EAC Agenda 05/03/2006 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
AGENDA
May 3, 2006
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 5, 2006 Meeting minutes
V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences
VI. Land Use Petitions
A. Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-2005-AR-8337
"Brooks Village CPUD"
Section 15,Township 49, Range 26
B. Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-A-2005-AR-8438
"Windstar PUD"
Sections 11, 14 &23,Township 50 South, Range 25 East
VII. Old Business
A. Update members on projects
VIII. New Business
A. Elect new Vice Chairperson
B. Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project(LASIP)—Stormwater Management Department
C. Listed species compensation - USFWS
IX Subcommittee Reports
X. Council Member Comments
XI. Public Comments
XII. Adjournment
**************************************************************************
******************************
Council Members: Please notify the Environmental Services Department no later than 5:00
p.m. on April 28, 2006 if you cannot attend this meeting or if you have a conflict and will
abstain from voting on a petition (213-2987).
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 5, 2006
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER
COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
Naples, Florida, April 5, 2006
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
Terrence Dolan
William Hill
Lee Horn
Judith Hushon
Iry Kraut
Erica Lynne
Nick Penniman
Michael Sorrell-excused
ALSO PRESENT: Stan Chrzanowski, Planning Review
Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, Assistant County Attorney
Susan Mason, Senior Environmental Specialist
Bill Lorenz, Director of Environmental Services
Barbara Burgeson, Sr. Environmental Specialist
1
April 5, 2006
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Chairman William Hughes at 9:06 AM.
II. Roll Call
A quorum was established.
III. Approval of Agenda
Ms. Mason noted that item"VIII. New Business, C. Listed species compensation
—USFWS"will be rescheduled for the May meeting. Presenters for item "VI.
Land Use Petitions" have not arrived, therefore "VIII. New Business, D. Estuary
Report Card update—Conservancy of Southwest Florida" can be heard first.
No formal motion or second was taken; though a vote occurred on the
approval of the agenda, it carried unanimously 8-0.
IV. Approval of March 1,2006 Meeting Minutes
Page#5. under Mr. Penniman's comment the word "service" should read
"surface". Page #2. under Dr. Hushon's comment the word"The" is to be added
before `South Florida Water Management' and"District" afterward, "Core"
should have read"Corps", and the correct spelling of"Mirasol".
Mr. Penniman moved to approve the March 1,2006 minutes with
amendments noted. Second by Mr. Dolan. Carries unanimously 8-0.
V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences
Dr. Hushon and Mr. Hill will be absent for the June meeting. Mr. Penniman will
be absent for the May meeting.
VIII. New Business
D. Estuary Report Card update—Conservancy of Southwest Florida
Jennifer Hecker, Conservancy of Southwest Florida gave a Power Point
Presentation that is available for viewing on the website. The presentation she
gave will be updated and presented every three years.
Mr. Hughes gave kudos.
The meeting recessed at 9:42 AM reconvening at 9:51 AM.
VI. Land Use Petitions
2
4
Item VI.A
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
MEETING OF MAY 4,2006
I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT:
Petition No.: PUDZ-2005-AR-8337
Petition Name: Brooks Village Commercial Planned Unit
Development
Applicant/Developer: Sembler Florida, Inc.
Engineering Consultant: RWA Consulting, Inc.
Environmental Consultant: Boylan Environmental Consultants, Inc.
II. LOCATION:
The subject property is located in Golden Gate Estates (Unit 26) on the southwest
quadrant of the intersection of Collier Boulevard (CR-951) and Pine Ridge Road
(CR-896) and is bordered on the south by 11th Avenue SW. Section 15, Township
49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES:
The surrounding properties are located in the Neighborhood Center located within
the Golden Gate Master Plan. Neighborhood Centers are designed to concentrate
all commercial zoning in locations where traffic impacts can be accommodated.
The Estates Land Use Designation encompasses lands which are subdivided into
semi-rural residential parcels consisting of the Golden Gate Estates Subdivision.
ZONING DESCRIPTION
N- Commercial (C-3) Developed
S - Estates (E) Undeveloped
E - Estates (E) Single-family
residential
W - Estates (E) Undeveloped
"EAC Meeting
Page 2 of 7
IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Brooks Village CPUD will offer intermediate commercial and retail uses to the
surrounding Estates residents. The proposed project will follow the guidelines of
permitted uses in Section III of the PUD Document and comply with the
prohibited uses set forth in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan.
