EAC Agenda 04/06/2005 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
AGENDA
April 6, 2005
9:00 A.M.
Commission Boardroom
W. Harmon Turner Building (Building "F") —Third Floor
I. Call to Order
II. Roll Call
Ill. Approval of Agenda
IV. Approval of March 2, 2005 Meeting minutes
V. Land Use Petitions
A. Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-2004-AR-6192
"The Cook Property PUD"
Section 9, Township 50 South, Range 26 East
B. Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-2004-AR-6258
"Palermo Cove RPUD"
Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East
VI. Old Business
A. LDC Amendments
VII. New Business
A. Oustanding Advisory Committee Member Nominations
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 March 30, 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.
March 2, 2005
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER
COUNTY ENVIRONMNETAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
Naples, Florida, March 2, 2005
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Environmental Advisory
Council in and for the County of Collier, having conducted
business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in REGULAR
SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East
Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Alfred Gal
William Hughes
Judith Hushon
Ken Humiston
Michael V. Sorrell
Erica Lynne
Lee Horn
Iry Kraut
ALSO PRESENT:
Stan Chrzanowski, Engineering Services
Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney
Susan Mason, Senior Environmental Specialist
Page 1
March 2, 2005
Meeting was called to order at 8:59 AM.
II. Roll Call- A quorum was established.
III. Approval of Agenda:
Item 6 will be continued due to an emergency by the presenter Bill Lorenz.
IV. Approval of February 02,2005 Meeting minutes:
Mr. Humiston- Page 43, second line down refers to main low instead of mean
low. My name was abbreviated to four letters.
Page 47 should say "proximity to the golf, a sensitive environment". Page 80
should say "you also have a club house,". Page 45 should say " when it is time to
diagnose is there a problem"
William Hughes moved to approve the Minutes. Second by Ken Humiston.
Carried unanimously.
V. Land Use Petitions:
A. Special Treatment Permit No. ST-2004-AR-6229 Site Improvement Plan
No. SIP-2004-AR-6189 "Halderman Creek Restoration Project and Dredge
Disposal Site"Sections 10, 11, 13, 14 & 15, Township 50 South, Range 25
East
* Persons sworn in
* No Disclosures or Conflicts
Jeff Tabor,PBS&J- (Reference to Power Point Presentation)We are looking at
possible funding sources. We have already submitted applications for permits
from the Army Corps and DEP. The project should take about three years.
Hydraulic dredging is recommended. Mitigation will be off site.
Mr. Humiston-How do you propose to manage the disposal so that the areas do
not get too full?
Mr. Tabor- There will be two to three wet and dry cycles during the process.
Ms. Hushon- What cautions have been taken with rain rush?
Mr. Tabor-There will be multiple levels of weirs, they can be sealed. Berms
will be lined. The projects will be staged.
Page 2
March 2, 2005
Ms. Hushon- Has there been a chemical analysis review?
Mr. Tabor- (Reference to Power Point Presentation) Copper and arsenic levels
are high and above commercial use.
Ms. Hushon- Mangroves will be smothered if it runs off the site incorrectly.
Mr. Tabor-The exits are away from the mangroves. There will be language
provided by the DEP to make sure mangroves will not be impacted. There will
also be persons on site to make sure there will not be any impacts.
Lee Wisher- If we have a large rain event the pipe is designed to take the
overflow to be filtered and confined. There are silk curtains to confine it to the
geo-textile area. Coarse grain is all that will be left. 80 samples were taken. A
landfill has stringent chemical testing requirements. The test results are available.
The records can be entered for public review.
Mr. Hughes- This is a very large filtration for any kind of real flow rate.
Mr. Wisher- It will be a natural settling rate, which would go into the pipe with a
secondary settlement time. If there is an event then the curtains would retain.
Mr. Hughes- If the turbidity goes beyond the threshold then you will shut down.
Mr. Wisher- Yes.
Ms. Hushon- How much draft do you expect?
Mr. Tabor- A foot and a half to two feet. It may be stacked in the middle.
i
Mr. Wisher- There are two phases. The fine grain will be down first for which
there will be no stacking. The stacking will be after the fine grain has left the site.
Mr. Kraut- With the two cells, how close are they to residences?
Mr. Tabor- There is about 100 feet from the cell. There are no anticipated gases.
We are not anticipating any major odors. There is an existing access road that
will be utilized.
Ms. Lynne- When the project is done what will happen to the property?
Mr. Tabor-The owner is looking to have 10,000 cubic yards to remain on site.
County staff can address the potential development of this property.
Ms. Lynne- Doesn't dredging need to be maintained?
Page 3
March 2, 2005
.-� Mr. Tabor- I would say it would not be needed for another fifteen to twenty
years. Preventative measures can be taken.
Mr. Gal- Who requested that this project be done?
Mr. Tabor- The residence were the first to request. The owner of the property
was not one of the initial ones. The County is paying for this project.
Ms. Hushon- Where are the 35,000 cubic feet to be removed going?
Mr. Tabor- It is to be determined, but it is set to go into the landfill. The
operation should last around 6-8 months.
Ms. Lynne- Can someone tell me about the "S" curve, it looks like a natural area
to me.
Mr. Tabor-This area is the only natural area, it will be marked with 7 channel
markers. There are no anticipated impacts.
Mr. Kraut-Have all funds been allocated?
Ms.Bishop-We have received grants. We expect to get additional funding. The
budget estimate is at$3.3 million. This project has been on the books for many
years. So the funding will be available.
Kevin Doolittle, Solid Waste Department- All the leach aid is piped.
Mr. Humiston-The main issue is of the turbidity . If it is properly managed it
will work, if not, there is the risk of release of turbidity into the area. The DEP
permit will require the monitoring. If it is adhered to, I will support this project.
Mr. Humiston moved to approve. Second by Mr. Hughes. Carried unanimously.
B. Site Development Plan Amendment No. SDPA-2004-AR-6611 "Ritz
Carlton Naples Beach Pavilion" Section 32, Township 48, Range 25
*Conflicts:
Mr. Humiston- I am going to excuse myself because my firm was involved in
obtaining the Department of Environmental Protection permit.
*No Communications
Mr. White- I received form"8B" in regards to the conflict. I don't know if you
want to delve into it any further as to if there is an actual or perceived conflict due
to the continuation of the contract.
Page 4
March 2, 2005
Justin Martin-The permits have been approved, and did not have anything to do
with the environmental aspects of the project.
Mr. White- I take it that the contractual relationship has been completed, if you
want to abstain from voting it would signify an appearance of a conflict.
* Persons sworn in
Ms. Lynne- I spoke with to Barb Burgeson yesterday.
Justin Martin- (Reference to photograph)There is an existing beach building.
We would like to expand and raise the building to a second story. (Reference to
Project Board)This is located within the Pelican Bay Fringe.
Karen Johnson,Regional Manager for Wilson Miller Ecological Services-
We have retained our Gopher Tortoise relocation permit. There will be a
temporary dune impact. We have also retained r'DEC Sea Turtle protection plan.
The construction will not be done during tortoise season. The vegetation will be
replaced. There will be a .001 walkway impact to the wetlands. This is not a
natural wetland. The vegetation will be replaced at a 3 to 1 ration. The mangrove
limbs will be tied back if needed. The entire area to be impacted will be .009.
We have no objection to the recommendations put forth by the Environmental
Staff.
Ms. Hushon moved to approve.
