Loading...
EAC Agenda 02/04/2004 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL AGENDA February 4, 2004 9:00 A.M. Commission Boardroom W. Harmon Turner Building (Building "F") -Third Floor I. Roll Call II. Approval of Agenda III. Approval of January 7, 2004 Meeting Minutes IV. Land Use Petitions A. Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-2003-AR-3542 "Bristol Pines PUD" Section 35, Township 48 South, Range 26 East V. Old Business VI. New Business A. A discussion of "lake" excavations in Collier County. VII. Council Member Comments VIII. Public Comments IX. Adjournment ******************************************************************************************************** Council Members: Please notify the Environmental Services Department Administrative Assistant no later than 5:00 p.m. on January 30, 2004 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 7, 2004 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Board Meeting Room, 3rd Floor, Administration Building 3301 Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 9:00 A.M. January 7, 2004 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Environmental Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier,having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 o'clock a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Members: Alexandra Ellis, Vice-Chairman William W. Hughes Alfred F. Gal, Jr. Thomas W. Sansbury Ed Carlson Erica Lynne Kenneth Humiston, PE Collier County Staff: Marjorie Student, Assistant CountyAttorney Barbara Burgeson, Senior Environmental Specialist Russell Webb, Principal Planner Bill Lorenz,Director, Natural Resources 1 January 7, 2004 I. Roll Call -The meeting was called to order at 9:00 o'clock a.m. A quorum was established. Members: Present, Alexandra Ellis, William W. Hughes, Alfred F. Gal, Jr., Kenneth Humiston, PE,Thomas W. Sansbury,Ed Carlson, Erica Lynne Absent: Michael Sorrell. Collier County Staff: Marjorie Student, Esquire; Barbara Burgeson; Russell Webb,Bill Lorenz II. Approval of Agenda - Add Alexandria Ellis' position paper under New Business, Listed Species III. Approval of Meeting Minutes A. December 8, 2003 Minutes were approved unanimously with no 'nk•N' changes. IV. Land Use Petitions None V. Old Business LDC Amendments 3.8 Environmental Impact Statements -Resubmitted to EAC for review. -Changes: more frequent EIS updates as necessary -Was approved by EAC previously. -Allows new protected species surveys. 2 January 7, 2004 3.9 Vegetation Removal -There are no substantive changes. -3.9.4—EAC has no authority to grant variances. -CCPC has authority to grant variances -Permit is necessary to remove landscape materials. -3.9 has already been approved. 3.11 Listed Species -3.11 was resubmitted to show language brought in directly from GMP language. -3.11.3.3 on errata sheet is exactly that of GMP language. -Gopher tortoise relocation plan is on errata sheet. -Protected species surveys are required when determined necessary by change in habitat on site or as result of change occurring after weather events. -Typo on page 205 under 3.11.3.3, fourth sentence by bottom of paragraph should read"may" not "my". Code Enforcement staff relies on general provisions re penalties. -No action necessary. 3.13 Coastal Construction Setback line Variance -Mr. Humiston recused himself from voting on this item since he has clients that will be affected. -Mr. Sansbury recused himself from voting on this item since he has clients that will be affected. -Language has changed substantially. 3 January 7, 2004 -New language is directly from GMP. -Exceptions and permits have been identified. -More permits have been added. -Redefined criteria for variances. -List of exemptions has been expanded. -Ability to receive permits issued administratively has been expanded. -Reconstruction within existing footprint has been allowed. -Administrative approval for CCSL permit if proposed intensity and use of new building is comparable to the existing building is allowed. -Variance if intensity and use of building is not comparable to the existing building is allowed. -Public access facilities allowed. -Permits to allow compliance with ADA requirements. -Allows restroom facilities in conjunction with parks and recreation access facilities. -Allows for administrative approval for beach renourishment. -Requirement to remove seawalls unless necessary for property protection. -Consider waiving non-safety related setbacks and site planning requirements in approving construction. -Necessary to define shoreline hardening or armoring and erosion control. 4 January 7, 2004 -Shoreline armoring or hardening can cause or exacerbate erosion problems or transfer them to another area. -Construction can be permitted with a variance beyond the CCSL if there are similar adjacent structures that project in front of the line and if those structures have not caused any detrimental effects to the beach or dune systems through erosion. -Seawalls can interact with wave energy, scour sand from in front of wall, erosion will be transferred to adjacent properties. Seawalls are required to be removed when there is improvement o property. -Removal of part of seawall can cause more problems -Structures that have no floors or walls can be allowed in front of line. -Page 3 of 12, identifies the undeveloped coastal barrier regulations providing anything seaward of undeveloped coastal barrier would be for passive recreational activities for public access. Restroom facilities have been included and shall be located on existing structures such as walkovers or decks or in areas with the most sparse areas of native vegetation. -Page 4of 12, language in first sentence at top of page was rewritten. -Page 2 of 12, some things are prohibited, some can be accepted or excepted. Variances can be granted. -Pavers can only be used in front of CCSL if for public access. 5 January 7, 2004 -Lightweight pavers can cross beach and interrupt sea turtle nesting. -Page 5 of 12 , non-native vegetation is exempt from permitting process. -Page 6 of 12, Vehicles driven on beach regulated in accordance with vehicles on beach section are exempt from this section of CCSL. -Page 7 of 12, outlines CCLS permits. -Dune walker-overs should be built to minimize impact to the beach and dune systems and should not be constructed parallel to the beach or dune unless there is no other way to build them to meet ADA requirements. -3.13.3.6 stated and reference4d Se3ction 3.13.4 to allow BCC to have criteria to make determination as to whether variances are acceptable or not. There is no change to procedure for changing variance. -No changes were made to procedures for obtaining variances -Regarding rebuilding and pre-existing density or intensity, we must be mindful of what the Comprehensive Plan requires and be sure everything meshes. Public Speakers: Steven Spisota, stated that it is important to see where line actually goes, most structures along beach are partly in front of line, has concern regarding the process. Many properties would be impacted by changes. Property owners who would be affected by changes have not been notified. New Construction is prohibited. There are adequate 6 January 7, 2004 ,—� protections in place already and he would like a recommendation of denial of changes, leave CCSL provisions as they are. (Mr. Hughes left the meeting room at 10:35 a.m.) Dave Tackney, Registered Professional Engineer, stated that all construction along coast has potential to adversely affect the environment, Coastal Construction Control Line is a 30 year program, are there studies to indicate that current line is ineffective, changes will affect every property owner along shoreline of unincorporated Collier County. (Mr. Hughes returned to the meeting room at 10:40 a.m.) Barbara Burgeson stated that the CCCL(regulatory line) and CCSL(line of prohibition) are two separate lines. (Recess from 10:55 a.m. to 11:15 a.m.) Bruce Anderson,Esq., representing LaPlaya Hotel, stated that this amendment is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and state statute. Residents of Vanderbilt Beach oppose the amendment. There are inadequacies as proposed, with no prior variance, cannot rebuild in case property is destroyed , with prior variance, cannot enlarge. Mr. Anderson urges leaving the Code alone. Mr.Gal represents LaPlaya in an unrelated matter and recused himself from voting. Barbara Burgeson stated that permit section would allow building inside of footprint, it is possible to move back and add to footprint if less impact. Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney, stated side setbacks are of concern, CCSL is line of prohibition, State statute allows County to be more restrictive than State. 7 January 7, 2004 r., Kyle Kinney, President, Pelican Bay Foundation, stated that property owners agree with the current LDC,the CCSL and the variance process that is available. Property owners are happy with things as they are. Jim Carter, Consultant, Pelican Bay, stated properties are at risk if amendment is passed, emphasis is on prohibitions; role of commission is to decide on variances, there is no justification for changing document, leave document alone, urged Commission to recommend to the BCC to leave things as they are. Ed Staros, Managing Director, Ritz Carlton, stated he believes language is too restrictive and should not be adopted. Populace likes things the way they are and do not want change. Doug Fee,President, North Bay Civic Association, beach should remain for citizens rather than commercial interests, supports building back after storm if there is a CCSL variance, within the original footprint. Wants to see beaches come back into compliance. VI. New Business Listed Species Ms. Ellis submitted a position paper on Collier County having a Listed Species Policy and would like the EAC to address the concept. Public Speakers: Nichole Ryan, Conservancy of Southwest Florida,believes a step backwards has been taken regarding the County's position on protecting listed species. Conservancy of Southwest Florida believes Collier County has the authority and obligation to protect its listed species. Ms. Ryan stated the Conservancy of Southwest Florida believes that 8 January 7, 2004 r-� Ms. Ellis' position paper is headed to where the Conservancy wants to go. Would like to see the County take on the obligation of protecting its wildlife species in this glitch cycle, this is important because the agencies are becoming more lenient. Brad Cornell, Collier County Audubon Society, supports Ms. Ryan's statements and Ms. Ellis' position paper. State has told counties to protect listed species. Doug Fee, President, North Bay Civic Association, 2,000 signatures have been collected in favor of protecting eagles in rezone matters. Provided affidavits favoring protection of eagles. Nancy Payten, Florida Wildlife Federation, urged voting in favor of Ms. Ellis' position paper, urges clear message to Board urging protection of listed species. Stated need to check on survival of gopher tortoises left on sites. -Clarification of policy re listed species will go to BCC sometime in April -Options paper was developed to facilitate process -EAC's role is to review specific language -Suggestion was made to communicate with Lee County regarding eagles -Someone on EAC should attend Manatee Committee meetings -Subcommittee could be created to work on listed species issue -Mr. Carlson moved to approve the Listed Species amendment as written, to endorse the resolution so amended with the words plant and animal habitate as a recommendation from the EAC, and endorse the staff's direction with the options paper and the glitch amendment process. Ms. Lynne seconded the motion. Mr. Carlson amended his motion to change the word"restrictive" to "protective". Motion was voted on and approved 7-0. 9 • January 7, 2004 VII. Council Member Comments None VIII. Public Comments None IX. Adjournment There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:30 P.M. COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Chairman, Thomas W. Sansbury 10 i w Item IV.A ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING OF FEBRUARY 4, 2004 I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT: Petition No.: Residential Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-2003-AR-3542 Petition Name: Bristol Pines PUD Applicant/Developer: Waterways Joint Venture IV by Waterways Development Inc. Engineering Consultant: R.W.A.,Inc. Environmental Consultant: Passarella and Associates,Inc. II. LOCATION: The subject property is located on the east side of Collier Boulevard (County Road 951), approximately one mile south of Immokalee Road in Section 35, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. Tree Farm Road borders the north side of the property. III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: Surrounding properties include undeveloped land, single-family residences and agricultural type uses. ZONING DESCRIPTION N - Agricultural Tree Farm Road PUD (Nicaea Academy) Undeveloped S - Agricultural Single-family homes Agricultural uses E - Agricultural Single-family homes Agricultural uses W - R.O.W. Collier Blvd. i c EAC Meeting Page 2 of 7 IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Bristol Pines RPUD is 22.77±-acre project that proposes a maximum of 159 dwelling unit (an overall density of 6.98 units per acre) residential development that will consist of any combination of single-family attached, zero lot line, or single-family detached dwelling units. Single-family attached units could be developed as townhouses with multiple dwelling units in each structure. The • petitioner also propose to provide amenities such as a clubhouse, a swimming pool and tennis facilities or other similar active and passive recreational facilities. Access to the property will be from Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951), with the project's entrance to be located approximately 330 feet south of Tree Farm Road. The petitioner is also seeking approval of an Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement authorizing the developer to utilize Affordable Housing Bonus Density (AHED) units (in the amount of 68 units at 2.98 bonus density units per acre) in the development of this project for low-income residents. Each residential unit will be served with centrally provided potable water, sanitary sewer, electric power, and telephone. Additional services will be provided as deemed appropriate. V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element: The subject property is designated Urban - Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the GMP. This Subdistrict allows a variety of residential uses; essential services; and, recreation and open space uses. The Density Rating System of the GMP indicates the site is eligible for 4 dwelling units per acre, unless the Affordable Housing Density Bonus is utilized, which could result in a maximum bonus of 8 dwelling units per acre, yielding a maximum eligible density of 12 dwelling units per acre. The companion AHDB Agreement demonstrates the site is eligible for a 3 dwelling units per acre bonus (68 DUs); when added to the base density of 4 dwelling units per acre, this results in an overall project density of 7 dwelling units per acre (159 DUs total). FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with the surrounding area. The property to the north (across Tree Farm Road) was recently rezoned to PUD (Nicaea Academy) to allow for a residential project with a maximum density of 2.1 dwelling units per acre. Land to the south and east is zoned and used for agricultural purposes. The nearest PUD zoned tract to the east is the Vanderbilt Country Club PUD that was approved at a density of 2.48 units per acre. Across EAC Meeting Page 3 of 7 Collier Boulevard (CR 951) is Brittany Bay PUD, approved at a density of 8.16 units per acre, and Summit Place of Naples PUD (formerly known as Hibiscus PUD), which was approved at a density of 4 units per acre. Slightly further west is the Wolf Creek PUD that was approved at a density of 4 units per acre. None of the adjacent tracts sought or received approval of bonus density by providing affordable housing units as Bristol Pines proposes. Goals, Objectives and Policies of the GMP mandate that affordable housing be provided in Collier County. Further, Policy 1.4 of the Housing Element states, "Affordable housing will be distributed equitably throughout the County using strategies which include, but are not limited to, density bonus agreements, and impact fee waivers or deferrals. In addition, affordable housing will be located where adequate infrastructure and services are available." Thus affordable housing units are to be distributed throughout the county, and this project's location is in compliance with that Policy of the Housing Element. The FLUM states, in the Provision of Adequate and Affordable Housing, that "the Future Land Use Element encourages the creation of affordable housing through provisions which allow for increased residential density if the proposed dwelling units would be affordable based on the standards found in the Housing Element." .-.„ Comprehensive Planning staff concludes the proposed uses and density may be deemed consistent with the FLUE. Conservation & Coastal Management Element: 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. Habitat management and exotic vegetation removallmaintenance plans will be 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. The requirement for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to Policy 6.1.8 has been satisfied. The absence of jurisdictional wetlands on the project site has been field verified by the South Florida Water Management District, as required by Policy 6.2.1. EAC Meeting Page 4 of 7 In accordance with Policy 6.2.6, required preservation areas have been identified on the PUD master plan. Allowable uses within the preserve areas are included in the PUD document. 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 will be required at the time of Site Development Plan/Construction Plan submittal. A copy of the EIS has been forwarded to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) for their review, since state listed wildlife species (gopher tortoises) occur on the property. VI. MAJOR ISSUES: Stormwater Management: According to the Drainage Atlas of Collier County, prepared by the County Stormwater Management Department, the site sits within the 951 Canal North Basin and should discharge into the 951 Canal at a maximum rate of 0.15 cfs per acre. The design consists of a using a large central lake to achieve water quality retention and peak flow attenuation, followed by controlled discharge into the receiving canal. Because of the relatively small size of the project and the lack of wetlands, water management permitting will be done by Engineering Review Services Staff. Environmental: Site Description: The subject property is approximately 22.77 acres, over 80% of which is cleared and in agricultural use. The eastern portion of the site contains a single-family home site surrounded by pine-cypress habitats. According to the Soils Map for Collier County, two soil types are found on project site. These soil types include Holopaw fine sand, limestone substratum (Unit 2) and Riviera fine sand, limestone substratum (Unit 18). Both soils are listed as hydric by the Natural Resources Conservation Service. EAC Meeting Page 5 of 7 Wetlands: No Collier County / South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) jurisdictional wetlands have been identified on the property. Field verification for wetlands was performed by Cory Peck of the SFWMD on February 4, 2003. Preservation Requirements: Approximately 3.78 acres of the site consists of native vegetation, of which 0.94 acres (25%) will have to be retained pursuant to Policy 6.1.1 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Growth Management Plan. The location of the preserve area is identified on the PUD master plan. Listed Species: A listed plant and wildlife species survey was conducted on-site during September 11, 2003, with additional observations made on July 26, 2003. During the survey, five active and one inactive gopher tortoise burrows were identified on-site. The gopher tortoise burrows were located in the spoil pile habitat (FLUCFCS Code 743) adjacent to the single-family residence on the east side of the property. In addition, a Florida coontie (Zamia floridana) was observed in the residential area (FLUCFCS Code 110) adjacent to the spoil pile. The Florida coontie will be relocated to an appropriate upland preserve. A gopher tortoise relocation plan is not proposed at this time but will be required at the time of Site Development Plan/Construction Plan submittal. VII. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-2003-AR- 3542 "Bristol Pines PUD", with the following stipulations: Stormwater Management: None. Environmental: No additional stipulations. EAC Meeting Page 6 of 7 PREPARED BY: STAN CHRZANOWSKI, P.E. DATE ENGINEERING REVIEW MANAGER ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT STEPHEN LENBERGER DATE ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT KAY DESELEM, AICP DATE PRINCIPAL PLANNER DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REVIEWED BY: BARBARA S. BURGESON DATE PRINCIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT '�' II • EAC Meeting Page 7 of 7 WILLIAM D. LORENZ, Jr., P.E.,DIRECTOR, DATE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT SUSAN MURRAY, AICP, INTERIM DIRECTOR, DATE DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVED BY: JOSEPH K. SCHMITT, ADMINISTRATOR, DATE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT &ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION Introduction: Natural lakes vs. man-made lakes vs. canals. The ecosystem as it was and as it is. Natives vs. exotics. 1. Lake Geometry and resultant concerns a. Depth... maximum, minimum, and the Fetch Formula. Overturn, Amixis, Meromixis, etc. b. Anoxia... is it a potential problem or not? c. Volume, Residence Time, Siltation and Eutrophication... pros and cons. d. Anaerobic conditions 2. Aquifer considerations a. Aquifers, Confining Layers, Aquitards, Aquicludes, Travel Times and Direction b. Blasting and its effects c. Artesian and Semi-artesian conditions d. Wellfield considerations... is a neighboring lake a good or bad thing? 3. Littoral Zones a. Definition b. Water Table fluctuation and its effects on vegetation c. Water Quality realities of plantings (rooted or floating) d. Location... what works and what doesn't 4. Evaporation vs. evapotranspiration a. Does a lake cause more evaporation than a forest?... does it matter? 5. Operation and Maintenance a. Requirements (herbicides vs mechanical removal) b. Realities c. Maintenence easement encroachments d. Dredging, scarps, erosion, siltation 6. Where do we_go from here?