Loading...
EAC Agenda 11/07/2007 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL AGENDA Wednesday, November 7, 2007 9:00 A.M. Large Conference Room at the Exhibit Hall within North Naples Regional Park Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of October 3, 2007 meeting minutes V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences VI. Land Use Petitions A. Conceptual Site Plan CSP-2007-AR-12443 "Temporary ATV Park" Section 6, Township 45 South, Range 30 East B. Planned Unit Development PUDZ-2006-AR-10171 "Brandon RPUD" Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East C. Commercial Planned Unit Development CPUD-2005-AR-9127 "Myrtle Woods CPUD" Section 29, Township 50 South, Range 26 East D. CPSP-2005-14, Comprehensive Plan amendment petition requesting amendments to the Future Land Use Map and map series to re-designate Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands to either Receiving Lands or Neutral Lands, for twenty properties comprising±283 acres. [Coordinator: David Weeks, AICP, GMP Planning Manager] Adoption Hearing E. CPSP-2005-15, Comprehensive Plan amendment petition requesting amendment to the Transportation Element to add new policies providing for Thoroughfare Corridor Protection Plans. [Coordinator: Nick Casalanguida, Transportation Planning Director] Adoption Hearing F. CPSP-2005-16, Comprehensive Plan amendment petition requesting amendments to the Future Land Use Map series map titled Collier County Wellhead Protection Areas, Proposed Wellfields and ASRs Map. [Coordinator: David Weeks, AICP, GMP Planning Manager]Adoption Hearing VII. New Business A. Pesticide/herbicide testing in ground water and Sodium in GGE wells— Ray Smith, Rob Ward, and Rhonda Watkins of Pollution Control B. Recommendation to the BCC on Watershed Basin Priorities—Mac Hatcher of Environmental Services Department VIII. Old Business A. Update members on projects IX. Subcommittee Reports X. Staff Comments 1 A. Address and e-mail address—Can we give to Rookery Bay? B. Redundant stipulations—The CCPC is requesting to not require redundant stipulations or items in the PUD documents. Xl. Council Member Comments XII. Public Comments XIII. Adjournment ******************************************************************* Council Members: Please notify Summer Arague, Environmental Services Senior Environmental Specialist no later than 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, November 1, 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. 2 October 3,2007 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Naples, Florida, October 3, 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 Dr. Judith Hushon Roger Jacobsen David Bishof Nick Penniman Michael V. Sorrell Dr. Llew Williams Mark Fenton STAFF PRESENT: Jeff Wright, Assistant County Attorney Mac Hatcher, Environmental Specialist Stan Chrzanowski, PE, Planning Review Catherine Fabacher, Principal Planner Summer Araque, Senior Environmentalist Stephen Lenberger, Senior Environmental Specialist Barbara Burgeson, Principal Environmental Specialist Joe Thompson, Comprehensive Planner 1 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL AGENDA Wednesday,October 3,2007 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 September 5,2007 meeting minutes V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences VI. Land Use Petitions A. Rehearing of Planned Unit Development PUDZ-2005-AR-8416 "Pezzetino Di Cielo RPUD" Section 12,Township 48 South,Range 25 East B. Planned Unit Development PUDZ-2006 AR-10171 "Brandon RPUD" Section 13,Township 48 South,Range 25 East VII. New Business A. Project Greenscape—Alberto Chavez B. Belle Meade Stormwater Management Master Plan—Clarence Tears /"-• (rescheduled from September 5,2007 meeting) C. Watershed Management Plan considerations for setting priorities—Mac Hatcher Environmental Services D. Cycle 2,2007 LDC amendments—Stephen Lenberger VIII. Old Business A. Update members on projects B. Alternate Members roll,attendance,and definition by LDC C. Carryover discussion SFWMD coordination D. Mission Statement E. Reminder-December 5,2007 meeting will be at CDES Room 609/610 IX Subcommittee Reports X. Council Member Comments Xi. Public Comments XII. Adjournment ************************* ********** ************************ Council Members: Please notify Summer Araaue, Environmental Services Senior Environmental Specialist no later than 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 25. 2007 if you cannot attend this meeting or if you have a conflict and will abstain from voting on a petition C530-6290). 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. P"-\ October 3,2007 Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairman William Hughes at 9:01 A.M. II. Roll Call A quorum was established. III. Approval of Agenda Mr. Penniman moved to approve the agenda subject to granting a continuance to the applicant of Item#VIB. Second by Mr. Jacobsen. Carried unanimously 9-0. IV. Approval of September 5,2007 minutes On page 1, Mr. Penniman was excused On page 12, line#1,she also should not be bolded On page 12, line#1, to read"South Florida Water Management District" On page 12, line#4, SWFWMD to read SFWMD On Page 8,paragraph 7—motion to read the "...definitions in the proposed LDC amendments are not yet clearly stated and the EAC " Vote recorded on page 8 will reflect change as Carried 5-1. Dr. Hushon voted no. ***Note: After review of tape, the September 5th minutes are correct �,..� with wording of motion on Page 8. Motion can be amended to state changes. Dr. Hushon moved to approve the minutes as corrected. Second by Mr. Jacobsen. Carried unanimously 9-0. Dr. Hushon noted that her 'no'vote in the above mentioned motion on September S`h, 2007 was based on "the opposition of allowing the discharging of stormwater that is potentially untreated into preserve areas during major storm events." V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences Dr.Hushon will be unable to attend the November 2007 meeting therefore excused. Mark Fenton introduced himself as a new member of the Council. VI. Land Use Petitions A. Rehearing of Planned Development PUDZ-2005-AR-8416"Pezzetino Di Ciello RPUD" Section 12, Township 48 South,Range 25 East Mark Minor of Q. Grady Minor and Assoc. represented the applicant. Presenters were sworn in. 2 October 3,2007 Mr. Minor summarized the detailed design of the water management system. He noted the following: • The project is adjacent to Mediterra and a base elevation of 12.70 feet was established for the wetland preserve via the Mediterra data and the survey data performed on the site. • The natural ground area in the preserve is 11.70 feet • All stormwater runoff is collected and conveyed to the retention lakes via catch basins or culverts • The water will drain from the retention lakes to a bubble up catch basin at an elevation of 11.70 feet into a spreader swale before entering the preserve • A flap gate device will be installed in the catch basin to ensure water from the preserve will not backflow into the lake • The ultimate discharge of the project is along Livingston Road Dr.Hushon asked if the on-site storm water retention design was based on the requirements of section 2.1A of the Conservation Coastal Management Element recently adopted which requires the retention ponds (lakes)to be sized to the 150 percent volume requirement of section 5.21A. Mr. Minor responded that the system has been sized to the 150 percent volume requirement. Mr. Bishof asked what the overflow elevation of the retention lake is. Mr.Minor noted the following design elevations: Top of berm (overflow)= 15.70' Natural Ground at Preserve= 11.7' Control Elevation(Lake/Preserve)= 12.70' Bubble catch basin discharge = 11.70' Mr.Bishof noted the elevation of the baffle in the pond is below the control elevation of the pond and the water elevation in the detention pond would begin discharging at an elevation of 11.7' +/-(approximately 1 foot below control elevation) as opposed to the control elevation of 12.7' Mr. Minor noted that the untreated stormwater flows into the opposite end of the pond at elevation 12.7' allowing the stormwater to mix and treat with the existing water in the pond before it is discharged into the preserve area. Mr. Bishof noted a discharge elevation of 12.7' would allow for more thorough treatment of storm water before discharging it into the preserve area because the ultimate discharge orifice out of the preserve area adjacent to Livingston Road is 12.7' and the reserve will serve as a littoral area for the retention pond. Mr.Minor stated that there is a location to provide a"rain garden"along the area adjacent to the north side of the preserve area that would provide treatment via a spreader swale before the stormwater ultimately enters the preserve area providing additional water treatment. 3 October 3,2007 Mr. Chrzanowski noted that the calculations allow for 8-10 day retention of water in the lakes; therefore the stormwater has received treatment before entering the preserve area. Mr.Williams noted that the ultimate discharge point into the preserve is a maximum distance from the entrance point of the stormwater system maximizing treatment capabilities of the pond. Mr. Hughes and Dr. Hushon noted utilizing the"rain garden" area in the design is a favorable idea. Mr. Hughes noted that it is important to conduct monitoring of preserves following completions of developments to ensure water quality is in accordance with issued permits. Public Speakers: Nicole Ryan, Conservancy of Southwest Florida,stated the 150 percent requirement referred to by Dr. Hushon requires the 150 percent volume be treated within the storm water treatment system which is not part of the preserve area. The South Florida Water Management District has allowed the additional 50 percent volume to be treated within the preserve; however Collier County is more restrictive. Also it should be clearly demonstrated that the volume of water entering the preserve is not creating a negative impact on the preserve. r-� Mr. Bishof moved to approve the petition with the following condition: The storm water not be discharged into the preserve area until it has been fully treated in accordance with Collier County and Water Management District standards. Second by Dr. Hushon. Motion carried unanimously 9-0. Mr. Chrzanowski noted that the 150 percent volumetric requirement is causing some delays for developers as it is required by the permitting authorities in Collier County, not the South Florida Water Management District and the District is not enforcing the 150 percent requirement for applications submitted to them that are located in the Collier County jurisdiction. If applicants obtain permits from the District before submitting to Collier County they are required to return to the District for re-permitting. Dr. Hushon noted that a consistent policy would be favorable for all parties. Clarence Tears of South Florida Water Management District addressed the Council and stated that the Environmental Advisory Council should notify the applicants to submit an application to the District with the 150 percent volumetric requirement. He will discuss this with District staff members and direct them to be supportive of the County. He now has an office in Collier County. r-� 4 October 3, 2007 B. Planned Unit Development PUDZ-2006-AR-10171 "Brandon PUD" Section 13,Township 48 South,Range 25 East The application was continued. VII. New Business Mr. Penniman moved to nominate Mr. Hughes for Council Chairman and Dr. Hushon for Vice Chairman for a term of 1 year. Second by Mr.Horn. Carried unanimously 9-0. A. Project Greenscape-Alberto Chavez Alberto Chavez of Project Greenscape and Tabitha Stadler,Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve Coastal Training Program provided a handout entitled"Project Greenscape, Update October 2007". Project Greenscape trains and certifies landscaping professionals in proper landscaping practices. The core curriculum incorporates "The Green Industries Best Management Practices(BMP) for Protection of Water Resources in Florida", developed by the University of Florida And Green Industries in 2002. Dr.Hushon noted they were requested to appear in front of the Council as the County has been considering a"fertilizing"ordinance. Mr.Hughes noted that a future ordinance is important for protecting the environmental quality of the resources of Collier County. Ms.Stadler noted that they have conducted vast amount of research statewide on this topic and are available as a resource for the County. Mr. Chavez presented a power point presentation regarding the "Best Management Practices"(BMP) certifications. Included in the presentation the following points were highlighted: • They fully endorse the BMP certifications and provide training and certifications to Landscape professionals in proper landscaping practices as well as continuing education • There are approximately 1200 companies conducting this work in Collier County • Educating homeowners is equally as important • It supports the"Florida Yards and Neighborhood Program" • The training has been well received by professionals • BMP's started as voluntary practices but are now incorporated into ordinances and regulations in other areas • Rookery Bay National Estuarine and Research Reserve in Collier County is one of only 3 areas in the State providing BMP certifications • The training is 6 hours in length • Upon certification a decal is displayed on the vehicle as a future enforcement tool 5 October 3,2007 • This program will help improve water quality standards Mr. Hughes volunteered his services in preparing a 2-hour training video for the certification program. Mr. Sorrell noted that education and certification requirements are important,but the key step is enforcement of licensed/unlicensed contractors. Enforcement of this profession within the County has been limited. Mr.Jacobsen noted that the City of Naples is working hard to enforce their licensing requirements. Mr. Hughes moved to notify Occupational Licensing of the issues raised regarding enforcement. Without a second,the motion was not considered. The Council directed Mr. Hughes to draft a letter and send it to Occupational Licensing regarding the enforcement issues. A discussion occurred on Collier County adopting regulations that would regulate the sale and use of certain pesticides and fertilizers. Mr. Penniman noted new statewide water classifications that are proposed would diminish the quality of water in the areas of ditches, canals and catch basins and this program is important on the local level as it is aimed at these discharges. Break 11:00 A.M. Reconvened 11:17 A.M. B. Belle Meade Stormwater Management Master Plan—Clarence Tears Clarence Tears, Director of Big Cypress Basin for the South Florida Water Management District appeared before the Council to provide a presentation on the Belle Meade Stormwater Management Master Plan. On a related note,he requested that if the Environmental Advisory Council has questions or concerns on a particular project,draft a letter to the District requesting a written response. Individual members may contact the District if they have a question. The Council viewed a power point presentation on the Master Plan. The following points were noted: • It is important to identify,maintain and restore the natural flow ways to help improve water quality. • A goal is to reduce the flows to Naples Bay by restoring and re-hydrate areas. Historically,the goal was to drain the land. • The deep water aquifers of Collier County are not directly affected by surface water • The District's provides information to the local utilities so they may determine how they will meet future demands over a 20 year projection. 6 October 3, 2007 • Currently,Collier County can meet the future demands based on the 20 year plan. • Master Plans are reviewed on a regular basis comparing projections to actual data with safeguards in place to reduce demands on aquifers. • Florida Statutes require the District to meet future water supply demands and provide tools to the local utilities • An example of historic restorations is the Picayune Strand Restoration Project. • These restorations aid in increasing groundwater Ievels, preventing wildfires and promote the return of native vegetation(as opposed to exotics) • It is important for developers to contact the District in the initial stages of planning so District concerns can be incorporated into the design process. C. Watershed Management Master Plan Considerations for setting Priorities- Mac Hatcher,Environmental Services Mac Hatcher provided a handout entitled"Watershed Management Plans Prioritization for Discussion". The Council viewed a power point presentation on the handout. Contact staff for a copy of this handout. The presentation also contained draft maps indicating impaired water areas for dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform, iron,copper and other metals. A future i-. release of the maps will identify the cause of the impairments. Another analysis will be prepared for the next meeting to provide prioritizations to forward to the Board of County Commissioners. Break 12:36 P.M. Reconvene 1:15 P.M. Mr. Fenton, Mr. Horn and Mr.Bishof did not return D. Cycle 2,2007 LDC Amendments—Stephen Lenberger Catherine Fabacher,LDC coordinator introduced the proposed amendment requests and provided copies to the Council. 1. Section: 1.08.02, 2.03.07 D.4.c; Page 2:36 Presented by Mr. Thompson who noted current references do not accurately describe administrative process of language to align procedural terminology and the change will add definition for `Redemption' and changing various segments of language to align with procedural terminology Mr. Penniman moved to recommend the amendment. Second by Dr. Hushon. Carried unanimously 6-0. Mr. Bishof returned at 1:31 P.M 7 October 3, 2007 2. Section: 10.02.04 Submittal Requirement for Plats; Page 10:62.1 Presented by Mr. Chrzanowski who noted setback information shown on the final plats will assist designers as well as County staff in determining appropriate setbacks and the change would add requirements for setback information to be shown on final plats. Dr. Hushon moved to recommend the amendment. Second by Mr. Penniman. Carried unanimously 7-0. 3. Section: 1.08.02,3.05, 10.02.06; Pages: 1:35,1:36,3:28, 10:89, 10:91 Presented by Mr. Lenberger who noted the change is to address the concerns of the Environmental Advisory Council and Collier County Planning Commission, and to prevent the unauthorized removal of vegetation containing nests or cavity trees or protected or listed animal species. Mr. Lenberger reviewed the proposed amendment which sets standards for removal of trees with listed species nest or cavities. It was noted that on Page#7, item #4 was left blank and this section needs the"exceptions" added. Mr.Bishof noted that these regulations are already in place at the State and Federal level and the problem lies in errors of administration of the regulations. Ms. Burgeson noted that the County will ensure not only other Agencies approvals have been obtained,but also a Collier County approval providing for enforcement at the local level. When they contact various outside Agencies for input on the issue, they receive a variety of responses regarding interpretation, enforcement and permit requirements for vegetation removal. The Environmental Advisory Council and Planning Commission directed staff to propose this amendment. Public Speakers Nicole Ryan stated that the problem is the administration at the State and Federal level. The amendment will give the County authority of enforcing its own regulation and recommends approval. Mr.Jacobsen moved to recommend the amendment. Second by Mr. Penniman. Carried unanimously 7-0. 4. Section: 3.05.07; Page 3:28.1,3:28.2 Presented by Stephen Lenberger who noted it is required as part of the 2007 EAR-based amendments to the CCME of the GMP to change priority for preserved native vegetation as required by the 2007 EAR-based amendments to the Conservation and Coastal Management Element 8 October 3,2007 (CCME)of the GMP. The text change is in accordance with Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Bishof noted the score of"at least 7.0"in Section A.3.c is to be accepted by the South Florida Water Management District and they are prohibited from accepting scores,and the County will not receive an official document from the District. Ms. Burgeson, stated that the scores are submitted by the County to State for"acceptance"by the State staff and that they are in agreement that the area is a high quality wetland. They are not submitted for"approval". Dr. Hushon moved to recommend the amendment with the following change: Page#2 3.05.07.A.3 read Native Vegetation is to be retained Second by Mr.Jacobsen. Motion carried 6-1. Mr.Bishof voted no. 5. Section: 5.05.02 Presented by Mr. Lenberger who noted the change is to exclude the length of shoreline within conservation easements when calculating the maximum number of boat slips in accordance with Manatee Protection Plan. It was directed by the Board of County Commissioners omitting the lands in conservation easement in calculating the number of wet slips. Public Speakers Nicole Ryan of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida—stated it is a concern that previous applications through the South Florida Water Management District relocated the conservations offshore and then utilized the strip between the easement and the preserve for boat slip density calculations("stripping"). She recommended to add language that would include"shorelines"if other Agencies allow this practice. Ms. Burgeson noted it would be helpful to develop some language to preclude this issue. Mr. Bishof noted that it is a concern that this amendment may preclude an applicant's willingness to provide a voluntary conservation easement if they are not allowed to utilize the area for boat slip calculations. Ms.Burgeson noted whatever portion is identified as a preserve through the permit process is required to have conservation easements for shoreline protection and the directive is to exclude all shorelines placed under these conservation easements. 9 October 3,2007 �-. Mr. Penniman moved to recommend the amendment subject to the following: The amendment include a stipulation added by staff with clear an unambiguous language that does not permit the "stripping"of conservation easement lands for the purpose calculating boat slip densities. Second by Mr. Williams. Carried unanimously 7-0. 6. Section 3.07:6,05.01;10.02.02A.4.f; 10.02.03A.3b.vi Presented by Mr. Chrzanowski who noted the most important change in 3.07.02 Interim Watershed Regulations Section A. that requires a project shall meet 150%of the water quality volumetric requirements of the South Florida Water Management District. Nicole Ryan of Conservancy of Southwest Florida requested that the amendment contain language that 150 percent volumetric requirement be treated within the designed stormwater system and not allow utilizing the preserve areas for stormwater treatment. Mr.Penniman left at 2:45 P.M. Mr. Jacobsen moved to recommend the amendment subject to the following: That the 150%stormwater volumetric requirement prohibits utilizing preserve areas for the calculations and water quality treatment. Second by Mr. Bishof. Motion carried unanimously 6-0. Mr. Hughes requested and the Council agreed that the staff review lighting standards in the Land Development Codes. Ms. Burgeson stated the staff previously worked on LDC lighting amendments and after various meetings(police,public,transportation, recreation depts.,etc.)developed the current standards. She recommended the Council draft a letter to the Board of County Commissioners requesting staff to review lighting standards. VIII. Old Business A. Update members on projects The November 7 meeting will be in Room 216 of the Health Building. B. Alternate Members roll, attendance, and definition by LDC Mr. Wright,Assistant County Attorney provided a handout regarding alternates and noted the following: • Alternates will receive materials for each meeting • Meeting attendance is not required by an alternate unless he is notified by staff that another Council member cannot attend 10 October 3, 2007 �-. • Alternates may only discuss matters and vote if they are activated for the meeting • Alternate members can attend and participate as"public" • The Chairman will determine and indicate if a member is excused or absent • The Council is composed of 9 regular members with 5 required for a quorum and 5 votes necessary for official action C. Carryover discussion SFWMD coordination Addressed under Item VIII, B. Notify staff if you are interested in attending any SFWMD meetings. D. Mission Statement To be placed on the next agenda E. Reminder—December 5,2007 meeting will be at CDES Room 609/610 IX. Subcommittee Reports Dr.Hushon requested the members attend the October 4,2007,the October 11, 2007 and the October 31, 2007 LDC Subcommittee meetings. X. Council Member Comments None XI. Public Comments None ***** There being no further business for the good of the County,the meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chair at 3:31 PM. COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Chairman William Hughes These Minutes were approved by the Board/Chairman on as presented , or as amended 11 Print Map Page 1 of 2 Eth1b* North Collier Regional Park r d: �.�. i f. 1 I MAP LEGEND „ s # ' Street Names ,a• + #aaeeI3 ' !4}UQw 2001 46 t' tw l , ' 3 ' Aensis 200742 FEET] �'�-- • ,' ® C County ° • 9 4 rA Gi s^ .., max=*N .., - 34A; I Ai f 1 'f) b5 ' p+' S ©2004.Collier County Property Appraiser.While the Collier County Property Appraiser is committed to providing the most accurate and up-to-date information,no warranties expressed or implied are provided for the data herein,its use,or its interpretation. http://maps.collierappraiser.com/webmap/mapprint.aspx?title=North%20Collier%20Regi... 10/17/2007 MEMORANDUM TO: EAC MEMBERS FROM: WILLIAM D.LORENZ,P.E.,DIRECT R COLLIER COUNTY ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES SUBJECT: TEMPORARY ORV SITE DATE: 10/24/2007 CC: BARBARA BURGESON,SUSAN MASON,JEFF WRIGHT This conceptual site plan for the proposed ORV Park is being submitted to the EAC for their review and comment. On July 24, 2007, the Board of County Commissioners approved the temporary use of this site for an ORV Park. The EAC package includes pertinent environmental data and information related to the site and its proposed operations. Because of the unconventional nature of this project and review process, the applicant is providing this information to the EAC to seek the EAC's recommendations on how to minimize environmental impacts from the proposed operation of the ORV park on this site. The applicant will present the information to the EAC. Staff will be available to answer questions from the EAC at the meeting. s US Fish and Wildlife South Florida Ecological Services Office Draft April 20, 2004 Species Conservation Guidelines • Audubon's Crested Caracara (Partial excerpt) Management Zones In evaluating project impacts to the caracara in south Florida, the Service defines a primary zone as 300 m (985 ft), and a secondary zone as 1,500 m (4,920 ft) outward from the nest tree. Protection of the primary zone is very important particularly during the nesting season, and must be maintained in order to provide conditions for successful reproduction. Impacts during the active nesting period can be avoided by timing of activities near the nest site. Primary Zone Conservation measures that help reduce the impact of a project on the caracara and that are compatible with caracara survival are as follows: Non-nesting Season (May to October) o Maintain nest tree and other trees in the zone. This should include dead trees that are often used for perching and roosting. The nest and the nest tree are protected year-round by both Federal and State law and removal or other means of physical damage is prohibited. o Maintain ground vegetation to provide cover for fledglings as they learn to fly. Maintain pasture, grassland, and wetlands that are necessary for caracara foraging. Typical land management practices, such as, cattle grazing, burning, and mowing are allowed during the non-nesting season. Man-made wetlands, such as, ditches and canals, are important feeding sites and also should be maintained. New construction that will increase the level of disturbance may adversely affect caracaras. o Avoid use of chemicals toxic to wildlife, including pesticides, fertilizers, or herbicides. o Nesting Season (November to April) Caracaras are most sensitive to disturbance during nest building, incubation, and early nestling stages (first 3 to 4 weeks). There are additional conservation measures during this time to minimize impacts to the caracara. o Normal agricultural activities should be limited during this season. Once the nestlings fledge normal activities can resume. o In general, human activities in this zone should be limited including low flyovers by aircraft. Secondary Zone -The secondary zone encompasses an area extending outward from the end of the primary zone (300 m (984 ft) from the nest)to 1,500 m(4,920 ft). This zone is generally defined as the foraging territory in which the nest site is located. This secondary zone is used by caracaras for the collection of nest material, roosting, and - ` 4 feeding. The average caracara home range is 1250 ha (Humphrey and Morrison 1997). This amount of suitable habitat contiguous to the nest site may be required to maintain the ecologic function of the nesting territory. Conservation measures for this zone are directed at maintaining the foraging capacity of the area. o Maintain pasture, grassland, and wetlands that are necessary for caracara foraging. Typical land management practices, such as, cattle grazing, burning, and mowing can be done throughout the year. Man-made wetlands, such as, ditches and canals, are important feeding sites and also should be maintained. Conversion of pasture and wetland habitats in this zone to row crops, sugarcane, citrus groves, pine plantations, or hardwood forest may adversely affect caracaras. Normal ranching and agricultural operations (including sod farming), hiking, bird watching, fishing, camping, picnicking, hunting, and recreational off-road vehicle use are allowed in the secondary zone. o Limit use of chemicals toxic to wildlife, including pesticides, fertilizers, or herbicides, as they may impact the caracara through it's food supply. Non-nesting Season The project avoids habitat modification in the primary and secondary zones, with any acceptable land uses in these zones occurring outside the nesting season. These zones were formulated to protect the caracara from excessive human disturbance. Ideally the project footprint can be modified not to impact the conservation zones. If the primary zone can be set aside by conservation easement, or other protective covenant as an environmentally sensitive area then we can assure the use of the site by the caracara throughout its life. Within the primary zone, it is important to retain suitable trees for nesting, such as cabbage palms, and other large trees for perching and roosting. Also, maintain natural ground cover that can be used by fledglings as cover. In both zones, suitable habitat such as grasslands, pasture, and man-made wetlands (ditches and ponds) within pastures, should be maintained. New buildings, roads, power lines or canals, in the zones may adversely affect caracaras. As the secondary zone is important to foraging, conversion of pasture and wetland habitats to row crops, sugarcane, citrus groves, pine plantations, or hardwood forest may adversely affect caracaras. Chemicals harmful to wildlife should be avoided in the conservation zones. During the non-nesting season, normal agricultural operations, exotic species control, and other wildlife enhancement activities can occur in both zones. If the above conservation measures are incorporated into a caracara management plan the project is not likely to adversely affect the caracara. Modifications to Conservation Measures The Service believes that there are very few circumstances that biologically justify modification of the conservation measures. However, some caracaras are very tolerant of human activity. In these cases, biological data, such as habitat use, flight patterns, and foraging areas can be used to justify modifications to conservation measures. This data must include a biological evaluation of the monitoring data and why the proposed modifications would not adversely affect the nesting caracaras. This information should be incorporated as a component of the caracara management plan. If the data in the caracara management plan biologically support the request to modify the conservation measures, then the project is not likely to adversely affect the caracara and concurrence of this determination may be requested from the Service. On-site Habitat Enhancement For projects that propose modification to habitat in the primary or secondary zones, the Service would normally require formal consultation. But if surveys indicate that the habitat quality has degraded as a result of exotic species invasion, lack of fire, or other anthropogenic actions, then on-site habitat enhancement may be possible to offset loss of function that would result from project impacts. If the habitat modification is small, and on-site habitat enhancements are proposed to improve habitat quality in the remainder of the zones, then a determination could be made that the project is not likely to adversely affect the caracara. Proposed modifications and enhancements should be incorporated in a caracara management plan. This plan also needs a monitoring program to document the success of the enhancement actions. South Florida Ecological Services DRAFT April 20, 2004 SURVEY PROTOCOL FOR FINDING CARACARA NESTS (Partial excerpt) This supplemental information is provided for further guidance on surveying for caracara nest based on the protocol in Morrison (2001). There is the highest probability of success in finding caracara nests during the period January to April. This period covers the time when most birds are feeding the nestlings and become more visible to observers. Surveys should start in January and continue through April to provide adequate data to conclude that a caracara nest does not occur on site. Once all nests on the site are found the survey can be terminated. Surveys should be conducted by a biologist with caracara experience as the birds can be hard to find and identify at long distances. The protective area for the caracara is 1,500 m (4,920 ft) around the nest. The area surveyed should include the project area and a 1,500-m buffer to account for offsite territories that might overlap onto the project area. All areas of suitable habitat within the project area and buffer should be initially surveyed for 1 day. If the area is large or the view obstructed more than 1 day or multiple observers may be needed to completely survey the area. The observer should position themselves in a location where the largest open area(unobstructed by trees) can be viewed. The survey area should be no more than about 500 ha, which is the largest area easily observable from one point. An aerial photograph of the property and buffer zone can be used to identify areas of suitable habitat and map observation blocks to facilitate surveying the whole area. Use the map and a site visit to select strategic points where caracaras are more likely to be seen going to and from potential nesting sites. From a stationary position search for caracara activity, especially birds moving to the nest tree carrying sticks or food. Watch for other birds, such as American crows (Corvus brachyrhynchos), red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis), and turkey vultures (Cathertes aura), that might elicit an aggressive response from caracaras present. Nesting caracaras will often chase potential predators away from the nest; thus, revealing their presence. Also circling vultures can indicate the presence of naturally occurring carrion that may n attract caracaras. If a potential nesting tree is detected then the observer can reposition to improve observing the bird's behavior. Weather condition should be adequate to clearly view the whole area. The area should be viewed from sunrise to 11AM and again 3 hours before sunset. During midday potential nest trees can be examined close up for evidence of nests (Morrison 2001). The area viewed during each survey should be marked on a site map. All caracara activity observed should be recorded by time of day and distinguished between juvenile and adult birds. Record flight direction to identify foraging areas and the nesting tree. Mark any nesting tree locations on a map and obtain GPS coordinates. Weather conditions including temperature, wind speed and direction, cloud cover, visibility, and precipitation, should be recorded at the start and end of each survey period. If no nests are found during the initial survey then return and repeat the survey in 2 weeks. Continue to repeat the survey at a 2-week interval through the end of April or until a nest is found. If the survey starts after January and no nests are found the earlier part of the survey should be completed during the next nesting season to insure that early nesting birds are not missed. The opportunity for caracara observation can be enhanced by placing fresh meat (or road kills) along the property border overnight and observing the bait site during the morning survey. These birds can be followed back to their nest trees. For more details on caracara activities and habits see Morrison (2001). Literature Cited Morrison, J.L. 2001. Recommended management practices and survey protocols for Audubon's crested caracaras (Caracara cheriway audubonii) in Florida. Technical Report No. 18. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, Florida. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING OF I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT: Petition No: Commercial Planned Unit Development Rezone No: PUDZ-2005-AR-9127 Petition Name: Myrtle Woods -PUDZ Applicant/Developer: Mr. Andres Alos-Myrtle Woods, LLC Engineering Consultant: RWA , Inc. Environmental Consultant: Passarella and Associates, Inc. II. LOCATION: The subject property is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of U.S. 41 and Myrtle Lane, in Section 29, Township 50 South, Range 26 East. III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: Zoning Description North: General Commercial (C-4) Improved Commercial South: Treetops PUD and RMF-6 Condominium East: PUD and General Commercial (C-4) Improved Commercial (self-storage) West: RMF-6 Disturbed agriculture uses IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Rezone the 5.66± acres of land currently zoned PUD (Myrtle Woods), per Ordinance 81-23, and a 1.38± acre parcel currently zoned C-4, to CPUD. A rezone to the subject 7.0± acre property to CPUD would support a unified plan for a commercial development; proposed uses consist of office and/or retail commercial uses in one or more buildings, up to a maximum of 61,000 square feet. V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element: The subject property is designated Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict, and is within the Coastal High Hazard EAC Meeting Page 2 of 11 Area, all as identified on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. The existing PUD allows commercial uses generally comparable to the C-4 zoning district, and 45 dwelling units at a density of 11.63 dwelling units per acre. The PUD and C-4 property are identified on the "Consistent by Policy" maps, part of the Future Land Use Map series, and are consistent with the FLUE via Policies 5.9 and 5.10. Therefore, the properties are allowed to be developed in accordance with the existing zoning on the property. Office and In-fill Commercial Subdistrict a. The subject site is in the Urban-Mixed Use District. [The subject site is located in the Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict, and in the Coastal High Hazard Area as depicted on the Future Land Use Map.] b.The subject site abuts a road classified as an arterial or collector on the Collier County Functional Class Map, as adopted in the Transportation Element. [The project abuts U.S. 41, a principal arterial highway.] c.A rezone to commercial zoning is requested for the subject property in its entirety, up to a maximum of 12 acres. For a property greater than 12 acres in size, the balance of the property in excess of 12 acres is limited to an environmental conservation easement or open space. Under this provision, "open space" shall not include water management facilities unless said facilities are incorporated into a conservation or preservation area for the purpose of enhancement of the conservation or preservation area.[The project consists of 7 acres in its entirety, which is under the 12 acre maximum requirement.] d.The site abuts commercial zoning: (i) On one side and non-commercial zoning on the other side; or, (ii) On both sides. [The property abuts C-4 to the west across Myrtle Lane, and PUD commercial to the East.] e.The abutting commercial zoning may be in the unincorporated portion of Collier County or in a neighboring jurisdiction. [The abutting commercial zoning is located within the unincorporated portion of Collier County.] f. The depth of the subject property in its entirety, or up to 12 acres for parcels greater than 12 acres in size, for which commercial zoning is being requested, does not exceed the depth of the commercially zoned area on the abutting parcel(s). Where the subject site abuts commercial zoning on both sides, and the depth of the commercially zoned area is not the same on both abutting parcels, the Board of County Commissioners shall have discretion in determining how to interpret the EAC Meeting Page 3 of 11 n County Commissioners shall have discretion in determining how to interpret the depth of the commercially zoned area which cannot be exceeded, but in no case shall the depth exceed that on the abutting property with the greatest depth of commercial area. This discretion shall be applied on a case by case basis. [Reference Infill Commercial Exhibits I and II in the rezone application. The subject site is bounded by commercial zoning on both sides and is irregularly shaped. The C-4 property (lot 24 Myrtle Cove Acres) to the northwest, zoned C-4, is triangular in shape. Lot 24 and the subject site are adjacent to one another— across the intervening Myrtle Lane for a distance of±50 feet;Lot 24 and the subject site both extend further to the west but are not contiguous beyond the±50 feet. The commercial zoning on the other side (to the southeast) is of a lesser depth than the northwest side. This criterion specifically allows the BCC to use discretion in such an instance where the depth of adjacent commercial is not the same; however, the depth cannot exceed the deepest abutting parcel. Staff interprets this to mean the area where the subject site and adjacent commercial property share a common boundary—or would if not for intervening local street (the office and infill allows for an intervening local street).Additionally,staff notes the petitioner's exhibits depict the parking area extending beyond the depth of adjacency as "commercial land use tract beyond point of adjacency." Not identified as commercial use is the water detention area necessitated by the buildings and parking area. Staff acknowledges the unusual configuration of the subject site and C-4 lands to the northwest, but does not believe this site meets this criterion.] g. Project uses are limited to office or low intensity commercial uses if the subject property abuts commercial zoning on one side only. For property abutting commercial zoning on both sides,the project uses may include those of the highest intensity abutting commercial zoning district.[The project abuts C-4 and PUD commercial(Treetops PUD, C-S use of mini warehouses) zoning, however this petition requests only that intensity of C-4 uses.] h. The subject property in its entirety was not created to take advantage of this provision, evidenced by its creation prior to the adoption of this provision in the Growth Management Plan on October 28, 1997.[Myrtle Cove Acres Unit 1 subdivision, in which the subject property is located was platted prior to October 28, 1997.] i. For those sites that have existing commercial zoning abutting one side only: (i) commercial zoning used pursuant to this Subdistrict shall only be applied one time and shall not be expanded, except for aggregation of additional properties so long as all other criteria under this Subdistrict are met; and,[See item j. below.] (ii) uses shall be limited so as to serve as a transitional use between EAC Meeting Page 4 of 11 other side.[See item j. below.] j. For those sites that have existing commercial zoning abutting both sides, commercial zoning used pursuant to this Subdistrict shall only be applied one time and shall not be expanded, except for aggregation of additional properties so long as all other criteria under this Subdistrict are met. [The Office & Infill Commercial Subdistrict has not previously been utilized on the subject site or adjacent properties.] k. Lands zoned for support medical uses pursuant to the"1/4 mile support medical uses"provision in the Urban designation shall not be deemed"commercial zoning" for purposes of this Subdistrict.[Site does not abut such lands.] i. For properties zoned commercial pursuant to any of the Infill Subdistricts in the Urban-Mixed Use District or in the Urban-Commercial District, said commercial zoning shall not qualify to cause the abutting property(s) to become eligible for commercial zoning under this Office and Infill Commercial Subdistrict.[Site does not abut lands with Infill Subdistrict designation.] 1. Land adjacent to areas zoned C-1/T on the zoning atlas maps, or other commercial zoning obtained via the former Commercial Under Criteria provision in the FLUE, shall not be eligible for a rezone under the Office and Infill Commercial Subdistrict, except through aggregation as provided in Paragraphs i. and j. above. [Site does not abut such lands.] m. For purposes of this Subdistrict,property abutting land zoned Industrial or Industrial PUD, or abutting lands zoned for Business Park uses pursuant to the Business Park Subdistrict, or abutting lands zoned for Research and Technology Park uses pursuant to the Research and Technology Park Subdistrict, shall also qualify for commercial zoning so long as all other criteria under the Office and Infill Commercial Subdistrict are met.[Not applicable to this project.] n. At time of development, the project will be served by central public water and sewer. [The project will be serviced by the Collier County Water-Sewer District.] o. The project will be compatible with existing land uses and permitted future land uses on surrounding properties.[Surrounding properties are zoned c-4, PUD commercial(C-5 use),RMF-6 and PUD residential(multi family). Water management and preserve areas depicted on the conceptual Master Plan separate proposed commercial development area and the adjacent residential zoning. Further,staff defers compatibility determination to Zoning and Land Development Review staff in their review of the PUD in it's entirely.] • EAC Meeting Page 5 of 11 p. The maximum acreage eligible to be utilized for the Office and Infill Commercial Subdistrict within the Urban-Mixed Use District is 250 acres. [Roughly 100 acres have been rezoned utilizing this subdistrict.] FLUE Objective 7 provides that in order to promote smart growth policies, and adhere to the existing development character of Collier County, the following policies shall be implemented for new development and redevelopment projects, where applicable. Policy 7.1 The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. [The PUD Master Plan depicts access to U.S. 41, a principal arterial highway and Myrtle Lane, a local road.] Policy 7.2 The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals.[Given the small size of the site, its requested commercial zoning, and the site layout depicted on the PUD Master Plan, it is anticipated there will not be a street system, rather one or more connected parking lots.] Policy 7.3 All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and their interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. [The site fronts two streets, and provides access to each. To the south-southwest, the site abuts residential development, a single lot zoned RMF-6 and an existing apartment complex; also, proposed preserve and water retention areas abut these adjacent properties. To the southeast, the site abuts commercial development (self-storage buildings); its development type and site design does not lend itself to interconnection. In short, interconnections are not feasible.] Policy 7.4 The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types. [Mostly not applicable as this is not a residential project and will not contain a "community."Sidewalks and open space will be provided as required by the LDC as there are no requests for deviation.] Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes the proposed PUD rezone may not be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element, per criteria of the Office and In-fill Commercial Subdistrict, (specifically item f. above, pertaining to depth EAC Meeting Page 6 of 11 of the subject property), however, staff leaves this to the BZA to make final consistency determination. 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 retention and detention areas to provide water quality retention and peak flow attenuation during storm events prior to discharging into a wetland preserve. This project is consistent with policy 6.1 and 6.2 regarding the selection of preserves. The property site contains 7.04 acres of which 5.26 acres is native vegetation. The proposed native vegetation preserve of 0.98 acres fulfills the minimum requirement of 0.79 acres or 15% of the existing native vegetation on site. Selection of native vegetation to be retained on site as a preserve area is shown to be consistent with the GMP based upon the following: A FWCC relocation permit shall be obtained for the one gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) found on site prior to the commencement of any construction activities. Relocation offsite shall be required due to the fact that the proposed upland preserve area is small (0.98 acres) and isolated and will not provide sufficient foraging area for the gopher tortoise. Preliminary UMAM scores indicate the 1.84 acres of on-site wetlands to be of low quality. The applicant shall purchase 0.21 wetland mitigation credits from the Big Cypress mitigation bank to compensate for wetland impacts. The 0.98 acre native vegetation preserve area is a mix of pine flatwoods and a 0.18 acre area of disturbed land located along the western boundary of the preserve which shall be restored with native plantings to provide additional habitat. All exotic and nuisance vegetation shall be removed and maintained in perpetuity from the preserve. The preserved and enhanced upland area shall be placed under a conservation easement. EAC Meeting Page 7 of 11 As required by Policy 6.1.4, prohibited exotic vegetation shall 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. As required by Policy 6.2.6, the required preserve area is identified on the preserve management plan as part of the site development plan. As required by Policy 7.1.2, a listed species survey was conducted on the property and is contained in the EIS. An FWCC gopher tortoise relocation permit shall be obtained to relocate the gopher tortoise offsite. As required by Policy 11.1.2, correspondence was sent to the Florida Department of State Division of Historical Resources (DHR) regarding possible archaeological or historical sites within the project area. In a letter dated Nov 30th, 2005,the DHR stated that a previously recorded archaeological site is �..e located southeast of the project area. It is the opinion of the agency that there is a low potential for other archaeological sites to occur in the project area. VI. MAJOR ISSUES: Stormwater Management: Myrtle Woods CPUD will be reviewed by SFWMD, and the permitting for the project will be done through the SFWMD Environmental Resource Permitting procedure because of the presence of wetlands. . 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 except to evaluate the criteria for allowing treated stormwater to be discharged into Preserves as allowed in Section 3.05.07." This project sits within the Lely Manor Canal Basin. The allowable discharge rate within that basin is 0.15 cfs per acre, which for this 7.0 acre site yields a maximum allowable total discharge of 1.05 cfs. The water management system for the site consists of two interconnected dry detention areas to achieve water quality treatment and a control structure at the • EAC Meeting Page 8 of 11 discharge point to achieve water quantity attenuation. Discharge is at the southwest corner of the site into an existing ditch labeled swale LMB-01 (Lely Manor Basin#01). The Engineering Review comments for this PUD contain one stipulation for the BCC's consideration: "The developer will install twin 48" reinforced concrete pipes in the 50 ft wide drainage easement along the southeastern boundary of the property from the US-41 R.O.W. to the 30 ft wide drainage easement along the southern boundary of the property. These pipes will eventually be incorporated into the ongoing Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project(LASIP). Environmental: Site Description: Of the 7.04 acres of the project site, 5.26 acres qualify as native vegetation according to the definition in the GMP and LDC and has been verified by staff on site. The proposed native vegetation preserve of 0.98 acres fulfills the minimum requirement of 0.79 acres or 15% of the existing native vegetation on site. On site native vegetation communities include Pine Flatwoods (2.98+ acres), Pine (0.55 +acres), and Hydric Pine (1.73+ acres). The non-native areas include low density ,... residential (0.02± acres), ditch (0.21+ acres), disturbed lands (0.83± acres), spoil areas (0.16± acres), berm (0.27± acres), and electrical power transmission lines (0.11+ acres). Brazilian pepper, melaleuca, and ear-leaf acacia were the exotic species observed in the pine, hydric, and disturbed areas. Wetlands: There are 1.84+ acres of potential South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) jurisdictional wetlands and 0.21+ acres of potential SFWMD "other surface waters." The SFWMD wetland lines have not been approved by the SFWMD. A copy of the jurisdictional determination shall be forwarded to county staff upon its issuance. The project will result in impacts to 100% (1.84+acres) of the potential SFWMD jurisdictional wetlands. Due to preliminary low UMAM scores and the wetlands small size, disturbed condition, and isolated location, minimization would be less ecologically beneficial than off-site mitigation. As compensation for this wetland loss, the applicant shall purchase 0.21 wetland mitigation credits from the Big Cypress mitigation bank. Preservation Requirements: According to the vegetation preservation and retention standards for commercial development for an area greater than 5.0 acres, a minimum of 15 % of the native EAC Meeting Page 9 of 11 vegetation must be retained. Of the 7.04 acres of the project site, 5.26 acres qualify as native vegetation according to the definition in the GMP and LDC and has been verified by staff on site. The proposed native vegetation preserve of 0.98 acres fulfills the minimum requirement of 0.79 acres or 15% of the existing native vegetation on site. Listed Species: An initial listed plant and wildlife species survey was conducted by Passarella and Associates, Inc. on November 2, 2005. No listed species were observed on the project site during the survey. An updated listed species survey was conducted on June 27, 2007. One active gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) burrow was located within the pine flatwoods and disturbed habitats. A FWCC relocation permit shall be obtained for the one gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) found on site prior to the commencement of any construction activities. Relocation offsite shall be required due to the fact that the proposed upland preserve area is small and isolated and will not provide sufficient foraging area for the gopher tortoise. ,... VII. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of Commercial Planned Unit Development Rezone No: PUDZ-2005-AR-9127 "Myrtle Woods"with the following conditions: Stormwater Management: Recommend approval with the condition that an SFWMD Environmental Resource Permit must be obtained prior to approval of any site development plans. Environmental: 1) A FWCC relocation permit shall be obtained for the one gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) found on site prior to the commencement of any construction activities and a copy shall be forwarded to Environmental Services staff. 2) Please provide a report to the Environmental Services staff on the results of the relocation of the gopher tortoise within thirty days of relocation. Please provide in the report the number of burrows excavated, the number of tortoises relocated, and the final relocation site. 3) A copy of the results of the SFWMD jurisdictional determination shall be forwarded to county staff upon its issuance. EAC Meeting Page l0 of 11 PREPARED BY: 4 feee4 /6 Or7702 S AN CH' - 0 KI, P.E. DATE ENGINEERING ' rig IEW MANAGER ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT / /9 / -lG--a7 •RIS D'ARCO DATE ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT /0'07 MELISSA ZONE DATE PRINCIPAL PLANN DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REVIEWED BY: BARBARA S. BURGESOT ' DATE PRINCIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST 1, -a LIAM D. LO"�NZ, J . P.E. DATE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR EAC Meeting Page 11 of 11 Lr I 6r)/ 63 9" JEFF RIG T DA E ASSIS N COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE I ' THE COLLIER COUNTY ATTORNEY APPROVED BY: /40 /117 H K. SCHMITT DA E C�/ ► MUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES A: INISTRATOR ITEM NO.: FILE NO.: 0 t I ::1111 2 1.1 ROUTED TO: O 1 L\� OC 3&-' DATE REC'D: DO NOT WRITE ABOVE THIS SPACE(Orig. 9/89; Rev. 6/97) REQUEST FOR LEGAL SERVICES (Please type or print) Date: 10/16/07 To: Office of the County Attorney, Attn: Jeff Wright From: Chris D'Arco,Environmental Specialist Environmental Services Community Development and Environmental Department Services Division Telephone#: 403-2497 Re: Myrtle Woods PUDZ-2005-AR-9127 BACKGROUND OF REQUEST/PROBLEM: Need legal review of Environmental Advisory Council(EAC)staff report. This item been previously submitted. ❑ Yes® No (If previously submitted provide County Attorney's Office File No.RLS) ACTION REQUESTED: Need legal review of Environmental Advisory Council(EAC)staff report and CA signature. OTHER COMMENTS cc: Bill Lorenz Joe Schmitt Marjorie Student IOW-) ?)e,tutined -tom sReed up €view proce5 C �6 rst-ri•-Q•dk 1(f "±"Q /11-°°(/61 -r) Af) Item V.B. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING OF November 7,2007 I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT Petition No.: PUDZ-2006-AR-10171 Petition Name: Brandon RPUD Applicant/Developer: Eastbourne Bonita, LLC Engineering Consultant: Johnson Engineering Environmental Consultant: Johnson Engineering II. LOCATION The subject property consist of 51.1 acres and is located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard, Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES The surrounding properties are mostly vacant but, there is a land use petition under review PUDZ-2006-AR-9577 Della Rosa RPUD that was heard by the CCPC on October 4, 2007 and it is schedule to be heard by the BCC on November 13, 2007. The proposed Della Rosa RPUD is relying on the Residential In-fill provision of the Future Land Use Element for an additional (3) three units per acre to achieve a density of 7 units per acre for a total of 107 multi-family dwelling units. ZONING DESCRIPTION N- Rural Agricultural (A) and PUD Undeveloped and Mediterra PUD (single family homes) S - Rural Agricultural (A) and PUD Undeveloped and Royal Palm Academy PUD (Verona Pointe townhomes) E - Rural Agricultural (A) Undeveloped and FPL Easement and Special Treatment (ST) Overlay Zoning District W-Rural Agricultural (A) Livingston Road and Undeveloped (proposed Della Rosa RPUD) IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The rezone request is for a rezone from the Agricultural (A) and Special Treatment (ST) Overlay Zoning District to the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Zoning District for project known as Brandon RPUD with a proposed density of 3.99 dwelling units per acre, for the development of 204 single-family and multi-family residential units. The proposed Brandon RPUD will be heard by the CCPC on January 3, 2008 and by the BCC on February 26, 2008. V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY A. Future Land Use Element 1. Relationship of proposed development to the Future Land Use Map and the Growth Management Plan a) Future Land Use Element Policy 5.4. This project was reviewed within the context of Policy 5.4 which states: "New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, subject to meeting the compatibility criteria of the Land Development Code". The Comprehensive Planning Department Staff defers to Zoning and Land Development regarding compatibility to surrounding areas. b) Density. The subject property is designated Urban (Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict), as identified on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the County's Growth Management Plan (GMP). Relevant to this petition, this Subdistrict permits residential development (variety of unit types) at a base density of up to four (4) residential units per gross acre and recreation and open space uses. The proposed Brandon PUD project includes a maximum of 204 residential dwelling units, of varying types as described in the application and the PUD document, on 51.1 acres of land. The overall density is proposed not to exceed 4.0 dwelling units per acre. The proposed development includes residential land uses, lakes, preserves, and street right of way with sidewalks. In summary, staff finds the proposed development compatible with the surrounding developments. c) Compliance with Objective 7 and Policies Regarding Smart Growth (interconnections, loop road, sidewalks/trails, etc.). Staff notes the following: 1. The adjoining land to the east of the subject site is between the subject site and the FPL easement, and no proposed interconnections with this adjoining tract(s) of land are proposed in the Brandon RPUD Master Plan. This RPUD will be found consistent with the Growth Management Plan if the RPUD Master Plan is modified to show that future interconnections from the subject development will be available to the tract(s) of land to the east. 2. The adjoining land to the west of the subject site will be provided with access from both Livingston Road and from Veterans Memorial Blvd. This RPUD will be found consistent with the Growth Management Plan conditioned upon the RPUD Master Plan being modified to show a pedestrian connection from the approximate center point of the project so that there can be a future pedestrian interconnection between the Brandon PUD and the development(s) that occur to the west. 2. Transportation Concurrency Management Area. The proposed project is within the Northwest Transportation Concurrency Management Area as identified within the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan. However, no density bonuses are being requested. Comprehensive Planning department defers the determination of traffic concurrency to the Transportation Planning Department Staff. Comprehensive Planning Department finds the proposed PUD Document consistent with the Growth Management Plan if the stipulations provided in the bold printed notations above are complied with. 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 retention and detention areas to provide water quality retention and peak flow attenuation during storm events prior to discharging into a wetland preserve. Goal 6 states, "The County shall identify,protect, conserve and appropriately use its native vegetative communities and wildlife habitat." Objective 6.1 states, "The County shall protect native vegetative communities through the application of minimum preservation requirements." Residential and Mixed Use Developments are required to preserve 25% of native vegetation onsite. The proposed project contains approximately 47.2 acres of vegetative communities that contain less than 75% invasive exotics. Collier County therefore requires a minimum of 11.8 acres of native vegetation preservation be retained on the Brandon RPUD site. The applicant stated in the EIS, "This will be met through a single onsite preserve measuring 11.8 acres at time of final development order. The preserve area shown in accordance with LDC Section 3.05.07.H.a.ii constitutes 75%of the preserve area and included approximately 7.57 acres of retained native vegetation and approximately 1.07 acres of restored habitat." As required by Policy 6.1.4, prohibited exotic vegetation will be removed from the entire development during construction and will be maintained exotic-free in perpetuity. Policy 6.1.1 (5) b. of the Growth Management Plan allows stormwater in preserves under the following condition: Receipt of treated stormwater discharge where such use, including conveyance, treatment and discharge structures, does not result in adverse impacts on the naturally occurring, native vegetation, to include the loss of the minimum required vegetation and the harm to any listed species according to the policies associated with Objective 7.1, as r` determined by criteria set forth in the land development regulations. Discharge to preserves having wetlands requires treatment that will meet water quality standards as set forth in Chapter, 62-302 F.A.C. and will conform to the water quality criteria requirements set forth by the South Florida Water Management District. Discharge into the wetland is consistent and anticipated to provide a benefit by hydrating the wetland. The project site consists entirely of hydric soils with 6.85 of the 8.86 acres of preserve shown being jurisdictional wetlands. Because the 75% preserve proposed and 25% to be shown at next development order will consist of hydric soil, water being discharged into the preserve is pretreated and is expected to rehydrate the wetland. Therefore, staff finds there will be no adverse impacts. Specific amounts of discharge into the preserve will be evaluated at the next development order. Littoral shelf planting areas (LSPA) within wet detention ponds required by Policy 6.1.7 will be required at the time of SDP/Construction plan approval. Policy 6.2.1 and 6.2.2 states, "The County shall protect and conserve wetlands and the natural functions of wetlands and verified by jurisdictional field delineation." The wetland jurisdictional determination has not been verified by SFWMD staff at this time. Limits of jurisdiction will be verified during the ERP process. ,.-.� Policy 6.2.4 states, "Within the Urban Designated area,the County shall rely on the wetland jurisdictional determinations and permit requirements issued by the applicable jurisdictional agency." The Brandon RPUD will be required to obtain an ERP from the South Florida Water Management District and a Federal Dredge and Fill permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers. Wetland limits, preserves, and mitigation will be determined through those processes and incorporated into the project design. Policy 6.2.6 states, "Within the Urban Designation and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, [required] wetland preservation, buffer areas, and mitigation areas shall be dedicated as conservation and common areas in the form of conservation easements and shall be identified or platted as separate tracts; and, in the case of a Planned Unit Development (PUD), these areas shall also be depicted on the PUD Master Plan." In accordance with Policy 6.2.6, required preservation areas are identified on the site plan. Allowable uses within the preserve areas are included in the preserve agreement that is part of the construction plans. 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. Policy 7.1.2 states, "Within areas of Collier County, excluding the lands contained in the RLSA Overlay, nonagricultural development, excluding individual single family residences, shall be directed away from listed species and their habitats by complying with the guidelines and standards." A Protected Species Survey has been completed for the site and a proposed management plan for the Big Cypress fox squirrel is provided as Exhibit M of the EIS. VI. MAJOR ISSUES: A. Stormwater Management Brandon RPUD will be reviewed and the permitting for the project will be done through the SFWMD Environmental Resource Permitting procedure. The applicant has had a preapplication meeting with SFWMD but has not yet submitted to SFWMD for a permit because the project is only in the rezone stage. 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 except to evaluate the criteria for allowing treated stormwater to be discharged into Preserves as allowed in Section 3.05.07." This project is situated at the east side of the Imperial River Outlet Basin. The allowable discharge rate within that basin is 0.15 cfs per acre for 51.1 acres which yields an allowable total discharge of 7.67 cfs. The project has two basins, with the northernmost basin having two lakes which are 1.49 acres and 2.97 acres ,.� connected in series by a 48" diameter pipe. The maximum discharge rates from the two basins are 4.61 cfs from the northern basin and 3.05 cfs from the south basin for a total of 7.65 cfs. The southern basin has one lake connected directly to the wetland. The lake systems discharge toward the south into the preserve. Since stormwater is discharged into the preserve, the project is subject to EAC review of its surface water management aspects. On-site water management will be done with collection pipes and swales to direct the stormwater into the lakes for treatment and attenuation prior to discharge. The water management system will include discharge facilities into the northern and southern portion of the wetlands in order to hydrate and maintain regional flow characteristics. The water management system will be isolated from these wetlands so that only controlled discharges from the structures will be allowed into the wetlands. B. Environmental 1. Site Description: The applicant has observed that much of the Brandon site is comprised of wetland communities, totaling 39.7 acres (77.6%of the site). These wetland communities consist of several low-quality systems with the majority containing between 51-75% invasive exotics. The wetlands appear to have been severed and isolated by surrounding roadways and adjacent developments. These disturbances have likely resulted in altered sheet flow and reduced hydro period. 2. Wetlands Subject to agency verification,the Brandon site contains approximately 39.7 acres of SFWMD jurisdictional wetlands(Exhibit C of EIS). The wetlands found on the site can be characterized as low-quality,with the majority of them containing between 51-75% invasive exotics. Wetland acreage for the site and a description of the wetland FLUCFCS types can be found in Table 3 of the EIS. The wetland jurisdictional determination will be verified during the Environmental Resource Permit(ERP)process. However,preliminary UMAM scores have been included to aid in preserve design(Exhibit 0 UMAM Impact Map and Exhibit P UMAM Scores). Please note that these scores have not been verified by the SFWMD and may change during permitting. The proposed site plan directly impacts 32.8 acres(82.6%) of onsite wetlands (Exhibit J, Wetland Impact Map) and preserves 6.85 acres (17.4%) of wetlands. 3. Preservation Requirements The property lies within the Urban Residential Sub district of the Collier County Future Land Use Map. Since the subject property is equal to or greater than 20 acres, a minimum of 25 percent of the native vegetation is to be preserved. A total of 47.2 acres of native vegetation habitat are found on the subject site, as outlined in Table 2 of the EIS. Therefore the minimum preserve requirement is 11.8 acres (47.2 X 0.25 = 11.8 acres). The proposed site plan shows 75%of the preserve requirement,which is approximately 8.86 acres of onsite preserve. The preserve is comprised of 7.76 acres of existing native vegetation and 1.1 acres that will require replanting after exotic removal to meet the native vegetation requirement(Exhibit K of EIS). In an effort to create one contiguous preserve and include those areas within the ST Overlay, the 1.1 acres containing high level of exotics was included in the preserve area. 4. Listed Species: A listed species survey was conducted by Johnson Engineering ecologists on May 19, 2006. Three (3)nest structures were observed that could potentially be Big Cypress fox squirrel nests. The location of these nests is illustrated on the FLUCFCS map within the Protected Species Survey(Exhibit L of EIS). The Big Cypress fox squirrel is listed by FWC as Threatened. A management plan has been prepared for the Big Cypress fox squirrel because there is a potential for them to occur on the property. The management plan has been reviewed and approved by Collier County. No other signs of potential protected species utilization were identified during field work done by the environmental consultant. Due to the high levels of invasive exotics in most habitat types,the site does not provide optimal habitat for most listed species. VII. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of Brandon RPUD with the following stipulation: 1. The "Note" on the bottom of the Master Site Plan shall state the following and shall be added before this project is reviewed by the Collier County Planning Commission: a. Remaining Preserve area will be defined at "the time of next" development order... b. The end of the note (after 3.05.07.H.l.e.) shall state,"; shall be located adjacent and contiguous to the preserve shown on the site master plan." PREPARED BY: �.: , �, Z3 OCT-07 ST N CHRZANO 'SKI, P.E. DATE ENGINEERING ' 'VIEW MANAGER ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT oM /0/u24/0 ER ARA E DATE ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT - �4114i / ' /97 MELIS 7 ZONE. DA"I PRINCIPAL PLANNE' DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW • REVIEWED BY: ti/dIV BARBARA BURGESON DATE PRINCIPAL ENVIRONM NTAL SPECIALIST ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT LLIAM D. O' `i"Z, Jr., P. DATE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR ( 0 riL7467'- JEF' " • T DA ASSI' •NT COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFIC OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ATTORNEY APPROVED BY: 4..o.ve-r----5c4,..4.17‘ le/42ei 7 OS PH K. SCHMITT DAT •, MUNITY DEVELOPMENT &ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES • •MINISTRATOR