V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY:
Future Land Use Element:
The subject property is designated Estates (Estates -Mixed Use District,
Neighborhood Center Subdistrict), as identified on the Future Land Use Map in
the Golden Gate Area Master Plan(GGAMP) of the Growth Management Plan.
Relevant to this petition, the Neighborhood Center Subdistrict permits
neighborhood commercial uses and conditional uses of the"E"zoning district,
subject to specific development standards. The intent of the Neighborhood Center
Subdistrict is to allow for development to provide basic goods, services and
amenities to Estates residents while maintaining the semi-rural character of the
area. This includes"intermediate commercial so as to provide for a wider variety
of goods and services in areas that have a higher degree of automobile traffic ...
uses shall be similar to C-1, C-2 or C-3",though some uses are specifically
prohibited; and, conditional uses in the"E"zoning district.
Based upon the above analysis,the proposed uses and development standards may
be deemed consistent with the GGAMP.
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 a
'EAC Meeting
Page 3 of 7
lake and two dry detention areas to provide water quality retention and peak flow
attenuation during storm events.
The project as proposed is consistent with the Policies in Objective 6.1 of the
Conservation& Coastal Management Element, for the following reasons:
Fifteen percent (15%) of the existing native vegetation is required to be retained.
Fifteen percent of the site has been identified for retained native vegetation
preservation within the PUD boundaries.
In accordance with Policy 6.1.1(3), 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.
Preserve management 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.
A wildlife survey for listed species in accordance with Policy 7.1.2 is included in
the Environmental Impact Statement(EIS).
VI. MAJOR ISSUES:
Stormwater Management:
This is a 22.73 acre site with small on-site wetlands, so it will be permitted by
SFWMD unless that agency determines that County Engineering staff can review.
The Conceptual Water Management Plan submitted with the project application
seems to show all the water routed toward the west. The topography seems to
indicate that prior to the construction of SR 951 and its canal, flow was probably
to the south, but the gridwork of roads and canals in Golden Gate Estates has
.-� altered those historical flow patterns. The main stormwater treatment /
attenuation system consists of a standard dry detention and wet detention (lake)
EAC Meeting
Page 4 of 7
combination to achieve water quality treatment and peak flow attenuation. A
topography of the area is attached.
Environmental:
Site Description:
The subject property is a vacant 22.73 acre parcel located on the southwest corner
of Pine Ridge Road and Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951), formerly Golden Gate
Estates parcels. The existing land uses for the site include improved and
unimproved roads, a utility easement, and undeveloped, forested lands. The
project is surrounded by Golden Gate Estates parcels and houses, commercial
development north of Pine Ridge, and a canal, roadway and more Golden Gate
Estates parcels to the east of Collier Boulevard.
An aerial photograph with FLUCFCS mapping is included in the EIS and includes
off-site habitats 200 feet from the property line. An aerial showing wetlands is
also provided, as well as habitat descriptions and acreages.
Wetlands:
There is a small (0.20 acre) jurisdictional Cypress (FLUCFCS 621) wetland
located in the northwestern portion of the project site. The project plans call for
completely impacting this wetland.
Preservation Requirements:
The Golden Gate Area Master Plan Element of the GMP allows the preservation
requirement to be met within the 75 foot buffer requirement adjacent to residential
lots. The vegetation in the proposed Preserve area is heavily vegetated with
mainly Pine Flatwoods and some Cypress/Cabbage Palm mix. The Preserve
requirement is 3.1 acres, as shown in the EIS and PUD Master Plan maps.
Listed Species:
According to the EIS, no listed animal species were found. One plant species
listed by the Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services, common wild pine
air plant (Tillandsia fasciculata), was found throughout the site. This plant is
classified as Endangered. Relocation of these plants from construction areas to
the on-site Preserve will be determined at the time of Site Development
Plan/Construction Plan review,based on GMP/LDC regulations.
EAC Meeting
Page 5 of 7
VII. RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of PUDZ-2005-AR-8337 with the following
conditions:
Stormwater Management:
1. A SFWMD Surface Water Management or Environmental Resource Permit
must be obtained prior to final SDP/PPL approval.
Environmental:
No additional conditions.
EAC Meeting
Page 6 of 7
PREPARED BY:
4 t PR
3 A 06
STAN CHRZ' •WSKI '.E. DATE
ENGINEERING REVIEW MANAGER
ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
&/(i\, i �(�-.� a LIj / 3l614)
LAURA ROYS GIBSON DATE
ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
C
MELISSA ZONE D: E
PRINCIPAL PLANNER
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
EAC Meeting
Page 7 of 7
REVIEWED BY:
4?aJo'v' , ` q-/ 7- 6)Z7
BARBARA S. BURGESON DATE
PRINCIPAL ENVIRONME TAL SPECIALIST
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
/ � / 04-17-�;.
IAM D. LOZ, Jr., '. . DATE
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
471 /0g‘
STEVEN GRIFFIN V, DATE
ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY
OFFICE OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ATTORNEY
APPROVED BY:
O'EPH K. SCHMITT A E
C'MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
MINISTRATOR
, ''
I! !! ! ' __ ..�— a H u
I
w..
,1,.
a
1
:1i
.1:..
411 1
b
i
a
g.
F
I
4
.,, 1.
o
0
Item V.B.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
MEETING OF MAY 3, 2006
I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT:
Petition No.: Planned Unit Development
No. PUDZ-A-2005-AR-8438
Petition Name: Windstar PUD
Applicant/Developer: Lakeview Drive of Naples, LLC
Engineering Consultant: Davidson Engineering, Inc.
Environmental Consultant: Kevin L. Erwin Consulting Ecologists,
Inc.
Turrell &Associates, Inc.
II. LOCATION:
The subject property is located west of Bayshore Drive and south of US 41
abutting the City of Naples city limits in Sections 11, 14 and 23, Township 50
South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES:
Surrounding properties are mostly developed, with the following zoning
classifications.
ZONING DESCRIPTION
N - RMF-6 Partly Developed
MH Developed
RMF-6-ST, MH, RMF-6 Haldeman Creek
S- PUD (Southpointe Yacht Club) Developed
E - RSF-4 Developed
RMF-6 Partly Developed
RMF-6-BMUD-R1 Partly Developed
RSF-6-BMUD-R1 Partly Developed
MH Developed
R.O.W. Bayshore Dr.
EAC Meeting
Page 2 of 9
RMF-6 Developed
R.O.W. Fern Street
W - City of Naples Haldeman Creek&
Naples Bay
City of Naples Residential-
Developed
IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The petitioner is seeking to amend the 320.6-acre Windstar PUD to add a 20.52-
acre tract that is commonly referred to as "the Fisherman's Village tract" for
which a maximum of 156 multi-family units were analyzed in the Traffic Impact
Statement and the Environmental Statement). As staff understands the petitioner's
proposal, the pending proposal adds the 72 dwelling units that would be allowable
in the existing Fisherman's Village tract with its RMF-6 (3.5 acres) and RMF-6(3)
(17.0 acres) zoning to the allowable maximum 549 dwelling units of the existing
PUD document for a total of 621 dwelling units in the newly configured 341.21
acre PUD project. The originally approved density was 1.715 units per acre; the
proposed density would be 1.82 units per acre (621 units = 341.12 acres = 1.82
units per acre). Also proposed are accessory uses such as parking, clubhouse
areas, and wet slips along Haldeman Creek. Access to serve the residents of this
tract is proposed from Lakeview Drive, as well as internal access from Windstar
Boulevard. No development changes to the existing Windstar PUD are proposed.
V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY:
Future Land Use Element:
The subject property is designated Urban (Urban Mixed-Use District, Urban
Coastal Fringe Subdistrict) on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth
Management Plan (GMP). The Urban Mixed—Use District permits a variety of
residential and non-residential land uses including mixed-use developments such
as Planned Unit Developments. The subject site is also within the Traffic
Congestion Area, part of the Density Rating System, and the site is entirely within
the Coastal High Hazard Area(CHHA) - that area lying within the Category 1
evacuation zone as defined in the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council
Hurricane Evacuation Study Update.
The Density Rating System provides for an eligible base density of 4 dwelling
units/acre (DU/A) throughout the Urban—Mixed Use District (except for the
Urban Residential Fringe capped at 1.5 DU/A), whether in or out of the CHHA.
But, because the site is located within the Traffic Congestion Boundary it is
EAC Meeting
Page 3 of 9
/'•
subject to a 1 DU/A reduction, thereby making the site eligible for an adjusted
base density of 3 DU/A.
It should also be noted that the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR)
recommends limiting the density to a maximum of 4 DU/A in the CHHA and
replacing the Traffic Congestion Boundary (TCB)reduction with a CHHA
reduction of 1 DU/A. The result would be the same in this case- 3 DU/A.
