Loading...
EAC Agenda 05/07/2007 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL AGENDA MONDAY N MAY 7, 2007 9:00 A.M. Commission Boardroom W. Harmon Turner Building (Building"F")—Third Floor I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of April 4, 2007 meeting minutes V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences VI. Land Use Petitions A. Conditional Use CU-AR-10925 "Keewaydin Island Naples Bay Resort Beach Shelter" Section 14,Township 51S, Range 25E B. Planned Unit Development Amendment No. PUDZ-A-2006-AR-9374 "Naples Reserve RPUD" Section 1,Township 51S, Range 26E C. Excavation Permit EXP-AR-11153 — "North Belle Meade Mine" Sections 21, 27 and 28,Township 49S, Range 27E VII. Old Business VIII. New Business A. LDC amendments B. Mission Statement IX Subcommittee Reports X. Council Member Comments XI. Public Comments XII. Adjournment ******************************************************************* Council Members: Please notify Summer Arague, Environmental Services Senior Environmental Specialist no later than 5:00 p.m. on Mai, 4, 2007 if you cannot attend this meeting or if you have a conflict and will abstain from voting on a petition (530-6290). 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. April 4, 2007 '-4\ MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Naples, Florida, April 4, 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 in Building "F" of the Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: William Hughes Lee Horn (Absent) William W. Hill Dr. Judith Hushon Roger Jacobson Nick Penniman Michael V. Sorrell Richard Miller ALSO PRESENT: Jeff Wright, Assistant County Attorney Susan Mason, Principal Environmental Specialist Robert C. Wiley, P.E., C.F.M., Principal Project Mgr. Barbara Burgeson, Environmental Services April 4, 2007 Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairman William Hughes at 9:00 AM. II. Roll Call A quorum was established. III. Approval of Agenda Mr. Hill moved to approve the Agenda. Seconded by Dr. Hushon. Motion carried unanimously 7-0. IV. Approval of March 7, 2007 meeting minutes Dr. Hushon moved to approve the March 7, 2007 meeting minutes with the suggested changes as follows: Add the following bold underlined words: "Mr. Sorrell moved to approve with the following stipulations: 80%preservation, 15 acres to lake littorals, it will be set as a'permitted use,'the sale of lake TDR's going to a board governed endowment fund for management of threatened and endangered species in non-lake acres, 400 acres of lake excavation area according to the demonstrated map, no road building during nesting season,permitted use for only earth mining, asphalt, and concrete plants,take steps to control noise from hauling, rescind the agricultural permit upon adoption,prohibit all residential building, non-mining land (or the white area as shown on the demonstrated map) be in conservation." Seconded by Mr. Sorrell. Motion carried 6-0 with 1 abstention -Mr. Miller abstained. Ms.Mason stated the Environmental Advisory Council could be put on a distribution list for the Planning Commission meetings so that it would get an agenda and a copy of the staff report. V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences Dr. Hushon pointed out that the next meeting would be held on May 7, the first Monday in May, rather than the first Wednesday in May. Mr. Hill stated he would be absent from the May and June meetings. Mr. Miller stated he would be absent from the May meeting. Mr. Sorrel stated he would be present at the May meeting Dr. Hushon stated that on April 24 the Collier County Board of County Commissioners will be evaluating new member applications, there are two current members who have applied for another term, and the County will be forwarding the names of the other alternates. VI. Land Use Petitions A. Planned Unit Development PUDZ-2006-AR-10698 2 April 4, 2007 "Gaspar Station PUD" Section 30,Township 48 South, Range 26 East - Presenters were sworn in by the Assistant County Attorney Jeff Wright. Mr.Jacobson,Mr. Penniman and Mr. Miller all stated they had visited the site. Mr.Anderson explained the County is requiring the property owner to seek a rezone from PUD to PUD because the County believes under the PUD sunset rules the current PUD has"sunsetted" because of the passage of time with no construction; existing zoning remains in place but the property owner cannot get any development orders approved for the property until it is rezoned. The purpose of sunsetting a PUD is to require revision to reflect current Land Development Code standards. The PUD Master Plan identifies the preserve area, the old one didnot; building setbacks from the preserve area have been added to the PUD. The property is located in an interstate activity center where the full array of commercial uses would be allowed and it has been zoned for commercial use for more than 20 years. What is presently known as the Stiles PUD is being renamed Gaspar Station. There are no changes to the historically allowed uses of the property; the only changes to the PUD are the changes to the development standards the County now requires. There are no issues with the environmental review staff, and they have recommended approval. The PUD preserve area connects to the adjacent preserve area, Livingston Lakes, creating a larger preserve area. Recommendation for approval was requested. Mr. Penniman stated adjacent preserves are what are desired. He asked if the lake could be placed at a location other than that on the drawing, what other possible locations would there be, and what criteria caused moving the lake from close to the preserve area to another location. Mr. Anderson stated it was probably a design consideration. Dr. Hushon stated the presence of wetland area along the western border was considered. Proposed location of the lake and preserve would reduce required mitigation. Mr. Penniman stated the lake is small and would not make a big difference to Cocohatchee drainage. Ms. Mason stated staff recommends approval of the rezone with the inclusion of any conditions in the Land Development Code not covered by the PUD and the petitioner must get a South Florida Water Management District ERP prior to development. Mr. Anderson stated the first PUD was approved in 1988. Mr. Miller suggested the Environmental Advisory Council recommend the lake be maintained in its current condition. 3 April 4, 2007 Sean Weeks,P.E., SPW Engineering, agreed that the water body would be adjacent to the preserve but petitioner would like latitude as to the configuration with the surface area of the lake remaining the same, 2.1 acres. Dr.Hushon moved to approve the petition with the stipulation that the lake would remain adjacent to the preserve, the configuration of the lake may vary and staff recommendations are to be followed. Seconded by Mr. Penniman. Motion carried unanimously 7-0. VII. Old Business Ms. Mason stated there have been no land use petitions heard by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners since the Environmental Advisory Council's last meeting. It was stated the minimum lighting limits are too high and requested staff review lighting standards and report back. Mr. Hughes suggested petitioning the Collier County Board of County Commissioners for a court reporter to take verbatim minutes of Environmental Advisory Council meetings. Ms. Burgeson stated there is no money in the budget for expanded minutes and that there is a visual and audio verbatim record available if needed. Dr. Hushon moved to request permission to receive more complete minutes in the style that was received historically by this council to more accurately reflect our language during deliberations. Seconded by Mr. Sorrell. Motion carried unanimously 7-0. VIII. New Business None. IX. Subcommittee Reports Dr. Hushon requested volunteers for people to work on Growth Management Plan and Land Development Code rules. Mr. Jacobson's,Mr. Hill's and Mr. Miller's volunteer services were accepted. Mr. Hughes stated he would like to review what pesticides are legal in Collier County and would like to hear from the EPA and Ray Smith. Dr. Hushon stated work is going forward on watershed management plans and asked for volunteers for collection and review of information. This will be a three-to-four year activity with Mac Hatcher in charge. X. Council Member Comments Mr. Hughes stated his term as Chairman ends soon and he would like to see Dr. Hushon as Chairman. 4 April 4, 2007 Mr. Miller and the current Council members introduced themselves to each other. XI. Public Comments Bruce Anderson,Esq., addressed a petition for Florida Rock Mine regarding a project within the North Belle Meade overlay on receiving lands that are already approved by the Comprehensive Plan for earth mining. Because of the regulations, it comes formally before the Environmental Advisory Council; however, under the terms of the North Belle Meade overlay, development on receiving lands are not subject to the County's environmental regulations because the North Belle Meade overlay has much more specific and detailed regulations for environmental considerations than other areas within the rural fringe. The matter will be coming before the Environmental Advisory Council as a formal informational item to answer questions. This situation is similar to an APAC petition that came before Council previously. XII. Adjournment Mr. Penniman moved to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Mr. Sorrell. Motion carried unanimously 7-0. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County,the meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chair at 10:21 AM. COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Chairman William Hughes These Minutes were approved by the Chairman on , 2007,as presented , or as amended . 5 Item VLA. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING OF MAY 7, 2007 I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT: Petition No.: Conditional Use 2006-AR-10925 Petition Name: Keewaydin Island Naples Bay Resort Beach Shelter Applicant/Developer: Basil Street Partners,LLC Architectural Consultant: Cheffy Passidomo Wilson &Johnson Environmental Consultant: Turrell &Associates, Inc. II. LOCATION: ^ The subject properties, consisting of 4.32 acres, are located at 10111 and 10121 Keewaydin Island, in Section 14,Township 51 South, Range 25 East. III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: ZONING DESCRIPTION N - A-ST Conservation (unimproved) S - A-ST Conservation (unimproved) E - A-ST Conservation (intercoastal waterway) W - Gulf of Mexico IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Basil Street Partners, LLC, represented by Clay Brooker, Esquire, of Cheffy Passidomo Wilson & Johnson, are requesting a conditional use allowed per LDC Section 2.04.03 of the Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to provide a passive �-. recreational facility, consisting of an elevated and screened beach shelter with restrooms and an "educational kiosk," which will serve as an amenity and provide EAC Meeting Page 2 of 12 beach access for owners and residents of the Naples Bay Resort project. The Passive Recreational Facility will be constructed on two lots on Keewaydin Island. V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element: COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The subject property is designated Conservation, as identified on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Growth Management Plan. The overall purpose of the Conservation Designation of the Future Land Use Element, is to conserve and maintain the natural resources of the County, and their associated environmental, recreational and economic benefits. Based on their ecological value and sensitivity to perturbation, all proposals for development in this designation are subject to rigorous review to ensure that the impacts of the development do not destroy or unacceptably degrade the inherent functional values of these areas. In addition to limited residential development, the Conservation Designation permits recreational camps, passive parks, and other passive recreational uses; and the essential services necessary to serve these permitted uses, such as private wells and septic tanks. FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with the surrounding area. Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to Zoning and Land Development Review staff as part of their review of the petition in its totality. IV. CONSERVATION DESIGNATION Natural resource protection strategies and standards for development in the Conservation Designation are found in the Conservation and Coastal Management Element and the County's Land Development Regulations. The Conservation Designation will accommodate limited residential development and future non residential uses. The following uses are authorized in this Designation. Natural resource protection strategies and standards for development in the Conservation Designation are found in the Conservation and Coastal Management Element and the County's Land Development Regulations. The Conservation Designation will accommodate limited residential development and future non residential uses. The following uses are authorized in this Designation. a. For privately held lands, single family dwelling units, and mobile homes where the Mobile Home Zoning Overlay exists, at a maximum density of one dwelling unit per five gross acres, or one dwelling unit per 3 gross acres for private in-holdings within the Big Cypress National Preserve in existence prior to October 14, 1974 - each dwelling unit must be physically situated on a minimum five acre parcel, or minimum 3 acre parcel for private in-holdings EAC Meeting Page 3 of 12 within the Big Cypress National Preserve in existence prior to October 14, 1974. This Plan does not allow residential density on publicly owned lands. b. For publicly and privately held lands, dormitories, duplexes and other types of housing, as may be incidental to, and in support of, conservation uses; c. Group housing uses subject to the following density/intensity limitations: Family Care Facilities: 1 unit per 5 acres; Group Care Facilities and other Care Housing Facilities: Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) not to exceed 0.45; d. Sporting and Recreational camps incidental to Conservation uses on public lands; or, on privately held lands, within which the lodging component shall not exceed 1 unit per 5 gross acres, which may be achieved through clustering; e. Habitat preservation and conservation uses; f. Passive parks, and other passive recreational uses; ,.� g. Agricultural uses consistent with Chapter 823.14(6) Florida Statutes (Florida Right to Farm Act); h. Essential Services necessary to serve permitted uses identified in Section a through g above such as the following: private wells and septic tanks; utility lines, except sewer lines; sewer lines and lift stations, only if located within non-NRPA Conservation Lands, and only if located within already cleared portions of existing rights-of-way or easements, and if necessary to serve a publicly owned or privately owned central sewer system providing service to urban areas and/or the Rural Transition Water and Sewer District; and, water pumping stations necessary to serve a publicly owned or privately owned central water system providing service to urban areas and/or the Rural Transition Water and Sewer District. i. Essential Services necessary to ensure public safety. j. Oil extraction and related processing. Where practicable, directional-drilling techniques and/or previously cleared or disturbed areas shall be utilized to minimize impacts to native habitats. According to the Conservation and Coastal Management Element, Policy 10.3.12, for areas identified as Coastal Barrier systems, new developments or redevelopments are required to be in the form of a Planned Unit Development (PUD), however, the petitioner has previously discussed this with the County Planning and Environmental EAC Meeting Page 4 of 12 staff, who have taken the position that the conditional use process and not a PUD rezone should be utilized for this project. In the past, the County Legal Department has been reluctant to enforce policy 10.3.12, determining that the County cannot legally mandate PUD's but merely encourage them. Furthermore, inconsistencies between the Growth Management Plan (GMP) and Land Development Code (LDC) resulted in an amendment to policy 10.3.12 of the Coastal and Conservation Management Element (CCME), which was forwarded to Board of County Commissioners (BCC) for review and approval in early January 2007. The amended language has been forwarded to the Florida Department of Community Affairs, for final review. The amended language is as follows: Coastal and Conservation Management Element: Policy 10.3.12 Require Encourage the use of the "Planned Unit Development" (PUD) provisions of the Zoning Ordinance for new developments or redevelopments proposed to take place within areas identified as Coastal Barrier system with the exception of one single family dwelling unit on a single parcel. .-� CONCLUSION: Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes this petition may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element. Conservation & Coastal Management Element: The project as proposed is consistent with the Policies and Objectives of the Conservation &Coastal Management Element, for the following reasons: Objective 2.2 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Growth Management Plan states "All canals, rivers, and flow ways discharging into estuaries shall meet all applicable federal, state, or local water quality standards. This project is consistent with the objectives of policy 2.2.2 in that there is no site stormwater system to degrade receiving waters, as the hydrology will not be altered and roof runoff will be cisterned. As required by Policy 6.1.4, prohibited exotic vegetation will be removed from the site and maintained in perpetuity. The EIS required by Policy 6.1.8 has been prepared and is supplied as part of the review packet for this submittal. Jurisdictional wetland line was delineated on September 12, 2002 for the boat dock ^� permit that also allowed for the boardwalk over the wetlands to the upland line which is provided on the site plan as required by Policy 6.2.1 and 6.2.2. EAC Meeting Page 5 of 12 As required by Policy 6.2.6, preservation areas are depicted on the site plan shall be protected by a separately recorded conservation easement at the time of the next development order. The project does not propose impacts to submerged marine habitat and is consistent with Objective 6.3 which requires the County to protect and conserve submerged marine habitats. The project as proposed is consistent with the Objective 7.1 in that a Gopher tortoise management plan has been created and the main facility proposed is located away from the area of main concentration of Gopher tortoise burrows. No construction will occur in beach areas and all construction will occur outside of sea turtle nesting season. Any lighting for security purposes will be low-level and directional so as to minimize potential disorientation of sea turtle hatchlings. Lighting plan will be reviewed and approved as part of SDP. As required by Policy 7.1.2, a listed species survey was conducted on the property and is contained in the EIS. Habitat management plans are provided and will be implemented as part of the next development order. The property is not located within Priority panther habitat and is not with in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service panther consultation area. However, recently a collared panther(FP 147) was documented on Keewaydin Island on three separate occasions. According to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission staff, the panther is not expected to stay out on the island very long or take up permanent residence. Lack of forage and limited room to move around in will most likely discourage the panther from utilizing this area. Only appropriate native vegetation shall be utilized for any supplemental planting or restoration of the dune and construction areas and is consistent with Policy 10.3.5: "Native or other County approved vegetation shall be required as the stabilizing medium in any coastal barrier vegetation or restoration program" The only structure proposed seaward of the CCSL is the access crossover which is consistent with Policy 10.3.6: "Prohibit construction of structures seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line on undeveloped coastal barriers. Exception shall be for passive recreational structures, access crossovers, and where enforcement would not allow any reasonable economic utilization of such property. In the latter event, require construction that minimizes interference with natural function of such coastal barrier system." The project clearing as proposed would be less than the clearing if two single family homes were constructed on the two platted lots. This would be consistent with EAC Meeting Page 6 of 12 Policy 10.3.8: "Development density on undeveloped coastal barrier systems shall not exceed the lowest density provided in the Future Land Use Element." Also there are currently no criteria for staff to evaluate the Intensity of use versus the Density proposed on a property. The project as proposed is consistent with the Policy 10.3.9: "Native vegetation on undeveloped coastal barriers should be preserved. To the extent that native vegetation is lost during land development activities and the remaining native vegetation can be supplemented without damaging or degrading its natural function, any native vegetation lost during construction shall be replaced by supplementing with compatible native vegetation on site. All exotic vegetation shall be removed and replaced with native vegetation where appropriate." For the following reasons: All exotic vegetation will be removed and replaced with native vegetation and any vegetation damaged during construction will replaced by supplemental native vegetation. Policy 10.5.1: "Recreation that is compatible with the natural functions of beaches and dunes is the highest and best land use." This is consistent with the policy in that the project proposes the facility for recreation of the beach system. The dune habitat that will be disturbed during construction delivery will be restored upon completion of construction, consistent with Policy 10.5.3: "Prohibit activities which would result in man induced shoreline erosion beyond the natural beach erosion cycle or that would deteriorate the beach dune system." The only structure seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line is the beach access crossover, which is a passive recreational structure and is consistent with Policy 10.5.4: "Prohibit construction of any structure seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line.Exception shall be for passive recreational structures access crossovers, and where enforcement would not allow any reasonable economic utilization of such property. In the latter event, require construction that minimizes interference with natural function of such beaches and dunes." As required in Policy 10.5.5: "Prohibit motorize vehicles on the beaches and dunes except for emergency and maintenance purposes. The County shall enforce this requirement with the existing Vehicle on the Beach Ordinance." If needed a Vehicle on The Beach Permit will be required for when material are delivered to the site for construction of the facility. 10.5.9: "Prohibit construction seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line except as follows: a. Construction will be allowed for public access; b. For protection and restoration of beach resources; EAC Meeting Page 7 of 12 c. In cases of demonstrated land use related hardship or safety concerns as specified in The 1985 Florida Coastal Zone Protection Act, there shall be no shore armoring allowed except in cases of public safety." The crossover is consistent with the policy in which it is the only structure seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line which provides protection to the beach dune. As required in Policy 10.5.10: "Construction activities shall not interfere with the sea turtle nesting, shall preserve or replace any native vegetation on the site, and shall maintain the natural beach profile and minimize interference with the natural beach dynamics and function." All construction that is proposed will be conducted outside of turtle nesting season. Any areas of dune habitat disturb during constructions material delivery will be restored upon completion of constructions and native dune planting will be utilized. As required in Policy 10.5.12: "For all beach front land development related projects require dune stabilization and restoration improvements, the removal of exotic vegetation, and replacement with native vegetation, as appropriate." The Florida Master Site Files has not indicated to any known historic or archaeological resources on or near the site and is consistent with Objective 11.1:"To protect historic and archaeological resource in Collier County." L.D.C. 3.03.05 "An analysis shall be required demonstrating the impact of a six (6) inch rise in sea level above NGVD for development projects on a shoreline. This requirement shall be met by inclusion of this analysis in an environmental impact statement (EIS). This requirement shall be waived when an EIS is not required. This analysis shall demonstrate that the development will remain fully functional for its intended use after a six (6) inch rise in sea level. In the event that the applicant cannot meet this requirement, a list shall be provided by the applicant of the changes necessary in order for the development to meet the standard." This requirement has been met by the applicant in that the dock, boardwalk, and structure are all high enough that a 6 inch rise in sea level will not affect the structures or the intended use of the property. VI. MAJOR ISSUES: Stormwater Management: In any project, Stormwater Management has two basic concerns, water quality retention and peak flow (quantity) attenuation. In other words, we require the "first flush" of stormwater runoff to be retained or detained on site long enough to settle out or filter out a substantial portion (exact percentage not determined by code) of the pollutants picked up by the runoff from a storm, and we try to make EAC Meeting Page 8 of 12 sure that the runoff rate is slowed enough so as not to adversely impact neighboring or downstream properties. Engineering Review Department has determined that the components and location of this project do not warrant any extraordinary measures when dealing with water stormwater runoff quality and quantity on this site. Environmental: Site Description: The native vegetation on site in the area of the proposed construction was provided in the EIS as follows: 612- Mangrove Forest—This area includes 2.23 acres (52% of site). This consists of the jurisdictional on-site wetlands in the eastern portion of the property. The wetland area consists of a dominant canopy of red mangrove (Rhyzophora mangle), black mangrove (Avicennia germinans), and occasional white mangrove (Laguncularia racemosa). Subcanopy species of Exotic Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) and groundcover species sea oxeye daisy(Borrichia frutescens) is a rare abundance in this area. The upland vegetative communities include coastal scrub (0.72 acres), cabbage palm hammock(0.86 acres), and beach dune (0.51 acres). 110 Beach dune-This area includes 0.51 acres (12% of site). There are no canopy size trees in this area. Subcanopy species include an occasional Grey Knickerbeam (Caesalpinia bonduc) and sea grape (Cocoloba uvifera). Groundcover species commonly include sea oats (Uniola paniculata), sand spurs (Cenchrus spp.), and rare in abundance is railroad vine (Ipomoea pes-caprae). 322- Coastal Scrub - This area includes 0.72 acres (17% of site). The only subcanopy in this area includes an occasional coin vine (Dalbergia ecastophyllum). Groundcover species include occasionally of tomatillo (Physalis spp.), dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), and periwinkle (Vinca spp.). Beggar tick ( Bidens spp.) and railroad vine are rare in abundance. 428: Cabbage palm — This area includes 0.86 acres (20% of site). This upland area consists of a dominant canopy of cabbage palms (Sabal palmetto) and commonly of sea grape and rare occurrence of strangler fig (Ficus aurea). Subcanopy species occasionally exists in this area include coin vine, myrsine (Myrsine guianensis), buckthorn (Bumelia spp.), stopper (Eugenia spp.), and grey knickerbeam. Rare abundance of Brazilian pepper exists. Groundcover species that are dominant in the areas include white indigo berry (Randia aculeate), St. Augustine grass (Stenotaphrum secudatum), and wild coffee(Psychotria spp.) EAC Meeting Page 9 of 12 Wetlands: Jurisdictional on site wetlands (approximately 2.23 acres within the property boundary) consist of mangrove forest in the eastern portion of the property. No additional impact to the on site wetlands are proposed as a result of this project. Only mangrove trimming will occur, to facilitate the continued safe passage along the dock and boardwalk. Mangrove trimming will require DEP Permits and to be trimmed in accordance to DEP rules and regulations for mangrove trimming. Preservation Requirements/Site Alteration: The proposed project will retain 95% (4.12 acres) of on-site native vegetation — all vegetation outside the building footprint, boardwalk, and drain filed. Minimum requirement for preservation is 10% or 0.43 acres and placed under Collier County Conservation Easement. The remaining 3.43 acres that is retained will be placed under a Conservation Easement with Rookery Bay. Some exotic vegetation has also been removed from the site, and any remaining exotics will be removed. In addition, native plantings will be used to restore the area where the Australian Pines have been removed. Proposed impacts on native vegetation for the structure are located in the Cabbage P P g g Palm Hammock area. The proposed project plans to replace any native vegetation lost through construction activities by re-planting and supplementing with native vegetation. Replanting/Restoration plan will be received and approved prior to next development order approval. Listed Species: A transect survey was performed to determine the presence of listed species. There are one listed species observed on the subject property during the survey. Approximately 11 gopher tortoise burrows were observed on site. Survey for wading birds was also performed. Recently a collared panther(FP 147) was documented on Keewaydin Island on three separate occasions. According to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission staff, the panther is not expected to stay out on the island very long or take up permanent residence. Lack of forage and limited room to move around in will most likely discourage the panther from utilizing this area. Management plan is provided as part of the EIS (exhibit 4) and will be updated as needed and be included as part of the construction plan approval process. VII. RECOMMENDATIONS: EAC Meeting Page 10 of 12 Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use No. CU-2006-AR-10925 "Keewaydin Island Naples Bay Resort Beach Pavilion" with the following conditions: Stormwater Management: None Environmental: 1. All proposed improvements shall be designed in accordance with the standards of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP)Division of Beaches and Shores and an approved FDEP permit shall be obtained, and copies provided, prior to issuance of a Collier County Site Development Plan. 2. Outdoor lighting plan in accordance with Collier County Land Development Code Section 3.04.02.B will be required with the next development order submittal for review and approval. 3. An updated species survey less than 6 months must be provided prior to next development order approval. 4. Petitioner shall submit copies of all necessary agency permits (i.e. FFWCC for Gopher tortoise) prior to any site improvements or obtaining any building permits. 5. Permanent conservation easements dedicated to the County will be required over preserve within 90 days of the next development order approval or prior to CO of the building, whichever comes first. 6. Provide on Site Development Plan a Staging area for construction equipment and the impacts to that area along with replanting/re-vegetation plans. 7. Any other additional or updated environmental permits or information as required in the LDC will be required prior to next development order approval. 8. Correspondence with the appropriate agencies about panthers will be required at next developmental order. EAC Meeting Page 11 of 12 PREPARED BY: 4<4,Va__*KIRSTEN WILKIE DA//(P/64.- ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT ,4 / TAN CHRZA • SKI, P.E. DATE ENGINEERIN( REVIEW MANAGER .� ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT fill‘ - ig--(----(7 lI JO -DAVID MOSS , AICP P ATE PRINCIPAL PLANNER PLANNING DEPARTMENT EAC Meeting I Page 12 of 12 I REVIEWED BY: / QM., t 0q-17 -07 BARBARA S. BURGESON DATE PRINCIPAL ENVIRONMEN SPECIALIST ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT 14 !/ a4-0.67 `�I/LIAM D. LO NZ, P.E.,DIRECTOR, DATE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT 4- �g 6 JEFF RI HT D TE ASSIS NT COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ATTORNEY APPROVED BY: �� 1,20/7 J•SEPH K. SCHMITT, ADMINISTRATOR, ••MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT &ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION ^ Item VI.B. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING OF MAY 7,2006 I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT: Petition No.: Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-A-2006-AR-9374 Petition Name: Naples Reserve RPUD Applicant/Developer: Naples Reserve, LLC Engineering/Planning Consultant: RWA, Inc. Environmental Consultant: Southern Biomes, Inc. — Division of Environmental Services II. LOCATION: The subject property is an undeveloped 688 acre parcel located approximately one quarter 1/4 mile north of US-41 and two (2) miles east of Collier Boulevard (CR- 951) in Section 1,Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,Florida. III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: The project site is bordered to the north and west by undeveloped land, to the east by agricultural activities, and to the south by partially developed and undeveloped property. ZONING DESCRIPTION N - Agricultural (Belle Meade NRPA) Forested (Picayune Strand State Forest) S - PUD (Walnut Lakes) Partially Developed Agricultural Fallow Farm Fields and Forested E - Agricultural Farm Fields W- PUD (Winding Cypress DRI) Partially Developed EAC Meeting Page 2 of 12 IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Naples Reserve RPUD shall be a residential development consisting of a mixture of single-family and multi-family residences. This PUDZ-A proposes to add 612 units to the existing PUD known as Naples Reserve Golf Club for a maximum of 1154 residential dwelling units (including attached and detached single-family villas). The gross project density, therefore, shall be a maximum of 1.68 dwelling units per acre. The commercial acreage and 18 holes of the 36 hole golf course has been eliminated. The subject property was previously approved on June 8, 1999 for Ordinance No. 99-42 as Naples Reserve Golf Club PUD. The subject property contained 688 acres, with 3.50 acres for commercial use and 552 residential units at a density of 1.50 units per acres and a 36 hole golf course. Two extensions for the previously approved PUD were granted: AR- 5107 Robert Duane of Hole Montes requesting a zoning letter addressing two issues: the extension of the PUD zoning for Naples Reserve that sunsets the 8th of June 2004 which is 5 years from the date of approval; and, whether density blending can be implemented for Naples Reserve during the platting or SDP process as opposed to rezoning the property. AR- 5752 Robert Duane of Hole Montes, Inc., representing Naples Reserve Golf Club, Inc., in requesting a PUD zoning extension for PUD-99-03, Naples Reserve Golf Club. This request is for two 2-year extensions to be granted simultaneously from June 8th, 2004 the date of the PUD expiration to June 8th, 2008. Revised title (4/22/04) Petition: PUDEX -2004-AR-5752. (KD) Naples Reserve Golf Club, Inc., represented by Robert Duane, A.I.C.P., of Hole Montes, Inc., requesting 2 two-year extensions of the Naples Reserve Golf Club PUD pursuant to LDC Section 2.7.3.4.6. The property is located 1.3±miles east of County Road 951 and approximately one mile north of US Highway 41, in Section 1, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 688± acres. SDP 2000-025, Naples Reserve Golf Club was approved on December 5, 2000 with entrance road, extension of utilities along the entrance road and turn lanes on US-41 constructed. The SDP is determined to be vested by the Engineering Services Department. EAC Meeting Page 3 of 12 V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element: The subject project straddles two land-use designations; 310.94+ acres is designated Urban (Urban-Mixed Use District, Residential Fringe Subdistrict) and the remaining 377.16±acres is designated Agricultural/Rural (Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, Receiving Lands), as identified on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. Relevant to this petition, the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict permits residential development at a maximum density of 1.5 DU/A or up to 2.5 DU/A via the transfer of up to 1 DU/A from lands designated as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, Sending. The base residential density allowable for designated Receiving Lands is one unit per five gross acres, with a maximum density of one unit per gross acre achievable through the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)process. This petition relies on multiple provisions in the Future Land Use Element to achieve consistency. The portion of the project located within the Urban (Urban- Mixed Use District, Residential Fringe Subdistrict) designated area is eligible for a density of 2.5 DU/A or 777.35 DUs and the portion of the project located within the Agricultural/Rural designation is eligible for a density of 1 DU/A or 377.16 DUs. (TDRs from lands designated Sending are required in order to achieve these maximum densities.) The requested project density of 1.77 DU/A or 1,154 DUs may be achieved as calculated above and distributed throughout the project acreage via the Density Blending provision in the FLUE. This project straddles the Urban Mixed Use and Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, Receiving Lands. As such the "Density Blending" provision of the GMP intended to encourage unified plans of development and to preserve wetlands, wildlife habitat, and other natural features that exist within properties that or that straddle Receiving and Neutral Lands within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District. A portion of this project is located within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict. As such is to provide transitional densities between the Urban Designated Area and the Agricultural/Rural Area and may be allowed a maximum residential density of 1.5 units per gross acre. The project is required to provide a Transfer of Development Rights. The primary purpose of the TDR process within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District is to establish an equitable method of protecting and conserving the most valuable environmental lands, including large connected wetland systems and significant areas of habitat for listed species, while allowing property owners of such lands to EAC Meeting Page 4 of 12 recoup lost value and development potential through an economically viable process of transferring such rights to other more suitable lands. Within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, residential density may be transferred from lands designated as Sending Lands to lands designated as Receiving Lands on the � Future Land Use Map. The base residential density allowable for designated � Receiving Lands is one (1) unit per five (5) gross acres (0.2 dwelling units per acre). The maximum density achievable in Receiving Lands through the TDR process is one (1) dwelling unit per acre. This maximum density is exclusive of the Density Blending provisions. Dwelling units may only be transferred into Receiving Lands in whole unit increments (fractional transfers are prohibited). The petitioner is not requesting additional density above the maximum density allowed; 1DU/A. The PUD Document limits the maximum lot size for single-family detached dwelling units to 1 acre. The majority of the project development is within the Receiving area, which has been previously cleared. The native vegetation is located within the urban portion of the project which is proposed for preservation, as identified in the PUD .-� Document and Master Plan. Comprehensive Planning staff defers to Environmental Services staff for project consistency with this provision. The total project is 688 ± acres; 310.94± acres within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict and 377.16+ acres within the Agricultural/Rural, RMFUD District, Receiving Lands. The minimum open space requirement of 70% for the portion of the project located within the RFMUD, Receiving Lands is identified in the PUD Document and Master Plan. Specific compliance will be determined during Plat and SDP review. Refer to the "Analysis of Density Blending Provision" above. (The entire project shall meet the applicable preservation standards of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District. These preservation requirements shall be calculated upon and apply to the total project area.) Comprehensive Planning staff defers to Environmental Services staff for project consistency with CCME Policies. Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes that the proposed uses and density may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element. Additionally, text revisions to the PUD document are needed, as noted above. EAC Meeting Page 5 of 12 r-� Conservation & Coastal Management Element: Objective 2.2 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Growth Management Plan states "All canals, rivers, and flow ways discharging into estuaries shall meet all applicable federal, state, or local water quality standards". To accomplish that, policy 2.2.2 states "In order to limit the specific and cumulative impacts of stormwater runoff, stormwater systems should be designed in such a way that discharged water does not degrade receiving waters and an attempt is made to enhance the timing, quantity, and quality of fresh water (discharge) to the estuarine system". This project is consistent with the objectives of policy 2.2.2 in that it attempts to mimic or enhance the quality and quantity of water leaving the site by utilizing interconnected dry detention area(s), lake(s) and a wetland(s) to provide water quality retention and peak flow attenuation during storm events. Pursuant to Objective 2.4 and Policies 2.4.1, a copy of the Environmental Impact Statement will be provided to staff and the Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve for their review. In accordance with Objective 6.4 and Policy 6.5.2, a 300 foot buffer (water management lake) is provided along the north side of the property adjacent to the Natural Reservation (Belle Meade NRPA), to buffer the Natural Reservation from more intensive open space uses. In accordance with Policy 6.1.1, 25 % of the existing native vegetation shall be retained on-site and set aside as preserve areas with conservation easements prohibiting further development. On-site preserves are adjacent to each other and to adjoining off-site preserves. Habitat management and exotic vegetation removal/maintenance plans are required at the time of Site Development Plan/Construction Plan submittal. Preserve areas shall be required to be maintained free of Category I invasive exotic plants, as defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council. Littoral shelf planting areas within wet detention ponds shall be required at the time of Site Development Plan/Construction Plan submittal, and will be required to meet the minimum planting area requirement in Policy 6.1.7. The requirement for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to Policy 6.1.8 has been satisfied. EAC Meeting Page 6 of 12 Jurisdictional wetlands have been identified as required in Policies 6.2.1 and 6.2.2. Pursuant to Policy 6.2.4, the .County shall require appropriate agency permits prior to the issuance of a final local development order permitting site improvements (Site Development Plan/Construction Plans). SFWMD and USACOE permits have been issued for the site. In accordance with Policy 6.2.6, required preservation areas are identified on the PUD master plan. Allowable uses within the preserve areas are included in the PUD document. Uses within preserve areas shall not include any activity detrimental to drainage, flood control, water conservation, erosion control, or fish and wildlife conservation and preservation. Wildlife surveys and habitat management plans for listed species in accordance with Policy 7.1.2 are included in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Pursuant to Policy 7.1.4, all development shall comply with applicable federal and state permitting requirements regarding listed species protection. New listed species have been identified on site since the previous PUD and SDP were approved. Technical assistance/approval from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) shall be required prior to Site Development Plan/Construction Plan amendment approval. A copy of the EIS will be forwarded to the USFWS and FFWCC for their review. The Biological Opinion previously issued by the USFWS is included as part of the EIS. VI. MAJOR ISSUES: Stormwater Management: Naples Reserve sits in the "US 41 Outfall Swale No. 1 Basin". The site is currently being used for Agricultural purposes and has a system of swales and ditches for drainage. Sheetflow in the area is generally north to south and ultimately flows to Rookery Bay via the Tamiami Canal, which flows west into Henderson Creek. Section 8.06.03 0.2. of the Collier County Land Development Code states "The surface water management aspects of any petition, that is or will be reviewed and permitted by South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), are exempt from review by the EAC." County Staff could not find reference to a SFWMD permit for this site on the SFWMD website, but due to the presence of wetlands on site, this petition will be reviewed by SFWMD. This will be a typical Residential / Golf Course development employing interconnected lakes and preserves to achieve water quality retention and peak EAC Meeting Page 7 of 12 flow attenuation prior to discharge to the south at the southwest corner of the site. The offsite discharge will flow along the west property line of Walnut Lakes and into the US 41 roadside (Tamiami) canal. Environmental: Site Description: The majority of the site was previously cleared and utilized for agricultural purposes. Site Development Plan No. SDP-2000-025 authorized clearing for lakes, residential areas, and other infrastructure improvements. Native forested areas remain in established preserves and in an un-cleared tract in the SW portion of the property. Immediately NE and contiguous to the PUD, in the Belle Meade NRPA, is a 320 acre off-site mitigation parcel previously used by the developer as mitigation for impacts to wetlands and listed species on-site. Wetlands: The project site has received permits and permit extensions from the South Florida Water Management District (Permit #11-00090-S) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Permit #199900619 IP-SB). All wetlands designated for impact were previously cleared and filled. A total of 47.03 acres of low quality wetlands were impacted. According to the USACOE permit for the project, of the 74.61 acres proposed for preservation, 55.67 acres are to be enhanced by removal of exotic vegetation and restoration of the historic wetland condition. Also, along the fringes of the preserves, an additional 10.70 acres of cypress marsh and wading bird foraging habitat will be created in areas previously cleared for agricultural purposes, and 5.24 acres of pine and palmetto uplands will be preserved and enhanced by removing exotics. The down stream portions of the water management lakes adjacent to the preserves are to be enhanced by planting native wetland vegetation water ward to a depth of 1.5 feet below control elevation. Additionally, 320 acres of off-site wetlands and uplands in Section 31 will be enhanced and/or restored, and then deeded to the State of Florida (FDEP). Details of the on and off site mitigation plans are included in the USACOE permit and EIS. Preserves must me maintained free of exotics and not be allowed to retain a percentage of exotics as stated in the EIS. Preservation Requirements: Pre-development indigenous native vegetation on-site totaled 164.54 acres. At the time the PUD and SDP were approved, twenty-five percent of the existing native vegetation had to be retained on-site (164.54 acres x .25 = 41.1 acres). Since the PUD and SDP were both previously approved and vegetation cleared in EAC Meeting Page 8 of 12 accordance with the approved SDP, the native vegetation preservation requirement does not change. SDP 2000-025 was determined to be vested by the Engineering Services Department. All preserves and the remaining un-cleared portion of the property are all located in the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict portion of the PUD. Currently the subject property contains 75.31 acres of native habitat. The PUD proposes to preserve 63.91 acres of existing native habitat and restore an additional 10.70 acres of disturbed habitat into cypress marsh and wading bird foraging habitat, adjacent to the preserves. Native habitats on-site include hydric and non-hydric pine, pine-cypress, cypress and pine-palmetto. The preserves on site have been designed to create large contiguous tracts. Although the entrance road bisects the two preserves, the road was located to avoid wetland impacts and to follow the approximate location of the existing agricultural berm and ditch. Preserves on site are contiguous to off site preserves within Winding Cypress PUD and Walnut lakes PUD. Immediately south west and contiguous to the project's on-site preserves, is land owned by the State of Florida (FDEP). Listed Species: The first listed species survey was conducted during the months of August 1998, and again in January and February of 1999. The most recent updated five day survey was conducted during the months of November and December of 2005. The primary function of the survey was to inspect the mature slash pine trees for potential red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) cavity trees, and to obtain a general assessment of habitat conditions and sighting of listed species. Ten listed species were observed during the survey update, American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis), great egret (Casmerodius albus), little blue heron (Egretta caerulea), snowy egret (Egretta thula), tricolored heron (Egretta tricolor), white ibis (Eudocimus albus), Florida sandhill crane (Grus canadensis pratensis), southern bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), wood stork (Mycteria americana) and Everglades snail kite (Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus). No red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) cavity trees or RCW activity was observed during any of the survey events. Recent listed species surveys on the adjacent property (Winding Cypress PUD) also did not discover any RCW activity. Red- cockaded woodpeckers are known to occur in areas north and east of the project site in the Belle Meade NRPA. One immature bald eagle has been observed on several occasions flying over the south western edge of the property, and once perched in a pine tree near the EAC Meeting Page 9 of 12 northern end of the preserve. The agricultural ditches in this area may be providing foraging opportunities for this species since the eagle has been observed making low flights along the ditches. On several occasions, there were two, sometimes three, sand hill cranes observed within the farm fields. When observed flying, they typically flew to the east or from the east. There have been one or two snail kites observed regularly along the eastern edge of the farm field, and have been seen landing on the oak trees planted along Greenway Road. To the east of the property are large extensive abandoned and active farm fields with numerous ditches, which the snail kites may be utilizing. Many of the perimeter ditches retain water for six to nine months of the year, offering foraging opportunities for wading birds. When the fields are active, they are either being pump dry or being filled to maintain a moisture regime throughout the fields. This practice provides year-round foraging habitat for wading birds. Typically, during the survey, woodstorks, white ibis, great egret, snowy egret, and little blue heron were observed somewhere along the ditches. Occasionally, following a rain event, the farm fields have dozens of wading birds foraging in large flocks. Two alligators have been observed within the borrow pond and ditches on several occasions during and before the survey. It is likely that several other alligators are also located within the agricultural ditches, but were not observed. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service made a determination that the proposed development impacted Florida panther habitat. For compensation, 320 acres located contiguous to the north eastern corner of the property will be placed in a conservation easement, enhanced and deeded over to the State of Florida. The south east portion of the off-site mitigation parcel contains an abandoned farm field which will be restored by creating open depressional areas within the center of the old farm field and planting the area with indigenous vegetation to mimic a cypress wet prairie ecosystem. A location map, FLUCFCS map, and the mitigation and maintenance plan for the off-site mitigation parcel is included in the EIS. EAC Meeting Page 10 of 12 VII. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-A-2006- AR-9374 "Naples Reserve RPUD" with the following conditions: Stormwater Management: 1. The South Florida Water Management District issued ERP# 11-00090-S-02 on 13 January 2000 and a succession of modifications and extensions have been issued. The permit was transferred to Naples Reserve LLC on 2 March 2007. No further action is required. Environmental: No additional stipulations. r►; EAC Meeting Page 11 of 12 rte, PREPARED BY: ST N CHRZANO KI, P.E. DATE ENGINEERING REVIEW MANAGER ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 1 STEPHEN LENBERGER DATE SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT a I/ / �•• �� Ar CHAE De'rTZ, CFM D PRINCIPAL PL NER DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW EAC Meeting Page 12 of 12 REVIEWED BY: BARBARA S. BURGESON c . DATE PRINCIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT II /'/' ›S—'1 ' 0 4-,17:4 /iILLIAM D. LI' N J?., P.E., DIRECTOR, DATE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT 4 I 0Approv d a- to form arxii -sal sufficiency DA E fir. Jeff E. . t, assistant County Attorney APPROVED BY: 4 • • ,,k..-..---..--A":"4......„...77" ..0 97? PH K. SCHMITT, ADMINISTRATOR, DATE ,MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT &ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION r-. Item VI. . ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING OF 7 MAY,2007 I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PRO.IECT: Petition No.: AR 11153, Ex. 60.002, Proj 2007010020 Petition Name: North Belle Meade Mine Applicant/Developer: Florida Rock Industries Engineering Consultant: Hole Montes, Inc. II. LOCATION: This project consists of 998.9 acres, more or less, sitting in Sections 21, 27, and 28 of Township 49, South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida, more particularly south of Golden Gate Estates and the existing Warren Brothers PUD (the APAC Pit), in the North Belle Meade Rural Fringe Receiving Lands north of I-75. III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: This project is located in the North Belle Meade Area, south of the existing subdivision called North Golden Gate Estates, North of I-75, east of the County's landfill and west of Everglades Boulevard. The petitioner owns 1416 (+/-) acres of which 417 (+/-) acres of sending lands, located in Section 27, are not included in this application. ZONING DESCRIPTION N- Agricultural Existing mine Vacant farmland S - Agricultural Vacant land E - Agricultural Vacant land W- Agricultural Vacant land Misc. small parcels EAC Meeting Page 2 of 5 IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project is being presented for the information of the EAC as per Section 8.06.03.J of the LDC which states that the EAC shall "Participate in the review and recommendation process for excavations over 500,000 cubic yards". It is Staff's understanding that the EAC's comments will not be forwarded to the BCC and that this item will be sent to the BCC's Consent Agenda for approval without discussion. The petitioner proposes a Commercial Rock and Fill Mine. There will be three separate excavations (204 ac, 451 ac, and 98 ac)totaling approximately 753 acres. The excavations will avoid existing unoccupied outparcels. The excavations are proposed to go to a depth of approximately 70 ft from existing grade which will put the bottoms of the proposed excavations at approximately el. -59 NGVD. Staff is not familiar with subsurface conditions in this area. The petitioner has supplied numerous core boring reports for the area and the petitioner's engineer has stated that the excavation will not adversely affect ground water levels, water quality and hydroperiod. Access to the property will initially be along a haul road constructed from the south and going up to Section 28. The haul road is consistent with the approved North Belle Meade Overlay (NBMO)of the Future Land Use Element(FLUE) of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. The haul road is proposed based on action taken by the BCC on 28 Jun 2005 as part of the Wilson Boulevard Corridor Study. At that time,the BCC recognized that a haul road was an interim solution for access to the subject and other properties and that it would ultimately become a future public roadway corridor extension of Wilson Boulevard with a connection to Landfill/Blackburn Road. In recognition of this fact, in 2006 the BCC included the extension of Wilson Blvd. and the Landfill/Blackburn Road in the 2030 Long Range Transportation Financially Feasible Plan. The Developer Contribution Agreement(DCA)further contemplates that the Wilson Blvd. and the Blackburn Road extensions be moved up to the next scheduled Capital Improvement Element, slated for adoption, after the DCA goes into effect for the advance right- of-way acquisition of Wilson Blvd. and Landfill/Blackburn Roads. Ultimately, the access proposed for both Wilson Blvd. and the Landfill/Blackburn Road will be a public roadway with up to 120-foot right-of—way to accommodate a six or four lane urban arterial (to be determined) or collector roadway. The EAC Meeting Page 3 of 5 • cross-sections for the haul road are contained in Exhibit"F" of the DCA Agreement and also in the Excavation Plan Set, Tab#17, Sheet 9. Access to the subject property is through extension of Wilson Boulevard beginning from lands owned by Florida Rock in Sections 21 and 28 and depicted on Exhibit"D" of the DCA. However, the haul road will terminate at the southern portion of Section 28 for this excavation permit. Access then will continue along the western edge of the I-75 right-of-way, and then to an extension of Landfill/Blackburn Road, also known as White Lake Blvd., which gains its access onto Collier Blvd via Utilities Drive (see Exhibit E of the DCA Agreement). Right-of-way acquisition requirements are more specifically defined in the DCA and all are the responsibility of Collier County outside the boundaries of the subject property. Pursuant to Policy 3.3 Transportation Element of the GMP the County will acquire the off-site right-of-way. Florida Rock, Inc. will advance the County funds for the acquisition of said right-of-way and will be paid back with a combination of cash and impact fee credits for this expenditure as further outlined in the attached DCA. In summary, Florida Rock will reserve up to a 120-foot right-of-way through its Sections 21 and 28 in exchange for impact fee credits. The extension of Wilson Blvd. and the Landfill/Blackburn Road will enable the i-. County to initiate improved access to a local road network in the NBMO to accommodate future growth in a planned manner. This will also provide an alternative access from Eastern Golden Gate Estates to Collier Boulevard. V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element: The subject property is located in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Subdistrict and is further governed by the provisions of the North Belle Meade Overlay ("NBMO") and approximately 999 acres of this site are designated as Receiving Lands and 417 acres are Sending Lands that are not part of this request as noted. The subject property's Receiving Lands allow excavation/earthmining and related processing ("Mining Uses") as a permitted land use. According to the NBMO,the Mining Uses can proceed without a Conditional Use at the present time based on actions that have been taken to date by Florida Rock, Inc. and the BCC. Attachment"C" of this application provides a further description of how the subject property is consistent with the GMP, which includes a Future Land Use Map with the subject property overlaid, Tab#8 to this application. (See also attached DCA, Tab #14, outlining further compliance with the GMP) EAC Meeting Page 4 of 5 VI. MAJOR ISSUES: Stormwater Management: From the experience of the Engineering Review Department with every other excavation in Collier County, post-development runoff from this project will not exceed pre-development runoff. During the active excavation, there may be some dewatering, but that water is generally kept on site in bermed confinement areas. Our experience is that noise and dust will be the most important issues, even if the excavation is properly done. Since the excavation is well away from civilization, the noise problem will be minimized. Environmental: The only Environmental Review done on this project by the CDES Environmental Review Department was to confirm that the excavation portions of this site are in the Rural Fringe Receiving Areas. , nPe TAN CHRZANOWS '�, P.E. DATE ENGINEERING REVI W MANAGER ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT LDC amendments for May 7th EAC meeting 2.03.07 GZO 3.06.06/3.06.02 Regulated Wellfields 4.06.05 C.1 Native Requirement 4.06.05 E.1 Exotics 5.05.13 Heliports 6.05.01 F Lot Coverage 6.05.02 Seawall BMP 3.03.02 CZM 111 Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term LDC Amendment Request ORIGIN: The Goodland Preservation Coalition and The Goodland Civic Association AUTHOR: Connie Fullmer and John Carter DEPARTMENT: LDC 2007 AR 11427 111 AMENDMENT CYCLE: Cycle 1,2007 LDC PAGE: LDC2: LDC SECTION(S): 2.03.07 J. Goodland Zoning Overlay (GZO) 4.02.22 Same-- GZO District 111 CHANGE: Revise sideand setbacks for "combined"Y ombmed lots and redefine maximum height for all VR and RSF-4 residential zoning in the Goodland Zoning Overlay. It was the intent of the overlay to direct growth in Goodland to protect and preserve the tropical fishing village and small town environment; however, the design guidelines to implement this purpose were never put into the Land Development Code. REASON: To create design sign guidelines and development standards that will assure the orderly growth and development needed to protect and preserve the tropical fishing la village and small town environment of Goodland. FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: None. RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: 4.02.22 Same - GZO 111 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: None OTHER NOTES/VERSION DATE: Created March 15, 2007. Revised March 30, 2007. 111 Amend the LDC follows: 2.03.07 Overlay Zoning Districts 111 J. Goodland Zoning Overlay "GZO". To create design guidelines and development standards that will assure the orderly and appropriate 3 l:\07 Amend the LDC\LDC packet\new amendmentsCycle 2007-1 033007.doc 4/9/2007 Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term development in the unincorporated area generally known as Goodland. The Goodland Zoning Overlay district (GZO) is intended to provide regulation and direction under which the growth and development of T#` Goodland can occur with assurance that the tropical fishing village and small town environment of Goodland is protected and preserved, and that development and/or redevelopment reflect the unique residential and commercial characteristics of the community. The boundaries of the Goodland Zoning Overlay district are delineated on Map 1 below. 1. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in this subdistrict: a. Clam nursery and hatchery, subject to the following restrictions: i. A "clam nursery" is defined as the growing of clams on a "raceway" or "flow-through saltwater system" in the water or on the shore of a lot until the clam reaches a size of approximately one half inch. ii. For the purposes of this section, a "raceway" or "flow through salt water system" is defined as a piece of plywood or similar material fashioned as a the growth of clams. At no time may a nursery owner operate a raceway of surface area. iv ii. The nursery or hatchery must meet the requirements of a "minimal impact aquaculture facility" as defined by the Department of Agriculture and follow guidelines in the USDA BMP's. v. The nursery must not be operated on a vacant lot, a) The vacant lot is owned by the same individual who owns a lot with a residence to 4he vacant lot• and i b) The vacant lot must not be leased to another individual for purposes of operating a clam farm within the RSF 4 and VR zoning districts. the clams, as the clams will be sustained from nutrients occurring naturally in the water. vii. Only the property owner or individual in control of the property will be allowed to operate a raceway 4 l:\07 Amend the LDC\LDC packet\new amendmentsCycle 2007-1 033007.doc 4/9/2007 Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term .. iii Any pump or filtration system used in conjunction with the nursery must meet all applicable County noise ordinances and must not be more obtrusive than the average system used for a non- commercial pool or shrimp tank. iv. The nursery or hatchery must be certified by the USDA. 2. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in this subdistrict: NIReserved. 5. Sign requirements . All signs existing as of October 17, 2003 in 111 Goodland are exempt from the requirements of the Collier County sign ordinance (section 5.06.00) for five seven years from October 17, 2003 or until the sign is destroyed, whichever comes au first. Any signs constructed after October 17, 2003 must strictly IN comply with section 5.06.00. Sign maintenance is limited to painting existing signs . All other maintenance or repairs will void the exemption and require the owner to construct a sign that lir strictly adheres to section 5.06.00 in the event that the owner wishes to have a sign. * * * * * * * * * * * * 1111 II4.02.22 Same --GZO District 1111 A. These regulations are intended to supplement the existing land development regulations found in this LDC. In the event of a conflict between other provisions of this LDC and these regulations, these regulations contained in this overlay shall control. 01 B. Dimensional Standards. IIITable 14. Design and Dimensional Standards in the GZO District. Design Standard liMaximum building height 111 gingle-family-elwelling-Gr Minimum lot requirements ----- - -- ' , - --.1 - - e 4,275 square feet mobile honk 45 feet 111 5 I:\07 Amend the LDC\LDC packet\new amendmentsCycle 2007-1 033007.doc 4/9/2007 U Text underlined is new text to be added. • Bold text indicates a defined term Minimum lot area Minimum lot width Minimum let renuirement _- -- _ -- A e• - -- e - e e _ Minimum lot area 54180-sque Minimum lot width 50 feet requirements -- •-- _ -- - _ . . _ , - - - - - Side yard 5 feet e' 4.02.22 Table A ;> "t.".° .�.-,p' a einct,,i4 � .'_, �.:. .y in',"fpi,* ii i it "u yi„fc'^ �n t tit a .� 4.. "•- 1 a . ,„r k 'r DESIGN STANDARDS for RESIDENTIA OTS WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN COMBINED k 4 �.-',10 � a ' .r 4k y"r.4 s# .;o .s .,k..g itk,,,E '� .yy. P, i:'.k.i ik 1..,., . .., gfz..y. y. -�;, Maximum Actual As prescribed in the underlying zoning district, but not more than two Height of Buildings levels of habitable space. Maximum Square As prescribed in the underlying zoning district. Footage Under Air Maximum Total As prescribed in the underlying zoning district. Square Footage Maximum Floor Area As prescribed in the underlying zoning district. Ratio ,� Minimum side yard 5 feet in VR non-waterfront. 10 feet in VR waterfront. As prescribed in setbacks RSF-4. Minimum rear As prescribed in the underlying zoning district. setbacks e Minimum front yard As prescribed in the underlying zoning district. setbacks 4.02.22 Table B �"r� tie ' is.r 1 .1,T A-z, -rt-,,ikr M e hx °ti po',.,t41'. .k:' sa^ 5VA X14 111.; r ;�d4' DESIGN STANDARDS~for COMBINED RESIDENTIAL LOTS �,� ,la 1..,�,�r.iN E.:..� `!�t42t,:i vtps "fix ,��� z-t-tik�Y� fi.. }:ltimlo' ta*,4,?re4;.' 7firy P.ed i tm..'.4,0. bp.wi.'�Irmi ra 5vw4:1� �,Y'",rr `�6 �'��, ' Maximum Actual As prescribed in the underlying zoning district, but not more than two Height of Building levels of habitable s•ace. Maximum Square 3,500 square feet under air. r Footage Under Air Maximum Total As prescribed in the underlying zoning district. Square Footage Maximum Floor Area As prescribed in the underlying zoning district. Ratio Minimum side yard 15%of road frontage per side, not to be less than 5 feet each side. setbacks Minimum rear As prescribed in the underlying zoning district. setbacks 1 6 I, I:\07 Amend the LDC\LDC packet\new amendmentsCycle 2007-1 033007.doc 4/9/2007 r ;7 Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term Minimum front and As prescribed in the underlying zoning district. setbacks Note: "combined" means two or more lots which have been legally formed into one lot. 4.02.22 B. Table C DESIGN STANDARDS for COMMERCIAL LOTS Maximum Actual Asrescribed in the underlying derlyinq zoning district. Height of Building Maximum Square As prescribed in the underlying zoning district. Footage Under Air Maximum Total As prescribed in the underlying zoning district. Square Footage Maximum Floor Area As prescribed in the underlying zoning district. Ratio Minimum side yard As prescribed in the underlying zoning district. setbacks Minimum rear As prescribed in the underlying zoning district. setbacks Minimum front yard As prescribed in the underlying zoning district. setbacks I C. Specific design standards 1. Within the VR and RSF-4 zoning districts, except for specifically designated travel trailer subdivisions , boats, trailers, recreational vehicles and other recreational equipment may be stored in any yard subject to the following conditions. a. No recreational equipment shall be used for living, sleeping, or housekeeping purposes when parked or stored. b. No recreational vehicle or equipment shall exceed thirty- !' five (35) feet in length. c. No recreational vehicle or equipment shall be parked, stored nor encroach in any county right-of-way or easement. d. Recreational vehicles or equipment that exceed thirty-five (35) feet in length shall be subject to the provisions of the County Code regarding parking of commercial or recreational vehicles. e. Personal vehicles may be parked in drainage swales in the VR and RSF-4 zoning districts subject to the following conditions: No vehicle shall block or impede traffic. 7 I:\07 Amend the LDC\LDC packet\new amendmentsCycle 2007-1 033007.doc 4/9/2007 Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term 2. Within the VR and RSF-4 zoning districts, fishing equipment, such as crab traps, anchors and other similar items, may be displayed or stored in any yard subject to the following conditions. a. The storage of fishing related equipment is permitted only in association with a fishing-related business. b. Storage of toxic materials is prohibited. c. The storage or display area shall be located a minimum of five (5) feet from any property line or County right-of-way. d. Fishing related items may be used for decorative purposes. D. Redevelopment - Residential property owners shall have the right to reconstruct their private residences in accordance with the foot print, site plan and design of record at the County, subject to current FEMA flood elevations, provided such partial or full reconstruction is necessitated by a state or presidential declared disaster: Reconstruction that occurs because of the willful demolition of the residential property is subject to the development standards of the underlying zoning districts and this standard. .t. "s 8 l:\07 Amend the LDC\LDC packet\new amendmentsCycle 2007-1 033007.doc 4/9/2007 oiText underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term IlLLDC Amendment Request la ORIGIN: Collier County Board Directed through The Growth Management Plan's Public Facilities Element — Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Sub-Element Objective 1.1 and the Conservation and Coastal Management Element Objective 3.3. 10 AUTHOR: Ray Smith DEPARTMENT: Pollution Control &Prevention Department 111 AMENDMENT CYCLE: Cycle 1,2007 LDC PAGE: LDC3:51 LDC SECTION(S): 3.06.06 Regulated Wellfields IICHANGE: "H. Ave Maria Utility Company Wellfield" REASON: Language change allows the rule to recognize a new Public Water Supply IWellfield that will serve the Ave Maria community. ii FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: None III RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: None ir-\ GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: None OTHER NOTES/VERSION DATE: Created March 15, 2007. II Amend the LDC as follows: II 3.06.06 Regulated Wellfields I The following wellfield risk management special treatment overlay zones, as defined in section 3.06.03, and criteria specified herein shall be applied to the following wellfields: A. East Golden Gate Wellfield. IB. Coastal Ridge (Goodlette Road)Wellfield. C. Collier County Utilities Wellfield. IID. Everglades City Wellfield. E. Florida Governmental Utility Authority Golden Gate Water Treatment IIPlant Wellfield. F. The Orange Tree Wellfield. IG. Immokalee Water and Sewer District wellfields drilled into the Lower r-� Tamiami aquifers and Sandstone aquifers. H. Ave Maria Utility Company Wellfield I 87 l:\07 Amend the LDC\LDC packet\new amendmentsCycle 2007-1 033007.doc 4/9/2007 li Text underlined is new text to be added. 111111 Bold text indicates a defined term sir LDC Amendment Request ORIGIN: Collier County Board Directed through The Growth Management Plan's Public Facilities Element — Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Sub-Element11 Objective 1.1 and the Conservation and Coastal Management Element Objective 3.3. AUTHOR: Ray Smith DEPARTMENT: Pollution Control &Prevention Department AMENDMENT CYCLE: Cycle 1, 2007 LDC PAGE: 5 LDC SECTION(S): Illustration 3.06.02 C. CHANGE: Replace the existing Illustration 3.06.02 C. with the proposed update of the Collier County Utilities Golden Gate Wellfield Illustration. REASON: Remodeled the Wellfield Risk Management Special Treatment Overlay Zones around the Collier County Utilities Golden Gate public water supply wellfield. FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: None RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: None GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: None OTHER NOTES/VERSION DATE: Created March 14, 2007. 11 Amend the LDC as follows: U U U 88 U I:\07 Amend the LDC\LDC packet\new amendmentsCycle 2007-1 033007.doc 4/9/2007 U 4 Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term 4 miCOLLIER COUNTY UTILITIES GOL1 , ,DEN GATE WELL FIELD 4 .,• , �S 19 20�, ; 21 I s s,:r, 2, I -,, -, 24 12---- ---2Q__ .. IYJ• ,J 1 _ _ ir'�mo eo iss143412- i---- -i--, -- --25--- 2g :: „„,, 1 I -___ _ ___-__.-_ . I _, I Lf I 26 , � ... _ itt 29 1- - ` I1 1 filk 31 32 • 4 ;-- " i- - . , , , • ...,_ 1 i i I i 1 I '' -- in Iit , t\ , CIO if- I j i I •Eig.GATEiLWIw iI iI171, 1,1111 7 4 I I 1 i 1 l I i : 111Ma -- 1 1 ' ' I !' h1 ' ,ilior— 1!I I - - I I7 I i 1 1 I 1 1 , P ---- JF III 1 Irisv I I 1 ___ 1 I '18; I ; if 6 )11 1' , •' lit_-- - 01 - I i J 13 —1� :- ,. __ _ ___ NI 49 70111 24``, .____!9- --! I-- - IL_ Illifill , , IElljj 30--1---2� ; 0 29 26 25 III _ __ -31- 32 11111r% _ 35 36 3 _- --32--- II III III 89 l:\07 Amend the LDC\LDC packet\new amendmentsCycle 2007-1 033007.doc 4/9/2007 Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term U LDC Amendment Request 111 ORIGIN: Collier County Board Directed through The Growth Management Plan's Public Facilities Element — Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Sub-Element Objective 1.1 and the Conservation and Coastal Management Element Objective 3.3. 1111 AUTHOR: Ray Smith DEPARTMENT: Pollution Control &Prevention Department AMENDMENT CYCLE: Cycle 1,2007 LDC PAGE: 7 LDC SECTION(S): Illustration 3.06.02 E. 11 CHANGE: Replace the existing Illustration 3.06.02 E. with the proposed update of the Florida Governmental Utility Authority Golden Gate City Well Field Illustration. ^ REASON: Remodeled the Wellfield Risk Management Special Treatment Overlay I Zones around the Florida Governmental Utility Authority Golden Gate City public water supply wellfield. 111 FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: None RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: None GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: None OTHER NOTES/VERSION DATE: N Amend the LDC as follows: 111I I 90 • l:\07 Amend the LDC\LDC packet\new amendmentsCycle 2007-1 033007.doc 4/9/2007 Il Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term IlL II Florida Governmental Utility Authority II Golden Gate City Well Field 1A GREED BLVD 15 i 14 I{ ____�.�__ •_/� �J I Imo_____ �_ i I ____ ___,. .. 77, 1 li_._ T1 i T _ I I -1 I 1I__L_ 1 i + ' i / 1! ; I it r' ^' y_J i 1I 1 1 r r 1 ;--- T i)C\ \, 171-1 r / ;' ;r, ,./-- -I ; ; - 23-----------. I1-_—^\ ,`\\yl \,5 .}^{ 1\ i 1 h—L_1 ' /! 1 I 1 1 I ,,, , \1l i 1 1 I I I I I 1 I ( l---- 1 ti II `•1 ,1 ' r-{-t---j F-----'-1 1 %j_i 1_1_ -'- I �-III i II I I —T _ I cc -♦ 1 _} i__ y v .i 1 I I --1'; 1 I I I 1 11 : „. I _I _L_ T j ..Ir \ 11 1\ .” __I — I r. \\; { f1----J h %:` \ \ 1 I r1 L..___, 0. yy.� � - :r' .: Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term 1111 LDC Amendment Request ORIGIN: Collier County Board Directed through The Growth Management Plan's Public Facilities Element — Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Sub-Element Objective 1.1 and the Conservation and Coastal Management Element Objective 3.3. AUTHOR: Ray Smith DEPARTMENT: Pollution Control &Prevention Department AMENDMENT CYCLE: Cycle 1, 2007 I LDC PAGE: 8 LDC SECTIONS): Illustration 3.06.02 F. CHANGE: Replace the existing Illustration 3.06.02 F. with the proposed update of the I Orange Tree Well Field Illustration. REASON: Remodeled the Wellfield Risk Management Special Treatment Overlay Zones around the Orange Tree public water supply wellfield. FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: None RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: None GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: None OTHER NOTES/VERSION DATE: I Amend the LDC as follows: I I I 92 P l:\07 Amend the LDC\LDC packet\new amendmentsCycle 2007-1 033007.doc 4/9/2007 11 Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term 0 I II ORANGE TREE WELL FIELD i II I 11 I 12 1 I U iii li 4 I i , _i4 7----- 13 ii •, '' tr _ Il 1, 1 f 1 ----- - 1` I1 illUV: 1 r1 I i `. CR 858 1 Yr II 7r ) N i �S'rY �`. 1 1 t 1 / , 24 .----- 1111 I I II II 93 l:\07 Amend the LDC\LDC packet\new amendmentsCycle 2007-1 033007.doc 4/9/2007 ll Text underlined is new text to be added. 111 Bold text indicates a defined term U LDC Amendment Request ORIGIN: Collier County Board Directed through The Growth Management Plan's Public Facilities Element — Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Sub-Element Objective 1.1 and the Conservation and Coastal Management Element Objective 3.3. AUTHOR: Ray Smith DEPARTMENT: Pollution Control &Prevention Department AMENDMENT CYCLE: Cycle 1,2007 1111 LDC PAGE: Insert a new page 10 and adjust the following page numbers of LDC 3.06. LDC SECTION(S): Illustration 3.06.02 G. (Insert New Illustration) CHANGE: Insert a new Ave Maria Utility Company Well Field Illustration and refer to it as Illustration 3.06.02 F.. 111 REASON: Modeled the Wellfield Risk Management Special Treatment Overlay Zones around the Ave Maria public water supply wellfield. This New Public Water Supply Wellfield will serve the Ave Maria community. FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: None RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: None GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: None OTHER NOTES/VERSION DATE: Amend the LDC as follows: 011 U I U 94 p l:\07 Amend the LDC\LDC packet\new amendmentsCycle 2007-1 033007.doc 4/9/2007 ill Text underlined is new text to be added. ill Bold text indicates a defined term /.'"\ j III AVE MARIA UTILITY COMPANY WELL FIELD NI 24 19 20 21 r%' 22 J A _ 1 IMMO 'LEE RDE U 25 30 29 28 27 I _ r 0 36 31 32 33 34 111 ''S 't i "--' r irr3+ 1 6 5/11L____,,. 4 im RI #'X A 11\1! , 111111SitlE I li 11111, i 12 Iii-VP ' 9 -----10 #-,- 4411 ilditol III 13 18 17 16 15 NI _\--- 1 ,_. '', II 95 I:\07 Amend the LDC\LDC packetlnew amendmentsCycle 2007-1 033007.doc 4/9/2007 ii Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term LDC Amendment Request 111 ORIGIN: Community Development& Environmental Services 111 AUTHOR: Bruce McNall DEPARTMENT: Zoning & Land Development Review II AMENDMENT CYCLE: Cycle 1, 2007 II LDC PAGE: 4:111 II LDC SECTION(S): 4.06.05C.1. CHANGE: Redefine the boundary for native planting requirement. IREASON: Current language is contradictory and unclear. 4 FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: None RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: None lirGROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: None iiOTHER NOTES/VERSION DATE: Created on February 13, 2006. illAmend the LDC as follows: ii 4.06.05 General Landscaping Requirements * * * * * * * * * * * * * 111 C. Plant Material Standards. 1. Quality. Plant materials used to meet the requirements of this section shall meet the standards for Florida No. 1 or better, as set out in Grades and Standards for Nursery Plants, part I and part II, Department of Agricultural, State of Florida (as amended). Root IIball sizes on all transplanted plant materials shall also meet state standards. p a. - 111 105 IIt:\07 Amend the LDC\LDC packet\new amendmentsCycle 2007-1 033007.doc 4/9/2007 Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term undeveloped and developed coastal -barrier islands, all Floridian species. a. For sites South and West of US-41 all required landscaping shall be 100% native species as determined111 by accepted valid scientific reference. For sites South and West of 1-75 and North and East of US-41, a minimum of 75% native trees and 50% Native shrubs are required. For sites North and East of 1-75, a minimum of 75% native trees and 35% native shrubs are required. (Link to "Recommended Collier County Native Plant list" and "Native Required Planting Map"). b. In addition, for all sites, at least 75 percent of the trees and shrubs used to fulfill these requirements shall be drought- tolerant species as listed in the Xeriscape Plant Guide and Native Trees and Trees for South Florida (IFAS). References used in the determination of native species may include, but not be limited to: Long, R.W.,and 0. Lakela, 1976. A Flora of Tropical Florida. Small,J.K., 1933. A Manual of the Southeastern Flora. Wunderlin, R.P., 1982. Guide to the Vascular Plants of Central Florida. 111 c. Where xeric plants are to be utilized, use the South Florida Water Management District, Xeriscape Plant Guide (as amended) as a reference. I N I I 106 I l:\07 Amend the LDC\LDC packet\new amendmentsCycle 2007-1 033007.doc 4/9/2007 4Temundod�od�nowmmmbeadded. � ^. Bold text indicates a defined term IP—. II 111 1111 • II 11000 ••• ,,,•,,,.„00:::*giosociimpoloillui ,.,...,,4,481.„io...„:„.1„.4,0,401...,4,...,.:.„,,, t,ri •05:,,,„•,0401,41,1k,:i,:.,,,,1.1•0111,110„,,,,,,,,..1,:...,.1.;,, .-..:.:01,01iiiliri*„pv,,.,4,,.,111.,..,.1(40,41„:11,,i,,,,,rio PlantT110/IfetrearliacleCold III dittomilookiNi. iih,.,,,,,i.prigio.1111,4,001 „,!,01,41,17040,..MijtIllikelii10.?,104111110rag lh.164'00 41Riiiii‘tio;,:,',,'t r'.'Ill,"114:'i 41'11i-l''0:6..4: ,,,iik .,,11.!1,11",,i!t 1110H1,.i'91!,„.fl,,',,,,pi 0::.i,!Ilidlb!'g'i:,,,0 i';;',1014,14111( Na Iltoi::14PINIaLAn NtiDnzgo MID ZONE \ IMMe .IF. ' ;...,1.4.#1111.fiV 14,10ii.,.',!".1 ,,,,'11'!.it,..411'iAt....04..1%,:,-,71t!i•",,i'l:likrotil4iNiiidi .4,01fr;,.:,.:,!igg),..1.,:,,,Aw,fiNI.4144;i!ii!i;140-„filkilligli, 1111 \ ireow,1,,.:;.:.:..„,,ii„,,,,,04,04:1,,,,:atiro.liv,,,..,,r 0.1„.,di,:li...11,151,pti 4,0„,....oilli;'..1:0,,,,LliirilL,Niviiionoogi„:010,,grfotoomptoo4.4iwoiNi!,N :._. .,...,..0,04.,,,trirtliNittfogij „,,„00.01 q„..1v,,...p04,1110,4,1 ti i.:',.',41,410.;!111011000,1,4,ipiloq, i,,,,,,loommoikooplimoRie.:.,,,,,,,040!,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,i, pr ir .1,,,:.. , ,, 4.6 iiiitql1Iimit,„„i'FlII,,,I.4,1 1 KL l'''ikqu'''',,A1 igIIIM''.'.'''! 1,,„4,44k." IN ..,, l„.. 0 ..,..,,. ..1<:. 1_, 4,.‘,*,,,,,, ., ,,i, .\. .. v„ \%,,,,3‘,.;., _ Ill I111 w ,.v..... ......„..„..„. W.. -44 III ,41i, — �m�"� ' '=�~°�~ ' ` ----- ---------'--�---- -- ' III MIN Figure 4.06.05 C. A IP ll _ I1 07 I:\07the LDC\LDC packet\new amendmentsCycle 2007-1 033007.doc 4/9/2007 il Text underlined is new text to be added. Text st. - • .._ . -• - • - e- e-ctcd. ail Bold text indicates a defined term ' LDC Amendment Request 0 ORIGIN: Community Development&Environmental Services 1111 AUTHOR: Bruce McNall alDEPARTMENT: Zoning &Land Development Review AMENDMENT CYCLE: Cycle 1, 2007 li LDC PAGE: 4:114 iiiLDC SECTION(S): 4.06.05 E.1.a.-h. ICHANGE: Prohibited species to include all FLEPPC category I invasive exotics REASON: FLEPPC category I invasive exotic plant list is comprehensive for SW Florida FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: None IRELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: None IGROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: None OTHER NOTES/VERSION DATE: Created on February 13, 2006. I IIIAmend the LDC as follows: E. Prohibited Plant Materials. 1. Prohibited species. The following plant species shall not be planted: All Category I Invasive Exotics as listed on the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council's website:f www.fleppc.orq/Iist/05List.htm 1 This list is routinely monitored and updated by the FLEPPC. a. Melia azedarach (Chinaberry tree) 0 b. Dalbergia sissoo (Indian rosewood). ill 109 I:\07 Amend the LDC\LDC packet\new amendmentsCycle 2007-1 033007.doc 4/9/2007 Text underlined is new text to be added. 111 Bold text indicates a defined term c. Bisehofia javanisa (bislaepwood). f. Sapium ccbifcrum (Chinese tallow tree). g. Ardisia elliptica (shoe button ardicia). h. Ficus microcarpa/Ficus nitida (laurel fig/Cuban laurel). 2. Prohibited exotic species. In addition to the prohibitions outlined in I section 4.06.05 E. above, the species enumerated in section 3.05.08 or seeds thereof shall not be grown, offered for sale, or transported inter-county or intra-county. 3. Prohibited exotic plants. All prohibited exoticlants as defined ed In this Chapter as well as Chapter 3, shall be removed during each phase of construction from development areas, open space areas, and preserve areas pursuant to this Chapter as well as Chapter 3. Following site development, a maintenance program shall be implemented to prevent reinvasion of the site by prohibited exotic species. This plan shall describe control techniques and inspection intervals, shall be filed with, and be approved by, the development services director prior to approval 1111 of the improvement plans and final subdivision plat. Flexibility, in the form of area tradeoffs or mitigation, may be allowed in the determination of areas within developments to be preserved. 4. Native habitats. developments shall identify, protect, conserve, incorporate and use native vegetative communities pursuant to Chapter 3 and identify, protect and conserve wildlife habitat. F. Requirements to remove prohibited plant materials. For these requirements, see section 3.05.08 of this Code. I p 110 U I:\07 Amend the LDC\LDC packet\new amendmentsCycle 2007-1 033007.doc 4/9/2007 PI I mil PI Text underlined is new text to be added. illIL T cojg—ct' F.,. h is current text to be deleted. Bold text indicates a defined term LDC Amendment Request Iii ORIGIN: Private amendment request from E.B. Simmonds Electrical, Inc. ii AUTHOR: Clay Brooker and Stephen Hruby 0 DEPARTMENT: N/A la AMENDMENT CYCLE: Cycle 1, 2007 IIII LDC PAGE: LDC5:101 IllLDC SECTION(S): 5.05.13 (new section) ICHANGE: Provides siting, design and operation criteria for heliports. REASON: No such criteria currently exist in the LDC, notwithstanding the fact II that ``Transportation by Air" is a permitted use in the Industrial zoning district. mr-. FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: None RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: The Table of Land Uses (LDC section 111 2.04.03) currently lists "Transportation by Air" as a permitted use in the Industrial zoning district. IGROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: None OTHER NOTESNERSION DATE: March 15, 2007 I Add the following section to the LDC: 5.05.13 Heliports 11 A. Purpose and Intent. In accordance with Sections 330.35 and 330.36, Florida Statutes, the 0 purpose of this section is to impose zoning requirements on the location and operation of heliports within Collier County. It is not the intent of this section to supersede applicable state and federal rules and regulations 111 a••licable to the sitin• licensin• re•istration and o•eration of heli•orts. Rather, as set forth in more detail below, this section incorporates said rules and regulations, while imposing additional zoning regulations which 0 further limit the siting and operational criteria for heliports in Collier 121 0 I:\07 Amend the LDC\LDC packet\new amendmentsCycle 2007-1 033007.doc 4/9/2007 Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term County. B. Definitions. 1. FAT ' O. The designated Final Approach and Takeoff' for helicopter operations. A defined area over which the final phase of the approach to a hover, or a landing is completed and from which the takeoff is initiated. This term is identical to that defined at Rule 14-60.003(2)(b)8, Florida Administrative Code, and Section 101 of Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular 1 Number 150/5390-2B. 2. Private Use Heliport: A heliport developed for exclusive use of the owner and persons authorized by the owner. This type of heliport is a "private airport," as defined at Section 330.27(5), Florida Statutes. This term is also synonymous with a "Prior Permission Required (PPR) Heliport," as defined in Section 101 of Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular Number 150/5390-2B. 3. Public Use Heliport: A heliport available for use by the general public without a requirement for prior approval of the owner or operator. This type of heliport is a "public airport," as defined at Section 330.27(6), Florida Statutes. This term includes both "Public Use Heliports" and "General Aviation (GA) Heliports," as these terms are defined in Section 101 of Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular Number 150/5390-2B. 4. Hospital Heliport: A heliport limited to serving helicopters engaged in air ambulance, or other hospital related functions. C. Site Limitations and Criteria. 1. No heliport shall be permitted or operated without obtaining site approval from the State of Florida Department of Transportation and complying with all applicable provisions of the following III statutes, rules and regulations, as each may be amended from time to time: a. the State Airport Licensing Law (currently codified at 111 Chapter 330, Florida Statutes); b. Chapter 14-60 of the Florida Administrative Code; and c. Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular Number 150/5390-2B. U 2. Private Use Heliports. a. Permitted in the Industrial zoning district, subiect to the provisions of this section. 122 P I:\07 Amend the LDC\LDC packet\new amendmentsCycle 2007-1 033007.doc 4/9/2007 II Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term lit—N b. Permitted in the Business Park zoning district, subject to the provisions of this section and conditional use approval (see LDC section 10.08.00). III c. The edges of the FATO of anyPrivate Use Heliport 9 p shall be no less than 1,500 feet from any residential 1 III zoning district or residential component of a Planned Unit Development. This requirement shall not apply within the boundaries of Planned Unit Developments which expressly PO permit private aviation use (e.g., Shadow Wood PUD a/k/a Wing South Airpark). d. To protect the property rights of owners of all properties abutting the property on which a Private Use Heliport is proposed, site approval from the iii State of Florida Department of Transportation 111 must be obtained with the assumption that all abutting properties are developed with III structures built to the maximum permitted building height and the minimum required setbacks at the time site approval is sought. ir-- 3. Public Use Heliports. a. Permitted in the Industrial zoning district, the Airport Overlay district, and any existing public airport, II subject to the provisions of this section and conditional use approval (see section 10.08.00). II b. The edges of the FATO shall be no less than 1,500 feet from any residential zoning district or I residential component of a Planned Unit Development. c. To protect the property rights of owners of all properties abutting the property on which a Public Use Heliport is proposed, site approval from the I State of Florida Department of Transportation must be obtained with the assumption that all abutting properties are developed with structures built to the 1111 maximum permitted building height and the minimum required setbacks at the time site approval is sought. 4. Hospital Heliports are permitted only in the C-4 zoning district ,•-. on or immediately adjacent to property occupied by a hospital, subject to the provisions of this section. 123 0 I:\07 Amend the LDC\LDC packet\new amendmentsCycle 2007-1 033007 doc 4/9/2007 Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term 1111I D. Design Standards and Operating Criteria. 1. All heliports shall be designed and operated in accordance with U the applicable provisions, including but not limited to licensing and registration requirements, of the following statutes, rules and regulations, as each may be amended from time to time: MI a. the State Airport Licensing Law (currently codified at Chapter 330, Florida Statutes); b. Chapter 14-60 of the Florida Administrative Code; and c. Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular Number 150/5390-2B. 2. Private Use Heliports are limited to use by single engine 1111 helicopters with a maximum takeoff weight not exceeding 12,000 pounds. 'II 3. All heliports must comply with the Collier County Noise Control Ordinance (currently codified at Section 54-81 et seq., Collier County Code of Ordinances), as it may be amended from time to time. 11/ [For clarification purposes, this amendment should also include additions to the Table of Land Uses, codified at LDC section 2.04.03. Specifically, "Heliports, Private Use" should be shown as a permitted use in the Industrial zoning district 111 and a conditional use in the Business Park district. "Heliports, Public Use" should be shown as a conditional use in the Industrial and Airport Overlay districts. "Heliports, Hospital" should be shown as a permitted use in the C-4 zoning district. Each of these additions should also be foot-noted with a reference to the new LDC section 5.05.13.] U U p p 124 I:\07 Amend the LDC\LDC packet\new amendmentsCycle 2007-1 033007.doc 4/9/2007 I II 1 Text underlined is new text to be added. Text strikethrough is-cu-rent text to be deleted. Bold text indicates a defined term LDC Amendment Request is III ORIGIN: CommunityDevelopmentand Environmental Services, BCC Directed it III AUTHOR: Stan Chrzanowski, P.E. DEPARTMENT: Engineering Review Department of CDES AMENDMENT CYCLE: Cycle 1, 2007 II LDC PAGE: . 0 LDC SECTION(S): 6.05.01F CHANGE: Add section 6.05.01.F Stormwater Retention / Detention Design for Single- Family homesites: II REASON: There is a proliferation of very large new homes being built in older, existing 111 subdivisions with inadequate drainage and our existing stormwater management systems are incapable of handling the increased runoff from these homesites p", FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: li 1. Impact fees for single family homes are computed based on area and the number I of bedrooms. The amount of fees collected may be negatively impacted . 2. Larger, newer homes pay more in property taxes than older, more modest homes. The rate of growth in taxable value may decrease. iii 3. If the homeowner / builder decides to build a larger than average home, the IIII additional cost of Engineering will be a financial impact on him. 4. If a home presently exceeds this standard and is torn down, the replacement home IIIwill have to meet this new standard and some property values may decrease. 5. Operationally, this amendment will result in less stormwater impact on the existing County secondary and tertiary drainage systems. N RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: PI iii 4.03.08 Facility and Service Improvement Requirements ii GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: il 0 OTHER NOTES/VERSION DATE: Created on 27 February 2007, changed Code Section on 13 March 2007. 0 Amend the LDC as follows: 125 01 I:\07 Amend the LDC\LDC packet\new amendmentsCycle 2007-1 033007.doe 4/9/2007 Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term 6.05.00 Water Management Systems and Drainage Improvement Standards 6.05.01 Stormwater Management System g y em Requlrements A complete stormwater management system shall be provided for all areas within the subdivision or development, including lots, streets, and alleys. A. The system design shall meet the applicable provisions of the current County codes and ordinances, SFWMD rules and regulations pursuant to Florida Statutes, and the Florida Administrative Code, and any other affected state and federal agencies' rules and regulations in effect at the time of preliminary subdivision plat submission. B. Where stormwater runoff from outside the subdivision or development historically passes on, over, or through areas of the subdivision or development, such runoff shall be included in the stormwater system design. The system shall be designed for long life, low cost maintenance by normal methods and provide for optimal on-site detention of stormwater runoff and groundwater recharge in accordance with applicable County and SFWMD regulations. C. Any structure with an outside wall which is closer than ten (10) feet from a side property line shall install properly sized (minimum twenty-four (24)- square inch cross-section) gutters and downspouts to direct stormwater away from neighboring properties and toward front and/or rear swales or retention/detention areas. D. In-ground percolation type retention systems such as rock trenches, exfiltration trenches or beds, infiltrator type systems, gallery type systems, etc., shall not be used to achieve water quality retention for residential subdivisions. Rear yard open retention systems shall likewise not be designed to achieve water quality retention on projects submitted after January 1, 2002. All retention systems for projects designed after January 1, 2002, shall be on common property owned and maintained by a homeowners' association or similar entity. E. Any canal which forms a part of the public water management system 111 shall be dedicated for care and maintenance per the requirements of the governmental agency which has jurisdiction. Canals located entirely within the subdivision and which do not form a part of the public water management system shall be dedicated to the public, without the responsibility for maintenance, as a drainage easement. A maintenance easement, of a size acceptable to the County Manager or designee or other governmental agency with maintenance responsibility, shall be provided adjacent to the established drainage easement, or the drainage easement created must be of a size suitable for the proposed canal and its maintenance. F. Stormwater Retention / Detention Design for Single-Family Dwelling Units. 126 I I:\07 Amend the LDC\LDC packet\new amendmentsCycle 2007-1 033007.doc 4/9/2007 III 1 Text underlined is new text to be added. - • ' - • --_ -. -. -- e ee dcicted. IBold text indicates a defined term 1. Applicability. Any application for a building permit to allow the development or redevelopment of a single-family or two-family is III dwelling or duplex located in . . . [list of subdivisions to follow]. III a. Application for a single-family or two-family dwelling or duplex that are within the boundaries of development projects that have: (1) been permitted by the South Florida 0 Water Management District for Surface Water Management or Environmental Resource Protection and (2) have a central surface water management collection, in- ill storage, treatment and discharge system, are exempt from the provisions of this subsection. SI b. Applications for a single-family or two-family dwelling or duplex in non-SFWMD permitted subdivisions that either exceed the percentage of lot coverage or the percentage of impervious area coverage listed below shall have an 0 approved water management system design, prepared by a licensed Florida Professional Engineer, for the treatment and detention of runoff from that portion of lot coverage or 0 impervious area that exceeds by any amount the allowable limits set forth below. RI 2. The maximum allowable ratio of lot coverage and impervious area coverage to the total lot area shall be as follows: II Table 4.03.08 E. Lot size Lot Coverage Impervious Area Coverage (excluding swimming pools) IIunder 11,000 sq. ft. 25% 40% 11,000 sq. ft. to 52,999 sq. ft. 2,750 sq. ft. 4,400 sq. ft. and 100 ft. or greater in width + 5% in excess of 11,000 sq. ft. + 5% in excess of 11,000 sq. ft. 1,000 sq. ft. to 52,999 sq. ft. and less than 100 ft in width. 2,750 sq. ft. 4,400 sq. ft. +2% in excess of 11,000 sq. ft. + 2% in excess of 11,000 sq. ft. 4,850 s . ft. 53,000 sq. ft. and over q 6,500 sq. ft. + 3% in excess of 53,000 sq. ft. +2% in excess of 53,000 sq. ft. II 3. Any application for a building permit for a single-family or two- family dwelling or duplex with a lot coverage or impervious II area coverage ratio greater than the amounts specified in Table I. III 127 I:\07 Amend the LDC\LDC packet\new amendmentsCycle 2007-1 033007.doc 4/9/2007 Text underlined is new text to be added. III Bold text indicates a defined term ii r1 4.08.03 E. shall be accompanied by a site drainage analysis ill prepared by a licensed Florida Professional Engineer. a. The site drainage analysis shall include water quality calculations to SFWMD standards and water quantity calculations done to accommodate the runoff, from area in excess of the above ratio, from a 5 year 1 day storm and II shall include a percolation test done by a qualified engineer or technician. If the site will use a drainfield/septic tank for sewage treatment/disposal, the wet season water table calculations for drainage must match that used for the drainfield design. IIIb. The application site plan shall list all required separation distances between wells, drainfield systems, and IN stormwater retention/detention areas. The calculations may be done on the site plan or may be in a separate Engineer's report, but must be signed and sealed by the Engineer. II 11 n 111 i U al • U .........„ 128 I I:\07 Amend the LDC\LDC packet\new amendmentsCycle 2007-1 033007.doc 4/9/2007 Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term IIlk LDC Amendment Request ORIGIN: Community Development and Environmental Services Division AUTHOR: John DiMartino DEPARTMENT: Engineering Services AMENDMENT CYCLE: Cycle 1,2007 LDC PAGE: LDC6:20 LDC SECTION(S): 1.08.01 Abbreviations 1.08.02 Definitions 6.05.02 Bulkheads and Seawalls i CHANGE: Requires residential new construction to provide minimal pretreatment of stormwater runoff prior to discharge into canals serving the Gulf of Mexico. REASON: No standards are currently defined; runoff is simply delivered over the 1 seawall without regard to water quality control. Infiltration trenches can be expected to remove up to 90% of sediments, metals, coliform bacteria and other organic matter, as well as up to 60% of phosphorus and nitrogen in the runoff. This excellence of pretreatment is achieved for very little effort. A secondary benefit is the contribution to structural stability and longevity of new and existing seawalls by improving equalization of stress and reducing potential for failure. 0 FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: Construction costs include clearing, excavation of trench, placement of filter fabric and stone and is virtually maintenance free. This compares favorably to current single family site preparation and development of clearing, grading, installation of irrigation and sod. II RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: EPA 40 CFR (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System),USACOE; (Coastal Management). 0 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: None. OTHER NOTES/VERSION DATE: This proposal was created 1 March, 2007. ill Amend the LDC as follows: 0 129 I\07 Amend the LDC\LDC packet\new amendmentsCycle 2007-1 033007 doc 4/9/2007 Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term n 1.08.01 Abbreviations * * * * * * * * * * * * BMP— Best Management Practices. * * * * * * * * * * * * IN 1.08.02 Definitions * * * * * * * * * * * * Best Management Practices: Schedule of activity, maintenance procedures, pre-emptive1111 site control measures and other management techniques intended to reduce the discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States. * * * * * * * * * * * * 1 Infiltration trench: For purposes of single family residential applications; An excavated trench, nominally two to three feet in width and depth lined with a class "C" qeotextile fabric, or better, and backfilled with clean stone aggregate. * * * * * * * * * * * * ii n 6.05.02 Seawalls and Bulkheads Ili * * * * * * * * * * * * gll D. Best Management Practice (BMP) for single family residential lotsIN employing seawall(s). Coastal canal residential lots bounded by seawall(s) shall provide anIl infiltration trench adjacent to and along the entire length of the seawall serving the lot perimeter. Infiltration trenches shall be excavated to a width and depth of 2 to 3 feet, lined and secured with a class "C" 111 geotextile filter fabric, or better, and backfilled with clean 11/2 — 2% inch stone. Other agency permitting requirements notwithstanding, infiltration trench characteristics shall be suitable for pretreatment of drainage areas li of five (5) acres or less. I I II n 130 l:\07 Amend the LDC\LDC packet\new amendmentsCycle 2007-1 033007.doc 4/9/2007 if Text underlined is new text to be added. Text:Ad - • ---• -- -• -• - -- -- Bold text indicates a defined term LDC Amendment Request It-,I ORIGIN: Community Development& Environmental Services Division 0 AUTHOR: Stephen Lenberger, Senior Environmental Specialist William D. Lorenz, P.E., Director a. 111 DEPARTMENT: Environmental Services Department iiAMENDMENT CYCLE: Cycle 1, 2007 ILDC PAGE: LDC3:8 LDC SECTION(S): 3.03.02 111 CHANGE: Delete reference to the Coastal Zone Management Plan from the LDC. III REASON: In June 1993 the BCC adopted various amendments incorporating selective recommendations of the Coastal Management Plan that were previously brought to the BCC. The reference to the plan in the LDC is outdated and needs to be deleted. ille FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: None II RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: None GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: None OTHER NOTES/VERSI ON DATE: Created February 13, 2007 111 Amend the LDC as follows: I. • 3.03.02 Applicability A. New and existing development in the coastal zone shall be in compliance with the goals, objectives, and policies of the conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) of the Collier County GMP and with this LDC until the formal adoption by the County of all land development regulations, ordinances, policies, and programs which - - ----- •- - - - - - - •---"-- ' - ^ .. , as adopted by the BCC, and as prescribed by the conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Collier County GMP. B.1111 In addition to these coastal zone regulations, all land development activities on shorelines, and/or undeveloped and developed coastal barriers, shall comply with the County's environmental land development regulations, including, but not limited to: section 2.03.07(D)(1), Special Treatment Overlay district (ST); procedural requirements 167 I:\07 Amend the LDC\LDC packet\clarification text doc 4/9/2007 Text underlined is new text to be added. I Bold text indicates a defined term in Chapter 10; section 3.05.00, Vegetation Removal, Protection and Preservation; 111 section 3.04.03, sea turtle Protection; section 3.04.00, Endangered, Threatened or Listed Species Protection; Chapter 10, Coastal Construction setback line variance; and as required by Vehicle on the beach Regulations in the County Code of Ordinances. * * * 111I I I I n II I I I I I I p 168 l:\07 Amend the LDC\LDC packet\clarification text.doc 4/9/2007 p