmental Specialist Claudia Piotrowicz, Environmental Specialist Agenda Item No. 9G May 13, 2008 Page 19 of 21 March 5-6, 2008 I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairman Hughes at 9:00AM, II. Call Roll Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. III. Approval of Agenda Mr. Penniman voiced concern over the location of the Rural Land Presentation scheduled for March 6, 2008 at Horseshoe Drive and wished to ensure that the Phase II Presentation in November, 2008 is scheduled in the Board of County Commissioner's Chambers with access to a live television broadcast. Summer Brown Araque, Sr. Environmental Specialist noted the meeting is scheduled for the room; however there are times when the Environmental Advisory Council is re-located from the Chambers due to scheduling conflicts. The March 6 Meeting at Horseshoe Drive will be filmed and broadcast on television. The Board noted that all attempts should be made to ensure that any Environmental Advisory Council Meetings are broadcast live. Mr, Penniman moved to approve the agenda. Second by Ms. Megrath. Carried unanimously 8-0. IV. Approval of January 7, 2008 meeting minutes Dr. Hushon moved to approl'e the minutes subject to the followiJlg corrections: Page 4, line 7 - "for a periodic time while" to "for a period of time while" Page 3 item B, paragraph 5, Dr. Hushon comment, line 2 - from "the site is in the area of the proposed lake which will require excavation for construction" to "the site is slated to be residell/ial alld that these contaminants require excavation before construction. " Motion, Page 4, paragraph 7, line #3 - from "and ifpossible, the County" to "and if required, the County" Second by Dr. Williams. Carried unanimously 8-0. V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences Dr. Hushon will not be present for the April meeting Dr. Williams will not be present for the July meeting. VI. Land Use Petitions A. Commercial Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-2006-AR-10875 Tamiami Crossing CPUD Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East The presenters were sworn in Kim Schlachta of Boylan Environmental Consultants, Inc. provided a brief overview of the project noting the following: 2 Agenda Item No. 9G May 13, 2008 Page 20 of 21 March 5-6, 2008 . It is located at the intersection of US 41 and Collier Blvd. with Wal-Mart located to the South . A majority of the land is forested with some small disturbed areas and open land . It contains 13.86 acres of jurisdictional wetlands with mitigation being finalized on the wetland impacts; 1.27 acres will be preserved on site with the remaining being mitigated offsite . A protective species survey has been conducted with no listed species identified, a management plan has been provided for listed plants species that were identified on-site . The preserve area meets all Collier County standards and requirements . There are no outstanding issues with the Collier County Staff A discussion ensued regarding storm water treatment and the Council requested an overview of the Stormwater Treatment System. Michael Herrera of Q. Grady Minor & Assoc. noted that there is a dry retention area located along the perimeter of the wetlands consisting ofa swale and berm. There is y, inch of dry pretreatment prior to discharge into the wet detention system. The wet detention system will subsequently discharge into the wetland preserve. The system will be designed to provide the required 150 percent volume of wet detention treatment as proposed in the Land Development Code amendment. It was noted that South Florida Water Management District is enforcing this requirement. Mr. Bishof noted the controlling elevation provided in the Environmental Impact Statement IS of the wetland is 4.9' and thc controlling elevation ofthe wet detention system is 4.1'. Kim Sehlachta of Boylan Environmental Consultants, Ine noted that the controlling elevation of 4.1' was an error and the actual wet detention control elevation is 4.9'. This elevation (4.9') is the elevation provided in the submittal to South Florida Water Management District. It was noted that the 4.1' control elevation is the control elevation of the Artesia Pointe wetland to the South which is adjacent to this wetland. Based on the elevations provided, the Council raised a concern regarding the possibility that the proposed preserve area may drain into the adjacent preserve thereby draining the proposed preserve. The Council requested clarification if it would be allowable for the Council to stipulate that the control elevation of the wetland detention system be at 4.9' or above. Jeff Wright Assistant County Attorney cited 8.06.03.0.2 of the Land Development Code noting "The sUI/ace water management aspects oj any pel<tion, thatLS or will: be revIewed and permitled by South Florida Water Management District ISFWMDj, \ 3 Agenda Item No. 9G May 13, 2008 Page 21 of 21 March 5-6, 2008 are exempt from review by the EA C ", however he stated issues such as stormwater entenng preserves and the tuture health and hydrology of wetlands are within the purview of the Council and this type of stipulation would be acceptable. The discussion continued regarding the possible impacts of this development on the Artesia Pointe wetland area and how the 4.]' elevation of this preserve was established. Michael Herrera noted that this elevation was determined via a biological indicator and determined in a previous application for the Artesia Pointe PUD. Mr. Bishofmoved to approve the Petition stipulating that the Storm water Management System be required to dIscharge at 4,9' NCJ V D or hIgher; that the C-ouncll has concerns over the water dIScharges mto the adJommg ArteSla l'omte Presen'e and there may be impacts (on this presel1'e) and thai the applIcant be . subject to the stIpulatIOns In the ~taJJ Report. ~econd by Mr. JaCobsen. Mr. Penniman questioned whether the application should be recessed to request information on any concerns Artesia Pointe, may have regarding the wetland. Richard D. Yovanovich, Attorney for the applicant noted that Artesia Pointe has had ample opportunity through legal notifications, neighborhood meetings, etc. to address any concerns and have not come forward. The applicant is acceptable to the 4.9' elevation stipulation. Speakers Nancy Payton of Florida Wildlife Federation noted that the applicant has not provided details on the off site mitigation for the wetland and there is nothing in the documents that address possible Florida Panther habitat impacts from the developments. She did acknowledge that the site is not located in the "Primary Zone", but may abut a Primary or Secondary zone. The Council noted that the Florida Panther is a concern; however no listed species were found on site. Richard D. Y ovanovich, Attorney for the applicant noted that any Florida Panther issues will be addressed during the required Army Corp. of Engineers review process. Stephen Lenberger, Sr. Environmental Specialist stated that Staff recommends approval of the project subject to the stipulations in the Staff Report. Carried ullanimously 8-0. Break: 10:17 A.M. Re-collvened: 10:30 A.M. 4