The existing Windstar PUD provides for 549 dwelling units on 320.6+ acres (1.7
DU/A). The proposed Windstar RPUD seeks 621 dwelling units on 341.1+ acres
(1.8 DU/A). The conceptual site plan for the additional 20.52 acres includes 138
dwelling units. The subject petition would result in an overall increase in density
in the Windstar RPUD, but within the allowable gross density of 3 DU/A for the
entire PUD. As with all residential rezones, density afforded by the Density
Rating System is the density that a given project is eligible for—it is not an
entitlement; for the subject petition.
FLUE Objective 7 encourages the use of smart growth principles. The applicant
has addressed several of these, including a diversity of housing types, connectivity
to adjacent projects, open spaces and pedestrian and bicycle paths.
Based on the above analysis, and subject to the changes required in the last
paragraph, staff concludes that the proposed development may be deemed
consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan.
Conservation & Coastal Management Element:
In accordance with Objective 2.4 and Policy 2.4.1, the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (14DEP) shall be notified of development projects
within Rookery Bay Aquatic Preserve watershed. A copy of the Site Development
Plan and Environmental Impact Statement will be forwarded to FDEP.
The project as proposed is consistent with the Policies in Objective 6.1 and 6.2 of
the Conservation &Coastal Management Element, for the following reasons:
Greater than twenty five percent (25 %) of the existing native vegetation will be
retained in the lands to be added into the PUD and set aside as preserve areas with
conservation easements prohibiting further development. Selection of preservation
areas, are consistent with the criteria listed in Policy 6.1.1.
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. A preliminary
EAC Meeting
Page 4 of 9
preserve area management plan for the preserve within the Fishermans Village
portion of the PUD is included in the EIS.
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.
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). As stated in Policies 6.2.3 and 6.2.4,
where permits issued by jurisdictional agencies allow for impacts to wetlands
within the Urban Designated Area and require mitigation for such impacts, this
shall be deemed to meet the objective of protection and conservation of wetlands
and the natural functions of wetlands within this area.
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.
A wildlife survey for listed species in accordance with Policy 7.1.2 is included in
the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Wildlife habitat management plans for
listed species are required at the time of Site Development Plan/Construction Plan
submittal. A preliminary manatee education and awareness plan for the site is
included in the EIS.
In accordance with Policy 7.2.1, the PUD is in compliance with the marina siting
criteria contained in the Manatee Protection Plan.
VI. MAJOR ISSUES:
Stormwater Management:
The purpose of this PUD amendment is to add the Fishermen's Village SDP that
was already reviewed by the EAC to the Windstar PUD. The Engineering Review
Department doesn't see any new issues that concern the management of the
project's stormwater that will be caused by this procedural matter.
EAC Meeting
Page 5 of 9
Environmental:
Site Description:
The proposed amendment will incorporate the 20.52 acre Fishermans Village
parcel into the existing Windstar PUD. The 320 acre existing Windstar PUD is a
developed residential and golf course project with both single-family and multi-
family residences, an 18 hole golf course, several stormwater lakes, and preserve
areas.
The Fishermans Village site has been significantly altered by previous land use
with areas of mowed grass, scattered slash pine and cabbage palm, residual
cabbage palm hammocks, an excavated lake, and mangroves. The Fishermans
Village site is currently being permitted as a temporary spoil disposal site for the
County's Haldeman Creek dredging project and the majority of the proposed
development area will be significantly altered prior to development. Site plans
depicting conditions on-site before and after the County's use of the property are
included in the EIS.
The Fishermans Village soils map identifies four soil types mapped on-site with
two soils being dominant. The northern portion of the site is identified as Durbin
and Wulfert Mucks, which are typically found in tidal mangrove swamps. The
southern portion of the site is mapped as hydric soils and has been previously
impacted.
Wetlands:
In association with the County's permitting of the Fishermans Village property as
a temporary spoil recipient site for the Haldeman Creek dredging project, the
County has had site wetlands delineated. According to the County's delineation
there are currently 5.2 acres of jurisdictional wetlands (4.7 acres) and other
surface waters (0.5 acres) south of Haldeman Creek. Additionally, Kevin L. Erwin
Consulting Ecologists have mapped, based on photo interpretation, an additional
4.9 acres of wetlands (1.8 acres) and other waters (3.1 acres)north of the southern
property, including Haldeman Creek. All development work proposed is south of
the Creek in the area delineated as part of the County's dredge project.
Additionally, the project has expanded to the south to include a pre-existing
• apartment complex, which includes a 0.4 acre surface water management lake,
which will be relocated. Based on the proposed spoil stockpiling permit for the
County, approximately 0.4 acres of wetlands and 0.5 acres of Other Surface
Waters will be impacted and mitigated for by the County. Mitigation for impacts
by the County will be by purchasing credits from local mitigation banks.
