Loading...
EAC Agenda 02/05/2005 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL AGENDA ,.� February 2, 2005 9:00 A.M. Commission Boardroom W. Harmon Turner Building (Building "F")-Third Floor 1. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of January 05, 2005 Meeting minutes V. Land Use Petitions A. Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-2004-AR-6015 "Triad RPUD" Section 34, Township 49 South, Range 26 East B. Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-2004-AR-5967 "Coconilla PUD" Section 17, Township 48 South, Range 25 East C. Conditional Use No. CU-2004-AR-6625 "Wiggins Pass Hotel and Spa CU" Section 17, Township 48 South, Range 25 East D. Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-A-2004-AR-6876 "Cocohatchee Bay PUD" Sections 8, 9, 16, 17 and 20, Township 48 South, Range 25 East VI. Old Business VII. New Business A. Oustanding Advisory Committee Member Nominations B. LDC Amendments VIII. Council Member Comments IX. Public Comments X. Adjournment Council Members: Please notify the Environmental Services Department Administrative Assistant no later than 5:00 p.m. on January 27, 2005 if you cannot attend this meeting or if you have a conflict and will abstain from voting on a petition (403-2424). 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. January 5, 2005 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, January 5, 2005 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Environmental Advisory Board 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 members present: CHAIRMAN: Alfred Gal William Hughes Judith Hushon Ken Humiston (Excused) Michael Sorrell Erica Lynne Joe Gammons (Excused) ALSO PRESENT: Bill Lorenz, Environmental Services Director Susan Mason, Senior Environmental Specialist Stan Chrzanowski, Planning Review Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney Barbara Burgeson, Environmental Specialist 1 January 5, 2005 n I. The meeting was called to order at 9:24 AM. Roll call was taken with Ken Humiston and Joe Gammons being excused. A quorum was established. II. Approval of Agenda: Ms. Hushon asked that "Bonuses in Receiving Lands"be discussed under "Old Business." Ms. Lynne moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Second by Mr. Hughes. Carried unanimously 5-0. III. Approval of December 1,2004 meeting Minutes: Mr. Hughes moved to approve the December 1, 2004 minutes. Second by Ms. Lynne. Carried unanimously 5-0. 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. - All those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Gal. -Disclosures—None. PETITIONER Mr. Gonzales— Civil Engineer with Wilson Miller—Petition is to consolidate the developed and undeveloped portions of the Seacrest Country Day School into a unified zoning District that would allow construction of a High School adjacent to the Elementary School Campus. His presentation consisted of the following: • Site located within Lely Canal basin. • Existing site has storm water management system discharging runoff through permanent control structure through the Unity Church property. • Proposing an addition of a high school campus core with recreational sports fields and wetland and upland preserve with a connection to County Barn Road and storm water management system to convey runoff with outfall to County Barn Road. Tom addressed the native vegetation and preservation requirements: • Preserving 9 acres of vegetation on site, exceeding 15% requirement of 5.76 acres. • Wetlands—SFLWM has jurisdiction over 19.4 acres of wetlands. • Proposing preserving 6.3 acres of wetlands and an acre of uplands. • Impacting 13 acres of wetlands and mitigation includes preservation and enhancement of approx. 7.3 acres of habitat on property. They are purchasing 6.05 credits through a private mitigation bank. • Going through permitting process with SFLWM and expect permits this year. • Listed species— surveys were done and none observed. 2 January 5, 2005 • Satisfied all requirements including Growth Management Plan Many of the plant species are protected by the Florida Dept. of Agriculture. Thirteen acres of wetlands will be destroyed with some plant species on that portion. Had not planned on pulling any of the species out. Ms. Lynne suggested it would be a good project for the school. Mr. Hughes moved to accept PUDZ-2004-AR-5611. Second by Ms. Lynne. Carried unanimously 5-0. B. Rezone No. RZ-2003-AR-4961-Home Center Plaza Rezone Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 2 East. - Disclosures—none - All those testifying were sworn in by Marjorie Student. PETITIONER Kelly Smith—Planning Coordinator from Davidson Engineering, Inc. representing Southern Development, Inc.—(Applicant) - requesting a rezone from Agriculture and C-2 within the ST Zoning Overlay to C-3 for both properties. Her presentation consisted of the following: • Total site area is 6.07 acres—proposing preserve of 0.19 acres and uses consistent with the C-3 zoning district including a bank, office and possibly a restaurant. • Plan is for 3 buildings—totaling 53,300 sq. feet. Jeremy Sterk —explained the Falling Waters PUD during their expansion impacting a portion of the wetlands, therefore mitigating a portion of the Home Center Wetland secondarily. (Provided mitigation for making wetland smaller) According to the SFLWM it has made the water quality degraded. Question of why it was an ST. Mr. Sterk mentioned probably because it was a wetland. Barbara Burgeson—Environmental Services— was not sure why the ST Overlay was put on the Commercial tracts. Can be removed through the re-zoning process. Discussion followed on preserving and not preserving a wetland area, mitigation of the site and negotiating through the ERP. The map of the particular area was shown and discussed as to where the preserve area is located. The concern of the Committee is how much mitigation will take place. It is being left to the SFLWM District. Not sure what will be required. 3 January 5, 2005 Stan Chrzanowski—Engineering Review—pointed out the ditch that goes into the canal. Henderson Creek comes out of Rookery Bay. The on-site management system was explained about detaining and retaining water on site which is meant to cleanse the water before going into the main system. Most projects on Davis Blvd. drain into the same marine sanctuary. Marjorie Student—Assistant County Attorney—gave a little history with the County designating the ST areas as conceptual. When they do the developing, the EIS's are prepared. The property is within the Activity Center of the Future Land Use map. No credits have been determined nor mitigation proposed. There will be no permits until mitigation. Mr. Hughes asked if a motion could be made in which this could come back to them after hearing from SFLWM District. Ms. Student stated this is a re-zone petition going to the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners. She asked at what point the Committee would like to see the petition again. Mr. Hughes replied at site plan as far as the outfall. Barbara Burgeson—Environmental Services—the committee can request any petition brought back to be re-heard. It can also be brought back as an informational item on the agenda in the future. It the committee is supporting the project and wanting more information, staff can do that. It the committee does not vote on it today, it moves forward without formal action by them. Staff can give follow-up information at a later meeting when the permits are in hand, it can be continued or a stipulation can be put in when the site development plan comes in. It can be brought back to EAC at that time. The staff does not work with mitigation credits. They accept them and review them when they are in place making sure there is not a net loss. Mr. Hughes moved to accept this project for a zoning change to Commercial from Agriculture. After completion of the environmental cycle with the other State agencies, it will come back to the EAC for final site review. Second by Erica Lynne. Carried unanimously 5-0. C. Final Plat and Construction Plans No. PPL-2004-AR-5490, Briarwood Unit 11,Section 32, Township 49 South, Range 26 East. - Disclosures—none. - Those testifying were sworn in by Marjorie Student. 4 January 5, 2005 PETITIONER Gary Butler—Butler Engineering representing the Petitioner. Project is east of Livingston Road, south of Golden Gate Canal north of Radio Road. It is a 40- acre site being part of Briarwood sub-division and being sub-divided at final phase. Showed overlay of sub-division in the northeastern quadrant. Other information given is as follows: • Primarily Melaluca on site. 16 acres of marginal Melaluca habitat and 24 acres all Melaluca. Saving less than 4 acres of the habitat. • Gopher Tortoises are along the canal and will be relocated on site into the preserves. Will be contributing to a tortoise mitigation bank. • Showed area map—there are two access areas located in the existing Briarwood sub-division - not going through St. Clair Shores as there was controversy. • Showed site plan with lakes and habitat being saved. • A temporary fence will be installed and then a permanent fence along the north and east side of the preserve. • There are 16 acres of viable habitat, less than 75% Melaluca and preserving 25% of that number. No wetlands on site. • They have a management plan for the tortoises. • They are landscaping 15-20 feet on the canal side that is maintained by Big Cypress and cleared all the trees for maintenance. There will be a 6- foot wall along the north half of the easterly line and a 2-foot berm. It will go in before the first building permit is issued. Ms. Hushon moved to accept the plan. (Final Plat and Construction Plans No. PPL-2004-AR-5490 Briarwood). Second by Mr. Hughes. Carried unanimously 5-0. D. Planned Unit Development Amendment No.,PUDZ-A-2003-AR- 5168 Malibu Lakes PUD, Section 30, Township 48 South, Range 26 East. - Disclosures—none - Those testifying were sworn in by Marjorie Student. PETITIONER Wayne Arnold—Grady Minor Engineering—Land Planner—project is an amendment to the existing Malibu Lakes PUD to combine pre-existing commercial planned developments with small agricultural along I-75 into a single PUD. Project was previously approved. Kimberly-Horn did the site civil work on the project. Lynne Keefer— Kimberly-Horn—briefly gave a synopsis of what has been done on the project as follows: 5 January 5, 2005 .-� • Site consists of pine Flatwoods habitat and exotics including Brazilian pepper and Melaluca. • 10.86 acres of existing native vegetation—per code required to preserve 2.72 acres—are preserving 1.73 acres and creating another .99 acres. • Summarized the acreage of wetlands, exotics and willow marsh. Will propose to impact all the wetlands and mitigation will be purchased in a mitigation bank. • In process of obtaining SFLWM environmental resource permit. • Environmental issues are mostly resolved. • Credits were purchased as part of Brentwood PUD and additional credits have been reserved for remainder of project. • No listed species have been found or observed. • There is a fox squirrel preserve on the existing Malibu Lakes that has been developed. • Discussed the stormwater management areas. Will be re-vegetated to meet the original requirements of the preserve area management plan and approved. • Project meets EIS criteria. • Will be purchasing little over 9 wetland credits in addition to credits already purchased. The Immokalee Road construction was mentioned concerning the congestion. Mr. Hughes asked how soon the project will be finished. Mr.Arnold replied it is driven by Target Corporation wanting to build their store on the site. Their construction schedule is moving along and submitted a plat and site plan with the County and wish to start construction in March if all goes well. Ms. Student reminded the Committee they are limited to environmental matters and okay to comment on the traffic etc. but to not take any formal action other than on environmental matters. Kristine Sanchez—Environmental Services - cleared up the subject of plant species not being a part of this particular petition. No listed plant species for the commercial property. Ms. Lynne would like the County to take the listed plant species more seriously in the future. Mr. Gal moved to approve the Petition—PUDZ-2004-AR-5168 Malibu Lakes PUD. Second by Mr. Sorrel. Carried unanimously 5-0. V. Old Business A. Bonuses in Receiving Lands Ms. Hushon had some questions relating to TDR's since she was not in attendance at the last meeting. She was disturbed with the decision of the Committee. She would like to re-open the subject matter. 6 January 5, 2005 To reconsider their decision they need someone who voted in the majority to reconsider. They also need to re-advertise and set a time for discussion of the subject on the Agenda. Ms. Student pointed out the Amendments going to the Planning Commission on January 6th and suggested someone be appointed to attend that meeting and ask questions or watch it on television. It will then go to the Board of County Commissioners and DCA for review, and then back for final action. The legal consultants will attend the Planning Commission and BCC meetings. She did not feel discussion should take place without it being noticed. Bill Lorenz—Environmental Services Director cautioned there is no staff member familiar with the subject in attendance and were not knowledgeable it was going to be brought up. Ms. Student stated they are Comp Plan Amendments and even though EAC doesn't have statutory requirements she feels uncomfortable discussing it without the proper staff persons and not being advertised. Ms. Lynne had a question if the bonus credits result in an overall increase in density increases the number of units in the receiving area or reshuffles them. Marjorie replied they do not go over and above the density that is already permitted. Ms. Hushon asked about giving bonus' and upping the density on the land- ending up with more residential units originally designed to go on a certain block of land. She understood it doesn't come from any sending or receiving. Again Ms. Student suggested attending the Planning Commission for a better understanding. A brief discussion followed with Ms. Student stating the appropriate staff is not in attendance nor does anyone have the appropriate materials. Mr. Lorenz explained the processes it will go through with the Public Hearing and having an opportunity to review them then. Ms. Student mentioned perhaps the consultants attend a future meeting to explain the details when it comes back for adoption. VI. New Business A. Outstanding Advisory Committee Member Nominations Susan Mason enclosed forms the committee can fill out for nominating any member they feel is outstanding with the work they may have done 7 January 5, 2005 for the Counties benefit. She explained the program. This is done once a month and is for current Board members. Applications have been received for the two vacant seats on the EAC. They will have 2 additional members at their February meeting to fill out the Committee. B. Schedule for Presenting Proposed Listed Species Management Program—Bill Lorenz Outlined Listed Species Management Program the Stakeholders are developing. Gave Presentation - highlights: Possible Elements • Stakeholders Group—not formal • Changes to existing policy because of inconsistencies in wording • Proposals for Comprehensive Wildlife Program • 3 elements - Look at more specific Criteria(working on it) - How much of a role does Collier County have developing standards and reviewing land development projects for listed species protection. (local standards) - Incentive Programs Will ask the BCC to set-up a formal Advisory Committee to look at feasibility and timing of budgetary cycle. A Workshop will be held on Friday,January 21st at 1:00 PM. 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 11:07 AM. COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Chairman Alfred Gal 8 Item V.A ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING OF FEBRUARY 1 2005 NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT: Petition No.: PUDZ-2004-AR-6015 Petition Name: Triad RPUD Applicant/Developer: Triad Housing Partners Engineering Consultant: RWA, Inc. - Environmental Consultant: Pass-arella and Associates, Inc. IL LOCATION: The subject property is located at the northeast quadrant of the Radio Road/Palm Springs Boulevard intersection, approximately 1300 feet west of the terminus of Radio Road. The property comprises numerous parcels located in the southwest half of Section 34, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: The local area, the southern segment of the Palm Springs Boulevard/Radio Lane intersection, is populated with developed (Circle K gas station) and undeveloped Commercial parcels, and existing single-family and multi-family residential - structures. The subject property is within one mile of Interchange Activity Center NO.9 and is located within a residential density band. ZONING DESCRIPTION North: Palm Springs Village single-family subdivision; zoned RMF-12 (7) East: Saddlebrook Village; zoned PUD tai' 12.96 units per acre South: Circle K & Radio Road R-O-W; zoned C-3 West: Undeveloped Parcels; zoned C-1 IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed Residential PUD rezone will eliminate a portion of the undeveloped commercial parcels that exist in the local area. The Triad RPUD rezoning request is seeking approval for a residential development that includes a maximum of 140 residential housing units on approximately +10.75 acres. The gross project EAO Meeting Page 3 of 8 CONVERSION OF +16 dwelling units per acre COMMERCIAL ZONING TOTAL ELIGIBLE 16 dwelling units per acre x DENSITY 10.75 A= 172 dwelling units per acre FLUE Policy 5.4 requires that all new developments are compatible with and complimentary to the surrounding land uses. The Comprehensive Planning Department leaves this determination to the Zoning and Land Development Review Dept. staff as part of their review of the petition in its totality. Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes the proposed RPUD uses and density 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. 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. • EAC Meeting Page 4 of 8 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 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 arc required at the time of Site Development Plan/Construction Plan submittal. VI. MAJOR ISSUES: Stormwater Management: As per the SFWMD, this site drains to the north through a swale that passes under I-75 and discharges into the Golden Gate Canal. During the meetings about Saddlebrook, the project directly to the east of Triad, County Stormwater Management staff tried to argue that flow in this area should be southwest, but because of the tremendous amount of topographic change in the area (see attached LiDAR topography), the District prevailed. EAC Meeting Page 5 of 8 Environmental: Site Description: The subject property is an undeveloped 10.75 acre parcel surrounded by residential development to the north, south, and east and undeveloped land to the west. This site is traversed by an existing road. The site supports 8.89 acres of native vegetation; dominantly pine flatwoods with a .21 acre isolated wet prairie. The onsite vegetative communities appear to be disturbed from historical clearing activities. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soil map for the area identifies the following soil type: Pineda fine sand, limestone substratum (Unit 14, hydric). Wetlands: Approximately .21 acres of the site were claimed as jurisdictional wetlands by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). This wetland is an isolated wet prairie. Development of the site will result in direct impacts to 81% of this wetland. The remainder of the wetland will be preserved. Preservation Requirements: Of the 10.75 acre site, 8.68 acres arc pine flatwoods, 1.86 acres arc not vegetated due to existing road and cleared areas, and .21 acres is an isolated wet prairie. Only the pine flatwoods and wet prairie are used in the preservation calculation. 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 he 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 8.68 acres of pine flatwoods and .21 acres of wet prairie. A minimum of 1.33 acres of native vegetation is required to be preserved on site. The PUD master plan depicts 1.62 acres of native preservation and satisfies this requirement. Listed Species: A listed species survey was conducted in June 2004 by Passarella and Associates on the site and a copy of the survey is provided in the EIS. No species of special status or signs of any listed species were observed during the survey. EAC Meeting Page 6 of S VII. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of Triad PUD with the following stipulations: Stormwater Management: 1. Since the site has wetlands, it will be permitted by the South Florida Water Management District. A Surface Water Management permit or an ERP must be obtained prior to final development order approval. Environmental: No additional stipulations. III, EAG Meeting Page 7 of 8 PREPARED BY: IV iC �`.,. L. f_ / 11.si— 4-A----9.41,_.4 — /3 �`�°� '`i' STAN CHRZANOWSKI, P.E. DATE ENGINEERING REVIEW MANAGER (7 V&668‘ 1 /1 3 c5 CRISTINA SANC . EZ DATE I ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST I/ I l3 05 MIKE ¢SI D TE PRINCj�AL PLANNER EAG Meeting Page 8 of 8 REVIEWED BY: 41/,-1-3d- i , BARBARA S. BURGESOI2 DATE PRINCIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT I, - _, 01 - 14-0 5 �� DIRECTOR DATE ILLIAM D. LO NZ, Jr., ., ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT j 1j,t- 1171,CL 1- (14-CI___ ii9A1--- i SUSAN MURRAY, AICP, DIRE TOR AT DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVED BY: / i O EPH�1 K. SCHMITT ;(..2c)/(...4 T C MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES A/DMINISTRATOR ! 1 i Ira itg I a .. N alNw 14'7l. ' , ri� 10t�r' . a .1 ` ynsr4 °l i' 311 13 agg . E 11Sqt $ • � j. ��Y • .. c [� -�" 32N0 AVES ?. Y �.ac� .-.7-4,..o.;. � � � rit • y , "� i' _(y,,��_ i Y a, tom- *. '' ?' '�t. �: 0 8 .1,1A-/•,,-4..;e.. " ,t =�. r • . .. l.!J ;£4,", ., • �� ` .;V'47P0,1 ''L:''` , k ``� ,.yam: J. , E 0 !''l ,4,11,01 1 1/#444414- ' *-4"14' 40'.* ' 7 ',..,15 ftr-4- ' " r$1' ''' ' ' '''' . ' ''' 4'.'k. ' 4 . ,,,,, , _ •• ••._ ......., _ .,....._., •,.„• ,... . . „......., :,„?.... ..,... •,. . . _•• .,,.. .: „.. . ,e, t;4, `,. cif' '...,„.. s re t , 71,:' , ,, RAMP ._..v ta!,:-T:‘.A r,,,'„l4,.'.cA'-0,„N i ; 't 1 ptl'pAr,'3v. N i I' a i4y w *�" AA! f. • +#.:R . TNE DRQ 1i ¢ i)-. �� lir .w .. N rat t +P. $ • SSI rte.._ 1 i J 1.xi - i Q`'• ,' ... PIVE:.aLE lR ,.. -fa- .1 As-i4iiil I! y iii���. i▪ ''• A' INE.;:1E N „ _ • .0 r <VALUE> *�► .i, ` 11 11.1 11.5 ‘,144( �., �. ,l• "�71-t�'�, •�F 1 . .t`, • ,�. 4 01 10.6 11 •1.,110;. A ` l k 41 `l K - •'_'}lit�� + • ;$ s > , A 10.1 - 10.5 ` * t "2••+.++► = Pw (-4,1 r i ti � p ` ,: '- I: .. amt 7%17 8.6-9 { , .AA ° ,,..i - - . . >3 al 8.1 8.5 ( i •,.. ..,, ..;.1.„1. ;N ye �* ,, ..‘,.r.. ,g:, ., a,• -1' '- to i x�r- . -+s' , ....�.... a RAD:U 47 r Y� • air b . ,v.:-7,1;;;F°71.-5- - , 4, _- ' . ' 441-74A 6.1 -6.5 •1r. ;F,. ''' y.r ia'•, �_ -. g -r--#t"-- # � ISS I 2.50- Item V.B. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING OF FEBRUARY 2, 2005 I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT: Petition No.: PUDZ-2004-AR-5967 Petition Name: Coconilla PUD Applicant/Developer: Eco Venture Wiggins Pass, LTD. Engineering Consultant: RWA Consulting, Inc. Environmental Consultant: Passarella and Associates, Inc. IL LOCATION: The subject property is the site of the former Wiggins Pass Marina. It is located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Wiggins Pass Road and Vanderbilt Drive in Section 17, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. The parcel is approximately 10.45±acres. III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: The surrounding properties contain a mix of residential developments and a public park. The residential parcel to the north, Cocohatchee Bay PUD, permits high-rise residential units at a height of 200 feet above parking and the Pelican Isle Yacht Club to the southwest is also a high-rise residential project with a maximum density of 11 dwelling units per acre). Surrounding: North:Undeveloped land within a residentially designated tract; zoned PUD (Cocohatchee Bay PUD; 1.11 dwelling units per acre) East: Vanderbilt Drive ROW, across which is land with a Site Development Plan authorizing a golf course; zoned PUD (Cocohatchee Bay PUD; 1.11 dwelling units per acre) South:Cocohatchee River Park (Collier Parks and Recreation); zoned P (Public Use) West: Undeveloped land within a residentially designated tract which is predominantly mangrove forest; zoned PUD (Cocohatchee Bay PUD; 1.11 dwelling units per acre) Southwest: Pelican Isle Yacht Club; zoned RT (density capped at 11 dwelling units per acre) EAC Meeting Page 2 of 10 Southeast: Undeveloped commercial tract of Wiggins Bay PUD; zoned PUD (4.85 dwelling units per acre) IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The petitioner proposes a residential PUD with private boat slips, and additional parking for the adjacent County park. The project includes 95 residential units in two 10-story mid-rise buildings, not to exceed 120 feet, 29 private wet-slips within a marina basin, a ship store, and related accessory uses. The subject site is 10.45 acres, but .43 acres of the total is submerged lands and therefore cannot be included in the acreage utilized within the residential density calculation. Since the site is currently zoned C-4, is not located within an Activity Center, and is not consistent with the Neighborhood Village Center Subdistrict, the petition is eligible for the "Conversion of Commercial Zoning" density bonus of the Density Rating System of the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. Conversion of Commercial Zoning allows the petitioner to apply for a maximum of 16 dwelling units per acre of commercial property converted. (It should be noted that the Density Rating System states that density bonuses are discretionary, not entitlements, and are dependent upon meeting the criteria for the bonus, compatibility with surrounding properties, and the criteria in the Land Development Code.) The 10.02 acres of the subject site (minus the .43 acre submerged land) is eligible for a density calculation resulting in a maximum of 160 residential dwelling units (a density of 16 units per acre). The petitioner proposes a maximum of 95 residential dwelling units on the eligible 10.02 acres (a density of 9.48 units per acre). 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 (GMP). The property is also within the Traffic Congestion Area, part of the Density Rating System, and the majority of the site (+/-85%) is 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. Relevant to this petition, the Urban Mixed — Use District permits a variety of residential and non-residential land uses including mixed use developments such as Planned Unit Developments; water-dependant and water-related uses and other EAC Meeting Page 3of10 recreational uses such as water-related parks, marinas (public or private), yacht clubs, and related accessory and recreational uses, such as boat storage, launching facilities, fueling facilities, and restaurants; and, recreation and open space uses. The Density Rating System provides for an eligible 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, therefore, the subject site is eligible for a base density of 4 DU/A. But, the site is within the Traffic Congestion Area so is subject to a 1 DU/A reduction. However, the petition is eligible for the Conversion of Commercial Zoning density bonus which states: "if the project includes conversion of commercial zoning which is not within a Mixed Use Activity Center or Interchange Activity Center and is not consistent with the Neighborhood Village Center Subdistrict, a bonus of up to 16 dwelling units may be added for every acre of commercial zoning which is converted". 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, the density range from 0-16 DU/A may be found consistent with the FLUE. As the site is presently .-� zoned commercial (C-4), it has no assigned density or entitled density; the C-4 district allows a wide variety of retail, office, personal service and institutional uses but does not allow residential uses (dwelling units). The FLUE provides that, when applying the Density Rating System, gross site acreage is used to calculate residential density, less land area devoted to commercial or industrial land uses. This is also how the LDC provides for calculating residential density, and is how staff has in the past interpreted the FLUE. Since the property is proposed for a combination of residential and water-dependent, water-related uses (no commercial or industrial uses), staff believes it appropriate to utilize the entire (non- submerged) site acreage in calculating residential density. Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes: 1. The proposed uses for the site may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element. 2. The proposed density for the site (9.48 DU/A)may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element as the Density Rating System provides for an eligible gross density of anywhere between 0-16 DU/A. Consideration should be given to the CCME Goals, Objectives and Policies that encourage a minimization of density in the Coastal High Hazard Area. EAC Meeting Page 4 of 10 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. This project is consistent with the objectives of policy 2.2.2 in that it attempts to enhance the quality and quantity of water leaving the site by the collection of surface water runoff in concrete drainage structures, transportation of the flow in a subsurface conveyance system, and directing the runoff to above ground dry detention in six detention areas and drainage swales. A 25-year storm will discharge through the water management system and not directly to the marina from the uplands. The project is consistent with Policy 6.1.4 in that an invasive exotic vegetation removal and maintenance plan will be required at the time of Site Development Plan/Construction Plan submittal. A stipulation has been placed in the PUD document. The requirement in Policy 6.1.8 to provide an Environmental Impact Statement has been satisfied. Jurisdictional wetlands have been identified as required in Policies 6.2.1 and 6.2.2. Per the PUD document, agency permits will be required at the time of Site Development Plan/Construction Plan submittal. 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. The SFWMD FLUCCS identifies Code 540 (Bay) onsite as "other surface waters" and COE identifies "Waters of the U.S." and is shown in Figure 2 of the EIS. The proposed marina is for up to 29 slips. Policy 6.3.1 requires the amount of permitted wet slips for marinas be no more than 18 boat slips per 100 feet of shoreline where impacts to sea grass beds are less than 100 square feet. The proposed marina will not impact any sea grass beds if the vessels leaving the marina stay within the limits of the main channel to the Gulf of Mexico. According to the applicant, the existing shoreline is approximately 305 feet, which would allow 54.9 slips; the applicant is proposing up to 29 slips, in accordance with this policy. A wildlife survey for listed species has been conducted on the site and included in the Environmental Impact Statement. In accordance with Policy 7.1.2, wildlife habitat management plans have been submitted for EAC Meeting Page 5 of 10 the bald eagle. The relevant reference to this project that is required by Policy 7.1.2 to be used in preparing the management plan is the "Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle in the Southeast Region", USFWS, 1987. Policy 7.1.2(2)(d) states, "For the bald eagle, the required habitat management plans shall establish protective zones around the eagle nest restricting certain activities. The plans shall also address restricting certain types of activities during the nesting season." Per the USFWS Bald Eagle Management Guidelines, restrictions are recommended on new commercial and industrial development, construction of multi-story buildings or high-density housing developments, construction of roads that increase access to nest sites, and use of chemicals toxic to wildlife. Most other sources of disturbance are allowed within the secondary zone during the non-nesting season. The subject site, located within the secondary zone, is proposing a multi-story residential tower. Policy 7.1.2(3), states, "The County shall, consistent with applicable GMP policies, consider and utilize recommendations and letters of technical assistance from the FFWCC and the USFWS in issuing development orders on property containing listed species. It is recognized that these agency recommendations, on a case by case basis, may change the requirements contained within these wildlife protection policies and any such change shall be deemed consistent with the Growth Management Plans." Included in the EIS is the USFWS biological opinion dated March 6, 2004 for the originally proposed construction of two 22-story residential towers. The USFWS written biological opinion and their recommendations allows for the multi-story buildings within the secondary zone and allows construction during the nesting season with terms and conditions and therefore the eagle management plan is consistent with the GMP. The project is consistent with Policy 7.1.4 in that applicable federal and state permits regarding protected species will be required at the time of Site Development Plan/Construction Plan submittal. A stipulation has been placed in the PUD document, however this stipulation only applies to listed species observed onsite. Per Policy 7.2.1, the marina siting criteria was used to determine the appropriate number of docks allowed in order to direct increased boat traffic away from sensitive manatee habitats. A manatee protection plan has been included as part of the EIS. Policy 10.1.1 sets priorities for water-dependant uses in order to protect shorelines where activities will damage or destroy coastal resources. The proposed private marina use falls in the middle of the priorities list. However, the shoreline along the property has already been impacted. EAC Meeting Page 6 of 10 Similarly, Policy 10.1.3 lists priorities for water-related uses: Recreational facilities, marine supply/repair facility and residential development, respectively. Consistent with the policy, the proposed plan is providing a private marina, a marine supply facility as well as a residential development, the first, second and third priorities. Per Policy 10.1.6 regarding new marinas, the applicant has provided vehicular parking, fueling facilities designed to contain spills from on-land and in the water, and accessibility to all public services. Per this policy, a hurricane plan will be stipulated in the PUD document. Sewage pump-out facilities will be required at the time of site development plan submittal. This policy also states that dry storage should be encouraged over wet storage. This project proposes only wet storage. Policy 12.1.2 requires that land use amendments in the Category I hurricane vulnerability zone shall only be considered if such increases in densities provide appropriate mitigation to reduce the impacts of hurricane evacuation times. The applicant states in the EIS that evacuation times will not increase and that this has been reviewed and approved by the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council and Collier County Emergency Management Department. No documentation has been provided by the applicant. VI. MAJOR ISSUES: Stormwater Management: The subject site lies in an area referred to in the County Drainage Atlas as "Miscellaneous Coastal Basins" because it discharges directly into the Gulf. Since there are no downstream properties, water quantity (discharge) requirements are not a consideration. There are no County stormwater facilities in the vicinity of the project. Water quality retention must be accounted for in compliance with the requirements and standards of the FDEP and the SFWMD. Environmental: Site Description: The subject site is a 10.45-acre former commercial marina. No native habitat is present. EAC Meeting Page 7 of 10 Wetlands: The subject site contains 0.43 acres of open water, the shoreline composed of sea wall and boat ramps. The submerged bottom of the bay is composed of soft sediment lacking sea grasses within or immediately adjacent to the project boundary. The applicant proposes to excavate a 1.8-acre marina basin and reconfigure to accommodate up 29 wet slips. Preservation Requirements: There is no preservation requirement for the subject property. Listed Species: The project site is developed and does not contain listed species. The West Indian Manatee may occur within waters near the project site. The majority of the site is located within the secondary protection zone of bald eagle nest CO-019. This nest is located approximately 830 feet northwest of the project site occupied by a pair of eagles that have successfully fledged young during each of the last four consecutive nesting seasons. As part of the biological opinion from USFWS, the applicant proposed enhancing the reconfigured marina basin for flushing by planting the terminal ends of the bay with 0.82 acres of mangroves. This proposal has been withdrawn by the applicant and is long longer included as part of this plan. VII. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of Planned Unit Development Amendment No. PUDZ-2004-AR-5967, "Coconilla"with the following stipulations: Stormwater Management: 1. A Surface Water Management Permit or an Environmental Resource Permit must be obtained from SFWMD for this site. SFWMD may defer to FDEP because of the location. Environmental: 1. Add the following language to Section 6.8 of the PUD document: "Draft restrictions will be in accordance with the Manatee Protection Plan in affect at the time of Site Development Plan/Construction Plan submittal." it EAC Meeting Page 8 of 10 2. Amend PUD document 6.8 C to read: "This PUD shall comply with the guidelines and recommendations of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) regarding potential impacts to protected species onsite. A Habitat Management Plan for those protected species shall be submitted to Environmental Services staff for review and approval prior to final Site Plan/ Construction Plan approval." 3. Add the following language to Section 6.8 of the PUD document: "Any amendment to the Bald Eagle Management Plan shall require review by the Environmental Advisory Council or any successor body. This requirement does not preclude any other hearings required before the Collier County Planning Commission or the Board of County Commissioners" 4. As part of the biological opinion from USFWS, the applicant proposed enhancing the reconfigured marina basin for flushing by planting the terminal ends of the bay with 0.82 acres of mangroves. Add the following language to Section 6.8 of the PUD document, "Until such time as the biological opinion is modified or written authorization is received from USFWS, the requirement to enhance the reconfigured marina basin for flushing by planting the terminal ends of the bay with 0.82 acres of mangroves remains part of the biological opinion and shall be included and shown as part of final site plan approval." 5. Add the following language to Section 6.8 of the PUD document: "Petroleum cleanup at the subject property shall meet the standards as described in 62-770, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). During storage tank removal and closure, a significant amount of contaminated soil was removed and stockpiled. A discharge report form shall be filed as required by 62-761, F.A.C. and a site assessment initiated as outlined in 62-770, F.A.C. During Phase I & II site assessments provided by the applicant, some sampled areas other than the tank pit area were found to have exceeded state cleanup target levels. A re-sampling shall be required for all contaminants that exceeded soil or groundwater cleanup target levels as defined in 62-777 F.A.C. Results shall be submitted to the Collier County Pollution Control and Prevention Department for their review (attn: Phil Snyderburn). If the re-sampling of these areas confirms that state cleanup target levels are exceeded, a site assessment will be required for the areas exceeding the state cleanup target levels in 62-777, F.A.C. in addition to the site assessment already required by 62-770, F.A.C. in the former tank pit area. Remediation scopes will be determined by the site assessment(s) result(s) and conclusion(s). Cleanup shall be required prior to SDP approval." ,ST PL SW _ o rrr®r��rrix. Aillitifil r a - ^� + r 4'1111/ .11 ri irilft ,�_ 4 DST SW --- - it [it grI A-� Axl 0 r�o ;" P 4#4 'ti`a" i i k zli ., ilow, ,, 4 ; ,.,, ,,wit 0 C A 4 A ` .. ' /75 i, -a* fie-,z 4 ,i ,- P 2� s -- Ad Li DAR <VALUE> all 11.1 - 11.5 all 10.6- 11 f 10.1 -10.5 ''.. ... INE CREST_n 9.6-10 :1 lima 9.1 -9.5 '' i; Y P 8.6-9 8.1 -8.5 = 1 4. 74 1,,,,,,filifi„ 7.1 7.5 �� : c3 _ 6.6-7 p `-;".'"' �DAVIS_BLVD� , ... a!i RADIO RDS _ E •..• _ D 7 ari 6.1 -6.5 � - aip all -8.7-5.5 U -. .;E. x. Q3E1 12s-) s-- Item V.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING OF February 2, 2005 I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT: Petition No.: CU-2004-AR-6625 Petition Name: Wiggins Pass Hotel and Spa Applicant/Developer: Eco Venture Wiggins Pass, LTD. Engineering Consultant: RWA Consulting, Inc. Environmental Consultant: Passarella and Associates, Inc. II. LOCATION: The subject property is the site of the former Wiggins Pass Marina. It is located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Wiggins Pass Road and Vanderbilt Drive in Section 17, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. The parcel is approximately 10.45+ acres. III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: The surrounding properties contain a mix of residential developments and a public park. The residential parcel to the north, Cocohatchee Bay PUD, permits high- rise residential units at a height of 200 feet above parking and the Pelican Isle Yacht Club to the southwest is also a high-rise residential project with a maximum density of 11 dwelling units per acre). North: Undeveloped land within a residentially designated tract; zoned PUD (Cocohatchee Bay PUD; 1.11 dwelling units per acre) East: Vanderbilt Drive ROW, across which is land with a Site Development Plan authorizing a golf course; zoned PUD (Cocohatchee Bay PUD; 1.11 dwelling units per acre) South: Cocohatchee River Park (Collier Parks and Recreation); zoned P (Public Use) West: Undeveloped land within a residentially designated tract which is predominantly mangrove forest; zoned PUD (Cocohatchee Bay PUD; 1.11 dwelling units per acre) Southwest: Pelican Isle Yacht Club; zoned RT (density capped at 11 dwelling units per acre) Southeast: Undeveloped commercial tract of Wiggins Bay PUD; zoned PUD (4.85 dwelling units per acre) EAC Meeting Page 2 of 10 IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The subject site is 10.45 + acres and directly north of the Cocohatchee Bay Park, which includes wet boat slips and a boat launching and fueling facility. The subject property was used for many years as a marina with some 450 dry boat storage spaces, a ship store, a boat service facility, marine fueling facility, and several wet slips. The petitioner seeks a Conditional Use for a Destination Resort Hotel in the Commercial (C-4) zoning district, as provided for in Chapter 2.04.03 of the LDC. Hotels are permitted in the C-4 zoning district, when the C-4 zoning district is contained within an activity center. The subject site is not located within an activity center and therefore a conditional use application is required of the project. The applicant is proposing a 230-room hotel with customary ancillary uses. These uses include: • + 10,000 square feet of restaurant space; • +4,000 square feet of lounge/bar area; • + 10,000 square feet of meeting and ballroom space • + 17,000 square feet of retail shops and personal service uses such as a spa and salon • + 3.18 acre marina with a maximum of 47 wet slips and a ship store (minimum of three wet-slips reserved for transient boat parking. The project's primary means of ingress and egress is located directly across from the existing terminus of Wiggins Pass Road, where a traffic signal exists. A secondary means of ingress and egress will be provided at the northern extent of the project. This secondary access point is to be utilized primarily for deliveries and to provide enhanced emergency access. The projects will provide an inter- connection with the Cocohatchee Bay Park to the south to allow the park's patrons the ability to egress the site utilizing the traffic signal. 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, the Urban-Mixed Use District permits a variety of non-residential uses including hotels/motels consistent by Policy 5.9, 5.10, or 5.11 and related accessory and recreational uses such as restaurants, meeting spaces, retail uses, spas; and, water related uses such as wet slips. The subject site is zoned commercial (C-4) and developed with a marina. This site does not meet the commercial locational criteria contained in the FLUE. However, FLUE Policy 5.9 provides that properties, which do not conform to the FLUE but EAC Meeting Page 3 of 10 II are improved, as determined through the Zoning Re-Evaluation Program, shall be deemed consistent with the FLUE and identified on the FLUE Map Series as Properties Consistent by Policy. This site is such a property (determined to be "improved property" through the Zoning Re-evaluation Program) and therefore allowed to develop consistent with the C-4 zoning district as requested above. The Urban-Mixed Use District sets forth "any water-dependent and/or water- related land use shall encourage the use of the PUD technique and other innovative approaches to conserve environmentally sensitive features and to assure compatibility with surrounding land uses." "In addition to the criteria of compatibility with surrounding land uses and consistency with the siting policy of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (Policyl 0.1.4), the following land use criteria shall be used for prioritizing the siting of water-dependant and water-related uses: a) Presently developed sites; b) Sites where water-dependant or water-related uses have been previously established; c) Sites where shoreline improvements are in place; d) Sites where damage to viable, naturally functioning wetlands, or other ,..� environmentally sensitive features could be minimized." The subject site is presently developed with a marina, a water-dependent and water-related use. The proposed uses include a water-related use, the 47-slip marina. FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with the surrounding area. Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to the Zoning and Land Development Review staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety. Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes that the proposed uses for the site 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. The applicant states in the EIS that all flow from a 25-year, 3 day storm will be collected, treated to State Outstanding Florida Waters Standards and will discharge to the existing portion of the improved marina. This project is consistent with Policy 6.1.4 in that an invasive exotic vegetation removal and maintenance plan will be required at the time of Site Development Plan/Construction Plan submittal. EAC Meeting Page 4 of 10 The requirement in Polic6.1.8 to provide an Environmental Impact Statement has been satisfied. Jurisdictional wetlands have been identified as required in Policies 6.2.1 and 6.2.2. Agency permits will be required at the time of Site Development Plan/Construction Plan submittal. 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. The SFWMD FLUCCS identifies Code 540 (Bay) onsite as "other surface waters" and COE identifies "Waters of the U.S." and is shown in Figure 2 of the EIS. The proposed marina is for 47 slips. Policy 6.3.1 requires the amount of permitted wet slips for marinas be no more than 18 boat slips per 100 feet of shoreline where impacts to sea grass beds are less than 100 square feet. The proposed marina will not impact any sea grass beds if the vessels leaving the marina stay within the limits of the main channel to the Gulf of Mexico. According to the applicant, the existing shoreline is approximately 305 feet, which would allow 54.9 slips; the applicant is proposing 47 slips, in accordance with this policy. A wildlife survey for listed species has been conducted on the site and included in the Environmental Impact Statement. In accordance with Policy 7.1.2, wildlife habitat management plans have been submitted for the bald eagle. The relevant reference to this project that is required by Policy 7.1.2 to be used in preparing the management plan is the "Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle in the Southeast Region", USFWS, 1987. Policy 7.1.2(2)(d) states, "For the bald eagle, the required habitat management plans shall establish protective zones around the eagle nest restricting certain activities. The plans shall also address restricting certain types of activities during the nesting season." Per the USFWS Bald Eagle Management Guidelines, restrictions are recommended on new commercial and industrial development, construction of multi-story buildings or high-density housing developments, construction of roads that increase access to nest sites, and use of chemicals toxic to wildlife. Most other sources of disturbance are allowed within the secondary zone during the non-nesting season. The subject site, located within the secondary zone, is proposing a multi-story hotel. Policy 7.1.2(3), states, "The County shall, consistent with applicable GMP policies, consider and utilize recommendations and letters of technical assistance from the FFWCC and the USFWS in issuing development orders on property containing listed species. It is recognized that these agency recommendations, on EAC Meeting Page 5 of 10 a case by case basis, may change the requirements contained within these wildlife protection policies and any such change shall be deemed consistent with the Growth Management Plans." Included in the EIS is the USFWS biological opinion dated March 6, 2004 for the originally proposed construction of two 22- story residential towers. The USFWS written biological opinion and their recommendations allows for the multi-story buildings within the secondary zone and allows construction during the nesting season with terms and conditions and therefore the eagle management plan is consistent with the GMP. The project is consistent with Policy 7.1.4 in that all applicable federal and state permits regarding protected species will be required at the time of Site Development Plan/Construction Plan submittal. Per Policy 7.2.1, the marina siting criteria was used to determine the appropriate number of docks allowed in order to direct increased boat traffic away from sensitive manatee habitats. A manatee protection plan has been included as part of the EIS. Policy 10.1.1 sets priorities for water-dependant uses in order to protect shorelines where activities will damage or destroy coastal resources. The proposed private ,.� marina use falls in the middle of the priorities list. However, the shoreline along the property has already been impacted. Similarly, Policy 10.1.3 lists priorities for water-related uses: Recreational facilities, marine supply/repair facility and residential development, respectively. Consistent with the policy, the proposed plan is providing a private marina and a marine supply facility which are the first and second priorities. Per Policy 10.1.6 regarding new marinas, the applicant has provided vehicular parking, fueling facilities designed to contain spills from on-land and in the water, and accessibility to all public services. Specifics will be addressed at the time of site plan submittal. Sewage pump-out facilities will be required at the time of site development plan submittal. This policy also states that dry storage should be encouraged over wet storage. This project proposes only wet storage. Policy 12.1.2 requires that land use amendments in the Category I hurricane vulnerability zone shall only be considered if such increases in densities provide appropriate mitigation to reduce the impacts of hurricane evacuation times. The proposed commercial hotel/marina development will have no impact on hurricane evacuation times, as no permanent residential dwelling units are proposed. VI. MAJOR ISSUES: EAC Meeting Page 6 of 10 Stormwater Management: The subject site lies in an area referred to in the County Drainage Atlas as "Miscellaneous Coastal Basins" because it discharges directly into the Gulf. Since there are no downstream properties, water quantity(discharge)requirements are not a consideration. There are no County stormwater facilities in the vicinity of the project. Water quality retention must be accounted for in compliance with the requirements and standards of the FDEP and the SFWMD. Environmental: Site Description: The subject site is a 10.45-acre former commercial marina. No native habitat is present. Wetlands: The subject site contains 0.43 acres of open water, the shoreline composed of sea wall and boat ramps. The submerged bottom of the bay is composed of soft sediment lacking sea grasses within or immediately adjacent to the project boundary. The applicant proposes to excavate a 3.18-acre marina basin and reconfigure to accommodate 47 wet slips. Preservation Requirements: There is no preservation requirement for the subject property. Listed Species: The project site is developed and does not contain listed species. The West Indian Manatee may occur within waters near the project site. The majority of the site is located within the secondary protection zone of bald eagle nest CO-019. This nest is located approximately 830 feet northwest of the project site occupied by a pair of eagles that have successfully fledged young during each of the last four consecutive nesting seasons. As part of the biological opinion from USFWS, the applicant proposed enhancing the reconfigured marina basin for flushing by planting the terminal ends of the bay with 0.82 acres of mangroves. This proposal has been withdrawn by the applicant and is long longer included as part of this plan. EAC Meeting Page 7 of 10 VII. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of CU-2004-AR-6625 "Wiggins Pass Hotel and Spa" with the following stipulations: Stormwater Management: A Surface Water Management Permit or an Environmental Resource Permit must be obtained from SFWMD for this site. SFWMD may defer to FDEP because of the location. Environmental: 1. As part of the biological opinion from USFWS, the applicant proposed enhancing the reconfigured marina basin for flushing by planting the terminal ends of the bay with 0.82 acres of mangroves. Until such time as the biological opinion is modified or written authorization is received from USFWS, this requirement remains as part of the biological opinion and shall be included and shown as part of final site plan approval. 2. Draft restrictions will be in accordance with the Manatee Protection Plan in affect at the time of Site Development Plan/Construction Plan submittal. 3. Any amendment to the Bald Eagle Management Plan shall require review by the Environmental Advisory Council or any successor body. 4. This PUD shall comply with the guidelines and recommendations of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) regarding potential impacts to protected species onsite. A Habitat Management Plan for those protected species shall be submitted to Environmental Services staff for review and approval prior to final Site Plan/ Construction Plan approval. 5. Petroleum cleanup at the subject property shall meet the standards as described in 62-770, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). During storage tank removal and closure, a significant amount of contaminated soil was removed and stockpiled. A discharge report form shall be filed as required by 62-761, F.A.C. and a site assessment initiated as outlined in 62-770, F.A.C. During Phase I & II site assessments provided by the applicant, some sampled areas other than the tank pit area were found to have exceeded state cleanup target levels. A re-sampling shall be required for all contaminants that exceeded soil or groundwater cleanup target levels as defined in 62-777 F.A.C. Results shall be submitted to the Collier County Pollution Control and Prevention Department for their review (attn: Phil Snyderburn). If the re- EAC Meeting Page 8 of 10 sampling of these areas confirms that state cleanup target levels are exceeded, a site assessment will be required for the areas exceeding the state cleanup target levels in 62-777, F.A.C. in addition to the site assessment already required by 62-770, F.A.C. in the former tank pit area. Remediation scopes will be determined by the site assessment(s) result(s) and conclusion(s). Cleanup shall be required prior to SDP approval. Item V.D. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING OF FEBRUARY 2,2005 I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT: Petition No.: PUDA-2004-AR-6786 Petition Name: Cocohatchee Bay Applicant/Developer: Vanderbilt Partners II,LLC Engineering Consultant: Vanasse Daylor Environmental Consultant: Turrell and Associates II. LOCATION: The eastern portion of the development is located at the northeast corner of Vanderbilt Drive and Wiggins Pass Road. The larger, western portion of the PUD is entirely on the west side of Vanderbilt Drive, extending from the northern boundary of The Dunes PUD to the southern boundary of the Arbor Trace PUD. The Audubon Country Club PUD binds a northwest extension of the Cocohatchee Bay PUD on the west. The subject property, consisting of 532 acres, is located in Sections 8, 16, 17 & 20, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: The project is bordered on the west by the Delnor Wiggins State Park and Barefoot Beach County Park; on the east by Tarpon cove PUD and Wiggins Bay PUD, on the south by the Dunes and on the north by Arbor Trace PUD and Village Place PUD. The general area is a mix of residential developments, public parks, and limited commercial and environmentally sensitive lands. North: Undeveloped and developed residential parcels, zoned Arbor Trace PUD, Residential (RSF-3/ST) and Village Place PUD East: Undeveloped and developed residential parcels, undeveloped commercial parcel, Cocohatchee River Park, and existing zoned Tarpon Cove PUD, Commercial (C-4),Public (P) ,..� South: Existing Marina, residential dwelling units zoned Commercial (C- 4), Tarpon Cove PUD, Wiggins Bay PUD and the Dunes PUD EAC Meeting Page 2 of 9 West: Undeveloped parcels and Gulf of Mexico zoned Conservation with a Special Treatment Overlay and Agricultural with Special Treatment Overlay IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Cocohatchee Bay PUD was originally approved by Collier County on December 12, 2000, and authorized by PUD Ordinance Number 00-88. On September 21, 2004, the Board of County Commissioners at their advertised public hearing voted to allow the petitioner to submit an amendment to the existing Cocohatchee Bay PUD for the limited purpose of proposing an amendment to the Bald Eagle Management Plan and related references. The Collier County Board of County Commissioners adopted the PUD Ordinance for the Cocohatchee Bay Development on December 12, 2000. The Ordinance approved the development of high-rise condominiums up to 20 stories tall, multi- family dwellings, and adult living facilities. The project is also approved for a social and fitness center, a golf driving range and clubhouse, golf course, tennis courts, guest cottages, parking areas, and stormwater management facilities. The entire PUD comprises approximately 532.09+ acres. The majority of the golf course and ninety residential units designated R-2 by the PUD document are located within the portion of the PUD lying east of Vanderbilt Drive and north of Wiggins Pass Road. The remaining facilities and 480 residential units are to be located on the west side of Vanderbilt Drive and north of the existing Wiggins Pass Marina. At the time of approval, and continuing through the time of this writing, an actively used nest of a pair of bald eagles exists on the site. The bald eagle is listed as "threatened" by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). A Primary Protection Zone extends out a radius of 750 feet from the nest tree and a Secondary Protection Zone extends out a radius of 1,500 feet from the nest tree. The approved PUD document is unusual in that it contains two master plans. Exhibit "A" indicates the proposed development plan including golf course and residential areas. Exhibit "B" indicates golf course only, entirely outside of the Bald Eagle Primary Protection Zone, and no residential areas. Exhibit "A" is applicable only when the bald eagle nest tree is deemed no longer active. The applicant has received a United States Fish and Wildlife Service biological opinion, as issued to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that would allow development in the Primary Protection Zone during the non-nesting season. Therefore, the developer wishes to amend the Bald Eagle Management Plan, EAC Meeting Page 3 of 9 which is a part of the PUD, to allow development in the Primary Protection Zone to start during the non-nesting season and continue through the nesting season, and in doing so eliminate the master plan defined as "Exhibit B". V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element: The subject property is located within the Urban Designation, Urban-Mixed-Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict on the Future Land Use Map (PLUM) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The majority of the western portion of the PUD is located seaward of the Coastal High Hazard Area Boundary. Future Land Use Element: As noted, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Cocohatchee Bay PUD Ordinance (Ordinance No. 00-88) on December 12, 2000. The size of the PUD is approximately 532 acres. The PUD Ordinance allows the petitioner to develop 590 units, which represents a residential density for the PUD of approximately 1.11 units per acre. The proposed amendment does not involve any proposed change to the number of residential units. It only seeks to allow already approved development within the ,.� eagle nest area. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not impact the approved density. Collier County Comprehensive Planning finds that the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of the Future Land Use Element. However, staff must defer to County Environmental Services Department staff, as to whether the proposed revisions to the bald eagle management plan are consistent with County provisions regarding the protection of listed species. Conservation & Coastal Management Element: Only those Policies relating to the eagle as a listed species were evaluated for project consistency. Policy 7.1.2(3) states: "The County shall, consistent with applicable GMP policies, consider and utilize recommendations and letters of technical assistance from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and recommendations from the US Fish and Wildlife Service in issuing development orders on property containing listed species. It is recognized that these agency recommendations, on a case by case basis, may change the requirements contained within these wildlife protection policies and any such change shall be deemed consistent with the Growth Management Plan." The project is consistent in that the applicant is proposing to operate under the Terms and Conditions of the EAC Meeting Page4of9 Biological Opinion/ Incidental Take for the Bald Eagle on-site, as issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The project is consistent with Policy 7.1.2(2)(a)3 for the Bald Eagle since the Biological Opinion/ Incidental Take authorizes the development of the habitat surrounding the nest tree. VI. MAJOR ISSUES: Listed Species: • #041 "412111k... '` tKV ` �q� isietc,A xy Ain 1114)2,14Ipps, 40.04. 5114, ' . 41444 rr� : p7a , I 3 AAINght",4"SP" NOM' �x �� ,< • gypA > m�l - ®' � •v • im • '4J,";* Stiebk=7*;tr.2,7Niiii."1,;,.f.-z;e0Air !/ aN �ty } S atic: !MP \ k y1� ^ � a "� a • t � b ‘fg 41117,t, f" f:4011.1N r The petitioner is proposing to amend the PUD as it relates to the Bald Eagle Management Plan (BEMP) only, which the Board of County Commissioners voted and approved was appropriate at their meeting on September 21, 2004. The following are excerpts from the consultant's report from the original PUD rezone. EAC Meeting Page 5 of 9 "An active bald eagle nest is located on the site on the west side of Vanderbilt Drive, shown on the attached site plan / preserve map. The parent birds fledged one hatchling in 1998-99 and two young during the 1999-00 season. The young were successfully reared and both left the nest in April of 2000. The nest is located in a dead and rapidly deteriorating Slash Pine tree on the western portion of the property. The tree is located between a small sawgrass marsh area and the bay forest / mangrove swamp. The birds have an open view to the water over the tops of the mangroves to the west. All of the established trees between the nest tree and Vanderbilt Drive have died, most likely due to a fire that occurred on the property several years ago so the birds also have a relatively unobstructed view of pedestrian and vehicular traffic along Vanderbilt Drive. Specific observations were made during the past two nesting seasons [98-99 and 99-00] to note flight patterns and feeding behavior around the nest. These observations showed that flights into and out of the nest were consistently to the south and southwest from the nest tree regardless of the time of day or weather conditions. Several other dead pines around the nest served as perches for the parents during the nesting season." Since then, the eagles have continued to successfully rear several chicks. FWS reports in its Biological Opinion of February 27, 2004 that "...the nest has been documented to produce 13 fledglings, including two per year out of the last four nesting seasons." During the 2001-2002 season, the eagles reconstructed the nest in the same tree due to Tropical Storm Gabrielle blowing the nest out of the tree. The parent eagles have returned to the nest again for the 2004-2005 season and appear to be brooding an egg(s). The petitioner has received a U.S. Army Corps of Engineer's (USACE) permit that contains a Biological Opinion and Incidental Take Statement by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in accordance with Section 7 of the Federal Endangered Species Act. The applicant proposes to amend the BEMP in accordance with the Incidental Take Statement. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission coordinated with the FWS on the Incidental Take Statement and approved of the following statement being added to the Corps permit: "The permittee shall comply with the Reasonable and Prudent Measures along with the Mandatory Terms and Conditions issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for bald eagle nest CO-19 in their Biological Opinion dated February 27, 2004. In addition, the permittee will follow minimization measures 1 — 5 described in the `Description of the proposed action' of the Biological Opinion. The permittee shall secure the proposed off-site bald eagle territory prior to initiation of any activity that will cause nest abandonment." (From an email from Daniel Sullivan, FWC to Steve Godley Dated March 25, 2004.) EAC Meeting Page 6 of 9 The original BEMP is stricken in its entirety. The original BEMP contains information about the history of this eagles' nest, fledgling success and flight patterns of the birds. There is a section describing Biology and Habitat Requirements of the Bald Eagle and the history of why the birds were added to the Endangered Species list. Finally, the approved BEMP describes how development will proceed and how the eagle will be protected, including an education plan. The amended BEMP is composed of sections of the Incidental Take Statement from FWS to US ACE written in two letters dated February 27, 2004 and July 14th 2004. Section A. Project Description of the amended BEMP mentions a 35-slip marina. Inclusion of the marina in the BEMP description does not constitute any review or approval of a marina for this PUD. The amended BEMP includes the two Reasonable and Prudent Measures for reducing the likelihood of take and the five Terms and Conditions for construction of the project listed in the Incidental Take Statement. The construction would be phased to begin with development in the secondary zone in the non-nesting season and would be allowed to continue during the next and subsequent nesting seasons. Construction for the high-rises in the primary zone would likely begin in consecutive non-nesting seasons, but be allowed to continue during nesting seasons. Development closest to the eagle nest tree include a 20-story high rise 50 feet from the tree and a lake 40 feet from the tree. In the Biological Opinion, the FWS acknowledged that "Construction would eventually occur within 30 feet of the nest tree." FWS further describes the effect of the take: "The proposed action will result in the loss of productivity from one bald eagle nest out of the 24 nests known to occur in Collier County. The total number of nests in south Florida that have lost productivity due to permitted actions from January 1, 2000, to date will increase to 11." One of the FWS requirements to minimize the take will be that "...the applicant must make reasonable effort to prolong the integrity of the bald eagle nest tree, the nest, and the surrounding habitat." Also included in the BEMP is a voluntary proposal by the applicant to install an artificial nest tree on a property to the north of Cocohatchee Bay. It is proposed to be approximately 5000 feet from the existing nest tree and would be farther than 1,000 feet from the Cocohatchee condominium construction area. The construction and location of the tree must be according to Land Development Code requirements and will require a Special Treatment permit since there is a Special Treatment overlay on this land. The Bald Eagle Management Phasing Diagram (Sheet 1 of 1) is conceptual and building sites and infrastructure may be required to be modified during Site Development Plan review. EAC Meeting Page 7 of 9 There are a large number of gopher tortoises in the primary zone of the eagle nest tree. The FWC issued a gopher tortoise Incidental Take permit that did not include the tortoises in the primary zone. A new state permit and County relocation/ management plan will be required for these tortoises at the time of Site Development Plan (SDP) and must be updated for all tortoises on site. According to the Land Development Code, gopher tortoises must be retained on-site if there is adequate habitat for them to live in. In order for the applicant to relocate the tortoises to the preserves in the golf course on the east side of Vanderbilt Drive, they must provide density of existing tortoises in each preserve to insure there will not be more than five tortoises per one acre of preserve during construction while the preserves will be fenced. The golf course Site Development Plan is in for an amendment, so these gopher tortoises will be addressed with this SDP and the SDP for Phases II-IV of the development. The review of these SDPs will be in accordance with the Growth Management Plan and Land Development Code regulations for gopher tortoise protection. VII. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of PUDA-2004-AR-6786, "Cocohatchee Bay PUD" with the following stipulations: Environmental: 1. Revise Section E of the BEMP to read as follows: "Should the current eagle pair or a second eagle pair build a new nest within the PUD boundary, any revisions to the above described terms and . . •. .. . •_ .. - - an amendment to this Bald Eagle Management Plan shall be required. EAC Meeting Page 8 of 9 PREPARED BY: ZeuOttlAk 6114 e- ip k/os LAURA A. ROYS DATE ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST 1I los MICHAEL BOSI, AICP DATE PRINCIPAL PLANNER EAC Meeting Page 9 of 9 REVIEWED BY: 6/141:a4Z2.- BARBARA S. BURGESO , DATE PRINCIPAL ENVIRO TAL SPECIALIST gi LIAM D. LO NZ, Jr., .E. DATE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR SUS F MURRAY, AICPDATE DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVED BY: J• EPH K. S MITT AT IMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES MINISTRATOR