Ms. Lynne- If someone came in today asking for a restaurant seaward of the
coastal construction set back we would not be inclined to approve that. The
original permit began as a platform for wildlife viewing. The next step was a
single story building. This project is legal but is a far cry from a wildlife viewing
platform.
Mr. Martin- (Reference to the Project Board)There are plenty of locations to
view wildlife.
Ms. Lynne- How many exotics are in the area now?
Ms.Johnson- Exotics are limited. We have agreed to the removal of the exotics.
Ms. Lynne- Your report said there are around 14-20% of exotics in that area.
Your previous permits included keeping that area free of exotics. My concern was
not the amount of viewing area but seaward of the coastal construction set back is
not a place for a two story building.
Ms.Johnson- In 1985 there was a resolution approving the second story building.
Page 5
March 2, 2005
Edd Starous- It is not a restaurant in a traditional sense. It would be used as a
restaurant during the holiday season; at all other times it would be used in the
same way it has been for the passed 20 years as a banquet facility. Barbara had
mentioned doing more functions in the facility and not on the beach.
Mr. Hughes- The beach access is to be hardened?
Ms.Johnson-This access was set so that it would not have to be hardened. We
are working with Barbara.
Mr. Humiston- Will the access route be used to bring in other materials or just to
bring the rig on and off.
Bill Ernest, Travel Crew Company- We hope to have the rig off by May first.
The only other activity that it might be used for would be to bring a crane in.
Justin Star- The path will be tilled upon removal of rig.
Second by Mr. Horn. Motion passed unanimously with one abstaining.
VI. Old Business:
A. None
5 minute break
VII. New Business:
A. LDC Amendments
Ms. Mason- Page 84 paragraph "C. 1." should be deleted it is addressed in
paragraph "0" on page 85.
Ms.Hushon- It appears there are 4 ways of getting a TDR credit.
Stan Litsinger-There is a base TDR awarded at severance. There are early entry
bonuses. There are also additional TDR credits for restoration and maintenance,
removal of exotic, and application of maintenance plan.
Ms. Hushon- On page "6 C" it says 2005.
Mr. Litsinger-That is an error, and should be corrected.
Ms. Hushon- I like the concept of villages. I have a problem with early entry. I
am not sure why we should give incentives to developers that are quit capable of
developing at their own rate.
Page 6
March 2, 2005
Mr. Hughes-No one is taking advantage of this program.
Ms. Lynne- One of the environmental organizations had concern that we were
moving too quickly.
Mr. Litsinger- Development incentives lead to recouping financial rewards. If
this will help to retain lands in conservation status and help to realize the type of
development we prefer to see, we see this as a win, win.
Mr. White- The substance of your recommendation will be weighted to the
proportion to environmental issues.
Ms. Hushon- I would like to see the concept of relocation of threatened and
endangered species. Page 88 "C" does not have any definition of major and
minor.
Mr. White- I do not know what was intended by the provision, however I share
your concerns.
Ms.Mason- We did have difficulty in defining major and minor. It does refer to
a definition in the land development code.
Mr. Chrzanowski- It was set up previously that if an individual turned their lanai
into a room of the home or added a shed in the property they were required to
have exotic removal before getting a certificate of occupancy. The owners quite
frequently would never get a certificate of occupancy just for the shed. The home
owner adding the new room didn't have to deal with it unless they tried to sell the
home. It became an enforcement nightmare. A room addition would be major.
Ms.Mason- So you would like to have the language under"88B" changed.
Page 4 & 53:
No Changes
Page 77:
Mr. Humiston- The suggested language prohibits trimming of native vegetation.
It is regulated by the state. This would prohibit persons living on the beach to do
selected trimming to preserve views.
Ms. Mason- This is not anything the County can permit, so this is just for
clarification so that pruning can be done correctly. These areas are intended to be
native retention areas, not landscaped areas.
Page 7
March 2, 2005
Mr. Humiston- Without this language some selected pruning could be done?
Ms. Mason- No it was never a permitable procedure. There is no specific
prohibition without this language.
Mr. Humiston- It is my recommendation that paragraph "E"be deleted to allow
for selected pruning.
Ms. Mason- The County does not allow trimming for views now. There is a
history in a lot of these properties where people would go in and damage the
plants, not allowing them to grow to their natural form.
Mr. White- I am only aware of vegetation trimming being authorized under State
rules.
Mr. Humiston-The state regulates beach trimming.
Mr. Humiston moved to delete this addition and accept State Policy. Second by
Mr. Sorrell.
Mr. Gal- I am inclined to leave it with staff comments.
6 apposed 2 in favor. Motion fails.
Fred Reischl- A beach is a fluid ecosystem. The State DEP has trimming
guidelines but they offer a permit that allows for maintenance that does not
damage plants. With the stipulation of a certified arborist, it would preserve the
property owners right to alter the vegetation and still preserve the dune.
Ms. Lynne moved to accept 3.03.3.06.8 with staff recommendations. Second by
Mr. Hushon. 4 apposed 4 in favor. Motion fails.
Mr. Hughes moved to accept staff recommendations with the addition of a
certified arborist to do the trimming when necessary.
Page 79:
Mr. Humiston- I have a concern about "D5" page 81. This is saying that if a
storm pushes sand into landscaped yards that the sand can not be removed and the
landscape can not be replaced. I do not think it is appropriate to prohibit the
removal of sand that has washed over, and use the sand in dune restoration.
Ms. Lynne- The problem is that there are some areas landscaped with non-native
vegetation. I think the idea is that when the dynamic beach action occurs, and
goes back to sand it needs to stay as sand. Maybe we need a definition of how far
away from the beach.
Page 8
March 2, 2005
.-� Mr. Hughes- Can we define how large of an event before we say no.
Ms.Mason- We can ask the appropriate Code Enforcement staff to come back to
the next meeting. This is only referring to land seaward of the CCSL.
Mr. White- There are a lost of possible options. Some of these are not legal
issues, they are a mixture of facts and law. If the pad of the building is not under
water, it is my understanding that it would be able to be rebuilt.
Mr. Humiston- Can we ask staff to bring it back at our next meeting?
Mr. White- I believe the time line may allow your comments to still have
meaning to the Board of Commissioner. As long as it gets to the BCC it can be
heard.
Mr. Hughes- I would like to see more of a definition and have staff come back.
Page 83-86:
Ms. Lynne- On page 84 letter"E" talks about replacement of the removed
vegetation within 14 days; they could put back the original vegetation.
Ms. Mason- They are looking into adding LDC amendments that would cover
relocation on site.
Ms. Lynne- If the native vegetation can be preserved you are maintaining genetic
diversity.
Ms. Lynne moved to accept the code as written with the suggestion that listed
species not be destroyed but relocated or restored onto site. Second by Ms.
Hushon. Carried unanimously.
Paragraph "I" looks like a good place to put the language.
Page 87:
No Changes
Page 88:
Ms. Hushon- I had made the suggestion under"C" , that we delete the word
"major" and alter the wording to put the exceptions up at the end of the first
sentence.
Ms. Hushon moved to remove the concept of major and make it so that it applies
to any addition to a single or two family lot with the exception of tents, awning,
Page 9
March 2, 2005
cabanas, and screened in enclosures. Second by Ms. Lynne. Carried
unanimously.
Page 91:
No Changes
Page 94:
No Changes
Page 158:
Mr. Humiston- I have the same comment about the vegetation trimming.
Mr. Humiston moved to approve with the deletion of paragraph "2D" on page
159. Second by Mr. Sorrell. 4 apposed 4 in favor. Motion fails.
Bruce Anderson,Roetzel & Andress Law Firm- I represent the Contractors and
Builders Association. The early bonus is in there because we are in a race against
the market. This is modeled after the early entry bonus that is available in the
Rural Land Stewardship area. That bonus period is five years, unlike the one
today which is three years. The Conservancy had withdrawn any of its
opposition. You getting early preservation of sending lands.
Mr. Humiston moved to accept staff recommendation. Second by Mr. Hughes.
Carried unanimously.
Mr. Gal moved to approve amendments 2.03.08, 3.05.07, 3.06.06, 4.06.04 A &B.
Second by Mr. Humiston. Carried unanimously.
VII. Council Member Comments
Mr. Hughes- The items covered today are extremely serious and need serious
consideration to a grandfather clause to existing conditions pertinent to
catastrophic events that may take place in the future.
Ms. Hushon- I would like to thank the staff for highlighting the environmental
issues.
Mr. Hughes- I would like to thank our stenographer from the last meeting who
was incredible, we received a word for word book. I was very impressed.
Ms. Lynne- I do not understand why Barb Burgeson was not here.
Page 10
March 2, 2005
Ms.Mason- She is the Corporate member in Hanson. It was unavoidable for her
not to attend. Hanson is our first priority.
B. Outstanding Advisory Committee Member Nominations
Ms. Hushon- The application form on the web site will not open.
Mr. Gal- My term expires in April.
Mr. Hughes- I nominate Alfred Gal.
Mr. Chrzanowski-Does everyone have all of the website lists. I will email
them.
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 11:43 AM.
COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMNETAL
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Chairman Alfred Gal
Page 11
Item V.A
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
MEETING OF April 6,2005
I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT:
Petition No.: PUDZ—2004- AR-6192
Petition Name: COOK PROPERTY PUD
Applicant/Developer: Toll Brothers, Inc.
Engineering Consultant: Christopher Hagan, Johnson Eng. Inc.
Environmental Consultant: Mike Myers, Passarella and Associates,
Inc.
II. LOCATION:
The subject property is located at 7700 and 7792 Davis Boulevard, approximately
1,700 feet east of Santa Barbara Boulevard in Section 9, Township 50 South,
Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES:
ZONING DESCRIPTION
N - PUD Davis Boulevard (State Route 84); then Wildwood
Estates PUD, a developed, residential project approved at
12.46 dwelling units per acre (DUA), and the New Hope
Ministries PUD, a religious facility
S - Agricultural undeveloped
E - PUD Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club PUD, a
developed,residential project approved at 1.43 DUA
W - Agricultural Collier County Domestic Animal Services
C-3 undeveloped portion of land owned by Boys and Girls
Club
IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
EAC Meeting
Page 2 of 8
The petitioner rezone 40.48± acres from the Rural Agriculture (A) and
Community Facility (CF) zoning districts to the Residential Planned Unit
Development (RPUD) zoning district for a project to be known as the Cook
Property PUD. The subject site is partially developed with a golf driving range
(11.54± acres) and a drive-in movie theater, that hosts an outdoor flea market on
weekends (9.53± acres). Other portions of the site are undeveloped.
The PUD document proposed a maximum of 160 (density 4 units per acre) single-
family attached, single family attached townhomes, zero lot line units, or multi-
family dwelling units, or some combination of any or all of those unit types, in
buildings that will not exceed 35 feet of three stories in height.
The Master Plan in this petition depicts generalized areas of development, water
management, and traffic/pedestrian circulation. Notes on the Master Plan
reinforce the petitioner's intention to comply with code for open space, road
construction, landscaping, and project design. A note on the Master Plan as well
as text within the PUD document indicate that recreational areas will also be
provided.
One access point along Davis Boulevard is shown to serve this project. That
access point is planned to align with the access point that serves Wildwood
Estates, however final alignment will be determined by Transportation Planning
staff when development approvals are sought.
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 (FLUM) of the Growth
Management Plan (GMP). Relevant to this petition, this Subdistrict permits
residential development (variety of unit types) at a base density of 4 dwelling units
per acre (DUA) and a maximum of 16 DUA, subject to the Density Rating System
provisions; recreation and open space uses and a variety of community facility
uses.
Review of the Density Rating System yields the site is eligible for a base density
of 4 D/A. The subject property 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 DUA.
Base Density 4 DUA
Density Bonus +3 DUA
EAC Meeting
Page 3 of 8
Total Eligible Density 7 DUA
Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be
compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses. Zoning staff
believes that the PUD document contains appropriate limitations to ensure that
this project will be compatible with the existing development in the
neighborhood, and therefore recommends that the petition be deemed consistent
with that FLUE policy and the overall GMP.
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 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.
EAC Meeting
Page 4 of 8
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 Cook PUD sits within the limits of the Lely Canal Basin and, as such, has an
allowable discharge rate of 0.06 cfs per acre. The project also sits within the
limits of the South Florida Water Management District permit known as the Lely
Area Stormwater Improvement Project (LASIP), and will be reviewed and
permitted by SFWMD.
The petitioner will also be asked during the SDP review process to coordinate
with the Collier County Stormwater Management Department who is
administering the LASIP for Collier County.
The stormwater management system for this project uses the standard design of
interconnected lakes (2 ea.) accepting runoff from the developed areas and
providing water quality retention and peak flow attenuation, prior to discharge
through an on-site wetland. Flow in the area is generally to the southwest.
EAC Meeting
Page 5 of 8
Environmental:
Site Description:
The subject property is approximately 40.5 acres and is surrounded by residential
and commercial development to the north, west, and east and undeveloped land to
the south. The site consists of roads, a golf driving range, a drive-in theater,
borrow ponds, and approximately 12.5 acres is vegetated. The vegetated areas of
the site are comprised of pine flatwoods (-1.15 acres), hydric pine and
pine/cypress wetlands (10.25 acres), and australian pine (-1.14 acres).
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soil map for the area
identifies the following soil types on the site: Pineda fine sand, limestone
substratum (Unit 14, hydric) and Boca fine sand(Unit 21, non-hydric).
Wetlands:
Approximately 10.25 acres of the site were claimed as jurisdictional wetlands by
the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). The wetlands onsite are
of two types: pine/cypress and hydric pine. Development of the site will result in
direct impacts to about 75% (-7.5 acres) of this wetland. The remainder of the
wetlands will be preserved.
Preservation Requirements:
Of the 40.5 acre site, only the 11.4 acres that supports native vegetation are used
in the preservation calculation. The remainder of the site consists of roads, a golf
driving range, a drive-in theater,borrow ponds, and exotic vegetation.
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 10.25 acres of hydric pine and
pine/cypress wetlands and 1.15 acres of pine flatwoods. A minimum of 2.85 acres
of native vegetation is required to be preserved on site. The PUD master plan
depicts 2.85 acres of native preservation and satisfies this requirement.
Listed Species:
A listed plant and wildlife species survey was conducted on March 4, 2004 by
Passarella and Associates, Inc. A 14 day non-nesting season foraging survey for
RCW was conducted October 29, 2004 through November 11, 2004 by Passarella
and Associates, Inc. Copies of both these surveys are provided in the EIS. One
EAC Meeting
Page 6 of 8
listed species, a little blue heron, was observed in a stormwater detention pond on
the site.
VII. RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of Cook Property PUD with the following
stipulations:
Stormwater Management:
1. A South Florida Water Management District surface water management
permit must be obtained prior to site development plan approval.
2. A meeting with the Collier County Stormwater Management Department
regarding this project's impact on the LASIP must be held prior to any SDP
preapplication meeting.
Environmental:
No additional stipulations.
EAC Meeting
Page 7 of 8
PREPARED BY:
I gr
STAN CHRZA �WSKI, P.E. DATE
ENGINEERING.' VIEW MANAGER
S4. Si (-705
CRISTINA SANCHEZ DATE
ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST
ik)--.CULELAT 3-I3- 05
KAY DESELEM
DATE
PRINCIPAL PLANNER
EAC Meeting
Page 8 of 8
REVIEWED BY:
/3a /tka-4' 0-- 3 0?/-615-
BARBARA S. BURGESON DATE
PRINCIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
M i
,LIAM D. L Z REN , r., P.E., DIRECTOR DATE
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Ate/ : 3//to
SUS A MURRA ,/, AICP, DIRECTOR DATE
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
APPROVED BY:
i /
A % L_ 23/O.S"-
J• ` PH K. SCHMITT DA E
?IMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
:1P MINISTRATOR
n
1
Al
w =
Ali
'''' 111000111111
INN
30y11a3H 33-idb,N
!"._
ri
r
4
WILDWOOD LAKES
i
M .,,�.,
z P�
Item V.B
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
MEETING OF April 6,2005
I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT:
Petition No.: PUDZ-2004-AR-6258
Petition Name: PALERMO COVE PUD
Applicant/Developer: Elias Brothers Communities at Palermo
Cove, Inc.
Engineering Consultant: Dwight Nadeau, AICP, RWA, INC.
Environmental Consultant: Passarella and Associates, Inc.
II. LOCATION:
The property is located on the north of Wolfe Road, and west of Collier Boulevard
(CR 951) in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,
Florida.
III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES:
The property to the north is zoned Indigo Lakes PUD (formerly Wyndam Park)
developed as single-family residential (3.04 DU/A), Summit Place in Naples
developed as single-family and multiple-family residences (4 DU/A), and Golden
Gate Fire Department (GGFD) Station 73 MPUD developed as commercial and
essential services. The property to the east is zoned Vanderbilt Country Club
PUD developed as single-family and multiple-family residence (2.34 DU/A) and
both developed and undeveloped Estates lots. The property to the south is zoned
Wolfe Creek PUD undeveloped single-family residences, and Nagel-Craig
Business Park PUD (Potential) proposed commercial center. The property to the
west is zoned Islandwalk PUD developed as single-family and multiple- family
residence (3.04 DU/A)
ZONING DESCRIPTION
N - Indigo Lakes PUD, and Single and multiple-family
Brittany Bay Apartments PUD residential development,
EAC Meeting
Page 2 of 8
S - Wolfe Creek PUD and Private Roadway then partially
Nagel- Craig Business Park PUD developed single-family residential
(Potential) and commercial development
E - Summit Place In Naples RPUD, Multiple-family residential
Golden Gate Fire Department commercial and essential service
(GGFD) Station 73 MPUD, and development and County Road 951
Vanderbilt County Club PUD
W- Islandwalk PUD Single and multiple-family
residential development
IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The subject site consists of 131 acres, and has a zoning designation of Rural
Agricultural (A) district. The subject property is located in the Urban(Mixed Use
District/Urban Residential Subdistrict) designation. The maximum density
permissible in the Rural Agricultural District within the Urban (Urban - Mixed
Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict) is four dwelling units per acre, based
n upon the Density Rating System of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The
subject site is presently undeveloped. The proposed density of Palermo Cove
RPUD is a maximum 524 residential dwelling units. The subject property
incorporates two tracts of lands that are located diagonally to each other and are
connected at the corner of these two-tracts. An access easement has been
provided to transition the internal roadway system within the property. The
project master plan includes a mixture of residential, recreational and preserves
land uses. The plan includes the improvement of East-West Wolfe Road, and the
interface with the property to the north (Summit Place In Naples Subdivision, and
Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District Station 73). A water management
easement, to benefit Collier County for the Collier Boulevard six-laning project, is
proposed to be located near the eastern end of the subject property. A shared
perimeter land use buffer with the Golden Gate Fire Department (GGFD) Station
73 MPUD is proposed.
V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY:
Future Land Use Element:
The subject property is designated Urban(Urban- Mixed Use District,Urban
Residential Subdistrict), as identified on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth
Management Plan. Relevant to this petition, this subdistrict permits residential
development (a variety of unit types) at a base density of 4 dwelling units per acre,
subject to the Density Rating System; and recreation and open space uses. This
EAC Meeting
Page 3 of 8
project does not qualify for any density bonuses and is not subject to density
reduction. Accordingly, this site is eligible for 4 dwelling units per acre.
FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with the surrounding
area. Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to Current Planning staff
as part of their review of the petition in its totality.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes:
1. The proposed uses for the site may be deemed consistent with the FLUE.
2. The proposed density for this site (4.0 DU/A)may be deemed consistent
with the Future Land Use Element.
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 is required to be
retained on-site and set aside as preserve areas with conservation easements
prohibiting further development. This project is proposing to retain and preserve
26.2 % of the existing native vegetation on-site. 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:
Palermo Cove is within the four square mile area, known as the Harvey Drainage
basin. The basin is bounded by Rte 951 on the East, Vanderbilt Beach Road on
the south, I-75 on the west, and Immokalee Road on the north. The entire Harvey
Basin has an allowable discharge rate of 0.055 cfs/acre.
The South Florida Water Management District has taken a holistic approach to
projects in this basin. The general flow in the basin is to the southwest, which
puts most of the flow through the Islandwalk PUD lake system to the west of
Palermo Cove, and discharge from this project is into a slough to the south which
eventually flows into the Islandwalk lake system. The entire basin discharges into
the D-2 Canal on the east side of I-75.
EAC Meeting
Page 5 of 8
The internal stormwater management system for Palermo Cove consists of six
interconnected lakes, five dry detention areas, and two wetlands that provide
water quality retention and peak flow attenuation.
Environmental:
Site Description:
The 131.23 acre site is surrounded by residential development and is heavily
infested with invasive exotic vegetation. The site is comprised of pine and cypress
wetlands, upland pine flatwoods, and melaleuca stands. All the vegetative
communities on the site are impacted to varying degrees with invasive exotic
vegetation.
According to the Collier County Soils Map, the following soil types are found
on the property: Holopaw fine sand, limestone substratum(Soil Map Unit 2);
Basinger Fine Sand (Soil Map Unit 17); and Holopaw fine sand(Soil Map
Unit 27).
Nails marking biological indicators (i.e., lichen lines, adventitious rooting, etc.) of
wetland seasonal water levels were set in the field and were surveyed by RWA,
Inc. The development has been designed not to affect pre-development wetland
hydroperiods. Control elevations for the stormwater management system will
be established based on the elevations of the biological indicators of wetland
water levels.
Wetlands:
There are 106.44 acres of SFWMD jurisdictional wetlands onsite. The
SFWMD wetland lines were approved by the SFWMD during site visits on
March 11,2004. The construction of the project will result in direct wetland
impacts to 72.27 acres of the on-site wetlands. The wetland mitigation plan for
the project preserves 35.01 acres (26.7 percent) of the property. The mitigation
plan involves the enhancement and preservation of 34.13 acres of wetlands and
enhancement and preservation of 1.26 acre of upland preserves. Wetland and
upland enhancement will include the removal of exotic and nuisance
vegetation.
EAC Meeting
Page 6 of 8
Preservation Requirements:
Of the 131 acre site, only 56.78 acres support native vegetation and are used in the
preservation calculation. The remainder of the site consists of disturbed areas and
exotic vegetation.
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 56.78 acres of pine flatwoods
and pine/cypress wetlands. A minimum of 14.2 acres of native vegetation is
required to be preserved on site. The project proposes to preserve 14.9 acres of
native vegetation as well as an additional 20.1 acres of exotic infested areas to be
enhanced and satisfies this requirement.
Listed Species:
A listed species survey was conducted on the property on August 1,2003;
November 18 and 20, 2003; December 17, 2003; and January 28, 2004 by
Passarella and Associates, Inc. The listed species survey report is included as
Exhibit J in the EIS. No listed species were observed on the site.
VII. RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of Palermo Cove PUD with the following
stipulations:
Stormwater Management:
1. Palermo Cove is required to obtain a SFWMD surface water management
permit or equivalent prior to approval of any Site Development plan or
Construction Plans and Plat.
Environmental:
No additional stipulations.
EAC Meeting
Page 7 of 8
PREPARED BY:
(/
STAN CHRZANOW1,KI, P.E. DATE
ENGINEERING ' IEW MANAGER
3) 18105
CRISTINA SANCHE • DATE
ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST
- ;tee,/
MIKE DER Z •A E
PRINCIPAL P F ER
EAC Meeting
Page 8 of 8
REVIEWED BY:
60Al&titeLd / (n- 3-� as"/-�
BARBARA S. BURGESONj' DATE
PRINCIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST
, AIP
c -z1 -vs
"�'I LIAM D. L•`� NZ, Jr., P.E. DIRECTOR DATE
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
1i 0' ill , i I, _ 3 z 65
SUS •f MURRAY, AICP, DIRECTOR D T
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND L• I) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
APPROVED BY:
I .!_ �,
• :EPH K. SCHMITT
IiAT
IMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
MINISTRATOR
1
♦ a��j 'hi/lilt '► \ ITZ _IIIIIIIIII 47 ,/ ` g_
co_nvi
: I •-'-gli V4IFHIY%
�z
-41
is S ,* iiiii
V .... .... ,
IW
\,,x,00. , i _ 111
IHllll►4 �/ %
;:): Ai an MI iii _
y 2 i s MOM ME o
\\\1:--.... 6,�`�9� +-`, =._ Z 11111111111�111111111�����IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
�/,r ���/�iillll aa- viuuIu; 11p1�hI11� �F� liUhLllIilhIl
��1//Itlll°E �1� '� r� �=o_ IIIIIIIIIII
tpl! 0 4►111111w►111rr Z�_o_
® si �JEKYL'L•ISLANDCT . =mom Ilfllllllll
,�! - ZANZIBAR WAY ... ,� �# •.,11����'�,rr,� `per
of i
— — �I/IIIIIIIIIIII
i
i
i$ 111i`k rill
, � +�11111111 ���111111111111111�111
R i i i �Illllitl
ala•NIVM aMdlSl - mi mu NI NI ME,vallifilE
',slink
� i iNi i Sm.DC
sfi i i_t i sol Ism
i i�! i �1111tmo
m=
i i- mo
wE
i !o 11111 m
'
t iii C IIII�!
r
: _ " ' le r � 14,W�►11: ' Mit. =,
.1111111111Es
���
f, .„ =', 7 CSC i II
imil
.1102.1O MI!
I.
`..
MOM
k.
112 1.2
�
� 11
�� - ■x
tt !z
1 am is.-1
3 i hI
Sr'
c a c -
' R" 11 ----=
a �
I11 I_`1 _
-
ii
~ i,48
:EAi
_ :
.
".00 m € anis 8311109
# ir :,� 1/1
RC �71111
�� �� � =or,
il wi, • .
• No Otto
1\5 v Q1111 �am9anaVa , II /o=r111ll0011 e WATERVi1: �' pC 'r.E4Ty
co
• ♦ � � 'FLY CASTER PT.m � o o N ti m ▪ i IAV .41111100401 Co : m : cT' . Tmrn A , ♦i♦ 11100"•tn/-4.
0.AIL MINI 77 i il 41 14 100 i . :,
LDC Amendment Request
ORIGIN: Community Development and Environmental Services Division
AUTHOR: Barbara Burgeson, Principal Environmental Specialist
DEPARTMENT: Environmental Services Department
AMENDMENT CYCLE #OR DATE: Cycle 1, 2005
LDC PAGE: LDC 3:20
LDC SECTION: Section 3.04.02. B.5.D
LDC SUPPLEMENT #: Original LDC recodification(04-41)
CHANGE: To remove the prohibition for construction or repair of any structure, including,
but not limited to, dune walkovers, seawalls, or other revetments, sandbags, groins, or jetties,
during sea turtle nesting season on any County beaches.
REASON: To allow for construction or repair of any structure, including, but not limited to,
dune walkovers, seawalls, or other revetments, sandbags, groins, or jetties, during sea turtle
nesting season on any County beaches with the added criteria as was presented to the Board of
County Commissioners at a meeting last summer.
FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: None
RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: None
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: None
OTHER NOTES/VERSION DATE: This version was created on March 7, 2004
Amend the LDC as follows:
3.04.02.B Sea Turtle Protection.
******************************************************************************
5. It shall be unlawful, during the nesting season, to construct any structure,
add any fill, mechanically clean any beach, or grade any dirt within 100
feet of the nesting zone of a beach where sea turtles nest or may nest,
without obtaining a construction in sea turtle nesting area permit from the
County Manager or designee.
a. If sea turtle nesting occurs within 100 yards of the construction,
measured parallel to the shoreline during permitted construction
activities,the nest area shall be flagged by the permittee and the
County Manager or designee informed prior to 9:00 a.m. of that
morning.
b. Depending on nest location, in relation to intensive construction
activities,the County Manager or designee may require that the
nest(s)be relocated by the applicant.
c. Construction activities shall not interfere with sea turtle nesting,
shall preserve or replace any native vegetation on the site, shall
maintain the natural existing beach profile, and minimize
interference with the natural beach dynamics and function.
d. Construction or repair of any structure, including, but not limited
to, dune walkovers, seawalls, or other revetments, sandbags,
groins, or jetties, shall not be permitted during sea turtle nesting
season on any County beaches, except if permitted structures are
damaged by a named storm or other declared natural disaster and
all the following conditions are met:
1. Minor repair work (boards need to be nailed back to the
existing intact structure, or a few boards need to be replaced)
that can be performed completely from atop the structure is
authorized after obtaining the necessary approval of the
FDEP and notifying Collier County Environmental Services
of that work.
2. Prior to any major repair work (greater than that described in
1 above) or reconstruction of any part of the structure, the
following information shall be provided to so that staff can
determine if the major repair or reconstruction can occur
prior to the end of sea turtle nesting season:
a. The needed field permit from FDEP.
b. Location of all known sea turtle nests with assistance
from Community Development and Environmental
Services (CDES) staff.
c. A survey by a qualified consultant locating any gopher
tortoise burrows on site within 50 feet of the structure.
d. Photographs of the site as it existed after the storm to
document the conditions of the property.
e. An aerial of the property showing the CCSL line.
f. A copy of a CCSL variance or CCSL permit if required
and building permit approving the original construction
of the structure.
3. Sea turtle nest locations will be reestablished using their
previously recorded GPS locations and accuracy data to
identify a 95% confidence boundary. Construction activities
shall not occur within 10 feet of these boundaries for viable
nests. Nests will be considered viable for 80 days from the
time the nest was recorded unless it can be proven that a
particular nest has been damaged by the storm and there is no
chance of any hatchlings.
4. The following shall be obligations for all property owners
who have had sand washed ashore as a result of a storm and
had it deposited back of the dune and seaward of the CCSL.
As required by the Growth Management Plan Conservation
and Coastal Management Element Objective 10.4:
"Developed coastal barriers and developed shorelines shall be
continues to be restored and then maintained, when
appropriate by establishing mechanisms or projects which
limit the effects of development and which help in the
restoration of the natural functions of coastal barriers and
affected beaches and dunes".
Policy 10.4.8: "Construction seaward of the Coastal
Construction Control (Setback) Line will be allowed for
public access and protection and restoration of beach
resources. Construction seaward of the Coastal Construction
Control Line shall not interfere with sea turtle nesting, will
minimize interference with natural beach dynamics, and
where appropriate will restore the historical dunes and will
vegetate with native vegetation."
The sands may be required to remain in place when it is
determined that the wash over was a part of a natural
rebuilding of the beach and dune system. The only
vegetation allowed to be planted on this sand must be native
salt tolerant beach or dune vegetation and shall be approved
through a CCSL permit issued by CDES staff This shall not
apply to sand washed over onto yards that have received
Collier County approvals for landscaping seaward of the
CCSL (such as single family homes along Vanderbilt Beach).
6. Minor structures, as defined by Florida Statutes Subsection
161.055, of the Coastal Zone Protection Act of 1985, shall be
approved provided that they also comply with:
a. Federal requirements for elevations above the 100-year
flood level,
b. Collier County Building Code requirements for flood
proofing,
c. Current building and life safety codes,
d. Collier County and State of Florida Department of
Environmental Protection CCSL/CCCL regulations,
e. Applicable disability access regulations of the
American Disability Act(ADA), and
f. Any required Collier County zoning and other
development regulations with the exception of existing
density or intensity requirements established, unless
compliance with such zoning or other development
regulations would preclude reconstruction otherwise
intended by the Build back Policy as determined by the
Emergency Review Board established herein.
LDC Amendment Request
ORIGIN: Community Development and Environmental Services Division
AUTHOR: Barbara Burgeson, Principal Environmental Specialist
Stan Chrzanowski, Engineering Review Manager
DEPARTMENT: Environmental Services Department
AMENDMENT CYCLE # OR DATE: Cycle 1, 2005
LDC PAGE: LDC 3:26
LDC SECTION: Section 3.05.05
LDC SUPPLEMENT #: Original LDC recodification(04-41)
CHANGE: Allow for removal of vegetation on construction projects when the Environmental
Review is complete, instead of waiting until all, possibly unrelated, reviews are complete and the
final, formal SDP approval is issued. Provide for other circumstances in which minimal clearing
may be allowed such as for habitat management, fire breaks, state or federal permit issuance and
in conjunction with conducting preserve management.
REASON: Most reviews are not related to tree removal and occasionally, the final review is
delayed awaiting the resolution of issues that have nothing to do with infrastructure construction.
The code presently does not address these circumstances.
FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: None
RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: Section 4.06.04
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: None
OTHER NOTES/VERSION DATE: This version was created on March 7, 2005
Amend the LDC as follows:
3.05.05 Criteria for Removal of Protected Vegetation
The County Manager or designee may approve an application for vegetation removal
permit if it is determined that reasonable efforts have been undertaken in the layout and design of
the proposed development to preserve existing vegetation and to otherwise enhance the aesthetic
appearance of the development by the incorporation of existing vegetation in the design process.
Relocation or replacement of vegetation may be required as a condition to the issuance of an
approval in accordance with the criteria set forth in this section. In addition, a vegetation removal
permit may be issued under the following conditions:
A. Protected vegetation is a safety hazard to pedestrian or vehicular traffic,public
services, utilities, or to an existing structure.
B. Diseased or otherwise unhealthy vegetation, as determined by standard
horticultural practices, and, if required, a site inspection by the County Manager
or designee.
C. A final local development order has been issued which Mires allows
removal of the protected vegetation.
D. Compliance with other codes and/or ordinances may involve protected vegetation
removal.
E. Replacement of non-native vegetation shall be with native vegetation and shall
be subject to the approval of the County Manager or designee. Replacement
vegetation shall comply with the standards of section 4.06.05 and shall include the
following minimum sizes: one gallon ground cover; seven(7) gallon shrubs;
fourteen(14) foot high trees with seven foot crown spread and dbh(diameter at
breast height) of three inches. Replacement native vegetation shall be planted
within fourteen(14) calendar days of removal.
F. On a parcel of land zoned RSF, VR, E, or other nonagricultural, noncommercial
zoning district in which single-family lots have been subdivided for single-family
use only, a vegetation removal permit may be issued for any permitted accessory
use to that zoning.
G. The proposed mangrove alteration has a DEP permit, or meets the permitting
standards in the Florida Administrative Code. However, mangrove removal or
trimming shall be prohibited in all preserves or areas used to fulfill the native
vegetation preservation requirements.
H. Removal of vegetation for approved mitigation bank sites (as defined by the
Florida Administrative Code); state, federal or county approved or endorsed
environmental preservation, enhancement, or restoration projects; or fire breaks
Florida, Division of Forestry, shall be permitted.
Vegetation removal permits issued under these criteria are valid for the period of
time authorized by such agency permits.
I. Vegetation relocation plan. If vegetation relocation is proposed by the applicant
prior to site development plan, construction plan or other final approvals, a
vegetation relocation permit(vegetation removal permit)may be issued by the
County Manager or his designee provided that it can be demonstrated that early
transplantation will enhance the survival of the relocated vegetation. The
vegetation relocation plan shall document methods of relocation, timing of
relocation, watering provisions, maintenance and other information as required by
the County Manager or his designee.
J. Landscape plant removal or replacement. The removal or replacement of
approved landscaping shall be done in accordance with the regulations that guide
the landscape plans reviews and approvals in section 4.06.00. A vegetation
removal permit will not be issued for the removal or replacement of landscape
plants. That approval must be obtained through an amendment process to the
landscape plan or as otherwise authorized by permit by the Collier County
Landscape Architect.
K. Removal of vegetation for firebreaks approved by the State of Florida, Division of
Forestry, shall be permitted. The width of the approved clearing shall be limited to
the minimum width determined necessary by the Division of Forestry.
L. A State or federal permit issuance that depends on data that cannot be obtained
without preliminary removal of some protected vegetation. The clearing shall be
minimized and shall not allow any greater impacts to the native vegetation on site
than is absolutely necessary. Clearing shall be limited to areas that are outside any
_ on-site preserves, as identified on the PUD master plan, Plat/Construction Plans or
Site Development Plan.
M. In conjunction with a Collier County approved Preserve Management Plan, native
vegetation clearing may be approved only when it is to improve the native habitat
or to improve listed species habitat.
N. Conservation Collier projects which may need minimal clearing for parking,
pathways for walking, or structures that may not require site plan approvals.
0. Early clearing will be allowed as part of a final review of an SDP or PPL, after the
Environmental Services Review Staff approves the necessary components of the
project to ensure the appropriate environmental protection and preservation on
site. This can only be allowed after the following are completed and approved: 1)
final configuration and protection of the preserve is complete, 2) the conservation
easements are completed and approved by both the environmental review staff
and the county attorney's office, 3) the environmental review staff has approved
the clearing of the site through the site clearing/preservation plan, 4) copies of all
applicable Federal, State, and Local permits must be submitted and reviewed
against the site clearing/preservation plan. This early clearing does not authorize
approval for excavation, spreading fill, and grading. That must be approved
through a preliminary work authorization process in accordance with section
10.02.04.41 If for any reason the underlying SDP or PPL is not approved, the
property owner will be responsible for revegetation of the site in accordance with
Section 4.06.04.A.1.a.vii.
LDC Amendment Request
ORIGIN: Community Development and Environmental Services Division
AUTHOR: Russell Webb/Kim Hadley(consultant)/Stan Chrzanowski
DEPARTMENT: Zoning and Land Development Review
AMENDMENT CYCLE # OR DATE: Cycle 1, 2005
LDC PAGE: LDC4:107-108
LDC SECTION: Section 4.06.04 A and B.
LDC SUPPLEMENT#: Original LDC recodification(04-41)
CHANGE: Adding language to allow for Preliminary Clearing and Excavation
Permits under certain circumstances. Deleting Section 4.06.04 B.
REASON: Allow for preliminary clearing once the Environmental review is complete and
approved. Regarding Section B, this language is also contained in section 3.03.06 and is more
appropriately located in that section.
FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: None
RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: LDC Section 3.05.05, LDC section 3.03.06
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: None
OTHER NOTES/VERSION DATE: This version was created on March 7, 2005
Note that a search should be performed of the entire LDC and any references to these section
numbers should be modified accordingly based on this change.
Amend the LDC as follows:
4.06.04 Trees and Vegetation Protection
A. Vegetation Removal and Site Filling:
1. Clearing of woody vegetation requires a Vegetation Removal Permit or
r-N Vegetation Removal and Site Filling Permit unless exempted by section
3.05.02. The Vegetation Removal Permit process is governed by section
3.05.04-. 3.05.05.
a. Permitted removal of vegetation or site filling with an approved
Vegetation Removal and Site Filling Permit(VRSFP), Site
Development Plans (SDP) or Plat and Construction Plans (PPL)
i. For individual single family lots or blocks of lots 1) a completed
building permit application must be submitted and deemed
sufficient by Collier County, 2) all necessary current state and
Federal environmental permits must be obtained. If these two
items are fulfilled, a VRSFP must be obtained prior to removal of
this vegetation.
ii To allow for safety during tree removal, if a developer owns
contiguous single-family lots, the trees on the single family lots
directly adjacent to a lot where a house is under construction
may be removed, if removal at a future date may be a danger
to life or property. A VRSFP must be obtained prior to removal
of this vegetation.
iii. A developer will be permitted to clear up to 25 200 acres of
residential, commercial, or industrial lots or building sites to store
excess fill generated by lake excavations within the PUD or
project where the excavation is taking place when the following
information has been submitted and approved with the SDP or
PPL. Fill dirt may be imported on to the site if there is no excess
lake material generated on site. Imported fill dirt may be used
towards the lot preparation of not more than 100 acres, per
section 4.06.04.A.1.a.iii.c.
a) Plat and Construction Plans: Clearing for the construction of
the infrastructure, such as road rights-of-way, and drainage
and utility easement areas shall be approved on site clearing
plans within that phase of approved residential, commercial or
industrial Plat and construction Plans. Clearing of individual
lots or blocks of lots may be approved.
i) The limits of each separate stockpile must be clearly
delineated and the area, height, cross-section, and volume of
each individual stockpile must appear on the drawing
referenced to the stockpile. Slopes must not be steeper than a
ratio of 4:1.
ii) The type of vegetation to be removed must be shown on
the drawing.
iii) The source of the material, such as lake number (lake #)
for each stockpile must be indicated on the drawing and the
amount of material excavated must justify the need to clear
the proposed area.
b) Site Development Plans (SDPs) and Site Improvement Plans
(SIPs):
i) Commercial and industrial: Clearing for all infrastructure
improvements and for building pads shall be approved on
the SDP or SIP site clearing plans.
ii) Residential SDPs: Clearing for the construction of the
infrastructure, such as road rights-of-way, and drainage
and utility easement areas shall be approved on SDP
clearing plans Clearing of individual lots or blocks of lots
may be approved.
iii) The limits of each separate stockpile must be clearly
delineated and the area, height, cross-section, and volume
of each individual stockpile must appear on the drawing
referenced to the stockpile. Slopes must not be steeper
than a ratio of 4:1.
iv) The type of vegetation to be removed must be shown
on the drawing.
v) The source of the material, such as lake number (lake
#) for each stockpile must be indicated on the drawing and
the amount of material excavated must justify the need to
clear the proposed area.
c) A portion of the 25 200 acres may be used to bring building
lots to desired construction elevations. The area used to
prepare lots shall not exceed x-9100 acres and those lots shall
immediately be stabilized and seeded, to prevent erosion and
exotic seed infestation. A separate VRSFP may also be
obtained after SDP or PPL approval prior.
iv. No VRSFP will be issued without first submitting copies of all
required approved agency permits, regardless of whether the
permit is for clearing and filling or simply filling a site.
v. When a VRSFP authorizing up to 25 200 acres of clearing and
filling is nearing capacity, permission to clear and fill up to an
additional 25 200 -acres to use excess lake material may be
applied for with a new VRSFP application.
vi. A VRSFP will be issued to authorize greater than 25 200 acres of
residential, commercial, or industrial lots to store excess fill
generated by lake excavations within the PUD or project where
the excavation is taking place, when the property used for storing
excess fill has been previously cleared or has greater than 75%
canopy of exotics.
vii. Revegetation: For VRSFPs within subdivisions, a
revegetation bond in the form of a performance bond, letter of
credit, or cash bond and in the amount of $5,000.00 per acre
must be posted.
a) When fill is used to bring building lots to desired
construction elevations those lots shall immediately be
seeded, to prevent erosion and exotic seed infestation.
b) All fill areas for lots or stockpiles must have erosion control silt
fencing.
c) Any stockpile in place for more than six months must be
sodded or hydroseeded. Failure to do so within 14 calendar
days of notification by the county will result in a fine of $10.00
per acre, per day.
d) In the event that any portion of the stockpile is in place for
greater than 18 months, the county will order the fill to be
removed and the land to be revegetated. The density and
type of revegetation must mimic nearby ecosystems, and must
not be less than 64 trees per acre with associated mid-story
and groundcover.
2. BCC Approved Vegetation Removal and Site Filling Permit Procedures
An applicant can seek approval by the Board of County Commissioners
for a Board approved Vegetation Removal and Site Filling Permit
(VRSFP) for a site that exceeds current thresholds contained in the Land
Development Code. To be granted a Board Approved VRSFP, the
applicant must demonstrate to the Board, through a Schedule of
Development Activities, that the project will be completed in a reasonable
amount of time so as to minimize noise, dust, blasting, traffic, and
inconvenience to the neighboring and general public. All criteria in
4.06.04 A.1.a that applies to the administrative VRSFP, shall also apply
to the BCC approved permit.
. • . . . . _ • . . . . - - -
1. Native vegetation shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible. To the
iiA A
. . . . •. - _.. . . , • . .,•. . . . . --
program._ - ., - ., --. .., - . . . • . ., - __ . - 'I
1D,B. Credit for Tree Preservation. Existing trees may be credited towards meeting the
minimum tree planting requirements according to the formula in table 4.06.04 D B. - 1.
Fractional measurements shall be attributed to the next lowest category.
Table 4.06.04 D B. - 1. Calculation Of Tree Preservation Credits
Existing Crown or Diameter of Tree at = Number of Tree
Spread of Preserved 4.5 Feet Above Credits
Trees Natural Grade
50 feet or greater or 26 inches or greater = 3
40 to 49 feet or 20 to 25 inches = 2
30 to 39 feet or 13 to 19 inches = 2
20 to 29 feet or 8 to 12 inches = 1*
10 to 19 feet or 2 to 7 inches = 1*
Less than 10 feet or 1 1/2 to 2 inches = 1*
*Credited against equivalent required tree only.
1. Trees excluded from preservation credit. No credit shall be given for preserved
trees which:
a. Are not located within the areas of the property for which trees are
required by the Code;
b. Are located in required natural preservation areas indicated on an
approved master land use plan, site development plan or plat;
c. Are required to be preserved by federal, state or local law, such as
mangroves;
d. Are not properly protected from damage during the construction process,
as provided in section 4.06.05 C.10.;
e. Are prohibited species identified in section 4.06.05 C.8.;
f. Are dead, dying, diseased, or infested with harmful insects;
g. Are located in recreation tracts, golf courses or similar subareas within
planned developments which are not intended to be developed for
residential, commercial or industrial use (unless abutting said use, and
the required buffer width is dedicated on the plat as a landscape buffer
easement); or
h. Are not located within the boundaries of the parcel.
4Ueutio EAC A duboxy ilitentbeto:
TkPWADCAIgegdntegt5
wilt Ile mai waft oepatate covet.
tum yam.
COLLIER COUNTY
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
2800 North Horseshoe Drive #201 • Naples, Florida 34104 • 239-732-2505 • FAX 239-213-2960
William W. Hughes
4501 Rosea Ct.
Naples, FL 34104
March 30, 2005
Re: April 6th EAC - Palermo Cove PUD EIS
Dear Environmental Advisory Committee Member:
Please ignore Exhibit P in the Palermo Cove PUD EIS, which was part of the
mailing that was sent out last week. Exhibit P provides an ESA for a different
site. An ESA is not required for Palermo Cove PUD.
I apologize for the oversight.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Cristina Sanchez
Environmental Specialist
c of c c 0 u t v
COLLIER COUNTY
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
2800 North Horseshoe Drive #201 • Naples, Florida 34104 • 239-732-2505 • FAX 239-213-2960
Michael V. Sorrell
2335 Wilson Blvd N.
Naples, FL 34120
March 30, 2005
Re: April 6th EAC - Palermo Cove PUD EIS
Dear Environmental Advisory Committee Member:
Please ignore Exhibit P in the Palermo Cove PUD EIS, which was part of the
mailing that was sent out last week. Exhibit P provides an ESA for a different
,-� site. An ESA is not required for Palermo Cove PUD.
I apologize for the oversight.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Cristina Sanchez
Environmental Specialist
o ( ( ; C ,- C 0 H 11 t y
111,11Zk
COLLIER COUNTY
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
2800 North Horseshoe Drive #201 • Naples, Florida 34104 • 239-732-2505 • FAX 239-213-2960
Lee Horn
2225 Malibu Lake Circle #621
Naples 34119
March 30, 2005
Re: April 6th EAC - Palermo Cove PUD EIS
Dear Environmental Advisory Committee Member:
Please ignore Exhibit P in the Palermo Cove PUD EIS, which was part of the
mailing that was sent out last week. Exhibit P provides an ESA for a different
site. An ESA is not required for Palermo Cove PUD.
I apologize for the oversight.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Cristina Sanchez
Environmental Specialist
0 I L l e Y C o ti. „ t y
111111
COLLIER COUNTY
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
2800 North Horseshoe Drive #201 • Naples, Florida 34104 • 239-732-2505 • FAX 239-213-2960
Ken Humiston, P.E.
324 Sharwood Drive
Naples, Fl. 34110
March 30, 2005
Re: April 6th EAC - Palermo Cove PUD EIS
Dear Environmental Advisory Committee Member:
Please ignore Exhibit P in the Palermo Cove PUD EIS, which was part of the mailing that
was sent out last week. Exhibit P provides an ESA for a different site. An ESA is not
required for Palermo Cove PUD.
I apologize for the oversight.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Cristina Sanchez
Environmental Specialist
c 01 L J . , c 0 L, YI t V
COLLIER COUNTY
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
2800 North Horseshoe Drive #201 • Naples, Florida 34104 • 239-732-2505 • FAX 239-213-2960
Judith M. Hushon
1659 Chinaberry Court
Naples, FL 34105
March 30, 2005
Re: April 6th EAC - Palermo Cove PUD EIS
Dear Environmental Advisory Committee Member:
Please ignore Exhibit P in the Palermo Cove PUD EIS, which was part of the
mailing that was sent out last week. Exhibit P provides an ESA for a different
site. An ESA is not required for Palermo Cove PUD.
I apologize for the oversight.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Cristina Sanchez
Environmental Specialist
e Y C 014 N t y
11114Zh
COLLIER COUNTY
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
2800 North Horseshoe Drive #201 • Naples, Florida 34104 • 239-732-2505 • FAX 239-213-2960
Iry Kraut
1806 Senegal Date Drive
Naples, FL 34119
March 30, 2005
Re: April 6th EAC - Palermo Cove PUD EIS
Dear Environmental Advisory Committee Member:
Please ignore Exhibit P in the Palermo Cove PUD EIS, which was part of the
mailing that was sent out last week. Exhibit P provides an ESA for a different
site. An ESA is not required for Palermo Cove PUD.
I apologize for the oversight.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
(7, CAVitiL6
Cristina Sanchez
Environmental Specialist
o L L i e r C o 14 v. t ,y
COLLIER COUNTY
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
2800 North Horseshoe Drive #201 • Naples, Florida 34104 • 239-732-2505 • FAX 239-213-2960
Erica Lynne
676 110 Avenue North
Naples, Florida 34108
March 30, 2005
Re: April 6th EAC - Palermo Cove PUD EIS
Dear Environmental Advisory Committee Member:
Please ignore Exhibit P in the Palermo Cove PUD EIS, which was part of the
mailing that was sent out last week. Exhibit P provides an ESA for a different
site. An ESA is not required for Palermo Cove PUD.
I apologize for the oversight.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
er,
Cristina Sanchez
Environmental Specialist
of t e r c o u t v
COLLIER COUNTY
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
..111111.6 2800 North Horseshoe Drive #201 • Naples, Florida 34104 • 239-732-2505 • FAX 239-213-2960
Alfred F. Gal, Jr. - Chair
6981 Burnt Sienna Circle
Naples, FL 34109
March 30, 2005
Re: April 6th EAC - Palermo Cove PUD EIS
1
Dear Environmental Advisory Committee Member:
Please ignore Exhibit P in the Palermo Cove PUD EIS, which was part of the mailing that
was sent out last week. Exhibit P provides an ESA for a different site. An ESA is not
required for Palermo Cove PUD.
I apologize for the oversight.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
C
Cristina Sanchez
Environmental Specialist
C 0 r r 6 Y C O u YI t