EAC Meeting
Page 6 of 9
The Fishermans Village project proposes to impact an additional 0.9 acres of
wetlands (0.3 acres of created mangrove forest, 0.4 acre of mangrove forest, 0.1
acre of restored mixed forested wetlands, and 0.1 acre of shrub and brush land)
and 0.4 acres of the existing water management system. To offset the impacts to
these wetlands, the developer intends to conduct on-site wetland enhancement and
preservation of 3.6 acres of coastal-forested wetland. Final wetland plans and
wetland mitigation activities will be finalized during discussions with state and
federal permitting agencies. If necessary, the balance of wetland impacts will be
offset by purchasing forested saltwater wetland mitigation credits from Little Pine
Island Mitigation Bank. Preliminary Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method
(UMAM) data sheets for the project are included as Exhibit K in the EIS.
Preservation Requirements:
The Fishermans Village property has been significantly altered by previous land
use and the majority of uplands are maintained (mowed) grassy areas with clusters
of pine and cabbage palm. Prior to initiation of construction of the Fishermans
Village project, the site will be further altered by the County's use of the property
as a temporary spoil site for maintenance dredging of Haldeman Creek.
Approximately 6.95 acres of native vegetation were present on the Fishermans
Village site prior to the County utilizing the property.
In accordance with the County Growth Management Plan (GMP) and Land
Development Code (LDC), a minimum of twenty-five percent of the native
vegetation on-site will have to be retained(6.95 acres X .25 = 1.74 acres). The
2.66 acre preserve on the east side of the Fishermans Village project exceeds this
requirement.
Conservation easements have been recorded for habitats on the Fishermans
Village site as part of the original development permits issued for the site (DER
Permit No.112315935 (4/17/91); SFWMD Permit No.11-01157-S (11/10/93);
USACOE Permit No.199003630 (8/6/93)). While the majority of the mitigation
was conducted for the original permits, the impact and development associated
with the original permits was not. The property owner intends to lift the existing
conservation easements and record easements over the preserves associated with
the current site plan.
Listed Species:
Surveys for listed plant and animal species were conducted on-site on October
19th and November 15th, 2004. On October 19th the site was surveyed from 9:00
a.m. - 11:30 a.m. with the majority of the focus on the open lands and mangrove
fringe. On November 15th the site was surveyed from 10:30 a.m. —3:30 p.m. with
EAC Meeting
Page 7 of 9
the majority of the focus on the native mangrove/bay, cabbage palm and tropical
hardwood areas. More recently, at the request of County staff, the entire PUD
property was examined for the presence of gopher tortoise burrows. No gopher
tortoises or gopher tortoise burrows were found on-site.
Listed wildlife species observed on-site include one tri-color heron (on two
occasions) and three white ibis foraging on the mud flat in the center of the
mangrove forest. The only listed plant species identified was the common (stiff-
leaved) wild pine(Tillandsia fasciculata) found in the mangrove forest.
Additionally, an osprey is nesting on a platform erected adjacent to the canal on
the eastern portion of the property.
The listed species observed were in areas that are proposed to be preserved. The
active osprey nest is located in an area that is to be retained as a
preserve/landscape buffer and the pole and platform will not be removed.
VII. RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of Planned Unit Development Amendment No.
PUDZ-A-2005-AR-8438 "Windstar PUD" with the following conditions:
Stormwater Management and Environmental:
No additional stipulations.
EAC Meeting
Page 8 of 9
PREPARED BY:
4141.
STAN CHRZANO SKI, P.E. DATE
ENGINEERING REVIEW MANAGER
ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Vi-000C
STEPHEN LENBERGER DATE
ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
KAY Diela:
'ET.FM DATE
PRINCIPAL PLANNER
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
REVIEWED BY:
/32-41)04-07_ /1 ` u .J)G1- �-i)-o4
BARBAA S. BURGESON <7 DATE
PRINCIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
r-�
•
EAC Meeting
Page 9 of 9
i
� / 04-/4-o4
'i 'IAM D. LORE , Jr., P. '.,DIRECTOR, DATE
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
�1 41,
__ ij, it( * i 6{1_ 0 c
STEVEN D. GRIFFIN ` DATE
ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY
OFFICE OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ATTORNEY
APPROVED BY:
Aermali.s.A .--1,-, ._...% .47A
SEPH K. SC I I , ADM I STRATOR,
i•iATE
•MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT &ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION