Loading...
EAC Agenda 01/05/2005 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL AGENDA January 5, 2005 9:00 A.M. Commission Boardroom W. Harmon Turner Building (Building "F") — Third Floor I. Roll Call II. Approval of Agenda III. Approval of December 01, 2005 Meeting minutes IV. Land Use Petitions A. Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-2004-AR-5611 "Seacrest Upper And Lower School PUD" Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East B. Rezone No. RZ-2003-AR-4961 Home Center Plaza Rezone Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East C. Final Plat and Construction Plans No. PPL-2004-AR-5490 Briarwood Unit 11 Section 31, Township 49 South, Range 26 East D. Planned Unit Development Amendment No. PUDZ-A-2003-AR-5168 Malibu Lakes PUD Section 30, Township 48 South, Range 26 East V. Old Business VI. New Business A. Oustanding Advisory Committee Member Nominations B. Schedule for Presenting Proposed Listed Species Management Program VII. Council Member Comments VIII. Public Comments IX. Adjournment Council Members: Please notify the Environmental Services Department Administrative Assistant no later than 5:00 p.m. on December 30. 2004 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 mace. which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal s to be rased. December 1, 2004 On TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida December 1, 2004 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Environmental Advisory Committee 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, East Naples, Florida, with the following member present: CHAIRMAN: Alfred Gal William Hughes Judith Hushon (Absent) Ken Humiston Michael Sorrell Erica Lynne Joe Gammons ALSO PRESENT: Bill Lorenz, Environmental Services Director Steve Lenberger, Environmental Specialist Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney Michelle Mosca, CDES Stan Litsinger, CDES 1 December 1, 2004 The meeting was called to order at 9:04 AM. Roll call was taken with Judith Hushon absent. A quorum was established. II. Approval of Agenda: Ms. Lynne moved to approve the Agenda as presented. Second by Mr. Hughes. Carried unanimously 6-0. III. Approval of November 3, 2004 Meeting minutes: Mr. Humiston referred to page 6 with a clarification as follows: his question about water control was when taking water quality samples it is important to do the sampling procedure carefully, so not to entrain bottom sediments which could be contaminated, skewering the results of the sampling. Mr. Hughes moved to approve the minutes as amended. Second by Mr. Humiston. Carried unanimously 6-0. IV. Growth Management Plan Amendment 1. Transfer of Development Rights (TDR's) Bonus Amendment/Rural Fringe mixed Use District (Staff report will be sent under separate cover.) Bill Lorenz—Environmental Services Director Mr.Lorenz explained staff will give a presentation along with the private sector as it is being sponsored by them along with staff. Stan Litsinger—Director of Comprehensive Planning—explained the TDR program is not working in the rapid manner they had hoped. A Stakeholders meeting was held on July 20th with the minutes attached. Results of the meeting are a joint amendment that includes features originated by the petitioner. Will present an outline of the enhancements they are proposing to adopt into the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District of the TDR program. They are concerned with providing more incentives from perspective willing sellers. They are waiting for a final report from Dr. James Nicholas on his assessment of the impact of the TDR enhancements they will be discussing. Staff is supportive of the changes and feels it will "jump start"the TDR program and enhance the real goal of the natural resource protections programs and opportunity to provide additional incentives with availability of additional TDR's. Michelle Mosca—Comprehensive Planning—her report is as follows: • Amendment is proposing to modify the TDR program adding three additional TDR bonus's and change the development standards for Rural Villages including the reduction in the green belt width. • First bonus -Early Entry Bonus—referred to page 2 of report—Exhibit 4B -#6. This allows 1 additional unit if property owner is in TDR program within first 5 years. Encourages the early severance of TDR's from the Sending Lands. 2 December 1, 2004 • Second bonus—Environmental Restoration Maintenance Bonus— 1 bonus would be awarded to a property owner participating in the bonus. Would need to present restoration and management plan to the County. When approved they would issue an additional unit. • Third bonus—Conveyance Bonus— allows additional 1 dwelling unit per five acres of legal nonconforming lot of record. Mr. Litsinger stated the marketplace has not set a value on TDR's. A regulatory minimum transaction price in a sale for a willing Seller and willing Buyer had been set by the Board of$25,000. He is hesitant to put dollar figures on TDR's. A lengthy discussion took place in which the question was asked if the property owners in the Sending areas understand the program. Mr. Litsinger responded they probably don't completely. They have corresponded with each property owner concerning the program; have a website and there are many attorneys they can contact. The County will not be involved in the business of buying and selling TDR's. PETITIONERS Bruce Anderson—Roetzel and Andress— (others present are Robert Duane/Hole Montes,David Ellis/Collier Building Industry Assn., CBIA Co-applicants,Nancy Peyton/FL Wildlife Federation and Brad Cornell/CC Audubon Society. ) They are all working together to implement the Counties Growth Management Plan for the Rural Fringe. To direct new developments to appropriate locations, already impacted lands called Receiving Lands and protect from new development Environmental Lands designated as Sending Lands. The intent of the program is to allow an owner of Sending Lands "to recoup lost value and development potential through an economically viable process of transferring such rights to other more suitable lands." He stated economically viable is the key phrase. Today zero TDR's have been severed out of approx. 21,000 acres of Sending Lands designated. The program is not succeeding. Because of the estates lots escalating in value, five acre Sending Land parcels are being purchased for$10,000 an acre. The problem with the present program is if TDR's could be purchased at $50,000 a TDR unit, developers can't afford to buy and use them in the Rural Fringe. The proposed Amendment would make it more profitable to conserve the land and sever the TDR's, then sell it for residential development. The Amendment is excellent—for the environment, for the owner of Sending Lands, owners of Receiving Lands and for the County. 3 December 1, 2004 Changes proposed for the Rural Villages—higher density and commercial uses are encouraged. (Page 4—Exhibit 4E) Only change is a modification of the green belt width requirements along the perimeter of a Rural Village. Average width should be changed from 500 to 300 feet. Minimum width is changed from 300 to 200. David Ellis—Executive Director of Collier Building Assoc. —Served on Committee—important to CBIA to preserve environmental lands and compensate the land owners who lost value in the process. Early Entry Bonus is to "kick-start" the program. The Amendment might encourage someone to look into the program to understand it. Designed same way as in the Eastern Lands with Early Entry Bonus. Brad Cornell— Collier County Audubon Society—letter distributed to Committee members (attached). He stated the following: Issues were not foreseen in 2002 and now demand an effective response by the County. Dehydration of wetlands in some of the Sending Lands is needed. Need incentives for the land owners not to build homes, but rather to sell their development rights for a reasonable compensation. Intention is to manage the land according to the listed species management plan guidelines and to provide the long term maintenance after the plan has been implemented. (Cleared the Exotics, did a burn and did a hydrologic restoration) Land owners don't understand the whole program. Discussion followed on who should maintain the land, owner or developer. Stan Litsinger stated they need to make a distinction—they are looking at fee simple ownership and TDR severance. In purchasing a TDR, they are purchasing a commodity and then move through the community. Can only be one easement recorded. In the proposal, after severing the TDR rights from the property, there is a subsequent process available where a property owner can implement a Restoration and Management Plan—issue new TDR certificate—then no more severance and a new credit certificate is issued and can move in the community freely. Brad Cornell responded whoever owns the land needs to be implementing the Management Plan. The cost for initial 5 acre parcel was estimated for removal of Melaluca approx. $3,000/acre. Then yearly maintenance needs to be done. Bill Lorenz—Environmental Services Director—has put some cost estimates together based on $1,000/acre which gives a net return to the Seller of the TDR for the conveyance being $24,000. Based on 25 years. There are a number of incentive programs from Federal and State Agencies for grants for habitat restoration. They could offset some of the management costs. 4 December 1, 2004 Application fees, hiring attorneys, developing details; who will receive the annuity payments, and who will pay the contractors and having more employees was discussed. They discussed the mechanism for enforcement and compliance needs to be considered also. Mr. Lorenz mentioned the Conservation Collier program has to create a land management plan for all the properties acquired. Certain components would be required in the conveyance management plans. They would like to provide bonus TDR's for the program. Get it going; and get restoration on the properties—with fine tuning. Land uses, after the TDR's are sold, was asked. The list will be given later in the meeting. It was also noted Golden Gate Estates is not part of this program. Map was shown on visualizer. Mr. Anderson explained platting of the land. The only way the TDR program will work is to have TDR credits off the Sending Lands. Brad stated government has injected a new commodity in the market place. They have created value, and the public will get the protection of resources of the conservation land. Ms. Lynne questioned the maintenance for only 25 years. Brad stated they hope they get conveyed to the public. Mr. Litsinger responded they have had much discussion on perpetuity. Mr. Anderson addressed a few of the questions as follows: • Once the TDR has been severed, there isn't anything left to develop. • Developers will be the ones to purchase. (Not mom &pop) • SFLWM District has a successful program and a scientific basis for the 5 year requirement. Once the exotics are cleared and maintained for 5 years, re- infestation is reduced. Nancy Peyton—Florida Wildlife Federation—also a petitioner— Conveyance TDR Bonus: gifting, conveying fee simple title of the land to a government agency such as; Conservation Collier, FL Water Management District, the State of Florida, the Federal Government or any government entity. Benefits the County in providing an opportunity to improve water quality and the health of Naples Bay. She showed a map of Golden Gate Canal which dumps water into Naples Bay. There is an opportunity to enter into a flowways easement also. The Stakeholders are meeting to look at other government programs that will assist landowners with grants etc. The Conveyance program helps with other programs under consideration or implementation in the County. 5 December 1, 2004 Mr. Litsinger did mention no lands designated conservation with conservation easement would participate in the TDR program. Michelle Mosca read the listed uses asked for earlier in the meeting: • Agricultural • Cattle grazing on unimproved pasture where no clearing is required. • Detached single family dwelling units (retains 40 acres in Sending Lands) • Habitat preservation conservation uses • Passive parks and Passive recreational uses. • Essential services • Oil extraction and related processing (excluding earth mining) SPEAKERS Nicole Ryan—Conservancy of SW Florida She stated the program has been in place for one year and asked if it is long enough to determine if"it is broken and needs to be fixed." Unrealistic to compare the Fringe and Rural lands programs to each other. Rural Lands have immediate participation. Rural Fringe is different—small tracts of land, with education is key to the program. Was the letter sent to property owners as user friendly as it could have been? It should be an enthusiastic sell. What is there to make people say "yes they want to �`. participate?" The Conservancy isn't convinced the program is broken and in need of a fix that they consider drastic looking at the potential for all the TDR bonus units. Could have a potential of 13,000 dwelling units and 32,000 additional people. Is that too much? Have all the other ways been exhausted of getting the program off? She talked about the TDR's and establishment of banks. One concern of the Conservancy is the TDR's are not going to be tied to Villages. Want to encourage in the Receiving Lands. Discussed protection of native vegetation and asked if it would increase in TDR bonuses and help the creation of rural villages. They want a TDR program that will work and believe management is important. Conservancy is proposing any additional bonuses not exceed 1 TDR bonus per 5 acres for non- conforming parcel. Also see the TDR tied to the Village to promote the Village development in the Receiving Lands. Would like the County to look at better education and a more enthusiastic sell. Also the TDR Banks. Ms. Lynne agreed with much of what Ms. Ryan stated. Mr. Litsinger responded to Ms. Ryan's' comments: - Not a voluntary participant program—TDR mechanism is a compensation mechanism for restrictions and regulations imposed by the County. - Sales program—property owners need to be made aware of the program and availability of severance opportunity. - Sales organization—County not in business of buying or selling TDR's. 6 December 1, 2004 - Need firm position in place that they are not going to change in next amendment cycle. - Can still have maximum of 4 rural villages—and would prefer to see development take place in rural village type of development in Receiving Lands. - Do not share the same concerns but need to continue to use the bonus aspects of the program. Mr.Anderson responded: o Limiting the bonuses to the Rural Villages idea was thrown out by the Conservancy at the July Stakeholders meeting. The idea is to make the TDR program that is not working today, workable and not to add new additional complications. SPEAKER Tom Taylor—Hole Montes Inc.—Chaired the Committee with CBIA— recognized the TDR program is not working. It is broken and needs modifications. They feel these modifications will be successful. Gave examples. They believe they have developed a program that achieves all the goals for Collier County, the citizens, landowners, environmental and the Audubon Society and Wildlife Federation (co- sponsors). The developers have approached the landowners and have said they fully understand the TDR program and just do not care to participate. They need to get the development rights transferred off the Sending Lands and transferred onto the Receiving Lands. They looked at many issues and came up with benefits for participating and supporting the program. Michelle Mosca made a final point. Staff's viewpoint whether the TDR program is broken? They don't know at this point, it is a relatively new program and didn't want to make a blanket statement that it is broken. Nancy Peyton made one last comment—program has been adopted for more than 2 years so has not just started. There is a problem and they can't say "wait another year and see".... It takes a while to get this particular program to work and need help in promoting the program. She asked the EAC to support the Amendment. No need to wait another year- address the program now. Dr. Nicholas' report is due within a week. Will take the Transmittal to the Planning Commission on January 6th and the Board of County Commissioners on January 27th. After Transmittal and prior to Adoption it will come back to EAC again on January 5th. 7 December 1, 2004 Mr. Hughes moved to approve the Amendment, with a side note to the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners,that consideration be given to the creation of authority to manage the funds for the 25 year perpetuity land maintenance,#2 with a caveat they consider the heavy secondary uses of the land, is consistent with the environmental needs (reason for entire initiative that the uses of the land,even though it may be Agriculture, they're still within some guidelines that be protection of the resources of the County) Oil drilling still should be questionable,certain agricultural land uses should be questionable, pertinent to water supplies to the County and City of Naples. Without a second, the motion was not considered. Mr. Gammons moved the same thing minus the authority. He agrees wholeheartedly - without the authority to oversee and handle the money. Without a second, the motion was not considered. Mr. Hughes stated he is trying to give a heads up to the other Councils that will review this. Mr. Hughes moved to approve the Amendment provided to them. Second by Mr. Gal. Carried unanimously 6-0. Mr. Hughes moved to recommend that there be some kind of management structure created for the funds. (Take the funds that are generated and re- apply them to do the land mitigation and maintain the land in perpetuity - protecting their resources) Second by Mr. Gammons. Carried unanimously 6-0. V. Old Business—None VI. New Business—None VII. Council Member Comments - None VIII. Public Comments—None There being no further business for the good of the County,the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:22 AM. COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Chairman Alfred Gal 8 Item V.I. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING OF JANUARY 5, 2005 I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT: Petition No.: Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-2004-AR-5611 Petition Name: Seacrest Upper and Lower School PUD Applicant/Developer: Seacrest School, Inc. Engineering Consultant: WilsonMiller, Inc. Environmental Consultant: WilsonMiller, Inc. II. LOCATION: The subject property is located on the south side of Davis Boulevard, and on the east side of County Barn Road in Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: Surrounding properties include both developed and undeveloped parcels with the following zoning classifications. ZONING DESCRIPTION N - R.O.W. Davis Blvd. Estates Undeveloped Estates Developed(Church) S - Estates Developed (Unity Church) Estates Partially Developed (Single-family residences) E - PUD (Falling Waters) Developed Estates Developed (Unity Church) EAC Meeting Page 2 of 9 W - R.O.W. County Barn Road Estates Undeveloped IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The application is requesting a rezone from Estates (E) and Estates (E) zoning with an approved conditional use for the existing school facility to Planned Unit Development (PUD) to be known as the Seacrest Upper and Lower School PUD. The project is located on the south side of Davis Boulevard and on the east side of County Barn Road. The existing school is on 9.84+ acres located approximately 1800 feet east of County Barn Road south of Davis Boulevard (SR-84). The Seacrest Country Day School was opened in the fall of 1982 and currently serves 450 students in grades from pre-kindergarten through eight. The school has purchased an additional 29.6+ acres adjacent to the existing facility for a total of approximately 39.4+ acres. The 39.4+ acres is proposed to be incorporated within the Seacrest Upper and Lower School PUD rezone. In addition to the existing pre- kindergarten through eighth grade facility, the rezone requests a high school that will serve an additional 450 students. The PUD is proposing accessory uses incidental to the school and campus related uses. These uses include; recreational facilities (stadiums, athletic fields, playgrounds, swimming pools, track and field venues, basketball courts, and tennis courts), child day care services, and eating- places restricted to cafeterias. Construction for the new school would occur in a single phase with an opening date set for fall of 2005 and buildout capacity assumed for 2006. V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element: The subject property is designated Urban (Urban - Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict) on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. Relevant to this petition, this Subdistrict allows certain nonresidential uses, including community facilities such as schools. The purpose of the Urban Residential Subdistrict is to provide for higher densities in an area with fewer natural resource constraints, and where existing and planned public facilities are concentrated. The application has been found by Staff to satisfy the specific development requirements for the Urban - Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict. Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes the proposed use may be deemed consistent with the FLUE. EAC Meeting Page 3 of 9 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 lakes and interconnected wetlands 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 and 6.2 of — the Conservation & Coastal Management Element, for the following reasons: Greater than fifteen percent (15 %) of the existing native vegetation will be retained on-site 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. 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 EAC Meeting Page 4 of 9 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. VI. MAJOR ISSUES: Stormwater Management: The project is located within the Lely Canal Basin of the County's Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project (LASIP). The project proposes using a surface water management system consisting of two wet detention lakes that discharge into an on-site preserve with an ultimate discharge into the east roadside swale of County Barn Road. The allowable discharge rate is in compliance with the requirements of Ordinance 90-10, as amended. The site is designed for existing regional drainage conditions as well as future conditions after implementation of the LASIP. Calculation of the 100-year floodplain encroachment/mitigation was included with this project. The implementation of the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project will require a drainage easement along the entire County Barn Road frontage of this project. Discussions have been held regarding the required width of the drainage easement. Uncertainties in the 4-lane design of County Barn Road have created a situation where the requested width will be within a range from forty (40) feet to slightly over fifty (50) feet. The required width will be determined prior to presentation to the Planning Commission. Also unresolved is a determination of the methodology for establishing a value for the drainage easement. As required in section 3.8.5.6(B) of the EIS, the applicant has provided a water quality analysis to evaluate potential water quality impacts at pre and post development. In the analysis the applicant demonstrated a 49% reduction in nitrogen and a 56% reduction in phosphorous at post development. (See Harper Water Quality Analysis in Appendix A of the EIS). EAC Meeting Page 5 of 9 Environmental: Site Description: The subject property consists of the existing Seacreast Country Day School (9.79 acres) and the proposed Seacrest Upper Campus site (29.64 acres), the latter of which is undeveloped. Native habitats on the proposed Seacrest Upper Campus site include pine flatwoods (FLUCFCS Code 411), cypress-pine-cabbage palm (FLUCFCS Code 624), and hydric pine flatwoods (FLUCFCS Code 625). Approximately 1.8 acres of native vegetation are also found at the existing Seacreast Country Day School. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soil map for the area identifies two soil types occurring on the site; Pineda fine sand, limestone substratum (Unit 14) and Boca fine sand (Unit 21). The undeveloped portion of the site consists mainly of Soil Map Unit 14, which is listed as hydric by the NRCS. The wet season high water table was determined by using site-specific hydrobiological indicators. Cypress trees on the property exhibited lichen lines and water stains at an average elevation of 8.95 feet NGVD. Three stakes were also installed at separate wetland/upland interface edges on the property, and the ground elevation at each wetland/upland interface stake later surveyed. The wetland/upland interface edge ground elevation ranged from 8.83 to 9.17 feet NGVD. An average elevation of 9.0 feet was used for control design purposes. The existing Seacreast Country Day School, and adjacent Florida Apartment Club, both have a permitted control elevation of 9.0 feet. Wetlands: The South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) exerted jurisdiction over approximately 19.41 acres of freshwater-forested wetlands on the Seacrest Upper Campus property. These wetlands consist of 1.00 acre of exotic wetland hardwoods, 15.13 acres of cypress-pine-cabbage palm, and 3.28 acres of hydric pine flatwoods. Development of the project will result in direct impacts to 13.11 of wetlands. Mitigation for impacts to jurisdictional wetlands includes preservation and enhancement of the remaining 6.30 acres of wetlands and 1.09 acres of uplands on-site. Enhancement will include exotic and nuisance plant eradication, hydroperiod restoration and re-vegetation with indigenous wetland vegetation. The applicant has proposed the purchase 6.05 mitigation credits from a private mitigation bank to satisfy off-site mitigation credits for this project. EAC Meeting Page 6 of 9 Preservation Requirements: The subject property consists of the existing Seacreast Country Day School (9.79 acres) and the proposed Seacrest Upper Campus site (29.64 acres), the latter of which is undeveloped. Approximately 1.8 acres of native vegetation have been set-aside as preserves at the existing Seacrest Country Day School facility. The undeveloped Seacrest Upper Campus site contains approximately 28.64 acres of native vegetation (approximately 10.3 acres of pine flatwoods, 15.1 acres of cypress-pine-cabbage palm, and 3.3 acres of hydric pine flatwoods). Policy 6.1.1 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Growth Management Plan requires that fifteen percent (15%) of the existing native vegetation be retained on-site and be set-aside as preserve, and to be protected by a permanent conservation easement to prohibit further development. The native vegetation requirement for this site is based on the amount of existing native vegetation present on the Upper School Campus site and (since the existing County Day School is already developed) on the total acreage of the existing County Day School (28.64 acres + 9.79 acres = 38.43 acres x .15 = 5.76 acres required). The 9.1 acres of preserve identified on the PUD master plan exceeds this requirement. Listed Species: In August 2003, the consultant performed meandering listed species pedestrian transects through the various habitats on the subject property. Once the grid of meandering transects covered the site, additional transects were performed targeting those portions of the site with the greatest potential for listed species. When performing pedestrian transects through appropriate habitats, particular consideration was given to looking for signs of red-cockaded woodpeckers (RCWs) and gopher tortoises. No state or federally listed wildlife species or evidence of listed wildlife species was observed on the property. A RCW foraging area survey was conducted during the fall season(October 15 to December 15, 2003). The survey was performed during 15 consecutive working days (Monday through Friday). Weather conditions were favorable each day of the survey. No RCWs or cavity trees were observed during the survey. A RCW nesting season survey was also performed on the site between April 15 and June 15, 2004. No RCWs or cavity trees were observed during this survey. The listed species survey did result in observations of Florida Department of Agricultural (FDA) listed flora species. Table 5 in the EIS gives the scientific and common name of each of the listed plant species, vegetative community EAC Meeting Page 7 of 9 association and listing status by the FDA. No plant species listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was observed on the project site. VII. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-2004-AR- 5611 "Seacrest Upper and Lower School PUD"with the following stipulations: Stormwater Management: 1. Create a Stormwater Management subsection in section VI of the PUD document and include the following stipulations in the new subsection. A drainage easement, up to fifty (50) feet wide to fully comply with the implementation of the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project drainage improvements, adjacent to but outside the limits of the proposed County Barn Road widening eastern right-of-way line, shall be included in the PUD Master Plan document. The easement shall be dedicated to Collier County within ninety(90) days of the County asking in writing for the dedication, or prior to the issuance of the first C.O.,whichever comes first. A twenty (20) foot wide lake maintenance easement shall be provided around each of the lakes without obstruction from littoral plantings. Additionally, a twenty (20) foot wide access easement shall connect each lake maintenance easement to the nearest roadway through the project unless the lake maintenance easement is contiguous to a roadway. Environmental: No additional stipulations. EAC Meeting Page 8 of 9 PREPARED BY: TAN CHRZANOW'', , P.E. DATE ENGINEERING REVIEW MANAGER ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT //'29 01-- ROBERT �ROBERT C. ViLEY, P.E., C.F.M. DATE PRINCIPAL PROJECT MANAGER ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 1//,2006-1. ST PHEN LENBERGER DATE ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT MIKE BOSI, A.I.C.P. DATE PRINCIPAL PLANNER DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW EAC Meeting Page 9 of 9 REVIEWED BY: /3A4dtticebtL. d' ct3u, o-- /a-6-bY' BARBARA S. BURGESON DATE PRINCIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT ` /'Z 04•a�4 Atil Ar IAM D. LORE , Jr., . ., DIRECTOR, DATE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT SAN MURRAY, MCPJ DECTOR, DATE DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVED BY: • : H K. SC ITT, ADMINISTRATOR, DAT F 10 J •• MUNITY DEVELOPMENT &ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION _ .., r t 1a1 a visa ;k — , . _ , ow. st 0,6,:willii r tot torp, 1 se . 15.,, 114,..\,, ., . :,,,,,, ... A „. ..„..4,,,,,,,, , .... .. , , iiiii, 1 .,..,xr.,.. .6 vo, i .,.x i i ,,__ z .,..., „„ r.a 7 T as II- e x. SiIlk , 1 0lOj <, . , ii r7 LL a *At �oo`N _ a E. 4 m e.�w 8 z 1 VA 1 a 4 avni 0 . _ $ UA'1813SNf S a s 1044 orw h 1,,, \ . ,.. , s IfIf i _ 111111000111 I Item IV.B. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING OF JANUARY 5, 2005 I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT: Petition No.: RZ-2003-AR-4961 Petition Name: Home Center Plaza Applicant/Developer: Southern Development, Inc. Engineering Consultant: Davidson Engineering, Inc. Environmental Consultant: Hoover Planning&Development II. LOCATION: The subject property is located immediately north of U.S. 41, approximately 450 feet east of the intersection of Collier Boulevard and East Tamiami Trail, in Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. n III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: Surrounding properties are mostly developed, with the exception of parcels south of the subject property. ZONING DESCRIPTION N - Falling Waters Beach Resort PUD Multi-family Condominiums S - Right-Of-Way U.S. Highway 41 and Canal "A"Agriculture Undeveloped Land E - C-5 Home Center Plaza 1 W- C-3ST Eckerds r EAC Meeting Page 2 of 7 IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The subject property is a vacant undeveloped tract of land. The applicant owns and is developing the adjoining commercial property(8.08 acres)to the southeast. The subject property consists of two tracts of land. The western tract has an area of 2.02 acres and is zoned"A"Agriculture district, and the eastern tract has an area of 4.04 acres and is zoned"C-2ST". The applicant is proposing 53,300 square feet throughout three commercial buildings plus associated infrastructure, a lake and a preserve. V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element: The subject property is currently located in Activity Center #18 in the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). This Subdistrict is designed to concentrate almost all of the new commercial zoning in locations where traffic impacts can readily be accommodated, to avoid strip and disorganized patterns of commercial development, and to create focal points within the community. The mix of uses in Activity Center #18, as indicated in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), ranges from 80% to 100% commercially zoned and/or developed property. For the purpose of this specially designated Activity Center, the entire Activity Center is eligible for up to 100%, or any combination thereof, of each of the following uses: commercial,residential and/or community facilities. The Comprehensive Planning staff concludes that the proposed rezone from A/C- 2 ST zoning district to C-3 zoning district may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. 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 EAC Meeting Page 3 of 7 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 lakes and interconnected wetlands 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 and 6.2 of the Conservation& Coastal Management Element, for the following reasons: Fifteen percent(15 %) of the existing native vegetation will be retained on-site 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. Exotic vegetation removal/maintenance plans are required at the time of Site Development Plan/Construction Plan submittal. Preserve areas shall be required to be maintained free of Category I invasive exotic plants, as defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council. Littoral shelf planting areas within wet detention ponds shall be required at the time of Site Development Plan/Construction Plan submittal, and will be required to meet the minimum planting area requirement in Policy 6.1.7. The requirement for an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)pursuant to Policy 6.1.8 has been satisfied. 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 Rezone Conceptual Site Plan. There are no uses proposed within the preserve with the rezone. 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. EAC Meeting Page4of7 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. VI. MAJOR ISSUES: Stormwater Management: This rezone does not require engineering review comments at this time. Environmental: Site Description: The subject property is an undeveloped 6.07 acre parcel located immediately north of U.S. 41, approximately 450 feet east of the intersection of Collier Boulevard and East Tamiami Trail. Native habitats on-site include mixed wetland forest (FLUCFCS Code 630) and pine flatwoods (FLUCFCS Code 411). According to the Collier County Soils Map, two soil types occur on the subject property: Pineda Fine Sand, Limestone Substratum (Unit 14) and Hallandale fine sand (Unit 11). The site consists mainly of Soil Map Unit 14, which is listed as hydric by the Natural Resources Conservation Service. The natural ground elevation is approximately 4.8' to 5.2' NGVD. Since the property is surrounded by development and a large canal to the south, high water levels were not determined. Control elevation will most likely be set at 5.0' NGVD. Wetlands: Approximately 5.02 acres of South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD)/Collier County jurisdictional wetlands have been identified on the property. Wetland lines were field verified and approved by SFWMD staff on May 10, 2000. Mixed wetland forest consisting of cypress and pine with scattered laurel oak and cabbage palm is the only wetland habitat type on the property. Approximately 4.14 acres of wetlands will be directly impacted by the proposed project through dredging and filling. Twenty-five percent of the wetlands on site have been mitigated for secondary impacts by the adjacent Falling Waters Beach Resort. Mitigation has also been done for impacts to the wetland by the Eckerds development to the west of the project. Mitigation for the remaining wetland will EAC Meeting Page 5 of 7 be done through the SFWMD permit required at the time of plat/ construction plan approval. Preservation Requirements: The entire subject property will be counted towards native vegetation requirements since the disturbed areas on site were cleared without a permit. Fifteen percent (0.91 acres) of wetlands and uplands will be put into preservation. Listed Species: No listed species were found on site. VII. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of RZ-2003-AR-4961, Home Center Plaza, with the following stipulations: Stormwater Management: No additional stipulations. Environmental: No additional stipulations. EAC Meeting Page 6 of 7 PREPARED BY: ,,.,,,,,,, ‘ . 1,, i. 14 bec O4- STAN CHRZANOW , P.E. DATE ENGINEERING RE W MANAGER 4ttAmt_ iti2tivp/ Ja-- /3Olt , - LAURA ROYS DATE ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST „—..., 4,,,,, s X. , ' - e MICHAEL RUNTZ DATE PRINCIPAL PLANNER 1 EAC Meeting Page 7 of 7 REVIEWED BY: 6,242ata A v- j,) -l7J39' BARBARA S. BURG E N DATE PRINCIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST Iii ILLIAM D. L NZ, r.,P.E. DATE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR /a-/7-o(/ SUSAN MURRAY, AICP. 1-A--(it DATE DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVED BY: EPH K. S HMITT P A OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR Item IV.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING OF JANUARY 5, 2005 I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT: Petition No.: Final Plat and Construction Plans No.PPL-2004-AR-5490 Petition Name: Briarwood Unit 11 Applicant/Developer: Spinelli Land Holdings, LLC Engineering Consultant: Butler Engineering, Inc. Environmental Consultant: Boylan Environmental Consultants, Inc. II. LOCATION: The subject site is located on the south side of the Golden Gate canal, one-quarter mile east of Livingston Road and adjacent to the Briarwood PUD in Section 31, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: Subject site: The site is zoned RSF-4(3), is bisected by an FPL easement and is requesting plat approval for construction of 75 single-family home sites. ZONING DESCRIPTION N - Estates Golden Gate Canal, then Estates zoned lots developed with single-family homes S - PUD Briarwood PUD with single-family homes E - Estates Continuation of the FPL easement and single-family homes W- PUD Briarwood PUD with single-family homes EAC Meeting Page 2 of 7 IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The subject site was rezoned to allow a maximum of 120 single-family home sites, which would equate to a density limitation of 3 units per acre. This site is to be developed concurrently with, and as part of, the development of the Briarwood PUD project located to the west. Access into this site will be limited to two interconnections through the Briarwood PUD. The access points will align with unplatted areas or existing platted roadways within Briarwood. The Briarwood PUD has requested a change to their master plan to reflect the interconnections. V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element: The subject property is designated Urban(Urban—Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict) on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. This subdistrict allows residential uses, including single family; institutional uses (e.g., church, day care); essential services; and recreation and open space uses. The project does not qualify for any density bonuses and is not subject to density reduction. Accordingly, the site is eligible for four DUs/A. Base Density(allowed in GMP and RSF-4) 4 du/a Eligible Density 4 du/a X 40.0 acres= 160 du Based on the above analysis, staff concludes the proposed use and density(75 single-family home sites)may be deemed consistent with the FLUE. 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 lakes and interconnected wetlands to provide water quality retention and peak flow attenuation during storm events. EAC Meeting Page 3 of 7 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: Twenty five percent(25 %) of the existing native vegetation will be retained on- site 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. and are to be recorded on the plat with protective covenants. 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 preserve management plan is provided in the construction plans. Littoral shelf planting areas (LSPA)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. LSPA have been provided on the construction plans. 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. No jurisdictional wetlands were claimed by SFWMD for this site. In accordance with Policy 6.2.6,required preservation areas are identified on the site development plan. Allowable uses within the preserve areas are included in the plan. 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 provided on the construction plans. EAC Meeting Page 4 of 7 VI. MAJOR ISSUES: Stormwater Management: The surface Water Management System consists of two interconnected lakes with a single discharge point directly into the Golden Gate Canal. The lakes provide water quality retention/detention and peak flow attenuation. The Briarwood PUD has a SFWMD surface water management permit that must be modified for this addition. This portion of Briarwood will have a separate discharge point from the rest of the project,but since the discharge rate is cumulative based on project area, there is no problem with a second discharge point. Environmental: Site Description: The subject property is an undeveloped 40.44 acre parcel surrounded by residential development and bordered to the north by the Golden Gate Canal. This site is heavily infested with melaleuca and is traversed by a cleared FPL easement. The site supports 15.67 acres of pine flatwoods native vegetation. The SFWMD did not claim any wetlands on site. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soil map for the area identifies two soil types: Oldsmar fine sand (Unit 16) and Holopaw fine sand (Unit 27, Hydric). The soil map depicts unit 27 as the dominant soil type on the site. The average wet season water table was determined to be 6.0' NGVD for the site. The post development control elevation is proposed at 6.0' NGVD. Wetlands: On May 6, 2003, the SFWMD conducted an informal jurisdictional wetland determination for the site. No jurisdictional wetlands were claimed on site. Preservation Requirements: Of the 40.44 acre site, 15.67 acres are pine flatwoods, 3.21 acres is a cleared FPL easement, 3.20 acres is a spoil pile/berm (generated from historical dredging of canal), .76 acres of disturbed area, and 17.60 acres are melaleuca forest. Only the pine flatwoods are used in the preservation calculation. EAC Meeting Page 5 of 7 Policy 6.1.1 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Growth Management Plan requires that twenty five percent (25%) of the existing native vegetation be retained on-site and set aside as preserve, and to be protected by a permanent conservation easement to prohibit further development. The native vegetation requirement for this site is based on the 15.67 of pine flatwoods. A minimum of 3.92 acres is required to be preserved on site. The construction plans depict 3.94 acres of preservation and satisfies this requirement. Listed Species: A listed plant and wildlife species survey was conducted on-site on June 18, 2003, with additional observations made on June 10, 2004. During the survey, ten active, one inactive, and 9 abandoned gopher tortoise burrows were identified on- site. The gopher tortoise burrows were located in the spoil pile habitat parallel to the canal (FLUCFCS Code 740b), and within the pine flatwoods. No other listed species were observed. A gopher tortoise relocation plan is proposed on the Construction Plans. Gopher tortoise relocation permit will be required at the preconstruction meeting. On-site relocation is proposed. Prior to construction, tortoises will be relocated to the 2.92 acre preserve. After construction the temporary gopher tortoise fencing will be removed to allow the tortoises to utilize the entire 3.94 acre preserve and the grassed FPL easement that traverses the preserve. VII. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of Final Plat and Construction Plans No. PPL-2004-AR- 5490,Briarwood,with the following stipulations: Stormwater Management: 1. A South Florida Water Management District surface water management or environmental resource permit or permit modification must be obtained prior to any construction plan approvals. Environmental: 1. Temporary Gopher Tortoise fencing must be inspected by Environmental Services department prior to any site alteration activities. 2. Tortoise relocation permits must be provided at the pre-construction meeting and prior to any site alteration activities. EAC Meeting Page 6 of 7 PREPARED BY: (1°. 10tC ' STAN CHRZANOWSKI, P.E. DATE ENGINEERING REVIEW MANAGER C 40/oma( CRISTINA SANCHEZ DATE ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST P/6/JOVE ERNST A.I.C.P. DA PR1 CWAL PLANNER EAC Meeting Page 7 of 7 REVIEWED BY: &&ivdC--- 1 v/ 7-a y BARBARA BURGESO DATE PRINCIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST l /// -,,,& I 2-l7- of W' IAM D. LORE , Jr., P. . DATE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR /a- 7 USAN MURRAY, AICP, DIR i OR DATE DEPARTMENT OF ZONING A 4 P LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVED BY: / A- ii i / (' * 1ifEPH K. SCHMITT, ' 10MINISTRATOR DATE MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT &ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION Item IV.D ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING OF January 5, 2005 I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT: Petition No.: Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-2004-AR-5168 Petition Name: Malibu Lakes PUD Applicant/Developer: Brentwood Land Partners, LLC. Engineering Consultant: Q. Grady Minor&Associates,P.A. Environmental Consultant: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. II. LOCATION: The subject PUD is located on the south side of Immokalee Road, adjacent to and east of the Interstate 75 right-of-way in Section 30, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: The subject property consists of 1 acre on the commercial development is constructed (AmSouth bank building), 33 acres commercial area either cleared or not but undeveloped, approximately 708 residential units have been constructed (Malibu Lake and Tarpon Bay), 3 acres undeveloped agricultural zoned area. ZONING DESCRIPTION N - ROW/CPUD Immokalee Road ROW, north of Immokalee Road is the commercial development identified as Northbrooke Plaza S - Agricultural Agricultural E - Estates Single-family residential and two church developments W - ROW Interstate 75 EAC Meeting Page 2 of 8 IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Malibu Lake PUD was originally approved by Collier County in Malibu Lake PUD Ordinance Number 99-49. The proposed PUD amendment combines three existing approved PUD's (Malibu Lake PUD, Crestwood PUD, Brentwood PUD), and approximately three acres of "A" Agricultural zoned land into a singular 175.67 acre PUD. The northern 37.1 acres are designated for commercial land uses, and the southern 141.5 acres of the subject property is designated for residential development. V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element: The subject property is designated Urban (Urban Commercial District, Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict and Urban - Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict), as identified on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. Relevant to this petition, 37.1 acres of the subject property are within Interchange Activity Center #4, which allows for a mixture of land uses — which may include 100% or any combination thereof, each of the following uses: the full array of commercial uses, residential and non-residential uses, institutional uses, hotel/motel uses at a density consistent with the Land Development code.. For rezones within Activity Centers, there are several "factors to be considered" that are to be addressed by the petitioner; these pertain to market justification for additional commercial, access, compatibility, etc. However, since only the + 2 acres zoned "A" of the added + 28.45 acres (all of which are in the Activity Center) are not already approved for commercial uses; and since those + 2 acres are abutting I-75 and are irregularly shaped thereby severely limiting viability for most land uses; and since no access or compatibility issues are readily apparent pertaining to these + 2 acres; and since, because of the location, size and shape of these + 2 acres, staff essentially views them as defacto commercial; staff does not believe it necessary or appropriate to require the petitioner to provide the usual analysis of the Activity Center"factors to be considered". Review of the Density Rating System yields the non-Activity Center portion of the site (141.56 acres) is eligible for a base density of 4 DU/A. The Urban Residential Subdistrict allows residential development at a density consistent with Density Rating System; this portion of the development is located within a residential density band and is eligible for a density bonus of up to 3 residential units per gross acre, yielding a total eligible density of 7 DU/A. EAC Meeting Page 3 of 8 Base Density 4 du/a Density Bonus +3 du/a Total Eligible Density 7du/a Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes the commercial development and residential uses and density for the subject site may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE). 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 lakes and interconnected wetlands 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 and 6.2 of the Conservation& Coastal Management Element, for the following reasons: Twenty five percent (25 %) of the existing native vegetation will be retained or recreated on-site 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. EAC Meeting Page 4 of 8 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. VI. MAJOR ISSUES: Stormwater Management: The project uses a standard treatment system of interconnected dry and wet retention/detention areas to achieve water quality treatment requirements and peak flow attenuation. The project outfall is toward the D-2 canal that sits on the west side of 1-75. Environmental: Site Description: The 179 acre subject property consists of the existing residential development called Malibu Lakes (142 acres) and a 37 acre commercial portion of which approximately 1 acre is developed and a Super Target and other retail is proposed. Native habitats on the undeveloped commercial portion include 10.86 acres of EAC Meeting Page 5 of 8 pine flatwoods and two isolated willow marsh wetlands. Approximately 33 acres of preserved native vegetation are also found within the existing Malibu Lakes residential development that is comprised of pine flatwoods and one isolated willow marsh wetland. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soil map for the undeveloped area identifies two soil types occurring on the site; Boca fine sand (Unit 21), and Holopaw fine sand (Unit 2, Hydric). The NRCS soil map identifies three soil types on the developed area of the site; Boca fine sand (Unit 21), Hallandale fine sand (Unit 11), and Pineda fine sand, limestone substratum (Unit 14, Hydric). The permitted control elevation within the residential parcel is 11.0' NGVD, established using high water marks and during agency permitting. The seasonal high elevations for the commercial portion is 12.0' NGVD, determined by on site geotechnical investigations. Wetlands: Approximately 10.3 acres of the undeveloped commercial portion were claimed as jurisdictional wetlands by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). These wetlands consist of approximately 1 acre of isolated willow marsh wetlands, and 9.2 acres of exotic hardwood wetlands. Development of the commercial portion of the site will result in direct impacts to 100% of these wetlands. The developed residential portion of the site supports a 1.69 acre isolated wetland preserve. Mitigation for proposed wetland impacts include purchase of credits from a mitigation bank and will be addressed SFWMD permitting. Mitigation for the existing wetland impacts was accomplished through the purchase of credits from a mitigation bank for the SFWMD permit. Preservation Requirements: The residential portion of the site contained approximately 133 acres of native vegetation prior to development. Approximately 33 acres of native vegetation has been preserved for that development. The commercial portion of the site, prior to historical clearing activities, consisted of approximately 11 acres of native vegetation. This portion of the site will be required to preserve 2.7 acres of native vegetation. There is a pending I-75 right-of-way reservation that may impact a portion of the preserve area as shown on the PUD master plan. If this occurs, that impacted acreage of the preserve will be created elsewhere onsite with an approved plan. EAC Meeting Page 6 of 8 Policy 6.1.1 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Growth Management Plan requires that twenty five percent (25%) of the existing native vegetation be retained on-site and set aside as preserve, and to be protected by a permanent conservation easement to prohibit further development. The existing residential development retained approximately 33 acres of native vegetation. The commercial portion of the site will be required to preserve 25% of the native vegetation on site or 2.72 acres (10.86 X .25 = 2.715). The PUD master plan identifies a total of 35.3 acres to be preserved to satisfy this requirement. Listed Species: A listed species survey was conducted by Kimley-Horn on the undeveloped portion of the commercial site. No species of special status or signs of any listed species were observed during the survey. VII. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-2004-AR- 5168 Malibu Lakes PUD with the following stipulations: Stormwater Management: 1. A Surface Water Management Permit or Environmental Resource Permit must be obtained from the South Florida Water Management District prior to release of any Site Development Plan. Environmental: No additional stipulations. EAC Meeting Page 7 of 8 PREPARED BY: 4//fe' A94.44..Z 4, DeC STAN CHRZ •\TSKI, P.E. DATE ENGINEERING REVIEW MANAGER r3 ja1 1510_1 CRISTINA SAN EZ DATE ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST -Z /, MICHAEL TZ DA PRINCIPAL P ANNER EAC Meeting Page 8 of 8 ^ REVIEWED BY: /3QLk6 . 0'---- /�-I)-O BARBARA S. BURGESON DATE PRINCIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT / / Al.i .gat.tc - / lZ.17 04 t,' LIAM D. LO'1 NZ, J P.E., DIRECTOR DATE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT /Q/17/0 SAN MURRAY, AICP, DIRECTO DATE DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LA DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVED BY: 1 ce.............---,-.r.;%//,....€7/ /.2//Of J SEPH K. SCHMITT DATE OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR