Residents press council over Yellow Fever Creek water storage site; staff says design near completion

Several residents told the Cape Coral City Council on Jan. 22 that a proposed irrigation storage and pump station near Yellow Fever Creek Preserve is the wrong use of city-owned land and asked council members to seek an alternate site.

Noel Tolbert, an Entrada homeowner, said the facility — which he described as a “well-lit” utility plant — would be about 350 feet from new homes and would remove roughly 14 acres from an area residents consider part of the preserve. “Would you stand by if the city planned to build a well-lit facility just 350 feet from your home?” Tolbert asked the council.

Others who spoke during citizen input echoed concerns about lighting, tank height and habitat loss. Arthur King, another Entrada resident, urged staff to look for alternate parcels and said he had identified nearby open land that might work; Michael Schneider Christians raised visual impacts from tank height and lighting and suggested re-locating the facility near Kismet and Del Prado where it could be screened by trees.

City staff and Public Works clarified elements of the project. Bill Corbett, Public Works, said the project is the design and construction of irrigation storage tanks and a booster pump station to supplement the city’s water supply, and that the proposed site is in an upland area adjacent to the preserve and does not intrude on the conservation easement. Corbett told the council the office had received a 60% milestone submittal and was expecting the 90% milestone soon.

City planning and engineering staff also told council members that the project has been under discussion for several years and that substantial design work is complete. The city manager said the project was initiated about five years ago and that staff would work on landscaping and buffering options to reduce neighborhood impacts if warranted. He also reminded residents that the Planning & Zoning Commission will review related land-use and text amendments before the project returns to council.

Several council members acknowledged residents’ concerns but said the schedule and amount of design work to date make changing the site difficult. Council members said they would seek additional buffering and aesthetic mitigation if the project proceeds.

No formal council action to approve or deny the project occurred at the Jan. 22 meeting; staff said the matter will continue through the Planning & Zoning Commission and then return to council for further action.